beneficii Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I refuted the article cleanly, without Giant capital letters, based on why the claims are, really, full of sh*t. Liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Its troubling because Low Level Cloud cover shouldn't decrease in a warming planet. They don't even say where the error is, what the error is, & how it should be corrected. Its like shooting arrows for the purpose of publicity & show. "OK....uhhhhhhh, welllllllll, we thinnnk that the data doesn't fit with expectations from modeled feedbacks/AR, so it must be badddddd".... Wrong. That's not what it says at all. It says what the error is, how it could be corrected (it says a linear regression could partially correct it). By making things up, you will not persuade anybody and you will not be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Wrong. That's not what it says at all. It says what the error is, how it could be corrected (it says a linear regression could partially correct it). By making things up, you will not persuade anybody and you will not be taken seriously. I'm reading it now, it says none of that. It is using what we presume about GCC & atmospheric feedbacks to put the measurements in doubt. The problem is, the basis for the argument that the GCC data is seriously flawed, cannot be supported unless there is conflicting data of the same subject... as in, another source of measurement... since we have no other way of measuring GCC... this is the only data we have, so there is nothing of substance in the argument... satellite data cannot be compared to modeled forcings. Will there be errors in data measurement? Of course, all data measurement has realtively significant error. However, even significant error in the GCC analysis may not change the results in the end... because presumed feedbacks we takre into account have been badly flawed as well. Remember, this is ther only GCC measurement technique & source we have....... & even the IPCC has noted that it is paying attention to GCC in its 2014 report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Obviously you don't understand what the paper is saying. More cloud cover is detected at the edges of the satellites field of view. As you can imagine, high angle measurements relative to the satellites field of view pass through more of the earth's atmosphere because they pass through it at a higher angle. Therefore they detect more cloud cover. Many many geostationary satellites were used to collect the data. The number of satellites used has steadily increased. Therefore, more of the earth is covered by low-angle measurements instead of high-angle measurements that detect more cloud cover. This has caused a strong negative bias in the data. The data set has steadily replaced wide view high angle measurements from fewer geostationary satellites, with narrow view low angle measurements from more geostationary satellites. Because low-angle measurements that look straight down instead of passing through the atmosphere at an angle detect less cloud cover, when you replace high-angle measurements with low-angle measurements, you artificially decrease the cloud cover. It's very simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Obviously you don't understand what the paper is saying. More cloud cover is detected at the edges of the satellites field of view. As you can imagine, high angle measurements relative to the satellites field of view pass through more of the earth's atmosphere because they pass through it at a higher angle. Therefore they detect more cloud cover. Many many geostationary satellites were used to collect the data. The number of satellites used has steadily increased. Therefore, more of the earth is covered by low-angle measurements instead of high-angle measurements that detect more cloud cover. This has caused a strong negative bias in the data. The data set has steadily replaced wide view high angle measurements from fewer geostationary satellites, with narrow view low angle measurements from more geostationary satellites. Because low-angle measurements that look straight down instead of passing through the atmosphere at an angle detect less cloud cover, when you replace high-angle measurements with low-angle measurements, you artificially decrease the cloud cover. It's very simple really. This is why there is something called calibration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 This is why there is something called calibration And the data has not been calibrated for this particular kind of error. The study I have directed you to a half dozen times demonstrates using the FINAL data that the trend in the final data is due to areas that were previously at the edge of the field of view of a geostationary satellite, but are now directly beneath a new satellite that has been added. These are the areas that have had decreased cloud cover. It's extremely unlikely that by chance the areas that have shown a decrease in cloud cover would just so happen to be where we have repleased high-angle measurements with low-angle measurements. This is all using the "final" data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 And the data has not been calibrated for this particular kind of error. The study I have directed you to a half dozen times demonstrates using the FINAL data that the trend in the final data is due to areas that were previously at the edge of the field of view of a geostationary satellite, but are now directly beneath a new satellite that has been added. These are the areas that have had decreased cloud cover. It's extremely unlikely that by chance the areas that have shown a decrease in cloud cover would just so happen to be where we have repleased high-angle measurements with low-angle measurements. This is all using the "final" data. lol... did you really just say that its not calibrated for switching data modes? I hope you were joking, for your sake. ISCCP, and anyone else, would be forced to calibrate if they're changing data modes, otherwise they chuck 1/2 of the processed data when they switch over, and the deviations from the norm (yearly) base would be altered, which they are not. The article you linked does not go into detail PROVING the measurements are incorrect..... they state "likely" based on the "possibility" that the data is being processed incorrectly.....hence the title "arguments against ISCCP". Thats all it is bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 lol... did you really just say that its not calibrated for switching data modes? I hope you were joking, for your sake. ISCCP, and anyone else, would be forced to calibrate if they're changing data modes, otherwise they chuck 1/2 of the processed data when they switch over, and the deviations from the norm (yearly) base would be altered, which they are not. The article you linked does not go into detail PROVING the measurements are incorrect..... they state "likely" based on the "possibility" that the data is being processed incorrectly.....hence the title "arguments against ISCCP". Thats all it is bro. The FINAL data shows that only certain areas of the globe have experienced cloud cover loss and those areas just so happen to be where a switch from high-angle to low-angle satellite measurements has been made. This is conclusive proof that the switch from high-angle to low-angle measurements was not properly calibrated. No idea what you mean by switching data "modes." There is no switch in data modes. There is a switch between high angle measurements and low angle measurements as old satellites are replaced with more new ones. Even GEWEX who is responsible for ISCCP gives says in their reports that ISCCP data has dubious long-term trends. So not even the producers of the data believe the data is correct. Except you are quite sure its correct because you are in denial. Also, I am not your bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 The FINAL data shows that only certain areas of the globe have experienced cloud cover loss and those areas just so happen to be where a switch from high-angle to low-angle satellite measurements has been made. This is conclusive proof that the switch from high-angle to low-angle measurements was not properly calibrated. No idea what you mean by switching data "modes." There is no switch in data modes. There is a switch between high angle measurements and low angle measurements as old satellites are replaced with more new ones. Even GEWEX who is responsible for ISCCP gives says in their reports that ISCCP data has dubious long-term trends. So not even the producers of the data believe the data is correct. Except you are quite sure its correct because you are in denial. Also, I am not your bro. What a stupid post. If you're going to respond, try to understand the data HAS to be calibrated if they're changing the method of collection or adding more satellites... methods otherwise known as a "modes". And a group of 5 scientists who think the data has errors doesn't carry ANY weight into the field..... they cannot conclude that the data is "certainly" error prone, in their words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 What a stupid post. If you're going to respond, try to understand the data HAS to be calibrated if they're changing the method of collection or adding more satellites... methods otherwise known as a "modes". And a group of 5 scientists who think the data has errors doesn't carry ANY weight into the field..... they cannot conclude that the data is "certainly" error prone, in their words. The producers of the data also say the data contains errors and any trends should not be taken literally. You are in denial. The people who MAKE the data say not to use it for trends. See GEWEX. If you would like, I will send them an email. They don't have to calibrate. When they replace a satellite with two new ones, they simply take the raw measurements for cloud cover in each of the satellites view and combine them. They have not accounted for the fact that by using 2 satellites to cover the same area the angle of measurement will be lower, and the satellite will therefore detect less cloud cover. NOBODY uses this data anymore. You are in denial because you have been prancing around posting this chart of cloud cover all over the internet for the last year claiming it explains all the warming and disproves AGW. Sorry to bust your bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 No ones in denial, I think you're just stupid. Change in measurements HAVE to be calibrated...you cannot just change the way you measure then analyze them the same way! Even Jim Hansen knows better than that. Lets not forget that this data IS widely used in scientific research. Any dataset will have errors, on a relative scale. Relatively speaking, they themselves never saud "there are immense errors in our data". More BS from you. The people who CREATE the data say that it should not be used for trend analysis. You are literally the only person who thinks otherwise. See GEWEX. They have been calibrated... INCORRECTLY. You have satellite X measuring a large area and it is measuring X amount of cloudiness. You replace satellite X with satellites Y and Z which each detect Y+Z cloudiness. You replace X with Y+Z in your data set. No calibration has been made for the fact that Y+Z are low angle measurements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 If anything, you're the only one who thinks the data has not been calibrated............ either that, or you do not know what "calibrated" means, either way, you fail yet again. Change in measurements have to be calibrated...as in, adjusted to fit the change in data collection! You cannot just change the way you measure then analyze them the same way... why you do not understand this...I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 If anything, you're the only one who thinks the data has not been calibrated............ either that, or you do not know what "calibrated" means, either way, you fail yet again. Change in measurements have to be calibrated...as in, adjusted to fit the change in data collection! You cannot just change the way you measure then analyze them the same way... why you do not understand this...I'm not sure. Yes they are calibrated but they are calibrated WRONG. There are literally dozens of calibrations done to the data. However, no calibration has been made for the change from high-angle to low-angle measurements. The people who create and process the data say it should not be used for trend analysis. See GEWEX. I think they would be familiar with their own data. I can email them if you like. I doubt it will make a difference though, since you are clearly in denial. The people who create and process it says that it contains large errors and that trends in global cloud cover are not known. Sorry to burst your bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Yes they are calibrated but they are calibrated WRONG. There are literally dozens of calibrations done to the data. However, no calibration has been made for the change from high-angle to low-angle measurements. The people who create and process the data say it should not be used for trend analysis. See GEWEX. I think they would be familiar with their own data. I can email them if you like. I doubt it will make a difference though, since you are clearly in denial. The people who create and process it says that it contains large errors and that trends in global cloud cover are not known. Sorry to burst your bubble. Sure, you can email them. I'd like to know how they were calibrated wrong, given they need to be as close to the "back-end norm" as possible. Your links explain why they feel the final data is wrong, or at least error filled, but they do not say HOW the data was mis-calibrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Sure, you can email them. I'd like to know how they were calibrated wrong, given they need to be as close to the "back-end norm" as possible. Your links explain why they feel the final data is wrong, or at least error filled, but they do not say HOW the data was mis-calibrated. Because it hasn't been calibrated at all for this type of error. The satellites basically just measure how opaque the atmosphere is in their field of view. Satellite X which has a large field of view and therefore high-angle measurements around the perimeter of its view, would hypothetically detect its field of view at a given moment as 63% opaque, while satellites Y and Z which cover the same area but have smaller fields of view individually and therefore low-angle measurements would collectively view the same field as 61% opaque. ISCCP has not made any adjustment for the above error. They have simply replaced the raw 'opaqueness' measurement of satellite X with the raw 'opaqueness' measurement of satellites Y and Z. I will email them tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Because it hasn't been calibrated at all for this type of error. The satellites basically just measure how opaque the atmosphere is in their field of view. Satellite X which has a large field of view and therefore high-angle measurements around the perimeter of its view, would hypothetically detect its field of view at a given moment as 63% opaque, while satellites Y and Z which cover the same area but have smaller fields of view individually and therefore low-angle measurements would collectively view the same field as 61% opaque. ISCCP has not made any adjustment for the above error. They have simply replaced the raw 'opaqueness' measurement of satellite X with the raw 'opaqueness' measurement of satellites Y and Z. I will email them tomorrow. Wrong It has to be calibrated for any possible error, there is no way around it. The notion that it has not been calibrated has NOT been "verified" by the scientists behind the many many satellites.............its a stupid conspiracy theory of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Wrong It has to be calibrated for any possible error, there is no way around it. The notion that it has not been calibrated has NOT been "verified" by the scientists behind the many many satellites.............its a stupid conspiracy theory of yours. The SCIENTISTS who MAKE the data say it has NOT been CALIBRATED for this particular type of error. WTF do you not understand about this? The PRODUCERS of the data say it is BAD. I think they understand their own data better than you do. Oh and let's not forget that the SSM/I satellite data DIRECTLY contradicts the ISCCP water vapor data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 WHERE IS THE FRIGGIN LINK? Lets see where the scientists claimed their own data was bad.....and they wouldn't fix it if it was bad........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I just emailed Dr. Rossow, the head of ISCCP. That should settle this if he responds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I just emailed Dr. Rossow, the head of ISCCP. That should settle this if he responds. kk, although I'd like to read your email. I'll email him too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 kk, although I'd like to read your email. I'll email him too. How about we not harass the poor man over an internet dispute. I will post my entire email and his entire email when he responds. If you are still unsatisfied, email him. Dear Dr. Rossow, I recently read the paper "Arguments against a physical long-term trend in ISCCP cloud amounts" and was wondering what your thoughts on the paper were. Should ISCCP data be used for long term trends? Is low-level cloud cover decreasing as much as ISCCP data shows? And if not, can a correction be made to the data? Thank you so much for any help you are able to provide, Signed XXXXX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 How about we not harass the poor man over an internet dispute. I will post my entire email and his entire email when he responds. If you are still unsatisfied, email him. Dear Dr. Rossow, I recently read the paper "Arguments against a physical long-term trend in ISCCP cloud amounts" and was wondering what your thoughts on the paper were. Should ISCCP data be used for long term trends? Is low-level cloud cover decreasing as much as ISCCP data shows? And if not, can a correction be made to the data? Thank you so much for any help you are able to provide, Signed XXXXX kk Although you didn't have to bleep out your name Andrew..... we're all aquaintances here i would hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 kk Although you didn't have to bleep out your name Andrew..... we're all aquaintances here i would hope. I don't want a conspiracy theorist lunatic like you knowing my last name. You've already threatened (and been suspended for it) enough people on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I don't want a conspiracy theorist lunatic like you knowing my last name. You've already threatened (and been suspended for it) enough people on here. good one I knew you were destined for stage acts when I read your first post. Who did I threaten? I'd like to know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I received a brief, rather curt response from Dr. Rossow this morning. I think he seems to feel that my question was rather stupid and that the answer is obvious (I think it is a stupid question too, I am simply asking it on behalf of you because you have ignored the copious evidence I have presented). He also doesn't seem to like the authors of the Evans et al. study because he claims to have published papers saying that ISCCP data should not be used for long term trends long before they did. I did not find these papers in my research, but I don't doubt that he has. Andrew, As I published long before this paper came out, one should not (yet) use ISCCP for long-term monitoring... the project was not designed for this purpose at all. Nevertheless, while it is useful to try to see what is going on as a test of the data, but one has to be much more careful and thorough than this particular study, which makes the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. So let's get this straight. The head of the ISCCP says that "One should not (yet) use ISCCP for long-term monitoring... the project was not designed for this purpose at all." This does not preclude using the data to examine month-month cloud variance or the spatial distribution of cloud cover. Numerous studies have compared model predictions of the spatial distribution of cloud cover to the ISCCP data, and this is the primary purpose of the ISCCP data. No doubt though, you will still believe the ISCCP data is good for long-term trends even though the head of the ISCCP says it is not. You should probably delete the several dozen posts in which you have tried to disprove AGW using ISCCP trend data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I received a brief, rather curt response from Dr. Rossow this morning. I think he seems to feel that my question was rather stupid and that the answer is obvious (I think it is a stupid question too, I am simply asking it on behalf of you because you have ignored the copious evidence I have presented). He also doesn't seem to like the authors of the Evans et al. study because he claims to have published papers saying that ISCCP data should not be used for long term trends long before they did. I did not find these papers in my research, but I don't doubt that he has. Andrew, As I published long before this paper came out, one should not (yet) use ISCCP for long-term monitoring... the project was not designed for this purpose at all. Nevertheless, while it is useful to try to see what is going on as a test of the data, but one has to be much more careful and thorough than this particular study, which makes the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. So let's get this straight. The head of the ISCCP says that "One should not (yet) use ISCCP for long-term monitoring... the project was not designed for this purpose at all." This does not preclude using the data to examine month-month cloud variance or the spatial distribution of cloud cover. Numerous studies have compared model predictions of the spatial distribution of cloud cover to the ISCCP data, and this is the primary purpose of the ISCCP data. No doubt though, you will still believe the ISCCP data is good for long-term trends even though the head of the ISCCP says it is not. You should probably delete the several dozen posts in which you have tried to disprove AGW using ISCCP trend data. huh? What does this have to do with data calibration error? Find ANY posts I've made that say "ISCCP data is good for Long Term Trends", because I've never stated that. My whole argument, the errors that you target do not exist, or are mis-interpreted This was my whole point on your linked "study"......the entire time! Read my responses... one has to be much more careful and thorough than this particular study, which makes the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation My point exactly..... The thing that bothers me about you....you jumble reasonings together as one issue, so I cannot properly assess what you're base point is. My responses have to do with the HANDLING OF DATA, not what it should be used for. His response says the data should not be used for long term trends.....I have never disagreed. However, I have stated my pet peeves against those who claim the data False, un-usable, & caused by calibration error....all not true. So, be specific when you debate someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 huh? What does this have to do with data calibration error? Find ANY posts I've made that say "ISCCP data is good for Long Term Trends", because I've never stated that. Oh I don't know.. perhaps the dozen or so posts where you have used ISCCP trends in GCC to claim that decreasing GCC is causing the warming. You are an incorrigible liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Oh I don't know.. perhaps the dozen or so posts where you have used ISCCP trends in GCC to claim that decreasing GCC is causing the warming. You are an incorrigible liar. get a CAT scan. I said it correlates with warming & UAH....not sure what you're talking about. Also, data "not being used for Long term trends" doesn't mean a basic outline cannot be drawn. Its also a given that decreasing LL GCC at that amount would cause immense warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I said it correlates with warming. Its also a given that decreasing LL GCC at that amount would cause warming. If ISCCP data SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR LONG TERM TRENDS, then you can't "CORRELATE" the trend in ISCCP data to ANYTHING. Classic case of denial. I am done with you.. you are making a fool of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'd like to get back on topic of Data Calibration error... which is what I've been arguing against the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.