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
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
It’s OK, stewardess, I can speak jive…
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.
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.
“We have high quality processed (non-operational) time series available from a number of sites around the world.”
Of course you do, dear.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
tokyoboy, you can also see other wavelengths ate http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html. The magnetogram is also not updated.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You have to watch out when they start using the word “adjust.”
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.
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.
According to this publication we are cooling for the last 50 million years:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c011572416077970b-pi
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.
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
We have high quality processed (non-operational) time series available from a number of sites around the world.
Climate Cheese Whiz.
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.
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
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.
The urban Island Effect is now causing global warming
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-03-2009/0005070351&EDATE=
sounds great!
For that self funded student, attending the high level workshop will be the equivalent of an Aztec prisoner mounting the steps of the temple.