By Steven Goddard
GISS has explained their steeper temperature slope since 1998 vs. Had-Crut, as being due to the fact that they are willing to extrapolate 1200 km across the Arctic into regions where they may have no data – whereas Had-Crut prefers to work with regions of the Arctic where they actually have thermometers. WUWT reader “Wren” suggested that I compare GISS Arctic trends vs other sources to see how they compare. GISS has been showing Arctic temperatures rising very fast, as seen below.
However, GISS Arctic temperatures have been rising much faster than other data sources. The graph below shows the difference between GISS and RSS (GISS minus RSS) Arctic temperatures.
And the same graph for UAH.
Conclusions: GISS explains their increases vs. Had Crut as being due to their Arctic coverage. Their Arctic coverage is poor, and they rely on extrapolations across large distances with no data. Comparisons with other data sources show that GISS extrapolations across the Arctic are likely too high. In short, GISS trends over the last decade are most likely based on faulty extrapolations in the Arctic, and are probably not reliable indicators of global or Arctic temperature trends during that time period.
Is it allowed to ask and is it possible to get an answer to the question, who and what is Steve(n), Stephen Goddard, please ?
Has he do do with these publications ?
Reason for my question is, that often it’s referred to Steve(n), but a lot of alarmists and AGWists claim he doesn’t exist or it’s a fake name and he has nothing to do withclimate research as actually it’s dicussed here in a German Blogg.
Thanks !!
Good effort Mr Goddard, I think we have them by the short and curlys.
Both datasets are dubious. Basically we have no real proof that the Arctic is actually warming at all in reality.
To borrow from Mark Twain, “rumours of the death spiral have been grossly extrapolated”.
(emphasis added)
In short, GISS trends over the last decade are most likely based on faulty extrapolations in the Arctic, and are probably not reliable indicators of global or Arctic temperature trends during that time period.
Nice touch.
So is it now official, everyone has a better temperature dataset than GISS? The esteemed Dr. Hansen, who wrote his famous paper detailing how to arrive at a correct global average temperature, just can’t generate good numbers?
What’s the difference between “faulty extrapolations” and “They made the whole thing up”?
Extrapolated: Such a nice scientific word. So much better than guessed or dreamed up or lied about.
Extrapolate temperatures 1200 km where there is no data? On something as variable as weather? I honestly don’t know whether to laugh until my sides ache, or cry until my eyes are red. And with more and more temperature stations being retired, I’m sure this is done more and more. It isn’t difficult to see why these temperature records are going one way and the earth’s temperature is going another.
Maby the Airtraffic on Svalbard has increased??
🙂 🙂
Steve Goddard wrote, “…whereas Had-Crut prefers to work with regions of the Arctic where they actually have thermometers.”
Which are few. GISS, as we’ve discussed, has better Arctic Land Surface Temperature coverage.
Stephen,
according to the linked data Latitude Band is:
RSS 60° – 82.5°,
UAH 60°-85°,
GISS 64° – 90°.
I observe that GISS – RSS > GISS – UAH, higher latitude bands seem to give higher temperatures. What’s up with that, have you taken this difference of latitude into account? Don’t you think, this could play a significant role?
What about the different in base periods of UAH (1951-1980) and GISS (1979-1998)?
Could you expound a little?
@kadaka May 20, 2010 at 3:43 am:
“…, just can’t generate good numbers?”
Good numbers are measured by properly sited, installed and maintained instruments. There is no alternative!
Krishna Gans says:
May 20, 2010 at 3:09 am
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That question reminds me of a guest lecturer that I listened to in college. I was studying political philosophy and was very interested in Shakespear's Roman and English history plays which are rich in this. It's a shame SS is mostly read in Drama and Literature classes but, that is a different blog. Anyway, the speaker had a nice presentation about his theory that SS did not exist or, at least, did not write the works attributed to him. At the end of the lecture I asked, what was the point? The speaker asked for clarity. I told him that I found great value in the writings of SS and if I learned that that someone else wrote the works how should that change my view of the writings themselves? He did not have an answer.
When people start attacking the character of the writer instead of the substance of the work I lose interest in what they have to say.
Steve Goddard: And to illustrate the better coverage of the Arctic by GISS, here’s the North polar stereographic map of CRUTEM and HADSST combined for the full year 2005:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2qm2kg7.png
The vast majority of the coverage is SST related and the reason it APPEARS to be extensive is because HADSST2 is presented in 5-degree grids.
And here’s the same map for GISS:
http://i50.tinypic.com/t67dc8.png
It has greater Land Surface coverage, but appears to have less SST coverage because the OI.v2 SST data they use is presented in 1-degree grids.
Regards
I assume that the GISS temp data forms at least part of the background for the claim that April 2010 is the warmest on record. Is that true?
GIGO.
Krishna Gans
I had nothing to do with those publications and I write lots of articles about climate, right here on the web’s best science blog.
http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/
nick
GISS doesn’t have any consistent thermometers north of 80 degrees. They just make extrapolations across huge distances.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/gistemp-vs-hadcrut/
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AXKz9p_7fMvBZGR3ODJ3d3NfNjM1ZnRqN2Z6Z2M&hl=en
Steve Goddard said: WUWT reader “Wren” suggested that I compare GISS Arctic trends vs other sources to see how they compare.
Steve, thank you for following up on my suggestion. I like getting credit for a suggestion, even if it isn’t exactly what I suggested.
In your previous article you compared one month of Arctic data from GISS, DMI, and NSIDC. After reading the article, I posted the following comments:
Wren says:
May 17, 2010 at 7:56 pm
One month doesn’t tell you much. It might be more revealing to look at the differences between the Arctic measurements by GISS and those by DMI and NSIDC over time.
If you find GISS is consistently high, I wouldn’t think the anomaly would be effected.
————-
If DMI and NSIDC trends for the Arctic are available, comparing them with the GISS trend would help complete the analysis
Your comparison of Arctic trends from GISS with those from UAH and RSS might benefit from comparing the latter two separately, since it looks like they may not be in total agreement. I’m not sure about this, as its hard to tell just by eyeballing your two charts.
You conclude by saying “In short, GISS trends over the last decade are most likely based on faulty extrapolations in the Arctic, and are probably not reliable indicators of global or Arctic temperature trends during that time period.”
I’m not sure I would agree with the “likely” and “probably” on the basis of the limited analysis presented. It’s a start, but all sources of Arctic data should be examined and compared, and if they aren’t measuring the same thing, the emphasis should be on comparing difference in anomalies.
RockyRoad says:
May 20, 2010 at 4:15 am
Extrapolate temperatures 1200 km where there is no data? On something as variable as weather? I honestly don’t know whether to laugh until my sides ache, or cry until my eyes are red. And with more and more temperature stations being retired, I’m sure this is done more and more. It isn’t difficult to see why these temperature records are going one way and the earth’s temperature is going another.
======================
Sure, Its how they are showing a huge temp increase in South America. They use a thermometer located near sea level in Bolivia and extrapolate the temperatures in the Andes mountains from that. This results in showing a huge (5F+) temperature increase in the mountains.
Steven,
(sorry for misspelling your name)
I am still wondering: if the difference between GISS and CRU was explained by the way they handle the area north of 80°, and if RSS and UAH temperatures don’t cover parts of that very same area and also don’t extrapolate into it, like CRU, couldn’t the differences between GISS and RSS/UAH be, at least partly, due to the very same reason? And what about the 60°-64° latitudes?
Bob,
I think it is pretty clear that in GISS’ own 2005 comparison, HadCrut had better coverage in the Arctic.
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AXKz9p_7fMvBZGR3ODJ3d3NfNjM1ZnRqN2Z6Z2M&hl=en
That was their choice of dates, not mine.
J.Hansen coal trains derailed…
Bob,
Your tinypics confirm my point. GISS had no data north of 80N, and Had Crut did.
GISS shows the entire region far above normal, while Had Crut had temperatures above 80N generally below normal.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2qm2kg7.png
So the highest recent temps in 1998 have been extrapolated downward to change the slope of the line?
I think that RSS and UAH measurements doesn’t include the poles, not completely at least.
But yes, “extrapolations across large distances with no data” looks like the method developed by Dr. James Hansimian. And taking into account the importance that this measurements have, to validate the performance of GCM, etc.
It’s astonishing that there are almost no measurements where the impact is projected to be greater.
Ya know…who cares about thermometers, this is about big money and cheat all those serious scientists out there who will discuss everyday, in their “skeptic” blogs, about our latest “findings”!
Hope they won´t dedicate their time to investigate our real activities and secret relations. We are the forebearers of the future, the initiates who are building the world of the future, the brilliant “Alphas” who will govern upon those silly “gammas”.
(Chances are that these self nominated “alphas” are being cheated by their bosses and will be discarded as useless once they achieve their goal)
Commenter, “Think Big”, on a http://www.smh.com.au weblog, is unimpressed with you Steven, esp with your Venus thread here at WUWT. I think I know why. Think Big went to univercity.
O/T TOTALLY:
I need to ask for some assitance please.
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/mikebaillie/2010/05/18/dear-denialists-i-must-apologise/
After this article i was asked to:
“..supply peer reviewed publications that do not support the ACC hypothesis …”
Now i referred them here, but here does not include peer reviewed literature against the global warming argument.
Where on earth could i send them?
Thank you kindly 🙂
A quote from GISS about surface temperature:
Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.
I interpret that as WAG! Some might claim SWAG! Or even EWAG!
extrapolation is a neat trick when the data has some logical progression.
but the existing data needs to be concrete. sort of like opposite shores of a bridge being built, a little error at the start and the two extrapolated ends of the bridge don’t meet out over the chasm.
since time frame is of some importance in creating a weather extrapolation, one would need to know that the data over time has not become contaminated by ANYTHING. Unless you can assure that point you are peeing on my leg.
As was mentioned earlier the most recognized scientific term for the GISS method is: GIGO!
Henry chance
The extrapolations are unrelated to 1998 temperatures. Please read
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/gistemp-vs-hadcrut/
Well, it should also be noted, if I am reading these maps right, that HadCrut doesn’t actually guess at the arctic temperature beyond it’s measurable reach whereas we regularly see GISS maps taking the temperature measurement of it’s few stations and plastering them across the entire region.
Wren says: May 20, 2010 at 5:09 am
I’m not sure I would agree with the “likely” and “probably” on the basis of the limited analysis presented. It’s a start, but all sources of Arctic data should be examined and compared, and if they aren’t measuring the same thing, the emphasis should be on comparing difference in anomalies.
Don’t you get it, there is no Arctic data, it’s all an extrapolation/guess. What adjectives would you like to describe a WAG?
All one need do is read up on Polyakov’s Arctic research to discover Hansen’s methods are not supported by any observational data or experimentation, but is rather based on his own untested assumptions.
Part of that assumption is stratospheric cooling due to CO2 which has no basis in fact.
Another is assuming a correlation of Arctic amplification to global warming also due to rising CO2 levels, which Polyakov cautions against as the data do not support.
Patrick Davis
It is pretty obvious that temperatures on Venus would be much lower without the very high pressure atmosphere. Might take a while for it to sink in though.
NASA GISS’s misprepresentation of GCM extrapolations as measured Arctic temperatures, and their subsequent use in anomaly graphics, is inconsistent with Hansen’s own view of the McIntyre/Watts corrections to the contiguous US temperature record a few years ago. Hansen suggested that, since the US land surface is such a small portion of the global surface area, temperature trends in the US make little to no difference to the global picture. Surely this reasoning applies in spades in the Arctic.
It seems like the best solution to the Arctic conundrum of data paucity is to simply truncate the global surface temperature anomaly maps where the surface station readings stop. At the same time, change over to a map projection that presents a more realistic image of the global surface, rather than the current projection that balloons the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Its pretty ironic/convenient/sad that the current projection has maximum distortion precisely in the regions where the temperature trends are least understood. But of course, that can work in your favor when pushing a political agenda.
blackswhitewash.com says:
May 20, 2010 at 3:25 am
Both datasets are dubious. Basically we have no real proof that the Arctic is actually warming at all in reality.
So, the ice cover retreating, increased melting of Greenland, permafrost thawing, the tree line moving further north, the E. Siberian Shelf showing more methane release all are no proof of the Arctic warming? You may want to tell that to the people living in the Arctic…
Wren at 5:09 am
I see your point and agree up to your last point wherein you said:
…and if they aren’t measuring the same thing, the emphasis should be on comparing difference in anomalies.
There I disagree. If they aren’t measuring the same thing – difference in anomalies are – meaningless. Don’t forget, in ALL this we are dealing with averages, of averages, of averages. To come up with a difference (the anomaly) between averages means nothing (it’s not even actually an “anomaly”) even if it’s averaging the same data set at a different point in time, much less 2-3 averages from 2-3 different data sets derived from 2-3 very dissimilar – locations, instruments, times, total data points, etc., etc.
Now “trend” differences between multiple averages taken over a LONG period of time whose multiple data sets have been triple verified for accuracy in all manners – – hmm, MAYBE one could derive some meaning +/- from that analysis.
Steve Keohane says:
May 20, 2010 at 6:22 am
Wren says: May 20, 2010 at 5:09 am
I’m not sure I would agree with the “likely” and “probably” on the basis of the limited analysis presented. It’s a start, but all sources of Arctic data should be examined and compared, and if they aren’t measuring the same thing, the emphasis should be on comparing difference in anomalies.
Don’t you get it, there is no Arctic data, it’s all an extrapolation/guess. What adjectives would you like to describe a WAG?
====
No Arctic data? None from RSS, UAH, DMI, and NSIDC ? Good heavens, are you suggesting Steve just made up numbers? I want to hear his side of the story.
Wren
The UAH and RSS Arctic temperature data is very accessible. I doubt NSIDC has their own database, and I am not sure how to access DMI’s database.
Steve, does this mean you believe in the Had-Crut data set now?
chris y
Excellent points. The Arctic is not very big, has almost no data, and Hansen is using it to justify the polarity of his trend over the last decade.
EnviroCanada assures me that they have 37 surface stations to WMO/GCN standards in the Canadian arctic (above 66N) and the data is available on line.
For some reason GISS only appears to use data from only one of these stations (Eureka) on a continuous basis and two others (Alert and Resolute) from time to time.
According to the IEA, the situation in Russia is similar but I have not yet verified this claim in detail.
Given the huge areas involved in Russia and Canada how can one justify the practice of ignoring most of the thermometers?
The more I think about the argument, the less I am convinced.
Whatever one thinks about GISS extrapolating over the pole:
since UAH and RSS don’t cover the pole, but cover additional, lower latitudes, IMHO one can not conclude from differences between GISS and UAH/RSS that GISS extrapolations are too high.
It would be interesting to compare the difference in trends based solely on 65°-80°, 65°-82.5° and 65°-85°. If differences were decreasing / increasing with coverage, as seems to be the case if one looks at the RSS and UAH graphs, wouldn’t that be a hint that the GISS extrapolation is likely ok / too high?
Steve,
I find your argument quite hollow and tending to nit-pick over data. To dispute the rise in arctic temperatures over the past few decades leaves me suspicious that you are not being completely neutral in your observations. GISS data extrapolation techniques are well within the bounds acceptable scientific technique, and the areas not covered, even if they (in some extremely unusual phenomenon) had cooler temps than extrapolated, the areas that are covered are so high, that the arctic would still show warming. In short, your argument is specious at best, and I await your next Arctic Sea Ice update, as temps remain high in the arctic region (as they’ve been for the whole winter and spring) and the extent for 2010 year-to-year data has now fallen below 2007, 2008, 2009, 2005, & 2003. Just a “statisical” fluke, I’m sure, but it seems your mult-year ice is not holding up quite as well as you’d thought…
“stevengoddard says:
May 20, 2010 at 6:30 am
Patrick Davis
It is pretty obvious that temperatures on Venus would be much lower without the very high pressure atmosphere. Might take a while for it to sink in though.”
Now you are taking the (Nuh Zilund speak) puss, roit aye! I mean, some stuff on another, totally alien planet, it totally different on our planet. ~90x atmospheres, that’s like home right? Some people just don’t get it!
stevengoddard says:
May 20, 2010 at 5:38 am
Bob,
Your tinypics confirm my point. GISS had no data north of 80N, and Had Crut did.
And RSS and UAH have no data north of 82.5ºN.
The large area included in the RSS and UAH south of 64ºN which is not included in GISS covers a huge land area, whereas 64ºN covers little land. So in order to do a proper comparison you should at least have the same southern boundary.
R. Gates
You live less than 1200 km from Death Valley. Can Hansen tell the temperature at your house using a thermometer in Death Valley? LOL “acceptable scientific technique.”
REPLY: Specifically, this USHCN thermometer used in GISS? – Anthony
more here
Milwaukee Bob says:
May 20, 2010 at 6:36 am
Wren at 5:09 am
I see your point and agree up to your last point wherein you said:
…and if they aren’t measuring the same thing, the emphasis should be on comparing difference in anomalies.
There I disagree. If they aren’t measuring the same thing – difference in anomalies are – meaningless. Don’t forget, in ALL this we are dealing with averages, of averages, of averages. To come up with a difference (the anomaly) between averages means nothing (it’s not even actually an “anomaly”) even if it’s averaging the same data set at a different point in time, much less 2-3 averages from 2-3 different data sets derived from 2-3 very dissimilar – locations, instruments, times, total data points, etc., etc.
Now “trend” differences between multiple averages taken over a LONG period of time whose multiple data sets have been triple verified for accuracy in all manners – – hmm, MAYBE one could derive some meaning +/- from that analysis.
—————-
I agree that differences in anomalies can be meaningless if the same things aren’t being measured, but not necessarily. The temperature probably is different on the sunny and shady sides of my house, but the trends should be the same. So if similar things are being measured, we may be able to do meaningful comparisons of their anomalies.
Wren:
I agree that differences in anomalies can be meaningless if the same things aren’t being measured, but not necessarily. The temperature probably is different on the sunny and shady sides of my house, but the trends should be the same. So if similar things are being measured, we may be able to do meaningful comparisons of their anomalies.
I doubt the trends are the same on both sides of your house. Do you think the trend on the sunny side stays the same depending on the clouds? I would think cloudy days vs sunny days would change the trend from the sunny side to the shaded side.
how I love those trends:
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/klima/klimaet_indtil_nu/temperaturen_i_groenland.htm
http://met.no/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=882
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Greenlandan.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic75Nan.html
It is utterly naive to elaborate about how is it that they consider or not this or that data. They are absolutely involved in LYING, in doing the “TRICK” their bosses have asked them to demonstrate the earth is on fire, so they can start their speculative business of buying and selling “carbon shares”, this time building up a financial bubble gigantic in size with no assests or stocks behind whatsoever but pure vacuum.
Steve, can you do a comparison by latitude band (perhaps 5o intervals)? That would be more informative than using different southern and northern latitude bands in your graphs between the different data sets. That way you can see if any one of the data sets you analyze has a bias relative to another one. I’m pretty sure if a scientist published a paper comparing these data sets when they don’t have the same latitude ranges, you would critique their analysis rather harshly. Also, make sure that the data are on the same grid before doing this analysis and that you area weight the results.
Extrapolation is not a bad thing, it is a best guess that’s all.
In mathematics one can interpolate and extrapolate on multi variables.
Interpolation is used in a data set with missing series data inside the curve, ie the data set finite.
Extrapolation however is a hoary beast untamed, because it is not within the cage. One should not let that beast run too free.
It seems to me that the trend in the GISS-UAH difference is very close to zero during the time period that you show. And what would a HadCruT vs UAH plot look like? It really seems that GISS is actually much closer from UAH than the other guy. Which supports the idea that GISS is actually covering more efficiently the Arctic zone.
BTW, Artic extent is now lower than in 2007.
Steve/Anthony, when are you going to mention the Arctic sea ice? It has dropped below 2007 and is at the previous record for this time of year set in 2006. Why are you remaining so quiet about this? Can you do a post as to why this is occurring?
stevengoddard says:
May 20, 2010 at 6:51 am
Wren
The UAH and RSS Arctic temperature data is very accessible. I doubt NSIDC has their own database, and I am not sure how to access DMI’s database.
=====
Sounds like a lot of work. It makes me tired just thinking about it.
Since the UAH and RSS Arctic temperature data are very accessible, I will repeat my suggestion that you compare their trends, as they may not be in total agreement. In your third chart the difference between the UAH and GISS temperatures are the same (0.6) in 1997 and 2009, while in your second chart the difference between RSS and GISS temperatures are 0.4 in 1997 and 1.0 in 2009. It looks like UAH and GISS are showing about the same Arctic temperature change over the 1997-2009 period, but RSS is not.
Khrisna Gans asked: “…who and what is Steve(n), Stephen Goddard, please ?”
Where is the response that addresses that question?????
…Regarding the Death Valley parking lot near the weather station… Overstating one’s
case…no?? My old joke about the English temp record E of London was due to Green-peace placing 4 black Mercedes around that WS isn’t perhaps so farfetched… (Aug 2003)
PS. Death Valley… they’re really trying hard to beat Libya in 1922, September…That
might have been some sort of heat-burst??…or extreme foehn?? DS.
@ abraxas
I’ll probably tell what you don’t want to hear, but there are many here that don’t give much credence to peer-reviewed articles. Mostly because the system of publication has been hi-jacked by the alarmists. The e-mails clearly show their manipulation of the science journals. So, as a result, I don’t know which studies to point you towards, given “peer reviewed” carries little meaning or weight with me. Drs. Spencer and Christy are well published, you can start there. Dr. Pielke is also as is Dr. Lindzen. The all have a list of publications link on their homepage, except, I can’t find Spencer’s.
I would leave you with this token piece of advice. They’ve sent you on a fools errand. They’re asking you to disprove a negative. A nearly impossible task. The onus isn’t incumbent on you or anyone else to disprove the CAGW fantasy, the onus is squarely on the alarmists to prove their musings.
Best wishes.
There is nothing for it but to put out an independent permanent array of self recording temp stations in the arctic and temporary stations on the ice after freeze-up. Is there an independent non-political benefactor out there who could bankroll such a project – hey lets go crazy and stud Africa with them too instead of extrapolating from Cairo to Lagos to Johannesburg to estimate the Congo temp. This will give the real, non-synthetic temps and will also allow a test of the 1200 km extrapolations. Why is this such a problem. The arctic is crawling with scientific clones – can’t they carry a bunch of thermometers along with them? Do they simply want to bore holes in the ice and tsk tsk about the unprecidented (not very scientific measure) conditions. They just finished a two year arctic frolic with their icebreakers and floating laboratories and all we get out of this billion-dollar exotic holiday is a rehash of preconceived conclusions that are awfully light on hard numbers.
One has to be very suspecting of ever rising numbers since the high of 1998 from GISS who are trying their best to create a new world temp record while HADCRUT shows declining temps (was this after the climate shakeup or were they always showing this decline?). I think we will see the GISS numbers bend down a bit after the current climate bishops step down.
While I am very suspicious of the idea that GISS’s extrapolation technique can work, I must comment that this comparison is not fair, as stated above the coverage of the data sets is different. Might I suggest using Climate Explorer to look at the data in the latitude bands where data exist for all data sets?
And if one wants to compare GISS very high latitudes with an alternative data set…we could go back quite a long way with this:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
stevengoddard says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:21 am
R. Gates
You live less than 1200 km from Death Valley. Can Hansen tell the temperature at your house using a thermometer in Death Valley? LOL “acceptable scientific technique.”
_______________
Two points:
1) The Arctic is a more homogenous climate regime than we would see when comparing Denver, CO to Death Valley. It is not just the distance, but the local climate differences. You would expect Death Valley and Denver to be different and have greater variations.
2) I do not dispute that GISS may (or may not) be inflating data, but the argument is spurious from the perspective that temps ARE going up, and the region’s climate seems to be changing. How much they are going up, with a few tenths of a degree here or there is not important when talking about several degrees change. It seems the point of even bringing it up would seem to be to raise doubt about significant temperature changes in the Arctic. I find this possibly deceptive and spurious at least…
R. Gates says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:04 am
“GISS data extrapolation techniques are well within the bounds acceptable scientific technique”
————–
This is a ludicrous statement.
“R. Gates says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:04 am
I await your next Arctic Sea Ice update, as temps remain high in the arctic region (as they’ve been for the whole winter and spring) and the extent for 2010 year-to-year data has now fallen below 2007, 2008, 2009, 2005, & 2003.”
Please learn that there is more than one organization estimating arctic ice extent. Nansen shows it “normal” for 2 month now and practically at the 2009 level, clearly higher than 2007 and 2008. Your scientific credentials might improve if you mention what you are citing, a good practice in any case.
Data from DMI: http://data.ecmwf.int/
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Calculation of the Arctic Mean Temperature
The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area. The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperatures for the period from 1958 to 2002, from 2002 to 2006 data from the global NWP model T511 is used and from 2006 to present the T799 model data are used.
The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.
http://data.ecmwf.int/
1200km squares, eh?
It’s a glorious day in Central England: 22C. For convenience can we declare the temperature in southern Iceland to be 22C?
speculates:
Geomagnetic field affects the polar gyres (circular currents), currents regulate the climate. No need for thermometers, just measure the magnetic filed (by airlines over-flying the pole).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC3.htm
abraxas says:
May 20, 2010 at 6:04 am
O/T TOTALLY:
I need to ask for some assitance please.
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/mikebaillie/2010/05/18/dear-denialists-i-must-apologise/
After this article i was asked to:
“..supply peer reviewed publications that do not support the ACC hypothesis …”
Now i referred them here, but here does not include peer reviewed literature against the global warming argument.
Where on earth could i send them?
How about this site then.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
vukcevic speculates:
Geomagnetic field affects the polar gyres (circular currents), currents regulate the climate. No need for thermometers, just measure the magnetic filed (by airlines over-flying the pole).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC3.htm
Craig Moore says:
May 20, 2010 at 8:05 am
Khrisna Gans asked: “…who and what is Steve(n), Stephen Goddard, please ?”
Where is the response that addresses that question?????
In another thread, stevengoddard stated he wasn’t the same guy in the publications.
Interestingly when E M Smith did his analysis of Eurika’s temperature history it does not show very much warming at all.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/eureka-canada-graphs/
How does false extrapolation cause warming? I view these datasets as works of fiction on several grounds; lack of coverage, lack of consistency in siting and equipment, willingness to arbitrarily adjust temperature upwards, lack of UHI correction, willingness to remove inconvenient stations, lies, lies, lies, etc. But the fact that the arctic isn’t covered well should not produce any more bias than is already present. I’m not sure you’ve uncovered what is going on.
TerrySkinner says: “Extrapolated: Such a nice scientific word. So much better than guessed or dreamed up or lied about.”
And better than ‘wandered off into unknown territory and tried to guess where we were without a map.’
Wren says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:57 am
It looks like UAH and GISS are showing about the same Arctic temperature change over the 1997-2009 period, but RSS is not.
Any guesses as to where the UAH and GISS datasets originate from?
R. Gates says:
May 20, 2010 at 8:44 am
stevengoddard says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:21 am
R. Gates
You live less than 1200 km from Death Valley. Can Hansen tell the temperature at your house using a thermometer in Death Valley? LOL “acceptable scientific technique.”
_______________
Of course instead of being misleading Steve and Anthony could have tried to prove the point by showing that the anomalies at Death Valley didn’t correlate with those at Denver. (i.e. correlation coeff less than 0.5)
R. Gates
The Arctic isn’t any more homogeneous than anywhere else. The Canadian Arctic was well above normal temperatures last winter, while Siberia was well below normal.
A C Osborn
Looks to me like UAH and GISS are not showing the same trend
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/gissminusuaharctic2.jpg
[snip]
[Post deleted. You’ve been warned about trolling for traffic to your blog. ~dbs, mod.]
James Sexton says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:39 am
“In another thread, stevengoddard stated he wasn’t the same guy in the publications.”
I don’t think coy non-answers do much for someone who writes for this blog. Credibility is important.
Ibrahim says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:10 am
Data from DMI: http://data.ecmwf.int/
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Calculation of the Arctic Mean Temperature
The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area. The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperatures for the period from 1958 to 2002, from 2002 to 2006 data from the global NWP model T511 is used and from 2006 to present the T799 model data are used.
The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.
http://data.ecmwf.int/
Nice job but you misunderstand Steve, he doesn’t actually want to find the data because it might contradict his position! I mean two key strokes would have found him the polar brightness temperature data at NSIDC that is absent from UAH and RSS. He knows it exists because it’s plotted in their monthly reports (on a nice polar map): e.g. http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure4.png
All it takes to find it is to go to the ‘Beta Advanced Data Search’ button on their home page!
Steve says however: ” I doubt NSIDC has their own database”
abraxas says:
May 20, 2010 at 6:04 am
O/T TOTALLY:
I need to ask for some assistance please.
http://www.co2science.org/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
R. Gates:
Perhaps not as large, but I doubt that you could accurately call it ‘homogenous’.
Most of the Arctic stations are located in coastal areas, where the air temps can vary by more than a few degrees depending on the wind direction, the amount of open sea as opposed to ice in the area (depends on wind, ocean currents etc) and other factors. And the resultant bias would generally be positive, as the temperatures in the middle of the Arctic ice sheet will probably vary a lot less – particularly in winter.
JDN,
I think the idea is that , for example, we have a station at say 70 degrees where the anomaly is +0.2 and one at 75 degrees where it is +0.3.
We then extrapolate further north where we don’t have any stations and guess that at 80 degrees the anomaly is +0.4 and at 85 degrees it is +0.5.
Then we end up with the dark red regions that we always see at the top of the GISS maps.
Steven G please correct me if I’ve got it wrong.
Steve, I suggest you take wildred’s advice and recompute your trends/anomalies for consistent latitude bands so that at least you are comparing the same regions. Would lend more credibility to your conclusions.
Vuk etc. says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:34 am “…No need for thermometers, just measure the magnetic fields
Those correlations would indicate inevitably with electrical fields, and these, in turn, with the so called “solar wind”.(a kind of romantic and neutral summer breeze for new age science)
Vuk:
This “correlates” with your correlations:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=34190&sid=7dc1009f4b5d617fc52a4ec613528b61
I had a debate with someone last night who is working with some Arctic regional climate model development. He tried to tell me that there were over 200 arctic temperature stations, and that the extrapolation issue was overblown cause there was sooo much data. I just laughed at him. Maybe he meant Alaska and Canada above 55 deg. Lat. Does anyone have an actual density/coverage map of stations in the Arctic?
Kevin, NSIDC has 105 Arctic station data and I don’t believe that is a full dataset. (http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0190.html)
Enneagram says: May 20, 2010 at 10:42 am
Those correlations would indicate inevitably with electrical fields, and these, in turn, with the so called “solar wind”.
Despite the experts view to the contrary, there appear to be an as yet unexplained link between the solar activity and the main component of the geomagnetic field. Thus a chain of the events :
solar activity > geomagnetic field > polar currents > temperature
could be a realistic possibility.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC8.htm
There is the Amundson-Scott station at the south pole.
I wonder: How would one proceed to have a station in the vicinity of the north pole?
(Even considering that Dr. clim. tenn. Al Gore is right and there is no ice there in September 2012).
So much money for trash studies, no money for measuring.
abraxas says:
May 20, 2010 at 6:04 am
O/T TOTALLY:
“I need to ask for some assitance please.
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/mikebaillie/2010/05/18/dear-denialists-i-must-apologise/
After this article i was asked to:
“..supply peer reviewed publications that do not support the ACC hypothesis …”
Now i referred them here, but here does not include peer reviewed literature against the global warming argument.
Where on earth could i send them?”
Try this 700 peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism about global warming policies
You live less than 1200 km from Death Valley. Can Hansen tell the temperature at your house using a thermometer in Death Valley? LOL “acceptable scientific technique.”
Erm – it is the anomalies not the absolute temperature that correlate over large distances. That is – if it is 1C above the local average here it is likely to be a similar amount warmer within a 1200km radius. The local absolute temperature is utterly irrelevant. This is fundamental to how GISTEMP works and is based on meticulous research, first documented in Hansen and Lebedeff 1987. From the abstract…
The temperature changes at mid- and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000km are shown to be highly correlated. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
Always best to get your facts straight on an award-winning science site eh?
REPLY: And the anomalies are derived from absolute temperature, computed from an assigned an arbitrary baseline. So the question is there Phil old boy, can you tell the temperature (anomaly or absolute) in Paris from one thermometer in Bedfordshire England 400km away? Or how about telling the temperature of London (anomaly or absolute) from a thermometer in Madrid, 1200 km away? Go ahead, make my day! Show us how the anomaly or absolute temperature series matches between them or has predictive value. – Anthony
I think you’re referring to the recent report about the first methane measurement up there. How do you get from “first” to “more”? They don’t know how much has been released in the past. Nobody was measuring, so nobody knows.
nedhead says:
May 20, 2010 at 6:36 am
blackswhitewash.com says:
May 20, 2010 at 3:25 am
Both datasets are dubious. Basically we have no real proof that the Arctic is actually warming at all in reality.
So, the ice cover retreating, increased melting of Greenland, permafrost thawing, the tree line moving further north, the E. Siberian Shelf showing more methane release all are no proof of the Arctic warming? You may want to tell that to the people living in the Arctic…
__________________________________________________________________
nedhead, What is it you do not understand about. #1 – The wind and #2 – ocean currents have a major impact on ice melt in the Arctic and air temperature a very minor impact. And why is it you do not understand that weather patterns run in cycles, upon cycles upon cycles. I am afraid your are about to find out exactly what I am talking about in spades during the next decade.
stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity – Robert A. Heinlein
stevengoddard says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:55 am
A C Osborn
Looks to me like UAH and GISS are not showing the same trend
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/gissminusuaharctic2.jpg
=======
Your chart for 1997-2009 shows the difference between the UAH and GISS Arctic temperatures starts at 0.6 in 1997 and ends at 0.6 in 2009. That means they both changed by the same amount over the 12-year period. The difference was sometimes less than 0.6 (1998-2004) and other times more(2005-2008), but ends where it started.
The charts of differences in temperatures from the different sources are interesting, but I am left wondering how the underlying numbers actually compare, and the charts don’t show that.
This over-extrapolation of inadequate data coverage seems to be how NASA GISS tries, in vain I think, to make a case for Arctic warming.
But hang on, by describing 60N-82.5N RSS data as “arctic” you’ve implicitly extrapolated the RSS temperature above 82.5N…
I wouldn’t expect the lower troposphere temperature to follow surface temperature anyway…
AnonyMoose, you are correct, they are making recent measurements though it’s been more than 1 year of them. Nevertheless I shouldn’t have said “more”. It is a sign of warming however to have the methane being released.
Craig Moore says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:58 am
James Sexton says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:39 am
“I don’t think coy non-answers do much for someone who writes for this blog. Credibility is important.”
Lol, I wasn’t trying to be coy, I was simply restating what was said. He said he’s not the same guy. What else is there to say? But, now that you’ve brought it up, if I were to discover a fundamental truism that had otherwise gone unnoticed that I wouldn’t have any credibility because I lacked the proper amount of published material or the proper amount of letters in front and behind my name? Isn’t it possible to study and critique assertions based on the assertion itself rather than the reputation of the person making the assertion?
Phil Clarke
I can assure you that there is very little (if any) correlation between the climate/weather of California and R Gates house in Denver. Some years California is flooding, with drought in Colorado – and vice-versa.
JDN says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:40 am
How does false extrapolation cause warming? I view these datasets as works of fiction on several grounds; lack of coverage, lack of consistency in siting and equipment, willingness to arbitrarily adjust temperature upwards, lack of UHI correction, willingness to remove inconvenient stations, lies, lies, lies, etc. But the fact that the arctic isn’t covered well should not produce any more bias than is already present. I’m not sure you’ve uncovered what is going on.
________________________________________________________________________
You forgot two other points. The change in reporting – use an M instead of a minus sign
and the “infilled data” (WAG – wild donkey guess)
If a reading is high due to a dropped minus sign in the real data it is smeared over several grids. Therefore ONE dropped minus in Canada can have a major effect with no balancing bias.
see
“GISS & METAR – dial “M” for missing minus signs: it’s worse than we thought” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/giss-metar-dial-m-for-missing-minus-signs-its-worse-than-we-thought/
jeff brown,
Re NSIDC Arctic stations:
“Temporal coverage varies by station, with the earliest record in 1913 and the latest in 2002.”
R gates
“acceptable” by whom, your cheating friends?
stevengoddard says:
May 20, 2010 at 5:04 am
nick
GISS doesn’t have any consistent thermometers north of 80 degrees. They just make extrapolations across huge distances.
Instead of talking about RSS and UAH “Arctic” temperatures as though that means the entire Arctic, why don’t you break down where the NOAA satellites are actually measuring ?
UAH, RSS and UW (University of Washington) all use the NOAA satellite data, but process it differently (issues concerning orbital decay, subtracting stratosphere signals from the troposphere returns, etc). The NOAA satellites since 1978 were in polar orbits, but exactly what were/are their inclinations ?
The very first satellite in this data series, TIROS-N, launched Oct. 24, 1978, had an inclination of 98.9127 ° (no data above 81.08 ° N)
NOAA 12: inclination was 98.7 ° (no data above 81.3 ° N)
NOAA 16: inclination was 99.1 ° (no data above 80.9 ° N)
NOAA 17: inclination was 98.6 ° (no data above 81.4 ° N)
NOAA 18: inclination was 98.74 ° (no data above 81.26 ° N)
AQUA: inclination was 98.14° (no data above 81.86° N)
All these satellites were used in the multi-decadal “satellite temperature dataset”, as analyzed by UAH for instance:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.13Apr2010
Look at a map of the Arctic – notice the 80° N latitude circle:
http://clasticdetritus.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/arctic-svalbard-map.jpg
Here’s the Arctic circle:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Arctic_circle.svg/1000px-Arctic_circle.svg.png
The satellite temperature record ignores roughly 9° latitude at each pole.
GISS makes a “best guess” (extrapolations/interpolations from the closest measurements) for the temperature anomalies (not temperatures) for these polar unmeasured areas because they are comparing global temperature anomalies from their GCM models to the entire globe.
Your graphs (above) comparing GISS to UAH and RSS “Arctic” temperatures does not mention that the satellite data has a huge, empty hole in the Arctic, which they make no attempt to estimate. The satellite “trends” which you show, above, are just for part of the Arctic, unlike the GISS trends.
GISS would gladly stop their extrapolation/interpolation from measurements within 1200 km if the Arctic was fully measured, either on land or by satellite.
Steve M. from TN says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:31 am
Wren:
I agree that differences in anomalies can be meaningless if the same things aren’t being measured, but not necessarily. The temperature probably is different on the sunny and shady sides of my house, but the trends should be the same. So if similar things are being measured, we may be able to do meaningful comparisons of their anomalies.
I doubt the trends are the same on both sides of your house. Do you think the trend on the sunny side stays the same depending on the clouds? I would think cloudy days vs sunny days would change the trend from the sunny side to the shaded side.
=====
Over a span of several years I don’t know why that would make a difference in the temperature trends for the two sides of my house unless there was a cloud trend. I would be very surprised if the two trends diverged over a decade or two.
So the question is there Phil old boy, can you tell the temperature (anomaly or absolute) in Paris from one thermometer in Bedfordshire England 400km away?
You can make an estimate provided you know the average or baseline temperature in both locations. If it is 1C above average in Bedfordshire, the research shows it is also likely to be above average in Paris. As in all thing there are uncertainties and these are understood and quantified. 1200km was chosen as the point at which the correlation drops below 0.5. This really is fairly fundamental, uncontroversial and built into the GISTEMP code. Did you read the paper?
Or perhaps one could use a barometer, based on our new understanding of the influences that atmospheric pressure has on surface temps? 😉
Alexej Buergin says: May 20, 2010 at 11:37 am
There is the Amundson-Scott station at the south pole.
I wonder: How would one proceed to have a station in the vicinity of the north pole?
Just ask Mr. Medvedev to attach a buoy to the titanium flagpole that Russians planted there few years back
BTW An archive of material that belonged to a member of Captain Scott’s doomed expedition to the South Pole including a journal, pictures and photographs is to be sold at auction.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/7745181/Pictures-from-Captain-Scotts-expedition-to-go-on-sale.html
Alexej Buergin says:
May 20, 2010 at 8:53 am
“R. Gates says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:04 am
I await your next Arctic Sea Ice update, as temps remain high in the arctic region (as they’ve been for the whole winter and spring) and the extent for 2010 year-to-year data has now fallen below 2007, 2008, 2009, 2005, & 2003.”
Please learn that there is more than one organization estimating arctic ice extent. Nansen shows it “normal” for 2 month now and practically at the 2009 level, clearly higher than 2007 and 2008. Your scientific credentials might improve if you mention what you are citing, a good practice in any case
___________
I use IJIS/JAXA Data right from their site, just for consistency. Other’s bounce around from site to site, but I find this data to be the most immediately accessible, and they don’t use any too outrageous of algorithms as I think others do.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Still, I think the single best graph on Arctic Sea ice anomaly is here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
It is the best long term graphic display of the “pulse” of how arctic sea ice is doing in terms of year-to-year extent.
skye says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:57 am
Steve/Anthony, when are you going to mention the Arctic sea ice? It has dropped below 2007 and is at the previous record for this time of year set in 2006. Why are you remaining so quiet about this? Can you do a post as to why this is occurring?
I don’t think it has dropped below 2006 yet ( but the data is 1 day old, so maybe…)
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Zooming in, you can see 2010 is dropping at a steep angle but has not yet reached 2004 and 2006, but probably will within a couple of days.
And don’t forget the University of Washington Arctic sea ice volume estimate is at an all time low since the beginning of satellite data (last updated 5/13/2010)
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
Expect even less Arctic sea ice volume come the September minimum.
Why are you remaining so quiet about this?
I’m sure they’ll get to it – so many topics, so little time.
Phil Clarke
The whole idea of rapid climate change is that the climate is changing rapidly. GISS is showing a 10C/century trend for the Arctic, which would invalidate any baseline climate assumptions.
Feel free to use lots of words like “fundamental” and “uncontroversial” though. They make you sound very authoritative. ;^)
Vuk etc. says:
May 20, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Next auction: Consensus scientists for the dozen. “They can make all the models you need to enforce your climate related local policies/businesses”
[snip – this is all off topic, all speculative, and all your own opinion about skeptics and conspiracy theory. It’s not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is differences between GISS and satellite data sources. Look I get what you are trying to do, but don’t drag threads off topic. When one comes up about this subject, then you can post something like this. – Anthony]
Oops, sorry, wrong post.
Phil Clarke says:
May 20, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Why is it that the size of the hot spots I see on global graphs appear to be inversely proportional to the number of actual temperature measurement points within that area?
Secondly “a correlation of 0.5 “. You have got to be kidding. Why not stop at a correlation of 0.9.
Thirdly I would expect the distance versus correlation coefficient to vary with latitude and the 0.5 distance to be much smaller as you approach the poles due to the variation of TSI with latitude.
Gail Combs says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:53 am
Gail, perhaps you should actually bother to read some of the papers that discuss the factors contributing to Arctic sea ice loss. Then you would realize how foolish your statement is. Your beloved negative AO state this winter certainly isn’t helping you out much now is it? Guess the really warm air temperatures in the Arctic all winter that continue today have absolutely nothing at all to do with the current rate of decline being observed. But hey, if you’re right that it’s all about the ocean temperatures, then Wieslaw Maslowski’s predictions of no summer ice by 2012 might be spot on.
Also Gail, since the winds and sea ice correlate at 0.3 and the air temperatures and sea ice correlate at 0.7, which do you think is more important? Oh but wait, I know better than to say that because statistical correlations while they may help illuminate relationships do not prove cause and effect.
Sorry Phil that is completely lame. A correlation of 0.5 between two sets of data that are subject to the same underlying conditions – they are on earth, in the same hemisphere and at a similar latitude – is just about meaningless. How on earth can you or any of those you are defending think that you can use it to project temperature anomalies across vast swathes of the globe that are devoid of thermometers? Climate science has truly been debased if people are prepared to defend such SWAG methods.
And yes, I looked at NSIDC, and as posters have said their data are restricted to Greenland and Iceland and stopped in 2002. Have a look at this and be afraid.
http://blog.qtau.com/2010/05/dude-where-is-my-thermometer.html
I wish some of the very capable persons commenting here would wake up and actually start fighting science with proper science. These reported temperatures are tainted by the selected few station chosen out of some 10,000+ stations available, we know that.
Take an alternate set of stations but still use the homogenizing algorithms and 1200 km extrapolation rules that GISS uses to create its temperature maps. GISS ignores some 9600 stations, let’s just ignore another different 9600 satations. Possibly even picking 3 or 4 different sets of stations that conform to GISS adjustment rules and see what the differences appear. Maybe a network such as SurfaceStations.org.
In that manner nothing can be claimed “unscientific” or improper because the exact same rules are being used to create the sets as GISS uses to create their own set. Get it peer-reviewed by proper peers.
Maybe then some real progress could occur, or, am I missing something that would prevent that from becoming a reality, or, would there never be a difference at all (but I can’t imagine that)?
Anu, skye,
No need to wait:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/28/disconnected-computer-modeling/
Phil Clarke:
In that case, what on earth is the point in attempting to extrapolate the temperatures across the Arctic? If you’re only interested in the anomalies, and the anomalies are likely to be the same, why not simply leave the Arctic ‘data’ out altogether?
Erm, as the whole greenhouse theory has radiative balance at its core, and as blackbody radiative energy is proportional to the forth power of absolute temperature, I would say that the local absolute temperature is very far from being irrelevant.
nedhead: Greenland was warmer seventy years ago. This inconvenient truth was again ignored when some climate researcher told us on Norwegian TV a couple of hours ago that the melting of the Jakobshavn glacier was proof of global warming.
stevengoddard says:
May 20, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Steve, Huh? how does that relate to the questions posted by Anu and Skye? Honestly, you were quick to jump on the fact that the ice was approaching “normal” this winter, but you are very quiet about the ice now approaching a new record low. Come on, be unbiased and talk about both.
In that case, what on earth is the point in attempting to extrapolate the temperatures across the Arctic?
Equally, why throw away information? I am bemused that this is problematic. Imagine two idealised thermometers at the same location, clearly they will show a correlation in their readings of 1. Now move one away; as the distance increases, so the correlation will, on average, drop. Analysis of real world locations shows that the correlation drops to 0.5 at about a distance of 1200km. And yes, that is an average figure and yes it does vary with latitude – read the paper.
Given that we know this – why not use that information to interpolate an estimated temperature where coverage is sparse? That is what GISTEMP does, and it is all that GISTEMP does. The arguments about using a thermometer in Paris to tell the temperature in London or whatever is just a rather obvious and apparently ignorant straw man.
James Sexton says:
May 20, 2010 at 12:16 pm
“Lol, I wasn’t trying to be coy, I was simply restating what was said.”
James I wasn’t referring to you but to Steven Goddard, or whoever is writing under that nom de querre.
Phil Clarke:
You cannot ‘throw away’ information that wasn’t there in the first place.
What reason could anyone possibly have to do that?
I smell (see ?) a concentrated and deliberate effort by several AGW alarmists to try to distract this thread with Arctic Sea Ice changes, now that 2010 is down from its ten-year all-time high in Feb and March, and 2009’s ten-year all time high in April and early May last year.
Please focus on what is actually addressed: We are being told (by the AGW alarmists) that we must waste 1.3 trillion dollars for nothing – for no change in the world’s temperature, that we must harm billions and kill millions by threatening their food, farms, fodder, fuel, and families’ health and safety by restricting energy development so corrupt governments can steal money from gullible (guilty) first world countries, and that we must delegate our freedoms and economies to a corrupt international socialist state …. all based on ONE MANN’s (er, Hansen’s) corrupt extrapolations of less than 1.0 degree change in temperature THAT HE CANNOT MEASURE.
Further, we are told that Hansen’s 1200 km extrapolations from one thermometer are “valid” and fully proved by correlations of TRENDS of data of “better than 0.50 ” And who proved that relation is valid? Hansen himself. Gee.
Further, we are told that “additional proof” of Arctic warming is an unchanging litany ice melt, Greenland glacier retreat, tundra changes, and tre line changes.
OK. I’ll bite. SHOW me – with data sources – that a ONE DEGREE change in temperature has actually occurred. SHOW ME (with data sources) how far a 1 degree temperature change will”push” a treeline (further north!! in the sparse and resource-poor actual tundra – not up a mountain in a different climate. Now that you have assembled real data showing how far tree lines will move north for each degree change in temperature, show me that ALL of the ACTUALLY MEASURED treeline changes meet or exceed that distance.
See – The last tree ring “data” we had consisted of one tree in one peninsula affecting dozens of “peer-reviewed” studies with FALSE baselines and information all to advance AGW hype. So pardon me if I don’t believe your claims.
Show me – with data – exactly how much Arctic ice should melt with GISS’s claimed 1 degree change in (what season of the year?) temperatures.
Show me that there has been NO CHANGE in coastal Greenland glacier deposits between now and the past 150 years that would have affected snow weight, downward forces, and speed of flow. Show me how many by name, how many of Greenland’s glaciers are melting, and show me (by measurement and calculation) that a 1 degree change in temperature would be enough to melt that much ice. By the way, the melting season (when temp’s are above freezing) must be accounted for – unless you can show why a glacier “melts”when it is below freezing. Or that a glacier melts differently at -30 C, -20 C, -16 C, -15 C, and -10 C. You are the ones claiming a one degree change melts glaciers, so show me exactly how much is supposed to have melted by your 1 degree change.
Tundra changes? They might be happening now. They have happened in the past. Show your data, show me where the mammoths who got frozen in tundra came from and what the weather was like when they were merrily eating their way around up there.
…—…
Above, there is a link to the full 80 degree north MEASURED daily temperature records.
During that entire period, there has been NO change in summer Arctic temperatures. Zero. None.
Further, the daily temperature chane across that entire record is very, very small. (Winter temperatures vary greatly day by day – but are uniformly very low -> Urgo, no melting is possible, no tundra changes are possible, no ice change (from temperature) are possible.
Therefore, we know absolutely that for at least 4 months of every year GISS guessed (extrapolated, sorry) Arctic temperature trend MUST BE ZERO.
It could go up or down in the winter, but then it must return to zero each summer. Or is Hansen (deliberately) merging winter and summer average temperatures to get a “false” rising yearly average?
Alexej Buergin says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:37 am
There is the Amundson-Scott station at the south pole.
I wonder: How would one proceed to have a station in the vicinity of the north pole?
There’s one there now: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg
Not Steven ?!
Steve Goddard came to Oxford in 1987 as a student and has lived here for almost twenty years. He joined the Liberal Democrats in 1990 and has been a committed activist . . .
http://www.oxfordeastlibdems.org.uk/pages/Steve.html
http://www.stevegoddard.org.uk/news/000209/dr_steve_goddard_marches_against_climate_change.html
@ RACookPE1978
Hansen could state the moon is turning to cheese as a result of CO2 and these twits would use it as proof of CAGW. Hansen has been caught arbitrarily changing historical temps to make it fit his fantasy (premise, sorry). He’s probably extrapolating now because he’s tired of getting called on the temp changing. As far as the ice melt, I’m hoping it completely melts. We’ll see that the poor polar bear will still thrive as will seals ect. Maybe, just maybe, then they’ll understand how much of a non-event it would be. Oddly, I think I’d miss the laughable image I have in my head of people running amuck with their arms waving and wailing “We’re all going to die!!!! We’re all going to die!!!”
Gary wilson says:
May 20, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Phil Clarke says:
May 20, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Why is it that the size of the hot spots I see on global graphs appear to be inversely proportional to the number of actual temperature measurement points within that area?
Secondly “a correlation of 0.5 “. You have got to be kidding. Why not stop at a correlation of 0.9.
OK why not a separation of 600km then (coeff more than 0.8)?
Thirdly I would expect the distance versus correlation coefficient to vary with latitude and the 0.5 distance to be much smaller as you approach the poles due to the variation of TSI with latitude.
It does vary with latitude but opposite to the direction you think, smaller scale in the tropics, probably related to the size of the large scale eddeies involved.
Alexej Buergin says:
“May 20, 2010 at 11:37 am
There is the Amundson-Scott station at the south pole. I wonder: How would one proceed to have a station in the vicinity of the north pole?”
Have a look at Life on a Russian North Pole Drifting Station here: http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/gallery/
stevengoddard replied: “Your tinypics confirm my point. GISS had no data north of 80N, and Had Crut did…”
http://i50.tinypic.com/2qm2kg7.png
Again, the reason for this is that the Hadley Centre presents the data on 5 degree grids while the OI.v2 data used by GISS is presented on 1 degree latitude and longitude grids.
The HADSST2 data wasn’t sampled that far North, Steve, because there was ice there. It’s infilled by how the Hadley Centre addresses spatial coverage.
Also, the greatest disparity in area coverage is over land, not north of 80N.
You wrote, “I think it is pretty clear that in GISS’ own 2005 comparison…”
That’s not a GISS comparison. It’s a google doc and the source of the maps are not provided.
tobyglyn says:
May 20, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Alexej Buergin says:
“May 20, 2010 at 11:37 am
There is the Amundson-Scott station at the south pole. I wonder: How would one proceed to have a station in the vicinity of the north pole?”
Have a look at Life on a Russian North Pole Drifting Station here: http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/gallery/
The current Russian station NP-37 is currently in the Beaufort sea at about 80ºN.
http://www.aari.nw.ru/resources/d0014/np37/default.asp?id=drift&lang=0
Phil. says:
May 20, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Alexej Buergin says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:37 am
There is the Amundson-Scott station at the south pole.
I wonder: How would one proceed to have a station in the vicinity of the north pole?
There’s one there now: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg
Although they’ve placed similar installations near to the North Pole every year since 2002 most all of them, depending on their longevity, have ended up along the east coast of Greenland at about Lat 70+/-. If you go to this page
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2009/gallery_np_weatherdata.html
scroll to the bottom and click through the annual listings under “weather data” you’ll find the the drift maps for each your. I’ve always found the rather monotonous similarity of the maps intriguing. A quick back of the envelope, back of my head actually, calculation seems to indicate an average West to East flow of ice across the Arctic of around 1.8 degrees of latitude per month.
This is an important analysis, and I am most intrigued by the fact that Hansen himself says that satellite IR measurements of surface temperature justify the extrapolation. The problem that I see with the current state of the analysis is that it does not invalidate the extrapolation, it just casts uncertainty, via argumentum ex incredulus, that the extrapolations aren’t useful for estimating Arctic temperature trends.
So here are some quotes from the principals regarding the issue:
—–
So of what “independent satellite IR measurements” does he speak? Is there something other than the MSU lower troposphere data? This point should be addresed and then summarily dismissed, but admittedly that could require scholarship of a high order to ferret out the basis for the off-the-cuff remark.
So, while you can do what was done here: initially examine the discrepancy between high-latitude satellite lower tropospheric temperatures and the extrapolated surface temperature record, the next steps in refutation are to undercut the assumptions and their support. I.e., examine the statements that are used to support the methodology, such as the spatial scale of the anomalies being set by Rossby waves. Is that a valid statement? Are there data sets of any kind that can be brought to bear on the question of extrapolation, even if they might be only two- or three-month long cruise data? If you had, for example, a ship-based data set from somewhere in the Arctic Ocean, and you could compare that to the nearest station used by GISTEMP, and significant discrepancy was found, then this pushes the refutation forward. I for one would really like to see the exaggerated Arctic warming put to rest, once and for all; this in turn would discredit the surface global trends, which put GISTEMP in the lead, due to their dependency on the supposed strong warming signal in the high Arctic. So while this is one or two steps down a long road, it’s a definite start and I look forward to continued reports of progress toward a definitive and rigorous refutation.
As in all thing there are uncertainties and these are understood and quantified. 1200km was chosen as the point at which the correlation drops below 0.5. This really is fairly fundamental, uncontroversial and built into the GISTEMP code.
The errors are understood and quantified and then, it appears, ignored.
A correlation of 0.5 is pathetic. Seriously, in what other branch of science would a correlation of that size be regarded as useful for extrapolation? Especially when those extrapolated values are then put into an average.
Thank you all for the help.
Anthony: your readers are fantastic! (you too)
peace
“Dave Wendt (et al) says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:01 pm”
(Concerning WX-station at the north pole)
That (drifting) is my problem (having visited the “Fram” museum): How to have a station that STAYS in the vicinity of the pole, ice or water, so we would have continuing measurements, that could be used for GISTEMP and others. Maybe a house on wheels that floats?
Oakden Wolf says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:42 pm
—–
So of what “independent satellite IR measurements” does he speak? Is there something other than the MSU lower troposphere data? This point should be addresed and then summarily dismissed, but admittedly that could require scholarship of a high order to ferret out the basis for the off-the-cuff remark.
Yes, there is data other than MSU, it’s in the NSIDC database (the one that Steve doesn’t think they have despite the DC standing for data center).
Here’s an example from April: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure4.png
Why do you think that it should be “summarily dismissed”?
So, while you can do what was done here: initially examine the discrepancy between high-latitude satellite lower tropospheric temperatures and the extrapolated surface temperature record, the next steps in refutation are to undercut the assumptions and their support. I.e., examine the statements that are used to support the methodology, such as the spatial scale of the anomalies being set by Rossby waves. Is that a valid statement?
Seems reasonable to me, one technique for measuring the length scale in turbulent flows uses the correlogram from making measurements at different separations.
Are there data sets of any kind that can be brought to bear on the question of extrapolation, even if they might be only two- or three-month long cruise data? If you had, for example, a ship-based data set from somewhere in the Arctic Ocean, and you could compare that to the nearest station used by GISTEMP, and significant discrepancy was found, then this pushes the refutation forward. I for one would really like to see the exaggerated Arctic warming put to rest, once and for all; this in turn would discredit the surface global trends, which put GISTEMP in the lead, due to their dependency on the supposed strong warming signal in the high Arctic. So while this is one or two steps down a long road, it’s a definite start and I look forward to continued reports of progress toward a definitive and rigorous refutation.
So this is a political motivation on your part, you’ve decided that it must be proven to be wrong, even if it’s right?
This site shows evidence of a suspiciously sharp contrast in calculated warming rates either side of the US/Canada border:
http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2010/05/canada-5-warming-north-of-border.html
The maps are allegedly based on raw WMO Station Trends; provided that they are a fair representation of the original data it suggests to me that the Mounties and the Yanks have different techniques. Might one of WUWT’s resident brainboxes have a look to see if it explains the recurrent “worse than we thought in the Arctic” theme?
Bob Tisdale May 20, 2010 at 6:00 pm —
Thank you for the clarification of the differences. In my opinion, with these facts the topic author has missed the mark with his speculation.
“Brent Hargreaves says:
May 21, 2010 at 6:40 am
This site shows evidence of a suspiciously sharp contrast in calculated warming rates either side of the US/Canada border:”
The Chiefio has the solution: Invade Canada and teach them how to do it:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
Oakden Wolf says:May 20, 2010 at 9:42 pm—–
So of what “independent satellite IR measurements” does he speak? Is there something other than the MSU lower troposphere data? This point should be addresed and then summarily dismissed, but admittedly that could require scholarship of a high order to ferret out the basis for the off-the-cuff remark.
Phil. says:
May 21, 2010 at 5:52 am
Yes, there is data other than MSU, it’s in the NSIDC database (the one that Steve doesn’t think they have despite the DC standing for data center).
Here’s an example from April: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure4.png
Phil: I don't get to read here as often as I use to, but you really like to give novices erroneous information. I say this because I'm sure you were well aware that the NSIDC performs algorithyms on OPD (other peoples data). They do not collect temperature data (at least in sufficient quantities to perform seperate analysis) on their own. Are their computer manipulations appropriate? That's the point of this discussion.
They get their data from MADIS:
Meteorological Assimilation Data Ingest System (MADIS)
MADIS provides value-added, quality-controlled observational data from sensors around the world, for the purpose of supporting meteorological research. MADIS also develops software to improve access to observational data
Description
Surface land and maritime observing stations report various meteorological variables that describe the current weather. These variables include basic measurements such as temperature, relative humidity, wind, precipitation, etc., as well as various types of weather occurrences such as hail, fog, and thunder.
The MADIS meteorological surface dataset includes reports from many observing networks run by different “providers”. Through the MADIS API, the user can select only a subset of the total by specifying which providers to include or exclude. Most national-scale networks in North America that report surface conditions are included. Over land, this includes all stations that report standard METARs (ASOS, AWOS, non-automated stations) or SAOs (Canadian stations), the UrbaNet mesonet, as well as reports from climate networks such as the Climate Reference Network (CRN), the Historical Climatology Network – Modernization (HCN-M), and the New England Pilot Project (NEPP). Maritime reports are also available, including the Coastal Marine Automated Network (C-MAN), fixed and drifting buoys, and ship reports.
The MADIS meteorological surface dataset also contains a unique collection of thousands of mesonet stations from local, state, and federal agencies, and private firms.
The “High Frequency METAR” dataset consists of experimental 5-minute observations from select Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) stations, and from Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) stations. These stations are also included in the standard METAR dataset, which has mostly hourly reports. The stations report an “AWOS Format Weather Message” each minute to the distributed FAA AWOS Data Acquisition System (ADAS). The data from all the ADAS units are then conglomerated at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center near Atlantic City, NJ, where they will be routed to MADIS. Currently, MADIS is receiving about 230 stations in the Northeast, Midwest, and along the Gulf Coast, via a feed courtesy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory (click here, to see a map of the station locations). In the future we plan to get all of the available data direct from the Technical Center.
The UrbaNet mesonet and some of the other mesonets are restricted. Click here for details.
http://madis.noaa.gov/mesonet_providers.html
Data Providers and Station Counts
Geographic Coverage
The geographic coverage is densest over North and Central America, plus Hawaii (METAR, maritime, CRN, mesonet, SAO – Canada only). Global datasets include maritime and METAR, along with some mesonets: APRSWXNET has a significant number of global observations, and the PCDINPE mesonet is in Brazil.
Forgot to add; MADIS is NOAA-ESRL.
@james sexton@abraxas,
hear hear, they’re the ones who think there’s a problem. they must prove it to our satisfaction, no theirs.
Tim Clark says:
May 21, 2010 at 11:55 am
Phil: I don’t get to read here as often as I use to, but you really like to give novices erroneous information. I say this because I’m sure you were well aware that the NSIDC performs algorithyms on OPD (other peoples data). They do not collect temperature data (at least in sufficient quantities to perform seperate analysis) on their own. Are their computer manipulations appropriate? That’s the point of this discussion.
————–
Tim you can go to nsidc.org/data and search all their data sets. They do not do temperature as is being here discussed. They do process all the passive microwave brightness temperatures from RSS antenna temperatures and grid them so that they can be used in other algorithms, like the sea ice algorithms. They also process AVHRR data which includes TOA infrared temperatures into surface temperatures for the Arctic and Antarctic. And they have MODIS temperatures in their sea ice products, but those I believe are produced elsewhere and delivered to NSIDC.
When you look at NSIDC’s sea ice blogs and they show temperatures, those are from NCEP which is clearly stated in the figure captions.
I not surprised that GISS “research” and so-called data is so often quoted by AGW alarmists – that is their intended purpose. But it is scarcely “scientific” …
It is GISS (Hansen’s) so-called “corrections” that are fundamental to the surface temperature “records” of the past 130 years. It is GISS that is at fault: deliberately (?), accidentally but opportunistically (?), or merely through institutional incompetence and deliberate partisanship and “a religious fervor” to “stop global warming at all costs”?
1. They (the GISS “corrections” to the original data) are undocumented, unaudited, and untraceable. That is – exactly WHAT is being changed to the original data, and what theoretical reasons are justified to CHANGE the original data has not been published, is deliberately being hidden from FOIA requests, and is NOT independently reviewed on a theoretical basis.
It is especially suspicious that past records are changed every month, that EVERY GISS temperature record manually and independently investigated against actual data shows that early temperature records are consistently “made cooler” and recent data unchanged or “warmed up” – thus fulfilling Hansen’s goal of creating a significant warming trend (where none is actually present), and of hiding the significant decline in real-world temperatures between 1940 and 1973.
2. On a practical basis (that is – how the original data records are changed by the “GISS corrections”) is also disputed. The programs changing the original data are NOT independently checked either, and the computer program(s) claimed to process the records is a gibberish of undocumented and unchecked hacks and spaghetti coding that cannot be traced. Versions of this (publicly funded and economically VITAL) code are only being discovered by whistleblowers and accidental leaks – again, FOIA requests are denied and programs hidden – even from Congress. (The RESULTS of the hidden coding are vigorously publicized and propagandized, but what the coding is is deliberately hidden from independent eyes.
3. Hansen’s GISS “corrections” to the original data are proven to rely on data that is generated from thermometer stations inside urban heat islands (which are 3 to 5 degrees C HIGHER than regional uncontaminated temperatures – rather significant when the entire AGW claims are only based on a trend of less than 1/2 of one degree C in 25 years).
4. Related to this this, over 80% those temperature stations outside the urban heat zones have been checked, and most those checked are shown to be locally contaminated and incorrectly sited with local interferences that consistently ADD to the recorded temperatures. That is, NO weather recording station has yet been found artificially lowering, or with interferences and local environments LOWERING the recorded temperature. Site errors are consistently creating false positive temperatures to feed the GISS “corrections”.
5. Exaggerating the failures of these GISS “corrections” is the (deliberate?) misuse of the UHI to artificially INCREASE regional warming by averaging “up” rural and well-sited records by merging them to artificially “high” urban and newly urbanized records. Hidden (deliberately) by so-called “studies” and “factors”supposedly related to assumed night light effects, population surveys, and satellite photo’s is the net actual result – the net effect is NOT to reduce or factor “down” the artificially high records to make them equal to the uncontaminated rural sites, but to INCREASE the rural sites by merging them to the regional record.
That is, I CANNOT make the actual data “more accurate” by these so-called “studies”: if I have 100 sites, 65 of them artificially raised by 2, 3, 4, or 5 degrees over a period of time, only 35 sites have accurate temperature records. If I factor “down” the false data by averaging it with the 35 good records, or by lowering the artificial data by factors of anything less than the full and exact value of the +2, +3, +4 and +5 degree differences, then I have done nothing but inflate the good data by INCREASINGLY artificial and arbitrary amounts of the false data.
Worse, by continuously changing the “good data” over time (by continuously re-processing the entire history of each site each GISS run) Hansen can arbitrarily and evasively change the past to create whatever new trend he wants. Without “peer-review” or checks or revealing his changes – which, as stated, are kept secret.
GISS (Hansen) refuses to remove the contaminated records from his GISS surface temperature record – (because to do so invalidates the past 30 years of his carreer: promoting AGW agenda.)
Hansen refuses to reduce the UHI contaminated records by the complete difference of the between UHI (arbitrarily assigned!!!) stations and accurate records (assumed to still be “rural” – but not audited by the GISS or any other (AGW-supporting) government or scientific agency. (Because they don’t want to know the actual degree of contamination is an obvious conclusion, and do not want their arbitrary assignments of weather stations widely known is another conclusion.)
Hansen refuses to plot the UNALTERED original data (the “good records”) separate from the UNALTERED UHI contaminated records – again, apparently because doing so refutes his claims that the 1973 -1998 temperature record is NOT global nor even country wide.
Looking at all the above, what makes any part of Hansen’s GISS a “scientific” or valid source of information about anything related to surface temperatures? And, because Hansen’s temperatures are the source for thousands of conclusions and comparisons of OTHER data, all of those other catastrophic conclusions and extrapolations in all those other so-called “scientific” documents are invalid. By that alone, he deserved criticism and seclusion, banning form from federal funding.
Instead, for Obama’s political purposes, NASA’s entire federal space and research budget is now targeted towards global warming and ecology. Not a bad payoff.
Brent Hargreaves says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:13 am
1200km squares, eh?
It’s a glorious day in Central England: 22C. For convenience can we declare the temperature in southern Iceland to be 22C?
No we can’t – but it’s a case of swings and roundabouts. When Central England is cold then the temperature anomaly for the entire region would be ‘cold’. Providing GISS have reasonable spatial coverage and they stick to a set procedure then eventually, over a period of several years, the true rate of temperature change should become evident. There will inevitbly be short-term departures from Hadley, UAH etc if their procedures are different.
RACookPE1978 says:
May 21, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Where do you get your information from? How do you know what has been done to the data processing, and that things like ‘making the earlier data cooler’ were done?
Tim Clark says:
May 21, 2010 at 11:55 am
Phil: I don’t get to read here as often as I use to, but you really like to give novices erroneous information.
I answered the following question:
“So of what “independent satellite IR measurements” does he speak? Is there something other than the MSU lower troposphere data? ”
So I replied that: “Yes, there is data other than MSU, it’s in the NSIDC database (the one that Steve doesn’t think they have despite the DC standing for data center).
Here’s an example from April: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure4.png”
What is “erroneous” about that? It’s absolutely factual, I even gave an example of what the poster asked for! Your objection appears to be that it’s NOAA data, well we knew that because NSIDC annotated the graph with NOAA/ESRL! It’s a database, convenient and searchable, who cares if the data wasn’t generated by NSIDC? In fact I’d expect something called ‘National Snow and Ice Data Center’ to be a repository of data rather than the organization that generates it.
RACookPE1978 says:
May 21, 2010 at 2:29 pm
I not surprised that GISS “research” and so-called data is so often quoted by AGW alarmists – that is their intended purpose. But it is scarcely “scientific” …
As far as I can tell none of your statements are true, where on earth do you get them from.
Hey, Steve. Aren’t you glad I brought this to your attention? Getting quite a bit of mileage from it.
You’re welcome. Anything to improve the science.
Krishna Gans,
My German’s a little rusty.
Clue: Steve Goddard claims to have been a volcano researcher in his early career.
Clue: Based on skiing at Taos claim is in his 50s or older
Clue: Not American, if spelling is anything to go on.
1. How could ANYBODY get temperature data from a moving ice sheet that gets dragged around by currents or blown across the ocean by wind, half of which melts and turns into open ocean every year? It seems some estimation of temperature is required.
2. The unmeasured arctic ocean area is about 2% of Earth’s surface. Is it possible for GISS extrapolations into this region to account for the 0.2C over 10 years difference that Steve’s GISS vs HadCrut plot shows? That would require a 10C change in the Arctic over 10 years, while Steve’s GISS arctic trend plot shows less than a 2C peak to peak over 10 years and his GISS – RSS plot is less than 1C.
Conclusion: There is much more to the GISS – Hadcrut difference than just the extrapolated Arctic Ocean data. (But what)
Gail Coombs, May 20, 11:53AM
So we can call somebody stupid as long as we use it in a quotation from someone else. OK.
There is no Nobel prize for name-calling.
(That’s a nice quote though!)
Tim Clark says:May 21, 2010 at 11:55 am
Phil: I don’t get to read here as often as I use to, but you really like to give novices erroneous information.
Phil. says:May 21, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I answered the following question:
“So of what “independent satellite IR measurements” does he speak? Is there something other than the MSU lower troposphere data? ”
So I replied that: “Yes, there is data other than MSU, it’s in the NSIDC database (the one that Steve doesn’t think they have despite the DC standing for data center).
Here’s an example from April: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure4.png”
What is “erroneous” about that? It’s absolutely factual…
Bull, there is no “independent satellite IR measurements” in the NOAA ESRL database.
Mooloo said: “A correlation of 0.5 is pathetic. Seriously, in what other branch of science would a correlation of that size be regarded as useful for extrapolation?”
Aw carp! Now you made me go learn how to post pix. Thanks Bob Tisdale for the “how to”.
How “pathetic” is a correlation coefficient of 50%? Let me show you a 63% correlation.
http://i49.tinypic.com/sq40b5.gif
This is a “scatterplot” of CO2 vs. HadCrut temperature from 1850 – 2009. As it happens, the temperature record goes from 1850 on the left to 2009 on the right, because both CO2 and temperature are rising. There are more dots on the left because CO2 initially rose slowly so it took a longer time to get from 280 to 330 ppm than it did from 330 to 380 ppm, thus more dots on the left. All it would take to drop that correlation down to 50% would be to have the dots be just a little more scattered above and below the line. Like this:
http://i45.tinypic.com/2vvnrr4.gif
All I did in the above was add random noise to the temperature in the range of -0.25C to +0.25C. The gist of the correlation is still the same as before, even though the correlation coefficient is down to a “pathetic” 50%.
So you see, 50% correlation is not so bad. It only means that there is a lot of other noise in there making the data bounce around. When it comes to climate, that noise is “natural variation”, mainly El Nino, decadal and multidecadal (ocean-driven) oscillations, sunspots (don’t get excited, just +/-0.05deg C over the length of a sunspot cycle), and volcanos, to name a few.
That 63% correlation at the top looks like THIS when you use the equation to calculate temperature vs. CO2:
http://i45.tinypic.com/id664g.gif
That is real Hadcrut data (dark blue) and the calculated effect of CO2 on temperature (light blue). 63% correlation. In this case, 63% only tracks the long term trend, with noisier influences added. Obviously there are lots of short-term jiggles (a lot caused by El Nino) and some long term sways (caused by the PDO, AMO, or whatever you prefer), but the noise is almost always within +/- 0.4 deg C of the CO2-temp correlation. You could say that this 0.8C wide band is the range of natural variation. (Some attribute the WWII bump to a temporary change in ocean temperature measurement. I wouldn’t know about the 1910 dip.)
So most scientists would jump for joy for a “mere” 50% correlation!
Jbar says:May 22, 2010 at 9:26 am
So most scientists would jump for joy for a “mere” 50% correlation!
I don’t think so, at least none that I know. See (h/t Leif)
http://leif.org/research/CETandCO2.pdf
RACook wrote:
1. They (the GISS “corrections” to the original data) are undocumented, unaudited, and untraceable. That is – exactly WHAT is being changed to the original data, and what theoretical reasons are justified to CHANGE the original data has not been published, is deliberately being hidden from FOIA requests, and is NOT independently reviewed on a theoretical basis.
Has anyone tried a FOIA to get at the GISS data like they did with Jones et al at Hadley?
What was the FOIA output if any?
-Jay
Jay Cech says:
May 22, 2010 at 1:07 pm
RACook wrote:
“1. They (the GISS “corrections” to the original data) are undocumented, unaudited, and untraceable. That is – exactly WHAT is being changed to the original data, and what theoretical reasons are justified to CHANGE the original data has not been published, is deliberately being hidden from FOIA requests, and is NOT independently reviewed on a theoretical basis.”
Has anyone tried a FOIA to get at the GISS data like they did with Jones et al at Hadley?
What was the FOIA output if any?
-Jay
Well that approach hasn’t worked very well for McIntyre. You’d be better off just asking nicely, it’s worked for others who’ve been able to duplicate GISS results, clearclimatecode.org for example.
Phil, May 21, 2010 at 5:52 am
Thanks for the reply. Interesting data source. However, as far as I can tell, it’s not satellite IR measurements, as Hansen stated. When I said that his comment can be “addressed and summarily refuted”, it means that the satellite IR measurements either exist, or they don’t. If they don’t exist, his point can be summarily refuted.
I wasn’t assuming a conclusion. I was pointing out that this was a start. To reach a defensible conclusion, Goddard has quite a bit more work to do.
Oakden Wolf says:
May 23, 2010 at 4:41 am
Phil, May 21, 2010 at 5:52 am
Thanks for the reply. Interesting data source. However, as far as I can tell, it’s not satellite IR measurements, as Hansen stated.
The AVHRR (from 1978->) Brightness Temperature data is all acquired in the IR band (see below) and is what I assumed Hansen was referring to, there is also more recent data from ASMR-E etc. which is at a longer wavelength (microwave) and has advantages over IR. In any case distinguishing between IR and Microwave is more of a semantic argument than a real difference. The dividing line between them is usually for convenience 1GHz (30cm wavelength).
AVHRR/3 Channel Characteristics
Channel Number Wavelength (μm)
1 0.58 – 0.68
2 0.725 – 1.00
3A 1.58 – 1.64
3B 3.55 – 3.93
4 10.30 – 11.30
5 11.50 – 12.50
Tim Clark
Jbar said: “So most scientists would jump for joy for a “mere” 50% correlation!”
Tim said: “I don’t think so, at least none that I know. See (h/t Leif)”
Don’t see what in your link supports your statement. I will stay on point and not address Leif’s content.
There are more things than CO2 driving climate change. You will never get a high % correlation for any individual one of those things. Therefore a 50% correlation between temperature and any other individual factor is VERY STRONG.
100% correlation is an exact perfect match, and this almost never happens in real life.
The point that’s being missed is that the correlation referred to in the Hansen paper has nothing to do with a fit to a straight line which seems to be misleading posters here. What Hansen did was to construct a spatial correlogram from which he derived a length scale, he chose the 50% point as an upper limit. In turbulence studies the integral length scale is determined by integrating the area under the curve, from the shape of the correlograms the integral length scale is about 1200km.