• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Question About AGW

fsol said:
There was me thinking that the troposphere was warming as predicted. Every so often someone comes round and says it isn''t and then when people go and look, hey presto it is. I'm pretty sure that's how this particular story goes anyway. It has been a while since the last time afterall.
Click to expand...

Guess you were and are wrong on that.
 
a_unique_person said:
How can you refute supposition and hypothesis? It's not at the stage to be called evidence. That you can try to refute. The CO2 basis for AGW, on the other hand, has been scientifically studied and researched for over a century now.
Click to expand...

That's a very incisive question, AUP. You'll find that, although CO2 has been studies, no falsifiable test has yet been devised. Hypothesis are not evidence. What evidence do you bring that CO2 is indeed warming the planet?

If the shoe fits...
 
varwoche said:
Higher than what? I've cited data from NASA and NOAA that indicates that 2007 was the 2nd or 5th hottest year (respectively). If there is another source you'd like me to consider, by all means cite it.

Do you recall which thread it was?

News flash: Even if you are a circus master (of Cirque De Bacon?), I'm not a trained bear. So how about sticking to the topic of our discussion, namely the temperature in 2007.

So again, if there is another source you'd like me to consider, by all means cite it. (Or not. I don't think one year is all that significant. You're the one who was going on about 2007.) Thanks.
Click to expand...

What do you think the likelihood (statistically) of 2007 not being in the top 10 for the last ten years is? What do you think the likelihood of 2008 not being in the top ten for the last ten years? If I were a bettin' man, I'd say not very good. A two standard deviation jump would be highly unusual.

Now, since you wish to stick with 2007 temperatures, let us look at first at the rankings. You cannot find where I said 2007 would be cooler than 2006 or any other year for that matter, so let's get that out of the way. My contention has always been based on analyzing data and current observations last Fall, that temperatures would continue to trend downward. So, let's see if that was the case no matter which data set is used, even Reverend Hansen's outliers :)

1998 is the the target baseline.


Let's start with UAH












See next post for GISS data.
 
Last edited:
fsol said:
Please try again.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/msu/

If you have evidence that the data is incorrect...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf
Click to expand...

Who is Tamino? If he has something monumental to contribute, he should publish it through the proper channels. Note the replies are largely ad hom; very intelligent group of followers he has :)

AGW warmologists seem to always argue the data that agrees with their POV is the most accurate. For quite some time RSS was their gold standard and UAH was somehow unreliable. Yet, compare the data......both are in agreement now. Your Tamino link doesn't touch on that. It is the surface data that's way out of whack.

Tamino said this:

I’m reading the paper by Randall & Herman now, and processing some of the data so I can better follow their argument. It’s a fair amount of work, but that’s what I do.
I’ll post my own opinion on their work after I’ve formed one, probably in 2 or 3 days.
Click to expand...

It's been over a month, has he posted his opinion?

The article in question:


http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/jd/2007JD008864-pip.pdf


And another:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2005JD006881.shtml

If you have evidence that the data is incorrect...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf
Click to expand...
We have addressed this over and over. Maybe Mhaze would like to spend the time to link the many articles on issues with the surface station network. Or better yet, how about you take a little time and do a bit of research on the issue? Wow, that would be a novel idea now wouldn't it?

How about this: you provide evidence that GISS/NOAA is the the more accurate data set over HadCRU. Better still, provide a peer reviewed study that supports your view that GISS is in fact accurate. Or, why is GISS so much different than HadCRU?

This is quite amusing. Are you folks blind or something? Record cold, snow and ice throughout the NH? Why aren't you posting news articles about that?
 
a_unique_person said:
For some reason, temperature trends only started in 1998. Am I the only person who was alive before then?
Click to expand...

It was Varwoche and Megalodon's insistence on 2007 that brought it about.

Is there something wrong with the data? Did 2007 temps continue downward or not? That was my contention last Fall.

What you folks must do now is explain the huge disagreement between different surface data from satellite. Now that RSS and UAH are in agreement, and GISS and HadCRU are not by a large number, there is a problem wouldn't you agree? We're talking .2-.4 deg divergence.
 
Pixel42 said:
Surely no-one who deliberately chooses the freak El Nino year of 1998 as their baseline can expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


Are you saying 1998 should be removed from the trend? What about the rest of the El Nino events? You do realize what that would do don't you?

So the question is then, what what was it about 1998 that made it a "freak"?

It's there whether you like it or not, and after temperatures recovered, the trend has been statistically zero. Look at the bar charts.

Hansen is the oddball in all this. Give him time and the 1930's will become the last ice age.
 
David Rodale said:
It was Varwoche and Megalodon's insistence on 2007 that brought it about.

Is there something wrong with the data? Did 2007 temps continue downward or not? That was my contention last Fall.

What you folks must do now is explain the huge disagreement between different surface data from satellite. Now that RSS and UAH are in agreement, and GISS and HadCRU are not by a large number, there is a problem wouldn't you agree? We're talking .2-.4 deg divergence.
Click to expand...


They were discussing 2007, OK. Then you put the context as being how does 2007 rate in the temperature record since 1998.
 
David Rodale said:
Are you saying 1998 should be removed from the trend?
Click to expand...
No I'm saying it is foolish in the extreme to use it as your baseline and conclude that - just because no year since has been as hot - warming has stopped, let alone that the temperature trend is now downwards. It needs far more than 10 years' worth of data to discern climate trends.
 
David, you are hilarious. You couldn't be funnier if you meant it...

as for 1998...



It doesn't make sense to use yearly averages if you can use the monthly ones, when you're looking for a trend. Otherwise you're losing information. But you've already been told that, and refuse to learn...

One day, you'll learn how to analyse data, and make graphs... Then, maybe reality will not be so hard for you. What possessed you to put 2008 in a graph of yearly averages?

BTW, could you link to the databases you used for your graphs?
 
Pixel42 said:
No I'm saying it is foolish in the extreme to use it as your baseline and conclude that - just because no year since has been as hot - warming has stopped, let alone that the temperature trend is now downwards. It needs far more than 10 years' worth of data to discern climate trends.
Click to expand...

Well, you can get some info, if you know what you're doing...




but I reeeaaally liked the plot of the last few months! It was so.... pathetic :)
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Okay, I've now ploughed through a couple of pages of that, and I'm quitting at this comment -
raypierre said... It's good that somebody corrected the algebra error in Eli's exposition
​
No offense, but it looks like...well, how shall I put it....amateurs. It'd be nice if people really, really checked their math before posting it. These guys are batting back and forth basic algebra and can't get it right.
Click to expand...
So you know of people that never make mistakes? Did you spot the error? Note how readily the mistake is admitted, and also note the rest of the quote, which you snipped to give a misleading impression.
It's good that somebody corrected the algebra error in Eli's exposition, but please don't lose sight of the fact that Eli's main point is correct. Over the range of Earth's surface temperature, little error is made by linearizing Stefan-Boltzman. Energy balance models do this all the time. Actually, the situation is even better than Eli represents, since the energy budget isn't actually determined by straight S-B, but by the OLR taking into account the vertical temperature profile, water vapor, and CO2. The water vapor feedback actually cancels out some of the curvature over this temperature range, making the linear fit even better.

But there's even a stronger reason that Pielke's claim is ridiculous. He says that because (as he claims) the OLR changes are proportional to the fourth power of temperature, using a linear temperature average "overestimates global warming." What the heck is that supposed to mean? That confuses the metric used to summarize global climate change (an average temperature) with the kind of model used to interpret that change.

And if you're talking about modeling, you need to remember that GCM's do not linearize Stefan Boltzmann. When they calculate the radiative transfer, they use the full form of the Planck function.

So, I'd say that even if Pielke Sr. were right about linearization errors (which he isn't), his claim about the average of T "overestimating" global warming is incoherent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom