|
Post by woodstove on Mar 13, 2009 2:29:24 GMT
For the record, I attended the sceptics' conference in NYC this week, where I interviewed Shaviv for my book and listened to him give a presentation and sit on a panel. In my estimation, he was the most astute scientist at the conference (among many). Did you hear Willie Soon? www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.htmlTuesday March 10 'watch uncut video' about 40 min into the video for those wishing to skip to his talk on the sun and politics of IPCC and politically motivated scientists. I did have the pleasure of speaking with Willie Soon (and hearing his address) as well as Bob Carter (same). Soon has co-written a few papers with my Meteorology professor from college, Eric Posmentier. Carter is charming, humble, and on point. One of the concluding points by the organizers of the conference was that those of us who question the power of CO2 to drive climate would do well to stop referring to ourselves as sceptics and switch instead to "realists." Makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 13, 2009 13:16:42 GMT
remember me speculating about a "disconnect" between surface and satellite observations...... GISS February anomaly is +0.41 Do you think it's time to ditch UAH as the favoured data set.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 13, 2009 16:37:16 GMT
remember me speculating about a "disconnect" between surface and satellite observations...... GISS February anomaly is +0.41 Do you think it's time to ditch UAH as the favoured data set. Accuracy and precision should always be favored over agreement with one's POV. In light of research research, do you think there may be more to solar effects, both direct and indirect, than we've been told? How much weight do you give climate models?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 13, 2009 16:54:30 GMT
GISS data are available for February. Sea plus land 0.41 C, comapred with 0.51 for January
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 13, 2009 17:02:14 GMT
GISS data are available for February. Sea plus land 0.41 C, comapred with 0.51 for January Thank God they kept it over .4 -- can't have been easy!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 13, 2009 18:37:19 GMT
remember me speculating about a "disconnect" between surface and satellite observations...... GISS February anomaly is +0.41 Do you think it's time to ditch UAH as the favoured data set. Lets see GISS is .41 UAH is .35 and RSS is .23 Average = .33 UAH is 4 times closer to the average than anybody else. Whats the deal? Don't like anything below .4?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 13, 2009 18:38:53 GMT
NOAA data is also available. February 0.50 C viz-a-viz 0.53 C for January. Can we expect the UK Met. Office data for February to also be below what they reported in January?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 13, 2009 18:44:23 GMT
Despite three decades' worth of scary talk, the global sea ice anomaly sits at 0.
All the indices, including the Hadcrut, should continue falling for the time being, imho.
A quick question for our alarmist brethren: How many of you have renounced the use of carbon-based fuel?
Al Gore appears to love it! Constant jet travel (frequently private); home electric bill 20 times the U.S. average.
As they say, action speaks louder than words...
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 13, 2009 20:18:51 GMT
Lets see GISS is .41 UAH is .35 and RSS is .23
Average = .33
UAH is 4 times closer to the average than anybody else. Whats the deal? Don't like anything below .4?
This is a somewhat bizarre piece of logic. UAH and RSS use totally different base periods to GISS. If it used the same base period as the satellite readings, the GISS anomaly would only be around +0.18 (i.e. easily the coolest). The average for the 3 readings would then be just over 0.25 which means RSS is the closest.
Note that GISS (and Hadley) were also relatively cooler than both the satellite readings in January.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 13, 2009 20:40:21 GMT
This is actually worth repeating. I hope everyone can see what I'm saying. Over the last few months the surface has been relatively much cooler than the troposphere. Remember the issue about the GISS divergence over the past few years. I maintained it had nothing to do with UH or dodgy measuring but that GISS, rightly or wrongly, was simply measuring (or trying to measure) a wider area than Hadley and that Hadley & GISS were not measuring the same things as UAH & RSS.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 13, 2009 20:54:42 GMT
HAD/CRU data for February. 0.345 C. Jan 0.375C.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 13, 2009 21:08:39 GMT
Hadley is +0.35.
If we use a common base period (1979-97) for all 4 metrics then the Feb anomalies are as follows:
UAH +0.36 RSS +0.23 Hadley +0.20 GISS +0.15 These are 'unofficial' estimates but I reckon they're close enough to use as a rough guide. UPDATE: Just checked the anomaly map on the GISS site and it also gives +0.15 for the 1979-97 period.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 13, 2009 23:27:12 GMT
Hadley is +0.35. If we use a common base period (1979-97) for all 4 metrics then the Feb anomalies are as follows: UAH +0.36 RSS +0.23 Hadley +0.20 GISS +0.15 These are 'unofficial' estimates but I reckon they're close enough to use as a rough guide. UPDATE: Just checked the anomaly map on the GISS site and it also gives +0.15 for the 1979-97 period. You seem to purport to know more about GISS than GISS, more about Hadley than Hadley. Part of the problem that I and many others at this site have with GISS is specifically its choice of base periods which it clearly uses for alarmist purposes. From Webster's dictionary: obfuscateMain Entry: ob·fus·cate Pronunciation: \ˈäb-fə-ˌskāt; äb-ˈfəs-ˌkāt, əb-\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): ob·fus·cat·ed; ob·fus·cat·ing Etymology: Late Latin obfuscatus, past participle of obfuscare, from Latin ob- in the way + fuscus dark brown — more at ob-, dusk Date: 1577 transitive verb 1 a: darken b: to make obscure <obfuscate the issue> 2: confuse <obfuscate the reader> intransitive verb : to be evasive, unclear, or confusing — ob·fus·ca·tion \ˌäb-(ˌ)fəs-ˈkā-shən\ noun — ob·fus·ca·to·ry \äb-ˈfəs-kə-ˌtȯr-ē, əb-\ adjective
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 14, 2009 0:52:41 GMT
You seem to purport to know more about GISS than GISS, more about Hadley than Hadley. Not at all. There's no mystery here. If you have the relevant data set it's a fairly trivial exercise to adjust the data to any base period you wish. I'll explain it if you want me to but I'm not going to bother if you're not interested. Since my original post on this topic though, I've found that GISS provides an interface which does the calculation for you. Hence the "update" bit. If you want to have a bash at that go to the following URL data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/In the Oceans box select the Hadl/Reyn_v2 option. Now select your Base Period , i.e. 1979-1997, then just click on Make Map. This will produce an anomaly map relative to the base period, but in the top right hand corner you will see the value " .15 " which is the global anomaly relative to the specified period. This matches my calculation so I'm pretty sure the numbers I quoted are correct.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 14, 2009 3:07:03 GMT
You seem to purport to know more about GISS than GISS, more about Hadley than Hadley. Not at all. There's no mystery here. If you have the relevant data set it's a fairly trivial exercise to adjust the data to any base period you wish. I'll explain it if you want me to but I'm not going to bother if you're not interested. Since my original post on this topic though, I've found that GISS provides an interface which does the calculation for you. Hence the "update" bit. If you want to have a bash at that go to the following URL data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/In the Oceans box select the Hadl/Reyn_v2 option. Now select your Base Period , i.e. 1979-1997, then just click on Make Map. This will produce an anomaly map relative to the base period, but in the top right hand corner you will see the value " .15 " which is the global anomaly relative to the specified period. This matches my calculation so I'm pretty sure the numbers I quoted are correct. Interesting - using 2002-2003 as the base and 2009 Feb as the target for anomaly... it shows Labrador and the Arctic with an anomaly of 8 oC warmer. So all that extra ice up there is due to the _warm_ Moving the base to 2003-2004 shows that the Great Lakes, the Dakotas and Minnesota are 2 - 4 oC warmer than in 2003/4. They have really noticed that extra warmth this winter Has anyone done any verification and validation on this 'tool' ?
|
|