CO2 is not causing changes of climate

[skierinvermont]

I will quote it for you since you probably will not bother to read it:

concerning OLR:

However, we conclude that rather than revealing real changes with time, most of what are present are spurious changes related to orbital changes in the satellites among other things. In particular, from 1989 to early 1995, NOAA 11 drifted in orbit such that its local equator crossing time changes from 1400 to 1730, and it is exactly when NOAA 11 was replaced that the time series jumps back to anomalies near zero. This evidence shows that Waliser [Waliser and Zhou 1997] adjustments were insufficient to homogenize the series to better than ~3W m2, and this spruious drift is slightly worse in the original uncorrected OLR data.

Is that satisfactory to you or do you need an email from the lead researcher telling you the data is bunk like you did for ISCCP cloud data?

[BethesdaWX]

The fact that the atmosphere is becoming more opaque to radiation in the CO2 spectrum doesn't require satellites to measure. You can measure this on a clear night in your back yard taking repeated measurements over many years. Less and less energy is measured traveling in the CO2 spectrum.

Trenberth estimated the satellite drift to be responsible for up to a 3W/m2 error in the trend in CPC OLR data:

http://www.cgd.ucar....000JD000297.pdf

That is completely irrelavent to my point in regards to Imbalance in TOA...Imbalance in TOA is determined by Incoming/Outgoing energies into the system. And for all Intents and Purposes, lets assume Trenberth is correct...from the 1990's to the 2000's, OLR globally increased by about 4.5W/m^2...so we remove 3W/m^2 in OLR data ( I will happily demonstrate this for you, as in, the 4-4.5W/m^2 OLR increase).

In any case, an addition of 4.5W/m^2 should equate to 1.3C of temperature increase if it is all thermal in origin. So now lets look at it this way...since 1979 we've warmed 0.35C...even removing Trenberths 3W/m^2...we get a good 0.35-0.4C of warming...what does this tell you?

[BethesdaWX]

I will quote it for you since you probably will not bother to read it:

concerning OLR:

However, we conclude that rather than revealing real changes with time, most of what are present are spurious changes related to orbital changes in the satellites among other things. In particular, from 1989 to early 1995, NOAA 11 drifted in orbit such that its local equator crossing time changes from 1400 to 1730, and it is exactly when NOAA 11 was replaced that the time series jumps back to anomalies near zero. This evidence shows that Waliser [Waliser and Zhou 1997] adjustments were

Is that satisfactory to you or do you need an email from the lead researcher telling you the data is bunk like you did for ISCCP cloud data?

This is the NOAA11 satellite...WTF? This data is not from NOAA11, it is now being run on NOAA16 calibrated off NOAA15.

You went and googled "OLR data affected by Satellite drift"...didn't you?

And ISCCP has never been proven incorrect.

[skierinvermont]

That is completely irrelavent to my point in regards to Imbalance in TOA...Imbalance in TOA is determined by Incoming/Outgoing energies into the system. And for all Intents and Purposes, lets assume Trenberth is correct...from the 1990's to the 2000's, OLR globally increased by about 4.5W/m^2...so we remove 3W/m^2 in OLR data ( I will happily demonstrate this for you, as in, the 4-4.5W/m^2 OLR increase).

In any case, an addition of 4.5W/m^2 should equate to 1.3C of temperature increase if it is all thermal in origin. So now lets look at it this way...since 1979 we've warmed 0.35C...even removing Trenberths 3W/m^2...we get a good 0.35-0.4C of warming...what does this tell you?

The trend in the uncorrected and erroneous OLR data is much less than 4.5W/m2 .. it is more like a change of 2W/m2. The probable size of the error given by Trenberth is at least as large as the actual trend itself.

We don't know (empirically) whether OLR has increased or decreased.

[BethesdaWX]

This recent data is what prompted the papers like Spencer et al 2011 and Lindzen/Choi et al 2011. You can criticize Spencer's "model" in his paper but that is a tangent argument to underlying theme of why the papers are being written in the first place....because OHC has not matched global atmospheric temps the past 8-9 years under the current AGW theory of GHGs. So this questions the sensitivity which is what the papers address.

Again, I personally think we need another decade to see what happens, but its a fair question to ask.

I think you are right. His "model" has been used as an excuse to avoid the satellite data from the TERRA board showing excess heat released to space, the range of IPCC models (most to least sensitive) is multiplied by 20X in the Observational data.

[skierinvermont]

This is the NOAA11 satellite...WTF? This data is not from NOAA11, it is now being run on NOAA16 calibrated off NOAA15.

You went and googled "OLR data affected by Satellite drift"...didn't you?

And ISCCP has never been proven incorrect.

Umm no.. I went to the CPC website and went to the references provided like good researchers should.

The CPC data came from NOAA 11.. now it comes from NOAA 16. Over the years it has come from 22 different satellites. All of which have satellite drift.

The full list of satellites used to collect CPC OLR data over the last 30+ years is provided here on their website:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.interp_OLR.html

[BethesdaWX]

The trend in the uncorrected and erroneous OLR data is much less than 4.5W/m2 .. it is more like a change of 2W/m2. The probable size of the error given by Trenberth is at least as large as the actual trend itself.

We don't know (empirically) whether OLR has increased or decreased.

It has1979 at least when taking the globe into account. Again I will happy demonstrate the 4.5W/m^2 increase. NOAA16 does not have drift issues. And we do because your analysis was based on the NOAA11 satellite

For one thing, we can measure reflected SW energy to verify any problems...there have been none. This is why scientists are able to reference the TOA imbalance.

[skierinvermont]

It has1979 at least when taking the globe into account. Again I will happy demonstrate the 4.5W/m^2 increase. NOAA16 does not have drift issues. And we do because your analysis was based on the NOAA11 satellite

For one thing, we can measure reflected SW energy to verify any problems...there have been none. This is why scientists are able to reference the TOA imbalance.

Go ahead and demonstrate it. I am looking right at the CPC data and there is no 4.5W/m2 increase in OLR globally.. more like 2W/m2.

And it is not 'my' data that uses NOAA 11.. it is the CPC data.

It's right on their website.. they list every satellite used and the dates they were used for. NOAA 11 was used 1992-1994.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.interp_OLR.html

[BethesdaWX]

Umm no.. I went to the CPC website and went to the references provided like good researchers should.

The CPC data came from NOAA 11.. now it comes from NOAA 16. Over the years it has come from over 18 different satellites. All of which have satellite drift.

Pre 1979? Yes if you want to reference NOAA11...certainly not post-periodic. This is exactly what I am trying to reference to you/ I offered to demonstrate the OLR increase by 4.5W/m^2 (~) since 1979...and knowing 4.5W/m^2 in OLR equates to 1.3C if thermal would suggest it is a bit high...remove even 3W/m^2 and you get at least 0.35C, in between 0.35C and 0.4C.

[skierinvermont]

Pre 1979? Yes if you want to reference NOAA11...certainly not post-periodic. This is exactly what I am trying to reference to you/ I offered to demonstrate the OLR increase by 4.5W/m^2 (~) since 1979...and knowing 4.5W/m^2 in OLR equates to 1.3C if thermal would suggest it is a bit high...remove even 3W/m^2 and you get at least 0.35C, in between 0.35C and 0.4C.

There is no 4.5W/m2 increase in OLR in the CPC data since 1979.. it is more like 2W/m2. You keep saying you are going to show me this 4.5W/m2 increase.. but you haven't .. and I'm looking right at the CPC data myself.

The CPC used NOAA-11 from 1992 to 1994 to collect their OLR data. The CPC has used 22 different satellites for various periods to collect the OLR data.

http://www.esrl.noaa...interp_OLR.html

[BethesdaWX]

Go ahead and demonstrate it. I am looking right at the CPC data and there is no 4.5W/m2 increase in OLR globally.. more like 2W/m2.

And it is not 'my' data that uses NOAA 11.. it is the CPC data.

It's right on their website.. they list every satellite used and the dates they were used for. NOAA 11 was used 1992-1994.

http://www.esrl.noaa...interp_OLR.html

Before I demonstrate it, here is the data I am using, just in case you want to call foul and sat I made it up:

[skierinvermont]

That graph shows a ~2W/m2 increase in OLR since 1979, exactly as I said. Not a 4.5W/m2 increase.

[BethesdaWX]

FYI skier here is what NOAA says:

The following is a list of satellites used, with their initial equatorial crossing times. Whenever available, we have used the 1430 crossing times. After Mar 1 2001, we switched to NOAA16 which uses a 1350 crossing time (NOAA14 had started to suffer from severe drift). These correspond to the 'odd' numbered satellites (except for NOAA14, which was an emergency replacement for the exploded NOAA 13). The 1430 crossing times are preferred because they have been available for the longest time (John Janowiak, personal communication). Note that each of the satellites drifted considerably from its initial crossing time (see Bates et al. 1996, Journal of Climate, page 429.). Anyone discovering huge heretofor undocumented variability is advised to check the following table before publishing their result, as changing crossing times can cause spurious variability, especially over land. The difference between NOAA 14 and NOAA 12 for February, 1995 is shown here.

[skierinvermont]

FYI skier here is what NOAA says:

The following is a list of satellites used, with their initial equatorial crossing times. Whenever available, we have used the 1430 crossing times. After Mar 1 2001, we switched to NOAA16 which uses a 1350 crossing time (NOAA14 had started to suffer from severe drift). These correspond to the 'odd' numbered satellites (except for NOAA14, which was an emergency replacement for the exploded NOAA 13). The 1430 crossing times are preferred because they have been available for the longest time (John Janowiak, personal communication). Note that each of the satellites drifted considerably from its initial crossing time (see Bates et al. 1996, Journal of Climate, page 429.). Anyone discovering huge heretofor undocumented variability is advised to check the following table before publishing their result, as changing crossing times can cause spurious variability, especially over land. The difference between NOAA 14 and NOAA 12 for February, 1995 is shown here.

lol that is straight from the link I provided you.. don't you think I read my own link?

As I said, one of the satellites used is NOAA-11, among many other satellites. All of which have drift.

[BethesdaWX]

That graph shows a ~2W/m2 increase in OLR since 1979, exactly as I said. Not a 4.5W/m2 increase.

You didn't read my post...Between the 1990's and 2000's

[skierinvermont]

You realize that when they say the "switched" to NOAA-16 that means only the new data is collected by NOAA-16 right? The old data still comes from the other satellites, such as NOAA-11.

NOAA-16 didn't exist until 1999.. how was it supposed to collect data from the 20 years prior to its launch?

[BethesdaWX]

lol that is straight from the link I provided you.. don't you think I read my own link?

As I said, one of the satellites used is NOAA-11, among many other satellites. All of which have drift.

???

Not post-1979..NOAA11. And it isn't from your link, go to Climate4you and it is listed right on there.

[ORH_wxman]

I think you are right. His "model" has been used as an excuse to avoid the satellite data from the TERRA board showing excess heat released to space, the range of IPCC models (most to least sensitive) is multiplied by 20X in the Observational data.

If it goes on much longer, then even guys like Trenberth will have to adjust their saying....its definitely the biggest fly in the ointment at this moment on climate sensitivity. BTW, you are wrong and skier is right in your stupid NOAA satellite argument that is hijacking this thread.

[skierinvermont]

You realize that when they say the "switched" to NOAA-16 that means only the new data is collected by NOAA-16 right? The old data still comes from the other satellites, such as NOAA-11.

NOAA-16 didn't exist until 1999.. how was it supposed to collect data from the 20 years prior to its launch?

how exactly do you propose that NOAA-16 which was launched Sept 20 2000 collected data 1979-2000?

[BethesdaWX]

You realize that when they say the "switched" to NOAA-16 that means only the new data is collected by NOAA-16 right? The old data still comes from the other satellites, such as NOAA-11.

NOAA-16 didn't exist until 1999.. how was it supposed to collect data from the 20 years prior to its launch?

And I never said anything to the contrary there dude, I stated that the satellite analysis you used was NOAA11 pre-1979 data...and it was. Other datasets do not have nearly the drift issues.

And yes the data IS CALIBRATED to Satellite drift upon presentation. Here, I am going to email NOAA right now just for you since you will not believe me and/or look.

[BethesdaWX]

how exactly do you propose that NOAA-16 which was launched Sept 20 2000 collected data 1979-2000?

You're imagining things, where the hell did I say that? Nowhere.

[skierinvermont]

I stated that the satellite analysis you used was NOAA11 pre-1979 data...and it was.

Again.. how exactly did NOAA-11 which was launched in the late 1980s collect data pre-1979?

The analysis I used was the same CPC analysis you are using which is posted on climate4you. It comes from 22 different satellites over various periods the last 30 years. And according to Trenberth, the drift causes up to a 3W/m2 error since 1979. Which is greater than the trend of 2W/m2 in the data.

Ergo, the data is useless.

[BethesdaWX]

If it goes on much longer, then even guys like Trenberth will have to adjust their saying....its definitely the biggest fly in the ointment at this moment on climate sensitivity. BTW, you are wrong and skier is right in your stupid NOAA satellite argument that is hijacking this thread.

That NOAA16 measured back to 1979? That OLR data After Calibration equates to an unknown number? #1 I never said, #2 he thinks the data is uncalibrated.

I'm emailing NOAA to be sure.

[BethesdaWX]

Again.. how exactly did NOAA-11 which was launched in the late 1980s collect data pre-1979?

The analysis I used was the same CPC analysis you are using which is posted on climate4you. It comes from 22 different satellites over various periods the last 30 years. And according to Trenberth, the drift causes up to a 3W/m2 error.

I never said anything like that

[BethesdaWX]

For some reason you are thinking that NOAA is going to present uncalibrated, bad data...you realize we can calibrated for satellite drift...right?

[skierinvermont]

I never said anything like that

"I stated that the satellite analysis you used was NOAA11 pre-1979 data...and it was. "

Noaa 11 did not exist until the late 1980s. There is no such thing as "NOAA11 pre-1979 data"

[ORH_wxman]

You guys engage eachother. Dual progress.

[skierinvermont]

For some reason you are thinking that NOAA is going to present uncalibrated, bad data...you realize we can calibrated for satellite drift...right?

It is extremely difficult.. which is why UAH ****ed it up the first several times they published their data (and we still don't know for sure that they've got it right).

Why did UAH publish their bad data? Why didn't they calibrate for satellite drift for over 10 years?

Correcting for satellite drift is difficult.. especially when you have to merge 22 satellites with little overlap between them.

[BethesdaWX]

"I stated that the satellite analysis you used was NOAA11 pre-1979 data...and it was. "

Noaa 11 did not exist until the late 1980s. There is no such thing as "NOAA11 pre-1979 data"

:violin: :violin:

UGH!!! Your quote from Trenberth Numbnut... Your linked paper was referring to NOAA11 in your quote. Blahhgg!

Don't play stupid...its not working. Seriously.

[skierinvermont]

You guys engage eachother. Dual progress.

I think he's progressing. Hopefully once he is finally convinced the OLR data is no good, we can stop reading his crackpot OLR-cloud theory every other post.