tacoman25 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 For example, what is the RSS trend for this period? Let's go with the superior temp source here. How about we see this? For the sake of consistency, accuracy, and balance? And to erase suspicions that you are choosing to use UAH for short term trends because it is warmer now than RSS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 For example, what is the RSS trend for this period? Let's go with the superior temp source here. The superior temp source would be HadCRUT+UAH poles or GISS, which I presented. If we want to use the heavily flawed satellite data it would be best to use an average of UAH, RSS and STAR which doesn't have a realtime product yet. I present UAH simply because it is a source most of the deniers trust and it is a source I can present without delving into the whole argument over which product is better. I'm not conceding the point that GISS is better, it's just that sometimes it is necessary to talk about other things without having to delve into source selection. I present UAH as an off-hand concession to the deniers to avoid having to argue about source selection constantly. If you want to argue about sources, then I will use HadCRUT+infilled polar data from satellites or GISS. Not RSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 The superior temp source would be HadCRUT+UAH poles or GISS, which I presented. If we want to use the heavily flawed satellite data it would be best to use an average of UAH, RSS and STAR which doesn't have a realtime product yet. I present UAH simply because it is a source most of the deniers trust and it is a source I can present without delving into the whole argument over which product is better. I'm not conceding the point that GISS is better, it's just that sometimes it is necessary to talk about other things without having to delve into source selection. If you want to argue about sources, then I will use HadCRUT+UAH or GISS. So you are afraid to show the RSS trends, a source you have repeatedly said is better than UAH? Why would you not use RSS alone, yet you have repeatedly used UAH alone (without HadCRU)? Please explain how this is not selective cherry-picking of sources to get a desired short term trend. And no, saying "so the deniers are more comfortable" is not a satisfactory answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 RSS is +0.08C per decade between 2000 and 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Wait, so you have said RSS is more accurate and longterm trends indicate UAH is the outlier...but now short term trends mean UAH is "catching up", even though short term trends are quite a bit different for RSS, the more accurate source? This does not seem to be consistent logic. No it is not the short term trend that makes UAH no longer an outlier. It is the fact that the long-term trend converging for UAH and RSS. But UAH is still whacked up for TMT, so I would generally prefer RSS overall. But these sources are very flawed.. with large discrepancies between them and other satellite and radiosonde sources, especially for TMT. We're arguing about which rotten apple has fewer worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 So you are afraid to show the RSS trends, a source you have repeatedly said is better than UAH? Why would you not use RSS alone, yet you have repeatedly used UAH alone (without HadCRU)? Please explain how this is not selective cherry-picking of sources to get a desired short term trend. And no, saying "so the deniers are more comfortable" is not a satisfactory answer. Well I am sorry you do not find it a satisfactory answer but it is the truth. Personally, I would prefer not to use it all. Or to use it only in a scientific manner with full acknowledgement of what are likely very large error bars especially for short term trends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 RSS is +0.08C per decade between 2000 and 2011. Yup, significantly less than what UAH shows. Wonder why skiier never mentions this when doing those GISS vs. UAH comparisons? It does kind of mess up his assertion that the warming the last 10 years (or lack thereof) is completely consistent with AGW expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 You are probably right. I should probably just stop using satellite data entirely for short term trends since the error bars are likely too large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 It does kind of mess up his assertion that the warming the last 10 years (or lack thereof) is completely consistent with AGW expectations. No it doesn't. Not when you consider the very large error bars of RSS over such a short period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Well I am sorry you do not find it a satisfactory answer but it is the truth. Personally, I would prefer not to use it all. Or to use it only in a scientific manner with full acknowledgement of what are likely very large error bars especially for short term trends. I have outllined clearly why it is not satisfactory. It is not logically consistent. You are more than willing to use UAH for short term trends but refuse to use RSS, even though you believe UAH is the lesser source. Doesn't seem like you at all to cater to the deniers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 No it doesn't. Not when you consider the very large error bars of RSS over such a short period. How about the error bars of other sources? Why aren't these mentioned when you confidently assert that everything is going according to expectations based on these short term trends? Stop being disingenuous. If you want us to believe you aren't cherry-picking your sources to get the desired result, use RSS in temp comparisons. It makes a lot more sense for you to do that than to use UAH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 UAH is actually the warmest outlier in the trend since 2000....the 4 majors are: HadCRUT3: +0.04C per decade RSS: +0.08C per decade GISS: +0.14C per decade UAH: +0.17C per decade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 UAH is actually the warmest outlier in the trend since 2000....the 4 majors are: HadCRUT3: +0.04C per decade RSS: +0.08C per decade GISS: +0.14C per decade UAH: +0.17C per decade Part of that is due to the greater ENSO response of the troposphere than the surface Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 How about the error bars of other sources? Why aren't these mentioned when you confidently assert that everything is going according to expectations based on these short term trends? Stop being disingenuous. If you want us to believe you aren't cherry-picking your sources to get the desired result, use RSS in temp comparisons. It makes a lot more sense for you to do that than to use UAH. I'm happy to use it if you insist and are willing to take into account the large error bars. I have simply not used it in the past because a long time ago I started using UAH because that's what the deniers like and it avoids long endless discussions about source selection when trying to make a simple point. I will have to download the RSS data and everything. Don't expect me to redo all of my excel files for infilling of surface data or for ENSO/TSI/volcano adjustment. The other good thing about UAH is the greater arctic coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 You are probably right. I should probably just stop using satellite data entirely for short term trends since the error bars are likely too large. That would be more consistent than only using UAH. However, to completely ignore the satellites would not be fair, I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Part of that is due to the greater ENSO response of the troposphere than the surface Which should also be reflected in the superior RSS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Which should also be reflected in the superior RSS... Part of it is due to the greater ENSO sensitivity of the tropoposphere... the other part is because the error bars are so large so you are likely to see large short-term divergences between UAH vs RSS vs the surface sources which have better short-term agreement (once the poles are infilled). I'd guess if we had perfect measurements the 2000-2011 trend would be surface: +.12/decade (based on an average of Had/GISS+satellite poles) lower trop: +.16/decade (simply based on the theoretical amplification and the greater ENSO response) as opposed to what we see on our imperfect measurement tools: GISS: +.14/decade UAH: +.17 RSS: +.08 Had: +.04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Part of it is due to the greater ENSO sensitivity of the tropoposphere... the other part is because the error bars are so large so you are likely to see large short-term divergences between UAH vs RSS vs the surface sources which have better short-term agreement (once the poles are infilled). Ok, I just don't think it's fair or balanced to only point out the error bars when the trend does not support your assertions. Especially when you have been using the source you believe to be least accurate to support those assertions. It is always ok to admit the uncertainties that face us in the climate debate. I think sometimes it is too easy for people (scientists included) to ride data that supports the hypothesis, but throw out opposing data, even if both sets of data have a large amount of uncertainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 wtf happened? that's damn cold. I like how Roy Spencer claimed this week of data shows AGW is wrong.. the man is a joke now. A little bitter over the forced retraction of his recent paper maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 wtf happened? that's damn cold. I like how Roy Spencer claimed this week of data shows AGW is wrong.. the man is a joke now. A little bitter over the forced retraction of his recent paper maybe. Links or it didn't happen. Fun to say! EDIT: I found the article you were referring to. I see you like to twist Spencer's words around as much as you like to distort mine! This is what he actually said: Of course, this too shall pass. I just thought it was an interesting curiosity during a time when some pundits are claiming global warming is “accelerating”. Apparently, they are still stuck in the last millennium. He calls the data an "interesting curiousity", but where does he say it "shows AGW is wrong"? All he infers is that global warming is not accelerating, and he doesn't say that one week of data proves it. As we all know, the actual data this millenium shows no acceleration (instead it shows, at the very least, some deceleration). Can we really trust you when you continue to make false accusations like this, skier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rygar Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Links or it didn't happen. Fun to say! EDIT: I found the article you were referring to. I see you like to twist Spencer's words around as much as you like to distort mine! This is what he actually said: Of course, this too shall pass. I just thought it was an interesting curiosity during a time when some pundits are claiming global warming is “accelerating”. Apparently, they are still stuck in the last millennium. He calls the data an "interesting curiousity", but where does he say it "shows AGW is wrong"? All he infers is that global warming is not accelerating, and he doesn't say that one week of data proves it. As we all know, the actual data this millenium shows no acceleration (instead it shows, at the very least, some deceleration). Can we really trust you when you continue to make false accusations like this, skier? Great stuff, skier is clearly a hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Links or it didn't happen. Fun to say! EDIT: I found the article you were referring to. I see you like to twist Spencer's words around as much as you like to distort mine! This is what he actually said: Of course, this too shall pass. I just thought it was an interesting curiosity during a time when some pundits are claiming global warming is “accelerating”. Apparently, they are still stuck in the last millennium. He calls the data an "interesting curiousity", but where does he say it "shows AGW is wrong"? All he infers is that global warming is not accelerating, and he doesn't say that one week of data proves it. As we all know, the actual data this millenium shows no acceleration (instead it shows, at the very least, some deceleration). Can we really trust you when you continue to make false accusations like this, skier? Actually I was referring to his title "Global temperatures are ignoring your SUV" which clearly implies that if AGW is correct it should be warmer. Which is false and is a pretty hackish un-professional thing for him to be saying publicly. You're making a habit of assuming you know what I'm referring to but not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Actually I was referring to his title "Global temperatures are ignoring your SUV" which clearly implies that if AGW is correct it should be warmer and is a pretty hackish un-professional thing for him to be saying publicly. Which is false. You're making a habit of assuming you know what I'm referring to but not. I found the correct article you were referring to. It's a joky title, and if you want to believe he is seriously inferring that one week of tropospheric data proves AGW wrong, that's a huge stretch. Especially if you read the actual article, where he infers no such thing. Regardless, you said he said something that he actually did not. Quite the habit for you lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I found the correct article you were referring to. It's a joky title, and if you want to believe he is seriously inferring that one week of tropospheric data proves AGW wrong, that's a huge stretch. Especially if you read the actual article, where he infers no such thing. Oh it's only a joke. I feel reassured. Spencer's a hack looking for attention and to sell books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Oh it's only a joke. I feel reassured. Spencer's a hack looking for attention and to sell books. Where in that article did he claim that one week of tropospheric data disproves AGW, as you said he did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Where in that article did he claim that one week of tropospheric data disproves AGW, as you said he did? The title "Global temperature ignores your SUV" clearly implies that because of your SUV global temperatures should be warmer. But I guess it's ok for people like Spencer to make hackish jokes based on falsehoods. I'm not the only one that noticed either. If the title had been "Global temperatures heating up because of your SUV" and written by Hansen concerning 1 week spike in temperature, you can sure as hell bet that you'd be all over his ass for using weekly data to prove AGW. And you'd be right too. And I would have the integrity to agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 The title "Global temperature ignores your SUV" clearly implies that because of your SUV global temperatures should be warmer. But I guess it's ok for people like Spencer to make hackish jokes based on falsehoods. I'm not the only one that noticed either. If the title had been "Global temperatures heating up because of your SUV" and written by Hansen concerning 1 week spike in temperature, you can sure as hell bet that you'd be all over his ass for using weekly data to prove AGW. And you'd be right too. And I would have the integrity to agree with you. Give me a break. The SUV joke is a long-running one, and to think that either Hansen or Spencer would seriously use it to make a point about current temperatures and AGW is ridiculous. Neither man is a moron, which you would have to be to honestly think one week of temperatures proves/disproves global warming. Like I said, all you have to do is read beyond the title anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Give me a break. The SUV joke is a long-running one, and to think that either Hansen or Spencer would seriously use it to make a point about current temperatures and AGW is ridiculous. Neither man is a moron, which you would have to be to honestly think one week of temperatures proves/disproves global warming. Like I said, all you have to do is read beyond the title anyway. I didn't say he honestly thinks that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that's what his title implies. We all know if Hansen had said the reverse of this, you'd have a hernia by now. You're being a complete hypocrite. Why are you going out of your way to defend Roy Spencer's hackishness instead of being full of indignant outrage like you would be if Hansen said the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I didn't say he honestly thinks that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that's what his title implies. Oh really? skierinvermont, on 02 November 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:wtf happened? that's damn cold. I like how Roy Spencer claimed this week of data shows AGW is wrong.. the man is a joke now. A little bitter over the forced retraction of his recent paper maybe. Just own up to the fact that you made an erroneous accusation against Spencer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.