Your cherry picking 4 dates over a period of more than a 100 years and that's suppose to mean something? The point is there is no bias either way. McIntire's whole point requires a massive upward bias in the adjustment. Here, check for yourself. And yes I'll acknowledge my "little or no correction" comment was a bit overstated but is unnecessary to my point, which is there is not a one way upward bias in the adjustment over the 100+ years of measurements.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007...thoughts-o.html

I haven't participated much in this discussion of temperature stations and GISS adjustment of readings from them because of obvious attempts to try to demonstrate bias rather than improve the data set. Besides the temperature trend is well established and supported by other data sets and methods of analysis. However, I did encounter this Article on Open Mind that summarizes the way GISS adjusts temperature data and which has links to 2 of Hansen's papers that treat the issues in depth.

A couple of paragraphs dealing with urban heat island adjustments follow, but the whole article and many of the comments and response are also pertinent to the AD discussion.

Good report TedH5. Specific to the discussion here, there is nothing in what you posted that would suggest an adjustment in the temperature of a rural station was influenced by a different temperature at an urban station, ie The Grand Canyon temperature adjustments had nothing to do with temperatures in Tucson, adjusted or original. On the other hand urban station adjustments could be influenced by nearby rural station temperatures.

Two points:

One: "weighting" is a form of averaging.

Two: At least in Hansen, 1999, all station sets within 1200km were averaged. Urban, rural, lit, unlit. They were combined into one data record.

[email="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf"]Hansen, et al 1999[/email]

Frankly Amlord, I don't get that what you posted involves any meaningful response to what I posted. They are talking about averaging temperatures for a region. That has nothing to do with adjusting temperature data for an individual station. The extreme example of regional averaging would be the most common averaged temperatures we see offered in global warming graphs, namely average temperature for the entire earth for a year. In no way does that involve altering the temperatures of individual temperature stations.

If I add 1+5+6 and average them to 4 that average doesn't feedback to some sort of alteration of my original data sources.

Although this doesn't prove anything in the long term it might act as an antidote to denialist claims that the recent cold spell marks an end to vetted AGW predictions of a general trend upward in overall temperature due to increased GHGs.

Lord Stern has criticized the 2006 report he coordinated which showed the cost of climate change at between 5 and 20% of world GDP and the cost of addressing it at 1% of gross world product. He now thinks the costs will be much higher because of recent scientific findings but that the cost of addressing AGW remain about the same. (See This Financial Times Article or This Series of Reproduced Article with links to the originals.



And here is another story connecting the multi year drought in Australia to the doubling of rice prices worldwide. This hits home with me because one of my daughter-in-laws is from the Phillipeans with family witnesing the hardship this is causing. No, science can't prove that the drought is "caused" by AGW but it is consistent with what is expected. (See This NYT Article).

READ what is said here. What is clear to me and Amlord is this method is a form of averaging no matter how you slice it and that means that areas that have shown significant heat island effects are combing with readings nearby that are more accurate by definition – time series, smoothing and other methods discussed above do not remove the error no matter how it is disguised in jargon.

It is simply BAD SCIENCE and faulty mathematics to use data that is clearly wrong in any way.

Unlike some AD posters who spend their time picking away at statistical procedures they don't understand, the folks at Google are putting real money and effort toward finding solutions. (See GeoTimes Article).



While too much is conceded to coal fired electricity generation and not enough emphasis is placed on the potential for improvements in end use energy efficiency, it is refreshing to see a company with Goggle's resources make this kind of commitment.

Unlike some AD posters who are glad to gloss over all mathematical constructs they cannot defend you mean. And its easy to “understand” sir. You never, ever, EVER average, smooth or otherwise use data you KNOW is wrong and then try to represent it as accurate – and expect others to just buy it.

And you never, ever hide the programs that calculate your results so that others cannot check your work. This is dishonesty at its worst and is the main reason I cannot take the GW arguments seriously.

Hurray for Google. But what we really need is to solve the switch grass to ethanol problem – but we may not be pushing this since so many people are making lots of money on high corn and grain prices based on the stupidity of using corn for fuel. And the world is going into a food crisis as a result of this one stupid policy.

This makes it sound as if there isn't a slew of capitalists (who may or may not care about the environment) pursuing this very idea. I used to work for a company that did a lot of research into fuel cells to power cars--they couldn't do it economically.

Chemistry is fairly well understood. You need an exothermic process where the fuel is cheap and readily available. Currently, that is coal, oil, and natural gas. Of course, if we add the caveat that the process cannot produce CO2, well the wheels just come off. There isn't a perpetual motion machine waiting to be discovered out there.

I think there are two viable solutions: nuclear power plants for electricity and (potentially) fuel cells for transportation. The fuel cells are a long way from production, mainly because of scarcity of catalysts and the infrastructure problems associated with hydrogen.

I am not a brain surgeon nor do I have a medical degree. Consequently, I don't spend my time criticizing brain operations. You are not a statistician, a climate scientist, nor a scientist of any type yet you have posted repeatedly your critique of the GISS temperature data base. If you want t to reference peer reviewed analysis to buttress your argument, that is acceptable. I even welcome informed criticism from individuals with statistical qualifications like Steve McIntyre, despite the obvious ax he has to grind. He did discover a small error in the way data sets were combined for recent North American temperatures and corrections were made. (That is the way science is suppose to work). Your criticism, however, is cut out of whole cloth and is nothing but sheer assertions.

We have posted several articles and papers describing how GISS calculation are made. We have also pointed out that at least 2 independent data bases and calculation of temperature trends exist which substantially agree with those of the GISS except for using different base lines for comparison and in their treatment of sparsely measured polar regions. HERE is one more explanation. Are the GISS, HadCRU, and NCDC temperature calculations perfect? No! Do they contain systematic bias in one direction or the other? None that has been discovered despite examination for nearly 40 years. They are one of the most powerful tools available for calculating the consequences or global warming but are buttressed by other indicators including glacial melting, borehole temperature measurements, and now by satellite measurements. (But then I suppose you won't accept satellite measurements since the raw data had to be corrected for systematic orbit decay).



The real problem is that alternative energy sources have to compete with subsidized and well established fossil fuel industries and consumers that use the atmosphere as an open sewer at no cost to the bottom line. Removing fossil fuel subsidies and transferring them to renewable energy sources and efforts to improve end use efficiencies would go a long way toward leveling the playing field.

.


I am just an engineer who has had enough statistics to know bad math when I see it and the people who are critiquing this are experts – like McIntyre. Of course they are “deniers” and dismissed by the GISS people.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2991

Clearly all you think is needed is to “label” someone a “denier” and you can invalidate all they say – and this is precisely why I think otherwise.



So at the link above you must dismiss what the man is saying and find that easy to do? This is Crap and you know it. No just systematic bias but outright misuse of data and the ignoring of sources of data – like the ones shown that are CLEARLY WRONG.


This is what imo the same number of Americans are concerned about global warming today (35%) as they were 20 years ago.

If Steve McIntyre has a solid critique of the way the GISS keeps and analyzes the temperature record, he should have the courage to submit a paper for peer review and subsequent discussion within the scientific community. He hasn't, in fact, the only abstracts of articles he has ever published that I could find were the two he published attacking Michael Mann's proxy temperature reconstruction and statistical method that stirred up so much back and forth debate within the scientific community. We many differ on the conclusions of that debate but at least it was carried out in the proper p forum. The one you are referring to now is entirely on the blogosphre.

You may wish to search for scholarly articles by McIntyre yourself. Go to Advanced Google Scholar Search and enter temperature record in the "with all of these words" box and S McIntyre in the "return articles written by" box and leave everything else as it is. After reviewing the results you can backup and vary the search as you please. The fact that McIntyre is such a prominent skeptic but has published only the two articles is significant. Try the same search using J Hansen as the author and entering temperature record in the "with all these words box." You should get about 1,490 cites most of them with Jim Hansen as co-author published over a 30 year period when they have been open to scholarly debate.

Please stop joking – his work is available on line and anyone can “review” it. He gets no agreement and as with the Mann debate they only isolate him more. Remember that in the Mann debate McIntyre asked Mann to show him the software program that produced his “results” because he could not, based on the same data, and to this day Mann will not supply it to ANYONE including the US Congress that asked as well. So how was the Mann graph vetted by “peer review”? Wasn’t and this alone tells me that the data was “cooked” and dishonest. Same as the “averaging” of data that any idiot can see cannot be right.

The latest is skeptic Dr Gray has been cut off:

“A pioneering expert on hurricane forecasting says he may soon lose funding due to his skepticism about man-made global warming, according to a report in the Houston Chronicle.
Dr. William Gray, who once said that pro-global warming scientists are "brainwashing our children," claims that Colorado State University will no longer promote his yearly North Atlantic hurricane forecasts due to his controversial views.
Gray complained in a memo to the head of Colorado State’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences that "this is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to me to be a cover for the Department's capitulation to the desires of some (in their own interest) who want to reign [sic] in my global warming and global warming-hurricane criticisms," the Chronicle reports.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353023,00.html

So the bottom line is toe the line or get funding cut off. Real good science there.

Please stop demeaning the reputation of scientists like Michael Mann with false and misleading statements! While the raw data and statistical methods upon which Mann's temperature reconstruction was based have always been available for anyone to evaluate and to reproduce or refute his results, it is true that he initially resisted releasing his proprietary computer program. (At the time the National Academy of Science said he had met all disclosure requirements and that the release of his program was not required). Nevertheless, Mann did relent and release his personal program. I have made all of this clear to you before by linking Mann's letter in response to Representative Barton's official request. This letter contained a link to his computer program. Here is the Letter again:



HERE is some other testimony given under oath before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee:



Please cease perpetuating these lies about Dr. Mann and his work! The fact that they are pervasive in the blogosphere is a perfect illustration of why scientific debates need to be grounded in peer reviewed material.

As for Bill Gray, he is 76 years old but with a well deserved reputation in predicting the severity of North Atlantic Hurricanes. His opinion is respected with respect to the unsettled question of the role of AGW in tropical cyclone frequency and total energy dissipation. On the other hand, he has engaged in vituperative unsubstantiated personal attacks upon scientists with whom he disagrees about global warming. There is not one shred of evidence in the Fox "News" article you posted showing any type of conspiracy restricting Dr. Gray's work within his field. It looks like a fairly familiar common struggle between an institution (CSU in this case) protecting its own reputation while trying to rein in some of the more bazaar behavior of one of its renown but elderly professors.

As usual you speak as if everyone agrees and its a done deal- actually the Wegman Report had this to say:

Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman report)
MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be "somewhat obscure and incomplete" and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling".
The report found that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring series (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing "warm period" in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).

It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.

A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction of at least 43 authors having direct ties to Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him is described. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to interact with the statistical community. Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done.
Overall, the committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

As a lot of claims regarding the hockey stick revolve around statistical aspects. The American Statistical Association held a session[58] at the 2006 Joint Statistical Meetings, on climate change with Edward Wegman, John Michael Wallace, and Richard L. Smith[59]. E. Wegman presented the discussion of the methodological aspects of PC analysis by MBH98, and his view that Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Certainly some disagree but CLEARLY not all agree with Mann - imo he biased and "cooked" the data - and I am not alone in that belief.

Even those who (generally) agree with Mann qualify this with:

National Research Council Report
It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. ( not 2000 years) This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

So please spare me the the outrage over your buddy Mann.

Ted, as usual, when cornered, you change the subject. We were discussing your claim that Mann was derelict in not releasing his data and computer program. I pointed out clearly that he always was completely transparent with his data and even eventually released his proprietary computer program. Without acknowledging your error in falsely attacking Mann on this point, you switched subjects to the Wegman Report.

Incidentally the Wegman Report itself has been heavily criticized. (See This Short Article and Links therein.



In any case, Dr. Mann is not my buddy nor have I claimed his work is immune from scientific and statistical criticism. What I do object to are the scurrilous personal attacks that you and others engage in.

This is a mildly interesting take on the business of what might cause temperature leveling out within a longer term AGW global warming trend. Since they don't really go beyond a rather cursory explanation having to do with the movement of cool currents into warmer waters I can't really get much of a handle on it. TedN5 maybe you might have some additional thoughts on the matter.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...refer=worldwide



It does raise a question in my mind which I have not heard addressed. As the snow and ice melt wouldn't this have the effect of lowering the average surface temperature of the ocean through increased cold water dilution? It would seem logical.

No no sir. He released his “program” when faced with the US Congress. I had missed that - my error (happy?). Then when the Congress looks at his data and program they tell us that it may not be accurate. And as for the questions - lets give Wegman as much time as we wasted waiting for Mann - how about that. Call again in 5 years or so.



Yes I heard this today. But Dingo – after saying the world may COOL they go on to say that AGW is still the big problem. I am shocked it hasn't been blamed on AGW yet - it will be

Well if my ice melt dilution observation has any merit then perhaps part of the cooling would be caused by AGW.

Never can tell my friend but I think it is just another example of how complicated the system is and how little we actually know about it.

Consider this. If the “models” we have are worth the powder to blow them to hell – the ones that predict GW with 99% certainty, why is it that this was not “predicted” by the models? Think about it.

Long term large aggregate patterns are more predictable than short term smaller interim patterns which are subject to more variables. I can predict where the sun is going to be in the sky 10 years from now but I can't predict exactly what the high and low of the temperature is going to be tomorrow at any given point on earth.

The relation between the rise in CO2 and the rise in temperature is quite clear from the record but it is not straight line parallel, as other forcings have to be taken into account.

Come on Dingo please. The “long term models” that you are trying to tell me predict GW have to have included melting ice and cooling waters. So why is it now a surprise.

Because, as I have been saying all along, the system is too complicated and the models are decades, or more, away from the ability to “predict” anything of consequence. So to spend hundreds of billions on any prediction made by them is ludicrous. For all we know the “cooling trend” that are talking about could last a century.

And the “relation between the rise in CO2 and the rise in temperature” has never been clear since it has almost never been the leading indicator.

And the very man they just shafted discussed the cooling first!

“We should begin to see cooling coming on,” Gray said. “I’m willing to make a big financial bet on it. In 10 years, I expect the globe to be somewhat cooler than it is now, because this ocean effect will dominate over the human-induced CO2 effect and I believe the solar effect and the land-use effect. I think this is likely bigger.”

Gray criticized NASA scientist and global warming alarmist James Hansen, calling him “the most egregious abuser” of data. According to Gray, Hansen’s alarmism is exaggerated because the models he uses to predict the increase in global warming count on too much water vapor in the atmosphere.



“[S]o he puts that much vapor in his model and of course he gets this,” Gray said. “He must get upper troposphere where the temperature is seven degrees warmer for a doubl[ing of] CO2. Well, the reason he got that was – why this upper-level warming was there – was he put too much water vapor in the model.”



Gray, 79, wasn’t sure if he’d be around to see his prediction come true.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/20...0304113132.aspx

No, I hadn't seen this. I will take a close look at it when it comes out in Nature. It will be interesting to see how other scientists react to it. (Peer review, after all, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for acceptance of a scientific position). If it proves valid, it will be both a good thing and a bad one. It would be good in that it would give the world community more time to address the build up of greenhouse gases and prepare mitigation efforts before climate change gets out of hand. It would be bad in that it would provide deniers ammunition and relieve pressure on political leaders to seriously address greenhouse gas releases now only to see climate change set in with a vengeance as the ocean cycle reverses. (Even though the author of the study warns against the use of his work in this way, Ted's reaction proves the danger).

I think it is important to note the repetitive use of words like "could" and "may" in the articles discussion of the study. It also needs to be kept in mind that temperature change is only one of the serious consequences of CO2 buildup. Ocean acidification and its impact on the oceans food chains may be equally serious and would be unaffected by this decadal oscillation. (See This Science Daily Article).

When you are able to measure and thereby control for other forcings like aeresols(Volcanoes, sulfates from coal burning, dust storms etc) and solar intensity and El Nino patterns etc. then in fact GHG's do become the leading indicator. Since they do have most of the measurements although not all, and host of past ice core records, plus measurements from the last 130 years they can confidently move forward on the basis of an AGW general model.

It's like saying we don't know anything about weather because we can't make exact next day forcasts. That's simply ridiculous.

Listen to Gray in my link. One of the ways the “models” arrive at their “99% sure predictions” is by assuming that any warming increases upper level water vapor dramatically – and since this is a big driver this “assumption” is key in the model.

If it is wrong the prediction is less than worthless.

And this is why they make this assumption – because without it there is no GW.

“So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).”
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spence...bal-warming.htm

Even Real Climate – you bible says this:
To be sure there are still some lingering uncertainties. Some recent data indicates that tropical upper tropopsheric water vapour does not quite keep up with constant relative humidity (Minschwaner and Dessler, 2004) (though they still found that the feedback was positive). Moist convection schemes in models are constantly being refined, and it's possible that newer schemes will change things . However, given the Pinatubo results, the models are probably getting the broader picture reasonably correct.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ack-or-forcing/

Jury is still out.

NASA
Their work verified water vapor is increasing in the atmosphere as the surface warms. They found the increases in water vapor were not as high as many climate-forecasting computer models have assumed. "Our study confirms the existence of a positive water vapor feedback in the atmosphere, but it may be weaker than we expected," Minschwaner said.

"One of the responsibilities of science is making good predictions of the future climate, because that’s what policy makers use to make their decisions," Dessler said. "This study is another incremental step toward improving those climate predictions," he added.

According to Dessler, the size of the positive water vapor feedback is a key debate within climate science circles. Some climate scientists have claimed atmospheric water vapor will not increase in response to global warming, and may even decrease. General circulation models, the primary tool scientists use to predict the future of our climate, forecast the atmosphere will experience a significant increase in water vapor.
In most computer models relative humidity tends to remain fixed at current levels. Models that include water vapor feedback with constant relative humidity predict the Earth’s surface will warm nearly twice as much over the next 100 years as models that contain no water vapor feedback.

Using the UARS data to actually quantify both specific humidity and relative humidity, the researchers found, while water vapor does increase with temperature in the upper troposphere, the feedback effect is not as strong as models have predicted. "The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity," Minschwaner said. These new findings will be useful for testing and improving global climate models

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/beri...icht-26917.html

So if this is wrong:
Why should the ALMA project be concerned with a little bit of warming on Chajnantor? Because with increased temperature comes increased water vapor. The trend is exponential with temperature. The Clausius-Clapyron equation describes how the saturation partial pressure of a gas like water vapor depends upon temperature:


http://www.tuc.nrao.edu/~mholdawa/warming/index.html

And this correct:

“Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...99-7583,00.html

Here is a recent article (March 20th) by Roy Spencer on the NASA Aqua matter:

The Sloppy Science of Global Warming



I did not find a published paper on the subject although Spencer says that one is forthcoming.

Amlord, the topic of the Spencer cirrus cloud studies has already been kicked around on this thread. Here's where I introduced it. Because of the seriousness of the study and the present absence of a scientific negative critique Spencer's thesis therefore has to be taken seriously. Still I don't think it has any real bearing on long term AGW.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=241953


Ted, most of us know that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. However water vapor is not a forcing gas; CO2 is. Water vapor, which generally rises consistent with rising temperature, is enhanced by CO2 generated warming which explains a lot of why increased CO2 has such a potent warming effect. It has a powerful ally.

Yes and READ above – because we are talking about just how this happens. So the current thinking is a little warmth (cause by us of course) causes a BIG change in the primary “green house gas” – water vapor. If that relationship is not correct – and the data being ignored is – then the AGW theories have a real serious problem.

Where is the counter from the GW crowd?

Lets read it again

“What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

I just encountered this elaboration on the article you posted. (See Gristmill Story)

As far as I know Spensor has made one case for negative feedback and that is his 6 year presently unvetted study which he interprets as showing that warming causes a diminution of cirrus clouds. That's pretty much it. Beyond that he has shown himself to be a chronic denialist with earlier bogus statistics and all the standard canards about Mann's hockey stick and heat islands and of course trying to take his limited data and make grand unsupported theories questioning enhanced warming from increased water vapor.

Really, his cirrus cloud stuff is all I'm really interested in. The rest appears to be denialist spin.



Thanks TedN5, it just goes to show how misleading partial readings are, particular partial readings with an agenda. I also noticed they are estimating that at least half the temperatures after 2009 are going to be higher than the highest temperature before that.

Your link contains another link which shows how much in the dark scientists still are about global warming and its effects. Consider the apparent stabilization of the ocean temperature accompanying a still rising sea.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=88520025

What I still don't get is why ice melt isn't being factored in in explaining the intrusion of cooler currents on warmer waters.

Ya sure – So I am “interested” in the satellite data that refutes the very “models” that predict GW increasing for the next 100 years. This is exactly what I have been saying since day 1. The “models” are complicated and based on numerous “assumptions” one critical assumption bring the increase in water vapor in the upper atmosphere as a result of warming of the surface. It appears this could be very wrong (in the models).

Do you want to address this or make believe it doesn’t exist like a good “believer”? The impact on AGW theory is going to be significant – if the folks who make the “models” ever address the data. Have they? I must have missed it - please post it here.

Thanks

Where is the news coverage and discussion of the Myanmar (Burma) cyclone that killed at least 22,000 and maybe more than 50,000? (See this Mercury News Article). I have acknowledged repeatedly that the effect of climate change on tropical cyclone activity is an open scientific question. However, there is substantial evidence there has been an increase in total energy dissipation per storm. This was a massive storm and one would expect more coverage of both the tragic consequences and of the possible role of AGW in increasing the intensity of the event. (Listen to the Thomas Knutson interview with NPR for a little background on the science).

So now another storm becomes a rallying cry of GW cultists? Well heck it rained today it must be because of GW. See I have proof now!

Cultist uh. Talk about projection.

TedN5, I know Gore dealt with the Burma cyclone as related to global warming. I caught the link on Drudge Report. He's smart enough not to impute direct cause and effect but did say that the Burma cyclone fit into recent patterns, including one in China earlier, that were consistent with the theory that warming oceans were adding energy to storms.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2...0506160205.aspx


Ted, you know perfectly well, since we've already discussed the matter, that Spensor's data apparently suggesting diminishing cirrus clouds due to warming has not resulted in any independent published examination in scientific circles. TedH5 in fact sent an inquiry to RealClimate as you well know.

Apparently your shtick is going to be no vetting of Spensor's satellite studies means a concession that AGW is a bogus theory. Kind of a stretch, I'd say, but whatever floats your ideological boat.

Global Warming Cultists are very real. There is no projection there my friend.


Visit My Website

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/10/18/...l-warming-cult/

Visit My Website

When I hear or read that every storm is GW something stinks to high heaven. It's funny, when we have NO bad weather it's GW when we have bad weather it's GW. Personally I choose the side of science than "GW" (or insert your favorite diety here).

I see, so your source for exposing the AGW cult is The Cato Institute and World Net Daily. Maybe this thread has gotten too serious lately. Nice to have a little comic interlude. You make Ted's denialist efforts look highly sophisticated by comparison.

I can’t wait to see how that maneuver their way through this one. As I have said from day one the devil is in the “model” details and this “assumption” the GW fanatics made appears to be very, very wrong and it will imo kill the predictions.

Let’s see if they respond or try to sidestep the issue.


And the latest “ice” data.

On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were “unprecedented” for the month of April in over 25 years. Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982. This continues a pattern established earlier in 2008, as global sea ice in March 2008 was also the third highest March on record, while January 2008 sea ice was the second highest January on record. It was also the second highest single month in the past 20 years (second only to Sept 1996).
The graph below shows the monthly anomaly (aggregating NH and SH), collating information from sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3066

And what did the aggregate trend line for sea ice in the NH and SH tell you Ted? You cherry pick for an early 2008 La Nina associated anomaly and pretend like this proves something. Let's look at the aggregate graph again from your link.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/upl...05/seaice98.gif

Why folks like you and Steve McIntyre are so desperate to take an unscientific faith stand that GW long term isn't really happening makes this thread more a study in perverse psychology. Your own link demonstrates you are off base.

Obviously up – and admittedly we need more months to see the trend – but tell me why this is worse than blaming every damn storm on GW?

Lets see how they refute the satellite data and the screwed up “models” on which rests the entire GW case.

Sorry Ted, obviously down overall with the early 2008 rise being an anomaly. Nice try.


Apparently since everything else has failed in trying to push your denialist case you're going for the Custers last Stand of Spensors unanswered upper troposphere data as proving the host of scientists who have embraced AGW have run for the hills and you are vindicated. You're funny.

I think I may have found the problem. It could be a case of been there done that. It so happens that Spensor's case has been made earlier by a number of others including Lindzen and I guess maybe they thought it would be a waste of time to go through the process again given Spensor's earlier apparently well earned reputation of being a denialist fruit cake. Real Climate in fact discussed the matter back in 2006 I just discovered. What they included, more critically, in the discussion is another one of the Lindzen-Spensor assertions, namely the idea that increased water vapor may be a negative feed back. You might want to check out this link. Scroll down to the water vapor heading as this is just one of many topics in which RC thoroughly kicks Lindzen's behind.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-hol-testimony/



For greater elaboration here is the one full text sublink.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?reques...GE%3E2.0.CO%3B2

You don’t get it – so either you are ignoring what I type or your are too thick to realize that what is above is exactly what the NEW satellite data calls into question.

Not only do the “model” makers believe that there is positive “feedback” for water vapor (which causes most of the projected heat rise going forward) in their “models” – that have it as a logarithmic function – do you know what that means? A small input can equal a very LARGE change in the water vapor (and the warming effect) in the upper atmosphere.

The NEW satellite data says this relationship is not correct. As in:

“What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Further, she says:
“The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.”

Isn’t it odd that this “shocking” news hasn’t been reported yet in the American Press?
Following his transcript of the interview, Pearson goes on to anticipate the impending exposure of the climate change hoax:
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/200...global-warming/

Sooooo quoting “believers” and Real Climate garbage from 1997 or earlier does NOT address this issue. If you want to fond something that tells us the NASA satellite data is wrong – please do so.

Ted, except for offering more detail, denialist Spensor is just treading over ground that has already been trod. RC even conceded that his point may have some merit but only in tropical troposhere conditions, which is all Spensor can claim from his data.




I realize you have an investment in a mindless Lysenkoish ideology but 2+2 does not equal 3 no matter how desperately you want to believe otherwise. As I indicated RC has been there and done that bit and I guess they don't want to waste time on simply engaging in a rehash.

Let me try it this way. They probably don't have much problem with Spensor's data. It just doesn't effect their model. That would be the logical conclusion I believe from what I showed you. You might want to try reading it again.

So one are is to be believed to be far different than the rest of the troposphere. Why is that. Even if “reductions” in water vapor are “unlikely” – (no proof from your buddies of course) – we can certainly say the relationship is not logarithmic – can’t we. This alone will make a huge difference in the “models” – which is exactly why it is not being considered.

To say “it doesn’t effect their model” is ludicrous.

Ted, for some reason you seem addicted to the notion that the main body of science is out to deny or ignore evidence that doesn't promote AGW. I have shown you that Spensor's tropical upper atmosphere data has already been addressed in more limited form and the AGW models appear to have taken into account variable vapor effects. No doubt they will address Spensor's specific data in good time. If they don't think he's saying much that is new or has added significance then I can see why they are not immediately jumping on it positively or negatively. For instance how much would this limited moisture decrease weigh against an over all moisture increase in the entire earths atmosphere due to GW. You are giving it a very high weight. That has yet to be shown.

Here's some more info. to at least refute much of the silliness on water vapor coming from the Lindzen-Spensor denialist crowd.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evaporatin...r-argument.html

You still miss the point.

If this is true

Water vapour is indeed the most dominant greenhouse gas. The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.
Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature

And this:
Basic theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Then the fact that water vapor did not increase with rising temperatures and CO2 should tell us the models have a problem. –Get it yet Dingo. The only thing we don't know is just how wrong yet since "believers" will certainly try to blow off this data. Show me something recent that refutes or quantifes this.

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/beri...icht-26917.html