skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 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. Yes it referred to NOAA-11.. not "NOAA-11 pre-1979 data" as you put it. Your words. Trenberth believes there is an obvious problem with the calibration of NOAA-11 in the late 1980s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 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. You do not have to engage or promote it...I told him he was wrong about satellite drift. He could stick to real points like why the OHC is not matching up the last 8-9 years....but he doesn't listen obviously. I know you like to engage in this and promote his responses, but it contributes to derailed threads that you like to complain about here. I don;t think Bethesda has broken any rules since we let him back, but engaging in the circular discussion doesn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 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. Well this is going to end quickly. I think once you realize the data has been calibrated for (after I emailed NOAA and asked for the error potential after calibration), together, we can go through it all, why the heavier warming at the surface and less in the LT, the ISWR measurements...and all equilibrium perturbations, will equate to the trend we've seen since 1979. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 You do not have to engage or promote it...I told him he was wrong about satellite drift. He could stick to real points like why the OHC is not matching up the last 8-9 years....but he doesn't listen obviously. I know you like to engage in this and promote his responses, but it contributes to derailed threads that you like to complain about here. I don;t think Bethesda has broken any rules since we let him back, but engaging in the circular discussion doesn't help. Except of course his 3rd post back calling me stupid and the post above calling me a numbnut. I think engaging him has caused him to progress slowly.. he no longer cuts and pastes long crackpot rantings from the internet. He no longer relies on ISCCP cloud data like he used to. Hopefully he'll stop relying on CPC OLR data too. And the coherency of his writing has improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Well this is going to end quickly. I think once you realize the data has been calibrated for (after I emailed NOAA and asked for the error potential after calibration), together, we can go through it all, why the heavier warming at the surface and less in the LT, the ISWR measurements...and all equilibrium perturbations, will equate to the trend we've seen since 1979. Why do you need to email NOAA when Trenberth cites it right in his paper as 3W/m2 of error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 You do not have to engage or promote it...I told him he was wrong about satellite drift. He could stick to real points like why the OHC is not matching up the last 8-9 years....but he doesn't listen obviously. I know you like to engage in this and promote his responses, but it contributes to derailed threads that you like to complain about here. I don;t think Bethesda has broken any rules since we let him back, but engaging in the circular discussion doesn't help. I agree 100% with skier on satellite drift... What are either of you referring to here? My quote was in relation to his link on Trenberth and NOAA11...NOAA11 is what he linked a paper by trenberth on drift. My point is NOAA presents calibrated data that is fit to use...and is why it is presented on the site and used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Why do you need to email NOAA when Trenberth cites it right in his paper as 3W/m2 of error? Trenberth was referring to NOAA11, in the link you posted...if he was written other papers I have not read them...I am emailing NOAA to confirm the error potential after calibration, and if the trend can be used. I already know the answer since I work with this data/studies in my Atmospheric science classes, but this is for your own clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I agree 100% with skier on satellite drift... What are either of you referring to here? My quote was in relation to his link on Trenberth and NOAA11...NOAA11 is what he linked a paper by trenberth on drift. My point is NOAA presents calibrated data that is fit to use...and is why it is presented on the site and used. As Trenberth and the other sites I have linked to explain the calibrations performed are only rough guesses in an attempt to reduce the error caused by the drift. And the calibration is only applied to 30S to 30N while the rest of the globe remains uncalibrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Except of course his 3rd post back calling me stupid and the post above calling me a numbnut. I think engaging him has caused him to progress slowly.. he no longer cuts and pastes long crackpot rantings from the internet. He no longer relies on ISCCP cloud data like he used to. Hopefully he'll stop relying on CPC OLR data too. And the coherency of his writing has improved. Ha..At least I've progressed... NOAA will not post uncalibrated data/bad data to the public. The data has been calibrated to satellite drift...done and done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Ha..At least I've progressed... NOAA will not post uncalibrated data/bad data to the public. The data has been calibrated to satellite drift...done and done. There is no correction performed outside of 30S-30N. Even within 30S-30N the correction is inadequate according to Trenberth. The data is presented to the public because short term variability is important for predicting things like ENSO.. and other more complicated scientific uses. It's not intended for long-term trend usage. Which is why they say that on their website and in the published papers. Delta represents the difference between the uncorrected and the corrected OLR anomalies between 30N and 30S. By corrected, we mean the OLR corrected anomalies of Waliser and Zhou, 1997, J. Climate, pages 2125-2146. To utilize the global NOAA OLR dataset, we apply the Waliser correction to the region between +/- 30 degrees, (through July 1996 only) and apply a tapered correction near +/- 30 degrees to smooth any discontinuities that might be introduced. The tapered correction is as follows: we correct the region between +/- 27.5 degrees latitude by adding delta (at respective latitudes) to the anomalies. At +/- 30 degrees, we add 2/3*delta(@30 deg.), and at +/- 32.5 degrees, we add 1/3*delta(30 deg.). There is no correction poleward of 32.5 deg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Except of course his 3rd post back calling me stupid and the post above calling me a numbnut. I think engaging him has caused him to progress slowly.. he no longer cuts and pastes long crackpot rantings from the internet. He no longer relies on ISCCP cloud data like he used to. Hopefully he'll stop relying on CPC OLR data too. And the coherency of his writing has improved. I have no sympathy for you crying foul on that type of stuff after your thread on the WUWT ice min...you clearly are trolling as well, which is fine in good humor, but do not be a hypocrite and cry foul when others troll either like Tacoman. I think I'm fair for the most part in moderating here. But just remember, when you engage with problem posters, you are just as guilty as they are. You do not have to engage. Our greatest ability as smart people is the ability to choose. You choose to engage and troll, which is fine, but just do not expect sympathy when you do. I think we have a lot of good discussions in here, but when the engagement of 1 on 1 d*ck measuring contests take over threads, I do not have any sympathy for either poster. Again, I think we've been pretty fair, but correct me if I'm wrong on these assertions. We do like input that is genuine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 As Trenberth and the other sites I have linked to explain the calibrations performed are only rough guesses in an attempt to reduce the error caused by the drift. And the calibration is only applied to 30S to 30N while the rest of the globe remains uncalibrated. Yes...on NOAA11...that is the paper you linked to me...do I need to re-quote your own quote? NOAA14, especially NOAA15. have a much smaller error potential. If you're going to start within an earlier starting point to determine a trend...fine. But we have very good estimates of OLR since the 1990's...and this is where I stated: You didn't read my post...Between the 1990's and 2000's And In the period of higher accuracy, we have a 4.5W/m^2 increase in OLR Even if you want to incorrectly state it is uncalibrated, you have it right there an unequivocal increase in OLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 There is no correction performed outside of 30S-30N. Even within 30S-30N the correction is inadequate according to Trenberth. Read my post Above smart guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I have no sympathy for you crying foul on that type of stuff after your thread on the WUWT ice min...you clearly are trolling as well, which is fine in good humor, but do not be a hypocrite and cry foul when others troll either like Tacoman. I think I'm fair for the most part in moderating here. But just remember, when you engage with problem posters, you are just as guilty as they are. You do not have to engage. Our greatest ability as smart people is the ability to choose. You choose to engage and troll, which is fine, but just do not expect sympathy when you do. I think we have a lot of good discussions in here, but when the engagement of 1 on 1 d*ck measuring contests take over threads, I do not have any sympathy for either poster. Again, I think we've been pretty fair, but correct me if I'm wrong on these assertions. We do like input that is genuine. Exactly, and even though I'm sure I'm not your favorite poster here, I am trying to point out this exact hypocricy Andrew displays consistantly in my opinion. My own comment was between the 1990's/2000's own OLR data where calibrations are more certain between NOAA14/15, actually even from 1995 until now is all I need to demonstrate my view on climate sensitivity. Since the 1990's we have an increase of 4.5W/m^2, and even if we assume that it is completely uncalibrated and remove 3W/m^2 off we still have more than enough to equate to the 0.3C of warning since this timeframe. This is why NOAA11/12/13 are all irrelavent to my view, and why posting Giant Bold letters on trenberth >>>Pre 1990 datasets is simply badgering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I have no sympathy for you crying foul on that type of stuff after your thread on the WUWT ice min...you clearly are trolling as well, which is fine in good humor, but do not be a hypocrite and cry foul when others troll either like Tacoman. Yes I created that troll thread in direct response to his non-stop trolling and personal attacks in the ice threads. And my ice thread isn't an attack such as Bethesda's or taco's and it's not in an existing thread with an ongoing discussion. It sounds like you are saying I'm supposed to remain aloof and not respond to or reciprocate these attacks.. but making the initial attacks and making the initial troll posts that cause the problems.. that's ok. At least you acknowledge tacoman is trolling though which is more than can be said for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Yes...on NOAA11...that is the paper you linked to me...do I need to re-quote your own quote? NOAA14, especially NOAA15. have a much smaller error potential. If you're going to start within an earlier starting point to determine a trend...fine. But we have very good estimates of OLR since the 1990's...and this is where I stated: And In the period of higher accuracy, we have a 4.5W/m^2 increase in OLR Even if you want to incorrectly state it is uncalibrated, you have it right there an unequivocal increase in OLR. NOAA 15 was never used for OLR. They went straight from NOAA 14 to NOAA 16. NOAA 14 suffered from severe orbital decay which is why they switched to NOAA 16. The fact is they are stitching together a time series from 22 poorly calibrated satellites and specifically telling readers not to use it for long-term trends. You just don't want to listen. You claim to be more familiar with the quality of the data than the lead researchers themselves who make the data and are telling you not to use it for long-term trends. The problem is the data wasn't published for HS graduates and amateurs.. it was published for actual scientists who would do the research to learn about the quality of the data before using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 NOAA 15 was never used for OLR. They went straight from NOAA 14 to NOAA 16. NOAA 14 suffered from severe orbital decay which is why they switched to NOAA 16. The fact is they are stitching together a time series from 22 poorly calibrated satellites and specifically telling readers not to use it for long-term trends. You just don't want to listen. You claim to be more familiar with the quality of the data than the lead researchers themselves who make the data and are telling you not to use it for long-term trends. The problem is the data wasn't published for HS graduates.. it was published for actual scientists who would do the research to learn about the quality of the data before using it. Anything pre 1990-95 doesn't fit into this discussion, start from there and move forward. And it is published for anyone who wants to use it. The Data is published and used widely in climate/atmospheric education which I now take part in. Look, if you want to discuss the 1970's, 1980's, etc....be my guest. I'm not going to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Anything pre 1990-95 doesn't fit into this discussion, start from there and move forward. And it is published for anyone who wants to use it. The Data is published and used widely in climate/atmospheric education which I now take part in. Look, if you want to discuss the 1970's, 1980's, etc....be my guest. I'm not going to. NOAA 14 which suffered severe decay was in use until 2001. I don't know what kind of decay NOAA-16 or NOAA-18 have experienced. The data even since the 1990s is unreliable. Go ahead and email someone in the contact section on the OLR page. They will tell you, as the peer-reviewed publications also tell you, that the data isn't reliable for long-term trends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 NOAA 14 which suffered severe decay was in use until 2001. I don't know what kind of decay NOAA-16 or NOAA-18 have experienced. Well it is simple here, we have good data/trends in OLR after 2000...Orbital Decay happens over time, so when NOAA14 was first launched it should have given resonable measurements...same goes for all of the numerous satellites launched...the data should have been usable for at least 2-3yrs after the launches of all these satellites.....using this we can indeed give a reasonable estimation of longer term OLR trends OVERALL. This is why if/when NOAA chooses to return my email they will state the data is usable in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Well it is simple here, we have good data/trends in OLR after 2000...Orbital Decay happens over time, so when NOAA14 was first launched it should have given resonable measurements...same goes for all of the numerous satellites launched...the data should have been usable for at least 2-3yrs after the launches of all these satellites.....using this we can indeed give a reasonable estimation of longer term OLR trends OVERALL. This is why if/when NOAA chooses to return my email they will state the data is usable in this regard. If only all the actual scientists had realized all this! Indeed, this thought had occurred to me, but instead of presuming I just figured out that OLR data really is accurate when all the scientists say it is not, my presumption is that I should do more research to figure out what it is about satellites that I don't understand and why you can't just combine readings from satellites when they are first launched. I'll get back to you when I find out. It's funny.. you presume that the OLR data is accurate for no other reason except that it is published despite the specific warning that it is NOT accurate on the NOAA website and in peer-reviewed articles. But you presume that GISS data is NOT accurate when all the scientists say it is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 If only all the actual scientists had realized all this! Indeed, this thought had occurred to me, but instead of presuming I just figured out that OLR data really is accurate when all the scientists say it is not, my presumption is that I should do more research to figure out what it is about satellites that I don't understand. They do realize this...how do you think TOA is determined? The OLR data is usable once calibrated... NOAA's return email will settle this...I already know what they will say, but you don't trust basic fact so we'll do it this way I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 They do realize this...how do you think TOA is determined? The OLR data is usable once calibrated... NOAA's return email will settle this...I already know what they will say, but you don't trust basic fact so we'll do it this way I guess NOAA will say exactly the same thing they say on their website and in the peer-reviewed journals. If they don't then they are either lying to you or lying to the public and we could probably sue them. I don't know why having someone tell you something in an email is any better than them writing it on the website. The TOA energy imbalance is determined via OHC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 NOAA will say exactly the same thing they say on their website and in the peer-reviewed journals. The TOA energy imbalance is determined via OHC. Correct...they will respond saying the trends in OLR are viable to determine an overall trend with reasonable error bars. Not trenberth's analysis of NOAA11...The IPCC event states that OLR has increased. Should I quote them? I will bet you $500 right now...are you game? Lets do it. TOA includes Cloud Cover, Ozone, GHG...anything that will affect the budget...as in, the general incoming/outgoing energies from the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Wow andrew how much sleep do you get a night? You logged off a few yrs ago... 4-5hrs of sleep ain't enough man, you you should sleep a little longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Correct...they will respond saying the trends in OLR are viable to determine an overall trend with reasonable error bars. Not trenberth's analysis of NOAA11...The IPCC event states that OLR has increased. Should I quote them? I will bet you $500 right now...are you game? Lets do it. TOA includes Cloud Cover, Ozone, GHG...anything that will affect the budget...as in, the general incoming/outgoing energies from the system. Sure I will bet you $500 they do not say it has actually increased (as opposed to simply being falsely measured to increase). Guess I win that bet: Here's what the IPCC says about the OLR data produced by the AVHRR instruments used by the CPC to produce OLR data: However, calibration issues, conversion from narrow to broadband, and satellite orbit changes are thought to render the AVHRR record less reliable for decadal changes compared to ERBS (Wong et al., 2006). ... In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Where's my $500? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Sure I will bet you $500 they do not say it has actually increased (as opposed to simply being falsely measured to increase). Guess I win that bet: Here's what the IPCC says about the OLR data produced by the AVHRR instruments used by the CPC to produce OLR data: However, calibration issues, conversion from narrow to broadband, and satellite orbit changes are thought to render the AVHRR record less reliable for decadal changes compared to ERBS (Wong et al., 2006). That doesn't address the issue, what does less reliable have to due with an increase/decrease in OLR? IPCC states it has increased in AR4..I remeber reading that clearly, that was the point...I believe the datsset they used showed an 0.7W/m^2 Increase...enough for a 0.26C increase in temps during the timeframe...When I hear back from NOAA this will be over. Last time I emailed them I got a response 2 days later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 That doesn't address the issue, what does less reliable have to due with an increase/decrease in OLR? IPCC states it has increased in AR4..I remeber reading that clearly, that was the point...I believe the datsset they used showed an 0.7W/m^2 Increase...When I hear back from NOAA this will be over. Last time I emailed them I got a responde 2 days later. It resolves the issue of what the IPCC has to say about OLR which was the bet you offered. The two quotes I provided show the IPCC believes evidence of changes in radiative fluxes to be equivocal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 It resolves the issue of what the IPCC has to say about OLR which was the bet you offered. The two quotes I provided show the IPCC believes evidence of changes in radiative fluxes to be equivocal. Yes, that OLR specifically has increased. Point #2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Yes, that OLR specifically has increased. Point #2 Do you know what equivocal means? It means inconclusive. They are saying that changes in radiative flux (both for SW and for LW) are inconclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Just to re-quote: Correct...they will respond saying the trends in OLR are viable to determine an overall trend with reasonable error bars. Not trenberth's analysis of NOAA11...The IPCC event states that OLR has increased. Should I quote them? I will bet you $500 right now...are you game? Lets do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.