HadSST ver3 is going to cause big problems for AGW

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Jul 13, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,444
    the ocean temp adjustments for changing from uninsulated buckets to insulated buckets and engine intakes have been disputed for some while by skeptics. the new version of SSTs will increase temps from roughly 1945-1980, changing trends for both temperature and ocean heat content. should be interesting. pretty soon BEST will put a stick in Hansen's GISS adjustments too. by this time next year the global temperature picture will likely be significantly different. unsettled science
     
  2. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,560
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,673
    Why is this a problem just for AGW proponents. Couldn't it be just a likely that the skeptics will be getting some bad news?
     
  3. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,444
    anything is possible konradv. especially in climate science. but once the 'adjustment' genie is let out of the bottle it is tough to get him back in.
     
  4. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,694
    Thanks Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,167
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2011
  5. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,444
    Matt- I realize the actual differences are rather small. but what is important is that it is in an area where CO2 was supposedly taking over the climate. who knows, perhaps the climate model projections will be better but will they be reworked to match the new data? the other point is that the adjustments for buckets etc was brought up by climate scientists in another field (ozone studies for one author). the concensus is breaking down, 'real' climate scientists are not automatically agreeing as much anymore. bogus data from Mann, Jones and the rest of the hockey team are being questioned and publicized every time a new study that uses them comes out.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2011
  6. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,444

    For flac-.

    These are not small changes. The dip in 50's temps are raised over a tenth of a degree.
     
  7. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,686
    Thanks Received:
    2,447
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,639
    The rational people always welcome any corrections that make the data more accurate, regardless of the politics. For example, the rational people all welcomed the ocean adjustments that made the warming look smaller, which completely contradicts the denier conspiracy theory of how the world supposedly works. The first thought of the rational people is always "How can I make the science more accurate?".

    Now, compare the rational people to deniers. No matter what the subject is, their first thought of any denier is always "How can I spin this to support my politics?'. Evidence? This thread.
     
  8. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,065
    Thanks Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,356
    Yeah -- but that's an old version. They've had 5 more years to cook the data..
    What you need is a measure of the adjustment history. Because it's rope-a-dope if you only look at the CURRENT corrections. From what I've seen in the USHCN -- they go WILDLY up and down all the time.

    Could that be the times just prior and post of a MAJOR global conference or policy announcement? Don't know..

    Why not just PUBLISH a chart of the GISS or Hadley RANGE of corrections? It's a simple chart with Bar markers to show the range of adjustments for each month in the record.

    Certainly ain't rocket science or Classified Top Secret Compartment. Just END all this "SKEPTICISM" by making crap like that easily accessible to the public..
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,065
    Thanks Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,356
    Clearly NOT the case that all that skepticism is an adversion to accuracy. I realize the hate-filled smog that you live in is affecting your ability to reason and think.. What is being called out (by that Duke guy and others) is the IMPROBABILITY that the natural accuracy of the raw data was BEST in the 60s and 70s..

    Which is the only logical conclusion on "accuracy" you could arrive at by looking at the corrections to the USA chart of temperatures for instance.. It certainly IS improbable that period -- which serves as a "pivot point" between UP and DOWN corrections versus time -- required the LEAST correction.. And for some damn reason -- our ability to read thermometers accurately has DECREASED since then..

    Largest effect on accuracy has been the massive cutbacks of reporting in Russia since their modern revolution. That MIGHT have required more "homogenizing" in the sensitive sub-Arctic.

    But when it diverges from the same satellite records that are used to correct those areas ---- there's an awful smell about it...
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,686
    Thanks Received:
    2,447
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,639
    Flac, your conspiracy theories are getting too far out there for anyone to understand. It's not worth the mental effort to try to figure them out. We just need to invoke Occam's. What's simpler and thus more likely, that your insanely convoluted world-spanning conspiracy is correct, or that you just screwed up?
     

Share This Page