AvantHiatus Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Sure, each layer's temperature must be interpolated wth it's own homing algorithm. That said, stratospheric contamination of TLT microwave emissions is a non-issue..O^2's microwave emission rate is tied to it's oscillation frequency (given the fact it's bi-atomic) which is determined by the surrounding air pressure. This makes it easy to decipher the height of the so-called tropopause..this is exactly how we found out that the tropopausal altitude varies with latitude. The uncertainties in the satellite data are largely a result of sensor degradation, merging inconsistencies, and orbital drift...though the latter is fairly easy to adjust for.. Not to be rude, but I suspect you (and others) have an ulterior motive for talking down the satellite data. The fact that we're quarreling over a few hundreds-of-a-degree difference in error potential between the various datasets pretty much gives it away. The argument you're proposing is semantical. The idea of measuring the global lower troposphere and expecting high accuracy with current technology is lols. Stratospheric cooling is the real baseline parameter you should care about and is indicative of steady warming with no slowdowns. I don't know the measuring algorithm in detail but it's possible the mean axis of the troposphere energy balance migrated to a different altitude, fooling the satellites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 None of what you said makes any sense whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 None of what you said makes any sense whatsoever. You know more about this subject than I do. Imagine the atmosphere as a onion layer, with each layer being a different temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 You know more about this subject than I do. Imagine the atmosphere as a onion layer, with each layer being a different temperature. No worries. The atmosphere is nothing like an onion though..that's just how we humans categorize it for various reasons. The atmosphere is a gravitationally-bound fluid in motion and multi-domainal transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Sure, each layer's temperature must be interpolated wth it's own homing algorithm. That said, stratospheric contamination of TLT microwave emissions is a non-issue..O^2's microwave emission rate is tied to it's oscillation frequency (given the fact it's bi-atomic) which is determined by the surrounding air pressure. This makes it easy to decipher the height of the so-called tropopause..this is exactly how we found out that the tropopausal altitude varies with latitude. The uncertainties in the satellite data are largely a result of sensor degradation, merging inconsistencies, and orbital drift...though the latter is fairly easy to adjust for.. Not to be rude, but I suspect you (and others) have an ulterior motive for talking down the satellite data. The fact that we're quarreling over a few hundreds-of-a-degree difference in error potential between the various datasets pretty much gives it away. The argument you're proposing is semantical. What baloney..No need to BS us about O2 radiation that you know nothing about or to be rude either. As with most of the myriad quarrels you are involved with in its clear you don't understand satellite temperature data. Measuring temperature through a thick layer causes a loss in vertical resolution which is a limitation in satellite temperature measurements. Radiosondes found the tropopause not satellites. When the tropopause runs through TLT as it can at high latitude, then layers with a cooling temperature trend are included in the layer average diluting the warming signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I'm not a denier in any shape form or fashion, so I totally disagree. But I think it's ridiculous to assert that human subjectiveness will never play a role in any data collecting. We've already seen that in Climategate, being very subjective indeed plays a role in science at times...so let's not go there. I just hope for pure honesty from all data sets...I'm not sure that can always be counted on. I hope you're correct & it's never an issue at all. But when you have government agencies doing work & a President that just flat out lied about extreme weather events the other then forgive me for not being as trusting. It doesn't change the facts that humans are indeed contributing in an unfortunate way to a warming globe, but it does put a dent on my trust modulator. I wish politics didn't play a role at all but we know that's not going to happen. This is all mis-information that circulates endlessly in the denier blogosphere - don't be so gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 What baloney..No need to BS us about O2 radiation that you know nothing about or to be rude either. As with most of the myriad quarrels you are involved with in its clear you don't understand satellite temperature data. Measuring temperature through a thick layer causes a loss in vertical resolution which is a limitation in satellite temperature measurements. Radiosondes found the tropopause not satellites. When the tropopause runs through TLT as it can at high latitude, then layers with a cooling temperature trend are included in the layer average diluting the warming signal.The higher latitides are a very small part of the earth's surface area, however, so any TLT contamination by the lower tropopause should be minimized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted June 1, 2015 Author Share Posted June 1, 2015 What baloney..No need to BS us about O2 radiation that you know nothing about or to be rude either. As with most of the myriad quarrels you are involved with in its clear you don't understand satellite temperature data. Measuring temperature through a thick layer causes a loss in vertical resolution which is a limitation in satellite temperature measurements. Radiosondes found the tropopause not satellites. When the tropopause runs through TLT as it can at high latitude, then layers with a cooling temperature trend are included in the layer average diluting the warming signal. In fact, the topopause can be below 12 km even in the mid latitudes on the correct days. Granted the RSS algorithm does not weigh that part of the atmosphere much, but it's still included. Those who think that doesn't affect the trend are delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 This is all mis-information that circulates endlessly in the denier blogosphere - don't be so gullible. It's not denier's blogosphere...lol. Questions raised by reputable people is not deniers disease. Kind of like Cook paper 97% consensus BS. We all know that statistic is being used in dishonest ways & in no way reflects what it's being used to reflect. So with realities like that I'm just supposed to be very trusting, never questioning? I don't question trends, but I do question specifics to grab headlines...& yes, when 0.01 is the difference between a record or not a record I'm not very trusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Kind of like Cook paper 97% consensus BS. We all know that statistic is being used in dishonest ways & in no way reflects what it's being used to reflect. How so? It seems like a reasonable, published, peer-reviewed paper to me. I didn't find anything dishonest about the paper's findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 How so? It seems like a reasonable, published, peer-reviewed paper to me. I didn't find anything dishonest about the paper's findings. The paper doesn't actually tell us much of anything other than almost all climate scientists believe that humans have been responsible for a significant portion of the warming. Even pretty hardcore skeptics like Roy Spencer would be included in that 97%. The media and others tend to misrepresent the paper to paint a narrative that there isn't much to debate in climate science when that is extremely far from the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The paper doesn't actually tell us much of anything other than almost all climate scientists believe that humans have been responsible for a significant portion of the warming. Wasn't that what the paper set out to find out? Even pretty hardcore skeptics like Roy Spencer would be included in that 97%. Where I can find that out? The public release of the self-rating data is anonymized so I couldn't find out how he rated his own papers as a comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Wasn't that what the paper set out to find out? Yes, but it was confirming something most people in the climate debate already knew. So in that sense, it wasn't some ground breaking news that some media outlets portrayed it as. Where I can find that out? The public release of the self-rating data is anonymized so I couldn't find out how he rated his own papers as a comparison. I'm not sure where you can find all the data (it might not be available at all). I just know that Spencer himself has said that he was in the 97% with that paper's classification system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The paper doesn't actually tell us much of anything other than almost all climate scientists believe that humans have been responsible for a significant portion of the warming. Even pretty hardcore skeptics like Roy Spencer would be included in that 97%. The media and others tend to misrepresent the paper to paint a narrative that there isn't much to debate in climate science when that is extremely far from the truth. The debates should be stronger regarding ocean conveyor systems and the ocean thermal budget intersection with TCS/TCR. ECS should be more in line with 3.2W/m2 and more certain. As well, tipping points are more uncertain than ECS. The luke-warmer debate (usually headed by selfish people who expect to die in 20-30 years) and the natural vs. manmade debate are all irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The debates should be stronger regarding ocean conveyor systems and the ocean thermal budget intersection with TCS. ECS should be more in line 3.2W/m2 and more certain. As well, tipping points are more uncertain than ECS. What are you talking about? If ECS was only 3.2 w/m2, that would mean negative feedback considering doubling CO2 alone is 3.71 w/m2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 What are you talking about? If ECS was only 3.2 w/m2, that would mean negative feedback considering doubling CO2 alone is 3.71 w/m2. Over my head, that's not what I meant. Sorry for the lazy post. The big take away is that we can rest assured that ECS from paleo will be realized over longer timescales, it's guaranteed. We should only be interested in debating transient climate response, which will include the policy making timescales. With TCR comes a plethora of fast and slow feedbacks, and if the rise to ECS is stable or chaotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 What baloney..No need to BS us about O2 radiation that you know nothing about or to be rude either. As with most of the myriad quarrels you are involved with in its clear you don't understand satellite temperature data. Measuring temperature through a thick layer causes a loss in vertical resolution which is a limitation in satellite temperature measurements. Radiosondes found the tropopause not satellites. When the tropopause runs through TLT as it can at high latitude, then layers with a cooling temperature trend are included in the layer average diluting the warming signal. I don't know whether to laugh or cry right now. If you'd ever taken a simple physics class you wouldn't make such a stupid post. If the original argument were true we'd never be able to measure temperature with height because the radiation field would be 100% spatially homogenous. There is only one aggregated "vertical resolution" to begin with. Our job is to dissect this slew of radiation using known gas and radiative transfer laws, which can easily locate what we refer to as the "tropopause". These layers, in specificity, are relatively meaningless to begin with. Dunce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 In fact, the topopause can be below 12 km even in the mid latitudes on the correct days. Granted the RSS algorithm does not weigh that part of the atmosphere much, but it's still included. Those who think that doesn't affect the trend are delusional. The "tropopause" is merely a definition we give to a pressure threshold, as you know. It's easy to determine where it is within a reasonable margin of error due to...satellite analysis and particle physics/gas laws. Even if we lived in some bizarro world where the gas laws did not exist, our extensive radiosonde network would locate the tropopause easily, and they're currently utilized by the operators of the satellite datasets to do so as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The higher latitides are a very small part of the earth's surface area, however, so any TLT contamination by the lower tropopause should be minimized. It doesn't exist, at least not to a statistically measurable degree. That desperate argument is probably dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted June 1, 2015 Author Share Posted June 1, 2015 It doesn't exist, at least not to a statistically measurable degree. That desperate argument is probably dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum. So you are wrong AND your attitude sucks about it. Let's not repeat last year with our 2014 global temperature debate, shall we? You think radiosondes are used to collaborate RSS and UAH algorithms on a daily basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Yes, but it was confirming something most people in the climate debate already knew. So in that sense, it wasn't some ground breaking news that some media outlets portrayed it as. OK, got it. Yes, agreed on media missing the point. I'm not sure where you can find all the data (it might not be available at all). I just know that Spencer himself has said that he was in the 97% with that paper's classification system. OK, I did a little more digging and found an article here that says, "Neil cited recent congressional testimony by Roy Spencer (one of the few climate scientist "skeptics"), who said, "Well, it turns out that the 97% consensus that they found, I am indeed part of ... What do all those people agree to? Well, they agree to something fairly innocuous and it's something most of us agree to. That humans must have some influence on climate." This statement is wrong because it misses the nuance in our study. The "skeptic" papers included those that rejected human-caused global warming and those that minimized the human influence. Since we made all of our data available to the public, you can see our ratings of Spencer's abstracts here. Five of his papers were captured in our literature search; we categorized four as 'no opinion' on the cause of global warming, and one as implicitly minimizing the human influence. Thus, contrary to his testimony, Spencer was not included in the 97 percent consensus. In fact his research was included in the fewer than 3 percent of papers that either rejected or minimized the human contribution to global warming." And here are the ratings from the Cook paper, which do, indeed, show four 'No Position' and one 'Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW' for Roy Spencer. So he is not part of the 97%, even though he claims otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Yes, but it was confirming something most people in the climate debate already knew. So in that sense, it wasn't some ground breaking news that some media outlets portrayed it as. I'm not sure where you can find all the data (it might not be available at all). I just know that Spencer himself has said that he was in the 97% with that paper's classification system. Yes...it was a PR paper. Nothing wrong with the paper...but the careful wording & lack of clarification for the public was on purpose to change public perception on the issue. Cook has a background in psychology & was a genius at what he set out to do. Can't stand him for it but it's pure genius. 97% consensus is used as a huge trump card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 So you are wrong AND your attitude sucks about it. Let's not repeat last year with our 2014 global temperature debate, shall we? You think radiosondes are used to collaborate RSS and UAH algorithms on a daily basis? Where do you work, if I may ask? Your incompetence is baffling to me...that was an experimental temperature prediction on my part..totally unrelated to what we're discussing here. There is no physically realizable/long term "stratospheric contamination". That's pure blogosphere crap. It's not even physically realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 OK, got it. Yes, agreed on media missing the point. OK, I did a little more digging and found an article here that says, "Neil cited recent congressional testimony by Roy Spencer (one of the few climate scientist "skeptics"), who said, "Well, it turns out that the 97% consensus that they found, I am indeed part of ... What do all those people agree to? Well, they agree to something fairly innocuous and it's something most of us agree to. That humans must have some influence on climate." This statement is wrong because it misses the nuance in our study. The "skeptic" papers included those that rejected human-caused global warming and those that minimized the human influence. Since we made all of our data available to the public, you can see our ratings of Spencer's abstracts here. Five of his papers were captured in our literature search; we categorized four as 'no opinion' on the cause of global warming, and one as implicitly minimizing the human influence. Thus, contrary to his testimony, Spencer was not included in the 97 percent consensus. In fact his research was included in the fewer than 3 percent of papers that either rejected or minimized the human contribution to global warming." And here are the ratings from the Cook paper, which do, indeed, show four 'No Position' and one 'Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW' for Roy Spencer. So he is not part of the 97%, even though he claims otherwise. Ok...let's not talk Spencer, let's talk about your 97%. Out of those paper 97% did not believe that humans are THE #1 reason for the warming earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Ok...let's not talk Spencer, let's talk about your 97%. Out of those paper 97% did not believe that humans are THE #1 reason for the warming earth. That wasn't the question the paper was investigating. That is why it did not answer that. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of experts in the field agree that humans are the cause of current and future warming. Suppose your doctor said that you had cancer, and so you sought out a second opinion from 99 other doctors. Of those 100 doctors, 97 told you that you did, indeed, have cancer, but the other three said you didn't. Would you take the advice of the three or the 97? In any case, the Cook paper did not break any new ground, as it just confirmed the conclusions of several other papers that had studied the same question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 the careful wording & lack of clarification for the public was on purpose to change public perception on the issue. There is an entire website dedicated to this paper where you can review all the data yourself. There have been several articles that clarify and answer questions about the paper. That seems like "clarification for the public" to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 That wasn't the question the paper was investigating. That is why it did not answer that. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of experts in the field agree that humans are the cause of current and future warming. Suppose your doctor said that you had cancer, and so you sought out a second opinion from 99 other doctors. Of those 100 doctors, 97 told you that you did, indeed, have cancer, but the other three said you didn't. Would you take the advice of the three or the 97? In any case, the Cook paper did not break any new ground, as it just confirmed the conclusions of several other papers that had studied the same question. That's the point! Skeptics & non-skeptics alike, know that the earth is warming & humans have/are contributing. But that's not how the 97% is being used publicly. And it was meant to be that way. The public is being lead to believe there is a 97% consensus that all the warming is a human problem & that if we just deal with that we're ok. That's wrong! Cook could end all of this by being forthright & publicly saying "Our study concludes that there is a 97% consensus that the earth has warmed & that humans have contributed. But there's not a 97% consensus on attribution, issues of extreme weather, & many other talking points concerning the climate." But has Cook done this? No! Oh he has responded to the criticism but it's what HE'S NOT SAYING that leads to the lack of clarification among the general public's understanding of what the 97% consensus is really all about.Like I said, it was meant to be this way & it's very deceptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 There is an entire website dedicated to this paper where you can review all the data yourself. There have been several articles that clarify and answer questions about the paper. That seems like "clarification for the public" to me.I can read that & have. Other educated people concerned with climate may also. But you & I know that the media talking heads, & the general public will not.Why not clarify FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC? If I did a work that was being misused for wrong purposes I think I'd be the first to step up & publicly declare that's not what my study concluded. Others have done this for John but he responds in such a way that without really saying it, makes it look like he disagrees. That's very deceptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 June 2015 will probably be the warmest month of 2015 to-date. The 'flip' signal is starting to show up as we head into a new global summer regime. Historically, summer is the slowest warming season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 Historically, summer is the season less affected by ENSO. This year, we actually have a moderate event early. Barring a major volcanic event, this summer will almost certainly break the JJA record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.