Bend Over And Kiss Your Ass Goodbye, The Planet is Baking

[Mithrae]

When you add in the warming before 1950, which is acknowledged to be not AGW related, yes.
Look at your own graph, all the recent warming started in the 1979 to 1980 time frame.
I do wonder about your 5 year 1 month mean, was that the mean that cherry picked the best look?
Also on you graph see that big spike around 1940, with a 61 month mean, that is caused by the large temperature
increase I was talking about.
You can argue about the images, but the numbers tell a different story, even with GISS changing them often.

5 years is a pretty standard averaging scale for the instrumental record, enough to slightly smooth but not entirely remove ENSO and volcanic variations. But of course you'll whinge about that, even after cherry-picking your individual years (with different intervals between them to boot!). And for the record, humans didn't start using fossil fuels in 1950 :roll: I don't know whether you're trolling, or just don't realise that you're trapped in a ridiculous non-sequitur, but either way I think we're at a dead end until you respond intelligently to some or all of my earlier posts (#66, 60 and 58).

 

[Mithrae]

No.

It was W/m^2. Such a dramatic difference is automatically denied by true believers since it doesn't match with the faith, or dogma.

Being skeptical is part of science.

When you fail to provide evidence of such dramatic claims, any reasonable person should be sceptical.

Especially given the track record. Remember just last week, when you posted a paper which you claimed showed a warming trend "since the 70's" from the clearing of atmospheric aerosols which you believed was "stronger than CO2 changes for certain" (and then implied it was something to do with "dogma" that none of the "warmists" had responded within nine hours)?

...turns out what it actually showed was substantial warming (at the surface, not necessarily to the planetary energy budget) from 1992 to 2001, but up to five times as much cooling (same caveat) from 1958 to 1992, and with an error margin some seven times greater than the whole warming estimate.
August 29th

So certain of your dodgy claims, and you reckon others are the "true believers" around here? :lol:

 

[Mithrae]

Come to think of it, the IPCC has a graphic for this aerosol business too (AR5, WG1 Figure 8.18). Even they show an uptick (relative warming) in aerosol radiation interaction from the early 1990s onwards, particularly for the first decade. But cherry-picking only that uptick and flouting it as being "stronger than CO2 changes for certain" was a rather laughable effort on LoP's part. Not exactly the kind of track record which inspires confidence in his unsubstantiated claims that mainstream climate science has had the radiative forcing value of CO2 wrong by a factor of six for the past forty years!

Edit: Also provides an interesting point of comparison for Longview's claim that climate change before 1950 "is acknowledged to be not AGW related" - acknowledged by who? :roll:

 

[Threegoofs]

Come to think of it, the IPCC has a graphic for this aerosol business too (AR5, WG1 Figure 8.18). Even they show an uptick (relative warming) in aerosol radiation interaction from the early 1990s onwards, particularly for the first decade. But cherry-picking only that uptick and flouting it as being "stronger than CO2 changes for certain" was a rather laughable effort on LoP's part. Not exactly the kind of track record which inspires confidence in his unsubstantiated claims that mainstream climate science has had the radiative forcing value of CO2 wrong by a factor of six for the past forty years!

Well, to be fair, we know the IPCC is in on the liberal plot.

 

[longview]

5 years is a pretty standard averaging scale for the instrumental record, enough to slightly smooth but not entirely remove ENSO and volcanic variations. But of course you'll whinge about that, even after cherry-picking your individual years (with different intervals between them to boot!). And for the record, humans didn't start using fossil fuels in 1950 :roll: I don't know whether you're trolling, or just don't realise that you're trapped in a ridiculous non-sequitur, but either way I think we're at a dead end until you respond intelligently to some or all of my earlier posts (#66, 60 and 58).

And you still think the recent warming is somehow unprecedented. the reality is that the warming is not even unprecedented
within the interment record.

 

[LowDown]

...at least so implies this article

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mate-change-warning-earth-temperature-warming



I plan to have a barbecue. You?

According to MSU data, the temperature has risen 0.3 degrees in the past 37 years. It has been flat for the past 13 or more years. At this rate we can expect the temperature to be 0.67 degrees hotter than it is now by 2100.

This is in agreement with the science in the IPCC report and the most recent papers on climate sensitivity.

 

[calamity]

According to MSU data, the temperature has risen 0.3 degrees in the past 37 years. It has been flat for the past 13 or more years. At this rate we can expect the temperature to be 0.67 degrees hotter than it is now by 2100.

This is in agreement with the science in the IPCC report and the most recent papers on climate sensitivity.

Looks like 0.6 Degrees C to me. But, yeah. Flat since about 2000.

 

[LowDown]

Looks like 0.6 Degrees C to me. But, yeah. Flat since about 2000.

This is surface station data. It's known to run hotter than the satellite data.

 

[Quaestio]

Looks like 0.6 Degrees C to me. But, yeah. Flat since about 2000.

You might want to check the date on your graph. It's for 2013.

Here's Jan to Dec 2015

You can get up to date global temperature graphs from here:

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Check out 2016 Year to Date.

 

[calamity]

You might want to check the date on that graph. It's for 2013.
Here's Jan to Dec 2015

You can get up to date global temperature graphs from here:

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Check out 2016 Year to Date.

I read that the first half of 2016 tops even that high number shown for 2015.

 

[Quaestio]

This is surface station data. It's known to run hotter than the satellite data.

Surface data and satellite data are 'measuring' different things.

Satellite or Surface Temps: Which is More Accurate? Yale Climate Connections.

 

[Mithrae]

This is surface station data. It's known to run hotter than the satellite data.

Surface data and satellite data are 'measuring' different things.

Satellite or Surface Temps: Which is More Accurate? Yale Climate Connections.

Interestingly (and much to 'sceptics' dismay), UAH v5.6 does not run significantly cooler than the surface data sets; only with the 6.0 update did it fall more in line with RSS:

The weighting functions of the v6.0 (black) vs v5.6 (pink) profiles give a pretty good indication why that might have been; "the new LT weighting function is less sensitive to direct thermal emission by the land surface (17% for the new LT versus 27% for the old LT)" and is overall more sensitive to higher atmospheric altitudes:

Obviously, the propaganda champions of the trends found in the satellite data never tell people that they are looking at atmospheric temperatures averaging >4km above the planet's surface!

 

[Quaestio]

I read that the first half of 2016 tops even that high number shown for 2015.

Indeed. The graph below is to Jan to July - 2016

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)



It was boosted somewhat by the El Nino

There isn't much sign of an El Nina yet, although a weak La Nina is now being predicted for the end of 2016 beginning of 2017.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

 

[DA60]

Question?

Can any human actually bend over and kiss their ass goodbye, hello or otherwise?

I am guessing almost no one can.

 

[Quaestio]

Interestingly (and much to 'sceptics' dismay), UAH v5.6 does not run significantly cooler than the surface data sets; only with the 6.0 update did it fall more in line with RSS:


The weighting functions of the v6.0 (black) vs v5.6 (pink) profiles give a pretty good indication why that might have been; "the new LT weighting function is less sensitive to direct thermal emission by the land surface (17% for the new LT versus 27% for the old LT)" and is overall more sensitive to higher atmospheric altitudes:




Obviously, the propaganda champions of the trends found in the satellite data never tell people that they are looking at atmospheric temperatures averaging >4km above the planet's surface!

It will be interesting to see RSS's TLT product (lower troposphere) from their new version 4 when it's released. They've already released V4 of their TMT and TTT:

Release of RSS V4.0 TMT and TTT Air Temperature Data | Remote Sensing Systems

It will also be interesting to finally see UAH's Spencer and Christie's paper explaining their adjustments and methodology for V6 beta which is still in peer review and not yet published.

Unlike UAH's Spencer and Christie with their various version 6 betas, first released about 16 mths ago, Carl Mears and his RSS group published a paper before releasing a new version.

Here's Mears' and Wentz's (from RSS) published paper:

Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment -submitted October 2015 and published May 2016. The full paper is freely available.

From Mears & Wentz 2016:

"The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other midtropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. It is also shown that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy."

No doubt there will be lot's of hysterical claims from climate truthers of "they're fudging the data!". (Climate truthers have been mysteriously quiet about the quite large adjustments in UAH's version 6 beta to previous versions. I wonder why?)

 

[calamity]

Question?

Can any human actually bend over and kiss their ass goodbye, hello or otherwise?

I am guessing almost no one can.

Maybe with enough yoga training.

 

[Quaestio]

Interestingly (and much to 'sceptics' dismay), UAH v5.6 does not run significantly cooler than the surface data sets; only with the 6.0 update did it fall more in line with RSS:

From the RSS website

Release of RSS V4.0 TMT and TTT Air Temperature Data | Remote Sensing Systems

"The lower tropospheric (TLT) temperatures have not yet been updated at this time and remain V3.3. The V3.3 TLT data suffer from the same problems with the adjustment for drifting measurement times that led us to update the TMT dataset. V3.3 TLT data should be used with caution."

I'm guessing it will take a while longer to derive an updated TLT dataset to correct the problems with v3.3.

I wonder what the conversations are like between Mears & Wentz (RSS) and Christy & Spencer (UAH)?

 

[longview]

From the RSS website

Release of RSS V4.0 TMT and TTT Air Temperature Data | Remote Sensing Systems

"The lower tropospheric (TLT) temperatures have not yet been updated at this time and remain V3.3. The V3.3 TLT data suffer from the same problems with the adjustment for drifting measurement times that led us to update the TMT dataset. V3.3 TLT data should be used with caution."

I'm guessing it will take a while longer to derive an updated TLT dataset to correct the problems with v3.3.

I wonder what the conversations are like between Mears & Wentz (RSS) and Christy & Spencer (UAH)?

Perhaps what should be wondered about is the divergence between the surface temperature record and the radiosonde
which happen to be in close agreement with the satellite data.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07060741.png
There actually is a reason that the models do not model surface temperature, but rather the surface troposphere system, AKA The lower troposphere.

 

[Quaestio]

Perhaps what should be wondered about is the divergence between the surface temperature record and the radiosonde
which happen to be in close agreement with the satellite data.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07060741.png
There actually is a reason that the models do not model surface temperature, but rather the surface troposphere system, AKA The lower troposphere.

Have you got any legitimate sources (eg published papers) rather than the fake "Steve Goddard"'s climate truther conspiracy blog?

 

[Quaestio]

Perhaps what should be wondered about is the divergence between the surface temperature record and the radiosonde
which happen to be in close agreement with the satellite data.

Radiosonde balloons don't measure surface temperature, so what are you talking about? The satellite datasets have diverged in recent years from the radiosonde balloon datasets. RSS have just corrected some of the errors and published a new version (v4) of their TMT and TTT datasets and have cautioned against using their v3.3 TLT dataset because of the same problems. UAH are still stuffing around trying to correct their datasets with their beta 6 versions.

There actually is a reason that the models do not model surface temperature, but rather the surface troposphere system, AKA The lower troposphere.

Where did you get the crazy idea that "the models do not model surface temperature"?

Try not to limit yourself to automatically believing any junkscience nonsense you read on Steve Goddard's climate truther conspiracy blog or you'll just look crazy.

Here's some background reading on balloon radiosonde data:

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC)

Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (IGRA)

If I get time, maybe I'll do a literature search for some papers.

 

[Quaestio]

Radiosonde balloons don't measure surface temperature, so what are you talking about? The satellite datasets have diverged in recent years from the radiosonde balloon datasets. RSS have just corrected some of the errors and published a new version (v4) of their TMT and TTT datasets and have cautioned against using their v3.3 TLT dataset because of the same problems. UAH are still stuffing around trying to correct their datasets with their beta 6 versions.

Where did you get the crazy idea that "the models do not model surface temperature"?

Try not to limit yourself to automatically believing any junkscience nonsense you read on Steve Goddard's climate truther conspiracy blog or you'll just look crazy.

Here's some background reading on balloon radiosonde data:

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC)

Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (IGRA)

If I get time, maybe I'll do a literature search for some papers.

Stephen Po-Chedley's 2015 paper is very informative about satellite data errors and discusses radiosonde data. Copy of full paper here:
Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies

Here's a presentation from an earlier lecture by Po-Chedley:

http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/documents/seminardocs/2012/Po-Chedley20120613.pdf

 

[LowDown]

Interestingly (and much to 'sceptics' dismay), UAH v5.6 does not run significantly cooler than the surface data sets; only with the 6.0 update did it fall more in line with RSS:

The weighting functions of the v6.0 (black) vs v5.6 (pink) profiles give a pretty good indication why that might have been; "the new LT weighting function is less sensitive to direct thermal emission by the land surface (17% for the new LT versus 27% for the old LT)" and is overall more sensitive to higher atmospheric altitudes:

Obviously, the propaganda champions of the trends found in the satellite data never tell people that they are looking at atmospheric temperatures averaging >4km above the planet's surface!

The investigators at UAH consider v6 to be more accurate, and it is significantly cooler than GISS.

 

[LowDown]

Stephen Po-Chedley's 2015 paper is very informative about satellite data errors and discusses radiosonde data. Copy of full paper here:
Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies

Here's a presentation from an earlier lecture by Po-Chedley:

http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/documents/seminardocs/2012/Po-Chedley20120613.pdf

The idea that station data, which covers only 23% of the earth's surface, could be more accurate than satellite data, which covers everything between 80 and -80 degrees latitude, is really pretty silly. The only reason that warmists cling to this obsolete and outmoded method of measuring the earth's temperatures is that 1) they have control of the data and can make it look any way they like and 2) it runs a lot warmer than the satellite data, which is, of course, probably by design.

The other stupid trope they float out when trying to defend their station data is the fact that satellite data measures the temperature of the entire volume of air, not just the temperature at the surface. As if this is a defect, and what is measured does not relate to global temperatures!

 

[Threegoofs]

The idea that station data, which covers only 23% of the earth's surface, could be more accurate than satellite data, which covers everything between 80 and -80 degrees latitude, is really pretty silly. The only reason that warmists cling to this obsolete and outmoded method of measuring the earth's temperatures is that 1) they have control of the data and can make it look any way they like and 2) it runs a lot warmer than the satellite data, which is, of course, probably by design.

The other stupid trope they float out when trying to defend their station data is the fact that satellite data measures the temperature of the entire volume of air, not just the temperature at the surface. As if this is a defect, and what is measured does not relate to global temperatures!

In other words, it's a giant conspiracy.

I think you're in the wrong section.

 

[Steve Case]

The idea that station data, which covers only 23% of the earth's surface, could be more accurate than satellite data, which covers everything between 80 and -80 degrees latitude, is really pretty silly. The only reason that warmists cling to this obsolete and outmoded method of measuring the earth's temperatures is that 1) they have control of the data and can make it look any way they like and 2) it runs a lot warmer than the satellite data, which is, of course, probably by design.

The other stupid trope they float out when trying to defend their station data is the fact that satellite data measures the temperature of the entire volume of air, not just the temperature at the surface. As if this is a defect, and what is measured does not relate to global temperatures!

... station data ... runs a lot warmer than the satellite data ...

See reason #1