BethesdaWX Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the scientific literature on satellite temperature data, its interpretation, and its accuracy (or lack thereof). Start here and then move onto the references cited: http://www.skeptical...-Satellite.html The issue with RAOBCORE (the infrared channel) was repaired between V1.2 & V1.4, warmer datsets such as RSS were adjusted to Match UAH & the rest of the satellite consensus Last Month Other issues revolved around the errors found in the Radiosondes. The reasoning for this is explained in Chisty's & Spencer's paper. Other issues such as drift were completely eliminated through the Lauch of AQUA, which carries extra fuel to evoid the issue completely. As the Years go On, UAH will improve further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 This crap about "what method is more accurate" is....well, crap! It's the trends that matter, and if there is some long term divergence with one of them, when there was/is a reasonable consensus among the various reporting agencies/methods the skeptism should be raised re: the outlier. If 2 sats and 1 ground are trending together....and the outlier USED to trend with them, but NOW diverges, there had better be a REALLY OBVIOUS reason (without the need to ingest Kool-Aid) to toss the other 3. I'm not saying GISS has shown a LONG term divergence at this point...but it's obviously been enough so at this point, to even be brought to the table......and that speaks nothing about taco's "elephant in the room" issue.... HadCRUT doesn't include the poles.. you can't count it as a GLOBAL source unless you make some kind of correction for that.. .otherwise you are comparing apples and oranges. Once you account for that HadCRUT and GISS have the exact same 15 and 30 year trends. RSS and especially UAH disagree strongly from the other satellite indices. They are the outliers. Of course you people just want to ignore Fu, VG and Zou and pretend they don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 HadCRUT doesn't include the poles.. you can't count it as a GLOBAL source unless you make some kind of correction for that.. .otherwise you are comparing apples and oranges. Once you account for that HadCRUT and GISS have the exact same 15 and 30 year trends. RSS and especially UAH disagree strongly from the other satellite indices. They are the outliers. Of course you people just want to ignore Fu, VG and Zou and pretend they don't exist. I explained to you the error! You are the one who needs to listen! Baaaaaaaahhhhhhh shiiiiiiTTT 1) VG/Zou/Fu incorrectly analyzed an Infrared channel....and used RAOBCORE V1.2 and not V1.4. 2) RSS/UAH are the only Mainstream Satellite measurements, and have most available data at this time. 3) The errors in the radiosonde measurements Have to be corrected for. 4) Spencer and Christy go into Detail on the Matter, and why the total error potential, Meteorological & Satistical...amounts to +/- 0.05C/yr all in all. Its silly to debate Meteorological error, because the Statistical error is influenced by the meteorological error, and is applied! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 I explained to you the error! You are the one who needs to listen! 1) VG/Zou/Fu incorrectly analyzed an Infrared channel....and used RAOBCORE V1.2 and not V1.4. 2) RSS/UAH are the only Mainstream Satellite measurements, and have most available data at this time. 3) The errors in the radiosonde measurements Have to be corrected for. Spencer and Christy go into Detail on the Matter, and why the total error potential, Meteorological & Satistical...amounts to +/- 0.05C/yr all in all. Its silly to debate Meteorological error, because the Statistical error is influenced by the meteorological error! VG, Fu Zou do not use raobcore or any other radiosonde data. They are entirely based on satellite data. There is no such thing as "total error potential." Not all error is quantifiable. If you want to persuade anybody of anything, you're going to have to accept these very basic facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 VG, Fu Zou do not use raobcore or any other radiosonde data. They are entirely based on satellite data. There is no such thing as "total error potential." Not all error is quantifiable. If you want to persuade anybody of anything, you're going to have to accept these very basic facts. 1) I think you miss the point. RAOBCORE & all other radioasonde data has to be used to corroborate & validate satellite data, and errors need to be corrected for. I read a peer reviewed paper a year ago, the name "Zou" sticks out, regarding RAOBCORE. if you could link the paper, I'll be able to figure this out easily. 2) Thats not the point, the errors that we know of, in UAH, are +/- 0.05C decade at most...meteorological error is part of the influence for the staistical error!. I'm not trying to persuade anyone...facts are facts, and they are undeniable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 1) I think you miss the point. RAOBCORE & all other radioasonde data has to be used to corroborate & validate satellite data, and errors need to be corrected for. I read a peer reviewed paper a year ago, the name "Zou" sticks out, regarding RAOBCORE. if you could link the paper, I'll be able to figure this out easily. 2) Thats not the point, the errors that we know of, in UAH, are +/- 0.05C decade at most...meteorological error is part of the influence for the staistical error!. I'm not trying to persuade anyone...facts are facts, and they are undeniable. 1) Yes sometimes radiosonde data is compared to satellite data.. that's not the same thing as "using" it. Radiosonde data also contains inaccuracies and is simply one more piece of evidence to think about. If radiosonde data was perfect we wouldn't need satellites at all. 2) You don't seem to understand how error bars are calculated. It is quite difficult to incorporate all possible sources of error quantitatively into a single error bar. The easiest cases are for things like sampling error (think of polling where you sample 1,000 individuals and ask them a question). Polling is actually a great analogy. The error bars for polls are usually around +/- 3%, depending on the number of people sampled. But in practice we find that polls are frequently inaccurate by margins of 5% or even 10% on occasion. Why is this? Methodological error that can't be quantified in the error bars. How do you quantify an error like people are more likely to answer "No." when a machine asks a question instead of a person? Or they're more likely to answer "no" in the evening than the morning? Or if the question or series of questions is leading? These are all sources of methodological error that don't show up in the published error estimates. It's not possible to quantify many types of error. It is simply not possible for Spencer and Christy to quantify all types of error. Even if they could... tell me which one I should believe: UAH's .14C/decade +/-.05C OR ZOU/FU's .24C/decade +/-.05C. They have the same error bars and yet one shows much more warming than the other. It's simply dishonest to select one and ignore the other. So from now on every time you claim UAH is accurate and that UAH is the best.. I'm going to claim Zou is the most accurate and the best and the earth is rapidly warming at nearly .25C/decade. If you're not going to look at all the evidence, then neither am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 You haven't posted the study, and I cannot find it. Google Scholar Couldn't find it... Perhaps you gave me the wrong name? The discrepancies are described in Christy's & Spencer's 2010 paper, which I posted earlier on. The Statistical error INCLUDES the meteorological error! This is why I want to see the methods used so I can analyze them. I thought you weren't a hypocrite, going with some 2007 study that has been refuted. AMSU/MSU (<>UAH/RSS<>) have been repeatedly successfully and validated. http://www.ssmi.com/...validation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 You haven't posted the study, and I cannot find it. Google Scholar Couldn't find it... Perhaps you gave me the wrong name? The discrepancies are described in Christy's & Spencer's 2010 paper, which I posted earlier on. The Statistical error INCLUDES the meteorological error! This is why I want to see the methods used so I can analyze them. I thought you weren't a hypocrite, going with some 2007 study that has been refuted. AMSU/MSU (<>UAH/RSS<>) have been repeatedly successfully and validated. http://www.ssmi.com/...validation.html As I said, the comparisons to radiosonde data are useful but radiosonde data is not perfect. If it was we wouldn't need satellite data. Plus, even the newest radiosonde data says UAH is slightly too low in the lower troposphere and FAR too low in the mid troposphere. The discrepancies in the mid-troposphere are huge. Which again just speaks to the overall inaccuracy of the data. I get the impression you read and/or understood very little of my previous post. Using the link YOU posted (and which I have also posted dozens of times)... we see UAH is by far the largest outlier of all mid-troposphere data. The other sources show 1.5-2X as much warming. This is not reliable data.. large discrepancies remain for all tropospheric sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 March HadCrut comes in coldest in 12 years (wrt previous March anomolies): 2011/03 0.318 Have to go back to March 1999 for a March anomoly to be cooler: 2010/10 0.402 2009/03 0.374 2008/03 0.449 2007/03 0.438 2006/03 0.380 2005/03 0.499 2004/03 0.510 2003/03 0.425 2002/03 0.609 2001/03 0.487 2000/03 0.331 1999/03 0.294 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 As I said, the comparisons to radiosonde data are useful but radiosonde data is not perfect. If it was we wouldn't need satellite data. Plus, even the newest radiosonde data says UAH is slightly too low in the lower troposphere and FAR too low in the mid troposphere. The discrepancies in the mid-troposphere are huge. Which again just speaks to the overall inaccuracy of the data. I get the impression you read and/or understood very little of my previous post. Using the link YOU posted (and which I have also posted dozens of times)... we see UAH is by far the largest outlier of all mid-troposphere data. The other sources show 1.5-2X as much warming. This is not reliable data.. large discrepancies remain for all tropospheric sources. You're not very smart, I said nothing about Radiosondes in the post you just quoted, since the errors are accounted for during calibration.......listen. (PS: Post your paper). Radiosondes are not only Prone to Error and often need to be corrected for, but you need More than one Radiosonde type to verify a Dataset you Numbnut! Discrepancies between Concentration & V1.2 & V1.4 are present due to an Infrared Channel. Meteorlolgical error is part of the Statistical Error. Everything on the total error (that we know of) of +/- 0.05C/decade is Explained by Roy Spencer & Christy in their 2010 Paper Post your "study" so I can read it and figure this out. 1) RSS and UAH are now in Tandom, since RSS was adjusted to match UAH Last month 2) Drift is no Longer needed to be accounted for 3) The total error that we know of is found to be +/- 0.05C, by Roy Spencer & John Christy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 March HadCrut comes in coldest in 12 years (wrt previous March anomolies): 2011/03 0.318 Have to go back to March 1999 for a March anomoly to be cooler: 2010/10 0.402 2009/03 0.374 2008/03 0.449 2007/03 0.438 2006/03 0.380 2005/03 0.499 2004/03 0.510 2003/03 0.425 2002/03 0.609 2001/03 0.487 2000/03 0.331 1999/03 0.294 GISS is the only source that went up, not surprised. I'm sure this has to do with the Greenland/N atlantic area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 GISS is the only source that went up, not surprised. I'm sure this has to do with the Greenland/N atlantic area. If you are talking about change from previous month....no, HadCrut did go up. Also, the previous March anomoly for GISS was higher, so it also went down.....so your statement is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 If you are talking about change from previous month....no, HadCrut did go up. Also, the previous March anomoly for GISS was higher, so it also went down.....so your statement is false. GISS's anomaly was higher Last MAR than this yr? I thought you said it was like +.45C this yr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 GISS's anomaly was higher Last MAR than this yr? I thought you said it was like +.45C this yr? Yes, which is why your previous statement was false..... GISS for last March(2010) was+.86 What did you mean by saying "GISS was the only source that went up."???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 You're not very smart classic resort to insults when you can't debate on the merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 classic resort to insults when you can't debate on the merits. OMFG WHERE IS YOUR PAPER?!?!?!?! Yet again, I said nothing about Radiosondes in the post you just quoted, since the errors are accounted for during calibration. Radiosondes are not only Prone to Error and often need to be corrected for, but you need More than one Radiosonde type to verify a Dataset you Numbnut! Discrepancies between Concentration & V1.2 & V1.4 are present due to an Infrared Channel. Meteorlolgical error is part of the Statistical Error. Everything on the total error (that we know of) of +/- 0.05C/decade is Explained by Roy Spencer & Christy in their 2010 Paper Post your "study" so I can read it and figure this out. 1) RSS and UAH are now in Tandom, since RSS was adjusted to match UAH Last month 2) Drift is no Longer needed to be accounted for 3) The total error that we know of is found to be +/- 0.05C, by Roy Spencer & John Christy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 Yes, which is why your previous statement was false..... GISS for last March(2010) was+.86 What did you mean by saying "GISS was the only source that went up."???? Compared to last march, is what I was incorrectly implying. I got a bit confused somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 OMFG WHERE IS YOUR PAPER?!?!?!?! yawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 yawn Yawn?! I'm searching everhwhere for the damn thing and I can't find it. Google scholar cannot find it either. I think you just made it up, otherwise you would have posted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I think you just made it up, Damn! You've caught me red-handed! Sadly, I am just a pawn in the international AGW conspiracy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Damn! You've caught me red-handed! Sadly, I am just a pawn in the international AGW conspiracy... I guess I did catch you....Unless of course you post the paper, then I owe you an apology. But until you post the paper, please don't bring it up again. thanks! PS: I never once said AGW was a conspiracy/hoax, like some crazies tend to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I've already posted Zou's studies a half dozen times and it is linked to in the Skeptical Science summary I posted last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 I've already posted Zou's studies a half dozen times and it is linked to in the Skeptical Science summary I posted last week. You haven't on AmericanWX, because I literally read through every thread here Please post it again EDIT: Wait a minute, is this the study with those colorful error bar things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 You haven't on AmericanWX, because I literally read through every thread here Please post it again EDIT: Wait a minute, is this the study with those colorful error bar things? As I've said twice now, a link to Zou 2010 is embedded in the article I posted last week, which you claim to have read. http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/16992-satellite-temperature-analyses/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Ok I've solved this. Amazing what happens when you read. Zou et al ( http://www.agu.org/j...5JD006798.shtml ) his analysis is NOT dealing with direct error! He is removing the calibrations & correlations between satellites leaving the unadjusted error (before Chisty & Spencer adjust for it) and making a New Analysis Method, not addressing D-drift. Spencer/Christy's +/-0.05C/decade is after it has been corrected for...although there is still room for error at +/- 0.05C/decade ALSO: The debate ended a Month ago. This SkepticalScience post (that you linked) ( http://www.skeptical...-Satellite.html ) was Addressing the Discrepancy between RSS and UAH....guess what, the debate ended a Month ago! RSS has been adjusted downwards due to errors I've explained...and are widely accepted throughout the climate science community! There ya go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Ok I've solved this. Amazing what happens when you read. Zou et al ( http://www.agu.org/j...5JD006798.shtml ) his analysis is NOT dealing with direct error! He is removing the calibrations & correlations between satellites leaving the unadjusted error (before Chisty & Spencer adjust for it) and making a New Analysis Method, not addressing D-drift. Spencer/Christy's +/-0.05C/decade is after it has been corrected for...although there is still room for error at +/- 0.05C/decade ALSO: The debate ended a Month ago. This SkepticalScience post (that you linked) ( http://www.skeptical...-Satellite.html ) was Addressing the Discrepancy between RSS and UAH....guess what, the debate ended a Month ago! RSS has been adjusted downwards due to errors I've explained...and are widely accepted throughout the climate science community! There ya go more nonsense and fabrication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 more nonsense and fabrication WTF??? How is it nonsense and Fabrication? It says it right in your Skeptical Science Article!!! Are you crazy? Want me to Link it? You're in denial & spitting bullsh*t proves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Greenland will be getting quite cold...to say the least. Antarctica too. Russia to be Torching Insanely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Greenland will be getting quite cold...to say the least. Antarctica too. Russia to be Torching Insanely. GFS shows a strong drop in the global anomaly in the next few days...currently it's quite warm: Here is 90 hours, briefly goes negative and then back to around neutral: Could this be related to the Final Warming and -AO?: This is fairly impressive given we're hardly seeing La Niña anymore, the land-based cold over Antarctica and Northern Canada really seems to be doing the trick...here are the SSTs: AMSU daily for 4/17 came in .11C below the average...looks as if we may drop below 2008 on Channel 5 again, as we're currently quite close and have sustained a significant drop following the massive early April spike... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Dang look at that crazy +AMO. The -PDO, -IPO, Cold Neutral ENSO, are all present though despite the +IOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.