Air conditioners, temperature sensors, and AGW deniers

[Tiggy]

LOL... given the recent exposure of key GW "scientists" (I now use that term loosely) as frauds, one should think that tiggy would be more worried about what the actual data say.

Michael

Except no key GW scientists or their data have been exposed as frauds. Some wingnut anti-AGW web sites have been using dishonesty quote-mined passages of stolen personal emails to claim that, but empty claims are a long way from actual evidence, let alone conclusive evidence.

You up to discussing the actual satellite sensor data Michael? Or are you going to be just another fart-n-dart drive by?

- T

[Roy]

Your picture doesn't match what the University of Alabama Huntsville shows. Here is there graph. Not that there isn't this weird upward trend since 1998

That's not the same data you dishonest jerk.

I think you're both wrong. Tiggy's picture does match what the UAH shows, and it is the same data.

Specifically, the blue line on Glenn's graph is an exact match for the red line on Tiggy's graph. They are, as far as I can tell given the overlapping lines, point-for-point identical.

Roy

P.S. You may now join forces and savage me together.

[grmorton]

I think you're both wrong. Tiggy's picture does match what the UAH shows, and it is the same data.

Specifically, the blue line on Glenn's graph is an exact match for the red line on Tiggy's graph. They are, as far as I can tell given the overlapping lines, point-for-point identical.

Roy

P.S. You may now join forces and savage me together.

I don't savage people who correct me. I thank them. Thanks Roy, you are right. What I thought I saw was a tilt in Tiggy's chart that I didn't see in mine. I was wrong. On second look a close look, it does indeed seem to be the case that the two charts are the same, maybe it is a different aspect ratio.

Facts matter to me and your fact was correct

[themuzicman]

Except no key GW scientists or their data have been exposed as frauds. Some wingnut anti-AGW web sites have been using dishonesty quote-mined passages of stolen personal emails to claim that, but empty claims are a long way from actual evidence, let alone conclusive evidence.

You up to discussing the actual satellite sensor data Michael? Or are you going to be just another fart-n-dart drive by?

- T

I'll wait to see if we're dealing with actual sensor data, or doctored data by dishonest scientists.

Michael

[lao tzu]

LOL... given the recent exposure of key GW "scientists" (I now use that term loosely) as frauds ...

I'll wait to see if we're dealing with actual sensor data, or doctored data by dishonest scientists.

Self-pwnage itt.

[Tiggy]

I think you're both wrong. Tiggy's picture does match what the UAH shows, and it is the same data.

Specifically, the blue line on Glenn's graph is an exact match for the red line on Tiggy's graph. They are, as far as I can tell given the overlapping lines, point-for-point identical.

Roy

P.S. You may now join forces and savage me together.

No savaging needed Roy. The graphs are similar but not identical. For example, look at 1998. The actual UAH data tops out around 0.9, while on Glenn's "difference" graph it only goes to about 0.7 The one Glenn posted shows the data minus the average, which flattens out the positive rising slope a bit. Glenn only did this to try and show the actual temperature trend lines I posted are wrong. He hoped he could just throw up the different shaped graph and that no one would notice the subterfuge.

That's why I get so ticked at him. It's his constant, non-stop attempts at being deliberately misleading that I find so contemptible.

- T

[Tiggy]

LOL... given the recent exposure of key GW "scientists" (I now use that term loosely) as frauds ...

I'll wait to see if we're dealing with actual sensor data, or doctored data by dishonest scientists.

Self-pwnage itt.

- T

[Bill the Cat]

Any comment on the exaggerated Himalaya glacial melt study, Tiggy?

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah, why don't those evil money scamming scientists who want accurate measurements place their sensors away from cities and civilization? Something like space-based satellite sensors. Oh wait...


Don't worry. Glenn will be hard at work on his home computer whipping up a chart that shows air conditioner exhaust actually blows all the way up to low Earth orbit.

- T

The problem I see with this graph is the trend is a line, not a curve. There is enough data there to show, it seems to me, there was an upward adjustment that has leveled off. I would think a weighted least squares average with a window of five or ten years would yield a more informative plot, and I am pretty sure it would show exactly what I described. The current slope of such a curve I would guess to be flat to slightly negative.


Jim

[Jorge]

I think this shows that you are once again, like Jorge who thinks
that one can hardly be a christian if you disagree with him.

****************************************************************

Them's fighting words, you Class 1 Dishonest Buffoon!

Fortunately, I do not have the time to engage you in your usual dishonest distortions & stupidity.

Jorge

[USIncognito]

Any comment on the exaggerated Himalaya glacial melt study, Tiggy?

You mean the transcription error? Because despite the typo the report showed that Himalayan glaciers are melting.

[Bill the Cat]

You mean the transcription error? Because despite the typo the report showed that Himalayan glaciers are melting.

No. I mean the IPCC report that was based on a WWF propaganda piece which falsely attributed 2035 as the date by which the Himilayan glaciers would melt to Syed Hasnain. Hasnain has subsequently admitted that his paper was not supported by any data, just speculation, meaning the WWF piece was wrong, and the IPCC based their findings in this area on speculation.

[wattsr1]

No. I mean the IPCC report that was based on a WWF propaganda piece which falsely attributed 2035 as the date by which the Himilayan glaciers would melt to Syed Hasnain. Hasnain has subsequently admitted that his paper was not supported by any data, just speculation, meaning the WWF piece was wrong, and the IPCC based their findings in this area on speculation.

That is what I would call a terrible goof up.

In an argument as humungous as this one, such incidents will be found.

The question then becomes, is this therefore a major problem in the overall debate, or is it just another example of something going wrong for whatever reason (foul means or accidental means.)


Regards, Roland

[Tiggy]

That is what I would call a terrible goof up.

In an argument as humungous as this one, such incidents will be found.

The question then becomes, is this therefore a major problem in the overall debate, or is it just another example of something going wrong for whatever reason (foul means or accidental means.)

Regards, Roland

The IPCC has issued an apology and correction for the error. As you pointed out , in such a huge undertaking as this such errors of omission are not uncommon.

As reported in Nature

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has conceded an error when stating in its last report, released 2007, that Himalayan glaciers are likely to melt by 2035. The claim has been criticized by numerous glaciologists for being highly implausible (see Glacier estimate is on thin ice).

In a statement, released on 20 January, the IPCC apologises for the “poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the Himalayan glaciers”.

The IPCC’s working group on impacts, of climate change had taken the date‚ 2035, from an un-refereed report from the conservation group WWF.

“In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures were not applied properly,” the chair and vice-chairs of the IPCC, and the co-chairs of the IPCC Working Groups said in their joint statement.

The panel stresses the validity of its overall conclusion that glacier mass losses, including in the Himalayas, are likely to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability in regions supplied by melt water from mountain glaciers and snow packs.

“This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment,” it says

Nature link

.

The big point is, this has now been looked at in great detail. The facts still support the IPCC conclusions the glaciers are rapidly losing mass due to warming. They just probably won't be all gone by 2035 as originally reported. A more recent update from Nature:

Settling the science on Himalayan glaciers

The remote glaciers of the Himalayan mountains have been the subject of much controversy, yet little research. Mason Inman looks at the clues scientists have garnered on the fate of these glaciers from ground- and space-based studies

One thing is clear: the glaciers won't vanish by 2035, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed in its 2007 assessment report1. This error and others in the IPCC report's section on Himalayan glaciers — widely reported elsewhere2 — have now been corrected. But the ensuing furore has highlighted how little is actually known about the fate of glaciers in this region. The errors “were mainly based on the desire to say something”, says glaciologist Richard Armstrong of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. “But you need to know that if there's no data, you shouldn't say anything.”

As it stands, no one is even sure how many glaciers are in this part of the world. Current estimates suggest there are about 12,000 to 15,000 in the Himalayas and about 5,000 in the Karakoram. Of these thousands of glaciers, only 15 have been measured on the ground to see if they are gaining or losing ice overall. Despite the scarcity of data, trends are emerging. “It is pretty clear that the Himalayan glaciers have been losing mass, with markedly greater loss in the past decade than earlier,” says geographer Graham Cogley of Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario.

Nature link

Attachment 76841
Compared with other mountainous regions worldwide, Himalayan glaciers are losing mass faster than European glaciers but slower than those in Alaska.

Of course to the denier wingnuts, any error however small must mean conclusive evidence of a massive conspiracy to commit deliberate fraud.

- T

[wattsr1]

The IPCC has issued an apology and correction for the error. As you pointed out , in such a huge undertaking as this such errors of omission are not uncommon.

As reported in Nature

.

The big point is, this has now been looked at in great detail. The facts still support the IPCC conclusions the glaciers are rapidly losing mass due to warming. They just probably won't be all gone by 2035 as originally reported. A more recent update from Nature:



Attachment 76841
Compared with other mountainous regions worldwide, Himalayan glaciers are losing mass faster than European glaciers but slower than those in Alaska.

Of course to the denier wingnuts, any error however small must mean conclusive evidence of a massive conspiracy to commit deliberate fraud.

- T

Thanks for that Tiggy.

I do remember hearing a scientist being interviewed on the radio a few weeks back. I think he visited the Himalayas a lot, but for other research. He commented that the glaciers are still melting nevertheless. However, I could not remember any names, nor readily the circumstances behind that particular interview - I think his particular comment may have been more anecdotal, based on comparisons with what he remembers when he first began to visit the region.


Regards, Roland