Jeff Id of the Air Vent has offered me this study he just completed for the consideration of WUWT readers. Given the wide audience we have here, I’m sure it will get a rigorous review and inspection. Let’s see how well it stands up. – Anthony
Closest Station Antarctic Reconstruction
In my last alternate reconstruction of Antarctic temperature I used the covariance of satellite information to weight surface stations. While the reconstruction is reasonable I found that it distributed the trends too far from the stations. This prompted me to think of a way to weight stations by area as best as I can. The algorithm I employed uses only surface station data laid on the 5509 grid cell locations of the Steig satellite reconstruction.
This new reconstruction was designed to provide as good a correlation vs distance as possible and the best possible area weighting of trend, it can’t make a good looking picture though but for the first time we can see the spatial limitations of the data. The idea was to manipulate the data as little as possible to make where the trend comes from as clear, simple and properly weighted as possible.
The algorithm I came up with works like this.
Calculate the distance from each of 42 surface stations to 5509 satellite points store them in a matrix 42 x 5509.
For each of 5509 points find the closest station and copy the data to that location. If there are missing values infill those from the next closest station looking farther and farther until all NA’s are infilled.
This is what the spatial distribution of trends looks like.
Figure 1
You can see how the trends are copied to the points of each polygon from each surface station. There’s quite a bit of noise in the graph but it seems that like temperatures are grouped reasonably well together.
The code looks for the above plot takes about 20 minutes to run.
#calc distance from surface stations to sat grid points
dist=array(0,dim=c(5509,42))
for(i in 1:42)
{
dist[,i]=circledist(lat1=Info$surface$lat[i],lon1=Info$surface$lon[i],lat2=sat_coord[,2],lon2=sat_coord[,1])
}
Circledist is Steve McIntyres’s great circle function with slight modifications.
circledist =function(lat1,lon1,lat2,lon2,R=6372.795)
{
pi180=pi/180;
y= abs(lon2 -lon1)
y[y>180]=360-y[y>180]
y[y<= -180]= 360+y[y<= -180]
delta= y *pi180
fromlat=lat1*pi180;
tolat=lat2*pi180;
tolong=lon2*pi180
theta= 2* asin( sqrt( sin( (tolat- fromlat)/2 )^2 + cos(tolat)*cos(fromlat)* (sin(delta/2))^2 ))
circledist=R*theta
circledist
}
Then I wrote a function to get the closest distance greater than a value ‘mindist’ I pass. The first call for the grid number ‘ ind’, mindist is set to zero and the closest station is returned. If the closest station has missing data, I infill what it does have and pass the distance from the closest station to mindist and get the second closest station returned. The process is repeated until all values are filled.
getnextclosestdistance = function(ind=0,mindist=0)
{
tdist=dist[ind,]
while(min(tdist)<=mindist)
{
mind=min(tdist)
if (mind<=mindist)
{
tdist=tdist[- (which(tdist == min(tdist), arr.ind = TRUE)[1])]
}
}
g= which(dist[ind,] == min(tdist), arr.ind = TRUE)[1]
g
}
This is the loop function that fills the array.
recon=array(NA,dim=c(600,5509))
recon=ts(recon,start=1957,deltat=1/12)
for (i in 1:5509)
{
lastdist=0
while(sum(is.na(recon[,i]))>0)
{
dd=getnextclosestdistance(i,mindist=lastdist)
lastdist=dist[i,dd]
mask = is.na(recon[,i])
recon[mask,i]=anomalies$surface[mask,dd]
print (paste(i,lastdist))
}
}
After that all that’s left is the plotting algorithms by RomanM SteveM and Jeff C which I’ve shown before.
The next graph is the trend calculated from all 5509 grid points.
Figure 2
The trend is again positive by 0.052 C/Decade, this time it is on the outer edge of the stated 95% confidence interval of Steig09 of 12 +/- 0.07C/Decade.
Like before I also looked at the trend from 1967 – 2007.
Figure 3
Figure 4
So from this reconstruction temperatures have dropped since 1967 at an average rate of 0.31 C/Decade. These results are similar to my previous reconstruction which looks like this.
The Antarctic, an engineers reconstruction.
Figure 5
Figure 6
And from 1967 – 2007
Figure 7
Figure 8
While I was initially happy with the engineers reconstruction, I found that station trends were not well localized by linear correlation weighting. (The correlation vs distance was not good) While peninsula station information stayed localized, the rest of the continent spread widely.
The trends shown match my last reconstruction reasonably well but in my opinion these are of superior quality.
Certainly the Antarctic temperatures have been flat or insignificantly cooling/warming in general for the last 40 years while 50 years ago there were lower temps recorded causing a very slight upslope in the 50 year trend. This is confirmed by the fact that sea ice has grown during the last 30 years among other observations.
The Steig 09 paper seems to be an artifact of the mathematics more than an actual trend. Amundsen Scott is the south pole data. The surface measurement is visually clean and has a downtrend for the full length of the data. This cooling is represented by the blue polygon in the center of the antarctic in this reconstruction.
TCO keeps asking me if I’ll post a trend higher than Steig. Every reconstruction I’ve done has reduced the trend from Steig 09. Every change no matter how small has resulted in a trend reduction from Steig 09, even the attempt to match Steig 09 has resulted in a slight trend reduction. I’ll say it now for the first time. In my opinion the paper is flawed and has an exaggerated warming trend due to bad mathematics. Temperature distributions on the continent are a result of artifacts in RegEM and not supported by the natural weather patterns as they were presented.
As an example which is pretty clear. Steig’s paper shows warming across the entire Antarctic. Here’s a plot of the ground data at the south pole.
Figure 9
A reconstruction cannot ignore a trend this strong. So TCO, it isn’t up to me. As Gavin likes to say, the data is the data. This data just cannot support Steig’s conclusions.
To the Reply: My best attempts obviously failed to convince others of the need
to initiate a necessary dialogue between geoscience and engineering disciplines
in solving many global warming and climate change problems. However, I appreciate my contibutions were published for readers to consider. Thanks and good luck in your future activities in the Antarctic.
David Hagen provided an excellent link on the Air Vent which other scientists created a very similar plot to figure 8 using surface station and Ice core data.
Climate Models Overheat Computer analyses of global climate have consistently overstated
The tip of Antarctica that appears to have most of warming corresponds closely to Penguin and Deception Islands which are volcanos.
Other volcanoes are also present.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/21volcano.html?_r=2&refer=science
G
Hi guys,
I have only two undergraduate degrees, neither in math. I love science, but my ignorance of math precludes me from any real contribution here. But, I would like to make an observation. Al Gore probably knows less about global warming than most of the people that… didn’t… vote him into office. Before his Epoc making movie there was real dialogue between opponents and proponents of global warming. His movie so politicized the topic and so polarized the debaters and so visually mesermized the populace that now the liberal media has been able to almost totally exclude any real science from what little debate remains. I am saddened by this. Not just because we plan to allocate billions of tax dollars to chase the illusive GW butterfly, not just because if we catch it we wont have a clue what to do with it, but because it reveals something very sad about us!
If we let politics dictate science, where will it all end? Style over substance, sadly, is to be expected in the political arena. But, if research funds can be so easily diverted by a single politician’s audio-visual event, what other areas of our socio-economic-scientific lives will be next? I wonder what whimsy our leaders will decide to throw our tax-dollars at after this? In what new arena will debate be stiffled?
ralph ellis
Your general point that renewable energy, as presently envisaged, is destructive of prosperity is correct.
It is not true that all renewable energy is intermittent. Hydroelectric is one existing renewable that yields continuous power. Satellite solar power is a potential future source that also is continuous.
Wikipedia covers the space solar power ideas fairly well.
A good discussion of technology and economics can be found here:http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.pl?2004/TM-2004-212743.html
Syl,
Thanks. That is the lamest cover story I have ever heard. Do people understand how many satellite passes we get over the poles from earth science and weather satellites?
Britannic no-see-um (15:13:46) :
“Opinions regarding the superiority in sampling frequency and quality of satellite v surface station data have been aired, and I have no disagreement with the greater potential of satellite data. However, surface stations, in my opinion remain essential.’
Essential for what? The only value they have is to calibrate and cross check the satellite data. That’s saying the horse and buggy are still essential to transportation or that rotary phones are essential to communication.
Yes, I have a satellite bias, but if I want a doctor to diagnose my symptoms I don’t want him reaching back to cruder, older technology. Forget the X-rays, get me an MRI scan!
You can have an ‘opinion’ when there is a gray area. But satellites measure the entire earth surface fairly quickly. Look at GPS verses older systems for measuring locations and performing navigation. Can someone have the ‘opinion’ the sextant is just as good and quick as a GPS receiver with map directions and restaurants?
Of course! It’s a silly one though.
My problem is we have lost the quality of science and replaced it with quickly developed volumes of data without any thought as to its validity or utility. Once satellites map Antarctic temperatures in cells sizes that could not be replicated without 5-10 thousand ground stations there is no purpose in interpolating ground station data beyond reasonable boundaries.
Stations are great at measuring local conditions, they are also overwhelmed by local factors, which can be driven out by large samplings from space. I never have understood the resistance of humanity to progress. And I never will.
George E. Smith (11:27:14) :Mathematics is all made up by man, and nature doesn’t pay any special attention to man; or mathematics.
George I loooove your posts, but this time I think you are wrong! Maths is not “made up”, it is discovered. It already exists but in the invisible part of Reality. One can think a perfect straight line; what Nature does is approximate to it, and what we do is name it like x=y^2. This attempt to touch the perfect maths is endemic in Nature; very often it appears as fractal-like forms. Look at the periwinkle flower (could be any wild simple flower) – it has FIVE petals, not four-and-a-half or five-and-a-half unless it’s a sport and sports are the exception. Nature mathematizes. And for your sheer pleasure, treat yourself and get “A Little Book Of Coincidences” because you are in for a great surprise, and at very low cost too.
Britannic no-see-um (15:13:46) :
I see I may have jumped too fast. I agree we need ground stations to keep the sats accurate. My apologies if I came off to strident.
Cheers, AJStrata
Now back to the post.
Jeff Id: Great! Thanks! The word has got to get out. One cannot ignore the maths that cannot reach Steig’s high no matter which way it tries.
I’ve got some more thoughts. Commonsense wisdom. (1) some of the ground data is surely too warm because of emanating from snowed-under stations before they die (2) with cloud, sat data doesn’t work (correct me if I’m wrong) but cloudy conditions are likely to be warmer altogether (3) so many of the stations are maritime AND at sea-level which on both counts are going to be warmer than inland highlands which constitute the great bulk of the continent.
So my guess is it’s even colder than you’ve been able to show. Best proof I can see is the substantial increase of sea ice.
>>Jack Century (22:06:08)
>>Norman Newell proved in 1987 there is a near perfect statistical
>>correlation of 0.9985 between CO2 measured in the atmosphere
>>on top of Mauna Loa and the growth of human population,
>>rigorously calculated by others.
Jack, I also note that there is a near perfect statistical correlation of 0.9985 between milk production and the growth of human population. Are you really saying that milk causes Global Warming?
http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6115E/x6115e01.jpg
http://unitedcats.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/gw_graph.JPG
.
.
>>Hydroelectric is one existing renewable that yields continuous power.
>>Satellite solar power is a potential future source that also is continuous.
I rather discounted hydroelectric, as all the best production spots have already been used. On a crowded island like the UK (getting more crowded by the minute, for no good reason), there are simply no more hydro possibilities.
Regards satellites, I think they will prove rather expensive, and nuclear fast-breeder or fusion will prove much cheaper. Besides, I would like to see the propulsion figures for keeping an array the size of Manhattan on station against the solar wind.
But it has to be repeated that Denmark, the leading proponent of wind power, has never used any of its wind power – because it is just too unreliable (it sells it to Sweden, at a loss, to compliment hydro). In other words, wind power is a complete waste of time. More than that, it is a dangerous diversion from the real solution, which lies in advanced nuclear technology.
.
Jeff and Jeff:
Thanks for the clarification and sorry for getting mixed up. I am really looking forward to the updated synopsis.
Shane
Jack Century
Because the data doesn’t fit the predictions perhaps? Maybe because the theory doesn’t explain the observations and ignores data that doesn’t fit?
I sometimes wonder how anyone can still take the dramatic predictions of CO2 causing rapid climate change seriously.
“Svante Arhennius proved over 100 years ago that CO2 changes in the atmosphere are the driving mechanisms of global temperature changes”
No he most certainly did not “prove” any such thing. He suggested it might have a small effect.
“Norman Newell proved in 1987 there is a near perfect statistical correlation of 0.9985 between CO2 measured in the atmosphere on top of Mauna Loa and the growth of human population, rigorously calculated by others”
1. so what?
2. Even if true, which it isn’t, it doesn’t prove anything of cause and effect of CO2 and population much less CO2 and temperature.
Why is geothermal power overlooked so often? It’s a real win-win source…
David Ball,
“Cut and run”? My humble apologies. Next time I’ll ask your permission before avoiding the internet for a weekend.
I also apologize for not providing you enough Google food. But hey, I’m an obliging guy so I did the searches.
This first site is a good introduction to the 2001 Vostok ice core data and the macro cycles it indicates: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext/Inquiries/Inquiries_by_Unit/Unit_8a.htm
Unfortunately, the charts omit the critical data I referred to on unedited versions of the temp and CO2 charts (edited charts are used by naysayers to “prove” there was no CO2 change due to the Industrial Age). But that’s easily remedied:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
As some have pointed out, CO2 increases tend to lag the temp increases, but they still corellate. This strongly suggest that there is a common cause, of course. So I agree that hyperfocusing on reduction of CO2 in and of itself is disingenuous… but for anyone to suggest that there’s no problem here is equally so IMO *because* the CO2 shoots up significantly in modern times after following a fairly regular pattern (from a previous high of about 290 ppmv to 360!). Thus the human contributions of the Industrial Age to the environment cannot be so cavalierly dismissed (note: I am not accusing YOU here, just speaking generally). This dramatic increase in CO2 will surely have *some* effect, and it may not be so good for us when all is said and done…
“Randall Arnold (14:51:05) :
Why is geothermal power overlooked so often? It’s a real win-win source…”
Isn’t it bad form to rob the warmth from Gaia’s nurturing belly?
Mike, is that a joke or a straw man? 😉
Randall, that was a joke. It wasn’t a straw man, or any of the other characters in The Wizard of Oz. Besides, didn’t they call him the scarecrow?
Lucy Skywalker,
Have you ever read a book that took you to a beautiful faraway land, to a place that you know you would recognize if you stumbled upon it in your travels?
That is how I think about math. Mathematics contains the adjectives of reality. And just as the written word is a poor substitute for that real glorious sunset, the language of math can only approximate the beauty and complexity of the universe.
Still I take your point,
Mike
Re: Svante Arhennius and Norman Newell’s Contributions:
(1) Mainstream science acknowledges that pioneering work by Svante Arhennius was the first to prove that CO2 change in the atmosphere is the driving mechanism of global temperature change. Proof of this has been well demonstrated in published correlations between detailed measurements of CO2 and temperature variations in Antarctic ice cores through Pleistocene glacial and interglacial episodes.
(2) Norman Newell published work proved there are no current natural phenomena such as (a) volcanic and tectonic activity (b) sun spots and solar variability, (c) changes in earth’s orbits and (d) tilts in the earth’s axis that come remotely close to the nearly perfect statistical correlation of 0.9985 between CO2 measured on top of Mauna Loa by Charles Keeling and the growth of human population, rigorously calculated by others.
(3) Therefore, the sum total of CO2 emitted by all human activity is directly correlated with and the dominant cause of increasing global temperature.
(4) Since the educated world gets it, the apparent reason why this is so hard for engineers to understand the above, is a lack of appreciation or background in geoscience. If there are other reasons, please explain.
REPLY: This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Please focus your comments to the discussion on the Steig Antarctic issue, if not, future posts will be deleted. – Anthony
Uh Jack. Somebody needs a course in logic. I’ll let others ‘splain it to you.
Thanks, Anthony for the final warming. There will be no more contributions to this subject. Period. My comments simply addressed recent misleading thread entries that criticized the well established science contributions by Svante Arhennius and Norman Newell on the same subject. And to “jeez,” your statment lacks logic by not being able to ‘splain youreself coherently, “duh?”. End of Story.
REPLY: That’s total BS, please don’t insult my intelligence. You made your entry here with this. You brought up the subject that is not the topic of this thread, sending the discussion OT:
Since you’ve said: End of Discussion and now End of Story, can you keep your word?
There is no discussion of the issue you speak of on this page, if you would like a page for that discussion you should talk to Anthony about a guest posting. Attempting to talk over Mr Id with your own issue is rude and as a professional you should be able to give him the professional courtesy of the space for the discussion that he (not you) has earned here.
My comments were in danger of being gratuitous up to the point that you persisted in your off-topic discussion after Anthony asked you to remain on topic. My assessment of your complete disinterest in the legitimate topic and obsession with your own topic has been vindicated by your own actions. Even so I must admit my comments were very harsh, so I must apologize in so far as I have gone too far with the bite of my comments, but I stand by the sentiment wholeheartedly.
I hope you find a forum for the important issues you were hoping to discuss here. If/When you have been granted that forum you will be entitled to the same professional courtesy that should have been afforded to Mr Id and I would be glad to read it with complete objectivity. To be absolutely clear I mean that sincerely, not mockingly.
Cheers~
Adolfo Giurfa (11:42:38) : woodNfish: Codetech is right, nature abhors straight lines.
Not true as I stated. Crystals prove the statement to be wrong. Even a crystal lattice can be viewed as a straight line because of its regularity.
Even so, this has nothing to do with the fact that the trend line is straight. Trend lines are always straight because they are drawn through two endpoints. That doesn’t mean the data is a straight line, just the trend.
What makes this particular trend line unique is how flat the trend is. It isn’t even out of the signal noise. The Antarctic climate is in about as steady a state as climate can get. Steig and the Team are frauds.
Randall, keeping the discussion to the topic of C02 forcing, you have unsuccessfully shown Co2 to have significant forcing capability. You seem like an intelligent fellow ( I checked out your blog site), and we have much in common , as I also have a love for music composition and performance. I am hoping I can appeal to your logical side and not your emotional side. The MSM and the IPCC have lead you down the garden path regarding our climate. NASA is even starting to back-pedal on the idea of Co2 as a major climate driver. It just doesn’t make sense. Although we do not yet have an exact mechanism ( I personally doubt there is a singular cause ), it is becoming more and more apparent that Co2 is NOT the major driver as is claimed. Your knowledge of computers MUST tell you the limitations of modeling such a chaotic system as earth’s climate. I also urge you to look into what the other planets climates are doing. If they are tracking the earth’s, does this not indicate that what is happening here is NOT due to mankind. We MUST reduce pollution, we MUST conserve water, we MUST find an alternative energy source, but most of all, we MUST NOT PANIC. Looking forward to your response.