Tipping point at GISS? Land and sea weight out of balance

While Alan mulls over big red dots in NOAA’s graph where no data exists, Frank Lanser finds that GISS global temperature trend is warmed up by weighting land data more.

Guest post by Frank Lansner http://hidethedecline.eu/

GISS  temperatures compared with land ocean ratios

GISS temperatures compared with different ratios of land: ocean data values. Art - Jo Nova

The simple task of combining Land surface temperature with Sea surface temperatures has become an odd complex algorithm for GISS. It seems that they weight land data more and more during the 20th century leading to extra heat added to the GISS global temperatures.

Thus in 1900-1920 the GISS LST+SST graph is mostly spot on the used SST graph (the HADISST/Reynoldsv2). This means that the GISS global temperature around 1900-1920 appears to weight land data zero %

The land fraction is increasing during the 20th century, especially after 1980:


Fig2

The real land fraction of the Earth is of course 30%, but around 1980 GISS uses 40%, in 1988 55% – and in 1995 no less than 73%. (The high land % weighting around 1995 leads to a reduction in temperature decline due to Pinatubo volcanic cooling.)

GISS ends up in 2007 using a land weighting of 67%.

In general GISS defends use of larger land fraction due to their 1200km zones around land stations reaching some Ocean areas. But this does obviously not explain a land fraction that appears to go from near zero to around 70% globally during the 20th century.

Besides, the land temperatures for all stations including the coastal stations appear to show significantly different behaviour compared to the SST´s:

(Taken from PART3 of my new article, http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php)

And therefore, just shifting SST´s out with land temperatures are questionable.

The topic has been discussed somewhat at Joanne Nova’s site:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/did-giss-discover-30-more-land-in-the-northern-hemisphere/

What is the impact of the still greater land fraction in GISS data? If the 30% land fraction from the real world was used, GISS 2007 would be 0,55K warmer than GISS 1900.

With the still increasing GISS land fraction actually used, we have GISS 2007 0,72K warmer than GISS 1900.

The difference is 0,17K added by not using 30% land constantly. But this calculation could be done in many ways.

We know for a fact that the oceans cover 70% of the planet. So why not use 70% of data from SST?

data sources:
GISS global Land + SST
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
GISS land temp
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
Both HADISST and Reynolds can be seen using:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

Advertisements

92 thoughts on “Tipping point at GISS? Land and sea weight out of balance

  1. So let’s see how this “new math” works…

    Water has a heat capacity of about 4200 J/kg-K, and soil has a heat capacity of about 800 J/kg-K, and so (sarcastically speaking) we should clearly weight heat measurements from soil at twice the contribution of water (this in addition to the volumetric ratios of earth to water already noted)…

    This somewhat reminds me of Pielke’s comments on “missing heat”:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/comments-on-the-npr-story-by-richard-harris-entitled-the-mystery-of-global-warmings-missing-heat/

    These AGWers believers have long ago strayed well into the scientific misconduct regime. What they promote is truly “political science”.

  2. The way they (NOAA, GISS, et al) adjust, tweek, & homogenize data, they’ll be showing record setting warmth when the glaciers return and NYC is under a mile of ice.

  3. Either GISS have made a mistake, or you have. Are you sure it’s not the latter? Consider what happens when the anomalies are presented relative to the series mean rather than an arbitrary period.

  4. Leon Brozyna says:
    July 17, 2010 at 5:37 pm
    “The way they (NOAA, GISS, et al) adjust, tweek, & homogenize data, they’ll be showing record setting warmth when the glaciers return and NYC is under a mile of ice.”

    With one thermometer worldwide left and Gavin holding a blowtorch to it.

  5. With the still increasing GISS land fraction actually used, we have GISS 2007 0,72K warmer than GISS 1900.

    Don’t make me get out my calculator! Give it to me in C!

  6. Really nice that Hansenizer GW amplifier. Can I get one at Radio Shack maybe? Does the output go to a four klystron decausing-megneting assister?

  7. Chas the Physicist says:
    July 17, 2010 at 5:36 pm
    “These AGWers believers have long ago strayed well into the scientific misconduct regime. What they promote is truly “political science”.”

    Its closer to being “political physics”

  8. Seems to me the land fraction should be decreasing. After all, rising sea levels should be increasing the sea-to-land ratio of area coverage, right?

  9. Its closer to being “political physics”

    Maybe closest to being “political climatology.”

    …Oh, sorry. Redundant.

  10. There is a map in Frank’s Part 4, more prominent in Joanne Nova’s comments, that used a color scheme that is not intuitive. As someone keeps writing: There is no need to complain of fraud when incompetence will do as an explanation.

    Thus (knowing a little about cartography), the automated packages to make computer generated maps will have a default color scheme (or scale, as used by Frank L.) designed to satisfy the look of the product based on the maximum and minimum values or the end-points established by the person requesting the computer run. Note that the end-points are +/- 5. This is a crude map. and so, hard to read but the max values seem to be somewhere between 2 and 3. That is, I do not see the darker red/orange colors on the map – but if the program expects them then it can force the odd choice of middle or neutral color. This seems to be the case here.

    The person asking for the computer generated map has to set values that are “intuitive” and/or force an outcome that is, likewise, intuitive.

    One would have to know the nature of the mapping software and what was asked for to know what went wrong in this particular case. This is just one issue – among many – raised by Frank in his 4-part series. If you know anyone claiming to be a geographer, planner, and so on, that works in the field of GIS (geographic information systems), ask them about this.

  11. Can’t those ARGO buoys be modified to also take air temperatures? That would eliminate the need to extrapolate from land-based coastal stations.

  12. I think I know. They simply flattened out all the vertical land surface (mountains, etc. ), which of course makes it spread out and presto-chango! Land is now 70% and water is 30% (or whatever it works out to ). ;)

  13. DirkH says:
    July 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm
    Leon Brozyna says:
    July 17, 2010 at 5:37 pm
    “The way they (NOAA, GISS, et al) adjust, tweek, & homogenize data, they’ll be showing record setting warmth when the glaciers return and NYC is under a mile of ice.”

    With one thermometer worldwide left and Gavin holding a blowtorch to it.

    If he has his way, it’ll be a rectal thermometer, and you just know where that will be shoved …

  14. Consider what happens when the anomalies are presented relative to the series mean rather than an arbitrary period.

    I am very sure that it will not change anything on the “Land Fraction” chart.

  15. How do I get old posts back from Climate Audit before their crash and rejigging? CTM, I have a recollection that you caught them and put them somewhere safe.

    I’m looking for a Phil Jones email to me about early 2007 where he says that he can reconcile New Zealand land and ocean temperatures, but cannot do so with Australia. This was when the IPCC was writing its settled science statement. To this day I don;t know how Phil fixed the problem.

    Re this GISS thread, it seems to me that there’s a problem with two sets of dynamics, one ocean, one land, being analysed by people with static models in the forelobe of the brain.

  16. Maybe that congressman from Georgia had something when he said Guam was going to capsize because of the extra weight. Then again, he replaced Cynthia McKinney.

  17. This is absolutely crazy, you can’t keep score without a program. Why not use one cell earth wide based on Las Vegas? Actually why don’t they use the Argo SST monitors? Then eliminate the areas with no thermometers and adjust the area covered that actually do have thermometers, then subtract for UHI, not the other way round.

  18. Go read the code and tell us where this adjustment is made. Be sure and tell us all when you find it, but I won’t be expecting anything real soon, or ever, because it ain’t there.

  19. I just KNEW it. Of course they are making up and manipulating data to justify the leftist political agenda. But then again, if these surveys showed cooling, well, then I’d probably feel differently.

    /sarc

  20. The Gmails will be flying between the “posies” trying to create a diversion so the truth (mistake???) (No, a competent scientist would fix that error) of this alarming planet climate changer, wont be exposed in the MSM. This the REAL (Climate) story that needs exposure, perhaps we can pray for a GISS “insider” to blow the whistle…….HarryreadME, where are you mate!!

  21. This article and many others keep referring to Pinatubo cooling that is a myth. The original error comes from Self et al. who first claimed it in their contribution to the big Pinatubo book “Fire and Mud” of Newhall & Punongbayan. They looked at an out-of-context section of the satellite temperature curve, noticed a temperature drop that followed the eruption, and claimed it for Pinatubo cooling. What their segment of the satellite curve showed was the peak of the 1990/91 El Nino and the La Nina cooling that followed it in 1992/93. If you look at the full satellite curve you see a repeating pattern of El Ninos followed by La Ninas. There were five such peaks in the eighties and nineties before the 1998 super El Nino arrived. But they simply failed to understand that a La Nina cooling follows after every El Nino peak. This would have been obvious had they looked at the entire data set. And then complain that they cannot understand why surface cooling is clearly documented after some eruptions (Gunung Agung in 1963) but not others (El Chichon, 1982). The answer is pot luck. Real cooling stays in the stratosphere and apparent surface cooling happens only when the eruption takes place at the beginning of a La Nina. This happened with Pinatubo. But El Chichon lucked out – poor timing. An El Nino was just building up when it erupted and there was no La Nina available to appropriate for its imagined cooling.

  22. The threat of a 1 degree temperature change, causes concern among reporters.
    Al Gore, says I told you so (from a private pity party he is headlining).
    Windmills spin (with coal/ng backup), towards our green future.

  23. Jose Suro says:
    July 17, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    With the still increasing GISS land fraction actually used, we have GISS 2007 0,72K warmer than GISS 1900.

    Don’t make me get out my calculator! Give it to me in C!

    A Kelvin is the same size as a degree Celsius, so the difference between two temperatures is the same. The only differences between Kelvins and degrees Celcius are the wordplay (never say degrees Kelvin) and that 0 K is absolute zero but 0°C is the freezing point of water, 273 K.

  24. The GISTEMP “Land” series is not an index representing changing land temperature. It is an index that attempts to represent global temperature using only land based measurements. Results are weighted by latitude zone, not land area, and the temperature change from coastal thermometers are over-represented, making it warm much slower than a “land only” index.

    By contrast, the Land-Ocean index uses SST where available, except for areas of sea ice, in which case measurements from the nearest land measurements are used.

    The minor differences between the various temperature analyses are due to their choice of ocean data, and GISTEMP’s interpolation over land and sea ice. If you apply the same masks and use the same ocean data, they are virtually identical.

    Please read everything by Zeke at Lucia’s.
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/author/zeke/

  25. If the Hansenizer GW Amplifier has been productized I’d sure like one – Puget Sound has been miserable cold since fall of last year.

  26. I believe that the term Centigrade should be used when referring to a temperature difference without reference to an actual measured temperature. Two temperature scales use units of Centigrade, the Kelvin and the Celsius. The term Centigrade has in its name “Centi” meaning one hundred, which is the number of units between the temperature of freezing water and boiling water.
    Some people use the term Centigrade when they mean Celsius, but the Kelvin scale also uses the Centigrade unit.
    Using the letter C however to represent the units you are using can be confusing as Centigrade and Celsius both start with C, obviously. Usually one can tell by the context whether one is referring to a measured temperature or a difference between two measured temperatures.
    For example in this post “0,72K” is used. It is easy to tell the writer does not mean the temperature is barely 1k above absolute freezing or -458.374 degrees Fahrenheit.
    In a 1980’s text book I have, the author states that the term Centigrade should be considered obsolete. I believe that is true only if one was using Centigrade when meaning Celsius. Obviously the 100 nature of Centigrade makes the term still valid and perhaps preferred rather than using K to represent a unit of temperature.
    I will agree however that the term Centigrade sounds awkward.

  27. CCE:
    You write that the Land index is not just a land index. This is very true and I have recently covered this subject very closely in PART 2 of my summary of temperature graphs, check it out:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php

    However, we DO know that Oceans are 70% of the planets surface, and thus, whatever you do with the last 30%, it should not lead to a result that differences much from SST.

    And most importantly:
    What ever you do, you have to do it for all years!!

    1) How do you justify around ZERO % land data used 1900-20 and then 70% land data used in 2007?
    2) How do you justify around 40-45% land data used arounf 1980-85 and then 65-70% in 2007?

    The last massive increase in land data 1980-2007 indeed speeds up the warming of the last decades, so its pretty obvious we need a look at this.

    The heat added by GISS when they make their remarkable combining of “land” data and SST is so significant that i think this should be investigated to full detail, thats why I come foreward with my initial observations.

  28. Rattus Norvegicus said on July 17, 2010 at 7:33 pm:

    Go read the code and tell us where this adjustment is made. Be sure and tell us all when you find it, but I won’t be expecting anything real soon, or ever, because it ain’t there.

    Small problem being, that is not THE code, it is the Clear Climate Code project’s attempt at “reimplementing” GISTEMP in the Python programming language. Thus it is not what produced the results seen above.

    Let us know when you find the real code that NASA actually runs to generate those numbers, okay?

  29. Yes,

    Political Science. Political Policy. Political garbage…

    There is enough data here to refute these egregious claims, can anyone pull it together?

  30. Ric Werme @ 8:54, I’ll join you in Pedant’s Corner (a place I’m often found) and point out that the units of the Kelvin scale are not Kelvins but kelvins.

    Re the main article, if GISS’s only explanation for the high land percentage is “…their 1200km zones around land stations reaching some Ocean areas”, it is patently inadequate, absent peer-reviewed evidence that ocean areas hundreds of km offshore follow land temperatures more closely than oceanic ones. Does such evidence exist?

    Was the decrease in the land weighting between 1995 and 2007 (73% to 67%) perhaps due to ‘dying of the thermometers’ and a consequent decrease in the number of 1200km radius zones available for use?

    I’ve just realised that each of those zones amounts to almost 1% of the earth’s surface (0.88%). It wouldn’t take too many badly-chosen stations with unrepresentative microclimates (Eureka anyone?) with that sort of weighting to skew the results.

  31. I have a question. The expenditure of trillions of dollars are being contemplated on the basis of what everyone (on both/all sides of this debate) recognises is an incomplete data set. It’s understandable that historically, sparsely populated areas of the earth should have had sparse coverage for weather data; the political and economic value of the data was lower, and crucially full-time human presence was needed to provide the data.

    Now we have the network of ARGO buoys reporting ocean temperature data direct via satellite links, and available almost in real time. Why is there not a network of similar land-based stations in remote areas worldwide, or even (as far as I’m aware) strong demands from the AGW research community for the creation of such a network? The cost would surely be trivial compared to the vast amounts of money at stake, or that is already being committed to all sorts of AGW research, much of it based on assumptions forced on researchers by the lack of data. Not only would this network greatly increase the comprehensiveness of land-based data records, but it could provide data almost completely free of UHI bias.

    In fact, wouldn’t automated systems of this sort be greatly preferable even in more urbanised areas, thus removing many of the practical issues that lead to the massive prevalence of siting problems recorded on WUWT and elsewhere, and missing data from many stations?

  32. DoctorJJ says:
    July 17, 2010 at 5:08 pm (Edit)
    GISS = Gotta Increase Somehow Survey

    Good one. here are some more:

    IPCC = Inaccurately Produced Climate Claptrap

    NOAA = Notoriously Overestimates Actual Anomalies

    NSIDC = No Sensors Indicate Decadal Cooling

  33. So what GISS have done is rehash a version of the old shell scam. Keep moving the target quickly enough and the punters won’t see what you’ve done.

    The IPCC cargo cult scientists know that the scam must go on until their political paymasters put the CO2 tac machinery in place. Their position gets evermore precarious and here’s hoping this is the final tug which will pull the mat from under the CAGW scam.

  34. CCE:

    Well thats the point :-)
    Looka at the years 1900-20: The brown land graph is not the same as the SST curve, see?
    But.. The combined GISS Land+SST is the same as SST 1900-1920 and thus, the land data (brown curve) must have been weighted… aound zero. Can you follow this?

    But in 1995-2007 land is weighted around 70%… What ever changes in landstation data you might point out, this appears wrong.

    And the change in land cover from 1980-85 (40%) to 1995-2007 (70%):
    So in 1980 there where hardly any landstations near the cost? (WRONG!!) And then in 1995 suddenly they use uch more coastal temperature stations? (WRONG!!)

    In fact there is certainly not more land stations use in 1995-2007 and thus the idea that a MASSIVELY bigger ocean area covered from land in 1995 compared to 1985 is complete nonsense. There is no massevely bigger ocean coveragere from land in 1995 than there was in 1985 to explain a raise in GISS land% use from 40% to 70%.

    Its good to be careful, but sceptics should not be so careful that they dare say nothing at all.

    Change in use og coastal temperature station can at most explain a tiny fraction of the problems here.

  35. @Policyguy

    I’m afraid we are currently dealing with Physical Politics, of the postmodern kind.

    Politicians can bend everything in the the direction they want. Scientific facts will not stop them, only votes. And that’s what’s making things difficult, because it’s (still) political correct to support AGW.

    In my view, WUWT and other anti-AGW websites play an important role in spreading trustworthy knowledge and facts about climate and climatescience to the people.
    Once people realize they are being scammed, only then will they vote AGW out.
    And that will be the end of the Physical Politics we are currently enduring.

  36. Weightgate? Surely this leaves no doubt of GISS’s trickery. If this can be ignored, what can’t?

  37. kadaka,

    You mean like here. The ccc code reproduces GISTEMP output just about perfectly, and as such implements the same algorithms. It just happens to be a much cleaner implementation which is much easier to read.

  38. Neil Robertson says:
    July 18, 2010 at 12:34 am
    > Ric Werme @ 8:54, I’ll join you in Pedant’s Corner (a place I’m often found) and point out that the units of the Kelvin scale are not Kelvins but kelvins.

    Augh! How could I have made that mistake!? That hertz! I think °C is still Celsius, so Kelvin follows those who forget history.

    BTW y’all, all this comes from an effort several decades ago to standardize unit terminology and honor scientists involved in the measurements, hence hertz replaced cycles per second, centigrade was replaced by Celsius.

    http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/Temperature.html says

    In 1948, the Ninth General Conference on Weights and Measures changed the name “degree centigrade” to “degree Celsius” (symbol °C) in honor of Anders Celsius.

    In 1954, the Tenth General Conference on Weights and Measures selected the degree Kelvin as the metric unit of thermodynamic temperature. The degree Kelvin was named in honor of its creator, Sir William Thomson, Baron Kelvin of Largs, Lord Kelvin of Scotland. The conference defined the degree Kelvin by assigning the exact value 273.16°K to the triple point of water. The triple point of a substance is the thermodynamic singularity at which the gas, liquid, and solid phases may coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium. A triple point is therefore a much more accurate temperature reference than either a freezing point or a boiling point.

    In 1967, the Thirteenth General Conference on Weights and Measures changed the name of the thermodynamic temperature unit degree Kelvin (symbol °K) to merely kelvin (symbol K). The conference redefined Celsius temperature as the thermodynamic temperature minus 273.15 kelvin.

  39. An article that starts with insisting that land is weighted at 0% for 1900-1920 in GISS gets a high degree of suspicion from me. I understand that the author feels the data justifies that conclusion. I just don’t believe it, and think it far more likely that something else is going on that the author has failed to grasp in some fashion.

    Of course, there is always the possibility that he’s right and I’m wrong –but a few paras and a graph or two aren’t enough to convince me of it.

  40. We have to admit, that HadCRUT is not THAT bad compared to GISTEMP or NDCD datasets. It fares poorly in tropics, central Africa and Central Asia compared to MSU since 1979, but reasonably well in polar regions and northern/southern extratropics.

  41. Geo, you make my day!!

    Your “logic” is that if some conslusion is in the beginning of an article, its probably false :-)

    Well, the presen little writing is around 2% of the real article i 4 parts here:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php

    The subject we discuss here is in fact placed in the END OF PART 4 !
    So wow! Then it must be true??

    I think you ough me to read my article that I just linked to, and then come back and tell your opinion.

    K.R. Frank

  42. If this keeps up, Earth officially won’t have any oceans in a few years, with 100% land weighting, and we can then petition the US Government to disband NOAA.

  43. It is being growing boresome to see so many repetitions of lies than nobody any longer believes in but only the bedwetting fools, who, by the way, will always exist.

  44. Frank Lansner: You wrote, “1) How do you justify around ZERO % land data used 1900-20 and then 70% land data used in 2007?”

    Not sure where you get these numbers. As I wrote to you over on the next thread, You wrote to Steven Mosher, “In the present case for example we have a GISS LST+SST that is the same as the SST (HADISST) 1900-1920.”

    What’s the source of your data? A quick trip to the KNMI Climate Explorer shows that to be incorrect. There are significant differences between Global GISTEMP LST + SST (1200km radius smoothing) and Global HADISST from 1900 to 1920:

    And here’s the difference (GISTEMP MINUS HADISST):

  45. Frank Lansner: You wrote in the post, “The real land fraction of the Earth is of course 30%, but around 1980 GISS uses 40%, in 1988 55% – and in 1995 no less than 73%. (The high land % weighting around 1995 leads to a reduction in temperature decline due to Pinatubo volcanic cooling.)”

    How are you determining these percentages?

  46. Rattus Norvegicus said on July 18, 2010 at 4:31 am:

    kadaka,

    You mean like here. The ccc code reproduces GISTEMP output just about perfectly, and as such implements the same algorithms. It just happens to be a much cleaner implementation which is much easier to read.

    Good, you have confirmed that you attempted to disprove the existence of the adjustment in the GISS code with something other than the GISS code. While the ccc coding effort does try to follow the original Hansen algorithms and work off the publicly-released code, it of course cannot be used to disprove the existence of such an adjustment in the actual code NASA is using.

    There is something troubling I have noticed on the GISS Updates page, which roughly serves as a change log. There are several examples where the programs actually used are modified then the “publicly-available source codes” are subsequently modified. If the code released was the actual code used by NASA, then why would the released code also need modification? Wouldn’t it be a simple matter of placing NASA’s own current code to where it is publicly available? This hints that the released code is the “consumer” version while the “in-house” version may have differences, which has actually been true in certain instances noted on that page.

    I’ve also noticed the increasing frequency of notes on that Update page. Perhaps the increased public scrutiny has brought this about, as they document how they are trying to keep GISS as accurate as possible.

    Speaking of the publicly-released codes, it’s good to read of the problems the Chiefio (E.M. Smith) has had getting that steaming pile up and running on his own computer. And what he has already found about how GIStemp actually works, as opposed to what the supporters say it does… It’s not good, and such can really leave one wondering why anyone wants to trust it for much of anything.

  47. Neil Robertson says:
    July 18, 2010 at 12:46 am

    I have a question. The expenditure of trillions of dollars are being contemplated on the basis of what everyone (on both/all sides of this debate) recognises is an incomplete data set….

    In fact, wouldn’t automated systems of this sort be greatly preferable even in more urbanised areas, thus removing many of the practical issues that lead to the massive prevalence of siting problems recorded on WUWT and elsewhere, and missing data from many stations?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    You are making the assumption that those advocating “The expenditure of trillions of dollars” are really interested in whether there is any “manmade” global warming. They are not. CAGW is just a convenient excuse for crippling western civilization and imposing “Global Governance” (Nations especially the USA must be weakened and taken by stealth since a take over by direct means is too risky.) That intent has been stated very bluntly several times but no one seems to believe it even when it stares them in the face.

    In 1973, just after the first Earth Summit chaired by Oil Mogul, Maurice Strong.
    “President Obama’s top science adviser, John P. Holdren, advocated the “de-development” of the United States in books he published in the 1970s.
    “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”
    click

    More recently:
    “”In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

    — in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Rome

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, May, 1990

    Check out Maurice Strong, Bill Clinton and the UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance

    David Rockefeller, the man behind the World Bank, states very bluntly in his 2002 Autobiography 2 “Memoirs” on page 405: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents… to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world … If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

    I swear people waking up in slave chains will still be saying it is all a “right wing conspiracy theory” rather than face the fact they have been bamboozled, fleeced and made slaves.

  48. Great analysis. I said on a GISS jump thread last year that I thought Jimmy James had started bumping up the lower toposphere ratio. Looks like that hunch was right, but this properly done study carries far more weight.

    Well done!

  49. cce says: “The GISTEMP “Land” series is not an index representing changing land temperature. It is an index that attempts to represent global temperature using only land based measurements.”

    That makes about as much sense as looking for your keys where the light is better, instead of where you dropped them. Almost as crazy as trying to measure historic temperatures with a few carefully selected tree rings. They’ve all gone mad.

  50. Great post! it is mind boggling.
    In summery, am I right that Gisstemp basically uses about HadiSST/Reynolds from 1900-1935, then as the globe starts to cool, it takes about 30% land data, thus it cools more until about 1959. Then after 1975, land portion goes up and up including UHI effects and polar warming (temperature above the Arctic Ocean is of course smeared over by coastal land temperature data) comes in throughout the two last decades? No polar and no UHI warming at GISS until 1935, but all of it since 1975 and Gisstemp keeps shooting up unlike the other data sets!!

  51. climatepatrol says:
    July 18, 2010 at 6:41 pm
    Great post! it is mind boggling.
    In summery, am I right that Gisstemp basically uses about HadiSST/Reynolds from 1900-1935>>

    It is almost impossible to say since GISS doesn’t actually publish the SST data they use. They publish Land and Combined (land/ocean). To try and figure out what they were using I compared Land to Combined and isolated all the grid points that had data in the Combined set, but not in the Land set. By using the 250 km smoothing data to reduce the amount of overlap, this gives you most of the SST data that they are using. There is of course additional SST data merged with Land data at grid points where both Land and Ocean exist, but this method still captures about 75% of the data, and it is reasonably well distributed. We can then trend the SST data that we’ve isolated and compare to both Hadl/Reyn and NOAA. NOAA and GISS use a 1951 to 1980 mean as reference while Hadl/Reyn uses 1961 to 1990. To compare, I averaged Hadl/Reyn for 1951 to 1980 and adjusted it accordingly. Put the three trends on a graph and you get this:

    Looks like Hadl/Reyn at the cold end and NOAA at the warm end with some flip flopping around in the middle.

    That said, I came to the same conclusion as Frank a while back, my estimate being that Land is weighted about 6% (based on the 250 km smoothing) in 1880 and based on the increased number of land stations reporting becomes a much larger percentage over time.

  52. kadaka,

    A development line and a release line? Oh, you don’t seem to be a software developer. It seems that the code is updated as bugs are found or changes in the procedures used are incorporated.

    You might try corresponding with Nick Barnes at CCC, he has the skinny on a lot of this. Ignored stations are AFAIK contained in a list that can be downloaded from GISS. I know that at one point Rito Reudy had expressed to CCC an interest in using the reimplementation from CCC as the actual code. CCC and Peter O’Neill seem to have been the only outside parties providing fixes to GISS. I don’t see E.M. Smith providing any input, but at least two other people have been able to get it to run so I think that E.M. Smith’s problems lie with E.M. Smith.

    Most of the rest of the changes have to do with problems with the input data, some of which have been highlighted by the contrarian community. This is a good thing, but has had little impact on the analysis. Many more seem to have been due to problems with the data sets which were discovered through internal investigation. This is also a good thing, but has had little impact on the analysis.

    I do have one question to ask: if GISS is changing the weighting of land vs. ocean in the final product, when does the trend agree so well with CRU, NCDC, JMA, UAH and RSS? Are they all colluding to jigger their respective analysis in the same manner? And what about the work which was done by the Muir Russell committee, which wrote their own code and got pretty much the same results from the publically available data? Or how about the various implementations done by bloggers over the last few months, all of which get about the same results, using methods that differ from GISS? Are they all doing this?

  53. Frank Lansner says:
    July 18, 2010 at 7:41 am
    Geo, you make my day!!

    ++++

    Frank, I’m always happy to make someone’s day. Pay it forward, ‘mmkay?

    The context that is presented me is the context presented me. I shall be happy to read the rest of your work, which wasn’t obvious from what I read above, when I get a chance.

  54. Excerpts from: Rattus Norvegicus on July 18, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    A development line and a release line? Oh, you don’t seem to be a software developer. It seems that the code is updated as bugs are found or changes in the procedures used are incorporated.

    Warning! Warning! Misleading diversionary tactic detected!

    I did not mention development and release lines. I mentioned the possibility of in-house and consumer versions, i.e. what they release is not exactly what they themselves use, which is a different thing.

    I don’t see E.M. Smith providing any input…

    He has a whole section for GIStemp at his site, has sometimes posted here on WUWT some of what his in-depth analysis has revealed as well. I’ve seen the “buzz” the defenders of GIStemp and Hansen generate when they see his work, and the insulting personal attacks against him as well. Someone at NASA must be noticing his fine work.

    …but at least two other people have been able to get it to run so I think that E.M. Smith’s problems lie with E.M. Smith.

    Publicly released code, with all those researchers of the temperature record out there who are interested in using GIStemp and seeing how it works, and you can only find two people on your own who got it to run?

    Go to the updates page and see the June 9, 2008 entry. They moved their “analysis” off a 15-year old machine onto a new one, and it did affect results. They modified some routines to minimize machine dependence. Since then, I see no note about making the code machine independent. E.M. Smith noted some stuff was for big-endian while PC’s are little-endian. Plus there are uses of non-standard Fortran. Etc. Add everything together and it becomes clear how getting GIStemp up and running can be a real, long, and excruciating pain.

    I do have one question to ask: (…)

    At this point I count five questions, and decide I’ve spent enough time on this. I got you on your “adjustment” comment, now it just looks like you’re diverting attention from what you did. For four of the five, as has been discussed here before, you start with the same buggered-up temperature records then you get similar results, there are differences between satellite and temp record trends, and in any case while warming has been noted the link to CO2 has not been shown. The PDO and other factors can account for the warming.

    For the one that remains, regarding your claim within your question about Muir Russell, provide links describing this code they themselves wrote and preferably a link to their source code. Given the short time span of the inquiry, it seems unlikely on the face they, more likely others under their direction, wrote such code from scratch to process the temperature records. Besides, Muir Russell was charged with absolving investigating CRU, not GISS, and it has been acknowledged CRU is doing a better job than GISS (far as that goes). If you wish to say Muir Russell shows GISS is pretty good, you better have some good references.

  55. Jose Suro

    It’s the same number. Each degree Celsius is the same “size” as a degree Kelvin. The only difference is that Celsius has its zero at the freezing point of water and Kelvin at absolute zero (where all molecular and atomic motion ceases). Zero K is at -273.15C.

  56. climatepatrol says: “In summery, am I right that Gisstemp basically uses about HadiSST/Reynolds from 1900-1935, then as the globe starts to cool, it takes about 30% land data, thus it cools more until about 1959. Then after 1975, land portion goes up and up including UHI effects and polar warming (temperature above the Arctic Ocean is of course smeared over by coastal land temperature data) comes in throughout the two last decades? No polar and no UHI warming at GISS until 1935, but all of it since 1975 and Gisstemp keeps shooting up unlike the other data sets!!”

    No. The method Frank uses to determine the percentage of land to sea surface data is faulty. He has been informed of this. In order to use the methods he’s using, he would have to mask the land surface data where it extends out over the oceans. This should be clear in my rebuttal that Anthony posted immediately after this one:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/giss-land-and-sea-ratios-revisited/

    I created the following maps of GISTEMP combined land and sea surface temperature data (1200km radius smoothing) with the KNMI Climate Explorer to help illustrate this. And I used KNMI as a third party source of GISS data. Here’s a map of the GISTEMP data in 1915:

    Areas in white have no data. The only major areas with data missing are the Antarctic and Southern Oceans and a part of the Arctic, which GISS treats as land, and some of Africa and South America. So GISS is presenting land surface data for a significant portion of the global land mass, not 0%.

    And here’s a map for 1945:

    And one for 1975:

    The major difference between 1945 and 1975 is the addition of Antarctic data and that has no impact on global temperature since the linear trends of the GISTEMP data with and without the Antarctic and Southern Ocean are the same:

    And one more map, 2005:

    Can you see the significant changes in the percentage of land surface temperature data that you described above and that Frank Lansner presents in the post?

  57. tallbloke says: “Great analysis. I said on a GISS jump thread last year that I thought Jimmy James had started bumping up the lower toposphere ratio. Looks like that hunch was right, but this properly done study carries far more weight.”

    Unfortuately, the method used to calculate percentage of land to ocean in this post is wrong, hence my rebuttal post which follows this one:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/giss-land-and-sea-ratios-revisited/

  58. Listen! Please! You just don’t install multi-million dollar weather stations anywhere. There has to be a couple three good reasons. The major factors in location are: Population Centers >1M, International Airports, Amenities for NOAA Personel. We’re in the middle of the Great Recession, we can’t afford what most of you’re suggesting. The US is becoming a Third World nation and the Chinese won’t lend us the money to put one of their thermometers just anywhere.

  59. I get really annoyed at people who never look at NASA code to figure out what NASA is doing. back in 2007 a bunch of us hounded NASA to get them to release the code.
    it was a success.

    Several of us went over that code with a fine toothed comb. There is nothing much of note there, except some clarifications that the papers were too vague on. Getting the code running was a bitch ( the guys I was working with gave up after a couple weeks, it was basically compiler issues and OS issues) Nick barnes and company had more skill and patience: They succeeded. If you havent read their code ( I have) then you should probably keep your mouth closed. As a data and code libertarian, nothing is more annoying that people who talk about code and data that is available without ACTUALLY reading it or using it.

    If you read the code and ran the code you would understand the mistakes in this post. For the short version, see Zeke’s post at Lucia’s

    I will say it again. The key issue is metadata and adjustments. put your brain cells on that.

  60. Bob Tisdale:

    You write: “The method Frank uses to determine the percentage of land to sea surface data is faulty. He has been informed of this. In order to use the methods he’s using, he would have to mask the land surface data where it extends out over the oceans. ”

    You are in title to your opinion.

    The official GISS LAND data is weighted around zero in 1900-20.
    This you see because the GISS Land+SST lies on top of the HADISST graph:

    I havent seen any of your writing anywhere near explaining this. Weight zero means all ocean areas + all land areas from the GISS LST is hardly weighted at all. So when you just show the minor variance in giss LST ocean cover you are 10.000 miles from explaing things.

    Then i pointed out that in 1980 the GISS land weight was around 40% while in 1995 it was 73%.

    So in 15 years, the lad date use are allmost doubbled.
    So now, Bob, will you please show me the maps where GISS LST(land+ocean area) is alomost the doubble in 1995 than 1980?

    I havent seen anything just remotely exolaing this grotesque increase of GISS LST (land0ocean) in any of your maps or writings.

    So please (!) come up with the actual explanations for the grotesk increase of GISS land before you conclude anything.

    K.R. Frank

  61. The IPCC uses one tidal gauge mounted on sinking geology in Hong Kong Harbor as the bellweather of the world’s ocean level changes, and Michael Mann uses the tree rings from one pine tree in the Yamal Pennisula to construct his FrankenGraph Hockey Stick. So, why are we to be surprised that NASA GISS is increasing the weighting of land based measurements when the land area remains constant? Who will be around 30 years from now – when the Thames and Hudson Rivers are frozen over in the middle of the Grand Solar Minimum – to remind us of these charlatains that twisted the climate science to promote their social agendas? We will be too cold and too hungry from lack of fuel and food to care.

  62. Frank Lansner says: July 19, 2010 at 2:54 pm: This appears to be the same comment you left for me a Jo Nova’s thread here:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/did-giss-discover-30-more-land-in-the-northern-hemisphere/

    So I’ll repeat my reply to you from there, just to make sure you receive it. Note that the comment numbers refer to the Jo Nova post, not the thread here at WUWT.
    ##############
    Frank Lansner # 104: You replied, “You are in title to your opinion.”

    Actually, Frank, you agreed with me in your comment # 85, when you replied, “On this basis, then you are correct, it would make sence to use time and energy to go further like you advise, i really totally agree with you on this (mask ocean area year fo year and other studies).”

    You replied, “The official GISS LAND data is weighted around zero in 1900-20.
    This you see because the GISS Land+SST lies on top of the HADISST graph:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GISSglobal/fig1b.jpg”

    Frank, you can’t simply eyeball these things. Subtract the HADISST from the GISTEMP Data. The difference is the impact of the GISS Land Surface Temperature anomalies. I did it for you in my response to your reply to Steven Mosher. See:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/giss-land-and-sea-ratios-revisited/#comment-433545
    *****
    You wrote in that thread, “In the present case for example we have a GISS LST+SST that is the same as the SST (HADISST) 1900-1920.”

    And I replied, What’s the source of your data? A quick trip to the KNMI Climate Explorer shows that to be incorrect. There are significant differences between Global GISTEMP LST + SST (1200km radius smoothing) and Global HADISST from 1900 to 1920:

    And here’s the difference (GISTEMP MINUS HADISST):

    ******
    You wrote, “I havent seen any of your writing anywhere near explaining this.”

    Actually, you stopped in and left a message at the post at WUWT that was a rebuttal to yours, which Anthony posted immediately after yours. Here’s a link to your comment on that thread:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/giss-land-and-sea-ratios-revisited/#comment-433362

    You wrote, “So now, Bob, will you please show me the maps where GISS LST(land+ocean area) is alomost the doubble in 1995 than 1980?”

    I can’t. Why? Because it hasn’t doubled. Only your erroneous calculations make you believe it has doubled. Here’s a gif animation of GISTEMP Combined Land And Sea Surface Temperature anomalies with 1200 km radius smoothing for January 1980 and January 1995. White represents areas with no data, and the only land surface area without data is the small area along the shore of Antarctica, south of the South Pacific.

    Other than that, the land surface area coverage is complete and it hasn’t changed.

    I’ve asked you for the method you use to calculate this growing difference in land surface data percentage, and as of now, I have not found your reply. So I’ll ask, are you assuming that the growing difference between Global Temperature Anomalies and Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies is caused by an increase in the amount of land data? If so, it’s not. Land surface temperature anomalies rise significantly faster than sea surface temperature anomalies during warming periods and cool faster than SST anomalies during cooling epochs. If you’re not making that assumption, how do you account for the naturally growing difference between land and sea surface temperature anomalies with your calculations?

  63. Oops. The opening of the above reply to Frank Lansner should have been presented differently. Let’s try the opening again:

    Frank Lansner: With respect to your July 19, 2010 at 2:54 pm comment, this appears to be the same comment you left for me a Jo Nova’s thread here…

    Yup, that’s a much clearer opening.

  64. Frank Lansner: Since you’re having trouble with the filter at Lucia’s and my reply to you at Jo Nova’s is being held by her filter because it has so many links, we could have our discussion here. Just reply to my comment to you above…
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/#comment-434547
    …to set the ball rolling. Then I’ll let Zeke know where we are.

    I’m going to bed in a half hour but I’ll be back at it about six hours from now. I’ll look around. I’m sure I’ll find you.

  65. Frank,

    This post might be instructive as to why the GISTemp land series differs from a true land-only reconstruction: http://rankexploits.com/musing…..p-mystery/

    To quote the reply that Dr. Reto Ruedy sent me:

    “The curve NCDC and most likely you are computing shows the mean temperature over the land area (which covers about 1/3 of the globe, a large part of it located in the Northern hemisphere).

    None of our graphs represents that quantity. We could obtain it by
    creating a series of maps, then averaging just over the land areas
    (similar to what we do to get the US graph).

    Since our interest is in the total energy contained in the atmosphere which correlates well with the global mean surface temperature, all our graphs display estimates for the global mean, the ones based on station data only as well as the ones based on a combination of station and ship and satellite data. Obviously, the latter is the more realistic estimate and we keep the first one mostly for the following historical reason:

    When we started out in the 1980s analyzing available temperature data, historic ocean temperature data were not yet available and we did the best we could with station data. As soon as ocean data compilations became available, we used them to refine our estimates (calling it LOTI). But we kept the earlier estimates also, mostly for sentimental reasons; they are rarely if ever mentioned in our discussions (see also the “note” in the “Table” section of our main web site).

    To get back to your question: The mean over the land area is heavily weighted towards the Northern hemisphere and that hemisphere experienced a larger warming than the Southern hemisphere. Hence our estimate which gives equal weight to both hemispheres exhibits a smaller trend, as you noticed, but it still somewhat overestimates the true global mean trend.”

  66. While I support what Frank Lansner is getting at I believe I understand why he got “zero” for the 1900 to 1920 time frame. The graph below is a quick and dirty. I used the 250 km smoothing on the 2×2 grid and EXCLUDED the grid points where land and ocean overlap. (I used 250 km to minimize the number of grid points that I would need to exclude). I then weighted land at 10%, 33%, 50% and 60% to see how each compared to GISS Global (black dashed line)

    As you can see, all the lines converge between 1900 and 1920. So it makes little difference over that time period how land is weighted. From 1880 to 1900 33% land weight is closest, but a clear divergence to a larger land weighting in the last few decades.

    I can’t do Fortran, just not in my skill set but would be nice to have the exact SST data used on the overlapping grid points in order to do this more accurately. I did some guestimates a couple of different ways on the overlap grid points and didn’t get as big a change as Frank L did, but it seem clear to me that the land weighting changed as more land stations were added.

  67. Ok i posted some more at the blackboard, but again, the spam filter.

    Everybody: please have some patience, i will look into this tonight danish time.
    Me and Jo Nova has used in all 6 reviewers before posting who had no complaints, and im still far (!!) from convinced that Hansens approach is indeed defendable.

    Please have patience i have to go work :-)
    K.R. Frank Lansner

  68. Davidmhoffer: Ahhh wonderful with some comon sence, thankyou :-)
    1) Exactly: Whatever GISS claims that their Land/city/airport data covers, in 1900-20 they where weighted ZERO, and recently they are weighted A LOT.

    other notes:
    2) Another logical problem:
    Since SST without any doubt covers 70% of the globe, the resuting global temperatures should not differ that much fro SST.
    But they do:

    above: If the land graphs where truly for example 50%land and 50% ocean, the the real “land-only” temperatures should be exploding (!) to explain how te big difference to SST can occur.

    3) a third logical problem:
    Why is the difference land vs SST graph much much bigger in recent years than during the warming 1920-1940?

    4) checkout how in the period 1970-74 Land graphs warm 0,1K while SST graphs cools 0,2K:

    If land graph actually covered 50% ocean, its funny how the land trend then can go its quite own ways?

  69. Frank Lansner: First question from me for this morning: Why does the relationship of the GISTEMP temperature anomaly and HADISST/Reynolds SST anomaly in the following graph indicate that GISS uses zero land data during the period of 1900 to 1910?

  70. Frank Lansner wrote: “2) Another logical problem: Since SST without any doubt covers 70% of the globe, the resuting global temperatures should not differ that much fro SST. But they do:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GISSglobal/fig1b.jpg

    The difference will be caused by the variations in global land surface temperatures. Land surface temperatures vary much more than SST on a decadal basis and on an annual basis. Refer to the following graph for those annual variations in Land and Sea Surface Temperatures (Not Anomalies):

    You wrote: “3) a third logical problem: Why is the difference land vs SST graph much much bigger in recent years than during the warming 1920-1940?”

    Not in any particular order: First, polar amplification, as the globe warms, the Arctic and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere exaggerate the warming. Second, land use changes. Third, Urban Heat Island Effect. Fourth, poor surface station siting. Fourth, Etc.

    You wrote, “4) checkout how in the period 1970-74 Land graphs warm 0,1K while SST graphs cools 0,2K:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig51.jpg

    First, you’re examining a 4-year period of a graph with 5-year smoothing. Is it possible the smoothing is effecting your interpretation? Second, the Global datasets in question as part of the discussion (GISTEMP combined with 1200km radius smoothing and HADISST) are not included in your graph. Third, using unsmoothed Global GISTEMP and HADISST data from January 1971 to December 1974, they both show increasing trends, and the curves are remarkably similar over that 4-year period, as one would expect:

    Same thing with Global GISTEMP LST (1200km radius smoothing) and HADISST:

    And the same thing holds true for the Northern Hemisphere GISTEMP LST (1200km radius smoothing) and HADISST:

    The point being, please stick to the datasets being discussed (GISTEMP and HADISST/Reynolds OI.v2). And if you would, please answer the question presented to you above:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/#comment-434815

    Regards

  71. Frank Lansner: Let’s take a look at the data and graph upon which you are basing your calculations of percentages of GISTEMP land surface area.

    I’ve plotted dozens of global temperature anomaly comparison graphs and I don’t recall a divergence of land surface temperatures that you’re showing in the early part of the 20th century. So I attempted to recreate your graph. Unfortunately, I couldn’t duplicate that divergence from 1900 to 1920 or so.

    I used GISTEMP combined (LST&SST) and GISTEMP LST data, both with 1200km radius smoothing. I used HADISST, not a combination of HADISST and Reynolds OI.v2 SST data as you had, since I was only interested in the early part of the data, and merging the two datasets adds another couple of steps. All data use 1951 to 1980 as base years for anomalies and are smoothed with a 60-month running-mean filter, centered on month 30. The data cover the entire term of the GISTEMP data, January 1880 to May 2010. And all of the data is from the same source, the KNMI Climate Explorer. Here’s my graph, using the same color coding as yours:

    As you will note, the LST data does not diverge as greatly from the SST and combined data in the early 20th century. This could mean any number of things, but I did double-check the data I used in this graph. A question, what type of smoothing did you use, since it apparently wasn’t a centered 60-month running-mean filter? Otherwise, your data would not have extended for the full term of the data.

    I also created a second graph of that data, but in this graph I plotted the difference between the SST data and the two GISTEMP datasets. Note how the two residual curves “overlap” during the base years of 1951 to 1980. This can also be seen in your graph above and my attempt to duplicate it. This means your analysis is skewed by your election to use the standard GISTEMP base years of 1951-1980.

    So what happens if we use different base years, 1900 to 2000 for example? The next graph is a comparison of GISTEMP Combined (LST&SST), GISTEMP LST, and HADISST, with the base years of 1900 to 2000. Note that there is better agreement during the extended base period. The divergence between the SST data and the two GISTEMP datasets after the mid-1990s is influenced by my not using Reynolds OI.v2 SST data. Reynolds OI.v2 SST anomalies have a higher trend than HADISST. (And my assumption is that GISS uses it because of availability and not the higher trend. Monthly updates for Reynolds OI.v2 are available early in the month, while HADISST updates lag by at least one month.)

    And the last graph is the comparison of the differences between the HADISST and the two GISTEMP datasets, using 1900 to 2000 as base years for anomalies. This graph should better represent the relationships you are expecting from the data.

    Look reasonable?

    In summary:
    1.Please check your data, especially the land surface data.

    2.Please check your smoothing to determine if it’s imposing a bias on the ends of your data, or simply use a standard centered x-month running-mean filter. So you lose 36 months of data on the ends–who cares?

    3.Please try base years that represent the entire term of the data you’re examining, and:

    4.From an earlier comment at Jo Nova’s, you need to mask the land surface data.

    Regards

  72. Bob,

    As I mentioned over at Lucia’s place, its not just masking. The zonal weighting in GISTemp LST has a similarly large effect in lowering the trend vis-a-vis a true land-only temp record that applies weights proportional to land area.

  73. Zeke Hausfather (July 20, 2010 at 1:32 pm): Thanks for the reminder, but unless Frank accounts for the land and ship station data that’s extended out over the oceans in the basic GISTEMP land surface data with 1200km radius smoothing that he uses, his results will continue to be skewed.

  74. Dear Bob.
    regardng your article:

    I offered you a bottle of wine if you would go through my new article:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php

    If you had done this, you would certainly not have written as you do.

    One more time. Please look at PART 2 of my article, chapter 3.4.
    This is where I explain that GISS inlcudes ocean in their station data series, and where I show a graphic of the ocean included.

    So if anyone is aware of this, its me. The fact that you and others keep writing that you think im not aware of ocean data in GISS station “land” data might be my fault due to bad communication.

    I wrote in my article PART 4:

    “I am sure that the algorithm or specific method used by GISS to combine Land temperature and SST explains some of these apparently odd findings. But whatever the “algorithm” used by GISS is, can it be justified that GISS gradually weights the warm NH-Land graph more and more? And ends up with around 67% NH land fraction in 2007 although NH only has 40% land? Maybe, this algorithm or method deserves some attention?

    And in the WUWT article i write: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/#more-22126

    I write:
    “In general GISS defends use of larger land fraction due to their 1200km zones around land stations reaching some Ocean areas. But this does obviously not explain a land fraction that appears to go from near zero to around 70% globally during the 20th century.

    Now, Your article, Bob:
    You focus on the similarities between CRU and GISS – i suppose to say that the resulting GISS is ok?
    The thing is, CRU and GISS ends up rather alike. But in CRU data i find much more direct land data adjustment than for GISS. On the contrary for GISS, the direct land data adjustments are not so big at all (to my surprice) but in stead the GISS warming trend thats similar to CRU comes when combining the SST and “land”.

    SOmething thats messy in al this is, that you seem to trust that CRU land is not ocean while GISS is… Yes yes, GISS has ship and island data included, but a BIG part of the GISS ocean area in their “land” data is obviousy from coastal stations. These stations are exactly the same as for CRU. So its nonsense to say “CRU is just land data”.
    Just becasue CRU says that their coastal stations are land while GISS (the same) coastal stations covers huge ocean areas, you cant just treat the same data as if completely different.

    I have raised some serious problems in data, and I know you disagree strongly, but i have not seen conving arguments from you, its not bad will.

    K.R. Frank

  75. Frank Lansner: Why are you including your comment above…
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/#comment-438046
    ..on this thread. The post I wrote yesterday is not linked anywhere in this thread. So you’re confusing those who are attempting to follow this.

    Also, I replied to your comment at the post at my blog:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/07/land-surface-temperature-contribution.html

    There I wrote:
    Frank Lansner: You wrote, “I offered you a bottle of wine if you would go through my new article:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php

    “If you had done this, you would certainly not have written as you do.”

    It was my intent to eventually address your request, in a few days. I have other priorities. Also, I don’t drink alcohol. I gave it up.

    You wrote, “One more time. Please look at PART 2 of my article, chapter 3.4.
    This is where I explain that GISS inlcudes ocean in their station data series, and where I show a graphic of the ocean included.”

    But your analysis where you assume that GISS increases land surface area does not address this.

    You wrote, “I am sure that the algorithm or specific method used by GISS to combine Land temperature and SST explains some of these apparently odd findings. But whatever the ‘algorithm’ used by GISS is, can it be justified that GISS gradually weights the warm NH-Land graph more and more? And ends up with around 67% NH land fraction in 2007 although NH only has 40% land? Maybe, this algorithm or method deserves some attention?”

    But GISS does NOT weight “the warm NH-Land graph more and more.” You need to mask the areas where land surface data extends out over the oceans in your analysis.

    You wrote, “In general GISS defends use of larger land fraction due to their 1200km zones around land stations reaching some Ocean areas. But this does obviously not explain a land fraction that appears to go from near zero to around 70% globally during the 20th century.”

    Please provide a link to an article written by a member of GISS where “GISS defends use of larger land fraction due to their 1200km zones around land stations reaching some Ocean areas.”

    You wrote, “You focus on the similarities between CRU and GISS – i suppose to say that the resulting GISS is ok?”

    I also included NCDC data. Or did you miss that? This post was not about the accuracy of land surface temperatures; it was about the contribution of land surface temperature readings to combined land and sea surface temperature data. And there is basically no difference between those of GISS, Hadley Centre, and NCDC.

  76. Frank Lansner,

    I think I follow your logic. You seem to be saying that there is an apparent, very important, apparent, increase in the GISS records of land/ocean area represented in the temp records due to the 1200 km interpolation of land temperatures over ocean areas, not in GISS’s computer code itself. This has manifested itself through the years as stations have been strategically removed.

    Is that right? Is that where Bob Tisdale has misjudged your work in https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/bob-tisdale-on-giss-landsea-ratios/? He keeps saying you need to mask the ocean areas that are actually land temps but that is exactly what you are pointing out. Correct?

Comments are closed.