As promised, I contacted Dr. John Christy regarding the seasonal signal that the anonymous blogger “deepclimate” says he/she has identified in the UAH data, seen below. He/she says: “I am a Canadian citizen residing in Canada. For private and professional reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous to the general public, at least for now.”
I’ve never understood the need for some people to remain anonymous while at the same time attempt to do science. Imagine the furor if scientists like Christy or Spencer created an anonymous blog and then were later discovered. I’m sure it would be immediately up there on sourcewatch with “tsk tsk” attached.
Science really should be done out in the open. Here’s Dr. Christy’s in the open response.
Dr. Christy has made a response in the readme file at the UAH website here:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.18Jul2009
Update 18 Jul 2009 ************************************
Corrected trend values (1700 CST)
It was brought to my attention by Anthony Watts that there has been some discussion about the noticeable annual cycle in the LT and MT trends when done by months. In other words, the trend for Februaries is on the order of 0.12 C/decade warmer than the trend for Mays. Other data sets don’t have such a large range in trends when calculated by months, RSS for example has a range of 0.05 C/decade. (Note, this issue doesn’t affect the overall trend.)
The feature arises when the AMSU data are adjusted and merged into the MSU data stream beginning with NOAA-15 in Aug 1998, then carries forward with NOAA-16 and AQUA (both of which are AMSUs too). The process involves at one point
the removal of a mean annual cycle in the anomaly differences from one satellite to another. It turns out that all satellites have a residual annual cycle due to each instrument’s peculiarities. In the end, all annual cycles are matched to NOAA-6 and NOAA-7.
Detecting the impact of this peculiarity is difficult. For example, it is not seen when
gridded data are directly compared against radiosondes (see Christy
and Norris 2006 and 2009.) However, an annual cycle in the difference time series is clear in RSS data when compared with balloons (see Fig. 2 of both papers.)
I’ve tested a number of alternate processing methods (basically versions of
not removing the annual cycle in the difference time series from the first
AMSU onward) and the range from the highest to lowest is reduced
to just under 0.09 C/decade. This in effect establishes a new annual
cycle for the AMSUs based on the first AMSU.
I think the magnitude of the annual cycle in the monthly trends is a
legitimate problem to address. The range in the current v5.2 LT looks too large
(about 0.12 C/decade). However, one should expect differences from month to month, especially when ENSOs and a volcano have different impacts by months so
so the range shouldn’t be zero. I’ll keep looking into this and if a
reasonable result is produced, I’ll rename the dataset v5.3.
The important point in all of this is that the overall global trend of the entire
time series ranges insignificantly from +0.123 to +0.125 C/decade even
under the different merging methods used to date. This is because the removal of the annual cycle of differences from satellite to satellite does not add any bias
to the time series, so the overall trend doesn’t change.
Since Earth is at perihelion in January and at aphelion in July, is it surprising that there is a small annual signature resembling this in the anomaly?
He/she says: “I am a Canadian citizen residing in Canada. For private and professional reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous to the general public, at least for now.”
Could this be Dr. Hansen? (LOL)
Since he is a U.S. government employee…but he “speaks as a private citizen”….maybe one of his personalities wants to speak here as a Canadian citizen…but remains anonymous so his cover won’t be blown.
As he has shown incredibly pathological behavior over the past few months but STILL managed to keep his taxpayer-funded job, I wouldn’t put it past him….
CHRIS
Norfolk, VA, USA
Slightly OT. I don’t know if the two are closely related… but here in the UK we’ve had two awful summers – 2007 & 2008, which were cool and wet. The reason given was that the Jet Stream was at a low latitude, so warmer weather wasn’t being dragged up. At the same time of course, the Arctic experienced a reduction in ice extent. The two coincided. Currently (after a hot end to June) the UK is again experiencing a pretty rotten summer, with cool temps and lots of rain. And again, the Jet Stream is low http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/FREE/jetstream.asp So if the two are connected, then we may see another year of Arctic melt. Of course, it could be coincidence, and we all know that correlation isn’t causation. I will try and dig out the historic weather reports for UK summers when the Arctic previously had high melt – late 1930s I think.
Record low this morning….56 at Louisville International Airport
Richmond 50
Bloomington, IN 51
Leitchfield 51
Corydon, IN 52
My house 52
Frankfort 53 (record)
Shepherdsville 53
Fort Knox 54
Carrollton 54
Bowling Green 54 (record)
Campbellsville 55
The record cool high for today is 75. The forecast high is mid 70s.
July is averaging 4.2 degrees below normal.
Yesterday’s high of 70 is the normal high for October 12.
As a matter of fact it’s the coolest first week in July in the history of weather record keeping for Louisville, Ky
I thought I would clear up some misconceptions.
1) Regarding my identity: No, I’m not a scientist, and certainly not a member of the “hockey team”. (Believe it or not, this is not the first time that idea has been raised). I do have a background in computer programming, as well as undergrad level statistics. The latter was a long time ago, and I’m only recently getting back up to speed.
2) Regarding anonymity: I have my reasons, which are largely personal and which I suppose will be revealed at some point. Meanwhile the following points may be of interest:
** I have identified myself at all times in my private correspondence with other individuals, who include various principals involved in the topics to be presented here. In fact I intend to communicate with Dr. Christy on this matter. Anthony, I am also willing to extend you the same courtesy, if you get in touch via email and are willing to agree to keep our communication private.
** To the extent that my posts rest on publicly available information (which they do entirely as far as I know), my identity is not particularly relevant. In the current case, I think the focus should be on resolving the “annual cycle” issue that I and others have raised. I commend Dr. Christy for agreeing to do so and look forward to the results of his inquiry.
As a final comment, the chart shown is average UAH anomaly by month over the last few years, not a chart of the resulting trends. That latter chart with (trends for all data sets), was given in the same post, and can be found here:
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/global-month-trends1.gif
Thanks for reading if you’ve made it this far.
DC is a branch of desmut .. same words same attitude and same disrespectful argument….
comment policy
“Links to websites to blogs or websites known to engage in deliberate distortion of scientific or other facts may be removed.”…better shut down deepclimate asap.
and
“Unfounded accusations of scientific fraud, whether implicit or explicit, are actively discouraged and may be snipped or moved.”
translation: anyone posting of scientific facts will be snipped or removed.
I do remember someone from Desmut who bragged about being able to censor people at will on his facebook page…. KG.
Clarification:
“I have identified myself at all times in my private correspondence with other individuals, who include various principals involved in the topics to be presented here.”
Perhaps it’s obvious, but that should have read:
“”I have identified myself at all times in my private correspondence with other individuals, who include various principals involved in the topics presented at deepclimate.org“
I got past the LT & MT (lower & middle troposphere) but am still stumped by the chart. The solid red line is the average monthly anomaly (2003-2008). The value for May is just under 0.1, lets say 0.098. The value for February seems to be about 0.36. The difference is 0.262, but that doesn’t appear to be what is being discussed here. The discussion focuses on “trends” – where or how on the chart do I get to “the trend for Februaries is on the order of 0.12 C/decade”?
I’ll feel foolish when someone explains.
Well, because, some of us have ‘day jobs’ or do business/have our names out there (actual product/services et al) where it might not be appreciated by customers/employers to be doing business
withas skeptics ….
.
And maybe some comments are being removed or something but wilbert Robichaud (11:21:31) and Deep Climate (11:24:35) items seem to be unrelated to the question. Why not find someplace else to spar? Thank you.
Yep…the UK Met office got it wrong ….again!
Can we have some global warming….please.
Anonymity is not a factor. I can come up with greatest theory, algorithm, discovery, or invention, and as long a it is verifiable, it doesn’t matter if I am anonymous. The key is that these are all objective measures and you can disprove these if you wish. Science is like this, whereas most of politics, sociology, etc is not and so you need names and credibility to keep a scorecard.
Now the fact that you may waste a lot of time verifying some anonymous source’s ideas, then that may play more of a role. But that is the way of the internet and if you choose to ignore someone who has figured it all it, well, that is your fault.
REPLY: try getting an anonymously authored paper published in a peer reviewed journal. – A
John H,
My second comment was a clarification to my original comment, and nothing to do Wilbert R’s comment.
Sometimes comments cross each other.
For example … you wrote:
“The discussion focuses on “trends” – where or how on the chart do I get to “the trend for Februaries is on the order of 0.12 C/decade”?”
My first comment anticipated your question above (before I saw it obviously). In my opinion, the second chart (showing UAH trend divergence) should be part of the main post. Your confusion was most understandable – that’s why I brought it up. I hope the chart clears it up.
Hete it is again, just to be sure:
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/global-month-trends1.gif
I’ve contacted Dr. Christy on this more than 6 months ago to similar result. Deep, doesn’t need to worry about coming clean about his identity b/c his math skills are weak as evidenced by his discussions of filtering. I do commend him for working on it though. He’s got more guts than most to try IMHO.
Under the guise of “saving the children”, the misinformation broadcast by sites like deep climate and others like them are doing far more harm to children and families than any good what so ever. Lies and obfuscation are the weapons that are used to push an agenda that will only result in devastation to those who they claim to want to help. How about reasonably priced energy to all people of the world? That is what is needed to help the children and grandchildren. Technology is what will save the generations of the future. Reveal who you are deepclimate, you chicken(snip)!! Liars have to hide. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Anthony and moderators, snip at will.
_Jim (11:47:30), this is how the AGW lie is perpetuated. Stand up and be counted as a skeptic. Fly the skull and crossbones at full mast. Make them accountable for their beliefs. Otherwise, the lie will never be revealed for what it is.
I’d love to hear Mr Christy’s take on the recent upshot on the UAH daily AMSU-A temperature graph (ch05). If it is of any interest or importance, that is.
I found Deep Climate’s pieces on the issue an interesting read, although I cannot judge the content. Why do you always make such a point of anonymity, Anthony?
If there is a CO2 based response in the atmosphere, we would see a difference in annual atmospheric signal over time. The earth sees a 4% change in solar radiation on an annual basis. I spent a couple of days last year looking a phase analysis of the recent data and found that the signal corresponded in time reasonably to an increased response to the solar input. However, when I looked at older data (earlier in the time series) it seemed to be a nonsensical mess.
I think David Archibald counted on this in his May -0.4C anomaly prediction, seeing the regular cooling pattern around May. Concerning recent UAH spike, for the time being it is visually as high as the spike in July 2007, which gave an average 0,255 deg C anomaly. January 2007 had much higher anomaly of 0.59 deg C and quickly reverted back.
OT, with SOI index so positive again, what will happen with expected El Nino, which NOAA (who understands and manages everything) expect to beat the 1998 one?
OT, sort of.
Deepclimate, I just went to your site.
So what if Friends of Science gets some funding from oil and gas. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the billions lavished on Warmist ventures through grants etc from governments, left-dominated academia and the UN/IPCC/etc.
If you’re saying that Friends of Science et al are promoting a ‘partisan’ point of view and the above-mentioned are not, you’re exposing yourself as completely intellectually bankrupt.
Jeff Id (12:16:49) :
If there is a CO2 based response in the atmosphere, we would see a difference in annual atmospheric signal over time. The earth sees a 4% change in solar radiation on an annual basis. I spent a couple of days last year looking a phase analysis of the recent data and found that the signal corresponded in time reasonably to an increased response to the solar input. However, when I looked at older data (earlier in the time series) it seemed to be a nonsensical mess.
I’d suggest this period of solar quiet is a good time to be assessing various kinds of signals in the data. For example the lag between SST and LT temps.
So, the Hoo Flung Dung over UAH is all about a 0.08C wibble in the annual trend?
And John Christy points out this makes a 0.002C to the overall trend.
What is the big deal?
Barry Foster (09:43:53) :
Slightly OT. I don’t know if the two are closely related… but here in the UK we’ve had two awful summers – 2007 & 2008, which were cool and wet. The reason given was that the Jet Stream was at a low latitude, so warmer weather wasn’t being dragged up
Are there any longterm records of Jet Stream latitude available anywhere?
By the way, DC, how are those wheat yield projections coming along up in Canada?
(oil and gas must have a hand in that as well)
Let deepclimate be deepclimate. This is not peer-reviewed science but a blog and as long as he/she is presenting and utilizing data and methodology which can be verified the name of the person is in terms of strict rational thinking immaterial.
I agree with the comments about the (sad) need some feel for not disclosing who they are due to peer pressure or more ‘serious’ concerns. I myself am Danish and in the light of the witch hunt Bjorn Lomborg have faced at home have no interest in revealing my true identity, nor here or the Danish blog-debates i participate in. Call me chicken but allow me – and others – the courtesy of doubt and the possibility that we have actually rationally pondered the issue rationally. I am involved in academics within economics and wish to pursue a career in this field but at present need the network and contacts of several ‘green’ groups in Denmark for data and inside insights. They know I am skeptic towards many things but not the degree and detail. In fact by having their ear I have chance of debating some of their viewpoints. Quite a few I have spoken to over the past years have come to understand why cap and trade and taxes on everything is a bad idea. How innovation and free markets are to prefer and that it is more an issue of resolving energy-questions than being green for the sake of it. Even windmills are no longer pursued as vigorously as in the past as people understand they are not an easy quick fix to any energy problem (or imagined CO2-problem).
Lend me your ears and let me tell you a story. Sadly, many people close their ears if they believe you to be a political/ideological ‘opponent’. By then it matters little how logically robust my story is.
Don’t call me chicken(snip) – or others – simply because we for what could be well considered reasons choose not to have our full name in public.
Best regards
I enjoy reading your blog – but mostly I don’t understand a blind word on it. I will add that after promising us Brits a BBQ summer and indeed getting 10 days of hot humid weather, we are now reverting to the cool wet and windy summer we usually get.
I am of course a lubberly non scientist but also a dunce t acronyms. I know you give a glossary but the meaning behind the allusions that are made is vague to the likes of me.
Without a doubt, rather than talking to yourselves, I do feel the odd précis in plain text rather than code would help ‘the cause’.
The cause of course is ‘The Truth’
Does anyone happen to know what variables they consider and may compensate for? For example: Orbit relative to equatorial bulge, tidal influence, local barometric pressure at point of measurement, etc., in addition to wave height and so on. I’m sure there are many more, and I think it would be interesting and informative to know the details of the measurement process. Without knowing the precise protocol it’s impossible to judge the reliability of the estimates.
We’re currently in a forecast streak of 80 degree days with few days forecast to reach 90 and a forecast in the 70’s Tuesday, in perspective we’re supposed to be around 93-94 degrees for the last half of July and the early part of August.
rbateman’s favorite long-range forecasting site (theweatherwiz.com) is suggesting this unusually cool spell could go on almost halfway through August, and this is a big change from previous years where we could be in the 100’s throughout nearly any week in August (though the June heatwave helps to cancel out the current cool spell some but may not cancel it out completely)
@deepclimate – “…Regarding anonymity: I have my reasons, which are largely personal and which I suppose will be revealed at some point. Meanwhile the following points may be of interest…”
@1of10 – “…Anonymity is not a factor. I can come up with greatest theory, algorithm, discovery, or invention, and as long a it is verifiable, it doesn’t matter if I am anonymous…”
I agree with 1of10. Science is nothing to do with personalities – anonymous or otherwise. I may be inclined to pay more attention to Steve McIntyre, for instance, rather than Sir David King, because Steve’s reputation is much greater, but that’s a human thing. If an anonymous message raises an issue which turns out to be important, we don’t reject it because we don’t know the author.
An anonymous scientist runs the risk of not acquiring prestige through being associated with the discoveries he/she may make, but, again, I can’t see that is an issue for pure science….
REPLY: As I said above, try getting an anonymously authored paper published in a peer reviewed journal. – A
It is quite interesting, that some people try to fingerpoint on such a small trend independant variation, while totally neglecting for example a 0.7° C/century warming bias of NOAA even against the presumably warming biased GISS.
However, at least satellite people address even these queries highly professional.
Thanks to John for the thoughtful answer! 🙂
Anthony:
I can quite understand the person who asked “not to be identified”.
I know of several employment situations where the “powers that be” are
complete, vile, untrustworthy, self centered left wing liberal loonies.
Conservatives who work for such people (usually in some technical capacity, say “underling MD’s” in a large medical situation, or real technical types, in a “high tech” company, where the execs are all LWL’s (left wing loonies).
Alas, LWL’s have NO trouble in being VILE and EVIL to those around them.
AND they have a HATRED of people of opposing points of view that makes certain actions in a “well educated country” (of 60 years ago) look civilized in contrast.
Perhaps we should point out Kepler, the astronomer/astrologer…who knew all the astrology he did was BUNK! But he did it, because the “rubes” paid him.
Well, if I had a good job..but continuance in it meant “keeping my political mouth shut”, I’d “keep my political mouth shut”.
SAD BUT TRUE!
Why shouldn’t there be a sine wave in the data on a yearly basis?
1) The Earth gets closer and farther away each trip around the sun
2) SH has much more water than the NH
Clearly the generosity of Dr. Christy is to be applauded. This is the correct way to answer an enquiry, regardless of the origin -extra terraneous or not- of this enquiry. Anyone should compare this with the attitude seen elsewhere in the climate blogosphere…
New from the (U.S. weather is not climate and doesn’t represent the world) department
The 300+ new or tied low high temp. records yesterday officially pushes the number of record low highs in July above the number seen in June, and there’s still 11 days left in the month, and you will not expect a peep about this in the national media.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=lomx&month=7&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records
Compare the numbers above to June posted here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=lomx&month=6&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records
The warmers can switch the record type to record highs if they want to, there are quite a few (though fewer in number)
Okay, I looked at deepclimate’s website and that told me all I ever will need to know about this poster.
One of dhogaza’s troll buddies, ’nuff said.
@ Steven Hill (11:07:17) :
Issued by The National Weather Service
Nashville, TN
6:12 am CDT, Sun., Jul. 19, 2009
… UNSEASONABLY COOL TEMPERATURES TODAY AND TONIGHT…
CANADIAN HIGH PRESSURE WILL CONTINUE TO CONTROL THE WEATHER ACROSS MIDDLE TENNESSEE TODAY AND TONIGHT. CLOUDS WILL FORM TODAY AND KEEP TEMPERATURES IN CHECK. THE RECORD LOW HIGH TEMPERATURE AT THE NASHVILLE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TODAY IS 79 DEGREES SET IN 1897. A NEW RECORD WILL BE SET TODAY.
THE RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE TONIGHT IN NASHVILLE IS 59 AND IN CROSSVILLE IS 57… SET IN 1947 AND 1970 RESPECTIVELY. NEW RECORD LOWS ARE EXPECTED.
Seems to me a seasonal component to the trends is to be expected. More ocean area in the southern hemisphere, earth orbit is at perigee in southern hemisphere summer, etc. The possibility that the effect is real needs to be considered.
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois/?ip=http%3A%2F%2Fdeepclimate.org
This ‘whois’ search says the registrant name for deepclimate.org is someone called Dave Clarke.
pochas (14:53:36) :
Exactly my thoughts also… the earth dosnt posses a uniform albedo. And it stands to reason that there should be seasonal patterns to the “noise”.
I’ve found in Internet discourse that the most vocal and insulting people tend to be anonymous. When one uses their real name, one tends to be a bit more civil since there are potentially real world consequences for their on-line behavior. For this reason alone I’d prefer that people used their real name on-line.
“He/she says: “I am a Canadian citizen residing in Canada. For private and professional reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous to the general public, at least for now.”
Could this be Dr. Hansen? (LOL)”
Actually given Steve McIntyre is “he who shall not be named” by the Hockey Team, perhaps he’s just taking them at their word…
I’d prefer to see the actual data points. If an average line is included, it should have error bars. Also, I’d like some estimate of the error in each data “point” included in the analysis. Also, why the 2003-2008 set? There may be a good reason for that, but some explanation would be informative.
Normally, I would be supportive of someone’s desire to stay anonymous. See that I only have a single name above! But deepclimate is not just discussing “science” – almost every single posting I saw was in the form of an attack against someone or some group. I see why Anthony expresses distaste for his anonymity – especially after I saw shallowclimate attacking Freeman Dyson, who has an intellect that most of the “deep” thinkers in the AGW crowd could only hope to even approach. Shallowclimate should be ashamed, but like most of today’s dishonest liberals (who are actually not true liberals, but who instead show very distinct and distrubing strains of fascistic thinking) use the tactics of destroy the messanger, or imply conspiracy, rather than answer direct questions. Occasional commenters who stay civil should be allowed to be anonymous. I suppose, so should people who run full time attack web sites. But it doesn’t mean I won’t hold them in contempt. Contrast with Anthony Watts, who is doing a great service to his country – by asking questions that need to be asked before a multi-trillion dollar economic burden is placed on his fellow citizens in the name of unsupported data, Shallowclimate shows himself to be a bottomfeeder of the worst kind.
I don’t see a problem with making scientific arguments (based on publicly available information) anonymously. As others point out, such arguments can stand or fall on their own merits.
What’s more problematic, or at least ironic, is that Deep Climate has attacked Freeman Dyson’s bona fides and accused others of “astroturfing.”
Seems to me that Deep Climate should grant Freeman Dyson the same courtesy he is asking from the rest of us: viz., to assume good faith and evaluate Freeman Dyson’s arguments on their own merits.
My opinion only.
You said:
I’ve never understood the need for some people to remain anonymous while at the same time attempt to do science.
I can think of one VERY good reason for this. We want to keep our jobs. I suspect that a large portion of your viewers are scientists (or engineers like myself) who agree with your positions, but have a family to feed. Entering into this discussion could have very serious ramifications to the non-self-employed. All it takes is a few dozen AGW believers complaining about your view, and most corporations will fire you, or at least demand your silence.
Now you know.
I originally posted the link to Deep Climate’s post, since I thought it read the clearest among information posted over the last year on the UAH seasonal swing.
In fact, some of the commentators above might want to read his three posts on the UAH seasonal swing in reported anomalies (the links are already given above), and in the other two WUWT posts here. Please guys, at least read the other two recent WUWT posts on the monthly global anomalies, starting with the completely off the wall post ridiculing the GISS report, before starting with the conspiracy theories again.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/giss-for-june-way-out-there/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/16/ncdc-june-2009-second-warmest-on-record-globally/
Skeptics seem to prefer the UAH temperature record, so it is somewhat surprising that they weren’t aware of the sizable seasonal shift occurring in the UAH record. Not only Deep Climate was aware of this problem, but this issue was discussed at Tamino’s site with two posts last fall, and Atmoz posted on this issue, and in fact, someone noticed that the UAH data showed this strange seasonal swing in the monthly data as far back as 2003.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/rss-and-uah/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/annual-cycle-in-uah-tlt/#more-1164
I think the moral of studying all this analysis, is that:
1. We need to be very, very careful in jumping to conclusions based on the monthly anomaly data.
2. Comparisons between different temperature records is difficult to do, and very problematical for short term data.
3. The UAH record is showing a change in the seasonal cycle, but we don’t know if this is real or an artifact of the processing of the satellite data. The data seem to be showing a delay in lower troposphere heating in May and June, but then a prolonged cooldown (with warmer temps) through the following February.
It will be interesting to see if the discrepancy between the UAH analysis of the satellite data, and the RSS analysis which shows only a slight seasonal shift, can be explained.
Mike D. (15:23:25) :
I’d prefer to see the actual data points. If an average line is included, it should have error bars. Also, I’d like some estimate of the error in each data “point” included in the analysis. Also, why the 2003-2008 set? There may be a good reason for that, but some explanation would be informative.
Mike D, if you bothered to read the original posts by Deep Climate, and the posts by Tamino, your questions would be answered. We argued about this on the other WUWT discussion boards, but the bottom line, the seasonal shift in the UAH data is statistically meaningful. What we don’t know, is whether it might be “real”, versus an artifact of the UAH process.
I don’t have a problem with people being anonymous while doing science. The name of the person is not relevant. It should not matter if a paper is submitted by Alan Smithee or Michael Mann. It should receive the same review, scrutiny, and level of respect.
The science should be what matters, not the person behind it.
REPLY: try getting an anonymously authored paper published in a peer reviewed journal. – A
Trevor (13:36:11) “dunce t acronyms.” and “Brits a BBQ summer”
Well, Trevor, I deciphered most of this but what does “Brits” mean?
Mike D. (15:23:25) :
I’d prefer to see the actual data points. If an average line is included, it should have error bars. Also, I’d like some estimate of the error in each data “point” included in the analysis. Also, why the 2003-2008 set? There may be a good reason for that, but some explanation would be informative.
As I’ve explained when I’ve brought this point up in the “Pielke Sr. – Hypothesis on daily UAH LT records” thread 2003-present is the period for which UAH uses the AQUA data whereas their mean is based on a period when an orbit decay correction was used.
Mike D., well the moderator seems to have completely eliminated my post with the links to Tamino’s analysis, as well as the links to the two recent WUWT posts dealing with the June monthly global temperature anomaly. I don’t know why, but it this makes it really hard to discuss the discrepancy between UAH and RSS. I can’t reference previous work, and discussion, even here on the WUWT site!!
Frustrating to say the least. This site is the most heavily censored site I have ever posted on.
[Reply: Your post was in the spam bucket, probably because of the number of links it contained. It’s been rescued and posted. ~dbstealey, moderator]
REPLY2: Paul K what was that again about be very careful about “jumping to conclusions”? Comments with 3 or more links automatically go to the SPAM filter as that fits the profile for commercial spam behavior. It is standard on WordPress.
Your opportunity for an apology is open now. – Anthony
Kevin, there is a very simple way to deal with this. Do like I do.
I work for a large multinational; engineering compnay founded in the 19th century by a very special inventor. I do not participate in discussions involving that company. (And it wasn’t Nicoli Tesla).
New York breaks 1916 record:
http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-york-breaks-summer-cool-streak.html
Dr. Christy: “The process involves at one point the removal of a mean annual cycle in the anomaly differences from one satellite to another.”
Thank you for this valuable information. I applaud your efforts to find a way to avoid prescribing annual structure. My first instinct would be to work with rates of change.
–
Those who are promoting the notion that the small amounts involved are irrelevant should consider brushing up on Stat 101 – (see chapter 2). It is not the magnitude of the residuals that violates the model assumptions; it is the scatter.
So: If you want to retain your credibility for attacking global warming computer fantasies, be sure you do not set a double-standard by dismissing bad assumptions (in this case about annual structure) when it is convenient to your politics.
–
As for anonymity: Workplace culture-intolerance is the norm. A vicious baseball-bat-to-the-face is to be expected. Some of us choose to endure such extreme prejudices, which have real and serious consequences. Not everyone is positioned to weather such impacts.
Jul 19, 2009
El Nino Now Official? – Possible Implications
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow
IT WILL BE A HOT WINTER, NOT!
http://www.icecaps.us
Michael Jankowski (16:43:43) :
I think most readers of WUWT would agree that the science matters, not the individual. But Deep
throatclimate wouldn’t have much to say if it weren’t for his ad hominem attacks. For example:Monckton has forgotten more than Deepclimate will ever know about the climate. That is no doubt the reason DC feels he needs to resort to name calling and character assassination — all because he’s not in agreement with Viscount Monckton.
No wonder the alarmist contingent is losing the science debate.
So all we need now are some Senators and Congressmen in here.
Paul Vaughan (16:58:03) :
consider brushing up on Stat 101 – (see chapter 2). It is not the magnitude of the residuals that violates the model assumptions; it is the scatter.
Consider brushing up on Physics 101. What is important to first order is the magnitude of the residuals. If you predict something and your model is 100 degrees off, that shows a gross violation. Perhaps you could clarify how you distinguish between magnitude of residuals and scatter…
Paul K (16:51:07) :
Man, you sure jump the gun on the censorship thing. Relax. The multiple links thing has happened to you at least once before, just keep it in mind, ok?
There are large, very profound cracks along the seabed where water is already making contact with the fire inside the Earth. These cracks are due entirely to the atomic tests that scientists and their countries -believing themselves powerful- are carrying out without measuring the consequences of the barbaric acts they have committed and are committing against our planet and Humanity.
A free gift for those that seek the truth is available. No group to join, no money required. Any human being, regardless of color, religion, political or religious position has the potential within. Please ask for a free book at: http://www.hercolubus.tv You and you alone can prepare for what is already happening: Floods, Earthquakes, Global Warming, Pandemics, World Wars etc.
Paul K (16:24:58) : What is your position on the GISS data? Are you privy to the computer code and methods used to massage the raw data. Do you consider it to be a better representation of the temperature trend that either RSS or UAH or both?
John F. Hultquist wrote:
“Well, Trevor, I deciphered most of this but what does “Brits” mean?”
LOL!!!
(next q.; what does LOL mean?)
So Leif,
All of this cooling has nothing to do with the sun having no spots? Sure seems like the Jet stream is acting weird this summer. No sun spots still, what’s up with that?
thanks,
Steve
I don’t now, it all seems to be a bunch of angels on pins to me. The differences between the two data sets are tiny. If you get three people doing something in different ways you will get three different results and all three will claim theirs is “best”. I rend to prefer UAH over RSS but it really doesn’t matter. The differences people are talking here are basically negligible. It seems to be a mountain building operation out of a molehill.
The real focus should be on NOAA and why the NCDC and GISS data sets are not only diverging from both UAH and RSS in magnitude but moving in opposite directions (both RSS and UAH cooling, NOAA-based data warming). Spitting hairs here over hundredths of degrees in the satellite data is simply a distraction … but maybe that is the intention.
Smokey (17:15:12) : Likely retaliation for Monckton’s “bed wetters” comments.
Still, pretty immature of the lad.
You know, I’m glad to see that something constructive has come of the tribal attacks on UAH by Deep and pals (Yup, there are motives here-obvious ones-Spencer and Christy are “them” so they must be attacked by “us”-Team mentality…even though Deep isn’t on the Team, he is obviously a fan!)-Christy has responded and we may actually see some resolution to this issues. Can’t wait to here all the apologies when nothing much comes of it…although I fully expect silence….
To all who say the world is warming from CO2, consider this.
I quick looked into CO2 science’s temperature dataset for towns outside of major urban heat islands, take El Dorado Kansas’ dataset for example.
Average maximum July temperature trend is 0
Average summer temperature trend shows the trend line going up by just 4-5 pixels
The winter average high is where the warming is, the one season showing the biggest uptrend.
Now how much of the global warming the last 100 years is from the Winter compared to the Summer? If Winter wins out by a longshot, it’s only a good thing for the biosphere.
For the GISS record don’t forget that 1000’s of square miles of concrete, asphalt, and skyscrapers were created since 1979 especially in the developing world where urban heat islands there would be bound to explode.
For UAH you’d think it’d see a residual UHI effect like at night for example, the the heat given off by buildings and roads would have to escape to space somehow and the way is up through the the layers of the atmosphere
And yet doesn’t the GISS record show big heat in the 30’s before it was adjusted down? The amount of non-urban(rural) space was tons more then, the cities have expanded greatly, the UHI areas and strength have increased as cities have gotton bigger, more towns grew into big cities and new Urban Heat Islands have sprang up. One may think they correct for UHI, but does one really trust their corrective measures and because of that their data should never be questioned, like an emperor who says he always wins in chess so you must play badly on purpose so he can be proven right and also that your life depended on letting him be right and be forced to make sure he can win the game hands down?
The truth is starting to catch up with these guys and they are now knocking over garbage cans as they run in order to delay the inevitable. The harsh light of reality burns away the false veneer. I’m looking at you, deepclimate.
I find this blog fascinating and look at it regularly. Your surfacestations project is of great importance and long overdue. I am partly skeptical of mainstream AGW issues, and am, thus, naturally inclined to this site.
However, I disagree with you on two points. First, I think the anonymity of this type of blog is very useful. It is better to receive comments from people anonymously than not at all, and if many of those who frequent this site are correct – that dissenting voices are being quashed in the mainstream climate research field – then the anonymity you provide allows them to speak their mind. It would be preferable to be able to do this without ridicule. I personally prefer anonymity for my own set of reasons, and would (at present) cease to post if I thought I might be ridiculed or revealed. Many of us would like to make comments as private citizens rather than as scientists, but if we are known at a particular institution, people tend to assume that we are speaking as experts. For those involved in science related to climate, the anonymity allows us to avoid this issue. Also, emotion sometimes gets involved when debate gets heavy and we could be held to our word when we make jokes, flippant remarks or strong statements to highlight a point. Those willing to put their first and last names up front and centre earn my respect (I guess they are better men and women than I in this respect), but there are good reasons for many of us to prefer anonymity.
The second point is with regard to your treatment of a character named Flanagan. Clearly, he has bought the mainstream science hook line and sinker and predictable comments are rather irritating, but if we dish out the criticism on this blog, we should take it too. Otherwise the folks at RC will have nothing but proponents and the folks at WUWT will end up equally polarized. I’m all for the friendly, optional anonymity model.
It’s disgraceful that people hide behind silly screen names. Come along all you anonymous commenters, be out and proud!
Lots of love
FatBigot
DeepClimate?
Leif Svalgaard (17:27:39) “Consider brushing up on Physics 101.”
I do not profess expertise in physics.
–
Leif Svalgaard (17:27:39) “What is important to first order is the magnitude of the residuals. If you predict something and your model is 100 degrees off, that shows a gross violation. Perhaps you could clarify how you distinguish between magnitude of residuals and scatter…”
A model that is useful in practice for a physicist may not meet statistical-model assumptions. If this is the case, you canNOT (credibly) base statistical inference on that model, no matter how useful the model may be in practice. (An example: your 10.7cm flux model.)
A standard regression model assumption is that residuals are scattered as N(0,sigma^2). The usual diagnostic is a scatterplot of the residuals to check for “random scatter”. If any systematic pattern is evident in the residuals plot, YOUR P-VALUES ARE JUNK.
A more thorough treatment of the residuals involves partial-residuals plots & timeplots.
Be aware that a statistically-valid model (that may be junk to a physicist) can have very low r-squared (e.g. I recently found one with r-squared=0.05). (This is just basic Stat 101 – (chapter 2).)
Anecdote
About 15 years ago I had a contract to estimate missing temperature data and my boss instructed me to “use anything with r-squared over 30% if the residuals are ok” …(not saying I agreed with his judgement – but I understood his concern: validity of statistical inference, which is touted as part of good science …again: not saying I agree unconditionally!)
–
I know a statistical consultant who has lots of “funny stories” about clients’ comments (& the clients are publishing academics from a wide variety of disciplines), but ridiculing the clients does not change the hard constraints they face from their respective disciplines.
Clearly where Physics 101 & Stat 101 (or Ecology 101 or whatever) are at odds about what is “proper”, there is cause to exercise sensible judgement. This may mean abandoning p-values – or choosing alternate models with relaxed assumptions (which usually afford less detection-power). There may be other options, depending upon the context.
If we’re only “astroturf”, then please, as befits, roll us up.
Anonymity, or not to be.
It’s a minor distraction, arguable to both sides.
Don’t allow it to distract from the ISSUE at hand.
We are at the pivot, folks.
Ah, sunspots, my favorite.
Out west, we have a monster high pressure cell over the 4 corners region. It ain’t moving. So, all you folks to the East wishing for a summer you’ll have to wait until it decides to move.
It’s stuck in the same lazy pattern our Sun is: Lodi.
Far as I can tell it’s not producing many records, it’s just hot and it’s stuck.
Do you remember this one?
Catch me if you can……….. oooooh ooooooh
A consipiricy theorist might suggest that the name deepclimate has connections to the name of the watergate informer deepthroat, Hanson has always been interested if not obsessed with the romantic idea of being a whistle blower type peoples hero and makes no secret of his admiration for ‘secret squirrels’ jumping out of the vipers nest with planet saving information.
Dave Clarke from the Dave Clarke five, a popular band and a favourite of Hansons to boot, of course the above is just a lateral thinking brain anomoly and may well explain how my mind works, so please snip at will.
If nothing else its amusing!
DC……..phone home.
1of10 (11:57:04) :
“REPLY: try getting an anonymously authored paper published in a peer reviewed journal. – A”
Yeah, but the reviewers get to be anonymous to the author.
John (18:01:30) :
There are large, very profound cracks along the seabed where water is already making contact with the fire inside the Earth. These cracks are due entirely to the atomic tests.
I really think you should look up Ring of Fire, and the Hawaiian island chain, as well as the history of Iceland. Facts are that there are probably more active undersea volcanoes then you see on land. They spit and spudder, they have lava flows, but it is a very difficult science to get info on because we barely have the means to research them effectively. Just recently a volcano topped the surface of the ocean near Tonga. It was quite impressive and had nothing whatso ever to do with Nukes:)
Some of the most pronounced sea levels rises we are seeing are in highly volcanic areas. I also suspect that some of the sea temp changes we see might have a volcanic helper or two, but wind currents and ocean currents decide where it is mixed. But… that is a guess on my part. I defer to the experts on that stuff.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/maps.php
re. anononymous researchers.
There are some employers that don’t like their bright minds in the public eye. I seem to recall there was some guy called “student” (back to stats 101) who liked comparing means of data sets. This guy who worked for some Irish brewery had his research published in Biometrika 1908.
Dr. Christy –
Thank you for the post. Very informative.
Well even though I’m firmly in the sceptic camp, I can understand why some want to be anonymous. Let’s be honest, there are an awful lot of loony tunes out there in Netland. I’ve run into a few while posting on forums. The first time I came on here was with a pseudonym, until I could see that the debates are quite civil and moderated – it stops the crazys from getting hot under the collar about something one might write. Incidentally, if you’ve never read the realclimate site, you should do so just to read the ramblings of dhogaza. The man is possessed. It’s very amusing.
This is really poor. Just 5 May data points and we are suppposed to use that to question the validity of UAH.
For one thing, the ENSO alone could have an effect on these numbers – remember El Ninos and La Ninas normally peak in November to January and there is a three month lag before the impact is felt.
In the five 2000 to 2008 spring data points, there were three La Nina events (3 months earlier) out of the five years.
The AMO as well seems to have declined in the spring 3 times out of the 5 years as well.
If anything, the other temperature databases should have a similar variability in the “seasonal cycle” of these particular 5 years (when the normal seasonal cycle is determined over 31 years to 159 years).
Bill Illis (06:12:01) :
For one thing, the ENSO alone could have an effect on these numbers – remember El Ninos and La Ninas normally peak in November to January and there is a three month lag before the impact is felt.
I already made that point to Paul K, Blue Grue and Deep Climate on another thread, but they ignore it, don’t answer it, and keep tooting the same horn regardless.
Childish really.
Paul Vaughan (16:58:03) :
–
Those who are promoting the notion that the small amounts involved are irrelevant should consider brushing up on Stat 101 – (see chapter 2). It is not the magnitude of the residuals that violates the model assumptions; it is the scatter.
Taking account of real phenomena and not homogenising the data to death is quite important too.
Through the first 19 days of July, the average high in Louisville, Ky has been 81.4 which is the coolest ever. Morning lows are averaging about the 22nd coolest ever so the clouds have been holding that daytime high way down.
Daily average temperature Daily maximum temperature Daily minumum temperature
Standiford Airport (Louisville) 73.8 (7th coolest) 81.8 (1st coolest) 66.6 (22nd coolest)
Lexington Airport 72.1 (11th coolest) 83.8 (2nd coolest) 63.8 (23rd coolest)
Bowling Green Airport 74.7 (8th coolest) 80.3 (6th coolest) 65.5 (27th coolest)
From WAVE3
“Jim (18:28:12) :
Paul K (16:24:58) : What is your position on the GISS data? Are you privy to the computer code and methods used to massage the raw data. Do you consider it to be a better representation of the temperature trend that either RSS or UAH or both?”
Paul K. – Where did you go? Are the questions too hard for you? If you don’t knw how GISS “adjusts” data, then you would only have “faith” that the numbers are accurate and meaninful. Faith ain’t science.
Bill Illis (06:12:01) :
This is really poor. Just 5 May data points and we are suppposed to use that to question the validity of UAH.
Actually 6 and this year is following the same pattern.
For one thing, the ENSO alone could have an effect on these numbers – remember El Ninos and La Ninas normally peak in November to January and there is a three month lag before the impact is felt.
In the five 2000 to 2008 spring data points, there were three La Nina events (3 months earlier) out of the five years.
The AMO as well seems to have declined in the spring 3 times out of the 5 years as well.
If anything, the other temperature databases should have a similar variability in the “seasonal cycle” of these particular 5 years (when the normal seasonal cycle is determined over 31 years to 159 years).
There is some similar structure in RSS but not to the same extent as UAH, the key is that UAH have made a methodology change for that period RSS hasn’t.
Paul K (16:51:07) :
Frustrating to say the least. This site is the most heavily censored site I have ever posted on.
Paul, you know deep down that’s not true. You’ve posted this on WUWT:
Paul K (16:24:58) :
In fact, some of the commentators above might want to read his three posts on the UAH seasonal swing in reported anomalies (the links are already given above), and in the other two WUWT posts here. Please guys, at least read the other two recent WUWT posts on the monthly global anomalies, starting with the completely off the wall post ridiculing the GISS report, before starting with the conspiracy theories again.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/giss-for-june-way-out-there/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/16/ncdc-june-2009-second-warmest-on-record-globally/
Change your blog name to something anonymous, and try posting that on RC.
To the moderator: Thank you for reinstating my post out of the spam bucket. It helps a lot if readers can at least read the studies they are critiquing, along with previous commentary on WUWT.
To Bill Illis: Please read the analysis on Deep Climate’s site (3 posts there) repeatedly linked to here on WUWT. They answer your questions. There is no doubt a significant seasonal swing in the UAH record, much higher than the RSS record, which should be the closest comparative record. Even Dr. Christy admits this is a significant variation in his comments.
REPLY: “Sorry” (for jumping to conclusions and assuming he was being censored and making that accusation) is not in Paul K’s vocablulary apparently. But given how mean Paul K is and the things he says about WUWT on other blogs, one really would not expect him to be capable of doing so.- Anthony
Jim (18:28:12) :
Paul K (16:24:58) : What is your position on the GISS data? Are you privy to the computer code and methods used to massage the raw data. Do you consider it to be a better representation of the temperature trend that either RSS or UAH or both?
I am not the most qualified person who posts here, to answer your question, but here are my thoughts and conclusions on this:
The numerical values of the anomalies of the various temperature records cannot be compared directly, due to a host of issues. Many of the records use different base periods to calculate the anomalies, and thus the reported number would need to be adjusted for this. The different records combine the satellite and other recorded temperatures differently and they handle the polar regions differently (RSS and UAH in particular differ greatly on this, even though they both are primarily satellite data based).
GISS data is collected and calculated more directly on input like sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and so there could be valid and real differences between GISS and UAH: i.e. both could have different measurement results, and both could be valid for the variable data they collected. This is especially true for short term data, like month to month data.
If you look at June reports, the GISS and NOAA reports are clearly picking up the cyclical rise in SSTs as we move into what seems to be an emerging El Nino. These SSTs are clearly pushing the monthly reported number up.
The UAH report is based on lower and mid-troposphere temperature readings, and doesn’t use the SSTs directly.
To me, both reports could be accurate within their uncertainties, and both could end up being modified or corrected down the road. I don’t think a direct comparison at this point is meaningful. And I certainly don’t believe that this comparison justifies the accusations of data manipulation and f____ that posters on WUWT jumped to.
The anomalies of the various temperature records are best compared by looking at the warming trends that can be calculated from the records over a number of years. This is in fact the metric that Dr. Christy used in his response above. Bottom line, I trust UAH scientists are doing their best to collect and report data using the system they have, and that GISS scientists are doing likewise. We need to be knowledgeable enough to understand the limitations of their reports, and avoid jumping to conclusions.
I will finish by agreeing with Roger Pielke Sr. and a host of comments on the other recent WUWT post on sea level rise… Global warming is really best measured by the increase in ocean heat content (OHC), and the best measure of OHC is sea level rise over time, since the bulk of sea level rise so far is the thermal expansion of sea water. There is far more heat being stored in the oceans over time, than in the atmosphere. The oceans seem to exchanging heat with the atmosphere in short term cycles, and there may be a connection with sea levels rising faster during emerging El Nino periods. I would watch the sea level information over the next 24 months very carefully, and if sea levels hit new highs, this is a very strong signal of global heating.
David Ball said:
“The truth is starting to catch up with these guys and they are now knocking over garbage cans as they run in order to delay the inevitable. The harsh light of reality burns away the false veneer. I’m looking at you, deepclimate.”
I basically agree. Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but the warmists seem to be getting more and more desparate. For example, in the last year or two, I have started hearing claims that we have “X months” or “Y years” to save the planet from global warming.
I think what’s driving the desperation is that surface and ocean temperatures have been flat or declining for a number of years now, without any volcano to point at. If this trend continues for a few more years, the warmists are dead meat and they know it.
My opinion only.
Paul K (09:16:41) : Thank you for that answer, Paul. I infer from your answer that you are not privy ot the methods uses by NASA to adjust GISS data.
The GISS data is based on relatively sparse measuring stations, sparse relative to the surface area of the Earth. We know from the research done by Anthony so far, that many of these stations have been re-sited, that urbanization has occurred around them, some have been taken out of service, many have had equipment replaced over the years, the temperature measuring instruments are in some cases precise to only +/- 2 degrees, the time of day the temperature is read is variable, the physical condition of some enclosures have deteriorated; and we know neither NASA nor NCDC know the details of these changes. They have not validated the source of the GISS data. You tell me how some magical, statistical fairy dust can tease any meaningful data out of that mess without even knowing the details of the sensors?? I can see why they won’t publish the “adjustment” methods because I’m 95% sure they would end up impaled upon the same sword as Steig, Mann, and Rahmstorf.
Couple of points –
Cassandra King, does your brain anomaly trend differently in the winter than in the summer? Hey, I’m just asking… 🙂
FatBigot, i don’t care “what” you are, i’m going to love you for “who” you are. 🙂
crosspatch, again, RIGHT-ON! “Looking” in the wrong place for errors can make one very frustrated – – opps, sorry. Did i just hit the nail on the head – deepclimate? Hmm, i don’t think i’ll add that name to my spellchecker…
LOL, Laughing Out Loud, wws. But what does “Brits” mean? LOL – again!
….. and how do we KNOW a trend difference (as defined here, winter to summer) is an indication of an error? If the system we’re measuring is by definition unstable i.e., always changing, including the overall trend AND we do not know if this system is in one of those overall trend change phases…..
Any unstable analog system can produce short cycle “trend” differences within those short cycles, but especially during long cycle phase changes. Yes, keep analyzing but I’d hold off on that trip to Vegas if your betting those trends are errors in calculation.
Iceagenow has reported more than 100 low temperature records each during the last 2 days over the entire Eastern half of the U.S. the latest day saw that low temperature records were made in nearly every corner of my state of Kansas.
NOAA reports the July low max temp. record numbers officially left June in the dust with 1755 records either new or tied, which almost doesn’t make sense if UAH channel 5 is suggesting one of the warmest Julys ever since 1979.
Paul K (09:03:36) :
Even Dr. Christy admits this is a significant variation in his comments.
In your dreams.
“The range in the current v5.2 LT looks too large
(about 0.12 C/decade). However, one should expect differences from month to month, especially when ENSOs and a volcano have different impacts by months so
so the range shouldn’t be zero. I’ll keep looking into this and if a
reasonable result is produced, I’ll rename the dataset v5.3.
The important point in all of this is that the overall global trend of the entire
time series ranges insignificantly from +0.123 to +0.125 C/decade even
under the different merging methods used to date. This is because the removal of the annual cycle of differences from satellite to satellite does not add any bias
to the time series, so the overall trend doesn’t change.”
Adam from Kansas,
If I’ve understood correctly UAH ch05 covers the whole globe. Not just the US which covers about 3% of the global land mass (I thought it was). Does that make sense?
tallbloke: Christy said right in the quote you excerpted, that there was a range in the warming trend of 0.12 C/ decade (from the ‘high’ Jan/Feb trend, to the ‘low’ May trend). And he said that this range looks too large, and no kidding, it is! The entire UAH series itself only shows warming of +.123 to +.125, so the range in the monthly trends that is as large as the entire series trend, is a very significant month to month variation.
That is why we shouldn’t be using the monthly UAH data, particularly for May and June! How long does it take for you to understand this? And its not in my dreams, as you claim, but right out of Christy’s comments.
It does cover the globe, though for the U.S it doesn’t seem like it’s close to the hottest July on record, that means it must mean some part of the globe is experiencing way above normal temps. or the data is in error. Though with recent stories of below average temperatures around the globe one may wonder what the exact reason is.
The anonymous poster might be better off adopting a silly nom de plume like “the platypus,’ ‘oddsbodkins,’ or ‘Tamino,’ for example. Some people will then inevitably give them some counterculture streetcred they might not otherwise attain anonymously.
Jim, regarding the GISS temperature record… Prove to me the claims you make in your post are correct.
First, what is the trend for the US land stations for the ‘best stations’ that Mr. Watts has identified versus the trend for the worst? You imply in your post that there should be a 1 to 2 degree difference. Does the data show this? Please link to the analysis supporting your claims.
Secondly, the US land measurements only cover 2% of the globe. The highest warming is in the higher latitudes such as the Arctic and Siberia, and over the oceans. This is what we would expect if global warming was heating the oceans, and reducing the outflow of heat from the polar regions. All of this contradicts your simple minded extrapolation of land station data to entire surface of the Earth.
These inaccuracies have been debunked so many times, that one science reporter, Peter Sinclair has made some videos on this, that even non-experts can review and see the logical errors in the theory you espouse.
For me, I find that Mr. Watts and the commentators here are focussed too much on minor details or short data periods, and are missing the overwhelming big picture. As I posted, sea level rise clearly shows ocean heating over the long term, with swings in the data that seem to be caused by ENSO and other ocean cycles. I have read over and over how some here claim global warming stopped in 1998. Yet the sea level has risen significantly since 1998, and the bulk of that rise is due to the thermal expansion of water. This is overwhelming evidence of ocean heating, and the minor temperature swings in the atmospheric record would be caused by much less heat than the major heat build in the oceans.
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. is correct that ocean heating is the key metric to measure global warming, and SLR is the most robust metric to reflect this heat build. Just look at the graph of SLR since 1998, and realize that we are leaving a La Nina period…
The SLR graph clearly shows a major build of ocean heat since the mid 90s.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg
The focus of the posts on WUWT on US land station data, and month to month variation in the global anomalies, and trying to compare the month to month numbers of the various temperature records, and all the anecdotal “its cold here today” posts, are off-target and missing the most overwhelming pieces of evidence shows the planet is heating.
Christy:
“It turns out that all satellites have a residual annual cycle due to each instrument’s peculiarities.”
As you go an look at the AMSU-A at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps, you notice that the cycle is more than 5 degrees F.
With this level of instrumental error, what is the credibility of the satellite measurements at all? It is not evident that the trend becomes correct after such huge corrections needed.
Paul K (13:14:41) : The GISS temperature methods are published after all, along with the computer code. However, the description of adjustments apparently isn’t laid out in a clear, step-by-step manner; so at least some of the original criticism remains. The GISS adjustments should be spelled out in a crystal clear manner.
Moderator, these links might work, last post was bad! Thanks.
Is there a connection between DeepClimate and this Dave Clarke guy? DC, geddit? He’s the domain registrant and also these searches are revealing.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22dave+clarke%22+site%3Aclimateaudit.org
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22dave+clarke%22+site%3Arealclimate.org
BTW Cassandra, the DC out of the Dave Clark Five lacked an ‘e’ at the end of his surname.
Paul K,
You say: “Prove to me the claims you make in your post are correct.” While at the same time you give erroneous information. For example:
The ARGO buoys do not show any warming at all, so you’re wrong about ocean warming. In fact, they show a slight cooling. And global temperatures are normal.
I understand that you global warming alarmists are truly agonizing over the plain fact that there is no global warming currently going on. And there is no unnatural coral bleaching. And there is no measurable change in ocean acidification. And global sea ice isn’t declining, it’s increasing. And the polar bears aren’t drowning, they’re increasing, too. And the sea level is not rising any more now than it has since the pre-SUV LIA. And the ozone hole is still there like it always is, causing no harm. And CO2 is not harmful, it is beneficial; more is better. Etc., etc.
In fact, just about every claim made by the alarmist crowd over the past twenty years has turned out to be flat wrong. Being consistently wrong means it’s time to stop digging that AGW hole, don’t you think?
It may surprise you, but the sea level rises and falls predictably: click. Trying to blame it on human activity is a fool’s errand.
[for the record, this comment was empty as received. Either Paul K left it empty or put code it that was removed by WordPress. I’m posting this so he doesn’t “jump to conclusions” and say he’s being censored” again – Anthony]
Adam from Kansas wrote: “Though with recent stories of below average temperatures around the globe one may wonder what the exact reason is.”
There are also recent stories of above average temperatures around the globe, but you won’t see them reported here. I’d rather not see any of those, either way. ENSO, SLR, Methane emissions, (minimum) Arctic Sea Ice Extent etc. are much more interesting subjects. Which also get their fair share here most of the time, BTW.
Well the people who spray graffitti all over public places like to have anonymity too; they want you to read their messages; specially the ones in public rest rooms; but they don’t want to admit the did it.
It’s very similar to the message; “We have no quarrel with those who offer their wares for sale for less; they after all should know just what their stuff is worth !
One reason, why I don’t believe anything I read in ANY newspaper, that comes form some “usually reliable source”, or some “high placed White House official” or sources who wish to remain anonymous, is because among the things that it is the public’s right to know: the gospel of all news reporters, is the original source of that “information”. Without that the public has no way to place a credibility index on the story.
Anonymous “information, isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.
Smokey, I hate to break this to you, but the Argo buoys don’t measure sea level rise.
Sea level rise is a terrific way to measure ocean heating, which is why Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. is obsessing with the short term trend in SLR. The Argo buoys try to measure OHC using upper level ocean temperatures over the entire planet. The Argo system won’t measure variables like increased upwelling of deeper ocean waters. It is going to take some time to understand the Argo data, and independently confirm it with heat balance calculations.
But SLR is a robust measurement, and the amount of the rise due to land based ice sheet melt, and ocean mass balance changes, can be confirmed by the GRACE satellite measurements of the ocean mass. In any case, the SLR is much higher than can be explained by ice sheet melt, and much higher than can be explained by the short record of OHC measured by Argo buoys. The SLR is consistent with the correct longer term OHC rise, and is consistent with the estimated global energy imbalance.
I can see why you push the Argo data, because SLR is a huge thorn in the side of skeptics. No wonder Dr. Pielke is obsessing on it. He needs to have SLR slow down substantially, or else the ocean heating evidenced by SLR is devastating to skeptical arguments.
My view, is that data on SLR should at least cover an entire ENSO cycle, so when Dr. Pielke only looks at data since the last El Nino, during La Nina conditions, to eyeball a flat SLR trend, he is really reaching. If we get a reasonably strong El Nino this fall and winter, my bet is that we see an uptick in SLR and the global temperature anomalies. But in any case, this is very short term data… the longer trend of 15 years, which is a reasonable climate record time scale, clearly shows substantial SLR with a large increase in ocean heat, and a substantial global temperature increase. The data strongly supports global heating.
Paul K writes
“That is why we shouldn’t be using the monthly UAH data, particularly for May and June! ”
By your measure, let’s throw them all out then, take our balls and go home. Newsflash for Paul K – ALL the datasets have problems.
GISS is a statistcal trainwreck run by a man with obvious biases, biases enough to get him thrown in jail, RSS uses the same data as UAH with a different algorithm, also with seasonal signals, HadCRUT refuses to divulge any of their methodology making it suspect for lack of replication and verification, and GHCN is mostly airports.
Still waiting for a real apology from you for the accusation of censorship. For you to be able to move on here it is a requirement.
Just going to throw this out there without having had time to read all comments…
Is there any chance that winter is warming more than summer (and thus that these data are real?). I apologize if this has already been covered (busy day).
Paul K (16:35:08) :
“I can see why you push the Argo data, because SLR is a huge thorn in the side of skeptics. No wonder Dr. Pielke is obsessing on it. He needs to have SLR slow down substantially, or else the ocean heating evidenced by SLR is devastating to skeptical arguments.”
You are aware that the sea level has been rising for the vast majority of the last 12,000 years eh. This is not actually a new thing. And if you want to take an extended look at sea level rise verse GHG’s, there’s not really a very good correlation at all. So to use SLR as “proof” of GHG warming would require you to be rather selective in the data used. Its proof of thermal expansion sure. But thats all. Correlation isnt proof of effect. Especially when you have to be rather selective in time frames to achieve youre correlation.
So the sea level rise is not new, a basic knowledge of the Holocene period would show that the current climate trends are inside “normal” variation. So the raised GHG warming could easily be inside normal climate noise. And indeed the “flattening” of SLR, and temperature trends of the last decade would suggest its certainly not an overriding factor at this stage. And that the forcing parameters used have been exaggerated.
PaulK, knockin’ over garbage cans,…… the desperation is palpable. What happened to deepclimate?
Neven (16:28:34) As has been pointed out many times, the MSM presents only the CAGW side of the story. Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you can not handle a blog like Anthony’s posting climate information that DOES NOT get presented in MSM, and DOES NOT agree with your views? Poor Neven (and all those doomsayers) who have hung their collective hat on a failed theory. People are entitled to their opinions and the right to express them (within reason, and a blog is reasonable). To think otherwise is a vote for fascism. Don’t tread on me, …..
MikeE wrote: “You are aware that the sea level has been rising for the vast majority of the last 12,000 years eh. This is not actually a new thing.”
Actually MikeE, it is a new thing, or better said, a “different” thing. Most of the long term rise in sea level has been due to glacier melting since the last ice age. But the bulk of the recent rise in sea level for the last 30 years is due to the thermal expansion of water. This clearly shows the heat content of the oceans is increasing.
If you want to argue about this, you might as well argue about the theory of gravity. This physical property of water is very well established. Water does expand as it is heated, and we can measure that thermal expansion quite accurately.
I would suggest that the commentators asking about this, read this five page report on the heat balance in the oceans, related to SLR, and for that matter, the measures of global energy imbalance. The link below is to the first page, then click on the links to additional pages. The most interesting results are on page 4 and page 5.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
Another MikeE comment: “And indeed the “flattening” of SLR, and temperature trends of the last decade would suggest its certainly not an overriding factor at this stage.”
My response: Sea level has not been flattening over the last decade… only a few hopeful skeptics eyeball the graph, and conclude it may be flattening over the last couple of years (in La Nina conditions, and following the last push up in an emerging El Nino). But sea level rise since the mid-1990s has been huge, and this means big ocean and planetary heating during that timeframe.
wattsupwiththat (17:16:04) :
By your measure, let’s throw them all out then, take our balls and go home. Newsflash for Paul K – ALL the datasets have problems.
GISS is a statistcal trainwreck run by a man with obvious biases, biases enough to get him thrown in jail, RSS uses the same data as UAH with a different algorithm, also with seasonal signals, HadCRUT refuses to divulge any of their methodology making it suspect for lack of replication and verification, and GHCN is mostly airports.
RSS doesn’t show the exaggerated seasonal factor that UAH does, which leads one to question the seasonal swing in UAH even more. As for me, I am not completely sure the satellites aren’t measuring a change in the annual cycle of temperatures in the mid and lower troposphere. The UAH data could be right, and the RSS data incorrect. We can’t say with certainty. But what is clear, is that the satellite data for the troposphere is clearly different than the temperature records that utilize SSTs.
The long range trends in the anomaly data are much more robust than these monthly numbers, so No, I don’t want to throw them all out. I think they are showing global warming of the atmosphere. But as my comments above reflect, I underweight this evidence in favor of the buildup of heat in the oceans. That is the really strong signal of global heating.
Still waiting for a real apology from you for the accusation of censorship. For you to be able to move on here it is a requirement.
If I respond to this with data, which I would prefer to do, the moderator could (and should) snip it for being off-topic. I already thanked him for rescuing one of my longer posts from the spam bucket. For the censorship issue, I replied to you via email to take this off the public burner.
REPLY: What a ridiculous statement, “responding with data” when an apology is called for. Well then you win the penalty box prize k my man. The words “I apologize” are usually effective at solving such gaffs, but you don’t seem to know how to use those words. It will remain on the “public burner” since you jumped (publicly) to the accusations of censorship. So now you get the penalty box. If you wish to have the penalty removed simply say “I apologize”. – Anthony Watts
Paul K (19:54:17) :
You missed my point completely. Proof of warming is not proof of the cause! Im not arguing against thermal expansion, i was merely pointing out youre reasoning is simplistic at best. The thermal expansion of the oceans is not new, neither is climate change. And of course a proportion of the historical rise will be due too thermal expansion, as well as glacial melt. Since the end of the last glacial maximum sea level has risen around 100m, that would be 8.33mm a year if it was a uniform event extended to the present day. Dwarfing the current trends(and kinda ironically, we survived it with stone age technology). Thermal expansion of the oceans is a slow process. But its not really proof of the cause. Its proof that the oceans are warming, which they have been for the last twelve thousand years!
Yet “sea levels” are still well below their Holocene maximum height. Nothing we’re seeing is unprecedented.
Paul K (19:54:17) :
But sea level rise since the mid-1990s has been huge, and this means big ocean and planetary heating during that timeframe.
You correctly identify ocean heat content and sea level rise as an issue which is key to understanding C20th warming, but you don’t discuss figures.
The sea level rise due to expansion was around 16mm 1993-2003 with about the same again due to ice melt, mostly from Greenland.
The ocean gained around 14×10^22J over the same period. This extra ocean heat content is equivalent to around 4W/m^2 and is therefore most solar in origin, due to the run of high postwar cycles.
The sea level fell between the last four solar cycles according to Holgate’s reconstruction
http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/holgate-9-station-with-std-dev-digitized.jpg
Logic dictates that this was due to a lowering of the rate of rise in ocean heat content at solar minima and/or accretion of ice.
Domingues et al’s reconstruction of ocean heat content indicates the former is a significant factor.
The discharge from Greenland has been back to long term averages since 2007, and the outgoing longwave radiation from the surface is up 4W/m^2 from mid 2000. The Pacific ocean has cooled slightly since 2003 as shown by sea level maps.
If you’d like to discuss real facts and figures, I’m happy to do so.
If you wish to posture and handwave instead, that’s fine too.
John (18:01:30) :
There are large, very profound cracks along the seabed where water is already making contact with the fire inside the Earth. These cracks are due entirely to the atomic tests that scientists and their countries -believing themselves powerful- are carrying out without measuring the consequences of the barbaric acts they have committed and are committing against our planet and Humanity.
—
And incorrect – more accurately – completely false – claims like this are why people shjould post comments with consistent and verifiable names. (There are too many demonstrably false notions in this single paragraph to bother writing more.)
Though, as Galileo and other historic science critics have found, posting as “student” and “Simplicio” – or when on one’s deathbed as Copernicus did – is a way to avoid the slings and arrows of those who’s ox is being Al-Gored.
I can sympathize with being unnamed: But, “deepclimate” has nothing to lose and everything to gain in today’s apolitically corrupt science venues by pushing his (her?) “conventional wisdom”for conventional funding and conventional acclaim by the masses and misses.
I’ve played around with the UAH anomalies a bit in order to better illustrate the problem.
I have taken 5-year averages of redefined “seasons” in order to reduce the noise level while still leaving enough data points to discern the time evolution. I shifted the “seasons” by one month as Feb/Mar/Apr, May/Jun/Jul, Aug/Sep/Oct and Nov/Dec/Jan, because the impact of Christy’s adjustment is largest in MJJ. The 5-year periods are indicated in the plot. Conveniently 1998 (the year both of the transition between data sets and the big El Nino) lies at the border between two 5-year periods.
http://i26.tinypic.com/azfbte.png
The mean anomalies of the period 1994-1998 are high because of the El Nino in 1998. The mean anomalies of 1994-1997 (4 years) are about 0.1°C lower.
Tallbloke, posture and handwave is all he’s got. It’s all any of them have. I hope he can swallow his pride and say, sorry, I am wrong. What do you think the chances of that are? It sure gets tiresome when you keep showing them they are wrong, and it is ignored.
Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070809/20070809_06.pdf
FWIW, According to the domain registration history, DeepClimate belongs to Dave Clarke of the band Steel Rail in Canada.
http://steelrail.ca
Robert A Cook PE (08:14:58) : Statements can be fact checked without knowing from whom they come. I kind of like judging the content rather than the source. This leaves out all the human biases like status and such, and just highlights the idea or content.
tallbloke (01:51:23) : Actually, guys, what is happening is the Earth is expanding as it cools and further solidifies 🙂
So HADCRU comes in as the 3rd warmest on record, NCDC as the 2nd warmest, with the warmest SST’s for the month on record and GISS as the 2nd warmest.
Why oh Why can’t some people accept that Christy is so far out for his monthly anomaly that it beggars belief.
Currently UAH data is running around 0.5C ahead of July this time last year, I wonder what the monthly anomaly will be come 2 mins past midnight on the 1st of August.
To me it’s obvious that before the 98 El Nino UAH was the last of the datasets to start the sharp upward trend, the same is happening this time, July will pop up to be the 4th or 5th warmest on record for UAH and guess what, WUWT probably won’t run the story……
The Iceberg (12:27:54) : Is the methodology used for HADCRU data processing public?
Jim (12:27:54) I guess the iceberg doesn’t think it is important to reveal methodology for replication. WUWT? would likely run THAT story if it was revealed.
David Ball (21:11:19) : Yep, an “inconvenient question” I suppose.
” Jim (12:57:41) :
The Iceberg (12:27:54) : Is the methodology used for HADCRU data processing public?”
Is the methodology of UAH processing public?
Jack (12:31:58) :
“” Jim (12:57:41) :
The Iceberg (12:27:54) : Is the methodology used for HADCRU data processing public?”
Is the methodology of UAH processing public?”
Good question! I’ll ask.
I noticed that Dave Clarke lives in the same town as Andrew Weaver, and that they seem to have the same climate perspective (hmmmmm). Interesting that Dave Clarke wants to remain anonymous and that Andrew Weaver will not debate Dr. Tim Ball in an open forum. Hmmmmmm, … Typical AGW tactics. The tactics of cowards who know they are wrong. Bring it, boys, ….
To Tallblock, and Smokey, and David Ball… We have eviscerated the rather ill-advised attempt to compare the monthly UAH June global anomaly, with GISS or NOAA or HadCRU. This was the point of several WUWT posts.
Isn’t it true that even the UAH scientists are shying away from directly comparing their monthly anomalies with the other records? I see no real scientific support at all for the WUWT comparisons.
You say Bring it, boys. We brought it, and lets face it, the WUWT regulars lost this argument. Get over it. You don’t have any legs left to stand to on to support the comparisons made here.
Changing the subject to arcane minutiae of how the anomalies are calculated won’t change the major issue here. The monthly UAH data cannot be compared directly with the GISS data, and even the UAH guys say that they don’t question specific GISS monthly data.
Paul K (19:12:28):
Why the hell not??
With CO2 rising and the planet’s temperature falling, your falsified CO2=AGW hypothesis is in shambles. Forget skeptics, the planet itself is laughing at your hubris.
Paul K (19:12:28) : You are correct that a direct comparison cannot be made, but wrong about what that means. In point of fact, the comparison should be between UAH/1.2 to a surface data set (preferably not GISS, which extrapolates over the area very near the poles where no one else does, and which seems to cause the temps in GISS to behave oddly in terms of fluctuations.
The reason why is that we expect the LT change to be greater than the surface change. Of course, even ignoring the caveats, one can see that the expectation of greater warming aloft than at the surface doesn’t hold up, strongly suggesting that something is amiss with either 1. Theory 2. Models 3. Data or some combination (note that if theory is wrong, the models are also wrong).
Hardly suggests to me a “loss” for WUWT and a “win” for sophomoric dopes who declare victory based on the fact that a battle is over, before making body counts…
Try again guys, do the scientists behind the UAH data support your arguments in attacking the GISS monthly data? This is what WUWT tried to do, and they failed, and for good reason. The different temperature records can only be compared over the long term (15+ years) and only by qualitatively comparing the warming trend ( K/decade) in each temperature record.
The short term comparisons attempted here turned out to be flawed. And the UAH scientists do not support the use of UAH monthly data to attack GISS monthly data. The different temperature records measure different variables, with different assumptions, often with different base periods (for calculating the anomalies). Give it up, and get over it.
Paul K (21:42:20) : “The different temperature records can only be compared over the long term (15+ years) and only by qualitatively comparing the warming trend ( K/decade) in each temperature record.”
Aside from the fact that you say qualitative when you mean quantitative-why don’t you try actually doing such a comparison? I told you what such a comparison, if done properly (or even not done properly) would say-GISS has a warm bias. Your misdirection to the issue of month to month variability is odd, surely it is the trend comparison which really matters-SO TRY DOING ONE SOME TIME! Call us back to tell us to give up when you have done a comparison to find the difference in trends.
Do your homework lassy, or don’t come back to school at all.
Jack (12:31:58) : ” Jim (12:57:41) : The Iceberg (12:27:54) : Is the methodology used for HADCRU data processing public?” Is the methodology of UAH processing public?
Here is the UAH documentation. As you can see, UAH have been very public with their methodology – now where is the HADCRU documentation?
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992: Precision and Radiosonde Validation of Satellite Gridpoint Temperature Anomalies. Part I: MSU Channel 2. J. Climate, 5, 847–857.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992: Precision and Radiosonde Validation of Satellite Gridpoint Temperature Anomalies. Part II: A Tropospheric Retrieval and Trends during 1979–90. J. Climate, 5, 858–866.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and R.T. McNider, 1995: Reducing Noise in the MSU Daily Lower-Tropospheric Global Temperature Dataset. J. Climate, 8, 888–896.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and E.S. Lobl, 1998: Analysis of the Merging Procedure for the MSU Daily Temperature Time Series. J. Climate, 11, 2016–2041.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 2000: MSU Tropospheric Temperatures: Dataset Construction and Radiosonde Comparisons. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 17, 1153–1170.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell, and D.E. Parker, 2003: Error Estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU–AMSU Bulk Atmospheric Temperatures. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 20, 613–629.
Christy, J. R., W. B. Norris, R. W. Spencer, and J. J. Hnilo (2007), Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from
tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06102, doi:10.1029/2005JD006881.
Christy, J.R., and W.B. Norris, 2009: Discontinuity Issues with Radiosonde and Satellite Temperatures in the Australian Region 1979–2006. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 26, 508–522.
Paul K (21:42:20) : “Try again guys, do the scientists behind the UAH data support your arguments in attacking the GISS monthly data?”
What the %*&!@# does that have to do with anything? The computer code behind the GISS data is what matters, along with the sparsity of the monitoring stations, the frequent station moves, removing stations, citing stations on concrete, asphalt, and tarmac, the list is just too long!! The fact is that GISS is useless for climate research. I’m betting the same is true for HADCRU – otherwise they would quit hiding behind this and that excuse and publish it for all the world to see. The sad truth is that because GISS has been so badly managed, we don’t have any reliable land/sea surface temperature data for the last 100 – 200 years.
>Jim (06:53:55) :
>Here is the UAH documentation.
Jim,
Thanks for a good list of publications. I’ll try to look into them.