NASA GISS shows 2009 as tied for 2nd warmest year on record

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by chogan2, Jan 17, 2010.

  1. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    972
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    And it looks as though 2010 is starting out pretty warm in the Pac NW as well. After a cool pre-Christmas week, we have been significantly above normal. Snow level/freezing level consistently higher than normal, Cascade snow pack ~50% of average, in spite of near record rains. Record and near record high temps through out the NW, from N.Ca to S.E. Ak continues. Last week, Bellingham WA was 61f, today yesterday and today it was nearly 60f. My bulbs are breaking dormancy about a month early

    I'm curios to know the depth and size of the El Nino. I saw a map the other day that showed it covering the bulk of the Pacific from E.Asia to South America. As El Ninos go, how does this compare with historic ones?


    PS Rp1, nobody cares.
     
  2. NevadaPrius

    NevadaPrius New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    216
    20
    0
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    Wow. I wish you would spend more time educating yourself about things you wish to talk about, instead of just running around insulting people and then crying about it because you can't take what you dish out.

    Learn about the following link and you won't be so surprised about the WEATHER that you are experiencing. Do some reading. If you understood a little more about the earth things wouldn't be so surprising:

    The Arctic Oscillation and Arctic Weather Patterns
     
  3. dg1014

    dg1014 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    63
    4
    0
    Location:
    WI
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    They wont do that to him. He's one of their fellow alarmists
     
  4. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    It's just like in Icarus' epic thread (which got deleted or moved somewhere we can't access), the alarmists all sat by, twiddling their thumbs, while Icarus crashed and burned three times in a row - 1) by comparing Australia's summer to America's winter, 2) failing to read a graph's legend properly, and 3) by thinking adding heat (energy) to water would make ice.
     
  5. mikepaul

    mikepaul Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    1,763
    6
    0
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    I never heard that Global Warming meant that cold winters would be gone NOW. Indirect sunlight will continue to cool the Earth for a long, long time, even though the average temperature will rise.

    What matters is that when there are no more glaciers to melt, that extra heat will start affecting other things a lot more. Even *if* it's cyclic and not some unending doom, the cycle doesn't need to be helped along by emissions we could control, except that controlling it cuts into somebody's profit. Waiting out a cycle assumes the cycle ends before you do...
     
  6. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Completely wrong. Winters are already being predicted to be warmer than usual, have less snowfall (weather), and that cold winters will become a "thing of the past."

    Rapidly melting glaciers = HUGE LIE. This is big news, the IPCC report that talked about them was based on a conversation that may or may not have ever taken place. Coincidentally I just made a thread about it:

    http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...-report-blunders-himalayan-glacier-facts.html
     
  7. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,020
    724
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    The usual prefatory stuff: We're talking about global temperatures, the globe is three-quarters water, the US land area is maybe 2% of the globe's surface, and so on. So presumed error in the US land trend, if such error exists, will have only a small impact on the global temperature trend. Just get that out of the way.

    First, you again fail to mention that NOAA staff literally tested the notion that the low-quality stations distort the trend. They literally used Watts list of high-quality stations. They got the same temperature trend with the full dataset and with the stations that Watts approved of. This is a non-issue.

    The brief NOAA report is a good read if you actually want some understanding of the issues. They cite peer-reviewed study of this exact issue; they talk about the new climate monitoring network that is going into place; and then they empirically test Watts exact list of stations to demonstrate that they get the same trend with Watt's 70 or so high-quality stations or with the full network.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

    Second, there is no mention of the actual underlying analytics. There is a huge amount of redundancy in the climate network as a whole, because there are very few true degrees of freedom in the temperature readings. That is, there is very high correlation of temperature trends for stations near one another, and a reasonably high correlation of temperature trends even for stations at fairly large distances from one another. So if you have 1200 thermometers, you can't get 1200 arbitrary readings. For example, if it's a colder-than-average winter in Sterling, VA, there's a very high probability that it's a colder-than-average winter in Richmond, VA, and a decent probability that its a colder-than-average winter in Philadelphia, PA.

    (Another way to understand that is just to look at any gridded graph of the current world temperature anomaly. It never looks like a checkerboard (alternating cool and hot squares), it always looks like it has been painted with a broad brush. If it's warmer-than-average in Paris, it's highly likely to be warmer-than-average in Brussels, etc.)

    In fact, for the globe as a whole, depending on how you measure it, there are only about 200 true degrees of freedom in temperature readings. That is, you could adequately monitor global average temperature (to within 0.05 degree C accuracy or thereabouts) with just 200 well-placed thermometers. The fact that you have many times that many temperature observations means you have redundancy, and can use that redundancy to clean up the existing data.

    That spatial correlation is largely what drives the NOAA result cited above. The 70 high-quality stations, by themselves, provide nearly as good an estimate of US average temperature trend as the full network does. (Using the full network reduces the variance of the estimate).

    And that is, in part, how NOAA (and independently NASA and others) go about cleaning up the data. In addition to literally knowing the station metadata (e.g., did the station location change), they use the high degree of spatial correlation to find the thermometers that are out-of-whack and exclude them, or, possibly, apply empirical adjustments to bring them into concordance with the rest of the network. For example, and most basically, they check for outliers -- if you have N nearby stations, N-1 agree, the Nth one is grossly different, they toss the outlier. So if somebody fires up the barbeque pit, and screws up the reading, it'll get tossed. Another example is NASA's adjustment for urban heat island effects -- they find the rural stations nearest to an urban station and adjust the urban trend to match the rural trend. If there is no nearby rural station, they toss the observation. Does it matter if they toss some observations in this fashion. No, probably not. Why not? Because the temperature trends are highly spatially correlated -- so if you have to gap-fill Richmond, VA's trend with Sterling, VAs trend plus those of other nearby stations, you probably have made only the tiniest of errors, averaged across the entire database.

    Well, why bother, I don't think this is going to change anybody's view anyway. So, let me finish up.

    Second, you cite the analysis of some unknown with a BS in applied physics. As if I'm supposed to be believe that some amateur newbie knows more about how to do this properly than the people who spend their careers doing it. I don't think so.

    Third, the historical network is used for temperature measurements because that's what we've got. Yes, now that climate is a significant issue, the US is putting stations into place specifically to monitor climate. But all you've got for historical data is what was on the ground at the time.

    What are you suggesting -- that we go back in time to make those stations right? Or just pretend that we have zero information about historical temperatures?

    Or, just maybe, the sensible thing to do is to extract as much useful information as possible out of the available data, in as sensible a fashion as possible. And, ideally, to have different groups use different methods, to see whether or not those methods matter materially. That is, maybe what we're doing right now is the most sensible course of action.

    Finally, you trust the Christy satellite data. I'll just note a few things.

    A) Producing temperatures from the satellite observations is a difficult thing to do, as I've posted here before. At least four groups do it and get different estimates.

    B ) Christy/Spencer are on verision 5.2 of their temperature time series.

    C) They twice got the trends very wrong, and in a very public fashion. First, saying there was no trend, second saying there was very little trend. The second time, the people at RSS had to point out their math error to them. Maybe they are as right as they can be now.

    D) If you look at the various entities that produce temperature trends from the satellite data, you can see a lot of disagreement as to methods. RSS, for example, flatly states that you cannot use the satellite data above about 85 degrees N and S latitude, or for high elevations (I think it's anything over 3000 meters, but I'd have to check that). Christy/Spencer, by contrast, just blow right through that and calculate temperatures for the entire surface. That's odd, but consistent with what appears to be a fairly cavalier attitude toward calculation errors.

    E) If you look at the Christy/Spencer UAH data in detail, it's really hard to make much sense of it. For example, the GISS data show much more warming over land than over water. As I understand the theory, that's what the data should show. And they show that consistently for the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. In fact, if you adjust the S.H. data to account for Antarctica (land with zero warming -- that is, you try to look at the S.H. land that is comparable to the N.H. land), you find that GISS gives a remarkably consistent estimate of land warming, ocean warming, and the difference between the two. With the Christy/Spencer data, by contrast, in the Northern Hemisphere, land warms just slightly faster than water, while in the Southern Hemisphere, water warms slightly faster than land.

    Once again, this is not to say that any one of these series contains no information. Just to say that the satellite data certainly are not inherently preferable to the ground-based readings.
     
    3 people like this.
  8. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    In the PDF you linked they plotted the 70 good stations, but with data adjusted!

    [​IMG]

    Hello!

    Good job trying to link a file from your hard drive :)

    Yikes :) Is taking data and plotting it too difficult for you? I have a specific memory of being in the 5th grade (I must have been 10 years old), being at a friends house doing our homework, and I remember drawing bar and line graphs and coloring them in, being sure to label the X and Y axis, and all of that.

    I apologize if the concept of feeding data into a computer and letting the computer plot it is beyond you.
     
  9. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    972
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Chogan,

    Thank you for a very well thought out informative post. It highlights the complexity of the issue, in terms that laymen can begin to understand.

    Once again, thank you,

    RP1 Nobody cares.
     
  10. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    It really gets to be mind blowing:

    GHCN – Does “homogenized” mean cooked? Musings from the Chiefio

    USHCN vs USHCN Version 2 – more induced warmth Musings from the Chiefio

    GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect Musings from the Chiefio

    Chogan, how can you reconcile posting a report from such a psychotic extremist alarmist as James Hansen, when you can read his quotes (ie, that Manhattan will be partially flooded by 2008, and that Obama has 4 years to save the planet) and see that he is a fool? Why are "character assassinations" only valid if they are against "denialist blogs"?
     
  11. mikepaul

    mikepaul Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    1,763
    6
    0
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Ummmm, perhaps the semantics are an issue. A "cold winter" is COLD because the temperature is low enough. It is not WARM because it's not as cold as it used to be. I don't expect an end to cold winters till well after I'm dead.

    When there's no more snow in Buffalo because the temperature never drops that low anymore, the people still alive will be well past the end of "cold winters"...
    I guess all that Iceland-melting stuff confused me. You know, green areas where it used ot be all glacier? And 'rapidly' might be wrong, but an agenda that denies 'melting' seems foolhardy...
     
  12. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    :rolleyes:
     
  13. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    972
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A

    You will find that a number of folks here like to play a "heads I win, tails you lose" game. When confronted,they can get pretty nasty. Often it is just best to post your information as you see fit, and ignore their response.

    Rp1, nobody cares!
     
  14. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Wow. You should win a Nobel Peace Prize for how succinctly you have just described your posting technique.

    Step 1: Post information as you see fit (ie, invent new physical laws)
    Step 2: Ignore all contradicting responses
    Step 3: Success!

    Dang, that is honestly worded exactly perfectly.
     
  15. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    972
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    au contraire mon ami,

    I didn't suggest ignoring all contradictory responses, I suggested ignoring you (and your brethern's) response(s), a subtle yet substantial difference.
     
  16. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,020
    724
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I think this is as fine an example of the quality of your postings as any.

    So, first, show me where James Hansen himself literally wrote that Manhattan would be flooded by 2008.

    I don't think you can. Because I don't believe Hansen ever wrote that. I'm not looking for conditional statements (e.g., if we had a repeat of historical episodes, we might see rises of 3 feet per decade.) None of that. I want to see something written by Hansen where he says Manhattan, flooded, 2008.

    OK, if there's no direct evidence from Hansen's own writings, then who says he said it? Where does that come from. What's the qualify of the evidence?

    Well, look at your favorite site:

    A little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed badly Watts Up With That?

    Here's the source of information. In 2001, A former newspaper reporter (called Rob Reiss by Watts, but actually identified in the Salon interview as Bob Reiss) was flacking his forthcoming book on global warming (called "Stormy Weather" by Watts, but in fact identified in the Salon piece as "The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather and Our Terrifying Future,"). In an interview on Salon, he said that he recalled a conversation with Hansen 12 or 13 years ago (the uncertainty is Reiss', not mine), in which Hansen appeared to misunderstand the question, and then made a prediction of flooding.

    OK, put aside the fact that Watts did not bother to get either the author's name or the book title correct. Let me just focus on substance.

    Let me see if I have this straight about what it is I am supposed to believe here. First, I'm supposed to believe that Hansen makes this sensationalist prediction, and this newspaper reporter just sits on that for --- 12 to 13 years? Never mentions it in print anywhere. Then, as he goes out to promote his book, then he recalls it, in great detail. Second, I'm supposed to believe that Hansen made that prediction in total contradiction to his scholarly work, where he was on record projecting average global temperature increases on the order of 0.15 to 0.20 degrees centigrade per decade?

    In short, the story I'm supposed to believe is that Hansen ignored his own published work to make this startling prediction of flooding to a newspaper report. This newspaper reporter mentioned this to nobody for more than a decade. Now, he can't quite recall exactly when the prediction was made (12 or 13 years ago), but he remembers it in exquisite detail -- in 2001, as he goes out to flack his forthcoming book.

    Oh, yeah, and the quote on Watts site says 20 to 30 years. And Reiss says he asked Hansen again in 2001 and Hansen says he'd say the same thing. So Reiss claims Hansen was happy to predict massive flooding (and water shortages, and rising crime rates) within an apparent seven years. Oddly, again, this newspaper reporter made absolutely nothing out of those apparent dire and immediate predictions -- until he went out to sell his book. And the only thing Watts posts is an interview with Riess on Salon, so apparently Riess didn't think it worth putting Hansen's prediction into his book (or Watts didn't bother to read his book, also possible).

    Yeah, OK, whatever.

    Hansen has in fact made the point that the IPCC sea level rise projections are based on there being no large dynamical changes in the ice sheets. (Translation: they stay in one piece and melt in place.) But the paleological record clearly shows surges in sea level that could only have occurred, in the past, if there had been massive, short term collapse of the land-based ice sheets.

    So Hansen is one of a few scientists who point out that there is an asymetric risk function here -- while the mean projected rise is low, over any small time interval there is a non-negligible risk of rapid sea level rise, and, based on the paleological record, over longer intervals (century scale) it's a pretty good bet that you'll see periods of rapid sea level rise. If the paleological record replays itself, it's a pretty good bet that some generation in the near future will get to experience rapid sea level rise. We shouldn't look at the IPCC mean and, based on that, feel that there is no risk there. And for doing that, for reminding us of that possibility, I think Hansen does us a favor.

    But, a firm prediction, Manhattan, 2008, nah, I don't believe it. Show me some hard evidence. Not some hearsay about a 12 or 13 year old discussion that was kept quiet by a newspaper reporter, until he remembered it in vivid detail as he went out to advertise his forthcoming book.
     
    3 people like this.
  17. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Ah, an argument based on your own incredulity! That's convincing!

    :rolleyes:
     
  18. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,020
    724
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Well, I'm sorry I have to spell this out so bluntly, but what I was saying was, put up or shut up.

    You've had a loud and obnoxious mouth here regarding James Hansen, calling him, at various times, "moron", "psychopath", and so on. And you keep asserting that he's stupid because, among other things, he "predicted" that Manhattan would be flooded by 2008.

    I went back to your source on that information (you posted the pictures from Watt's site), and laid out the correct story, as posted just above. All the issues from the the small (Watts didn't get either the name of the author or the name of the book correct), to the middling (the actual Salon quote was 20 to 30 years, not 20 years), to the large (we're supposed to believe that a newspaper reporter kept this prediction secret for 12 or 13 years, only brought it up in an interview flacking his book, but did not actually put this in his book, and that Hansen made this prediction in total contradiction to his own published work on the likely speed of climate change).

    So, put up or shut up. If you want to assert that Hansen is foolish because he predicted a flooded Manhattan by 2008, please show me where James Hansen himself actually wrote that he expected Manhattan to be flooded by 2008.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Please prove he didn't say that. I'm waiting.

    My evidence is as you have quoted. It's just that you want to believe he didn't say it. To support my statement I can provide more information on the character of James Hansen. For instance, he is a known environmental activist and has been arrested for his psychotic, moronic, idiotic, asinine, brainless, dense, dimwitted, doltish, dopey, dumb, foolish, half-baked, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, irresponsible, ludicrous, mindless, nonsensical, pointless, senseless, and unintelligent protesting against mining.

    Hansen's quote in Scientific American March 2004:
    Translation: I buffed this issue in order to get your attention and my schtick was subjective and not scientific. It was ok to lie and make ridiculous extreme predictions to get your attentions. Classic appeal to emotion fallacy.

    --

    On June 23, 1988, the first day of summer, with the corn belt baking in drought and civil war relics being uncovered in the piddling Potomac, he presented a graph of global annual temperatures for the last 100 years and included the January-May, 1988 readings on the same chart.

    [​IMG]

    Figure 1. Average annual global temperature departures as presented by NASA’s James Hansen to Congress in June of 1988. Notice the last point only represents the first 5 months of 1988 (Source: Adapted from Congressional Testimony, June 23, 1988, of James E. Hansen).

    He went on to say that 1988 would be the warmest year on record unless there was a “remarkable and improbable” cooling during the rest of the year. In reality, 1988 did not set the record.

    Talk about “extreme scenarios.” Everyone with a modicum of statistical knowledge (which excludes just about every Senator and Congress-person) knows that temperatures vary much more when looking at five months of data versus annual averages. There is no science journal in the world, even ones as global-warming-gaga as Science and Nature are right now, that would allow such a misrepresentation, but there it was, in front of Congress and on national TV. And now he’s crabbing that the Bush Administration wants to vet his pronouncements! The nerve!!


    Also, his former supervisor speaks out:
    In the words of the IPCC, I think this makes it "very likely" that he made such a ridiculous and idiotic statement. Does this sound like a "straight laced" scientist who is capable of making rational decisions and looking at data objectively? Hell no!

    Sorry if you feel like I'm insulting your god. Time for you to get a new religion. You know what they say huh? If it looks like a turd, and if it smells like a turd.... It's probably a turd!

    And feel free to comment on this:

    [​IMG]
     
  20. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    972
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Who's being nasty now?

    "For instant, he is a known environmental activist and has been arrested for his psychotic, moronic, idiotic, asinine, brainless, dense, dimwitted, doltish, dopey, dumb, foolish, half-baked, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, irresponsible, ludicrous, mindless, nonsensical, pointless, senseless, and unintelligent protesting against mining."

    There are many who might think that environmental activism is a noble endeavor. Let's try to keep this on subject shall we. Besides, just because you decide that some one is wrong certainly doesn't make it so.
     
Loading...