January 30, 2017 at 4:58 am
“each one of the four key charts is deceptive and misleading.”
The first chart does not show any current date or make any claim about it being current, you may wish to read that into it, but it merely states that 10000 years of climate change produced that graph and clearly states,
“In all of the 10000 years shown here man played no role in the change of temperature or carbon”
“the second chart indicates that we’ve only observed about 0.2oC of warming since 1980, and this is simply not true.Both surface and satellite datasets suggest that we’ve probably had at least 0.6oC of warming since 1980,”
It is labelled as an amalgam of 3 satellite datasets, comes from Roy Spencer and does not show 0.6C. The land sets showed 0.4C over this period
“All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which reached about 0.8°C in 2010, twice the magnitude reported in 1981.”
and if you took the highest recently 0.6C would be right, for land but that could be seen as a “Clutching at straws GWPF style” argument in this setting.
* [Mod: refers to moderated comment]
re a graph labelled as an amalgam of 3 satellite datasets,
John Christy not Roy Spencer, I apologize for that amaurosis but the two are almost interchangeable, Roy gets the most headlines I guess.
The graph has been shown to be fraudulent?
With great charges comes great responsibility, Marco.
Marco would like to move the temperatures up on the y scale.
You cannot adjust the temperatures just to fit your narrative.
It would be like me saying the temperatures are fraudulent because they have been contaminated by CO2.
Showing the actual temperatures is not fraudulent.
“satellite temps are those of the mid-troposphere” is not fraudulent. He happens to be comparing it with 102 simulations by 32 models of , that’s right, the mid-troposphere.
Did the models forget to put in stratospheric cooling “pollution”?
Either they are good models, they put it in as well or the models are not as good as you wish to claim
[Mod: refers to something moderated]angech says:
January 31, 2017 at 7:12 am
Marco, The second chart is of the mid-troposphere and this does make a difference to estimating surface warming as you
“UAH v5.6 for the lower troposphere shows 0.6 degrees of warming for 1977-2015, and RSS shows 0.5 degrees. HADCRUT4 also shows 0.6 degrees for that period.”
“Both surface and satellite datasets suggest that we’ve probably had at least 0.6oC of warming since 1980, ”
are aware when you talk about the warming in different layers or heights
When ATTP says “the chart indicates that we’ve only observed about 0.2oC of warming since 1980, and this is simply not true.” it is not that the graph is false.
the reason is possibly that the mid troposphere, being much higher colder and stable does not exhibit as large a range of warming for the same amount of global warming/CO2 rise.
I felt it showed a 0.28 C increase but either way it is a lot less than 0.6C but right for that height.
The data set temperature changes are not comparable to each other.
Aside, if this is right the uncertainty bars would be a lot tighter and smaller than you might wish.
January 31, 2017 at 10:54 am
“Except this is simply not true. Neither RSS nor UAH show as little as 0.2oC of warming between 1980 and now.”
We seem to be on the edge of a controversy over the Christy chart, as I see it features in a Skeptical Science article “How reliable are climate models?”
where a similar graph shown is labelled global bulk atmospheric temperature and shows a 0.091 C for the 3 satellites and a 0.079 C for balloons per decade. 0.214 for the climate models.
This would account for a warming detected by the satellites of 0.315 from 1980 approx to 2015 approx for the global bulk atmospheric temperature.
As I see it the graph you are showing is the TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere),
You say 0.02 and I say 0.028 over 35 years and you say this is too low.
The common surface temperature satellites is the TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere)
“UAH v5.6 0.6 C and RSS shows 0.5 C. which is your comment above.
The one at Skeptical science and Dr Christy’s Senate presentation is the combination global bulk atmospheric temperature 0.315 C from the trend line. suggesting the TMT is indeed lower than the TLT
I hope my comment on the TMT [shown] being low is correct, a lot of scientists here may confirm this,perhaps Marco may have the figures.
I am not disagreeing with you. I think we are talking about different graphs and levels. I hope this sorts it out.
A similar graph was presented to the Senate by Dr Christy, I think there would be severe problems if he presented a fraudulent graph, how he presented it is considered misleading by most here but I doubt that the graph itself can be called fraudulent in any way.