Hey Bravus....need a bit of your expertise here

[Neil D]

And now, some rebuttals:

http://davidappell.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/speaking-of-epic-fails.html

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/how-much-out-of-whack-is-uah.html

Wow...scathing remarks on the authors by the rebuttals....Those are the opening remarks and the ending conclusions...but the middle, where the evidence is, I did not understand too well...I've been trained in Respiratory science, which has it's own terms..."SOB" is not a short hand commentary to a person's character but reference to an observation in breathing status-short of breath.

With that said, [and my being somewhat lazy at this early hour] what are UAH, temperature data set, CMIP5, tropical mid-troposphere, "low climate sensitivity", linear trend are confusing to the untrained...So, if some of you who are well versed in these terms that are thrown about like a pitcher and a catcher in a baseball game, maybe we could all understand what is going on a bit better....

[Bravus]

UAH is 'University of Alabama - Huntsville', which is one of the US climate centres that records climate data. It is used as an abbreviation for that particular data set.

A temperature data set consists of all the measurements taken in a particular way at a particular place. That might be a weather station on the ground, a set of weather balloons sent up with measurements at the same height, a set of satellite data, a set of ocean temperature data from a weather buoy or whatever.

CMIP5 (the only one of these I had to look up ;-)) is explained here better than I could explain it: http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/

The troposphere is the lowest layer of the atmosphere. It is about 20 km deep in the tropics but only about 7 km deep at the poles. 'Tropic mid-troposphere' measurements would be taken at an altitude of about 10 km somewhere in the tropics. That's the particular dataset these graphs focus on.

Climate sensitivity is how *much* any given influence would cause the climate to change. If CO2 had a low climate sensitivity, we could pump out a lot of it before the climate changed much, if it had a higher climate sensitivity we would see more changes sooner. Many of the arguments are around how sensitive the climate is to the various greenhouse gases.

A linear trend is just a very simple, straight-line model. Obviously the real climate is never going to be a straight line - there are multiple variations and interactions, and one year might end up warmer or cooler than the previous year, despite a larger long-term trend. The first graph - the one with all the straight lines on it - mapped simple linear trends.

I think that's a reasonable glossary. Certainly the rebuttals suggest that the graphs include some very dodgy practices indeed. Averaging together two signals in a simple average when one is 3x the other is dishonest - should have simply represented both, then it would have been obvious that the models tracked quite closely with the larger signal.

And so on.

The question to ask yourself, as always, is 'if people have to cheat to make their argument, how much is their argument worth?'

[Bravus]

One other point - although the increase in both graphs is smaller than predicted by the models, in both cases it's still an increase!

The claim that climate is not changing is refuted right there, in their own data and claims.

[Planey]

Interesting point - maybe:

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".

[Neil D]

Quote:

are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".

Graham, ya think this character would understand that this would be true had not God given man dominion over the earth and thus, little by little, man has been changing the earth...moving mountains, connecting the seas....changing the earth into his image...

Bravus- thanks for the definitions...appreciate them....

you guys might see an article that you have read. I've been in several forum and an not sure where I put it...townhall or Real Issues...I think I put it there..."15 things not to say to recovering fundamentalists"... I thought some newbys would like to see it....

..Yeah, I put on my abseptos underwear again, and got the heat sheild up and running and found my Rock and hard place to protect my self from all the stoning.....hope it works....

[olger]

Those poor liberals. I actually feel sorry for them.

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent. The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

And Algore. What a tragedy. Not only did his "mother" nature prove uncooperative when she blessed many of his conventions with record cold and winter storms, now she commits an additional grievous insult by allowing sea ice to grow 60% IN ONE YEAR. This is an indignity.

On December 14, 2009, a warm & fuzzy Algore stated that due to his global warming faith & postulations, "the polar ice caps in the summer could be completely ice-free during the next 5 years." About the only thing he said that was accurate that day was his closing remark "We will find out." We did.

`G

[Bravus]

It's been clearly established that the difference was on the order of 35% rather than 60%.

I'll bump this thread in a year's time, and we'll see.

[Stan]

Ya'll

Sarcasm needs to go down....

[Bravus]

Sorry. Sarcasm wasn't what I was going for. Lightly edited.

[CoAspen]

You keep posting the same thing over and over, even though 'your' explanation has been shown not to be the correct one. This is old news.

Yes, more ice, but much, much thinner! What does thinner mean, it melts faster. An expected result of the temp rise! In the US this last winter we had more area with snow cover, but less of it and not the same amounts as past. Again, a known issue of temp rise......globally, not locally!!

[CoAspen]

Lets not sink to the level of trying to disparage peoples views on global warming by calling them liberals or conservatives. Either one believes it is an issue or they don't. When people present data to support their view, they should make sure it is accurate, verifiable and scientific. That should not be difficult. When religious bias is introduced, either for or against, conversations go more into the opinion rather than factual categories.

I for one would certainly want to read scientific data demonstrating global warming is not man made. I want to hear both sides of the issue. When articles are posted, with links, I check them. When they turn out to be blog sites, opinion sites, etc, I ignore them because of the lack, or possible lack of, verifiable data. Everyone has an opinion, I just want the facts!! Media is notorious for 'sound bites' and that is all to common through out the internet. It is really simple to change the meaning or conclusions of data by exclusions and out of context quotes from it.

So....this topic started out with a person wanting some definitions and explanations of data from Bravus, lets not take it to the garbage pile!!

[Stan]

name calling is used by those who lack a strong position.

[olger]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/e...ease-on-record/

Good stuff,

`G

[olger]

One of NASA’s ice experts, Dr. Walt Meier says :

This year “will without a doubt” rank in the top five lowest levels of ice extent ever recorded in the satellite era, and there is a good possibility that 2013 could rank second in terms of recorded ice lows, said Walt Meier, a scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center.

Another NASA expert, Jay Zwally says :

NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

Back in 2007 the BBC reported that the climate change consensus was that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013. To quote Richard Feynman, the Famous physicist, If the numbers don’t support your theory, it is wrong, no matter how many support it, or how powerful and influential they are, it is still wrong. These warmers would be better off learning how to build igloos and hunt mammoths.

`G

[olger]

Bravus claimed it wasn't 60%. That may be true, some calculations are saying 67%.

Rejoice always,

`g

[Neil D]

Quote:

The Sydney Morning Herald Friday 13 January 1939

Glacier Bay was first surveyed in detail in 1794 by a team from the H.M.S. Discovery, captained by George Vancouver. At the time the survey produced showed a mere indentation in the shoreline. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range.

By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet

This is a natural phenomenon? Explain, Olger.....this bay, is totally open...explain, Olger....

[Bravus]

The Snow and Ice Centre is flooded out and its web site down at the moment, so I can't check the data.

That graph looks extremely dodgy to me... and cherry-picking the date 'September 10' is also a worrying and unscientific approach.

[Bravus]

For a start, last year's minimum was about 3.41 million sq km, not the 2.4 shown on this graph.

[Bravus]

Well worth a read at the 'meta' level of this discussion: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...ons/#more-15652

[Bravus]

More directly on topic: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/arctic-misrepresentations/

[Bravus]

On climate change *I would love to be wrong*! If it turns out it was all a mistake, that predicts a much better life for my children and grandchildren, something that would delight me.

The data just don't support that, though. I keep looking at the data - and the data keep showing that the globe is warming.

[olger]

The Snow and Ice Centre is flooded out and its web site down at the moment, so I can't check the data.

That graph looks extremely dodgy to me... and cherry-picking the date 'September 10' is also a worrying and unscientific approach.

I think the end of September would be a more reliable datapoint.

`g

[Bravus]

Comparing whatever the absolute minimum is year on year is probably even better - it may occur on different dates in different years as part of the variation.

[olger]

Median is just as reliable as minimum.

[Neil D]

Median is just as reliable as minimum.

Even I know that doing so will skew the data if it also done differently...