SPENCER WRONG NOAA Blunder Explains Claims of Warming Oceans?

Spencer on SST chart 3SCIENTISTS at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center (CPC) appear to have made a blunder with a data adjustment and splice resulting in sea surface temperatures being warmer than they would otherwise be by about 0.175 degrees C over the last two decades.

Roy Spencer, from the University of Alabama, discovered the error just a few days ago which according to meteorologist Anthony Watts, accounts for 24% of the 0.74 deg C global warming claimed for 1905-2005.

**************
UPDATE:  THE ERROR WAS ROY SPENCERS

To make a long story short, because the orbit boost caused the TMI to be able to “see” to slightly higher latitudes, the way in which individual latitude bands are handled has a significant impact on the resulting temperature anomalies that are computed over time.

The previous results I presented were for the 40N to 40S latitude band, which is nominally what the TMI instrument sees today. But before 2001, the latitudinal extent was slightly smaller than it was after 2001.

If I restrict the latitude range to 38N to 38S, which was always covered during the entire TRMM mission, I find that the divergence between the TMI and NOAA average SST measurements essentially disappears.

Even though I was processing the NOAA and TMI datasets in the same manner, I should NOT have been. This is because there were not as many gridpoints over cooler SST regions going into the ‘global’ averages before the satellite altitude boost as after the boost. So, for example, one must be very careful in computing a latitude band average, say from 39N to 40N, to make sure that there has been no long-term change in the sampling of that band.

Based upon the above comparisons, I would now say there is no statistically significant difference in the SST trends since 1998 between TMI, the NOAA ERSSTv3b product, and the HadSST2 product. And it does look like July 2009 might well have experienced a warmer SST anomaly than July 1998, as was originally claimed by NOAA. (Remember, TMI can not see all of the global oceans, just equatorward of about 40 deg. N and S latitude.)

more here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/31/spencer-always-question-your-results/

September 2, 2009
********

The mistake was made about 10 years ago following a request from the World Meteorological Organization for NOAA to standardize the period from which temperature anomalies are calculated. 

I have puzzled as to why Australian government advisors claim sea temperatures have been increasing over the last ten years – perhaps they have been referring to sea surface temperatures and focusing on this dud data.

Of course NASA started deploying free floating Argo buoys in the world’s oceans in 2000 with the full complement of 3,000 in place by 2003, and measurements from these well spread buoys indicates that the oceans have been cooling since 2003. 

People make mistakes.  In this case the mistake got through peer-review. 

Given the many mistakes made by those compiling, adjusting and averaging global temperature data including sea surface temperatures, it would perhaps be worth having one or a few reference sites against which all the adjusting and averaging could be compared.   As carbon dioxide concentrations are often reported only for Mauna Loa, Hawaii, why not also discuss what is happening here when discussing global warming and sea surface temperatures.

********************************

Notes and Links

The above graph shows the likely magnitude of the error made by NOAA with it most pronounced since 2001, more information at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-warming-in-new-noaa-ocean-temperature-product-the-smoking-gun/  and  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/27/spencer-noaa%E2%80%99s-official-sea-surface-temperature-product-ersst-has-spurous-warming/ 

Interdecadal Changes of 30-Yr SST Normals during 1871–2000
YAN XUE, NOAA/NWS/NCEP Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland
THOMAS M. SMITH AND RICHARD W. REYNOLDS, NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
J O U R N A L O F C L I M A T E, VOLUME 16

Part 1 of ‘Let’s Stop Averaging Global Temperatures’ is here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/stop-averaging-global-temperatures-part-1/ 

Related posts: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/legislating-on-the-basis-of-a-scientific-theory/

84 Responses to SPENCER WRONG NOAA Blunder Explains Claims of Warming Oceans?

  1. SJT August 29, 2009 at 6:17 pm #

    I have puzzled as to why Australian government advisors claim sea temperatures have been increasing over the last ten years – perhaps they have been referring to sea surface temperatures and focusing on this dud data.

    Are you stupid? I think they would have been referring to increasing sea temperatures for the past ten years because the sea temperature data indicated the sea temperatures had been increasing. If you want to debate the accuracy of the data, you are welcome to, but please don’t make such infantile assertions.

  2. Louis Hissink August 29, 2009 at 6:19 pm #

    You would have thought after the auditing efforts by Steve McIntyre and others that a thorough check of all the data for these types of errors would be uppermost in most people’s minds.

    But no, it seems that climate science has blundered yet again into a data quality issue, so one wonders why owners of other data sources, CRU or example, are resisting auditing so strenuously. Same bad quality data?

    Mind you, wars have been fought over less.

  3. Luke August 29, 2009 at 6:27 pm #

    Jen

    This is very unclear – can you clarify – you say “appear to have made”

    Spencer himself doesn’t know why the anomaly appears.

    Then later in the post you claim it as a mistake – you call it !

    In any case please show us what the new 1900 to 2009 time series now looks like – I’m unclear.

    BTW – most of troops here won’t be able to participate in this discussion as they don’t believe in averaging temperatures anyway.

  4. Louis Hissink August 29, 2009 at 6:38 pm #

    Luke,

    Data quality is the issue here, not averaging of temperatures.

    It’s all about poor data entry – Research PHd’s don’t sully their hands on raw data collection – they are paid to interpret it. We in the mining industry cottoned onto this decades ago – hence our obsession with QAQC in data collection.

    But we are going to destroy our economy over bureaucratic mediocrity? Appears so – it’s traditional.

  5. el gordo August 29, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    The NOAA flawed figures become pernicious propaganda, as illustrated by Ben Cubby, SMH Environment journalist.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/warmest-seas-on-record-20090724-dw6c.html

    We should not expect Ben to clarify this new reality to his readers, because he’s also deluded. It is the sin of omission, which goes completely unnoticed.

  6. Larry Fields August 29, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    I haven’t been following the AGW Saga as closely as some, but *all* of the data-adjustment ‘errors’ of which I’m aware exaggerate temperature increases and pooh-pooh temperature decreases. If the errors were truly random, I’d expect half to understate temperature increases or to exaggerate temperature decreases.

    Climate Alarmist ‘research’ is a multi-billion-dollar industry. If the top management within that industry really cared about accuracy, they could afford to hire a ‘Red Team’ to root out the grossest of the adjustment ‘errors’ before McIntyre, Watts, and Spencer catch the major players with their grubby paws in the data jar.

    Thought experiment. Suppose that you’re a researcher working at GISS, and that your careful research shows that the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate change is only 5% of what it was previously thought to be. Will your research ever see the light of day in an IPCC report? If your answer is yes, I’m selling a parcel of ocean-front property in Switzerland that would be an ideal setting for your future dream house.

  7. Louis Hissink August 29, 2009 at 7:10 pm #

    Larry,

    You noticed that did you, an upward bias in data homogenization as it’s termed? We go to goal here in Australia if we do that to mining report data.

  8. Louis Hissink August 29, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    el gordo

    “We should not expect Ben to clarify this new reality to his readers, because he’s also deluded. It is the sin of omission, which goes completely unnoticed”

    I don’t know how much experience you have socialising with lefties but my own experience tells me that when confronted with an “inconvenient fact”, they become mute.

    This, often, pious silence is based on the belief that if a subject is not chattered about, it cannot exist.

  9. SJT August 29, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    “Thought experiment. Suppose that you’re a researcher working at GISS, and that your careful research shows that the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate change is only 5% of what it was previously thought to be. Will your research ever see the light of day in an IPCC report? If your answer is yes, I’m selling a parcel of ocean-front property in Switzerland that would be an ideal setting for your future dream house.”

    Piss weak conspiracy theory.

  10. chrisgo August 29, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    “…..Are you stupid?…….

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/to:2010/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

    ……….I think they would have been referring to increasing sea temperatures for the past ten years because the sea temperature data indicated the sea temperatures had been increasing…..” SJT August 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pm.

  11. Louis Hissink August 29, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    An obvious scientific issue over warming oceans lies in the thermal lag such large bodies of water have. So what’s the lag factor for the world’s oceans?

    Given that gases are more sensitive to thermal inputs than liquids, and based on the measurements of ice core data which show that atmospheric chemical changes occur some 800 years after a thermal inputs, changes in ocean thermal states, given the known thermal inertia of liquids when compared to gases, suggests a longer lag.

    It is entirely likely that the present observed SSL trend had its origins in the climatic disturbances circa AD 65, as suggested by Mike Baillie.

  12. Louis Hissink August 29, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    Error: Mike Baillie didn’t – he pointed out to a climate event circa 65 AD – that I interpret as a possible cause for the SSL data observed later.

  13. sod August 29, 2009 at 8:38 pm #

    “…..Are you stupid?…….

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/to:2010/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

    ……….I think they would have been referring to increasing sea temperatures for the past ten years because the sea temperature data indicated the sea temperatures had been increasing…..” SJT August 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pm.

    10 years are 10 years. you can not simply plot 2000-2010. you can t include years, that haven t happened yet.

    and the trend over the last 120 months (aka 10 years) is UP.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/last:120/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/last:120/trend

  14. chrisgo August 29, 2009 at 8:49 pm #

    Argo floats have monitored ocean heat content since 2003.
    Ocean heat content trend 2003-2009 is down (Dr. Craig Loehle, Ph.D.)
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Argo_Heat_Content.jpg

  15. oil shrill August 29, 2009 at 8:51 pm #

    Sod, you have a funny definition of UP.

    It looks like a random walk to me.

  16. dribble August 29, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    SJT: “Piss weak conspiracy theory.”

    Oh dash it all! Destroyed once again by SJT’s dazzling intellectual virtuosity. How does he do it? It is the bright light of faith that shines upon us all.

  17. oil shrill August 29, 2009 at 9:21 pm #

    Dribble, it is that bright light of faith that motivates them. Being typical warming hysterics, they intrepret every squiggle on a graph as armageddon. They have lost any sense of perspective.

  18. Jennifer August 29, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    Luke,

    Great to hear that you guys have issues with averaging of global temps… so is Hawaii a good spot for a reference site?

    As regards “very unclear” … well this is breaking news. Watch this space!

    Others plus Luke plus ALL of Luke’s colleagues,

    Is the data collected by the Argo buoys the best measure of ocean temps?

  19. Ninderthana August 29, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    It is always a laugh to drop in for a short while and see the “intellectual genius” of the likes of SJT,

    SJT looks at a graph of sea surface temperatures (SST) over the last ten years, which even a five year old can see is either flat or trending down, and he declares that that it is trending up.

    Then along comes the Sod (which might be an indication of what his grey matter is made of) and extends the SST graph back just far enough to pick up the cooling produced by the 1998-1999 La Nina. He uses this “revelation” to declare that the oceans must be heating up.

    You can’t invent guys like these. I recommend that someone save all their postings and bottle them for future generations. People will be rolling in the ailes when they read these “gems
    of wisdom”in the coming decades.

  20. jennifer August 29, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    Hey Ninderthana

    This site is archived at Australia’s National Library in Canberra. Ian Mott believes he will be eventually vindicated.

  21. SJT August 29, 2009 at 10:08 pm #

    The advisors to Wong referred to the ocean heat conent, IIRC.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html

  22. cohenite August 29, 2009 at 10:08 pm #

    Well, that’s it then; OHC going down; SST going down; GMST going down and sea level increase/rate declining.

  23. cohenite August 29, 2009 at 10:12 pm #

    “The advisors to Wong”: sounds like a tropical disease; and little will quotes Domingues;

    Domingues: http://climatesci.org/2008/06/20/diagnosis-of-global-sea-level-and-upper-ocean-heat-content-on-seasonal-to-interannual-timescales-paper-willis-et-al-2008-published/

  24. sod August 29, 2009 at 10:18 pm #

    Argo floats have monitored ocean heat content since 2003.
    Ocean heat content trend 2003-2009 is down (Dr. Craig Loehle, Ph.D.)
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Argo_Heat_Content.jpg

    there are multiple problems with the Loehle article, and you are even misrepresenting it. it is 4 and a half year of data, up to 2008. ( i will look forward to the 2009 data from argo, including el nino…

    Willis came to a different conclusion, in his corrected article….

    Sod, you have a funny definition of UP.

    It looks like a random walk to me.

    oil shrill, you are a funny sceptic. i didn t see you object to graph posted by chrisgo, obviously claiming that the trend is down (as it was an attempt to contradict SJT)

    no the “upwards trend” in my graph is double of what his was, and he was using a fictitious time period in addition…

    Great to hear that you guys have issues with averaging of global temps… so is Hawaii a good spot for a reference site?

    let me repeat this, so i am sure i correctly understand your question/position:

    Jennifer Marohasy does believe that Hawaii is a good reference site for GLOBAL temperature?!?

    sorry Jennifer, but that is still insane!

    Is the data collected by the Argo buoys the best measure of ocean temps?

    well for those who like to cherry pick what ever data series is pointing at least a little downward, it obviously is. it is also very good for those, who prefer extremely SHORT time series, while looking at climate.

    the rest of us obviously thinks that a more accurate measurement of sea temperature is a good idea and is waiting for improvements by the argo data.

    but i have a counter-question:

    what dat set will you switch to, when argo shows warming in 2009? or will you drop sea temperature altogether then, until it is showing a downward period again, however short it is?

    SJT looks at a graph of sea surface temperatures (SST) over the last ten years, which even a five year old can see is either flat or trending down, and he declares that that it is trending up.

    if it is obvious to you, that this trend is down or flat, then you should seriously consider to work with data. i am one hundred percent shure, that the average 5 year old can t see it.

    Then along comes the Sod (which might be an indication of what his grey matter is made of) and extends the SST graph back just far enough to pick up the cooling produced by the 1998-1999 La Nina. He uses this “revelation” to declare that the oceans must be heating up.

    i just corrected the time period. there is only one 10 year period, backwards from now. my graph does show that period. period.

    (if you are really going to work with data, you have a lot of learning to do on really really basic stuff…)

  25. Luke August 29, 2009 at 10:18 pm #

    Jen

    What about the graph for 1900 to 2009 I asked about?

    Argo floats you ask – Jen complex instruments and complex data processing. Not much use to the folks here though – they don’t believe in averaging. So most of the commentators won’t be able to use their data. Are they any good – time will tell – they have has some issues. Theoretically it’s a good system and in time will be invaluable. (IMO)

    Of course Spencer himself is probably well trained now in looking for data errors – himself unable to calibrate his own satellite data – went from cooling to warming. Keep that thought Jen !

    Is Hawaii any good as a reference site – for CO2 yes – for temperature wouldn’t be taking the mountain top 1000ms up.

    Indeed Mottys’ collections of redneck comments are priceless. A true insight.

  26. Luke August 29, 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    Anyway Jen – how about that SST graph – what does 1900 to 2009 now look like? I’m curious.

  27. Luke August 29, 2009 at 10:26 pm #

    For example here’s a 2008 effort http://jisao.washington.edu/data/global_sstanomts/sstglobalanom18452008.jpg – I wonder what this graph now looks like? Or any equivalent.

  28. jennifer August 29, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    Luke,

    Do you think taking the temp at 1000 metres up would be OK? As long as its raw data I think ‘m fine. …I am just wary of the adjusted.

    As regards the 1900 to 2009 graph of SST … well I was quoting from email correspondence. You deserve an answer, I will do my best.

    PS Regards to the colleagues

  29. sod August 29, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    Well, that’s it then; OHC going down; SST going down; GMST going down and sea level increase/rate declining.

    all lovers of the short term trend should add surface temperature in Germany to that list. it was definitely down over the last month (end of summer) and over the last couple of hours too. (evening approaches..)

    well, that is it then….

  30. Oakden Wolf August 29, 2009 at 10:34 pm #

    As is typical, skeptical sites are trumpeting “blunder”, “error”, “flaw”, “mistake”, and raising the spectre of widespread scientic collusion to promote erroneous science.

    While in this case it isn’t even clear there’s an error; what Spencer has shown is a discrepancy between two different satellite data sets. And there are a lot of reasons that can happen; Dr. Spencer is certainly aware of that. He’s done some data-checking, but this has a long way to go before its vetted and validated.

    But as usual, the skeptical mindset is fortified by mere suggestions and unreviewed aspersions.

    Nice.

  31. SJT August 29, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    “Oh dash it all! Destroyed once again by SJT’s dazzling intellectual virtuosity. How does he do it? It is the bright light of faith that shines upon us all.”

    How else do you deal with a conspiracy theory that is nothing more than a thought experiment?

  32. Luke August 29, 2009 at 11:38 pm #

    Jen – nothing wrong with taking the temperature up the mountain. One would be disappointed if they didn’t have a full met station at a CO2 measuring site.

    But is that site relevant in an analysis of surface temperature where most of the biota of the planet including us live – well that’s debatable.

    Jen – re your predilection to “raw data” – weeell – you have to be careful. If it’s satellite data and you’re signal is drifting over time with instrument age or orbit change – what do you do?

    If say with remote sensing you don’t apply bidirectional reflectance corrections for sun angle and time of day – you might interpret dark areas as “fire burnt” when maybe they’re just in the shade.

    If you pre-1900 met station read higher than an contemporary Stevenson screen – surely you need to do something ?

    Pretty well all modern instruments have calibration issues – even a simple pH meter.

    Any adjustments need to be justified and explicit.

    But as the humble thermometer – or met station – the best thing is to site stations appropriately and away from UHI effects, overhanging trees or areas generally atypical of the surroundings. Why not use just the best? Probably coz the network wasn’t designed with climate change in mind !

  33. SJT August 30, 2009 at 12:39 am #

    Pielke and Christy blunder revealed. Satellites understating warming, land records are correct.

    Well, one thing it does not mean is the main title of RPJnr’s post, that the surface temperature trend is overstated. There is nothing in the paper (despite three gratuitous plugs of Watt’s photography site) that actually argues for the measured temperature trend being wrong in any way. Rather, the paper explains why the measured trend is a bit greater than would be expected (according to mainstream theory) in comparison to the satellite measurements.

    In other words, the satellite measurements are biased low, if one attempts to interpret them as an estimate of the surface temperature trend via the standard 1:1.2 warming ratio. Not that I expect the Pielkes to like that particular interpretation, which is why I put it in bold :-)

    Oh dear, how did it ever get to this.

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/evidence-for-bias-in-atmospheric.html

  34. SJT August 30, 2009 at 12:52 am #

    Oh dear, now this is really disconcerting. It just gets worse.

    Down and down into the Pielkeian rabbit hole we go…

    Recall that Klotzbach et al observe that the expected (model-based) tropospherical amplification factor of 1.2 is not easily found in a comparison of land surface observations and satellite measurements. They suggest that this is due to a change in lapse rate on calm nights, such that the surface (1.5-2m) temp is warmer than expected, relative to the satellites. There is an underlying series of papers (eg Lin et al 2007, Pielke and Matsui 2005) which discuss boundary layer effects over land at night.

    Now I hadn’t noticed on my first reading, but the claim that the 1.2 factor applies over land is actually attributed to analysis of the GISS model output by one Ross McKittrick, who one might consider a curious if not altogether dubious authority for this statement.

    Up pops Gavin Schmidt a couple of days ago, pointing out that in fact the GISS model output, when correctly analysed, has an amplification factor of just under 1 over land. This result appears to be supported by simple physical understanding and thus probably holds for other models too.

    This correction immediately knocks off half of the missing amplification effect that Klotzbach et al was explaining. In the original paper, the difference in trend over land (assuming a 1.2 amplification factor) was estimated as 0.07-0.21C/decade (mean of 0.14), for the 4 combinations of {HadCRU,NHDC} vs {UAH,RSS}. With the correct “amplification” of 1 (it should more precisely be 0.95 according to Gavin’s figures) the difference is 0.01-0.13 (mean of 0.07).

    Of course in Pielke-speak this “confirm the robustness of our findings to model uncertainties”. Actually, in numerical terms it halves the magnitude of the effect, but perhaps this interpretation is just me playing semantic games. It has been interesting to see how much of their result has collapsed, and how rapidly it did so, once their paper saw the light of day. RPSr’s original “conservative estimate” of this boundary layer effect being worth 0.21C/decade over land (meaning 0.06C/decade in the global trend, about a third of the overall observed value) now appears to be an overstatement by a factor of three, according to these updated results. Nevertheless, if the remainder of their analysis is valid, this would still be a worthwhile contribution towards improving the compliance of the satellite and ground-based observations, which would bring them more comfortably within each others’ respective error bounds.

    (I’m still half-expecting someone to pop up and say the whole idea is wrong from start to finish, though.)

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/curiouser-and-curiouser.html

  35. SJT August 30, 2009 at 1:09 am #

    Meanwhile, drought in the South due to AGW.

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html

    SCIENTISTS studying Victoria’s crippling drought have, for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s dramatic decline in rainfall.

    A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.

    Scientists working on the $7 million South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative say the rain has dropped away because the subtropical ridge – a band of high pressure systems that sits over the country’s south – has strengthened over the past 13 years.

    These dry, high pressure systems have become stronger, bigger and more frequent and this intensification over the past century is closely linked to rising global temperatures, they found.

    Climate data from across the past century shows the subtropical ridge has peaked and waned, often in line with rising global temperatures.

    But to see what role greenhouse gases played in the recent intensification, the scientists used sophisticated American computer climate models.

    When they ran simulations with only the ”natural” influences on temperature, such as changing levels of solar activity, they found there was no intensification of the subtropical ridge and no decline in rainfall.

    But when they added human influences, such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone depletion, the models mimicked what has occurred in south-east Australia – the high pressure systems strengthened, causing a significant drop in rainfall.

    ”It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,” said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.

  36. el gordo August 30, 2009 at 8:10 am #

    The Age has a natural bias, but this article should liven up the conversation. Too much reductionist stuff and drifting into pin pricking semantics, let’s look at the big picture.

    Is Timbal wrong when he says the drought is a result of global warming? The intensification of the sub tropical ridge may have some other origin and their simulations are not credible. They don’t give enough credit to changing levels of solar activity.

  37. cohenite August 30, 2009 at 9:01 am #

    Little will, do you read your copious quotes? Boundary layer turbulence is the main dissipator of [radiative] energy in the atmosphere and produces weather; part of this turbulence is lapse rate variation; for this reason the atmosphere is a churning porridge [rather like the alarmist mindset] and really can be only broadly speculated about, hence travesties like Sherwood and Allen; what is reasonably certain is TOA measurements as the recent Lindzen and Douglass and Paltridge papers show, which is, there is not a radiative blockage at TOA; and surface measurements of temperature at a regional basis; why the regional trends are occuring is of course speculative but if there are no AGW ‘symptoms’ such as a THS, weakening WC or cooling stratosphere or rising OHC then AGW as an explanation is not on the table.

  38. kuhnkat August 30, 2009 at 9:12 am #

    Luke the Fluke,

    ” If it’s satellite data and you’re signal is drifting over time with instrument age or orbit change – what do you do?”

    Why, we will just ADJUST the data to match the trends of the SURFACE RECORD which we have already adjusted to be close to the Models which we KNOW are correct!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You, SJT, and old SOD are such LOSERS!!!

  39. Louis Hissink August 30, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    El gordo

    It’s a computer simulation of a physical process which cannot be modeled. In any case the modeling has an inbuilt warming based on the assumption of climate sensitivity. So of course they have proved it but only in their Model World. The lunacy occurs when model world is extrapolated to the real world.

  40. Louis Hissink August 30, 2009 at 10:17 am #

    Cohenite

    Little Wil is quoting non peer reviewed sources? Tsk, tsk, what will they scrape off the bottom next time.

  41. cohenite August 30, 2009 at 10:46 am #

    Louis; I’m also worried about luke’s ICOADS SST graph which shows anomalously lower SSTs upto 1944 and anomalously sustained higher SSTs after about 1976; the thing about this graph is that it is based on the 195079 period which was the cool -ve PDO period during the 20thC; for SSTs before this period to be anomalously cooler implies that they were cooler than the -ve PDO period. Does this mean AGW is true after all? well, not exactly. GMSTs and SSTs have been increasing since 1850, but in a way consistent with ENSO; this was eunciated first of all in the McLean paper and commented on by Stockwell and the Sun and Yu paper explained the mechanism for this; namely primacy of El Nino periods over La Ninas.

  42. Neil Fisher August 30, 2009 at 11:14 am #

    SJT quoted James Annan:

    Up pops Gavin Schmidt a couple of days ago, pointing out that in fact the GISS model output, when correctly analysed, has an amplification factor of just under 1 over land. This result appears to be supported by simple physical understanding and thus probably holds for other models too.

    And yet, RC said this:

    If you do a better job on the homogenisation, you end up with answers closer to the expected moist adiabatic amplification of the trend with height. It bears stating again that the expected amplification has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect – it is just a function of the surface warming.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/
    Note that this is a post by Gavin himeself – and he explicitly states that we expect “adiabatic amplification of the trend with height”!

    So one wonders what the hell is going on – did Gavin simply not bother to do the analysis “correctly”, or has his position on this changed? Have the models changed their output since May 2008 and now contradict previous runs? If so, how does this affect IPCC “projections”? Or has the position now reversed, and we expect lesser such amplification over land than ocean? It’s certainly hard to “keep” up when reversals like this happen…

  43. Luke August 30, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    Doesn’t answer the question Kockhead Kat – most satellites will suffer from drift – YOU TELL US – what YOU would do eh? Mr Content Free. Then tell us as a duty of care what is really done as opposed to spreading evil.

    Coho – “GMSTs and SSTs have been increasing since 1850, but in a way consistent with ENSO”

    UTTER UTTER ROT !

    El Nino builds heat from nowhere – Jacks’ beanstalk. Heaven help the sceptics. Mate it beggars belief.

    Sigh – do the simplest analysis to ordinate your data – one finds PC1 to be a widespread global signal PC2 seems to be a IPO/ENSO ey thingy …. it is that simple.

    The long term centennial signal is a combination of solar & greenhouse forcing. The greenhouse forcing predominates in the last 30-40 years.

  44. cohenite August 30, 2009 at 12:01 pm #

    luke, your loyalty to Parker et al is touching but you really need to look at this paper which pre-dates Parker;

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf

    And this paper which is after Parker;

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf

    The asymmetry of ENSO produces a cloud and radiative imbalance or accumulation which is the mechanism for the increasing heat in a period [such as from 1850] when El Ninos dominate La Nina; the following is helpful, and note this exposition is based entirely on empirical data;

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf

  45. cohenite August 30, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    Sorry, that second link should be to the Sun and Yu paper;

    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf

  46. Louis Hissink August 30, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    Cohenite

    Luke’s ICOAD plot isn’t an issue – we are and continue to be returning to pre LIA thermal state. Greenland has not yet returned to its MWP state – and that is all that the SST plot suggests.

    In terms of your concerns, I would be intrigued to look at the raw data, and see what was done to it. Roy Spencer’s recent revelation simply points to a lack of QAQC in this area of science.

    Given the minute changes in the SST variable, much less than the detection limit of the thermometers used to make the measurements., I strongly suspect it’s specious, though logically we have to be warming simply on the basis that we are getting out of the LIA.

    Is it AGW? No, Tim Curtin’s Maunu Loa data puts paid to that furphy.

  47. Luke August 30, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    Louis blissfully ignores the meta-discussion and is eaten by a butterfly. Then OMIGAWD – Louis reckons “logically” it must have warmed !?

    Coho – at that time scale without external forcing it simply beggars belief. You have discovered Jack’s beanstalk. It’s a perpetual motion machine. Parker is also based entirely on empirical data and is the simplest analysis one can do. Nice papers though and thanks.

    But given you have engaged – you must be tired of the tedious discussion about the land series record. How incredibly boring and irrelevant. Come on Coho – you must agree. Better analyses on alternative data sets make it simply an irrelevance.

  48. Luke August 30, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    Louis – the whole aspect of “recovery” from the LIA is simply indulgent anthropomorphic nonsense.

    “And as for the idea that we are just recovering from the LIA, there is not one scintilla of evidence supporting that, while there is a mound of evidence pointing to the forced nature of variations both in the LIA and subsequently. Changes in the LIA for instance are reasonably well approximated (given the various uncertainties) as a response to decreased solar and increased volcanic forcings – which have long since vanished.”

    There is no “bounce-back” – things a re driven by forcing drivers. No quackery or superstitions pls – we are men and women of science not witchdoctors.

  49. Louis Hissink August 30, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    Luke,

    Really? How about a citation for that quote, otherwise its plainly more of your driver forced crap.

  50. Louis Hissink August 30, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

    Maunder minimum
    The cause of the Little Ice Age is unknown, but many people have pointed at the coincidence in low sunspot activity and the timing of the Little Ice. This so called Maunder Minimum2 coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, in particular during the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots were a rare occurrence, as noted by solar observers such as Galileo. A minimum in sunspots, indicates an inactive and possibly colder sun and qonsequently less energy output to warm the earth.

    Interestingly it was Europe and North America that we have data for – what happened elsewhere on the planet?

    New Zealand saw the extinction of the Moa which the Maori reckon was caused from fire from the Sky.

    Ted Bryant of Wollongong university pin pointed a tsunami that swamped the eastern seaboard of Australia at the time and there is some data that a meteorite impacted between New Zealand and Australia at the time.

    The Korean Choson annals point to many climate disasters to the period, so the LIA was essentially global, and my idea that the LIA might have been caused by the Earth passing through a meteorite swarm seems supported by the data.

  51. oil shrill August 30, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    Luke.

    If we are “men and women of science not witchdoctors” please tell me what falsifiability tests have been passed by the hypothesis that human caused emissions of CO2 is causing “climate change”.

    As an aside, please define what “Climate change” is and how I would recognise it.

    Once you have defined “climate change” and what it is, please advise what amount of “climate change” is caused by humans and how much is natural variation.

    Please show me you are not a witchdoctor.

  52. Louis Hissink August 30, 2009 at 3:03 pm #

    In addition:

    “1. Introduction

    During the 17th century, there was a long-term drop in overall global temperatures, which led to a sharp reduction in agricultural production. This, in turn, brought about widespread famine and epidemics and had major social and political repercussions. The extended abnormal temperature drop of this period has been recognized by natural scientists, who have called this the “Little Ice Age.” However, little research has been done on the cause or causes of this temperature drop beyond John A. Eddy’s work on the decline in sunspot activity. After I came across the 17th-Century Crisis theory in the works of Western scholars, I felt that the Annals of the Chosôn Dynasty (Chosôn wangjo sillok in Korean; hereinafter referred to as the “Annals”) could potentially be a valuable source of reliable information for this time period. The scribes who compiled the Annals were faithful and meticulous in recording all natural and unusual (often seen as supernatural) phenomena, in accordance with the distinctive Confucian view of nature. Because of this, I believed that these records could provide much valuable insight into phenomena that attended and perhaps led to the Little Ice Age. After ten years of research, I can demonstrate that my initial expectations were correct.

    At first I concentrated on records from the 17th century, but in tracing the frequencies of the various natural phenomena, I had to push the starting point back to the end of the 15th century. I also covered the records for the period immediately after the Little Ice Age for comparative reference, so in the end, I examined records spanning 470 years in the Annals. Based on these records, I have concluded that the Little Ice Age began as early as the end of the 15th century and lasted until the middle of the 18th century. Furthermore, the data suggests that the cause of the Little Ice Age is linked to the abnormally high number of meteors which fell over an extended period of time.

    I am still in the midst of processing the massive amount of data obtained from the Annals–some 25,000 separate records. Therefore, I ask the reader to excuse the fact that I am presenting a work which is not entirely complete, in the hopes of enhancing my research results and analysis with input from other researchers who are working in different but related areas. I welcome healthy debate as well as constructive criticism and will update this paper as a need to arises. (Last revision: 04/16/99)

    Source http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/korea/

    All rather inconvenient for the standard explanation, hey Luke.

  53. Louis Hissink August 30, 2009 at 3:11 pm #

    May as well rub it in:

    “If the records on meteors are understood as was described above, then there is a high probability that the large number of meteor appearances from Period 3 to 7 had a large influence on the other phenomena which also occurred during that period. Altogether, about 3,330 relatively large meteors were observed over the 250-year period just in Seoul, which means that the number of meteors which enter the atmosphere throughout the world must have been enormous. If that many meteors fell to the earth concentrated during the designated period, the dust given off as they burned or exploded would have had a considerable effect on the other phenomena.”

    Same link as above – and why is this observed physical explanation not in any of the mainstream explanations for the LIA? Some of us do know what caused it and the Earth passing through a meteor swarm is simply one of those things the Witchdoctors in the IPCC don’t want to know about because they can’t model it.

  54. el gordo August 30, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    The IPCC says the sun is only a bit player in climate compared to CO2. They are simply wrong. There will be no ‘bounce back’ to a Maunder just yet, but a Dalton minimum looks promising.

    From the depths of the Dalton (1796-1830) it has been a bit like climbing a mountain, straight up then level off before going up again. Until finally reaching the modern climate optimum a few short years ago.

    As David Archibald said, it’s the length of the solar cycle that has the greatest impact. At the moment the sun remains blank and there is now speculation that Solar Cycle 24 won’t pick up much. This will be a litmus test for some contemporary theories on climate change.

  55. SJT August 30, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    “The IPCC says the sun is only a bit player in climate compared to CO2. They are simply wrong. There will be no ‘bounce back’ to a Maunder just yet, but a Dalton minimum looks promising.”

    The IPCC says that the climate forcings can vary in intensity. At present CO2 is stronger, but that is certainly not always the case.

  56. janama August 30, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    “At present CO2 is stronger”

    what does a 2007 report know about the present?

  57. Louis Hissink August 30, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    SJT

    Another non sequitur? The largest weather forcing is the diurnal solar influence but you, on authority, state that it’s the invisible background effect of a slight change in atmospheric chemistry, that forces climate change.

    ?????????

  58. sod August 30, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    no news on the Spencer claim?

    Phil (as so often) wrote a very interesting comment on WuWt: ( Phil. (22:09:31) : )

    Isn’t the point that NOAA changed the base period in 2001 in accordance with WMO practice and that accounts for the step which you noted. Shouldn’t the anomalies prior to 2001 be adjusted for the change in mean?

    is there anything in what Spencer wrote, that supports that the new data is too high (and not the old data too low)???

  59. SJT August 30, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    “Another non sequitur? The largest weather forcing is the diurnal solar influence but you, on authority, state that it’s the invisible background effect of a slight change in atmospheric chemistry, that forces climate change.”

    Louis, your understanding of the case for AGW is so poor and bizarre, there’s no use replying to anything you write.

  60. Louis Hissink August 30, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    I should have spotted this earlier but:

    “SCIENTISTS at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center (CPC) appear to have made a blunder with a data adjustment and splice resulting in sea surface temperatures being warmer than they would otherwise be by about 0.175 degrees C over the last two decades.”

    That’s a change in temperature of (0.175/20) degrees C per year, which is not capable of being measured, but could be from calculation. In any case it’s a prediction that cannot be measured by existing technology, let alone the gross errors made from wrong aggregation methods.

    Real or spurious?

    Any change in a variable less than an instrumental detection limit, is “noise” but so much NOISE is produced by the AGW brigade over NOISY data, that one wonders whether their critical faculties have be NOISED out by the data NOISE.

  61. Louis Hissink August 30, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    SJT: “Louis, your understanding of the case for AGW is so poor and bizarre, there’s no use replying to anything you write.”

    Good, I was not relying on your self confessed scientific ignorance as a reply to my posts.

    Why not save yourself even more effort by leaving here and living at Lambert’s?

  62. dribble August 30, 2009 at 7:53 pm #

    I agree. Piss off SJT, go back to believer blogland where you belong. All you do is drag that believer blog crap over here and parrot it out of your arse anyway. If we wanted to read that crap we know where to go to find it.

  63. cohenite August 30, 2009 at 8:02 pm #

    “No external mechanism”! luke, the ‘external mechanism’ for ENSO caused temperature trends is the reduction in cloud cover over the upwelling surface; this allows more insolation to reach the ocean surface maintaining and increasing SST; that there is less clover during the El Nino period is well documented [see Wielicki et al, 2002; and Palle et al, 2005]; the radiative connection between the ocean and PDO is also the subject of the recent Douglass and Knox paper;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/11/ocean-heat-content-and-earth%e2%80%99s-radiation-imbalance/#more-9865

  64. el gordo August 30, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    A new article on ‘global dimming’, which puts one of my theories in the shade. The interesting observation is that ‘there was around 10 percent more carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere between 1960-1999′ because of global dimming.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/30/global-dimming-and-brightening-in-the-context-of-solar-radiation/#more-10381

    While you’re there check out the letter from Michael Mann in the comments page (originally published in the UK Telegraph) where he criticises Christopher Booker. Something to do with a hockey stick.

  65. SJT August 30, 2009 at 9:28 pm #

    “Good, I was not relying on your self confessed scientific ignorance as a reply to my posts.”

    LOL. You accuse me of ignorance because I point out your ignorance. Even Hunter had to cast you adrift with your lunatic denial of plate tectonics.

  66. SJT August 30, 2009 at 9:29 pm #

    “I agree. Piss off SJT, go back to believer blogland where you belong”

    Once again, you have nothing.

  67. Luke August 30, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    Hey SJT – I’m trying my new alarmist Gravatar. I call him Alarmist Scum. I was depressed nobody ID’ed the last one, although I think Jen liked it.

    Sorry I had to go out with Phil.

    Sinkers – Phil sends hugs. Well virtual ones as you know he has been unable to use his hands since the accident with the Mixmaster and the goat.

    BTW was that ol’ Sinkers flashing a bit o’ the old scholarly facts & figures. Must be 3 year since we’ve seen anything but quips. So should we respectfully engage him or just put shit on him like he does to us. Interesting but those circumstances no longer exist so lah de dah.

  68. dribble August 30, 2009 at 10:42 pm #

    Thats the problem with being the village idiot SJT, you don’t know you’re the village idiot. Even when it is patiently explained to you that you are the village idiot there is no comprehension on this point.

  69. SJT August 30, 2009 at 11:16 pm #

    “Thats the problem with being the village idiot SJT, you don’t know you’re the village idiot. Even when it is patiently explained to you that you are the village idiot there is no comprehension on this point.”

    Still nothing.

  70. dribble August 31, 2009 at 1:49 am #

    The village idiot speaks. Next he will jump around spanking his own bottom.

  71. SJT August 31, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    “The village idiot speaks. Next he will jump around spanking his own bottom.”

    Nothing.

  72. dribble August 31, 2009 at 11:33 am #

    Nothing from a nothing. That about sums up SJT.

  73. Louis Hissink August 31, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    SJT: “LOL. You accuse me of ignorance because I point out your ignorance. Even Hunter had to cast you adrift with your lunatic denial of plate tectonics.”

    Plate Tectonics is consensus science, as is AGW.

  74. Louis Hissink August 31, 2009 at 8:27 pm #

    For those with an open mind – a demonstration of the fatal problems Plate Tectonic theory has can be found at this comment I just posted. http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!792.entry.

    There are links to other published peer reviewed research for those interested.

  75. SJT September 1, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    It was Roy Spencer’s goof. Going to update the topic, Jennifer?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/31/spencer-always-question-your-results/#more-10433

  76. Luke September 1, 2009 at 11:27 pm #

    Do my eyes deceive me SJT. So Spencer now says !

    AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE JULY 2009 MIGHT WELL HAVE EXPERIENCED A WARMER SST ANOMALY THAN JULY 1998, AS WAS ORIGINALLY CLAIMED BY NOAA

    “People make mistakes. In this case the mistake got through peer-review.” said Jen.

    Or maybe Spencer can make mistakes? Perhaps peer review is a good thing ?

  77. Louis Hissink September 2, 2009 at 12:19 am #

    “Based upon the above comparisons, I would now say there is no statistically significant difference in the SST trends since 1998 between TMI, the NOAA ERSSTv3b product, and the HadSST2 product. And it does look like July 2009 might well have experienced a warmer SST anomaly than July 1998, as was originally claimed by NOAA. (Remember, TMI can not see all of the global oceans, just equatorward of about 40 deg. N and S latitude.)’

    In other words, nothing happened in a globally statistically thermal sense.

  78. sod September 2, 2009 at 5:28 am #

    well, Spencer did admit his error, which at least i think was a honourable thing to do.

    many of the “sceptics” posting here, swallowed the false SST claim with hook and sinker. truely sceptical, most of them made really embarrassing comments about those of us, who were indeed sceptic of the Spencer result.

    how many of them will admit that they were wrong as well?

    or will at least take back insults like “village idiot”?

  79. toby September 2, 2009 at 2:53 pm #

    Good to see that when a mistake is made it is acknowledged….come in mann, hansen, gore, flannery………..sorry was that the sound of………

  80. toby September 2, 2009 at 2:53 pm #

    IPCC…….

  81. dribble September 3, 2009 at 1:22 am #

    “or will at least take back insults like “village idiot”?”

    Being the instigator of the claim that SJT is the village idiot, I fail to see any problem with this issue. My statements were completely unrelated to Spencer’s claims concerning the July sea temperature. In fact I confess that I had no idea of what this particular thread was about when I made this claim as to the inadequacy of SJT’s mental capacity. It was a general claim made by me in relation to SJT’s general misunderstanding of the complexity of the issues related to climate science.

    I stand by my claim completely that SJT is the village idiot as far as this blog is concerned. I have seen nothing in his comments that would convince me that he has any comprehension of the issues beyond the level of a 14-year old with an average education. I might add that these inadequacies are common to the collective of believer trolls on this site. I personally have no interest in reading the regurgitation of believer blog crap from poorly informed believers. If I wanted to read that sort of crap I already know where to find it.

  82. SJT September 3, 2009 at 9:41 am #

    It was a general claim made by me in relation to SJT’s general misunderstanding of the complexity of the issues related to climate science.

    My irony meter just exploded. You called me the village idiot after you repeatedly restorted to name calling, and I pointed out you had nothing to say but name calling. The IPCC reports are not blog crap, but science you don’t understand. It’s the old “If I can’t understand it, you can’t prove it” problem.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. » NOAA Blunder Explains Claims of Warming Oceans? - August 29, 2009

    […] the original post:  NOAA Blunder Explains Claims of Warming Oceans? Comments (0) Posted by on Saturday, August 29th, […]

  2. World sets ocean temperature record - Page 3 - The Environment Site Forums - August 29, 2009

    […] […]

Website by 46digital