Data Comparisons

GISS Temp posted!

84 Comments

GISS posted September’s temperature anomaly: 0.65 C. It was toasty! In fact, this September GISS temp exceeded the September 1998 value– but it does not exceed September 2005, which clocked in at 0.67C. Here are all the anomalies for months this years, in 100th of C:

2009 53 43 46 46 55 65 62 52 65
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

I’d say more.. but you know, I gotta’ go watch tv with Popsie-Wopsie! (Thank heavens there are non-stop baseball games today!)

84 thoughts on “GISS Temp posted!”

  1. Well, global September may be second warmest Sep since 1880, but more concerning is that the Southern Hemisphere is warmest on record for this month. Let’s look at the SH SST’s for a minute what they have to say, that’s where the biggest heatsink sits… and what goes down, will come up.

    BTW, does popsie wopsie remember the climate when he was young… some nice anecdotal/local lore?

  3. Interesting, this month’s GISS number is slightly lower than that of UAH (when normalized to the same baseline). Not that that’s particularly unusual; UAH was above GISS in Jan and Feb of this year.

  5. If Artic Ice Melting = Global Warming…

    what does Antarctic Ice Not Melting = ?

    Is the Antarctic located on a different “Globe”?

    Andrew

  8. Sekerob (Comment#21363)
    October 8th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    I imagine you think you are clever and have counted coup. Enfield, Connecticut, 1741. That was you he had in mind.

    Sul mare luccica lastro dargento
    Placida londa
    Prospero il vento

    Venite allargine
    Barchette mie
    Santa lucia, santa lucia

  10. OK, this is weather 🙂

    But September wasn’t that warm in North Wales. No doubt it was very different also in many parts of the world, lots of variation.

    So how can GISS claim to measure world temperature? I’ve asked this apparently naiive question many times but nobody has successfully answered it.

  11. Dave–
    GISSTemp is supposed to be an average. If you take a bunch of measurements, you can always compute an average!

  12. Lucia:

    I think Dave is asking how valid this measurement is. You can compute an average reliably, but the question still remains “are you measuring what you think you are measuring?”

  13. I think Dave is asking how valid this measurement is. You can compute an average reliably, but the question still remains “are you measuring what you think you are measuring?”

    Look up wood for trees, the averages collected there all agree to a large extent.

  14. bugs–
    The fact that HadCrut, GISS and NOAA agree to a large extent tells us almost nothing. All are based on practically the same collection of observations.

    Whether or not people are measuring what they think they are measuring is a valid question in all observations, including highly controlled lab experiments.

    I was just answering the “local vs. global” issue.

  15. Bugs,

    “The Polar Vortex is stronger for the Antarctic than the Arctic.”

    how well do the GCM’s model that??

    (I don’t know)

  16. bugs (Comment#21392)
    October 9th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
    lucia (Comment#21394)
    October 9th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Hah! Catch a “skwewy wabbit” in a little over an hour in a Wiley Coyote style snare. The cosmic irony. I just KNEW however, that Lucia would get it. Engineers always do. Philosophers always do. Scientists often don’t. Climate Scientists never do…. ok, maybe that’s a bit over the top…

    Bugs, you just confused the issue of “validity” (or as I put it “are you measuring what you think you are measuring?”) with the “rubber yard-stick problem” or the issue of “reliability”. In high-school science classes (or at least in my high school, back in the days we had to walk five miles, barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways) they make you take measurements three times and then average the results. That’s the reliability compensation. It’s hard to measure something once and achieve “perfect accuracy” the first time around.

    You are half-right when you refer to the wood-for-trees example. If you can use different measurements or instruments to measure the same object and they agree you can have more confidence in the results. As Lucia just pointed out, however, the various “measurements” we are using are actually pretty much the same… think of it this way… in Paris they have stored at ideal temperatures a standard object to represent a meter. If we need to check whether our little wooden or plastic “meter” stick is really a meter, we can place it next to the standard and see the difference. Now, it may happen that in my workshop or my lab I have three different measuring devices: a tape measure, a yard stick, and a “micrometer”. When I measure an object with all three devices, the results might agree to within .001 of an inch. If I think I am measuring meters, however, then I have a problem.

    Even worse is when the discrepancy is qualative… are tree ring widths reflections of temperature, moisture or CO2? You may think they reflect one thing when in fact they are more sensitive to something else.

    Dave’s question was both naive and profound. We could average the numbers in a telephone area code. Or compare the averaged phone numbers of several area codes. What have we learned?

  17. The fact that HadCrut, GISS and NOAA agree to a large extent tells us almost nothing. All are based on practically the same collection of observations.

    I was referring to the whole collection, including UAH and RSS.

  18. “All agree to a large extent” “I was referring to the whole collection, including UAH and RSS.”

    This is the vampire that just won’t die. For the love of Christ, man, THE LOWER TROPOSPHERE IS NOT THE SURFACE!!!!

    As for the “agreement” in is worse than coincidence. Look into the details some time-you’ll find that differences between the data sets can be striking. Take a look at the difference between the central park temperature series as adjusted by 1. GISS and 2. NOAA-apparently the NOAA technique actually induces bias in some cases. It could easily go the other way, too.

  19. This is the vampire that just won’t die. For the love of Christ, man, THE LOWER TROPOSPHERE IS NOT THE SURFACE!!!!

    No, they aren’t. They are close neighbours. The temperatures match to a good degree.

  21. By the way bugs, if we compare models to predictions of the troposphere, it strongly suggests models over predict warming. So, I guess in that sense, the observations are in general agreement that the models over predict warming. But the models look worse compared to the troposphere.

  23. Bugs–
    As far as I can tell, the graph you show is irrelevant to what I said. The graphs compare trends for surface and satellite records over entirely different observational periods.

    Also, you might want to use words to explain the point you think that image makes. If you did, it would be obvious to readers that the graph you showed is simply idiotic.

  24. Bugs–
    I should add that even if the comparison in your graph was not an idiotic comparison of measurements over different time periods, it was also contradict your claim the two methods show similar trends! In your graph HadCru and GISS show entirely different trends form the satellites. (Of course, this is meaningless because the comparison is over different time periods.)

  25. I should add that even if the comparison in your graph was not an idiotic comparison of measurements over different time periods,

    It’s not working for the same time periods. Something is broken. Even so, you shifted the goal posts. I was just claiming that the match is good between the temperature records, you can’t rebut that, so move on to trends.

  26. Bugs–
    There is no moving of goal posts:

    There isn’t a good match between the temperature records.

    The only comparison possible is when both were operating simultaneously. They match is not good during that periods. The independent records show different trends. If you want to call this mismatch a “good match” you are going to have to define “good” because I call it a “pretty poor match”.

    It’s unfortunately that wood for trees may not be operating the way you prefer, but the fact is the comparison you shows a) is idiotic and irrelevant to the discussion and b) if it made any sense, would show the two records show wildly different trends.

  27. But Bugs, aren’t the models predicting the lower troposphere to warm _faster_ than the surface – should the trend in lower troposphere not exceed that of the surface?

  29. The only comparison possible is when both were operating simultaneously. They match is not good during that periods. The independent records show different trends. If you want to call this mismatch a “good match” you are going to have to define “good” because I call it a “pretty poor match”.

    Of course they show different trends, but the wiggle matching is good. Both are tracking the same thing.

    Worked out a workaround for the bug.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978/trend/plot/rss/from:1978/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/trend

    Put date first. Damn good match.

  30. My brother-in-law said they were predicting frost last night, but we didn’t get one. If it doesn’t frost tonight, I will harvest all the basil and dry it for the winter this weekend. I also need to get at the sweet potatoes. (You’d think I’d do it now. Ordinarily, yes. Today… no…)

  31. bugs, Lucia,

    Here is the WforT plot that I think makes a bit more sense: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.085/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/offset:0.144/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/offset:0.116/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend

    This has all four series plotted over the period where there is data for all and with offsets added to show the trends starting at the same temperature. HadCru and GISS are almost identical (same starting data). The interesting difference is between UAH and RSS; they are both based on satellite data, but I think they differ in global coverage, with UAH collecting data at higher latitudes than RSS. The UAH trend is certainly different from the others.

  32. Folks, I think this is what you want:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend

    HADCRUT3 GISTEMP and RSS are very close, but UAH is a lot lower. I don’t know why this should be.

    More discussion at http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#trends

    Bugs, er, what bug?

  33. Bug–
    Instead of making graphs that are not suited to comparing the magnitude of the trends, why don’t you download, rebaseline and compare? At least through August, RSS is a little lower than GISS, Hadley and NOAA, and UAH is substantially lower. I haven’t downloaded more recent months data.

    So, the satellites collectively, are lower than the surface and the agreement is not “good”. (Or, at least, if you want to call it “good” you need to define what “good” means. Matches one satellite record but doesn’t match the other? What? )

  35. Niels A Nielsen (Comment#21418)-Yes.

    bugs (Comment#21407)-They aren’t supposed to.

    Paul Clark (Comment#21424)-“HADCRUT3 GISTEMP and RSS are very close, but UAH is a lot lower. I don’t know why this should be.”

    This is probably because, HadCrut and GISTEMP have the same general basis, and RSS has an error in how NOAA 11 and NOAA 12 are merged that leads to a spurious warm discontinuity around 1992ish.

  36. HADCRUT3 GISTEMP and RSS are very close, but UAH is a lot lower. I don’t know why this should be.

    Date range has to go first, you can’t add it later.

  38. Nathan–
    Huh?
    Have you read bug’s claim? Have you read mine? Why have you changing the discussion from one about the the satellite records vs. ground records (i.e. 2 records vs. 3 others totalling 5) to a subset of 3? Have you computed the five trends? Are they the same? Can you define “good”?

  39. Bugs,

    you missed the point of Lucia that you should REALLY pay attention to.

    RSS and UAH measure temperature at a higher altitude.

    Model physics consistently show AGW as creating a steeper trend as you go upward in the atmosphere to the upper troposphere.

    If the TRENDS MATCH WELL, AGW, and some other forms of warming, is disproven.

    You may want to rethink what you are arguing here. If you win you lose, etc.

  41. Have you read bug’s claim? Have you read mine? Why have you changing the discussion from one about the the satellite records vs. ground records (i.e. 2 records vs. 3 others totalling 5) to a subset of 3? Have you computed the five trends? Are they the same? Can you define “good”?

    You are the one changing the topic, as you usually do.

    The question was, how do we know we are measuring the temperature of the climate with ground instruments. The satellite measurements confirm that we are. When the temperature goes up in one, it goes up in the other.

  42. kuhnkat,

    As far as I know, every form of warming predicts warming in the troposphere to be greater than warming at the surface, unless it is warming from the inside of the planet out, such as in a massive subsea volcanic eruption.

    And a slower warming trend does not falsify AGW. It falsifies, (provided the measurements are accurate and there are no other unknown factors) a certain level of climate senstitivity. The physics for CO2 predicts warming between 1.5 C and 4.5 C per doubling. At present, even when adjustments are made for the predicted difference between surface warming and the troposphere, the UAH/RSS trends fit into this range (although for UAH it is admittedly fairly close to the lower edge).

  43. David, the physics seems to predict, for a doubling from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, a warming of 1.2C. The next doubling would produce a warming of 0.6C, and the one after that 0.3C.

    The way we get a predicted warming of 1.5-4.5 is not from the physics of CO2. Its from the prediction that any warming of 1 degree will be amplified by feedback effects, primarily water vapor increases, and these will then produce a further increase of anywhere up to 3C or so.

    This is not the physics of CO2 or even the physics of water vapor in any useful sense. The part about the direct effect of the first doubling is physics. It is what inputs to a complex system will result from that doubling. There is no doubt that the input will be sufficient for a 1.2C warming.

    This is a bit like when I drink my cup of hot coffee in the morning, the heat input is of a certain level. However, similarly, whether this results in an eventual rise in temperature is not a simple function of that heat input. My temperature may rise, it may fall, it may stay the same,

    It is entirely possible from the point of view of physics that the heat input from CO2 would have no long term effects at all on global temperatures. This could happen in lots of ways; one way would be if cloud formation effects and rise in albedo from them were to exceed the GHG effects from an increased water vapor caused by the initial rise in CO2, and also overwhelm the heat input effect from CO2 itself.

    It may happen, but if it does, it will not be due to anything that it is helpful to call the ‘physics of CO2’. It would be better to call it something like ‘the reaction of the whole climate system to increased heat inputs’. Yes, but that sounds a lot more complicated and a lot less certain, which is what it is.

  44. reality check just type global warming in google news. big tie media bbc etc dont believe anymore one months temp = o meaning keep hoping though lol

  45. David, the physics seems to predict, for a doubling from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, a warming of 1.2C. The next doubling would produce a warming of 0.6C, and the one after that 0.3C.

    The way we get a predicted warming of 1.5-4.5 is not from the physics of CO2. Its from the prediction that any warming of 1 degree will be amplified by feedback effects, primarily water vapor increases, and these will then produce a further increase of anywhere up to 3C or so.

    Saturated Gassy Argument.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

    So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the “saturation argument” against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

  46. Bugs: “The question was, how do we know we are measuring the temperature of the climate with ground instruments. The satellite measurements confirm that we are. When the temperature goes up in one, it goes up in the other.”

    Why do you keep repeating such utter nonsense, Bugs? You entered the discussion confusing the concept of validity with that of reliability. This late in the thread you still don’t get it, it seems. Amazing.

    Please read what Robert E. Phelan tried to tell you in comment#21402.

  47. Why do you keep repeating such utter nonsense, Bugs? You entered the discussion confusing the concept of validity with that of reliability. This late in the thread you still don’t get it, it seems. Amazing.

    Please read what Robert E. Phelan tried to tell you in comment#21402.

    What are we measuring? Changes in temperature. Anomolies. The time and magnitude of them independently verified.

  48. Lucia

    Here is Bugs initial claim:

    “Look up wood for trees, the averages collected there all agree to a large extent.”

    He said nothing about trends.
    You decided it was about trends and then argued that.

  49. Nathan–
    They don’t all agree:
    1) The absolute values don’t agree. (Of course this can be explained by the whole anomaly method, but still, they don’t agree.)
    2)The trends don’t agree.

    If you or bugs want to define what the heck you mean by “all agree to a large extent”, go ahead and do so. Then show, that, in that sense something or other agrees.

    But getting back to the even more original question of how do we know that we are measuring what we are measuring– they do not agree sufficiently to prove that we are. The fact that the trend for satellites (in particular UAH, a satellite record) differs noticably from the trend in the surface means the surface measurements may be measuring something like UHI.

    Alternatively, UAH may be incorrect. Or UAH may be the only correct on. Or….

    Regardless way, the level of agreement between satellites and surface measurements cannot just be described as being in agreement in anyway that proves the contention that the surface temperatures are measuring what we think they are measuring.

    If they did agree that well, we wouldn’t have constant “climate blog war” arguments over which temperature record is the most believable! The satellite and surface records differ enough for some in different “camps” to prefer one record to the other.

  50. But getting back to the even more original question of how do we know that we are measuring what we are measuring– they do not agree sufficiently to prove that we are. The fact that the trend for satellites (in particular UAH, a satellite record) differs noticably from the trend in the surface means the surface measurements may be measuring something like UHI.

    Alternatively, UAH may be incorrect. Or UAH may be the only correct on. Or….

    Regardless way, the level of agreement between satellites and surface measurements cannot just be described as being in agreement in anyway that proves the contention that the surface temperatures are measuring what we think they are measuring.

    You must be joking. The correlation is obviously close, just using your eyeball.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend

  51. bugs — Yes. All three measurements are correlated. This does not mean they all measure what people intend them to measure. I don’t think you understand the concept underlying the original question.

    Of course, they very well may measure what the observers think they measure. But what you point to simply does not constitute proof of this. The level of disagreement suggest that at least something is being mismeasured or is not what we think is being measured.

  52. bugs — Yes. All three measurements are correlated. This does not mean they all measure what people intend them to measure. I don’t think you understand the concept underlying the original question.

    Of course, they very well may measure what the observers think they measure. But what you point to simply does not constitute proof of this. The level of disagreement suggest that at least something is being mismeasured or is not what we think is being measured.

    Jesus h christ on a pogo stick, maybe this is all a dream and I’m just imagining it all.

  53. Bugs, lets say the trends in surface temperatures (GISS, Hadcru) are biased high because they include an element of UHI like some research suggests (the issue of validity). Would the correlation between tropospheric temperatures as measured by satellites and surface temperatures be noticeably affected? No. The large degree of linear dependence would still be there.
    The temperatures in the tropical troposphere show no significant trend since 1979 even though it is supposed to be the spot with the steepest temperature trend in a warming climate.
    These temperature measurements correlate closely with surface measurements in the tropics.
    What did you say that a close correlation between surface and tropospheric temperatures means, Bugs?

  55. “In what organizers said was a rarity, Gore took half a dozen questions from journalists, including one from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address *nine* errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.

    Gore responded that the court ruling supported the showing of his film in British schools. *When McAleer tried to debate further, his microphone was cut off by the moderators*.”

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_dacf39c7-c2f8-5718-a5a0-d0cfb39f80bc.html

    Oooops! I guess it was a unfortunate coincidental technical failure somewhere in the system.

    In the the Real Worldâ„¢, we regard Big Al as kind of a big (literally) joke, FYI. 😉

    Andrew

  56. bugs (Comment#21446)
    October 11th, 2009 at 5:56 am
    “You must be joking. The correlation is obviously close, just using your eyeball.”

    Bugs, your Comment#21437 dragged this discussion directly back to the issue of validity and you are still getting it wrong. Let’s take a concrete example. The GISStemp record indicates a steadily rising surface temperature. The vast majority of those sensors are, however, in urban areas. Anthony Watts’ Surface Station project seems to be indicating that what those urban stations are measuring is not climate change so much as changes in urban density, land usage and economic activity. That is an issue of validity. Your satellites need to be calibrated against something. If you choose to calibrate against surface temperatures, then the same bias that is in the surface temperature record will become part of the satellite record as well. To argue that one such method validates another method is just circular reasoning.

    Bugs, if you still can’t understand the validity problem, then you are out of your depth here. If you are suggesting that we accept temperature figures because a scientist assured you they were accurate, then that is just religious faith. I don’t much like missionaries.

  57. David Gould (Comment#21438)-The is no physics which will get you to 4.5 per doubling of CO2. That’s feedback that could do that, but not physics.

    michel (Comment#21439)-“David, the physics seems to predict, for a doubling from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, a warming of 1.2C. The next doubling would produce a warming of 0.6C, and the one after that 0.3C.”

    Nope. 300 to 600 would be 1.2, 600 to 1200 would be 1.2, 1200 to 2400 would be 1.2.

    (incidentally bugs, that statement, while incorrect, has nothing to do with “saturation”)

  58. David Gould,

    “As far as I know, every form of warming predicts warming in the troposphere to be greater than warming at the surface…”

    Yes, we agree on that. Reread my post.

    “And a slower warming trend does not falsify AGW.”

    Maybe you should tell us YOUR definition of AGW. I am not going to compare apples and oranges with you.

  59. kuhnkat,

    Warming caused by increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, these increased CO2 concentrations stemming from human activity. The predicted warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration ranges, as I stated, from 1.5 degrees centrigrade to 4.5 degrees centigrade with 95 per cent confidence.

    On the agreement, you said ‘some’; I say almost all.

  60. michel,

    All the datasets show a greater warming trend than 1.2 degrees c per doubling. All the datasets show a warming that falls within the predicted 1.5 degrees per doubling to 4.5 degrees per doubling.

  61. David Gould (Comment#21459)-I am extremely unclear how UAH’s trend of .12 degrees per decade is converted by a doubling value to you. If that equates to a surface trend of .1 degree per decade I am even less clear.

    You frequently say that trends fall within the range “expected from blah blah blah” but in this case, the comparison you are talking about makes no sense.

    Here’s a little fun math. The forcings (from 1750 baseline) of all GHG’s is given here:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008_table2.png

    2008-1979 is about one watt per meter squared. The LT warming from UAH over this period was about .35 degrees Celsius. that translates to .35*3.7~1.3 degrees per CO2 doubling. Now, you could say that I need to account for ocean delay-that would be fair. You could also say I need to account for aerosols-that would be fair, also, although accounting for that would be tricky and it may not make that big of a difference (I’ve read some papers that say aerosol forcing over this period was negligible)-that’s also fair. But I have also assumed that none of this trend is due to solar influences, the eruptions of Pinatubo and El Chicon, internal variability, etc. which could easily reduce the value, just as those other effects may increase it.

    At the very least, the observed trends seem most consistent with the low end of the 1.5-4.5 range.

  63. Andrew_Fl,

    You graph temperature versus the natural logarithm of CO2 concentrations. In the case of UAH and RSS, you need to first adjust the temperatures by dividing them by 1.2 to get the theoretically predicted surface temperatures.

    To get the observed temperature increase per doubling, you then multiply the slope of the graph by .7 (the natural logarithm of 2.) This gives you the observed temperature increase per doubling.

    I hope that that makes sense.

    And, yes, UAH is at the low end of the range – I think that I said that in an above post. But it is still within that range.

  65. I still think my calculation is a little better. Rather than any particular logarithm, I take advantage of the precalculated CO2 forcing (and the other GHG’s!) from ESRL. Then, knowing what the value for doubled CO2 is, it’s a simple matter to convert back to the doubling CO2 value. If I do that, without converting to the theoretical surface value, UAH isn’t in the range, it’s just below it.

  68. I just did monthly data as an experiment. It shows a 1.56 degree increase per doubling. (Oh, and you can divide the slope by 1.2 afterwards – you do not have to do it for each temperature. Silly me.)

  71. Andrew_Fl,

    Ah! I thought that I had seen it in that formula, but looked at it and simply saw the 5.35 and wondered where the 3.7 came from. I should have realised that it was simply ln 2 times the 5.35 figure.

    Thanks. 🙂

  72. Oh and if you watch the Big Environmentâ„¢ video I just posted, you’ll notice that Big Al went to the What About The Polar Bears? Defense when confronted with a slightly challenging question.

    Yes, Big Al used the same What About The Polar Bears? Defense that the Clueless Liberal Girl I dated went to when I challenged her about Global Warming.

    Synchronicity? 😉

    Andrew

  75. David Gould,

    I say some, you say almost all. Neither say all or none or give a specific number. My some did not include GG warming.

    Basically we agree on that point.

    Since you claim 1.5 to 4.5 for AGW no Hot Spot would disprove it. No Hot Spot says NO WARMING of AGW type or, in your terminology, almost all types of warming are absent including GG forcings.

  76. Lucia
    “Of course, they very well may measure what the observers think they measure. But what you point to simply does not constitute proof of this. The level of disagreement suggest that at least something is being mismeasured or is not what we think is being measured.”

    Of course, we may think we know what you mean, or what other observers here think you mean, but that in no way proves that you actually think.

    See I can write gobbledigook too!

  77. Lucia

    “1) The absolute values don’t agree. (Of course this can be explained by the whole anomaly method, but still, they don’t agree.)
    2)The trends don’t agree.”

    This is truly awesome. So Bugs is wrong because all the things you list don’t “agree” – despite none of the things you list being what Bugs was talking about… WOW. That’s really surprising!

  78. Lucia

    “But getting back to the even more original question of how do we know that we are measuring what we are measuring– they do not agree sufficiently to prove that we are. ”

    That’s great too. You introduce a new topic and call it the “even more original” one. Thereby dismissing all debate that it is nothing to do with what Bugs was talking about… Classy.
    This is straight out of Donald Rumsfeld’s text book, yes? Just sowing the seeds of doubt… We don’t know what we don’t know… ohhhh Scary…

  79. kuhnkut,

    You are correct: no detection of warming would indeed disprove the notion that there is warming. 🙂

  80. You are correct: no detection of warming would indeed disprove the notion that there is warming. 🙂

    So we can cross that one off the list.

  81. I think Lucia is right. The trend are different. That is the differences in trends are large when compared to something.

    I also think Bugs is right. The trends are similar. That is the differences in trends are small when compared to something.

    Now if we knew what the somethings were supposed to be that defined similar and different we could make an objective statement about whether similar or different really is right or wrong. And when we know right or wrong what the implications are.

    Two obvious implications are that the differences are small enough that confidence that the world is really warming at some rate (eg at least 0.1 deg/decade) is increased because two different measurement types agree on this.

    And that the differences are big enough that somewhere in the whole system some uncertainties exist and it is very useful to understand how big these uncertainties are and what the implications are if temperatures are at the top of the uncertainty range, or at the bottom of the uncertainty range.

    The other fun question being is the difference between satellite and surface measurements larger then the accuracy claimed for each of these measurements.

  82. Nathan–

    Lucia

    “1) The absolute values don’t agree. (Of course this can be explained by the whole anomaly method, but still, they don’t agree.)
    2)The trends don’t agree.”

    This is truly awesome. So Bugs is wrong because all the things you list don’t “agree” – despite none of the things you list being what Bugs was talking about… WOW. That’s really surprising!

    All bugs originally said was the things are in good agreement. The first graphs he showed were of trends. Trends and absolute values are the most are the important features.

    I think Lucia is right. The trend are different. That is the differences in trends are large when compared to something.

    I also think Bugs is right. The trends are similar. That is the differences in trends are small when compared to something.

    This is why I said he has to define what “good agreement” means. He must mean it relative to some level of argument. Maybe he thinks he is arguing with people who think the trends have opposite signs? Or that the various measurements are so uncorrelated one may be measuring temperature of Jupiter and one of earth? I have no idea.

    The two are sufficiently dissimilar that people like DeepClimate seem to suggest UAH must be in error. How can it be “in good agreement” while simultaneously in sufficient poor agreement to make people like Deep think UAH is wrong?

  83. Lucia
    You didn’t quite get Bugs’ initial statement correct. He didn’t use the word “things”

    Here is Bugs initial claim:

    “Look up wood for trees, the averages collected there all agree to a large extent.”
    Now the “averages” would be the global temp, as that is what was being discussed at the time. He then clarified what he said later as
    “Of course they show different trends, but the wiggle matching is good. Both are tracking the same thing. ”

    You said he was wrong well before you asked for what he thought ‘good’ meant. Why didn’t you ask first? Yet again it’s a pointless debate over semantics. Why does this happen so often on this blog?

    I think I know…

    “The two are sufficiently dissimilar that people like DeepClimate seem to suggest UAH must be in error. How can it be “in good agreement” while simultaneously in sufficient poor agreement to make people like Deep think UAH is wrong?”

    DeepClimate was talking specifically about an annual feature.

    And what was with all that postmodern talk before?

  84. Nathan

    Here is Bugs initial claim:

    “Look up wood for trees, the averages collected there all agree to a large extent.”
    Now the “averages” would be the global temp, as that is what was being discussed at the time.

    It’s true that Bugs didn’t happen to mention what properties matched. However, the average global temperatures do not all agree. Neither their absolute values nor their trends agree.

    He then clarified what he said later as
    “Of course they show different trends, but the wiggle matching is good. Both are tracking the same thing. ”

    Sure. And when he did, this was addressed in comments by others.

    Recall that bugs was, presumably responding to comments prior to his. This is the one immediately prior, which bugs quoted in part. Here is the full comment

    Lucia:

    I think Dave is asking how valid this measurement is. You can compute an average reliably, but the question still remains “are you measuring what you think you are measuring?

    A) Wiggle matching of satellittes and ground stations is insufficient to show that satellites and surface stations measure the same thing and
    b) It is insufficient to show that “you are measuring what you think you are measuring.

    So, basically, if we assume bugs was providing evidence to addresse the comment he actually quoted the match is not sufficiently good to show that “we are measuring what we think we are measuring.”

    Sorry if you think phrases like “we are measuring what we think we are measuring is goobledy gook. But recognizing there is a difference between our goal (i.e. what we want to measure) and our outcome (i.e. what we actually measure) is a fundamental concept in science.

Comments are closed.