BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I thought you liked satellite data This satellite altimetry data goes through most of 2010, about as new as can be found, and newer than anything else I've seen posted here. Unsure what you mean by objective - corrections are probably made in ARGO and satellite both. It is true that ARGO is looking at Steric (temperature + salinity) sea level rise and satellite is total. I look at both datasets, and I do like satellite data...when I can go in and see the data, if its objective, etc. Satellites like GRACE can kiss my ass several times over. By Objective, meaning, the initiative behind the project, the group working in it, the availability of data/codes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 That's just a brutal cold shot across Asia....if you check out the forecast for Moscow that I posted, it's unreal...brutal, teeth-chattering cold. What's incredible is that the cold shot stretches all the way from Eastern Siberia/Kamchatka to the European border, a distance of thousands of miles. We're talking about a massive land area being absolutely frigid for days on end. ECM has -20C 850s over Western Russia with 0C getting all the way into the Central Mediterranean....way below normal. That's combined with a brutally cold airmass now coming into the Canadian Prairies and American West...check out how much of Western Canada is inside the -20C 850mb isotherm, and there's also a possibility for snowfall to occur in the low elevations of Southern California with the next trough moving through. Even Los Angeles is supposed to stay in the 40s and 50s for most of the next week, very chilly for their climate. We're definitely seeing the potential for global cooling being realized right now, and we'll see if this is trend sustains itself as the Niña wanes. Certainly interesting times ahead. Crazy, right where the 2010 heatwave once held the crown. GFS also has the Arctic, Antarctic, USA, Pacific ocean....everything covered in alot of blue come next thursday....-0.6C would be colder than we ever got since the Mid 90's. (via satellite) ECMWF weeklies get kinda scary actually. Of course, these are just models, and are probably overkill....but 2008 is Goin Down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I look at both datasets, and I do like satellite data...when I can go in and see the data, if its objective, etc. Satellites like GRACE can kiss my ass several times over. By Objective, meaning, the initiative behind the project, the group working in it, the availability of data/codes, etc. Just to be clear, satellite altimetry is from Jason and TOPEX/POSEIDON, rather than GRACE (though its data are available). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Just to be clear, satellite altimetry is from Jason and TOPEX/POSEIDON, rather than GRACE (though its data are available). Never said it was GRACE... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Again you like to make a jab and then try to disconnect from the discussion and deny responsibility. You implied GRACE data weren't available (outside the context of sea level). I simply corrected you. So you are the one who brought up GRACE - it wasn't me. Maybe if you are willing to defend your assertions when they're being challenged we can have a more productive discussion? Hard to engage in such a hit and run type of debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Again you like to make a jab and then try to disconnect from the discussion and deny responsibility. You implied GRACE data weren't available (outside the context of sea level). I simply corrected you. So you are the one who brought up GRACE - it wasn't me. Maybe if you are willing to defend your assertions when they're being challenged we can have a more productive discussion? Hard to engage in such a hit and run type of debate. whaaaaaaaaaaa? Quote me, where did I say GRACE data wasn't available? The idea that I said such a thing is so stupid....I was caught off guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Rather than run around in circles I'd simply ask why you were mentioning GRACE? I will say that GRACE data are useful in the context of the ocean mass component (due to ice melt, river runoff, evaporation, precipitation, etc.).This helps to put the ARGO steric data and the satellite altimetry data into context. In fact, all three are mutual checks on one another if you really want to look at the whole picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Quote me and don't deviate from your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Crazy, right where the 2010 heatwave once held the crown. GFS also has the Arctic, Antarctic, USA, Pacific ocean....everything covered in alot of blue come next thursday....-0.6C would be colder than we ever got since the Mid 90's. (via satellite) ECMWF weeklies get kinda scary actually. Of course, these are just models, and are probably overkill....but 2008 is Goin Down! What are the anomalies at their lowest on the ECMWF weeklies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Quote me and don't deviate from your argument. Ok, what's the basis of this tasteless comment? Mods? Satellites like GRACE can kiss my ass several times over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Ok, what's the basis of this tasteless comment? Mods? That is referring to the fact that GRACE measures Changes in Graviational Pull... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Rather than run around in circles I'd simply ask why you were mentioning GRACE? I will say that GRACE data are useful in the context of the ocean mass component (due to ice melt, river runoff, evaporation, precipitation, etc.).This helps to put the ARGO steric data and the satellite altimetry data into context. In fact, all three are mutual checks on one another if you really want to look at the whole picture. He doesn't like GRACE because it shows melting. No other reason. He doesn't like GISS because it is warmer than UAH even though UAH has much larger error associated with it even according to John Christy at UAH. He doesn't like Cazenave 2009, Leuliette 2009, Von Schuckmann 2009 and Lyman 2010 which all use ARGO data and are peer reviewed. Instead he prefers to cite Willis 2008 (retracted) and Knox and Douglas (not peer reviewed and thoroughly refuted by the peer-reviewed literature). He doesn't like the tide guages or the satellites that show sea level rise because that means the oceans are warming. He doesn't like the satellite data for global cloud cover from multiple agencies like CERES and SSM/I.. instead he prefer cloud data from ISCCP even though the lead publisher of the data says it is not intended for long term trend monitoring. I think I have found a pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 He doesn't like GRACE because it shows melting. No other reason. He doesn't like GISS because it is warmer than UAH even though UAH has much larger error associated with it even according to John Christy at UAH. He doesn't like Cazenave 2009, Leuliette 2009, Von Schuckmann 2009 and Lyman 2010 which all use ARGO data and are peer reviewed. Instead he prefers to cite Willis 2008 (retracted) and Knox and Douglas (not peer reviewed and thoroughly refuted by the peer-reviewed literature). He doesn't like the tide guages or the satellites that show sea level rise because that means the oceans are warming. He doesn't like the satellite data for global cloud cover from multiple agencies like CERES and SSM/I.. instead he prefer cloud data from ISCCP even though the lead publisher of the data says it is not intended for long term trend monitoring. I think I have found a pattern. haha skier 1) UAH is better than GISS in all regards 2) GRACE measures Gravity, and shows ice loss where it is too cold to melt Ice!......also has a HUGE error bar. 3 I look at all Ocean Measurement systems...I find it interesting that there are differing opinions on sea level rise 4) We have no way to accurately measure GCC from any source, they all basically suck. However, the data that shows the higher atmospheric correlation is ISCCP. Not saying its right, could be a coinidence... = Skier defends Jim Hansen, Al Gore, Michael Mann. = Skier Chooses GISS over UAH. Supports GISS, attempts to Trash UAH despite its superiority. = Skier Ignores UAH cooling trends over the Antarctic, Chooses GISS instead. = Skier Supports the idea that Snowstorms are getting worse due to AGW = Skier supports GRACE, despite its physically impossible conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 That is referring to the fact that GRACE measures Changes in Graviational Pull... Anything more specific? GRACE actually shows only small changes as it should in the Antarctic interior. If you are going to derride another datasource, you need to give examples of such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Anything more specific? GRACE actually shows only small changes as it should in the Antarctic interior. The fact that the Antarctic has been cooling slightly for 30yrs The fact that GRACE shows melting where it is too cold to melt...at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Those "melting" amounts in the interior are actually very small - an acknowledged uncertainty. This noise is smaller than the signal of overall Antarctic melting. And even you did acknowledge that Pine Island Glacier (largely driving Antarctica) is melting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Those "melting" amounts in the interior are actually very small - an acknowledged uncertainty. This noise is smaller than the signal of overall Antarctic melting. And even you did acknowledge that Pine Island Glacier (largely driving Antarctica) is melting. You seem to be splitting hairs. The Antarctic has been cooling slightly for over 30yrs...aka, no warming overall. The amount of melting GRACE is showing in the interior is physically impossible...why should we believe the rest of its measurements are correct? The Pennisula may very well be melting loosing Ice, but the continent itself hs been cooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Because GRACE isn't showing melting in the interior, it's just showing a small noise level. Otherwise GRACE agrees with multiple other independent measurements including IceSat. Much of the melting is in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet - we've talked before about the Pine Island Glacier as you recall. And Antarctica has been warming over the past 50 years in one of the more recent studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Because GRACE isn't showing melting in the interior, it's just showing a small noise level. Much of the melting is in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Why don't you post the GRACE antarctic ice image Antarctica has been cooling for over 30yrs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Sounds good - comparison is here with Figure 4. The strongest areas match IceSat. We can interpret (or filter out) weaker colors as measurement uncertainty. http://www.springerl...74025907838v1m/ And Antarctica warming over the past 50 years: http://www.nasa.gov/...antarctica.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Sounds good - comparison is here with Figure 4. The strongest areas match IceSat. We can interpret (or filter out) weaker colors as measurement uncertainty. http://www.springerl...74025907838v1m/ And Antarctica warming over the past 50 years: http://www.nasa.gov/...antarctica.html Warming on the Pennisula is what the satellites have been inferring. You basically have vindicated me. oops...looks like antarctica has been cooling Satellite data is better than Surface for many reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Sounds good - comparison is here with Figure 4. The strongest areas match IceSat. We can interpret (or filter out) weaker colors as measurement uncertainty. http://www.springerl...74025907838v1m/ And Antarctica warming over the past 50 years: http://www.nasa.gov/...antarctica.html That second link is based on Steig 09 which as been pretty soundly refuted by O'Donnell 2010. The former finds a 50 year continental trend of like .09C/decade while the latter is more like .04C/decade. I started a thread on this recently: http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php?/topic/13186-i-am-surprised-nobody-has-posted/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Warming on the Pennisula is what the satellites have been inferring. You basically have vindicated me. oops...looks like antarctica has been cooling Satellite data is better than Surface for many reasons. Satellite data is not better than surface data. For one they measure two physically different things. For another, the published uncertainties for both UAH and RSS are quite high. UAH finds a trend over the oceans of .1C/decade +/-.11C/decade. UAH can't even decide if the oceans are cooling or warming rapidly at >.2C/decade. And these are error estimates published by the renowned skeptics Spencer and Christy. So if you want to persist in saying UAH is accurate and precise you will need to renounce the published works of John Christy and Roy Spencer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Satellite data is not better than surface data. For one they measure two physically different things. For another, the published uncertainties for both UAH and RSS are quite high. UAH finds a trend over the oceans of .1C/decade +/-.11C/decade. UAH can't even decide if the oceans are cooling or warming rapidly at >.2C/decade. And these are error estimates published by the renowned skeptics Spencer and Christy. So if you want to persist in saying UAH is accurate and precise you will need to renounce the published works of John Christy and Roy Spencer. Satellite is MUCH better than surface data for many reasons. (RSS and UAH measure different areas, are calbreated differently...RSS is colder in the areas both it and UAH measure....they Cannot be compared) Satellite is better overall because: -Complete coverage (UAH only), both have better coverage than surface data, but UAH is virtually complete. -Better resolution -No extrapolations -Uncertainties in Surface Data are MUCH higher, due to UHI, contamination, extrapolations, and the fact that there are only about 20 stations on the Heart of the Antarctic Ice sheet...not enough Yes there are always uncertainties in datasets, but the better overall data is satellite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Here are the published uncertainties for UAH and RSS for global trends. For UAH the PUBLISHED uncertainties by Christy and Spencer are between +.05C/decade and +.19C/decade from 1979-2004. For RSS it is between .12C/decade and .26C/decade. So according UAH and RSS themselves, there is very large uncertainty in the actual trend. Then we have STAR which shows more warming than either of them based on the same data correcting using simultaneous nadir overpass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Neither of those are Antarctic. 1) Link? Why don't you ever link your data? 2) All datasets have uncertainties, so what? Uncertainties are just that...Uncertainties...it doesn not mean flawed... 3) Why isn't GISS on there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Neither of those are Antarctic. 1) Link? Why don't you ever link your data? 2) All datasets have uncertainties, so what? Uncertainties are just that...Uncertainties...it doesn not mean flawed... 3) Why isn't GISS on there? 1) IPCC report. Read it. 2) I think the definition of high uncertainty is that the data likely contains errors when compared to reality. 3) GIss is on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 1) IPCC report. Read it. 2) I think the definition of high uncertainty is that the data likely contains errors when compared to reality. 3) GIss is on there. I don't have time to gouge thru the entire IPCC report as you might, can you provide a link...help a bro out Can you also post Roy Spencers report? He probably has more knowldege on UAH. Uncertainty in data is just that...the range of potential error. It does not mean there is an error present...espcially knowing the "uncertainties" are not sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Actually it seems that Spencer Christy and Norris' latest tack is to just criticize ALL satellite temperature reconstructions including their own. After initially publishing their data in an attempt to refute surface trends, and after being forced to revise their estimates up several times it seems that now they have discovered satellite data is not accurate. We conclude that there is substantial uncertainty in tropospheric temperature trends deduced from near-nadir MSU channels 2 and 4, due to the inability of those channels to physically remove stratospheric influence on channel 2, and the necessary dependence of any other (statistical) method on statistically stationary correlations between tropospheric and stratospheric temperature variations, which are not well known on a global basis. http://journals.amet...175/JTECH1840.1 -Spencer, Christy, Norris and Braswell in 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Actually it seems that Spencer Christy and Norris' latest tack is to just criticize ALL satellite temperature reconstructions including their own. After initially publishing their data in an attempt to refute surface trends, and after being forced to revise their estimates up several times it seems that now they have discovered satellite data is not accurate. We conclude that there is substantial uncertainty in tropospheric temperature trends deduced from near-nadir MSU channels 2 and 4, due to the inability of those channels to physically remove stratospheric influence on channel 2, and the necessary dependence of any other (statistical) method on statistically stationary correlations between tropospheric and stratospheric temperature variations, which are not well known on a global basis. http://journals.amet...175/JTECH1840.1 -Spencer, Christy, Norris and Braswell in 2010 If I'm reading correctly, though, it also seems to imply that the LT measurement is pretty accurate, as long as different view angles of MSU Channel 2 are used, not the combination of 2+4....so I think you might be misinterpreting from what I've read so far: This was accomplished by Spencer and Christy (1992, hereafter SC92) with a weighted difference (“LT” in Fig. 1) between different view angles of MSU 2 that have large amounts of overlap between their respective weighting functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.