Recent Differences Between GISS and NCDC SST Anomaly Data And A Look At The Multiple NCDC SST Datasets

OR…. There are Increases in Trend with Each Update While The Causes of Downward Biases Are Deleted

Guest Essay by Bob Tisdale:

In the recent WUWT post Something hinky this way comes: NCDC data starts diverging from GISS, the differences between GISS and NCDC global temperature anomaly data was discussed. I commented that the GISS and NCDC global surface temperature anomaly data relied on two different SST datasets.

NCDC has their own SST anomaly dataset for their global surface temperature product, and they calculate anomalies against the base years of 1901 to 2000. GISS has used the NCDC OI.v2 SST anomaly data since December 1981, and before that they had used the Hadley Centre’s HADSST data. GISS then splices the two datasets together. This post does not discuss the HADSST data, but delves into the differences between the multiple NCDC SST anomaly datasets, one of which is used by GISS.

GRAPHS OF GLOBAL OI.v2 (USED BY GISS) and “NCDC Ocean” SST ANOMALY DATA

I have not been able to find GISS SST anomaly data as a separate dataset, so for a short-term comparison, I’ll use their source, the OI.v2 SST anomaly data available through the NOAA NOMADS system. Unfortunately, the OI.v2 SST data uses a third climatology for their anomalies (with base years of 1971-2000), but don’t let that concern you. It just makes for an unusual comparative graph.

Figure 1 is a short-term comparison (November 1981 to April 2009) of the OI.v2 Global SST anomaly data (used by GISS) and the NCDC’s “Global Ocean Temperature”. The NCDC data is available toward the bottom of the NCDC Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php
Specifically:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
http://i41.tinypic.com/sec4kh.jpg
Figure 1

The two datasets appear to track one another, and the obvious difference, the shift in the data, is a result of the different base years. But if we subtract the OI.v2 SST data from the NCDC “Global Ocean” SST anomaly data, we can see that one dataset rose more than the other since November 1981. Refer to Figure 2. The NCDC “Global Ocean” SST anomaly dataset rose at a greater rate than the OI.v2 SST anomaly data that’s used by GISS. This would bias the NCDC global surface temperature upward over this time span, or bias the GISS data down, depending on your point of view.
http://i39.tinypic.com/qzlsvo.jpg
Figure 2

So to conclude this section of this post, part of the difference between the GISS and NCDC global surface temperatures discussed in WUWT post Something hinky this way comes: NCDC data starts diverging from GISS results from the use of different SST anomaly datasets.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO DATASETS?

The use of satellite data appears to have an impact.

NOAA describes the Optimum Interpolation (OI.v2) SST anomaly data (used by GISS) as, “The optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is produced weekly on a one-degree grid. The analysis uses in situ and satellite SST’s plus SST’s simulated by sea-ice cover.” The in situ data is from buoy and ship measurements. The full description of the OI.v2 data is here:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.oisst.v2.html

The NCDC identifies the “Global Ocean Temperature” dataset as SR05 in its Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php#sr05

Linked to the webpage is a paper by Smith et al (2005) “New surface temperature analyses for climate monitoring” GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L14712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023402, 2005.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Smith-comparison.pdf

On page 2, Smith et al describe the SR05 data as, “The SR05 SST is based on the International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS [Woodruff et al., 1998]). It uses different, though similar, historical bias adjustments to account for the change from bucket measurements to engine intake SSTs [Smith and Reynolds, 2002]. In addition, SR05 is based on in situ data.”

It appears, from that quote and the rest of the paper, the SR05 SST dataset does NOT use satellite data. This is consistent with NCDC’s other long-term SST datasets. They also abstain from satellite data.

COMPARISON OF SR05 TO THE NCDC’s OTHER TWO SST ANOMALY DATSETS

In addition to the SR05 SST data, the NCDC also has two other long-term SST datasets called Extended Reconstructed SST (ERSST) data. The ERSST.v2 (Version 2) data was introduced in 2004 with the Smith and Reynolds (2004) paper Improved Extended Reconstruction of SST (1854-1997), Journal of Climate, 17, 2466-2477. Many of my early Smith and Reynolds SST Posts used ERSST.v2 data through the NOAA NOMADS system. Unfortunately, ERSST.v2 data is no longer available through that NOAA system, so the latest ERSST.v2 global SST anomaly data from NOMADS I have on file runs through October 2008.

The ERSST.v2 data was updated with ERSST.v3 data. In my opinion, it provides the most detailed analysis of high latitude SST in the Southern Hemisphere (the Southern Ocean). The ERSST.v3 data was introduced last year with the Smith et al (2008) paper: Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006), Journal of Climate,21, 2283-2296. The NCDC updated it with their ERSST.v3b version later in 2008, but more on that later. A limited number of datasets (based on latitude) for the ERSST.v3b data are available from NCDC (though it is available on a user-selected coordinate basis through the KNMI Climate Explorer website, as is ERSST.v2 data).

I have found no source of SR05 SST anomaly data, other than the Global, Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere “Ocean Temperature” datasets linked to the Global Surface Temperature webpage.

Figures 3 and 4 are long-term comparisons (1880 to “present”) of the “NCDC Global Ocean” (SR05) SST anomaly data to the ERSST.v2 and to the ERSST.v3b SST anomalies. Based on the linear trends, the “NCDC Global Ocean” (SR05) data resides between the older ERSST.v2 and the more recent ERSST.v3b data.
http://i40.tinypic.com/am84ma.jpg
Figure 3
########
http://i43.tinypic.com/2u9pwk6.jpg
Figure 4

But note that the trend increases with each SST dataset improvement.

THE ERSST.v3 DATASET ONCE USED SATELLITE DATA

In “Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006)”, Smith et al note the use of satellite data for ERSST.v3 data in their abstract, “Beginning in 1985, improvements are due to the inclusion of bias-adjusted satellite data.” That’s a positive description. They further proclaim, “Of the improvements, the two that have the greatest influence on global averages are better tuning of the reconstruction method and inclusion of bias adjusted satellite data since 1985.” In fact there is a whole subsection in the paper about the satellite adjustments.

WHY THEN DID THE NCDC DELETE THE SATELLITE DATA IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION, ERSST.v3b?

Reynolds, Smith, and Liu write in a November 14, 2008 attachment to their main ERSST.v3b webpage, “In the ERSST version 3 on this web page WE HAVE REMOVED SATELLITE DATA from ERSST and the merged product. The addition of satellite data caused problems for many of our users. Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.” [Emphasis added.]

The link for that quote is here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/merged-product-v3.pdf

Note that the “merged product” referenced above is their ERSST.v3b-based land plus sea surface temperature data.

Figure 5 illustrates the difference between the ERSST.v3b and ERSST.v3 global SST anomaly data (ERSST.v3 data MINUS ERSST.v3b data). The “dip” after 1985 would appear to be the satellite bias.
http://i43.tinypic.com/6yfx8h.jpg
Figure 5

Hmmm. It looks as though, if you’re a SST data producer, downward biases are bad, but increases in trend with each update are good.

SOURCES

The ERSST.v3b SST anomaly data is available through the NCDC’s ERSST.v3 webpage:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php
Link to the available datasets:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo
I used this dataset for this post:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo/aravg.mon.ocean.90S.90N.asc

The NCDC’s “Global Ocean Temperature” dataset is available through:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php
Specifically:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

ERSST.v2 data are no longer available through the NOAA NOMADS System. I relied on ERSST.v2 global SST anomaly data from my files for this post. I also used the ERSST.v3 I also had on file for the comparison to the ERSST.v3b data.

The OI.v2 data is available through the NOAA NOMADS system:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite

About these ads

97 thoughts on “Recent Differences Between GISS and NCDC SST Anomaly Data And A Look At The Multiple NCDC SST Datasets

  1. Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way? As Lindzen observed “To be sure, models and data are often uncertain, but that correcting data always leads to consistency with models is highly unlikely.” One could say the same for corrections which always seem to lead to more warming. How implausible can you get?

  2. “Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way?”

    Because if there is a potential for “crisis” then there is the potential for funding to “study” it. If the crisis goes away, so does the funding.

  3. Thanks Bob, for making this clear. It is getting tiresome of the same upward adjustments, effectively so if a downward adjustment is removed, to a dataset. It wouldn’t be so obvious if it wasn’t done every single time. How smart is that?

  4. In “Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006)” (referenced above), Smith et al noted that the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) made the SST observations discussed therein since about 1985. Actually, AVHRR measurements come from several different satellites that replaced each other over time. Data from the same satellites was used by Steig, et al to conclude that Antarctica was warming, instead of cooling (see Antarctica warming? An evolution of Viewpoint (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/#more-5224 and several subsequent posts on this blog by searching “Antarctica.”)

    The Steig et al paper came out in January 2009, yet as noted above Reynolds, Smith and Liu in November 2008 REMOVED the AVHRR data because it was apparently deemed unreliable “where in situ data are sparse.” There should be no argument that in situ data in Antarctica are sparse.

    So, if we follow the same logic of Reynolds, Smith and Liu and REMOVE the AVHRR data for Antarctica as well, based on their argument that “in situ data are sparse,” then the Steig et al paper would be left without any foundation. Or is there some flaw in my logic?

  5. “In the ERSST version 3 on this web page WE HAVE REMOVED SATELLITE DATA from ERSST and the merged product. The addition of satellite data caused problems for many of our users. Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.”

    In my experience as a biochemist, ignoring an entire dataset like that sounds a lot like data fraud to me.

  6. Bob Tisdale,
    Thank you for your very thorough analysis of this recent data set divergence. While I find the manipulation of data to maintain the illusion of dangerous warming to be distressing, I now accept that this behavior has become routine for many involved in climatology. If global temperatures were remaining stable I would be more concerned, as these manipulations could keep the hoax going for many more years. However as temperatures continue to fall, manipulations to show warming trends become increasingly futile. A long hard battle against the continuing malfeasance of some climatologists may not be necessary in a cooling world. It is necessary to record the actions of those playing these games with data, and helpful to let it be publicly known that these records are being made. Thank you for your effort.

  7. Too right it “caused problems for many of our users”. Can’t have genuine data upsetting the warming alarmism.

    In my experience as a nuclear physicist, you ignore data at your peril.

  8. The AGW camp seem to follow the following code: “If observation doesnt fit your hypothesis, than the data must be wrong”.

    The missing hotspot is there only the thermometors are wrong
    The satellites are wrong as they show cooling
    The sun doesnt drive climate because there was no MWP
    etc… etc…

    I was told a temperature station was a “bad site” recently as it showed cooling!

    As einstein once said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

  9. Good stuff. Interesting thing is, when I combined HadCrut3 till 1978 and MSUAH since, it looks a lot like SST trend. It is clearly visible that the strongest temp. rise was in 1907-1942 and 2008 is similar to 40ties again.

  10. Is it just me or does the phrase “there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 ” mean that the temperatures as measured, had, in fact, fallen, rather inconveniently?

    As such is the case, then the three words “residual cold bias” are weasel words, defined as words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available.

    An example, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar, would be replacing “firing staff” with “streamlining the workforce”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words

    Let us hope that GISS, the Met Office, NCDC & the rest of the obscurantists are damn soon streamlined with extreme prejudice.

  11. Sorry but the only significant “anomaly” in the difference between GISS and NCDC that I can see is the sudden drop roughly 203 months ago (around month 397), see my graph of the last 50 years

    Visually, there is no statistically significant change of the behavior in recent years.

  12. It’s a familiar story. See also
    Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems.
    Levitus et al, Geophys res lett 36, L07608 (2009)
    “We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955–2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data”.

    Perhaps someone should collate all these examples of inconvenient data being deleted or ‘adjusted’ upward. It would be a long list.

  13. Thanx, Bob.

    Speaking of data sets, where can I find the list of CRN ratings for the USHCN stations that we’ve been toiling so hard to generate?
    I’ve sorted through surfacestations.org, and haven’t found the link yet. Clicking the big google earth map comes up with a “File not found” error.

    It’s been suggested before, but maybe we could do something with the CRN 1 and 2 stations, or generate some error bars for the 3, 4, and 5 ones.

  14. I know you have a glossary, but it would be useful to lay readers like me if articles full of acronyms started with the expanded versions (or there was a brief summary of the more regular ones somewhere on the same page).

    Also, and this may be more contentious, it would be nice to have a guide to context. I have no idea if your National Climatic Data Centre is held in higher regard to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies or, say, NASA (I do know that one). Or are they all as suspect as our UK Met Office? :-)

    BTW, commenting on the glossary is invited, but doesn’ t seem to be available.

  15. The data manipulation appears to be scientific fraud. But since it is done to protect political and religious beliefs it is done with a clear conscience. It is much more then funding that the data manipulators are protecting. They are protecting a worldview that is vital to their belief structure. Many true believers would have a psychic breakdown if they objectively looked at the science. I believe there is no amount of falsification that can dissuade the true believers. It took the Catholic Church 400 years to admit that the helio-centrists were correct. The same helio versus geo battle is taking place today.

  16. The quote was:
    —————
    THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.” [Emphasis added.]
    —————
    Heavens! We can’t have THAT now, can we?!
    .
    That’s an OUTSTANDING find, Bob! Great job!

  17. Further to my previous post. Three Mile Island was turned from a minor incident into a major accident because the operators didn’t believe the data that was outwith their mindset. If you believe something strongly, then you ignore what doesn’t fit in with those beliefs.

  18. OT as usual – but worthwhile I hope.

    Lord Monckton has written Congressmen Barton and Upton on the central question of climate sensitivity. He starts: “Following my recent testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House, you kindly directed a question to me via the Committee Clerks- “Is there any dispute that, as you say, “How much warming will a given proportionate increase of CO2 concentration cause?” is the central question of the climate debate?
    a) “If so, what is it?
    b) “If not, why hasn’t the scientific community participating in the IPCC caught the matter?”

    Excerpt from Monckton’s response:
    “Making appropriate adjustments for these apparent exaggerations by the IPCC, I calculate that true climate sensitivity may well be as little as 1.1 K at CO2 doubling.”

    See

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/central_question_on_sensitivity.pdf

    Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I wrote in 2003:

    “Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their 100-year forecasts are suspect. These models speculate that the air’s increased carbon dioxide concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, by way of amplification processes. Without these speculative processes, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical surface warming of only approximately 1 degree (C).”

    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    __________________

    So we were close to agreement at 1 degree C.

    This leads to the conclusion that increased atmospheric CO2 is no cause for alarm. Politicians, please take note.

    This subject is still of technical interest.

    More recent data and analyses suggests to me that even this 1 degree C is high due to negative feedbacks, and actual “climate sensitivity” to atmospheric CO2 is so close to zero as to be practically inconsequential.

    The only known impact of increased atmospheric CO2 is improved plant yields.

    Furthermore, CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, so we don’t even know if CO2 drives temperature at all, and the evidence suggests that temperature drives CO2. When I wrote this conclusion in January 2008 I was criticized by both sides of the global warming debate, but we’ll see who is right.

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

    Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Faites vos jeux.

    Regards, Allan

  19. Slightly OT. I find it somewhat disconcerting when I open up WUWT and see a Google Ad for Carbon Offsets. Isn’t there already enough scizophrenia in the world ?

  20. I suspect that this is less a case of intentional fraudulent data manipulation than it is a case of belief in their models blinding them to reality. The graph they provide shows a clear offset with the satellite data. Adhering to the simplest explanation being the correct one approach, either the earlier record is wrong, or the satellite record is wrong. They are so married to their belief in AGW, they can’t accept that it is possible for the earlier record to be wrong. I don’t think it’s intentional fraud, just blinders.

    Unfortunately, it will probably take many years or perhaps even decades of this kind of divergence before they will be able (if ever) to accept that the earlier data, and their AGW religion, were wrong.

  21. Would not take any of this seriously.. reason? Because the world will probably keep cooling and not follow AGW and it will be all = 0 (irrelevant BS), in a couple of years.

  22. Hmm. In reading the first group of comments, there’s lots of use of the strong words fraud and manipulation. While it seems unusual that recent corrections always seem to increase trends, consider a few things.

    All of the long term SST datasets (ERSST.v2, ERSST.v3b, HADSST, HADISST, Kaplan) are all based on COADS data. The biggest correction that’s made is to raise the SST anomalies before 1941 (or lower it after, depending on your point of view) by approximately 0.3 deg C. This is done in agreement with the 1995 Folland and Parker paper “Correction of instrumental biases in historical sea surface temperature data.” Without that correction, the linear trend would be almost twice what it is now for the NCDC SST anomaly datasets.

    Also, with the updates and corrections come things that many of us consider positives. Look at the Southern Ocean data, for example. Here’s a graph from one of my early SST posts that compares the ERSST.v2 and ERSST.v3 versions of the Southern Ocean SST anomaly data.

    And here’s the ERSST.v3 graph of the Southern Ocean SST anomalies alone:

    That entire post is here:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/ersstv3-version-of-southern-ocean-sst.html

    When there are complaints about the recent high Antarctic temperatures, the ERSST.v3b version clearly shows that the Southern Oceans SST anomalies were higher 100+ years ago.

  23. They are so married to their belief in AGW, they can’t accept that it is possible for the earlier record to be wrong.

    A common and repeated scenario in medicine, where old beliefs are clung to almost irrespective of evidence. My favourite is H.pylori, the bug responsible for stomach ulcers, whose existence was confirmed by Marshall and Warren in the early 80’s, but continually denied by practitioners for over 20 years, during which time the wrong cure (Zantac) became the most prescribed medicine in history. The CDC site has rather belately admitted that antibiotics might be the real answer – this was written in 2006:

    http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/consumer.htm

    I since discovered that vets have been using antibiotics for this purpose since 1948!

  24. “Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.”

    If the data were corrected once, and this correction was valid, what exactly is a “residual bias”? And, since the in situ data are inherently sparse (not to mention probably located in human-habitat micro-climates), can they really consider the warmer in situ data to be more accurate than the satellite data?

  25. 1) What kind of lag is there between any atmospheric warming or cooling and SST? Or is the air rather being warmed by the sea (seems most likely).

    2) Even removing the “down” bias because of satellite data removal, there appears to be a flattening or the start of a downturn in temp after the end of the millennium – I realize we need a few more years to confirm this but surely the last few cold winters and the “lag” of question (1) would suggest we will see a downturn.

  26. All of us should read http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm this speech by Richard Feynman (the late nobel prize winning physicist) before we start yelling fraud! This speech gives a deep insight into what is required for getting good science. A small excerpt:

    Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing.
    But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea
    Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some
    wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling
    them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one
    feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
    That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
    science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just
    hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
    investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
    and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity,
    a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
    utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
    you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
    think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about
    it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
    things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other
    experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can
    tell they have been eliminated.

    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
    given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
    anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
    make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
    you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
    as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
    When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
    theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
    those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
    for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
    come out right, in addition.

    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
    help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
    information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
    another.

  27. Dear Bob, it surely does work to me. Maybe you need to open it, copy and paste the URL, and open it again, for the slashes to be interpreted as proper slashes and not their codes.

  28. Gary Pearse: You asked, “What kind of lag is there between any atmospheric warming or cooling and SST? Or is the air rather being warmed by the sea (seems most likely).”

    The global surface air temperature lags changes in SST (primarily ENSO variations) by 3 to 6 months.

    And changes in global temperature (from 1880 to present) appear to simply be a function of ENSO SST variations. The warming periods and the cooling periods, the year-to-year and decade-to-decade changes in global temp, can all be shown to be responses to changes in the frequency and magnitude of ENSO. In fact, here’s one of my posts that shows that global temperature anomalies can be reproduced with NINO3.4 SST anomalies, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations.

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html

  29. Bart van Deenen: I was brought up on Richard Feynman, and still have his three volume “Lectures on Physics”, which I still dip into from time to time. If only he were around today to communicate what is wrong with “climate science”.

  30. So is Smith et al 2008 invalid due to missing data making it unconfirmable? Has Journal of Climate published a retraction of the paper?

  31. From today’s Daily Telegraph, slightly off topic as it deals with Scientific Fraud but I thought you might find it interesting

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/5345963/The-scientific-fraudster-who-dazzled-the-world-of-physics.html

    My favorite section is reproduced below

    >One of the most cherished beliefs of scientists is that their world is “self-correcting” – that bad or fraudulent results will be shown up by other experiments and that the truth will emerge. Yet this system relies, far more than is generally realised, on trust: it was natural for his peers to question the way Schön interpreted his data, but taboo to question his integrity.

    In 1830, the British mathematician Charles Babbage wrote of the distinction between truth-seekers and fraudsters in his Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of Its Causes. The former, he said, zealously prevent bias from influencing facts, whereas the fraudster consciously allows his prejudices to interfere with observations. But what Schön was in fact doing was cleverer than simply falsifying his data, and claiming some miraculous breakthrough. By talking to colleagues, he worked out what results they hoped for – so when he fabricated results that seemed to prove their theories and hunches, they were thrilled.

    Schön was, in effect, doing science backwards: working out what his conclusions should be, and then using his computer to produce the appropriate graphs. The samples that littered his workspace were, effectively, props. The data he produced were not only faked, but recycled from previous fakeries (indeed, it was this duplication of favoured graphs that would prove his Achilles’ heel). <

  32. Comparing different compilations/collations of suspect data tells us more about the compilers than about physical reality. All versions of the historical SST data rely almost excusively upon observations made by ships of opportunity prior to the satellite era, subjected to a variety of “corrections.” There’s a highly pertinent, brief comment posted by “sky” at CA’s most recent article on model results vs. HADCRUT3 global temperatures about the inherent deficiencies of the original Surface Marine Observations, common to all versions. Wish I could post a link, but I’m not an adept internet surfer.

  33. NOAA: Fifth Warmest April for Globe
    The combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for April 2009 ranked fifth warmest since worldwide records began in 1880, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.


    Is Noaa an official SPA for massaging temperatures?

  34. I was watching a show on Nat Geo Sunday night about a cult based out of New Mexico. It was funny because they had a psychologist on talking about how cult leaders will make a lot of prophecies which don’t come true and the followers will “change their reality to suit their beliefs”.

    I really am finding the AGW crowd to be more and more cult like in their zealousness and overall lack of concern for reality.

  35. Perry Debell (08:11:49) :

    AAARRRRGGGhhhhh! O/T, but any slight hopes that I had for a pleasant summer have been dashed to the floor. ‘Prepare for a heatwave’ UK told.

    From the article you linked:

    In London, this (my note: “a very hot summer”) would mean daytime temperatures had exceeded 32C and night-time temperatures were over 18C degrees. In the North West, it would be 30C and 15C, respectively.

    “Piece of cake” for us in Monterrey where usual temperatures in summer are ~40 °C at the peak during daytime and ~25 °C during nighttime. :)

  36. The Green Shackles will come with a personal energy budget, this despite the overwhelming proof that the current “climate crises” does not exist.
    When I posted about the “personal carbon card” researched and planned by the British Government one year ago, posters here did not take it serious.
    Now it has become a potential reality, all prepared in in secrecy and sold as “protection”.

    Contact the representatives bought and bribed by Waxman and tell them you will end their political career if they continue this road to fascism.
    Via icecap.us

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124234844782222081.html#articleTabs=article

  37. “”” Allan M R MacRae (03:02:08) :

    Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I wrote in 2003:

    “Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their 100-year forecasts are suspect. These models speculate that the air’s increased carbon dioxide concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, by way of amplification processes. Without these speculative processes, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical surface warming of only approximately 1 degree (C).”

    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    __________________
    More recent data and analyses suggests to me that even this 1 degree C is high due to negative feedbacks, and actual “climate sensitivity” to atmospheric CO2 is so close to zero as to be practically inconsequential.

    The only known impact of increased atmospheric CO2 is improved plant yields.

    Furthermore, CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, so we don’t even know if CO2 drives temperature at all, and the evidence suggests that temperature drives CO2. When I wrote this conclusion in January 2008 I was criticized by both sides of the global warming debate, but we’ll see who is right.

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

    Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Faites vos jeux.

    Regards, Allan “””

    Well Allan, you won’t get any dispute from me. When people talk about “amplifications” to CO2 it is often “water vapor feedback” they are alluding to. I’m of the belief that water vapor is perfectly capable of doing its own atmospheric warming via the so-called greenhouse effect without any help or stimulus by CO2 or any other GHG. It is water vapor that drags us up from the equiilbrium orbital black body temperature we would have sans water; and I don’t think we’d be at any different place with no CO2 at all; other than we would have a slightly different cloud cover situation.

    In any case, to me the whole concept of “climate sensitivity” is just silly, and nonsensical. We know that the earth’s surface IR emittance varies by more than an order of magnitude from the hottest surface locations to the coldest surface locations; about 12:1 in the extreme case; and that is not taking spectral emissivities into account; and that means that the possible warming effect (forcing) due to CO2 absorption would be expected to have a similar range; so the notion that there is a constant temperature rise due to a doubling of CO2 is plain nonsense.

    In the end ONLY H2O in the earth atmosphere exists in all three phases, vapor, liquid, and solid; so clouds are a uniquely water phenomenon that produce (on climate time scales) a strong negative feedback cooling effect, due to albedo modulation, and blcoking of further solar energy from the ground. Nobody ever observed it to warm up when a cloud passes in front of the sun; it always cools down. In particular it always cools down at night when there are clouds in the sky; it never warms up after the sun goes down; cloud or no cloud (assuming some new warm air mass doesn’t move in from some other place).

    I think your estimate of a “Climate sensitivity” due to CO2 doubling, of near zero, is closer to the truth than any one degree notion; and of course the IPCC always throws in a 3:1 fudge factor.

    Arrhenius dreamed up a monster when he invented “climate sensitivity”, and it’s time to stick a fork in that monster; and the same goes for “forcingS” which I can’t find in any handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

    If “climatology” wants to dissociate itself from the likes of “economics” and ancient “astrology”, and join the real world of science; it needs to abandon these primitive trappings; which belong to the era of epicyclic orbital theory; and caloric, and ether ages.

  38. Huh guys, this trend is really residual. It’s about 0.25 C per century, that is 0.025C per decade.

    In fact looking at the curve it’s obvious the differences hinted at in a previous post are within the “noise” typical of the two data sets, the contribution from the trend bias isn’t important. There is no hint of fraud. And I suggest people don’t use the expression when the changes in the product are documented and alluded to by the authors.

    And after seeing the larger plot contributed by Lubos, for me the issue is settled. My feeling is that if you plot an histogram of the difference between data sets, the April anomaly would fall within the non-outlier range.

  39. Perry Debell (08:11:49) :

    From the BBC “news” story:

    Wayne Elliott, Head of Health Forecasting at the Met Office, said: “Summer is nearly with us and it’s a good time to prepare for the high temperatures that we can experience in this country.”

    I wonder how folks in Britain were ever able to prepare for summer in the past without the sage wisdom from the MET office to guide them…

    Imagine that – a summer with warm temperatures!! Next thing you know, they’re going to predict a winter with cold temperatures…

  40. This may seem out of topic, but in a sense it is relevant to the whole scene.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8052798.stm


    A web tool hailed as a significant rival to search giant Google has gone live to the public.

    Wolfram Alpha is called a computation knowledge engine rather than a search engine and wants to change the way people use online data.

    …….

    During a demonstration at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Dr Wolfram said: “Our goal is to make expert knowledge accessible to anyone, anywhere, anytime.”

    We should think of crucial questions to ask about “global warming NOT”. There is great danger of this becoming a great tool for the climate “consensus”.

  41. John Boy (12:23:30) :

    Here, buried near the end of the article, is all you need to know about this junk science:

    Prinn stresses that the computer models are built to match the known conditions, processes and past history of the relevant human and natural systems, and the researchers are therefore dependent on the accuracy of this current knowledge. Beyond this, “we do the research, and let the results fall where they may,” he says. Since there are so many uncertainties, especially with regard to what human beings will choose to do and how large the climate response will be, “we don’t pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds.”

    The money quote from above:

    “…we don’t pretend we can do it accurately.”

    I propose that we make this NOAA’s new motto.

  42. “Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way?”

    Because they are only human: If things go the way they expect, then they don’t bother scrutinising the data/method. But if it goes contrary to what the expect, then they look for errors, and of course *sometimes* find them (no malice required). The upshot of this is that there are a LOT of errors going in the *other* direction that have not been spotted!

  43. “Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way?”

    Because they are only human: If things go the way they expect, then they don’t bother scrutinising the data/method. But if it goes contrary to what the expect, then they look for errors, and of course *sometimes* find them (no malice required).

    The upshot of this is that there are a LOT of errors going in the *other* direction that have not been spotted!

  44. “This is getting out of hand. WWUT is gonna have a big, I Told You So and soon!”

    There is never going to be an I told you so…..Obama is on the move and your life will change forever. I was wondering why the auto compaines were in of today’s announcment…there is the answer

    Today’s bitter deal was sweetened with further funds: $15bn in loan guarantees in the economic recovery plan and the prospect of a further $50bn in allowances under the climate change bill now making its way through Congress.

    We are going to pay for it all……once oil usage drops, higher taxes will be needed to replace less fuel sold.

  45. Bob Tisdale,
    Is there any way to subtract out the biases add in, so we can get an honest answer?
    It would seam as thought here in Michigan we have been cooling all along, less the occasional warm ups.

    TX

  46. The money quote from above:

    “…we don’t pretend we can do it accurately.”

    I propose that we make this NOAA’s new motto.

    I agree.

  47. George E. Smith (10:22:15) :
    . . . In particular it always cools down at night when there are clouds in the sky; it never warms up after the sun goes down; cloud or no cloud (assuming some new warm air mass doesn’t move in from some other place).

    Nighttime clouds act as a blanket. You get the coldest temps on cloudless nights due to radiative cooling.

    You’re right that the overall cloud effect is negative, and that “sensitivity” is a phony baloney factor invented to cover the fact that CO2 by itself can’t contribute enough warming to notice.

  48. Bob Tisdale

    Hmmm. It looks as though, if you’re a SST data producer, downward biases are bad, but increases in trend with each update are good.

    AGWers created a warming world at their wish. During the last 19 years they have been trying to discredit and/or erase the knowledge on paleogeology, paleoclimatology and paleobiology which had been done with the strict appliance of the scientific method by many, many honest and dedicated researchers. As from AGW hysteria, everything which proves the falseness of their idea on a warming world is denied systematically. Since the raising of AGW, satellites sensors are biased, proxies are invalid, chemical methods to obtain the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is obsolete, the Holocene Optimum never happened, the Medieval Warming Period never occurred or it was not global, the emissivity of CO2 is compared with that of a blackbody, the atmosphere is a blackbody, etc. Previous arguments are strongly backed by unscientific sources, like Media. Their protection for not being exposed is to blame realist scientists of being “deniers”, when the latter term perfectly fits to AGWers.

    BTW, saying that the fluctuations of the solar energy have nothing to do with Earth’s climate is misguided… Isn’t the Sun the main source of energy for the whole solar system? Isn’t the climate a subject on energy instability (entropy flux) when it is dispersed or diffused from one system to other systems?

    http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html

    If you have the kindness on reading the article, please consider that the correlation coefficients correspond to year to year calculations. Thank you! :)

  49. Did you notice how MIT tried to legitimize thier ‘research’?

    400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters (see below for a good laugh),

    selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge… (scoff!)

    the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well – such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries

    AND here’s the real kicker!!

    they supposedly based their runs on ‘peer reviewed literature’ for economic activity, atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems.

    So they supposedly used peer reviewed values for economic, oceanic, and atmospheric variables and looked at 400 different scenarios. And they used our tax dollars to do it!

    What a waste!

    The Boy of John

  50. For some reason my previous post was “eaten” by the system… Please, tell me what could have happened. I submitted it and it disappeared immediately I clicked on the submitting comment button.

    Reply: For some reason it ended up in the spam filter. It’s been rescued and posted. ~dbstealey, moderator

  51. I realize that this is off topic, but has anybody noticed cryosphere today is showing changed data in the sea ice area for several regions? For example, they are showing the Barents Sea dropping about 200,000 km2 in the last few days. That was not the case yesterday.

    Tom
    ClimateSanity

  52. “”” Mike McMillan (13:38:02) :

    George E. Smith (10:22:15) :
    . . . In particular it always cools down at night when there are clouds in the sky; it never warms up after the sun goes down; cloud or no cloud (assuming some new warm air mass doesn’t move in from some other place).

    Nighttime clouds act as a blanket. You get the coldest temps on cloudless nights due to radiative cooling. “””

    Mike you also get cold temperatures on cloudy nights due to radiative cooling; you just don’t get as much cooling. You get the coldest nights where it is also dryest since you don’t get water vapor warming either; and just look at how ineffective CO2 is at warming the surface on a cold dry night when there is no water vapor around. So much for CO2 greenhouse warming !

    My objection to this cloudy night thing being traipsed out by the warming crowd; is that they offer this night time “blanket”, which I don’t disagree with, as a positve feedback cloud warming effect. Baloney, or BALONEY; that was last night’s weather not climate; and the isssue is if you have an increase in cloud cover over climatically significant time frames (why not 30 years) IT COOLS DOWN ! It NEVER warms up, when total global cloud cover increases; because those cloud increases that do slow down the night time cooling, (it still cools) block a whole lot of sunlight, and reflect more, during the daylight hours; which cools the surface.

    And it is surface temperatures which determine any feedback effects.

    You need hotter surface temperatures to get more water vapor evaporation; and you need hotter surface temperatures to get more oceanic CO2 outgassing. Hotter atmospheric temperatures may eventually warm the ground a little but they also enhance the radiation to space, which is ultimately the only significant global cooling mechanism.

    I read a paper by some British University “rocket scientists” who modelled cloud behavior on their playstation in the presence of a CO2 doubling. In their computer model run, that caused clouds to evaporate so they put that down as a positive feedback cloud effect; ergo clouds are positive feedback.

    Did I mention that during this computer video game run; they clamped the surface temperature AT A FIXED VALUE !!!

    Who licensed them to make up their own Physics laws like that ? If they had left well enough alone; and not clamped the surface temperature; they would have discovered the obvious, that you can discover with a stick on a sandy beach on a desert island. If you double the CO2, and don’t clamp the surface temperature; it will increase slightly, which will evaporate more water vapor; which will increase the atmospheric water content, and eventually lead to more clouds and more precipitation and those extra clouds will cool the surface wiping out nearly every vestige of the CO2 induced warming.

    How do people get grant money to do such totally dumb things ?

    Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.

    Water as a vapor is a positive feedback warming effect; which also has some negative feedback cooling connecvtions since water vapor absorbs some of the incoming solar spectrum energy (maybe as much as 20%) thereby reducing ground level insolation; but water in liquid and solid form as clouds is always a negative feedback, since more clouds mean higher albedo, and more solar absorptions so lower ground level insolation; and it is this cloud cover ratio (or fraction if you will) that regulates the mean global temperature;

    Yes things like CO2, aerosols, cosmic rays, dust, microbes, etc can all affect cloud formation and so modify cloud coverage ; but ultimately the oceans are in total control, and simply adjust the cloud cover to stop whatever temperature changes were happening.

  53. George E. Smith 10.22.15

    A question – is an industrial catalyst a commercial forcing?

  54. “Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way?”

    Because they have an agenda and are liars.

  55. I wonder if ERSST’s negative satellite bias had anything to do with those pesky ARGO buoys which kept showing that the oceans were cooling when any fool knew they were warming cause we have Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    I wonder what Global temperature site to belive.

    I would suggest the site that makes the raw data plus source code available to the interested public.

    The experts would then be able to debate the merits of the averaging process and not have to speculate on the politics of the organization.

  56. “Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.”

    Nope. Who licensed you to make up your own physical law like that? I have no idea where you live, but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. So, if winter cloudiness were to increase because of other climate changes, that would be…?

    I’ll be interested to see just how you reconcile facts like that with your beliefs.

  57. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L): You asked, “Is there any way to subtract out the biases add in, so we can get an honest answer?”

    Could you be more specific? What honest answer are you looking for?

    Above, I subracted the ERSST dataset without the satellite data from the dataset with it to try to identify the satellite “bias”.

  58. Nasif Nahle: You wrote in a comment directed at me, “BTW, saying that the fluctuations of the solar energy have nothing to do with Earth’s climate is misguided…”

    When did I say that?

  59. RW (16:25:36) :

    Nope. Who licensed you to make up your own physical law like that? I have no idea where you live, but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. So, if winter cloudiness were to increase because of other climate changes, that would be…?

    Depends on the clouds. Some are positive some are negative. In my experience here in the Pacific Northwest, heavily overcast days are cooler than sunny days.

    Like the last couple days, been heavily overcast and temps stayed in the low 60s f. The two days before that it was clear and got into the 70s. This is not to say that either temps were “caused” by cloudiness or lack thereof, just anecdotal observations.

  60. Mr Boy (12:23:30) kindly drew our attention to this:
    “Climate Odds Much Worse Than Thought.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

    What enormous fun these computerised sausage machines are.

    Back here in the real world of FatBigot Towers it is 2009. Yes, there’s a nine at the end not a zero. We’re almost a decade into the century of perpetually increasing heat. I have been sitting here in my little house like a plump potato in a saucepan of water, waiting to be cooked to perfection over the course of a century so that at the end I can be doused in butter and served to a passing cannibal. The water started out tepid, now it’s got colder.

    It’s all very well telling me that the great forces of warming will mean that I will be overcooked whereas previously I would have been done to perfection. I might be able to believe it because there is a theory, hypothesis if you prefer, and I am just an ignorant potato.

    But I can’t believe it unless it is explained why I have been getting colder for almost a decade when it was promised that I would be almost a tenth of the way to culinary readiness by now.

    Now, in 2009, the same theory / hypothesis is used to justify a prediction that I will get hotter over the next 91 years (following 9 years of getting colder) than I was told I would get over 100 years when I was originally placed into the saucepan of luke warm water 9 years ago.

    It’s a jolly good thing I am only a potato and wholly ignorant of matters scientific, were it otherwise I might think the theory / hypothesis is just patent twaddle.

  61. Bob Tisdale (16:48:11) :

    Nasif Nahle: You wrote in a comment directed at me, “BTW, saying that the fluctuations of the solar energy have nothing to do with Earth’s climate is misguided…”

    When did I say that?

    No, you didn’t; I said it in my comment, but not referring to something which you had said. That’s why I wrote By the way. Your comment is in italics. :)

  62. Steven Hill (12:56:23) :

    “We are going to pay for it all……once oil usage drops, higher taxes will be needed to replace less fuel sold.”

    What makes you think they’re going to wait for oil usage to drop?

  63. In a post at Climate Audit…

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6038

    …Steve McIntyre noted that NOAA has stated, regarding their ERSST data, that “V3b is now the official version. V2 will no longer be updated. It will still be available in our subdirtectory /Datasets/noaa.ersst/V2/'”

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.ersst.html

    There is no date on the notice, and it has been my understanding for a few months that ERSST.v2 would no longer be updated.
    –BUT–
    The ERSST.v2 data available through the KNMI Climate Explorer is current through April 2009. Go figure.

  64. Nasif, I read your paper, linked above.

    I especially liked your last line in the conclusions:

    ” The influence of “greenhouse gases” on the climate is irrelevant.”

  65. “”” RW (16:25:36) :

    “Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.”

    Nope. Who licensed you to make up your own physical law like that? I have no idea where you live,>>>” but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days.”<<>>” but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that warmer winter days are much cloudier than cold winter days.”<<<

    I rest my case; but add in passing; "nobody ever observed it to warm up when a cloud passes in front of the sun; it always cools."

    I don't know what your skills are with geometrical optics; but if you like, I could send you a formal proof of just exactly why that happens; but anybody with just an 8th grade high school knowledge of illumination optics, can easily figure it out for themselves.

    If the clouds cause the warmth; does that mean more clouds cause more warmth ?

    Just asking.

    George

  66. “”” RW (16:25:36) :

    “Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.”

    Nope. Who licensed you to make up your own physical law like that? I have no idea where you live, but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. So, if winter cloudiness were to increase because of other climate changes, that would be…?

    I’ll be interested to see just how you reconcile facts like that with your beliefs. “””

    >>> “but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. ” <>but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that warmer winter days are much cloudier than cold winter days. <<<

    There now RW; I didn't change the accuracy of your statement one iota.

    I rest my case.

    George

  67. Don’t ask me what happened; but the aboves just vanished on pressing “Submit Comment”. some sort of poultrygeist I expect.

    George

  68. >>can they really consider the warmer in situ data to be more
    >>accurate than the satellite data?

    What is the betting that the “warmer in situ data” is the Siberian data that the Russians have been busy fiddling, in order to ‘confirm’ global warming and force the US into the carbon trading scam, and thus destroy US industry.

    A climate modelers reds?

    .

  69. George E. Smith: have a look at Figure 5.10 here. If your beliefs were correct, all six lines on the graph would point down to the right. I advise you to reconsider your beliefs, taking into account the observational evidence that contradicts your present ones.

  70. George E. Smith,

    Our projection-impaired pal repeatedly labels you a “believer”, rather than as a thinker — then gives a questionable book review as a pathetic appeal to authority. That particular book review only shows that globaloney sells. The problem with the book is that Webster & Stephens hedge their bets so much that their analysis throughout is worthless. From only part of one page:

    Thus, a definitive study of the cloud-climate problem has remained an elusive attainment… Observational studies have been hampered… investigations by …models [heh!] have been hampered‘tuned’ function of the surface temperature… problems facing the more sophisticated models… etc., etc.

    Here’s a plain fact: None of the computer models predicted the severity of the past N.H. winter. Not one. The models failed. All of them.

    As Prof. Freeman Dyson presciently observes, GCMs are next to worthless for predicting the climate. They’re always wrong. They can not correctly predict.

    Here’s a clue: click. As CO2 continues its steady rise… global temperatures continue to fall. Only a True Believer in the repeatedly falsified CO2=AGW conjecture would fail to see the disconnect.

    Here are some empirical facts based on real world observations [rather than on GCMs programmed by grant-seeking opportunists] :

    Carbon dioxide is found everywhere. It is completely harmless in both current and projected concentrations. The insignificant tiny fraction of a degree that it may add to global warming is totally swamped by many other factors, and can be completely ignored as inconsequential. CO2 is beneficial to all life on Earth; more atmospheric carbon dioxide is better for life.

    The only nail the self-serving warmist contingent has to hang their hat on is the always-inaccurate computer models. The real world has falsified their misguided and incorrect beliefs: as CO2 rises, the temperature falls. This central fact no doubt galls the alarmists, but the facts are the facts.

    So who are we supposed to believe… the grant-seeking opportunists’ always-wrong computer models? Or what Mother Earth is plainly telling us?

  71. From http://www.seablogger.com/?p=14494

    Pacific Shift
    climate by seablogger

    The surface temperature pattern of the Pacific Ocean has been remarkably stable for the last couple of years, since the flip to cold phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation. Now, for the first time, it is undergoing a major shift. The cold pool in the northeast Pacific is shrinking markedly, and the mid-ocean, mid-latitude warm pool has grown. There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific. Meanwhile warm swatches have shrunk in the South Pacific (a larger expanse of water than the North Pacific). Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now. What does this change portend? I have no idea, but I will be watching our downstream jet closely for pattern changes ensuing from the Pacific shift.

  72. “”” RW (06:45:52) :

    George E. Smith: have a look at Figure 5.10 here. If your beliefs were correct, all six lines on the graph would point down to the right. I advise you to reconsider your beliefs, taking into account the observational evidence that contradicts your present ones. “””

    So I looked at your figure 5.10 as requested.

    Very nice; a perfectly linear relationship between fractional cloud cover and surface temperatures,

    One might reasonably predict a linear relationship between ground level insolation and fractional cloud cover; but a linear temperature relationship; wow that is totally radical.

    Oh I see the problem; those are not measured data, but some sort of imputed values for an equilibrium condition.

    I looked but couldn’t find any reference to when it was that the earth was last in this equilibrium condition to which these analyses refer.

    But a linear relationship between surface temperatures, and fractional cloud cover; that’s revolutionary.

    George

  73. Ron de Haan: seablogger linked this map to make his observations. It opened to a map dated 5/21/09:

    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html

    Most of his comments could be related to weather. SST anomaly patterns vary daily, weekly, monthly.

    His statement, “There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific,” is wrong. NINO3.4 SST anomalies have risen above zero over the last month and while they’re still ENSO neutral, they show no sign of heading toward a La Nina. Refer to my ENSO update:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/mid-may-2009-enso-and-amo-update.html

    Also subsurface temperarture anomalies below the equatorial Pacific are positive, implying an El Nino in the future.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml

    He wrote, “Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now.”

    Is he referring to the map he linked? The following link is the expanded map dated 5/21/09, the same date that appeared when I followed his link. Looks like a lot of positive anomalies in there too.

  74. Comment by seablogger

    Thursday, 21 May 09 @ 8:06 PM
    Bob Tisdale (15:04:11) :

    Ron de Haan: seablogger linked this map to make his observations. It opened to a map dated 5/21/09:

    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html

    Most of his comments could be related to weather. SST anomaly patterns vary daily, weekly, monthly.

    His statement, “There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific,” is wrong. NINO3.4 SST anomalies have risen above zero over the last month and while they’re still ENSO neutral, they show no sign of heading toward a La Nina. Refer to my ENSO update:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/mid-may-2009-enso-and-amo-update.html

    Also subsurface temperarture anomalies below the equatorial Pacific are positive, implying an El Nino in the future.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml

    He wrote, “Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now.”

    Is he referring to the map he linked? The following link is the expanded map dated 5/21/09, the same date that appeared when I followed his link. Looks like a lot of positive anomalies in there too.

    Bob,
    I have posted your respons at http://www.seablogger.com (Alan Sullivan) and this is his response:

    Some forecast models have been predicting mild El Nino conditions this summer and fall. I believe the emergent pattern is now visible in the anomaly maps, which I watch continually. I realize we have not reached the technical criteria yet, but I’ll wager we will. The trend is distinct. So is the southern ocean trend. Last year there was a vast diagonal slash of warmth. It is gone, and the remaining warm anomalies are spotty.

    Afterthought: I overstated with “nearly all.” The dramatic diagonal is broken, but there are still extensive slight to moderate warm anomalies in some parts of the South Pacific.

  75. Just a few weeks ago, we had the Santa Barbara fire that was fanned by some high temperatures and winds; then suddenly we were back to wintry cold clear days, with a chill breeze (slight) from the North.
    I went out to my car in the morning with just my office business shirt on, not long after sunrise; with the sun still low in a crystal clear sky. The north breeze was cold on my face, while the low sun was warm on my sunlit skin, but I shivered inside my shirt. It was cold liike that for several days, with chilly clear cloudless nights, and that slight but always noticeable north wind.

    And then came the heat, with tempertaures into the 90s. On that hot morning after a 90 plus day high as I walked outside it w, but now it was quite different.
    Same warm sun low in the cloudless sky; but now I could feel the heating effect of the hot air and ground, with no wind at all; yet the sun hadn’t had time to warm anything up. so we got 90s again and later in the day some high clouds appeared, so the sun set with high clouds, and it remained hot all night; no need for blankets.
    And then after a few days it was back to the wintery cold with the wind chill and cloudless sky’s.

    Well of course now I know why. With no high clouds on those cold days and nights, the earth cooled due to lack of man made CO2 in the sky, which is known to cause positive water vapor feedback when there are high clouds (R W Says so). Evidently natural CO2 doesn’t cause poitive feedback because even though that cold breeze from the north came straight over San Brancisco Bay waters; just ripe for positive feedback, the enhancement never started. It seems that CO2 by itself has a problem starting the positive feedback; but once you do get those high clouds, the ground warming effect is dramatic, even before the sun gets up very high.

    Of course there is another way to explain all this; but of course it isn’t very fashionable to do so.

    On that cold slightly breezy morning, with the cold air coming down from the north, the humidity was very low, and with the air so cold, it didn’t pick up any significant amount of water vapor, the other Green house gas as it crossed SF Bay to Sunnyvale.
    So when I walked outside with the sun on my skin, and generating “heat” inside my torso, moisture evaporated from my skin, even under my dress shirt, so I shivered as my body tried to raise the humidity of this waterless air from the north. And by sunset, there simply wasn’t enough water vapor in the atmosphere to form any of those high altitude warming clouds, or to trap infra-red from the surface, so it stayed cold all night.

    But then came the hot air (from somewhere) and plenty of humidity too, so even though the low sun hadn’t had time to heat anything, everything; the ground and the air seemed hot because with plenty of water vapor in the air, my body didn’t evaporate moisture, so that 545 calorie per gram refrigerator couldn’t operate.

    As the temperatures climbed during the day, into the 90s, and now the Bay could give up additional moisture, all that hot air laden with moisture rose, as it is wont to do; but of course the upepr air was also plenty warm (where did that come from) so the air and moisture continued to rise, until evnetually, and later in the day, the moisture got to an altitude that was high enough that clouds finally could form; high clouds that is, so all through that night of hot air (from somewhere) those high clouds persisted. Well it still cooled down overnight anyhow; always seems to do that after sunset.

    So there you have it; either CO2 heats the surface causing water vapor positive feedback, and high clouds do the same, keeping it warm at night; or just maybe, it is the warm moist air that comes from somewhere else; that eventually forms those high clouds that persist overnight; and don’t have anything to do with having made it warm in the first place.

    So it’s like AlGore’s CO2 and Temperature graphs which he suggests are correlated. Well they are; but it is the temperature change that is causing the CO2 change (which for some reason doesn’t happen till after the temperature changed.

    So high clouds are associated with warmer temperatures and nights, so there seems to be a correlation; but once again it seems difficult for some people to see which is the cause and which is the effect.

    If the high clouds cause the warming; the temperature rise would only vary with the log of the forcing; which is either increase in GHG such as CO2 or water vapor; or increase in cloud cover fraction, which determines how much of the sky is still free to radiate to space. Well you get the point, even though I haven’t explained it very well; if the clouds cause the temperature rise, the temperature rise wouldn’t be linear with cloud coverage; but more logarithmic, and John Houghton, in The Global Climate says that the temperature rise for high clouds is linear with cloud coverage.

    Doesn’t seem to matter that the hotter the surface temperatures go and by inference the normal atmospheric gradient; the higher the water vapor has to go in the atmosphere before it can finally condense into clouds.

    Yes high clouds and warmer temperatures go hand in hand; but which is the cause; and which is the effect.

    Seems that it all depends on how man made CO2 knows to trigger water vapor positive feedback, which apparnetly natural CO2 is reluctant to do; at least near San Francisco Bay anyway.

  76. Global warming is true. It’s being used as weapon of mass destruction to take from all the idiots who believe we are to blame their money and their sanity. People, please…..one day your children will look back on you and wonder and laugh at your stupidity.

Comments are closed.