tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post6423880985563353779..comments2024-03-29T03:33:18.836-04:00Comments on magicjava: Proof That Temperature Area Determines Temperature AnomalyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-2390937209197269302010-03-05T02:33:53.897-05:002010-03-05T02:33:53.897-05:00Personally, I think it is very positive when blogg...Personally, I think it is very positive when bloggers start inventing new ways to analyse data... the chiefio has discovered the "Bolivia Effect" where temperature stations have marched downhill to enjoy beach holidays.... Surfacestations.org has discovered all sort of issues with temperature stations and given us new ways to analyse the data... the list is long and very impressive...<br /><br />MagicJava is following the grand scientific tradition of replicating published results based upon the published data. However, when all the scientific methods and techniques are NOT published then you have to be very creative and ask all the awkward questions... long may it live!<br /><br />Regarding the satellite based "global monthly temperature anomaly" there are many interesting things to discover, understand and explain... especially as a "month" may contains 28, 29, 30 or 31 days worth of data... so the approach of comparing January 2009 with January 2010 seems very sensible to me... although we have absolutely no idea (at the moment) whether the data for these two months relate to exactly the same geographic locations... Additionally, the scans do not cover all of the globe... there are gaps in the coverage... and there are overlaps in the coverage... parts of the globe may be scanned once a day at the equator... while other parts of the globe may be scanned 28 times a day close the poles... so there is probably a huge polar bias in the averaged data... and this bias polar data is possibly supplemented by an almost random set of data from other non-polar locations... the implications being that 1) the calculated anomaly is NOT a meaningful global anomaly 2) month by month comparisons are not valid and 3) year by year comparisons are not valid... <br /><br />So this voyage of discovery is very important... lets understand the science instead of being blinded by the science... then, and only then, will we know if we have robust science or bogus science...Malaga Viewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-50608219190801062092010-03-04T00:33:13.326-05:002010-03-04T00:33:13.326-05:00Understood. And thank you for not giving me a free...Understood. And thank you for not giving me a free pass. :)magicjavahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03154898399130212709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-67295676455216548282010-03-03T21:46:02.766-05:002010-03-03T21:46:02.766-05:0028 half orbits a day? That is a pretty fast moving...28 half orbits a day? That is a pretty fast moving satellite. <br /><br />Your point is fair enough but I just get really skeptical when bloggers start inventing new ways to analyze data (e.g. chiefio and his dT/dt).Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15189772224723593303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-2704904106543216472010-03-03T21:01:44.629-05:002010-03-03T21:01:44.629-05:00Just to rephrase what I said in the previous comme...Just to rephrase what I said in the previous comment in terms of the conclusion the post... <br /><br />If the ratio between temperature area change and anomaly change varies, something is wrong. That something may not be the anomaly. Perhaps there's noise in the temperature readings. Perhaps we neglected to look at some other factor, such as clouds.<br /><br />But somewhere along the line, something is wrong.magicjavahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03154898399130212709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-22806539013812574312010-03-03T20:42:51.036-05:002010-03-03T20:42:51.036-05:00Well, the Aqua satellite performs 28 half orbits p...Well, the Aqua satellite performs 28 half orbits per day and examines each latitude on average once per day. So a month's worth of data should be pretty good.<br /><br />But I absolutely agree with you that there could be other factors that justify the different adjustments to the raw data. But the point of looking at the ratio between temperature area and adjustments isn't to show the adjustments are wrong, it to see if additional explanation is needed to justify the changes in adjustment. The explanation could very well turn out to be clouds, as you noted. So we can go look at clouds. But we need to come up with some sort of explanation.<br /><br />But as the January, 2010 and January, 2009 raw scans for channel 5, footprint 15 were nearly identical, but the January 2010 anomaly was about twice the size of the January, 2009 anomaly, theres _alot_ of explanation that needs to be done.magicjavahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03154898399130212709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-52233264797115936682010-03-03T20:33:22.080-05:002010-03-03T20:33:22.080-05:00Also the raw data may need to be masked with the o...Also the raw data may need to be masked with the output of another sensor that detects cloud cover. This would means a cloudy month would have a completely different ratio than a clear month.Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15189772224723593303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-55774692557972387592010-03-03T20:28:23.512-05:002010-03-03T20:28:23.512-05:00Actually the adjustments are not necessarily const...Actually the adjustments are not necessarily constant over time.<br /><br />Consider a satellite that crosses the equator at the same time each day. When it crosses the equator it captures a scan which covers some mix of a land and ocean. The next day (which is not 24 hours later from the perspective of the satellite) it captures a new scan but this time the mix of land and ocean changes.<br /><br />Over time the adjustments will repeat but there is no guarantee that a month is long enough to capture the full cycle and you could have significant differences between months. <br /><br />The way to test this would be to calculate the temperature area for longer periods and see if the ratio is periodic or trending towards a constant. <br /><br />To test this theory you shouldRavenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15189772224723593303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-47725835046303722482010-03-03T20:10:36.657-05:002010-03-03T20:10:36.657-05:00Raven -
There's no doubt adjustments need to ...Raven -<br /><br />There's no doubt adjustments need to be done for the raw data to give valid temperature readings.<br /><br />But whatever those adjustments are, there should be a certain similarity to them over time. For example, there's not a lot of change in the geometry of the Earth when comparing January, 2009 to January, 2010. <br /><br />What that means is the ratios between the raw data and the adjusted anomalies for those time frames should be similar. A change in the anomaly should have a similar change in the accompanying temperature area.<br /><br />If we don't find that, that means the adjustments being made to the data are changing over time. For example, looking at channel 5, footprint 15 for January 2010, 2009, and 2008 shows a big difference in the adjustments between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.<br /><br />This isn't proof that the anomaly is wrong, but it does raise the question as to why significant changes in the adjustments occurred.<br /><br />There are other possibilities, such as introducing noise by limiting the check to a single footprint, and additional valid data from other satellites not being examined. Those possibilities will be examined as well.magicjavahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03154898399130212709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-55430921506433671412010-03-03T19:39:34.900-05:002010-03-03T19:39:34.900-05:00Are you sure you understand what the raw data repr...Are you sure you understand what the raw data represents? If each scan represents a different physical location then your temperature area would have to be weighted according to the geometry of the earth.Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15189772224723593303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-86246047980098450212010-03-03T04:27:59.752-05:002010-03-03T04:27:59.752-05:00And thank you Malaga View. It's good to know t...And thank you Malaga View. It's good to know this was helpful.magicjavahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03154898399130212709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1670073287004531921.post-35061219558061785872010-03-02T19:46:32.729-05:002010-03-02T19:46:32.729-05:00"So if we ever see a change in temperature ar..."So if we ever see a change in temperature area and a change in anomaly not in sync, we know something is wrong."<br /><br />Lovely use of language... and logic!!!<br />Keep up the splendid work...<br />And - THANK YOU :-)Malaga Viewnoreply@blogger.com