Comments on: A German analysis of changes in HadCRUT: Adjustments called into question

By: Pamela Gray

Pamela Gray — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:40:31 +0000

Earth has tremendous capabilities to affect long term climate change. Land over the poles makes a VERY big difference in how the oceans distribute heat. However, plate movements influence long term trends, not the kind I would use to determine whether or not I should take land out of conservation programs and start planting wheat again. I look at short term influences to help me think into the near future (50 years ahead). Given that, I hope CO2 is the factor in our warming trend. If it is, I am going to plant like crazy, flood irrigate, and get three hay cuttings while using dry land for grazing only. If it isn’t, I will still use dry land ground for grazing only but plant lower valley ground with wheat, since food shortages will result in higher wheat prices. Tinkering with surface averages means little to me. Understanding short term forcing means everything.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:10:50 +0000

Ah, disagreement between the surface and aerial measurements. I wonder what the major media will make of this, and the climate scientists.

There’s a real chance that this global warming business is going to crash, especially if the data sets turn out to be spurious, and take a lot of the credibility of science with it. Not that the non-climate science types will have anyone much to blame but themselves.

By: Pierre Gosselin

Pierre Gosselin — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:16:13 +0000

Herr Mueller has updated the above posting
in English:
—————————
Important Advisory: Thanks for the advisory from Nick Stokes. As I have just noticed, the databasis I used on 11 April 2008 are not HadCRUT3 values(global surface temperatures), but rather they are the HadSST2-values (global sea surface temperatures). In retrospect there is no way for me to know if this was a mix-up on my part, or a mix-up on the part of the Met Office. Usually I always download the HadCRUT3 data from the same Met Office link.

I’ve removed the plot and will update it. I view this correction as necessary, as my post was taken over 1:1 by other blogs. That should not be done without first checking it over carefully. Therefore in the future I kindly request that it be carefully checked over first, or that I be consulted about it.

The following remains as fact: The HadCRUT3 databasis average monthly values are undergoing an adjustnment process, as the values from 18 March 2008 and 13 April 2008 show. I will continue to watch these values and save the link to their source just to be on the safe side.

GISS Global temperature of NASA has shown substantial deviations over the last years when compared to the other three data sets of global temperature (HadCRUT3, RSS and UAH), particularly for March 2008.

But the Met Office also had problems, and had to make corrections. Just recently the Met Office changed its diagram of the annual mean temperature. The start of 2008 was particularly cold, and led to a temperature dive in the yearly series. For this reason the temperature was removed from the start of the 2008 year series.

Now we have a massive problem. The surface measured temperatures (GISS) show a trend which no longer agrees with the satellite measurements (RSS, UAH). Two groups seem to have formed, each using different calculation and presentation methods for global temperature. This circumstance is apparently due to the missing climate warming of the last years. Such adjustment attempts are not only dubious, but make the climate scientists (Hadley, GISS) lose their credibility.

Update: As I have just determined, the monthly average values of the HadCrut3 data basis (global temperature) are constantly changing. That is, corrections are constantly being made.

Date of data: 18 March 2008

2007/01 0.632
2007/02 0.520
2007/03 0.441
2007/04 0.473
2007/05 0.374
2007/06 0.377
2007/07 0.403
2007/08 0.370
2007/09 0.409
2007/10 0.360
2007/11 0.266
2007/12 0.202
2008/01 0.056
2008/02 0.194

Stand 13.04.2008

2007/01 0.632
2007/02 0.520
2007/03 0.441
2007/04 0.472
2007/05 0.375
2007/06 0.376
2007/07 0.403
2007/08 0.370
2007/09 0.414
2007/10 0.356
2007/11 0.265
2007/12 0.201
2008/01 0.056
2008/02 0.187
2008/03 0.430

(See his new plot:)
http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/das-met-office-hat-seine-hardcrut3-datenbasis-der-giss-nasa-datenbasis-angeglichen/
———————————
Hope this clears things up!
PG

REPLY: Thanks to Pierre and to everyone that contributed to getting this corrected.

By: MattN

MattN — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:20:13 +0000

“Update: As I have just determined, the monthly average values are constantly changing, and that going all the way back to 1850. It is constantly being readjusted…to be more and more in line with GISS database.”

At what point does this become a complete and total fraud?

By: Pierre Gosselin

Pierre Gosselin — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:43:58 +0000

So far he hasn’t replied to my e-mail. So I posted a message at his blog (along with reader here Nick Stokes). He’s probably off to work.
I had a look through his website and it looks legit.

By: Robert Wood

Robert Wood — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:04:06 +0000

Evan,

You are right, the internal mechanisms do matter, I was attempting to clarify the whole concept in my head. Now, just where do we stick that thermometer:-)

By: Demesure

Demesure — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:02:08 +0000

It’s not new that HADCRU changes its temperatures to “make up” the warming trend. Just compare their graphs for global temp in TAR and 4AR : http://skyfal.free.fr/?p=122

By: Walter Dnes

Walter Dnes — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:52:39 +0000

Hold your horses everybody. There does not appear to be major tinkering going on. Being a bit sloppy, and having a large harddrive, I have the hadcrut3 data to 2007/11 and 2007/12 and 2008/02 and 2008/03 lying around. No major changes. No changes period, before 2007. I’ve uploaded the datasets and “diffs” (unix/linux users will know what these are) as http://clients.teksavvy.com/~walterdnes/changes.zip alongside my own analysis http://clients.teksavvy.com/~walterdnes/temperatures.zip (before anyone asks, my date scheme is 12 months “different” from what you would intuitively expect).

By: steven mosher

steven mosher — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:23:45 +0000

Everybody needs to use the same scepticism WRT this as everything else.

I want to see the data. I want to see the methods. I want to see the code.

Then double check. then have someone else double check.

I’ve seen small changes in Hadcru, but nothing of this order. So, I am suspect.

Still. check. double check. you engineers know the drill.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:15:23 +0000

RW: Surface temperatures are important. We have huge amounts of energy stored in the earth’s core. So long as it stays there we don’t have a problem. Overall input and output are important, yes, but they are only part of the story.

That “distribution” thingie is an all-important consideration becuase we live on the surface and if that changes a whole lot of other things change too.

No, I don’t think surface temps are changing outside the natural ups and downs, and while I think CO2 has a slight effect, it is dwarfed by other considerations. But “where” the heat is does matter.

BTW, I agree with your splits. They are all important. What matters is keeping them all tallied and not confusing them.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:07:50 +0000

His overall conclusion is correct though: Temperature averages from GISS, and possibly HadCrut, are moving away from satellite averages. This has to be explained.

Ummmm . . . Let me think . . . MICROSITE VIOLATIONS, MAYBE?

By: Robert Wood

Robert Wood — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:20:21 +0000

OK What are the ramifications of my definition of global warming?

1. AGW cannot be true. Why? Because we do not control the energy input or output of this planet. We may, indeed, affect the way it is redistributed around the planet, but no more than that.

2. It is not important whether there are heat sinks, or iris effects, or any such details. Whatever climatic mechanisms lead to heat transfer between different layers and parts of this planet, the energy balance, therefore temperature, is decided by external factors.

3. Even IF AGW were true, temperatures will be regulated by Stephan-Bultzmann, NOT Al Gore.

By: CoRev

CoRev — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:07:15 +0000

Robert Wood, I like the definition. Hope you don’t mind if I use it over at my house?

By: Pierre Gosselin (aka AGWscoffer)

Pierre Gosselin (aka AGWscoffer) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:04:48 +0000

Anthony,
Sure will…
I already sent him an e-mail.
Right now it’s 2 a.m., and so expect another half day or so to find out what’s up.

By: CoRev

CoRev — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:59:51 +0000

Well, I for one am glad the error was caught. I added it to this morning’s article regarding what we are seeing when we are shown a global temperature chart. Much of the material was from here.

CoRev, Editor
globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com