Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[flacaltenn]

Of course they get the same results. Because ALL OF THOSE are BUILT on the NOAA data. You think Berkeley Earth has a private secret stash of "ship intake records" ???? Even UK Met uses the NOAA data as a starting point for Global studies.

The Karl study was a re-analysis, adjusting for ship intake vs. buoy measurements. Others may have analyzed the same data, apparently arriving independently at the same or very similar corrections, yielding very similar results. That would be surprising had the NOAA somehow fudged it, as you seemed to imply. Hence, others arriving at the same results refutes your accusation:

YET -- NOAA's Karl found a loophole in giving those more flaky measurements EQUAL WEIGHT to the buoys. It was ALWAYS about finding another 0.06degC to set new records. Not about honest or accurate science.

Nevermind -- for my new best buddy -- I found a start on that for you.. .

Journal has no plans to retract NOAA study despite data manipulation concerns

Climate scientists versus climate data

Where do we go from here?

I have wrestled for a long time about what to do about this incident. I finally decided that there needs to be systemic change both in the operation of government data centers and in scientific publishing, and I have decided to become an advocate for such change. First, Congress should re-introduce and pass the OPEN Government Data Act. The Act states that federal datasets must be archived and made available in machine readable form, neither of which was done by K15. The Act was introduced in the last Congress and the Senate passed it unanimously in the lame duck session, but the House did not. This bodes well for re-introduction and passage in the new Congress.

It's kind of a miracle to "verify" the Karl 15 study if the data set was never ARCHIVED in machine readable form. Isn't that right???

 

[SSDD]

I owe you an apology then. But I still don`t think that SSDD said that photons photons "can`t hit"...whatever it is they are supposed to be "hitting".

It is my position that energy does not move from cooler objects to warmer objects...and that includes so called back radiation which can not be measured at ambient temperature...if one wants to measure "back radiation" one must use an instrument that is cooler than the radiator...that being the case, one isn't measuring back radiation at all, but simply energy moving from the warmer radiator to the cooler instrument...

 

[polarbear]

I would like a whole lot of back radiation right now!

Mickey Dumont/HERALD LEADER
The historic blizzard that whipped through Manitoba this week set a new record for length - 31 hours - breaking the previous record of 18 hours set in 1975. Portage la Prairie dodged the brunt of the nasty weather that dumped over 40 cm of snow in Brandon over Monday and Tuesday where winds gusting to near 100 kms were also reported. Tom Major, above, was clearing snow at the theatre and was one of the many Portagers pedestrians have to thank for help make the ice covered sidewalks a bit safer. A full beard obviously offers a degree of protection while operating a snow blower.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would like a whole lot of back radiation right now!

Mickey Dumont/HERALD LEADER
The historic blizzard that whipped through Manitoba this week set a new record for length - 31 hours - breaking the previous record of 18 hours set in 1975. Portage la Prairie dodged the brunt of the nasty weather that dumped over 40 cm of snow in Brandon over Monday and Tuesday where winds gusting to near 100 kms were also reported. Tom Major, above, was clearing snow at the theatre and was one of the many Portagers pedestrians have to thank for help make the ice covered sidewalks a bit safer. A full beard obviously offers a degree of protection while operating a snow blower.

if one wants to measure "back radiation" one must use an instrument that is cooler than the radiator...that being the case, one isn't measuring back radiation at all, but simply energy moving from the warmer radiator to the cooler instrument...

See? The atmosphere "knows" when the instrument has been cooled and that it is now "allowed" to radiate downward. But only toward that tiny instrument target.

 

[SSDD]

I would like a whole lot of back radiation right now!

Mickey Dumont/HERALD LEADER
The historic blizzard that whipped through Manitoba this week set a new record for length - 31 hours - breaking the previous record of 18 hours set in 1975. Portage la Prairie dodged the brunt of the nasty weather that dumped over 40 cm of snow in Brandon over Monday and Tuesday where winds gusting to near 100 kms were also reported. Tom Major, above, was clearing snow at the theatre and was one of the many Portagers pedestrians have to thank for help make the ice covered sidewalks a bit safer. A full beard obviously offers a degree of protection while operating a snow blower.

if one wants to measure "back radiation" one must use an instrument that is cooler than the radiator...that being the case, one isn't measuring back radiation at all, but simply energy moving from the warmer radiator to the cooler instrument...

See? The atmosphere "knows" when the instrument has been cooled and that it is now "allowed" to radiate downward. But only toward that tiny instrument target.

Right and rocks know that they must fall down when dropped, and air knows that it must not try to rush into a punctured tire...and water knows that it must run downhill, and chemicals must know what other chemicals they can react to and how they must react, and all particles and matter must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics... it cracks me up that you wackos think that some sort of intelligence is required in order to obey the laws of physics...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would like a whole lot of back radiation right now!

Mickey Dumont/HERALD LEADER
The historic blizzard that whipped through Manitoba this week set a new record for length - 31 hours - breaking the previous record of 18 hours set in 1975. Portage la Prairie dodged the brunt of the nasty weather that dumped over 40 cm of snow in Brandon over Monday and Tuesday where winds gusting to near 100 kms were also reported. Tom Major, above, was clearing snow at the theatre and was one of the many Portagers pedestrians have to thank for help make the ice covered sidewalks a bit safer. A full beard obviously offers a degree of protection while operating a snow blower.

if one wants to measure "back radiation" one must use an instrument that is cooler than the radiator...that being the case, one isn't measuring back radiation at all, but simply energy moving from the warmer radiator to the cooler instrument...

See? The atmosphere "knows" when the instrument has been cooled and that it is now "allowed" to radiate downward. But only toward that tiny instrument target.

Right and rocks know that they must fall down when dropped, and air knows that it must not try to rush into a punctured tire...and water knows that it must run downhill, and chemicals must know what other chemicals they can react to and how they must react, and all particles and matter must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics... it cracks me up that you wackos think that some sort of intelligence is required in order to obey the laws of physics...

All matter above 0K emits, whether nearby matter is warmer, cooler or the same temperature.
But thanks for all the straw men!

 

[Olde Europe]

The "less simplistic explanation" makes sense to me. Figure 3 seems to stretch the scale for the top skin for clarity. What I was arguing against is that back radiation does not directly warm anything below the 1 mm skin. (Some people in the past argued that the deeper part of the ocean was able to get warmed directly by back radiation by the roiling of the ocean.)

I was looking at it more macroscopically, whereas the article is more microscopic. If you ignore the details of the top mm you can think of the effect as being only a cutting of heat loss at the surface.

Cutting heat loss sounds fine. On the other hand, following a probably flawed rule-of-thumb calculation, at an average of around 16.5°C, the ocean surface radiates about 400W/m² - and evapotranspiration accounts for another 90W/m². From the sun it receives around 160W/m² on average. So, that leaves something in the order of 330W/m² for a radiative balance, and that has to be back radiation.

_________________________________________________

That's not true. The guy who DEVELOPED the data integrity and verification standards for that dept at NOAA is public with allegations that those standards were VIOLATED, he was OVERRIDDEN, and the work was basically as a result NOT REPRODUCIBLE. You need the link? I'm busy. But I never lie on this board..

Yeah, Bates regrets having come forward by now, seeing himself abused by Lamar Smith, the scientifically illiterate buffoon. I know, the guy was the one who developed the archive system, and suspected, upon retirement, that his developed standards have not been upheld at the time of publication, much to his very public chagrin. I understand that these standards are important, so as to ensure that studies can be replicated, and all steps of a data transformation are transparent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with data manipulation for nefarious ends.

Bates, one of the good guys but obviously irate and with lots of time at his hands after retirement, was apparently not involved at any stage in the K15 paper, went on a witch hunt, throwing around accusations which are demonstrably false. See here, and here, in addition to the fact-check I posted earlier. This is simply an office spat that spilled into yet another version of the ubiquitous "climate gate" play that perennially runs with an ever changing cast of misfits and culprits, who, it turns out, haven't done anything wrong other than being human themselves. But it sure serves to arouse the denial crowd.

Here's probably how you arrived at the "huh, they threw the buoy data out" allegation (from Peter Thorne's text):

6. 'They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out [...]'

v4 actually makes preferential use of buoys over ships (they are weighted almost 7 times in favour) as documented in the ERSSTv4 paper. The assertion that buoy data were thrown away as made in the article is demonstrably incorrect.​

Really, you want to run with that?

Oh, and thanks for the links. I know the denialist crowd out there is all aflutter with another occasion for faux outrage, but really, I've had my fill following that sordid affair.

Oh...

It's kind of a miracle to "verify" the Karl 15 study if the data set was never ARCHIVED in machine readable form. Isn't that right???

... the data is archived and publicly available. Bates even published a link to the ftp site in his complaint.

 

[flacaltenn]

6. 'They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out [...]'

v4 actually makes preferential use of buoys over ships (they are weighted almost 7 times in favour) as documented in the ERSSTv4 paper. The assertion that buoy data were thrown away as made in the article is demonstrably incorrect.
Really, you want to run with that?

Yeah, I actually do.. I read the paper. I have no idea what v4 did, but in the PAPER -- they gave them close to equal weight.

Look, my beef is not against ALL of them. Like I said there's about a dozen who appointed themselves spokesgurus and always had their faces in front of of the press. And they did that with an agenda. Like James Hansen with his famous "......... then oceans boil" statement which led to a CBS TV segment showing an ocean with a 212degF label over it. Or his "coal trains of death" statements. And when Marcott put his paper out and eclipsed Mann's hockey stick -- there was Mann in front of the cameras interpreting Marcott's work for him. Wanna see another AGW spokeguru at work? From the US PBS Nova Science series.. Here is "ClimateGate Phil Jones" at work in his "laboratory".. So that's where all the raw data is huh?

What you refer to as "an office spat" did not affect the fact that the re-analysis modeling was NOT properly archived or put into digital media and could not redistributed for ANY ONE to validate the results.

 

[Olde Europe]

Yeah, I actually do.. I read the paper. I have no idea what v4 did, but in the PAPER -- they gave them close to equal weight.

See:

Therefore, one of the improvements to ERSST version 4 is extending the ship-bias correction to the present, based on information derived from comparisons with night marine air temperatures. Of the 11 improvements in ERSST version 4 (13), the continuation of the ship correction had the largest impact on trends for the 2000–2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference with version 3b. [The buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C decade −1 to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C decade −1 (supplementary materials).]​

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah, I actually do.. I read the paper. I have no idea what v4 did, but in the PAPER -- they gave them close to equal weight.

See:

Therefore, one of the improvements to ERSST version 4 is extending the ship-bias correction to the present, based on information derived from comparisons with night marine air temperatures. Of the 11 improvements in ERSST version 4 (13), the continuation of the ship correction had the largest impact on trends for the 2000–2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference with version 3b. [The buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C decade −1 to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C decade −1 (supplementary materials).]​

Gee.. How convenient. JUST ENOUGH to find a miniscule trend line in the "pause".. And the paper was timed for the IPCC big pow wow. It was an act of desperation -- not science.

No reason at all to go back to the 200 year old methods other than he got a "re-analysis" that provided a boost. They could have easily argued to correct the buoys -- but they KNOW that wouldn't fly. So instead, now you HAVE to have ANOTHER SKETCHY metric. Keep them cargo ships coming or we'll not know where we're at..

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah, I actually do.. I read the paper. I have no idea what v4 did, but in the PAPER -- they gave them close to equal weight.

See:

Therefore, one of the improvements to ERSST version 4 is extending the ship-bias correction to the present, based on information derived from comparisons with night marine air temperatures. Of the 11 improvements in ERSST version 4 (13), the continuation of the ship correction had the largest impact on trends for the 2000–2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference with version 3b. [The buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C decade −1 to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C decade −1 (supplementary materials).]​

Data for the Karl study was not ever archived or put on digital media. It is an ASSERTION based on a whim. Judith Curry testified at US Congressional hearings to advocate for a Govt - wide regulations for documenting and archiving scientific studies as a result.

 

[Olde Europe]

Gee.. How convenient. JUST ENOUGH to find a miniscule trend line in the "pause"..

Yep, this is one way how science progresses, more accurate measurements, correcting for old biases, that is to say, nothing out of the ordinary, and nothing to "Gee" about.

Oh, and ...

Major global warming study again questioned, again defended. "The study has been reproduced independently of Karl et al — that's the ultimate platinum test of whether a study is to be believed or not," McNutt said. "And this study has passed." Marcia McNutt, who was editor of Science at the time the paper was published and is now president of the National Academy of Sciences.​

 

[mamooth]

Data for the Karl study was not ever archived or put on digital media.

That data has been online since June 2015, when the paper was published.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/scpub201506/

Flac, the evidence shows you're completely full of shit. That point is not open to debate. You said one thing over and over, and the evidence demonstrates the exact opposite.

At this point, you have a choice.

You can admit you pooched it hard, castigate those who misinformed you, and try to understand why you were so gullible. That way, you'd retain a bit of credibility

Or, you can scream insults at me, and go right back to kissing up to those people who deliberately lied to you, thus permanently throwing all your credibility in the shitcan.

 

[Olde Europe]

Data for the Karl study was not ever archived or put on digital media. It is an ASSERTION based on a whim. Judith Curry testified at US Congressional hearings to advocate for a Govt - wide regulations for documenting and archiving scientific studies as a result.

Sigh... Karl demoted Bates, and Bates got back at him after retirement, creating much office turmoil and even a political fuss with the paranoid retard, Lamar Smith, in a leading role, and once again we see scientists' emails subpoenaed. Just read. Oh, and since when does someone testifying before a Congressional hearing decide the validity of science? I mean, such exercises in collective hysteria and self-important showboating may have an impact on how U.S. citizens live, usually for the worse, but scientific validity isn't determined by that. That is even while I agree that proper documentation and archiving is important, and standards ought to be followed, but really, this whole Bates controversy is not the hook to lift that story, mainly because Bates isn't a reliable witness.

 

[flacaltenn]

Data for the Karl study was not ever archived or put on digital media.

That data has been online since June 2015, when the paper was published.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/scpub201506/

Flac, the evidence shows you're completely full of shit. That point is not open to debate. You said one thing over and over, and the evidence demonstrates the exact opposite.

At this point, you have a choice.

You can admit you pooched it hard, castigate those who misinformed you, and try to understand why you were so gullible. That way, you'd retain a bit of credibility

Or, you can scream insults at me, and go right back to kissing up to those people who deliberately lied to you, thus permanently throwing all your credibility in the shitcan.

Gee Sheriff, you got me.. I'm gonna drop the tablet and back slowly to the wall. The data is there. But that's the merged and gridded data (and a bunch of reanalysis results). It does not show the where the "tricks" occurred to come up with that HUGE 0.02 degC rate change that "busts" the pause. There is so much horseshit packed into getting that trivial increase, I don't really care about the data. I care about the assumptions and the fudging.

Here's what everyone is arguing about. Take the OLD NOAA data and subtract it from the NEW NOAA data and ---

If you squint REAL HARD at the resultant GMAST -- you can see the 1998 El Nino SHRINK a bit. It all doesn't matter. So instead of a ZERO degree per decade pause (+/- 0.015) you now have a 0.03degC/decade rate over the period from 1999 to 2014. Congrats. Hope you feel good. NO PREVIOUS DATASET agrees with that -- but you got me good..

RSS, UAH, HadleyMet, Argo ??? ALL those sources say Karl is wrong. BUCKET measurements??? Buoy adjustments?? Random coolings?? to get a change in the 3rd decimal place for public relations impact??? Grow up....

 

[Crick]

Do you really think a third decimal place adjustment would have been visible in Karl or anywhere else?

 

[Olde Europe]

Here's what everyone is arguing about. Take the OLD NOAA data and subtract it from the NEW NOAA data and ---

Really? Have you done the subtraction?

And, Bob Tisdale, the crank of WUWT fame, as published in that splendid scientific publication, that is, powerlineblog?

That's what we're talking about, an adjustment mainly to correct for the well-known cooling bias as imposed by the increasing number of buoys to measure sea surface temperatures. The overall impact on the global surface temperature seems minuscule (from K15):

Just so we know the kind of "tricks" the denial-sphere is crowing about. Because, it took an adjustment showing up "in the 3rd decimal place" for the so-called "hiatus" to go bust. That is, the hiatus that never was, and the spike at 1998 seems unchanged, too.

 

[Olde Europe]

I don't really care about the data.

That's been very obvious for years.

Really, Mamooth? Truncating a quote to score a cheap point?

"There is so much horseshit packed into getting that trivial increase, I don't really care about the data."​

You're better than that.

 

[SSDD]

I don't really care about the data.

That's been very obvious for years.

Really, Mamooth? Truncating a quote to score a cheap point?

"There is so much horseshit packed into getting that trivial increase, I don't really care about the data."​

You're better than that.

No she isn't...in fact, that is two steps above the character she usually displays.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's what everyone is arguing about. Take the OLD NOAA data and subtract it from the NEW NOAA data and ---

Really? Have you done the subtraction?

And, Bob Tisdale, the crank of WUWT fame, as published in that splendid scientific publication, that is, powerlineblog?

That's what we're talking about, an adjustment mainly to correct for the well-known cooling bias as imposed by the increasing number of buoys to measure sea surface temperatures. The overall impact on the global surface temperature seems minuscule (from K15):

View attachment 116084

Just so we know the kind of "tricks" the denial-sphere is crowing about. Because, it took an adjustment showing up "in the 3rd decimal place" for the so-called "hiatus" to go bust. That is, the hiatus that never was, and the spike at 1998 seems unchanged, too.

Don't ever go to NY City and let the city slickers fool you with that 3 cups -- 1 nut trick.

Like I said above --- I'm beyond this slight of hand to get 0.02degC more "rate of rise" for the "pause". The data that NOAA made available had already INCORPORATED the slight of hand tweaks to win a "public relations" victory. Where's the "PAUSE" in that graph? Dunno.. But it's DEFINITELY HERE -----

These fanatics have screwed with it SOOOO damn much -- you can barely see the massive 1998 El Nino event anymore. It's garbage anyway. Because El Ninos USED to be in that NOAA data just a few years ago.

Tell me olde euro -- You see a 0.2DegC or MORE anomaly in 1998?? I don't. Just enjoy your bliss. Nothing to see here. Don't even ASK yourself what type of final filtering was applied to that data to remove it. Be oblivious !!! Be Happy !!! Enjoy the warm weather.