BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I'll tell you why its BS. 1) Did they even hypothesize how the satellites, as a group, could be mis-measuring GCC altogether? No. 2) Do we have any other way to measure GCC besides Satellites? No 3) Does UAH & its LT temp jump in 1997 correlate to ISCCP & its cloud measuring satellites? Yes. WE CANNOT USE PRE SATELLITE ERA DATABASES TO DISPROVE A DATABASE THAT DID NOT EXIST DURING THAT TIMEFRAME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Every single time you post that chart of global cloud cover I am going to post the half dozen references that explain why ISCCP is complete garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 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 So what? Why dont you use your paid subscription to post the article here, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I'll tell you why its BS. 1) Did they even hypothesize how the satellites, as a group, could be mis-measuring GCC altogether? No. 2) Do we have any other way to measure GCC besides Satellites? No 3) Does UAH & its LT temp jump in 1997 correlate to ISCCP & its cloud measuring satellites? Yes. WE CANNOT USE PRE SATELLITE ERA DATABASES TO DISPROVE A DATABASE THAT DID NOT EXIST DURING THAT TIMEFRAME That would work, skier, if your argument wasn't complete garbage... reference above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I'll tell you why its BS. 1) Did they even hypothesize how the satellites, as a group, could be mis-measuring GCC altogether? No. 2) Do we have any other way to measure GCC besides Satellites? No 3) Does UAH & its LT temp jump in 1997 correlate to ISCCP & its cloud measuring satellites? Yes. WE CANNOT USE PRE SATELLITE ERA DATABASES TO DISPROVE A DATABASE THAT DID NOT EXIST DURING THAT TIMEFRAME Different satellites use different techniques, frequencies etc. so it is far more complicated than you seem to understand. ISCCP data correlates to physical aspects of the satellite viewing geometry.. in other words the data is reflective of aspects of the satellite and not things actually occuring on earth. So yes they did hypothesize and test exactly how it is that ISCCP data is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 So what? Why dont you use your paid subscription to post the article here, eh? The second link provided in that post takes you straight to the article. You should try clicking on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 That would work, skier, if your argument wasn't complete garbage... reference above I will take peer-reviewed literature logic over Bethesdadenialogic any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Different satellites use different techniques, frequencies etc. so it is far more complicated than you seem to understand. ISCCP data correlates to physical aspects of the satellite viewing geometry.. in other words the data is reflective of aspects of the satellite and not things actually occuring on earth. So yes they did hypothesize and test exactly how it is that ISCCP data is wrong. So what? That claim does not support the fact that ISCCP is wrong because we cant tell if that is causing measurement error............because WE HAVE NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO!!!! Either way, The article is based on data that could have nothing to do with GCC, since forcings are uncertain. Did they mention how they were all mis-measuring GCC? No..... Can we measure GCC in any other way besides satellites? no we cannot! Its our only measurement system,and we cant proveit wrong through uncertain forcings. Are they measuring GCC with their own data from such to compare? no Again, its OBS vs Hypothesized modeling again, and we all know what wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 So what? Either way, The article is based on data that could have nothing to do with GCC, since forcings are uncertain. Did they mention how they were all mis-measuring GCC? no Can we measure GCC in any other way besides satellites? no Are they measuring GCC with their own data from such to compare? no Again, its OBS vs Hypothesized modeling again, and we all know what wins. You obviously have not read the references because all of your above statements are incorrect. The article explains exactly how we are mismeasuring and exactly how they can prove this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 You obviously have not read the references because all of your above statements are incorrect. The article explains exactly how we are mismeasuring and exactly how they can prove this. No it doesn't, I've read it. Claiming that the satellite uses a measuring technique that doesnt measure the actual atmosphere (uh, what? lol), regardless, doesn't mean its in error. You can't claim the measurements incorrect with nothing ulterior to compare them to! Its like comparing satellite data to pre-satellite surface data..... they re almost unrelated! FYI, the temperature from UAH falls in line with the ISCCP cloud analysis... so that is backup on ISCCP's side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 No it doesn't, I've read it. Claiming that the satellite uses a measuring technique that doesnt measure the actual atmosphere (uh, what? lol), regardless, doesn't mean its in error. You can't claim the measurements incorrect with nothing ulterior to compare them to! Its like comparing satellite data to pre-satellite surface data..... they re almost unrelated! FYI, the temperature from UAH falls in line with the ISCCP cloud analyis... so that is backup right there! Denial logic at its best... UAH temp data (which we have reason to believe may be spurious) correlates with LL GCC data we KNOW is spurious... ergo they confirm each other and they both must be real! The article explains in great detail how ISCCP data is spurious. It explains how the measurement technique itself is flawed. Just because you CAN measure something doesn't mean the measurements are remotely accurate. I like to measure my snow with an upside down ruler.. are my measurements correct too because nobody was out my house to disprove them and they happen to correlate to the amount of snow received on Mt Baker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Denial logic at its best... UAH temp data (which we have reason to believe may be spurious) correlates with LL GCC data we KNOW is spurious... ergo they confirm each other and they both must be real! The article explains in great detail how ISCCP data is spurious. It explains how the measurement technique itself is flawed. Just because you CAN measure something doesn't mean the measurements are remotely accurate. I like to measure my snow with an upside down ruler.. are my measurements correct too because nobody was out my house to disprove them and they happen to correlate to the amount of snow received on Mt Baker? Who's in denial? Not me. No data is better than satellite data for global analysis. I refuted the article cleanly, without Giant capital letters, based on why the claims are, really, full of sh*t. You fail to respond with anything refuting my claims... except "read the article"... uhhh, ive done so twice now. You cant refute data when we have nothing no other measured data around to disprove it... its all we have, and UAH/ISCCP agree. Satellite is the best data we have for global temps, so, since ISCCP & UAH agree, its kinda hard to Dis that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Who's in denial? Not me. No data is better than satellite data for global analysis. I refuted the article cleanly, without Giant capital letters, based on why the claims are, really, full of sh*t. You fail to respond with anything refuting my claims... except "read the article"... uhhh, ive done so twice now. You cant refute data when we have nothing no other measured data around to disprove it... its all we have, and UAH/ISCCP agree. Satellite is the best data we have for global temps, so, since ISCCP & UAH agree, its kinda hard to Dis that. No you didn't. A half dozen peer-reviewed journal articles explain the mechanical and physical reasons and statistical proof that ISCCP data is wrong, but you have figured out how they are wrong in 3 minutes at your computer. Just completely laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 You cant refute data when we have nothing no other measured data around to disprove it.. Sure you can. I measured 25" of snow on the ground using an up-side down yard stick. Do I have 25" of snow on the ground or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 No you didn't. A half dozen peer-reviewed journal articles explain the mechanical and physical reasons and statistical proof that ISCCP data is wrong, but you have figured out how they are wrong in 3 minutes at your computer. Just completely laughable. I read it through & through. It doesn't change the fact that you can't refute data when its the only data available... UAH agrees though, and its the best of the best for global analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Sure you can. I measured 25" of snow on the ground using an up-side down yard stick. Do I have 25" of snow on the ground or not? That correlation doesn't work here. We have UAH on ISCCP's team,and we have... us... ZERO on the other side... there is no data to compare it to! An upside down ruler aimplies we have a basis in knowing that= 1) the ruler is indeed upside down 2) that we know the actual GCC trend without data. Seriously, your argument is pathetic & full of error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 That correlation doesn't work here. I think the word you are looking for is analogy. And yes it does. It is a perfect analogy. The measurement technique is proven to be erroneous and lead to spurious data that does not reflect physical phenomenon. Exactly like me and my upside down yardstick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 That correlation doesn't work here. We have UAH on ISCCP's team,and we have... us... ZERO on the other side... there is no data to compare it to! An upside down ruler implies we know 1) the ruler is indeed upside down 2) that we know the actual GCC trend without data. Seriously, your argument is pathetic & full of error. No it doesnt, reference above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think the word you are looking for is analogy. And yes it does. It is a perfect analogy. The measurement technique is proven to be erroneous and lead to spurious data that does not reflect physical phenomenon. Exactly like me and my upside down yardstick. Please read this slowly, if you have the ability to do so. We have UAH on ISCCP's team,and we have... us... ZERO on the other side... there is no data to compare it to! An upside down ruler aimplies we have a basis in knowing that: 1) the ruler is indeed upside down ( as in, the GCC being measured has other GCC data that conflicts it) 2) that we know the actual GCC trend without data. Seriously, your argument is pathetic & full of error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 No it doesnt, reference above. We know that the physical methodology used by ISCCP is erroneous. Exactly like me and my upside down yardstick. Everybody acknowledges this. Walk into a room of informed people on the subject with ISCCP data and you will be laughed out of the room. It is hilarious watching you deny this basic reality though. Completely destroys your credibility. A classic example of denialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 We know that the physical methodology used by ISCCP is erroneous. Exactly like me and my upside down yardstick. Everybody acknowledges this. Walk into a room of informed people on the subject with ISCCP data and you will be laughed out of the room. It is hilarious watching you deny this basic reality though. Completely destroys your credibility. A classic example of denialism. funny post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Please read this slowly, if you have the ability to do so. We have UAH on ISCCP's team, and we have... uh... ZERO on the other side... there is no data to compare it to! An upside down ruler implies we have a basis in knowing that: 1) the ruler is indeed upside down ( as in, the GCC being measured has other GCC data that conflicts it). 2) that we know the actual GCC trend without data. Seriously, your argument is pathetic & full of error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Your argument doesn't make sense or refute the fact that the ISCCP measurement technique is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 There are a half dozen peer-reviewed journal articles explaining why ISCCP data is erroneous. If you actual have disproven these journal articles, perhaps you should publish your own with your brilliant argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Also we don't have UAH on "ISCCP's team" Temperature data from UAH doesn't prove anything about cloud cover. Plus that makes your argument circular. Your argument basically becomes "we know cloud cover is decreasing because we know UAH temp is increasing so we know the UAH temperature increase is due to clouds not CO2." Wonderfully circular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Also we don't have UAH on "ISCCP's team" Temperature data from UAH doesn't prove anything about cloud cover. Plus that makes your argument circular. Your argument basically becomes "we know cloud cover is decreasing because we know UAH temp is increasing so we know the UAH temperature increase is due to clouds not CO2." Wonderfully circular. 1) It doesn't prove anything, but UAH in correlation to the measurements taken by ISCCP give it a level of merit,while no recorded data is presented on the other side. 2) I've demonstrated why the argument posed has glaring holes. FYI, your article is titled "arguments against ISCCP"... they themselves do not claim that the ISCCP data is "disproven". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 1) It doesn't prove anything, but UAH in correlation to the measurements taken by ISCCP give it a level of merit,while no recorded data is presented on the other side. 2) I've demonstrated why the argument posed has glaring holes. FYI, your article is titled "arguments against ISCCP"... they themselves do not claim that the ISCCP data is "disproven". It says that the use of the data in "multi-decadal studies is troubling" and that "the development of a correction for the data is warranted." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The best part is.. the folks who are responsible for developing the ISCCP data at GEWEX say that the trend data for global cloud cover contains large errors. So basically, nobody including the developers of the data, except you, believe that the data has any long-term validity. The scientists who produced the global cloud cover data say it contains large errors in the long-term trend and yet you are quite certain it is correct based off the fact that it happens to inversely correlate with global temperature. You just can't make this stuff up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The best part is.. the folks who are responsible for developing the ISCCP data at GEWEX say that the trend data for global cloud cover contains large errors. So basically, nobody including the developers of the data, except you, believe that the data has any long-term validity. The scientists who produced the global cloud cover data say it contains large errors in the long-term trend and yet you are quite certain it is correct based off the fact that it happens to inversely correlate with global temperature. You just can't make this stuff up! huh? What does this have to do with the data being completely botched? And by "large" error, "large" is most likely a relative term. You need to reference your posts FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 It says that the use of the data in "multi-decadal studies is troubling" and that "the development of a correction for the data is warranted." 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".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.