| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
 Tue May 24, 2016 7:07 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | That work is based primarily on model simulations. |
No it's not - please read the section titled "Data."
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
I did. They mention 3 data sources.
1) Reanalysis data. This is a combination of model data and observations. For the region in question, it is basically all model data.
2) Model data. This obviously, is a model.
3) A rainfall estimating satellite. Lets just say the accuracy of this data is suspect. Because sometimes the best way to measure things is from ~1000(a lot more if it is geostationary) miles up, while looking through clouds, usually against a backdrop of the thing you are trying to measure? Oh, and it obviously doesnt even cover their entire period of record.
Now I don't want to knock on models too much... there are some pretty good ones in operational use today. But these benefit from tons and tons of initialization data and computationally expensive high resolution, both things that the models in question in this study lack. And even the best modern model has to take a backseat to good observations, where we have them.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Wed May 25, 2016 8:18 am |
|
|
The first data set is resampled observations. This is not model data. The third set is described thus:
| Quote: | | The third data set is the satellite-rain gauge combined precipitation dataset produced by the Global Precipitation Climatology Project |
Maybe you don't think satellites can measure things accurately but it seems to me that most people do not share your concerns on that. There are numerous other studies, some linked to by the wikipedia article. You are of course free to disagree with the reliability of the data and the conclusions that resulted, but you originally said:
| Quote: | | There is no evidence that this is changing at all, nor that it has ever changed or will ever change. |
This is demonstrably false. There is evidence, even if you don't consider it fully convincing. The point is not that there will be more Hadley cells, but the the width/shape of the existing one could change.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
Reanalysis data is part observations and part model. This is a basic definition.
As for satellite precipitation accuracy, it is clearly less reliable than surface rain gauges. The model data also must take a back seat to surface observations. And the surface data shows there is no significant trend in global precip: thus the global circulation cannot be changing much.
| Quote: | | but the the width/shape of the existing one could change |
Unlikely, at least not much. Those global circulation cells are driven by the suns energy preferentially striking the equator, and break down into secondary eddies where they do due to our spin rate and planetary size. These are variables that are not changing. Sure there could be some minor short term fluctuations as ENSO and others moves some equatorial ocean energy, but no long term trend is likely, and as far as I have seen, no long term statistically significant trend has been observed.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
albrightmd
Member
Joined: 25 Jun 2012
Posts: 112 | TRs | Pics
|
Mark Albright
Research Climatologist
Washington State Climatologist (1987-2003)
Dept of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Wed May 25, 2016 11:48 am |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | And the surface data shows there is no significant trend in global precip |
Rain gauges are fine where they exist, where they are used and measured in the same way, etc. Satellite measurements cover wider areas using a consistent methodology.
Obviously you haven't even been reading (or maybe comprehending) what I have been saying - this isn't about global trends. You can hide almost anything in global statistics. So I'm going to leave you to your beliefs.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
Global warming is not about global trends? ummmmmm....
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum |
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cefire
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 523 | TRs | Pics
|
|
cefire
Member
|
Sat May 28, 2016 5:22 pm |
|
|
You know it is a good site because they tell about all the success stories from Trump University. Suppressed in the librul conspiracy media, of course.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum |
You know you guys are at LEAST as bad as the people you're condemning. It doesn't matter what data is sent your way. You're "Religious" about your cool aide!
Global Warming fraud!
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cefire
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 523 | TRs | Pics
|
|
cefire
Member
|
Mon May 30, 2016 9:05 pm |
|
|
I'm worse than the people I'm condemning. In contrast to those I'm condemning, I do not purport to know the truth.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Tue May 31, 2016 7:51 am |
|
|
| Backpacker Joe wrote: | | It doesn't matter what data is sent your way. |
Actually, the point is that it does matter what data we are "sent."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
albrightmd
Member
Joined: 25 Jun 2012
Posts: 112 | TRs | Pics
|
The Southern Hemisphere mean temperature has plummeted over the past few days to below normal and the global temperature has recovered back to +0.1 C to +0.2 C above normal, a level it had been at for much of the 21st century. This was true until the warm episode of 2015 through early 2016 which peaked at +1.0 C above normal on 1 March 2016:
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cdas_v2_hemisphere_2016.png
For example, here is 2008, the midpoint of the first 16 years of the 21st century showing a mean temperature anomaly of +0.14 C above normal:
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cdas_v2_hemisphere_2008.png
Mark Albright
Research Climatologist
Washington State Climatologist (1987-2003)
Dept of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
Mark Albright
Research Climatologist
Washington State Climatologist (1987-2003)
Dept of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
|
| Back to top |
|
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend |
|
straydog
slave to a monolith
|
Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:00 pm |
|
|
| albrightmd wrote: | | The Southern Hemisphere mean temperature has plummeted over the past few days to below normal.. |
And what, exactly, does this have to do with long term global climate change?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doppelganger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
