skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Is it possible to find error bars for the last decade or so? Is there any more recent analysis to tell us "how the sources are doing?" For statistical error bars, the shorter the period, the larger the error bars will be. This will be the case for both GISS and UAH. Neither error estimate includes methodological error. For example, the error bars for UAH would include things like calibration error between different satellites. Over shorter periods, calibration error is a larger problem. But over longer periods, they are assuming statistically that if we unknowingly calibrated .08C too high for this satellite, and .04C too low for the next one, ...that it will start to balance out in the long term. It doesn't include methodological error, for example if we are not correcting for drift adequately. Analogously for GISS, the error estimate includes the mathematical statistical error inherent in extrapolating. It doesn't include a methodological error, like inadequately compensating for UHI. You can't quantify methodological error. Neither the error bars for UAH, nor those for GISS, include methodological errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 There is almost no blank areas on Hadley through 60 degrees on each side and they are already diverged by that point by a few tenths in the arctic, and the error is much more egregious in the southern polar region by 60S. So we'll agree to disagree on that part anyway. I think it supports GISS's warm bias in the two polar regions when put in tandem with satellite data. But regardless if we agree on that or not, there is little at the moment to support GISS's warmer extrapolations in the past decade or so. There are quite a few cells blank 50-60N on HadCRUT. The divergence 50-60N is only .02-.03C/decade according to WUWT. The number of blank cells is more than enough to be responsible for this divergence. What do you mean there is nothing to support the extrapolations? If I removed all the extrapolations I would end up with the same thing as HadCRUT. If I then used satellite data to infill the blank regions, I would end back up with something roughly similar to GISS. UAH generally supports the rapid warming of the arctic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 There are quite a few cells blank 50-60N on HadCRUT. The divergence 50-60N is only .02-.03C/decade according to WUWT. The number of blank cells is more than enough to be responsible for this divergence. What do you mean there is nothing to support the extrapolations? If I removed all the extrapolations I would end up with the same thing as HadCRUT. If I then used satellite data to infill the blank regions, I would end back up with something roughly similar to GISS. UAH generally supports the rapid warming of the arctic. If you use UAH's warming form 1995-2001, then yeah you can cover it up...but not if you are talking about the recent divergence which is what I am talking about. You also didn't mention the southern polar regions...that's where the larger divergence was actually occurring in areas where Hadley had very good coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 If you use UAH's warming form 1995-2001, then yeah you can cover it up...but not if you are talking about the recent divergence which is what I am talking about. You also didn't mention the southern polar regions...that's where the larger divergence was actually occurring in areas where Hadley had very good coverage. You are still expecting a perfect correlation between UAH waming and the divergence.. which makes very little sense to me given the amount of luck and other factors at play that could mask it. So I've already created a graph subtracting off the arctic from GISS. Now I will make a graph of GISS adding back in UAH for the arctic. How much you want to bet it looks almost just like the original GISS graph? There will be some nitpicky differences of course.. but that doesn't concern me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 You are still expecting a perfect correlation between UAH waming and the divergence.. which makes very little sense to me given the amount of luck and other factors at play that could mask it. So I've already created a graph subtracting off the arctic from GISS. Now I will make a graph of GISS adding back in UAH for the arctic. How much you want to bet it looks almost just like the original GISS graph? There will be some nitpicky differences of course.. but that doesn't concern me. When you add the two trends together in recent years, it doesn't match. Yeah earlier back it explains the difference, but I believe that GISS has been extrapolating too warm now for the better part of a decade. I don't expect perfect correlation, I just expect something reasonable. It doesn't look reasonable. The polar trends are basically nil in the past 8-9 years on UAH...slight cooling in south and slight warming in the north. I posted the graph a couple times earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The smoothing on that graph you posted earlier is too big.. it obscures the cooling in 97-99. Here's 12 month smoothing of same chart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'm just going to create a graph that removes the arctic influence from GISS. I will use the arctic as 6% of the earth's surface and I will use UAH trends since 1995. That should decisively settle the role the arctic has had. Whatever happened to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 OK here it is. All base periods are 1961-1990. The first graph is just GISS vs HadCRUT. The second is GISS-arctic vs HadCRUT. I counted the arctic as 5% of the earth's surface area (less than the actual 6% because HadCRUT does have some arctic coverage, on the other hand it misses much of Siberia which has also warmed rapidly the last 20 years). The third graph is GISS-arctic-antarctic again counting each as 5% of the earth's surface area. By doing this we see that chopping off the arctic bring GISS's and HadCRUT's trend into complete agreement over the last 21 years. Chopping off the antarctic makes the relationship between the two sources even closer for individual years, but makes the GISS trend a fraction lower than HadCRUT. I believe this conclusively demonstrates my point that the vast majority of the divergence the last 20 years is due to the rapid warming of the arctic that occurs, which HadCRUT misses but which GISS largely correctly extrapolates. The differences between 66S and 66N are trivial. If anything, HadCRUT shows slightly more warming between 66S and 66N, which is probably attributable to its use of the HadSST2 SST reconstruction, which shows more warming than GISS's HadISST1 over the last 20 years. You said you were going to use UAH Arctic data 1995-present in your mathematical formula, based on the 6% surface area number. Whatever happened to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 You said you were going to use UAH Arctic data 1995-present in your mathematical formula, based on the 6% surface area number. Whatever happened to that? I decided it made more sense to remove GISS arctic and then add UAH arctic back in. Theoretically, 1) GISS minus arctic minus antarctic (green) should approximate HadCRUT (blue) 2) GISS minus arctic minus antarctic+UAH arctic + UAH antarctic (purple) should approximate GISS (red) I believe both 1 and 2 are met by the following graph. Remember, we are looking for decent agreement, not exact agreement. After all, each of these sources has error bars of +/-.05C for single years. If there was a 4 or 5 year period where one consistently ran colder than its intended counterpart, that would be a problem. Here it is: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I decided it made more sense to remove GISS arctic and then add UAH arctic back in. So in other words, you decided not to go with what you originally said because you realized the result would not be what you wanted. It's painfully obvious. You had a premise, you believed it would prove what you wanted it to, but when you did the math....oops. Disappointing. You had a real chance to prove your objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 So in other words, you decided not to go with what you originally said because you realized the result would not be what you wanted. It's painfully obvious. You had a premise, you believed it would prove what you wanted it to, but when you did the math....oops. Disappointing. You had a real chance to prove your objectivity. No that's absolutely not why I did it.. I can do it if you still think that method would be interesting. If I do do it it will do exactly what I predicted it would, it will show that taking GISS and subtracting UAH arctic temperatures will lead to a result approximately = to HadCRUT. I have already done GISS minus arctic minus antarctic plus UAH arctic +UAH antarctic and shown that one arrives back at the original GISS result. Doing what I originally suggested would only be redundant at this point. Think about it. If GISS minus arctic minus antarctic = HadCRUT and GISS minus arctic minus antarctic plus UAH arctic + UAH antarctic = original GISS Then, by transitive property GISS minus UAH arctic minus UAH antarctic will = HadCRUT. I think an apology is in order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 No that's absolutely not why I did it.. I can do it if you still think that method would be interesting. If I do do it it will do exactly what I predicted it would, it will show that taking GISS and subtracting UAH arctic temperatures will lead to a result approximately = to HadCRUT. I have already done GISS minus arctic minus antarctic plus UAH arctic +UAH antarctic and shown that one arrives back at the original GISS result. Doing what I originally suggested would only be redundant at this point. Think about it. If GISS minus arctic minus antarctic = HadCRUT and GISS minus arctic minus antarctic plus UAH arctic + UAH antarctic = original GISS Then, by transitive property GISS minus UAH arctic minus UAH antarctic will = HadCRUT. I think an apology is in order It's not the same thing. UAH Arctic 1995-present shows, at most, about 1C warming. Plug that into your equation at 6%, and you'll see that the UAH numbers over that period do not support the same amount of warming GISS shows. Same if you run it 2002-present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It's not the same thing. UAH Arctic 1995-present shows, at most, about 1C warming. Plug that into your equation at 6%, and you'll see that the UAH numbers over that period do not support the same amount of warming GISS shows. Same if you run it 2002-present. The graphs do not support that claim. If what you are saying is true, then when I chopped off the arctic and antarctic from GISS and replaced them with UAH's arctic and antarctic, I would not arrive back at the original GISS. But as my graph shows, when I replace the arctic and antarctic with UAH, the result doesn't change. (Compare purple and red lines in above graph) The analogy to this, is that when I remove the arctic and antarctic from GISS, the result is the same as HadCRUT. (Compare the green and blue lines in the above graph) Perhaps you did not see my most recent graph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The graphs do not support that claim. If what you are saying is true, then when I chopped off the arctic and antarctic from GISS and replaced them with UAH's arctic and antarctic, I would not arrive back at the original GISS. But as my graph shows, when I replace the arctic and antarctic with UAH, the result doesn't change. (Compare purple and red lines in above graph) The analogy to this, is that when I remove the arctic and antarctic from GISS, the result is the same as HadCRUT. (Compare the green and blue lines in the above graph). Your graphs start from 1990. You were willing to simply run the numbers before, why not now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 How did you generate those graphs? The uah polar trends do not support a GISS trend at all. GISS has been increasing rapidly in the arctic and slightly in the antarctic while uah has been increasing less rapidly in the arctic and decreasing slightly in the antarctic during the period in question of the hadley divergence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Your graphs start from 1990. You were willing to simply run the numbers before, why not now? What I said I would do is subtract UAH arctic from GISS (with the prediction that the result would be comparable to HadCRUT). That's just redundant now! And I don't feel like spending another 30 minutes making the formulas and graphs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Ok that's more than I thought - I think partially because your graph included 2010 whereas the graph I have only went through 2009. I'm not interested in how it compares to the satellites though. ENSO has a much more profound effect on the satellites and the ENSO trend 2002-present is quite negative. Regardless, it doesn't matter. I don't expect a perfect correlation. As the arctic has warmed, GISS has had a tendency to show larger divergences. That more than satisfies the expectation. As you said the arctic is 6% of the earth's surface. It has warmed 1.5C since 1995. Removing that would reduce the GISS global temperature anomaly by .08C. Basic math. You were willing to apply this math using the 1.5C rise since 1995. How about using actual UAH numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 How did you generate those graphs? The uah polar trends do not support a GISS trend at all. GISS has been increasing rapidly in the arctic and slightly in the antarctic while uah has been increasing less rapidly in the arctic and decreasing slightly in the antarctic during the period in question of the hadley divergence. I took GISS and subtracted off the arctic and antarctic using GISS arctic data (weighted as 5% of the earth's surface area). I then took that and added back on UAH arctic and antarctic data (again weighted as 5% of the earth's surface area). You want the formulas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 You were willing to apply this math using the 1.5C rise since 1995. How about using actual UAH numbers? I did use actual UAH numbers! I imported the actual UAH data into excel and replaced this into the arctic and antarctic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 How did you generate those graphs? The uah polar trends do not support a GISS trend at all. GISS has been increasing rapidly in the arctic and slightly in the antarctic while uah has been increasing less rapidly in the arctic and decreasing slightly in the antarctic during the period in question of the hadley divergence. Exactly! His graphs make little sense, since the numbers clearly show that over the last 10-15 years, GISS has definitely shown more warming in the Arctic than UAH. His graphs indicate that UAH shows the same thing in the Arctic that GISS does, which just isn't true, especially in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Exactly! His graphs make little sense, since the numbers clearly show that over the last 10-15 years, GISS has definitely shown more warming in the Arctic than UAH. His graphs indicate that UAH shows the same thing in the Arctic that GISS does, which just isn't true, especially in recent years. So basically you don't believe my graph is what I said it is. At lease you agree it shows that the UAH-replacement makes little difference, even if you don't believe that is actually what I have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I did use actual UAH numbers! I imported the actual UAH data into excel and replaced this into the arctic and antarctic! Well I don't know what went wrong, but UAH definitely does not show 1.5C of Arctic warming since 1995 - which your math earlier proved would add up perfectly with GISS numbers...the .08C divergence globally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 So basically you don't believe my graph is what I said it is. Neither Will or I understand it, because it isn't supported by the actual UAH numbers. As he said, they do not show the same amount of Arctic warming over the last decade or so as GISS! Also, you didn't explain why you went back to 1990, earlier than the periods we were discussing before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I took GISS and subtracted off the arctic and antarctic using GISS arctic data (weighted as 5% of the earth's surface area). I then took that and added back on UAH arctic and antarctic data (again weighted as 5% of the earth's surface area). You want the formulas? I'd like to get a link to source of each data....thats all. The UAH trends on both poles do not match GISS trends, so the graphs do not add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Well I don't know what went wrong, but UAH definitely does not show 1.5C of Arctic warming since 1995 - which your math earlier proved would add up perfectly with GISS numbers. Well for one thing, the graph earlier had like a 5 year smoother on it which smoothed out the peaks and trough and many of the relevant details. UAH arctic temperatures were -.71C in 1990, -9C in 1992, -.45C in 1993, -.51C in 1994. They peaked at 1.2C in 2010. That's peak to trough of 2.1C for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'd like to get a link to source of each data....thats all. The UAH trends on both poles do not match GISS trends, so the graphs do not add up. I used the UAH data from here (which I checked and made sure is the same UAH arctic and antarctic data you posted). http://vortex.nsstc....t2lt/uahncdc.lt I used the GISS zonal means from here: http://data.giss.nas...Ann.Ts+dSST.txt I weighted each as 5% of the earth's surface area when I added or subtracted. As tacoman agreed, my graph does show that when you chop off the arctic and antarctic and replace it with UAH arctic and antarctic, it generally arrives back at the same result. If you guys don't believe my math I can post the excel formulas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Well for one thing, the graph earlier had like a 5 year smoother on it which smoothed out the peaks and trough and many of the relevant details. UAH arctic temperatures were -.71C in 1990, -9C in 1992, -.45C in 1993, -.51C in 1994. They peaked at 1.2C in 2010. That's peak to trough of 2.1C for you. 1) You originally said 1995-present. So why are you comparing 1994-present now? 2) You know as well as anyhone that peak to trough does NOT represent a linear trend. Otherwise, I could say run that peak to trough through Feb 2011...MUCH cooler ending point, MUCH smaller peak to trough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 1) You originally said 1995-present. So why are you comparing 1994-present now? 2) You know as well as anyhone that peak to trough does NOT represent a linear trend. Otherwise, I could say run that peak to trough through Feb 2011...MUCH cooler ending point, MUCH smaller peak to trough. OK but you've already agreed that my "graph indicates that UAH shows the same thing in the arctic that GISS does." The only thing that's really in question now is whether I used the right data and if I did the math right. Exactly! His graphs make little sense, since the numbers clearly show that over the last 10-15 years, GISS has definitely shown more warming in the Arctic than UAH. His graphs indicate that UAH shows the same thing in the Arctic that GISS does, which just isn't true, especially in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 OK but you've already agreed that my "graph indicates that UAH shows the same thing in the arctic that GISS does." The only thing that's really in question now is whether I used the right data and if I did the math right. Well, there is also the issue of your graph inexplicably starting in 1990, when the two starting points of discussion previously had been 1995 and 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Well, there is also the issue of your graph inexplicably starting in 1990, when the two starting points of discussion previously had been 1995 and 2002. That shouldn't matter. I could start it in 1950. If UAH warmed before GISS, and not as much as GISS, as the two of you have suggested, then we would notice the replaced GISS running warmer than the original GISS early in the graph, and then cooler than GISS late in the graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.