More ice than expected in parts of the Arctic

http://www.barentsobserver.com/?cat=16149&id=4498513

That is for sure!!!! :) I will certainly do that if I start doubting AGW!

“I wonder what the definition of ‘works’ is from which to commense.”

As you know, the corrections are doing what they are supposed to do – filtering out certain biases. Otherwise I do not know how we can explain the fact that all four curves are almost identical.

You’ve traded one sore point for another! It would be better to ban all GHG discussion until empirical measurements were gathered. Calculated transfer functions are at the bottom of this sad story.

I think we have some de-programming to do over at CA. I wonder what the definition of ‘works’ is from which to commense.

Mauna Loa CO2 is measure via irradiances and not directly by chemical analysis. While the objection may be material it is ad hoc and obtuse.

“Of course the best metric for measuring ‘global warming’ is not surface temp, it is ocean heat content.”

And as we embrace the next series of technological “advancements”, won’t we be putting our faith blindly in the next generation of adjusters – to compensate for the problems with suckerfish, for example?

http://www.examiner.com/a-1484359~Little_yellow_submarine_studies_ocean.html

After reading about the issues with buckets and engine inlets at CA, I wondered if this might not be an elegant solution. But if the data takes an adjuster with his own private algorithm to digest it for the public, this approach, too, is doomed to controversy.

Sounds accurate.

I haven’t studied the science of the “splice”, nor would I understand the technical adjustments which took care of the loose ends, but wasn’t it satellite data (in ‘78 or ‘79) which first introduced “evidence” of global warming?

The scientist states clearly that weather events are not climate change. But during his comments, the media shows pictures of flooding and disaster.

That is also known as propaganda, isn’t it?

>> “And by the way, both of you are invited to the barbecue at the temperature station when this is all over, you can drink it off.”

That sounds like a great plan. Just tell us where, and we will be there!!

>>”Please allow me to patiently address your repeating of the “maybes” “possiblys” “could bes” and “might bes”.”

Those maybes are not mine, I am just quoting John Christy who is a leading expert in satellite temperature measurements, and by no means an AGW supporter (I myself use maybes a lot, since I believe that in life we do not know much for sure, beyond some probabilities. It is possible for a gas mixture to spontaneously separate itself to its components, but it not that probable. I also believe in miracles, occasional perturbations of the known natural law – in my work I see few of them occasionally). But just to make it clear, when I read Christy’s statements, this is what I gather (one more time): (1) he implied that U.S., China, etc have high resolution well-maintained scientific collection of temperature, (2) there is a one-to-one correspondence between satellite and ground measurements in those regions, (3) part of the disagreement comes from different trends at different altitudes, surface stations are not responsible for that (4) the other part is from the difference in coverage (5) the greatest disagreement is in tropics where there are fewer weather stations (including Central Africa and South America), (6) I have not see any comments from him attributing the disagreement to the quality of the surface stations or with the correction methods.

Evan and I went through this a week ago and we agreed to disagree. When I look at the Figure Anthony posted in the Forum, I do not see any difference between various curves. Evan disagreed.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/giss-had-uah-rss_global_anomaly_refto_1979-1990_v2.png

Also, I am well aware of Anthony’s (as a leading expert in this area) opinion on surface stations. So, it seems that for a compatible conclusion we have to assume that Hansen’s correction algorithm somehow works. If Hansen could make his backbox algorithm public, it will remove a lot of doubts, it may even help for improving his algorithm.

Anthony >> “2) A press release from NOAA, or GISS, or HadCRUT that says “Xth warmest year on record”. That’s done from a combination of absolute numbers….
Absolute numbers are a big deal to the public and the press, don’t let yourself believe otherwise. –Anthony”

OK, I agree, if you are going to put it that way. Although I wish it is not the case. It seems to me (although I have not looked into it carefully) that when using a finite number of measurements (whether surface stations or satellites) to reduce a continuous temperature surface on Earth to an average number, the precision (or confidence level) of the result cannot be that high to claim that one year is tiny bit warmer than the other, unless the difference between those two years are appropriately large. But we do make statements as you said, so I have to agree with you.

“not only are current numbers altered in accordance with various semi-documented codes, but some of the historical data is altered as well, rather like modifying your date of birth at each birthday.

So THAT’s what that line in the FILENET code means!

IF X>=40 THEN X=39″

Almost before my time. RIP Jack Benny, 1894-1974, dead at 39.

A mathematician, statistician and physicist are at a horse race and a punter, talking over the beer, asks them whether they know which horse will win.

Well, the statistician talked of form and going and handicap and concluded that it would, possibly, be this horse, but he couldn’t be certain, the weather may change.

The mathematician talked of probabilities and the punters who usually bet on a sure thing, therefore he would vote the favourite .. but it is a horserace, after all, so who knows?

The physicist boldly stated: I can tell you precisely who will win, assuming a spherical horse.

http://www.earthscape.org/r1/ari02/gcc3.html

Chloroflorocarbons are believed to have a greenhouse warming effect equal to one fifth of the CO2 effect, even though they are measured in parts per trillion. Thats one million times less than CO2.

Were we looking for a regional or local effect, then I would agree, but we are looking for a global signal, and such a signal must (in a statistical sense) be present in the average of less than 100 sites. Assuming of course there is no systematic bias. And if there is a systematic bias (and it’s highly likely there are several), more sites doesn’t solve the problem, unless you know the source of the biases. And if you do you should be eliminating sites with known biases. Adjustments just produce another source of error.

Put simply, if you cannot find a clear global warming signal in a 100 (random) locations, then you are unlikely to find it in a sample of 1000s. And if you do, it is proof the effect is small.

The critical and disputed part of his tutorial appears to be included in a single sentence, that he presented without referencing:

“One can attribute 21 oC of that warming to the IR trapping of water vapor, 7 oC to CO2 and 5 oC to other gases.”

I think this is a spectacular contribution for such a rare trace gas.

This is absolutely true. It’s a matter of metaphysics, computer entrail reading, data voodoo, and binary tea leaves.

Read Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, he made this very argument. The “science is settled” and it is inadequate for assent at every turn.

Now it is a purely political battle, and we’ve every reason to suspect diplomacy will not be successful. Lets set a time limit.

So THAT’s what that line in the FILENET code means!

IF X>=40 THEN X=39

Nice one, Evan