Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
April 2012 heats up as 5th warmest month globally
Options
Comments
-
-
He used NASA data but claimed his own novel analysis, that's the problem.
If someone thinks they've found an issue they need to publish it in the scientific literature where experts can make use of it. This happens all the time in areas of active scientific research. Just a few weeks ago there was a paper published outlining a possible problem in the UAH satellite data along with a method to fix it. That's how science proceeds, not by making a bunch of claims about problems on a blog.
Ah, so they're looking into those problems I mentioned with the satellite data then! I'm very glad to hear it!
I do not look to MetSul to learn about climate, no more than you look to your blogs above, although I think you will agree there is a lot to be learned from Jeff Masters'. I have said all along that this is not an analysis of how hackbart writes blogs, but it was an example of a problem I have seen all along with urbanisation, and one that is very difficult to overcome. You have conceded that yourself in your last post, in that the methods adopted are not ideal. Fair enough, but then at the same time it is time to admit that the IPCC claiming 90% certainty that GHG are the cause of the warming is more than a little optimistic.0 -
-
-
Ok, let's take it from the top, one last time. Firstly, the actual amount of warming that has occured is still open to large sources of error
No it isn't. There is uncertainty associates with each dataset but it's not especially large and becomes smaller the more recent the data. For example this is the GISTEMP uncertainty range in green.
It's not "open to large sources of error" just because you declare it so or because you read a bunch of nonsense on a Brazilian blog that fails when any scrutiny at all is applied to it.Secondly, if we can't accurately map the starting conditions then the models through which our lives are being dictated will equally be open to errors.
The models do not work this way. As already explained they're used to produce decadal scale trend estimates. They are not fed "starting conditions" nor are they predictions. They are projections of how the global climate will behave over decades in response to particular forcings.
You can throw away all the temperature data completely and the model projections remain the same. They are unrelated except in the sense that observational data is used to test how well they represent the real world.apart from some retreating ice in the north (contrasted with increasing ice in the south I might add)
Again another claim of yours that's completely incorrect.
This is the global sea ice area plot http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Since 2000 it's spent almost all the time below the average line.
Furthermore the nature of the change at North and South poles are completely different. Arctic sea ice is showing enormous variability at summer minimum levels, less so at winter maximum. Antarctic sea ice is increasing however this is driven by Antarctic land ice which is decreasing, the melting ice there is causing salinity changes leading to ice growth.And fourthly, and fifthly, I just don't trust the fact that politics dictates the science
The only one introducing politics to this discussion is you.Say what you like about me or whomever, I am pretty convinced (around 90% certain) that in 30 years you and others will be wondering how it was that you got dragged along in the hysteria, and why you didn't decide to break from the flock for a second to see the lie of the land from a different viewpoint.
You've been shown again and again to be wrong on this topic. Your arguments are confused, contradictory and completing lacking any knowledge of what's going on.
Go back to basics and start learning about what you're talking about. When people make claims about UHI or temperature stations you need to be able to go check those claims to see if they're correct.
Start demonstrating some understanding the topic and people will take your position more seriously. I think it's pretty funny that you accused me of a "pompous attitude" despite the fact I've taken the time to research your claims, something you yourself haven't. Meanwhile here you are declaring yourself correct and everyone else in need of seeing things "from a different viewpoint".
If you want to learn about climate models I recommend Steve Easterbrook's blog. He's a professor of computer science that actually works on climate models and explains how they're constructed, verified and tested on his blog.
If you want to learn about temperature records go with Clear Climate Code. They produced a completely independent implementation of the GISTEMP algorithm. You can download it and run it yourself (you can also download the actual GISTEMP software and its source code but it's trickier to get working). You can also look at Nick Stoke's blog he produced his own temperature record to test various ideas he had.
I already mentioned Neven's blog which is a good way to learn about Arctic ice.
Ignore completely chatter about hockey sticks, socialism and what not. Just go learn how the planet works first. Then when you have an informed opinion decide who's giving you the more accurate picture.0 -
Advertisement
-
Again another claim of yours that's completely incorrect.
This is the global sea ice area plot http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Since 2000 it's spent almost all the time below the average line.
Firstly, stop telling lies and misquoting me. I said ANTARCTIC sea ice was increasing, not global sea ice, which is decreasing. If you don't have the courtesy to correctly read what I wrote then please stop where you are.
Next, the problems with satellite tropospheric temperature measurement remain a problem to this day, but you seem to gloss over that fact. The very fact that physics dictates that we should be seeing 20-50% more warming of the troposphere than at the surface, but are in reality seeing 20-35% LESS warming is a real cause for concern, wouldn't you agree? Even the huge disparity between the UAH and RSS trends calls into question the value of such measurements, as well as the fact that radiosonde values match more closely the (lower) UAH figures.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf
All the rest of the nonsense you write about me personally is a bit of a joke really. I have a degree in physics and chemistry, and seem to be well regarded within this forum and other online sites. Then there's MT too, who has a wealth of climatology and meteorology experience from his long career in the field, but as he has the same ideas as I do you seem to be at odds with him too (though you don't seem to have the balls to go 12 rounds with him on the subject, or to target personal insults at him, and why would you). I suggest you go and read a bit more yourself and open your eyes to the fact that the tide is turning, and a lot of more qualified minds than you or I are seeing the circus for what it really is.
These are my final words to you.0 -
-
-
-
What I'm saying is that
a) The warming trends very closely follow the PDO. That I have proven above. Regarding why the negative PDOs show a level trend - I have already stated that that is probably some trend on a larget timescale, as shown. I'm still convinced that the surface datasets do not optimally deal with the urbanisation trends I have mentioned, not to mention the East Anglia debacle, but nevertheless, they still show no warming over the last 10-12 years.
The "climate gate" thingy really found nothing. Also, it's the HadCRUT data that shows the no warming since 1998. So if you don't trust the UEA, then you better discard that data set and follow the ones that show more recent year as being hotter.
The PDO doesn't have a statistically significant trend. But I've downloaded the data set just from here and the trend since the beginning (1900), is very slightly negative. Lets put this global temperature trend following the PDO to bed. It just doesn't work.
If you have evidence for some other long term cause for the warming then please, go ahead and show it. But if it's just a feeling, or some blog report again, then really you haven't got a leg to stand on here!b) There is a huge disparity between what physics or the models tell us what SHOULD be happening (if you are to believe the models) and what is ACTUALLY observed to be happening. Of course, even within these observations there is still large disagreement, with the UAH showing much less tropospheric warming than the RSS, but anyway none agrees with the models. Sharper seems to think there is some problem with my highlighting this fundamental flaw, yet in the next breath he admits that there is still a lot to be done in the area. This 2008 paper would appear to prove him right in that sense. It would seem to prove that the models are fundamentally wrong with respect to cloud feedbacks, and sensitivity is much less than thought. A doubling of CO2 could in fact only lead to at most a 1 degree rise in temperature. The models are the basis for the AGW alarmism, but I'm not sure they are up to the job at the minute.
The fact of the matter, is that the huge gulf between them doesn't exist. It is more propaganda.
While Roy Spencer is clearly a very intelligent man, he's also, part of a weird christian cult that believes things like this
"Cornwall supporters believe the best way to care for both people AND the planet is through policies that allow increasing numbers of people around the world to fulfill their role as stewards of God’s good creation"
And many other bizarre things. So really, if you're looking for some good unbiased work, I'd avoid the stuff that comes from folk who clearly are led by there religious views rather than the evidence.
The descrepency was based on the fact that with the UAH data, the troposphere wasn't warming quite as much as it should have been, but was still warming. It was found in a few studies that they had made a mistake, not correctly accounting for the gradual drift in positioning of the satellite taking the readings, so that they ended up being taken at different times of the day, and affected by diurnal heating variations.
John Christy, who runs the UAH with Spencer, infact said this
"This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open"
As for Spencers paper, he uses a much simpler model in that than any of the IPCC model runs for his theory, thus making it even less believable! The methods he used in the paper have been widely criticised. Roy Spencer is not the PhD clad white knight as many of the sceptics believe. For anyone to believe his faith influenced ideas over the thousands of other climate scientists is baffling to me!c) If warming of the scale that has occured over the past 100 years is supposed to cause serious hardship for us, where is the evidence so far? Sharper dodged this question by trying to imply that I was saying that the SH ice increase was counteracting the NH decrease, when in fact I didn't.
The problem with this, is that whenever any particular event is attributed to climate change, most people don't believe and say you can't blame climate change on weather events. Then they come along and question where all these weather extremes are that were predicted... how do talk sense to that kind of thing? Nobody has claimed that we would just wake up one morning to find our beds floating and the ice caps gone, it's a pointless argument to make!
As for dodging things, how about when you claimed the oceans were releasing CO2? You were proven wrong but refused to acknowledge it and falsely claimed you were misquoted?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Yet again you dodge Spencer's findings.
So let's analyse the Sharp Grand Unified Theory then. If 1 degree has not had an effect so far, will another degree suddenly tip the scales? We've an eighth of the century gone and still no further along. When do you in your infinite wisdom expect we'll start to see something happening then? You seem to have all the answers.0 -
-
-
-
-
Spencer has consistently under-reported warming in the UAH record and argued for low climate sensitivity via different mechanisms, none of which have been demonstrated. In that context his religious belief that god would never allow human actions to alter the climate is relevant.
We were discussing the failed predictions of "AGW alarmists". Of course that in itself was your attempt to shift the topic from something else.
And the fact that the UAH data is the one that most closely matches the radiosonde data is not relevant? No, cos the RSS data is more appealing, as it shows more warming!
Your last comment is laughable.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement