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.
Revkin is a schill for “big climate research”.
“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. ”
However – read this – the “scientists” studying the glaciers say they are NOT melting. Just depends which mike you put in which hands it seems.
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/himalayan-glaciers-not-shrinking-rapidly-.html
But wait – do a search and you can get whatever answer you want ….
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=himalayan+glaciers+november+2009&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
In other words: “The science is NOT settled.”
denverthen,
I take heart from the almost unanimous derision of the times piece in the comments. Rational people aren’t going to tolerate being lied to any more.
Brit Hume, in his occasional commentary on Fox News’s Special Report, actually used the word ‘fraud’ today, in connection with ‘global warming’ and Climategate. Of course, that is just Fox—have any of the other major media paid any serious attention to Climategate, other than passing mention of ‘hacked emails’?
I expect it is going to take a major recantation, to wit: “I confess—I was part of the grand conspiracy to create the myth that global warming is real and caused by CO2; we all thought it was to best way to bring the world together, by fighting a common enemy. But the enemy was not real!”
Barring such a revelation, we’ll have to see the perpetrators frog-marched off to jail before the media grudgingly admit that they’ve been hoodwinked, not just by a cabal of erstwhile scientists, but by the leading political and academic elites of the world, not excluding The Goracle and the President of the United States and his chief advisors.
In other words, the rug is lifted, and the sweeping has begun. They’re not going to give up the chance for ‘global governance’ and vast ‘carbon’ riches without a struggle. And aside from the inconvenient truths revealed by the ‘hacker’, the globalists and faux scientists still hold all the cards.
Watch your backs, skeptics, keep on the offensive, and don’t be afraid to use the ‘F’ word.
/Mr Lynn
Keith,
It is a romantic notion, for sure. But I doubt very much that Climategate had much to do with it. It looks to me that the tensions and entrenched positions were already will in place within the Liberal Party, and the leadership crisis probably would have happened with or without Climategate, which has not been referred to in any of the reported discussions.
“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.”
Ok, I’ll bite… just where would that be…?
Yes Queenslander, it ain’t over yet, but I sense the tide is turning on this issue. I do not think either of your two hypotheticals will eventuate especially after the public listen to some real opposition and information on the ETS from Tony Abbott like this in his first speech to the media as leader:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/01/2758298.htm
An election on an ETS will be a minefield for any political leader. I believe Rudd knows this and the fact that a double dissolution could backfire badly, certainly to the extent of losing seats and even the election itself.
No-one in the MSM foresaw that Abbott would secure victory as opposition leader and most of them waged a vigorous campaign in favour of an ETS. They could have also misread the real mood of the public on an ETS especially when the masses are more educated on all the facts.
I don’t have a problem with different groups using the same data set. What I do have a problem with is if they don’t tell us what they are doing to the data. If they want to keep that secret,then don’t call it science.
@royfomr:
[i]”Darn it, I may even have to get some Fosters in. “[/i]
Please be advised that no self-respecting Aussie touches Fosters. I don’t even know where you can buy it in Queensland (a state which would easily cover the UK, and most of Western Europe in size).
An urban myth, a bit like AGW.
Tom T: if you have two groups using the same data set, and one group whose application of that data is suspect, but the second group gets the same results as the first, then what does that say about the application of the data by the second group? For me, a few red flags are raised. Clearly, both groups need to make public “what they are doing with the data”.
Lucy Skywalker (18:18:35) :
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!!
Wow Lucy – that is pretty breath taking isn’t.
print media has at least some coverage. how to get the tv news to do their job. that is the question. what is despressing is the liberals could have used their media time this past week to at least direct people to websites, but no-one even mentioned the word ‘climategate’ which might have prompted searches online.
there are many pollies, as we know, on all sides, who have a vested interest in creating the ‘green bubble’ so how to get the story to the public. it is truly shocking that one speaks to ordinary people every day who have no idea the very foundation of ‘global warming’ has collapsed.
Paul Coppin,
The goal is to measure the average temperature of the “gridcell.” The various methods use different sized gridcells, but they’re all mammoth when compared to the size of downtown areas. There can be some reasonable consternation about where to properly put a gridcell thermometer for, say, NYC. It is large enough that its Urban Heat Island is a reasonable fraction of its gridcell.
But the vast majority of the country is non-city. The last statistic I recall has “cities” as less than one percent of the continental US by land area. So where does the thermometer go in a city of 5000 people crammed into a one square mile block when your gridcells are a hundred miles square?
In the firestation’s parking lot next to the barbeque pit isn’t the right spot. Between the airport’s runway and taxiway isn’t the right spot. “On tour” between the post office, the roof of the post office, and various other locales is also not the right spot. (At the very least, please run both instruments in any move for an overlapping period of time the sake of sanity.)
There are solid guidelines for emplacement of such a climatological station as far as microsite issues are concerned. Any random site (or set of sites) should be statistically more useful than dead center in the city.
There is an attempt at an Urban Warming Adjustment. There is not an attempt at adjusting for microsite issues. And the UWA seems like it could use quite a bit of improvement. Some sites that are both truly rural -and- have minimal microsite issues don’t appear to have nearly the warming measured at stations inside even relatively miniscule cities.
just after posting on this topic re the ‘green bubble’, i read the following. some good points, some bad, but read it all, and the comments. people are getting angrier by the minute and it is the involvement of the scamsters that needs to be revealed:
UK Telegraph: European Climate Exchange chief Patrick Birley defends the carbon trading system
People don’t trade carbon because they are good people,” exclaims Patrick Birley, the chief executive of the ICE European Climate Exchange, with characteristic bluntness.
By Rowena Mason
As the man in charge of the world’s biggest exchange for companies, banks and hedge funds to trade permits to emit carbon dioxide, Birley is fed up with the environmentalists’ charge that dirty capitalists should not profit from the global effort to tackle climate change. ….
Mr Birley is the first to admit that the European system “hasn’t actually reduced emissions” so far. But having run exchanges throughout his career, he has faith in the ability of the market to deliver in its own good time.
“The goal of the system is reducing emissions: why should it matter how we get there?” he asks.
“Carbon-related products are probably the most profitable part of trading for any of the investment banks right now, because the margins are so good,” Mr Birley admits. “Because it’s such a specialist area, a little bit of knowledge goes a very long way.”
Part of what makes the profits potentially so high are the price swings…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/6686057/European-Climate-Exchange-chief-Patrick-Birley-defends-the-carbon-trading-system.html
FYI JOHN STOSSEL WILL BE ON O’REILLY ON TUESDAY. SUBJECT IS CLIMATEGATE.
SHOULD BE GOOD
It’s interesting to see how the media handled the press conference given by Abbot.He said a lot,but all this rag covers is that he flirted with one of his party members.That is what the opposition is up against in the media.I hope Abbot is reading websites like this one(thanks Anthony and moderators),it will give him plenty of ammunition,but really he should be asking Rudd how long he intends to let China and India off the hook,a question that should be answered by the IPPC,people will not be fooled for much longer.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/no-more-flirting-abbott-tells-gillard-20091201-k2ue.html?autostart=1
Paul Coppin (19:19:26) :
In the US, that would be the US CRN – Climate Reference Network. Very raw data from each station is available nearly immediately every five minutes. Each station has three temperature sensors, several precip sensors, wind, solar radiation, fan speed, battery voltage, minutes the data logger door was open, etc.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/observations.htm
Come back in 30 years when there’s a decent length record.
Lucy Skywalker;
RE: briffa_sep98_d.pro
This will explain it:
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
Andy Revkin = The Alarmist Lord Haw-Haw
I do not believe there is a feasible empirically based method or theory, absent human guesswork and unprovable assumptions, to accurately adjust measurements taken in heat islands so that the effect of the heat island environment is removed from the measurements. In all my extensive reading on this subject I have never seen such a method described.
Andrew, do you agree, or have you found such a theory?
We should not compute a global average and then make plots of the average over time. Instead, make plots of the temperature at thousands of places and look at lots of the plots at the same time. UHI makes one plot a little higher than another. Moving a station or changing the instrument means a new plot. Small town newspapers and personal weather diaries can be used. See if the trends change at the same time. The residents can see the data so any “corrections” are more likely to be caught. We might even learn something about regional patterns.
royfomr (18:04:12) : and William (17:35:15) : Glaciers melting. Here in NZ, this was the lead item on the national news and how Copenhagen was the only hope for the world. The item featured an expert crawling inside an ice cave to show how the glacier was rotting from within and the big deep lake of meltwater. Also our PM committed us to pay $25 million, perhaps $50 million to the Commonwealth fund for Climate change moderation. In other breaking news from yesterday, a former french colony – Rwanda – has now joined the Commonwealth – wonder why. Madness, sheer madness.
Monbiot has gone quiet in the last few days, and Revkin still appears to have his head in the sand, but the NYT does have this in the science section:
sorry – hit return too early; NYT link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=2
meanwhile Richard Black over at the BBC continues to punt the alarmism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm
Nah, not Revkin. He’s just misunderstood.