Japan’s ‘Cool Hand Luke’ moment for surface temperature

At NASA’s Climate 365, there is an interesting story posted with this statement and a graph:

Some say scientists can’t agree on Earth’s temperature changes

Each year, four international science institutions compile temperature data from thousands of stations around the world and make independent judgments about whether the year was warmer or cooler than average. “The official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data,” said Reto Ruedy, climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “But they also agree extraordinarily well.”

All four records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades. All show the last decade has been the warmest on record.

In sync? Weellll, not quite. Japan apparently hasn’t ‘got their mind right‘ yet as the graph shows:

Surfacetemps_japan

Here is where it gets interesting. Note the purple line after the year 2000.

The Japanese data line in purple is about .25 degree cooler than the NASA, NOAA, and Met Office data sets after the year 2000. That has partially to do with anomaly baselines chosen by the different agencies, as these two comparison graphs shown below illustrate:

Surfacetemps_japan3

Source: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/news/press_20120202.pdf

Surfacetemps_japan2

NASA GISS uses a 1951-1980 average for the anomaly baseline, Japan’s Meteorological agency uses a 1981-2010 baseline, and that explains the offset difference between 0.48 and ~ 0.23 C, however, it doesn’t explain the divergence when all of the data is plotted together using the same anomaly 1951-1980 baseline as NASA did, which is explained in more detail at the link provided in the NASA 365 post to NASA’s Earth Observatory study here:

Source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80167

In that EO story they explain:

The map at the top depicts temperature anomalies, or changes, by region in 2012; it does not show absolute temperature. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was in 2012 compared to an averaged base period from 1951–1980. For more explanation of how the analysis works, read World of Change: Global Temperatures.

The justification for using the outdated 1951-1980 baseline is humorous, bold mine:

The data set begins in 1880 because observations did not have sufficient global coverage prior to that time. The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.

So, the choice seems to be more about feeling than hard science, kind of like the time when Jim Hansen and his sponsor Senator Tim Wirth turned off the air conditioning in the Senate hearing room in June 1988 (to make it feel hotter) when they first tried to sell the global warming issue:


But, back to the issue at hand. The baseline difference doesn’t explain the divergence.

Perhaps it has to do with all of the adjustments NOAA and GISS make, perhaps it is a difference in methodology in computing the global surface average and then the anomaly post 2000. Perhaps it has to do with sea surface temperature, which Japan’s Met agency is very big on, but does differently. A hint comes in this process explanation seen here:

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/explanation.html

Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies

JMA estimates global temperature anomalies using data combined not only over land but also over ocean areas. The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NCDC (the U.S.A.’s National Climatic Data Center), while that for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA. The oceanic part of the combined data consists of JMA’s own long-term sea surface temperature analysis data, known as COBE-SST (see the articles in TCC News No.1 and this report).

The procedure for estimating the global mean temperature anomaly is outlined below.
1) An average is obtained for monthly-mean temperature anomalies against the 1971-2000 baseline over land in each 5° x 5° grid box worldwide.
2) An average is obtained for monthly mean sea surface temperature anomalies against the 1971-2000 baseline in each 5° x 5° grid box worldwide in which at least one in-situ observation exists.
3) An average is obtained for the values in 1) and 2) according to the land-to-ocean ratio for each grid box.
4) Monthly mean global temperature anomaly is obtained by averaging the anomalies of all the grid boxes weighted with the area of the grid box.
5) Annual and seasonal mean global temperature anomalies are obtained by averaging monthly-mean global temperature anomalies.
6) The baseline period is adjusted to 1981-2010.

Note what I highlighted in red:

…for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA

That along with:

The oceanic part of the combined data consists of JMA’s own long-term sea surface temperature analysis data, known as COBE-SST

Is very telling, because it suggests that Japan is using an entirely different method for both land and sea data. For the post 2001 land data, it suggests they use the CLIMAT data as is, rather than the “value added” processing that NCDC/NOAA and NASA GISS do. The Met Office gets the NCDC/NOAA data already pre-processed with the GHCN3 algorithms. NASA GISS deconstructs the data then applies their own set of sausage factory adjustments, which is why their anomaly is often the highest of all the data sets.

Prior to 2001, Japans Met Agency uses the GHCN data, which is pre-processed and adjusted through another sausage recipe pioneered by Dr. Thomas Peterson at NCDC.

The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NCDC

A good example of the GHCN sausage is Darwin, Australia, as analysed by Willis Eschenbach:

Above: GHCN homogeneity adjustments to Darwin Airport combined record

So, it appears that Japan’s Meteorological agency is using adjusted GHCN data up to the year 2000, and from 2001 they are using the CLIMAT report data as is, without adjustments. To me, this clearly explains the divergence when you look at the NASA plot magnified and note when the divergence starts. The annotation marks in magenta are mine:

Surfacetemps_japan4

If anyone ever needed the clearest example ever of how NOAA and NASA’s post facto adjustments to the surface temperature record increase the temperature, this is it.

Now, does anyone want to bet that the activist scientists at NOAA/NCDC (Peterson) and NASA (Hansen) start lobbying Japan to change their methodology to be like theirs?

After all, the scientists in Japan “need to get their mind right” if they are going to be able to claim “scientists agree on Earth’s temperature changes”, when right now they clearly don’t.

P.S.

BTW if anyone wants to analyze the Japanese data, here is the source for it:

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/download.html

It is gridded, and I don’t have software handy at the moment to work with gridded data, but some other readers might.

UPDATE: Tim Channon at Tallbloke’s has plotted the gridded data and offers a graph, see here: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/jmas-global-surface-temperature-gridded-first-look/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data, NASA GISS, NCDC, NOAA and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Japan’s ‘Cool Hand Luke’ moment for surface temperature

  1. Les Johnson says:

    My discussion with Gavin on that chart…

  2. philjourdan says:

    How long can NOAA or GISS continue to cook the numbers? Eventually people are going to wonder why ice is not melting at 0 degrees Celsius any longer.

  3. Doug Huffman says:

    Thanks for the “got their mind right” citation. I was looking for Captain’s “What we’ve got here is [a] failure to communicate.”

    Captain: You gonna get used to wearing them chains after a while, Luke. Don’t you never stop listening to them clinking, ’cause they gonna remind you what I been saying for your own good.
    Luke: I wish you’d stop being so good to me, Cap’n.
    Captain: Don’t you ever talk that way to me.(pause, then hitting him) NEVER! NEVER!(Luke rolls down hill; to other prisoners) What we’ve got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don’t like it any more than you men.

    Our ‘chains’ are of ignorance.

  4. Les Johnson says:

    Click on Gavin’s name or picture…..

  5. pochas says:

    Yea, Anthony! An anomaly chart or data without the baseline info clearly indicated is not real data. It’s likely tomfoolery.

  6. Stephen Richards says:

    The inscrutable japonese. I don’t think they will rush to be indoctrinated by the yanks unlike the UK Met who obviously saw the benefits very early.

  7. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead back in Kurdistan but actually in Switzerland says:

    What a frustrating equivocation. “The warmest on record”….by a fraction of a degree above some cooler ‘norm’. Yes, Senator Wirth, you can’t ‘feel’ that difference. If we couldn’t track this miniscule hair-splitting hiccup in the temperature, would we even notice anything was other than normal?

    No. But NASA, and GISS, and that cheap phoney religious zealot Jim Hansen, (I’m sorry, but it really does come down to an ad hominem…he LIED with all the theatrics), have an interest, at every moment, to communicate hyperbole on the issue. The warmest on record? Yeah, since they started looking. Too bad about ALL of earth history. 30 stupid years doesn’t register, at all, out of 4+ billion’s worth of variation. To conclude that it is the warmest decade is nothing more than a hubris-sodden exhalation of self-importance for a group of otherwise boring and somewhat bitter ‘scientists’.

    End of rant. We, no, not really.

  8. Stephen Richards says:

    “But they also agree extraordinarily well.”

    They ruddy well should!! It’s the same data up to 2000 !!

  9. Michael Moon says:

    What a coincidence that 1951 through 1980 was the coolest 30-year period in the 20th century;)

  10. Athlete says:

    Nick Stokes Zeke Steve Mosher chiming in to defend BEST in 3, 2, 1 ….

  11. Warren says:

    Is Climate 365 really a NASA effort? I can’t fin reference to it anywhere on their Website.

    And the chart is deceptive well beyond what you indicate here, Anthony. Major problems: 1. It stops in 2006 when it represents data available through 2012 at the time of its creation. 2. There at far more than 4 organizations that compute/estimate average temperature during this period.

    I concluded that this is the result of some schmuck trying to deceive, not really NASA. Am I right?

    REPLY: “Is Climate 365 really a NASA effort?” yes see the about page, http://climate365.tumblr.com/about

    About Climate 365

    Climate 365 is a joint project of NASA’s Earth Science News Team, communications teams at Goddard Space Flight Center and Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the NASA web sites Earth Observatory and Global Climate Change.

    Questions? Contact: patrick.lynch@nasa.gov

    -Anthony

  12. RHS says:

    Wonder how long it will be until the Japanese data will be left off the chart all together?
    And what is the justification for just these four? Surely there has got to be a broader data set than NOAA. My vague understanding is their distribution is terribly limited with greater than 90% of their station in the CONUS. And even then the remaining are mostly spread across Pacific Islands which is not terribly global as it leaves out the Arctic, Antarctica, Europe, Asia, India, Australia, Africa, etc, etc.
    And while I’m on a soapbox, what, wait a minute? I almost forgot to consider the source.
    End critical thinking, begin activism at it’s most annoying.

  13. davidmhoffer says:

    Gee, they didn’t include the satellite data at all. Wonder why that is? It only has the best spatial and temporal coverage there is, it only cost a few billion to put those satellites up in space, but what the heck, what’s a few billion and the most accurate data we have compared to the fate of the world?

    That said, my objection remains that averaging anomaly data is meaningless. An anomaly of 1 in the arctic represents a change in energy balance of less than one third the amount of an anomaly of 1 in the tropics. Averaging them together results in a meaningless number.

  14. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I stil get annoyed with the ‘warmest decade evah’ type crapola. Not just because of the fixed numbers y NASA/GISS,etc, but simply because if there is still an ongoing natural warming (a la, a recovery from the LIA or indeed a recovery from the last ice age) it stands to reason that over any period of time where such warming takes place – the last decade will nearly always be the warmest – until it reaces the ‘top’, and starts to cool (or level off) again. I suppose if we were currently reliving the 70′s the claim would be ‘coolest decade evah’?
    In other words, if the climate boys accept that there is ‘some’ underlying natural warming – I believe most do (?) – then it stands to reason that the last decade will nearly always be the warmest! Why they ever mention it just astounds me. (I actually had to explain this to a geography school teacher a couple of years ago, and he conceded the point, despite trying to argue from the usual warmista stance for ages!)

  15. Marcos says:

    i once found a NASA web page that explained the use of ‘normals’ and stated specifically that they were never intended for use as a measure of climate change and the reasons why not. for the life of me, i haven’t been able to find that link…

  16. John F. Hultquist says:

    You have this part in bold:
    It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.

    This is the language usage from the 1930s when the international standard for weather reporting was established (as was the 30 year period). When that was the intent, it made sense.

    The only reason for using a 30 year period for what they are now doing, that is ‘climate science’ (sic), is to confuse issues. They say “many people can remember” the 1950s! Well, I do. A few of those still employed by NASA might. Still that’s a stretch. Someone wants to use a set of numbers giving a lower average base rather than using all the data because all the data will give a slightly higher average. We learned this trick in high school math class, or maybe earlier.

    “Humorous,” indeed. You are being diplomatic.

  17. George Mullerleili says:

    Sen. Wirth’s comments in the video are pretty telling. The meme is all about “staging” events, not science. Apparently no one has figured out yet how to stage nearly two decades of static global temperature into a staged event for global warming.

  18. John R. Walker says:

    Faced with Japanese data and NASA GISS data – which one is really inscrutable?

  19. John F. Hultquist says:

    Marcos says:
    January 31, 2013 at 9:42 am

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    See my comment at 11:51, here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/24/a-different-take-on-the-hottest-month-on-record/

  20. tmonroe says:

    Somebody posted this on facebook. I pointed out that the warming rate from 1910 to 1940 looks faster than the warming rate from 1970 to 2000… So some of the questions I have are: weren’t human beings putting out *way* less CO2 in 1910? I mean, the automobile was barely invented back then – and wasn’t human population around 1.5 Billion? (compared to somewhere around 9 billion today). Where is the blip for the depression? Where is the spike for WW2? You say the climate doesn’t respond that quickly? Then why did this rate start in 1910? Even in this graph, they make a statement that the current rate is unprecidented… yet 100 years ago – there was an even faster rate of warming than today.

    At least they are honest – no trend in the last 15 years or so Perhaps the only question their graph is, so, you aknowledge no warming for the last 15 years then? Are the true beilevers blind to this?

    Starting the graph at 1910 is also misleading. What does the graph do before that? My assertion is that *something* happened to get from mile thick ice-sheets (in much of North America) to today’s relatively ice-free world. Yes, I acknowledge they have some proxy data that shows relatively gradual change over time… but what would a quick, 30 year .25 degree uptick in temperature look like in a proxy that is showing 12,000 + years? Would it even be visible?

    The graph also makes a bald faced lie. Very few “deniers” believe that the climate stays at one set temperature all the time. How many times do we have to repeat “yes, it is getting warmer”.The argument has never ever been if it has been warming (depending on the start date). The argument has *always* been “how much are we responsible for”? They are liars, and should be called out as such.

    These activists are only making a straw-man argument. Absolutely nobody will tell you that it isn’t warmer today than it was 12,000 years ago during an ice-age. Yes, there is a normal warming rate. Most of us will even admit that CO2 may have some small impact on temperature. They need to stick to point:What they want to do is to drive civilization back at least 100 years (and cull 8 billion people) all based on an assertion that the rate of change will increase someday, even if it is flat today…

  21. astateofdenmark says:

    Do they have any given reason for not including the satellite data? Seems a significant oversight.

  22. Theo Goodwin says:

    Mike Bromley the Canucklehead back in Kurdistan but actually in Switzerland says:
    January 31, 2013 at 9:16 am

    “No. But NASA, and GISS, and that cheap phoney religious zealot Jim Hansen, (I’m sorry, but it really does come down to an ad hominem…he LIED with all the theatrics), have an interest, at every moment, to communicate hyperbole on the issue.”

    Accusing someone of lying does not make your statement an ad hominem. In any case, most of us agree that he lied. It seems to me that he is a serial liar or deluded.

  23. astateofdenmark says:

    To answer my own question, seems not.

  24. The problem with a graph like this is that they are using a bad metric. When you have a set of data like that(adjusted or unadjusted, although raw data is better) the metric should be the average of all observations- one number with with a 95% C,I. Then calculate the deviation from “normal”.

  25. Theo Goodwin says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    January 31, 2013 at 9:31 am

    “That said, my objection remains that averaging anomaly data is meaningless. An anomaly of 1 in the arctic represents a change in energy balance of less than one third the amount of an anomaly of 1 in the tropics. Averaging them together results in a meaningless number.”

    Yes, using anomalies is a great way of side tracking a science. Maybe some day climate scientists will switch from anomalies to some measurable feature of the environment.

  26. Werner Brozek says:

    Japan has 1998 as the hottest year. As well, 4 of the data sets below agree with this, namely RSS, UAH, Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2. For further details as to how 2012 ended compared to the warmest year for each set, keep reading.

    How 2012 Ended on Six Data Sets

    Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far.

    With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for 2012 is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281 + 0.202)/12 = 0.161. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.132 and it came in 10th.

    With the GISS anomaly for December at 0.44, the average for 2012 is (0.36 + 0.39 + 0.49 + 0.60 + 0.70 + 0.59 + 0.51 + 0.57 + 0.66 + 0.70 + 0.68 + 0.44)/12 = 0.56. This would rank 9th. 2010 was the warmest at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.54 and it came in 10th.

    With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for December at 0.233, the average for 2012 is (0.206 + 0.186 + 0.290 + 0.499 + 0.483 + 0.482 + 0.445 + 0.513 + 0.514 + 0.499 + 0.482 + 0.233)/12 = 0.403. This would rank 10th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it came in 13th.

    With the sea surface anomaly for December at 0.342, the average for the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.352 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.432 + 0.399 + 0.342)/12 = 0.342. This would rank 8th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it came in 13th.

    With the RSS anomaly for December at 0.101, the average for the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195 + 0.101)/12 = 0.192. This would rank 11th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it came in 13th.

    With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for December at 0.269, the average for 2012 is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512 + 0.269)/12 = 0.436. This would rank 10th. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it came in 13th.

    If you would like to see the above month to month changes illustrated graphically, see:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2012/plot/uah/from:2012/plot/rss/from:2012/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2012

  27. Matthew W says:

    Les Johnson says:
    January 31, 2013 at 9:11 am
    Click on Gavin’s name or picture…..
    ============================================
    No thanks

  28. MiCro says:

    RHS says:
    January 31, 2013 at 9:27 am

    Surely there has got to be a broader data set than NOAA. My vague understanding is their distribution is terribly limited with greater than 90% of their station in the CONUS. And even then the remaining are mostly spread across Pacific Islands which is not terribly global as it leaves out the Arctic, Antarctica, Europe, Asia, India, Australia, Africa, etc, etc.

    Map of NCDC Station locations, these should be only stations that have at least 240 days/year of data from 1950-2010.

  29. thelastdemocrat says:

    a thought for everyone: look at the graph again. there is no hockey stick.
    the graph starts low and goes up.
    rhetorically, to use a temp graph that things used ot be at a normal level without influence by humans, then started going up with human influence, the flat part of the hockey stick is necessary.
    has the hockey stick become so unpopular that the rhetoric is carried out but with the hope that the flat part of the hockey stick is no longer needed? has the era of the hockey stick ended?

    if you used this as a discussion point with a warmer cult member, you could have them declare that temps were stable, then humans influenced them to go up. then, ask them ot point out the stable period. there is none.

  30. Eyal Porat says:

    I think the right way to measure deviation from “normal” of any kind needs to be of a moving 30 years’ normal.
    It seems to me a year by year normal is the right thing to do, but the minimum should be a decadal one.
    I.e. The Year 2012 should be referenced to either the 30 years of 1981 to 2011 normal, or at least to 1980 to 2010.
    Otherwise it seems apples and oranges to me.

  31. Frank K. says:

    Matthew W says:
    January 31, 2013 at 10:18 am

    Les Johnson says:
    January 31, 2013 at 9:11 am
    Click on Gavin’s name or picture…..
    ============================================
    No thanks

    I agree…I was about to, but then why give them any web traffic – not worth it. Anyways – isn’t Gavin supposed to be working on proper documentation for Model E or somehting? Nahhh…too busy being a climate rock star…

  32. crosspatch says:

    This is actually hiding the disagreement. Include the satellite measurements, too, then we can really see the divergence.

  33. My guess is that the same person who released the climategate email’s also convinced someone to use the Japanese data on this graph thereby exposing GHCN as the hothead in the GAT crowd.

  34. Jon says:

    It’s pretty obvious that the climate has warmed over the past few decades … what is interesting is that this warming is strongly correlated with the rate of movement of the North Pole. See here: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/earthmagneticfield.htm

  35. son of mulder says:

    Has anyone looked at the individual graphs on the absolute temperature scale and then overlayed them to see how thay actually disagree with each other in absolute terms? I’d like to see such a graph particularly as on the anomoly chart the Japanese data is somewhat lower than the other anomolies around 1900 as well.

    Anomoly graphs allow the potential use of smoke and mirrors.

  36. Taphonomic says:

    “The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.”

    That appears to be either a rather blatant misstatement or severely outdated. Referring to pre-1980 as period that many people can remember is humorous. To realize how funny this really is, one should consult the Beloit College Mindset lists. Each year since 1998 (i.e, which will be the class of 2002) Beloit College publishes a list of things to which freshmen don’t have a living, historical reference.They have published 14 more lists, updating it each year.

    Below are links to the oldest, 1998, which would be for the class of 2002
    http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/2002/
    Examples:
    The people starting college this fall across the nation were born in 1980.
    They are too young to remember the Space Shuttle Challenger blowing up.
    They never had a polio shot, and likely, do not know what it is.
    Bottle caps have not always been screw off, but have always been plastic. They have no idea what a pull top can looks like. (on this particular one, I once had to explain the term “church key” to a young friend who didn’t know that there were cans before pull tops.)
    Atari pre-dates them, as do vinyl albums.

    and the most recent, 2012, which would be for the class of 2016.
    http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/2016/
    Examples:
    For this generation of entering college students, born in 1994, Kurt Cobain, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Richard Nixon and John Wayne Gacy have always been dead.
    Benjamin Braddock, having given up both a career in plastics and a relationship with Mrs. Robinson, could be their grandfather.
    Outdated icons with images of floppy discs for “save,” a telephone for “phone,” and a snail mail envelope for “mail” have oddly decorated their tablets and smart phone screens.
    Star Wars has always been just a film, not a defense strategy.
    They have had to incessantly remind their parents not to refer to their CDs and DVDs as “tapes.”
    There have always been blue M&Ms, but no tan ones.’

  37. Bloke down the pub says:

    In the graphic above, the Japanese data seems to end before the others which all have an uptick,

  38. Werner Brozek says:

    From 1995, the Japanese curve is very similar to both Hadcrut3 and RSS as can be seen below. That is what “agreement” looks like.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995

  39. Steve McIntyre says:

    UCAR http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/guidance/sst-data-cobe-centennial-situ-observation-based-estimatessays that, relative to HadSST, the Japanese “bias adustments” are “somewhat primitive”. j

  40. Graeme W says:

    astateofdenmark says:
    January 31, 2013 at 9:54 am

    Do they have any given reason for not including the satellite data? Seems a significant oversight.

    I can come up with an easy justification for not including the satellite data. The graph uses a baseline of 1951-1980. We don’t have satellite data for that period (only the very end of the period), so they wouldn’t have been able to calculate correct anomalies.

    Of course, if they used the same baseline as the original Japanese data, they would have been able to include the satellite data for the relevant period…

  41. David L. says:

    I find it amazing that people think the accuracy and precision of a global temperature average is that good. Or that a global average means anything.

  42. MikeB says:

    All four records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades. All show the last decade has been the warmest on record.

    Whoops. As I read “All four records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades. All show the last decade…”, I expected the logical sequence to be “All show that there has been no further warming in the last decade”. I expected that because, firstly it is true, and secondly it continues to describe how global temperatures have fluctuated. But instead, it says “the last decade has been the warmest on record”.
    This is what we call sophistry. That is, the statement is not in itself untrue, not an outright lie, but it is carefully designed to be deceptive. It is designed to mislead from the fact that temperatures have now stopped rising (and no climate model predicted that and current theory cannot account for that!)
    This is sophistry – i.e dishonesty. Why do GISS feel it necessary to stoop to that? Does it help their case do you think?

    Over at James Delingpole’s blog there is quote from famous James Lovelock, once the high priest of the global warming green movement. It says

    I am James Lovelock, scientist and author, known as the originator of Gaia theory, a view of the Earth that sees it as a self-regulating entity that keeps the surface environment always fit for life… I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.

    Maybe one day, in the not too distant future GISS could also become honest and encompass such humility?

  43. rw says:

    Dear James Lovelock,

    You forgot you were living in Salem.

  44. steven mosher says:

    If you use RSM (reference station method ) or CAM ( common anomaly method ) and IF you base your data on GHCN or CLIMAT, then there are two periods you could use as base periods to MAXIMIZE the number of stations used.
    1950-1981 or 1960-1991. Note that GISS which uses RSM and CRU which uses CAM each select on of these periods. the difference between these two periods is that one (1950-1981 ) gives you a few more stations in the NH, while 1960 -1991 gives you a few more stations in the
    southern hemisphere.

    When japan selects the period they do, they also change the distribution and number of stations used in each hemisphere. So a good comparison will control for that spatial difference in sampling.

    The right approach, pioneered by skeptic Jeff Id and statistician roman M, just uses all the data without a base period. This approach was enhanced by Nick Stokes, and Tamino, and finally improved upon by Berkeley. Bottom line, you dont need base periods, and more importantly choosing a base period can alter your sampling.

    on SST

    japan take this route:

    “3) An average is obtained for the values in 1) and 2) according to the land-to-ocean ratio for each grid box.”

    That approach is rather crude. If you simply weight according to land ocean ratio you are neglecting the issue that each portion of the grid may have more or less measures that will over weight land portions that are under sampled and underweight those that are over sampled. CRU has a better method for calculating grids were land and ocean are part of the grid.
    The better method, of course, is not to grid the world at all or to grid at a finer level. Errr..just krig it

  45. thunderloon says:

    I just can’t see a baseline that avoids your dataset as responsible science. its like putting all the bells and whistles AND a more powerful engine in the test-drive car but never mentioning it has 90 more HP and a better air conditioner.
    Honestly the entire output becomes apples and orangutangs, two completely un-related forms of data.

  46. Baa Humbug says:

    Let me get this straight, according to the boffins, the gas medium that we live in has warmed by about 1DegC since 1900?
    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that one.

  47. rgbatduke says:

    Gee, they didn’t include the satellite data at all. Wonder why that is? It only has the best spatial and temporal coverage there is, it only cost a few billion to put those satellites up in space, but what the heck, what’s a few billion and the most accurate data we have compared to the fate of the world?

    It would actually be very interesting to see just the post 1988 tail of this data plotted against the satellite data. The GISS and HADCRUT records, IIRC, are currently constrained by the fact that if they add any more artificial warming on at this point, the divergence from the satellites will be too great and will tip their hand. From the look of things — without much resolution at this scale — the Japanese data is much more in alignment with the satellites, and hence is actually moderately believable.

    Your point on anomalies is also well made. But that is only one of the many aspects of lying with statistics in play at this point, and not the worst of them.

    Looking back at the correction graph in the top article I am once again struck by the prospect of performing a statistical analysis of the corrections applied to the data, under a null hypothesis of fair and unbiased corrections that would move station readings up as often as it moves them down. After all, I can think of no good reason that readings of thermometers from long ago would be systematically biased in their errors — this violates ever so many principles of statistics. My prediction is that the p value of the existing correction set under the null hypothesis would be enough to convince any jury that they are not only biased, but openly and flagrantly biased (that is, a p value less than one in a million or thereabouts).

    That actually sounds as though it would be worth a paper, or perhaps an addendum to the paper Anthony already has going on weather station siting and corrections.

    rgb

  48. R Barker says:

    If I wanted to know the history over a period of time of the average temperature of the surface air mass of the earth, what I really need to know is the heat content of that air mass over time relative to some reference point.

  49. Ron says:

    n’kay… fine … but what does this graph have to do with the ‘A’ in ‘AGW’? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that all those pretty little fluctuations are natural, nothing out of the ordinary? What good is the pretty little graph and its sinister insinuation then?

  50. ntesdorf says:

    The Japanese are an honest and honourable people and do not want to participate in the criminal behaviour of NOAA, Met Office, GISS and NCDC.
    The inherent integrity of the Japanese will prevent them succumbing to pressure from the above mentioned group who wish for a clean sweep of ‘consensus’/

  51. rgbatduke says:

    The better method, of course, is not to grid the world at all or to grid at a finer level. Errr..just krig it

    Kriging is not necessarily justified in this case, as the underlying assumption of stationarity is clearly violated (that in fact being the point of it all). I would also be dubious about the secondary assumptions being satisfied. Kriging basically assumes a smooth landscape and by its nature will almost always underestimate peaks and valleys. As is always the case with smooth interpolant functions, actually.

    Gridding the world per se is not necessarily a better answer, but adaptive tiling is not a silly thing to use. The basic issue is information theoretic — how to use the information you have most effectively without assigning it more weight and accuracy than the information at hand actually justifies. That latter bit is the tricky part. Kriging temperatures from a sparse set of stations in Antarctica is, for example, just silly. Kriging won’t fill in holes that span significant structure any more than anything else will, and nothing makes up for inadequate sampling. At best it leaves you (still) with large error bars.

    But better still is to use satellites and actually cover the globe, or lay down a systematic grid. In the meantime, I continue to be amused by global temperature (anomaly) estimates that invariably do not include an estimate of the probable error. Often estimates made to several decimal places (but no error). We actually take points off student papers in physics when they put down three or four digit answers when the answer is only accurate to one or two, and we don’t take kindly to figures that plot experimental numbers without any sort of error bar.

    Curiously, in climate science it seems to be the other way around. Plot not the measured quantity, but the “anomaly” compared to some presumably known baseline. Plot it without any error bars, even though the methodology used to compute it is rife with assumptions, corrections, interpolations, adjustments, and the blood of a white chicken sacrificed with a black-handled athame. When the error bars are (rarely) shown, do not let the fact that they often include the null hypothesis stop you from asserting otherwise. It’s like they actually study the book How to Lie with Statistics, and not in a good way…

    rgb

  52. davidmhoffer says:

    Steve Mosher;
    Bottom line, you dont need base periods,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    What you do need is justification for averaging anomalies from very cold regimes with anomalies from very warm regimes. I’ve brought this up with several NASA scientists, none of whom have ever answered. Perhaps you could explain how this is justified?

  53. Bart says:

    Jon says:
    January 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

    ” … what is interesting is that this warming is strongly correlated with the rate of movement of the North Pole.”

    OMG! Global warming causes movement of the North magnetic pole. It’s worse than we thought!

  54. davidmhoffer says:

    rgbatduke;
    It would actually be very interesting to see just the post 1988 tail of this data plotted against the satellite data.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Why 1988? In any event, here’s RSS and UAH versus Hadcrut4 since 1988. Note that I’ve added an offset of -0.2 to the HadCrut data to make starting baselines closer.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1988/to:2012/mean:6/plot/rss/from:1988/to:2012/mean:6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1988/to:2012/mean:6/offset:-0.2

  55. bw says:

    That “365″ graph is fiction.
    Note the same source data (up to 1995) from
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
    Scroll down for the USHCNv1 graphs. The adjustment methodology is clearly stated. (read the Karl et al paper from 1986). Further down you see the plot of “all” the corrections. Compare the USHCNv1 plots to the “365″ chart. It’s obvious the “365″ chart has had the 1910 to 1940 era data altered to be cooler and the 1975 to 1995 data are altered to be warmer, thus severely increasing the apparent warming trend.
    Sometime in late 2012 the GIStemp data were given a major “adjustment” to produce large step cooling the the pre-1940 data for about 10 percent of the reporting stations. Also, large numbers of stations had post-2006 data removed completely from the timeline. Now the GIStemp servers have been down for almost a month.
    If you want good data, then look at the satellite data from 1979. Look at the USCRN data. Look at the Antarctic surface stations Amundsen-Scott, Vostok, Halley and Davis since 1957

  56. Bart says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    January 31, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    Or, rather, very dry and very wet regimes, perhaps? This metric seems implicitly to weight desert areas most heavily.

  57. Richard LH says:

    Assuming that it would be reasonable to use the most ‘reliable’ data for land temperatures I prefer to use this plot as a guideline to global temperature trends :-).

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/to:1980/plot/rss-land/plot/uah-land

  58. clipe says:

    Comment from Bishop Hill reader.

    Oh them Japanese – they don’t cook fish and they don’t cook data.
    Jan 31, 2013 at 4:29 PM | dearieme

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/1/31/japanese-cool.html

  59. Richard LH says:

    I should have added – this is the non-hockey stick way of looking at things and I justify it on the same grounds as the original hockey stick itself (for combining sources and trimming series).

  60. Streetcred says:

    January 31, 2013 at 9:07 am | Doug Huffman
    ————————

    The state of ‘climate science’ … http://youtu.be/gQQ7BoadSCk

  61. david elder, australia says:

    The data agree perfectly. In the fulness of time. At the appropriate juncture. A task of such analytical delicacy that the data must be left with One Of Us.

    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    St Dymphna’s Home For The Elderly Deranged

  62. davidmhoffer says:

    Bart says:
    January 31, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    January 31, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    Or, rather, very dry and very wet regimes, perhaps? This metric seems implicitly to weight desert areas most heavily.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Agreed. Cold regions become over represented and warm regions under represented. Same with dry regions versus moist regions. I just don’t get how anomalies can be justified, and the list of researchers I have posed the question to without response is growing. I’m going to start keeping track.

  63. Jay says:

    The amazing thing about the Japanese graph (second in the article) from the JMA with that nice linear fit of 0.68 deg/century, is that the slope is so similar back to 1880, way before CO2 increased from anthropogenic sources.
    Certainly there is no cause for alarm or sign of a catastrophe looming in the last 30-40 years with increased coal and oil burning. No hockey stick. This must be as Steve McIntyre wrote, a result of their adjustments being “somewhat primitive” or more likely as I would say “somewhat more honest”

  64. MiCro says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    January 31, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    I just don’t get how anomalies can be justified, and the list of researchers I have posed the question to without response is growing. I’m going to start keeping track.

    Especially when it so easy to see that station temperatures from near by stations aren’t the same on your own smartphone with a weather app.
    There is no excuse for linearizing temperature in the spacial dimension when it’s wrong. And then trying to use that data to justify a multi-trillion dollar stake in the heart of modern society.
    They aren’t climate scientists, they’re climate activists.

  65. Mike Hebb says:

    WOW! Almost 1 degree of warming in 130 years. Pretty scarey! Who cares if they agree or not at that rate?

  66. Doug Proctor says:

    The argument – again! – is not about what happened since 1890, but since 1975. If you plot the post ’75 temp anomalies, your trends are different.

    HOWEVER, if you plot post ’75 and trend the 4, you get a big difference.

    Bait and switch: that is what this graph is all about. Confuse the post-LIA with the “CO2″ temperature rises.

  67. Doug Huffman says:

    @Streetcred, thanks for your January 31, 2013 at 2:47 pm. “Any man don’t keep order, spends a night in the box.” Quite a contrast to the too common idiom of “thinking outside of the box.”

  68. Arno Arrak says:

    Why don’t you display satellite temperatures in parallel with this. They would show that these temperature curves are falsified. First, the late twentieth century temperatures of every one of these curves are wrong. They are cheating. And except for the Japanese the twenty-first century temperatures are falsified too. They are given an extra height of 0.2 degrees Celsius which is so far off that it leads to the absurdity of 2005 and 2010 both being higher than the 1998 super El Nino. In the twentieth century, the five El Nino peaks from 1980 to 1997 in are of nearly equal height and line up horizontally. But in these curves they are shown climbing steps up a mountain that gains 0.2 degrees in height every twenty years. The Super El Nino of 1998 that follows in reality has symmetrical dips on both sides of it. In this version you can see with the naked eye that its footing rises 0.1 degrees from one side to the other. This means an additional three degrees warming per century. If you think that the agreement among these temperature curves proves they cam be trusted think again. These are not independent temperature curves as claimed. As an example, I have determined that NASA and Met Office temperatures, from two sides or the ocean, were both subjected to a mysterious computer processing which had the unanticipated consequence of leaving many high spikes in these data sets. They are located in exactly the same places on both curves. Unless an explanation is forthcoming I have to consider it as part of the conspiracy to make the public believe in a non-existent global warming.

  69. Arno Arrak says:

    Why don’t you display satellite temperatures in parallel with this. They would show that these temperature curves are falsified. First, the late twentieth century temperatures of every one of these curves are wrong. They are cheating. And except for the Japanese the twenty-first century temperatures are falsified too. They are given an extra height of 0.2 degrees Celsius which is so far off that it leads to the absurdity of 2005 and 2010 both being higher than the 1998 super El Nino. In the twentieth century, the five El Nino peaks from 1980 to 1997 in are of nearly equal height and line up horizontally. But in these curves they are shown climbing steps up a mountain that gains 0.2 degrees in height every twenty years. The Super El Nino of 1998 that follows in reality has symmetrical dips on both sides of it. In this version you can see with the naked eye that its footing rises 0.1 degrees from one side to the other. This means an additional three degrees warming per century. If you think that the agreement among these temperature curves proves they cam be trusted think again. These are not independent temperature curves as claimed. As an example, I have determined that NASA and Met Office temperatures, from two sides or the ocean, were both subjected to a mysterious computer processing which had the unanticipated consequence of leaving many high spikes in these data sets. They are located in exactly the same places on both curves. Unless an explanation is forthcoming I have to consider it as part of the conspiracy to make the public believe in a non-existent global warming.

  70. Bill Illis says:

    Why was it so cold in 1902 to 1912?

    It was probably 0.7C warmer in 1878. Oh wait, that isn’t on the chart.

    So, was it really that cold in 1902 to 1912. Did people starve from crop failures?

    There was actually the longest La Nina on record (1906 to 1911) in the period and the Santa Maria volcano went off in 1902 (followed by Nova Rupta in 1912 just as temps started going up and the next big stratospheric volcano did not occur until 1963) but was it really that cold ? …

  71. D.J. Hawkins says:

    John R. Walker says:
    January 31, 2013 at 9:49 am
    Faced with Japanese data and NASA GISS data – which one is really inscrutable?

    Three guesses which data set has better quality control, and your first two don’t count.

  72. tchannon says:

    I’ve put up a post with time series of global and hemisphere’s from the gridded data at Tallbloke’s Talkshop (comoderator and contributor)
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/jmas-global-surface-temperature-gridded-first-look/

  73. davidmhoffer says….
    So refreshing to hear someone speak of the difference between an anomaly in the dry Arctic and at the moist equator! Whenever I see a warm anomaly in the Arctic I always just see it as heat escaping to space and oppositely, a warm temp anomaly in the equator is heat accumulation (temporarily anyway.)

    Data means things! Ignore at one’s peril!

  74. Steve from Rockwood says:

    You can’t deal with gridded data? I can so email me if you need something specific done.

    REPLY: I wrote the post from home, where I didn’t have all my tools that I have at the office, and I didn’t have time to work on it at the office due to pressing business. That’s what I was referring to. Thanks just the same. – Anthony

  75. Jeff Krob says:

    It really bugs me when long term temperature plots are measured against a 30-year average when it is pretty common knowledge the PDO/AMO are near 60-year periods. Why can’t they use the 1950-2010 average? How would that affect the plot? How about using only stations which conform to the WMO siting requirements – how would *that* affect the plots? etc. etc. etc.

  76. RoHa says:

    The Japanese are crazy.

    http://www.cracked.com/funny-108-japan/
    http://www.cracked.com/article_18567_6-japanese-subcultures-that-are-insane-even-japan.htm
    http://www.cracked.com/article_15670_the-25-most-baffling-toys-from-around-world.html
    http://www.cracked.com/article_15001_insane-japanese-halloween-costumes21.html
    http://www.cracked.com/article_19816_6-japanese-video-games-that-will-make-your-head-explode.html
    http://www.cracked.com/funny-3966-japanese-commercials/

    (And there’s more where that came from. Not that I need this stuff. I’ve lived in Japan, I speak the language, and am married to a Japanese, so I know whereof I speak. And my wife doesn’t read this blog.)

    Plus, they have had their brains fried by the radiation from Fukushima . (About which their Government and media are lying to them.)

    So it is no surprise that they end up with differing results.

    They are probably right, too. My wife always is.

  77. Werner Brozek says:

    Arno Arrak says:
    January 31, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    As an example, I have determined that NASA and Met Office temperatures, from two sides or the ocean, were both subjected to a mysterious computer processing which had the unanticipated consequence of leaving many high spikes in these data sets.

    However with GISS, there seems to be more going on. For example, three weeks ago, the warmest ever monthly anomaly on GISS was January, 2007 where the anomaly was 0.89. (It still reads 0.89 on WFT since it has not updated GISS for December yet.) However at the following, that number has been raised to 0.93 over the last 3 weeks.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    On the other hand, Hadcrut4 had January, 2007 at 0.818 both last month and this month as their highest monthly anomaly. Can you tell me exactly what the GISS people discovered about a record from 6 years ago that they did not share with the Hadcrut4 people?

  78. Eve says:

    The fact that there is not a higher spike in the 1930′s than now, shows the graph to be wrong.

  79. Tim Ball says:

    I included a table in my recent powerpoint presentation for Wattsupwiththat comparing the global temperature anomalies between agencies. I developed the idea from an observation I made several years ago about a 0.5°C difference between HadCRUT and NASA GISS annual temperature one year. What intrigued me was that this almost equalled the claimed 0.6°C increase over 100+ years Jones made in the 2001 IPCC Working Group I Report. It suggested this was abnormal and therefore by implication caused by humans.

    This figure, along with the hockey stick, was the second major claim of human influence in that Report. It effectively formed the blade of the stick. The actual figure Jones used was 0.6°C ±0.2°C, in other words a 33% error range, which means the number is effectively meaningless.

    Despite this, both parts of the hockey stick became the bulwark of the argument for energy and economic policies for most of the world. Further, we were denied access to data from which both pieces were constructed so a complete standard scientific test for reproducible results is not possible. Was policy ever based on two more discredited pieces of information?

  80. ferdberple says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    January 31, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    Steve Mosher;
    Bottom line, you dont need base periods,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    What you do need is justification for averaging anomalies from very cold regimes with anomalies from very warm regimes. I’ve brought this up with several NASA scientists, none of whom have ever answered. Perhaps you could explain how this is justified?
    ==========
    Because if you have one foot in the oven and the other in the freezer you are statistically comfortable.

  81. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    sunshinehour1 says — exposing GHCN as the hothead in CAT crowd –

    hothead? Climate hotheads? Climate hotheads shouting out their apocalyptic message of a fiery doom???

    Hotheads!!!!!! Now there is a great word for referring to the alamrists! Demeaning and accurately descriptive of their behavior. Hotheads.

    That hothead Hansen. Hothead alarmism. No sane person could fail to recognize that the hotheads of climate alarmism are best ignored. He is just another hothead. Just more hothead exaggeration. Etc.

    That is definitely a word with potential. It should become part of the standard skeptic rhetoric.

    Hothead! Got to love it!

    Eugene WR Gallun

  82. Niff says:

    Hide the decline disagreement.

  83. Theo Goodwin says:

    rgbatduke says:
    January 31, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    “Curiously, in climate science it seems to be the other way around. Plot not the measured quantity, but the “anomaly” compared to some presumably known baseline. Plot it without any error bars, even though the methodology used to compute it is rife with assumptions, corrections, interpolations, adjustments, and the blood of a white chicken sacrificed with a black-handled athame. When the error bars are (rarely) shown, do not let the fact that they often include the null hypothesis stop you from asserting otherwise. It’s like they actually study the book How to Lie with Statistics, and not in a good way…”

    Rgbatduke sums it nicely. However, the athame is used to draw the magic circle but not for actual cutting.

  84. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    James Hansen Busies Himself
    Creating A Third World Holocaust

    That hothead Hansen’s
    Atmospheric reflux?
    Just Charlie Manson’s
    Helter Skelter redux

    Realities will
    Not reorder his mind
    Delusions that kill
    Leave all reason behind

    Eugene WR Gallun

  85. higley7 says:

    When all of the data sets use mostly the same sources and then apply the same biased adjustments, why would we think that they would not be in sync. They all have the same political goals.

  86. Theo Goodwin says:

    Dave in Canmore says:
    January 31, 2013 at 4:48 pm
    “davidmhoffer says….
    So refreshing to hear someone speak of the difference between an anomaly in the dry Arctic and at the moist equator! Whenever I see a warm anomaly in the Arctic I always just see it as heat escaping to space and oppositely, a warm temp anomaly in the equator is heat accumulation (temporarily anyway.)

    Data means things! Ignore at one’s peril!”

    Great to see that others recognize the peril that anomalies present to science. Good points from each of you.

  87. Theo Goodwin says:

    Eugene WR Gallun says:
    January 31, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    Wow! Your poetry is rather good.

  88. davidmhoffer says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    January 31, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    Steve Mosher;
    Bottom line, you dont need base periods,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    What you do need is justification for averaging anomalies from very cold regimes with anomalies from very warm regimes. I’ve brought this up with several NASA scientists, none of whom have ever answered. Perhaps you could explain how this is justified?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I threatened to start keeping track of who I have asked this question of and gotten no answer. I’ve asked at least a half dozen warmists this question, but at this time I can only recall (and find record of) two. So the list shall begin:

    Zeke Hausfather
    Steven Mosher

  89. RACookPE1978 says:

    David:

    I see no specific reason why an anomaly-processed trend or analysis may be completely useless ….

    But – a VERY important “but” has to be emphasized!

    Net radiation from a gray body CANNOT BE ANALYZED or discussed with a simple “single yearly average anomaly” UNLESS you can established explicitly by real world data that EVERY trend at EVERY temperature band at EVERY latitude IS ACTUALLY following the exact same deviation from its respective anomaly baseline.

    And, by the way, since the CAGW religion cannot even decide what the actual temperature was for a single year in a single country (the 1934 US “average” temperature for example) then WHY should we believe that a simple 0.2 degree deviation over the entire world from some single but unspecified and never reported and never justified “baseline anomaly of 0.0″ is valid?

    For example: Are the pole temperatures actually going “up” at the same rate as the world average? Are the equators or mid-tropics or mid-latitudes going up, but the poles going down? Is the Canadian middle tundra going up (because of higher growth in plants and trees and bushes and grasses and low shrubs) while the actual arctic ocean temperatures 1200 km further away are going down?

    We read from the CAGW religion that “arctic temperatures are 8 degrees higher, but the DMI reports that mid-summer temperatures at 80 degree north latitude have been gradually decreasing since 1959. So exactly what is the religion’s baseline for their “Bible” of an undefined anomaly that their faith is based on?

  90. SandyInLimousin says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    January 31, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    I have noted previously that Steven Mosher makes a single appearance on topics here then disappears; a drive-by you might say.

  91. CodeTech says:

    Eve:

    The fact that there is not a higher spike in the 1930′s than now, shows the graph to be wrong.

    BINGO!

    End of required discussion.

  92. richard verney says:

    I agree about the overlay of satellite data.

    But perhaps even more telling would be the overlay of CO2 emissions. No fall in CO2 emissions between say 1880 and 1912 9yet a significant drop in temperature anomaly), no significant increase in CO2 emissions between about 1912 and late 1930s 9yet a significant rise in temperature anomaly). CO2 emissions begin to rise as from about 1940 and yet through to the late 1950s temperature anomaly drops! CO2 emissions then rise significantly and temperature anomalies go up from the late 1950s through to the late 1990s (but not at a rate faster than that observed between say 1912 and 1944 when CO2 emissions were not rising sharply), and as from the late 1990s the temperature anomaly is flat (not withstanding the continued rise CO2 emissions).

    Anyone looking at that plot with CO2 emissions overlayed would see in the clearest possible terms that there is no first order correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    With the satellite data overlayed, would on see that temperatures have been flat for some 33 years (not just 16 years) with only the step change in and around the 1998 super El Nino and again it is apparent from that data that there is no correlation with CO2 emissions.

    Climate science will only begin the long road to becoming a real science when temperature anomaly graphs also overlay CO2 emissions.

    PS I agree with the many comments regading the dangers of looking at averages (how I hate them) and anomalies from some assumed average. There is no such thing as global climate (apart from being in a glacial or interglacial period), and no such thing as global climate change. Not only that, the impact of any change is dictated by local conditions. Of course, this is all political nonsense since if one were to look at matters locally (as one ought to), each country would do its own thing based upon an assessment as to whether ‘climate change’ would be beneficial, neutral or adverse to its own interests.

  93. richard verney says:

    RACookPE1978 says:
    January 31, 2013 at 11:09 pm
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////
    At the heart of the AGW claim is one of some energy imbalance. We therefore need to look at energy not temperature. The only valid metric would be to look at RH adjusted figures, alternatively sea water temperatures.

    The data is simply not fit for purpose. Ignoring all the basterdisation through repeated adjustments, the problem with siting issues, station drop outs, the proper evaluation of UHI, the length of the data set and the lack of uncertainty/error bars, it is not evaluating the heart of the claim. No genuine science would work off such data.

  94. davidmhoffer:

    In your post at January 31, 2013 at 2:51 pm you say

    I just don’t get how anomalies can be justified, and the list of researchers I have posed the question to without response is growing.

    Allow me to suggest a possible explanation for the use of temperature anomalies.

    Your stated concern is the spatial variation of temperatures.
    But I think the primary reason for using anomalies is the temporal variation of temperatures.

    Global temperature varies throughout each year as a function of
    (a) the Earth’s orbital distance from the Sun and
    (b) the different proportions of ocean and land over the Earth’s Southern and Northern hemispheres.

    This seasonal variation is a rise in global temperature of 3.8 deg.C from June to January and a similar fall of global temperature from January to June each year. It is over 4 times larger than the 0.9 deg.C rise in global temperature over the twentieth century.

    Presenting monthly global temperatures would mask the global warming since 1990 with the much larger seasonal variation.

    Presenting global temperature anomalies reveals the global warming since 1990 which is of interest.

    And before anybody asks, no, I am not being sarcastic. My suggestion is completely serious.

    Richard

  95. Ouch!
    In my post at February 1, 2013 at 2:22 am I wrote
    Presenting monthly global temperatures would mask the global warming since 1990 with the much larger seasonal variation.

    Presenting global temperature anomalies reveals the global warming since 1990 which is of interest.

    I INTENDED TO WRITE

    Presenting monthly global temperatures would mask the global warming since 1990 with the much larger seasonal variation.

    Presenting global temperature anomalies reveals the global warming since 1900 which is of interest.

    Sorry.

    Richard

  96. Absolutely BRILLIANT, Anthony, very usefeul. Im making a speach on the sceptics viewpoint on the largest Danish university soon, and this goed directly into the program, perfect!
    K.R. Frank

  97. Bob Tisdale says:

    Somewhat on topic: I just threw together a 2-graph post about the JMA COBE sea surface temperature data. There’s nothing exceptional about it and that’s a good thing:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/a-quick-look-at-the-jma-cobi-kobi-sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-data/

  98. MiCro says:

    RACookPE1978 says:
    January 31, 2013 at 11:09 pm

    Net radiation from a gray body CANNOT BE ANALYZED or discussed with a simple “single yearly average anomaly” UNLESS you can established explicitly by real world data that EVERY trend at EVERY temperature band at EVERY latitude IS ACTUALLY following the exact same deviation from its respective anomaly baseline.

    I didn’t generate a yearly anomaly of temps, but an annual anomaly of the difference between today’s rise, and tonight’s fall over 5 lat bands. here I also include annual average Min/Max temps, and average Rise/Fall, which I think is very interesting, it varies slightly from year to year, but on an annual basis are almost exactly the same.

    For example: Are the pole temperatures actually going “up” at the same rate as the world average? Are the equators or mid-tropics or mid-latitudes going up, but the poles going down? Is the Canadian middle tundra going up (because of higher growth in plants and trees and bushes and grasses and low shrubs) while the actual arctic ocean temperatures 1200 km further away are going down?

    It doesn’t appear they are changing the same over the globe. But you can easily see how the polar regions are under sampled.

    We read from the CAGW religion that “arctic temperatures are 8 degrees higher, but the DMI reports that mid-summer temperatures at 80 degree north latitude have been gradually decreasing since 1959. So exactly what is the religion’s baseline for their “Bible” of an undefined anomaly that their faith is based on?

    Worse still, is if the NCDC station list is accurate, there are no arctic station that aren’t on the coast, So Arctic “Warming” is coming from changes in water temps, which we know is happening, we also know that summer temps are not increasing anywhere near as much as winter temps, which makes complete sense if it’s being driven by water temps.

    Lastly, which the annual average daily Rise/Fall is almost a perfect match, when looked at on a daily basis, you can see it change as the seasons progress, yet are almost identical over the year.

  99. MiCro says:

    The last paragraph:

    Lastly, which the annual average daily Rise/Fall is almost a perfect match, when looked at on a daily basis, you can see it change as the seasons progress, yet are almost identical over the year.

    was suppose to be:
    Lastly, while the annual average daily Rise/Fall is almost a perfect match, when looked at on a daily basis, you can see it change as the seasons progress, yet are almost identical over the year.

  100. Frank K. says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    January 31, 2013 at 9:31 am

    “That said, my objection remains that averaging anomaly data is meaningless. An anomaly of 1 in the arctic represents a change in energy balance of less than one third the amount of an anomaly of 1 in the tropics. Averaging them together results in a meaningless number.”

    I totally agree with you. The word “anomaly” itself conveys the meaning that the “Earth’s temperature” (a meaningless metric for many reasons) is somehow abnormal (anomalous), and that the base period to which it’s referred is, for whatever reason, “normal”. The base period at present for groups like the controversial NASA/GISS appear to be linked to Jim Hansen’s youth (from 1950 – 1980).

    Here is what NOAA says about anomalies:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

    Q: Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

    A: Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a regions average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

    Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

    For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

    There are some problems (for me) with the statements above. First, for the mountain vs valley comparison, it may be true that the anomalies may both show the same general trend (i.e. cooler or warmer than “normal”) but the magnitudes may be entirely different. But the implication is that anomalies can be interpolated spatially regardless of the terrain.

    And their statement “Absolute estimates of global average temperature are hard to compile…” – what does this mean? What is an “absolute estimate”?? (heh!!) There may be problems with data quality (as have been chronicled at WUWT for the past 6 years), but it shouldn’t be “hard” to compile and process the available raw, absolute temperature data. What IS more challenging, of course, is to homogenize, contort, distort, synthesize, and smooth the raw data so that it conforms to the CAGW world view…

  101. davidmhoffer says:

    richardscourtney;
    Presenting global temperature anomalies reveals the global warming since 1900 which is of interest
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I understand the intent. If anomalies had a linear relationship to energy flux, I would have no objection. But they do not. The relationship is that P varies with T^4. This gives us the possibility of (for example) and anomaly of +2 from a very cold regime averaged with an anomaly from a very warm regime of -1. If the baselines used were -40 and +40, the result would be an average anomaly that is positive while the change in energy flux is negative. The change in the cold regime becomes over represented, the warm regime under represented, and the information derived tells us nothing about change in energy balance. The whole CAGW debate centres around the supposed change in energy balance at surface caused by CO2 increases. Since anomaly data does not and can not provide this information, it is not fit for purpose. The continued use of anomaly data in this fashion is particularly stunning given that converting baseline temps to w/m2 is a trivial matter, as is then calculating anomalies in w/m2 which would deliver precisely the information we are trying to track, the effect of CO2 increases on w/m2 at surface.

  102. Steve Keohane says:

    Here is the graph from the post with RSS & UAH added. I went to the climate365 website to look for what averaging their graph was using, found nothing. I used the RSS/UAH zero baseline matched to zero on the above graph, although that is not correct. It just occurred to me i could use one or more ground-based set of observations to align the satellites. I will look into that. Any other ideas on getting the satellite data aligned meaningfully would be appreciated.

    http://i50.tinypic.com/fa4qap.jpg

  103. Steve Keohane says:

    I’m surprised…using GISS to align RSS & UAH hardly changes the previous graph. This has 36 month averages instead of the 60 month averages on the previous graph. Just looking for something that looks like what the climate365 graph used, don’t see it at 12, 13, 36 and 60 month averages.
    http://i50.tinypic.com/nnjnuu.jpg

  104. Werner Brozek says:

    Steve Keohane says:
    February 1, 2013 at 8:09 am
    Steve, it looks as if you are doing something slightly different with the satellite data sets, namely taking mean of around 30 samples. This does not show that 1998 is the warmest year on the satellite data like it does on the Japanese data. If that is what you intend to show, that is one thing. But note the sharp peaks at 1998 on all the other data sets. However yours is very rounded and the alignment is a bit off. So you are not really comparing apples to apples yet. Perhaps align the 1998 peak on all sets and use monthly data (with a mean of 1) for the satellite data.

  105. Theo Goodwin says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 1, 2013 at 7:17 am
    richardscourtney;
    “Presenting global temperature anomalies reveals the global warming since 1900 which is of interest.”

    It is one thing to use anomalies as rules of thumb that can serve as guides to discovery but it is quite another thing to use them as evidence. All sciences use heuristics to simplify daily work but when presenting conclusions and the evidence for them they do not present heuristics.

    Anomalies are at several removes from anything that can be reasonably called a direct measurement of some feature of the environment. Davidmhoffer gives an excellent example above. What we cite as evidence for our claims must have some direct connection to actual measurements. Otherwise, we surrender all empirical constraints on theorizing. If we do that, we might as well buy our own climate supercomputer.

    On more than one occasion, I have expressed my admiration for richardscourtney’s posts. In this rare case, his post could benefit from a bit more work.

  106. davidmhoffer:

    re your reply at February 1, 2013 at 7:17 am to my comment.

    I agree with with everything you say.

    I tried to be ‘polite’ but that clearly obscured what I was trying to say.
    I will now be blunt and hope the Moderator will permit this post.
    1.
    Global temperature fluctuates up and down by 3.8 deg.C during each year.
    Few people know this.
    2.
    Global temperature rose by 0.9 deg.C (as an annual average) since 1900.
    Many people have been told this.
    3.
    People would not be scared by global warming if they knew that the rise since 1900 is less than a quarter of the variation during each year. It is an inconvenient truth.
    4.
    This inconvenient truth needs to be hidden if people are to be scared and, therefore, anomalies are used to conceal the inconvenient truth.
    5.
    In summation, the use of temperature anomalies is a trick used to further a political agenda and, therefore, it is not relevant that the use of anomalies has no scientific justification and purpose.

    Richard

  107. An Ice Age Cometh says:

    Your post and all the comments above reveal two important realities:
    1. The debate surrounding our ever changing climate, with regard to moot anthropogenic influence, is irrelevant because current climate behaviour displays anomalies that are so insignificantly tiny that scientists are reduced to argument over differences of fractions of a degree in any comparison of data sets. I.e. If humankind really is affecting global temperatures, the result is negligible.
    2. There are many interested parties who rely on funding, livelihood, academic reputation and recognition based on the concept of CAGW that they are constrained into, as has been remarked upon several times above, “cooking the books”.
    The real problem for humankind, and most other organisms, is that several “uncooked” data sets indicate a recent trend of FALLING global temperatures. There is no question that lower global temperatures would be far more detrimental to our biosphere than fractional warming. Unfortunately, the very agencies in a position to detect and publicize such a trend are so busy trying to prove warming for the reasons given above that they will not merely overlook it, they will actively conceal it.

  108. Steve Keohane says:

    Werner Brozek says:February 1, 2013 at 8:53 am
    Werner, With a mean=1 we’re looking at monthly data and the range in Y becomes too large. This has mean=12, and I aligned the peaks at 1998 along the X-axis. GISS does not seem to follow between the woodfortrees line and the line in the climate365 graph, the peaks do not match in amplitude. I used the GISTEMP LOTI plot, using GISTEMP dTs would push the satellite temps down another .2°C on the Y-axis.

    http://i47.tinypic.com/w98ln6.jpg

  109. Mike says:

    Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
    What exactly is the trend in temperatures?

  110. MiCro says:

    But here’s where I think we suffer, the Media doesn’t know (or care to know) any better. When we try to say “Climate Scientists” are at best being disingenuous, at best we come off like the tin foil hat wearing Uncle, that we try to keep away from the public, or “paid shills for the oil industry”.

    We try to point out 25%-100% of the temp trend isn’t real, most don’t know who to believe, so they pick the safe bet, the scientists. For many, they already loathe mankind, so it’s easy to believe. Climategate, if we could have proven the scientist were lying, might have been enough, but the proof was soft enough, the reviews not damning enough to prove their true colors.

    IMO we need either hard irrefutable proof they’re lying, or we need proof GHG as explained to the public is wrong, in a way the public understands. Or we’ll have to wait for nature to show them wrong, but expect them to twist even that into not being proof they’re wrong. Without a press that’s willing to understand why the science is wrong, the hotheads will not admit they’re wrong, only that there was just a pause that thank heaven is postponing our demise, giving us another chance to repent our evil ways.

  111. Bart says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 1, 2013 at 7:17 am

    richard verney says:
    February 1, 2013 at 1:35 am

    Your posts highlight two different potential metrics to measure something physically meaningful. David is suggesting an average of T^4 which, assuming roughly uniform emissivities, would produce something proportional to the average rate of energy dissipation. Since T^4 weights high temperatures more heavily than low ones, the current T metric is effectively overweighting the cold areas from this perspective.

    One problem with a T^4 metric (aside from the emissivity question): This is more-or-less proportional to the outward energy flux from the surface, but some of that flux is going to be reflected back by GHGs. So, it doesn’t really tell us the rate at which energy is leaving the Earth. Does this make T^4 particularly well suited for measuring the effect of GHGs? Something to ponder…

    Anyway, Richard’s idea is to weight by RH, because the heat capacity of wet regions is greater than that of dry ones. Because of this, a 1 degree change of temperature in wet regions produce greater energy retention than a 1 degree change in a dry area. From this perspective, the current T metric is overweighting the changes in dry regions. It is possible for the T metric to show a significant rise, without any significant change in overall atmospheric energy storage.

    Which of these two metrics is better, and which regions are we overweighting with the T metric: cold ones, or dry ones? Does it matter? Cold regions tend to be dry ones, but dry ones are not necessarily cold ones (e.g., Sahara). Should we be looking at a T^4 metric, or an RH one?

  112. Werner Brozek says:

    Steve Keohane says:
    February 1, 2013 at 10:24 am

    Thank you! It is known that the satellite data show greater extremes due to El Ninos and La Ninas so what you did in this latest attempt is about as well as can be done. Note the relative heights of the 1998 and 2010 El Ninos are about the same on RSS, UAH and the Japanese data.

    GISS does not seem to follow between the woodfortrees line

    You may be attempting the impossible! Don’t even try!

    Check out 2007 with their latest data:
    2007 93 66 67 71 63 55 57 58 60 57 54 46
    This averages to 0.62.
    Compare this to WFT which still has the data prior to last week:
    2007 0.89
    2007.08 0.64
    2007.17 0.65
    2007.25 0.68
    2007.33 0.62
    2007.42 0.54
    2007.5 0.56
    2007.58 0.57
    2007.67 0.53
    2007.75 0.55
    2007.83 0.49
    2007.92 0.4
    This averages 0.59 that you can still verify on WFT as it has not updated December 2012 yet. So within a week, the anomaly for 2007 went up from 0.59 to 0.62.

  113. MiCro says:

    Bart says:
    February 1, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    but some of that flux is going to be reflected back by GHGs.

    While this is what theory says, a hand held IR thermometer pointed into the sky on a clear 35F day, reads under the minimum scale of the device less than -40F. While everything around reads some various appropriate temp, including the bottom of clouds.
    If there’s anything being reflected back it isn’t causing any warming.

  114. davidmhoffer says:

    richardscourtney;
    In summation, the use of temperature anomalies is a trick used to further a political agenda and, therefore, it is not relevant that the use of anomalies has no scientific justification and purpose.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I think we can make it relevant again simply by repeatedly asking the question. When I’ve tried to explain the physics, I get ignored or on some blogs painted as another one of those cranks yelping about back radiation not existing or other such nonsense. So instead, I’ve started asking questions like this one and…crickets.

    I did the same to Jan P Perlwitz a while back. We were debating the recent Briffa paper and he was making the claim that you had to be a climate scientist to understand it. So instead of debating the paper with him further, I asked him which part of the paper could not be understood by a first year physics or stats student and why. Suddenly silence from Perlwitz. He responded to other comments in that thread, but studiously ignored me though I repeated the question three times.

    The silence speaks loudly.

  115. davidmhoffer says:

    Bart;
    Should we be looking at a T^4 metric, or an RH one?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Both. Per your comment, this is a rather complex matter. As the saying goes, make the problem as simple as possible, but not simpler. By averaging anomaly data the problem has been over simplified to the point that the data is close to meaningless.

  116. rogerknights says:

    It seems as though Jan P Perlwitz spends a lot of time blogging. Ditto that recent grad whose six-letter (I think) last name begins with a C. Is GISS paying these guys partly for their propagandizing?

  117. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    James Hansen Busies Himself
    Creating A Third World Holocaust

    That hothead Hansen’s
    Radiative reflux?
    Just Charlie Manson’s
    Helter Skelter redux

    Realities will
    Not reorder his mind
    Delusions that kill
    Leave all reason behind

    i am sure this is of no interest to anyone but me but I have altered the phrase “Atmospheric reflux” to “Radiative reflux”. i had thought of both choices and proceeded to choose the wrong one. Technically “radiative reflux” accurately describes the greenhouse effect — radiant energy from the earth is reflected back towards the earth. A reflux is bascially a backward flowing. “Atmospheric reflux’ also describes the greenhouse effect but in a more general way and can be mistaken to imply that “air” is the moving component when it is not.. It was a poor choice of words that I thought would make the poem simpler but instead just screwed it up.

    Hansen and Manson share the same apocalyptical fascinations — and both have messiah complexes. And both are highly dangerous. The worlds of their implemented visions would be a living hell for the majority of humanity. They are two peas in a pod.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  118. Bếp từ says:

    This is actually hiding the disagreement. I think we can make it relevant again simply by repeatedly asking the question.
    When I’ve tried to explain the physics, I get ignored or on some blogs painted as another one of those cranks yelping about back radiation not existing or other such nonsense. So instead, I’ve started asking questions like this one then crickets.

  119. Allen B. Eltor says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    January 31, 2013 at 10:09 am

    Yes, using anomalies is a great way of side tracking a science. Maybe some day climate scientists will switch from anomalies to some measurable feature of the environment.

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<,
    No. Here's how that shakes out: you get a job. I get a job. Somebody else says

    "You guys go work… I'll stay here indoors and take money to check the weather,
    because you're stupid and have gotten trapped and can't get away from paying me to do it. You guys hurry up and get out of my way, rabble!"

    "I'm trying to get to to the Weather Center, and do MY work, and YOU'RE in the way. And the next time you tell me to show you what I'm doing, I'll SUE you; and the GOVERNMENT will stand behind me because I'm a government employee!"

    Money is taken from your check to pay this lifestyle to exist.

    Therefore you will not be having more relevant science. You'll be having more
    Gubmunt Psignts.

    And you'll pay

    or they'll ruin your life

    releasing government authorized and sanctioned press releases,
    that you're evil, an enemy to the country, and a prime reason the war on
    _________ is failing;
    and that you're a danger to yourself,
    your children,
    and to all Mannkind, saying something different than they say.

    Because they're government employees.

    The people who tell you now
    and have for 75 years: that pot's heroin
    and you're so stupid
    they're going to finally,
    have to take over all your medicine,
    before you mess this up

    worse than you already have.

  120. Gary Pearse says:

    Japan may have done this change in 2000 to not look ridiculous at home, where the arctic ice sheet is currently pressed up tight all along the north shore of Hokkaido and is slipping along the continental mainland to North Korea. Heck one could walk on ice and snow from Japan to North Korea (or to Detroit for that matter).

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicennowcast.gif

  121. davidmhoffer at February 1, 2013 at 7:01 pm, in http://wattsupwiththloat.com/2013/01/31/japans-cool-hand-luke-moment-for-surface-temperature/#comment-1214413

    I did the same to Jan P Perlwitz a while back. We were debating the recent Briffa paper and he was making the claim that you had to be a climate scientist to understand it. So instead of debating the paper with him further, I asked him which part of the paper could not be understood by a first year physics or stats student and why. Suddenly silence from Perlwitz. He responded to other comments in that thread, but studiously ignored me though I repeated the question three times.

    The silence speaks loudly.

    The only thing that speaks loudly here is your lie about me behind my back in this thread here, in which I have not been participating until now. I never have said that one had to be a climate scientist to understand some Briffa paper, which ever you are referencing here, or any other paper for the matter of fact. What is the purpose for which you are telling this lie?

Comments are closed.