So, Why all of the temp adjustments?

[westwall]

You just requoted the post I made with the CORRECT link in it..

What are you -- a baby??
You want mommy to show you where you left your binkey?

poopy is an intellectual cripple. He claims to have a PhD in physics and even sent me his purported thesis so ostensibly I actually know who he is...(as if i really cared), if the paper is authentic and i have no reason to not believe so he is at least a PhD candidate, but I wouldn't have agreed to be his advisor either. he's a petulant twerp. Thinks he knows a lot but has yet to show any true critical thinking skills.

He is what we classified as an "educated idiot" back in the day.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You just requoted the post I made with the CORRECT link in it..

What are you -- a baby??
You want mommy to show you where you left your binkey?

poopy is an intellectual cripple. He claims to have a PhD in physics and even sent me his purported thesis so ostensibly I actually know who he is...(as if i really cared), if the paper is authentic and i have no reason to not believe so he is at least a PhD candidate, but I wouldn't have agreed to be his advisor either. he's a petulant twerp. Thinks he knows a lot but has yet to show any true critical thinking skills.

He is what we classified as an "educated idiot" back in the day.

You wouldn't have agreed to be my advisor? LOL! YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED TO BE A PHD ADVISOR, moron.


You morons can't even figure out Hansen is referring to the work of another in the quote you made - even though the citation is right there!

 

[westwall]

You just requoted the post I made with the CORRECT link in it..

What are you -- a baby??
You want mommy to show you where you left your binkey?

poopy is an intellectual cripple. He claims to have a PhD in physics and even sent me his purported thesis so ostensibly I actually know who he is...(as if i really cared), if the paper is authentic and i have no reason to not believe so he is at least a PhD candidate, but I wouldn't have agreed to be his advisor either. he's a petulant twerp. Thinks he knows a lot but has yet to show any true critical thinking skills.

He is what we classified as an "educated idiot" back in the day.

You wouldn't have agreed to be my advisor? LOL! YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED TO BE A PHD ADVISOR, moron.


You morons can't even figure out Hansen is referring to the work of another in the quote you made - even though the citation is right there!

Sure thing junior. I didn't have to change my name like you did. One has to be a real douchebag to require that. Your opinion doesn't matter a bit. You've proven yourself to be near troll like in your behavior. Keep it up and I'll ignore you like I ignore the other trolls.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

poopy is an intellectual cripple. He claims to have a PhD in physics and even sent me his purported thesis so ostensibly I actually know who he is...(as if i really cared), if the paper is authentic and i have no reason to not believe so he is at least a PhD candidate, but I wouldn't have agreed to be his advisor either. he's a petulant twerp. Thinks he knows a lot but has yet to show any true critical thinking skills.

He is what we classified as an "educated idiot" back in the day.

You wouldn't have agreed to be my advisor? LOL! YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED TO BE A PHD ADVISOR, moron.


You morons can't even figure out Hansen is referring to the work of another in the quote you made - even though the citation is right there!

Sure thing junior. I didn't have to change my name like you did. One has to be a real douchebag to require that. Your opinion doesn't matter a bit. You've proven yourself to be near troll like in your behavior. Keep it up and I'll ignore you like I ignore the other trolls.

Its not an opinion.

 

[bobgnote]

OMG, pages and pages, so Wally can find out somebody is Jewing a model, so it comes out, with kosher results. Ask your rabbi about all this, Wally.

Have a tequila!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

OMG, pages and pages, so Wally can find out somebody is Jewing a model, so it comes out, with kosher results. Ask your rabbi about all this, Wally.

Have a tequila!

So now satellites are "models"

Wow.

 

[westwall]

You wouldn't have agreed to be my advisor? LOL! YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED TO BE A PHD ADVISOR, moron.


You morons can't even figure out Hansen is referring to the work of another in the quote you made - even though the citation is right there!

Sure thing junior. I didn't have to change my name like you did. One has to be a real douchebag to require that. Your opinion doesn't matter a bit. You've proven yourself to be near troll like in your behavior. Keep it up and I'll ignore you like I ignore the other trolls.

Its not an opinion.

Actually, yes it is...and a poorly informed one as well. As are you.

 

[Trakar]

“…The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-yr-mean imbalance of 6.5Wm−2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85Wm−2 (Loeb et al., 2009)…”
- “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications” (Hansen et al. 2011)

The first step in looking to understand what this passage is actually referring to involves examining the context within which it was stated. The abstract of this paper summarizes the paper’s goals and findings as:

“Improving observations of ocean heat content show that Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.58±0.15Wm−2 during the 6-yr period 2005–2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change. Observed surface temperature change and ocean heat gain together constrain the net climate forcing and ocean mixing rates. We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be −1.6±0.3Wm−2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade.”

More succinctly, the primary purpose of the paper is to clarify and quantify, according to various studies over the last decade, the values of known variables involved in the energy imbalance equations describing the difference between the energy received at the top of the atmosphere, and the energy emitted at the top of the atmosphere. As the purpose of this analysis is to explain the one paragraph featured at the start of this post, I am going to focus on that goal rather than spend much time on the overall paper. It is an interesting paper, however, and for those who are interested in the issues it discusses (and most especially the 2 revised and follow-up versions of the paper that have made it through publication in –IIRC- August 2011 and January 2012), I would highly recommend that after you have made your first read through of the paper, you spend about an hour listening to a luncheon talk Hansen gave back in April 2011 right after the paper had appeared in publication.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EV3zKjwC9Y&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EV3zKjwC9Y&feature=player_embedded[/ame]​

​

The quoted paragraph comes from section 14.6.1 Measuring Earth’s energy imbalance. In this section, the researchers first lay out why it is important to calculate the Earth’s energy imbalance (it is the average energy imbalance which actually drives climate change), and then they discuss the methods generally used to derive this value. The two primary methods they discuss are satellites and the measurement of the oceans and various other heat sinks within the Earth’s environment. Part of discussing the different methods involves discussing the problems inherent to the various methods. I will stick with the satellite issues since they bear the most relevance to the context of the excerpted paragraph. The problems are several, in that in order to generate requisite coverage one would need to place the satellite in an L1 parking orbit where it can directly and constantly monitor both incoming solar radiations and reflected/emitted Earth radiations, real time and over many decades. The other problem is that given a need for a 0.1W/m2 accuracy in order to produce data sufficient for useful energy imbalance calculation, it will be a while before the state of satellite sensor technologies achieve the required durability and precision.

These situations are being addressed and modern energy budget satellites have gotten much better over the last couple of decades, and are extremely useful in calculating the transfer of energy from lower layers of the atmosphere to upper levels of the atmosphere. When it comes, however, to dealing with several other types of measurements such as the changing angular distribution of the scattered and emitted radiation fields, we just don’t have the current capability to directly measure these characteristics with a sufficient degree of precision. The standard process used to estimate this value from the measurements of parameters the satellite is capable of making with high precision and to plug these into the standardized empirical angular distribution calculations (mathematical models of the systems) resulting in a value for the unknown variable, or in the case of multiple unknowns, statistical ranges.

This brings us to the excerpted paragraph, which starts out saying:

“The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009),…”

The most important aspect of this paragraph is to understand that it is devoted to the explaining processes used as it applies to the CERES instrument and data in accord with the manner and understandings demonstrated in “Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget” (Loeb et al., 2009).

“…which finds a measured 5-yr-mean imbalance of 6.5Wm−2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85Wm−2 (Loeb et al., 2009).”

Hansen is not making any adjustments; he is merely acknowledging and indicating what Loeb established in his research published two years earlier.

“Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget”

“…A detailed analysis of the errors and uncertainties that influence the global all-sky net TOA flux from CERES observations reveals that most of the source of bias is not from uncertainty in modeling the diurnal cycle, but rather is from uncertainties in absolute calibration of the measurements. For example, up to 4.2 Wm-2 of the 6.5 Wm-2 net TOA flux imbalance in CERES SRBAVG-GEO_Ed2_rev1 product is associated with absolute calibration uncertainty in the SW and TOT channels at the 95% confidence level. As much as 1 Wm-2 of the imbalance is explained by assuming a solar constant of 1365 Wm-2 in CERES processing, instead of the newly revised value of 1361Wm-2 based on recent total solar irradiance measurements (Kopp et al. 2005). After accounting for the 0.85 Wm-2 net flux imbalance believed to be real, the remaining error in CERES TOA net flux is associated with smaller uncertainties (e.g., spherical earth assumption, nearterminator flux, unfiltering of CERES radiances, radiance-to-flux conversion, etc.)…”

 

[whitehall]

"Climate model" super-computers can't give us the exact location of the impact of a hurricane within a day or two. How the hell can they determine the doomsday effects of man made global warming? It's a rhetorical question of course. With a little skewing of input data the "researchers can get all the results the government grants call for.

 

[ScienceRocks]

"Climate model" super-computers can't give us the exact location of the impact of a hurricane within a day or two. How the hell can they determine the doomsday effects of man made global warming? It's a rhetorical question of course. With a little skewing of input data the "researchers can get all the results the government grants call for.

They use the physics of the climate systems and how co2 causes warming within it. They pretty much take all that is known about the energy budget and use mathematical equations(s&b equation) to figure out how adding co2 into the system will affect the system.

By Finding how much energy is entering the system (input) that doesn't get reflected out to space(clouds, upper atmosphere). If there's more energy going in than going out=more warming. Co2 supposedly supposed to slow the rate of energy going out. Some like wirebender will argue that you can't send energy from a colder Atmosphere to a warmer surface. You now will ask why the sun can send the energy? Well, the sun is hotter and has a much higher wavelength that can warm our surface. So it doesn't break the law as it is all about wave length(more energy).

Now, do they understand everything. NO! They're bitching over where the energy want...The warmers say ocean, while the skeptics say it was reflected by an increase in clouds. Only deniers are saying there's no global warming at all.

Believe it or not a hurricane is a couple of orders harder to figure out, as it has to deal with its own small scale environment along with the larger scale. Far easier to figure out a large system with a simple model.

 

[Trakar]

"Climate model" super-computers can't give us the exact location of the impact of a hurricane within a day or two. How the hell can they determine the doomsday effects of man made global warming? It's a rhetorical question of course. With a little skewing of input data the "researchers can get all the results the government grants call for.

Better buy better foil, your shiny cap may not stop all the mind control rays those secret government minions are transmitting through the new digital signal broadcast network signals, I hear those screwy little mercury lamps are supposed to amplify the signals.

 

[skookerasbil]

"Climate model" super-computers can't give us the exact location of the impact of a hurricane within a day or two. How the hell can they determine the doomsday effects of man made global warming? It's a rhetorical question of course. With a little skewing of input data the "researchers can get all the results the government grants call for.

Better buy better foil, your shiny cap may not stop all the mind control rays those secret government minions are transmitting through the new digital signal broadcast network signals, I hear those screwy little mercury lamps are supposed to amplify the signals.

s0n..........not that Im hoping for it mind you, but lets face it............you're heading for the box soon and I'd suggest that instead of spending the last few years of your life being miserable because you insist on advocating fringe views........find a hobby or something to occupy your mind with. Be a winner.........dont waste the golden years being a miserable **** like so many on the fringe left. This idea that all your efforts are going to yield you living to see a day when wodden ships float into your harbor arent happening s0n!! Candlelight wont be making a comeback.


Youve spent years throwing bombs and getting all caught up in this climate BS and what has it gained you? DICK.............the environmental radicals are actually going backwards as compared to 2006 or so. Lets face it..........climate change legislation has become a radioactive topic on the Hill for a long, long, long time now. And it aint changing anytime soon...........just sayin'..........

 

[flacaltenn]

As much as 1 Wm-2 of the imbalance is explained by assuming a solar constant of 1365 Wm-2 in CERES processing, instead of the newly revised value of 1361Wm-2 based on recent total solar irradiance measurements (Kopp et al. 2005).

Imagine that --- Assumed SOLAR constants are in conflict equal to roughly HALF of all the GLOBAL WARMING that we're searching to explain... How did smart people miss that?

 

[flacaltenn]

The problems are several, in that in order to generate requisite coverage one would need to place the satellite in an L1 parking orbit where it can directly and constantly monitor both incoming solar radiations and reflected/emitted Earth radiations, real time and over many decades. The other problem is that given a need for a 0.1W/m2 accuracy in order to produce data sufficient for useful energy imbalance calculation, it will be a while before the state of satellite sensor technologies achieve the required durability and precision.

I'm in no hurry.. I can wait on the data. Beats GUESSING don't it???? We've only had RELIABLE satellite solar measurements for about 20 years and real-time, long terms studies are virtually non-existent. We know enough to ARGUE over WHICH Solar Constant to use don't we?

 

[ScienceRocks]

As much as 1 Wm-2 of the imbalance is explained by assuming a solar constant of 1365 Wm-2 in CERES processing, instead of the newly revised value of 1361Wm-2 based on recent total solar irradiance measurements (Kopp et al. 2005).

Imagine that --- Assumed SOLAR constants are in conflict equal to roughly HALF of all the GLOBAL WARMING that we're searching to explain... How did smart people miss that?

Between real scientist there's a fierce debate going on. Wondering where this energy want. Seriously, the only ones saying the debate is over are politically minded people on the left.

The fact that we don't know where it want or have a very good idea of exactly the amount of energy is within the system. Should make someone doubt.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sure thing junior. I didn't have to change my name like you did. One has to be a real douchebag to require that. Your opinion doesn't matter a bit. You've proven yourself to be near troll like in your behavior. Keep it up and I'll ignore you like I ignore the other trolls.

Its not an opinion.

Actually, yes it is...and a poorly informed one as well. As are you.

The citation is right in the text, its very clearly referring to the work of another. I'm sorry you're utterly incapable of reading technical literature.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"Climate model" super-computers can't give us the exact location of the impact of a hurricane within a day or two.

Those are weather model. They're pretty good ones, too.

How the hell can they determine the doomsday effects of man made global warming?

Whether or not a particular hurricane hits New Orleans or Miami has little bearing on global climate.

It's a rhetorical question of course. With a little skewing of input data the "researchers can get all the results the government grants call for.

Government grants don't call for particular scientific results.



Based on your absurd standards, it would be incorrect for me to claim that turning on a heater will warm up a room until I can exactly predict every single air current in that room.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Climate model" super-computers can't give us the exact location of the impact of a hurricane within a day or two.

Those are weather model. They're pretty good ones, too.

How the hell can they determine the doomsday effects of man made global warming?

Whether or not a particular hurricane hits New Orleans or Miami has little bearing on global climate.

It's a rhetorical question of course. With a little skewing of input data the "researchers can get all the results the government grants call for.

Government grants don't call for particular scientific results.



Based on your absurd standards, it would be incorrect for me to claim that turning on a heater will warm up a room until I can exactly predict every single air current in that room.

Not Zactly... It's not a rejection of the fact that the heater will warm the room to some extent. It's a rejection of the theory that changing the air composition in minute ways will significantly affect the result..


Especially since we all know the water vapor content in the room will DOMINATE in the heating effect..

 

[polarbear]

Based on your absurd standards, it would be incorrect for me to claim that turning on a heater will warm up a room until I can exactly predict every single air current in that room.

Absurd is that You don`t know the difference between a box with a lid, a room with a ceiling and the outside. These air currents are called convection ...You know these "absurd standards" that are the main part of the weather AND the climate but not part in any of these "computer model predictions" you keep quoting. People like you can`t even do the math how long it would take to heat 5 m^3 of air with a 1000 watt heater from 0 to 25 C and after you did, have the vaguest idea how much colder the floor will be than the ceiling! Is that how it is outside too? Or is it the other way around...the colder, the higher up you go? You dimwit!
Soshuthef@<kup!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"Climate model" super-computers can't give us the exact location of the impact of a hurricane within a day or two.

Those are weather model. They're pretty good ones, too.


Whether or not a particular hurricane hits New Orleans or Miami has little bearing on global climate.

It's a rhetorical question of course. With a little skewing of input data the "researchers can get all the results the government grants call for.

Government grants don't call for particular scientific results.



Based on your absurd standards, it would be incorrect for me to claim that turning on a heater will warm up a room until I can exactly predict every single air current in that room.

Not Zactly... It's not a rejection of the fact that the heater will warm the room to some extent. It's a rejection of the theory that changing the air composition in minute ways will significantly affect the result..


Especially since we all know the water vapor content in the room will DOMINATE in the heating effect..

It isn't the composition of the air per se that matters, its the infra-red absorption cross section.