quote:

As Dr. Josh Willis, who works for NASA in its Jet Propulsion Laboratory, noted in an interview with National Public Radio, "there has been a very slight cooling" over the buoys' five years of observation, but that drop was "not anything really significant." Certainly not enough to shut down the Gulf Stream.

This is the National Public Radio article I mentioned here:

http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9250037634/m/7800090579

Note that ocean temps are still much warmer than 1998. Since ocean needs a lot more energy to warm than the atmosphere, the sceptic mantra should be changed to "global warming stopped in 2003".

Given that this thread is about empirical falsification of Global Warming I've just found an interesting topic on Climate audit concerning statistics and presentation of GW. Particularly it's interesting to look at the chart called HadCRU GLB:End Effects that illustrates the difference to perceptions that correcting methods can have. Please google "Like a Dog on a Bone" to see this.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

Particularly it's interesting to look at the chart called HadCRU GLB:End Effects that illustrates the difference to perceptions that correcting methods can have.

It is more usual to ignore half the averaging sample rate of data at each end of the graph. I have mentioned my uncertainties before when reading 'smoothed' Met Office graphs, as these 'end projections' are only 'best guesses' (remember how bitterly TS objected to my acceptance of these 'end projections').

For example. If you want to make a smoothed graph of how many eggs were laid by chickens each year on a particular chicken farm between, say, 1950 and 2000, with the 'smoothing' of a 10 year average, but you only have data that spans 1950 to 2000. The graph will start at 1955 and end at 1995, because a five year lead in and a five year lead out is needed at the start and finish of the graph to give true data for the plot positions. The only way to span the time from 1950 to 2000 is to include data from 1945 to 2005.

Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder.

It looks like the Met Office has already acted on this dysfunction!
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Son of Mulder.

It looks like the Met Office has already acted on this dysfunction! Smile
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

Best regards, suricat.

Steve picked a good fortnight to go on holiday

mufcdiver.

quote:

Steve picked a good fortnight to go on holiday

So I noticed muf. He also 'ducked' the issue on 'black carbon' as well!

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Son of Mulder.

It looks like the Met Office has already acted on this dysfunction!
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

Best regards, suricat.

Good find suricat. BTW I googled that dog-bone link and got
Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre

The graphs there seem to miraculously reduce the temperature rises over the past couple of decades. Is there a Climate Audit for Climate Audit?

Suricat

quote:

Son of Mulder.

It looks like the Met Office has already acted on this dysfunction! Smile
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

Best regards, suricat.

That's one of the points of the article. Because there was a sharp downtick this January Hadley noticed tne issue but when there was an uptick the previous January they did nothing.

Realprimate

quote:

The graphs there seem to miraculously reduce the temperature rises over the past couple of decades. Is there a Climate Audit for Climate Audit?

The first graph is a copy of a Hadley graph.

The 2nd graphs shows the comparison between correcting and not correcting the problem at the end points but is otherwise essentially the first graph.

The 3rd graph looks at monthly average temp change so will be on a different scale to the annual scale.

But yes all should be audited. I note with some glee today the launch of the new govt statistics office website. Maybe they could extend to Hadley Climate stats or does that make me an April Fool?

Stats

Son of Mulder.

April fool! I can't see 'that' office auditing anything other than government stats.

For another thread I was searching for data that contains a 'total atmospheric water column' content and I happened upon this:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcruh/
Do I read this correctly? The green trace is 'supposedly' relative humidity (RH), but this looks to be 'all over the place' when I was of the understanding that RH was one of the 'constants' in the atmosphere. There is also a suspicious 'plunge' for RH at the end of the 70S-20S graph when a 21 point filter is used for 'smoothing' again.

I lack confidence in the 'point averaging' method of filtering. It may well be better adapted for a digital construct of a long data series, but the end data of the series seems to be included when it shouldn't.

'When I were a lad' and we were looking for accurate reproduction of sound from OP-AMPS we had an analogue term called 'slew rate'. This could easily be applied to a graph, provided the place of decimal point in calculation was large enough to be accurate for the length of a 'long' series. As long as the percentage of change and degree of accuracy is disclosed, there can be confidence in the entire series span of the graph from end to end (similar to meta file vectoring).

Do you think my assumptions are correct?

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

Do I read this correctly? The green trace is 'supposedly' relative humidity (RH), but this looks to be 'all over the place' when I was of the understanding that RH was one of the 'constants' in the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is not static and it has a gravitational component. The RH constant refers to water in a jar with a lid being given time to move to equilibrium by holding temperature constant after changing it.

quote:

When I were a lad' and we were looking for accurate reproduction of sound from OP-AMPS we had an analogue term called 'slew rate'.

You'd be able to deduce other things from this if dealing with a sinusoidal wave (so predictable) but something like the RH graph is I'd suggest chaotic in the sense that it's generator is chaotic so I wouldn't believe any prediction.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

The atmosphere is not static and it has a gravitational component.

Yes, with many other factors that limit the life expectancy of water vapour (WV). That's why the average relative humidity (_AVERH) from boundary layer to lower mid tropo has a habitual constancy. Google 'HCTN_71' for a UK Met Office paper on this.

quote:

The RH constant refers to water in a jar with a lid being given time to move to equilibrium by holding temperature constant after changing it.

Err? No. Actually this is a good way to prove air saturation with WV. This gets quite close to 100% RH! (?"after changing it"?). 'This' looks like plot generation for a graph of temperature against saturation. Tupperware also guarantee this process for their 'salad crisper' (it works too).

quote:

You'd be able to deduce other things from this if dealing with a sinusoidal wave (so predictable) but something like the RH graph is I'd suggest chaotic in the sense that it's generator is chaotic so I wouldn't believe any prediction.

If you've read the UK Met Office paper you'll realise that _AVERH is not as chaotic as you may think.

I was of the opinion that the value of 'filtered' data was to enable a view of events without known sinusoidal influences! For example, data averaged over a 28 day period would exclude any influence from the 'lunar tide'. Do you see this otherwise? Why the 21 point filter in the Met Office graph? I downloaded the 'raw' data and 'parsed' it into a Lotus 123 workbook (it took almost nine minutes to 'parse'). It fills 15 pages of 65,563 lines of the spreadsheet and there are sooo many -999 entries (-999 is the code for 'no value') that I don't really want to waste my time using this data to form a graph. Though I've saved the 'book' anyway because I hate waste and I may yet find a use for it.

Finally, I'm not looking for any 'predictions' here, just clearer observations (with less 'clutter').

BTW. I realised soon after my post that a reduced 'slew rate' for a graph would only reduce the 'amplitude' of the graphic and so offer no clearer understanding whatsoever.

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

Err? No. Actually this is a good way to prove air saturation with WV. This gets quite close to 100% RH! (?"after changing it"?). 'This' looks like plot generation for a graph of temperature against saturation. Tupperware also guarantee this process for their 'salad crisper' (it works too).

I see your point I think. I've expressed myself poorly. What I meant was that have a jar with some water in at air pressure and air temperature then seal it and after a while measure relative humidity within.

Then open the jar raise air temperature and the temperature of water in the jar to a new level. Then seal the jar again and wait a while then measure the RH in the jar. ie new temperature but same pressure. RH should be the same in each case?

If there is no lid then because water vapour is lighter than air it would rise out of the jar depending on the humidity outside so invalidate this as an experiment that RH is the same at different temperatures given constant pressure.

quote:

If you've read the UK Met Office paper you'll realise that AVERH is not as chaotic as you may think.

But the graphs you initially referred to were all over the place but they had an average. Met office is stating that essentially observations show that AVERH doesn't change which is different to where we entered this debate which was that RH was constant.

It was Steve_M who introduced that the models said the RH was constant and would remain so earlier in this thread.

If AVERH is constant then the amount of additional warming from this depends on the changing distribution of WV which brings us back to changing precipitation patterns which is Spencer's point.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

It was Steve_M who introduced that the models said the RH was constant and would remain so earlier in this thread.

Well I can't comment for Steve_M, but if the RH in a climate model is 'parameterised' as a global average then he is probably correct. I think you'll need to wait until his return for a true response on his remark.



SoM, I'm sure you understand how RH (relative humidity) is quantified, but for those readers that need a 'refresher', here is a basic recap.

Air can only hold a limited amount of WV (water vapour). This limit is called the 'saturation point', but the amount of WV that air can hold increases on a 'log scale' with an increase in temperature. Thus, warm air can hold a greater amount of WV than cool air, so the air temperature determines the maximum mass of WV that the air can contain. It is often important to be able to recognise when air is near to its 'saturation point', so a scale of 'percentage' has been adopted which measures the proximity of air to its saturation regardless of the air's temperature (however, knowledge of the air's temperature is essential to arrive at this metric). This is known as 'relative humidity' (RH) and at the 'saturation point' of air this becomes '100% RH', with the other end of the scale being '0% RH' for 'dry' air without WV. Though 0% RH is not seen outside of laboratory conditions.

There are other complications of this form of measurement for air hydration and wiki has many entries on these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity
Though some of this can be confusing to the 'uninitiated'.


With that out of the way! Which do you understand to be true? The graphs on hadcruh, or the Met Office paper HCTN_71? I'm convinced that the two are irreconcilable. Need I remind you?

quote:

But the graphs you initially referred to were all over the place but they had an average.

Yes they had an average. It's the 'smoothed' green line that still goes "all over the place"! If you only look at the 70N-70S graph (which is 'almost' global) it's just as bad. So, 'who's telling porkpies'?

quote:

If AVERH is constant then the amount of additional warming from this depends on the changing distribution of WV which brings us back to changing precipitation patterns which is Spencer's point.

The constant global _AVERH is only claimed by paper HCTN_71 for altitudes up to the lower mid troposphere. It seems to be a WV 'throughput' claim that is dependant on temperature and as such would show regulation of a higher altitude hydrosphere against 'low altitude' temperature. A 'natural thermostat' of sorts. Don't forget that 'latent transfer' and convection are responsible for about two thirds of heat transport from the surface. So the 'paper' is probably more important than most people realise!

I think that the points that Spencer deals with (like support for the 'Iris' theory) are different and valid (you can't even begin to understand the 'engineering' terminology that I want to use here, but this is a science forum).

I just hope this post makes proper sense.

Best regards, suricat.

Wow! I almost fell out of my seat when I saw this on the mainsteam media BBC last night:

quote:

Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

Global temperatures 'to decrease'

It seems as if the BBC are making the first "very cautious" tentative steps towards admitting that global warming is no longer happening.

How is that for an empirical falsification?

Any comments!

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:

How is that for an empirical falsification?

Any comments!

You cherry picked quotes. Now that's some sort of falsification. Read the whole article.

I read the BBC article and found it interesting that they have even admitted that it has gotten cooler.

I thought they really were taking the pee a couple of weeks ago when they reported about that bit of ice falling off antarctica.

This when Antarctic sea ice is already ahead of where it was this time last year when it set a record high.

It would be nice if the BBC started being a bit less biased in their reporting, and told the whole story.

Also note that the cold spell is blamed entirely on La Nina, and the low solar activity and non-start so far of solar cycle 24 has been completely left out of the report.

Ah yes.. remember now, the suns variability doesn't affect climate. Solar activity and climate correlating is just the longest running accidental co-incidence in the history of the planet.

RealPrimate, cherry-picked or not, this quote still stands.

quote:

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

Funny too how they explain that the unusual hot weather previously was also due to La Nina, despite alarmists claiming at the time (including the BBC) that it was the start of a global warming apocalypse!!!

Where's the promised apocalypse?

I wonder too, how the following from the Guardian and the Times is supposed to make sense in the light of the BBC article.

quote:

Britons can look forward to a slightly warmer summer this year after last year's washout, according to the first seasonal forecast by the Met Office yesterday. The forecasters added, however, that the summer could still be wetter than average, though they said the risk of a repeat of the extreme flooding last year was low.

Outlook for summer is warm ... and wet

quote:

Holidaymakers can expect this summer to be warm but should prepare themselves for frequent downpours, the Met Office said yesterday.

Forecasters expect the summer weather, after the drought of 2006 and the floods of 2007, to return to the more traditional pattern of “three fine days and a thunderstorm”. Temperatures will be higher than average for Britain but in line with the heat associated in recent years with climate change.

“These are the first indications of how the summer will turn out,” said Brian Golding, head of forecasting for the Met Office.

Weather forecasters predict a warm and wet summer

Just more media bias for alarmism. No mention elsewhere in the mainstream media of cooling since 1998 or La Nina of course!

M Batchelor,

They also say "A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted." No mention of Exxon, cranks .......suggests the science is not decided.

Indeed strange things are happening eg what's the cause of March's strange hemispheric temperature anomoly divergence.

google - stockwell "niche modeling" warming -

the item is on the April 4th page entitled "March 2008 Temperatures". Looks to me like some oscillations are resonating. I thought CO2 was uniformish the world over.

I'm beginning to notice a lot of nibbling around the edges of AGW. But there's the problem of basic physics and chemistry and satellite measurements to get over. So far that hurdle is unsurmountable.

And another confusing thing,

quote:

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."

If La Nina has been causing cooling since 1998 and Scaife says it will take another few years for El Nino to to kick in, how long is a La Nina cycle supposed to last??? In the article they say it is a 12 month cycle???

So is Scaife saying here that La Nina has been stronge than the El Nino efect for that last ten years and will be so for a few more years?

And now this from the Time today. Are the man-made Global Warming alarmists in the main-stream media in retreat now or what?

quote:

Increased volcanic activity is linked to ice melted by the effects of global warming, a study has found.

So much ice in Iceland has melted in the past century that the pressure on the land beneath has lessened, which allows more of the rock deep in the ground to turn to magma. Until the ice melted, the pressure was so intense that the rock remained solid.

Carolina Pagli, of the University of Leeds, led research which calculated that over the past century the production of magma had increased by 10 per cent.

The research team, reporting their findings in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, said an extra 1.4 cu km of magma has been created under the Vatnajökull ice-cap in the past 100 years.

Increase in volcanic activity is linked to ice melted by global warming