The_Global_Warmer Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I am a bit néw to this. What level of the atmosphere are these at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I am a bit néw to this. What level of the atmosphere are these at? Ch. 6 (around 400mb...ie 25,000' up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Ch. 6 (around 400mb...ie 25,000' up) Why is there such a discrepancy between the upper levels of the atmosphere and the surface? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I am a bit néw to this. What level of the atmosphere are these at? left is ch 5 (14K ft), right is ch 6 (25K ft) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Why is there such a discrepancy between the upper levels of the atmosphere and the surface? From Skier's "hack du jour": http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Touches on your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHSnow Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Why is there such a discrepancy between the upper levels of the atmosphere and the surface? Because there aren't any SUVs up there. Lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Oh really? Just own up to the fact that you made an erroneous accusation against Spencer. Yes it is implicitly claimed by his title. Claiming something doesn't necessarily mean he thinks that. Obviously he's not quite that stupid. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.. you're just out to play games of gotcha as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 The satellites are going to come in really cold in the final 3 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 The satellites are going to come in really cold in the final 3 months. I'll take a stab that UAH comes in at +.11 for Oct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Yes it is implicitly claimed by his title. Claiming something doesn't necessarily mean he thinks that. Obviously he's not quite that stupid. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.. you're just out to play games of gotcha as usual. Your statement didn't portray this at all - like you really did believe Spencer thought one week of tropospheric data had disproved AGW. You wouldn't have to explain anything if you would stop saying misleading things like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Can someone link me to uah and rss And tell me the typical times they are out. How do they calculate the poles? Are they both surface based? I follow the buoys closely. There are around 40-50 in the arctic that I am aware of that are live now that give hourly or 6 hour updates. Does GiSS use these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Interestingly, the peak UAH temp this summer was higher than any other month outside of the 1998 and 2010 strong Ninos except for one month following the 06-07 Nino. Obviously trends are superior to little pieces of trivia like this, but it does go to show you how much we have warmed in the last 10 years if summers following mod/strong Ninas are now warmer than summers following all but the strongest Nino events. It will be interesting to see if you apply the same logic if Oct/Nov/Dec is colder than any other year in the past 10 years (of course, your post ignores the fact that 2011 had a significantly warmer ENSO spring than any other year following a mod/strong Nina). But again, I feel that the fairest thing to do is to include both UAH and RSS when looking at satellite temps and trends. This has always been my stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Can someone link me to uah and rss And tell me the typical times they are out. How do they calculate the poles? Are they both surface based? I follow the buoys closely. There are around 40-50 in the arctic that I am aware of that are live now that give hourly or 6 hour updates. Does GiSS use these? Here is UAH: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt Here is RSS: http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt UAH data covers a bit more of the poles than RSS, I don't remember exactly how much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 It will be interesting to see if you apply the same logic if Oct/Nov/Dec is colder than any other year in the past 10 years. But again, I feel that the fairest thing to do is to include both UAH and RSS when looking at satellite temps and trends. This has always been my stance. Well, we are about to shatter the earliest time to reach -21.00 (Ch. 5) on record by nearly 2 weeks.....crickets from Skier.... ....and we are lower than the winter of 2003/2004 EVER reached (never fell to -21.00) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I'll take a stab that UAH comes in at +.11 for Oct. If that verified, it would be the coldest October for UAH since 2000. If Oct/Nov/Dec are colder than +.05, it would be the coldest Oct/Nov/Dec in the past 10 years. Still early, of course, but certainly seems possible at this point. For RSS, +.12 would be the coldest Oct/Nov/Dec in the past 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 If that verified, it would be the coldest October for UAH since 2000. If Oct/Nov/Dec are colder than +.05, it would be the coldest Oct/Nov/Dec in the past 10 years. Still early, of course, but certainly seems possible at this point. For RSS, +.12 would be the coldest Oct/Nov/Dec in the past 10 years. It did!! http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 It did!! http://www.drroyspencer.com/ If you didn't see the data already, I am extremely impressed with your October prediction. It was literally spot on. Well done!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 If you didn't see the data already, I am extremely impressed with your October prediction. It was literally spot on. Well done!!! Nope, I checked his website this morning and the data wasn't there.....made my post and checked about 45 min ago and there it was. Honestly, it wasn't that difficult to come within a range of +/- .04....from there it's a 1 in 9 shot of bullseye-ing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 It did!! http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Look, Spencer believes in global cooling! What a moron! WHAT MIGHT THIS MEAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE? …taking a line from our IPCC brethren… While any single month’s drop in global temperatures cannot be blamed on climate change, it is still the kind of behavior we expect to see more often in a cooling world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 So he is talking about channel 5? So 14k feet? You guys need to help me out Here. Surface obs/grid extrap is going to be much higher than .11 (Aka GISS) clearly the arctic and antarctic will play a large role. I am not debating climate change. I fully expect the the above surface air would take longer to warm compared to surface obs. Either way. As I showed before. the arctic region because of OLR is much Warner than it would be if the ice didn't decline. I am gong to Try and figure out how much of an impact it has. So I need to know how all of the datasets work. I know GISS will cover the arctic well so that will be my basis for 60-90N or mostly 70-90N This not about AGW. This is a science project So please help me out with UAH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 So he is talking about channel 5? So 14k feet? You guys need to help me out Here. Surface obs/grid extrap is going to be much higher than .11 (Aka GISS) clearly the arctic and antarctic will play a large role. I am not debating climate change. I fully expect the the above surface air would take longer to warm compared to surface obs. Either way. As I showed before. the arctic region because of OLR is much Warner than it would be if the ice didn't decline. I am gong to Try and figure out how much of an impact it has. So I need to know how all of the datasets work. I know GISS will cover the arctic well so that will be my basis for 60-90N or mostly 70-90N So please help me out with UAH. The ch. 4 "level" (near surface) obtained it's data from AMSR-E which went kaput at the beginning of Oct. The raw Ch. 5 daily data has been a "good" correlation to the calculated surface temperature assimilation process/method that results in a "global surface" reading. There was a LONG drawn out thread about 8 months ago (I think) that went further into the nuiances of UAH's method, and the lack of polar data. All else being equal (the historical record of UAH) the October drop was quite dramatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I know GISS will cover the arctic well so that will be my basis for 60-90N or mostly 70-90N Friv, As long as you cling to this false expectation, you will never get to the answers you seek. GISS data is extremely sparse in the arctic and their extrapolation of that sparse data to represent the entire Arctic is mind boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 So he is talking about channel 5? So 14k feet? You guys need to help me out Here. Surface obs/grid extrap is going to be much higher than .11 (Aka GISS) clearly the arctic and antarctic will play a large role. I am not debating climate change. I fully expect the the above surface air would take longer to warm compared to surface obs. Either way. As I showed before. the arctic region because of OLR is much Warner than it would be if the ice didn't decline. I am gong to Try and figure out how much of an impact it has. So I need to know how all of the datasets work. I know GISS will cover the arctic well so that will be my basis for 60-90N or mostly 70-90N This not about AGW. This is a science project So please help me out with UAH. Must..........find.........way...........to............justify........or...........discredit.........global.........temps.......dropping..........on..........satellites........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Friv, As long as you cling to this false expectation, you will never get to the answers you seek. GISS data is extremely sparse in the arctic and their extrapolation of that sparse data to represent the entire Arctic is mind boggling. Actually giss in October is likely to be to cool compared the actual temps the buoys show on a daily basis. But I am sure you already knew that. which means the uah extrap method is likely off by quite a bit. It doesnt matter. No natter what I say not matter how much work I do it will be ignored. The OLR anomalies for October in the arctic were impressive and the buoys show what that dies. If anyone with a straight face can tell me or show me how uah or giss accurately account for this I'd love to see it. We can take buoy Dara of incoming solar radiation and compare it to satellite measures of OLR. The last 10 days of October saw 10-30w/m2 OLR anomalies over much of the arctic. Before the 2000s this was unheard of. Really before 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Actually giss in October is likely to be to cool compared the actual temps the buoys show on a daily basis. But I am sure you already knew that. which means the uah extrap method is likely off by quite a bit. It doesnt matter. No natter what I say not matter how much work I do it will be ignored. The OLR anomalies for October in the arctic were impressive and the buoys show what that dies. If anyone with a straight face can tell me or show me how uah or giss accurately account for this I'd love to see it. We can take buoy Dara of incoming solar radiation and compare it to satellite measures of OLR. The last 10 days of October saw 10-30w/m2 OLR anomalies over much of the arctic. Before the 2000s this was unheard of. Really before 2007. UAH doesn't extrapolate. The data just doesn't cover the entire Arctic, just most of it. There is often a monthly disconnect between GISS and the satellites, mainly because UAH/RSS respond slower and stronger to ENSO changes. These satellite sources are just now responding to the ENSO cooling seen this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 UAH doesn't extrapolate. The data just doesn't cover the entire Arctic, just most of it. There is often a monthly disconnect between GISS and the satellites, mainly because UAH/RSS respond slower and stronger to ENSO changes. These satellite sources are just now responding to the ENSO cooling seen this summer. I understand what your saying. How does uah account for the surface warming from OLR after Oct 4th if mrs measuring to high up. Most of the arctics OLR warming is under the low cloud deck ussually under 2-3k feet which is why 850s and 925s were not as anomalous. How does it account for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 UAH doesn't extrapolate. The data just doesn't cover the entire Arctic, just most of it. There is often a monthly disconnect between GISS and the satellites, mainly because UAH/RSS respond slower and stronger to ENSO changes. These satellite sources are just now responding to the ENSO cooling seen this summer. Also, potentially, to the long solar minimum that was experienced over the last 4-5 years....which, with the lag, would be flexing it's "cooling" muscle at this time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Must..........find.........way...........to............justify........or...........discredit.........global.........temps.......dropping..........on..........satellites........... Yup, my interpretation was the same as yours. But I had Homer Simpson's voice doing the naration for Friv... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I understand what your saying. How does uah account for the surface warming from OLR after Oct 4th if mrs measuring to high up. Most of the arctics OLR warming is under the low cloud deck ussually under 2-3k feet which is why 850s and 925s were not as anomalous. How does it account for it? I don't know exactly how OLR factors into satellite temperatures. If warming is just at the surface, then of course the tropospheric measurements wouldn't catch it. I would imagine that most of it eventually escapes higher up, though. Again, you have to also keep in mind that the Arctic is just a small percentage of the world. According to research by skier and others, the UAH Arctic temperature trends have been pretty similar to GISS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I understand what your saying. How does uah account for the surface warming from OLR after Oct 4th if mrs measuring to high up. Most of the arctics OLR warming is under the low cloud deck ussually under 2-3k feet which is why 850s and 925s were not as anomalous. How does it account for it? The reason it's less anomalously warm at 850mb is not really that the OLR is trapped under the clouds (although that's probably a small part of the reason)... it's that the heat gets dispersed in the atmosphere and transported globally. 925mb is below the clouds I think.. but would be less anomalous than the surface. Regardless, I think you are overestimating the significance of this OLR globally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.