Bruddah IZ
DA
Clueless
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
The UAH TLT dataset was a source of controversy in the 1990s as, at that time, it showed little increase in global mean temperature, at odds with surface measurements. Since then a number of errors in the way the atmospheric temperatures were derived from the raw radiance data have been discovered and corrections made by Christy et al. at UAH.
The largest of these errors was demonstrated in a 1998 paper by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS. In that paper they showed that the data needed to be corrected for orbital decay of the MSU satellites. As the satellites' orbits gradually decayed towards the earth the area from which they received radiances was reduced, introducing a false cooling trend.[9]
Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.
Much of the remaining disparity was resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics.[10]
NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2.[11]
Christy et al. asserted in a 2007 paper that the tropical temperature trends from radiosondes matches more closely with their v5.2 UAH-TLT dataset than with RSS v2.1.[12]
Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, has been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011. RSS and UAH TLT are now within 0.003 K/decade of one another. Significant differences remain, however, in the Mid Troposphere (TMT) decadal trends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
The largest of these errors was demonstrated in a 1998 paper by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS. In that paper they showed that the data needed to be corrected for orbital decay of the MSU satellites. As the satellites' orbits gradually decayed towards the earth the area from which they received radiances was reduced, introducing a false cooling trend.[9]
Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.
Much of the remaining disparity was resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics.[10]
NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2.[11]
Christy et al. asserted in a 2007 paper that the tropical temperature trends from radiosondes matches more closely with their v5.2 UAH-TLT dataset than with RSS v2.1.[12]
Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, has been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011. RSS and UAH TLT are now within 0.003 K/decade of one another. Significant differences remain, however, in the Mid Troposphere (TMT) decadal trends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
Last edited:
Wiki might need to update some of their references.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.--Mencken
Bruddah IZ
DA
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. --Mencken
l
l
Even a casual reader can see that the headline of that article does not match the content very well. However, if a person with a habit of passing on convenient lies to his friends were to receive notice of the article consisting of just the headline and a snippet or two of text, he might be inspired to pass it on, not caring about its veracity.
People who can set aside their politics and look at what is really happening are preparing for it, See here, for example --
http://www.stripes.com/news/sea-level-rise-to-radically-affect-military-strategy-study-says-1.429345
Possibly, under new leadership, the armed forces will be concentrating on what they were designed for, instead of placating a politically correct doctrine of half truths and fairy tales.
Feel free to dispute the four studies in question.
Wez
DA
You do realize the day-to-day staff in charge of the military don't change with every new President, right?
A doctrine of half truths and fairy tales is the currency of the fossil fuel funded GOP.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming."
Nobody that I know of in this forum is qualified to dispute anything. See the link above if you want actual science on what's happening to sea levels. I haven't seen anyone here finding a need to defend Gore, he's a politician, not a scientist.
Why do you feel a need to dispute what Science tells us?
Last edited:
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
1) Palanisamy links to a Ph.D. dissertation. Strictly speaking, dissertations are not peer reviewed, they are approved (or, in rare and sad instances, not) by an institutional thesis committee. However, the thesis is indeed buttressed by a number of peer reviewed papers, which is what the CNS should be linking to if they want to direct the reader to peer reviewed studies. The quoted parts in CNS come from the summary. I doubt this Kenneth Richards ("no tricks") bothered to read much beyond this first page. A more comprehensive view of the work dealing with regional variability in sea level rise (the part CNS focused on) can be obtained if one examines Chapter 4 starting on page 143 of the thesis document. Here the context of the work is presented quite nicely. The author is wishing to understand how forced and unforced processes contribute to regional differences in sea level that are superimposable upon the larger global pattern of mean sea level rise. A number of case studies are presented in the chapter, each of which has specific regional influences (themoclines, wind patterns, land mass rise/subsidence) that are not necessarily anthropogenic in nature. In fact there is a good general discussion of steric processes related to the planetary energy balance (many of which are thought to be strongly correlated with anthropogenic factors) that are driving mean sea level rise (thermal expansion as a main culprit) that is informative reading. I imagine the student would be overjoyed if they were to find out that the writing they spent months crafting was appreciated and valuable to somebody.
2) Bordbar links to a EGU (European Geoscience Union) abstract. It is a conference proceeding and is not a peer reviewed study. My admittedly quick read here was that this study similarly focuses on regional variability. In fact, the quoted part in CNS deals with the authors' concern with how to assess larger global trends in the midst of strong regional variation (this is the “Further, such variability strengthens in response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, which may further hinder detection of anthropogenic climate signals in that region” part. Like E stated earlier, the intention is fairly clear even in the limited context of the abstract.
3) Dangendorf also links to an EGU abstract (the same meeting, I'd bet $10-big money for me-the posters were right beside each other).
4) Hansen is a response to a comment on a paper published in the Journal of Coastal Research. Whether comments and responses are peer reviewed varies on editorial policy. Typically, if the editor thinks the comments are reasonable they do not bother the reviewers to referee the subsequent commentary. If one takes the time to track back the initial paper the rationale of the study is again, an in this case even more forcefully, made clear. "We wish to emphasize that our study does not intend to test the long array of possible effects of global warming (steric expansion of seas, redistribution of water from melting icecaps and glaciers), other effects of anthropogenic redistribution of Earth's water resources (groundwater mining, water storage, etc.), or effects of such changes on sea level and Earth's rotational velocity." Quotation from JCS (2015). 31:1041-1056.
If any of the relevant articles are not freebies and one wishes to look at them let me know.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
I agree with you. The misrepresentation of these studies (the "no observable sea level effect" juxtaposed to man-made global warming), if one takes the time to sort it out, is not terribly unexpected. The question is whether it is an active intent to misrepresent this work, or simply seizing upon words in summaries and abstracts that support a particular view and believing this is what the authors actually have to say.
Wez
DA
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...tees-anti-science-rampage?mbid=social_twitter
THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE’S ANTI-SCIENCE RAMPAGE
"He has, however, received more than six hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the oil-and-gas industry during his time in Congress—more than from any other single industry.
He’s now using his position to attack scientists and activists who work on climate change. Under his leadership, the committee has issued more subpoenas than it had during its previous fifty-four-year history."
THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE’S ANTI-SCIENCE RAMPAGE
"He has, however, received more than six hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the oil-and-gas industry during his time in Congress—more than from any other single industry.
He’s now using his position to attack scientists and activists who work on climate change. Under his leadership, the committee has issued more subpoenas than it had during its previous fifty-four-year history."
It's outright lies to support the operation of CNS, whose business plan depends on delivering eyeballs to advertisers. If it weren't for a few gullible BMs, we would never see any of it here.
Last edited:
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
I should have been clearer. Sorry. I was wondering about the no tricks zone. CNS is just passing stuff on, like any of these "news" sites from HuffPost to RedState, et al. Kenneth Richards I'm guessing is a pseudonym, perhaps chosen as an inside joke directed at the "carbon tax" Kenneth Richards at Indiana University. Read through that blog a bit and it clear that the effort is to compile impressive sounding lists of papers they can claim refute human influence on climate. At least they do not appear to be suggesting that their own blog is a peer reviewed publication, like PSI does.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
The children shall lead. The 12 year old has "discovered" Star Trek. I walked into a room the other day and he's sitting with his sister pretending to do a vulcan mind meld. "My mind to your mind. Your mind to my mind. Wait, I'm not finding your mind. Oh no, its not there...where did it go.". Little stinker. Genetics hands you a mirror and dares you to gaze deeply.