Deqar Eric, I have unsubscribed using both my business and personal emails??? Not sure what to do next.
The point was to make an intercomparison of temperature datasets. Complex scientific techniques often require bedding in before they can be depended on. I point to the early cooling bias caused by some faulty instruments in the Argo project for instance or the multiple problems in satellite solar irradiation measurements. The statistical outlier in the datasets is GISSTEMP if anything if you have a look at the numbers in the link - but all the methods agree reasonably well. It can hardly be cherry picking - rml (read my lips) what I am saying is the datasets are all much of a muchness. Again not sure what your point is? The Hale cycle of solar magnetic reversal has something to do with climate? I have wondered about that in relation to the 20 to 30 year periods - as in the current non warming - of ocean and climate states. You have to make the distinction, however, between hypothosis and analysis. If I were you - I would worry more about the prospects for the Schwabe solar cycle 24. The smallest of any cycle since 1928 – hmm. I keep trying to be helpful and educate you. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm The criticisms of the McLean et al paper were on the use of the first derivative of temperature. As an engineer you must understand calculus and realise that that detrends data. But it enables an approach to be made to quantifying the correlation of temperature variation with ENSO. All the paper says is that ENSO has a huge influence on global temperature variability. Hardly a conceptual breakthrough comparable to the Special Theory of Relativity say – but it puts a number to the ENSO influence. The speculative aspect – and scientists are permitted to be speculative in conclusions – was that the well known shift in frequency and intensity of El Niño after 1976 may have had an influence on the global temperature trend. Compare this for instance to Dr Latif’s comment I quoted elsewhere about oceans contributing 50% of the recent atmospheric warming. You are showing a lack of objectivity that is worrying – if all else fails call me a ‘denialist’. I don’t deny anything. I even agree that it is a bad idea to change the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. And I will do whatever I damn well like – as long as the moderate moderator doesn’t step in. Cheers Robert On Jan 22, 7:47 am, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > > In future, please delete the extra text that's not needed in your > reply. > > Robbo wrote: > > Eric, > > > Here is a good comparision of the temperature datasets and there is no > > huge difference - I prefer the satellite based measures for obvious > > reasons. RSS and UAH have converged in more recent times - which is > > why NASA pays for 2 different analyses. There realistically have to > > be checks. > > > Robert > > Here's the link you left off your comment: > > http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/global-temperature-revisited/ > ----------- > I noticed that the author of this piece doesn't mention the background > of many problems with the UAH data. The RSS analysis was produced > after these problems were brought to light and was an effort to double > check Spencer and Christy's work. He doesn't mention the differences > between the earlier MSU and later AMSU instruments and the different > algorithms used for each. Nor does he discuss the various problems > which arise from efforts to stitch together data from several > satellites. A very shallow treatment, IMHO. If you want more detail, > read the US CCSP SAP 1.1... > > Then the author considers data from 1997 thru 2008. It's obvious that > this is too short a period to compute a meaningful trend and with the > warm year of 1998 at the beginning of the time series, the resulting > trend is small. At least 25 years of data would be needed to span the > magnetic reversal cycle of the sun. In your previous post, you > suggested that 50 years of data would be better still, yet you seem to > think this comment has some value in the discussion. Why should I be > impressed here with your presenting the opposite situation? > > What is new here? Nothing that I can see. It's just another repeat > of the old denialist cherry picking of data to fit their agenda. > Maybe you should stick to posting on CA or some other denialist forum > where the level of knowledge is so small that you appear to be an > expert, sort of like Bob Carter's McLean et al. 2009 paper... > > E. S. > --- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
