Leaking Siberian Methane

[BethesdaWX]

The fact that global low level clouds have dropped in the last 30 years doesn't prove anything really.

By the wx balloon data I assume you are referring to the well known predicted equatorial 'hot spot' that was missing in the observations? I believe new observations have corrected the poor data that did not show the hot spot. Moreover, the lack of a hot spot would not disprove AGW theory. It would prove that we don't understand how AGW (or other types of warming) affect lapse rates. The presence of a hot spot would not confirm AGW and the lack of one would not disprove AGW, it's completely irrelevant. It is only relevant to the issue of how ANY type of warming affects lapse rates.

See Titchner 2009, Haimberger 2008, and Sherwood 2008 for information on the latest weather balloon observations of the hot spot which are generally consistent with climate model results.

Also:

http://www.skeptical...ic-hot-spot.htm

I checked your links on glacial ice and I could not find where it says there was less ice at both poles. Perhaps you can point me to which paragraphs you are referring to.

Dude, cloud cover is the reason for alot of the warming in the satellite era

What peer reviewed papers? The "Hotspot" is just a side-effect of what I'm reffering to in the deviations before & after 500hpa.

What you don't understand, 75% of the warming progged in the "Co2 models" rely off feedbacks that are BS

Here is why Observed warming has not fit in line with what would be expected of Co2 warming... there correlation being shown from models (explanation derived from Co2, as progged by GISS & the AGW hypothesis) in exactly how this can correlate to Co2 without the change.

Again, the "hotspot" is a side-effect of a larger issue, so going against the Hotspot, rather than the forcings themselves, is useless.

Resized to 63% (was 1022 x 707) - Click image to enlarge

In what we derive from, our Computer models are based upon the theory that Co2 is the underlying cause, & the feedbacks have been knowingly waaayyy to positive for a long time....observations confirm that the supposed reasoning for our current warming are not true, based on observation

What was modeled was Co2 based.... what was observed was Natural Based!

As for the MWP with less ice at both poles... cmon dude! How many times have I given you these links?

Antarctic hit by MWP

http://www.co2scienc...pantarctica.php

If you don't believe the NH glaciers were smaller with all the viking remains & tree/plant remains being found... I dont know what to tell you.

[BethesdaWX]

I see you posting within 30 seconds (again) skier... you didn't read the link, you probably didn't read my post. Damn.........

[skierinvermont]

I guess you didn't read what I wrote.

I already explained that EVEN IF there is no tropospheric hot spot that has NOTHING to do with whether AGW is causing our warming. Absolutely nothing.

Our current understanding is that ANY time the surface warms, there should be more warming in the troposphere due to an increase in lapse rates.

If that is not the case, all it means is we do not understand how warming (OF ANY KIND) effects lapse rates.

The presence of a tropospheric hot spot has nothing to do with what is causing our surface warming.

Second of all, you are using old data.

The most recent analyses of balloon data (I listed three references) are consistent with model expectations. Moreover, satellite data is consistent within the bounds of measurement uncertainty.

[skierinvermont]

I see you posting within 30 seconds (again) skier... you didn't read the link, you probably didn't read my post. Damn.........

I did read your post and you obviously did not understand what I wrote because your post is in no way a response to it.

You use OLDER DATA than that included in my post.

And you fail to understand that even if the troposphere is not warming as expected, that STILL has nothing to do with whether CO2 is the cause of the warming.

[BethesdaWX]

I guess you didn't read what I wrote.

I already explained that EVEN IF there is no tropospheric hot spot that has NOTHING to do with whether AGW is causing our warming. Absolutely nothing.

Our current understanding is that ANY time the surface warms, there should be more warming in the troposphere due to an increase in lapse rates.

If that is not the case, all it means is we do not understand how warming (OF ANY KIND) effects lapse rates.

Second of all, you are using old data.

The most recent analyses of balloon data (I listed three references) are consistent with model expectations. Moreover, satellite data is consistent within the bounds of measurement uncertainty.

Uhhhhhhh, say WHAT?!?! Are you ok?!

I was talking about model feedback.... what were you talking about? I'm definitely going to save this one...classic example of little understandong from not reading.

Cloud cover is one of the feedbacks....GCC, as you can see in my post, has had a major effect on GT's.

Read the link I posted on the Antarctic for the MWP if you want to.

To save you the trouble...

http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpantarctica.php

[skierinvermont]

Uhhhhhhh, say WHAT?!?! Are you ok?!

I was talking about model feedback.... what were you talking about? I'm definitely going to save this one...classic example of little understandong from not reading.

Cloud cover is one of the feedbacks....GCC, as you can see in my post, has had a major effect on GT's.

Read the link I posted on the Antarctic for the MWP if you want to.

To save you the trouble...

http://www.co2scienc...pantarctica.php

Please quote the paragraph where it says there was less ice at both poles during the MWP.

You have no idea what effect the drop in GCC has had.. you are simply noting the correlation. Yes it would have caused some warming, but you have no idea how much.

I did read what you wrote and the links therein and they are garbage and irrelevant. They use old data and they fail to understand that EVEN IF the troposphere were not warming as fast as the surface, that would be a reflection on our understanding of LAPSE RATES .. NOT AGW. The balloon data is old. New balloon data shows the hot spot.

[BethesdaWX]

Please quote the paragraph where it says there was less ice at both poles during the MWP.

You have no idea what effect the drop in GCC has had.. you are simply noting the correlation. Yes it would have caused some warming, but you have no idea how much.

I did read what you wrote and the links therein and they are garbage and irrelevant. They use old data and they fail to understand that EVEN IF the troposphere were not warming as fast as the surface, that would be a reflection on our understanding of LAPSE RATES .. NOT AGW. The balloon data is old. New balloon data shows the hot spot.

The link was done by legit scientists which you are not. I'm not your friggin slave, read the link youself if you want proof that the antarctic had less ice in the MWP.

Seriously... " no one knows the exactl correlation" as you say? BINGO! Same goes for Co2, Solar, etc. Bad example.. we humans don't know sh*t about the climate. Thats why we make hypothesis based upon correlations.

You're off topic, I was speaking of Model Feedbacks......and I suggest you post sources if you don't want me riding you constantly, because I'm only going to ride you harder the longer you keep this up!

[skierinvermont]

The link was done by legit scientists which you are not. I'm not your friggin slave, read the link youself if you want proof that the antarctic had less ice in the MWP.

Seriously... " no one knows the exactl correlation" as you say? BINGO! Same goes for Co2, Solar, etc. Bad example.. we humans don't know sh*t about the climate. Thats why we make hypothesis based upon correlations.

You're off topic, I was speaking of Model Feedbacks......and I suggest you post sources if you don't want me riding you constantly, because I'm only going to ride you harder the longer you keep this up!

I posted a half dozen references backing up my statements. I guess you didn't read them. Not my problem, and not surprising to me in the slightest.

The fact that Co2 is the cause of the warming is not based on correlation, it is based on physics. The fact that GCC happens to correlate over the last 27 years doesn't mean a whole lot on its own.

Finally, the link you posted concerning ice at the poles during the MWP was not done by scientists. It is from a skeptic blog site. You need to learn what a reliable source is. Granted, it seems to be better than other skeptic blogs because it actually references the peer reviewed literature.

If you want me to believe that the ice was less at the poles during the MWP, quote it and point me to the paragraph. You've read it apparently, it should take you all of 5 seconds. Otherwise I call BS. From what I have read we do not have good glacier data back that far. Good GLOBAL glacier data only goes back to about 1600.

[BethesdaWX]

I posted a half dozen references backing up my statements. I guess you didn't read them. Not my problem, and not surprising to me in the slightest.

The fact that Co2 is the cause of the warming is not based on correlation, it is based on physics. The fact that GCC happens to correlate over the last 27 years doesn't mean a whole lot on its own.

Finally, the link you posted concerning ice at the poles during the MWP was not done by scientists. It is from a skeptic blog site. You need to learn what a reliable source is. Granted, it seems to be better than other skeptic blogs because it actually references the peer reviewed literature.

If you want me to believe that the ice was less at the poles during the MWP, quote it and point me to the paragraph. You've read it apparently, it should take you all of 5 seconds. Otherwise I call BS. From what I have read we do not have good glacier data back that far. Good GLOBAL glacier data only goes back to about 1600.

Fail.

1) What references did I post that backed you up? Thats BS. This coming from the dude who doesn't know the difference between model feedback & the hotspot

2) Again, quit contradicting yourself. What we CAN take away from GCC decrease... it has nothing to do with CO2... and it has had an impact based on the fact that temps follow it perfectly by a lag of 2 months. What caused GCC to drop? Well, most likely, its the Sun.

3) Again.. Open the f**king link, the RESEARCH was done by scientists, which you are not. Some of them are

http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpantarctica.php

-Harris 2003

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N21/C1.php

-Noon et al 2003

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N30/C3.php

And 5 others. If you dont want to read it, that proves you're in denial.

4) This isn't glacier data, this is based on the Plant findings, human remains, higher global treeline remains, all this is in the LINKS!

Thankyou

[skierinvermont]

You are incorrigible. I don't even know whose posts you are responding to because your post is completely unrelated to mine.

I said that I posted links backing up assertions made about the hot spot. Here they are again:

See Titchner 2009, Haimberger 2008, and Sherwood 2008 for information on the latest weather balloon observations of the hot spot which are generally consistent with climate model results.

Also:

http://www.skeptical...ic-hot-spot.htm

You have asserted that there was less ice at the poles during the MWP. Please quote something that supports this. The first link you provided above regards a warm period 5000 years ago. The next provides anecdotal evidence of some regional warmth 2000 years ago. I have asked half a dozen times for the quotes and citations showing that there was less ice at the poles during the MWP. If you cannot provide the quotes with citations I will assume you are talking out of your ass.

[BethesdaWX]

You are incorrigible. I don't even know whose posts you are responding to because your post is completely unrelated to mine.

I said that I posted links backing up assertions made about the hot spot.

You have asserted that there was less ice at the poles during the MWP. Please quote something that supports this. The first link you provided above regards a warm period 5000 years ago. The next provides anecdotal evidence of some regional warmth 2000 years ago. I have asked half a dozen times for the quotes and citations showing that there was less ice at the poles during the MWP. If you cannot provide the quotes with citations I will assume you are talking out of your ass.

What the bloody hell? What is it with you & the hotspot? My post that you incorrectly responded to was not about the friggin hotspot! Sh*t!.

This 1 link will answer EVERYTHING on the MWP for you..its based on & linked to peer-reviewed studies.....read it all, it should take you a few weeks.. I read it all.

http://www.co2scienc...ta/mwp/mwpp.php

[skierinvermont]

What the bloody hell? What is it with you & the hotspot? My post that you incorrectly responded to was not about the friggin hotspot! Sh*t!.

This 1 link will answer EVERYTHING on the MWP for you..its based on & linked to peer-reviewed studies.....read it all, it should take you a few weeks.. I read it all.

http://www.co2scienc...ta/mwp/mwpp.php

You mis-read my post as "references you posted" when my post said "references I posted." The references in question were concerning the hotspot and the fact that whether it exists or not, it is irrelevant to whether the warming is due to CO2. And regardless, the most recent balloon data and several satellite studies show that the hotspot exists, as expected.

Sorry I am not spending a few weeks reading a bloody skeptic blog. It should be fairly simple to draw out enough quotations to support the claim that there was less ice at both poles during the MWP.

[BethesdaWX]

You mis-read my post as "references you posted" when my post said "references I posted." The references in question were concerning the hotspot and the fact that whether it exists or not, it is irrelevant to whether the warming is due to CO2. And regardless, the most recent balloon data and several satellite studies show that the hotspot exists, as expected.

Sorry I am not spending a few weeks reading a bloody skeptic blog. It should be fairly simple to draw out enough quotations to support the claim that there was less ice at both poles during the MWP.

-You don't have to read the entire thing, just click on the Antarctica, & Arctic, & read for 10 minutes, and you'll be going through your beloved peer reviewed papers to assure credibility. Its simple, you're an adult, you can do it yourself.

Who cares if I misread "you" for "I"? The hotspot wasn't the focus though is the problem here, that has nothing to do with the incorrect dynamics programmed into the models in the 2 sequences, no matter the HPA! The dynamical errors of the atmospheric feedbacks as low as 500-700HPA were revealed in the analysis of the models.. they failed. This accounts for 75% of the predicted warming in our future.

[skierinvermont]

-You don't have to read the entire thing, just click on the Antarctica, & Arctic, & read for 10 minutes, and you'll be going through your beloved peer reviewed papers to assure credibility. Its simple, you're an adult, you can do it yourself.

Who cares if I misread "you" for "I"? The hotspot wasn't the focus though is the problem here, that has nothing to do with the incorrect dynamics programmed into the models in the 2 sequences, no matter the HPA! The dynamical errors of the atmospheric feedbacks as low as 500-700HPA were revealed in the analysis of the models.. they failed. This accounts for 75% of the predicted warming in our future.

I will read through it again tomorrow.. I have already skimmed it several times and found no evidence to support the claim of less ice at both poles during the MWP.

There is no error in the model forecast temperature at 500-700HPA.. claims that such errors were occurring are based off of old data. New data reveals that the observation conforms to theory.

Even if there were errors in forecast temp at 500-700HPA, it wouldn't mean the feedbacks are wrong. The primary feedback is water vapor, which would not be too dependent on lapse rates although that would have some effect. Lapse rates would effect cloud cover though but not enough to significantly alter the climate sensitivity of 3C/doubling.

[BethesdaWX]

I will read through it again tomorrow.. I have already skimmed it several times and found no evidence to support the claim of less ice at both poles during the MWP.

There is no error in the model forecast temperature at 500-700HPA.. claims that such errors were occurring are based off of old data. New data reveals that the observation conforms to theory.

Even if there were errors in forecast temp at 500-700HPA, it wouldn't mean the feedbacks are wrong. The primary feedback is water vapor, which would not be too dependent on lapse rates although that would have some effect. Lapse rates would effect cloud cover though but not enough to significantly alter the climate sensitivity of 3C/doubling.

1) Here I'll cut a deal with you. Me having read through it.....if you cannot find anything after reading through it yourself, I'll post 10 quotes, 5 for each pole (NH & SH), proving the issue. Is that fair?

2) Changing model feedback rates at differing HPA values have not been debunked...since the models themselves were the ones flawed, not the false feedback evidence in contradiction to such...I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Source?

3) One of the Large forcings of uncertainty is GCC. You correctly stated that we do not know exactly how much warming is due to the mass GCC loss at lowerlevels, but we do know that they correlate, we do know that it has nothing to do with CO2,and we know that 3% in 22 years is immense.

4) The water vapor decrease is actually somewhat tied into the drop in LL GCC, there has been less precip falling to earth, which is obviously not characteristic of a warming planet, where the water cycle should be sped up. So, if AGW is the real deal, something is overriding it, causing the GCC decrease & thus less global precip.>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ahem...the Sun.

[skierinvermont]

1) Here I'll cut a deal with you. Me having read through it.....if you cannot find anything after reading through it yourself, I'll post 10 quotes, 5 for each pole (NH & SH), proving the issue. Is that fair?

2) Changing model feedback rates at differing HPA values have not been debunked...since the models themselves were the ones flawed, not the false feedback evidence in contradiction to such...I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Source?

3) One of the Large forcings of uncertainty is GCC. You correctly stated that we do not know exactly how much warming is due to the mass GCC loss at lowerlevels, but we do know that they correlate, we do know that it has nothing to do with CO2,and we know that 3% in 22 years is immense.

4) The water vapor decrease is actually somewhat tied into the drop in LL GCC, there has been less precip falling to earth, which is obviously not characteristic of a warming planet, where the water cycle should be sped up. So, if AGW is the real deal, something is overriding it, causing the GCC decrease & thus less global precip.>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ahem...the Sun.

1) Fine. Customarily the one making the assertion provides the necessary quotes, excerpts etc. but since you don't want to do that I will.

2) Yes it has been debunked. The claims were based off OLD INACCURATE balloon data that has since been updated and corrected and is now in line with the models. New Satellite data also confirms the models vertical temperature profile. I already provided the link to these NEWER studies several times. Here they are again:

See Titchner 2009, Haimberger 2008, and Sherwood 2008 for information on the latest weather balloon observations of the hot spot which are generally consistent with climate model results.

Also:

http://www.skeptical...ic-hot-spot.htm

3) There are still large uncertainties in the GCC data, and even if it were correct it is not a big enough change to explain the warming. There is large disagreement between HIRS, PATMOS and ISCCP. You have only been using the ISCCP data.

In addition, the decrease in GCC is actually an expected effect of AGW according to the latest studies. See Dessler 2010. http://geotest.tamu..../dessler10b.pdf

4) Water vapor has not been decreasing. It has been increasing as shown by the multiple peer-reviewed studies below.

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

[skierinvermont]

In addition to my above post, I have provided you with some more information relating to cloud cover below, since you seem to have become fixated on cloud cover recently. The ISCCP data that you have been posting over and over contains large errors and is generally regarded as inaccurate. Notice how I have also provided you with the relevant excerpts, so that you do not have to spend days reading long journal articles.

Let me also remind, yet again, that this is why you MUST SOURCE YOUR DATA. You have posted this image dozens of times but never provided a source until I demanded one repeatedly and you finally sent my on a witch hunt across several skeptic blogs before finding the true source. As it turns out, the source, ISCCP, is generally regarded as inaccurate.

Trends in Observed Cloudiness and Earth’s Radiation Budget What Do We Not Know and What Do We Need to Know? – Norris & Slingo (2009) “Previous investigators have documented multidecadal variations in various cloud and radiation parameters, but no conclusive results are yet available. Problems include the lack of global and quantitative surface measurements, the shortness of the available satellite record, the inability to determine correctly cloud and aerosol properties from satellite data, many different kinds of inhomogeneities in the data, and insuffi cient precision to measure the small changes in cloudiness and radiation that nevertheless can have large impacts on the Earth’s climate.

http://meteora.ucsd...._and_Slingo.pdf

A Survey of Changes in Cloud Cover and Cloud Types over Land from Surface Observations, 1971–96 – Warren et al. (2007) “The global average trend of total cloud cover over land is small, -0.7% decade^-1, offsetting the small positive trend that had been found for the ocean, and resulting in no significant trend for the land–ocean average.”

http://www.atmos.was...CloudSurvey.pdf

Observed Interdecadal Changes in Cloudiness: Real or Spurious? – Norris (2007) “Substantial agreement exists between global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed upper-level cloud cover, indicating that the reported variations in this cloud type are likely to be real. … Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets. The global mean satellite total cloud cover time series appears spurious because the spatial pattern of correlations between grid box time series and the global mean time series closely resembles the fields of view of geostationary satellites rather than geophysical phenomena. The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997. Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature record.”

http://meteora.ucsd....wattRevised.pdf

Arguments against a physical long-term trend in global ISCCP cloud amounts – Evan et al. (2007) “Here we show that trends observed in the ISCCP data are satellite viewing geometry artifacts and are not related to physical changes in the atmosphere. Our results suggest that in its current form, the ISCCP data may not be appropriate for certain long-term global studies, especially those focused on trends.”

http://www.aos.wisc....al_GL028083.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Jeeeze, you posted a lot of links, took me 5hrs to read them all.

Alot of these links are going off the asumption that GCC at all levels between 1952-1997 did not expand because it is inconsistant with known trending & the applied forcing causations..........ahem....... We do not have satellite data before 1979 to determine the change in Albedo/GCC before then, & there was no increase in global temps between 1950-1976 regardless

The forcings emitted are not divergent either, because he fails to site whether he speaks of LOW LEVEL clouds, upper levels, etc. Low Level decrease results in less precip falling, which is a sign of the slowing of the water cycle.

To go on further,your claims are unsubstantiated because 1) recorded model/vs/OBS has already shown models to have the feedback error between 500-700HPA. LT modeling in general has sucked big fat pig balls. FYI, ECMWF initializations are no sure way to determine temps.

Source your claims on the "debunking".....obviously, what was observed & what was predicted essentially proves my point on model feedbacks.

That is absolutely absurd. 75% of feedbacks being progged are BS acording to OBS. You cannot debunk date that has already been processed! So, I'd like to see your sources.

Now,to head into ISCCP....alot of whats being shown is either assumption or a one sided viewpoint. Feedbacks differ betweh LL, UL, & ML.

1) Dessler didn't say anything about the decrease in Low Level GCC being AGW caused I have no friggin clue where you got that from....He states feedback is mostly positive... and uses cloud cover at all levels, upper levels increasing, lower levels decreasing... If lower levels are decreasing, there is less precipitation falling to earth, a sign of a weakening of the water cycle.

One cannot debunk measurements between LL GCC & GTA. When Discssing albedo, its important to make sure you do not change measurement techniques to a timeframe where no data is present (pre satelitte era). Again, under most circumstances its all relative, but in this case, it is not.

2) Uhhhh, duh! Even though we do not measure the same way now (a problem), the overall trend since 1950's/1970's is unchanged... my argument was the change since 1996 AT THE LOWER LEVELS....not the global average since 1971......what the heck? This cannot be invalid

[skierinvermont]

Jeeeze, you posted a lot of links, took me 5hrs to read them all.

That's interesting, since considerably less than 5 hours elapsed between the time of my posting them and your response.

Your response is largely incoherent and does not address the facts and arguments contained in my previous two posts. Therefore, I am going to refrain from spending a protracted period trying to respond to what is largely incoherent rambling, and let the facts, arguments and peer-reviewed studies that I have cited stand on their own.

The two charts you posted in the above link are factually incorrect and contain incorrect data. The correct data can be found in the following studies

Titchner 2009, Haimberger 2008, and Sherwood 2008 for information on the latest weather balloon observations of the hot spot which are generally consistent with climate model results.

Also:

http://www.skeptical...ic-hot-spot.htm

[BethesdaWX]

That's interesting, since considerably less than 5 hours elapsed between the time of my posting them and your response.

Your response is largely incoherent and does not address the facts and arguments contained in my previous two posts. Therefore, I am going to refrain from spending a protracted period trying to respond to what is largely incoherent rambling, and let the facts, arguments and peer-reviewed studies that I have cited stand on their own.

The two charts you posted in the above link are factually incorrect and contain incorrect data. The correct data can be found in the following studies

Titchner 2009, Haimberger 2008, and Sherwood 2008 for information on the latest weather balloon observations of the hot spot which are generally consistent with climate model results.

Also:

http://www.skeptical...ic-hot-spot.htm

Dude, have you heard of sarcasm?

Your response was the issue, not mine... because there is a difference between total GCC & its modeled forcings, VS Low Level GCC, measured by UAH. Correlations between the LL GCC drop & warming temps on UAH cannot be proven or disproven, but we know they gon hand in hand, whether they are both driven by the same forcing, or seperate forcings.

None of the links you posted disprove anything..... because its unrelated. Model feedback is the point of interest.......these model's predictions busted years ago, UAH/Satellites, Dropsondes, & OBS in general, for temperature, are what is being verified against.... Not GISS.

[skierinvermont]

Dude, have you heard of sarcasm?

Your response was the issue, not mine... because there is a difference between total GCC & its modeled forcings, VS Low Level GCC, measured by UAH. Correlations between the LL GCC drop & warming temps on UAH cannot be proven or disproven, but we know they gon hand in hand, whether they are both driven by the same forcing, or seperate forcings.

None of the links you posted disprove anything..... because its unrelated. Model feedback is the point of interest.......these model's predictions busted years ago, UAH/Satellites, Dropsondes, & OBS in general, for temperature, are what is being verified against.... Not GISS.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

LL GCC doesn't correlation with ANYTHING because we have no good LL GCC data. LL GCC is NOT measured by UAH where the **** do you you get that from? When you say things as ridiculous at that it really hurts your entire credibility.. it's as if you have zero familiarity with the science at all. GCC is measured by different satellites and different agencies NOT UAH. And there is no agreement -- we have no good LL GCC data. We have some decent agreement on high level clouds from HIRS.

None of the model feedbacks are in disagreement with observations significantly. You haven't brought up a single area in which the models are failing to verify.

[BethesdaWX]

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

LL GCC doesn't correlation with ANYTHING because we have no good LL GCC data. LL GCC is NOT measured by UAH. GCC is measured by different satellites and different agencies. And there is no agreement -- we have no good LL GCC data. We have some decent agreement on high level clouds from HIRS.

None of the model feedbacks are in disagreement with observations significantly. You haven't brought up a single area in which the models are failing to verify.

huh?

I posted LL GCC measurements earlier... we have no other way to measure GCC except through satellites, and hypothesized reasonings for invalid measurements at the Lower Levels hold no gound when the satellite itself shows no data malfunction... yet we believe HL measurements? haha

Again, read my post earlier on discussing the matter...computer models overestimated warming by 4X... as 75% of warming has come through BS feedbacks.

FYI, please excuse my use of "UAH" instead of "Satellite data"... I was rushing.

[skierinvermont]

huh?

I posted LL GCC measurements earlier...

Wow. Just wow.

Those measurements you posted came from ISCCP... which I gave a half dozen references showing that ISCCP data is widely regarded as wildly inaccurate.

You have gone prancing around posting that chart of global cloud cover from a source that is widely regarded as having no accuracy whatsoever.

Here, for the second time, is one of those studies explaining why ISCCP cloud cover data is wrong.

Arguments against a physical long-term trend in global ISCCP cloud amounts – Evan et al. (2007) “Here we show that trends observed in the ISCCP data are satellite viewing geometry artifacts and are not related to physical changes in the atmosphere. Our results suggest that in its current form, the ISCCP data may not be appropriate for certain long-term global studies, especially those focused on trends.”

http://www.aos.wisc....al_GL028083.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Wow. Just wow.

Those measurements you posted came from ISCCP... which I gave a half dozen references showing that ISCCP data is widely regarded as wildly inaccurate.

LOL....total flunk

Can you tell me who else is measuring GCC besides the ISCCP through satellites? And, who else is measuring LL GCC.... so we have something to verify this against?

I read your links... they do not provide ulterior measurements to offer against the data except assumptions that unless albedo increased between the 1950's-1970's, that its UNLIKELY.

[skierinvermont]

huh?

I posted LL GCC measurements earlier... we have no other way to measure GCC except through satellites, and hypothesized reasonings for invalid measurements at the Lower Levels hold no gound when the satellite itself shows no data malfunction... yet we believe HL measurements? haha

Again, read my post earlier on discussing the matter...computer models overestimated warming by 4X... as 75% of warming has come through BS feedbacks.

FYI, please excuse my use of "UAH" instead of "Satellite data"... I was rushing.

And I have already posted a half dozen references to satellite and balloon data showing that the data contained in your above charts is incorrect.

Go ahead and keep running into brick walls though.. it's quite entertaining.

[BethesdaWX]

And I have already posted a half dozen references to satellite and balloon data showing that the data contained in your above charts is incorrect.

Go ahead and keep running into brick walls though.. it's quite entertaining.

I bet you can't guess what models I'm talking about, can you?

Good... they proved their own models incorrect then since the models measured this.....congrats.

[skierinvermont]

LOL....total flunk

Can you tell me who else is measuring GCC besides the ISCCP through satellites? And, who else is measuring LL GCC.... so we have something to verify this against?

I read your links... they do not provide ulterior measurements to offer against the data except assumptions that unless albedo increased between the 1950's-1970's, that its UNLIKELY.

We don't have any good low level cloud cover data. All we know is that ISCCP is wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

LOL....total flunk

Can you tell me who else is measuring GCC besides the ISCCP through satellites? And, who else is measuring LL GCC.... so we have something to verify this against?

I read your links... they do not provide ulterior measurements to offer against the data except assumptions that unless albedo increased between the 1950's-1970's, that its UNLIKELY.

So, who else is measuring LL GCC, & GCC in general, through satellites?

Assumptions based on albedo.........haha++

[BethesdaWX]

We don't have any good low level cloud cover data. All we know is that ISCCP is wrong.

The links you posted do not in any way refute ISCCP, there is no science.

[skierinvermont]

The links you posted do not in any way refute ISCCP, there is no science.

One last time:

Arguments against a physical long-term trend in global ISCCP cloud amounts – Evan et al. (2007) “Here we show that trends observed in the ISCCP data are satellite viewing geometry artifacts and are not related to physical changes in the atmosphere. Our results suggest that in its current form, the ISCCP data may not be appropriate for certain long-term global studies, especially those focused on trends.”

http://www.aos.wisc....al_GL028083.pdf