|
Post by hairball on Feb 10, 2010 18:25:07 GMT
They only create them if the ones they record don't live up to expectations.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 10, 2010 23:00:33 GMT
GISS does not measure the Arctic. What part of that don't you understand?
It is an infilled product of extrapolation, interpolation and assumptions on ice.
Would you mind explaining the divergence of GISS from satellite (and HadCRUT for that matter)? Or will that have to be proven with graphs too?
Then there is the bottom line of LT is supposed to be warming at a faster rate than the surface, which you will summarily ignore.
A few questions:
1. Do you know what's meant by extrapolation. 2. Is the arctic warming at the same rate as the rest of the world (as assumed by Hadley). 3. Do you see the so-called divergence as significant. If so - why?
As far as I'm concerned it's a non issue. If you have a problem with GISS use UAH satellite - that's fine by me. That just means that November 2009 was the warmest November on record and January 2010 was the warmest January on record. I suspect this is not actually the case as far as the surface is concerned but - what the heck - that's what comes of not looking at all the available data.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Feb 11, 2010 0:27:51 GMT
I can see the warmth blowing by at 35 mph for the last 3 hrs full of those little ice crystals. Also called a blizzard. My grandmother told me about such weather, but I never believed her because I have never seen it here, until now... We had 30 -40 in this weekend, and I don't even know how much today. It is totally awesome. It is getting deep out there. This is not a normal winter. Not even for when it was cold. In addition... oh this is about the sun... I'll believe what I am seeing
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 11, 2010 0:41:21 GMT
GISS does not measure the Arctic. What part of that don't you understand?
It is an infilled product of extrapolation, interpolation and assumptions on ice.
Would you mind explaining the divergence of GISS from satellite (and HadCRUT for that matter)? Or will that have to be proven with graphs too?
Then there is the bottom line of LT is supposed to be warming at a faster rate than the surface, which you will summarily ignore. A few questions: 1. Do you know what's meant by extrapolation. 2. Is the arctic warming at the same rate as the rest of the world (as assumed by Hadley). 3. Do you see the so-called divergence as significant. If so - why? As far as I'm concerned it's a non issue. If you have a problem with GISS use UAH satellite - that's fine by me. That just means that November 2009 was the warmest November on record and January 2010 was the warmest January on record. I suspect this is not actually the case as far as the surface is concerned but - what the heck - that's what comes of not looking at all the available data. 1. Yes. Apparently you do not. Extrapolation and interpolation are not the same thing just so you know. The Bolivia Effect2. Look at the graphs. 3. Yes. We've gone through this; not worth the time to type again or look up the graphs. I don't recall seeing you defending GISS on this, was it an oversight? The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Feb 11, 2010 1:35:14 GMT
GISS and CRU shouldn't be involved with temperature records, they're the main proponents of AGW and are far too close to the subject to be able to handle it objectively, same goes for the various met offices around the world. Any raw data that's still around should be handed to a bunch of accountants and locked in a dungeon with them somewhere to see if any sense can be made of it, by the time there's finished collating it we'll hopefully know what UHI and other adjustments to make. Unless Hansen's Venus fetish and crybaby Jones are still in charge of that end of things.
Meanwhile, ocean heat content seems to have plateaued around the time the Sun quietened, isn't that strong evidence of something other than TSI and CO2 affecting temperatures?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 11, 2010 5:25:29 GMT
GISS and CRU shouldn't be involved with temperature records, they're the main proponents of AGW and are far too close to the subject to be able to handle it objectively, same goes for the various met offices around the world. Any raw data that's still around should be handed to a bunch of accountants and locked in a dungeon with them somewhere to see if any sense can be made of it, by the time there's finished collating it we'll hopefully know what UHI and other adjustments to make. Unless Hansen's Venus fetish and crybaby Jones are still in charge of that end of things. Meanwhile, ocean heat content seems to have plateaued around the time the Sun quietened, isn't that strong evidence of something other than TSI and CO2 affecting temperatures? All those GHG are warming the oceans, especially the Arctic, haven't you heard?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 11, 2010 10:17:30 GMT
GISS and CRU shouldn't be involved with temperature records, they're the main proponents of AGW and are far too close to the subject to be able to handle it objectively, same goes for the various met offices around the world. Any raw data that's still around should be handed to a bunch of accountants and locked in a dungeon with them somewhere to see if any sense can be made of it, by the time there's finished collating it we'll hopefully know what UHI and other adjustments to make. Unless Hansen's Venus fetish and crybaby Jones are still in charge of that end of things. Meanwhile, ocean heat content seems to have plateaued around the time the Sun quietened, isn't that strong evidence of something other than TSI and CO2 affecting temperatures? All those GHG are warming the oceans, especially the Arctic, haven't you heard? Magellan I asked if the arctic was warming at the same rate as the rest of the world. You failed to answer. Let me help you. Here's the UAH satellite record. vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt Note the last 2 NoPol (North Pole) anomalies. They are as follows: Dec +1.95 Jan +1.61 Now look at the bottom line, i.e. the trends. The UAH global trend is 0.13 deg per decade ; the North pole trend is 0.44 deg per decade. So when I asked you if the arctic was warming at the same rate as the rst of the world your answer should have been something like: "No it's not. The arctic is warming at more than 3 times the rate of the rest of the world. " It's quite easy really. It's also reasonable therefore for GISS to try and account for the arctic warming. Hadley do not which means they are missing the fastest warming region on the earth. This will probably create a small divergence when the arctic is particularly warm. However this has very little effect on the long term trend (easily provable- see below) and there is a flip side. If the arctic cools, as all the solar supporters think it will, the arctic will cool at a faster rate than the ROW, and GISS data will converge towards the Hadley data. How much difference will this make? The trends between 1975-2000 (i.e. before 2000) GISS +0.17 deg per decade Had +0.17 deg per decade The trends between 1975-2009 (i.e including the 'divergence' ) GISS +0.17 deg per decade Had +0.17 deg per decade The 'divergence' affects the long term trends by a couple of thousandths of a degree per decade Magellan, you take too much notice of amateurs who have no comprehension of the statisitics involved and are happy the cherry pick short term trends to make a point.
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Feb 11, 2010 14:15:29 GMT
The Arctic has warmed since 1980s about 1-1.5 deg C, similar to Northern hemisphere. The rate of warming was similar to 1900-1940. Maximum temps havenĀ“t broken previous record. Arctic is cooling again. Any change in "greenhouse" effect should be most pronounced in polar regions, where dry and cold air does not hold much moisture. I will not go into details about Antarctic, completely ignoring the scientific consensus. Where is the anthropogenic signal exactly?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 11, 2010 17:14:26 GMT
All those GHG are warming the oceans, especially the Arctic, haven't you heard? Magellan I asked if the arctic was warming at the same rate as the rest of the world. You failed to answer. Let me help you. Here's the UAH satellite record. vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt Note the last 2 NoPol (North Pole) anomalies. They are as follows: Dec +1.95 Jan +1.61 Magellan, you take too much notice of amateurs who have no comprehension of the statisitics involved and are happy the cherry pick short term trends to make a point. glc if you could explain please how a well-mixed GHG warms one pole and not the other thank you
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 11, 2010 22:02:07 GMT
glc if you could explain please how a well-mixed GHG warms one pole and not the other
thank you
I'm not sure why this is addressed to me since I gave no reason for arctic warming. I just stated the fact that it had been warming. However, the arctic and antarctic are quite different in character and it's quite possible there will, initially at least, be a different response to any forcing, ghg or otherwise, at the 2 locations.
Could you now explain to Magellan how it's possible to determine that the much more remote antarctic is not warming but not possible to determine that the arctic is warming.
Just to clarify. I don't believe all the arctic warming is due to CO2. On the other hand the large expanse of ocean in the southern hemisphere is bound to hold back any increase in air temperature over antarctica. It's reasonable to think that the antarctic will be the last to warm.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 11, 2010 23:32:25 GMT
glc if you could explain please how a well-mixed GHG warms one pole and not the other
thank youI'm not sure why this is addressed to me since I gave no reason for arctic warming. I just stated the fact that it had been warming. However, the arctic and antarctic are quite different in character and it's quite possible there will, initially at least, be a different response to any forcing, ghg or otherwise, at the 2 locations. Could you now explain to Magellan how it's possible to determine that the much more remote antarctic is not warming but not possible to determine that the arctic is warming. Just to clarify. I don't believe all the arctic warming is due to CO2. On the other hand the large expanse of ocean in the southern hemisphere is bound to hold back any increase in air temperature over antarctica. It's reasonable to think that the antarctic will be the last to warm. and of course you're exactly wrong about which pole gets greatest warming from the ocean and what effect the Southern Ocean would have on the temperature at the South Pole the temperature in the Arctic basin is nearly always significantly warmer than in Siberia, the Canadian Yukon, inner Alaska, etc., because heat rises through the ice all winter, preventing the more impressive cooling of the atmosphere that takes place over land conversely Antarctica, whose sea ice is so far from the pole that it nearly all melts every summer, is a large, important land mass if co2 were warming the Earth, it should be doing so at the South Pole without significant, if any, interference from the **warming** effect of the Southern Ocean the relative warmth of the Southern Ocean could not **delay** warming at the relatively frigid South Pole
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 12, 2010 0:41:33 GMT
"the relative warmth of the Southern Ocean could not **delay** warming at the relatively frigid South Pole"
As the atmosphere warms much of the heart energy is absorbed by the ocean. Not only is there a much greater expanse of ocean in the southern hemisphere, ocean mixing goes deeper than in the NH. There are a number of climate models which project no warming and even some cooling for several decades over the antarctic.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 12, 2010 3:33:33 GMT
"the relative warmth of the Southern Ocean could not **delay** warming at the relatively frigid South Pole" As the atmosphere warms much of the heart energy is absorbed by the ocean. Not only is there a much greater expanse of ocean in the southern hemisphere, ocean mixing goes deeper than in the NH. There are a number of climate models which project no warming and even some cooling for several decades over the antarctic. a) you have a curious way of saying "I was wrong" b) the Hockey Team and its tight cadre of fellow modelers says a lot of weird things about Antarctica -- those who choose to repeat them, publicly, do so to the detriment of their own intellectual consistency
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 12, 2010 4:54:58 GMT
GISS and CRU shouldn't be involved with temperature records, they're the main proponents of AGW and are far too close to the subject to be able to handle it objectively, same goes for the various met offices around the world. Any raw data that's still around should be handed to a bunch of accountants and locked in a dungeon with them somewhere to see if any sense can be made of it, by the time there's finished collating it we'll hopefully know what UHI and other adjustments to make. Unless Hansen's Venus fetish and crybaby Jones are still in charge of that end of things. Meanwhile, ocean heat content seems to have plateaued around the time the Sun quietened, isn't that strong evidence of something other than TSI and CO2 affecting temperatures? Well the problem when its like this is that there are so many things changing that it is difficult to tell what phenomenon is causing what impacts on weather/climate. On the positive side of things though...mother nature has just handed us a change in conditions that can pretty much conclusively prove or disprove the idea of substantial AGW. Basically, most of the natural "forcings" are going back to what SHOULD be lower warmth states (if the competing hypotheses are correct). About the only condition that remains is the ever increasing CO2 level. From an experimental standpoint, the worst thing we could do right now is stop emissions increases...as this would leave CO2's impact on climate hanging (I know it sounds bad...just saying) It is likely however that CO2 does SOMETHING...just not a whole lot. Most of the warming was likely from the natural warming period. After factoring in the coming cold period (and/or the previous one) I think its rather unlikely that sensitivity is even high enough for a doubling to produce 1C of total warming.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 12, 2010 10:24:36 GMT
"the relative warmth of the Southern Ocean could not **delay** warming at the relatively frigid South Pole" As the atmosphere warms much of the heart energy is absorbed by the ocean. Not only is there a much greater expanse of ocean in the southern hemisphere, ocean mixing goes deeper than in the NH. There are a number of climate models which project no warming and even some cooling for several decades over the antarctic. a) you have a curious way of saying "I was wrong" b) the Hockey Team and its tight cadre of fellow modelers says a lot of weird things about Antarctica -- those who choose to repeat them, publicly, do so to the detriment of their own intellectual consistency If I recall you, at some time in the recent past, have expressed the belief that solar activity is responsible for earth's climatic changes. Clearly then, if this is the case, the sun (from ~92 million miles away) affects the NH much more than the SH. Whatever the reason for warming, the NH and SH will not, for very good reasons, respond in the same way. The huge heat sink in the SH will see to that. If the "I" in "I was wrong" refers to me, I'd just like to remind you of the direction of many of the discussions on this thread since I began posting (around 18 months ago). In particular, there was a thread entitled Global Cooling: Is it Happening? Around 80% thought it was. I was the one who argued that the temperature drop in 2008 was a short term event and that once the La Nina was passed temperatures would recover. Temperatures in 2008 never actually got that low - nowhere near the level of previous La Nina events. Of course, I was talking nonsense. It was all due to the downturn in solar activity. Some were even citing David Archibald's nonsense. Archibald, himself, told me (on another blog) that my prediction for a return to previous highs was nothing more than "wishful thinking" on my part. Eventually I made the simple prediction that 2009 would be warmer than 2008 and that 2010 would be warmer than 2009. I also said I though 2010 or 2011 would be close to a record. If anyone' s wrong here - it's certainly not me. Now for my contribution to the other side of the debate. In December 2004 I challenged Mike Mann (of H-S fame) about the practice of grafting the thermometer record on to a proxy reconstruction. I constantly made references to the fact that the proxy data did not follow the thermometer data (except during the calibration periods). In other words I was the first to recognise "Mike's Nature Trick" - a fact recognised on CA and WUWT. Let me make something clear here. This is the main (perhaps only) evidence of scientific wrongdoing in the climategate affair. Forget all the nonsense about dodgy and/or fudged data. This will make little or no difference to the overall conclusion that the earth has been warming at 0.1-0.2 deg per decade for the past 40 years. But I suppose I'll be "wrong" about that too.
|
|