Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

No mention of models there!

And the question remains: is it the models or the data that you have issues with?

You are trying to say the data ends in 1999. Figure 2 has data to 2004.

[Exile]

Straight from the two scientists' mouths. In response to a Washington Post blog article that came out in 2011, here are Christy & Spencer's responses. Christy addresses the seemingly contradictory report published in 2006 that Jack posted to, and claims it was inaccurate and has been superseded by subsequent reports. Why not go with the most current information? Anyway, it's an informative description of the satellite technology, and responds to claims of inaccuracies, etc. There are several links to the blog article itself, and of course the comments read like this thread. No surprise there.

Addressing Criticisms of the UAH Temperature Dataset at 1/3 Century « Roy Spencer, PhD

[Kenomac]

Time for a refresher...

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are trying to say the data ends in 1999. Figure 2 has data to 2004.

I am not trying to say the data ends in 1999. You are quote mining again.

One last try:

I said: "Although your linked paper was dated 2004, all the relevant data and graphs ended in 1999."

The issue is discrepancy between models and temperature data.
Figure 2 has no model data. Therefore figure 2 is not RELEVANT
The model/temperature comparisons are in Figure 3. There is no data in Figure 3 post 1999

Ergo - there is NO RELEVANT DATA post 1999

Now can we get back to the question: Is it the models or the data which you have issues with?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Time for a refresher...

What the carbon cycle actually looks like.



You managed to leave out a few factors.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

I am not trying to say the data ends in 1999. You are quote mining again.

One last try:

I said: "Although your linked paper was dated 2004, all the relevant data and graphs ended in 1999."

The issue is discrepancy between models and temperature data.
Figure 2 has no model data. Therefore figure 2 is not RELEVANT
The model/temperature comparisons are in Figure 3. There is no data in Figure 3 post 1999

Ergo - there is NO RELEVANT DATA post 1999

Now can we get back to the question: Is it the models or the data which you have issues with?

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm sensing another attempt at obfuscation here.

In post #1690, you quoted Jack as stating that he had "no issues" with the UAH sat data. But now that there are widely acknowledged discrepancies btwn. the sat data, the surface data, and the models, there's an odd reluctance to acknowledge. The sat data from the lower atmosphere, after all, has been recording for over a third of a century now, and while it has its own set of variables and is not perfect, it does eliminate all the complex variables inherent in recording temps from thousands of thermometers on the ground and at sea. And as you & most of the links I've read seem to agree on, the troposhere is supposed to be warming at a higher rate than the surface.

This is not to say I haven't also run across plenty of critiques of the sat data, but at face value it shows long term trends at this point that indicate a rate of warming that is only a fraction of what the models have predicted. Some claim that one of the two may be in error, or maybe both can be reconciled, but the existence of the discrepancy based on the data that has thus far been reported doesn't seem to attract much doubt. I would imagine this is one of the most significant science-based challenges to the establishment position on MMGW, and perhaps why Jack is declining to respond. It's not like him, after all.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And as you & most of the links I've read seem to agree on, the troposhere is supposed to be warming at a higher rate than the surface.

Surface temepatures



Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00657339 per year

UAH TLT



Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0138547 per year

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Surface temepatures



Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00657339 per year

UAH TLT



Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0138547 per year

I'm not that well-equipped at interpreting graphs, neither your's nor Stu's, so I hope I'm framing this right. The sat data in green shows a slightly steeper rate of increased warming, but the two graphs appear to have different time scales and different start/end points on the vertical temp gain/loss scale. Wouldn't you want to compare apples to apples, esp. when you're comparing long-term trends?

Since NOAA has recently made adjustments to harmonize the surface data & the models, and those adjustments are controversial, it would be more illustrative to leave those aside and simply compare sat data with models as Stu has been suggesting, and has perhaps already shown. Are you trying to say there are no discrepancies? From what I've been reading, the troposhere is supposed to be warming at a faster rate than the surface.

But it's not, according to the models that is, which have been predicting surface temps much higher. Is there a rational explanation, or is this yet another controversy over data within the scientific community? How do you yourself reconcile given that you claim to have "no issues" with the sat data? These questions aren't intended to be rhetorical. Unlike what's causing melting of Arctic sea ice, this issue seems to have narrower parameters and goes to the heart of the MMGW claim.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Surface temepatures



Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00657339 per year

UAH TLT



Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0138547 per year

Now that's some cherry picking!!!

Comparing 1997-2015 to 1994-2014


And still doesn't answer the question: Is it the models or the surface data that you have issues with?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Now that's some cherry picking!!!

Comparing 1997-2015 to 1994-2014


And still doesn't answer the question: Is it the models or the surface data that you have issues with?

I messed up the graphs - will repost later.

I am a little confused about the question. Where I have said I have issues with either?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I messed up the graphs - will repost later.

I am a little confused about the question. Where I have said I have issues with either?

The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.

OK, I give up on this particular thread of the discussion as well. We clearly are not going to get a straight answer yet again.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.

OK, I give up on this particular thread of the discussion as well. We clearly are not going to get a straight answer yet again.

I think you are attempting to put words in my mouth.

We both give up.

[Exile]

Stu:
And still doesn't answer the question: Is it the models or the surface data that you have issues with?

Originally Posted by jackdale

I messed up the graphs - will repost later.

I am a little confused about the question. Where I have said I have issues with either?

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 surface readings, with the models predicting more warming than what was actually observed.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[jackdale]

Replies embedded.

Originally Posted by Exile

[COLOR="Navy"]



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 [B]air surface readings[/B], with the models predicting more warming than what was actually observed.

Comment corrected

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.

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.

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.

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

E