|
|
Post by icefisher on May 28, 2010 2:09:08 GMT
The bottom line of this sordid tale is that ocean oscillations can explain the satellite record.ocean oscillations? Not Svensmark's cosmic rays then? Is the solar/climate link still a factor? If ocean oscillations are influenced by solar the mechanism has not been established but that is a condition of all climate change theories. However, would not a much diminished late 20th century warming fit better to TSI changes and/or require a lower multiplier? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 29, 2010 22:48:59 GMT
The problem with blaming CRU is that people have now looked at the raw GHCN data and find the same shape. So all the cries that Phil Jones had fudged the data turned out to be totally wrong.
Don't expect apologies from the accusers though.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 29, 2010 23:45:16 GMT
The problem with blaming CRU is that (anonymous?) people have now looked at the raw GHCN (250 hand selected stations?) data and find the same shape (with dramically diminished amplitudes?). So all the cries that Phil Jones had fudged the data turned out to be totally wrong.
Don't expect apologies from the accusers though. Apologize for what Socold? Hasn't Tom Wigley done value added work on both data sets? Not much there that gets you into the 1940's and before (orange/red/black) what is there is on the western side of the Pacific which tends to be relatively cooler when the eastern Pacific is in a warm phase and we already know that the US had flat temperatures from 1940 to 2000. ![]() upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png/800px-GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png[/img] And of course here are two data sets with the same shape plotted next to each other. LOL!  Not much there that gets you into the 1940's and before (orange/red/black) what is there is on the western side of the Pacific which tends to be relatively cooler when the eastern Pacific is in a warm phase and we already know that the US had flat temperatures from 1940 to 2000.  |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 30, 2010 10:37:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 30, 2010 15:48:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 30, 2010 20:46:34 GMT
hairball:
There are satillites sensative enough to measure the heat of a nuclear sub's reactor.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 30, 2010 21:42:23 GMT
The problem with blaming CRU is that (anonymous?) people have now looked at the raw GHCN (250 hand selected stations?) data and find the same shape (with dramically diminished amplitudes?). So all the cries that Phil Jones had fudged the data turned out to be totally wrong.
Don't expect apologies from the accusers though. Apologize for what Socold? Hasn't Tom Wigley done value added work on both data sets? Apologize for accusing Hansen and Jones of faking the global instrumental temperature record. There have been plenty of people accusing them of such. Not necessarily on this board. Those accusers seemingly didn't like the shape of the GISTEMP and CRU temperature records ( www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/gistemp) and thought their best option was to just accuse James Hansen and Phil Jones of faking them. Now we know that to be false. The same general shape is obtained without GISTEMP or CRU adjustments and so independently of Hansen or Jones. See:  rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Picture-112.pngrankexploits.com/musings/2010/a-simple-model-for-spatially-weighted-temp-analysis/tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/So the accusations that the shape was a result of adjustments by Phil Jones and Hansen is conclusively disproved. I don't expect the accusers to apologize. If they were those kind of people they wouldn't have haphazardly made accusations they couldn't support in the first place. But what I do wonder is whether they've even self-checked themselves on why they made such an error. Was it because they wanted to believe the data was faked so bad that they deceieved themselves? Or did they think noone would ever be able to check and so thought they could get away with claiming it? It's also a reality check for anyone who trusts these types of accusations. As the saying goes - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. The accusers will invariably go after GHCN raw now (or Tom Wigley for no fathomable reason). Just remember they were wrong once. |
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 30, 2010 21:49:22 GMT
I'm still suspicious of the instrumental temperature record Socold. This is because I was alive in the 1970's and, believe me, there was an imminent ice-age scare.
If CRU and GISS are correct then that scare was baloney. That commercial jet air travel began to take off from the mid-sixties onward and thermometers migrated towards airports around the same time stinks to high heaven.
The ice-age scare really happened. I was there. No one can convince me otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 30, 2010 21:59:44 GMT
If you look closely you can see a downward trend around that time in preceding years that was the ingredient of the ice age scare. It was also about that time that scientists realized the glacial/interglacial cycle and that we were due a glacial period.
I suspect that increase in air travel is just a correlation, not a cause of the measured warming. Mainly I think that because the ocean and satellite records show warming too. The primary cause of recent warming must have a common cause across ocean, land surface and atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 30, 2010 22:04:55 GMT
That's not good enough for me, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 30, 2010 23:04:50 GMT
I'm still suspicious of the instrumental temperature record Socold. This is because I was alive in the 1970's and, believe me, there was an imminent ice-age scare. If CRU and GISS are correct then that scare was baloney. That commercial jet air travel began to take off from the mid-sixties onward and thermometers migrated towards airports around the same time stinks to high heaven. The ice-age scare really happened. I was there. No one can convince me otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 31, 2010 0:07:20 GMT
It's also a reality check for anyone who trusts these types of accusations. As the saying goes - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. The accusers will invariably go after GHCN raw now (or Tom Wigley for no fathomable reason). Just remember they were wrong once. Why shouldn't somebody link Tom Wigley in? After all he has already said he is responsible for Jones work that led to the adjustments. "Those concerns were most cogently expressed to Jones by his ex-boss, and former head of the CRU, Dr Tom Wigley. In August 2007, Wigley warned Jones by email: "It seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (W-C W at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect." Wigley was concerned partly because he had been director of the CRU when the original paper was published in 1990. As he told Jones later, in 2009: "The buck should eventually stop with me."
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraudUltimately the scientific validity of all these data sets, which rely a lot upon the same information, is dependent upon demonstrating to the public that the means of selection of stations follows a logical and random process and if the methodology looks good and you have all the data one should be able to repeat it. The fact that there remains so much resistance to giving up the elements that allows the public do that only leads to runaway suspicion. . . .as it should. . . .if it didn't it would mean we are a gullible specie. . . .a quality I believe only is exhibited in a portion of the population. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 31, 2010 0:16:02 GMT
I don't think the fellers did this on purpose. I believe that they just screwed up.
And I was alive during the Ice Age scare.....and it was widely reported.....very widely.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 31, 2010 0:21:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 31, 2010 0:22:35 GMT
Ultimately the scientific validity of all these data sets, which rely a lot upon the same information, is dependent upon demonstrating to the public that the means of selection of stations follows a logical and random process and if the methodology looks good and you have all the data one should be able to repeat it. This has been demonstrated to the public. The problem is a small subset of them are refusing to accept it. People have got the same 20th century trend as CRU without using Phil Jones's station selection or using his adjustments (one person who has done such is Hansen, but there are others independent of either Hansen or Phil Jones who have found the same result). Doesn't that show that such results do not depend on Phil Jone's station selection or his adjustments? |
|
