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

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

Guest Essay by Bob Tisdale:

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

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

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

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

Figure 1 is a short-term comparison (November 1981 to April 2009) of the OI.v2 Global SST anomaly data (used by GISS) and the NCDC’s “Global Ocean Temperature”. The NCDC data is available toward the bottom of the NCDC Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php

Specifically:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

http://i41.tinypic.com/sec4kh.jpg

Figure 1

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

http://i39.tinypic.com/qzlsvo.jpg

Figure 2

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

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO DATASETS?

The use of satellite data appears to have an impact.

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

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaa.oisst.v2.html

The NCDC identifies the “Global Ocean Temperature” dataset as SR05 in its Global Surface Temperature Anomalies webpage:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php#sr05

Linked to the webpage is a paper by Smith et al (2005) “New surface temperature analyses for climate monitoring” GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L14712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023402, 2005.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Smith-comparison.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figures 3 and 4 are long-term comparisons (1880 to “present”) of the “NCDC Global Ocean” (SR05) SST anomaly data to the ERSST.v2 and to the ERSST.v3b SST anomalies. Based on the linear trends, the “NCDC Global Ocean” (SR05) data resides between the older ERSST.v2 and the more recent ERSST.v3b data.

http://i40.tinypic.com/am84ma.jpg

Figure 3

########

http://i43.tinypic.com/2u9pwk6.jpg

Figure 4

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

THE ERSST.v3 DATASET ONCE USED SATELLITE DATA

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

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

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

The link for that quote is here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/merged-product-v3.pdf

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

Figure 5 illustrates the difference between the ERSST.v3b and ERSST.v3 global SST anomaly data (ERSST.v3 data MINUS ERSST.v3b data). The “dip” after 1985 would appear to be the satellite bias.

http://i43.tinypic.com/6yfx8h.jpg

Figure 5

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

SOURCES

The ERSST.v3b SST anomaly data is available through the NCDC’s ERSST.v3 webpage:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php

Link to the available datasets:

ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo

I used this dataset for this post:

ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo/aravg.mon.ocean.90S.90N.asc

The NCDC’s “Global Ocean Temperature” dataset is available through:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php

Specifically:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

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

The OI.v2 data is available through the NOAA NOMADS system:

http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Holy data fraud batman….

timetochooseagain

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

crosspatch

“Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way?”
Because if there is a potential for “crisis” then there is the potential for funding to “study” it. If the crisis goes away, so does the funding.

Steve Keohane

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

Phil

In “Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880-2006)” (referenced above), Smith et al noted that the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) made the SST observations discussed therein since about 1985. Actually, AVHRR measurements come from several different satellites that replaced each other over time. Data from the same satellites was used by Steig, et al to conclude that Antarctica was warming, instead of cooling (see Antarctica warming? An evolution of Viewpoint (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/#more-5224 and several subsequent posts on this blog by searching “Antarctica.”)
The Steig et al paper came out in January 2009, yet as noted above Reynolds, Smith and Liu in November 2008 REMOVED the AVHRR data because it was apparently deemed unreliable “where in situ data are sparse.” There should be no argument that in situ data in Antarctica are sparse.
So, if we follow the same logic of Reynolds, Smith and Liu and REMOVE the AVHRR data for Antarctica as well, based on their argument that “in situ data are sparse,” then the Steig et al paper would be left without any foundation. Or is there some flaw in my logic?

DR
VinceW

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

Konrad

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

Phillip Bratby

Too right it “caused problems for many of our users”. Can’t have genuine data upsetting the warming alarmism.
In my experience as a nuclear physicist, you ignore data at your peril.

stumpy

The AGW camp seem to follow the following code: “If observation doesnt fit your hypothesis, than the data must be wrong”.
The missing hotspot is there only the thermometors are wrong
The satellites are wrong as they show cooling
The sun doesnt drive climate because there was no MWP
etc… etc…
I was told a temperature station was a “bad site” recently as it showed cooling!
As einstein once said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

Another Ian

Anthony, Off thread, but for your information
http://www.omc.uq.edu.au/news/documents/ModellingImpactsVegetationCover.pdf
might take some critical inspection

Another Ian

Anthony, Off thread – full site for above
http://www.omc.uq.edu.au/
news/documents/ModellingImpactsVegetationCover.pdf

Ron de Haan

Bob,
Thanks for yet another blow to the consensus based climate fraud.

pkatt

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/ghazards/ghaz.shtml
Have ya seen the NWS Climate Services Customer Satisfaction Survey?

DR: You asked, “Have you read this?
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/conveyor-belt-model-broken
In effect, yes. Something very similar. Anthony posted “Uh, oh. 50 year old ocean thermohaline model sinking fast, climate models may be disrupted” a few days ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/15/uh-oh-50-year-old-ocean-thermohaline-model-sinking-fast-climate-models-may-be-disrupted/

Jurinko

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

Perry Debell

Is it just me or does the phrase “there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 ” mean that the temperatures as measured, had, in fact, fallen, rather inconveniently?
As such is the case, then the three words “residual cold bias” are weasel words, defined as words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available.
An example, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar, would be replacing “firing staff” with “streamlining the workforce”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
Let us hope that GISS, the Met Office, NCDC & the rest of the obscurantists are damn soon streamlined with extreme prejudice.

Sorry but the only significant “anomaly” in the difference between GISS and NCDC that I can see is the sudden drop roughly 203 months ago (around month 397), see my graph of the last 50 years
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/ShJlvNl_vlI/AAAAAAAACcg/7w16Hg-JBR4/giss-ncdc-difference-50-years.JPG
Visually, there is no statistically significant change of the behavior in recent years.

VG

Konrad: Thats why we have sites like these popping up:
http://mikelm.blogspot.com/2007/09/left-image-was-downloaded-from.html
idem for ice data as far as I can see (except one event which was far to obvious due to satellite drift and data was put “up” back to normal

It’s a familiar story. See also
Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems.
Levitus et al, Geophys res lett 36, L07608 (2009)
“We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955–2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data”.
Perhaps someone should collate all these examples of inconvenient data being deleted or ‘adjusted’ upward. It would be a long list.

Pierre Gosselin

My apologies for being OT.
Just want to point the readers to an outstanding publication by Joanne Nova called:
The Skeptics Handbook
http://joannenova.com.au/
Everything in a nutshell!

Mike McMillan

Thanx, Bob.
Speaking of data sets, where can I find the list of CRN ratings for the USHCN stations that we’ve been toiling so hard to generate?
I’ve sorted through surfacestations.org, and haven’t found the link yet. Clicking the big google earth map comes up with a “File not found” error.
It’s been suggested before, but maybe we could do something with the CRN 1 and 2 stations, or generate some error bars for the 3, 4, and 5 ones.

James P

I know you have a glossary, but it would be useful to lay readers like me if articles full of acronyms started with the expanded versions (or there was a brief summary of the more regular ones somewhere on the same page).
Also, and this may be more contentious, it would be nice to have a guide to context. I have no idea if your National Climatic Data Centre is held in higher regard to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies or, say, NASA (I do know that one). Or are they all as suspect as our UK Met Office? 🙂
BTW, commenting on the glossary is invited, but doesn’ t seem to be available.

Reid

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

Highlander

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

Phillip Bratby

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

Allan M R MacRae

OT as usual – but worthwhile I hope.
Lord Monckton has written Congressmen Barton and Upton on the central question of climate sensitivity. He starts: “Following my recent testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House, you kindly directed a question to me via the Committee Clerks- “Is there any dispute that, as you say, “How much warming will a given proportionate increase of CO2 concentration cause?” is the central question of the climate debate?
a) “If so, what is it?
b) “If not, why hasn’t the scientific community participating in the IPCC caught the matter?”
Excerpt from Monckton’s response:
“Making appropriate adjustments for these apparent exaggerations by the IPCC, I calculate that true climate sensitivity may well be as little as 1.1 K at CO2 doubling.”
See
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/central_question_on_sensitivity.pdf
Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I wrote in 2003:
“Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their 100-year forecasts are suspect. These models speculate that the air’s increased carbon dioxide concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, by way of amplification processes. Without these speculative processes, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical surface warming of only approximately 1 degree (C).”
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
__________________
So we were close to agreement at 1 degree C.
This leads to the conclusion that increased atmospheric CO2 is no cause for alarm. Politicians, please take note.
This subject is still of technical interest.
More recent data and analyses suggests to me that even this 1 degree C is high due to negative feedbacks, and actual “climate sensitivity” to atmospheric CO2 is so close to zero as to be practically inconsequential.
The only known impact of increased atmospheric CO2 is improved plant yields.
Furthermore, CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, so we don’t even know if CO2 drives temperature at all, and the evidence suggests that temperature drives CO2. When I wrote this conclusion in January 2008 I was criticized by both sides of the global warming debate, but we’ll see who is right.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Faites vos jeux.
Regards, Allan

redneck

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

Lubos: The link you provided with your comment doesn’t work.

Ed H

I suspect that this is less a case of intentional fraudulent data manipulation than it is a case of belief in their models blinding them to reality. The graph they provide shows a clear offset with the satellite data. Adhering to the simplest explanation being the correct one approach, either the earlier record is wrong, or the satellite record is wrong. They are so married to their belief in AGW, they can’t accept that it is possible for the earlier record to be wrong. I don’t think it’s intentional fraud, just blinders.
Unfortunately, it will probably take many years or perhaps even decades of this kind of divergence before they will be able (if ever) to accept that the earlier data, and their AGW religion, were wrong.

VG

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

Hmm. In reading the first group of comments, there’s lots of use of the strong words fraud and manipulation. While it seems unusual that recent corrections always seem to increase trends, consider a few things.
All of the long term SST datasets (ERSST.v2, ERSST.v3b, HADSST, HADISST, Kaplan) are all based on COADS data. The biggest correction that’s made is to raise the SST anomalies before 1941 (or lower it after, depending on your point of view) by approximately 0.3 deg C. This is done in agreement with the 1995 Folland and Parker paper “Correction of instrumental biases in historical sea surface temperature data.” Without that correction, the linear trend would be almost twice what it is now for the NCDC SST anomaly datasets.
http://i41.tinypic.com/20jo96t.jpg
Also, with the updates and corrections come things that many of us consider positives. Look at the Southern Ocean data, for example. Here’s a graph from one of my early SST posts that compares the ERSST.v2 and ERSST.v3 versions of the Southern Ocean SST anomaly data.
http://i36.tinypic.com/25g5pgz.jpg
And here’s the ERSST.v3 graph of the Southern Ocean SST anomalies alone:
http://i37.tinypic.com/315bzad.jpg
That entire post is here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/ersstv3-version-of-southern-ocean-sst.html
When there are complaints about the recent high Antarctic temperatures, the ERSST.v3b version clearly shows that the Southern Oceans SST anomalies were higher 100+ years ago.

James P

They are so married to their belief in AGW, they can’t accept that it is possible for the earlier record to be wrong.
A common and repeated scenario in medicine, where old beliefs are clung to almost irrespective of evidence. My favourite is H.pylori, the bug responsible for stomach ulcers, whose existence was confirmed by Marshall and Warren in the early 80’s, but continually denied by practitioners for over 20 years, during which time the wrong cure (Zantac) became the most prescribed medicine in history. The CDC site has rather belately admitted that antibiotics might be the real answer – this was written in 2006:
http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/consumer.htm
I since discovered that vets have been using antibiotics for this purpose since 1948!

Tamara

“Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.”
If the data were corrected once, and this correction was valid, what exactly is a “residual bias”? And, since the in situ data are inherently sparse (not to mention probably located in human-habitat micro-climates), can they really consider the warmer in situ data to be more accurate than the satellite data?

1) What kind of lag is there between any atmospheric warming or cooling and SST? Or is the air rather being warmed by the sea (seems most likely).
2) Even removing the “down” bias because of satellite data removal, there appears to be a flattening or the start of a downturn in temp after the end of the millennium – I realize we need a few more years to confirm this but surely the last few cold winters and the “lag” of question (1) would suggest we will see a downturn.

All of us should read http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm this speech by Richard Feynman (the late nobel prize winning physicist) before we start yelling fraud! This speech gives a deep insight into what is required for getting good science. A small excerpt:
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing.
But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea
Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some
wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling
them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one
feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.

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

Gary Pearse: You asked, “What kind of lag is there between any atmospheric warming or cooling and SST? Or is the air rather being warmed by the sea (seems most likely).”
The global surface air temperature lags changes in SST (primarily ENSO variations) by 3 to 6 months.
And changes in global temperature (from 1880 to present) appear to simply be a function of ENSO SST variations. The warming periods and the cooling periods, the year-to-year and decade-to-decade changes in global temp, can all be shown to be responses to changes in the frequency and magnitude of ENSO. In fact, here’s one of my posts that shows that global temperature anomalies can be reproduced with NINO3.4 SST anomalies, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html

Phillip Bratby

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

AnonyMoose

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

Paul James

From today’s Daily Telegraph, slightly off topic as it deals with Scientific Fraud but I thought you might find it interesting
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/5345963/The-scientific-fraudster-who-dazzled-the-world-of-physics.html
My favorite section is reproduced below
>One of the most cherished beliefs of scientists is that their world is “self-correcting” – that bad or fraudulent results will be shown up by other experiments and that the truth will emerge. Yet this system relies, far more than is generally realised, on trust: it was natural for his peers to question the way Schön interpreted his data, but taboo to question his integrity.
In 1830, the British mathematician Charles Babbage wrote of the distinction between truth-seekers and fraudsters in his Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of Its Causes. The former, he said, zealously prevent bias from influencing facts, whereas the fraudster consciously allows his prejudices to interfere with observations. But what Schön was in fact doing was cleverer than simply falsifying his data, and claiming some miraculous breakthrough. By talking to colleagues, he worked out what results they hoped for – so when he fabricated results that seemed to prove their theories and hunches, they were thrilled.
Schön was, in effect, doing science backwards: working out what his conclusions should be, and then using his computer to produce the appropriate graphs. The samples that littered his workspace were, effectively, props. The data he produced were not only faked, but recycled from previous fakeries (indeed, it was this duplication of favoured graphs that would prove his Achilles’ heel). <

Perry Debell

AAARRRRGGGhhhhh! O/T, but any slight hopes that I had for a pleasant summer have been dashed to the floor. ‘Prepare for a heatwave’ UK told.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8057528.stm
They just can’t leave well enough alone.

John S.

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

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


Is Noaa an official SPA for massaging temperatures?

Chemist

I was watching a show on Nat Geo Sunday night about a cult based out of New Mexico. It was funny because they had a psychologist on talking about how cult leaders will make a lot of prophecies which don’t come true and the followers will “change their reality to suit their beliefs”.
I really am finding the AGW crowd to be more and more cult like in their zealousness and overall lack of concern for reality.

Perry Debell (08:11:49) :
AAARRRRGGGhhhhh! O/T, but any slight hopes that I had for a pleasant summer have been dashed to the floor. ‘Prepare for a heatwave’ UK told.
From the article you linked:
In London, this (my note: “a very hot summer”) would mean daytime temperatures had exceeded 32C and night-time temperatures were over 18C degrees. In the North West, it would be 30C and 15C, respectively.
“Piece of cake” for us in Monterrey where usual temperatures in summer are ~40 °C at the peak during daytime and ~25 °C during nighttime. 🙂

Ron de Haan

The Green Shackles will come with a personal energy budget, this despite the overwhelming proof that the current “climate crises” does not exist.
When I posted about the “personal carbon card” researched and planned by the British Government one year ago, posters here did not take it serious.
Now it has become a potential reality, all prepared in in secrecy and sold as “protection”.
Contact the representatives bought and bribed by Waxman and tell them you will end their political career if they continue this road to fascism.
Via icecap.us
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124234844782222081.html#articleTabs=article

Nick

Talking of strange anomolies:
“the Earth’s gravity field would weaken in the southern hemisphere and strengthen in the northern hemisphere, causing water to pile up in the northern oceans”.
Water pile up?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/melting-ice-could-cause-gravity-shift-1685201.html

Benjamin P.

I ‘correct’ geochemical data all the time…

George E. Smith

“”” Allan M R MacRae (03:02:08) :
Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I wrote in 2003:
“Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their 100-year forecasts are suspect. These models speculate that the air’s increased carbon dioxide concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, by way of amplification processes. Without these speculative processes, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical surface warming of only approximately 1 degree (C).”
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
__________________
More recent data and analyses suggests to me that even this 1 degree C is high due to negative feedbacks, and actual “climate sensitivity” to atmospheric CO2 is so close to zero as to be practically inconsequential.
The only known impact of increased atmospheric CO2 is improved plant yields.
Furthermore, CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, so we don’t even know if CO2 drives temperature at all, and the evidence suggests that temperature drives CO2. When I wrote this conclusion in January 2008 I was criticized by both sides of the global warming debate, but we’ll see who is right.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Faites vos jeux.
Regards, Allan “””
Well Allan, you won’t get any dispute from me. When people talk about “amplifications” to CO2 it is often “water vapor feedback” they are alluding to. I’m of the belief that water vapor is perfectly capable of doing its own atmospheric warming via the so-called greenhouse effect without any help or stimulus by CO2 or any other GHG. It is water vapor that drags us up from the equiilbrium orbital black body temperature we would have sans water; and I don’t think we’d be at any different place with no CO2 at all; other than we would have a slightly different cloud cover situation.
In any case, to me the whole concept of “climate sensitivity” is just silly, and nonsensical. We know that the earth’s surface IR emittance varies by more than an order of magnitude from the hottest surface locations to the coldest surface locations; about 12:1 in the extreme case; and that is not taking spectral emissivities into account; and that means that the possible warming effect (forcing) due to CO2 absorption would be expected to have a similar range; so the notion that there is a constant temperature rise due to a doubling of CO2 is plain nonsense.
In the end ONLY H2O in the earth atmosphere exists in all three phases, vapor, liquid, and solid; so clouds are a uniquely water phenomenon that produce (on climate time scales) a strong negative feedback cooling effect, due to albedo modulation, and blcoking of further solar energy from the ground. Nobody ever observed it to warm up when a cloud passes in front of the sun; it always cools down. In particular it always cools down at night when there are clouds in the sky; it never warms up after the sun goes down; cloud or no cloud (assuming some new warm air mass doesn’t move in from some other place).
I think your estimate of a “Climate sensitivity” due to CO2 doubling, of near zero, is closer to the truth than any one degree notion; and of course the IPCC always throws in a 3:1 fudge factor.
Arrhenius dreamed up a monster when he invented “climate sensitivity”, and it’s time to stick a fork in that monster; and the same goes for “forcingS” which I can’t find in any handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
If “climatology” wants to dissociate itself from the likes of “economics” and ancient “astrology”, and join the real world of science; it needs to abandon these primitive trappings; which belong to the era of epicyclic orbital theory; and caloric, and ether ages.