Hadley CRU to merge surface and satellite climate data in new program

I was poking around the Hadley site and found this interesting announcement. It seems Hadley CRU / Dr. Phil Jones is looking for a candidate to do this project, with the goal of (as I read it) creating some sort of merger between surface data and MSU satellite data to create a wholly new (and one would hope, imporved) MSU data set. Sort of a “ground truth” for Lower Tropo data I suppose. Given Hadley’s latest antics of purging publicly available data, one wonders if we’ll even get to see the results of this. Any candidates out there? – Anthony

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/noaa-n_satellite.jpg?w=700

Can we create a better Microwave Sounding Unit climate record through the use of high-quality in-situ data?

School: Environmental Sciences

Supervisor(s): Professor Phil Jones; Dr Roland von Glasow

Application Deadline: 30th September 2009

Description:

SELF FUNDED STUDENTS ONLY. The Microwave Sounding Unit and replacement Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit have been operational since late 1978. They are flown on-board the NOAA series of polar-orbiting satellites and more recently the METOP platform. They measure upwelling microwave emissions from Oxygen molecules which are dependent almost entirely upon temperature. This makes their analysis as a fundamental climate data record appealing. However, the measurements have been made with forecast input in mind leading to inevitable and insidious non-climatic influences permeating the record.

The challenge is how best to remove these to retain an unambiguous estimate of the true long-term changes. To date MSU satellite climate datasets of bulk atmospheric temperature profile characteristics have been created solely by comparison between records from individual satellite platforms. Although this is adequate to identify the likely issues, such a two-point intercalibration is mathematically fundamentally ill-posed for the unambiguous removal of non-climatic influences from the time series.

To adequately remove the non-climatic influences requires multiple independent estimates of the true field value to be able to identify which instrument is behaving anomalously and then remove the non-climatic artefacts with minimal uncertainty. Furthermore, this historical approach runs a fundamental risk to the climate record if at any point there is either no satellite or only one satellite measuring, which could plausibly be the case at some point in the future and has been the case for a limited time in the historical record.

We have high quality processed (non-operational) time series available from a number of sites around the world. These sites include stations participating in the ARM program and a number of national observatories and special research sites. Their data cover most, if not all, of the MSU record which begins in 1979. We also have access to a wealth of information from reanalysis feedback files from the more recent reanalyses, and from the global radiosonde network. Taken together these data should be sufficient to allow a fundamentally different approach to be undertaken to MSU dataset development and hence to re-evaluate currently available MSU-based series. At a minimum they should permit a realistic assessment of the range of plausible time series evolution in a way that is well constrained.

Lessons learnt from the work would have the opportunity to significantly inform development of the recently instigated GCOS Reference Upper Air Network (GRUAN). It would also benefit major upcoming scientific assessments and reanalyses efforts. The student will be expected to spend substantial amounts of time both at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the DWD Lindenberg observatory facility that acts as the lead centre for GRUAN. However, the bulk of their time will be spent at UEA. Financial support will be available for these placements and they will afford a substantial opportunity for the right candidate to develop their skills and expertise.

The candidate will be given training in the critical analysis of disparate observational datasets, statistical analysis techniques, computing techniques as well as standard UEA and Met Office training courses as seen fit by the supervisory panel. The placement in different locations will aid teamwork, transferability of computing skills and problem solving development. The candidate will be expected to provide at least one presentation to a Met Office audience and one to a UEA audience and to attend one high profile conference or workshop. Opportunities may arise to attend further international meetings as funding permits.

References

GCOS, 2003: The Second Report on the Adequacy of the Global Observing Systems for Climate in support of the UNFCCC. Global Climate Observing System GCOS-82, WMO/TD No. 1143, 74 pp

GCOS, 2004: GCOS Implementation Plan for the Global Observing System for Climate in support of UNFCCC. GCOS-92, WMO/TD 1219, 136 pp

Mears, C.A. and F.J. Wentz, 2005: The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature. Science, 309, 1548-1551

Thorne P.W., et al., 2005a: Revisiting radiosonde upper air temperatures from 1958 to 2002, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D18105, doi:10.1029/2004JD005753

Thorne, P.W., et al., 2005b: Uncertainties in climate trends: Lessons from upper-air temperature records. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86, 1437–1442

76 thoughts on “Hadley CRU to merge surface and satellite climate data in new program

  1. Govt job, civil service, international conferences, pension? Where do I sign up?
    I guess they need someone to remove those insidious non-climate factors like temperature, that keep contaminating the data and making it deviate the HadleyCRUT truth. At last, a bid for independence from the pro-skeptic RSS and UAH data.
    Good job for another mole.

  2. However, the measurements have been made with forecast input in mind leading to inevitable and insidious non-climatic influences permeating the record.
    Is he talking about Al Gore?

  3. Mike McMillan (22:17:14) :
    Govt job, civil service, international conferences, pension?

    I don’t think “self funded students” get any of the civil service perks. Unless the British university graduate programs are radically different that those in other countries.

  4. Well this little job posting is nice but I want to see the July Stats!
    There has been no small amount of controversy over the site last month the numbers should be impressive!
    Or looking at alexa maybe not 🙁

  5. “Although this is adequate to identify the likely issues, such a two-point intercalibration is mathematically fundamentally ill-posed for the unambiguous removal of non-climatic influences from the time series. ”
    I dunno. Sounds like he is looking for a chiropractor to “adjust” the satellite date in order to remove “non-climactic influences”. Sounds like they mean “the data is currently lying so we need to waterboard it and get it to tell the truth”.

  6. Having read the description twice, I do not see what the student will be doing. It is just a long preamble without anything resembling a ‘job description’. Perhaps the message is all buried in what appears to be a language that only the chosen few can understand.

  7. @……….merger between surface data and MSU satellite data to create a wholly new (and one would hope, imporved) MSU data set………..”
    Surely you have had enough experience of (UK) bureaucrats to know that’s not how it works. Adjustments will need to be made………
    My bet is that they will define the satellite as 1 record and each of the hundreds of ground stations will be 1 record EACH. And so the troubling discrepency between ground & sat records disappears, like state-sponsored magic!

  8. I’m a bit confused as to why this is even necessary. I looked up some of the specifications of the AMSU hardware on each of the NOAA satellites just to try and understand the mechanism by which they calculate a temperature better and it would seem that each unit on each satellite performs a self-calibration every 8 seconds by comparing to an on board black body source at ~300k and also to the cosmic background radiation at ~2.73k. It would also appear that the European Radiocommunications Committee as far back as 1997 were aware of the difficulty in calibrating the AMSU measurements to prevent interference from being interpreted as artificial warming of the atmosphere and that is why it was “necessary to correlate microwave measurements and conventional radiosonde measurements each 12 hours. This is often done near large cities where interference could lead to wrong calibration, retreivals, and statistics for NWP.”
    So if this is indeed the case and it would appear from just a cursory look at the hardware used that extensive self calibration routines are used from both on board and external sources why would they need to rework the data set to do something that should already be done every 8 seconds and every 12 hours?
    Of course even with the internal and external calibration it would appear that the electronics have an accuracy to about 0.2K and there are acceptable levels of interference in the microwave bands that could contribute another 0.06K of error as well. They also state that “interference up to 5K can not be detected at the data processing level because it does not differentiate from the values normally expected.” In order to reject 5K of potential error the origin and location of interfering sources must be perfectly known.
    It just seems rather ridiculous to me to try and deduce fractions of a degree of warming when you have a sensor that could potentially be 5.26K off and has a spatial resolution of 40km and you “calibrate” that to a station located on the tarmac of some airport.
    For those interested in the ERC report http://www.erodocdb.dk/Docs/doc98/official/Word/REP046.DOC.
    JM

  9. The things would be quite simple if we stop thinking that the rate of photon excitations in the Sun is equal to the rate of photon deexcitations (Г heating = Г cooling). The later is not true and the relation sometimes is Г heating > Г cooling, and other times it is Г heating < Г cooling.
    Those imbalances have effects on the temperature and density of the interplanetary medium, taking into account that the temperature and the density of the IPM (around 100 thousand K) decrease in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from the Sun.
    We cannot expect that any small change of temperature on the surface of the Sun, and consequently of the IPM, would affect the Earth’s surface temperature instantaneously because the cooling or heating events of the IPM are modified by other factors like GCR, density of plasma, shock waves from solar wind, etc., although those changes are manifested minutes, hours, months, years or decades after the event of photonic excitation-deexcitation imbalance in the Sun occurs.
    The IPM is modulated by the solar activity and the Earth is in the middle of the field where those events take place. This is the reason by which I cannot discern why some solar physicists insist on ignoring the clear interaction between the solar activity and the thermal conditions of the Earth.
    Please, let me know if this is off topic before you erase or relocate it. Thank you… 🙂

  10. Am I just being cynical or is this an attempt to take satellite data that shows a current cooling trend and sanitise it to fit the AGW alarmists mantra?

  11. I find some of this hard to fathom – someone please tell me where I’m getting it wrong …
    They measure upwelling microwave emissions from Oxygen molecules which are dependent almost entirely upon temperature. This makes their analysis as a fundamental climate data record appealing. However, the measurements have been made with forecast input in mind leading to inevitable and insidious non-climatic influences permeating the record.
    So – you forecast what the microwave emissions (“input“) will be, then you measure them, and that gives you temperature. Simple. But in that case the “insidious non-climatic influences permeating the record” are your own forecasts, so in order to remove them all you have to do is measure the microwaves without having made a forecast in the first place.
    If it was simple, now it’s simpler!
    But then it says “To adequately remove the non-climatic influences requires multiple independent estimates of the true field value ..“. But this is saying that to remove the influence of the forecast you need multiple independent estimates. It seems to me that in this context an “estimate” can’t be a forecast (the forecast is what you’re trying to get rid of), so it must be a measurement.
    So it’s saying that wherever possible you need multiple measurements. Well that’s good science. But if you’ve got multiple measurements then you have no need for the insidious forecast in the first place.
    Phillip Bratby (23:24:15) : “I do not see what the student will be doing.
    The students duties are clear : 1. Spend substantial amounts of time at Hadley and DWD Lindenberg. 2. Spend the bulk of their time at UEA. 3. Provide at least one presentation to a Met Office audience and one to a UEA audience. 4. Attend one high profile conference or workshop.
    Nice work if you can get it.

  12. They’ve left out a crucial part of the job description, for what it is, but they haven’t given is a clue as to what “result” they are expecting so how can this data be processed efficiently without knowing the required outcome? Isn’t that how it works?

  13. Hmm, I wonder if this site could fund Steve MacIntyre to take the job, or maybe some realist Institutes might take him on. Certainly imagining Phil Jones face as he sees S M’s name on the application is entertaining.

  14. OT, but the “SOHO MDI Continuum Latest Image” has not been updated for a few days and is fixed at 28 July. Any trouble?

  15. I can see three possibilities.
    1. Let’s look at the strengths and weaknesses of satellite and ground-based systems and see if we can come up with something that best represents the real-world situation and gives us the best data possible.
    The science option.
    2. Let’s find some ways of minimising the annoying satellite data and ‘reconcile’ it with our own superior measurements.
    The ideological option.
    3. Let’s use a ‘blended’ system to quietly move our data to a position that lets us off the hook of the discrepancy between what people are experiencing and what we postulate.
    The CYA option.
    Any guesses? I understand there might be an election next year in the UK.

  16. Is this the best they can do to solve a known problem – try to find a self-funded student to do the donkey-work.
    What are they paid for if not to do this work themselves?

  17. They need look no further. The ideal candidiate Self-Funded student who will fulfill all their expectations is none other than Al Gore.
    Movie not included.

  18. This is a blatant attempt to CORRECT the satellite data, just as these so-called climate scientists are CORRECTING the pre 1945 temperatures to get rid of that pesky natural global warming.
    This CORRECTION of the temperature record is being simply done to make the data fit the models. That belief must sustained at all costs.
    This is a direct result of climate science transforming itself into a severe form of political-CORRECTNESS.
    Skepticism is growing, but don’t be too surprised if a state sponsored climate-of-fear is once more generated to CORRECT the public mind over AGW.

  19. They missed out the most critical part of the advert: ” Candidates with the initials S.M. or A.W. need not apply”……

  20. A self funded student would not have to make his methodology or data available to any FOI request….

  21. They want to adjust the good satellite data with bad surface data.
    It’s a winning formula. Look where it has got them with the surface stations.

  22. Hard to believe that Phil Jones & Co are so unsure about the accuracy of their current GST numbers, with world governments set to waste trillions of our hard earned cash based on this supposedly accurate data.
    Just shows what a sorry state the whole of climate science has got itself into.

  23. This smacks of a political solution to the problem of resolving temp divergence without addressing the real issue of resolving the cause of the differences & fixing the problem. We will want to know how they propose to Weight the different series, how they propose to merge the series, and if any “adjustments” are going to be made.
    Lots of opportunities to sweep the current adjusted data sets under the carpet and hide the extent to which they have been contaminated.
    But a good opportunity to make a fresh start without admitting the serious problems the current data sets have.
    It will be interesting to see how the project develops.

  24. Let the student do it- then blame all mistakes on the student. CYA. BTW, does anybody else here want the records updated by a student?

  25. Parts of this proposal are basically correct and make common sense. But other parts are less clear. I would need to be convinced that the temperature of the air 1.5 m above the surface in a beehive box should be identical to a larger volume above it, to an error that is able to be improved, when both are dynamic environments with different response functions. Why should these 2 temperature sites give the same result? (How do you put tarmac on a satellite sensor? smilie)
    Surely the proposal should nominate which method is the calibration choice and which is to be adjusted by the student. It’s not a floating point exercise.

  26. Hmmm, Self-funded. Well, wouldn’t it be worth it for the free health care?
    Sounds like they want to ‘homogenize’ the satellite data with the surface station data, so we can expect a result similar to homogenizing CRN 1 and 2 stations with the ones in Kmart parking lots. It’s a good thing Hadley doesn’t own the satellites, or they’d have that data sequestered, too.

  27. “We have high quality processed (non-operational) time series available from a number of sites around the world.”
    Of course you do, dear.

  28. The “thermometer” data is questionable, as WUWT points out. Combining that with the “satellite” data will probably “taint” and diminish the satellite data — to the benefit of the AGW crowd.
    I think this revision of the historical temperature record is needed. But, it is too important to leave to a “student” working for a “biased” organization. What’s needed is a highly experienced, independent, and genuinely brilliant mind — to completely revise how historical records are used to create the “official” temperature record. Of course, this does not presuppose that the improved official record will overturn conclusions drawn from the current official record.

  29. “Furthermore, this historical approach runs a fundamental risk to the climate record if at any point there is either no satellite or only one satellite measuring,”
    Sounds like the ‘fundamental risk’ described has essentially already occurred in the ground based temperature record since so many stations outside of the US have shutdown over the last 20 years and more.

  30. Translation:
    We don’t like what we’re seeing from the satellite data sets and want to apply the same type of adjustment that has the surface data sets saying exactly what we want.
    Clearly the satellites are wrong, but we can adjust them to agree with us too.

  31. The headline should read “Hadley CRU to Corrupt Satellite Data”.
    Why would they want to merge good satellite data with much less reliable surface data?

  32. Why would they want a volunteer? It can’t be because they are unable to afford a reasonable salary. If they are that broke, then maybe they should just declare bankruptcy and be done with it. If they are offering an internship ( which implies a potential for full employment ), then that’s a different thing altogether.
    I have to agree with tallbloke and others. Something about this just doesn’t pass the smell test.

  33. Sandy (00:34:31) :
    Hmm, I wonder if this site could fund Steve MacIntyre to take the job, or maybe some realist Institutes might take him on. Certainly imagining Phil Jones face as he sees S M’s name on the application is entertaining.
    I agree, that we should encourage Mr. MacIntyre to at least apply for the position. If the Dear john letter they send him turning him down is anywhere near as comical as the obfuscatory nonsense they’ve put out in response to his FOIA requests for their data, it should at least be worth a good laugh all round. Come on Steve, help a bro out! With the one and his minions taking over the world I need every excuse for a good chuckle I can find.

  34. I smell another “value added” product. Why on Earth to spoil uniform sat data with questionable ground stations, when sat data cover 70% of the surface (oceans) anyway?

  35. A great man, with a plan. I suggest we nominate Phil Jones for the prestigious Sancho Panza achievement award for advancing the Don Quixote Theory of Global Warming.

  36. Geoff Sherrington- you say “I would need to be convinced that the temperature of the air 1.5 m above the surface in a beehive box should be identical to a larger volume above it, to an error that is able to be improved, when both are dynamic environments with different response functions.”
    Excellent point!
    Pielke Sr. and others have already published a fair amount demonstrating that this assumption is poor. MSU tropospheric temperature measurements are checked against radiosonde balloon measurements. You cannot use ground-based temperature measurements to correct troposphere temperature measurements. The ratio of these two values is a critical test of the greenhouse hypothesis, and currently leads to the missing mid-troposphere enhanced warming in the tropics.
    This request for free help looks like a thinly veiled attempt to ‘create’ the mid-troposphere enhanced warming in the tropics, with a warming trend that supports the positive-feedback GHG hypothesis. It implicitly assumes that pieces of the surface temperature record are more reliable than the satellite record.

  37. No reference to the Christy et al response to Mears and Wentz (2005) i.e. the 0.035C correction was within the quoted 0.05C margin for error.

  38. BTW, last month I posted a link in the Tips and Notes thread to this site http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/merra/intro.php
    It’s for NASA’s Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Applications project, which seems to be their version of what Hadley is proposing in their job posting. NASA seems to be much farther along in the process, since they indicate that most of the reanalyses will be completed shortly, but it will probably be an ongoing process, and since the site seems to indicate they are open to input from outside users and commenters, I brought it up to encourage some of the stat people here to get involved to try to keep them honest. I still think that’s a good idea, so I thought I’d mention it again.

  39. This is just a way of “correcting” and “adjusting” the (largely correct) Satellite data based on the (largely incorrect) Surface Data.
    That is: If the warming isn’t showing up on Satellite Data – “adjust” it until it shows warming.
    Given what has been going on at CRU recently (see Steve McIntyres blog and previous entries here), I am 100% convinced that this is pure politics and climatic measurements can no longer be considered “raw” or untouched by the politico-religious AGW movement.
    In communist Russia, the peoples of Siberia would often “adjust” the surface station data to make it look colder than it actually was so they would receive more heating and fuel allowances from the State.
    Our reality now appears to be that Big Brother will adjust our temperature data warmer so as to claim support for AGW and justify higher taxes and heavy restrictions on our lives going forward. Welcome to 1984

  40. We have high quality processed (non-operational) time series available from a number of sites around the world.
    Climate Cheese Whiz.

  41. Sounds like a great way to “calibrate” the MSU using a value added source like the tweaked (CRU) ground measuring stations. Once blended, all Hansen need do is tweak a little and explain nothing, all the while proclaiming we have the most comprehensive accurate data set ever! Call me cynical.

  42. I am in awe!!! It seems that Dr. Jones has a problem with some one’s data. This is a wonderful attempt to correct the dysfunctional data. With all his integrity and openness of his methods and data archiving this is a wonderful opportunity for the rest of the world to be educated in the proper use of universal measurement of temperature. (sarc off)
    I suspect that the answer will be touted as the absolute truth. With the latest and greatest measurements and methods which will all be top secrete of course. I suspect a con job.
    Bill Derryberry

  43. Does Phil Jones want to create a “better MSU”? Do I understand well that “better MSU” means “MSU with a faster (or at least some) warming trend”? 🙂
    The focus on the “true long-term changes” surely suggests so.
    The very concept of a “removal of non-climatic influences” is scientifically beef-less. If the global mean temperature were measured completely accurately, the graph would qualitatively look just like the UAH/RSS graphs we have today. And such a graph is completely “climatic” or completely “non-climatic”. The temperatures would be real. But at any rate, they cannot be canonically divided into two different terms.
    Only the total makes scientific sense because the temperature variations can’t distinguish their origin, and in fact, the variations are not even a simple sum of the effects from various sources. If some influences were “removed”, the behavior would change.
    The concept of “climate change” with “non-climatic influences removed” is just a demagogic trick whose only point is to psychologically replace the real graph of the temperature by an oversimplified monotonically increasing graph that would be a convenient un-truth for certain advocacy groups.
    But the real temperatures really have the twists and turns and many effects that are much more important than the “climatic” signals and will be more important, at least at a multidecadal scale.

  44. For that self funded student, attending the high level workshop will be the equivalent of an Aztec prisoner mounting the steps of the temple.

  45. Regarding all the different measures of temperature: If significant warming or cooling is going to happen, the raw data from correctly located stations and/or satellite measurements will show a trend. Time is the factor that will sort it all out. It seems ridiculous that we would need a system that requires manipulation and multiple corrections to give accuracies of 0.1C per decade, especially when the curves are up and down and some decades are cooler than others. Surely the polar bear, the hairy-chested nutscratcher and other creatures of the earth and sea can adapt to such a miniscule change. For God’s sake, lets find a way to archive all the useful raw data before it is totally screwed up.
    A true parable: On a geological field party in the Canadian north many years junior assistants took turns staying in camp to cook and do other chores. All but one of them learned to cook reasonably well using a cookbook, including making bread. One made bread that was like bricks. On a rainy day with all in camp, I decided to observe his bread baking technique. He boiled the liquid ingredients, let the yeast grow in a warm cup of sugared water and then combined everything together – thereby killing the yeast. He explained that rather than warming the flour and other dry ingredients in the oven (outdoors -needed to warm the flour), he simply mixed the hot wet ingredients with the cold flour to save a step. I fear cooked data also is easily transformed into unusable bricks.

  46. Sounds to me like Phil Jones just wants to dilute the good satellite data with bad ground station data and get his grubby upward-adjusting hands involved in the satellite data.
    This would be another step back for climate science, not a step forward.
    I’m expecting Hansen to propose the same sort of “final solution”.

  47. Doesn’t it bother anyone that for two posts in row, this blog has confused two separate institutions? The ftp sites discussed in the last post and this proposed PhD topic belong to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, while the Hadley Centre (part of the UK Met Office situated in Exeter) has nothing to do with either of these things.
    The two institutions collaborate on a a single product (the HadCRUT data set – where CRU provides the land data, and the Hadley Centre provides the ocean data), but that doesn’t mean they are the same place or that their names suddenly become synonymous.
    Why not just get these details right? It might help with credibility on larger issues.

  48. So let me get this straight-Jones is frustrated with the fact that data outside The Wall disagrees with his beliefs, so it must be “corrected”? Oh boy! Somebody call up Christy or Spencer-we’d better warn them…

  49. So they are about to make a mix, a kind of poutpourry of temperatures, combining temperatures from those bad records surface stations, Anthony has detected, with all satellites.A Wonderful mess!. In the end nobody will know what were the temperatures back in the 21st. century.

  50. For the queen to reign upon their ants in the anthill, temperature must be adquately set so as to keep all members working without making any protest or any stop in their endless jobs.

  51. I am in awe!!! It seems that Dr. Jones has a problem with some one’s data. This is a wonderful attempt to correct the dysfunctional data.
    Simple enough. If the data is depressed the proper mode of treatment is an anti-depressant.

  52. Sounds like cognitive dissonance in action. If you really, really believe in something and there is evidence to the contrary, then that evidence must be in error (and must be corrected). It probably all seems logical to the believers.

  53. Perhaps they or at least we, would prefer to employ a traditional researcher, preferably one of the retired kind, passion all spent, needing to top up his meagre pension, to pull out their archives and make photocopies of the hand written station log books. Just for the record. We dont want them lost, do we?

  54. I know exactly why they want a student and not an established scientist. A student has to earn his/her keep before he/she can beef about fudging. Only established scientists can question methodology. The lab tech/student intern has two choices: do the bidding of the lab owner or hit the road.

  55. I don’t understand the “free help request” aspect of this job posting. These guys are swimming in money. They can afford the finest global warming brains available in the world.
    Maybe, they are looking for a gullible PhD wannabe, who will do as directed.

  56. pedant,
    a pathetic whine you have there. How ’bout your side recognizing reality instead of adjusting it?

  57. M. Simon (13:31:53) : And the treatment for repressed data? (CRU anyone?)
    Therapy. Someone find Jones a bearded guy with a thick accent! STAT!

  58. Ron de Haan (06:18:50) :
    According to this publication we are cooling for the last 50 million years:
    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c011572416077970b-pi

    Yes, Ron; I’m of the same opinion. But of course with respect to the last 100 million years the Earth has undergone an icehouse period from which we are leaving now. Some people are taking advantage of a completely natural climatic shift that happens each 100 million years. The lowstand phase has finished and the Earth is starting a warmhouse period.
    The climatic shift leads to changes of the sea level, although these changes will not be so dramatic as those occurred during previous warmhouses. The overall trend is towards weaker transgression phases.
    It is possible that the last warming could have been a short peak into the icehouse period; thus, there is nothing to be worried about.

  59. If you are going to discuss warming the atmosphere, there has to be much more considered than just using Weather Stations for information on the ground.
    I design for and create emissions for building development on the surface of the planet. Building Code contribution from meteorology is specific in that we are supposed to reflect solar radiation or the building will be radiated.
    Unfortunately we couldn’t see how we were doing, the buildings were signed off as compliant with codes with everyone accepting responsibility for insurance. None of it was or is verified. Here is a link to a Youtube Video I did showing time-lapsed infrared images of buildings being radiated very early in the morning. This is a white and darker building, the darker building was over 150 degrees F on a 77 degree morning. That heats the atmosphere and the homeowner uses emissions to cool a building not insulated for those temperatures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggCEXIaR7pE
    Heat rises and we are not doing a good job on the surface of the planet when shade or paint will address the problem.

  60. IMO there is a case for relooking at the satellite data record. There are a lot of adjustments made to the data to correct for various shifts in orbit, different callibrations on different satellites etc etc. This is an ongoing activity by UAH and RSS but taking an new look from scratch has some merit. However
    1 I would have thought that Huntsville was a better sponsor of this not Hadley
    2. The need to do the same with the surface temperature record is far more pressing. – Perhaps UAH would like to sponsor such a project!!

  61. more_pedantry (10:17:28) : If you really believe that Hadley, CRU, UEA, have nothing to do with each other you are incredibly naiive.
    The main UK agencies involved in research and presentation of global warming matters are the Met office, an agency of the Ministry of Defence and it’s research arm, the Hadley Centre, both located within the new Met office Exeter headquarters. They work very closely with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, (CRU), where the Tyndall Centre is also based.
    In addition to climate modelling, Hadley publishes the monthly averages for the CET and in conjunction with the Met Office produces an annual climate summary for the UK and a global climate summary. This latter is re-badged by the World Meteorological Organisation, (WMO), as a World Climate Report.
    Hadley, Tyndall and CRU researchers are major contributors to IPCC and the UK is responsible to date for about a third of the funding for IPCC. Add in the Jackson Institute, (Martin Parry), CR4 at Cambridge, (Terry Barker, also Tyndall), and you have almost a who’s who of the movers and shakers at IPCC.
    These institutes cross fertilize with other institutes such as Potsdam and NCAR, the researchers share common data, common agendas and sometimes staff. There is considerable interaction with NGO’s for their political power in pushing the agendas, eg, Tyndall work closely with FoE, and Potsdam have two Greenpeace activists on their research staff.
    There is a massive network and you can hardly slide a sheet of paper between them.

  62. didn’t they merge land and ocean data a few years ago? Two entities behaving in different ways and then blended, as they are now proposing with satellite and land data.

  63. For a ‘science’ that is settled, they sure do a lot of ‘research’.
    And they don’t turn away any of the billions of dollars that is thrown their way either.

  64. ****************************
    Curtis Bennett (19:14:04) :
    Heat rises and we are not doing a good job on the surface of the planet when shade or paint will address the problem.
    ****************************
    You seem to be ignoring the fact that a dark building in a cold climate can capture heat and use it to warm the interior of the building. There isn’t any reason to spend money only to eliminate the UHI effect. We should, however, use the radiation of the Sun where is is economical.

Comments are closed.