Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SV THIRD DAY]

Give up....
The MMGW Cultists will never give up....

Well maybe until the next faux crisis that they can utilize to advance their collectivts agenda.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Cut & paste link to a graph from the 2015 Spencer/Christy interview I posted about a couple of pages ago.

Modeling data vs. sat data:

http://media.al.com/news_huntsville_...1637955761.jpg

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

[newhaul]

I know why there is so much issue with jackdales cut and paste charts. Most are from a multi governmental panel the IPCC which means it is politics not science.

[Exile]

THIRD DAY is right. This seems less about even an attempt at objective scientific analysis, and more about making the science fit the social, political, and economic agenda. The sat data is obviously a significant source of legitimate skepticism, and whichever side you're on, it cannot honestly be ignored.

A few short replies below.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Replies embedded.

Originally Posted by Exile:

I'll try one more time, and try not to compound the confusion. Then I'll give up too.

1. There were substantial discrepancies recorded btwn. the models and the actual observed air surface readings, with the models predicting more warming than what was actually observed.

Got it, but this is not how I've seen it phrased in articles comparing data from sat readings to surface readings. In the context we're trying to discuss here (and you're dutifully trying to avoid), "surface" refers to readings taken from the land & water, and is used to distinguish readings taken from the troposhere.

2. NOAA then adjusted the observed surface temps downward in earlier years, and upwards in more recent years, showing a steeper warming trend that was more in line with the modeling.

I think this part of the convoluted story is factual, and not all that controversial. The controversy is instead over the legitimacy of the "adjustments." That's a different discussion than the one we're trying to have now.

Read Curry's blog. The adjustment's are legitimate.

Yes, there's a case made for their legitimacy as discussed in Curry's blog. There's also a case made for their illegitimacy, also by well respected scientists. That's why I correctly said it was "controversial." There are at least two sides. Simply ignoring one of the two arguments is not persuasive.

3. Enter on stage the UAH sat data which has also been showing a warming trend in the last decade, but at a much slower rate than the modeling or the now adjusted observed surface temps.

The last is a an insiffcient time period. As well 9 of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2000.

As you well know since you found "no issues" with the sat data, the relevant time period goes back to 1979 when Spencer & Christy first figured out how to take the Earth's temperature by satellite (confirmed by weather balloons) from the lower atmosphere instead of thousands of surface thermometers on land & sea. Pick whatever time period as a comparison you wish, but kindly make it fair and do not obfuscate by cherry-picking.

Again, just the factual record as far as I can gather. There are battles over the accuracy & methodology of the sat temps, but again, that's a different fight.

So although there are 3 data sets -- models, surface, and sat -- it's really the modeling that the MMGW enthusiasts are relying on in predicting upcoming bad events, and the sat data is not in sync with this modeling. So it seems that what we want to compare is the sat data to the modeling to understand what is going on.

You forgot the 70% of the globe on which we as sailors spend much of our time. It is warming and its takes much more heat energy to warm it.

No, I didn't, and neither did the scientists on both sides of the issue from whom I read. "Surface" temps are averages taken from sites on land & water and used to establish a long-term trend.

I thought this is what Stu has been asking Jack to comment on all along??

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

This one compares modeling to observed surface data. You posted it in response to my link to Christy's graph comparing modeling to sat data. How is this helpful?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I know why there is so much issue with jackdales cut and paste charts. Most are from a multi governmental panel the IPCC which means it is politics not science.

I find it ironic that NASA & NOAA reject the satellite data even though they are NASA's satellites.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

For your model to work it's.....
"Assuming no future large volcanic eruptions"

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

I find it ironic that NASA & NOAA reject the satellite data even though they are NASA's satellites.

The funniest part is I can and have read two different reports by NOAA that contradict each other

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The funniest part is I can and have read two different reports by NOAA that contradict each other

Maybe they forgot to "adjust" one of them?

[newhaul]

NASA says Arctic sea ice is decreasing but ESA says that the cryosat is showing increasing sea ice volumes. Who do we believe this time. Two space agency's with opposite readings. CryoSat shows Arctic sea ice volume up 50% from last year | Watts Up With That?

[StuM]

JD Quote: "1. There were substantial discrepancies recorded btwn. the models and the actual observed [B]air surface readings[/B], with the models predicting more warming than what was actually observed." Comment corrected

Pedantry fail!

If you want to be pedantic, you need to get your facts right.

Land surface temperatures are "air surface readings" - taken about 1.2 m above the ground.

Sea surface temperatures historically were taken by measuring the temperature of sea water at various depths. Now they are derived both from buoys measuring about 1 meter below the surface and satellite based infrared and microwave measurements which measure between micrometers and millimeters below the surface.

So 70% of surface temperatures are NOT air surface temperatures and your correction is incorrect in a large majority of cases.


Edit: One other thought. Satellite and other SST measurements are generally in close agreement, which sort of makes one question why they are OK for this purpose, but apparently other satellite based temperature measurements are suspect

[Muckle Flugga]

Just a point of order, which might kinda tie this to sailing, somehow…

With regard to effective use of solar energy for propulsion… that is exactly what we do. Wind is motivated by solar energy. We harness that energy with our sails.

I think that's going to be my final post on this thread. Not that anyone is likely to mind…

[conachair]

Originally Posted by newhaul

NASA says Arctic sea ice is decreasing but ESA says that the cryosat is showing increasing sea ice volumes. Who do we believe this time. Two space agency's with opposite readings. CryoSat shows Arctic sea ice volume up 50% from last year | Watts Up With That?

It's called cherry picking. 2012 was *really* down on the average, 2013 was down on the average but not as bad as 2012. The ice volume wasn't so much "up" in 2013 but "down", just not as far "down" as the previous year.

Looking on a longer timespan rather than cherry picking shows a different story.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by conachair

It's called cherry picking. 2012 was *really* down on the average, 2013 was down on the average but not as bad as 2012. The ice volume wasn't so much "up" in 2013 but "down", just not as far "down" as the previous year.

Looking on a longer timespan rather than cherry picking shows a different story.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

We are talking millions of cubic not millions square miles from the ESA cryosat . The page you linked to is just millions of square miles more important to be thicker than thin less loss in summer and more gain in winter. Its not cherry picking I gave oranges you compared with apples

[conachair]

Originally Posted by newhaul

We are talking millions of cubic not millions square miles from the ESA cryosat . The page you linked to is just millions of square miles more important to be thicker than thin less loss in summer and more gain in winter. Its not cherry picking I gave oranges you compared with apples

The arctic is floating ice, ice extent is proportional to ice volume.

Volume is similar, textbook cherry picking. Sea ice in the arctic is most definitely not increasing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYNDT2kProU