This has to be the Twitter conversation of the year, in the “hottest year ever”.
Kudos to this guy for getting this from Gavin.
This has to be the Twitter conversation of the year, in the “hottest year ever”.
Kudos to this guy for getting this from Gavin.
According to alarmist “theory”, yes the air should warm more and more rapidly than the surface, but it doesn’t and hasn’t.
I commented to that effect on RealClimate more than a decade ago, but Gavin said nothing. But that was in the pre-Twitter Late Stone Age.
https://youtu.be/b240PGCMwV0
Sorry folks but that meme has been debunked. Here is the abstract of a paper whose authors include John Christy.
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tmlw0602.pdf
Usually the defense at this point for the modellers consists of showing model projections with massive, massive error bars. So an anomaly of 0.2 over a 1979 baseline is consistent with the models, and an anomaly of 1.5 is also consistent with the models. While this may make statistical sense, anyone with a brain can infer that if this is indeed the confidence interval then model projections are essentially meaningless – only the tiniest warming, or an outright temp decline (since 1979!) is ruled out by the models. And skeptics are accused of manufacturing doubt?
(Hosted at ATTP’s blog but actually posted by Gavin on twitter. It also shows that the three satellite datasets, plus a revision of UAH, show pretty much the same trend – despite much anxiety about one or other dataset trending cold or warm).
Of course even this comparison is meaningless because the models can tune parameters until they get a reasonable fit between projections and observations. The most obvious is aerosols, where great uncertainty allows modellers to plug in whatever figures they prefer.
“Structural uncertanties”, see how things fall apart, when Hansen was working, the science was settled.
Luke, what flavor was the Koolaid you drank?
And isn’t it all beside the point?
1) Anthropogenic CO2’s contribution to the atmospheric concentration in amongst the natural stores & fluxes is trivial not that anyone can measure any of it accurately & confidently in the first place.
2) The 1750 to 2011 additional CO2 RF of 2 W/m^2 (watt is power not energy) is totally lost in the magnitude and uncertainties of the climate energy/power flux balance. The 2 W/m^2 imbalance could rebalance from radiation to reflection to absorption, i.e. more clouds, warmer oceans, and hardly anyone would notice. I found a rather interesting balance diagram, Bing images, by Trenberth et al 2011 w/ 8 opinions for each of the various major state points. Lots of +/- uncertainty orders of magnitude larger than 2 and obvious non-consensus.
3) The GCMs are, by and large, expensive yet abysmal failures.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Translation : Gavin’s GISS temp land-based data set measures “different parts of the system [UHI effected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we ‘homogenise’ the data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].”
It’s ok. Paris fixed everything. At least until the blackmailers up the ante.
Above referenced PDF from NOAA, which appears to be from 2005 based on data shown, says on page 11, (and called out in right margin)”
“A potentially serious inconsistency has
been identified in the tropics. The favored explanation for this is
residual error in the observations, but the issue is still open.”
Why is it always that data that is wrong? Never the models.
(5) Amplification means that temperatures show larger changes aloft than at the surface. In the tropics, on monthly and inter-annual time scales, both models and observations show amplification of temperature variability in the troposphere relative to the surface. This ampli- fication is of similar magnitude in models and observations. For multi-decadal trends, models show the same amplification that is seen on shorter time scales. THE MAJORITY OF THE MOST RECENT OBSERVED DATA SETS, HOWEVER, DO NOT SHOW THIS AMPLIFICATION.
This is from the report you linked to Luke. (last line capitalization mine)
Theory? We don’t need no stinkin’ theory.
“If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table”.
And if you don’t have a table, get hammered.
If you torture the data long and hard enough, it will confess to anything ! It’s called ” The Schmidt Effect “, first developed in 1930’s Germany !!
Is there a site where you can view these photos which are taken every 2 hours? Even the Hurricane/typhoon satellite photos don’t update every 2 hours – more like at least every 3 hours, or more…
Just heard on NPR that Russia expects a credit for the CO2 sunk by their forests. Well, let’s extrapolate that little strategy. How about a credit for the extraneous CO2 sources they eliminate? A popular method currently practiced in many of those developing nations. They don’t need more money, just more guns.
Structural uncertainty? I’ve not heard that terminology in all of my coursework or professional experience. Is that like structured water? LOL
The trop, as I see it, is warming faster than the surface. The problem is with the overblown surface trends, biased by microsite HSE and cemented in place by the homogenization adjustment.
According to the Modis satellites, the November average Land temperature was just 0.03C above the 2001-2010 Base period.
While in GISTemp, the average Land temperature was 0.427C above the 2001-2010 average. So, Gavin is just running a temp series designed to exaggerate the warming.
http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MOD_LSTAD_M
http://s1.postimg.org/gl71soxbj/Nov_15_Surface_Temp_Satellite_0_03_2001_2010_ba.jpg
Gavin and company are highly skilled yabutologists.
They can face-down any fatal flaw in AGW with endless yabuts.
Yabut this, yabut that.
Yabut here, yabut there, yabut everywhere.
Next time you engage an alarmists, (or a lefty on any topic) tell them to stop yabuting.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon/radiosonde-atmospheric-temperature-products-accessing-climate
RATPCAC-A is the one you want:
ftp://ftp1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt
Hey, any chance you can update this post with a link to the conversation so we can quickly like, retweet, or reply?
And good on @7Kiwi!
You might like the following post — it basically reiterates Feynman — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/a-climate-treaty-based-on-a-failed-model-a-victory-for-the-political-class/