tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post3369988451775976552..comments2024-03-28T13:56:47.604+11:00Comments on moyhu: ERSST and Sea IceNick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-77812341648876717302017-05-08T20:04:24.501+10:002017-05-08T20:04:24.501+10:00Cliff,
Scientist: "I can produce evidence yo...Cliff,<br /><br /><i>Scientist: "I can produce evidence you never actually stopped for lunch"</i><br /><br />What you're missing is that no-one is arguing this. In your analogy what some scientists are saying is that the lunch stop did not alter the vector of the journey - the hiker is still ultimately going to the same destination. Furthermore, lunch stops on long hikes are completely normal events (as is short-term deviation from long-term trend in global average temperature, to connect the analogy back) so why is so much attention being paid to this particular lunch stop?<br /><br />I also don't think you're accurately characterizing scientists and "skeptics" here. It is scientists who are taking both positions on the hiatus, depending on their focus of study, and are ultimately both correct according to different definitions. "Skeptics" on the other hand are generally arguing for assigning a much greater level of importance to the lunch stop than the rest of the journey, and indeed tend to suggest that the existence of the lunch stop brings into question whether the hiker will ever actually reach the destination.PaulSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-74606037987998005712017-05-08T11:13:14.267+10:002017-05-08T11:13:14.267+10:00I think people understand that. If you want to dri...I think people understand that. If you want to drive across town to get somewhere in an hour, you'll need to maintain an average speed. There will be hiatuses, but that doesn't change the issue of driving ten miles in an hour.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-5285812091741006992017-05-08T09:35:54.139+10:002017-05-08T09:35:54.139+10:00Nick
What I'm trying to say is just because t...Nick<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is just because there wasn't a pause in the overall trend, doesn't mean there wasn't a pause. Not everyone understands this.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11062254048174927166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-82019898992051787862017-05-08T09:02:17.377+10:002017-05-08T09:02:17.377+10:00As skeptics often point out, from 1998 to 2014 the...As skeptics often point out, from 1998 to 2014 there was a hiatus in warming. Scientists, in turn, point out there was no hiatus in the trend. Both statements are accurate. It seems like each party is talking past each other.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11062254048174927166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-14001539829646550452017-05-08T08:50:45.612+10:002017-05-08T08:50:45.612+10:00Nick
I goofed - intended to comment on your most ...Nick<br /><br />I goofed - intended to comment on your most recent post.<br /><br />I understand there is no pause in the "trend" of warming. This doesn't mean there aren't hiatus's, as illustrated by the lunch stop. Hiatus from "warming" and hiatus from "trend of warming" are not the same thing. If this distinction isn't made clear, it can be really confusing.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11062254048174927166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-48764649199835293272017-05-08T08:10:49.677+10:002017-05-08T08:10:49.677+10:00Cliff
"What am I missing?"
1. This post ...Cliff<br /><i>"What am I missing?"</i><br />1. This post isn't about trend in any way<br />2. No proper scientist would say that a trend disproved the lunch stop<br />but<br />3. You got there, despite the hiatus. That is what the trend is saying. You actually did cover twelve miles in six hours. And if we keep pumping out GHGs, we'll get there too. We may or may not like it.<br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-70147583094791179762017-05-08T07:59:35.850+10:002017-05-08T07:59:35.850+10:00Nick
I understand if you consider both atmosphere...Nick<br /><br />I understand if you consider both atmosphere and oceans there is never a pause in global warming. The forcing from extra GHG's is constant. On the other hand, if you're only talking about the atmosphere....?<br />Here is an an analogy that explains my confusion:<br /><br />"It took me 6 hours to hike 12 miles. I'm a fast walker and had time to stop for a long, leisurely lunch (hiatus). <br /><br />Scientist: "I can produce evidence you never actually stopped for lunch"<br /><br />Cliff: "What are you talking about?"<br /><br />Scientist: "Look at this trend chart. I've determined your overall rate of travel was 2 mph"<br /><br />Cliff (looking confused): ".....that's the silliest argument I've ever heard.""<br /><br />What am I missing?<br />Sent from my iPhoneCliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11062254048174927166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-58902081739461366962017-05-04T11:41:06.276+10:002017-05-04T11:41:06.276+10:00CCE,
I hope to post in about 8 hours on that. Yes,...CCE,<br />I hope to post in about 8 hours on that. Yes, there will be a kind of mixing, in the triangles for each time point. But the underlying mask will be as you say - month-by-month setting the sea mask to NA where ERSST records ice (that's why I want to get the criterion right).Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-38896890784699038642017-05-04T11:35:44.372+10:002017-05-04T11:35:44.372+10:00OK. I got the impression that there would be some...OK. I got the impression that there would be some kind of dynamic mixing of SST and SAT in the same grid cells through time (not sure how that would work).ccehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03646816472336349526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-49230038625927675232017-05-04T11:18:50.072+10:002017-05-04T11:18:50.072+10:00CCE,
Yes, that is what I am planning to do.CCE,<br />Yes, that is what I am planning to do.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-76678746915882932712017-05-04T09:40:09.128+10:002017-05-04T09:40:09.128+10:00You could create a mask for each month, each one t...You could create a mask for each month, each one the union of the standard land mask and the maximum sea ice extent for that month in those grid cells.ccenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-81314781108218255742017-05-04T08:33:29.811+10:002017-05-04T08:33:29.811+10:00Paul,
I don't think the prior processing matte...Paul,<br />I don't think the prior processing matters, since the LS fitting overrides that. Any previously calculated offset would just shift the LS offset, but leave the same anomaly. LS helps because you don't need to exclude points because of a gap between the reference period and the present data; it just needs enough recent history to create an offset.<br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-22774398808627811002017-05-04T08:28:17.613+10:002017-05-04T08:28:17.613+10:00Thanks, Erik,
It was actually 3° radius; I was cov...Thanks, Erik,<br />It was actually 3° radius; I was covering -89 to 87. I had been thinking that because I had 89 cell centre data points, I must have 89 cells. But no - when plotting the centres become vertices. I've fixed it (just shifts the grid 1° north).Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-9051172250340023172017-05-04T04:29:03.218+10:002017-05-04T04:29:03.218+10:00The white spot in Arctic is larger (4x?) than the ...The white spot in Arctic is larger (4x?) than the corresponding spot in Antarctica. It seems unlikely that ERSST cover -89° to 88°?ErikGBLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13543514944776102647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-48213625671306614042017-05-03T23:21:32.338+10:002017-05-03T23:21:32.338+10:00Could be wrong but I'm not sure lack of fixed ...Could be wrong but I'm not sure lack of fixed reference period in TempLS makes much difference since the input ERSSTv4 data has already been processed using a fixed reference period.PaulSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-36354985070305430612017-05-03T21:38:58.393+10:002017-05-03T21:38:58.393+10:00Yes, that is certainly a problem. Not so painful i...Yes, that is certainly a problem. Not so painful in TempLS, where there is no fixed reference period. But there is still a required minimum period of admissible (> -1C) readings.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-77671596365182558552017-05-03T21:21:33.145+10:002017-05-03T21:21:33.145+10:00Even where data exists in recent years, Arctic SST...Even where data exists in recent years, Arctic SST anomalies using ERSSTv4 (or HadSST3) are problematic because there is often no real baseline climatology reference for comparison - only -1.8ºC. I think the GISS approach makes most sense, where they seem to discard all data in grid cells without valid baseline climatology figures (i.e. if climatology = -1.8).PaulSnoreply@blogger.com