Snow_Miser Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 A contortionist's delight! This was rather hilariously debunked at SkS with a quote from John von Neumann: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." http://www.skeptical...t-problems.html No, your link does not "debunk" it, and it is a poor excuse of a rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Here are a few selections from the blog post you posted that I decided to reply to: A 2-sigma envelope would cover about 95% of the observations, and if the observations lay outside that larger region it would be substantial cause for concern. Thus it would be a more appropriate choice for Scafetta's green envelope. Why not include a 6 sigma range, so we can claim that the IPCC was correct even with a negative trend in temperatures over the next few decades? Second, while the IPCC envelope (Scafetta's green) is based on annual data, in his widget Scafetta plots monthly data, which has greater variability and thus is much more likely to fall outside of the envelope. If the IPCC were correct with their overall mean temperature predictions, then the monthly temperature variability would be higher and lower than the IPCC range, but making it still consistent with the IPCC predictions. We don't observe that. Third, Scafetta has used HadCRUT3 data, which has a known cool bias and which will shortly be replaced by HadCRUT4. Yeah, throw out the temperature data because it doesn't fit the predetermined conclusions of rapid warming in the near future due to mankind. Fourth, although the widget itself only shows post-2000 data, Scafetta has used a 1900-2000 baseline. Here is Dr. Scafetta's reply to that: The base line for the temperature record and the average IPCC simulation is exactly the same. The period used for the baseline is 1900-2000 because the model simulation starts in 1900 and it is supposed to reconstruct the temperature during the 20th century. Thus it needs to be optimized against the temperature by using as common baseline the period 1900-2000. No baseline errors are in the graph. By using as baseline the period 1960-1990, the GCM simulation will need to be shifted down by just 0.022 C. This is not a big deal. In any case, it is more appropriate to use the 1900-2000 baseline as I did. That was a pretty weak attempt at a rebuttal from Skeptical Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowstorms Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 That could be around the temperature that UAH will print out for February, but as Will has already pointed out, February 2008 was -0.25 Degrees C, and we have been running considerably lower at 25,000 feet than 2008, which is something to consider. I think between -0.20 to -0.26 is a good range and again dont base monthly avgs on AMSU alone as there's more factors involved in calculating final monthly anomalies. For the past 1-3 days Global temps have stalled once again. Lets see what occurs thru March. Despite the La Nina weakening rapdily the atmosphere resembles a typical Nina pattern very well and that needs to be considered for MAM and JJA. If we develop a stronger Walker Circulation and Trade Winds remain consistent thru MAM then I think we can raise the chances for another Nina next year. http://www.atmos.alb...om.30.5S-5N.png Decent burst of Low Level Easterlies coming esp across the Central-Western ENSO regions. Subsurface anomalies have warmed but OHC remains decently negative. All this will impact temperatures not only for MAM but for 2012 and as to whether or not we see a El nino or not. The back-back Nina's have really killed of the STJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I don't think the fossil fuel industries care about this debate. Strawman. Fossil fuel industries know that as long as they provide cost effective energy they will have a market. The amount of money the fossil fuel industries are spending, as illustrated by the Heartland documents, to bankroll the denialist efforts proves otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 This is OPPOSITE of AGW theory.. record cold at trapping hot spot levels http://pic.twitter.com/TXLXorKS Looks a little different the the global warming agenda IPCC wouldn't you say? ENSO is quickly wrapping up a Nina and heading towards a weak summer NINO. Hopefully this doesn't happen. Or you won't be back here making erroneous claims of record low temps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I dont think Feb 2012 will have an anomaly colder than 2008...it seems '07-'08 winter over performed on the cold compared to the AMSU readings...so I'm guessing 2012 won't do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 This is buoy 2011K The graph above goes from 0C to -50C. This is buoy 2011J In the Beaufort Sea. The graph above goes from 0C to -40C. J started at 77N, 135W, did a small loop and is now at 73N,148W as of the 17th. This is the parent site for those buoys. They have been talking arctic profiles since the mid 90s. This is buoy ITP51 ITP51 was deployed on September 17, 2011 on a 2 m thick ice floe in the Transpolar Drift at 81° 29.2 N, 103° 11.6 E Now it is at: 86.2913° N, 124.8028° E. This buoys basically started off on the edge of the Kara/Barents/Arctic Basin triple point and has drited into the inner arctic circle. It crossed over a 4000-5500M deep trench most of it's journey. The Black line is the average temp from Sept 17th to present. The green and red lines are average temps for those daily periods. You can see for a little while temps were average in November. Then big warm intrusions. THe temperature by early December until now has barely gone beow average except a couple times. Since mid to late February when the buoy was around 83/84N to 86.5N the temps hae been way up into the-10 to -20 box. Looks like it was averaging about -15 to -16C when it was supposed to be -29C for that period. This is Buoy 2011D This one started at 85N 130W and has drifted along that lattitude towards the Atlantic side. But it still at 84.5N. The period from Dec 4th to present you can see the temperature bottomed out at -45C. The warmest was -15C. the black line is the average high temp from, Dec 4th to present not March 13th. about -31-33C for the period where the buoy tracked. Arctic temp anomalies this far in are very even. the ESRL maps show the buoys path had temps of -30 to -33C. So it is hard to say how accurate that is. It looks like it is very close to that overall. Quite a few quick warm ups, but also a lot of steady -30 to -37C weather. With the last two buoys teh Canadian side was much closer to average, while the Russian side one was way above, this clearly is from the warm air intrustions from the south that has been the barents plague all winter. anways, I wanted to show we do have a very good net work of arctic temps. I have no idea why they do not collaborate more with these companies and govt divisions running these programs. Those are not even all of the buoys out there. The Russian side has less but also has land stations far out there as well. Eitther way there is plenty of data to give the temp data sets very accurate Arctic temps. Instead of all this extrapolation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 UAH in for February: www.drroyspencer.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I have no doubt that the data points above are accurate - the sine wave however was apparently appended by Dr. Roy for 'entertainment purposes only'. I'd think that a graph purporting to have some scientific validity might forgo adding 'entertaining' embellishments, particularly when these embellishments might serve to misrepresent the data to the less than discerning viewer. The UAH data is having enough problems retaining credibility as it slides further and further from surface temperatures and RSS without being presented on 'entertaining' graphs. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 The UAH data is having enough problems retaining credibility as it slides further and further from surface temperatures and RSS without being presented on 'entertaining' graphs. Terry Throwing out data because it doesn't agree with one's predetermined beliefs is pure denial. That is ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Throwing out data because it doesn't agree with one's predetermined beliefs is pure denial. That is ironic. If that's an example of your reading comprehension, your inability to understand AGW is understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I have no doubt that the data points above are accurate - the sine wave however was apparently appended by Dr. Roy for 'entertainment purposes only'. I'd think that a graph purporting to have some scientific validity might forgo adding 'entertaining' embellishments, particularly when these embellishments might serve to misrepresent the data to the less than discerning viewer. The UAH data is having enough problems retaining credibility as it slides further and further from surface temperatures and RSS without being presented on 'entertaining' graphs. Terry I like UAH readings, they arent tainted by urban heat islands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Throwing out data because it doesn't agree with one's predetermined beliefs is pure denial. That is ironic. Hes the master at it. Whatever is posted to contradict his desired result is tossed out and whoever made the chart is an oil industry shrill. Thats AGW-101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 This has been a strong La Nina that is is quickly fading away. The southern hemisphere land masses the next ten days stay pretty warm with no major cold air intrusions out side of a short lived one in South Africa days 3-5 and Australia for most of the period except a few days will have some cold air intrustions. The CONUS is expected to relatively torch day 4-5 for a few weeks with some cold air intrustions. But the larger anomalies will come with the large downsloping airmasses coming from the tropics/Mexico/GOM. These airmasses are potentially large and warm. There will be cold in Asia and Europe. But also a period of warm winds coming into Europe. The arctic is about to have a huge warm air intrustion with a wide area of way above average temps. The USA will get warmer and possible have an extended warm period. The Snow line will matter as it will affect albedo. El Nino coming matters with heat release and more warming. The Sun is becoming more active or is steadily active. Pending on the Nino it will be hard to say where the globals go. I think we will see two pretty sharp increases in global temps in March that will bring 2012 closer to the global pack by the end of the month. With a monly anomaly around +.11C I know I am probably leaving a bunch of stuff out, but I have never made a global forecast so I figured I would start with a few paramaters to consider. If it doesn't work out, oh well, I just hope I can learn something going forward. I think if we end up with ENSO running positive by summer or even a weak NINO by September we will see anomalies in the .3 to .4C range globally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I like UAH readings, they arent tainted by urban heat islands. Do you understand that the AMSU sensors don't actually read temperature data at all? The RSS and UAH temperature vlaues are indirect measurements in which the AMSUs sense several channels of microwave emissions from O2 in the atmosphere and use models of the relationship between temperature and microwave emission to derive temperature values. The microwaves are the proxy for the true temperatures. And do you understand that the satellites carrying the AMSU units aren't hovering and making continuous readings? Most of the satellites have been launched in sun-synchronous orbits in which they measure swaths of data at the same local time on each pass. For example, NOAA-18 crosses the equator at 1400 local time on the ascending limb of every orbit. For most of the Earth, an AMSU sensor will measure only one daytime and one night time data point for a given location, and the model has to extrapolate that into minimum and maximum temperature values for that day. Since UAH began generating global temperature values back in 1979 there have been a number of adjustments to the temperature records as errors were discovered in the orbital dynamics model, the sensor performance model, and the proxy to temperature model. UAH has annouced that yet another adjustment is in the works and should be released shortly. It almost certainly won't be the last data adjustment. The same is true of the RSS temperature records. How are the models calibrated? By direct temperature readings from ground stations and from airborne sensors such as radiosondes. So - given a choice between direct temperature measurements (GISS, HADCRUT, NCDS) and model outputs derived from proxies (RSS, UAH), which you put more faith in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowstorms Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 The southern hemisphere land masses the next ten days stay pretty warm with no major cold air intrusions out side of a short lived one in South Africa days 3-5 and Australia for most of the period except a few days will have some cold air intrustions. The CONUS is expected to relatively torch day 4-5 for a few weeks with some cold air intrustions. But the larger anomalies will come with the large downsloping airmasses coming from the tropics/Mexico/GOM. These airmasses are potentially large and warm. There will be cold in Asia and Europe. But also a period of warm winds coming into Europe. The arctic is about to have a huge warm air intrustion with a wide area of way above average temps. The USA will get warmer and possible have an extended warm period. The Snow line will matter as it will affect albedo. El Nino coming matters with heat release and more warming. The Sun is becoming more active or is steadily active. Pending on the Nino it will be hard to say where the globals go. I think we will see two pretty sharp increases in global temps in March that will bring 2012 closer to the global pack by the end of the month. With a monly anomaly around +.11C I know I am probably leaving a bunch of stuff out, but I have never made a global forecast so I figured I would start with a few paramaters to consider. If it doesn't work out, oh well, I just hope I can learn something going forward. I think if we end up with ENSO running positive by summer or even a weak NINO by September we will see anomalies in the .3 to .4C range globally. Excellent points but a few things; You seem to be jumping the El Nino board to quickly and many did that last year as well. IMO what occurs from about Late March thru early June will likely determine what sort of ENSO is in store for the following Winter. This warming that was observed across the ENSO regions was related with the MJO which progressed thru phases 7,8,1 creating Kelvin Waves that propagated Eastwards and weakened the La Nina considerably but with the MJO now retreating back towards Phases 3-6 I dont think we'll see any sort of Kelvin Waves developing. The MJO signal can override the ENSO signal btw. http://www.atmos.albany.edu/student/carl/weather/timeLon/u.anom.30.5S-5N.png Strong Low level Easterlies have returned once again and the latest SOI value stands at 18.09. I'd wait til atleast March 20th before making any calls about temperature anomalies for March. But a weak Nino next year wouldn't be bad. The back-back Nina's have really killed off the STJ thus we haven't seen any strong storms at all this year across NA compared to last year where we had a couple since 09-10 was a strong Nino. The atmosphere globally still represents a typical Nina anomaly with the GLAAM tanking, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/reanalysis/aam_total/gltotaam.sig.90day.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I like UAH readings, they arent tainted by urban heat islands. Neither are the numerous surface temperature analysis (GISS, HadCRUT, NOAA, BEST etc.). All use various methods to account for UHI and it has been demonstrated numerous times with many different methods that the UHI effect is successfully removed. This is a myth propagated by denier blogs which has been refuted over and over again in the peer-reviewed literature and other scientific sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 For Europe and central Asia, winter plays catch-up in February http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/image/2012/for-europe-and-central-asia-winter-plays-catch-up-in-february Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 El Nino is coming on strong. It should be interesting to see how it does with PDO switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 RSS out for Feb.....2nd coldest monthly anomoly in 18.5 years: http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt 2011 1 0.086 -0.299 0.213 0.390 1.804 -0.098 -0.789 0.043 0.131 2011 2 0.053 -0.221 0.057 0.361 -0.103 -0.584 -0.553 -0.010 0.118 2011 3 -0.027 -0.284 0.214 0.011 1.388 0.098 0.074 0.058 -0.115 2011 4 0.106 -0.157 0.367 0.129 0.562 0.087 0.131 0.208 -0.000 2011 5 0.124 -0.027 0.231 0.183 0.810 -0.170 -0.466 0.172 0.073 2011 6 0.296 0.165 0.468 0.262 0.892 0.431 0.524 0.372 0.216 2011 7 0.327 0.232 0.538 0.210 0.583 0.607 1.427 0.414 0.236 2011 8 0.287 0.212 0.565 0.074 0.759 0.692 1.187 0.433 0.133 2011 9 0.288 0.155 0.522 0.190 1.001 0.926 0.258 0.382 0.189 2011 10 0.090 -0.061 0.357 -0.024 0.633 0.133 -0.075 0.206 -0.031 2011 11 0.032 0.024 0.102 -0.034 0.596 -0.010 0.326 0.075 -0.013 2011 12 0.115 0.028 0.236 0.085 0.577 -0.378 0.616 0.164 0.063 2012 1 -0.059 -0.113 -0.052 -0.006 0.632 -0.551 1.594 -0.076 -0.042 2012 2 -0.121 -0.157 -0.024 -0.182 1.207 -0.189 0.633 -0.071 -0.172 1993 9 -0.272 2008 5 -0.130 2012 2 -0.121 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 RSS out for Feb.....2nd coldest monthly anomoly in 18.5 years: http://www.remss.com...Ocean_v03_3.txt 2011 1 0.086 -0.299 0.213 0.390 1.804 -0.098 -0.789 0.043 0.131 2011 2 0.053 -0.221 0.057 0.361 -0.103 -0.584 -0.553 -0.010 0.118 2011 3 -0.027 -0.284 0.214 0.011 1.388 0.098 0.074 0.058 -0.115 2011 4 0.106 -0.157 0.367 0.129 0.562 0.087 0.131 0.208 -0.000 2011 5 0.124 -0.027 0.231 0.183 0.810 -0.170 -0.466 0.172 0.073 2011 6 0.296 0.165 0.468 0.262 0.892 0.431 0.524 0.372 0.216 2011 7 0.327 0.232 0.538 0.210 0.583 0.607 1.427 0.414 0.236 2011 8 0.287 0.212 0.565 0.074 0.759 0.692 1.187 0.433 0.133 2011 9 0.288 0.155 0.522 0.190 1.001 0.926 0.258 0.382 0.189 2011 10 0.090 -0.061 0.357 -0.024 0.633 0.133 -0.075 0.206 -0.031 2011 11 0.032 0.024 0.102 -0.034 0.596 -0.010 0.326 0.075 -0.013 2011 12 0.115 0.028 0.236 0.085 0.577 -0.378 0.616 0.164 0.063 2012 1 -0.059 -0.113 -0.052 -0.006 0.632 -0.551 1.594 -0.076 -0.042 2012 2 -0.121 -0.157 -0.024 -0.182 1.207 -0.189 0.633 -0.071 -0.172 1993 9 -0.272 2008 5 -0.130 2012 2 -0.121 So it is the 2nd coldest on RSS but the 21st coldest on UAH in the last 18.5 years, if I count correctly. Yet another demonstration of the large disparities and uncertainties between UAH and RSS. UAH has warmed much more than RSS in the last 15 years because they use different methods to account for uncertainties regarding satellite drift. Which is why the satellite sources have about twice as much uncertainty associated with them over a 30-yr period as the surface sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 So it is the 2nd coldest on RSS but the 21st coldest on UAH in the last 18.5 years, if I count correctly. Yet another demonstration of the large disparities and uncertainties between UAH and RSS. UAH has warmed much more than RSS in the last 15 years because they use different methods to account for uncertainties regarding satellite drift. Which is why the satellite sources have about twice as much uncertainty associated with them over a 30-yr period as the surface sources. Meh.....they are all trending about the same....if there is a divergence, then we'd need to look deeper.....otherwise take an average of all the global measurement data and call it good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Meh.....they are all trending about the same....if there is a divergence, then we'd need to look deeper.....otherwise take an average of all the global measurement data and call it good. Does this look about the same to you? Start looking deeper (of course I just explained that they diverge because there are large uncertainties associated with both). Over this 14+ yr period RSS barely warmed at all, while UAH warmed .14C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Does this look about the same to you? Start looking deeper (of course I just explained that they diverge because there are large uncertainties associated with both). Over this 14+ yr period RSS barely warmed at all, while UAH warmed .14C. My point was more the sats vs. the grounds. Start looking to be less confrontational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Does this look about the same to you? Start looking deeper (of course I just explained that they diverge because there are large uncertainties associated with both). Over this 14+ yr period RSS barely warmed at all, while UAH warmed .14C. UAH has a warm bias because of a satellite drift error, Roy Spencer said it right here: Progress continues on Version 6 of our global temperature dataset. You can anticipate a little cooler anomalies than recently reported, maybe by a few hundredths of a degree, due to a small warming drift we have identified in one of the satellites carrying the AMSU instruments. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2012-0-09-deg-c/ http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.01Dec2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NittanyWx Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 ENSO is quickly wrapping up a Nina and heading towards a weak summer NINO. Are you treating this as a foregone conclusion? Is this your forecast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 UAH has a warm bias because of a satellite drift error, Roy Spencer said it right here: http://www.drroyspen...012-0-09-deg-c/ http://www.nsstc.uah...eadme.01Dec2011 I am aware of this minor issue. "A few hundredths of a degree" does not come remotely close to explaining the .14C disparity over the last 14 years. .14C is over an order of magnitude greater than a few hundredths of a degree. There are large uncertainties (and thus probably large inaccuracies) associated with both satellite sources, which is why they exhibit such large disparities, even over a 15+ year periods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I am aware of this minor issue. "A few hundredths of a degree" does not come remotely close to explaining the .14C disparity over the last 14 years. .14C is over an order of magnitude greater than a few hundredths of a degree. There are large uncertainties (and thus probably large inaccuracies) associated with both satellite sources, which is why they exhibit such large disparities, even over a 15+ year periods. GISS has a trend of 0.10C per decade since 1997 while Hadcrut has a trend of 0.01C per decade....an order of magnitude difference. Looks like we should "look deeper" on the surface too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 GISS has a trend of 0.10C per decade since 1997 while Hadcrut has a trend of 0.01C per decade....an order of magnitude difference. Looks like we should "look deeper" on the surface too. The Arctic has warmed significantly though, and HadCRUT doesn't analyze a good deal of the polar regions, so that may explain the divergence there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 The Arctic has warmed significantly though, and HadCRUT doesn't analyze a good deal of the polar regions, so that may explain the divergence there. RSS covers less of the arctic than UAH... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.