A Myth About The Surface Temperature Record Analyses Perpetuated On Dot Earth By Andy Revkin
By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
On the weblog Dot Earth today, there is text from Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois, that presents analyses of long term surface temperature trends from NASA, NCDC and Japan as if these are from independent sets of data from the analysis of CRU. Andy Revkin is perpetuating this myth in this write-up by not presenting the real fact that these analyses draw from the same original raw data. While they may use only a subset of this raw data, the overlap has been estimated as about 90-95%.
The unresolved problems with this surface data (which, of course, applies to all four locations) is reported in the peer reviewed paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
I discuss this issue in my recent post
Further Comment On The Surface Temperature Data Used In The CRU, GISS And NCDC Analyses
where I document that even the CCSP 1.1. report acknowledged this lack of independence.
Andy Revkin’s post on the surface temperature record data sets is not journalistically accurate.
It is time to start over from scratch with a 100 percent transparent process, including a robust debate on how to adjust raw data. GISS, CRU and NCDC should be allowed to comment, but we need a new, independent unit to put all this together.
For the U.S., a joint effort by the State meteorologists, using a standard methodology, would spread the costs. How the rest of the world wants to do it, I’m not sure, but it’s time to disinvest in GISS and NCDC for this work.
“‘…is not journalistically accurate.”Never put “accurate” and any form of the word “journaliam” in the same sentence. Journalists and reporters both tell “stories” and proudly admit it. Journalists are worse than the reporters, by definition.
Something like Anthony’s efforts at http://www.surfacestations.org/ need to be recognized by GISS and acted upon. Improve the accuracy of one improve the accuracy of all.
Has Revkin been informed about this?
As surface temperature records reflect Satelitte temperature measurements for the last thirty years, the issues with Surface temperature measurement cannot be that significant.
On topic, I just sent Andy an email about this with a bit of a rough tone. The reporting is completely irresponsible in my opinion. I basically let him know he’s on the team unless he cleans this up. Hell I screw up and admit my mistakes but this doesn’t smell at all like a ‘mistake’. The NYT has been useless in reporting good information.
For the last 30 years I tend to agree (though the sat trendline is a bit lower). But that may well be because UAH/RSS are keeping them honest. Note where the emails talk about flattening that inconvenient 1940s “bump”.
It would make everyone’s job easier if these issues were addressed, rather than left lying around to gum up the works. Big Climate has made a mess of things.
The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, November 30, 2009
Liberal is an anagram of braille. Appropriate because they appear unable to see or read about the climate science scandals.—Tim Ball
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17364
David Schnare (16:36:30) :
Why “adjust” raw data at all. If the measuring station is designed, installed and maintained properly, the data collected from it is an accurate record of the temperatures at the site. If the sites are selected properly, the data collected from all of them are an accurate record of the temperature history of the area covered by the stations.
From a climatological point of view, we should have no interest in temperatures measured at airports and sewage treatment plants, on the roofs of buildings and parking structures, adjacent to parking lots and concrete pads, etc. Why locate measuring stations at those locations and then attempt to “adjust” away the expected errors. Place the stations where they belong in the first place and maintain them to assure they continue to provide accurate readings.
A major victory for sceptics – Tony Abbott wins election by 1 vote as Australia’s new Opposition leader and he will oppose Kevin Rudd’s ETS. Could this one straw be the beginning of the collapse of a global house of cards?
We need to separate the science from the politics. Science: the data clearly shows no runaway warming. Politics: HCRU destroyed the data because it doesn’t support their case and shows that they “tricked” the results.
If the data doesn’t fit then the models are wrong.
“Why “adjust” raw data at all.”
David, why adjust raw data at all, if all you are trying to show is a trend?
This is just proof that there is no longer such a thing as an investigative reporter. And they have been replaced by editorial journalists. What we get is some “authority tells them how to think and they tell us what to think” this eliminates having to burden oneself with the odious task of thinking.
IMHO they are as much at fault as the activities of the “climate scientist” and may well be criminal due to the hiding of or denying of studies of the opposing view. This as far as I am concerned is falsely misdirecting the opinions of the voters and misleading and wrongfully advising the administrators of western nations.
It is time for new administrators in the study of climate that have the utmost shame and disregard for the nefarious shenanigans that have been foisted upon the people of the world.
It is time to close down the IPCC due to it’s compliance and fostering of the activities of these people. This is a prime example of to much power in to small a group that corrupts with out fail.
If the original raw data is available at the original sensor sites it should be regathered and properly recorded and then duplicated and digitally stored for replication and dissemination at any time.
This conduct called climate science is profoundly not science and may very well be criminal conduct. I would proudly serve on the jury. Unfortunately I have read to much to educate and think for myself to be considered for the job. I have great fears that these people will get by with out even a slap on the hand.
In my opinion GISS, NCDC, NOAA HADCRUT, et. al. have been in collusion for political advancement of personal opinion. The Science for this reason has been corrupted.
SHAME ON THEM ALL!!!!!!!
My rant is currently concluded,
Bill Derryberry
O/T. Murdoch’s Sky News here in the UK has just had a “report from high in the Himalayas” (complete with reporter on camera) telling us that the CO2 produced by the western world is, for the first time, melting the glaciers in the highest mountains in the world. The enormous lakes formed by the melt is threatening all the villages located next to the (previously) dry river beds.
Makes one wonder why the villagers built there in the first place – perhaps for the abundant fresh water available for life to continue. Of course, the reporter had to show us the extent of the flood water during the last flood (that had never happened before?).
Makes you wish they could at least get their story straight.
The small difference between the satellite trends and GISS, Hadcrut3 (0.04C per decade) is not so small when you extend that difference back from 1979 to 1880.
0.04C per decade times 100 years equals 0.4C. In other words, that small difference is actually a large difference when the time scales are taken into account.
Now take out the impact of the ENSO and the AMO and the discrepancies are even larger. Now extend the time period from 1850 to 2100 (25 decades) and we don’t have 3.0C per doubling anymore.
Clearly, the independence of the databases used by CRU, NASA, NCDC and others is pivotal.
Personally, I like the quote from Phil Jones (as reported by Pielke) which would seem to weaken the veracity of the claim that they are independent:
“No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up [….] on the CRU web page. These people just make up motives for what we might or might not have done. Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center……”
If CRU’s pronouncements are now suspect, then it would seem prudent to be equally suspicious of the pronouncements of these other bodies as well.
@ed
Liberal is an anagram of braille. Appropriate because they appear unable to see or read about the climate science scandals.—Tim Ball
Now that Oz appears to have re-invented the concept of an Opposition Party, mayhaps Sanity is on its way back. A climate sceptic heading up a major Opposition political party! Not only 20-20 vision but a deft touch as well.
What next? Joined up thinking- thank you Australia. Darn it, I may even have to get some Fosters in. I won’t drink it, that’s for sure, but I will always respect the land of its birth.
PS- What was the defining moment: ClimateGate or last weeks rugby result against us Scots? Thanks again Australia, thanks ozzies!
Liberal is an anagram of braille. Appropriate because they appear unable to see or read about the climate science scandals.—Tim Ball
True. But they feel so strongly that anthropogenic CO2 will kill Mother Earth.
4 billion (16:58:33) :
“As surface temperature records reflect Satelitte temperature measurements for the last thirty years, the issues with Surface temperature measurement cannot be that significant.”
Yes, it’s a lot easier to adjust the past:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/
Off topic (sorry) but, well, it didn’t take long for the alarmist propaganda to kick in again, did it? And it’s crazier than ever, judging by this morning’s UK Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6938356.ece
Presumably this reaction is in some sort of inverse proportion to the impact of Climategate on the IPCC’s credibility. If that’s the case, then it will only get worse. Pretty risible, in a chilling sort of way.
Thought people might like to know.
William (17:35:15) :
O/T. Murdoch’s Sky News here in the UK has just had a “report from high in the Himalayas” (complete with reporter on camera) telling us that the CO2 produced by the western world is, for the first time, melting the glaciers in the highest mountains in the world. The enormous lakes formed by the melt is threatening all the villages located next to the (previously) dry river beds.
Makes one wonder why the villagers built there in the first place – perhaps for the abundant fresh water available for life to continue. Of course, the reporter had to show us the extent of the flood water during the last flood (that had never happened before?).
Makes you wish they could at least get their story straight.
Agree totally. It would be even better if they’d got a recent quote ffrom the horses mouth- the Indian glacier specialist whom, after a lifetimes study, stated that Himalayan Glaciers were actually growing!
Get your facts right folks- we’ve moved on and it’s no longer acceptable to parrot the party line.
“By your lies you will be revilled; with your truth you will be revered”
King of Cool-
If the ETS is blocked as looks likely, (although if 7 Liberals vote for it it will get up) the Australian government can call an alection of both houses of parliament. Many people here expect the Liberals to be decimated in that election and the ETS will go through anyway. So not over yet!
All we can hope for is that Climategate will become a scandal in the mainstream media across the world.
What concerns me is this code, taken from the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
which apparently yields this prop to depress the 30’s temps and elevate the end of the 20th century temps (source: AJStrata)
PS- What was the defining moment: ClimateGate or last weeks rugby result against us Scots? Thanks again Australia, thanks ozzies!
royfomr (17:44:01) :
I would say Climategate, it led to a grassroots movement that led to a leadership spill and, Climategate questions in Parliament that have silenced the Government. The MSM has been slow, the blogsphere has been in meltdown.
There is a whole lotta learnin’ goin’on down here.