CAD_Wedge_NC Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 People shouldn't throw AGW under the bus because of this AMOC event. That is all, infact it makes things worse for me locally by contributing to SLR. Is there a definitive link between NAO and AMO? We had almost constant -NAO with brief breaks during 2007-2012 so the temperature state of Greenland was biased warm. A +NAO without the AMOC collapse would of been much colder for Greenland in the 2000s. This is all a mute point tho. GHG inertia is kicking in and overwhelming natural oscillations as primary drivers. What is a mute point?? Does that mean we don't have to listen to you anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 What is a mute point?? Does that mean we don't have to listen to you anymore? It's a silent point. Kinda like when Gus in Lonesome Dove didn't know what the Latin on his sign meant and said it was a motto, it just says itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 It's a silent point. Kinda like when Gus in Lonesome Dove didn't know what the Latin on his sign meant and said it was a motto, it just says itself. Unprecedented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Usually when you attack the person rather than the methods, it means you are lacking scientific argument. James Hansen was head of GISS for decades...he made wild predictions of Super Ninos and short term extreme rising sea levels that never happened and got arrested for activism multiple times....yet, his GISS temperature dataset has undergone peer review more than once with updates and over time, it has remained reliable. In time, we will see how UAHv6.0 stands up to peer review. But I would base my judgements off that rather than unscientific character attacks. I've been guilty of the latter at times, but I've found it to be completely useless in the end when you are debating science....mostly because it just doesn't matter. So I've tried to stray away from it. There is plenty of scientific argument to be made against UAH as well. Numerous peer-reviewed studies place TLT warming >.15C/decade the last 30+ years and tropical TMT >.2C/decade. Some considerably higher than that. What we have now is an arbitrary revision to UAH that is not peer-reviewed and was performed by a man who has consistently been wrong throughout his career and only 'right' after he has been essentially forced to revise his work by rebuttals to his papers. I'm not an expert in remote sensing, but I am aware of much more literature outside of the lightning rod that is UAH/Spencer/Christy that receives all the attention for the simple reason that it shows the least warming. Throw on the fact that Spencer has essentially said that AGW is impossible because god wouldn't allow it and you have yourself a picture and it's not pretty. The fact is measuring TLT and TMT is about as accurate as me throwing darts. You can arrive at whatever conclusion you want. The uncertainty is > +/-.1C/decade. Those fixated on UAH, denying the uncertainty, and/or saying it is corroborated by RSS (which has a radically different spatial, temporal and vertical warming structure) are not being honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 There is plenty of scientific argument to be made against UAH as well. Numerous peer-reviewed studies place TLT warming >.15C/decade the last 30+ years and tropical TMT >.2C/decade. Some considerably higher than that. What we have now is an arbitrary revision to UAH that is not peer-reviewed and was performed by a man who has consistently been wrong throughout his career and only 'right' after he has been essentially forced to revise his work by rebuttals to his papers. I'm not an expert in remote sensing, but I am aware of much more literature outside of the lightning rod that is UAH/Spencer/Christy that receives all the attention for the simple reason that it shows the least warming. Throw on the fact that Spencer has essentially said that AGW is impossible because god wouldn't allow it and you have yourself a picture and it's not pretty. The fact is measuring TLT and TMT is about as accurate as me throwing darts. You can arrive at whatever conclusion you want. The uncertainty is > +/-.1C/decade. Those fixated on UAH, denying the uncertainty, and/or saying it is corroborated by RSS (which has a radically different spatial and vertical warming structure) are not being honest. That doesn't change anything in my post you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 There is plenty of scientific argument to be made against UAH as well. Numerous peer-reviewed studies place TLT warming >.15C/decade the last 30+ years and tropical TMT >.2C/decade. Some considerably higher than that. What we have now is an arbitrary revision to UAH that is not peer-reviewed and was performed by a man who has consistently been wrong throughout his career and only 'right' after he has been essentially forced to revise his work by rebuttals to his papers. I'm not an expert in remote sensing, but I am aware of much more literature outside of the lightning rod that is UAH/Spencer/Christy that receives all the attention for the simple reason that it shows the least warming. Throw on the fact that Spencer has essentially said that AGW is impossible because god wouldn't allow it and you have yourself a picture and it's not pretty. The fact is measuring TLT and TMT is about as accurate as me throwing darts. You can arrive at whatever conclusion you want. The uncertainty is > +/-.1C/decade. Those fixated on UAH, denying the uncertainty, and/or saying it is corroborated by RSS (which has a radically different spatial and vertical warming structure) are not being honest. That doesn't change anything in my post you quoted. God would definitely allow AGW considering the atrocities industrial civilization has committed. Everyone should watch Noah, good movie. All of that god-savior crapola comes from the idea of god living as a quintessential 'man in the clouds' who watches over humanity offering forgiveness. The latest CFS for your viewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 That doesn't change anything in my post you quoted. You said people make character attacks when scientific argument is lacking. I'm saying, in this instance, there is plenty of both to be made against Spencer and UAH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 You said people make character attacks when scientific argument is lacking. I'm saying, in this instance, there is plenty of both to be made against Spencer and UAH. This is generally true. You are right there are papers against past UAH versions, but the best papers seem to focus on TMT and not the TLT that we often discuss in here. I will wait to see how UAH6.0 does in peer review before really making any judgements on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 There is plenty of scientific argument to be made against UAH as well. Numerous peer-reviewed studies place TLT warming >.15C/decade the last 30+ years and tropical TMT >.2C/decade. Some considerably higher than that. What we have now is an arbitrary revision to UAH that is not peer-reviewed and was performed by a man who has consistently been wrong throughout his career and only 'right' after he has been essentially forced to revise his work by rebuttals to his papers. I'm not an expert in remote sensing, but I am aware of much more literature outside of the lightning rod that is UAH/Spencer/Christy that receives all the attention for the simple reason that it shows the least warming. Throw on the fact that Spencer has essentially said that AGW is impossible because god wouldn't allow it and you have yourself a picture and it's not pretty. The fact is measuring TLT and TMT is about as accurate as me throwing darts. You can arrive at whatever conclusion you want. The uncertainty is > +/-.1C/decade. Those fixated on UAH, denying the uncertainty, and/or saying it is corroborated by RSS (which has a radically different spatial, temporal and vertical warming structure) are not being honest. it's amazing someone as intelligent as Roy could be that ridiculous about religion. Thats just sad Roy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 So, in other words, it's fine to personally attack Dr. Spencer, but if Dr. Hansen ever comes up in conversation, his name is defended like it's the holy grail. It seems apparent to me that some are hoping the peer-review of the revised UAH fails, simply so we can write-off any dataset that doesn't show the warmest trend. Very blatant lack of objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Sorry, not even close. The UAH bashing is derived from ocean temperature trends and real questions about how heat is being exchanged between the troposphere and surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 None of Roy's personal beliefs matter to this discussion. Is UAH accurate or not... Is RSS accurate or not. That's all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 This is generally true. You are right there are papers against past UAH versions, but the best papers seem to focus on TMT and not the TLT that we often discuss in here. I will wait to see how UAH6.0 does in peer review before really making any judgements on it. This will likely take several years. And even if it does pass peer-review, it will likely not reduce the considerable uncertainty inherent in remote sensing (+/- .1C/decade) or refute any of the studies that lie on the higher end of that uncertainty spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 This will likely take several years. And even if it does pass peer-review, it will likely not reduce the considerable uncertainty inherent in remote sensing (+/- .1C/decade) or refute any of the studies that lie on the higher end of that uncertainty spectrum. If UAHv6 passes peer review, those uncertainty estimates would no longer apply because they're based on old, outdated algorithms. UAHv6 uses all-new merging algorithms, a new off-plane interpolation procedure that negates the need for angled approaches at the higher latitudes, and a slew of updated interpolation procedures to account for any potential sensor degradation or orbital drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 So, in other words, it's fine to personally attack Dr. Spencer, but if Dr. Hansen ever comes up in conversation, his name is defended like it's the holy grail. It seems apparent to me that some are hoping the peer-review of the revised UAH fails, simply so we can write-off any dataset that doesn't show the warmest trend. Very blatant lack of objectivity. I'm not hoping for that if that's what you mean. I honestly don't think it matters that much whether it passes review or not. This new lower trend is still within an uncertainty range of +/-.1C/decade inherent in remote sensing. The UAH results are plausible, but the real question is what is the most likely trend or center of the uncertainty range. With or without the UAH v6 the center of the uncertainty range is still near .15-.2C/decade for TLT. I think UAHv6 probably will make it through peer-review as a plausible result, but not as the most likely result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 If UAHv6 passes peer review, those uncertainty estimates would no longer apply because they're based on old, outdated algorithms. UAHv6 uses all-new merging algorithms, a new off-plane interpolation procedure that negates the need for angled approaches at the higher latitudes, and a slew of updated interpolation procedures to account for any potential sensor degradation or orbital drift. Simply switching algorithms doesn't magically eliminate uncertainty. What was wrong with the old algorithm? What's better about this algorithm than the many other peer-reviewed algorithms for remote sensing that have been published? You said there was very little uncertainty in the last version too, yet you are eagerly embracing a new version with a different result that hasn't even been reviewed yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Simply switching algorithms doesn't magically eliminate uncertainty. What was wrong with the old algorithm? What's better about this algorithm than the many other peer-reviewed algorithms for remote sensing that have been published? The uncertainty estimates you're referring to are derived from the algorithms and aggregation procedures used by dataset to interpret the raw microwave emission measurements. If these algorithms are changed/upgraded, any uncertainty estimates using based on the old algorithms are rendered irrelevant. The uncertainty estimates for UAHv5.6 have little if any application when it comes to UAHv6.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 The uncertainty estimates for UAHv5.6 have little if any application when it comes to UAHv6.0. I may have missed it, but what are the uncertainty estimates for UAHv6.0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 So, in other words, it's fine to personally attack Dr. Spencer, but if Dr. Hansen ever comes up in conversation, his name is defended like it's the holy grail. It seems apparent to me that some are hoping the peer-review of the revised UAH fails, simply so we can write-off any dataset that doesn't show the warmest trend. Very blatant lack of objectivity. No way...objectivity always rules among all posters...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I may have missed it, but what are the uncertainty estimates for UAHv6.0? We don't have them yet..they'll be released with the verification paper, whenever it's published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 We don't have them yet..they'll be released with the verification paper, whenever it's published. Lol .. what a joke you are.. how can you possibly claim that uncertainty is reduced when 1) they haven't even published their uncertainty estimates 2) these non-existent uncertainty estimates have not passed peer-review 3) their previous estimates of uncertainty were not at all comprehensive and were rejected in the literature There's some objectivity for you! Basically, you like the results so they have to be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Lol .. what a joke you are.. how can you possibly claim that uncertainty is reduced when 1) they haven't even published their uncertainty estimates 2) these non-existent uncertainty estimates have not passed peer-review 3) their previous estimates of uncertainty were not at all comprehensive and were rejected in the literature There's some objectivity for you! Basically, you like the results so they have to be right. Once again, you didn't f**king read. Where did I say that uncertainties were reduced on UAHv6.0? Quote it. What I told you is that any previous uncertainty estimates regarding UAHv5.6 are of no practical relevance to UAHv6.0 because the nearly all of the interpolative algorithms have been changed. Would you refer to a HADCRUT3 paper to address uncertainty in the HADCRUT4 dataset? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You definitely implied it but you didn't say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You definitely implied it but you didn't say it. How so? Obviously, I assume that UAHv6.0 is at least somewhat of an improvement over version 5.6, but that alone doesn't mean that uncertainties will be lower on version 6.0. They could be the same, for all I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 How so? Obviously, I assume that UAHv6.0 is at least somewhat of an improvement over version 5.6, but that alone doesn't mean that uncertainties will be lower on version 6.0. They could be the same, for all I know. If Spencer and Christy actually did a comprehensive estimate of uncertainty, they should be higher, since the uncertainty estimates in 5.6 were shown to be not at all comprehensive because the results were highly sensitive to arbitrary choices in methodology. Whether they did that, nobody knows. (Although you certainly have pretended to know what the uncertainties are). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You definitely implied it but you didn't say it. You're not fooling anybody here SOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You're not fooling anybody here SOC. You're just plain full of it. You don't read for s**t, then try and suggest I implied something that I didn't. I can see right through your mask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 If Spencer and Christy actually did a comprehensive estimate of uncertainty, they should be higher, since the uncertainty estimates in 5.6 were shown to be not at all comprehensive because the results were highly sensitive to arbitrary choices in methodology. That makes so sense whatsoever. Either you haven't read/don't understand the literature here, or you're making things up. Whether they did that, nobody knows. (Although you certainly have pretended to know what the uncertainties are). Making things up again? Here's what I said regarding the potential uncertainty in version 6.0: How so? Obviously, I assume that UAHv6.0 is at least somewhat of an improvement over version 5.6, but that alone doesn't mean that uncertainties will be lower on version 6.0. They could be the same, for all I know. Your reading comprehension needs some work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 During strong Nino years, when should we expect the largest spike in global temps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 During strong Nino years, when should we expect the largest spike in global temps? 3-4 months after the peak (whenever that is). So maybe in late fall/early winter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.