Notices
Results 1 to 97 of 97

Thread: Climate Model Madness--Why Radiosonde Wind Data Blows

  1. #1 Climate Model Madness--Why Radiosonde Wind Data Blows 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Imagine if you will what would happen if the manmade (anthropogenic) global warming theory turned out to be false. It would be a political and economic disaster for proponents of the theory. What will they do with all that free time on their hands? How will the International Panel on Climate Change survive if the governments of the world stop sending money to its trust fund?

    Each of us will more likely be killed in an auto accident on the way to a Green Peace meeting than suffer the effects of global warming, but that is neither here nor there. What matters most is keeping the legend alive.

    One sure fire method of keeping any legend alive is to go data fishing. If your climate model does not jive with the data, don't be a jerk and adjust your model to fit the data, but measure and record the data in different ways until you get the result you want.

    Let me give you a real example of data fishing. Here is an excerpt from
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo208.html

    "Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. "

    Wow! Our climate models don't prove Man causes global warming! What do we do? Adjust the models to fit the data (admit we were wrong)? No! Here's the answer:

    "However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements."

    Yeah! Yeah! That's the ticket! There are non-climatic biases!

    "Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data."

    The answer is blowin' in the wind. Gee that sounds swell! I wonder if the suckers...er...public will buy it? We sure hope no one reads this:

    "The radiosonde data, while having the advantage of being a direct measurement of temperature, have two major disadvantages. First, most of the radiosonde stations are located in northern hemisphere land areas, leaving large regions of the world’s oceans and the southern hemisphere essentially unmonitored....Many tropical radiosonde stations show substantial inhomogenities, which may be under corrected, leading to a cooling bias (Thorne et al 2005, Sherwood et al 2008) though the amount of this bias in unknown. Source: http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_validation.html

    A cooling bias? That is not good! What will we do? What...will...we...do?!"

    "We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.650.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions..."
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo208.html

    Phew! Now that's what we like to hear, isn't it? Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions. If at first your climate model does not succeed, simply change the way you measure and record the data until it does.

    Here are some more fun quotes from those rascals who like to play with the data:

    From the Yale Radiosonde Analysis Project http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/radproj/


    "Recent analyses of radiosonde, surface, and satellite temperature trends have produced discordant results, which have caused some to question the reliability of our current estimates of global warming...We have produced a new dataset following the iterative universal Kriging procedure described in Sherwood (1999) and Sherwood (2007)... Wind homogenization had only a small effect, so we are not proposing that our homogenized wind data are significantly better than the raw data."

    Wind homogenization had only a small effect and the homogenized wind data are not significantly better than the raw data?! That really blows! So much for manmade (anthropogenic) global warming. We'll just have to find a new cause.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Climate Model Madness--Why Radiosonde Wind Data Blows 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Imagine if you will what would happen if the manmade (anthropogenic) global warming theory turned out to be false. It would be a political and economic disaster for proponents of the theory.
    Have you contemplated what will happen if theory turns out to be true?

    On the one hand the consensus view* is that global warming is real; will have hugely serious consequences for the the world; and could be constrained by appropriate actions now. These actions will have certain economice and social costs, but these costs will be considerably less than the ultimate cost of no action.

    On the other hand, if the small number of detractors are correct then the worst that happens is that some individuals and institutions look foolish and we have wasted 1% or 2% of our GDP.

    Faced with these two alternatives how do you justify doing nothing?


    *Consensus views are not necessarily correct, but they often are when these views have been formed through systematic scientific investigation.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Climate Model Madness--Why Radiosonde Wind Data Blows 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Have you contemplated what will happen if theory turns out to be true?
    Yes I have. The human race will be wiped out. I contemplated this back in the early 1990's when I rode my bicycle to a fossel-fuel protest rally. I was the only one of about 300 people there who did not drive a car to the rally. That observation really turned my head around. If we are right, I thought, the human race is doomed, because no one will give up driving. Electric cars are a joke because you need to produce more electricity through burning coal, or nuclear power, windmills or solar power. On a cloudy or windless day, fuel will be burned and some form of GHG will be the result. The best we can hope for is to prolong our survival on this planet another century or two, then it's adios! 6 Billion people cannot be sustained without burning fuel and creating carbon dioxide, water vapor, or some other exhaust. If we stop what we are doing, this planet can only support about 10 million people. Yes, I have thought about it long and hard, so I am always grateful when there is evidence that contradicts the imminent extinction of the human species.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    On the one hand the consensus view* is that global warming is real; will have hugely serious consequences for the the world; and could be constrained by appropriate actions now. These actions will have certain economice and social costs, but these costs will be considerably less than the ultimate cost of no action.
    The dinosaurs never produced GHGs, and they became extinct anyway. Catastrophes happen with or without human intervention. Millions of species throughout Earth's history have lived in harmony with nature, never polluting, never harming the biosphere and perished. So if you do give up your car and live without electricity, there are no guarantees anyway. And, wouldn't you be frosted (pardon the pun) if we had an ice age over the next fifty years? You will have made all those sacrifices for nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    On the other hand, if the small number of detractors are correct then the worst that happens is that some individuals and institutions look foolish and we have wasted 1% or 2% of our GDP.

    Faced with these two alternatives how do you justify doing nothing?
    I would not do nothing. You see, we have choices: we can spend a trillion dollars trying to solve a problem that might be real or might not be, or we could spend that money on problems we know are real, like cancer research, AIDS research, world hunger, and the new strain of TB. Imagine all the real problems we could solve in lieu of one that is riddled with controversy. You have to keep in mind that there is an unlimited number of what-if scenarios, and only a limited amount of money to solve problems. So solve the problems you know are real first.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    *Consensus views are not necessarily correct, but they often are when these views have been formed through systematic scientific investigation.
    In a perfect world I would agree with you, but you would have to be awfully naive to think we live in a perfect world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Climate Model Madness--Why Radiosonde Wind Data Blows 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    One sure fire method of keeping any legend alive is to go data fishing. If your climate model does not jive with the data, don't be a jerk and adjust your model to fit the data, but measure and record the data in different ways until you get the result you want.
    You'd be right if there were not well identified internal inconsistencies with the older data being collected. But there was once scientist looked at the wind data and identified that it didn't match the pressure and temperature fields (hence thermal wind analysis), as well as the differences in night and day data.

    The other internal inconsistency was while looking at the temperature trends between the late 70s and current data, and unless one can also document less convection, lower humidity at the surface, or somehow less forcing (such as lowering solar output), there's simply no way the upper troposphere can cool due to very well understood physics that describe moist adiabatic lapse rate as surface temperatures increase.

    You referenced the key paper which is the most likely explanation for the inconsistency--Sherwood et al identified that until recent years most of the weather balloons did not use shielded thermometers. The obvious problem is the temperature would record too high when it was free of the clouds, while at high latitude once it got into the clouds the same thermometer would ice over and its data be thrown out. Because of the transition by weather stations to between shielded thermometers we can't make direct comparisons between the 70's and 80's upper tropospheric temperature and current ones because they make it appear that cooling has occurred.

    It's pretty pretty clear this is mostly an instrument change problem rather then some fundamental problem of our understanding of atmospheric physics, or the simulations that incorporate those physics.

    The problem is compounded by early satellite calibrations which were done by comparing and adjusting them to tropical weather balloon data. Satellite data has gone through it's own series of adjustments in response to this or the discovery of better fits to observed frequency data received to derive temperature.

    I've included a copy of the abstract.
    "Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming
    Steven Sherwood 1*, John Lanzante 2, Cathryn Meyer 1

    1 Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
    2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics

    The temperature difference between adjacent 0000 and 1200 UTC weather balloon (radiosonde) reports shows a pervasive tendency toward cooler daytime compared to nighttime observations since the 1970s, especially at tropical stations. Several characteristics of this trend indicate that it is an artifact of systematic reductions over time in the uncorrected error due to daytime solar heating of the instrument, and should be absent from accurate climate records. Although other problems may exist, this effect alone is of sufficient magnitude to reconcile radiosonde tropospheric temperature trends and surface trends during the late 20th century."

    This is the kind of thing that happens when instruments and the data they produce are applied to new types of analysis they were never intended for. That doesn't mean there isn't useful data to be obtained, but it does mean there needs to be due caution, expected problems found and corrections applied. It is a common story of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Climate Model Madness--Why Radiosonde Wind Data Blows 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    You'd be right if there were not well identified internal inconsistencies with the older data being collected. But there was once scientist looked at the wind data and identified that it didn't match the pressure and temperature fields (hence thermal wind analysis), as well as the differences in night and day data.
    The problem here is the Yale study which I cited, freely admits there are problems with the wind data as well. They just happen to like it because it matches model predictions--or does it? Additionally the data samples for the oceans and southern hemisphere are practically nil, so even if the wind data is somehow better, it is woefully incomplete.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The other internal inconsistency was while looking at the temperature trends between the late 70s and current data, and unless one can also document less convection, lower humidity at the surface, or somehow less forcing (such as lowering solar output), there's simply no way the upper troposphere can cool due to very well understood physics that describe moist adiabatic lapse rate as surface temperatures increase.
    How can the physics be so well understood if the data the physics is based on is sketchy? The "understood" physics is a null hypothesis at best. The thing that bugs me is no one in that group is considering that the "understood" physics might be misunderstood. If the original temperature data is wrong, then I was right about that hockystick chart you posted showing global warming. It was made using inconsistent data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You referenced the key paper which is the most likely explanation for the inconsistency--Sherwood et al identified that until recent years most of the weather balloons did not use shielded thermometers. The obvious problem is the temperature would record too high when it was free of the clouds, while at high latitude once it got into the clouds the same thermometer would ice over and its data be thrown out. Because of the transition by weather stations to between shielded thermometers we can't make direct comparisons between the 70's and 80's upper tropospheric temperature and current ones because they make it appear that cooling has occurred.
    Assuming that is all true, what data was used to make the famous IPCC hockeystick chart? Where is their charts showing the cooling trend at least up until this alleged erroneous trend was discovered?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's pretty pretty clear this is mostly an instrument change problem rather then some fundamental problem of our understanding of atmospheric physics, or the simulations that incorporate those physics.
    Right, there is no way your hypothesis could be off. The hypothesis is written in stone. Unfortunately, that is not the scientific method, that is politics. Any good scientist would check his understanding of the physics as well as his instruments. I observed the scientists doing the latter but not the former. That smacks of data fishing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The problem is compounded by early satellite calibrations which were done by comparing and adjusting them to tropical weather balloon data. Satellite data has gone through it's own series of adjustments in response to this or the discovery of better fits to observed frequency data received to derive temperature.
    With all these data problems I don't see how anyone can be confident about the "understanding" of the physics or the IPCC charts based on this crappy data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I've included a copy of the abstract.
    "Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming
    Steven Sherwood 1*, John Lanzante 2, Cathryn Meyer 1

    1 Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
    2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics

    The temperature difference between adjacent 0000 and 1200 UTC weather balloon (radiosonde) reports shows a pervasive tendency toward cooler daytime compared to nighttime observations since the 1970s, especially at tropical stations. Several characteristics of this trend indicate that it is an artifact of systematic reductions over time in the uncorrected error due to daytime solar heating of the instrument, and should be absent from accurate climate records. Although other problems may exist, this effect alone is of sufficient magnitude to reconcile radiosonde tropospheric temperature trends and surface trends during the late 20th century."

    This is the kind of thing that happens when instruments and the data they produce are applied to new types of analysis they were never intended for. That doesn't mean there isn't useful data to be obtained, but it does mean there needs to be due caution, expected problems found and corrections applied. It is a common story of science.
    I agree there is a need for due caution and one should not jump to the conclusion that global warming is happening and that Man is the principle cause and it will have devistating consequences. Let's get a more complete and reliable dataset first and then adjust our hypothesis (understanding ot the physics) accordingly. For now, let's just concede that anthropogenic global warming is inconclusive at best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Weather balloon temperature used to be measured with unshielded thermometers, that sometimes resulted in them reading too high.
    Over the past 20 years the tropical countries have converted to better weather balloons that shield the thermometers from direct solar heating.
    This problem wasn't identified or even thought to be a serious problem until scientist wanted to compare the temperatures from the past with the current ones and further recognized that the old temperature could not be directly compared to the current ones because the old thermometers read too high.
    Looking for ways to derive what the actual temperatures were when they were using unshielded thermometers the Yale study applied thermal wind analysis which both confirmed the temperature bias and allowed them to derive a reasonable approximation of what the original temperatures should have been.
    You also should know the conservative nature of scientist is to recognize problems with all data, but you shouldn't assume that means the data is completely invalid--its a matter of identifying the margin of errors that always exist.

    The thing that bugs me is no one in that group is considering that the "understood" physics might be misunderstood.
    There no reason to assume so. The big clue that observed cooling was false was based on it being physically impossible to have surface warming, and unchanged rate of convection and moist adiabatic lapse rate--convection hasn't changed, and the decreasing moist adiabatic lapse rate who's science has been known, both in theory and confirmed in tightly controlled lab experiments in various forms for almost a 200 years.

    But would you rather go back to using unshielded thermometers? I certainty wouldn't want us to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Climate Model Madness--Why Radiosonde Wind Data Blows 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Have you contemplated what will happen if theory turns out to be true?
    Yes I have. The human race will be wiped out. I contemplated this back in the early 1990's when I rode my bicycle to a fossel-fuel protest rally. I was the only one of about 300 people there who did not drive a car to the rally. That observation really turned my head around. If we are right, I thought, the human race is doomed, because no one will give up driving. Electric cars are a joke because you need to produce more electricity through burning coal, or nuclear power, windmills or solar power. On a cloudy or windless day, fuel will be burned and some form of GHG will be the result. The best we can hope for is to prolong our survival on this planet another century or two, then it's adios! 6 Billion people cannot be sustained without burning fuel and creating carbon dioxide, water vapor, or some other exhaust. If we stop what we are doing, this planet can only support about 10 million people. Yes, I have thought about it long and hard, so I am always grateful when there is evidence that contradicts the iminent extinction of the human species.
    We have had the, self perpetuating electric technology since and before World War Two. Benjamin Franklin proclaimed it.

    How can you get into a serious war, if your guys wipe out the entire forces in the other country in seconds or minutes? There would be no time to put restrictions on your own citizens, reduce their rights. Hire more police, raise taxes.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Weather balloon temperature used to be measured with unshielded thermometers, that sometimes resulted in them reading too high.
    Over the past 20 years the tropical countries have converted to better weather balloons that shield the thermometers from direct solar heating.
    This problem wasn't identified or even thought to be a serious problem until scientist wanted to compare the temperatures from the past with the current ones and further recognized that the old temperature could not be directly compared to the current ones because the old thermometers read too high.
    If it is true that the temperatures were read too high in the past, how did the anthropogenic global warming theory ever get started? The data showed global cooling because the old data was too high. See the problem? What data was the theory based on? Obviously not any empirical evidence that could be found in the troposphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Looking for ways to derive what the actual temperatures were when they were using unshielded thermometers the Yale study applied thermal wind analysis which both confirmed the temperature bias and allowed them to derive a reasonable approximation of what the original temperatures should have been.
    You also should know the conservative nature of scientist is to recognize problems with all data, but you shouldn't assume that means the data is completely invalid--its a matter of identifying the margin of errors that always exist.
    But what they did is data fishing. They admit the new data has problems also and it is incomplete due to the lack of coverage of the southern hemisphere and the oceans. The samples were targeted to the northern hemisphere rather than random worldwide samples. That would produce quite a high margin of error. As you stated earlier, the radiosondes were not originally designed for the task of covering the mean temperature of the Earth. The wind data is just as spotty as the temperature data. It therefore does not establish anthropogenic global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    There no reason to assume so. The big clue that observed cooling was false was based on it being physically impossible to have surface warming, and unchanged rate of convection and moist adiabatic lapse rate--convection hasn't changed, and the decreasing moist adiabatic lapse rate who's science has been known, both in theory and confirmed in tightly controlled lab experiments in various forms for almost a 200 years.
    How can they be so sure convection and moist adiabatic lapse rate hasn't changed? How can they be sure there was surface warming?
    They did not use radiosonde or satellite data did they? I hear there are problems with that type of data. LOL!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    But would you rather go back to using unshielded thermometers? I certainty wouldn't want us to.
    No, I would rather see an honest experiment performed to confirm or falsify the hypothesis. In conclusion, even if the new data is perfect in every way, it proves nothing due to the lack of coverage of the southern hemisphere and the oceans. Gather a complete dataset first, then draw your conclusions, OK?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Personally I have no time for all this global warming crap, back in the 1980's the talk was all about an imminent ice age, it never happened, the data I see has all been massaged, before it is presented. In my part of the world an increase of 4 or 5 degrees would be welcome - consider the crap talked about coral reefs, it is suggested that a 1 deg rise would kill a large chunk yet a 1 degrees rise would bring other areas of the ocean up to a temperature that could support a reef, therefore things will just move round, life has survived all sorts of catastrophies over the last 3.5 billion years, a couple of degrees up in temperature will be nothing. As for a sea level rise, it'll be nice to see nature reclaim something from us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Personally I have no time for all this global warming crap, back in the 1980's the talk was all about an imminent ice age, it never happened, the data I see has all been massaged, before it is presented. In my part of the world an increase of 4 or 5 degrees would be welcome - consider the crap talked about coral reefs, it is suggested that a 1 deg rise would kill a large chunk yet a 1 degrees rise would bring other areas of the ocean up to a temperature that could support a reef, therefore things will just move round, life has survived all sorts of catastrophies over the last 3.5 billion years, a couple of degrees up in temperature will be nothing. As for a sea level rise, it'll be nice to see nature reclaim something from us.
    Mega dittos! I hear ya!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    ...back in the 1980's the talk was all about an imminent ice age,
    i thought it was the 70s, but there you go
    if i remember correctly the rationale behind it was not only a slight drop in temperature during the period 1940-1975, but also the realisation that interglacials usually don't last much longer than 10,000 years, so that made us due for a renewed glaciation

    what people tend to forget is that, whilst coming out of an glacial period is usually a fast process, the onset of a glacial period is a slower one with many reversals, with only a clear downward trend when seen over thousands of years
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    back in the 1980's the talk was all about an imminent ice age, it never happened
    This old canard has been debunked several times, but I suppose we have to do it again. The talk all about an imminent ice age was media hype. It was never the scientific consensus.

    But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

    The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

    "A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-cooling_N.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Well I no more believed that than I do all this modern crap about global warming.
    It all sensationalist crap. The biggest greenhouse gas is actually water vapour, ever noticed how cloudy winter nights are much warmer than clear ones? the effect is hundreds of times more powerfull than a little CO2, there is not enough data to be anything like certain humans are causing global warming, 1 bloody good fart from a volcano produces more pollution than man could in 25 years.

    There is always something we are told we should be shit scared of (since the demise of the USSR), global cooling, globl warming, the gulf stream shutting down, WMD in some 3rd world country, some fucking great asteroid heading our way, HIV AIDS wiping out 90% of the adult population by 2010, my advice is to ignore the lot of it, it's all crap to try and keep you in your place, since there are (as I understand) some 40,000 road fatalaties a year in the US (the 'high tech' US), I'd be more afraid of walking the sidewalk than any threat indicated by the Gov or scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    The biggest greenhouse gas is actually water vapour, ever noticed how cloudy winter nights are much warmer than clear ones?
    i doubt whether the effect of clouds is comparable with that of CO2, even though both are greenhouse gases - clouds impede both incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared, i.e. it prevents heat from coming in and going out

    on the other hand, CO2 is transparent to incoming visible light, but prevents infrared from escaping - hence it only acts as a barrier to outgoing heat
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    As I said, at night clouds prevent heat loss with incredible efficiency at which time there is no light coming in, take a look at venus, covered in clouds, yet hotter than even Mercury which is exposed to direct sunlight at a much closer range.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    back in the 1980's the talk was all about an imminent ice age, it never happened
    This old canard has been debunked several times, but I suppose we have to do it again. The talk all about an imminent ice age was media hype. It was never the scientific consensus.
    What about the current consensus? Could that also be media hype? Could Al Gore be wrong? No way, right?

    But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
    He surveyed dozens of articles? That would make the margin of error extremely high. He could have missed a hundred or so papers that supported global cooling. One has to wonder why the media passed over all those juicy global warming articles in favor of a smattering of ice age articles. If Peterson's dubious survey is to be believed, then the media found the needle (the small number of cooling articles) but missed the haystack ( the alleged consensus). Uh huh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
    Now they tells us! B-R-I-L-L-I-A-N-T! Maybe 20 years hence, they will tell us what the true consensus is today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Well I no more believed that than I do all this modern crap about global warming.
    It all sensationalist crap. The biggest greenhouse gas is actually water vapour, ever noticed how cloudy winter nights are much warmer than clear ones? the effect is hundreds of times more powerfull than a little CO2, there is not enough data to be anything like certain humans are causing global warming, 1 bloody good fart from a volcano produces more pollution than man could in 25 years.

    There is always something we are told we should be shit scared of (since the demise of the USSR), global cooling, globl warming, the gulf stream shutting down, WMD in some 3rd world country, some fucking great asteroid heading our way, HIV AIDS wiping out 90% of the adult population by 2010, my advice is to ignore the lot of it, it's all crap to try and keep you in your place, since there are (as I understand) some 40,000 road fatalaties a year in the US (the 'high tech' US), I'd be more afraid of walking the sidewalk than any threat indicated by the Gov or scientists.
    Don't forget Y2K. I bet even money that many of our gullible friends here bought Y2K survival kits. LOL!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    As I said, at night clouds prevent heat loss with incredible efficiency at which time there is no light coming in, take a look at venus, covered in clouds, yet hotter than even Mercury which is exposed to direct sunlight at a much closer range.
    I think the difference is this: One greenhouse gas is one thing, but two or more is entirely another thing. CO2 and water vapour are both greenhouse gasses on their own, but more CO2 might cause more evaporation of water vapour and in so doing the effect is greatly magnified. Higher surface water temperatures means CO2 gas is released from sea water, compounding the effect even further. Land plant might take up more CO2 as the atmospheric levels increase, thereby helping reduce potentially negative effects, but phytoplankton does not benefit from CO2 levels in this way and deforestation is not helping either. The main thing is that there are dynamic balances in nature. One thing affects the other, in either positive, negative or combination feedback loops. For instance, ice reflects more sunlight back into space than open ground for instance (higher albedo), so if more ice melts then more heat is emitted back as IR and more solar energy can be strapped by greenhouse gasses, only to allow for more ice to melt. These things go on in nature all the time naturally, but we are not doing ourselves any favors by compounding it. The problem is not so much that we are killing off life on the planet (it will undoubtedly continue on in our absence), or even that humans themselves might become extinct because of it, but that many of us could eventually die. The way the world society is structured, any large scale change could have devastating effects. All of our infrastructure is built upon the way the world is now and we are already failing at providing for everyone. We simply don't need another large scale problem to have to account for as well.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Kalster,

    right from the first word of your post it is clear that you understand the problem is far more complex than a single gas, even down to the shape of earth's orbit around the sun will have a bearing, I don't think we know of all the variables or even what any single variable is fully capable of, of course we should not deliberately exasperate the problem I simply believe the data is all massaged before we see it, various bias's are added. If we fuck up the world we will pay the price, nature and life on earth will continue, we see life existing deep underground in permafrost right to the superheated ocean floor vents, we are a transient species like all others, we have learnt nothing from the history of Easter Island and are, to my mind, merely an arrogant parasite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    back in the 1980's the talk was all about an imminent ice age, it never happened
    This old canard has been debunked several times, but I suppose we have to do it again. The talk all about an imminent ice age was media hype. It was never the scientific consensus.
    What about the current consensus? Could that also be media hype? Could Al Gore be wrong? No way, right?
    Did you not understand? There was no consensus. Now there is one. Sorry if this is over your head but I don't know any other way to put it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    As I said, at night clouds prevent heat loss with incredible efficiency at which time there is no light coming in, take a look at venus, covered in clouds, yet hotter than even Mercury which is exposed to direct sunlight at a much closer range.
    I think the difference is this: One greenhouse gas is one thing, but two or more is entirely another thing. CO2 and water vapour are both greenhouse gasses on their own, but more CO2 might cause more evaporation of water vapour and in so doing the effect is greatly magnified. Higher surface water temperatures means CO2 gas is released from sea water, compounding the effect even further. Land plant might take up more CO2 as the atmospheric levels increase, thereby helping reduce potentially negative effects, but phytoplankton does not benefit from CO2 levels in this way and deforestation is not helping either. The main thing is that there are dynamic balances in nature. One thing affects the other, in either positive, negative or combination feedback loops. For instance, ice reflects more sunlight back into space than open ground for instance (higher albedo), so if more ice melts then more heat is emitted back as IR and more solar energy can be strapped by greenhouse gasses, only to allow for more ice to melt. These things go on in nature all the time naturally, but we are not doing ourselves any favors by compounding it. The problem is not so much that we are killing off life on the planet (it will undoubtedly continue on in our absence), or even that humans themselves might become extinct because of it, but that many of us could eventually die. The way the world society is structured, any large scale change could have devastating effects. All of our infrastructure is built upon the way the world is now and we are already failing at providing for everyone. We simply don't need another large scale problem to have to account for as well.
    Interesting hypothesis. It seems to be based on two assumptions: 1. CO2 is bad; 2. Warming is bad; then the rest follows. Assuming that your assumptions are correct, additional water vapor that would result would prevent a lot of high frequency radiation from reaching the ground to be converted to IR. Additionally water in the oceans have a great deal of albedo as well. Add to that mix the fact that there is only a .03%-.06% atmospheric concentration of CO2 to work with and ice age cycles and volcanos, and let's not forget El Ninio (the real cause of the hockey stick chart) and La Nina. Maybe that's why it is so hard to find any credible data in the troposhpere that would support your hypothesis.

    Frankly, it is hard to fathom that a .03% concentration of CO2 could even come close to competing with the sun, let alone outdo the sun. You see the sun is the source of the energy and heat and is far more prevalent.

    One also has to wonder why we have not experienced more of an impact from CO2. Last summer was the coolest summer in years where I live. How is your climate doing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury

    Did you not understand? There was no consensus. Now there is one. Sorry if this is over your head but I don't know any other way to put it.
    Well, I understand that the media has a tendency to lie and exaggerate then and now. Do you understand that? I was alive back then. Where were you? My science teachers said not one peep about any global warming. Gosh! Did they not read the articles? As far as we all knew, an ice age was imminent. Many scientists were invited on talk shows to tell us so. Gosh! They did not read the global warming articles either! Or maybe the stuff you are reading and citing is just more hype. This time global warming is all the rage! Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon once again.

    Just curious. How much did you pay for your Y2K survival kit? That was also a consensus view prior to 2000.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Didn't we have the consensus discussion a half dozen times already recently?

    But I'm glad we got the unshielded thermometers problems of the 70's sorted out...no matter how badly some want to twist that into another problem and claim the modelers are duplicitous.

    PS William, there is no such thing as a perfect instrument. Most atmospheric science degree require at least two college course which focus on instrumentation, their systemic problems, their variances and ways to apply math to mitigate their effects, as well as how to deploy and maintain them. Most sciences have similar requirements of one form or another. A good deal of science is getting meaningful information out of messy data sets--and that applies to all fields--not just atmospheric sciences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Didn't we have the consensus discussion a half dozen times already recently?

    But I'm glad we got the unshielded thermometers problems of the 70's sorted out...no matter how badly some want to twist that into another problem and claim the modelers are duplicitous.

    PS William, there is no such thing as a perfect instrument. Most atmospheric science degree require at least two college course which focus on instrumentation, their systemic problems, their variances and ways to apply math to mitigate their effects, as well as how to deploy and maintain them. Most sciences have similar requirements of one form or another. A good deal of science is getting meaningful information out of messy data sets--and that applies to all fields--not just atmospheric sciences.
    Ah, once again you side step the hard questions put to you. I am well aware that the instruments were not perfect and the data was messy. The issue you keep avoiding is the fact that the anthropogenic warming theory was based on the very data that the Yale study now says is messy. I have been saying all along in at least two threads that the so-called warming trend could be due to changes in instrumentation. The problem with this Yale study is they make the assumption that the warming trend data is correct and that the cooling trend data must be incorrect.

    http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/sondeanal.pdf

    From page 3, top of second column:

    "We assume that (1) any long-term change in dT (temperature difference) must have been due to instrumental changes altering the net effect of sunlight on the instrument or balloon."

    As you can see, an assumption was made here. An assumption is not the same as a fact. We could also make the assumption that the ground temperature data (the warming trend) is also incorrect for the reasons stated. This is precisely why my charge of data fishing is correct. Depending on your bias, you could look at the data and conclude that the changes in instrumentation caused the apparent global warming trend or the cooling trend.

    You will also note that in their paper the Yale scientists mentioned they only fixed the cooling data. They made no attempt to fix any warming data. That shows they let their bias interfere with their investigation and conclusions.

    They did just as I said, they adjusted the data to fit their hypothesis (climate model) rather than adjust the model to fit the data. If the data was messy, they only fixed part of it--the part that falsifies their hypothesis, which is based on the assumptions that carbon dioxide is bad and warming is also bad. Bad for whom? A previous commentor said he would love some warmer weather. Public funds could be better spent on problems we know are real for everyone--like cancer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Didn't we have the consensus discussion a half dozen times already recently?

    But I'm glad we got the unshielded thermometers problems of the 70's sorted out...no matter how badly some want to twist that into another problem and claim the modelers are duplicitous.

    PS William, there is no such thing as a perfect instrument. Most atmospheric science degree require at least two college course which focus on instrumentation, their systemic problems, their variances and ways to apply math to mitigate their effects, as well as how to deploy and maintain them. Most sciences have similar requirements of one form or another. A good deal of science is getting meaningful information out of messy data sets--and that applies to all fields--not just atmospheric sciences.
    The new wind data may now match the climate model, but the Yale scientists neglected to reconcile that new data with the satellite data which still shows a cooling trend in the troposphere since 1979. Thus the anthropogenic hypothesis is falsified with the satellite data. Check out this link:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/11/2...perature-data/







    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    It's the not the winds were verified to match the models, it's the temperatures derived from the thermal wind, because of the unreliable tropical upper tropospheric temperature reading from the 70's and 80's--there is a big difference. Also thermal wind theory proceeds modern climate models by decades--as does it's application to derive relationships between wind, thermal fields motion of storm and other meteorological terms near the equator.

    Not sure what your point is the graphs is.

    The top shows the increase surface temperature trend, which matches the models.

    The upper one shows the averages for the satellite derived middle troposphere (TMT) across the entire globe (except the poles), which matched the models with a slower increase in temperature.

    The lower one show the average for the lower stratosphere. (TLS) It shows cooling which also matches the climate models.

    The three charts you pulled are very consistent with global average temperature trended we expect from increased Co2, pronounced surface warming, mild mid-troposphere warming, and significant cooling of the lower stratosphere.

    None of them address the topic of the thread which was why the the satellite record trend of the upper tropical troposphere didn't match projected warming, which we resolved with the simple realization that it was overwhelmed by the implementation of better weather balloons which now shield the thermometers from sunshine.

    Sherwood has also updated his work on the tropical upper troposphere:

    "Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds

    Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood

    Abstract

    Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65plusminus0.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change."

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo208.html

    The lesson from your charts is observation are generally consistent with increased co2 expected warming. And even in the one place they didn't appear to be at first (tropical upper troposphere) it's been determined that it was instrument error responsible--but other techniques that use thermal wind to derive the temperature field are also consistent with the expected increase in tropical upper troposphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    All these graphs are meaningless they do not show the massaging of raw data or give any indication of scale, most are 'base cut' with the tiny variation on the top compared to other data which may be 'real' - It's all bullshit! using the natural laws of growth and decay I could match the ageing of paint on my walls to the rise in global tempreature, even my grandon's height!!

    The truth is (as hard it is to understand) is that we do not yet fully understand the climate model of the earth, we can simulate particular circumstances by massaging the variables until it looks close but then the same fudge factors don't work elsewhere or even 10 miles down the road.

    Now the lady is calling so I'll cut it there...

    Check these out...

    http://www.dividendgrowthinvestor.co...-dividend.html

    This is medeval science you guys are practising here, "he walked past my farm and the horse died, therefore he is a witch" type stuff.


    So here we are attempting to explain a process we do not understand however becuase it is all Government funded we have to tow the line, ie No manmade global warming, no funding next year.

    we may or may not be responsible (looking at easter Island I'd say we might well be) - but please apply real science to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    If I contrast Lynx Fox's careful, systematic posts, grounded in relevant research with the hand waving, emotive mud slinging of William pinn and Megabrain, it is not difficult to decide which side of the fence to come down on. Useful commentary by Kalster, Marnix and Bunbury help to cement this.

    William seems to motivated by some mild form of conspiracy theoryitis. Megabrain has openly declared that he doesn't really care if humanity perishes. I don't wish the future of my children to be determined by either of those perspectives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    If I contrast Lynx Fox's careful, systematic posts, grounded in relevant research with the hand waving, emotive mud slinging of William pinn and Megabrain, it is not difficult to decide which side of the fence to come down on. Useful commentary by Kalster, Marnix and Bunbury help to cement this.

    William seems to motivated by some mild form of conspiracy theoryitis. Megabrain has openly declared that he doesn't really care if humanity perishes. I don't wish the future of my children to be determined by either of those perspectives.
    I'm actually on the side of good science, which is, in my humble opinion lacking in this whole debate (not here at TSF but globally) , as I have said I don't know whether we are the cause of any current rise in temperature, I know that in the past there is good evidence that the globe has been both much hotter and much cooler. As I remeber it we were all going to die because of a hole in the ozone layer some years ago then a bit later came the statement "we found the hole the first time we went looking for this data" thus it seemed that there is no direct evidence of any hole or lack of it prior to it being found, these are the same climatologists who, in my life at least, have predicted disaster after disaster year after year, well I suppose if they make enough predictions eventually they might get it right.

    My aim is always to encourage people to take a wider view of science, to question every fact, especially if it sounds to far-fetched to be real, then it probably is, to understand that many scientists are more concerned for their funding than the discovery of the truth, yes Bernard Seaburg, if you are reading this I am referring to you! (Bernard and I worked together many years ago, he was great at massaging data to improve next years research budget).

    "If two scientists of equal repute cannot agree upon a point then neither of them are qualified in that sphere of knowledge"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    As I remeber it we were all going to die because of a hole in the ozone layer some years ago then a bit later came the statement "we found the hole the first time we went looking for this data" thus it seemed that there is no direct evidence of any hole or lack of it prior to it being found, these are the same climatologists who, in my life at least, have predicted disaster after disaster year after year, well I suppose if they make enough predictions eventually they might get it right.
    You appear to gather your interpretations of the science from the popular media. If I am mistaken in this could you provide half a dozen citations of disasters predicted by climatologists that have failed to materialise. Once you have done so I shall wholly retract my statement and apologise for impugning your good sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Ok John

    Six off the top of my head,

    1) scares relating to El-nino predicted from only a few years of observations,

    2) continuous stories about the gulf stream shutting down (yet even after huge chunks of the ice sheet have dissappeared and the northern polar cap has reduced by 28% - nothing.

    3) GLobal warming, some charts agree some disagree, depending on the level of funding.

    4) Ozone scares, worldwide crop failures skin cancer proliferation all by around 2010

    5) THe destruction of the Brazillian rain forest was going to deprive the world of it's lungs until somebody decided the ocean would be the new lungs.

    6) The Ice age cometh 70's 80's scares that the world could return to an ice age by the year 2000.

    Newspapers don't make up such stories though I grant you they can and do exagerate them, they originate with climatologists - Now today it's the turn of another set of doom mongers, COmets, Super volcanoes 100,000 years overdue (Yellowstone) huge tsunamis from Islands collapsing into the sea (Grand Caneria)
    The earth losing it's magnetic field, etc etc etc.

    Some or all of this may or may not happen, but really does it deserve as much publicity as it all gets?? more people have probably been killed on the roads of the world while I was writing this than have been killed in the last 10 million years by asteroid strikes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Ok John

    Six off the top of my head, .
    Megabrain,
    I do apologise for being unclear, though I thought I had been. I specifically said "If I am mistaken in this could you provide half a dozen citations of disasters predicted by climatologists that have failed to materialise."

    A list of recollections is not a set of citations. I would like the authors, paper title, journal, issue number and date. Otherwise all you are doing is strengthening an impression that you acquire your understanding of science from the popular press.

    I don't want to fall out with you over this. I assumed - and continue to assume - that you have real, peer reviewed research papers that fail as you have described. I just want to view these so I can assess that failure for myself. I don't think that is an unreasonable request to make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    That's exactly my point John, there are no authorities on these matters it is all guesswork on their part, we do not understand the climate model thus one cannot cite any authoritative source. However if honest you must admit to having heard of these stories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    That's exactly my point John, there are no authorities on these matters it is all guesswork on their part, we do not understand the climate model thus one cannot cite any authoritative source. However if honest you must admit to having heard of these stories.
    Megabrain, I am trying to conduct a discussion based upon science. I am not going to indulge in hearsay. Hearsay is one step removed from fantasy, and a close neighbour of delusion.

    From your response I understand that no scientist, that you are aware of, published research on climate change that was later disproven by events. Yes or no. Cut the waffle on authoritative sources. You stated that climatologists (which I reasonably took to mean bona fide scientists engaged in climate research) had made repeated claims that had been disproven. Who are these scientists? Tell me where they made these claims. Either they exist or they are figment of someone's imagination.

    Originally you claimed that these false predictions were being made by climatologists year after year after year, or some such phrase. Now you say it is nothing more than hearsay. I'm am genuinely disappointed. Your credibility on this issue is now zero and I find myself quesitoning anything and everything you have ever posted.

    Please restore my confidence in you by choosing just one of the examples you mentioned in your earlier post and finding the original peer reviewed research on which the claim is based and the matching research that showed it to be faulty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    If I contrast Lynx Fox's careful, systematic posts, grounded in relevant research with the hand waving, emotive mud slinging of William pinn and Megabrain,
    John, you make alot of accusations. Got any proof? No? Didn't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    it is not difficult to decide which side of the fence to come down on.
    It is not difficult at all to decide when your mind is already made up. The evidence be damned!

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Useful commentary by Kalster, Marnix and Bunbury help to cement this.
    LMAO! Can you give even one example?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    William seems to motivated by some mild form of conspiracy theoryitis.
    I am motivated by evidence and am tired of seeing public funds wasted on what-ifs. I would rather see those funds go to cancer research. I think it is a hoot that you accuse me of believing in some conspiracy theory. LOL! Here is the conspiracy theory you believe in: 1. Man is evil. 2. Nature is good. 3. Carbon dioxide is evil. 4. Warming is evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Megabrain has openly declared that he doesn't really care if humanity perishes.
    LOL! I think you put words in his mouth.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I don't wish the future of my children to be determined by either of those perspectives.
    Better to brainwash your children. Repeat after me: Man is evil...Nature is good...Carbon dioxide is evil...Warming is evil...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2271629.ece
    I love you, man! But you have to learn to rub their noses in it. Here let me help you. An excerpt from the link above:

    Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999)," he wrote.
    "Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's the not the winds were verified to match the models, it's the temperatures derived from the thermal wind, because of the unreliable tropical upper tropospheric temperature reading from the 70's and 80's--there is a big difference. Also thermal wind theory proceeds modern climate models by decades--as does it's application to derive relationships between wind, thermal fields motion of storm and other meteorological terms near the equator.
    We know the wind data was used to infer temperatures. What you seem to keep missing is the fact that the Yale researhers themselves claim the wind data has its problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Not sure what your point is the graphs is.
    Well gee, Lynx, haven't you noticed? The satellite data does not correlate with the new data set derived from radiosonde wind measurements. They may have successfully correlated the radiosonde data to their models but they overlooked the satellite data that falsifies their models. That is datafishing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The top shows the increase surface temperature trend, which matches the models.
    The upper one shows the averages for the satellite derived middle troposphere (TMT) across the entire globe (except the poles), which matched the models with a slower increase in temperature.
    The lower one show the average for the lower stratosphere. (TLS) It shows cooling which also matches the climate models.
    You have eyes and you can read the charts, so use those same eyes to read the links I posted. The satellite data does not match the models; if they did, there would be no need for the Yale group to go data fishing...er...do their study and try to match data to the models.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    None of them address the topic of the thread which was why the the satellite record trend of the upper tropical troposphere didn't match projected warming,"
    Oh so you then admit that the satellite data does not match the models.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    which we resolved with the simple realization that it was overwhelmed by the implementation of better weather balloons which now shield the thermometers from sunshine.
    How was anything resolved? That satellite data shows the troposphere cooling and the radiosonde data shows the troposhpere warming. The satellite data is based on far more samples and coverage than the radiosonde data. The paper freely admits the limitations and bugs in the radiosonde data. It barely addresses the satellite data. That is very telling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Sherwood has also updated his work on the tropical upper troposphere:
    "Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds
    Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood
    Abstract
    Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements.
    Just to clarify here, non-climatic biases have been allegedly found in radiosonde data only. They have failed to show that there is anything wrong with the satellite data other than "it does not match our expectations."

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65plusminus0.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change."
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo208.html
    Here they confirm that it is the new radiosonde wind data that is consistent with climate models, not the satellite data. The satellite data debunks them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The lesson from your charts is observation are generally consistent with increased co2 expected warming.
    You are wrong. The troposphere is supposed to keep pace with the warming trend of the surface temperatures. The satellite data shows otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    And even in the one place they didn't appear to be at first (tropical upper troposphere) it's been determined that it was instrument error responsible--but other techniques that use thermal wind to derive the temperature field are also consistent with the expected increase in tropical upper troposphere.
    But the new dataset doesn't correlate with the satellite data. They chose the dataset that proves their hypothesis (climate models) and ignored the satellite data that falsifies the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. They went datafishing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Sod off, it is NOT about rubbing peoples noses in anything, I have memories of being told about various impending disasters from nuclear disasaters to the six Items I mention above, (and probably others too) - my point is that if scientists cannot agree then none of them know what they are on about - the fact is I do not have any original documentation, John has some serious points and I well respect his views, I probably would not have written much of what I have if I were ten years younger. I am not too proud that that is the only example I can find, maybe those who re proven wrong don't like to have their research freely published.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    As I remeber it we were all going to die because of a hole in the ozone layer some years ago then a bit later came the statement "we found the hole the first time we went looking for this data" thus it seemed that there is no direct evidence of any hole or lack of it prior to it being found, these are the same climatologists who, in my life at least, have predicted disaster after disaster year after year, well I suppose if they make enough predictions eventually they might get it right.
    You appear to gather your interpretations of the science from the popular media. If I am mistaken in this could you provide half a dozen citations of disasters predicted by climatologists that have failed to materialise. Once you have done so I shall wholly retract my statement and apologise for impugning your good sense.
    Let me educate you:


    http://www.digital-almanac.com/digit...2009/?folio=68









    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Lynx_Fox wrote:

    The top shows the increase surface temperature trend, which matches the models.
    The upper one shows the averages for the satellite derived middle troposphere (TMT) across the entire globe (except the poles), which matched the models with a slower increase in temperature.
    The lower one show the average for the lower stratosphere. (TLS) It shows cooling which also matches the climate models.

    You have eyes and you can read the charts, so use those same eyes to read the links I posted. The satellite data does not match the models; if they did, there would be no need for the Yale group to go data fishing...er...do their study and try to match data to the models.
    williampinn none of the charts you showed address the issue at hand, which is the temperature trend of the TROPICAL upper troposphere. You didn't even plot the upper troposphere for the global average OR the TROPOCS.

    Just to clarify here, non-climatic biases have been allegedly found in radiosonde data only. They have failed to show that there is anything wrong with the satellite data other than "it does not match our expectations."
    Actually they have if:
    - they show the inconsistency of thermal field with the thermal wind- which has absolutely nothing to do with comparison to climate models.
    -They showed the problem was mostly a daytime problem,
    -They showed that it coincides in the same area where we know tropical nations used unshielded thermometers before gradually converting in the 1980's to more modern weather balloons. Most of us can understand that a thermometer in the sun is hotter than one in shade it boggles the mind that anyone would argue for using this data without correction if at all possible.

    It's more than a compelling case for a very basic problem with the earlier temperature data over the tropics.

    Do you understand what the issue is about?

    This is a good story of how new uses and analysis of historic trends of weather balloon data revealed a problem with earlier temperature readings from unshielded thermometers, and scientist attempt to reconstruct corrected temperature fields by incorporating other data using other well accepted physics such as geostrophic, thermal winds and other methods to check for consistency.

    This has advanced use of weather balloon data, not only in the tropic but across the globe as methods have been developed to check for physical inconsistencies between the raw data and well defined physical parameters. Satellites data, which doesn't measure temperature directly are calibrated off layers of weather balloon data and should also improve as a result.

    --

    And sincerely gentlemen this isn't a consensus thread so I request you keep that out of here. We've had several recent threads about that already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Let me educate you:
    Thank you for confirming that the nonsense emenating from you and Megabrain is sourced in the media, not in the science journals.

    Thank you Megabrain for vigorously rejecting Pinn's call to 'rub their noses in it'. There is no need for tempers to rise along with the global temperature.

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaBrain
    I am not too proud that that is the only example I can find, maybe those who re proven wrong don't like to have their research freely published.
    OK, help me out here, please. I feel I've fallen down a rabbit hole into Wonderland. The only research that is valid in this discussion is published research. It is published research I have been asking for in each of my recent posts. Intersting as your newspaper article is, it is not what I asked for, and it is not relevant to a scientific discussion. It is merely a media interpretation of events and comments. I have no confidence in it. I want primary, peer reviewed sources.

    And once they are published they stay published. So if you can't find examples out there, that's because there aren't any.

    By the way, I have no trouble remembering the same hype you refer to about a coming ice age. Guess what, the researchers were correct about it, but as I pointed out in an earlier post, it was always a millenium or two away. The global warming issue we have become aware of has an immediacy that is at least an order of magnitude different, and we only became aware of this more recently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    I am quite free to debate using my memory and impressions only, if you have sound evidence that contradicts these you are free to print them, If I (and others) see that your data is more credible than mine then the debate closes and you succeed in educating/updating my views.

    Having looked for data to back my claims I repeatedly find one requires permission to access academic data. Most new knowledge is bought to our attention initially by the press and media and I am sure you will agree there is some truth in most of it, as a retired individual it is difficult, nay highly unlikely I would be allowed to share raw data, thus I feel I am entitled to form opinions from past experience.

    I do not see that any climatologist (or other scientist ) would publish on the internet 20 year old predictions that failed to materialise. I note you indicate that global warming is a more immediate potential problem, and as I have always said these things may or may not happen. One thing I think you may wish to note is that scientists DO occasionally massage data for their own reasons and often to publish before others, it is traditionally the first to publish who is remembered.

    We probably could trade internet site urls on this but who is to say which is the more credible?

    At this point it is clear that I cannot convince you I am correct, a point I publicly concede, so now it is up to you (if you wish) to convince me that you are correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    the strange thing about climatology is that it is unique amongst the areas of public concern (like other environmental concerns or public health) that the specialists in the field are more concerned that the public at large
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    text moved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I am quite free to debate using my memory and impressions only, if you have sound evidence that contradicts these you are free to print them, If I (and others) see that your data is more credible than mine then the debate closes and you succeed in educating/updating my views.
    It is the convention on all forums I have frequented that when posters are requested for citations to support their contentions then they should do so. Otherwise their contentions become nothing more than opinions. You are the one making the claims that climatologists have routinely (year after year after year) made predictions that are not borne out in reality. Therefore you are the one who needs to produce the supporting data.
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Having looked for data to back my claims I repeatedly find one requires permission to access academic data. .
    Not so. It is true that to access the full article one often requires permission, but the abstract is nearly always available. I did not ask you to provide full articles. I did not even ask you to provide abstracts. I simply asked for you to provide citations, i.e. authors, title, journal, volume, year/month. Here is an example of what I mean.

    Shackleton, N.J. The 100,000-Year Ice-Age Cycle Identified and Found to Lag Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Orbital Eccentricity Science Volume 289, Issue 5486, pp. 1897-1902 (2000).

    And if you wish you can throw in the abstract:

    AbstractThe deep-sea sediment oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) record is dominated by a 100,000-year cyclicity that is universally interpreted as the main ice-age rhythm. Here, the ice volume component of this δ18O signal was extracted by using the record of δ18O in atmospheric oxygen trapped in Antarctic ice at Vostok, precisely orbitally tuned. The benthic marine δ18O record is heavily contaminated by the effect of deep-water temperature variability, but by using the Vostok record, the δ18O signals of ice volume, deep-water temperature, and additional processes affecting air δ18O (that is, a varying Dole effect) were separated. At the 100,000-year period, atmospheric carbon dioxide, Vostok air temperature, and deep-water temperature are in phase with orbital eccentricity, whereas ice volume lags these three variables. Hence, the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice sheet dynamics; instead, it is probably the response of the global carbon cycle that generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

    And give me a link so I know you aren't making it up. :wink:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../289/5486/1897

    Most new knowledge is bought to our attention initially by the press and media and I am sure you will agree there is some truth in most of it
    Some truth, but often deeply buried.
    When I see an article in the media that interests me and is based upon research, then I seek out as much of the original research as I can. Generally this is limited to the abstract, but not always. I can now form a clearer picture as to what extent the news article has been slanted, spun or misalligned.

    I do not see that any climatologist (or other scientist ) would publish on the internet 20 year old predictions that failed to materialise.
    I simply do not understand this statement at all. Forgive me if my next comments appear patronising. I have read many of your posts in other threads and you are clearly well educated in several fields and have some expert knowledge in some areas. You have a solid scientific (or is it engineering?) background and know your way around the internet.

    Therefore, how can you not know that most research journals have placed their archives online with public access of at least the abstracts available to all and full articles available in some instances for free and always for payment?

    The scientist does not publish his twenty year old predictions, they were already published twenty years ago and made accessible on the internet sometime between then and now. If the scientist did not publish those predictions in a peer reviewed journal then they were not predictions, but idle talk show chatter, or self aggrandizing waffle. They certainly were not science.

    Given all this do you see why I am confused by your apparent position?

    At this point it is clear that I cannot convince you I am correct, a point I publicly concede, so now it is up to you (if you wish) to convince me that you are correct.
    :? Excuse me? You are asking me to prove a negative. It doesn't work like that. You claim scientists have routinely made these claims that are later disproven. The onus is on you to demonstrate it. I can post a dozen, a hundred, a thousand examples where it is not the case and it does not prove I am correct. In contrast half a dozen examples from you will prove that you are correct.

    Look. I'll get the ball rolling. Here is a quotation from a research paper written over fifty years ago:

    Glacier studies have given clear indications that we are now in a cycle of warming which began about 1900. This is no academic effect: if the indicated warming continues for another twenty-five to fifty years, the ice will melt out of the Arctic Ocean in the summer, making it navigable.

    Kaplan, J. The Scientific Program of the International Geophysical Year. PNAS Volume 40, 1954, p926 ff

    You can read the entire paper, for free, here:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/40/10/92...0-6239bf08f87c

    Now all you have to do is find some research articles that clearly refute this claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Ok a bit more research and this is what I have discovered.

    1) there is much common talk of "The hole in the Ozone Layer" - just google the NASA site for example.

    Now,

    As far as I am concerned there is NO Ozone 'Layer' - yep, there is a thin dispersal of ozone stretching from almost ground level to almost the edge of space, though it is (as I understand more prevalent) at altitudes, 10-50Km - such figures occur throughout the internet and may be considered accurate in the sense that there is no global outcry denying them.

    After writing that I found this, (at the ozonehole.com).
    Only 10 or less of every million molecules of air are ozone. The majority of these ozone molecules resides in a layer between 10 and 40 kilometers (6 and 25 miles) above the Earth's surface in the stratosphere.

    I contend the term 'ozone layer' is misleading and incorrect if a scientist uses this term then it is not unreasonable for me to question other claims they make - or at least the language they use to communicate their findings.

    The 'hole' turns out NOT to be a hole, (also from above site).

    The ozone "hole" is really a reduction in concentrations of ozone high above the earth in the stratosphere. The ozone hole is defined geographically as the area wherein the total ozone amount is less than 220 Dobson Units. The ozone hole has steadily grown in size (up to 27 million sq. km.) and length of existence (from August through early December) over the past two decades
    I am delighted to see the use of quotes around the word hole.

    So there is NO hole and there is NO ozone layer, (I'll refrain from printing dictionary definitions of those words) what there IS however, is a reduction in the amount of ozone in the atmosphere at the poles.

    If you can discredit the above information please do so.

    I see WilliamPen started this thread in which case I think we might be a little more tolerant of his input.

    As a side, doesw the term 'Cold Fusion' ring any bells with you..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox


    williampinn none of the charts you showed address the issue at hand, which is the temperature trend of the TROPICAL upper troposphere. You didn't even plot the upper troposphere for the global average OR the TROPOCS.
    If I failed at this then so did you. I included a link to the web site so the missing data can be seen. It pretty much resembles what I posted here and shows that the troposphere temperatures aren't keeping pace with the surface temperatures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Just to clarify here, non-climatic biases have been allegedly found in radiosonde data only. They have failed to show that there is anything wrong with the satellite data other than "it does not match our expectations."
    Actually they have if:
    - they show the inconsistency of thermal field with the thermal wind- which has absolutely nothing to do with comparison to climate models.
    The key word you use here is "if."

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    -They showed the problem was mostly a daytime problem,
    -They showed that it coincides in the same area where we know tropical nations used unshielded thermometers before gradually converting in the 1980's to more modern weather balloons.
    This all has to do with radiosonde data, not satellite data. The satallite data still falsifies the anthropogenic warming hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Most of us can understand that a thermometer in the sun is hotter than one in shade it boggles the mind that anyone would argue for using this data without correction if at all possible.
    Most of us can see there is a difference between weather balloons and satellites. It boggles the mind that someone would confuse the corrections of weather balloon data with satellite data that has not been changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's more than a compelling case for a very basic problem with the earlier temperature data over the tropics. Do you understand what the issue is about?
    Yes the issue is data fishing, using adjusted radiosonde data to trump legit satellite data because the satellite data does not support the legend of manmade warming.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    This is a good story of how new uses and analysis of historic trends of weather balloon data revealed a problem with earlier temperature readings from unshielded thermometers, and scientist attempt to reconstruct corrected temperature fields by incorporating other data using other well accepted physics such as geostrophic, thermal winds and other methods to check for consistency.
    But the new radiosonde wind data does not match the satellite data which shows a flat or cooling trend since 1979. It is a good story of how an analysis can be incomplete. The Yale scientists at least had enough professionalism to admit the shortcomings of their work, so I don't know why you need to carry their water.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    This has advanced use of weather balloon data, not only in the tropic but across the globe as methods have been developed to check for physical inconsistencies between the raw data and well defined physical parameters. Satellites data, which doesn't measure temperature directly are calibrated off layers of weather balloon data and should also improve as a result.
    Nice spin, but here are the facts:

    "Since 1979, Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen. The intensity is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere..."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

    You also need to read the fine print that the Yale scientists provided:

    "Wind homogenization had only a small effect, so we are not proposing that our homogenized wind data are significantly better than the raw data."

    So there is no significant improvement. This makes sense given the fact that the radiosonde data they examined failed to include data for the oceans and much of the southern hemisphere. "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Let me educate you:
    Thank you for confirming that the nonsense emenating from you and Megabrain is sourced in the media, not in the science journals.

    Thank you Megabrain for vigorously rejecting Pinn's call to 'rub their noses in it'. There is no need for tempers to rise along with the global temperature.

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaBrain
    I am not too proud that that is the only example I can find, maybe those who re proven wrong don't like to have their research freely published.
    OK, help me out here, please. I feel I've fallen down a rabbit hole into Wonderland. The only research that is valid in this discussion is published research. It is published research I have been asking for in each of my recent posts. Intersting as your newspaper article is, it is not what I asked for, and it is not relevant to a scientific discussion. It is merely a media interpretation of events and comments. I have no confidence in it. I want primary, peer reviewed sources.

    And once they are published they stay published. So if you can't find examples out there, that's because there aren't any.

    By the way, I have no trouble remembering the same hype you refer to about a coming ice age. Guess what, the researchers were correct about it, but as I pointed out in an earlier post, it was always a millenium or two away. The global warming issue we have become aware of has an immediacy that is at least an order of magnitude different, and we only became aware of this more recently.
    OK, thanks for clarifying that media reporting does not qualify. I agree. What the media tells you is mostly garbage...like the impending doom of global warming. Let's look at the published science from the IPCC:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...2-chapter2.pdf

    Under section 2.4.1:

    "...but these methods have not been defined consistently across different research communities."

    Under section 2.4.4 there is the admission that the likelihood of future extreme events is poorly known. These extreme events include heat waves, storms and flooding.

    Another source:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf

    Under section 3.2 they freely admit that they have a limited understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise. Sea levels could rise or fall.

    Now as you can see, they make disclaimers about their lack of understanding of catastrophic events. If you ever bother to read my post you will find I put links in to my sources. Is Yale U good enough for you? I think it is laughable that people like you lap up what the media says, and when someone shows you the media is BS over the last 100 years, you turn against the very spoon that feeds you. Bottom line: the global warming scare is media hype, not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Williamp, quote mining is to be expected from you if your previous "contributions" are to be taken as your standard.

    The full quote from 2.4.4:
    Examples of extreme
    events judged likely or very likely by the end of the century (see
    Table 2.2) that might serve as analogues include the European
    2003 heatwave (see Chapter 12, Section 12.6.1) and flooding
    events related to intense summer precipitation in Bangladesh
    (Mirza, 2003a) and Norway (Næss et al., 2005). Other extreme
    events suggested as potential analogues, but about which the
    likelihood of future changes is poorly known
    (Christensen et al.,
    2007a), include El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-related
    events (Glantz, 2001; Heslop-Thomas et al., 2006) and intense
    precipitation and flooding events in central Europe (Kundzewicz
    et al., 2005).
    Clearly they make distinctions between what would be likely events and which would be less likely, which is good practice, but you just see something that you think might help your campaign and dishonestly quote it without providing context, don't you? Big surprise.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    I think it is laughable that people like you lap up what the media says, and when someone shows you the media is BS over the last 100 years, you turn against the very spoon that feeds you.
    I don't get my knowledge of global warming from the media. I never have. I never will. The two honourable exceptions would be Scientific American and New Scientist. Other than that I'll go, whenever possible, to the published research. This applies to any area of science in which I am interested. (I should add text books as a further source, but since global warming is a dynamic field they aren't too relevant.)

    So, really william, set aside your agenda for a time. Stop trying to insult everyone who disagrees with you. I'd like to focus on the facts. They aren't present in the media in sufficient concentration to be relevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    John Galt,

    Please, after the constant requests for info would you care to reply to my previous post stamped: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:46 am
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Williamp, quote mining is to be expected from you if your previous "contributions" are to be taken as your standard.

    The full quote from 2.4.4:
    Examples of extreme
    events judged likely or very likely by the end of the century (see
    Table 2.2) that might serve as analogues include the European
    2003 heatwave (see Chapter 12, Section 12.6.1) and flooding
    events related to intense summer precipitation in Bangladesh
    (Mirza, 2003a) and Norway (Næss et al., 2005). Other extreme
    events suggested as potential analogues, but about which the
    likelihood of future changes is poorly known
    (Christensen et al.,
    2007a), include El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-related
    events (Glantz, 2001; Heslop-Thomas et al., 2006) and intense
    precipitation and flooding events in central Europe (Kundzewicz
    et al., 2005).
    Clearly they make distinctions between what would be likely events and which would be less likely, which is good practice, but you just see something that you think might help your campaign and dishonestly quote it without providing context, don't you? Big surprise.
    Yes, I do read the fine print. I read the disclaimers and the admissions of poor understanding of events. I take it you don't do any of that. You just blindly accept what you are spoon fed. If you really think I took something out of context, then explain to our readers the true meaning of the words. Your standard is pretty easy to follow: global warming and carbon dioxide are evil; therefore, any evidence to the contrary is also evil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    I think it is laughable that people like you lap up what the media says, and when someone shows you the media is BS over the last 100 years, you turn against the very spoon that feeds you.
    I don't get my knowledge of global warming from the media. I never have. I never will. The two honourable exceptions would be Scientific American and New Scientist. Other than that I'll go, whenever possible, to the published research. This applies to any area of science in which I am interested. (I should add text books as a further source, but since global warming is a dynamic field they aren't too relevant.)

    So, really william, set aside your agenda for a time. Stop trying to insult everyone who disagrees with you. I'd like to focus on the facts. They aren't present in the media in sufficient concentration to be relevant.
    Well I am sorry if the truth insults you. OK, you disagree with my assessment of your sources of information. So why don't you list your sources here for everyone to see?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Your standard is pretty easy to follow: global warming and carbon dioxide are evil; therefore, any evidence to the contrary is also evil.
    Nonsense. In fact, I have NO vested interest in any Global warming scare and would in fact be relieved if it all turned out to be wrong. At the moment, though, the data suggests otherwise.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Your standard is pretty easy to follow: global warming and carbon dioxide are evil; therefore, any evidence to the contrary is also evil.
    Nonsense. In fact, I have NO vested interest in any Global warming scare and would in fact be relieved if it all turned out to be wrong. At the moment, though, the data suggests otherwise.
    The only data that suggests otherwise is the radiosonde wind data which I have thoroughly debunked. The perfectly valid satellite data shows the troposphere not keeping pace with surface temperatures as climate models have predicted. Rather than thank me for giving you a reason to exhale again, you have falsely accused me of taking quotes out of context. You have failed to explain what the words are supposed to really mean.

    If you indeed have no vested interest in the global warming scam, you have a funny way of showing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    John Galt,

    Please, after the constant requests for info would you care to reply to my previous post stamped: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:46 am
    Frankly, I had to read it three times to understand why, after making my case for me, you wished a reply.

    It's very simple. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. When explaining an idea to people not expert on a subject one simplifies. Sometimes one has to oversimplify to get the point across to an audience who lack the time, inclination or intellect for a full explanation.
    By the testimony provided by the quotes in your own post it is very clear that scientists have not claimed in their published research that there is any hole in the ozone layer. That has been a simplification for the general public, a public that can't even understand the offside rule, a simplification that has no practical bearing on what their research is saying.

    You say you are retired, so you must have been round the block a few times, this is not your first rodeo. So the above should come as no surprise to you.

    So your example just doesn't cut it. I ask for an instance of an invalid prediction in peer reviewed literature and you come up with an argument based on a fallacy of identity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Well I am sorry if the truth insults you. OK, you disagree with my assessment of your sources of information. So why don't you list your sources here for everyone to see?
    I am not disagreeing with your assessment of my sources I am informing you that you are mistaken.

    Important as global warming is, it is not an area I spend much time on, so I largely rely upon the IPCC reports. Of the 2007 version I have read only The AR4 Synthesis Report and the Working Group I Report. I only dipped into the reports from working groups 2 and 3, on consequences and on mitigation.

    Since you will already know the website for these devilworshippers who plot the downfall of civilisation as we know it, this url is for the benefit of interested individuals with brains.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

    I also follow up any interesting leads on climate from New Scientist, but generally only those with implications for palaeoclimatology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox


    williampinn none of the charts you showed address the issue at hand, which is the temperature trend of the TROPICAL upper troposphere. You didn't even plot the upper troposphere for the global average OR the TROPOCS.
    If I failed at this then so did you. I included a link to the web site so the missing data can be seen. It pretty much resembles what I posted here and shows that the troposphere temperatures aren't keeping pace with the surface temperatures.

    ...
    Nice spin, but here are the facts:

    "Since 1979, Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen. The intensity is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere..."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements
    How do you think satellite data is calibrated? How do you think they validated that the satellite data was correct? Using either radiative transfer models (which I've worked on) or weighting functions between microwave frequencies being measured they are compared and confirmed to the only other set available--which is weather balloon temperatures.

    Whatever systemic errors are in the weather balloons temperature record, are automatically in the satellite data because that is what they are calibrated to. And as we've already shown we know for certain that tropical weather balloon data had a strong warming bias before they were gradually shielded in the 80s.

    Since you haven't discussed the tropics, which started this thread, I'll bring in other inherent problems with satellite data, specifically that the weightings of channels, particularly channel MSU2, includes the lower stratosphere, which is getting significantly colder. Those broad layers (which aren't really proportional--but roughly so--I guess I'll edit wiki) are indeed so broad that they are taking in the stratosphere changes as well as the troposphere.

    The following piece explained the problem better than I could in an idle few minutes:

    --
    Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred
    tropospheric temperature trends Qiang Fu1, Celeste M. Johanson1, Stephen G. Warren1 & Dian J. Seidel2

    From 1979 to 2001, temperatures observed globally by the midtropospheric
    channel of the satellite-borne Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU channel 2), as well as the inferred temperatures in the lower troposphere, show only small warming trends of less than 0.1K per decade (refs 1–3). Surface temperatures based on in situ observations however, exhibit a larger warming of ,0.17K per decade (refs 4, 5), and global climate models forced by combined anthropogenic and natural factors project an increase in tropospheric temperatures that is somewhat larger than the surface temperature increase6–8. Here we show that trends in MSU
    channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend9 offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. We quantify the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures.
    The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from satellite data is physically consistent with the observed surface temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is ,1.6 times the surface warming, as expected
    for a moist adiabatic lapse rate.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...524-UW-MSU.pdf
    --

    This is why satellite derived temperatures, just as weather balloon corrections have been going through several iterations over the past 20 years--they have boot strapped each other and are now much more consistent with each other and other physical dynamic limitations (e.g. thermal wind, area lapse rate <= moist rate etc) than they were even ten years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The only data that suggests otherwise is the radiosonde wind data which I have thoroughly debunked.
    That you imagine this to be true is just funny. You have NO idea about the methods used and when they are explained to you, you cry foul. You have obviously been pissed off by the type of sensationalist reporting one regularly expects from the media and for some reason you have decided to throw all proponents of AGW into the same camp. It has been explained to you why not everybody's comments should be taken at face value, but that has still not been enough for you. Now you have resorted to sifting through the internet and the IPCC reports for any one line or out of context quote that you could possibly use for your campaign. Instead of your continued arrogance and dismissive attitude, why don't you just sit and go through the data and try to bury your prejudice. I know you love thinking of yourself as not just another one of the mindless masses that believe everything they hear, but in this case you are going about it all wrong. Listen to what the experts are saying in fully peer reviewed journals or read the full IPCC report (Lynx has been trying to help you with this, showing amazing constraint) and then form an opinion. Try to understand the basics of the methodology used and the science behind their conclusions before attacking them.

    Rather than thank me for giving you a reason to exhale again, you have falsely accused me of taking quotes out of context. You have failed to explain what the words are supposed to really mean.
    The quote from the IPCC report I made clearly shows the correct context of your misleading quote. Your single line quote gave the impression that the experts acknowledge that models give "poorly known" odds. The context actually was that they know which predictions are unclear, but that there are others which are much more likely to come true. They also referred you to the section where you can go and check them for yourself.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    I think it is laughable that people like you lap up what the media says, and when someone shows you the media is BS over the last 100 years, you turn against the very spoon that feeds you.
    I don't get my knowledge of global warming from the media. I never have. I never will. The two honourable exceptions would be Scientific American and New Scientist. Other than that I'll go, whenever possible, to the published research. This applies to any area of science in which I am interested. (I should add text books as a further source, but since global warming is a dynamic field they aren't too relevant.)

    So, really william, set aside your agenda for a time. Stop trying to insult everyone who disagrees with you. I'd like to focus on the facts. They aren't present in the media in sufficient concentration to be relevant.
    And for me, I see the published research and go the other way. No doubts here. Those clowns don't know hydrogen from oxygen.

    So it is a Mexican standoff. The only problem is we know for sure form history when there is a controversy that makes it into the public eye, almost always the main body of scientists is proven wrong. By all historical information we have.

    All that happens from all that effort by the few good souls, is that an insane pack of lazy losers, backs down resentfully, but usually and resentfully ruins other data somewhere else.

    The real scientists knew we could go to the moon before World War Two. The poor scientists and scholars thought it was just way to much work. Way to much calculating. Look at the right brothers, they had to beg borrow and steal, to get funds to fly. Where were the predicting scientists? Out in the garage with the Wright brothers? No, somewhere else with their heads stuck up their butts. Claiming flight was for birds.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And for me, I see the published research and go the other way. No doubts here. Those clowns don't know hydrogen from oxygen.
    Quite true. The silly bastards have been breathing oxygen instead of hydrogen and it's fried their brains. Wright William?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And for me, I see the published research and go the other way. No doubts here. Those clowns don't know hydrogen from oxygen.
    says the person who thinks that the formula for ammonia is NO2 ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Well I am sorry if the truth insults you. OK, you disagree with my assessment of your sources of information. So why don't you list your sources here for everyone to see?
    I am not disagreeing with your assessment of my sources I am informing you that you are mistaken.

    Important as global warming is, it is not an area I spend much time on, so I largely rely upon the IPCC reports. Of the 2007 version I have read only The AR4 Synthesis Report and the Working Group I Report. I only dipped into the reports from working groups 2 and 3, on consequences and on mitigation.

    Since you will already know the website for these devilworshippers who plot the downfall of civilisation as we know it, this url is for the benefit of interested individuals with brains.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

    I also follow up any interesting leads on climate from New Scientist, but generally only those with implications for palaeoclimatology.
    Ok then. So you are probably familiar with their probability projections and disclaimers. I too have read some of their reports. (Not all of us are conspiracy theorists and devil worshipers). However, the IPCC is hanging by a thread at the moment. That thread is the new radiosonde wind data. Without it, there is no empirical evidence at all to support the anthropogenic warming theory. Prior to that dataset, there was the satellite data and radiosonde temp data. Both datasets show a cooling trend in the troposphere where the greenhouse effect is supposed to be making it very warm. In other words, the established data falsifies the theory. I have written about this in my post, but you have utterly failed to address any of it. Instead you come here and post your political opinions on the issue. Now you claim you read IPCC reports. Maybe you do; maybe you don't, but you sure missed the cutting edge story that my post is about. If I am right about the datafishing, manmade global warming is done!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    How do you think satellite data is calibrated? How do you think they validated that the satellite data was correct? Using either radiative transfer models (which I've worked on) or weighting functions between microwave frequencies being measured they are compared and confirmed to the only other set available--which is weather balloon temperatures.
    Calibration is relative, isn't it? A cooling trend would show up in any case because the temperatures would be cooler relative to the starting point. And now there is a new problem: the satellite data does not match this new radiosonde wind data. The old temperature data has served the weather service well for years, so why tamper with it now? Because it does not match the precious climate models.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Whatever systemic errors are in the weather balloons temperature record, are automatically in the satellite data because that is what they are calibrated to. And as we've already shown we know for certain that tropical weather balloon data had a strong warming bias before they were gradually shielded in the 80s.
    Well if you read the paper carefully, that is an assumption. But for the sake of argument, let's assume the assumption is true. Here is the problem: when scientists looked at that tropopheric data after the shielding, how could any of them conclude that anthropogenic warming was a fact? Whether or not they knew some years back that the data was flawed, in any case, they had no empirical evidence to establish that the greenhouse effect was happening. So either they lied to the public then, or they are lying now, or they were too stupid to notice until recently the descrepancy between the data and models. There is an old saying: You can't eat your data and have it too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from satellite data is physically consistent with the observed surface temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is ,1.6 times the surface warming, as expected
    for a moist adiabatic lapse rate.
    So they rewrote the data history to match climate models rather than rewrite climate models to fit the data history. We can't have the data debunking the climate models, now can we. LOL!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The only data that suggests otherwise is the radiosonde wind data which I have thoroughly debunked.
    That you imagine this to be true is just funny. You have NO idea about the methods used and when they are explained to you, you cry foul. You have obviously been pissed off by the type of sensationalist reporting one regularly expects from the media and for some reason you have decided to throw all proponents of AGW into the same camp. It has been explained to you why not everybody's comments should be taken at face value, but that has still not been enough for you. Now you have resorted to sifting through the internet and the IPCC reports for any one line or out of context quote that you could possibly use for your campaign. Instead of your continued arrogance and dismissive attitude, why don't you just sit and go through the data and try to bury your prejudice. I know you love thinking of yourself as not just another one of the mindless masses that believe everything they hear, but in this case you are going about it all wrong. Listen to what the experts are saying in fully peer reviewed journals or read the full IPCC report (Lynx has been trying to help you with this, showing amazing constraint) and then form an opinion. Try to understand the basics of the methodology used and the science behind their conclusions before attacking them.
    Been there, done that. Try to keep up, OK? Try reading my post, the sources I provided, then try making a point-by-point rebuttle. Lynx is at least attempting to do that. I have to give that to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The quote from the IPCC report I made clearly shows the correct context of your misleading quote. Your single line quote gave the impression that the experts acknowledge that models give "poorly known" odds. The context actually was that they know which predictions are unclear, but that there are others which are much more likely to come true. They also referred you to the section where you can go and check them for yourself.
    If that is true, I didn't take anything out of context. The IPCC admits its poor understanding of catastrophic events. Even if I did take something out of context, your charge is silly since I also provide the links so people can read the full text. So what would I gain? Are you some sort of conspiracy theorist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    I think it is laughable that people like you lap up what the media says, and when someone shows you the media is BS over the last 100 years, you turn against the very spoon that feeds you.
    I don't get my knowledge of global warming from the media. I never have. I never will. The two honourable exceptions would be Scientific American and New Scientist. Other than that I'll go, whenever possible, to the published research. This applies to any area of science in which I am interested. (I should add text books as a further source, but since global warming is a dynamic field they aren't too relevant.)

    So, really william, set aside your agenda for a time. Stop trying to insult everyone who disagrees with you. I'd like to focus on the facts. They aren't present in the media in sufficient concentration to be relevant.
    And for me, I see the published research and go the other way. No doubts here. Those clowns don't know hydrogen from oxygen.

    So it is a Mexican standoff. The only problem is we know for sure form history when there is a controversy that makes it into the public eye, almost always the main body of scientists is proven wrong. By all historical information we have.

    All that happens from all that effort by the few good souls, is that an insane pack of lazy losers, backs down resentfully, but usually and resentfully ruins other data somewhere else.

    The real scientists knew we could go to the moon before World War Two. The poor scientists and scholars thought it was just way to much work. Way to much calculating. Look at the right brothers, they had to beg borrow and steal, to get funds to fly. Where were the predicting scientists? Out in the garage with the Wright brothers? No, somewhere else with their heads stuck up their butts. Claiming flight was for birds.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick

    LOL! You are right. The consensus never create anything new; they just cling to the old for dear life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    The old temperature data has served the weather service well for years, so why tamper with it now? Because it does not match the precious climate models.
    Actually while you say that, getting consistent error free initial conditions has always been a significant problem with weather models. Often due to instrument or human errors the radiosonde data did not even match itself (violated physical and dynamic parameters such as excessive lapse rates). And there's always been an entire kit bag of techniques used to process radiosonde input to set the initial conditions of weather models.

    Applications of these techniques to process initial data, inclusion and comparison to other sources and expected values as well as big improvements to the models themselves have allowed large improvements to weather models over the past 10-15 years. According to one UK study weather forecast accuracy has improved by a full day over their island in the past ten years.


    The link below provides a quick summation of some of the popular ones including 1) Successive corrections methods; 2) Nudging methods; 3) Optimal Interpolation (OI) method/Least-squares methods
    http://www.atmos.millersville.edu/~l...imilation.html

    To use your words, weather balloon data has always been "tampered" with because it's always had problems and it's raw data has never served the weather service well--it's not new or something that started with climate models.

    Below is an presentation that's less technical read than the nature paper and does a pretty good job laying out what satellites measure, how they derive temperatures, and adjustments to satellite data to filter out the stratosphere.

    http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/d...5CarlMears.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    The old temperature data has served the weather service well for years, so why tamper with it now? Because it does not match the precious climate models.
    Actually while you say that, getting consistent error free initial conditions has always been a significant problem with weather models. Often due to instrument or human errors the radiosonde data did not even match itself (violated physical and dynamic parameters such as excessive lapse rates). And there's always been an entire kit bag of techniques used to process radiosonde input to set the initial conditions of weather models.

    Applications of these techniques to process initial data, inclusion and comparison to other sources and expected values as well as big improvements to the models themselves have allowed large improvements to weather models over the past 10-15 years. According to one UK study weather forecast accuracy has improved by a full day over their island in the past ten years.


    The link below provides a quick summation of some of the popular ones including 1) Successive corrections methods; 2) Nudging methods; 3) Optimal Interpolation (OI) method/Least-squares methods
    http://www.atmos.millersville.edu/~l...imilation.html

    To use your words, weather balloon data has always been "tampered" with because it's always had problems and it's raw data has never served the weather service well--it's not new or something that started with climate models.

    Below is an presentation that's less technical read than the nature paper and does a pretty good job laying out what satellites measure, how they derive temperatures, and adjustments to satellite data to filter out the stratosphere.

    http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/d...5CarlMears.pdf
    That is all fine and dandy, but the question you keep avoiding is how can anyone look at that mess and conclude that there was a warming trend caused by carbon dioxide, before the tropospheric data was tampered with...er...adjusted? Why didn't the Yale scientists also adjust the surface data? Why have they failed to adjust the climate models? Surely climate models and surface data have their problems too. I think the answer is pretty obvious: the scientists are biased.

    Another issue you side step is the Yale scientists' admission that the new wind data isn't much better than the raw data. (I assume they mean the original temperature data.)

    Another issue you side step and avoid is their admission that the so-called need to adjust the data was based on an assumption that the data was corrupted. Maybe I missed something, but when did they perform any experiments to establish that the data was corrupt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Why do you keep mixing the entire troposphere with the tropical troposphere, which was the subject of the Yale study? The tropical upper troposphere was the only place there wasn't already some agreement in trends between satellite, radiosonde and model projections. While curious, even with the absence of further adjustment wouldn't and didn't torpedo the hypothesis of man-made warming but precipitated inquiries as to why. Well starting about ten years ago exploration of trying to resolve that question revealed problems with the radiosonde data as well as some additional problems with how the satellites derived temperatures--namely its inclusion of stratospheric cooling in its troposphere derived temperatures. Now with the adjustments to both types of data there is much better agreement and consistency between the data sets--that is a good thing.

    Though climate sciences help identify the problems, these improvements toward better consistency would have been made eventually, irrespective of climate models, as part of wanting to integrate both weather balloon and satellite data into short term weather forecast models.

    Maybe I missed something, but when did they perform any experiments to establish that the data was corrupt?
    Ya I'm frustrated too...kinda pissed that I haven't seen anything like you ask. But perhaps you can turn this into an opportunity to make your own contributions!

    As one experiment you can set a thermometer in the sun for 30+ minutes it takes for a weather balloon to get to the upper troposphere and see if it reads higher than one that's shaded. You won't even need the usual precaution of "don't try this at home." Just be careful not to break the thermometer if it's liquid; or if you do please wash your hands before eating a sandwich so you don't ingest the mercury.

    You can also run a experiment to validate the assumption that vertical temperature gradient shouldn't be higher than adiabatic lapse rate. This will be a bit harder. You could perhaps insulate an air compressor, allow to come to room temperature, and record the pressure. Discharge the entire tank and measure the temperature. This will be messy but you could also saturate the interior air somehow, perhaps by adding water to the tank. Run your experiments--if the discharge turns out colder than the thermodynamic equations predict than perhaps you'll be able to undue 200 years of science! Heck you'll be more famous than Fleischmann and Pons...(or are they infamous?)

    Let us know how it turns out.
    --

    I don't think I can explain the history of reconciling the satellite temperatures, with the radiosonde readings and radiosonde adjustments as it was being applied to the climate sciences any better. These adjustments simply make sense and in large part are being accepted across the atmospheric sciences in one form or another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    It's very simple. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.
    In my experience the guy who starts throwing the insults is clearly always the loser.

    I accept your right to believe every published article, others respect mine to question them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And for me, I see the published research and go the other way. No doubts here. Those clowns don't know hydrogen from oxygen.
    says the person who thinks that the formula for ammonia is NO2 ?
    Since nitrogen has no reason to bond with hydrogen, I would have to say at least it is not NH3.

    Since nitric acid used to be NO3, and nitrous oxide was labeled NO4, and ammonium nitrate was NO5 at least in my area. I am going to stick with those substances and formulas as I learned them. Because the rest of the world is just getting up to speed on where Long Island was, in the sixties.

    I learned ammonia as NO2, hauled it as NO2. When I removed the last bottles of Mallincrodt Ammonia from those schools labs, during the summers of 1991 and 1992.

    I learned the dangers of handling ammonia as NO2, as a HAZMAT professional. The dangers that others do not face because it is not NO2 to them.

    Again most scientists say it is NH3, I am thinking you can put your money safely on NO2 just by the large number of modern scientists saying it is NH3.

    The modern scientists have no impressive evidence, other then them saying "everyone thinks it is NH3". Or it has been labeled NH3 for a hundred years. Both totally non-scientific arguments.

    I on the other hand, know that if it was NH3 it would be highly flammable. I know it would not destroy grease if it was NH3. I know it would not form an explosive with aromatic hydrocarbons.

    What are some of your amazing arguments for it being NH3. Where did you learn about the Nitrogen hydrogen bond? What are the reasons for such a bond?

    Look at the specific gravity of liquid oxygen, the formula for liquid oxygen is O2, and yet its specific gravity is just slightly above that of water, H2O. So to me it is very possible that the second oxygen atom, attached to the nitrogen does not cause a lot of weight. The third does as in nitric acid.






    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And for me, I see the published research and go the other way. No doubts here. Those clowns don't know hydrogen from oxygen.
    says the person who thinks that the formula for ammonia is NO2 ?
    Since nitrogen has no reason to bond with hydrogen, I would have to say at least it is not NH3.

    Since nitric acid used to be NO3, and nitrous oxide was labeled NO4, and ammonium nitrate was NO5 at least in my area. I am going to stick with those substances and formulas as I learned them. Because the rest of the world is just getting up to speed on where Long Island was, in the sixties.

    I learned ammonia as NO2, hauled it as NO2. When I removed the last bottles of Mallincrodt Ammonia from those schools labs, during the summers of 1991 and 1992.

    I learned the dangers of handling ammonia as NO2, as a HAZMAT professional. The dangers that others do not face because it is not NO2 to them.

    Again most scientists say it is NH3, I am thinking you can put your money safely on NO2 just by the large number of modern scientists saying it is NH3.

    The modern scientists have no impressive evidence, other then them saying "everyone thinks it is NH3". Or it has been labeled NH3 for a hundred years. Both totally non-scientific arguments.

    I on the other hand, know that if it was NH3 it would be highly flammable. I know it would not destroy grease if it was NH3. I know it would not form an explosive with aromatic hydrocarbons.

    What are some of your amazing arguments for it being NH3. Where did you learn about the Nitrogen hydrogen bond? What are the reasons for such a bond?

    Look at the specific gravity of liquid oxygen, the formula for liquid oxygen is O2, and yet its specific gravity is just slightly above that of water, H2O. So to me it is very possible that the second oxygen atom, attached to the nitrogen does not cause a lot of weight. The third does as in nitric acid.






    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Scientist have no evidence that ammonia is NH3? Its a name! I can't prove a cat is called a cat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Why do you keep mixing the entire troposphere with the tropical troposphere, which was the subject of the Yale study? The tropical upper troposphere was the only place there wasn't already some agreement in trends between satellite, radiosonde and model projections. While curious, even with the absence of further adjustment wouldn't and didn't torpedo the hypothesis of man-made warming but precipitated inquiries as to why. Well starting about ten years ago exploration of trying to resolve that question revealed problems with the radiosonde data as well as some additional problems with how the satellites derived temperatures--namely its inclusion of stratospheric cooling in its troposphere derived temperatures. Now with the adjustments to both types of data there is much better agreement and consistency between the data sets--that is a good thing.
    I don't recall them limiting the study to the tropical troposphere. If that was the intent, they really blew it! They disclosed that the coverage of the radiosonde data did not include oceans and much of the southern hemisphere. Africa and South America, etc. is where most of the tropics are located--they are in the southern hemisphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Though climate sciences help identify the problems, these improvements toward better consistency would have been made eventually, irrespective of climate models, as part of wanting to integrate both weather balloon and satellite data into short term weather forecast models.
    There is no consistency at all. I read there are something like 7000 weather stations with radiosonde equipment. They examined only 300 in the northern hemisphere--away from the tropics! They examined only 30 in the southern hemisphere. The margin of error must be rediculous at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Maybe I missed something, but when did they perform any experiments to establish that the data was corrupt?
    Ya I'm frustrated too...kinda pissed that I haven't seen anything like you ask. But perhaps you can turn this into an opportunity to make your own contributions!
    As one experiment you can set a thermometer in the sun for 30+ minutes it takes for a weather balloon to get to the upper troposphere and see if it reads higher than one that's shaded. You won't even need the usual precaution of "don't try this at home." Just be careful not to break the thermometer if it's liquid; or if you do please wash your hands before eating a sandwich so you don't ingest the mercury.
    LOL! The logic of the hypothesis is sound. It seems reasonable that a shaded thermometer would read cooler than an unshaded one, but then maybe the shaded one protects against a cold wind which would cause it to have a higher reading than the one exposed. Now maybe you see the folly of making assumptions based on sound science. Even if the hypothesis is correct, it only covers pre-1979 data. If we only look at the satellite data from 1979 to the present, there is still a flat to cooling trend in the troposphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Let us know how it turns out.
    That should be your job, not mine. Always do experiments even if you are 100% sure your hypothesis is correct.
    --
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I don't think I can explain the history of reconciling the satellite temperatures, with the radiosonde readings and radiosonde adjustments as it was being applied to the climate sciences any better. These adjustments simply make sense and in large part are being accepted across the atmospheric sciences in one form or another.
    Well why shouldn't the atmospheric sciences accept it? Think of the jobs and infrastructure that depend on the legend staying alive. Heaven help you guys if the truth ever gets out. (There are atmospheric scientists who are highly critical too. You can find them on the web.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    That should be your job, not mine. Always do experiments even if you are 100% sure your hypothesis is correct.
    Gary with all due respect with you suggesting we rerun experiments to determine if the sun will really heat a unshielded thermometer and suggesting we use the heated thermometer data rather than make corrections based on other available information...well it's pretty hard to take you seriously anymore.

    That kind of foolishness might work in other forums that you spammed the same article that don't have the advantage of scientifically minded critical thinkers but it shouldn't work here.

    This is a low point for this forum.

    I'm done here.

    Ray
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    That should be your job, not mine. Always do experiments even if you are 100% sure your hypothesis is correct.
    Gary with all due respect with you suggesting we rerun experiments to determine if the sun will really heat a unshielded thermometer and suggesting we use the heated thermometer data rather than make corrections based on other available information...well it's pretty hard to take you seriously anymore.

    This is a low point for this forum.

    I'm done here.
    (Playing taps on the trumpet.) I never suggested the sun won't make a thermometer hotter; I suggested that a shielded thermometer might be protected from a cold wind and thus warmer than one that is not shielded. No need to test how sun and wind affect thermometers. What needs to be tested and discovered is which of those two scenarios comes into play most often, or maybe there is some hidden variable. You don't know until you perform experiments.

    The hypothesis was "the sun caused the thermometers to be hotter" not "the sun makes thermometers hotter." There is a difference. The latter statement is obvious, the former is not. For all we know the sun was blocked by clouds and a cold wind was blowing on those exposed thermonmeters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    It's very simple. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.
    In my experience the guy who starts throwing the insults is clearly always the loser.
    Once again Megabrain you have completely lost me. Who is throwing insults. The acronym KISS is, as far as I was aware, commonplace amongst anyone who has to explain anything to anybody in a classroom setting, or a boardroom, in politics, or to the press.

    The final S, for Stupid, is there for two reasons. It makes the acronym more memorable. The Stupid reminds the user that his grasp of the subject is only as good as it is because (s)he has been studying it longer than the audience.

    My only fault here was in assuming you would be familiar with this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Africa and South America, etc. is where most of the tropics are located--they are in the southern hemisphere.
    last time i looked africa and south america were straddling the equator with substantial portions both in the northern and southern hemisphere

    just because they're located south of where you live doesn't make them the southern hemisphere
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Africa and South America, etc. is where most of the tropics are located--they are in the southern hemisphere.
    last time i looked africa and south america were straddling the equator with substantial portions both in the northern and southern hemisphere

    just because they're located south of where you live doesn't make them the southern hemisphere
    But they are in the southern hemisphere. You said so yourself. Read my words carefully then read yours carefully.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i read your words very clearly : "Africa and South America, etc. is where most of the tropics are located--they are in the southern hemisphere."

    when someone says that a continent is in the southern hemisphere, i would expect to find a continent that is completely confined to that half of the globe like Australia or Antarctica

    if you meant to say that part of those continents lie in the southern hemisphere, then you should have said so - but you haven't
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    (Playing taps on the trumpet.) I never suggested the sun won't make a thermometer hotter; I suggested that a shielded thermometer might be protected from a cold wind and thus warmer than one that is not shielded.
    Wind has almost no effect on a rawinsonde thermometers for two reasons:
    1) Wind does not change the ambient temperature which a thermometer measures--it only comes into effect if theirs large thermal inertia, which isn't the case here.

    2) The weather balloon rises with the wind meaning the relative wind is near zero other than the near constant speed of it rising.

    The "cold wind" wind idea doesn't hold any credibility.

    But we can go into a thread about basic meteorological instruments if you wish--good info before we get into thermal winds etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The "cold wind" wind idea doesn't hold any credibility.
    No wind chill factor in other words, since the thermometer does not produce heat on its own and can never drop below ambient temps?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Correct, a dry thermometer in a 100mph wind will record the same temperature as a thermometer in no wind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And for me, I see the published research and go the other way. No doubts here. Those clowns don't know hydrogen from oxygen.
    says the person who thinks that the formula for ammonia is NO2 ?
    Since nitrogen has no reason to bond with hydrogen, I would have to say at least it is not NH3.

    Since nitric acid used to be NO3, and nitrous oxide was labeled NO4, and ammonium nitrate was NO5 at least in my area. I am going to stick with those substances and formulas as I learned them. Because the rest of the world is just getting up to speed on where Long Island was, in the sixties.

    I learned ammonia as NO2, hauled it as NO2. When I removed the last bottles of Mallincrodt Ammonia from those schools labs, during the summers of 1991 and 1992.

    I learned the dangers of handling ammonia as NO2, as a HAZMAT professional. The dangers that others do not face because it is not NO2 to them.

    Again most scientists say it is NH3, I am thinking you can put your money safely on NO2 just by the large number of modern scientists saying it is NH3.

    The modern scientists have no impressive evidence, other then them saying "everyone thinks it is NH3". Or it has been labeled NH3 for a hundred years. Both totally non-scientific arguments.

    I on the other hand, know that if it was NH3 it would be highly flammable. I know it would not destroy grease if it was NH3. I know it would not form an explosive with aromatic hydrocarbons.

    What are some of your amazing arguments for it being NH3. Where did you learn about the Nitrogen hydrogen bond? What are the reasons for such a bond?

    Look at the specific gravity of liquid oxygen, the formula for liquid oxygen is O2, and yet its specific gravity is just slightly above that of water, H2O. So to me it is very possible that the second oxygen atom, attached to the nitrogen does not cause a lot of weight. The third does as in nitric acid.






    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Scientist have no evidence that ammonia is NH3? Its a name! I can't prove a cat is called a cat.

    NH3 is not a name. It is supposed to represent an exact chemical composition.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    The old temperature data has served the weather service well for years, so why tamper with it now? Because it does not match the precious climate models.
    Actually while you say that, getting consistent error free initial conditions has always been a significant problem with weather models. Often due to instrument or human errors the radiosonde data did not even match itself (violated physical and dynamic parameters such as excessive lapse rates). And there's always been an entire kit bag of techniques used to process radiosonde input to set the initial conditions of weather models.

    Applications of these techniques to process initial data, inclusion and comparison to other sources and expected values as well as big improvements to the models themselves have allowed large improvements to weather models over the past 10-15 years. According to one UK study weather forecast accuracy has improved by a full day over their island in the past ten years.


    The link below provides a quick summation of some of the popular ones including 1) Successive corrections methods; 2) Nudging methods; 3) Optimal Interpolation (OI) method/Least-squares methods
    http://www.atmos.millersville.edu/~l...imilation.html

    To use your words, weather balloon data has always been "tampered" with because it's always had problems and it's raw data has never served the weather service well--it's not new or something that started with climate models.

    Below is an presentation that's less technical read than the nature paper and does a pretty good job laying out what satellites measure, how they derive temperatures, and adjustments to satellite data to filter out the stratosphere.

    http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/d...5CarlMears.pdf

    And yet those balloons serve as early warning for storms if I am not mistaken.

    They can also foretell of other weather conditions. But to count on them for precise global temperature monitoring, to me would be kind of far fetched. If you are looking for a degree plus or minus.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    (Playing taps on the trumpet.) I never suggested the sun won't make a thermometer hotter; I suggested that a shielded thermometer might be protected from a cold wind and thus warmer than one that is not shielded.
    Wind has almost no effect on a rawinsonde thermometers for two reasons:
    1) Wind does not change the ambient temperature which a thermometer measures--it only comes into effect if theirs large thermal inertia, which isn't the case here.

    2) The weather balloon rises with the wind meaning the relative wind is near zero other than the near constant speed of it rising.

    The "cold wind" wind idea doesn't hold any credibility.

    But we can go into a thread about basic meteorological instruments if you wish--good info before we get into thermal winds etc.
    Oh puh-leez! Are you saying that if a cold wind blows on an exposed thermometer it will have no effect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i read your words very clearly : "Africa and South America, etc. is where most of the tropics are located--they are in the southern hemisphere."

    when someone says that a continent is in the southern hemisphere, i would expect to find a continent that is completely confined to that half of the globe like Australia or Antarctica

    if you meant to say that part of those continents lie in the southern hemisphere, then you should have said so - but you haven't
    Logic 101: Saying that A is B is not the same as saying A is only B. Thus the continents I mentioned are in the southern hemisphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The "cold wind" wind idea doesn't hold any credibility.
    No wind chill factor in other words, since the thermometer does not produce heat on its own and can never drop below ambient temps?
    Consider this scenario: it's a hot summer day; your thermometer reads 100 degrees. Suddenly a strong cool breeze blows and hits your thermometer. Does the temperature reading stay contstant?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Suddenly a strong cool breeze blows and hits your thermometer.
    Yeah, but what qualifies as a cool breeze? What might feel like a cool breeze to us could simply be wind chill factor. That is, the air close to our skin is warmer than the prevailing air temperature due to conduction. If a wind blows that layer is constantly swept away and replaced with cooler air, lowering the constant temperature and you get a chill. While all of this is happening the air temperature has not changed at all. If the thermometer was producing its own heat or have been baking in the sun for a while, then it will also experience a wind chill, since it has been registering the wrong temperature the whole time. That is why they have been insulated and the new ones better than the older ones (I presume?).
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    Oh puh-leez! Are you saying that if a cold wind blows on an exposed thermometer it will have no effect?
    Depends what you mean by "cold wind." If you're talking about the common definition, it usually means a wind of the same temperature blowing against the skin. The skin feels cooler and hence the idea behind wind chill which is a crude measurement of how fast heat is transferred from your body's mass to the air. A thermometer under the same conditions will remain completely uneffected, the temperature will stay the same because there has been no actual change in temperature.

    Furthermore weather balloon thermometers have very litte mass to hold heat, produce none on their own have very low lag times of less than 5 seconds. Lastly as pointed out already, if a wind strikes a weather balloon the balloon will adjust velocity to match the wind velocity--tracking its location is how we determine the wind speed as it rises. Whatever instruments are aboard experience near zero relative wind speed regardless of the tempest the balloon is rising through.

    The "cold wind" idea doesn't work.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Suddenly a strong cool breeze blows and hits your thermometer.
    Yeah, but what qualifies as a cool breeze? What might feel like a cool breeze to us could simply be wind chill factor. That is, the air close to our skin is warmer than the prevailing air temperature due to conduction. If a wind blows that layer is constantly swept away and replaced with cooler air, lowering the constant temperature and you get a chill. While all of this is happening the air temperature has not changed at all. If the thermometer was producing its own heat or have been baking in the sun for a while, then it will also experience a wind chill, since it has been registering the wrong temperature the whole time. That is why they have been insulated and the new ones better than the older ones (I presume?).
    Well that's weird because I could have sworn my outdoor thermometer dropped when the arctic wind blew on it. (It is in a shady spot.) I presume that an exposed thermometer would be subject to all the elements, not just the sun.

    "It might help with the air conditioning bill," he says. "Instead of it being 85 in the afternoon, it's 83. That's nice. "
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...as-globe-warms

    Well I guess the thermometer does really cool when exposed to a cool breeze. Go figure!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    Oh puh-leez! Are you saying that if a cold wind blows on an exposed thermometer it will have no effect?
    Depends what you mean by "cold wind." If you're talking about the common definition, it usually means a wind of the same temperature blowing against the skin.
    The key word you're using is "usually." Well isn't wind caused by warm and cold air? Here's a quote from an article I was reading:

    "It might help with the air conditioning bill," he says. "Instead of it being 85 in the afternoon, it's 83. That's nice. "
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...as-globe-warms

    It being a cool breeze. Note that the temperature drops from 85 to 83. So apart from your narrow definition of "wind," a cool breeze can affect an exposed thermometer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Lastly as pointed out already, if a wind strikes a weather balloon the balloon will adjust velocity to match the wind velocity--tracking its location is how we determine the wind speed as it rises. Whatever instruments are aboard experience near zero relative wind speed regardless of the tempest the balloon is rising through.

    The "cold wind" idea doesn't work.
    You are assuming the wind isn't bringing any cool air to the thermometer. The article I cited above discusses how the coasts of California are bringing cool breezes inland thus cooling thermometers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    You are assuming the wind isn't bringing any cool air to the thermometer. The article I cited above discusses how the coasts of California are bringing cool breezes inland thus cooling thermometers.
    I was trying to get to what you meant. Now that I know you're discussing actual temperature we can continue.

    The reaction lag, that is the speed their measurement would adjust to the actual temperature, hasn't changed by much between the 70s and later. The lag of either thermistors so short ( a few seconds) it essentially doesn't matter; both were good at measuring sharp changes in temperature as the balloon ascended.

    The shielding difference between the 1970's and more modern thermistors used in weather balloons amounted to coating the ceramic a shiny white so direct sunshine didn't effect them. (See Figure 2 of http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/59003.pdf) Because the older models didn't have this coating, they were prone to radiation heating of direct sunshine which gave them a warm bias compared to the actual temperatures of the newer instruments.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    You are assuming the wind isn't bringing any cool air to the thermometer. The article I cited above discusses how the coasts of California are bringing cool breezes inland thus cooling thermometers.
    I was trying to get to what you meant. Now that I know you're discussing actual temperature we can continue.

    The reaction lag, that is the speed their measurement would adjust to the actual temperature, hasn't changed by much between the 70s and later. The lag of either thermistors so short ( a few seconds) it essentially doesn't matter; both were good at measuring sharp changes in temperature as the balloon ascended.

    The shielding difference between the 1970's and more modern thermistors used in weather balloons amounted to coating the ceramic a shiny white so direct sunshine didn't effect them. (See Figure 2 of http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/59003.pdf) Because the older models didn't have this coating, they were prone to radiation heating of direct sunshine which gave them a warm bias compared to the actual temperatures of the newer instruments.
    So it looks as though the thermometers are exposed to elements other than sunlight. The problem I have with the radiosonde wind data is it only involves around 300 samples in the northern hemisphere and about 30 in the southern hemisphere with no coverage of the oceans. According to NASA's data, the nothern hemisphere, the land especially, has heated more than the oceans and southern hemisphere. The new wind data is skewed toward more warming than it would be if the southern hemisphere and oceans were factored in. This is why I think it amounts to data fishing. Everyone wanted a warmer trend, now they have it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    The problem I have with the radiosonde wind data is it only involves around 300 samples in the northern hemisphere and about 30 in the southern hemisphere with no coverage of the oceans. .
    The calibration, validation and changes to the satellite temperature algorithms are made by comparing them to the weather balloon data where their coverage overlaps--not on the entire globe. In this case it was messier because the weather balloon data was found to have problems which required correction and iterative adjustments to both sets until they both roughly match in the areas where their coverage overlaps. The improved consistency between them make it likely this is a far better than the original techniques regardless of what the trends show.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    The problem I have with the radiosonde wind data is it only involves around 300 samples in the northern hemisphere and about 30 in the southern hemisphere with no coverage of the oceans. .
    The calibration, validation and changes to the satellite temperature algorithms are made by comparing them to the weather balloon data where their coverage overlaps--not on the entire globe. In this case it was messier because the weather balloon data was found to have problems which required correction and iterative adjustments to both sets until they both roughly match in the areas where their coverage overlaps. The improved consistency between them make it likely this is a far better than the original techniques regardless of what the trends show.
    Bottom line: The Yale scientists themselves admit the shortcomings of the wind data, and that it is not much better than the raw data. Apparently, you are more optimistic then they.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    The problem I have with the radiosonde wind data is it only involves around 300 samples in the northern hemisphere and about 30 in the southern hemisphere with no coverage of the oceans. .
    The calibration, validation and changes to the satellite temperature algorithms are made by comparing them to the weather balloon data where their coverage overlaps--not on the entire globe. In this case it was messier because the weather balloon data was found to have problems which required correction and iterative adjustments to both sets until they both roughly match in the areas where their coverage overlaps. The improved consistency between them make it likely this is a far better than the original techniques regardless of what the trends show.
    I have had three bottles of acetylene freeze up on me. They basically will not make anymore pressure. We were working in an alley way in New York City. The wind was whistling, the Hudson River was, emitting frozen water vapor clouds. Amazing to see.

    One tank I knew was full so I took the regulator off, and cracked the tank. It actually pulled in some air. That is how cold it was in the alley.

    We were on another forum, and we were discussing how cracking the tank in that condition could be bad. As it heats the acetylene and the air I let into the tank it could cause an explosion.
    Even though the tank is filled with a porous cement like substance that is saturated with acetone. To keep any air in the tank from getting to the acetylene.

    The cement also deadens any harmonic that tank might create.

    I believe what happens is the alleyways high velocity wind tunnel like effect, lowers pressure drastically. Leaving heat at the entrance of the alleyway.

    I had a similar thing occur to me, when I was working at a friends house in the Bronx. I was under their back deck, hooking up a temporary flexible duct from the basement to their almost finished dormer.

    I climbed under the deck through a small hole, I was working right by the hole. It was so cold that I could only work for about ten seconds and then had to warm my hands. I ski, and I do wet diamond coring standing on ice, holding wet tools in the winter. So I am no stranger to the cold. I work outside a lot. I held these ice cold things for hours. No problem.


    http://www.Rockwelder.com/GeneralCad...ib/CSHLIB1.jpg


    But in a high velocity artificially created tunnel, watch out you could die. I cannot imagine that homeless people realize how cold it can get in an alleyway until they try it and survive it. If they do.

    My point to all this is that in my school we used a different type of psychrometer, they told me it was from Germany. It had a fiberglass type of windsock, that acted like a wet sock, great instrument.

    I was discussing this on another forum and someone said no way. So I got some similar material called HAVOC Siltemp. And did an experiment. I was very happy with the experiment. I wrapped a thermocouple that did not show a change unwrapped in front of the moving fan.
    But when wrapped the thermocouple showed a temperature difference. Is this only humidity, I cannot say. But there was a similar material on the one we had in school.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •