I HAVE been “characterizing” the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature process and how the data are transformed…
My conclusion is that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) “signal” is an artifact of the arrival and departure of thermometers from the scribal record: the addition of more thermometers in the Southern Hemisphere followed by the loss of Siberian thermometers with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The thermometer count rises from 1 in 1701 to over 9,000 then drops back to under 3,000 today. This has an impact…
Read more here: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/agw-is-a-thermometer-count-artifact/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, as a scientist, can you honestly put this garbage up as evidence?
You can’t decide, is the temperature record correct, and the sun and or cosmic rays are the cause, or the temperature record is incorrect and there is no warming.
Wow ! I guess that wraps it up then SJT. hmmmm – I wonder what other sets and other evidence might tell us. Nah – too difficult.
E.M. Smith’s observations are trivially invalidated by actually looking at the data. If they had any merit, there would not be such close agreement between satellite and surface observations over their common period. It does not appear that he has read any of the numerous papers describing the GISS methodology.
In real science, data corruption requires a re-=evaluation of the ideas behind it. Not so in the land of AGW.
Hunter
This observation seems very much like the effect of artificial inflation of a measurement due to an insufficient sample number – it’s pretty common in the mining business when decisions are made on the basis of one sample set that produces an estimate of the amount of metal in a volume of mineral ore, only to find, after mining, that the estimate was too high.
While the mining case can’t be called an artefact of the sample count, it is actually a bias and I would suggest that a similar effect has occurred with the thermometer count and that its a bias incurred from changes in the dataset population that produced the computed temperature rise.
In any case the calculation of the global tempeture involves the aggregration of “intensive” variables, a mathematically nonsensical procedure, but the intensity of the po-faced analyses of such data remains amusing.
I think EM Smith has done a fine job. With such stupendous economic adjustments being demanded by the Copenhagen Consensus, it is imperative that they be securely founded in the base data. Not surprising of course to find that the Lukes and SJTs could not give a cuss about the accuracy of their data base.
I would like to make a couple of other general points. The standard and universally applied measure of atmospheric carbon dioxide is that reported at Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Did you know that the temperatures at Mauna Loa are not taken into account by either James Hansen’s GISS or Phil Jones’ CRU?
I have graphs showing little or no correlation between the known rising level of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa since 1958 and temperatures there. There is also no correlation between the level of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa and the temperatures recorded at the (sea-level) Honolulu Observatory, also ignored by GISS. On the other hand, the temperatures at Honolulu’s International Airport are used by by GISS and Jim Hansen which show a rising trend since 707s arrived there in 1960. But, as has been suggested (by John Goetz, 15 July 2009), “all of the US temperatures – including those for Alaska and Hawaii – were collected from either an airport (the bulk of the data) or an urban location”, and therefore reflected economic activity in general and not atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The inferences to be drawn are that:
1) global warming or heating is a function not of atmospheric carbon dioxide but of human economic activity that draws heavily on utilization of energy
2) therefore reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide will have NO impact on GMT unless indeed it reduces human economic activity based on energy,
3) if renewables like wind and solar do succeed in replacing fossil fuel energy sources, this will have NO impact on temperature increases, driven as they are by energy-based human activity WHATEVER the source of the energy and NOT by atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is a by-product not a source of industrial energy.
“the aggregration of “intensive” variables, a mathematically nonsensical procedure”
Clearly you don’t know anything about maths, Louis.
“Did you know that the temperatures at Mauna Loa are not taken into account by either James Hansen’s GISS or Phil Jones’ CRU?”
A strange claim indeed. Try clicking on the map here, if you know where the Big Island is. Tell us what you find.
“There is also no correlation between the level of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa and the temperatures recorded at the (sea-level) Honolulu Observatory” – which is conclusive proof of why denialists are also idiots.
The inferences drawn from your inferences is that you are the worst pseudo-scientist to have ever escaped accounting.
“The thermometer count rises from 1 in 1701 to over 9,000 then drops back to under 3,000 today. This has an impact…”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Thats Jennifer for you.
Sometimes she uses understatement for effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thats just great Jennifer. Because I knew these rigups had to be wrong on the Sesame Street principle
You get the balloon data, and it agrees with the satellite data and then we have all three public service ground aggregation mockups and they don’t corroborate the story from the satellite. And different satellite records superficially give different results, but they all gave the same result with the subject in question. Because the ground data appears to have a loading in it of at least about 0.1 and perhaps almost 0.15 per decade that is saying “look at me look at me… I’m CO2’s effects”.
No data ought to be reckoned as good data if its uncorroborated data. We have two-way convergence here, but to be totally sure we’d want three-way independent convergence since you need at least a tie-break.
But two out of three aint bad. And here we have this Sesame Street deal where ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER. ONE OF THESE THINGS JUST DOESN’T BELONG. This statement is more effective at getting ones point across if one says it, not in a sing-song fashion like the puppets, but rather with real anger and venom, at these science workers living off us, and lying to the public.
So I’ve been saying that the public service rig-ups are crap for some time. But I then went to Steve McIntyres blog and he appeared to be having a hard time getting data out of Noaa and Hadley. And of course they all howl at the full moon at Goddard. They are quite mad there at Goddard, and wouldn’t know science if it appeared to them in a wide-awake vision.
So you see this from Steve McIntyre. Then you come here and Mike Hammer feeds the raw data in straight and the 30’s come out warmer than the 90’s; This implication corroborated by the solar situation, and by the American data, which the public servants weren’t in a position to skew too much.
But now FINALLY we get someone with quality confirming it for us. Someone too good for the IPA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jennifer how much have you played around with the figures? I trust your judgement totally. But suppose you were to muck about with the numbers and stats for another twenty hours?
Is there any chance you would change your fundamental estimate? Because if you say no I’m calling this convergent evidence, and I’m saying the matter is resolved.
Luke,
You never miss an opportunity to prove you miss every opportunity.
Is it becuase the bright Lukes are being suppressed?
RW,
Perhaps you can point out just where on that list is Mauna Loa?
“Jennifer, as a scientist, can you honestly put this garbage up as evidence?
SJT. I find you intriguing. How about we get together. You know. Just for a talk (GGRRRRRRRRR)
I often wonder what skeptics do with all this wackiness. Do you really say – Ah, Smith is right, we won’t talk about global temperatures any more? Or do you go on arguing about whether 1998 or 1934 was the hottest year?
“Wow ! I guess that wraps it up then SJT.”
Indeed it does. Thats what we were looking for. But in this topsy-turvy world of people so crazed that they CANNOT GET A SINGLE CONSTITUENT PART OF THEIR ARGUMENT RIGHT we yet must regard this result with some sadness. For were it the case that an increase in CO2 levels by 0.35%-0.40% compounding yearly….. meant a loading above solar/oceanic dance activity of between (lets say) 0.1 to 0.15 degrees per DECADE…… then this would be such a good thing for nature and for man, and it would mean that the ultimate disaster to the landed natural world (ie another glacial period) would be within our power to postpone indefinitely and without material expense.
You warmers never let me down you know. Can anyone think of even ONE plank to their argument that is not entirely wrong, wrong-way-Corrigan-wrong…….. idiotic, and totally in variance with the known scientific evidence?
This is what I’ve hated so much about the rise of the global warming fraud you know:
Its been the promotion of the idea that that these mystic weeds of people, who were always a little bit slow, were suddenly all scientists. All into science. Or at least science boffins. Here they were, after a history of holding up high-school classes because these girly swots could never understand a damn thing. And now all of a sudden they are out there posing as science true-believers. Hopefully we can put an end to these pretensions and they can fall back into medieval poetry or some such activity that may keep them out of trouble and distract them from their pathological fears of all things technological and authentically scientific.
Look how they have turned things on their head EVERYTHING WE THOUGHT WE KNEW ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD simply by subjecting the planets population of nominally free peoples to Soviet Union levels of propagandizing?
They would have us believe that increasing the CO2 levels from some of the lowest levels in all world history is bad for nature. They would have us believe that reducing the temperature between night and day, and winter and summer, would bring with it a massive trauma to the animal and plant world, that lack the benefits of shelter and artificial warmth.
They would have it that a (hypothetical) tiny move towards (TOWARDS) neutral ph, brought about in tiny increments of many decades …….. would, if it even happened, be a travetsy to sea-life. The slowest increments to less corrosive neutrality over hundreds of years a total death-blow to the under-water-world.
They would tell us, in defiance of all known planetary history, that reducing the heat differential between the equator and the Poles would lead to a far greater preponderance of extreme weather events. They would assure us that an increase of water evaporation off the oceans, in a planet whose overwhelming surface area IS ocean, would place humanity in a position of MORE AND NOT LESS water shortage problems than otherwise.
Here was the rebellion against science and reason trying a bit of a switcheroo. And how they did succeed, these anti-science vermin. They got all the bureaucracies of institutions, some of them with decades (and in the case of the British WITH CENTURIES) of standing as proud exemplars of objective truth-seeking……. ((((((((And some of these outfits had even for a time stood out as exceptions to the general rule that stolen-money financing always turns out bad..)))))……
….. They got all the top brass in the bureaucracies to go along with this Alice-In-Wonderland inversion of truth across every last specialty and micronised issue involved with these questions to do with climate and industrial-CO2-release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t think we can let these Gramscian filth off the hook. The fact is we need more people in the public sector to take the load of those of us who are holding up the society entire. And we need to send all of these lunatics into private work. Where their ego and neurosis cannot do anyone too much harm ever again.
Tim, not using the Mauna Loa data does seem bizzare to say the least…do they use the excuse that the volcanic activity increases co2 and so causes extra warming…so we discount it in teh interestes of fairness!?…somehow i doubt it…..
RW I clicked on your link and couldnt find mauna loa either…do they call it something else?
Louis, you are making it sound like it could be the inadvertent result of THREE DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONS that meant well and were otherwise competent individuals, working conscientiously in healthy institutional cultures, unmoved and unmovable by any public sector tribal-zietgiest.
–
Now come on Louis. These are oppressive dummies, radical leftists, and goons working off only the principle of short-run plausible-deniabillity.
Like when one is on the dot.mom, or otherwise in the position of not honestly having to pay the bills from money that one has earnt for oneself, these are people who have a tendency to delusions of grandeur. This tendency multiplied by close proximaty to other parasites under the same financial and existential circumstances. These are gardeners who now think they own the estate. These are people who hate every value and attitude. of the less powerful amongst those who pay for the things they buy, the houses they live in, and for the bring up their third generation public-service children.
You don’t want to project this thing as a mistake that any one of us could have made, and not corrected over years and decades. This is a mistake that these people thought they could get away with. Its all “plausible deniability” with these full moon howlers. This level of error is unacceptable and means the institutional culture in these three priesthoods is just beyond repair. Only mass-sackings can wipe this stain away from the face of scientific truth-seeking. It isn’t just some oversight. Where did you hear it that the Siberian stations had all gone out just as this unaccountable 90’s warming came about? I heard it from some thinktank bloke who had a book out a while ago. For these people not to have alerted the general public about this after all these years is unforgiveable. If they aren’t sacked quick their wrong-doing will metastisise into still larger crimes against the taxpayer welfare.
“I often wonder what SKEPTICS…” That would be “carbon-boosters” Nick. I think “carbon-advocates” is closer to what you are trying to express here.
Oh right. My mistake. Its E.M. Smith talking. And not the conservative and cautious Dr Marohasy.
Oh well. Almost as good. I was approaching this matter with total finality and speaking only in the past tense.
hunter and toby – do you really need spoonfeeding? Where exactly do you think Hilo is?
RW, no bloody idea so yes .
So thankyou I know know it is a small town at the foot of the three volcanoes…now is that where they measure the co2 as well?
Aa further couple of minutes indicates teh co2 is measured on top of the volcano ( well presumably near the top)….but hilo is a town at the base of the 3 volcanoes…apples and oranges?
RW,
There’s about 10,000 feet difference in altitude between Hilo and Mauna Loa.
Correction, make that 13,500 feet.
I remember one day last summer when the temperature was uncomfortably high, even indoors. I added three more strategically placed thermometers, shouted abuse at the postie (he’s a public servant, so he deserved it), snacked on a whale burger, washed it down with radium water, chopped down a tree then dusted the dog with DDT powder. The temperature soon dropped.
Ain’t science wonderful!
I don’t know what the obsession with Mauna Loa is. The readings it gets have been independently verified around the globe, including sites like Australia’s Cape Grim.
To understand SJT you would need to have read the posts and understood the post…need I say more?
Probably so let me try, we are asking why they do not measure temperature at Mauna Loa. RW says they do, but he actually means they measure it in the town of hilo, at the base of the volcanoes, not on the top where the readings are made for co2. So RW is wrong they do not measure temp at Mauna Loa.
If you read the link for the post, you find some reasons to potentially question the integrity of the warming trend…but you don t read the sceptical science do you…only the IPCC bible……
Louis Hissink “This observation seems very much like the effect of artificial inflation of a measurement due to an insufficient sample number …”
Also, Louis, as Craig Bohren says, there is no such thing as an average global temperature. The averaging depends entirely on the method and he lists about 10 different ways to average data just to begin with. It stands to reason that anyone looking for global warming will pick an averaging method that suits them. The way GISS operates, all the historical temperatures will be changed till they get the results they want.
They tried to make 1934 go away in the States as the hottest year and would have gotten away with it if Steve McIntyre had not caught them. Another dimwit scientist wants to erase the tremperature step that occured in the 1970’s simply because he THINKS it is was a mistake in measurement.
Also, as Akasofu claimed, no one is paying any attention to the rebound warming from the Little Ice Age. What’s with that? Does the world just step into a cold period then step immediately out of it? Or are there natural cycles of warming/cooling that take centuries to complete? We have no idea how such processes might operate.
Nick Stokes “Or do you go on arguing about whether 1998 or 1934 was the hottest year?”
No argument there, Nick. In the States, 1934 was the hottest year and it had no unusual El Nino to boost it. How exactly do you AGW trogs go about explaining that? Once again, all the heat’s in the NH.
Comment from: RW August 12th, 2009 at 10:17 pm – “E.M. Smith’s observations are trivially invalidated by actually looking at the data. If they had any merit, there would not be such close agreement between satellite and surface observations over their common period.”
Both satellite and surface temp data are merely describing the UHI. Both are measuring quantities are the random noise levels of tenths of a degree, and attempting to extract meaning from it. If you look closely at the data, it gets weird very rapidly.
This:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/30yrbig.jpg
has never been explained by the AGW/CC hysterics – the messy, patchy nature of both increases and decreases. CO2 modeling predicts warming at the poles, none at the equator and a tropospheric hot spot above the equator. The modest tenth of a degree changes look nothing like that. CO2 is innocent. Hypothesis disproved.
But Gordon, E.M.Smith says, in this post on Jennifer’ site, that it’s all artefact. Is he wrong?
“No argument there, Nick. In the States, 1934 was the hottest year and it had no unusual El Nino to boost it. How exactly do you AGW trogs go about explaining that? Once again, all the heat’s in the NH.”
It’s not that all the heat’s in the NH, it’s that the SH has a larger ocean area absorbing heat.
SJT – the southern hemisphere is land, some of it is covered in sea. The land absorbs heat, the sea absorbs heat – what is the difference?
RW:
““the aggregration of “intensive” variables, a mathematically nonsensical procedure”
Clearly you don’t know anything about maths, Louis.”
No, it is you who does not understand the nature of “intensive” variables – and it has nothing to do with maths. What you seem to believe is simple numerology without understanding the physical representation of the intensive variable.
3 Deg C plus 3 Deg C = 3 Deg C
but 3 plus 3 = 6.
Work it out.
Toby thanks for your comment (Tim, not using the Mauna Loa data does seem bizzare to say the least…do they use the excuse that the volcanic activity increases co2 and so causes extra warming…so we discount it in teh interestes of fairness!?…somehow i doubt it…..
RW I clicked on your link and couldnt find mauna loa either…do they call it something else?)
Toby, I believe ML has only had one eruption in c 1982 since 1958; it is dormant and so normally not expelling CO2.
Wriggle as he might, RW cannot escape the fact that Mauna Loa is NOT on the GISS station lists. The CO2 is measured at an observatory at 3,500 metres altitude. That observatory also measures temperatures but these are ignored by GISS because they show no trend. So also does GISS ignore the temeperature rcords from the sea-level Honolulu Observatory (also trendless). But Honolulu Airport satisfies all the exacting quality controls of James Hansen (GISS) and Phil Jones (CRU).
To repeat my thesis: global warming correlates well everywhere with human economic activity. That activity is powered by various forms of energy (including food). Ending fossil fuel emissions will only reduce or reverse warming if it ends or reduces human economic activity. Replacing fossil fuels with solar wind etc will have no impact on warming unless their greater expense reduces economic activity. QED
Comment from: SJT August 13th, 2009 at 4:36 pm: “It’s not that all the heat’s in the NH, it’s that the SH has a larger ocean area absorbing heat.”
Please provide any evidence whatsoever for this.
It appears to be typical AGW hysterics – you make it up as you go along.
So what are you saying, toby and Tim Curtin, that unless the weather station is at exactly the same place as the CO2 station then… what? Hilo is on Mauna Loa – go check an atlas. Whether it’s at the top or only half way up is irrelevant.
RW, with all respect, we do know that there is an UHI and a weather station in a town is not the same thing as a weather station sited on a volcano, that is presumably unaffected by human changes. Why I wonder do they not use temperatures from the co2 station that Tim has the data for? Or honululu observatory?Tim raises a very valid point about temperature and economic activity.
It seems like a reasonable question. Is it because up on the volcano, human influence is unchanged and there has been no change in temperature, wheras down in the town it has been built up and hence shows more warming?…and that suits the message?
Come on admit it, its a reasonable point. It may not be right but it is plausible is it not?
http://www.relohomesearch.com/NorthAmericaCity/HI/Hilo.aspx
suggests the population of Hilo has grown 63% since 1990…thats a lot of economic activity.
Hilo is at sea lvl which is a long way from half way up…. and obviously it does make a difference because one station shows no temperature change whilst the other shows change…and of course the one that shows change..as per usual is the one they choose to use. Doesn’t that make you concerned just a little bit?
“Why I wonder do they not use temperatures from the co2 station that Tim has the data for? Or honululu observatory?Tim raises a very valid point about temperature and economic activity.
It seems like a reasonable question. Is it because up on the volcano, human influence is unchanged and there has been no change in temperature, wheras down in the town it has been built up and hence shows more warming?…and that suits the message?”
That’s right, no body ever tells the truth, it’s all a big conspiracy to bring down the capitalist system. It’s so obvious when you phrase it that way.
baah baah baah, dont be such a sheep
What’s all this serious discussion going on here? Lighten up guys. The worlds going to end next week so we might as well party up while we’ve still got the chance. Pass that bong over here George I need another toke to get me through all this.
“Is it because up on the volcano, human influence is unchanged and there has been no change in temperature, wheras down in the town it has been built up and hence shows more warming?…and that suits the message?
Come on admit it, its a reasonable point. It may not be right but it is plausible is it not?”
No, no it isn’t, and no. I think you should grow up a bit and ask some serious questions. These are, to be honest, really stupid.
SJT said I don’t know what the obsession with Mauna Loa is. The readings it gets have been independently verified around the globe, including sites like Australia’s Cape Grim.
Yes of course you are right about the CO2, but why not also ML temperatures? The suspicion has to be that GISS and CRU ignore them becuase theyr are politically incorrect or worse, inconvenient.
RM said #
Hilo is on Mauna Loa – go check an atlas. Whether it’s at the top or only half way up is irrelevant
I just love this respect for science from one of its most devoted adherents. I am pleased to know about Hilo, it certainly makes my point in spades, thanks Toby, but why is RM unwilling to allow temperature readings at the Mauna Loa Observatory itself to enter the record? Such uniformity of time and place is splendid for both CO2 and temperatures, as any real scientists would acknowledge. All of the IPCC who refuse to address this in their next AR will reveal their true colours.
RW, do you know where the CO2 sampling station is?
It is not in Hilo.
For you to assert that the altitude of where the data is collected is simply silly of you.
Do better.
But have you actually looked at the graphs?
RW,
Do you think UHI is an illusion?
Or is that AGW is such a profound truth that things like accurate evidence, accurate data, and conflicting data are simply unimportant?
SJT says,
“That’s right, no body ever tells the truth, it’s all a big conspiracy to bring down the capitalist system. It’s so obvious when you phrase it that way.”
It is only the AGW true believers, like you, who claim one side is involved in a great conspiracy.
Skeptics realize that the power of prejudice and pre-conceived answers are very powerful tools that shape the AGW community. The resulting stupidity, as deomonstrated by the likes of Mann, Lovelock, Hansen, etc. etc. etc. is more powerful than any conspiracy.
But hey, SJT, keep making ridiculous comparisons and claims. You Aussie true believers have obviously had a powerful impact on your Senate.
EM Smith, by the way, seems to have some rpetty good company on his basic premise, that AGW is in many ways an artifact of bad data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/13/evidence-that-global-temperature-trends-have-been-overstated/
If I thought the Earth was at risk form some terrible fate, and kept getting news taht the terrible fate was not likely, and may have been a misperception (as it has turned out to be every other time), I would be happy. But our AGW believing friends are not happy at this kind of news. Odd, no?
Gee do you wonder where the weather station is in Hilo. Anyone familar with siting in the US could easily guess ……….. At the Airport … of course that is the same as on the side of a volcano. NO UHI there eh?
Try some of this. CO2 info with Hilo Temp http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Hawaii.htm
Hunter,
Odd is not what comes to mind – it’s the logical outcome of pseudoscience – after all the fundamental basis of AGW derives from Svante Arrhenius’s idea that a drop in atmospheric CO2 causes ice ages. The corrollary is that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
These ideas have been accepted at face value as being “obviously” true and the edifice of AGW has subsequently been constructed on top of this assumption.
But a drop in CO2 does not produce ice ages – actually we note that previous ice ages were associated with elevated CO2 levels, data which Arhhenius did not have in his time. Hence his hypothesis is wrong, and by extension the corrollary that increasing CO2 causes warming.
Hence little wonder that GCM predictions are failing when the initial assumption was wrong from the start. But we are also dealing with a belief system, as is all pseudoscience, hence the frantic efforts to find evidence confirming that belief continues apace, witness Mann’s latest efforts posted on Anthony Watts’ site.
So RW you obviously think it is better that they adjust data for the UHI, rather than use data unaffected by the UHI? Surely the integrity of the data should come first. Surely you can see there is a difference between data taken from a town and data from a rural area? Why not use teh rurual data if it is there!
When you ask questions of so much of AGW you find flaws and reasons to be doubtful…so what questions are you suggesting I should be asking?…have you actually asked any?
Dribble, fortunately the world won t end for at least 3 months now……but you are right I should lighten up, this subject just raises my blood pressure! Time to get the missus to lighten my mood.
“It is only the AGW true believers, like you, who claim one side is involved in a great conspiracy.”
You just did it. Where did I claim a conspiracy.
“So RW you obviously think it is better that they adjust data for the UHI, rather than use data unaffected by the UHI? Surely the integrity of the data should come first.”
The much admired by deniers UAH does not use raw data, no one can. All data is contaminated to an extent, and has to be analysed for contamination and errors. Read up on the history of the satellite data, there has been a rocky road followed to get data that gives a reasonable result.
What about
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/13/evidence-that-global-temperature-trends-have-been-overstated/?
‘All data is contaminated to an extent, and has to be analysed for contamination and errors.’
And that is a reason to use the more contaminated data is it SJT?
“And that is a reason to use the more contaminated data is it SJT?”
Didn’t you read what I said? All data is problematic, even the hallowed satellite data.
“And that is a reason to use the more contaminated data is it SJT?”
Didn’t you read what I said? All data is problematic, even the hallowed satellite data
So SJT you obviously don t think it matters if you use the more contaminated data? You obviously never bother to actually understand what others say. have we been discussing sat’ data?
Do you worry about the integrity of the data? Can you explain why the data at mauna loa would be contaminated by human influence? It is teh human influence of warming that you are concerned about isnt it?
Why wouldnt they be consistent in using co2 data and temp data from the same place?
This mauna loa data is not just some randomly selected data point.
Thje Mauna Loa data for co2 is the key record used for co2 , so why woulnt they use teh temp data from there? It doesnt show a temp increase. Its not an unreasonabloe point if you were so blinded by your faith and worship of teh IPCC.
I say again don t be such a sheep and try and think critically…. and read what is said by others rather than guessing by skimming a few words ( I can only assume from your lack of comprehension that is what you are doing)
Nick Stokes “But Gordon, E.M.Smith says, in this post on Jennifer’ site, that it’s all artefact. Is he wrong?”
I don’t know, Nick, but Akasofu, the astronomer who has spent his life studying the interaction of solar plasma and the earth’s magnetic field, seems to agree with him for another reason. He thinks that if natural re-warming from the Little Ice Age is factored in, the global warming left could be in the normal error range. I think that’s what Smith is implying, that if certain surface stations are used, the warming disappears.
Not only that, John Christy claims the warming in the NH is 7 times that in the SH. He doesn’t see that coming from ACO2. If you look at the UAH global contour maps, it becomes apparent that the warming is far from global.
Don’t forget that the proper term is globally-averaged warming. The term ‘global warming’ implies that the globe has warmed uniformly and it has not, some parts having cooled almost as much as the warmed parts have warmed. The warming comes from an averaged set of global surface station values and the set in the northern NH are skewing the values to a slight warming. Based on that information, it is conceivable that Smith may be onto something.
SJT “It’s not that all the heat’s in the NH, it’s that the SH has a larger ocean area absorbing heat.”
The oceans in the NH are not exactly ponds. I presume you’ve heard of the Gulf Stream that keeps the UK and Europe at moderate temperatures by bringing them relatively warm water and air form the Gulf of Mexico. On the west coast of Canada we get a similar effect with ocean currents bringing warmer air and water that moderate our temperatures.
One theory has it that the warming in the Arctic is due to a similar effect from the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation. The Keenlyside study implied that warming from the AMO was over-riding the global warming. How he can claim that is beyond me because we know currents in the North Atlantic warm regions of Europe. How can they be cooling them at the same time?
The Pacific Decadal Osccillation just changed sign this year and we are having the wierdest summer for a long time. Early July was cold and the latter half saw record temperatures in Vancouver. Early August is cool and wet, with temperatures half what they were in late July. The weather department explained that breezes that normally come off the ocean were reversed and blowing from the warm interior to the coast. As a result, Vancouver reached 32 C, an unheard of temperature on the coast. Last time it happened was 1960. How do you explain that former record in 1960 that was only about 1 C below the new record of this year?
One look at this UAH global contour map
http://climate.uah.edu/
shows that the temperatures in the SH are variable and that hot spots are concentrated in the far North. If the oceans are absorbing heat, as you claim, would the cold Arctic not absorb a lot of heat? The coldest parts of the SH are in the Antarctic. Why would the same not be true for the Arctic?
Please note, that contour map is for the winter, when warming is at its highest point. Whatever is causing the warming is not only local, it is seasonal.
“The oceans in the NH are not exactly ponds. I presume you’ve heard of the Gulf Stream that keeps the UK and Europe at moderate temperatures by bringing them relatively warm water and air form the Gulf of Mexico. On the west coast of Canada we get a similar effect with ocean currents bringing warmer air and water that moderate our temperatures.”
No, not ponds, but smaller than the SH.
Thats a perceptive comment SJT you pathetic little parasite.
“Thje Mauna Loa data for co2 is the key record used for co2 , so why woulnt they use teh temp data from there? It doesnt show a temp increase”
Clearly this is troubling you so much you’re forgetting how to write. You’ve give no coherent explanation of why you want these two measurements to be taken in exactly the same place. Perhaps you can explain what makes you think that the temperature at the exact spot where the CO2 measurements are taken “doesnt show a temp increase”.
RW: “Perhaps you can explain what makes you think that the temperature at the exact spot where the CO2 measurements are taken ‘doesn’t show a temp increase’.” Well that’s very easy: Temp records at the ML CO2 lab. go back to 1955; the CO2 record begins in 1958. There is zip correlation between year on year changes in temp and CO2 there from 1958 to 2000s. The absolute temps at ML show hardly any variation and no trend. The AGW theory is that the level of atmospheric concentration of CO as measured at ML explains 95% of global mean temperature change since 1958 (AR4 of IPCC). Why is ML temp. not consistent with this fairy tale? Answer: all the rise in GMT is due to economic growth based on ever rising energy consumption. No economic activity, no temperature change. Got it? The Greens are well aware of this and have conned everybody into thinking their concern is with AGW when actually like RM they hate economic activity.
Well put, Tim.
“There is zip correlation between year on year changes in temp and CO2 there from 1958 to 2000s. ”
Have you ever considered the fact that CO2 is not the only driver of climate, and natural variations in climate? The underlying, long term signal is CO2.
“Thats a perceptive comment SJT you pathetic little parasite.”
Someone’s a little grouchy today.
Answer the question you silly sausage.
SJT-
you say “Have you ever considered the fact that CO2 is not the only driver of climate, and natural variations in climate? The underlying, long term signal is CO2”
With all due respect, that is completely unproven.
CO2 is just one of many drivers. There is no way that anyone by means of empirical methods has shown that CO2 is the main long tern signal.
Luke can you please step in a explain to these cretins on your side ( you arent a cretin you will understand what is being said) the point that is being made.
RW, SJT, the fact that you can t understand the point and keep making such ridiculously stupid comments is probably symptomatic of why people want to subject us to an ETS ( note im not talking about science here…just critical thinking and comprehension skills).
My year 10 students can understand this why the hell cant you?…maybe you are both in primary school?…sorry to be insulting but seriously if you can t understand the point Tim has made, and I have tried hard to explain, then you honestly deserve the scorn.
“With all due respect, that is completely unproven.
CO2 is just one of many drivers. There is no way that anyone by means of empirical methods has shown that CO2 is the main long tern signal.”
Have you read the IPCC report yet? “Understanding and attributing” is the section you want.
“So SJT you obviously don t think it matters if you use the more contaminated data? You obviously never bother to actually understand what others say. have we been discussing sat’ data?
Do you worry about the integrity of the data? Can you explain why the data at mauna loa would be contaminated by human influence? It is teh human influence of warming that you are concerned about isnt it?
Why wouldnt they be consistent in using co2 data and temp data from the same place?
This mauna loa data is not just some randomly selected data point.
Thje Mauna Loa data for co2 is the key record used for co2 , so why woulnt they use teh temp data from there? It doesnt show a temp increase. Its not an unreasonabloe point if you were so blinded by your faith and worship of teh IPCC.”
I pity your students.
The Mauna Loa data is not any sort of a key, it is just the first site set up to monitor CO2 when it was realised that local contamination was a serious problem it taking CO2 readings, something Beck still doesn’t understand. Cape Grim in Australia is also used to take CO2 readings, and the readings at Cape Grim match those of Mauna Loa. Your problem is that you, like most deniers, do not understand the case for AGW.
“The AGW theory is that the level of atmospheric concentration of CO as measured at ML explains 95% of global mean temperature change since 1958 (AR4 of IPCC).”
The CO2 concentration at ML is little different to the CO2 concentration anywhere else in the world, ML is as good a place as any to record CO2 that meets the requirements of no local contamination such as people or fossil fuels being burned. That does not mean that the temperature at ML is going to change as much as the average. For all the wiggle watchers such as yourself, what was the latest wiggle, btw?
Thankyou SJT for demonstrating once again your lack of comprehension skills….who is debating co2 here???!!!
The point is they dont use the temp data from mauna loa, even though it is readily available and would be a consistent site to use since it is the respected site for co2 readings..why? because it shows no upward trend in temperature.
Pls say yes when you have understood this point?
When have I ever questioned co2 readings?
Then you say “Your problem is that you, like most deniers, do not understand the case for AGW.”….mate you dont understand simple things that are written down many times….so
its no wonder you keep believing in the bible of the IPCC!
here have a puff on the billy, that might unscramble your brain..it cant hurt!
SJT “Have you ever considered the fact that CO2 is not the only driver of climate, and natural variations in climate? The underlying, long term signal is CO2.
Have you read the IPCC report yet? “Understanding and attributing” is the section you want.”
These are the continuous mantras that play in your head SJT. I think you do these comments via cut-and-paste. What the skeptics are saying, in case your are not listening, is that the IPCC is a corrupt organisation chock full of pseudo-scientists beating their own drum. I have absolutely no interest in reading the IPCC documents except for occasional amusement or to look at the pictures while sitting on the toilet. I would not understand the full text if I read it, which is why I rely on more knowledgeable and competent individuals to explain it for me. I doubt that your position in this respect would you be very much different.
Let us start at the beginning. Please explain in your own words why you think there is an underlying long term signal due to CO2. Do not insult us my referring to the IPCC in your explanation. Please take this offer seriously. This is your big chance to prove yourself to be a true climate hero worthy of the name.
SJT you might like to consider this link that i saw today
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/08/politicians-global-warming-claim-were-having-unprecedented-temperature-increases-are-they-just-ignor.html.
From 1881-1944, CO2 increased by 19 ppm and temperature by 0.36 deg C. By comparison, from 1945-2008, CO2 increased by 76 ppm and temperature by 0.27 deg C.
My memory of the temp is change is that it is a bit more even that that, and ive been out for a magnificent dinner with my wife tonight and have not gone to check its accuracy or how cleverly the time points were selected…but if its true…you lose!
Dribble…I bet he doesn t even try!
“These are the continuous mantras that play in your head SJT. I think you do these comments via cut-and-paste. What the skeptics are saying, in case your are not listening, is that the IPCC is a corrupt organisation chock full of pseudo-scientists beating their own drum. I have absolutely no interest in reading the IPCC documents except for occasional amusement or to look at the pictures while sitting on the toilet. I would not understand the full text if I read it, which is why I rely on more knowledgeable and competent individuals to explain it for me. I doubt that your position in this respect would you be very much different.
Let us start at the beginning. Please explain in your own words why you think there is an underlying long term signal due to CO2. Do not insult us my referring to the IPCC in your explanation. Please take this offer seriously. This is your big chance to prove yourself to be a true climate hero worthy of the name.”
I don’t know why you would prefer the opinion of an anonymous person on the internet over the results of research by hundreds of scientists in peer reviewed journals. The evidence is quite clear over the long term, the trend is up.
Even if you disagree with the IPCC, you have to read and understand it because that is the case for AGW. If you refuse to do that, you have no right to claim to be a sceptic, you are quite simply a denier. A sceptic looks at the evidence. If you refuse to look at the evidence, you are not a sceptic.
Toby, you’re barely able to write coherently, so I doubt anyone’s put you in a position to have students. You also seem not to have bothered to educate yourself on the very basics. Instead of getting so angry that you can’t spell, just because a temperature gauge is a few kilometres from a CO2 gauge instead of right on top of it, how about you do some reading? Why would you expect to see a strong correlation between a global quantity and a local quantity for any location? Are you aware of why that’s particularly stupid for CO2 and a tropical location?
SJT wrote:
What is up? Temperature or CO2? Ah, both! A correlation, you say. I see. Perhaps you would care to check the correlation between temperature and, let’s say, global population, or stock market prices. Oh, I see – you can’t see a physical reason why these correlates would affect temperature? I can. Michaels & McKitrick (peer reviewed published paper, BTW) show a statistically significant correlation between economic activity (IOW, GDP) and local temperature. GDP is related to population is it not? Stock market prices are related to GDP are they not? Global average temperature is reliant on many measurements of local temperature is it not? Local temperature measurements are taken near where people “do” their economic activity, are they not?
SJT:”I don’t know why you would prefer the opinion of an anonymous person on the internet over the results of research by hundreds of scientists in peer reviewed journals. The evidence is quite clear over the long term, the trend is up.”
Apart from not answering the question, which you may note I had prophesied in advance, your silly reply demonstrates the usual cognitive error made by AGW believers. Yes the trend is up, twit, but is it due to CO2? Your argumentory repertoire consists entirely of “We must rely on the IPCC good guys, they know what they are doing” . Thanks for that insight. I know now not to take your comments with any further seriousness.
So once again you avoid the question. And defend SJT who seems fixated on discussing co2 when we are not doing that.
Is Mauna Loa ( near the top) where they measure co2? Yes
Is it the globally recognised site for measuring changes in co2? yes
Are weather temperatures available from this location? yes
Is this data contaminated by human activity? presumably very little compared to in a town( see SJT’s quote below for the fact that he believes this to be true)
Do they use this weather data? No
Is the weather data consistent with the supposed underlying global trend? No
For consistency, wouldnt it make sense to use the same location?..apparently not..why not?
Do they use data from Hilo, a weather station in a town that has grown rapidly and has to be more contaminated than up on the volcano? Yes…why…the obvious answer is because it doesnt fit the story they want told.
Shouldnt they be doing eveything they can to be honest and consistent in their “proof” and remove reason for doubt?
Please note SJT’s quote “The CO2 concentration at ML is little different to the CO2 concentration anywhere else in the world, ML is as good a place as any to record CO2 that meets the requirements of no local contamination such as people or fossil fuels being burned. “…so its uncontaminated for measuring co2…but not for measuring temperature?
Then he goes on to say..
“That does not mean that the temperature at ML is going to change as much as the average. For all the wiggle watchers such as yourself, what was the latest wiggle, btw?”..a classic example of why we are so sceptical of the IPCC…because you DO NOT SELECT THE SITE BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR STORY…you use a site because you believe it gives you consistent and reliable information…don t you?
So its good enough for co2 but not for temperature…why?
Of course dribble offers such an excellent alternative viewpoint (NOT!). What a dopey draws.
Ever thought of looking at other data sets like satellite or SSTs you disingenuous turd.
Ever thought why the areas of greatest warming aren’t the urban/industrial. Ever pondered why NOAA alternative analysis on Wattsup list of good sttaions didn’t show any difference.
BTW RC also shredded it http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/are-temperature-trends-affected-by-economic-activity/
Get off the blog you clown !
RW-
You say-“Why would you expect to see a strong correlation between a global quantity and a local quantity for any location?”…I dont , did I say I did?
All I want is an answer for why they would choose to use data that is obviously contaminated over data that is obviously not? Seems a very reasonable question that you keep avoiding with straw men.
Toby Toby Toby – I am disappointed in you.
For starters Mauna Loa is NOT the only place measuring CO2 – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/
And if I take my eye off you for a second you’re back to denialist unilateralism and uniformitarianism – does AGW theory suggest everywhere in the world will warm exactly the same from CO2 – errr nope. Coz the radiative imbalance will interact with atmospheric and oceanic circulation.
Indeed given it’s Mauna Loa’s position in the Pacific – a region of meridional overturning and decadal flips – perhaps the last place you’d look for an AGW signal.
Luke, I am obviously not making my self clear.
My issue is for the sake of the integrity of the data, why do they choose to use the Hilo temperature data and not the Mauna Loa temperaure data?…I am aware of studies done that show a similar upward trend in temperatures In the USA ,even when removing the more obviously contaminated data…so thats not my point of issue.
The only reason I bring up the co2 data at all, is because it is the most recognised and presumably respected site for co2 ( SJT makes the point it is uncontaminated data).
So why don t they use the temperature data that is also available from this site?..because it doesnt show a warming?
Instead they select the data from Hilo that is contaminated by human influence.
Why use it when you have uncontaminated data available from an obviously well respected site?
Why leave themselves open for such an obvious and reasonable question?
Toby – it’s the oldest CO2 site but no reason to suspect quality of the many other global sites. e.g. CSIRO’s Cape Grim on Tasmanian north-west point. Or South Pole.
Why do they use the Hilo site – gee any number of reasons. Why not email them and ask.
Why not Mauna Loa – atypical elevation.
You can read conspiracy into everything – usually it’s not there. Good reasons or stuff-ups are often better explanations.
And does not the MSU, RSS, Hadley, GISS and also oceanic temperature series tell basically the same story. Then there’s the 29,000 studies of natural species showing warming aspects in their phenology, behaviour, breeding, life cycles. (Nature paper)
Are you really in any doubt about the last 100 years? So what are we arguing about ?
Tell you what though – don’t you find it strange that when CO2 is measured carefully at all these global sites it shows this constant steady upward pattern with seasonal ripples for all sites – yet denialists here will ask us to believe Beck with data all over the shop.
“Apart from not answering the question, which you may note I had prophesied in advance, your silly reply demonstrates the usual cognitive error made by AGW believers. Yes the trend is up, twit, but is it due to CO2? Your argumentory repertoire consists entirely of “We must rely on the IPCC good guys, they know what they are doing” . Thanks for that insight. I know now not to take your comments with any further seriousness.”
Have you read the IPCC report? The trend is up, and there is a physical basis for the claim. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is an enhanced greenhouse effect as well. Modeling analysis of the existing record, (that is, not predicting anything), which takes into account known natural effects, cannot account for the rise without CO2 being a part of the equation. It’s in the report.
Lukey, have you thought about having a serious discussion with Lulubelle about settling down, getting married and raising a family? With some selective inbreeding, culling out of the mutants and so forth, you could end up with a fine stock of human-sheep hybrids. The hybrids could be sold into the public service employment market as a substitute for the currently expensive and less-than-effective version. They would need to trained up to do stuff like use a calculator and fill in simple forms of course, but public service buildings would no longer require heating or toilet facilities, thus saving a fortune. The advantages seem to good to pass up. I recommend a proposal to your loved one as soon as possible.
I am going shopping for a few hours SJT. I’ll tell you all about my adventures at the milkbar when I get back.
SJT asked have I ever considered the fact that CO2 is not the only driver of climate, and [there are] natural variations in climate? “The underlying, long term signal is CO2”.
Tell that to the IPCC with its 95% certainty it’s all anthropogenic – yet the long term temperature response to the signal from CO2 at Mauna Loa itself has been zilch since 1958. Ever heard of the First Law of Thermodynamics? Go figure, it is use of energy that creates heat, not CO2, a minor by-product from generation and use of energy.
Which is why Timmy the fun lovin’ guy is an accountant not a scientist. Let’s play mutual dickhead bumper cars. Oh look here’s Orcadas Island – it’s warmed heaps – that proves AGW.
Peez orf Timmy truth twister.
” Let’s play mutual dickhead bumper cars.”
I thought we were doing that already.
SJT
Just occurred to me but have you read any of the IPCC reports? And can you prove that you have here.
I haven’t since the IPCC reports are political statements, not scienitic documents.
“Just occurred to me but have you read any of the IPCC reports? And can you prove that you have here.”
Yes. You will have to take my word for it, since I cannot prove it. Do you want me to go back in time and take a video of myself reading them?
At the risk of bringing this thread back to topic:-
As I understand it
– GISSTemp is one of the major indicators of global temperature.
– After some previous crises involving Y2K errors and questions on quality control the GISSTemp code and sources were made public
– This didn’t mean you could simply download and play GISSTemp
– E.M. Smith has eventually got the code to run – and my commendations on that job. If you have read the links he’ll even let you have it if you ask nicely.
– The linked results are from his looking at the data that goes into GISSTemp – this lot from the step before gridding
-GIGO can cone from the data used or the code used or both so best look at both
LGO
Comment from: toby August 14th, 2009 at 7:42 am So RW you obviously think it is better that they adjust data for the UHI, rather than use data unaffected by the UHI? Surely the integrity of the data should come first. Surely you can see there is a difference between data taken from a town and data from a rural area? Why not use teh rurual data if it is there!
When you ask questions of so much of AGW you find flaws and reasons to be doubtful…so what questions are you suggesting I should be asking?…have you actually asked any?
Don’t know about “RW” but I’ve asked a few. (Yes, I’m that E.M.Smith…) The latest thing I’ve found speaks directly to your question about UHI “adjustment”. I ran GIStemp through the UHI adjustment step and looked at the log file of what pristine “rural” stations were used to “adjust” the UHI of urban stations. Among those I found were the Marine Corp Air Station at Quantico (yes, THAT Quantico) and the main commercial airport in Lihue Kauai Hawaii (Yes, the one with over 100,000 commercial flights per year)… See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/gistemp-fixes-uhi-using-airports-as-rural/
Oh, and if you only use the best thermometer records with the longest lifetime, you find no “warming signal” in the data at all.:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/gistemp-quartiles-of-age-bolus-of-heat/
I’ve also found that CO2 takes the summers off… All the warming signal is in the winter data. Curious stuff this CO2, knows how to take an August vacation…
Oh, and it’s also fun to watch the thermometers march south as time passes. Wonder if The March Of The Thermometers to the tropics might impact the temperature record?…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/thermometer-years-by-latitude-warm-globe/
Comment from: Gordon Robertson August 14th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Nick Stokes “But Gordon, E.M.Smith says, in this post on Jennifer’ site, that it’s all artefact. Is he wrong?”
I don’t know, Nick, but Akasofu, the astronomer who has spent his life studying the interaction of solar plasma and the earth’s magnetic field, seems to agree with him for another reason. He thinks that if natural re-warming from the Little Ice Age is factored in, the global warming left could be in the normal error range. I think that’s what Smith is implying, that if certain surface stations are used, the warming disappears.
I’m not implying it, I’m stating it outright.
First off, the “false precision” in GIStemp and NOAA data make any statements about what’s happening in the hundredths of degree C a joke. Second, the use of the “best” records (longest lived, least modified) show no warming. Third, the strongest signal shows up in the shortest lived thermometer records (which incidentally have the highest “modification” numbers). And fourth, the seasonal pattern to the warming signal is that it warms only in the N.H. winter, not the Summer. That can not be the sun and can not be CO2. They do not take summers off… But it can be an artifact of putting a lot of thermometers in the S. H. over time (and, incidentally, having the N.H. thermometers “migrate” from the N. Cold band to the N. Temperate band. (See the link in the above reply a about “by-latitude”…
Not only that, John Christy claims the warming in the NH is 7 times that in the SH. He doesn’t see that coming from ACO2. If you look at the UAH global contour maps, it becomes apparent that the warming is far from global.
But it is consistent with the recorded migration of the thermometers from roughly the latitude of Siberia to that of Italy…
The warming comes from an averaged set of global surface station values and the set in the northern NH are skewing the values to a slight warming. Based on that information, it is conceivable that Smith may be onto something.
Thank you for the vote of confidence!
Comment from: SJT August 14th, 2009 at 11:43 pm I don’t know why you would prefer the opinion of an anonymous person on the internet over the results of research by hundreds of scientists in peer reviewed journals. The evidence is quite clear over the long term, the trend is up.
1) Some of us are not exactly “anonymous”.
2) It’s not the quantity of the research that matters, it’s the quality.
3) The quality of GIStemp is pretty poor. I’ve read it, I’ve ported it to Linux. I’ve made it go. I’m auditing it.
4) I’m a professional at the stuff in 3. I’ve run a supercomputer site doing modeling (and even let a Stanford Ph.D. student run is thesis work on our Cray. It was attempting to simulate clouds.
5) The “trend is up” because the data are bad and the process is worse. I know, I’m “in the code”…
Even if you disagree with the IPCC, you have to read and understand it because that is the case for AGW.
Most of it is of the form “If we assume AGW is real, this bad thing happens.”. Much of the rest is of the form “If the temperature data are right, this might be why it happens”. Another chunk is of the form “Given these conclusions, what assumptions can we draw?”. Then there are the “Given that we’re going to get way hot, what terrible things will happen?”. The main “proof” is of the form “We don’t know what it is, and we’ve eliminated what we understand, so it must be CO2”. Not exactly stellar.
Not much is of the form: “How do we really know it’s getting hotter?” and “How do we know the cause?” and essentially NONE is of the form: “We performed this audit and code review on the computer code in the temperature series and the models.”…
If you refuse to do that, you have no right to claim to be a sceptic, you are quite simply a denier. A sceptic looks at the evidence. If you refuse to look at the evidence, you are not a sceptic.
Bogus. Flinging poo is not constructive. A person who refuses to look at a load of political clap trap (and don’t fool yourself, the IPCC is first and foremost a POLITICAL wing of a political agency with a political agenda.) can quite nicely be a skeptic. All it takes is to have looked at one significant piece in depth and find it seriously wrong. The whole “denier” label is a waste of breath.
So I chose to dig into GIStemp. What I found is, well, horrid. That lead to a closer look at GHCN. What I found there is seriously lacking as a basis for building ANY policy. I find that sufficient to be a skeptic. (BTW, I’ve chosen, publicly, to state that I flat out deny that there is any truth to the AGW thesis. Yup. BECAUSE I’m skeptical and BECAUSE of what I’ve learned when I went digging.)
Simply put: We don’t have the unpolluted temperature data to even begin to have a clue what the climate system is doing. Even ignoring the fact that it has 80 ish year and 176 year solar cycles, 1500 year Bond Event cycles, 60 ish year PDO cycles ALL of which are longer than the usable part of the data series. (Any average smaller than the longer cycles will be drifting up and down on those cycles and “tell lies”. You need a longer average than the longest cycle to have a “baseline” you can use. It just doesn’t exist. Even the very definition of “climate” as a 30 year average of weather is “broken” in this regard.)
Comment from: Ian Beale August 19th, 2009 at 9:33 pm At the risk of bringing this thread back to topic:-
Hello Ian, nice to see you here…
As I understand it
– GISSTemp is one of the major indicators of global temperature.
Yes. They depend on the GHCN and USHCN (even though the USHCN data are already in GHCN, they pull some of it out, modify other records, average some of it together, make offsets between parts of some records, fill in missing bits with “computerized guesses” and massage it a bunch, then spit out a combined dataset. (Why? Don’t ask why. Down that path lies insanity and ruin… e.m.smith). Yes, that’s what they do… I can point you at each and every line of the code that does it…
They also use some Hadley SST anomaly maps in the very last steps (but they are optional).
– After some previous crises involving Y2K errors and questions on quality control the GISSTemp code and sources were made public
– This didn’t mean you could simply download and play GISSTemp
Amen to that…
– E.M. Smith has eventually got the code to run – and my commendations on that job. If you have read the links he’ll even let you have it if you ask nicely.
Thanks for the commendation! Heck, I’ll give to folks even if they don’t ask nicely. Even if they are climate stability deniers and call me a shill for the oil companies (still wondering why I never seem to get any checks…) The more people who run this and experience it, the better. I’ve got two “tarballs” ready to go. One that is “bare bones” source code only (need to fetch datasets) and one with some of the medium sized datasets in it, but you still need to download the big ones (though I’ve added some “fetch scripts” that ought to automate that task, though they need more testing… I’ve only run them once…) The compressed tarball of sources only is about 65 KB while the “with small data files” one is about 1.65 MB. The main data sets are about 48 MB and 81 MB. It takes a Linux / Unix box with an f77 and f90 (I used g95) FORTRAN compilers, Python, and C. I’ll put it on any open FTP server I’m pointed at. (I don’t have one…).
– The linked results are from his looking at the data that goes into GISSTemp – this lot from the step before gridding
-GIGO can cone from the data used or the code used or both so best look at both
I’ve run the data all the way through STEP3, the “anomaly” step and the last step before the Hadley SST anomaly map gets blended in. I’ve started the Q.A. analysis and benchmarking. Today I got some preliminary results from STEP2 (the step that makes “zones” – 6 of them of latitude) and just before grids and anomalies. (STEP0 is the merge various sources and convert F to C step. STEP1 does the Python stitch missing bits together and a bit of Reference Station Method “data creation”. STEP2 makes zones and does some UHI “correction”. STEP4_5 does an update of the SBBX.HadR2 file and merges it into the GIStemp anomaly map with another round of “data creation” via the Reference Station Method” (If anyone wants more tech detail than that, hit my blog…)
At every STEP of the way, I’ve “found issues”. The patterns in the GHCN data surfaced as I was building a benchmark suite. That showed that even the “raw” data had issues. STEP0 has a single line of code that warms the data set by 1/10C in 1% of the records (that I’ve fixed in my copy). The data change profile through STEP1 is about +1/2 C from GIStemp alone (i.e. on top of the data set profile – NOT in the data). GIStemp acts as an amplifier of trend through all the steps up to “zones”. In starting to do the work of building a benchmark for the zones step, I discovered that airports are used to “correct” out UHI… and some of those airports are NOT small nor “rural” (unless you think THE main airport for Kauai is “rural” and pristine…).
And that’s how this whole thing has gone. Every time I turn around, I trip over one of these “land mines”. Any one of them ought to be enough to cause GIStemp and GHCN to be pulled back for a full forensic audit. Yet folks continue to cite it as a valid source on which to base $trillion dollar changes to the economy. Just Amazing…
See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
For annoying detail including text of the code posted with analysis and expansion.
Comment from: Luke August 15th, 2009 at 3:09 pm Why do they use the Hilo site – gee any number of reasons. Why not email them and ask.
A better question to ask would be why the Lihue airport is treated as a pristine rural reference for UHI adjustment of other thermometer records.
Why not Mauna Loa – atypical elevation.
Oh, that’s nice. So mountains don’t count in the “GLOBAL average temperature”?
At exactly WHAT altitude does an elevation become “atypical”? Do we delete all the mountains? Even the airport at Leadville CO that is used as a “rural” reference station for “correcting” UHI? It’s the highest airport in the USA…
Can we also delete the deserts? They have “atypical dryness”.
How about the sea level airports? They must surely be “atypical elevation” too! You can’t get much lower than sea level.
But then we must surely delete Death Valley (where they just moved a thermometer into a hotter place where they are much more likely to set a new record) since “below sea level” must SURELY be “atypical elevation”. No? Why not?
Gee, and We’ll need to be deleting all the records in GIStemp LAND data series that are from SHIPA and SHIPB… SHIPL since they are from RANDOM ships that arrive at a spot in the ocean with RANDOM gear on board. That must surely be “atypical”.
Oh dear, this precedent is really getting out of hand…
I suppose all the thermometers at sewage treatment plants will need to go. “Atypical Humidity” not to mention smell…
Are you REALLY sure you want to “go there”?…
Since this is SUPPOSED to be a “Global Average Temperature” (bogus though the concept may be) maybe a good place to start would be by using thermometers positioned Globally – even on the cold mountains.
BTW, any guess what percentage of thermometers is located in the 20 degree latitude band of the S. Hemisphere that is between 70 and 50 degrees? You know, the “cold band” of the S.H.? For most of the history of thermometers, zero. Lately, we’ve been flirting with 1%. Not quite there yet, but flirting…
Now think about that for a minute… 1/9 of the globe, less than 1% of the thermometers.
You’re “good with that”? In an “Average Global Temperature” calculation?
(And no, grids and boxes will not “fix” this problem. We’ve got all of 20 thermometers there now to “grid”… That’s 9 degrees width and 20 degrees height for each grid cell even IFF the thermometers were perfectly evenly spaced, which they most profoundly are not. But it’s not like the Pacific Ocean water temperatures change and slope back and forth periodically and missing a hot spot or cold spot would mean anything. It’s not like the Pacific Ocean (or even the Atlantic for that matter) has any impact on the weather or climate. I mean, the PDO, AMO, they couldn’t really change the weather significantly… could they? /sarcoff )
BTW, the point about the pointlessness of averaging intensive variables is a very sound one.
What is the meaning of the:
Global Average Telephone number?
Global Average Food Flavor?
Global Average Name?
Global Average character set?
Global Average Novel?
Global Average car color?
Global Average IP address?
Global Average power voltage?
We can average a lot of things that give results with no meaning.
Temperature is one of them.
This is not a negotiable point, it is an inherent property of intensive traits.
(An average of an intensive variable CAN be used as a “benchmark” in testing computer codes, however, since one is not implying any meaning to the average, just looking to see what the code does to it. So I use an “average of thermometers” in my benchmarks, even though I think the meaning of an average of thermometers is basically meaningless.
And your desire to exclude Mauna Loa for “atypical elevation” is a prime example of why.
BTW, Mauna Loa means “long Mountain” and to assert that Hilo, at sea level, represents the temperature on a “Long Mountain” does a disservice to the meaning of Mountain…
So, as soon as you accept the nonsense of an average temperature, then you must also accept the nonsense that putting a bunch more thermometers on mountaintops would “cool the world” and, as an essential consequence, that The March Of The Thermometers from the N.COLD band 50-70 degrees (that had 100% of them in the early 1700s) to the Temperate, Tropical, and equatorial bands IS the cause of “Global Warming” of the temperature record, AND it’s averages.
But look at long lived stable thermometers, and the “warming” goes away…