Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by the Weather Forums! Please take the time to register and join our community. Feel free to post or start new topics on anything related to the weather or the climate.


Photo

El Nino Watch

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply

#701
Jesse

Posted 20 April 2017 - 09:52 AM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14584 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

Sobering


Indeed. Any residual effects of my heavy drinking last night just wore off.

#702
Phil

Posted 20 April 2017 - 10:50 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Sobering


What's sobering about it? We've been warming steadily since the end of the LIA, and there's been little (if any) acceleration of sea level rise since that warming started over 400 years ago. This warming has benefitted humanity overall..ideally we'd like to be a few degrees warmer if anything.

Sea levels rose just as much from 1880-1950 (natural) as they did from 1950-present (CO^2 comes into play). Over 70% of the sea level rise since the end of the LIA occurred before 1950.

45CD1819-F214-46ED-A88D-5F14B3E0C786_zps

Also, I'd argue the satellite derived data is more representative of reality than surface data, given vastly more area is measured:

FB408DE3-E5A7-4204-A39A-0DE0065C44BA_zps
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#703
Phil

Posted 20 April 2017 - 11:01 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Also, temperatures across most of the NH were demonstrably warmer than today, perhaps as recently as 700 years ago.

Solomina et al 2016: http://www.sciencedi...277379116301196

The climate was warmer and glaciers were likely receding in the beginning of the past millennium CE (the “Arkhyz break in glaciation”). … In this pass, remains of wood radiocarbon dated to 700 ± 80 BP (1180–1420 CE) were buried in a 1.5-m-thick layer of alluvium (Kaplin et al., 1971; Kotlyakov et al., 1973). Currently, the upper tree limit is located 800–900 m below this elevation. … According to indirect estimates based on pollen analyses, the upper tree limit in the “Arkhyz” period was 200–300 m higher than today (Tushinsky, Turmanina, 1979). The remains of ancient buildings and roads were also found in the Klukhorsky pass at an elevation of 2781 a.s.l. [above sea level] (Tushinsky et al., 1966), and the glacier was still present at this elevation in the mid 20th century. … [I]n Central and East Transcaucasia, there are artificial terraces at elevations where agriculture is not currently possible and that there are remnants of forests in places where forests have not grown since the 16th century CE.


Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#704
happ

Posted 20 April 2017 - 11:39 AM

happ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2907 posts
  • LocationRancho San Rafael [ele: 910'] °

What's sobering about it? We've been warming steadily since the end of the LIA, and there's been little (if any) acceleration of sea level rise since that warming started over 400 years ago. This warming has benefitted humanity overall..ideally we'd like to be a few degrees warmer if anything.

Sea levels rose just as much from 1880-1950 (natural) as they did from 1950-present (CO^2 comes into play). Over 70% of the sea level rise since the end of the LIA occurred before 1950.

45CD1819-F214-46ED-A88D-5F14B3E0C786_zps

Also, I'd argue the satellite derived data is more representative of reality than surface data, given vastly more area is measured:

FB408DE3-E5A7-4204-A39A-0DE0065C44BA_zps

 

I would argue against the notion that warming is good.



#705
TT-SEA

Posted 20 April 2017 - 11:59 AM

TT-SEA

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20204 posts

I would argue against the notion that warming is good.

 

In the big picture... it probably is good for humanity.   The Little Ice Age was a disaster... it killed an estimated 75 million people including 30-60% of Europe's population at the time.


  • Phil likes this

#706
happ

Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:00 PM

happ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2907 posts
  • LocationRancho San Rafael [ele: 910'] °

In the big picture... it probably is good for humanity.   The Little Ice Age was a disaster... it killed an estimate 75 million people including 30-60% of Europe's population at the time.

But you are latitudinal biased.  :D



#707
Phil

Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:00 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

I would argue against the notion that warming is good.


It's better than cooling. Warmer/wetter conditions in northern latitudes allowing for increased food production, increase in the general vigor of the hydrologic cycle, fewer deaths due to freezing weather (these out-pace heat-related deaths even today). Not to mention we could use a buffer for the next ice age, which will arrive at some point within the next 10,000yrs.

The climate is never stable..it's always either warming or cooling, so given the choice, I'd prefer warming.
  • weatherfan2012 likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#708
happ

Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:03 PM

happ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2907 posts
  • LocationRancho San Rafael [ele: 910'] °

It's better than cooling. Warmer/wetter conditions in northern latitudes allowing for increased food production, increase in the general vigor of the hydrologic cycle, fewer deaths due to freezing weather (these out-pace heat-related deaths even today). Not to mention we could use a buffer for the next ice age, which will arrive at some point within the next 10,000yrs.

The climate is never stable..it's always either warming or cooling, so given the choice, I'd prefer warming.

If Tim waits long enough Seattle will have a Mediterranean :) climate  


  • Phil likes this

#709
Phil

Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:07 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

In the big picture... it probably is good for humanity. The Little Ice Age was a disaster... it killed an estimate 75 million people including 30-60% of Europe's population at the time.


Agree. It wasn't just the cooling, but the rapid rate of the cooling that caused so much trouble for humanity.

We recently discovered, via higher resolution proxies, that almost 90% of the cooling (about 1.2C to 1.7C across the northern hemisphere) occurred in two distinct "steps", each lasting approximately 30-50 years. The first step change, marking the end of the MWP, may have taken place within a decade.

As we continuously develop higher resolution proxies, we've come to find that the most significant climate changes take the form of these so called "step changes", as the system apparently prefers to switch from one quasi-stable state into another quasi-stable state, rather than gradually trend one way or the other. There are fragile thresholds here when it comes to the equator/pole exchange of heat/mass/moisture.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#710
TT-SEA

Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:10 PM

TT-SEA

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20204 posts

If Tim waits long enough Seattle will have a Mediterranean :) climate  

 

Seattle is classified as Csb which is considered a Mediterranean climate.  

 

Mostly due to a well-defined dry summer season.  


  • epiceast likes this

#711
Phil

Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:22 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
During the last ice age, what is now Seattle proper was buried under (literally) a mile of ice. During the Holocene climate optimum ~ 8000yrs ago, the PNW climate was warm enough that the Olympics and Cascades were (mostly) free of snow in the summer, and palm trees grew naturally at sound-level. The climate was much wetter in the PNW, and much drier in the SW compared to today. During the LIA, winters were cold enough to freeze puget sound, as the climate was roughly analogous to that of Juneau, AK, albeit much drier than today.

The LIA was a narrowly missed glaciation. Icebergs roared down the Mississippi, into the Gulf of Mexico, marking the sea floor in ways still visible today. New York harbor regularly froze, the SW US was twice as wet as it is today, summers/autumns were dominated by a -EPO type pattern, and winters/springs were dominated by an equally anomalous -NAO type pattern. The Hudson Bay vortex was present year-round.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#712
happ

Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:23 PM

happ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2907 posts
  • LocationRancho San Rafael [ele: 910'] °

Seattle is classified as Csb which is considered a Mediterranean climate.  

 

Mostly due to a well-defined dry summer season.  

I know palm tree growers who live in the Puget Sound. Seattle is inland a ways like the Sacramento delta; you would lose much marine air. Would that climate suit you as it advances northward?



#713
Phil

Posted 21 April 2017 - 11:30 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Regarding decadal-scale predictions of ENSO tendency.

Here's a hovmoller-style diagram of tropical SSTAs from 1987 to present, at 3.5 N/S. The black dotted line I drew marks the longitudinal variation in the WPAC warm pool in response to the 11yr solar cycle (lags solar forcing by ~ 3 years).

AECFD5C7-1C51-4FD0-978B-991F95341177_zps

It's a complex issue, but basically, solar forcing alters photochemical processes in the stratosphere and warms the top of the Hadley Cell, which promotes a +NAM/+SAM and weakens the upper tropospheric lapse rate, which then acts to diminish the Indo-Pacific convection, which weakens the Walker Cell and promotes a Niño background state with relatively enhanced convection away from the compromised Indo-Pacific heat engine.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#714
Phil

Posted 21 April 2017 - 11:46 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
There's a lag involved, between 3-4 years, given the thermal inertia of the system. That said, the resonance is so clear that when I flip the image sideways, it almost perfectly reflects the solar cycles. You can even see the slow, extended decline of solar cycle 23:

AECFD5C7-1C51-4FD0-978B-991F95341177_zps

1052CD8B-A6F9-4CE0-AA31-C4DFF6FA2E07_zps
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#715
Phil

Posted 22 April 2017 - 12:36 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
So, assuming everything goes according to plan over the next five years, we'll observe the solar minimum modoki El Niño response (final WPAC heat release) around 2019/20, followed by a very strong multiyear La Niña during the early 2020s.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#716
TT-SEA

Posted 23 April 2017 - 05:12 AM

TT-SEA

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20204 posts

Water is now warmer than normal off our coast and continuing to warm...

 

cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png

 

7-day change...

 

cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png


  • ShawniganLake likes this

#717
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 11:00 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
FWIW, CDAS also continues to run much warmer globally than NESDIS and every other dataset. Food for thought.

anomnight.4.20.2017.gif
  • Jesse and Webberweather53 like this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#718
happ

Posted 23 April 2017 - 11:31 AM

happ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2907 posts
  • LocationRancho San Rafael [ele: 910'] °

FWIW, CDAS also continues to run much warmer globally than CDAS and every other dataset. Food for thought.

anomnight.4.20.2017.gif

 

Any affect on the Atlantic hurricane season?



#719
Jesse

Posted 23 April 2017 - 11:32 AM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14584 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

FWIW, CDAS also continues to run much warmer globally than CDAS and every other dataset. Food for thought.

anomnight.4.20.2017.gif


CDAS is running warmer than itself?

#720
epiceast

Posted 23 April 2017 - 11:41 AM

epiceast

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1120 posts
  • LocationMissoula, MT

Seattle is classified as Csb which is considered a Mediterranean climate.  

 

Mostly due to a well-defined dry summer season.  

And just like that, you signed away your right to ever complain about rain in Seattle!



#721
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 11:45 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

CDAS is running warmer than itself?


Lol.

NESDIS.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#722
Webberweather53

Posted 23 April 2017 - 11:46 AM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

What's sobering about it? We've been warming steadily since the end of the LIA, and there's been little (if any) acceleration of sea level rise since that warming started over 400 years ago. This warming has benefitted humanity overall..ideally we'd like to be a few degrees warmer if anything.

Sea levels rose just as much from 1880-1950 (natural) as they did from 1950-present (CO^2 comes into play). Over 70% of the sea level rise since the end of the LIA occurred before 1950.

45CD1819-F214-46ED-A88D-5F14B3E0C786_zps

Also, I'd argue the satellite derived data is more representative of reality than surface data, given vastly more area is measured:

FB408DE3-E5A7-4204-A39A-0DE0065C44BA_zps

 

 

The temperature uncertainties in satellite data dwarf (by a few orders of magnitude) surface based stations which are geographically fixed in space and time, and provide the most homogenous, confident, and longest available record of temperature in the observational era. Keep in mind that satellites don't actually measure temperature to begin with nor are they actually measuring the same thing as surface data. Temperature data from satellites has to be inferred, in the case of microwave sounding units, they measure emission spectra of oxygen nuclei in various layers of the atmosphere, which are inherently assumed to be directly proportional to temperature changes, (of course this isn't completely true here, a plethora of confounding factors distort this relationship) since satellites have a lifespan that's a few orders of magnitude less than surface based stations, usually lasting at most several years-decade, because they can't measure the same place on the earth at the same time of the day and suffer from orbital drift, and are susceptible to contamination from clouds, surface albedo, etc., computer models must be applied to account for these diurnal, orbital, emission, and observational platform corrections before any temperature data is derived. Thereafter, even more adjustments have to be made to ensure the record is homogeneous and nearly globally complete... 

From Cowtan, note uncertainties in satellite data are about 5x higher than surface data. Surface data is certainly "more representative of reality"

rss_ensemble_box_rg.png

 

A quote from Carl Mears in Sept 2014 highlights my point here...

http://www.remss.com...al-temperatures

 

"As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors.  However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences.  For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011).  Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends.  A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).  So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors."

 

This isn't to say that surface data isn't without it's disadvantages and uncertainties especially regarding observational coverage, but per capita the uncertainties are far greater in satellite vs surface based stations. Oth, it's also important to absorb all available sources of information and a move towards a hybrid, ensemble surface-satellite based dataset, similar to Cowtan (2014) & somewhat analogous to what I've been able to do with the Oceanic Nino Index (ONI), but on a much grander scale, is a necessity in order to improve our assessment & monitoring capabilities of historical global temperatures. Although many argue that such a dataset would be inhomogeneous w/ changing observational platforms, coverage, and uncertainties, as measurement and coverage steadily improved throughout the observational record, aren't "singular" data sources/platforms already intrinsically inhomogeneous as is? Why not provide the most reliable record at each specific interval in the record, as opposed to limiting capabilities for fear of inconsistencies when it already exists (and to a significant extent at that)?



#723
Webberweather53

Posted 23 April 2017 - 11:48 AM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

FWIW, CDAS also continues to run much warmer globally than NESDIS and every other dataset. Food for thought.

anomnight.4.20.2017.gif

 

You bring up a very good point, CDAS in fact running above virtually every dataset atm, I'm very curious as to why this is the case...


  • Phil likes this

#724
Jesse

Posted 23 April 2017 - 11:54 AM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14584 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

Water is now warmer than normal off our coast and continuing to warm...

7-day change...
 


Looks like a lot of cooler water still waiting in the wings to move toward the coast once we dry out, and a ridge develops offshore, like you've been hoping for.

The warming directly along the coast is partially a result of the very wet SW flow pattern we have been stuck in.



#725
Webberweather53

Posted 23 April 2017 - 11:59 AM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

I'm honestly baffled why legitimate meteorologists/researchers still try to give the CFSv2 any credence regarding ENSO. This model has a notorious NINO bias (some of which stems from it's +SSTA bias in the southeastern Pacific), and like most climate models a profound "rebound"/sinusoidal bias, in which integrated ENSO behavior is more regular than reality. Unfortunately, it appears this model is being initialized w/ potentially erroneous CDAS1 data and is already ~0.2-0.3C above Reynolds OISSTv2, but in spite of this its newest forecast (blue) is appreciably less enthusiastic about a +ENSO event later this year. While another El Nino is not dynamically impossible, as suggested by the historical 150+ year modern ENSO and ~60 year QBO record, in the 2nd year immediately following the culmination of a strong-super NINO event, and under WQBO regime in the midst of neutral-negative ENSO, another cold La Nada-weak La Nina event is most likely for 2017-18...

C-AsnbIXYAAO_my.jpg


  • Phil and Jesse like this

#726
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 12:21 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

The temperature uncertainties in satellite data dwarf (by a few orders of magnitude) surface based stations which are geographically fixed in space and time, and provide the most homogenous, confident, and longest available record of temperature in the observational era. Keep in mind that satellites don't actually measure temperature to begin with nor are they actually measuring the same thing as surface data. Temperature data from satellites has to be inferred, in the case of microwave sounding units, they measure emission spectra of oxygen nuclei in various layers of the atmosphere, which are inherently assumed to be directly proportional to temperature changes, (of course this isn't completely true here, a plethora of confounding factors distort this relationship) since satellites have a lifespan that's a few orders of magnitude less than surface based stations, usually lasting at most several years-decade, and since they can't measure the same place on the earth at the same time of the day and suffer from orbital drift, and are susceptible to contamination from clouds, surface albedo, etc. and computer models must be applied to account for these diurnal, orbital, emission, and observational platform corrections before any temperature data is derived & thereafter even more adjustments have to be made to ensure the record is homogeneous and nearly globally complete...
From Cowtan, note uncertainties in satellite data are about 5x higher than surface data. Surface data is certainly "more representative of reality"
rss_ensemble_box_rg.png


Alarmist blogs like Skeptical Science generally aren't the best sources in terms of scientifically literacy, in my opinion. I've actually spoken personally with Mr. Cowtan, and this wouldn't be the first time John Cook misrepresented his work.

The latest available verification analysis for UAHv6 has been published, and the margin of error is demonstrably much lower than is suggested Mears et al and Cowtan/Way et al for the TMT/TLT boundaries. In fact, most of these concerns were addressed years ago.

http://link.springer...3143-017-0010-y

Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset represents an extensive revision of the procedures employed in previous versions of the UAH datasets. The two most significant results from an end-user perspective are (1) a decrease in the global-average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) trend from +0.14°C decade−1 to +0.11°C decade−1 (Jan. 1979 through Dec. 2015); and (2) the geographic distribution of the LT trends, including higher spatial resolution, owing to a new method for computing LT. We describe the major changes in processing strategy, including a new method for monthly gridpoint averaging which uses all of the footprint data yet eliminates the need for limb correction; a new multi-channel (rather than multi-angle) method for computing the lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product which requires an additional tropopause (TP) channel to be used; and a new empirical method for diurnal drift correction. We show results for LT, the midtroposphere (MT, from MSU2/AMSU5), and lower stratosphere (LS, from MSU4/AMSU9). A 0.03°C decade−1 reduction in the global LT trend from the Version 5.6 product is partly due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT to land surface skin temperature (est. 0.01°C decade−1), with the remainder of the reduction (0.02°C decade−1) due to the new diurnal drift adjustment, the more robust method of LT calculation, and other changes in processing procedures.


1) It also should be noted that over the last 30 years, despite demonstrably untrue claims of "superior accuracy", the trends in the surface station datasets have been adjusted over 400% as much as the satellites'. These claimed margins of error from the surface station folks have never actually been true, either in theory or in practice.

2) Surface stations measure a tiny fraction of the globe, almost completely confined to areas where people live. The data is the. extrapolated over millions of square miles across the oceans, deserts, ice sheets, what have you. Any UHI/contamination is therefore extrapolated along with it.

A quote from Carl Mears in Sept 2014 highlights my point here...
http://www.remss.com...al-temperatures

"As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors."


That quote from Mears in 2014 is no longer viable.

As of the UAHv6 update, the satellite datasets are now in better agreement with one another than the surface station networks. The difference in trend between HADCRUT4 and GISS over the last 15 years is more than double the difference in trend between UAH & RSS for TLT.

This isn't to say that surface data isn't without it's disadvantages and uncertainties especially regarding observational coverage, but per capita the uncertainties are far greater in satellite vs surface based stations. Oth, it's also important to absorb all available sources of information and a move towards a hybrid, ensemble surface-satellite based dataset, similar to Cowtan (2014) & somewhat analogous to what I've been able to do with the Oceanic Nino Index (ONI), but on a much grander scale, is a necessity in order to improve our assessment & monitoring capabilities of historical global temperatures. Although many argue that such a dataset would be inhomogeneous w/ changing observational platforms, coverage, and uncertainties, as measurement and coverage steadily improved throughout the observational record, aren't "singular" data sources/platforms already intrinsically inhomogeneous as is? Why not provide the most reliable record at each specific interval in the record, as opposed to limiting capabilities for fear of inconsistencies when it already exists (and to a significant extent at that)?


Well, I think the evidence contradicts this line of thinking. The performed adjustments (and internal disagreements) involved with the surface networks are vastly larger than anything present within the satellite data. It doesn't get much more straightforward than that, in my opinion.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#727
Webberweather53

Posted 23 April 2017 - 12:31 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

Alarmist blogs generally aren't the best sources. I've actually spoken personally with Carl Mears and Mr. Cowtan, and this wouldn't be the first time John Cook misrepresented his work.

For one, the latest available verification analysis for UAHv6 had been published, and the margin of error is demonstrably much lower than is suggested Mears et al 2014 for TMT. In fact, most of these concerns were addressed years ago.

http://link.springer...3143-017-0010-y


1) It also should be noted that over the last 30 years, despite demonstrably untrue claims of "superior accuracy", the trends in the surface station datasets have been adjusted over 400% as much as the satellite data. These claimed margins of error from the surface station folks are nothing more than defensive crouches.

2) Surface stations measure a tiny fraction of the globe, almost completely confined to areas where people live. The data is the. extrapolated over millions of square miles across the oceans, deserts, ice sheets, what have you. Any UHI/contamination is therefore extrapolated along with it.

That quote from Mears in 2014 is no longer viable.

As of the UAHv6 update, the satellite datasets are now in better agreement with one another than the surface station networks. The difference in trend between HADCRUT4 and GISS over the last 15 years is more than double the difference in trend between UAH & RSS for TLT. Oops. :lol:

Well, I think the evidence blatantly contradicts this line of thinking.

The performed adjustments (and internal disagreements) involved with the surface networks are vastly larger than anything present within the satellite data. It doesn't get much more straightforward than that.

 

Alarmist? Hardly, in fact if you actually looked under the title of that article, it comes straight from the horses' mouth, it was actually written by Cowtan himself...

 

As of the UAHv6 update, the satellite datasets are now in better agreement with one another than the surface station networks. The difference in trend between HADCRUT4 and GISS over the last 15 years is more than double the difference in trend between UAH & RSS for TLT. Oops.  :lol:

 

Actually, this is no longer valid, RSS was recently adjusted upward and is now more in line w/ the surface based data but again they aren't measuring the same thing so they aren't directly comparable to begin with

 

1) It also should be noted that over the last 30 years, despite demonstrably untrue claims of "superior accuracy", the trends in the surface station datasets have been adjusted over 400% as much as the satellite data. These claimed margins of error from the surface station folks are nothing more than defensive crouches.

2) Surface stations measure a tiny fraction of the globe, almost completely confined to areas where people live. The data is the. extrapolated over millions of square miles across the oceans, deserts, ice sheets, what have you. Any UHI/contamination is therefore extrapolated along with it.

 

These claims are fine as long as you completely and purposely ignore the diurnal and drift corrections which are often on the order of several times larger than any of the surface corrections.



#728
Webberweather53

Posted 23 April 2017 - 12:35 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

http://journals.amet...CLI-D-15-0744.1

 

"The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other midtropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites."



#729
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 12:38 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Actually, this is no longer valid, RSS was recently adjusted upward and is now more in line w/ the surface based data but again they aren't measuring the same thing so they aren't directly comparable to begin with, and assuming ...


Actually, that was only for the TMT domain, not TLT. Huge difference there in both practice and theory. Their TLT trends are very much homogenous.

1) It also should be noted that over the last 30 years, despite demonstrably untrue claims of "superior accuracy", the trends in the surface station datasets have been adjusted over 400% as much as the satellite data. These claimed margins of error from the surface station folks are nothing more than defensive crouches.
2) Surface stations measure a tiny fraction of the globe, almost completely confined to areas where people live. The data is the. extrapolated over millions of square miles across the oceans, deserts, ice sheets, what have you. Any UHI/contamination is therefore extrapolated along with it.

These claims are fine as long as you completely and purposely ignore the diurnal and drift corrections which are often on the order of several times larger than any of the surface corrections.


Well, did you read the latest available verification analysis on this issue? It's very thorough and greatly reduces error potential relative to version 5.6.

Alarmist? Hardly, in fact if you actually looked under the title of that article, it comes straight from the horses' mouth, it was actually written by Cowtan himself...


I'm taking about the image you linked. It has a skepticalscience image code.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#730
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 12:41 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

http://journals.amet...CLI-D-15-0744.1

"The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other midtropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites."


Again, this is in reference to the TMT, not the TLT (which was virtually unchanged in this analysis).
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#731
Webberweather53

Posted 23 April 2017 - 12:45 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

Actually, that was only for the TMT domain, not TLT. Huge difference there in both practice and theory. Their TLT trends are very much homogenous.


Well, did you read the latest available verification analysis on this issue? It's very thorough and greatly reduces error potential relative to version 5.6.


I'm taking about the image you linked. It has a skepticalscience image code.

 

I actually have, and as noted in Mears & Wentz (2016) the diurnal corrections are the largest sources of uncertainty and are provided for by climate/reanalysis models, which are fraught with their own uncertainties that aren't discussed or accounted for in this paper. Although, the diurnal corrections average towards zero over time, the individual corrections and variance are higher than any of the surface datasets

 

Yes, it is from Skeptical Science, but the article I pulled it from was written by Cowtan himself in January 2016.

 

https://skepticalsci...brightness.html



#732
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 12:50 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
While Dr. Spencer's criticism here shouldn't be taken as gospel until his paper clears peer review, this is his take on Mears' new TMT dataset. I happen to agree that the NOAA14 satellite is compromised by drift, and it was obviously left unaccounted for.

http://www.drroyspen...rature-dataset/

While the title of their article implies that their new diurnal drift adjustment to the satellite data has caused the large increase in the global warming trend, it is actually their inclusion of what the evidence will suggest is a spurious warming (calibration drift) in the NOAA-14 MSU instrument that leads to most (maybe 2/3) of the change. I will provide more details of why we believe that satellite is to blame, below.

Also, we provide new radiosonde validation results, supporting the UAH v6 data over the new RSS v4 data.


Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#733
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 12:54 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

I actually have, and as noted in Mears & Wentz (2016) the diurnal corrections are the largest sources of uncertainty and are provided for by climate/reanalysis models, which are fraught with their own uncertainties that aren't discussed or accounted for in this paper. Although, the diurnal corrections average towards zero over time, the individual corrections and variance are higher than any of the surface datasets

Yes, it is from Skeptical Science, but the article I pulled it from was written by Cowtan himself in January 2016.

https://skepticalsci...brightness.html


Well yeah, RSS does indeed use a "model" to correct for drift and calibration for such, but I don't believe UAH employs the same approach.

The TMT issue is a headache, I'll give you that, but fortunately the TLT domain is now clearer under stronger inter-dataset homogeneity (at the moment).
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#734
Webberweather53

Posted 23 April 2017 - 01:06 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

Well yeah, RSS does indeed use a "model" to correct for drift and calibration for such, but I don't believe UAH employs the same approach.

The TMT issue is a headache, I'll give you that, but fortunately the TLT domain is now clearer under stronger inter-dataset homogeneity (at the moment).

 

My point is errors in raw data due to orbit drift alone can be on the order of 10-20 C (or more) in some individual instances where the diurnal cycle is variant, while errors of this magnitude are rarely, if ever observed w/ raw surface based data in any of their corrections... Of course, reanalysis models used to adjust for orbital drift are largely reliant on surface observations to derive & reconstruct their various fields, thus ultimately, the satellite data is not really independent and is inadvertently being adjusted towards surface data, while the inverse isn't true.

 

Again, here's another graphic from Kevin Cowtan showing satellite and surface temperature ensemble realizations, note the appreciably larger uncertainty/spread in satellite data. Also, worth mentioning that the article was written in collaboration w/ Carl Mears of RSS...

 

rss_ensemble_series.png



#735
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 01:08 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

I'm honestly baffled why legitimate meteorologists/researchers still try to give the CFSv2 any credence regarding ENSO. This model has a notorious NINO bias (some of which stems from it's +SSTA bias in the southeastern Pacific), and like most climate models a profound "rebound"/sinusoidal bias, in which integrated ENSO behavior is more regular than reality. Unfortunately, it appears this model is being initialized w/ potentially erroneous CDAS1 data and is already ~0.2-0.3C above Reynolds OISSTv2, but in spite of this its newest forecast (blue) is appreciably less enthusiastic about a +ENSO event later this year. While another El Nino is not dynamically impossible, as suggested by the historical 150+ year modern ENSO and ~60 year QBO record, in the 2nd year immediately following the culmination of a strong-super NINO event, and under WQBO regime in the midst of neutral-negative ENSO, another cold La Nada-weak La Nina event is most likely for 2017-18...
C-AsnbIXYAAO_my.jpg


I'm shocked that nobody has drawn attention to the CDAS problems lately (which seem to worsen near the equinoxes).
  • Webberweather53 likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#736
Jesse

Posted 23 April 2017 - 01:17 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14584 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

I'm shocked that nobody has drawn attention to the CDAS problems lately (which seem to worsen near the equinoxes).

 

Do you agree with his take that a cold la Nada/weak La Nina event is most likely next winter? You have seemed pretty sold on a some sort of +ENSO event for a little while now.



#737
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 01:20 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

My point is errors in raw data due to orbit drift alone can be on the order of 10-20 C (or more) in some individual instances where the diurnal cycle is variant, while errors of this magnitude are rarely, if ever observed w/ raw surface based data in any of their corrections... Of course, reanalysis models used to adjust for orbital drift are largely reliant on surface observations to derive & reconstruct their various fields, thus ultimately, the satellite data is not really independent and is inadvertently being adjusted towards surface data, while the inverse isn't true.


Isn't this only an issue for RSS? I'll have to go back and check but I think UAH employs cross-satellite calibration scheme rather than modeling for calibration, even in the post-AQUA era.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#738
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 01:26 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Do you agree with his take that a cold la Nada/weak La Nina event is most likely next winter? You have seemed pretty sold on a some sort of +ENSO event for a little while now.


I'm leaning warm neutral or weak niño, personally, but I could see a cool neutral if a stronger Walker Cell/weaker +IOD can be sustained into JJA.

That said, I'm fairly confident that the ENSO in 17/18 will run warmer vs last winter, through QBO influence alone.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#739
Webberweather53

Posted 23 April 2017 - 01:34 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

Isn't this only an issue for RSS? I'll have to go back and check but I think UAH employs cross-satellite calibration scheme rather than modeling for calibration, even in the post-AQUA era.

 

Technically it is, but a glaring concern I have is that cross-calibration with other satellites may not be an effective approach to handling diurnal drift given the already profound discrepancies in instrumentation, platforms, outages, etc, and inconsistencies in bias adjustment given other satellites will still ultimately suffer from diurnal drift... 



#740
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 01:41 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Technically it is, but a glaring concern I have is that cross-calibration with other satellites may not be an effective approach to handling diurnal drift given the already profound discrepancies in instrumentation, platforms, outages, etc, and inconsistencies in bias adjustment given other satellites will still ultimately suffer from diurnal drift...


That's one way to look at it, though (if I remember correctly) there are at least 8 satellites and 24 total radiometers to interpolate from with numerous demonstrable reference points.

Obviously the sign(s) of the various cases of sensor/orbital drift won't be the same. Some will oppose, etc.

And to be frank, I simply don't trust the surface data, given the frequent adjustments in the historical record which occur on a monthly basis, all of which appear to be aimed at aligning observations with climate model hindcasts. It just doesn't smell right to me. Over the last 20 years, entire years have been "adjusted" by up to 0.5 degrees centigrade. That's much larger than any satellite adjustment, by many orders of magnitude. It's ridiculous.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#741
Webberweather53

Posted 23 April 2017 - 02:16 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

That's one way to look at it, though (if I remember correctly) there are at least 8 satellites and 24 total radiometers to interpolate from with numerous demonstrable reference points.

Obviously the sign(s) of the various cases of sensor/orbital drift won't be the same. Some will oppose, etc.

And to be frank, I simply don't trust the surface data, given the frequent adjustments in the historical record which occur on a monthly basis, all of which appear to be aimed at aligning observations with climate model hindcasts. It just doesn't smell right to me. Over the last 20 years, entire years have been "adjusted" by up to 0.5 degrees centigrade. That's much larger than any satellite adjustment, by many orders of magnitude. It's ridiculous.

 

I really don't understand the hostility towards surface data, other than pure, unfounded speculation, no one has really discovered and confirmed any deliberate, purposeful "mishandling" of the data. Also note that NOAA was already investigated by congress, and their data was independently verified against ARGO floats, buoys, and other platforms, and published over & over again... It was discovered that the older NOAA record and Hadley data suffer from a cold bias, particularly after the early-mid 1990s when the implementation of buoys became more prevalent across the globe, and because the engine room intake measurements are warmer than the measurements by buoys, an upward adjustment to the data was entirely necessary. The adjustments don't occur on a monthly basis, but they do with each update of the surface record that often takes place once every few years or so, which is comparable to the satellite record.



#742
Webberweather53

Posted 23 April 2017 - 02:28 PM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

Pardon if I come across as harsh here, I really enjoy this discussion as always Phil...


  • Phil likes this

#743
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 02:51 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

I really don't understand the hostility towards surface data, other than pure, unfounded speculation, no one has really discovered and confirmed any deliberate, purposeful "mishandling" of the data.


Being a student of paleoclimate myself, and having seen so many blatant, deliberate attempts at tweaking statistical procedure to paint a false narrative for political reasons (Michael Mann being a microcosm of this phenomenon), I keep a very watchful eye on these dataset adjustments.

Whether it's deliberate, or via innate confirmation bias, there are coincidences, and then there are "coincidences". Sometimes the pieces to the puzzle are already put together in front of you.

Also note that NOAA was already investigated by congress, and their data was independently verified against ARGO floats, buoys, and other platforms, and published over & over again...


1) Congress are not scientists, and that investigation was politicized into oblivion by pro-CAGW politicians. It was never sent to a special prosecutor. Congress frankly would have no way of knowing whether those in question were being transparent about what was said in those emails because they don't understand the scientific procedures involved.

2) The ARGO-era began in 2003, and even the data from the ARGO floats were/are systematically adjusted upwards relative to the initially extracted (raw) data. It fits a fimiliar theme.

3) The buoy data has also undergone all sorts of various adjustments, many of which happen to be in amazing structural homogeneity with the modern ship-intake valve data and surface station data. Again..coincidence?

It was discovered that the older NOAA record and Hadley data suffer from a cold bias, particularly after the early-mid 1990s when the implementation of buoys became more prevalent across the globe, and because the engine room intake measurements are warmer than the measurements by buoys, an upward adjustment to the data was entirely necessary.


The ship intake temperatures should never have been employed in the first place. They're so easily contaminated it's not even funny. The bouy data was adjusted to boost synchronicity with the ship intake data after the late 1980s, and yet this ship data was adjusted downwards significantly from 1920 to 1945, which "coincidently" happens to coincide with the previous global warming period. Again, consistent theme.

The adjustments don't occur on a monthly basis, but they do with each update of the surface record that often takes place once every few years or so, which is comparable to the satellite record.


I see tweaks to the GISS data on a month to month basis. It's been frequent since 2011. When I get back home I'll link you to the thousands of monthly adjustments I've documented since 2013.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#744
Phil

Posted 23 April 2017 - 02:54 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

Pardon if I come across as harsh here, I really enjoy this discussion as always Phil...


Haha, you know I love you, brother. :wub:

I enjoy this debate, too.
  • Webberweather53 likes this
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#745
Webberweather53

Posted 24 April 2017 - 02:42 AM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

Being a student of paleoclimate myself, and having seen so many blatant, deliberate attempts at tweaking statistical procedure to paint a false narrative for political reasons (Michael Mann being a microcosm of this phenomenon), I keep a very watchful eye on these dataset adjustments.

Whether it's deliberate, or via innate confirmation bias, there are coincidences, and then there are "coincidences". Sometimes the pieces to the puzzle are already put together in front of you.


1) Congress are not scientists, and that investigation was politicized into oblivion by pro-CAGW politicians. It was never sent to a special prosecutor. Congress frankly would have no way of knowing whether those in question were being transparent about what was said in those emails because they don't understand the scientific procedures involved.

2) The ARGO-era began in 2003, and even the data from the ARGO floats were/are systematically adjusted upwards relative to the initially extracted (raw) data. It fits a fimiliar theme.

3) The buoy data has also undergone all sorts of various adjustments, many of which happen to be in amazing structural homogeneity with the modern ship-intake valve data and surface station data. Again..coincidence?


The ship intake temperatures should never have been employed in the first place. They're so easily contaminated it's not even funny. The bouy data was adjusted to boost synchronicity with the ship intake data after the late 1980s, and yet this ship data was adjusted downwards significantly from 1920 to 1945, which "coincidently" happens to coincide with the previous global warming period. Again, consistent theme.


I see tweaks to the GISS data on a month to month basis. It's been frequent since 2011. When I get back home I'll link you to the thousands of monthly adjustments I've documented since 2013.

 

"...and yet this ship data was adjusted downwards significantly from 1920 to 1945, which "coincidently" happens to coincide with the previous global warming period. Again, consistent theme."

Again, the buoy data (including ARGO) was adjusted upward to match the ERI measurements from the 1940s-1990s, but this claim is also false, because the data actually shows more warming during World War II, at the height of the previous warming precipice. Pro-AGW politicians? What are you talking about? You do realize that the House Committee Chairman, Oversight Subcommittee Chairman, and Environmental Committee Chairmen were all republicans who publicly expressed their disdain for the new NOAA data, only to later discover no actual wrongdoing. If anything, the prosecutors were actually heavily biased, in favor of anti-AGWers....

 

Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.): “I applaud Dr. Bates’s efforts in uncovering the truth of this data manipulation, and I commend Chairman Smith and the Science Committee for conducting rigorous oversight on behalf of the American people.  Transparent and faithful execution of the scientific process, especially where taxpayer dollars are involved, is crucial to ensure that our policies are based on sound science and not on politically predetermined outcomes.”

 

Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.): “I commend Dr. Bates for bringing to light the corrupt practices used by his former colleagues and hope this serves as a deterrence to anyone thinking of manipulating science to serve their own political agenda.  I applaud Chairman Smith and the Science Committee's efforts to provide the necessary oversight to ensure the American people have the best information possible.”

 

Their work has been rigorously evaluated and re-evaluated by the scientific community, and most literature only further supports ERSSTv4's findings, if they actually performed any wrongdoing, tampering, it likely would have been discovered already either by congress or the scientific community, but neither has been able to come forward with any substantial evidence that depicts deliberate tampering. Most of the claims regarding data tampering/manipulation rest on heavily biased, unfounded, and unsubstantiated speculation from the blogosphere. Contaminated? You don't think the satellite radiance isn't (very) significantly  contaminated by clouds, vegetation, orography etc? (Aside from the fact that it again doesn't measure temperature to begin w/) Most of the criticisms to ERSST originate from unqualified pseudo-scientists, biased think tanks, and/or the blogosphere. The double standard here is pretty comical, if the ERSST adjustments reduced the amount of global warming in the modern era, no one would bat an eyelash.



#746
Phil

Posted 24 April 2017 - 03:37 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

"...and yet this ship data was adjusted downwards significantly from 1920 to 1945, which "coincidently" happens to coincide with the previous global warming period. Again, consistent theme."
Again, the buoy data (including ARGO) was adjusted upward to match the ERI measurements from the 1940s-1990s, but this claim is also false, because the data actually shows more warming during World War II, at the height of the previous warming precipice.


You wake up so d**n early. :lol:

The buoy data was bumped upwards in the 40s/50s? I've never seen any evidence of this. I know the ship data depicted significant warming in the early/mid 20th century, and was subsequently homogenized to the buoy data in large part until the 1970s. I'll grab the ERSSTv4 paper again just to make sure I'm not forgetting anything.

Pro-AGW politicians? What are you talking about? You do realize that the House Committee Chairman, Oversight Subcommittee Chairman, and Environmental Committee Chairmen were all republicans who publicly expressed their disdain for the new NOAA data, only to later discover no actual wrongdoing. If anything, the prosecutors were actually heavily biased, in favor of anti-AGWers....

These committees are a (bi)partisan food fight, and in this case they were wholly unprepared to take on the investigation because they held zero understanding of the procedures involved. It should have been sent to a special prosecutor..it's bad politics to grill American scientists, generally speaking.


Their work has been rigorously evaluated and re-evaluated by the scientific community, and most literature only further supports ERSSTv4's findings, if they actually performed any wrongdoing, tampering, it likely would have been discovered already either by congress or the scientific community, but neither has been able to come forward with any substantial evidence that depicts deliberate tampering.

Are you kidding? There are well-qualified scientists all over the world questioning these adjustments. Some have filed lawsuits, and in many cases the original data is lost due to a convenient computer crash, hardware failure, or something along those lines.

It sounds conspiracy-ish, but sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

Most of the claims regarding data tampering/manipulation rest on heavily biased, unfounded, and unsubstantiated speculation from the blogosphere.

I generally don't read the blogosphere, save Dr. Spencer's for the UAH releases. He also happens to agree with the negative sentiment many scientists hold on these upward adjustments of the temperature data. This isn't just a few bloggers, there's a widespread criticism of this.

Contaminated? You don't think the satellite radiance isn't (very) significantly contaminated by clouds, vegetation, orography etc? (Aside from the fact that it again doesn't measure temperature to begin w/)

How would vegetation & orography "contaminate" the O^2 microwave emissions used to interpolate temperature? That doesn't quite compute..the aforementioned factors are part of the climate system and have always influenced temperature.

Most of the criticisms to ERSST originate from unqualified pseudo-scientists, biased think tanks, and/or the blogosphere. The double standard here is pretty comical, if the ERSST adjustments reduced the amount of global warming in the modern era, no one would bat an eyelash.

I don't pay attention to any of that stuff, however, I would honestly be just as critical if the tables were turned and the adjustments were of perpetual cooling.

In this case, however, you have both political and economic pressure tailwinding AGW, and every single adjustment to the data since 1988 has increased the warming trend, both in structure and magnitude. It's pretty straightforward, dude.

Scientists are human, too. We're just as prone to confirmation bias, ulterior political motivations, monetary pressures, and corruption as anyone.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#747
Phil

Posted 24 April 2017 - 03:43 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Phil Jones had to waltz through flaming hoops to even come close to explaining this one. "Removing the 1940s blip":

http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

At the very least, this goes to demonstrate the degree of guesswork involved within the older datasets. Superior accuracy my arse.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"

#748
Webberweather53

Posted 24 April 2017 - 06:08 AM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

The buoy data was bumped upwards in the 40s/50s? I've never seen any evidence of this. I know the ship data depicted significant warming in the early/mid 20th century, and was subsequently homogenized to the buoy data in large part until the 1970s.

 

Wait what, when did I say there was buoy data in the 1940-1950s? I was clearly referring to this earlier statement from you... Again, re-iterating myself here, this statement is wrong, the ERSSTv4 data was actually adjusted upwards in the 1940s, at the peak of the last warming period. While the upward adjustment didn't last nearly as long as the downward adjustment in the 1920s and 1930s, the amplitude was 2x as high as the preceding era's decrease, therefore it roughly offsets the change to ERSSTv4 vs ERSStv3b in the 1920s & 30s.

"The bouy data was adjusted to boost synchronicity with the ship intake data after the late 1980s, and yet this ship data was adjusted downwards significantly from 1920 to 1945, which "coincidently" happens to coincide with the previous global warming period."

 

nclvaRFaXJADG.tmpqq.gif

 

 

"Are you kidding? There are well-qualified scientists all over the world questioning these adjustments. Some have filed lawsuits, and in many cases the original data is lost due to a convenient computer crash, hardware failure, or something along those lines."

 

Any actual, publishable proof of this or are we just making things up yet again to fit our own preconceived notions? What about those published papers which tackle and dismantle the ERSSTv4 adjustments?... yeah I don't see any of those either... I'm also still waiting on all this "proof" of GISS temperature adjustments. If you feel their adjustments are unsubstantiated,  you should consider publishing on it, you have enough credentials, knowledge, & apparently more than enough time to rant about it here, so why not?

 

I also find it funny how the new RSS data actually shows a little more warming than GISS in the satellite era, yet relative silence from anti-AGW crowd. The datasets are actually very close to one another, again the point here really isn't to claim RSS is warmer than GISS, but that they're consistent w/ one another. 

C8GDnEPUwAA8xP2.jpg

 

 

"Assessing Recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records"

 

http://advances.scie...nt/3/1/e1601207

 

This is posted in both Judith Curry and Skeptical Science's blogs

https://judithcurry....erature-record/

 

"He also happens to agree with the negative sentiment many scientists hold on these upward adjustments of the temperature data. This isn't just a few bloggers, there's a widespread criticism of this."

 

"Widespread criticism"... Again is these scientists were really upset about the ERSSTv4 adjustments (esp those of the likes of Spencer and Cristy, wherein the new data doesn't fit their preconceived notions wrt AGW), then they should take it to literature and publish on it...

 

Worth noting here yet again NOAA's ERSSTv4 actually agrees even more w/ unadjusted buoy data...

 

C5M2GWrVUAAxQ9X.jpg

 

 

How would vegetation & orography "contaminate" the O^2 microwave emissions used to interpolate temperature? That doesn't quite compute..the aforementioned factors are part of the climate system and have always influenced temperature.

 

The fact that these sources of microwave emission have been around for an extended period of time doesn't change the fact that these are significant sources of natural interference wrt microwave radiance emissions which will provide even more uncertainty (than there already is) w/ satellite data. Voltage is measured on the satellite, and from voltage microwave emissions from oxygen (radiance) can be somewhat inferred throughout large depths of the atmosphere, however, microwaves are also emitted from the land and ocean surfaces (including vegetation), clouds, and this also is somewhat dependent on elevation, therefore they actually do contaminate the O^2 microwave emissions. And of course from radiance temperature may be interpreted.



#749
Webberweather53

Posted 24 April 2017 - 06:19 AM

Webberweather53

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, NC

"You wake up so d**n early.  :lol:"

 

Lol, yea I was putting some of the finishing touches on a presentation I have later today regarding Orbital, Geographical and Background Climate Influences on ENSO since the Paleocene. Fun stuff!


  • Phil likes this

#750
Phil

Posted 24 April 2017 - 10:55 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11646 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
Are you kidding me? I literally spent 45 minutes on a reply, and I just lost the entire thing when I tried to post it. Screw this phone.

I'll be home later tonight, so I'll get back to you then. I'm not doing this from my phone anymore. Sorry dude.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...BETHE62#history

Warm season 2017:
Thunderstorm days: 4
Severe days: 3
Hail: 1 (pea sized)
Wind: 2 (62mph, 58mph)
Rain total: 4.54"