PART 5/ Opdaterede Sol/Is/temp/hav data

Frank Lansner skrev:
AWSOME, kosmos!

Og reelt er den opvarmning "de andre" skulle have fundet tilsyneladende noget der opstod ved justeringer... som altid når naturens data ikke slavisk følger IPCC:



UKMO EN3, var online kun få uger før den blev flået væk fra KNMI uden varsel eller forklaring. Kun UKMO´s regn data er nu tilgængelige for den brede befolkning der åbenbart igen-gen skal skånes for at se data der ikke er convenient for IPCC.
Men skeptikere som Bob Tisdale nåede at downloade. Pyha!!!

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/a-different-perspective-on-trenberths-missing-heat-the-warming-of-the-global-oceans-0-to-2000-meters-in-deg-c/

So based on nothing more reliable than a vague memory, you accuse Josh Willis of an "experimenter expectation problem"?

A bit of digging finds this. It discusses the underlying issue, which was that the ocean heat content data didn't fit with the sea level data. They found two problems.

One was a subset of Argo floats that were reading too cool. The other was a problem with the calculated falling speed of the XBTs. The second of these is of no interest to this discussion [ligesom det ikke er interessant for denne diskussion med F. Lansner].

The part that doesn't fit your preconceptions is that Josh Willis had already written about the recent ocean cooling ... so he was surprised and had to retract some claims when he noted that the purported cooling didn't agree with the sea level data he had accepted as valid.

Near as I can tell, the 2005 inaccurate floats were removed, the data was corrected, and since then there haven't been issues. Since the data I used starts in 2005, seems like none of this applies.

In any case, I fear that based only on your memory, you've made an unsubstantiated, unpleasant, and untrue accusation of scientific malfeasance against Josh Willis ...

w.

"so he was surprised and had to retract some claims when he noted that the purported cooling didn't agree with the sea level data he had accepted as valid."

Hvis virkeligt man overtrumfer faktiske ARGO målinger fra 3000 bøjder med trend i (justerede) sea level data, hvorfor har man så overhovedet et gigantisk ARGO netværk?

Altså en trediehånds opfattelse af hvad der er årsagen som ikke en gang hviler på påviste fejl i data (!?), men at Willis syntes at data burde ligne mere noget med opvarmning grundet sea lavel data?

In 2004, Willis published a time series of ocean heat content showing that the temperature of the upper layers of ocean increased between 1993-2003. In 2006, he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005. Surprisingly, the ocean seemed to have cooled.
Not surprisingly, says Willis wryly, that paper got a lot of attention, not all of it the kind a scientist would appreciate. In speaking to reporters and the public, Willis described the results as a "speed bump" on the way to global warming, evidence that even as the climate warmed due to greenhouse gases, it would still have variation. The message didn't get through to everyone, though. On blogs and radio talk shows, global warming deniers cited the results as proof that global warming wasn't real and that climate scientists didn't know what they were doing...

Hvis virkeligt man overtrumfer faktiske ARGO målinger fra 3000 bøjder med trend i (justerede) sea level data, hvorfor har man så overhovedet et gigantisk ARGO netværk?


Nielsen, har du virkeligt ikke stærkere fundament for at RÅBE OG SKRIGE om hvor fantastisk korrekt ARGO justeringer er??
Du lyder egentligt ikke synderligt skeptisk?

Come on, Nielsen, når du på den måde laver fanfare for rigtigheden af ARGO justeringer, så MÅ du simpelthen ligge inde med links etc. der rent faktisk forklarer hvad der skulle være gået galt med måle dta fra 3000 bøjer?
Som jeg husker det var det omkring 2008-9 at man pludseligt begyndte at justere ARGO data fra svag kuling til svag opvarmning. Altså stik modsatte budskab.
DET KRÆVER EN RIGTIG RIGTIG GOD FORKLARING, Nielsen.

Hvis mig den forklaring på hvad der er gået galt med data 2003-2008, så kan det jo være jeg skifter standpunkt.

Du tager selv afstand fra mange oplysinger og resultater i forbindelse med klimadebaten. Du om nogen må derfor kunne leve med at andre gør det samme - også selvom det ikke lige er DINE darlings man elsker.

Men prøv at svare mig: Hvilke vigtige typer klimadata bortset fra satellit temperaturer ser ikke ud til at være ændret overordnet set så de ender med at passe bedre til global warming budskabet?

...The above raises the question as to why these adjustments were made. It would have been nice to compare apples to apples to see if Hadcrut3 would have finally broken the 1998 record. But then the apple became a banana when the new Hadcrut4 came out. Then the banana became a red pepper when Hadcrut4.2 came out as can be seen here. Now, the red pepper became a jalapeno pepper when Hadcrut4.3 came out. The anomaly for the first 7 months on Hadcrut4.2 averaged 0.535 and it ranked in third place at that time, but the first 7 months on Hadcrut4.3 averaged 0.539, and the average for 8 months on the new Hadcrut4.3 is now 0.555 and this would tie it in first place with 2010 which is also at 0.555.
Why are they changing things so quickly? Do they want to take some of the heat off GISS? Are they embarrassed that Dr. McKitrick has found no statistically significant warming for 19 years and before the ink is barely dry on his report, they want to prove him wrong? Are they determined that by hook or by crook that 2014 will set a new record?

- det minder for mig at se en del om at kaste seks seksere med en terning i rap!

Mht Hollandske klima institutioner, specielt KNMI, så har jeg en rigtig dårlig erfaring.
Jeg mener at det er en uskik at trække originale datasæt tilbage. Man kan lave et skriv der fortæller hvorfor man mener at det har problemer etc. men på den måde bare at hive datasættet væk i nattens mulm og mørke, im sorry men det er i dén grad dårlig stil

Ok, today is the day that tAV, the repeatedly alleged EVIL denialist blog, lucky unwitting recipient of the biggest scientific scandal of the last hundred years, hosting the proprietor who has been snipped from every advocate website, who will now present a global gridded temperature from the RAW-ish GHCN data, having a higher trend than the believers will publish. However, it is to my knowledge a more correct representation of the actual data.

Anyone with any background in climate change science knows full well (or should) that the human component of observed warming is completely 100% unknown. Currently, it is statistically and mathematically inseparable from natural warming. The only thing we can do to separate human and natural warming is model the contributions mathematically and subtract. Today, climate models have failed by over-predicting warming. Since models have over-predicted warming by so much, all modeled differences between CO2 and natural warming effects are now nonsensical. We don't have a value.

Dr. Hawkins, who I have no immediate knowledge of, isn't changing his scientific opinion based on facts though. Unfortunately for science, the non-factual opinion is hardly unique. Bart Verheggan, who's blog is linked on the right, did a study which I found interesting in that it is similar to John Cook's recent 97% debacle in that it polled climate scientists to ask their opinion on various global warming questions.

One question was:

What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?
– More than 100% (i.e. GHG warming has been partly offset by aerosolcooling)
– Between 76% and 100%
– Between 51% and 76%
– Between 26% and 50%
– Between 0 and 25%
– Less than 0% (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling)
– There has been no warming
– Unknown due to lack of knowledge
– I do not know
– Other (please specify)

From Bart's post:

Consistent with other research, we found that the consensus is strongest for scientists with more relevant expertise and for scientists with more peer-reviewed publications. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) are the dominant driver of recent global warming.

This seems to agree with what we would expect, however there is a problem. The conclusion that human created GHG is THE dominant factor in global warming has absolutely no numerical foundation in the science. One wonders just what makes these scientists so certain! Yes there are papers on the matter of attribution, but those I have read are universally model based. There is nothing wrong with the concept of climate models, except that the ones relied on are now known to be non-functional. They have failed by overestimating global warming....dramatically.

As the models are known to have failed, the scientists in the survey who still claim humans are the primary cause for the very minimal warming we have observed, are acting as activists rather than scientists. The real answer is that we just don't know. It is possible that these people have committed themselves in the past so strongly to the cause that a change in position is personally something they cannot handle. Being wrong isn't much fun after all. Being publicly wrong on your field of expertise is worse I suppose. However, I believe that their political activism is more to blame than personal embarrassment over the failure of a climate model likely created by someone else.

Basically, because the question asked here can only be based on subjective opinion and not scientific fact, the questions of this survey are more interesting as a social study of the people involved. I see it as a referendum on the objectivity of the scientists in the field.

In addition, Bart reports that those more published in the field are more likely to claim that warming is primarily human induced. Were it simply a matter of personal embarrassment, wouldn't a person with 10 publications have as much invested as one with 40? Perhaps not, but we also have knowledge that the field prefers those who advocate for political change and those are the scientists who receive the funding and cushy jobs with lots of research assistants to allow them the time to publish lots of papers. Claims sometimes made that are contrary to this fact are nonsense.

My reading of this aspect of his paper is therefore different. Bart Verheggen shows that the more popular individuals, that he claims have "more relevant expertise", are more likely to make the claim that humans contribute more than 50% of warming is caused by GHG. A claim that is objectively unscientific.

We have a very big problem in our science when such a large fraction of the group is willing to claim an unscientific position in their field of study for unexplained reasons.

Since their belief is decidedly not evidence based, or they would certainly publish the proof, we can only conclude that it must be a faith. In this case, the group has expressed a non-factual faith that somehow humans must be the primary cause of warming. What drives this faith is not discussed in faith terms, and therefore must be a personal matter for each of them, driven by a wide variety of unseen truths believed but not discussed. Perhaps a group of fuzzy math papers or perhaps some other un-vetted statement they have heard from colleagues has seeded the thought. It is a faith, an unbreakable truth under which physical laws of reality must bend to comply. It is the only explanation for the fact that we regularly see climate observations fly in the face of the conclusions, yet the conclusions stand unaffected.

Tak fordi du vist undgik eder og forbandelser, grimme tillægsord etc.
I så fald er det bare fint at du kommer med input.

Steven Mosher | January 28, 2014 at 12:12 am |


Frank Lansner?

Jeez.

first time I reviewed on of his pieces ( before it was posted) I found a number of errors. It never made it to print.

Last time I reviewed one of his published pieces, he had screwed up the download.

I receive any number of corrections from working researchers. They send me mail. They document their findings. They give me data to look at. We investigate.
They get credits on the acknowledgment page. Second to last person to write me found an error that effected 600 of 40000 stations. The last person to write me was concerned about 3 or 4 stations, we are working through that.

So, have frank write me a mail. he should provide the data, and its provenance ( given his previous failings I cannot promise it will go to the top of the stack )

Hej Frank

Jeg har flere gange gået tæt på dine analyser og konklusioner og søgt at arbejde ud fra dine præmisser. Uanset at nogle af de emner du tager op er særdeles relvante, er du håbløs til at analysere og dokumentere dine påstande og du mangler totalt en kritisk indgangsvinkel.

Jeg har brugt rigtig meget tid på at diskutere med Frank , at chekke hans analyse og undersøge hans data. Ved et nærstudie holder Frank påstande som regel ikke

Og så er det rigtigt at man i global warming sammenhæng forklarer disse ubelejlige nærmest konstante sea level målinger på Tuvalu med at Tuvalu har hævet sig i forhold til Jordens midte..

Men hvad så med alle de andre konstante sea level målinger rundt om i Stillehavet??
Jo, her er forklaringen skam også at ALLE disse sites har hævet sig fra jordens midte.
Her en håndfuld inkl TUVALU fra dit eget skriv, de KONKRETE målinger ikke justeret for noget som helst.

Og Kosmos og ligesindede, se igen i Franks kommentar herover. Det er så dumt at det gør ondt. Hvem f... har sagt, at atollerne vokser fordi havbunden hæver sig?

Det er så dumt at det gør ondt. Hvem f... har sagt, at atollerne vokser fordi havbunden hæver sig?...
Det er bare idiotisk. Der er intet i det. Spild af tid. For alle.

"effects of the vertical movement of the platform"

Som jeg har forstået hans udlægning, så er hans konklusion, at øerne må være vokset i takt med at havet er steget, da man ikke kan måle havvandsstigningen på disse øer.

Konklusion:
(1) Der er ingen tvivl om at Tuvalu vil være ubeboligt på et tidspunkt.

(2) Atollerne omkring Tuvalu vil være ubeboelige tidligst i år 2070 og senest år 2140.

På andre øgrupper gælder lignede forhold og det tidligste og seneste tidspunkt på for hvornår deadline passeres for disse øgrupper er henholdsvis år 2050 og år 2160.

kfl skrev:
Jeg har skrevet, som jeg har ud fra en artikel fra 2010:Arthur P. Webb, Paul S. Kench: The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific .

Jeg har ikke været opmærksom på en nyere artikel af bla. samme forfatter, men når jeg får fat i den skal jeg selvfølgelig nok læse den.

Idet min interesse primært var Maldiverne , har jeg spurgt prof. Kench om der forlå noget tilsvarende for Maldiverne. Der forelå historiske foto, men dem ville det amrikanske forsvar ikke slippe på daværende tidspunkt. Derfor kunne samme øvelse ikke foretages for Maldiverne. Om dette har ændret sig ved jeg ikke..

Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 ha. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area.

Of significance, the results of this study on atoll islands are applicable to islands in other reef settings, as the boundary controls on island formation and change are comparable. Results of this study contradict widespread perceptions that all reef islands are eroding in response to recent sea level rise. Importantly, the results suggest that reef islands are geomorphically resilient landforms that thus far have predominantly remained stable or grown in area over the last 20–60yr. Given this positive trend, reef islands may not disappear from atoll rims and other coral reefs in the near-future as speculated.

Hej Frank

Geomorfolofien beskæftiger sig med landskabernes dannelse og ændringer. Du bevæger dig ind på dette område i forbindelse med havstigninger i Stillehavet og Det Indisk Ocean - et meget vanskeligt emne.

Din påstand er, at øerne vokser i takt med at vandstanden vokser. Det er muligt, at det forholder sig således, men jeg vil gerne se referencer til artikler før jeg tro på det.