I received the following note* from Vincent Gray. He began by wishing us all “the compliments of the season” and then lauched into a discussion of mean global surface temperature records:
The theory that “Climate Change” is caused by increases in carbon dioxide stands or falls on the reliability of the “mean global surface temperature record” as compiled by the three compilers, Hadley Centre (UK) , GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies), USA, and GHCN (Global Historic Climatology Network), USA.
But how reliable is it?
There are enormous changes in the numbers of weather stations used for compilation of the “suface record” at different periods. In 1900 there were 1500, in 1980 there were 6000 and in 1998 there were 2700.
The averages are taken from “grid boxes” made up of 5ºx5º latitude/longitude squares on a Mercator map. Out of a possible total of 2,592 grid boxes, there were 300 available In 1900, 850 in 1980 and 500 in 1998. However, these were not distributed uniformly. There was a high density in the USA and in Western Europe and vast gaps in Africa, South America, India and Siberia. Antarctica had none until fairly recently.
Then there is the reliability for individual weather stations to record temperature trends.
The following website gives photographs of a large number of official weather stations, all of which are obviously unsuitable for recording long term trends. One is even on top of a building:
Cheers, Vincent Gray
New Zealand
———————–
* I have shortened and edited ‘the note’.
Also by Vincent Grey:
“The Cause of Global Warming”, Energy and Environment 11 pages 613-629, 2000,
http://www.john-daly.com/cause/cause.htm), and
“Regional Climate Change” at http://www.john-daly.com/guests/regional.htm.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The specific process of averaging weather station temperatures in 5×5 degree grid cells is intrinsically incorrect – the cells are not physical objects in teh first place, and the average temperature so computed is that for the abstraction of a spherical surface of zero thickness – which of course cannot have a temperature in the first place.
Merry Xmas Louis and Happy Drilling in 2007.
Now where were we – On Louis’s calculations then the temperature in between in the climate stations is therefore absolute zero which is absolute b/s.
Let’s agree with Vincent – if we’re sooooo worried about all this we therefore don’t know if its warming or cooling. Jeez maybe we’re cooling.
But maybe we’re warming. So the NZ Climate Coolition should be saying we don’t know nuttin at all. Of course they’ll also have to throw out all the paleo data too as those data would be subject to various errors. So out with the old LIA and MWP too. Their old mate Jabawowski reminds us to be don’t know what the CO2 measurements were – jeez maybe they were actually 800ppm at the turn of the century before the molecules escaped to space in an electric universe vortex.
Anyway if we’re cooling this would explain why the Artic is melting, species life cycling sooner, glaciers melting, stratosphere is cooling, satellite and radiosonde data showing troposhere warming.
But luckily we can leave out Australia and know that we’re the only country in the world that knows it’s warming thanks to the Bureau’s Reference Climate Network. Everyone else doesn’t know if they’re coming or going. Aussie leads the world ! Gold gold gold for Australian temperature measurement.
Greys’ paper at “The Cause of Global Warming” is totally outdated with revisions in the satellite and radiosonde data.
Luke
Once again you have it totally wrong. How on earth anyone could interpret that between stations temperatures of 0K occur is incomphrehensible.
I never wrote that, nor implied it. so
you are the problem by not having the intellectual tools to deal with the ideas we sceptics propose.
Luke, if you wander into my domain of science, at least make sure you know what you are talking about.
Domain of science ? ROTFL & LMAO. You mean throwing grenades in the blogosphere etc.
Louis you can easily estimate between points with errors depending on station density, global location and elevation – I refer you to – http://cres.anu.edu.au/outputs/anusplin.php
You can read all about general cross validation and predictive errors of fitted surfaces. Perhaps you’re confident to take on one of Australia’s eminent statisticians but somehow I think you won’t be. Louis you are a statistical ninny. A goober in fact.
A serious attempt by Gray and yourself would be to critique Hadley’s, GISS and GHCN papers describing their validation and error levels. As usual you guys are second rate hacks that don’t even get off the deck firing random quasi-philosophical utterances and metaphysical incantations into the night air.
Roger Pielke Sr is a major peer reviewed critic of ‘global average surface temperature,’ e.g.:
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/12/12/new-evidence-of-temperature-observing-sites-which-are-poorly-sited-with-resepct-to-the-construction-of-global-average-land-surface-temperature-trends/
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/12/19/land-surface-station-density-change-over-time/
Luke
linking to a mathermatical modelling technique does not indicate you actually understand my point made above, or whether you actually understand the link.
Firstly it is not statistics but mathematical modelling, and then modelling of what? Imaginary grid cells which have to physical existence.
So until you can understand the difference between statistics and mathematical modelling, little progress is indicated.
The problem of course is like astrophysics you climate types have enetred into a mathematical cul-de-sac of imaginals.
What a load of cobblers Louis. So what if we have some imaginary grid cells. Latitude and longitude are also imaginary lines on imaginary maps but very helpful for navigation calcs. Instead of philosophising how about putting up a substantive mathematical argument instead of smoke and bulldust. Inform us on changes in relative error instead of mincing words.
I don’t think you know your variogram from your nugget or sill.
Anyway these issues have all been well reviewed.
ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442%282003%29016%3C0206%3AHALSSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/10005469/ABSTRACT
hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/39/14288
The last two papers are 2005 and 2006 reviews.
When you’ve read and understoof the state of the literature drop back for a chat.
Essentially it’s totally unscholarly to run these stupid straw man arguments with utterly no reference to the existing literature and some analysis of what has not been covered. Utterly unimpressed.
Basically the NZ climate coolition couldn’t lay straight in bed.
Seems I have hit a raw nerve 🙂
Good Grief
Luke,
I missed your last 2 sentences or paragraphs.
Surely as an expert in geostatistics my own expertise is sufficient a basis for the argument, or do you want me to ignore my own experiences and instead, as you seem to do, refer to authority?
I much prefer to base my argument on what I know, not on what I have been told.
This is called “putting the boot in”
Luke wrote “So what if we have some imaginary grid cells. Latitude and longitude are also imaginary lines on imaginary maps but very helpful for navigation calcs”.
Well the grid cells are based on the very imaginary lines on imaginary maps.
Luke, you clearly have no clue at all, have you.
Louis – you can either engage in some witty banter or contribute something substantive?
Meanwhile..back in the jungle.
The papers referenced by Paul Biggs are very interesting particularly the dynamic model of the changes to the number of measuring sites used to determine the global temperature. Very reassuring that the call to spend some megabillions is also based upon a data base of stations that change in number and distribution, and not small changes either.Run the model and see for your self. What a joke. If people like Luke whats his name has a problem with the NZ coalition, what about this crowd.
The paper by Maurellis and Tennyson referenced by someone on, ” The Climatic effects of water vapour” was also a good read if only to confirm the statement that, ” adding more co2 to the atmosphere increases its absorption logarithmically rather than linearly…as fact that is recognised by the IPCC”
I then read Paul Biggs reference to the PNAS paper by Hansen et al. Gave up after reading two contradictory statments on same page, see page 14290, regarding El Nino frequencies. Also Hansen and chronies obviously dont believe the logarithmic rule either.
Bugger it, I think I will go and do something useful, water/plant some trees perhaps.
So the hanging jury of Malcolm Dill doesn’t even bother to read CRU’s paper of error estimates.
hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
And what are you banging on about re the PNAS paper?
….and the garrulous blogophiliac has got nothing better to do on Xmas day, I notice.
How sad is that.
…and yes I have read the others as well.
I had a great Xmas day Malcolm – sounds like you didn’t though – grumpy and mean as usual.
Thats a bit rich coming from such a fraud and hypocrite, who by his own evidence in this very blog IS the Supreme Grump.
At least I wasnt also spreading bile on Xmas Day like you had the need to. At least you are consistent.
Something makes me think Santa gift-wrapped a turd & put Malcolm’s name on it
After Luke’s latest, I am speechless. Nothing to add.
And this is the blog voice for climate change?
I made some observations about what was contained in papers referenced by others, which you decided were not to your liking, and to emphasise this put in your usual line of insults.
My original comments contained none.
It would seem that if someone fires back in like manner you Phluke, being true to your name, dont like it.
As for the CSIRO and the various documents produced for the various states I dont have to make any more comments. They are their own testimony to the nonsense involved, both political and scientific.
Even the papers referenced above add to their dubious nature.
In any case they have died their own death.
As they in the classics, Get a Life.
Well Malcolm as “Luke what’s his name” I can see you can hand out insults to quality research but decline to defend them.
OK Malcolm I’m sorry (well I’m not really) but please come back. It’s been a lonely two days and I haven’t seen anyone except Phil and he can’t speak or move without assistance.
Because the difficulties are self evident.
As I said in my original inoccuous comments, run the Paul Biggs dynamic file for your self, see for your self, and draw your own conclusions.
Where is the quality research argument here.?
It is just statements of measured fact ie the number and disposition of measuring stations used over time, shown dynamically.
I added my own inferences to what I read and saw, and the same applies to the vg Tennyson paper on Water Vapour.
Personally I agree with Louis your response, to my seemingly innocous commentary was over the top.
It might be redeemable if you had a good record of reading and comprehending your own references before sounding off at others, never mind the endless propensity for abuse.
Good Bye
Louis can talk about ad homs and strongly worded opinions to himself – he’s an expert in verbal biffo but does a great glass jaw routine when it suits him too.
(1) your comment on the Tennyson paper is cryptic – what point are you making. It’s not clear. If it’s logarithmic – yes that’s already been factored in – so what?
(2) Similarly your point on the PNAS paper – what do you mean?
So I reiterate I’m unclear what you’re banging on about.
(3) If you’re referring to the station location mpgs I get the same error reported by one of the blog commentators.
“Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access /~climate/html_pages/ghcn_T_stn.html on this server.
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access /~climate/html_pages/Ghcn2_images/air_loc.mpg on this server.”
The suggested workaround below doesn’t work either.
In any case I can well imagine what it shows from the text supplied.
So you have to ask yourself then do we know anything about terrestrial temperatures? Clearly we do in Australia from the BoM high quality reference network. CRU have published above what they think the error estimates on their work are. No comment from yourself. I think they are well aware of limitations of the global data if you read their paper critically. The estimate of global temperature is an estimate – is it good enough as a trend indicator or not?
But we also have borehole data suggesting it’s warming. Artic melt. Melting around the edge of Greenland (accelerating) and Antartica. Species moving and behaving ahead of schedule. Glaciers melting. Frosts declining. Extreme cold temperature events trending down in Europe, Asia, USA, Australia. (see my post this blog of a week ago. Satellite measurements of ocean temperatures, tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures. Confirmation of the quantum of greenhouse flux and water vapour impact by ground radiometer measurement – Philpona (archives this blog) and closure of radiation windows observed by satellite commensurate with a greenhouse response (archives this blog).
Malcolm I think we do have some collaborating evidence other than ground stations !
So yes there are difficulties with the global met station data sets. As acknowledged by the authors. Are the difficulties enough to dismiss the CRU, GHCN and GISS measurements as totally useless. Let’s not pussy foot around here. Pick “yes” but please don’t make any more comments about warming or cooling coz you simply don’t know !
I think despite the difficulties which are being looked ongoing for continuous quality improvement they are useful analyses based on the error analyses and furthermore the trends line up with other alternative lines of evidence.
Your position as stated is that we simply have no idea really what the world’s temperature really is!
Very strange 403 forbidden error with my ISP – I have now seen the difficult to see animations on another Internet Service Provider.
I find the drop off in climate station numbers in Australia after 1990 to almost a handful, most implausible.
Check Figure 2 here:
http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/silo/datadrill/
Therefore I have little confidence in these animations.
Don’t know if you’re still here Luke but if so , as we established in a previous post , Antartica is cooling not warming up.
The source was NASA as I recall……
Yo Jim still here .. ..
We have discussed this at length on the blog in recent posts over the last 2 months – the position is that the few stations in inner continental Antarctica are showing only slight warming (or not moving much in trend) while the Antarctic Peninsula is warming as is the surrounding ocean.
The issue is discussed in ‘Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change’ by Thompson and Solomon
in Science 3 May 2002: 895, DOI: 10.1126/science.1069270
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5569/895 for more information
For a graphic view of that trend visit http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257.
The net result of the ozone hole and greenhouse effect is to lock the polar vortex in one direction essentially isolating the inner part of continent. i.e. it makes quite good sense. The northern Arctic is very different for a number of reasons and warming quickly.
For a whole rave on cold anomalies see – http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001802.html
Back on the Pielke “number of stations” issue – Pielke needs to show bias as a consequence of any of this – I don’t see that he has ! It’s just more quibbling and squirming.
Quote:
“Louis can talk about ad homs and strongly worded opinions to himself – he’s an expert in verbal biffo but does a great glass jaw routine when it suits him too.”
Logically this means my preceding post: “After Luke’s latest, I am speechless. Nothing to add.
And this is the blog voice for climate change?”
caused Luke to opine.
Raises eyebrows slightly. Wonders what ‘ad hom’ he uttered on this thread. Concludes that Luke has problems distinguishing fiction with reality.
No Louis – your entire blogging history is verbal biffo and ad hom stun gun followed by “shock surprise” – an instant glass jaw job to any rebuttal !
God – does anyone read this crap? I was just looking for a 2006 average surface temperature – I am thinking it is about the 6th warmest year on record. The Arctic is cooling as well. This continues the sideways trend in global temperatures since 1998. Until a rational discussion of the how and why of this reality occurs – after 8 years of global cooling – I despair of the spin doctors of science.
I would advise less theory and more empiricism.