Global warming

[a_unique_person]

According to JPL, the recent Arctic melting is due to unusual wind patterns carrying the ice south of Greenland.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/videos/earth/earth20071001/


Please provide the evidence the oceans are gaining heat, in Joules. If you're going to make the statement "quite the contrary", then it's time to present the evidence.
SST is not ocean heat content.
What is going on currently with the record low tropical storm activity?

Why do you suppose Arctic temperature records don't match ROW (rest of world) surface station network compared to the 1930's? Could it have something to do with UHI contaminating GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 data?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234727f5f28feb2.jpg

You have to prove your claim.

 

[a_unique_person]

UAH is taken to be impeccable, but it's had plenty of work on it's temperature records as well.

 

[Schneibster]

Meg didn't include 2007, is that deceptive?

Depends on the data, doesn't it? Do you have a source that says that his source had 2007 data? Considering 2007 isn't over yet, I suspect you don't, and that this is therefore another lie.

Another "you are lying"? Try responding to the post.

I did. How else am I supposed to reply to lies other than to point out they're lies? Your credibility is below zero, and rapidly heading further down.

Lyman made a correction to the original 2006 paper on ocean heat content change. What is the correction?

Complete non-sequitur. The subject here is your credibility, and it is not improved by attempting to change the subject, nor is it improved by the fact that you have not responded to repeated positive proof that what you said did not correspond to well-known facts, not once, not ten times, but in nearly every post you have made here. In every case, you whomp up some more fake data, post a few more fake graphs, and change the subject. I see no further point in doing anything but repeatedly pointing this out until you stop.

Constructive criticism: when you write long novels, I don't bother reading.

I don't really care whether you do or not. My point is not that you should read them; having noted the above behavior on so many occasions, my only concern is that anyone reading what you write not confuse it with reality.

Your last post was precise and to the point with the customary personal attacks, but at least I read it.

So?

CD errantly stated "An inflow of warm water from the Atlantic made a contribution to that". According to JPL (link included), that is not the case.

You'll have to take that up with him. Since you addressed this post to me, it seems you're having trouble keeping it straight who you're talking to. Considering what I've seen of your habits so far, that's no surprise.

I'm interested in your take on why we are witnessing 30 year lows in tropical storm activity.

I am uninterested in discussing fake statistics other than to note that they are fake.

 

[stevea]

Aside from the model, Hansen had a supposed "scientific basis" for discovering global warming. I am curious what your opinion is of it.
....
Whichever way you take it, he is asserting that the surface temperature data should be used, and > 3SD is the 99% percentile of variation and therefore must be manmade....

I'm rather impressed with Hansen's method of evaluating forcing functions from such a meagre set of data. But I'd like to see some of his primary papers. The slide-show stuff is both alarmist and not particularly supportive of his argument. Parts detract from the main points.

I'd like to understand where you are seeing 3.SD from Hansen and precisely what it refers to. Could you provide a reference ? TIA

 

[stevea]

It certainly has no influence on climate change.

I see, so you argue the admittedly pointless.

Well there's a thing.

The model has worked very well, though, hasn't it? Twenty years on of more or less Scenario B, ...

20 yrs is chicken-◊◊◊◊ in this time scale. We could certainly find a unique weather feature for any 20 year period since accurate records have been kept. All that is lacking in these other cases is a correlated anthropomorphic variable and a chicken-little.

Of course all the other "models" would have ceased to match observation hence. Perhaps Hansen's will fail too or perhaps not, but a statistical evaluation is the only means of measuring the extent of correlation, and the improbability of chance being the cause.

Rah-rah chearleaders looking only at short term trend data is quite insufficient justification.

--
"There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life."
- Frank Zappa

 

[Megalodon]

Meg didn't include 2007, is that deceptive?

I don't know what school of thought you come from, but in mine we can't make anual averages with 9 months... call me picky.

I could, of course, make up numbers, but that would be... well, making up numbers.

But even if we discuss your made up numbers, the point stands. The global ocean is warmer now than in every other recorded year except 1998. The average temperature anomaly for the first 9 months of 2007 is bigger than the average anual anomaly of 1979-2000 by almost 0.2.

You can plot all the graphs starting in an average 1998 that you want, it doesn't change the facts.

 

[Megalodon]

Here are some of your gems of scientific wisdom and understanding, most of which polite and reasonable people have not bothered to respond to.

You know, this could count as another lie, since it's perfectly clear to anyone that has read the thread that I argue the science of the subject, despite the desperate attempts of some to muudy the waters.

I can't be bothered to check where you got the qoutes, but I'll play it from memory.

Psst, don't look now, but you're lying again.

You were lying again... If you have a problem with me saying so, stop it.

I really doubt that you can sink any lower than this in your desperate attempts to explain why a lie wasn't a lie afterall.

You're right, my prediction was wrong. If I recall correctly, you did sink lower a couple of posts down.

So a liar lies again to justify is lie.

Yes, this phrase is correct, and it applied to Michaels, who has been shown here to be a liar.

Thank you... now any doubts that you are a liar are dispelled.

I think this was directed to DR right? I'm quite sure it was right, nonetheless. You see, generally it takes a lot of evidence to make me say that someone is lying. So nor

Another lie.

There were so many, so I'm assuming that this statement was also correct.

So I assume that your only purpose is to look like a fool, which you manage quite nicely.

I don't remember if this was directed to you or DR, but it applies regardless...

You are the one lying right now, by saying that I'm smearing you.

Another correct statement... what is your problem? If you want to dish it out, you better expect to take it, my dear...

You're depressing...

Oh yes, you are depressing...

Of course, you misrepresent other people's comments, too. Want to discuss Tung? Let's see, here was our last snip about Tung. I said this, and you conveniently vanished.

And actually, I thought the approach by Tung in attempting to "back out" a signal for global warming quite interesting. That does not mean I agree with it, and the details of his approach could of course be discussed. I noted that he pegged natural variation at 0.2C. Not having the paper in front of me, perhaps it was 0.18C.
​

What do you want me to discuss with you here? You bring a paper to the table thinking that it will back up your statements. I show you to be wrong, and you immediatelly say it's interesting, but that "does not mean I agree with it". It's irretrivably stupid, and I will not be baited into defending a paper you thought was evidence for your position.

But then, that dissertation won't write itself, will it? How's it going?

Quite well, thank you. One paper out, two in press, and writing two others at the moment... Busy, busy, busy...

 

[mhaze]

I don't know what school of thought you come from, but in mine we can't make anual averages with 9 months... call me picky.

I could, of course, make up numbers, but that would be... well, making up numbers.

No annual averages with 9 months? How about 5 months, then?

My commendations. The school of thought you come from is NOT THAT OF HANSEN who said the following...

"The first five months of 1988 are so warm globally that we conclude that 1988 will be the warmest year on record unless there is a remarkable, improbable cooling in the remainder of the year".
​

 

[mhaze]

I'm rather impressed with Hansen's method of evaluating forcing functions from such a meagre set of data. But I'd like to see some of his primary papers. The slide-show stuff is both alarmist and not particularly supportive of his argument. Parts detract from the main points.

I'd like to understand where you are seeing 3.SD from Hansen and precisely what it refers to. Could you provide a reference ? TIA

Here is one, Hansen et. al. 1988 is online. I suspect the exact definition changes from paper to paper of his but haven't had the interest to line up a number of them and check that. In any case, this is Stat 101 at work.

 

[Megalodon]

The new normal does stand out, doesn't it? It's the new normal that's apparently been "stagnating", which is meant to be some kind of refuge. Trust the oceans to provide the surprise shift between normals, and trust to such ponderous timescales.

It doesn't look much better in the atmosphere.

And this during a period of decreasing solar activity, that should have caused a reduction of 0.18 from around 2001 to now... instead we see an increase of around 0.11 (attention, the data is still not all in in 2007, so it might actually be a smaller increase, especially if we have a very cold November and December).

The next El Nino will start from the new normal base. That's gonna be warm.

I hope not, but I think so...

 

[mhaze]

Two more, from the abstract and conclusion of Hansen et. al. 1988.

 

[Megalodon]

No annual averages with 9 months? How about 5 months, then?

My commendations. The school of thought you come from is NOT THAT OF HANSEN who said the following...

"The first five months of 1988 are so warm globally that we conclude that 1988 will be the warmest year on record unless there is a remarkable, improbable cooling in the remainder of the year".
​

So now you can't read either?
He made an - accurate - estimate from the observation of the first 5 months. He addead that his estimate would be wrong if "there is a remarkable, improbable cooling in the remainder of the year".
How you get from there to 5 months averages, it's anyones guess...

 

[varwoche]

False.

B-C were discarded as moot points

You have planted yourself unabashedly in the black=white white=black realm.

 

[Schneibster]

He made an - accurate - estimate from the observation of the first 5 months. He addead that his estimate would be wrong if "there is a remarkable, improbable cooling in the remainder of the year".
How you get from there to 5 months averages, it's anyones guess...

I get the impression mhaze isn't all that good at math. Seems to have general problems with noting that graphs that are lower on the left and higher on the right are going up, adding 1500 to 1100 and getting 2000, and averages in general.

 

[BobK]

When someone is unfamiliar with something, they really shouldn't be making assertions about it. Such as the time period required to create a yearly mean temperature.

Many of the stations commonly have missing months of data. I've seen a few as 7 months and yet they will determine a mean temperature for the year. Depends on distribution. Sounds ridiculous, but it's true. Makes you wonder about the size of the error. If Hansen can do it, why not other people?

Here is an actual year of temperatures used by Hansen in determining the state of the global temperature. 999.9 means no data for the period. I've broke the lines for easier reading.

YEAR     JAN     FEB     MAR     APR     MAY     JUN     JUL     AUG
2001   -21.4   -21.4   -25.4   -22.2    -8.9    -1.1     0.4   999.9

SEP     OCT     NOV     DEC   D-J-F   M-A-M   J-J-A   S-O-N     ANN
999.9   999.9   999.9   999.9   -21.1   -18.8    -0.2   999.9  -12.64

The station is Gmo Im.E.T. Site ID 200460003 located 80.6N 58.0E. The most northern station now in use by GISS. Their station list is here.

I can't provide a direct link to the data. The pages are only temporarily created. They make you access each site from the search box on this page.

Put in the site name or ID. Then you have to click another link containing the site name. Then you get a chart. Finally, at that page you click the link that says 'download monthly data as text'. They don't make it easy if you want a lot of sites.

 

[Megalodon]

Many of the stations commonly have missing months of data. I've seen a few as 7 months and yet they will determine a mean temperature for the year. Depends on distribution. Sounds ridiculous, but it's true. Makes you wonder about the size of the error. If Hansen can do it, why not other people?

Well, for what I was able to discern, the trimester that was missing was replaced by some sort of weighted average of the previous years.
Not something that I was willing to calculate, for the purpose of an internet debate.
So no, it was not made with 7 months, and it does not depend on distribution.

They don't make it easy if you want a lot of sites.

Par for the course... I was trying to dig out some data on tropical storms and sunspots, and there the tables are not even formatted properly.
On the other hand, data availability is improving in all fields. Trying to find any kind of database 10 years ago would have been much more complicated

 

[mhaze]

I get the impression mhaze isn't all that good at math. Seems to have general problems with noting that graphs that are lower on the left and higher on the right are going up, adding 1500 to 1100 and getting 2000, and averages in general.

Where do you get these gems, Schneib? They are definitely quite good. And this one, you never answered -

What kind of idiot would maintain that a climate cycle with a period of 1500 years peaked 500 years ago and is peaking again now?
​

Where is the quote from the original person who said that?

 

[mhaze]

So now you can't read either?
He made an - accurate - estimate from the observation of the first 5 months. He addead that his estimate would be wrong if "there is a remarkable, improbable cooling in the remainder of the year".
How you get from there to 5 months averages, it's anyones guess...

It's simple. You just made the part up about 5 month averages. I followed the comment with the exact quote as to the use of the partial year data. Duhhh....

 

[CapelDodger]

It doesn't look much better in the atmosphere.

And this during a period of decreasing solar activity, that should have caused a reduction of 0.18 from around 2001 to now... instead we see an increase of around 0.11 (attention, the data is still not all in in 2007, so it might actually be a smaller increase, especially if we have a very cold November and December).

(Point of detail : climate years are measured from December to November, by some freak of history. December 2006 is included in 2007, and it wasn't noticeably cool.)

That 0.18 is de-trended, the 0.1 decadal trend being what it was de-trended by. The reduced range is evidence of a new and growing influence. Even Solar Cyclists are conceding a "stagnation" of climate during this solar minimum. No cooling. That's always just over the horizon.

I hope not, but I think so...

There is a new normal, and the next big El Nino will start from there. It's a sample of one, but 1998 did usher in that new normal. The next El Nino may usher in the next new normal .

Add in the solar cycle and the next three-to-eight years should be definitive. There's bound to be an El Nino on that timescale.

 

[CapelDodger]

No annual averages with 9 months? How about 5 months, then?


My commendations. The school of thought you come from is NOT THAT OF HANSEN who said the following...

"The first five months of 1988 are so warm globally that we conclude that 1988 will be the warmest year on record unless there is a remarkable, improbable cooling in the remainder of the year".​

Did 1988 turn out to be the warmest year on record?