A good description of what is wrong with them, but when are they going to fix it. Either fix them or admit, as RSS has done, they are not accurate at measuring the surface air temperature.
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2013/to:2014.75/trend/offset:-0.302/plot/gistemp/from:2013/to:2014.75/offset:-0.302/plot/rss/from:2013/to:2014.83/trend/plot/rss/from:2013/to:2014.83" rel="nofollow">not picking up surface warming in ENSO neutral conditions during 2013 and 2014</a>
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by cwon14
Not one topic down Dr. Curry is endorsing “bi-partisan” regulatory gruel filled with unverified “Climate Change” assumptions. All linked (cleverly) to black soot issues and other more populist Green concepts. She’s on board and the board quibbles details.
Climate science as it gets close to “policy” is 95%+ spinning for the past 40+ years. Dr. Curry occasionally recognizes it but never under any circumstances links the full source of the statist, U.N. socialist agenda and its U.S. operatives (left-wing democrats). She’s put up several appalling narratives of late…..”Ending the War on Skeptics” in November again filled with Greenshirt victory laps but the adoring board treats her like a skeptical hero.
I’m sure there are, deep in the stacks of University life for example, a few who are interested in weather and climate as a serious science pursuit. They are dominated by the climate porn leadership parroting a dream of global government to regulate a problem unverified by classical science evidence. Their silence, absurd posturing (Dr. Curry a perfect example) and complicity deserve contempt. So Dr. Curry connects one dot to “spinning” today while remaining silent on a thousand other dots with the same obvious problem. This makes her heroic?
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by JCH
Two meters above the surface. They admit it the thermometers are more accurate. You're political; you can't admit it.
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2013/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2013/to:2014.75/trend/normalise/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2013/normalise/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2013/to:2014.75/normalise/trend" rel="nofollow">ouch</a>
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Ron C.
So now the loop of circular logic is complete. We assume earth’s atmosphere is in equilibrium so we can apply the laws of thermodynamics. The laws declare that said atmosphere must be isothermal. Since earth’s atmosphere has an obvious temperature lapse rate, IR active gases must be causing it.
QED.
Except earth’s atmosphere is always seeking equilibrium, but never achieves it. How could it: rotating sphere, half heated by the sun, non-uniform surface, tilting axes, clouds moving, and so on. All of that gives us weather and seasons, and non-equilibrium. Convection and evaporation bring surface heat up against the gravitational field holding the atmosphere, and at the TOA, IR active gases ensure that every last bit of it is removed to space.
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JCH “A good description of what is wrong with them, but when are they going to fix it.”
What’s to fix? Satellites are estimating temperature based on energy and “surface” temperatures are estimating temperature based on a combination of various instruments, averaging and interpolation methods.
When the “surface” temperature methods include wider ranges of temperatures they are less likely to accurately agree with changes in energy. The more very low temperature estimates/interpolation involved in the “surface” records the less likely they will agree with satellite measurements.
“Forcings” are all energy estimates with SWAGs of temperature impacts. You have a bit of a fruit salad situation.
↧
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by Eric
Dr. Curry, you now say “the pause” does not matter but have before said “the pause” significantly influenced your thinking on AGW. How do you reconcile these contradictory statements?
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by John Carpenter
“Not sure I go with the posts vs. comments distinction”
Seems like a pretty big distinction to me. Where the line is drawn is not clear. Clearly there are folks that have better, deeper understanding of subject matter than others. Part of following climate discussions, for me at least, is to evaluate arguments made by various individuals at the different levels where they participate. In general, I think it is safe to say that those who go to the length of writing a post on some topic have spent considerable time researching it. That is not to say they do a balanced job at researching or even do a good job at presenting, but they have put time into the effort. In other words, posts are not off the cuff remarks. Comments to posts are off the cuff remarks. They are reactions to the post, or other comments and are immediate. Much less time goes into the content of a comment. Evaluating the difference between folks that both post topics and comment vs those that just comment has been interesting for me. In general I find that ‘commentors only’ offer less deep knowledge on subject matter than on ‘poster and commentors’…. in general…. and there are exceptions to my rule. So over a long period of observation of different arguments by different individuals, I begin to see and then predict how some people will likely respond in comments. I have a mental ranking of different commentors and I watch for their comments when I tune in. Some I always read, others I never read. Some I check here and there to see if anything has changed. With that as a backdrop, do you think that someone like Judith might employ a similar filter? Do you employ one? How many others do you think would? I think it likely that most people employ some kind of filter and I know you agree with that. Lets say that we all might have some kind of ‘extended peer review’ filter we employ to distinguish those we recognize as having a deeper understanding of certain subject matters. So why would she bother correcting a vast majority of commentors that might not get through her own ‘extended peer review’ filter? Matt R and David R, fair game for you to criticize about ‘extended peer review’… majorx… ??? Well, you get my point.
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pierre-Normand
“We assume earth’s atmosphere is in equilibrium so we can apply the laws of thermodynamics.”
I am not aware that anyone on this thread has made such an assumption. Most commentators agree that the gravito-thermal effect, if it exists, has little bearing on the real atmosphere, which is very far out of equilibrium most of the time. Some of the commentators believe that the dry adiabat is the temperature gradient that a column of gas at equilibrium achieves under gravity. Most of those who have denied this, including me, have said that the environmental lapse rate tends to approach the dry or wet adiabats because of convective heat transport, and wouldn’t depart from an initial isothermal state without it. It’s true that convection would die down in a fully transparent atmosphere. But this fast has very little bearing in the enhanced greenhouse effect. Only some people who outright deny the very existence of the greenhouse effect hold the the idea of a gravito-thermal gradient at equilibrium as the explanation of the environmental lapse rate.
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by JCH
The pause was caused by the back-to-back La Nina events in 2011 and 2012, and is only three years old. It is largely lifeless at the end of 2014. Th elite sucked out of it by 22 months of ENSO neutral, which just has this bad-butted reputation for thumping the dog stuff out mother nature.
↧
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by omanuel
See another Orwellian reply below: “CO2 itself isn’t classified as an air pollutant — CO2 emissions are.”
Five years of such official responses to Climategate revelations of fraudulent temperature data confirm the addictive delusion of power in politicians and their science advisers.
Truth may yet be revealed by another traumatic event, like
_ 1. The destruction of Hiroshima in August 1945
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/The_FORCE.pdf
_ 2. Sudden exposure to a cosmic ray burst in 775 AD
Usoskin et al, “The AD775 cosmic event revisited: The Sun is to blame,” Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters 552, L3 (2013): http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321080
_ 3. The event Isaiah 40:5 described ~2,500 years ago
“The glory of the Lord shall be revealed
And all flesh shall see it together;
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Pierre-Normand
“Only some people who outright deny the very existence of the greenhouse effect hold the the idea of a gravito-thermal gradient at equilibrium as the explanation of the environmental lapse rate.”
I should say …hold to the idea of a gravito-thermal gradient at equilibrium as the explanation of the fact that the environmental lapse rate tends towards the the dry adiabat.
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by Pooh, Dixie
Indeed, Global Warming is flat-lined. Is it not time to embalm it and inter it with the Piltdown man?
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by JCH
If the surface air temperature warms because of an El Nino, or cools because of a La Nina, they’re all over it.
Both of them: El Nino and La Nina. Not just one of them. Both of them. They suddenly have super huge agreement with Mosher’s thermometers. So much they add some oomph to them.
If the surface warms, or cools, because of the PDO and the AMO (the rest of the oceans), they don’t appear to detect it. They’re suddenly exceptionally unenthusiastic about Mosher’s thermometers.
You want it both ways because politically you like that result.
If the thermometers are understating La Nina and EL Nino effects, because the satellites almost always show lower GMT for La Nina events and higher GMT for El Nino events, how can the thermometers suddenly not exist when it’s the rest of the oceans driving the change in direction of the GMT?
↧
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by Joshua
R. Gates –
Just came across this, FWIW…
Japan’s weather bureau said on Wednesday that an El Niño weather pattern, which can trigger drought in some parts of the world while causing flooding in others, had emerged during the summer for the first time in five years and was likely to continue into winter….
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by jim2
Ahhh … the pot calls the kettle black. The radiosonde data confirm the sat results. It doesn’t matter what they say. It’s an inconvenient truth for them, too, apparently.
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by Latimer Alder (@latimeralder)
@vaughan pratt
‘ But reserve your fury for them, don’t pick on those who make no such claim.’
I think that you are going a roundabout way to agree with my observation that the models are incomplete.
Excellent!. We are making progress.
More and more are realising – as does Vaughan – that the much vaunted models – basis for nearly every conclusion and forecast in ‘climate science’ – ain’t very good at actually forecasting/predicting/expecting. They have no proven track record of any predictive skill at all .
Somebody will now, no doubt, come out with the hoary line ‘all models are wrong but some are useful’. Perhaps we could also ask them to detail, with supporting evidence, exactly which climate models have been found to be useful.
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by nickels
I recently rolled my window down while driving on the interstate and blew as hard as I could. It actually made me change lanes, I was surprised. I figured the internal state of the system was more stable than that… But then again I should probably get new tires….
↧
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JCH, thermometers exist, Satellite data exists, interpolated data is a bit “novel”.
Hadcrut was picked on for the “pause” because the METoffice made some claims that didn’t materialize. The slowdown, hiatus, flatline generally compares models with any of the surface temperature/satellite data sets.
“pause” is political, the rest are more “scientific” If you want to stick with “scientific”, Satellites are not measuring the same thing as “surface” stations+buckets/ships, but the two agree very well when you consider the different things they are measuring. When you interpolate very cold polar regions with the “surface” stations/satellites, they agree less well, but are still in a reasonable margin of error. If you are more concerned with global changes in energy, stick with satellites, if you are more interested in press releases, pick your favorite.
↧
Comment on Super Pollutants Act of 2014 by Danny Thomas
Yep. Old mother nature “could” release mercury in to the ecosystem, so it would be a total waste to consider any legislation that reduces man’s emissions of same. For that matter, Jim2 can pour his used motor oil in to the ecosystem, so why even THINK about legislation making that a no-no.
↧
Comment on Spinning the ‘warmest year’ by JCH
The only way for the satellite series to get back into agreement with the thermometers after the 2010 to 2013 overshoot demonstrated in the above graph is for them to exaggerate the surface air temperature in the next El Nino. If 2015 is another ENSO neutral year, the divergence will spread.
That will happen when they’re not measuring the surface air temperature, which why UAH has no clue as to whether or not 2014 is the warmest year, but he likes to be political.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
