It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's also not what I said. I said that surface data is more reliable because it consists of direct temperature measurements, not microwave proxies. Radiosondes also provide direct temperature measurements and are more reliable than satellite measurements, btw.
The point was that surface temperatures are more reliable than satellites because of adjustments to the data. That's nonsense.
You're pretty close to NOAA. Sort of. They're saying a 50% chance it will be above the average from 1981-2010.
I'll be sure to check in with you on that.
That means they do not expect any warming overall.
Speak for yourself, old man.
But we'll all be dead, remember?
Re: your first link. Have you read the whole article? I wonder if it addresses the problems of sea water intrusion, an issue separate from coastal erosion. I did find an article by the same author, a bit earlier about another island.
Your second link seems to include large geoengineering projects.
"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,"
Your link takes me to a sign up page. That's it.
You can read the article yourself that's why i linked it.
Okey dokey. Let's forget about satellite data. Good idea. Not reliable enough.
Since this thread is supposed to be about surface temperatures, let's back on topic and discuss sea levels in a separate thread.
It's also not what I said. I said that surface data is more reliable because it consists of direct temperature measurements, not microwave proxies. Radiosondes also provide direct temperature measurements and are more reliable than satellite measurements, btw.
I don't think that's what warmer than average means.
Speak for yourself, old man.
Have to issue a correction. For you, it's a 45% chance it will be above average.
Not really. Pretty much the opposite.
The confidence intervals are same when the data is used for analysis.
The surface temperature record is comparatively simple - land temperatures, sea surface temperatures and weather station homogenizations can all be produced with a few hundred lines of computer code. By analyzing the source data we can estimate some of the uncertainties for ourselves. I outline one such test in this lecture:
The satellite record is much more complex, requiring multiple corrections to the records from individual satellites, as well as cross calibration between the different satellites. The complexity of the calculation (Figure 2) makes it harder for us to assess it for ourselves. However RSS, one of the satellite record providers, also produce an ensemble of temperature records (Mears et al. 2011). By comparing the spread of the ensembles, we can compare the scale of the known uncertainties in the HadCRUT4 surface temperatures and the RSS satellite temperatures.
A little more to it. There are three possibilities; warmer, average, and cooler than average.
If NOAA is predicting a 50% chance of next fall being warmer than last fall, that is also a 50% chance of the inverse, and no warming trend is therefore expected.
Statistics 101.
To make it possible to display three categories on one map, we assume that, when either A, or B is the most likely category, the probability of the middle category remains at 33.33% for most situations. This means, for example, that when the probability of A (B) is 40%, the probability of N is 33.33%, and the probability of B (A) is 100% minus 40%+33.33%=26.67%.
Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations and demonstrate the importance of resolving recent rates and styles of island change to inform adaptation strategies.
The thinness of the brackish and freshwater sheets suggests that the taro swamps and the fresh groundwater resources of the islet are highly vulnerable to salinization from anticipated sea-level rise. An understanding of the inherent geologic and topographic features of an atoll is necessary to evaluate the groundwater resources of the atoll and assess the vulnerability of its water resources to climate change.
Not really. Pretty much the opposite.
A little more to it. There are three possibilities; warmer, average, and cooler than average.
So we have a 45% probability of it being warmer than average, a 33.3% probability of it being average, and a 21.7% chance of it being cooler than average. The greater probability being warmer.
Your source says this about the uncertainty of satellite temperature derivations:
Not the structural uncertainty when the data is compared to model simulations or used for any other analysis.
Figure 2 reveals large structural uncertainties in satellite TMT datasets. These uncertainties reflect different choices in dataset construction, primarily related to the treatment of orbital drift, the impact of orbital drift on sampling the diurnal cycle of atmospheric temperature, and the influence of instrument body temperature.
And I said surface measurements are more reliable than satellite derived temperatures.
I brought up satellite data only in the context of comparisons to model simulations. The structural problems are not the reason the models show too much warming.
Can you provide the source for the use of your term "the same?"
They must be using a pretty wide definition of "the same."
Can you provide the source for the use of your term "the same?"
You could have read the link, you know.
As soon as you provide a source for your definition of "source."
Sounds like Kevin C (in skeptical science) read that article too. That's exactly the point he made. By contrast, the surface based uncertainties are significantly less. They are more reliable.
rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage‐biased HadCRUT4 data.
Milankovitch says the planet should be cooling slowly, a bit. Instead it's warming. Rapidly. Sun does not seem to be getting warmer. The things that caused warming in the past don't seem to be happening.
www.pnas.org...
The significant discrepancy between the Holocene global cooling inferred from proxy reconstructions and simulated warming in climate models reflects the Holocene temperature conundrum, which poses an important test for our understanding of climate changes and for the evaluation of climate models of their climate sensitivity to GHGs, ice sheets, orbital insolation, and volcanic forcings.
Given the current uncertainties in both the reconstruction and model sensitivity, however, this model-data discrepancy could be attributed to either the seasonal bias in the SST reconstructions or the model bias in regional and seasonal climate sensitivity. If the M13 reconstruction is correct, it will imply major biases across the current generation of climate models. To provide a credible benchmark for future climate models, however, the proxy reconstructions will also need to be reexamined critically.
researchgate
Although the main features of the “Milankovitch hypothesis” are validated many times, the Milankovitch hypothesis cannot account for all aspects of glacial cycles. Reconstructions of ice volume during the late Pleistocene show that the accumulation and ablation of ice sheets have a very strong 100 kyr cycle.
This periodicity is problematic for theories that stress orbital cycles because the amplitude of the insolation signal associated with eccentricity is only about 2 W/m2 . This change is much smaller than the changes that are associated with precession (≈100 W/m2 ) and obliquity (≈20 W/m2 ) and is at the heart of the 100 kyr problem—why does the climate system respond so strongly to small changes in solar insolation associated with eccentricity?
Similarly, the so-called “stage 11 problem” investigates significant changes in climate despite Earth’s nearly circular orbit about 400 kyr before present. Because of these and other seeming contradictions, the role of solar insolation in glacial cycles still is the subject of debate. As summarized by Tziperman et al. [2006], hypotheses about the role of solar insolation range from “there would be no cycles without orbital variations” (the strong form of the Milankovitch hypothesis) to “glacial cycles exist independently of changes in solar insolation.”
Between these extremes, weaker forms of the Milankovitch hypothesis postulate that solar insolation generates small climate perturbations that are superimposed on independent glacial cycles. Variations on the weak form of the Milankovitch hypothesis include arguments that climatic changes are caused by orbital variations that move solar insolation beyond thresholds or nonlinear phase locking.
Arguments for weaker forms of the Milankovitch hypothesis are bolstered by a finding that changes in solar insolation account for less than 20% of the variance in glacial temperature records.
I gave you the link.