Ted Cruz shows his intentional CC denial by questioning NASA's need to engage in Earth science

[StudentOfClimatology]

So now you agree that since OHC was warming .5-1W/m2 the last 10-15 years, the TOA imbalance was also .5-1W/m2?

Great. That is excellent news.

No. Using the raw CERES data, harmonized with SORCE & AIRS (calibrated with ERBS and the earlier data) I get an average of +0.8W/m^2 to +1.3W/m^2 from 1987 to 1997-98, then a transition to a lower figure from 1998-2001. I get -0.1W/m^2 to +0.4W/m^2 since 2001, or an average of ~+0.25W/m^2, which correlates perfectly with the slowdown in warming.

I'm going to have to graph this and post it here. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I do, OHC is king and the ultimate measure of climate change. We can sit around and wank off to snow charts, antarctic sea ice extents, etc. This tells us nothing about how much heat is entering the system.

Then I suspect you don't know what you're doing. Please, explain how you go about this, mathematically. I'd love to know.

As I suspected before, you are a closet denier/skeptic of mainstream AGW theory.

You're full of it, as usual. I'm a lot closer to the "mainstream" than you are, actually.

[skierinvermont]

No. Using the raw CERES data, harmonized with SORCE & AIRS (calibrated with ERBS and the earlier data) I get an average of +0.8W/m^2 to +1.3W/m^2 from 1987 to 1997-98, then a transition to a lower figure from 1998-2001. I get -0.1W/m^2 to +0.4W/m^2 since 2001, or an average of ~+0.25W/m^2, which correlates perfectly with the slowdown in warming.

I'm going to have to graph this and post it here. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

I don't care what you calculate - the data was right in the Trenberth paper.

[skierinvermont]

Apparently you don't read the literature, because the Trenberth et al 2013 paper you just linked me explained the fact that the error bars in the deep ocean data are over 4X that of the satellite data itself. You can't be this stupid..we can measure the radiative budget to a far higher accuracy than we can the deep oceans.

 

He specifically says that CERES can't be used to calculate an absolute figure at all - so I highly doubt that he says the uncertainty is 4X that of OHC which can be used to calculate a fairly accurate figure.

 

You're probably misinterpreting it.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I don't care what you calculate - the data was right in the Trenberth paper.

No, calibration techniques vary from paper to paper, as Trenberth explicitly stated. The raw data is the only unchanging variable.

When I get back to my desktop computer this weekend, I'll link up a few papers demonstrating this. I've read a few that come close to my estimate.

[StudentOfClimatology]

He specifically says that CERES can't be used to calculate an absolute figure at all - so I highly doubt that he says the uncertainty is 4X that of OHC which can be used to calculate a fairly accurate figure.

You're probably misinterpreting it.

Not exactly. Neither can be used to calculate absolutes to begin with..it's a relativity issue. A sampling error of just 0.01C in the deep oceans is analogous to a huge amount of energy at the TOA for obvious reasons. In terms of the relationship between the deep ocean data and the TOA data, the potential for error in the deep ocean data is much, much higher and more consequential..

[FreeRain]

Except there is not a pause from 1998 to 2014. All sources except RSS (which is one of the least accurate sources) show warming even beginning in 1998 which is an extremely cherry-picked and deceptive start date. Go work on your integrity and academic rigor and then get back to us.

The data in your graph is deceptive.  All four slopes are within the margin of error. The four data sources averaged together show a change in temperature for the time period '98 to early '15 is about + 0.05 degrees C. The average margin of  error for those four data sources for that period of time is plus or minus 0.15.

 

Saying there is NOT a pause from 1998 to 2014 is not supported by your own data.

 

Go work on your integrity and academic rigor and then get back to us.

[The_Global_Warmer]

[quote name="Weatherguy701" post="3517927" timestamp="142724

As I suspected before, you are a closet denier/skeptic of mainstream AGW theory.

There are thousands of posts on here confirming this.

Its quite the gong show. But you can learn things from skier in the exchange so there is redeamable stuff there. I actually only read skiers posts in the exchange. There was quite a bit of good information there.

[StudentOfClimatology]

There are thousands of posts on here confirming this.

Its quite the gong show. But you can learn things from skier in the exchange so there is redeamable stuff there. I actually only read skiers posts in the exchange. There was quite a bit of good information there.

Coming from you, this is a compliment. You and Weatherguy701 are so far removed from the mainstream that you'd probably consider 90% of the scientists at UMD to be deniers.

I still have a bunch of your Arctic catastrophe posts saved from last summer. Pure comedic gold.

[skierinvermont]

Not exactly. Neither can be used to calculate absolutes to begin with..it's a relativity issue. A sampling error of just 0.01C in the deep oceans is analogous to a huge amount of energy at the TOA for obvious reasons. In terms of the relationship between the deep ocean data and the TOA data, the potential for error in the deep ocean data is much, much higher and more consequential..

 

The OHC budget is used to calculate an absolute value for the TOA imbalance in numerous papers. It is the underpinning of the science on the subject. I'm not aware of a single paper that uses CERES data to do this, but I am aware of several papers that say CERES data is not suitable for this purpose.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The OHC budget is used to calculate an absolute value for the TOA imbalance in numerous papers. It is the underpinning of the science on the subject. I'm not aware of a single paper that uses CERES data to do this, but I am aware of several papers that say CERES data is not suitable for this purpose.

Yes, it's occasionally used in *comparison* w/ CERES to help calculate a TOA imbalance, not to calibrate CERES. That said, most papers I've read use SST/mixing layer temps rather than OHC, though, for obvious reasons, as do I. In fact I actually prefer the SST method because they'll tell you a lot about internal heat flow and are very accurately measured.

I have a slew of papers on this back in my Desktop.

[chubbs]

No. Using the raw CERES data, harmonized with SORCE & AIRS (calibrated with ERBS and the earlier data) I get an average of +0.8W/m^2 to +1.3W/m^2 from 1987 to 1997-98, then a transition to a lower figure from 1998-2001. I get -0.1W/m^2 to +0.4W/m^2 since 2001, or an average of ~+0.25W/m^2, which correlates perfectly with the slowdown in warming.

I'm going to have to graph this and post it here. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

You've given us a good laugh this am. However this post needs some correction for readers who aren't familiar with your posting history.

 

TOA heating has been constant or increasing during the hiatus not decreased as per your analysis.

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/earths-energy-imbalance/#more-2722

 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

Coming from you, this is a compliment. You and Weatherguy701 are so far removed from the mainstream that you'd probably consider 90% of the scientists at UMD to be deniers.

I still have a bunch of your Arctic catastrophe posts saved from last summer. Pure comedic gold.

 

 

And we pretty much chuckle over the same with you guys.  As you're always trying to find every little needle in the haystack that it's not happening.

 

btw, could we change thread title?   Ted unbelievably joined obamacare...after being the main congressman against it.   This schitzo jokester pretty much ruined his presidential run.

[AvantHiatus]

Ted Cruz is a tool who is just following the money in the form of personal campaign funds.

[StudentOfClimatology]

You've given us a good laugh this am. However this post needs some correction for readers who aren't familiar with your posting history

TOA heating has been constant or increasing during the hiatus not decreased as per your analysis.

Looks like the NCAS blog. That's like the climate version of WSI.

I've read Allan et al, btw, and his result is close to mine, just on a different slope. He gets 0.62W/m^2 +/- 0.43W/m^2 since 2000..I got +0.31W/m^2..well within his margin of error, though I haven't calculated my own potential error yet. He's on his own with the post 2012 spike, though..the warming SSTs/surface temps have led to an increase in OLR since 2012. Anyone using deep ocean data over OLR juxposed w/ SSTs will miss this higher-resolution behavior.

I'd recommend ordering the data and calculating the number(s) yourself instead of linking to analysis you don't even understand.

[bobbutts]

i bet his amwx screen name has #s at the end

You inspired me.  Not enough 'shopping around here these days.

[Msalgado]

Looks like the NCAS blog. That's like the climate version of WSI.

I've read Allan et al, btw, and his result is close to mine, just on a different slope. He gets 0.62W/m^2 +/- 0.43W/m^2 since 2000..I got +0.31W/m^2..well within his margin of error, though I haven't calculated my own potential error yet. He's on his own with the post 2012 spike, though..the warming SSTs/surface temps have led to an increase in OLR since 2012. Anyone using deep ocean data over OLR juxposed w/ SSTs will miss this higher-resolution behavior.

I'd recommend ordering the data and calculating the number(s) yourself instead of linking to analysis you don't even understand.

 

Yeah you keep deflecting to us to back up your assertions that go against the grain but why would anyone do that?  There is literature and basic physics that says one thing and then there is you telling us that we should run analysis that takes time in order to prove you right?  You would think that if you had research that went against the established literature and you could back it up that you yourself would have published it and you could just point us to SoC et al 2014 to show this.

[Quixotic1]

So, if Cruz's proposal were to become reality, how much would that impact monitoring the global state in terms of temperature, ice etc?

[StudentOfClimatology]

Yeah you keep deflecting to us to back up your assertions that go against the grain but why would anyone do that? There is literature and basic physics that says one thing and then there is you telling us that we should run analysis that takes time in order to prove you right? You would think that if you had research that went against the established literature and you could back it up that you yourself would have published it and you could just point us to SoC et al 2014 to show this.

You make this out to be so cut-and-dry, but it's not, it's interpolative. I'd never use OHC over SSTs/IR fields to calculate an imbalance..it's all relative and one dataset is vastly superior to the other. Unless you want to risk being wrong by a huge margin, you'll use the upper mixed layer & SST interface to calculate TOA.

As for a paper, I'm working on an ENSO/SST based formula right now w/ a few others and we hope to have it published sometime in the Fall. Until then, you'll have to wait a bit.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So, if Cruz's proposal were to become reality, how much would that impact monitoring the global state in terms of temperature, ice etc?

 

 

It wouldn't matter.  They would still support the current stuff and projects.

 

The ESA and other countries continue to develop and grow their own fleet of Earth Science technology.

 

 

Ironically this will get totally shyt on by the general public in the Fall when the news reports of  2015 smashing the global temperature records go viral worldwide.

[skierinvermont]

You make this out to be so cut-and-dry, but it's not, it's interpolative. I'd never use OHC over SSTs/IR fields to calculate an imbalance..it's all relative and one dataset is vastly superior to the other. Unless you want to risk being wrong by a huge margin, you'll use the upper mixed layer & SST interface to calculate TOA.

As for a paper, I'm working on an ENSO/SST based formula right now w/ a few others and we hope to have it published sometime in the Fall. Until then, you'll have to wait a bit.

 

 

 

Anyone using deep ocean data over OLR juxposed w/ SSTs will miss this higher-resolution behavior.

 

You still don't get it do you...

 

Nobody will ever take you seriously if you can't grasp the concept of a closed system. 

 

You know I gave you a chance on this forum. After you quit the drugs and started going to school you actually were a decent poster for a while. Maybe you realized how unhinged you had become and were making a concerted effort to show some humility and hold it together for a while. But your arrogant personality has led you astray again.. you are completely blind to the forest. Objectivity and intellectual integrity aren't things we can just forget about after taking a few college classes - for most people they don't come naturally and take constant work and self-reflection to even maintain a modicum of either. You can't see the mistakes you make because you have no self-reflection and you don't listen to anybody. Most of the halfway intelligent people here can see the mistakes you're making because they're really not that complicated even for people that haven't taken classes in climate science. They're just not as blinded by their own ego and bias. I would be embarrassed.. most of us are laughing at you at this point because we're just fed up. Pretty much every post of yours reeks of you trying to show what a big dick you have.

[StudentOfClimatology]

You still don't get it do you...

Nobody will ever take you seriously if you can't grasp the concept of a closed system.

You know I gave you a chance on this forum. After you quit the drugs and started going to school you actually were a decent poster for a while. Maybe you realized how unhinged you had become and were making a concerted effort to show some humility and hold it together for a while.

No offense intended, but I'm pretty sure your inability to read is the problem. I'm a physics major, after all.

So, I'll just ask you. What exactly am I "not understanding about a closed system"? You keep regurgitating that line but you're not elaborating on it. You're all over the place.

I suspect you've been skimming through my posts rather than reading them.

[skierinvermont]

No offense intended, but I'm pretty sure your inability to read is the problem. I'm a physics major, after all.

So, I'll just ask you. What exactly am I "not understanding about a closed system"? You keep regurgitating that line but you're not elaborating on it. You're all over the place.

I suspect you've been skimming through my posts rather than reading them.

 

A physics major? Wow! Let me whip out my dick too!

 

No I have not been skimming.

[StudentOfClimatology]

A physics major? Wow! Let me whip out my dick too!

No I have not been skimming.

Okay, then can you answer my question? What am I "not understanding about a closed system"? I'm all ears.

If you weren't skimming, you should be able to elaborate.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Also, I apologize if my posts are coming off in an arrogant manner. That's was never my intention, and I'll try to work on my posting style if needs be.

It's just challenging for me to respond to criticism that's completely vague and without direction.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You make this out to be so cut-and-dry, but it's not, it's interpolative. I'd never use OHC over SSTs/IR fields to calculate an imbalance..it's all relative and one dataset is vastly superior to the other. Unless you want to risk being wrong by a huge margin, you'll use the upper mixed layer & SST interface to calculate TOA.

As for a paper, I'm working on an ENSO/SST based formula right now w/ a few others and we hope to have it published sometime in the Fall. Until then, you'll have to wait a bit.

 

 

print

screen

sysrq

 

open paint

 

ctrlV

 

save

 

 

 

Good luck

[AvantHiatus]

Good luck

[StudentOfClimatology]

Good luck

Thank you.

My reaction to the majority of your posts.

[Quixotic1]

It wouldn't matter.  They would still support the current stuff and projects.

 

The ESA and other countries continue to develop and grow their own fleet of Earth Science technology.

 

 

Ironically this will get totally shyt on by the general public in the Fall when the news reports of  2015 smashing the global temperature records go viral worldwide.

Thanks for the response.