Climate Models get a Boost from the Wind (global warming)

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/05/climate_models_get_a_boost_fro_1.html#comments ^

[chessplayer]

Climate scientists Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood from Yale Universitry have used a new technique to show temperatures changes in the upper troposphere (7.5-10 miles up) since 1970 are clearly in sync with most of the climate change models in showing a general warming of 0.65 degrees celsius per decade. Over the past two decades, temperature data directly gathered by satellites and balloons had showed little or no increase in upper troposheric temperature during that period, but researchers suspected these discontinuities with the model projections were due to unknown changes in instrumentation and data processing.

By tracking radiosondes attached to weather balloons, the team used trends in vertical wind shear to infer those of temperature.

[chessplayer]

ROFL!!! This is great! If the satellite data does`nt agree with the models, then the data is wrong and a way must be found to make it agree with the models. If the data from satellites is crap and can`t be trusted, or we don`t even know how to process the data in the first place, why are we even spending money on the satellites? Whats next? They going to find a way to alter the ARGOS data on ocean temperatures until it agrees with the models??

[mgc1122]

People go to jail manipulating data in such a way when it involves money ... but for academia, it means glory and more esteem to be seen as bit fiddlers.

[Nervous Tick]

If you traced their grant money, I wonder what you would find.

This isn’t science. This is inventing or doctoring data to protect an agenda. They should be ashamed.

[caseinpoint]

Allen’s and Sherwood’s Procrustes Project, I dare say.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Maybe they should just throw dice to generate data.

[SampleMan]

The models are manipulated to match the unexpected factual outcome to the hypothesized input, and then the model is used as proof that the hypothesized input is factual.

Its like saying that my "system" gives me a 75% chance of winning at blackjack, and then retroactively changing the number of cards the other players in the game take (thus changing my card) until I hit the 75% number.

And this is science? I think I would put more stock in the reading of goat entrails.

[ClearCase_guy]

Science isn't what it used to be. There's a lot of money in the field, political aspects are common, and folks who go against the flow can pay a heavy price.

I don't want to turn this into an Evolution thread, but the point of Ben Stein's recent movie is precisely that scientists are supposed to say the expected thing. If you start drifting off the reservation, your career can really suffer. That's true for people who question the Theory of Evolution, and it's true for anyone with data that contradicts Global Warming -- if you want your career to flourish, you're better off doctoring your data and just going along.

[RipSawyer]

Has anyone else noticed the uselessness of most local weather forecasting recently. We have had so many changes from day to day and even within the same day’s reporting that whatever happens fits one forecast but not another. Are these the same “scientists” who tell us how much the global temperature is going to rise in the future and claim accuracy to a hundredth of a degree?

[TalonDJ]

Over the past two decades, temperature data directly gathered by satellites and balloons had showed little or no increase in upper troposheric temperature during that period, but researchers suspected these discontinuities with the model projections were due to unknown changes in instrumentation and data processing.

Translation, 'the sensors report no warming in the last 20 years. There for the sensors are wrong and we should fix them. CLEARLY it can't but that the model is flawed. Just that pesky reality not matching it. Most be miscalibration or something. Some people need a serious beating with a clue-by-four.

[ClearCase_guy]

IIRC, weather reporters in Boston got into trouble a few years ago by incorrectly predicting rain on a few weekends -- business at the beaches suffered and a lot of money was lost by folks who depend on seasonal income. The result was that it became almost illegal to predict bad weather on the weekend.

It's always about the money. Always.

[InterceptPoint]

Over the past two decades, temperature data directly gathered by satellites and balloons had showed little or no increase in upper tropospheric temperature during that period, but researchers suspected these discontinuities with the model projections were due to unknown changes in instrumentation and data processing.

It is no surprise to me to see the Man-made Global Warming community starting to fight back on this issue of the lack of tropospheric warming over the last few decades. A recent peer reviewed paper described in detail the comparison of the climate model predictions with the actual measured temperatures of the upper troposphere. This paper clearly demonstrated that the models fail to correlate with the actual satellite and balloon data. The models show a rapid increase in tropospheric temperatures. The data says the opposite - small changes or, in some cases cooling rather than warming.

Since all the GW advocates have in their arsenal are these models they have to support them at all costs. If the temperature of the upper troposphere is really not increasing then their whole house of cards falls. Their thesis that human induced carbon dioxide is causing a rapid increase in global temperatures is not just incidentally dependent on their models of the upper troposphere, they are totally dependent on them. No temperature change means the models are wrong and carbon dioxide is not to blame for any climate changes we see.

[CWW]

Well if the sattelite data is incorrect, does that mean that the baseline used for comparison is also incorrect?

It would appear so if the baseline temperatures were established using the same or similar methodologies.

[Roccus]

There was talk on the Katrina threads during and after the storm that suggested that the evacuation of NO was delayed for the purpose of not losing Friday and Saturday night revenues. At the time my gut told me this was prolly true...still believe it.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Well if the sattelite data is incorrect, does that mean that the baseline used for comparison is also incorrect?"

Baselines? We don't need no stinking Baselines!

[chessplayer]

Now warmists have found a way to discount the mid-20th century cooling, in effect saying the cooling never happened.

“The study, published in the journal Nature, found that the global average temperatures in the late 1940s stayed roughly the same rather than falling.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/case-against-climate-change-discredited-by-study-835856.html

http://icecap.us/index.php

[norwaypinesavage]

NOW I understand: Global Warming causes thermometers to read incorrectly, so that stable temperature data is proof of global warming.

[chessplayer]

The San Diego Union-Tribune calls the 1945 cooling a “phantom” cooling. In other words, it never happened.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20080528-1000-climate-temperatures.html

Good grief. Talk about historical revisionism.

[saganite]

NASA has been busily altering climate data for some time now to re establish 1998 as the hottest year on record. They have changed their analysis of the data to comply with the GW hoax. As John Luc Picard says “make it so”.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Whats next? They going to find a way to alter the ARGOS data on ocean temperatures until it agrees with the models??"

To put it bluntly----yes. I'm sure there are "researchers" out there doing precisely that.

[chessplayer]

Maybe instead of putting up a thermometer outside my window, I should put up an ananometer to see what the temperature is.