While Alan mulls over big red dots in NOAA’s graph where no data exists, Frank Lanser finds that GISS global temperature trend is warmed up by weighting land data more.
Guest post by Frank Lansner http://hidethedecline.eu/
The simple task of combining Land surface temperature with Sea surface temperatures has become an odd complex algorithm for GISS. It seems that they weight land data more and more during the 20th century leading to extra heat added to the GISS global temperatures.
Thus in 1900-1920 the GISS LST+SST graph is mostly spot on the used SST graph (the HADISST/Reynoldsv2). This means that the GISS global temperature around 1900-1920 appears to weight land data zero %
The land fraction is increasing during the 20th century, especially after 1980:
Fig2
The real land fraction of the Earth is of course 30%, but around 1980 GISS uses 40%, in 1988 55% – and in 1995 no less than 73%. (The high land % weighting around 1995 leads to a reduction in temperature decline due to Pinatubo volcanic cooling.)
GISS ends up in 2007 using a land weighting of 67%.
In general GISS defends use of larger land fraction due to their 1200km zones around land stations reaching some Ocean areas. But this does obviously not explain a land fraction that appears to go from near zero to around 70% globally during the 20th century.
Besides, the land temperatures for all stations including the coastal stations appear to show significantly different behaviour compared to the SST´s:
(Taken from PART3 of my new article, http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php)
And therefore, just shifting SST´s out with land temperatures are questionable.
The topic has been discussed somewhat at Joanne Nova’s site:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/did-giss-discover-30-more-land-in-the-northern-hemisphere/
What is the impact of the still greater land fraction in GISS data? If the 30% land fraction from the real world was used, GISS 2007 would be 0,55K warmer than GISS 1900.
With the still increasing GISS land fraction actually used, we have GISS 2007 0,72K warmer than GISS 1900.
The difference is 0,17K added by not using 30% land constantly. But this calculation could be done in many ways.
We know for a fact that the oceans cover 70% of the planet. So why not use 70% of data from SST?
data sources:
GISS global Land + SST
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
GISS land temp
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
Both HADISST and Reynolds can be seen using:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
GISS = Gotta Increase Somehow Survey
You just showed us how.
So let’s see how this “new math” works…
Water has a heat capacity of about 4200 J/kg-K, and soil has a heat capacity of about 800 J/kg-K, and so (sarcastically speaking) we should clearly weight heat measurements from soil at twice the contribution of water (this in addition to the volumetric ratios of earth to water already noted)…
This somewhat reminds me of Pielke’s comments on “missing heat”:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/comments-on-the-npr-story-by-richard-harris-entitled-the-mystery-of-global-warmings-missing-heat/
These AGWers believers have long ago strayed well into the scientific misconduct regime. What they promote is truly “political science”.
The way they (NOAA, GISS, et al) adjust, tweek, & homogenize data, they’ll be showing record setting warmth when the glaciers return and NYC is under a mile of ice.
Either GISS have made a mistake, or you have. Are you sure it’s not the latter? Consider what happens when the anomalies are presented relative to the series mean rather than an arbitrary period.
Leon Brozyna says:
July 17, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“The way they (NOAA, GISS, et al) adjust, tweek, & homogenize data, they’ll be showing record setting warmth when the glaciers return and NYC is under a mile of ice.”
With one thermometer worldwide left and Gavin holding a blowtorch to it.
With the still increasing GISS land fraction actually used, we have GISS 2007 0,72K warmer than GISS 1900.
Don’t make me get out my calculator! Give it to me in C!
Really nice that Hansenizer GW amplifier. Can I get one at Radio Shack maybe? Does the output go to a four klystron decausing-megneting assister?
Chas the Physicist says:
July 17, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“These AGWers believers have long ago strayed well into the scientific misconduct regime. What they promote is truly “political science”.”
Its closer to being “political physics”
Seems to me the land fraction should be decreasing. After all, rising sea levels should be increasing the sea-to-land ratio of area coverage, right?
Its closer to being “political physics”
Maybe closest to being “political climatology.”
…Oh, sorry. Redundant.
There is a map in Frank’s Part 4, more prominent in Joanne Nova’s comments, that used a color scheme that is not intuitive. As someone keeps writing: There is no need to complain of fraud when incompetence will do as an explanation.
Thus (knowing a little about cartography), the automated packages to make computer generated maps will have a default color scheme (or scale, as used by Frank L.) designed to satisfy the look of the product based on the maximum and minimum values or the end-points established by the person requesting the computer run. Note that the end-points are +/- 5. This is a crude map. and so, hard to read but the max values seem to be somewhere between 2 and 3. That is, I do not see the darker red/orange colors on the map – but if the program expects them then it can force the odd choice of middle or neutral color. This seems to be the case here.
The person asking for the computer generated map has to set values that are “intuitive” and/or force an outcome that is, likewise, intuitive.
One would have to know the nature of the mapping software and what was asked for to know what went wrong in this particular case. This is just one issue – among many – raised by Frank in his 4-part series. If you know anyone claiming to be a geographer, planner, and so on, that works in the field of GIS (geographic information systems), ask them about this.
Can’t those ARGO buoys be modified to also take air temperatures? That would eliminate the need to extrapolate from land-based coastal stations.
I think I know. They simply flattened out all the vertical land surface (mountains, etc. ), which of course makes it spread out and presto-chango! Land is now 70% and water is 30% (or whatever it works out to ). 😉
Harrumph!
The new model Hansenizer GW amplifier goes up to eleven.
See R. Gates, it’s a figment in the data manipulations! Stop eating it.
DirkH says:
July 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Leon Brozyna says:
July 17, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“The way they (NOAA, GISS, et al) adjust, tweek, & homogenize data, they’ll be showing record setting warmth when the glaciers return and NYC is under a mile of ice.”
With one thermometer worldwide left and Gavin holding a blowtorch to it.
If he has his way, it’ll be a rectal thermometer, and you just know where that will be shoved …
I am very sure that it will not change anything on the “Land Fraction” chart.
Once GISS reads this article, their next chart will show readings from land ONLY.
How do I get old posts back from Climate Audit before their crash and rejigging? CTM, I have a recollection that you caught them and put them somewhere safe.
I’m looking for a Phil Jones email to me about early 2007 where he says that he can reconcile New Zealand land and ocean temperatures, but cannot do so with Australia. This was when the IPCC was writing its settled science statement. To this day I don;t know how Phil fixed the problem.
Re this GISS thread, it seems to me that there’s a problem with two sets of dynamics, one ocean, one land, being analysed by people with static models in the forelobe of the brain.
Maybe that congressman from Georgia had something when he said Guam was going to capsize because of the extra weight. Then again, he replaced Cynthia McKinney.
ho hum.
Wake me when land gets to 110% weighting, then you get my attention.
Leon Brozyna says: “The way they (NOAA, GISS, et al) adjust, tweek, & homogenize data, they’ll be showing record setting warmth when the glaciers return and NYC is under a mile of ice.”
I noticed today they eliminated completely the homegenity adjustment for Seligman AZ recently. It now matches the temp record exactly.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425723760070&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Does that happen often?
This is absolutely crazy, you can’t keep score without a program. Why not use one cell earth wide based on Las Vegas? Actually why don’t they use the Argo SST monitors? Then eliminate the areas with no thermometers and adjust the area covered that actually do have thermometers, then subtract for UHI, not the other way round.
Go read the code and tell us where this adjustment is made. Be sure and tell us all when you find it, but I won’t be expecting anything real soon, or ever, because it ain’t there.
I just KNEW it. Of course they are making up and manipulating data to justify the leftist political agenda. But then again, if these surveys showed cooling, well, then I’d probably feel differently.
/sarc