|
|
Post by socold on Jun 8, 2010 22:44:23 GMT
I don't understand quantum physics, doesn't make it unreliable. Ignorance is not evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 8, 2010 22:56:27 GMT
I don't understand quantum physics, doesn't make it unreliable. Ignorance is not evidence. So why are you pretending to understand this subject? By insisting there are plenty of stations with cold biases, you have just shot down every argument you can make defending the surface station network. Again, thanks. Now glc is saying not taking a measurement is the same as taking a measurement. Black is white, up is down. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2010 23:38:05 GMT
I don't understand quantum physics, doesn't make it unreliable. Ignorance is not evidence. So why are you pretending to understand this subject? By insisting there are plenty of stations with cold biases, you have just shot down every argument you can make defending the surface station network. Again, thanks. Now glc is saying not taking a measurement is the same as taking a measurement. Black is white, up is down. Exactly! Modelers understand that you only need to fudge a little with everything to make for big impacts. The arguments that differences are minimal means nothing when what you find is its always in one direction and the calculations are compounded through world-sized models for centennial time frames. A financial fraud artist would flat drool over the chance to model such projects but since investors like getting paid back in a lot less than a 100 years he can't touch it. 15 years of no profits would kill any investment firm deader than a doornail. AGW is a deadman walking and these guys are clueless that it is. In another 15 years they probably will be still saying that a degree a century is something to worry about and the historic record will probably still be well behind that pace. |
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Jun 9, 2010 6:58:51 GMT
Back to ENSO events. From Bob Tisdale blog:  If the pattern, which started in 1990 and repeated itself in 2001 will continue, we are heading into pretty deep la Nina. Another one from Climate observations blog: there is much bigger pool of cold subsurface water in the ENSO area today, compared to 2007.  |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 9, 2010 7:27:24 GMT
Magellan RE: GISS: Warmest March ever in Finland Errors and discrepancies occur all the time. They tend to be corrected eventually. I know this because I was checking regularly about 4 or 5 years ago. See here: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/UAH was forced to correct it's own data recently which resulted in a huge relative drop in the the Jan-Mar anomalies. the correction to GISS is unlikely to change the global anomaly much. Talking of which here's the March 2010 anomalies for GISS and UAH again: UAH +0.66 GISS +0.57 Both anomalies are relative to the 1979-1998 period. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 13, 2010 15:27:48 GMT
Magellan RE: GISS: Warmest March ever in Finland Errors and discrepancies occur all the time. They tend to be corrected eventually. I know this because I was checking regularly about 4 or 5 years ago. See here: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/UAH was forced to correct it's own data recently which resulted in a huge relative drop in the the Jan-Mar anomalies. the correction to GISS is unlikely to change the global anomaly much. Talking of which here's the March 2010 anomalies for GISS and UAH again: UAH +0.66 GISS +0.57 Both anomalies are relative to the 1979-1998 period. UAH was forced to correct it's own data recently which resulted in a huge relative drop in the the Jan-Mar anomalies.
Try reading before babbling. vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.13Apr2010the correction to GISS is unlikely to change the global anomaly much.
It is to make 2010 the "warmest year on record". If you're asking if I'm accusing GISS of intentional manipulation of data to achieve this, yes I am. ---------------------------------------------------- Talking of which here's the March 2010 anomalies for GISS and UAH again: What makes you think they should be similar? Compare to 1998. Wasn't it you preaching satellites and surface stations are measuring different things? Surely they are, and as Hansen is making up data where no data exists, GISS is phony as a $3 dollar bill. It's almost as if there is a purposeful adjustment to match satellite. Hmm. So why hasn't GISS adjusted the past records upward in concert with his newly discovered Arctic temperatures? Gee glc, wasn't it Hansen or Gavin Schmidt that said only a handful of thermometers is necessary to measure "global" warming? After all, its only the anomalies that matter right? Ah, but that wasn't good enough after all. Keep sticking that finger in the wind and cherry pick what supports your POV; that is your MO. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 13, 2010 15:34:35 GMT
Magellan RE: GISS: Warmest March ever in Finland Errors and discrepancies occur all the time. They tend to be corrected eventually. I know this because I was checking regularly about 4 or 5 years ago. See here: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/UAH was forced to correct it's own data recently which resulted in a huge relative drop in the the Jan-Mar anomalies. the correction to GISS is unlikely to change the global anomaly much. Talking of which here's the March 2010 anomalies for GISS and UAH again: UAH +0.66 GISS +0.57 Both anomalies are relative to the 1979-1998 period. So March was a warm month. Big deal. What was the atmospheric heat content for March relative to the base period? Warm doesn't really matter as it can get warmer without changing the total amount of energy in the system. Do we even understand the system? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 15, 2010 1:49:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 15, 2010 2:06:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 15, 2010 10:47:04 GMT
Try reading before babbling.
vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.13Apr2010I have read it. I know all about it. I was one of those several months who said there was inconsistency in the UAH monthly trends. John Christy posted on the subject and agreed. A correction was made and it lowered the Jan, Feb and Mar anomalies by a huge amount. What makes you think they should be similar? Compare to 1998. Wasn't it you preaching satellites and surface stations are measuring different things? I didn't say they should be similar (not all the time anyway) but you're complaining that GISS is much warmer. It clearly isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 15, 2010 13:31:53 GMT
Try reading before babbling.
vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.13Apr2010I have read it. I know all about it. I was one of those several months who said there was inconsistency in the UAH monthly trends. John Christy posted on the subject and agreed. A correction was made and it lowered the Jan, Feb and Mar anomalies by a huge amount. What makes you think they should be similar? Compare to 1998. Wasn't it you preaching satellites and surface stations are measuring different things? I didn't say they should be similar (not all the time anyway) but you're complaining that GISS is much warmer. It clearly isn't. I'm saying GISS is phony, fake, fabricated. I'm saying the surface station network in total is unreliable and inflated, including HadCRUT which until recently you thought was just peachy. Large spikes in LT is a result of oceans releasing heat. Last I recall there are no surface stations 2m above the ocean surface in any part of the world, including the Arctic. let alone 14,000 ft. So what's your opinion of the new paradigm from NOAA that basically scraps the old (2009) AGW science on U.S. and Europe climate? You must admit it is a bit humorous, but considering there has been virtually no warming since 1995 in the U.S. and is dropping like a stone for several years, climate "scientists" really had no choice but to come up with a new storyline. The Arctic is the last exit before a cooling period.  BTW, check the latest SST. Bastardi's prediction of a second half temperature crash is about to come to fruition along with his stating only if temperatures are made up can 2010 be the "warmest year in history". Hansen will again be standing way out there in left field with his pants down. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 15, 2010 15:45:18 GMT
I'm saying GISS is phony, fake, fabricated. I'm saying the surface station network in total is unreliable and inflated, including HadCRUT which until recently you thought was just peachy. Large spikes in LT is a result of oceans releasing heat. Last I recall there are no surface stations 2m above the ocean surface in any part of the world, including the Arctic. let alone 14,000 ft. So what's your opinion of the new paradigm from NOAA that basically scraps the old (2009) AGW science on U.S. and Europe climate? You must admit it is a bit humorous, but considering there has been virtually no warming since 1995 in the U.S. and is dropping like a stone for several years, climate "scientists" really had no choice but to come up with a new storyline. The Arctic is the last exit before a cooling period. BTW, check the latest SST. Bastardi's prediction of a second half temperature crash is about to come to fruition along with his stating only if temperatures are made up can 2010 be the "warmest year in history". Hansen will again be standing way out there in left field with his pants down. The embarrassment that befell the Met over the past few years is probably going to be just a drop in the bucket. All of NOAA knows their new boss, Lubchenko, bites on bad news like a cod on a clam. So not only now do you have the usual palaver of the "true believers" but you have the real majority in NOAA the organizational chart "ladder climbers" who wholly understand that government promotions have very little relationship to competence. It is already apparent. The only detailed information coming out that wasn't an already regular series seems to be the latest unground-truthed addition of a new ice satellite providing the only once in a while opportunity for a data shift to create a new step up in ice melting after a satellite was lost . . . .or turned off. Its reporting in the two most recent years had been . . . .uh. . . .awfully embarrassing. . . .had to have been broken. . . .and what timing! A new satellite was ready for launch!! Plugging that leak probably was Lubchenko's first priority when she took over the helm, having a history of this sort of stuff here on the West Coast where she hails from. Only deal is they didn't get the memo on what really is happening. After 30 years of consistent warming the folks at NOAA have pretty much settled in on the 1.3degC/century warming trend over that 30 years. . . .30 years being a long career in NOAA. Some of the young folks are already starting to look askance at the old folks but know to keep their head down or figure a safe route to taking advantage of it. Where are the glacial measurement updates? Where are the subsea bouy data updates? I mean this stuff has gone through its initiations and beyond just out and tossing data there are no opportunities for creating substantial new warming steps out of thin air. And the dang glacial measurements are referenced by huge rock outcroppings so there never was a method of fudging that beyond going nuclear and that would be just too obvious. So why is the Atlantic so warm? Is it because there has been no weather so no mixing and so there is an unusual retention of incoming solar heat at the surface now being released into the atmosphere and space? Is it because of too little ice melting in northern Canada, the Arctic, and Scandanavia slowing the Arctic thermohaline currents? Whatever it is they aren't talking even though they have a lot of data that could do indicator work on it. If somebody has a source for an archive of the Weekly ENSO update PDFs from the transition into the 1999-2000 La Nina it would be really interesting to compare that to what is happening today. The cold pool at 300meters is already at minus 1.25 with more layers of negative showing than positive was seen during the last El Nino. The only thing with a absolute value lesser negative anomaly than the El Nino is the water pooled at the surface. It would really be nice to have some weekly update on ocean bouy data. That would really be fun. . . .but with Lubchenko at the helm if it ain't bleedin it ain't printin. Should get really interesting as time wears on. Socold looks like he has his thumb on the pulse. He is starting to get worried about the catastrophic stuff as he picks up some cold perspiration but you aren't supposed to use a thumb to read a pulse. LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 15, 2010 19:03:12 GMT
You don't seem to even read what you link to. It's saying that the three global records are not independent - they use the same underlying station data. They are independent in methodology but not entirely in the input data. That's nothing about them being "phony", your off-base conclusion perhaps reflects that your perception of GISTEMP being "phony" is baseless in general. perhaps your whole understanding of the surface record is limited by such misunderstandings. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 16, 2010 2:06:19 GMT
You don't seem to even read what you link to. It's saying that the three global records are not independent - they use the same underlying station data. They are independent in methodology but not entirely in the input data. That's nothing about them being "phony", your off-base conclusion perhaps reflects that your perception of GISTEMP being "phony" is baseless in general. perhaps your whole understanding of the surface record is limited by such misunderstandings. Uh, no. You appear to have selective perception disorder. The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups. They are not “completely independent”. This is further explained on page 48 of the CCSP report where it is written with respect to the surface temperature data (as well as the other temperature data sets) that
“The data sets are distinguished from one another by differences in the details of their construction.” Ah, the differences in the details of their construction. Now whatever could that mean? With respect to the Arctic, GISS Arctic temperature values are not based on measurements. It is made up. Phony. A plastic banana. You have no defense because one does not exist. This is why the Hansen apologists gave up defending it on WUWT. The data that did exist for SST was deleted and replaced with extrapolated land temperature from a small number of stations (less than HadCRUT). What available Arctic SST data is there? bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/06/may-2010-sst-anomaly-update.html Aside from the fictitious Arctic values, how reliable are surface station records? icecap.us/images/uploads/EPA_ChristyJR_Response_2.pdfBelow is an example for East Africa (grid square bounded by 5°S – Eq, 35°E – 40°E). Here we see the two flaws in the popular datasets (HadCRUT3v and GISS NASA). First, the reliance on a very few stations leads to large errors (popular trends > +0.3 °C/decade vs. +0.1 when all stations are used with rigorous techniques) and secondly, the use of TMean which incorporates the warming effects of surface development in TMin which are mistakenly assumed to be driven by greenhouse gases (Christy et al. 2009). Gee, look how close GISS and Hadcrut are.   The full article is here. As Christy notes: Warning: The EPA will be tempted to rely on scientists/appointees who are well entrenched into a particular view of the issue of global warming to review documents such as this, and who will (a) develop clever-sounding rebuttals, and (b) are afforded the luxury of the “last word” to protect the current EPA consensus. Basic scientific inquiry should encourage EPA to listen to those of us who actually build these datasets (from scratch) as our message has equal if not greater credibility. Clever sounding rebuttals indeed. Lay off the Kool Aid socold. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 16, 2010 4:41:31 GMT
Uh, no. You appear to have selective perception disorder. Don't all warmers? |
|
