AvantHiatus Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Nobody is disputing global warming is occurring in this thread. 0.05C/decade is essentially no global warming because it invalidates our current understanding of TCS and ECS. Global Warming can manifest itself in different ways. The satellites are only one-side of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 0.05C/decade is essentially no global warming because it invalidates our current understanding of TCS and ECS. Global Warming can manifest itself in different ways. The satellites are only one-side of the story. Our current understanding of TCR and ECS is already under a lot of debate in the literature. The satellite data isn't even used in most of those papers. It is the surface data used. Satellite data has some interesting signatures in its own right that are debated, but they are left out of the TCR/ECS debate for the most part. I've seen it used in a few papers here and there...esp the ones that try and gauge volcanic effects...but they are not the bread and butter of the TCR/ECS literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 The STAR^3 dataset is not operational, though, and doesn't show anything close to an 0.25C/decade trend in the TMT. The trend it shows is roughly 0.14C/decade in the TMT layer, very similar to UAH^6's 0.11C/decade. Other non-operational datasets include the ESRL, SSU, and ECM datasets The page I listed quite clearly shows that STAR is 'operational.' We were discussing tropical TMT where STAR is .25C/decade and UAH is (or was) like .05C/decade (before yet another massive change in methodology). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 STAR is a weird dataset...I've seen like 5 different versions of it which all show different trends....I'm not sure if it is because it has undergone multiple revisions or not. Is there some site that actually keeps track of it in a homogenous manner that updates regularly? Are you sure you've seen different versions or is it just sometimes global TMT and sometimes tropical TMT? STAR tropical TMT is reported a lot because that is where the disparity is largest and more in line with a couple other datasets and models. With TMT, TLT, TUT, and then global, tropical etc. you can end up with quite a lot of combinations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 STAR is a weird dataset...I've seen like 5 different versions of it which all show different trends....I'm not sure if it is because it has undergone multiple revisions or not. Is there some site that actually keeps track of it in a homogenous manner that updates regularly? Pretty much. There's a reason it's not even used in AR5. It's not even an operational dataset..it's no better than the aggregated OLR data on the NOAA ESRL site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Pretty much. There's a reason it's not even used in AR5. It's not even an operational dataset..it's no better than the aggregated OLR data on the NOAA ESRL site. Wrong again. It is used in AR5. You're on a streak! It is featured prominently in the text, and multiple tables and graphs. It's like you didn't even read the section! This is what happens when you bend reality to your own viewpoint. You end up being wrong most of the time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Are you sure you've seen different versions or is it just sometimes global TMT and sometimes tropical TMT? STAR tropical TMT is reported a lot because that is where the disparity is largest and more in line with a couple other datasets and models. With TMT, TLT, TUT, and then global, tropical etc. you can end up with quite a lot of combinations. It's very possible I've seen different graphs of the same dataset...just different levels and/or regions. I feel like it was probably more the TLT on STAR where I have seen multiple trendlines. I just have never seen a good site that updates all the data regularly from STAR, so it can be confusing to discuss. Maybe they have one now...but I'm not aware of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Nobody is disputing global warming is occurring in this thread. The "implicit" point is .. the conversation's purpose is getting lost in all this petty validation nonsense over different data methods/sources.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 The "implicit" point is .. the conversation's purpose is getting lost in all this petty validation nonsense over different data methods/sources.. Well the thread is specifically 2015 global temps, so I'd assume the conversation's purpose is to discuss the temperatures in 2015 thus far. Different datasets are going to show some different anomaly values for 2015 given it is a 4 month sample thus far. Both satellite datasets and surface datasets are peer reviewed. They don't measure the same thing though...as we know, the atmosphere is 3 dimensional...so it is not uncommon to see satellites show different anomaly values over a period of several months (or even longer) than the surface datasets...over the longer term, they tend to generally match pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 It's very possible I've seen different graphs of the same dataset...just different levels and/or regions. I feel like it was probably more the TLT on STAR where I have seen multiple trendlines. I just have never seen a good site that updates all the data regularly from STAR, so it can be confusing to discuss. Maybe they have one now...but I'm not aware of it. Yeah I wasn't aware of one either but the site posted above seems to be updated monthly. Also I don't think STAR even does TLT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Yeah I wasn't aware of one either but the site posted above seems to be updated monthly. Also I don't think STAR even does TLT? I'm pretty sure they do TLT or at least they did at some point. Maybe it's not as QC'd as the TMT stuff. Or perhaps I am completely misremembering. I'll have to go back and find where I was reading about it. I thought I remember reading a paper that was comparing all the data sets at around 10-15k feet in the atmosphere which would be the TLT levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Well the thread is specifically 2015 global temps, so I'd assume the conversation's purpose is to discuss the temperatures in 2015 thus far. Different datasets are going to show some different anomaly values for 2015 given it is a 4 month sample thus far. Both satellite datasets and surface datasets are peer reviewed. They don't measure the same thing though...as we know, the atmosphere is 3 dimensional...so it is not uncommon to see satellites show different anomaly values over a period of several months (or even longer) than the surface datasets...over the longer term, they tend to generally match pretty well. You know you're right - ha I had this thread confused with the climate change one.... my bad. Having said that, it's interesting that NOAA's conclusions are that J-A in 2015 is the warmest J-A in history of science in the matter. Obviously ... they have settled on a method of data consumption that must not include the satellite (or much of) data for a reason. Wonder what that is? While on the subject tho - it's certainly is a good idea to scrutinize data methodology. For obviously reasons... The application, tho - I'm not sure it is always used the right way. Surface temps (measured) -vs- satellite plumbing and mid levels... these have different significance, where either may be more indicative of the system for different reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Wrong again. It is used in AR5. You're on a streak! It is featured prominently in the text, and multiple tables and graphs. It's like you didn't even read the section! This is what happens when you bend reality to your own viewpoint. You end up being wrong most of the time! No, they don't cite it outside it's original designation, which is to measure tropical radiation fluxes in the shorter term (see the ESRL page). The "STAR" compilation is nothing more than a drift-calibrated aggregation of NOAA satellites, and is not operational. You might as well cite the ISCCP or CFS-R data while you're at it. Bombarding me with PMs accusing me of taking drugs, etc is simply uncalled for. I'd recommend taking a Valium or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 It should be noted that the CFSv2 is an NCEP product. http://cfs.ncep.noaa.gov/ Dr. Maue's CFSv2 maps are derived from the NCEP product. From the technical paper on the CFSR: It is extremely difficult to assimilate T2m over land in systems like the CFSR. For this reason, ERA-40 post-processed observed T2m into their output. I am going to try to get a hold of Dr Maue. I know an FSU professor than worked with him. I can see if I can get his email and get his take. I really want to see what is up with the CFSv2. The CFSv2 now is in line with UAH and RSS with anomalies...the step down noticed in 2010 can be seen in the satellite data just not to the extent the CFSv2 shows... The sfc data shows significant warming in 2013-14 and begins to diverge from MSU, RSS and CFSv2. The older version of Hadcrut did show this drop and actually does have 05-06 warmer than 2010 but the newer version gets rid of it (of course). Furthermore Dr Maue who does the CFSv2 climo is a PHD atmospheric scientist who graduated from Florida State. He is well known and respected. Who are you guys to criticize him? He can run circles around you in this global warming debate and his methods are genuine. To call this disingenuous is to call him disingenuous too. Why would they post that stuff if it were false?? I'm have a PhD in atmospheric and oceanic science, I was formerly employed at NCEP, and I am one of the co-authors on the CFSR paper that appeared in BAMS....so why don't you just ask me? I think I already gave a summary reply on this matter in this or the banter thread, but the CFSR should not be used for temperature monitoring as if it was like on of the other datasets that have been designed to do so. CFSR is a multi-stream reanalysis product put together as part of CFSv2 in order to create initial conditions for the 1979-2010 period for generating hindcasts in order to do bias correction, generate skill masks, and provide calibration. The CFSR follow-on continues to run in real time but several changes were made starting in 2009 for technical reasons. It should be noted that Don correctly points out that surface data is not assimilation into CFSR/CDAS. There are also issues/discontinuities where the multiple streams overlap in the CFSR. At the time, one of the plans was to merge the CFSR (called CDAS, coupled data assimilation system) with the GDAS (global data assimilation system used for the GFS). In 2010, the atmospheric model that is used in the data assimilation cycling for CDAS (not the same as the prediction model in CFSv2 to generate the 45 and 9 month forecasts) was increased in resolution along with other changes. It is my understanding that there is a potential issue that was introduced in terms of initializing the snow (and possibly sea ice) when this resolution increase went operational in 2010. There are also hints of excess soil moisture in the CDAS system, particularly at high/mid latitudes, yielding excess precipitation and a lower troposophere that is much too cool/moist. That's the short version without getting overly technical. Even without the changes in 2010, one needs to be careful about using the reanalysis products (MERRA, ERA-Interim, CFSR) because they are model drive, and the observing system is extremely inhomogeneous through the reanalysis period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I'm have a PhD in atmospheric and oceanic science, I was formerly employed at NCEP, and I am one of the co-authors on the CFSR paper that appeared in BAMS....so why don't you just ask me? I think I already gave a summary reply on this matter in this or the banter thread, but the CFSR should not be used for temperature monitoring as if it was like on of the other datasets that have been designed to do so. CFSR is a multi-stream reanalysis product put together as part of CFSv2 in order to create initial conditions for the 1979-2010 period for generating hindcasts in order to do bias correction, generate skill masks, and provide calibration. The CFSR follow-on continues to run in real time but several changes were made starting in 2009 for technical reasons. It should be noted that Don correctly points out that surface data is not assimilation into CFSR/CDAS. There are also issues/discontinuities where the multiple streams overlap in the CFSR. At the time, one of the plans was to merge the CFSR (called CDAS, coupled data assimilation system) with the GDAS (global data assimilation system used for the GFS). In 2010, the atmospheric model that is used in the data assimilation cycling for CDAS (not the same as the prediction model in CFSv2 to generate the 45 and 9 month forecasts) was increased in resolution along with other changes. It is my understanding that there is a potential issue that was introduced in terms of initializing the snow (and possibly sea ice) when this resolution increase went operational in 2010. There are also hints of excess soil moisture in the CDAS system, particularly at high/mid latitudes, yielding excess precipitation and a lower troposophere that is much too cool/moist. That's the short version without getting overly technical. Even without the changes in 2010, one needs to be careful about using the reanalysis products (MERRA, ERA-Interim, CFSR) because they are model drive, and the observing system is extremely inhomogeneous through the reanalysis period. I appreciate the information on CFS. I really do. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Vortex 2014 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Dr Masters: "Earth has its 4th warmest April and warmest January-April on record" http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2994 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Just filthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 As we stand on the brink likely shattering another global temperature record in 2015, I figured I analyze the historical nature of the potential magnitude of the record. Right now 2015 stands at 77.5 above the 1951-1980 baseline. With a developing moderate to strong nino moving into what's been the northern hemisphere's warmest monthly anomalies Summer-Fall, it appears we could be heading for a 80-85 C anomaly on GISS for the yearly value. This would be an increase of .12 to .17C above the previous record. For reference, 1998 broke the previous year's max record by 0.15C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I thought this was an interesting chart: From here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Vortex 2014 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 If you've ever wondered what global warming sounds like, click below. This may be especially useful for some of the climate change deniers who seem incapable of reading charts. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/now-you-can-hear-climate-change-video/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 If you've ever wondered what global warming sounds like, click below. This may be especially useful for some of the climate change deniers who seem incapable of reading charts. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/now-you-can-hear-climate-change-video/ That was brilliant and innovative, thank you for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 The noisy OHC series spiked upward in the 1 qtr.of 2015 - 0-2000m below Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 Huge spike at 0-700 meters too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Wow that's ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Wow that's ugly. Do you think that the Earth's temperatures are going to spike significantly like the 1998 el nino and not return or steady out??? are you thinking that we are going to blow torch warm now into the 2020s??? I am not asking this to trap you I am just wondering if you guys really think the climate system is about to dramtically change, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Do you think that the Earth's temperatures are going to spike significantly like the 1998 el nino and not return or steady out??? are you thinking that we are going to blow torch warm now into the 2020s??? I am not asking this to trap you I am just wondering if you guys really think the climate system is about to dramtically change, My guess is that there is some catch-up from the hiatus but we won't stray too far from the long-term upward trend of roughly 0.16C per decade since 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophisticated Skeptic Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Do you think that the Earth's temperatures are going to spike significantly like the 1998 el nino and not return or steady out??? are you thinking that we are going to blow torch warm now into the 2020s??? I am not asking this to trap you I am just wondering if you guys really think the climate system is about to dramtically change, If Temperatures, Sea levels, CO2 levels (and more ) were slowly rising and then steadying out only after an El Nino season...none of us would be wasting our time here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 My guess is that there is some catch-up from the hiatus but we won't stray too far from the long-term upward trend of roughly 0.16C per decade since 1970.That's my take as well. There may be short periods of time where the rate is faster than the average, and there may be short periods of time where the rate is slower than the average, but the long term trend will average upward at the same rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 That's my take as well. There may be short periods of time where the rate is faster than the average, and there may be short periods of time where the rate is slower than the average, but the long term trend will average upward at the same rate. The problem is its on top of 1C warming we have already had. While surface temperature is linear, ice sheet decay is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.