skier/bethesda arguments from 2011 global temp thread

[skierinvermont]

Try UAH for once.....you refuse to use it for whatever reason......probably because it does not support your views!

Actually, that graph does use UAH, for the poles as an approximation. It uses HadCRUT and GISS for the mid-latitudes where they have better coverage.

I don't believe UAH to be very accurate overall though, considering the discrepancies with RSS, radiosonde and STAR and repeated historical revisions to TLT trends.

Several other posters have agreed that HadCRUT/GISS 60-60 w/ UAH infilling of the poles is a pretty good estimate of surface trends. In fact, I created this index upon request. You should get on board.

[BethesdaWX]

Actually, that graph does use UAH, for the poles as an approximation. It uses HadCRUT and GISS for the mid-latitudes where they have better coverage.

I don't believe UAH to be very accurate overall though, considering the discrepancies with RSS, radiosonde and STAR and repeated historical revisions to TLT trends.

Several other posters have agreed that HadCRUT/GISS 60-60 w/ UAH infilling of the poles is a pretty good estimate of surface trends. In fact, I created this index upon request. You should get on board.

You should have no issue simply creating a Graph with Solely UAH...the fact that you refuse is astounding.

If UAH is "off", its only by a few hundreds of a degree C/decade... STAR on the other hand uses unproven homogenization techniques that really have no basis,as I have explained.

I don't understand your issue here...UAH has more Data than any other system, with the AQUA...It carries Extra Fuel avoiding satellite Drift completely, which STAR has been potentially hurt by. AQUA makes UAH the most dynamic and accurate measuring system we have. Before 2002, RSS/UAH had deadlock expectations...with AQUA, UAH is tops. RSS, with the revelation of AQUA, has been adjusted downward to Match UAH more percisely, since it has more accurate readings.

STAR is a mess.

RAOBCORE error, this also plagues STAR and is uncorrected for on its dataset, and is one reason for error. I also emailed Dr. Roy Spencer on the issue, and if he responds, will post it here.

A problematic issue impacts RAOBCORE and RICH and is related to a warming shift in 1991 of the upper troposphere in the ERA-40 Reanalyses on which the two datasets rely. This was shown in [19] to be likely spurious due to a mishandling of a change in an infrared channel, a diagnosis acknowledged by the ECMWF (see also ECMWF Newsletter No. 119, Spring 2009). The shift also led to a sudden and spurious increase in estimates of (a) tropical rainfall, ( 200 hPa divergence and © low-level humidity. Since this has direct influence on RAOBCORE and to a lesser extent RICH, we would expect these products to display warmer-than-actual trends especially for TMT (which is shown in [9].)

The Methods used on STAR are homogenization methods to the raw data....STAR is a relatively small scale project.....the problem is they factor the underlying trend is factored into the forced adjustements, since the assumed trend is dictated valid beforehand.

The difficulty that arises is that the recommended adjustments are typically of the same order of magnitude as the underlying trend and, in one case, larger than the underlying trend, such that the sign of the adjusted trend is different from the raw trend. First here is a figure showing the net adjustments for the tropics in deg C for the 4 levels (going high to low). In each case, the adjustments are implemented primarily in the 1985-2000 period, so one is not dealing with the far past. All records end in 2006 are not fully up-to-date.

Figure 1. RAOBCORE (tropics) adjustments for 4 levels 1957-2006. Black – midnight; blue- noon.

Next here is a figure showing the original and RAOBCORE 1.4 trends for the tropics for the 4 levels (version 1.2 is not shown). The sign in the MSU3 level is reversed by the adjustment process.

For completeness, here are plots showing the original and adjusted versions for the 4 levels.

It is evident from the above plots that the RAOBCORE adjustments are the same order of magnitude as the trend that people are seeking to determine.

[BethesdaWX]

Dude, I'm talking about SSWing events signaling change, not the mean 10HPA temp alone.

http://www.cpc.ncep....strat_a_f/#emct

This site, you can track forecasts, past conditions and stratospheric animations, and see what I'm talking about. I'm tired right now.

OK?

[skierinvermont]

OK?

So for the 13th time, please demonstrate the correlation.

[skierinvermont]

You should have no issue simply creating a Graph with Solely UAH...the fact that you refuse is astounding.

If UAH is "off", its only by a few hundreds of a degree C/decade... STAR on the other hand uses unproven homogenization techniques that really have no basis,as I have explained.

I don't understand your issue here...UAH has more Data than any other system, with the AQUA...It carries Extra Fuel avoiding satellite Drift completely, which STAR has been potentially hurt by. AQUA makes UAH the most dynamic and accurate measuring system we have. Before 2002, RSS/UAH had deadlock expectations...with AQUA, UAH is tops. RSS, with the revelation of AQUA, has been adjusted downward to Match UAH more percisely, since it has more accurate readings.

STAR is a mess.

RAOBCORE error, this also plagues STAR and is uncorrected for on its dataset, and is one reason for error. I also emailed Dr. Roy Spencer on the issue, and if he responds, will post it here.

A problematic issue impacts RAOBCORE and RICH and is related to a warming shift in 1991 of the upper troposphere in the ERA-40 Reanalyses on which the two datasets rely. This was shown in [19] to be likely spurious due to a mishandling of a change in an infrared channel, a diagnosis acknowledged by the ECMWF (see also ECMWF Newsletter No. 119, Spring 2009). The shift also led to a sudden and spurious increase in estimates of (a) tropical rainfall, ( 200 hPa divergence and © low-level humidity. Since this has direct influence on RAOBCORE and to a lesser extent RICH, we would expect these products to display warmer-than-actual trends especially for TMT (which is shown in [9].)

The Methods used on STAR are homogenization methods to the raw data....STAR is a relatively small scale project.....the problem is they factor the underlying trend is factored into the forced adjustements, since the assumed trend is dictated valid beforehand.

The difficulty that arises is that the recommended adjustments are typically of the same order of magnitude as the underlying trend and, in one case, larger than the underlying trend, such that the sign of the adjusted trend is different from the raw trend. First here is a figure showing the net adjustments for the tropics in deg C for the 4 levels (going high to low). In each case, the adjustments are implemented primarily in the 1985-2000 period, so one is not dealing with the far past. All records end in 2006 are not fully up-to-date.

Figure 1. RAOBCORE (tropics) adjustments for 4 levels 1957-2006. Black – midnight; blue- noon.

Next here is a figure showing the original and RAOBCORE 1.4 trends for the tropics for the 4 levels (version 1.2 is not shown). The sign in the MSU3 level is reversed by the adjustment process.

For completeness, here are plots showing the original and adjusted versions for the 4 levels.

It is evident from the above plots that the RAOBCORE adjustments are the same order of magnitude as the trend that people are seeking to determine.

This post makes very little sense and reveals a complete unfamiliarity with the data products.

1. You say that AQUA carries more fuel which makes it better than STAR. This makes zero sense since both STAR and UAH rely on the exact same set of physical MSU and AMSU satellites.

2. You also say that UAH uses AQUA and RSS doesn't. Also wrong. UAH, RSS, and STAR all use the same set of physical satellites. All of the discrepancies between them are due to the data processing, since they use the same raw data and satellite infrastructure. Which just goes to show how much uncertainty there is in how to interpret the raw data.

3. You say somehow a RAOBCORE error is in STAR. This is impossible, since they are completely independent. One uses satellite data, one uses radiosonde data. The RAOBCORE and RICH datasets that I have posted have been corrected.

You emailed Spencer on this ages ago and he has not responded. If your question was anything like the incoherent post above he probably had no idea what the hell you were asking and wrote you off as a whackjob. I wouldn't hold your breath for a response.

[BethesdaWX]

This post makes very little sense and reveals a complete unfamiliarity with the data products.

1. You say that AQUA carries more fuel which makes it better than STAR. This makes zero sense since both STAR and UAH rely on the exact same set of physical MSU and AMSU satellites.

2. You also say that UAH uses AQUA and RSS doesn't. Also wrong. UAH, RSS, and STAR all use the same set of physical satellites. All of the discrepancies between them are due to the data processing, since they use the same raw data and satellite infrastructure. Which just goes to show how much uncertainty there is in how to interpret the raw data.

3. You say somehow a RAOBCORE error is in STAR. This is impossible, since they are completely independent. One uses satellite data, one uses radiosonde data. The RAOBCORE and RICH datasets that I have posted have been corrected.

You emailed Spencer on this ages ago and he has not responded. If your question was anything like the incoherent post above he probably had no idea what the hell you were asking and wrote you off as a whackjob. I wouldn't hold your breath for a response.

I didn't say any of that, Mr. Numbnut. Read slowly and carefully, it will take you places bro!

1) I said STAR's unproven homogenization methods are the error, and that I cannot find any evidence that they have corrected for the RAOBCORE / RICH error that everyone else has...not that they haven't done so, but that I cannot find evidence that they have.

2) UAH/RSS use RAOBCORE too, as well as RICH. They all use the same thing, only STAR uses unproven homogenization techniques that have no way of validation...thus they diverge from most everyone else.

3) I got it backwards, I meant before AQUA UAH had better validation likelyhood...now they are near equal.

FYI, the last time I emailed Roy Spencer, my email was returned 7 months later by John Christy.

[BethesdaWX]

So for the 13th time, please demonstrate the correlation.

Have you heard of an eyeballing corelation, or a simple correlation? Read the link and you'll see I cannot visually demonstrate it quantitatively.

Its as simple as using GFS 15 day stratospheric forecasts, and forecasting a change in the tropopause based on the placement/anomaly.

If you don't believe it, thats fine. You'll figure it out eventually.

[skierinvermont]

I didn't say any of that, Mr. Numbnut. Read slowly and carefully, it will take you places bro!

1) I said STAR's unproven homogenization methods are the error, and that I cannot find any evidence that they have corrected for the RAOBCORE / RICH error that everyone else has...not that they haven't done so, but that I cannot find evidence that they have.

2) UAH/RSS use RAOBCORE too, as well as RICH. They all use the same thing, only STAR uses unproven homogenization techniques that have no way of validation...thus they diverge from most everyone else.

3) I got it backwards, I meant before AQUA UAH had better validation likelyhood...now they are near equal.

FYI, the last time I emailed Roy Spencer, my email was returned 7 months later by John Christy.

1. STAR's homogenization methods are no less proven than UAH's or RSS's, and they are theoretically better. The only way to "test" the data processing is through independent measures (IE radiosonde). Radiosonde strongly disagrees with UAH in the mid troposphere, and to a lesser extent in the lower troposphere.

2. UAH/RSS/STAR do NOT "use" RAOBCORE. UAH/RSS/STAR "use" satellites. RAOBCORE and RICH are indpendent radiosonde products that can be used as a comparison to the various satellite sources.

[skierinvermont]

Have you heard of an eyeballing corelation, or a simple correlation? Read the link and you'll see I cannot visually demonstrate it quantitatively.

Its as simple as using GFS 15 day stratospheric forecasts, and forecasting a change in the tropopause based on the placement/anomaly.

If you don't believe it, thats fine. You'll figure it out eventually.

Well I have read it multiple times and I see no correlation. Perhaps you can point out some specific examples of what you are talking about. Or demonstrate a quantitative correlation between SSWs and TLT. If there is in fact a correlation between SSWs and TLT, this should be an easy straightforward task. I can think of a half dozen ways you could go about doing this. Otherwise, I am sorry, I simply don't see the correlation and think you are imagining it.

[skierinvermont]

I think skier and bethesda should be confined to their own forum where they can argue in pointless circles as much as they want, and banned from the rest of the sub-forums.

As long as he continues to make unsubstantiated and false claims in this thread I am going to correct them.

[BethesdaWX]

1. STAR's homogenization methods are no less proven than UAH's or RSS's, and they are theoretically better. The only way to "test" the data processing is through independent measures (IE radiosonde). Radiosonde strongly disagrees with UAH in the mid troposphere, and to a lesser extent in the lower troposphere.

2. UAH/RSS/STAR do NOT "use" RAOBCORE. UAH/RSS/STAR "use" satellites. RAOBCORE and RICH are indpendent radiosonde products that can be used as a comparison to the various satellite sources.

.....Mr. Numbnut:

UAH/RSS and STAR use the exact same products! They cannot "disagree" in that regard, as in "Radiosonde" via Calibration, if its 1 dataseries. You forget, I linked you the updated peer reviewed paper by Spencer/Christy, explaining the problems found with RAOBCORE / RICH and had to be corrected for, I cannot find evidence that STAR has done the same. Spencer then explains why/how UAH is +/- 0.05C per decade all in all, and explains How it is calibrated, and how it is done, and why anything that disagrees may be misguided.

[BethesdaWX]

As long as he continues to make unsubstantiated and false claims in this thread I am going to correct them.

Then why am I constantly refuting and dogging you? Your arguments are nothing but propaganda pseudoscience claims against UAH that have been refuted by John Christy and Roy Spencer.