Valid? 0  0

Radiosondes do not carry “wind gauges,” but wind direction and wind speed are calculated based on the drift of the balloon.

I assume that late recent instrumentation may use GPS for better accuracy.

Valid? 0  0

Posted by: Tim Lambert | January 5, 2009 10:52 AM

My response (at Deltoid, Jan 6th 10.35 pm but about to be deleted by TL): “What right do you have to do that? at 10.52 am on 5th Jan 2009 you were supposed to be working for me (as one of the taxpayers funding UNSW where I believe you work; of course it is very possible that UNSW never requires any work to be done during working hours, if ever, which no doubt explains your stellar career there). If I am wrong, please verify that at 10.52 am on 5th January 2009 you were not using a computer purchased by UNSW, nor any server paid by UNSW, and that at said time you were entitled by your employer, part-funded by me, (a) to spend your time on the total rubbish that you disseminate on your site and (b) to prevent Australian taxpayers like me from posting at your site.

Valid? 1  0

I think my own point that papers proposing new statistical methodology should first be submitted to stats journals rather than climate journals is worth developing.

In addition, I think the Real Climate pics that Lambert used to debunk you are bogus:

1. It is dishonest to use blood red to depict temps at 300 Mb and less (i.e. 10 km altitude and above). When I fly, I note how temps decline monotonically as the plane climbs to as low as -50oC for most of the journey), so how come temps at 10 km up (c.35,000 feet) are depicted by Schmidt/Lambert as hotter than temps at ground level (1,000 Mb), about where most of us live? No doubt they would claim their pics show rates of warming, not absolute temps, but then where is the time variable? Absent that, the Schmidt/Lambert pics are dishonest (exactly to be expected).

2. Their pics are also absurd in showing no change in temp at Lat. -60 at any Mb pressure, which is contrary to my experience when flying by BOAC (better on a camel) or even Qantas (queue and never taste a snack).

Valid? 0  0

from your link:

“Using state-of-the-art observational datasets and results from a large
archive of computer model simulations, a consortium of scientists from 12
different institutions has resolved a long-standing conundrum in climate
science…”

Using the models you are trying to validate to reprocess data to validate the models DOES qualify as circular logic. How many other errors in scientific procedure will you allow to PROVE YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM???

Chris O’Neill states:

“Actually the hot spot is fed into the climate models. The models don’t have any choice in the matter. But models get the blame regardless.”

HUH???? It isn’t the models fault and us deniers are blaming it on them????

Earth to Chris, models are computer programs and exist based on what the programmers wrote. Generically, warmers say the models are right in a vain attempt at an appeal to authority, possibly thinking we will believe computer output and ignoring the fact they can only do what HUMANS have instructed. Deniers, like me, claim the models are wrong when we should be saying the programmers/modellers input the wrong algorerythms!!

So, we agree on this, BUT, are we also agreeing that the output of the models are WRONG???

As you stated, where is the radiosonde, or satellite, data to support the 100% relative humidity assumption?? Just saying that they wouldn’t make such an elementary error is pure…

Here is a paper showing that it varies:

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/17/16/pdf/i1520-0442-17-16-3181.pdf

and YES, BELIEVERS DO MAKE DUMB ASSUMPTIONS TO TRY AND PROVE THEIR POINT!!

Valid? 0  0

Here Sherwood admits that despite an extensive all-out effort, almost every way you look at it with thermometers and statistics they just can’t find the results that the climate models predict.

Actually the hot spot is fed into the climate models. The models don’t have any choice in the matter. But models get the blame regardless.

The radiosonde data is just suggesting that the tropical troposphere lapse rate might not always equal the saturated adiabatic lapse rate as is an assumed input to the models. I would expect radiosondes launched these days to carry hygrometers that could easily test the assumption of 100% relative humidity in the tropical troposphere. Thus it should now be very, very easy for scientists to test the saturated adiabatic lapse rate assumption. So if they are making that assumption you can can be pretty sure that they have got the observations to back it up. Scientists don’t make such obvious assumptions without hard evidence. Your whole hypothesis is that this assumption is wrong. Where is your hard evidence? Differences in radiosonde measurements 30 years ago from the much more accurate instruments of today are not hard evidence against the tropical troposphere 100% relative humidity assumption.

Measuring the temperature 10,000m up is not simple—witness all the compensatory factors researchers are working with just to take the air temperature: time of day, season, wind strength, equipment changes, and station relocation.

This should tell you something about the accuracy of radiosonde measurements from 30 years ago.

Valid? 0  0

Thus Santer et 27 al. avoid all mention of R2, and introduce a new stat., R1, which as with MBG conveniently validates their, in reality, spurious correlations. The truth is that there is no way the stats journals I mention would ever publish Santer et 17 al. If they had a case, they would not of course fail to publish their R2 of say .98 for their model forecasts of tropospheric temp. time series from 1978 to 1999 regressed against observations, but they cannot, so they do not.

The other revealing absurdity of Santer et 17 al is that they castigate Douglass et only 3 al. for not allowing for non-anthropogenic (“natural internal climate variability”) in their tests showing that the Santer et 17 al. models fail to be confirmed by observations . Yet almost all of the Santer et 17 al. were co-authors of the IPCC AR4 WG1 which asserted again and again that there is no significant “internal climate variability”.

PS I will also try posting this at Deltoid because of his scurrilous attack on you, but we should neither of us hold our breath!

Valid? 2  0

Valid? 0  0

Valid? 0  0

Valid? 0  0