blizzard1024 Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Are you saying that there is no reason to study the climate unless global warming is a "thing?" You don't think people would study the climate anyway? If that is the case, then why do scientists study galaxies, gravitational waves, exoplanets? Most of those things were purely theoretical until recently. No one had ever seen one, or seen the effects of one, yet they continued to do research in those areas. The weather has a lot more direct affect on humans, so I think it is unlikely that scientists would just stop studying it altogether. The funding would drop drastically. Sure they would still study climate but it would not rake in 2.6 billion dollars per year (FY16 numbers). To put into perspective, atmospheric sciences pull in between all agencies 760 million per year (FY16 numbers). There certainly would be a drop in climate research funding. This also doesn't take into account all the research money that goes into the spin off sciences like societal, biological and other sciences which cash in to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 The sfc temperature record has been doctored to exaggerate warming. The satellite record is by far the best. The satellite record is corroborated by the weather balloon data a totally different source of measurement. The surface record is rife with station moves, changing instruments through the years, land use changes. Plus long term ocean temperature trends have problems. How anyone believe the sfc record over the satellite record is beyond me. Its called brainwashing and the cart leading the horse. You assume CO2 causes most of the warming so we adjust and look for datasets that corroborate this. Climate science has become political and you all know it. It frustrates me because I just want to know what is really happening and they have destroyed the sfc record. The satellite record is the only record that is consistent with only geometric adjustments needed for orbital decay. Plus it measures a slab of atmosphere which eliminates the problems of a microclimate which can change or if a station is moved change completely representing an entire grid box. This is a methodology rife with errors but since it can be fiddled with it shows the most warming and hence is believed. They are making science look bad. Just stop. How many times do we have to listen to the same conspiracy theories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 If you read the papers concerning surface temperature adjustments instead of blog posts by Bob Tisdale, you would see which adjustudents are done, and why they are needed. Conspiracy theories would get instantly rejected in any reputable scientific journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 The funding would drop drastically. Sure they would still study climate but it would not rake in 2.6 billion dollars per year (FY16 numbers). To put into perspective, atmospheric sciences pull in between all agencies 760 million per year (FY16 numbers). There certainly would be a drop in climate research funding. This also doesn't take into account all the research money that goes into the spin off sciences like societal, biological and other sciences which cash in to. This conspiracy stuff doesn't improve your credibility. Climate scientists don't need to exaggerate. They know the earth is going to warm. We could cut funding to zero - that isn't going to stop the seas from rising. Just the opposite the less we do today to cut emissions or study climate - the more we are going to need climate scientists in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The funding would drop drastically. Sure they would still study climate but it would not rake in 2.6 billion dollars per year (FY16 numbers). To put into perspective, atmospheric sciences pull in between all agencies 760 million per year (FY16 numbers). There certainly would be a drop in climate research funding. This also doesn't take into account all the research money that goes into the spin off sciences like societal, biological and other sciences which cash in to. Could you link to the source of your funding numbers? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The regression trend since 1998 is closer to +0.14 Degrees C/decade on GISS. I suspect that will inch up a bit in the coming months, as the surface temperature response peaks in February/March. gisstemp.png That's the whole point though. We all know the trend has been substantially below .20C/decade for the last 15+ years. But if temperatures today are .4C warmer than in 1998 with comparable ENSO and solar conditions, then we have witnessed a step up in warming and if temperatures remain so elevated relative to the ENSO/solar state, the trend line will begin to tilt more upwards over time. Or they could step down in dramatic fashion back to only .2-.3C warmer than the late 90s which would indicate there was some temporary short-term warming effect or this ENSO was somehow stronger than indicated by the ONI/MEI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 If you read the papers concerning surface temperature adjustments instead of blog posts by Bob Tisdale, you would see which adjustudents are done, and why they are needed. Conspiracy theories would get instantly rejected in any reputable scientific journal. The same Bob Tisdale that thinks he has proven that warming soccer Since the 1970s is caused by nino events. Yet Nina events have no similar impact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Ohc comparing super ninos oct-dec. 0-100M. The effects of global warming are very evident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Below are daily NCEP re-analysis 500 mb heights averaged over the globe from 1970 through 2/12/16. 500 mb heights are proportional to average temperature in the bottom half of the atmosphere. Over the long-term there is a steady rise in heights indicating a long-term warming trend. Early Feb heights were well above the peak reached in the 97/98 nino as were heights in the 09/10 nino. The 500mb heights are another indication that the satellites are underestimating the long-term warming trend in the lower atmosphere. With most of the discrepancy post-2000 as it is in the other datasets. Focusing on the short-term, 500mb heights were still increasing in early Feb towards a nino peak. In 97/98 500 mb heights peaked in April/May. The 500 mb data ends just before the mid-Feb surface temperature increase. Based on this data would expect RSS+UAH to have a big increase this month as 500 mb heights were already high before the Feb warm period began. Generally satellite temperatures catch-up to surface temperatures when the nino begins to fade as it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The 500mb heights would also suggest that both the satellites and sfc data vastly overestimated the warming from the late 1970s through 2000. How reliable is this dataset for long term climate trends? That's a decent difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The 500mb heights would also suggest that both the satellites and sfc data vastly overestimated the warming from the late 1970s through 2000. How reliable is this dataset for long term climate trends? That's a decent difference. Just pulled it down this AM. When I get a chance will compare to surface temp and satellites and further down the road with other re-analysis series. Interested to see if this data helps explain short-term differences in satellites and surface temperature. Both monthly and daily data are updated once a month at the climate explorer website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The 500mb heights would also suggest that both the satellites and sfc data vastly overestimated the warming from the late 1970s through 2000. How reliable is this dataset for long term climate trends? That's a decent difference. Not necessarily. As you know, surface temperatures are not the same as average temperatures between the surface and 500-hPa. Why is it unreasonable to assume that temperatures between, say, 850-hPa and 500-hPa could have compensated for the surface warming during that period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Not necessarily. As you know, surface temperatures are not the same as average temperatures between the surface and 500-hPa. Why is it unreasonable to assume that temperatures between, say, 850-hPa and 500-hPa could have compensated for the surface warming during that period? Satellites showed pretty solid warming trend during that period. The level between 850-500 should be right in their wheelhouse. At any rate, 500mb height reanalysis is probably the not the best way to be precise...I can agree on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Satellites showed pretty solid warming trend during that period. The level between 850-500 should be right in their wheelhouse. At any rate, 500mb height reanalysis is probably the not the best way to be precise...I can agree on that. Did satellites measure that warming in the 850-hPa to 500-hPa layer, though? My point is just that maybe we shouldn't be expecting a 500-hPa trend to exactly match a surface or near-surface trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Weatherbell CVSv2 global temperature is going off the charts. NH temp approaching +2C!!! They had to once again redo the y axis. see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Could you link to the source of your funding numbers? Thanks. Look at the president's FY16 budget document....that's where I got this from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 UAH6 was 0.83 in Feb., 0.29 higher than January, and 0.09 above the previous record set in April 1998. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailMan06 Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 UAH6 was 0.83 in Feb., 0.29 higher than January, and 0.09 above the previous record set in April 1998. UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2015_v6.png And there it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 UAH6 was 0.83 in Feb., 0.29 higher than January, and 0.09 above the previous record set in April 1998. UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2015_v6.png One wonders if there is a stair-step slow increase in global temperatures. Prior to the 1998 super nino, temperatures averaged around -.1C...then after 1998 they were about +.2C and now we likely will see the temperatures climb at least 1-2 more months to probably 1C or so. Then the big question is: do temperatures fall back to the 1998 plateau or do they establish a higher plateau...say +.4C to .5C?? If they settle to this higher level then we are seeing a slow climate change with a stair-step increase. If they settle higher then the temperature changes are accelerating (less likely in my opinion). Some say they cool back to below 1998 levels... it will be very telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Here is the NCEP 500 mb vs UAH6 and GISS since 1979, The left axis is height and right is temperature. The graphs are scaled so changes in 500 mb height are roughly equivalent to changes in temperature. The anomalies are also smoothed with a 12-month running average to focus on the long-term trends. All three series have similar short-term timing which is tied to ENSO and volcanoes. The amplitude of short-term swings is relatively large for both 500 mb height and UAH6. Compared to the other series, 500mb heights cooled more in the Pinatubo eruption and continued to lag for roughly a decade, but 500 mb heights have recovered lost ground since 2000. UAH6 lags the other 2 series after 2000 but appears to have stabilized recently. Bottom-line I don't think the 500 mb data by itself is reliable or conclusive regarding long-term trends but the data do add to the weight of evidence from surface temperature, SST and radiosondes indicating a cooling bias in the satellites post-2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Below are correlation statistics for NCEP R1 500 mb + 300 mb heights, UAH6, and GISS. UAH6 is better correlated with the height indices than with GISS, so the height indices have some value as a short-term diagnostic. As might be expected 300mb heights have the best correlation with UAH6, but 500 mb heights are better correlated with GISS. Note the 300 mb heights are only available monthly at the climate explorer website. Correlation 1/1/79 through 1/1/2016 GISS/UAH6 - 77.7 GISS/500 mb - 83.1 GISS/300 mb - 79.1 UAH6/500 mb - 83.9 UAH6 300 mb - 87.4 500 mb/300 mb - 98.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 One wonders if there is a stair-step slow increase in global temperatures. Prior to the 1998 super nino, temperatures averaged around -.1C...then after 1998 they were about +.2C and now we likely will see the temperatures climb at least 1-2 more months to probably 1C or so. Then the big question is: do temperatures fall back to the 1998 plateau or do they establish a higher plateau...say +.4C to .5C?? If they settle to this higher level then we are seeing a slow climate change with a stair-step increase. If they settle higher then the temperature changes are accelerating (less likely in my opinion). Some say they cool back to below 1998 levels... it will be very telling. I would expect the satellites to warm at a faster rate than the hiatus decade and to become more in-line with the other datasets in time. The most likely explanations for the satellite lag are: ENSO and inter-satellite calibration as AMSU came on-line. Both of these issues are temporary and should resolve themselves over the long-term. What is your prediction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Here is the NCEP 500 mb vs UAH6 and GISS since 1979, The left axis is height and right is temperature. The graphs are scaled so changes in 500 mb height are roughly equivalent to changes in temperature. The anomalies are also smoothed with a 12-month running average to focus on the long-term trends. All three series have similar short-term timing which is tied to ENSO and volcanoes. The amplitude of short-term swings is relatively large for both 500 mb height and UAH6. Compared to the other series, 500mb heights cooled more in the Pinatubo eruption and continued to lag for roughly a decade, but 500 mb heights have recovered lost ground since 2000. UAH6 lags the other 2 series after 2000 but appears to have stabilized recently. Bottom-line I don't think the 500 mb data by itself is reliable or conclusive regarding long-term trends but the data do add to the weight of evidence from surface temperature, SST and radiosondes indicating a cooling bias in the satellites post-2000. NCEP500mbvsUAHGISS.png There appears to be a large divergence in UAH from the 500mb heights in the early/mid-1990s during the recovery from Pinatubo. UAH shows a lot more warming than the 500mb plot implies during the 1990s...and then goes the opposite direction in the 2000s. So that confirms my earlier post that the 500mb chart showed far less warming than the other datasets from the late 1970s to about 2000. You can see that GISS diverged quite a bit as well during this period (though maybe more in the late 1980s onward) before converging back toward it again in the 2000s. But as Mallow said before, we don't necessarily expect the sfc datasets to match 500mb as closely...but I do expect UAH to match it fairly closely since UAH is centered in the 600mb region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Here is 300mb. Again the axes have been scaled to maintain rough equivalency between 300 mb heights and average layer temperature. 300 mb heights follow the short-term movements in UAH6 quite well. Long-term trends are similar to 500 mb, but 300mb height anomalies indicate a little more warming through most of the period than 500mb. Note that the 12-month running average 300 mb height didn't peak until July 1998 and it is currently running a couple of meters above 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 RSS TMT 4.0 is here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R This should resolve most if not all of the post-2000 satellite temperature lag that we have been discussing. The abstract also mentions improved agreement with total column water vapor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 RSS TMT 4.0 is here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R This should resolve most if not all of the post-2000 satellite temperature lag that we have been discussing. The abstract also mentions improved agreement with total column water vapor. The evidence has been there a long time. Most of us knew this was coming. But to those that didn't or still clung to the belief that warming in the middle troposphere has been slow this should be a huge wake up call. Of course, this isn't the final word for satellite temps. It just serves to show how unreliable satellite measurements of temperature are and that we should be highly skeptical of them no matter what the results, unless there is some new improvement included in this paper I am not aware of (I haven't read more than the abstract yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 RSS TMT 4.0 is here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R This should resolve most if not all of the post-2000 satellite temperature lag that we have been discussing. The abstract also mentions improved agreement with total column water vapor. Thanks for this link! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Here is the RSS link for TMT v4, only through year-end 2014 so far. http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly_v4.0.preview.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinook Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Weatherbell CVSv2 global temperature is going off the charts. NH temp approaching +2C!!! They had to once again redo the y axis. see According to NCEP reanalysis, Feb 1-28 averaged about 15C above normal for the Svalbard area (about 80 deg north, 0 to 90E) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 RSS version 3.3 up 0.31 in Feb to a record 0.97 beating the 0.86 from April 1998. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.