2009年3月3日（午前22時19分46秒）私は、自動的にGoogle翻訳を使用して、日本語を英語に翻訳することが可能ですからの記事をお勧めしたいのような通知を参考に。選択した記事は、この手法を使って直接リンクできるようになると日本のスクリプトの英語翻訳を投稿してください。

かしこで
フィリップ

Google翻訳

Yomiuri Online

Reply: Moderators, leave this as is. It contains this message:

Itou Hiroshi Dear Professor,

2009 March 3, 2007 (22:19:46) I’m using Google’s automatic translation of general notice to the recommended articles can be translated from Japanese into English help. Selected articles, please post a English translation of the script and Japan will be able to link directly with this approach.

In passim
Philip

~ Charles the moderator.

I certainly would not want to be paying your affiliation fees!

Now that you’ve cleared up the roles of you and your associates in the discussion, I wonder if the title of this blog post will be changed for a more accurate title. I suggest:

“Japanese discussion papers provide varied views on Climate Change”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu; he is Founding Director of International Arctic Research Center, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Prof. Emiritus of the university now. He is famous for his magnificent pioneer work in the field of aurora physics. I don’t know which scientific society he belongs, but I’m sure he is not a member of JSER.

Dr. Shigenori Maruyam; he is Pof. of Tokyo Instititute of Technology. He is a geophysicist, famous for the idea of plume tectonics as an effective tool for seismology etc. (you can find a detailed explanation on this subject at Wikipedia). I don’t think he is a JSER member.
Dr. Kanya Kusano; he is a group leader at JAMSTEC (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/esc/research/profile_kusano.en.html). He is originally a solar physicist, in which field he had been awarded from relevant societies. At JAMSTC, he is doing good researches on computer simulation of physical processes associated with cloud formation, and hence, he is capable to give sincere comments on the global clime models. He is probably not a JESR member.

I was wondering if you considered yourself a member of a Subcommittee of the JSER or just a contributor to a special discussion hosted by the JSER Journal, as it’s unclear what everyone’s affiliations and roles are.

Prof. Yoshida (vice-chairman of the editorial committee of JSER), the organizer of the discussion on the JSER journal, gave a comment in an article at Yomiuri Shinbun (one of the biggest newspaper in Japan) on March 2nd as follows: “Present arguments in massmedia seem to insist that the scientific aspect of the global warming issue has over. This may be because the issue is now more political than scientific. I felt it a danger (of science), and wanted to rethink about the issue from scientific views.” (Available at http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/eco/ondan/on090302_01.htm, but unfortunately, in Japanese again.)

Thus, he invited us (the five pannelers) to the e-mail discussion in the JSER jounal. I should say Prof. Yoshida is certainly a healthy skeptic on the global warming issue although he just served as a coordinater this time and he did not state his personal opinions on the issue.

Kiminor Itoh, Yokohama National University (“Kimi” is OK, if you like.)

Thus, it is not correct if one thinks that the discussion represents the opinion of the journal’s editors or of the society JSER. In fact, none of the five contributors belong to the JSER, and Prof. Yoshida kept his attitude neutral in the article.

Is it not incorrect to refer to the report as being from a “Subcomittee of Japan’s Society of Energy and Resources” as seen in the title?

Seems fairly unambiguous to me.

Yes, I’m sure it does…

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/

Analysis Description and Recent Reanalysis

The optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is produced weekly on a one-degree grid. The analysis uses in situ and satellite SSTs plus SSTs simulated by sea ice cover.

So here are your first clues. It’s an “analysis” not a reporting of satellite data. It uses “in situ”, that is surface reports from ships, buoys, etc.; along with satellite Sea Surface Temperatures and, my favorite, SSTs simulated by sea ice cover. Given the recent “issues” with sea ice reporting it kinda make you wonder…

So, ok, a stew of ships, buoys, whatever, a dash of satellite data, and some simulations (based on a broken ice cover satellite?) are used to create this analysis product (that some folks want to call “satellite data”…)

Before the analysis is computed, the satellite data is adjusted for biases using the method of Reynolds (1988) and Reynolds and Marsico (1993). A description of the OI analysis can be found in Reynolds and Smith (1994). The bias correction improves the large scale accuracy of the OI.

Oh, and the satellite data are adjusted based on an optimal interpolation method. We’re getting even further away from “data” and into the land of processed data food product…

In November 2001, the OI fields were recomputed for late 1981 onward. The new version will be referred to as OI.v2.
The most significant change for the OI.v2 is the improved simulation of SST obs from sea ice data following a technique developed at the UK Met Office. This change has reduced biases in the OI SST at higher latitudes. Also, the update and extension of COADS has provided us with improved ship data coverage through 1997, reducing the residual satellite biases in otherwise data sparse regions. For more details, see Reynolds, et al (2002).

And they have had a change of method lately with “improved simulation”. Frankly, I’m not real fond of having my data be a simulation… especially when based on the sea ice data that are, er, questionable. Even if they do say they think it may have reduced the “biases in” the optimal interpolation at higher latitudes (which I presume means in the arctic where the ice was, er is, er, ought to be…)

But these “data” are just fine for calling “satellite data”… at least as long as you don’t mind your data simulated, interpolated, averaged, homogenized, etc. etc. etc. Me? I like my data to be from instruments, natural, whole, and minimally processed. Certainly not synthetic, er, simulated…

If only it was that simple…

ALL of the basic temperature data comes from land in the first steps. Then some anomalies are computed using sea based readings in the very last steps. Some of these come from a satellite grid of 1 degree lat /long cells with a single data item for each month in them (the ‘map’ I mention below). These are only used to adjust an anomaly map. They are not used to produce real temperature data.

The best answer I can give you is “Strange and Wondrous”. The satellite computed map is only applied at the bitter end during the computation of anomalies (long after any temperatures have disappeared into the averaging stew…) The first set of steps (about 5 of them starting with manual data download) are all about gluing together the GHCN USHCN and Antarctic data, then computing anomaly maps from them. From:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/gistemp-start/

where I’ve documented some of this, I quote from GISS:

Step 4 : Reformat sea surface temperature anomalies
—————————————————
Sources: http://www.hadobs.org HadISST1: 1870-present
http://ftp.emc.ncep.noaa.gov cmb/sst/oimonth_v2 Reynolds 11/1981-present

For both sources, we compute the anomalies with respect to 1982-1992, use

Notice that this step (called STEP4, but actually about the 6th real step) is all about sea surface anomalies. By this point, you are only dealing with an 8000 cell global ‘anomaly map’. The temperature data from earlier steps was along ago massaged into oblivion by a method that glues variable amounts of GHCN and USHCN together (and changes those records where both GHCN and USHCN data exist…). That is in STEP0.

There is a method called the “Reference Station Method” applied repeatedly that lets GIStemp change the value of a data item for one location based on the value from another station (between 1000 km to 1200 km away!), so there is no real way to say what “percentage” of that final datum is from land, sea, or whatever; though prior this this final adjustment of the ‘anomaly map’ all data are from land (i.e. USHCN, GHCN and Antarctica).

You can say that most of the thermometers of the world are in the USA and Europe (especially when length of the thermometer lifetime is included) and you can say that GIStemp “cherry picks” their decision to toss out all records older than 1880, that being the bottom of the last downturn of the little ice age.

Beyond that, GIStemp is more what I would describe as “Pasteurized Processed Homogenized Data Food Product” than any kind of set of actual temperatures…

That doubling of CO2 leads to a forcing of about 4 W/m^2 is a fact now accepted by all serious scientists, including “skeptics” like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer. What Spencer and Lindzen dispute is the sign and magnitude of the feedback effects that must be understood in order to get from this forcing to a resulting temperature change. That is something that could never be settled by simple experiments in a greenhouse.
Your continued pasting of this argument in threads shows a lack of your ability to think for yourself. You and I discussed this at length in another thread. I will if you want explain it all to you again. However it would be a good place to start if you could just get it into your head that the earth is not a green house.
Funny. I read Joel’s comment as meaning, essentially, that “the earth is not a greenhouse” (and that, therefore, experiments performed in greenhouses would be of limited applicability).

Since the two of apparently agree on this point, I look forward to further argument.

According to Dr Hansen

The GISS analysis of global surface temperature, documented in the scientific literature [refs. 1 and 2], incorporates data from three data bases made available monthly: (1) the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of the National Climate Data Center [ref. 3], (2) the satellite analysis of global sea surface temperature of Reynolds and Smith [ref. 4], and (3) Antarctic records of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) [ref. 5].

For both sources, we compute the anomalies with respect to 1982-1992, use
the Hadley data for the period 1880-11/1981 and Reynolds data for 12/1981-present.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html

Seems fairly unambiguous to me.

That is an anomaly map, not what I’d call ‘satellite data’, (as covered above). While you provided an interesting elaboration of the creation of that map, it isn’t the issue.

The basic issue was an assertion that “data” were used, and we seem to have a difference as to what “data” are. I took it to mean “the stuff from the satellite” you took it to mean ~”stuff computed in a long process and at some point in the past connected in some way with a satellite”.

I’d hope we’re past that now.

Me: “Interesting paper, not about GIStemp. The word satellite appears 6 times, mostly talking about how to interpolate vis a vis sea surface measurements. Not about GIStemp. Go Fish. Again.”

Oh really?

Yes, really. The paper is about the global anomaly recovery after Pinatubo, not about the structure of GIStemp. It does use GIStemp output anomaly maps. It does not demonstrate satellite data used in GIStemp (i.e. actual stuff from a satellite) but does demonstrate use of a NOAA anomaly map derived from satellite data. The discussion of satellites seems to me to be more directed at the NOAA process than at GIStemp.

I’ve put together my reaction to the paper here:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/hansen-global-surface-air-temps-1995/

Though I would suggest that you not read it since it will only upset you.

I’m not about to install FORTRAN here, but my guess would be the SBXX file in the input folder of the Step 4_5 folder.

Not the SBxx file, the file: oisstv2_mod4.clim

though you had the location correct. As downloaded from GISS the file comes as a gzip (and the directions do not say to gunzip it…)

Perhaps someone else can help.

However, if you’re really asserting that the Hansen 1996 paper above is actually “not about GIStemp” then I give up.

Please do. It would improve my day. The paper is about anomalies post Pinatubo and uses GIStemp anomaly maps. It is not aboutGIStemp. (Just like my posting is about his paper, not about Pinatubo, though I quote some bits of his paper in my posting).