Land Surface Temperature Contribution To Non-Polar Temperatures

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
INTRODUCTION
Frank Lansner’s post Did GISS discover 30% more land in the Northern Hemisphere? at Jo Nova’s blog created a recent stir. Watts Up With That ran a similar post by Frank, Tipping point at GISS? Land and sea weight out of balance. Both posts spawned rebuttals/explanations, including Zeke Hausfather’s post The GISTemp Land Fraction at Lucia’s The Blackboard and my post Notes On The GISTEMP Ratio Of Land To Sea Surface Temperature Data, which Anthony Watts co-posted as GISS land and sea ratios revisited, on the same day that he ran Frank Lansner’s post.
Basically, Frank Lansner’s post contends that GISS has increased the ratio of land to sea surface data with time, from zero percent early in the 20th century to near 70% in recent years. With a close examination of the graph that was being presented as a reference, Frank’s land surface data looked unusual, and I believe Frank’s observations are skewed by his choice of base years, and possibly by his smoothing method. I discussed this with him in a detailed comment that I posted at WattsUpWithThat and Jo Nova’s website. Refer to:
OVERVIEW OF THIS POST
There are lingering beliefs that there’s something unusual about the way GISS handles land surface data. In an effort to dispel those misunderstandings, the land surface data contribution to combined land and sea surface temperature data will be illustrated in this post, using a very simple method. Sea surface temperature data will be subtracted from GISS, Hadley Centre, and NCDC combined (land and sea) surface temperature products. The remainders, which are the contributions of the land surface temperature data to the combined products, will be compared. Personally, I was surprised with the results. But first, we need to eliminate the effects of known differences between the GISS and the other two global temperature datasets.
GISS treats the polar regions differently than the Hadley Centre and NCDC. GISS has better land surface temperature data coverage than the Hadley Centre and NCDC in the Arctic and Antarctic. And the Hadley Centre and NCDC include Arctic and Southern Ocean sea surface temperature data as seasonal sea ice melts, while GISS deletes sea surface temperature from areas where there is seasonal sea ice. The treatment of polar data by GISS was discussed in GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data, which was also co-posted at WattsUpWithThat, GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data. So, due to those differences, this post will only examine the global temperature data between the latitudes of 60S and 60N. These latitudes represent approximately 85% of the surface area of the globe.
Note: It is also known there is little to no Antarctic land surface temperature data prior to the 1950s. But this can’t explain the results Frank Lansner was reporting.
DATA SOURCES
GISS and Hadley Centre combined (land and sea) surface temperature anomaly data were downloaded from the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
The KNMI Climate Explorer was also the source of Hadley Centre sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly data (HADSST2) used in its combined product. It also served as the source of the two SST components of the GISS combined product, HADISST from January 1880 to November 1981 and Reynolds (OI.v2) from December 1981 to present. The method employed to merge the two SST datasets used in the GISS product is discussed under Step 4 of the GISS current analysis webpage. The base years (1982 to 1992) used for splicing are different than those presented by the KNMI Climate Explorer for the GISS combined product, so I shifted the merged SST anomaly data to account for this.
I wanted to compare NCDC data in this post also, but it is not available through the KNMI Climate Explorer, and since the NCDC does not break down its standard combined surface temperature product into the desired latitude band (60S-60N) on its Global Surface Temperature Anomalies page, I used a second source. The NCDC also has SST, LST, and combined temperature anomaly data available through its ERSST Version 3/3b webpage, and it is available in multiple latitude bands, including 60S-60N. Scroll down to their link ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo under the heading of “ASCII Time series Tables”.
Figure 1 compares the combined global (land and sea) surface temperature anomalies of the standard NCDC product and the data available through the ERSST.v3b webpage. The trends are identical at 0.057 deg C/decade. The difference appears to be caused by the use of different base years. The standard NCDC product uses 1901 to 2000 for base years while the data available through the ERSST.v3b webpage appears to be based on the NCDC climatology of 1971 to 2000. So this post uses the NCDC SST and combined (LST and SST) data that’s available through the ERSST.v3b webpage:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo
http://i28.tinypic.com/vrsikk.jpg
Figure 1
Links to the data presented in Figure 1:
“Standard” NCDC Global combined product:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
NCDC Global combined product through ERSST.v3b webpage:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo/aravg.mon.land_ocean.90S.90N.asc
Note: There are two different series of data available through the ERSST.v3b webpage. Those ending with .gv3.asc are recent additions, and since they have a slightly different trend and I have not found any mention of them in any other webpage, I have not used them in this post.
NON-POLAR SST AND COMBINED (LST & SST) SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY COMPARSONS
Figures 2 through 4 are comparison graphs of GISS, Hadley Centre, and NCDC SST and Combined (SST&LST) datasets for the latitudes of 60S-60N. All data has been smoothed with a 13-month running-average filter. They are being provided as references.
http://i26.tinypic.com/dmd2k1.jpg
Figure 2
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://i32.tinypic.com/2gvitja.jpg
Figure 3
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://i25.tinypic.com/258bcs6.jpg
Figure 4
CONTRIBUTION OF LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY DATA TO NON-POLAR SURFACE TEMPERATURES
As discussed in the overview, to determine the contribution of land surface temperature anomaly data, the SST anomaly data was subtracted from the combined data. Before subtraction, the SST data was scaled by a factor of 0.755 to represent the ratio of ocean to land between the latitudes of 60S-60N. The remainders for each dataset are shown in Figures 5 through 7. Note that these graphs represent the remainder of subtraction, not the actual land surface temperature anomalies. To convert them back to land surface anomalies, they would have to be scaled.
http://i32.tinypic.com/14izupt.jpg
Figure 5
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://i29.tinypic.com/2qak75i.jpg
Figure 6
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://i30.tinypic.com/2ymc2vk.jpg
Figure 7
COMPARISON OF LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE CONTRIBUTIONS
Figure 8 compares the remainders resulting from the subtraction of the scaled SST data from the combined (LST&SST) GISS, Hadley Centre, and NCDC products. As shown in Figures 5 through 7, the land surface residuals are noisy, so for this comparison, the data was smoothed with a 37-month running-average filter. While there are slight differences in the yearly and decadal variations in Figure 8, the linear trends for the three datasets are basically the same, differing only 0.001 deg C/decade.
http://i31.tinypic.com/33cp74w.jpg
Figure 8
This suggests, for the latitudes of 60S-60N, the differences between the combined products from GISS, Hadley Centre, and NCDC result from differences between the SST data they employ. Refer to An Overview Of Sea Surface Temperature Datasets Used In Global Temperature Products. And the most significant differences in SST anomalies occur before 1940. From 1880 to 1940, the SST anomaly data used by the Hadley Centre and NCDC have significant dips and rebounds, as shown in Figure 3 and 4, while the dip and rebound is much less pronounced in the SST data used by GISS, Figure 2.
SO HOW DOES GISS LAND SURFACE DATA DIFFER FROM THE HADLEY CENTRE AND NCDC?
The Hadley Centre and NCDC land surface temperature anomaly datasets represent continental land masses only, and on a global basis, both of those datasets exclude Antarctica. The land surface data presented by GISS, on the other hand, includes continental land mass data plus much more. First, looking at Figure 9, continental land mass data is extended out over the oceans in the GISS land surface temperature product with 1200km radius smoothing. (Figure 9 is a trend map available through the GISS Global Maps webpage, and it shows the regional changes in temperature anomaly from 1880 to 2009. I’ve cropped the map to show the latitudes, 60S-60N, used in this post.)
http://i31.tinypic.com/4kd9ns.jpg
Figure 9
Second, GISS also includes data from island surface stations and from “Ship stations,” and these values are also extended out over the oceans. This GISS dataset is a carryover from the methods developed by GISS back in the 1980s, when SST datasets were incomplete. They were attempting to simulate global temperature anomalies without using SST data. This is explained further in a WUWT comment from Zeke Hausfather to Frank Lansner in which Zeke quotes from a correspondence from Dr. Reto Ruedy of GISS:
In part it reads, “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).”
It continues, “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).”
And continuing this post, the “‘note’ in the ‘Table’ section of [the GISTEMP] main web site” reads, “Note: LOTI provides a more realistic representation of the global mean trends than dTs below; it slightly underestimates warming or cooling trends, since the much larger heat capacity of water compared to air causes a slower and diminished reaction to changes; dTs on the other hand overestimates trends, since it disregards most of the dampening effects of the oceans that cover about two thirds of the earth’s surface.
And again, LOTI represents the GISTEMP combined land and sea surface data and the dTs represents the land surface data.
CLOSING REMARKS
The GISS Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means dataset does not represent continental land mass temperature anomalies as many believe. It, therefore, cannot be employed in analyses like the one Frank Lansner is attempting to perform.
Dr. Ruedy’s statement that GISS could create a continental land temperature anomaly dataset similar to NCDC “by creating a series of maps, then averaging just over the land areas,” is another way of saying they could create it by masking the areas where the land surface data extends out over the oceans. And this was noted in the post Notes On The GISTEMP Ratio Of Land To Sea Surface Temperature Data.
Then there’s the similarity in the linear trends of the land surface contributions for the three combined datasets, Figure 8. It confirms the findings of the independent researchers who are creating land surface temperature anomaly datasets: the results are pretty much the same as the GISS, Hadley Centre, and NCDC data.
rbateman says: “Could you do something on Polar Amplification?”
Already have. The first is an overview:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/polar-amplification-and-arctic-warming.html
The second is a rehashing with an addition about the transport of heat from the tropics to the poles caused by ENSO events:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/another-look-at-polar-amplification.html
Regards
Wow, this is good stuff!! Next time you plan on having an epic battle like this, might I suggest pay-per-view??
Could help support the site!
Why is DMI Arctic SAT running at or near freezing this El Nino? As melt accelerates after July, one would think this unusual cold snap will have an effect on the seasonal ice melt in the coming weeks. Why does DMI disagree with GISS so much?
Also, on Arctic Polar Amplification, per Polyakov:
Polar amplification of global warming
There are other more recent studies on the subject.
Also, reading the RC content from your link, it is a bit odd that tropical tropospheric warming can be caused from “many sources”, yet in 2005 Gavin Schmidt coauthored a paper where it explicitly states:
Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and
Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere
It seems no matter what happens, it is always “consistent with” AGW “theory”.
Bob, you say: “You also need to assure that your base years and method of smoothing do not skew your results, and as far as I know you have elected not to do these things. Why? ”
Bob, i use baseline 1951-80 on all data sets, and in the specific datasets used for this topic all are 5 yr averaged in the same way.
I dont know why you think otherwise.
Bob: “The problems arise when one assumes that GISS land surface data represents the same data as CRU and NCDC.”
I do no such thing. On the contrary, i highlighted to you that these compares are complicated because it seems that GISS is more confident than the others, that coastal stations cover 1200 km radius of ocean. But the others use the same coastal stations diferently it seems. So im not saying that there is a high precision 1:1 relation with these “land” data estimates.
Bob: “Are you saying that only land surface data inland 1200km from the coast should be evaluated? If so, why?”
Due to the confusion with GISS claiming that coastal stations are 50% ocean area etc. well yes, if that where correct and you really wanted a LAND ONLY – would you not have to examine the stations more than 1200 km from coasts? This was just a thought, not at all essential to our discussion.
Bob: “In this post I removed a known difference between GISS and the other two datasets by limiting the data to non-polar latitudes. I then subtracted the scaled SST anomalies from the combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies. The remainders from the three datasets (the contributions of the land surface data) are remarkably similar:
http://i31.tinypic.com/33cp74w.jpg”
Bob this is your “good stuff”.
Im NOT saying that you are plain wrong. The truth is, I find this very very complicated. Mostly because you do some assumtions i for now dont know if can be used.
We attack this problem from to opposite angles.
Here is a graphic that shows that the ocean area in the GISS “land” series was indeed reduced around 4% from 1980 to 1995:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GISSlandproblems/fig8.jpg
The red areas are areas that GISS stations covered in 1980 but no longer cover in 1995. The use of ocean area was reduced from 1980 to 1995.
So in my tiny brain things doenst add up with you focus on this “fact” that im not considdering ocean coverage bu GISS.
The ocean area used by GISS was reduced 4% from 1980 to 1995.
BUT
GISS over the same period INCREASE their use of the GISS “land” (incl this ocean area) from 40% to 73%.
How on Earth can you explain the increased GISS “land” use from 40 to 73% with the GISS ocean part, when this part over the sae period according to GISS them selves where reduced 4%?
There is a grotesk mismatch here, and then you show that if you reduce your focus to 60S to 60N then you make GISS, CRU and NCDC look alike.
I understand your point, I understand why you look at 60S-60N, yes it is relevant to say that there are these curves then have similarities. But still, as a scietific minded person, I just dont think “we are there” yet. Its NOT bad will.
In my approach we simply stick to analysing GISS data. According to GISS themselves their “land” temperature stations coverage was redued around 4% 1980-1995. At the same time they increase their use of this “land” component from 40% to 73%.
Similarities with other datasets 60S – 60N are interesting, but we are still mising a real explanation. And im sorry to Niels A Nielsen and others that think im “irritating” but im just a irritating sceptic 🙂
Im truly aware that i could very well be wrong, but should i then say nothing?
Bob, your approach that you want to compare GISS with other datasets forces you to chop of areas and only look at 60S-60N.
When i only look at GISS data, A can look EXACLTY at the area GISS covers, no more no less. We are free of assumptions that i feel makes the whole issue cloudy and weaker.
And doing so i find 3 severe problems mentioned here:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/follow-up-on-giss-rdquolandrdquo-temperatures-187.php
Perhaps by using your 60S-60N the problem 3 i mention disappears… but if the issue of zero weight directly in the datasets used is still there when simply looking at GISS “land” / GISS total and the relevant SST´s, then the problem is stil there!!
You cant say: “Ok, we can calculate from the GISS dataseries that they have not used their “land” component at all from 1900 to 1920, but ladies and gentlemen, when i look at 60S-60N I cant see the problem, and then voila, its gone”
K.R. Frank
One more thing, Bob. My topic was how much the GISS “land” was weighted in the total GISS. Thats the ptopic.
Then you show that land data trends CRU, NCDC and GISS are similar.
But I did not attack GISS land data.
I attacked how the land (yes yes land incl ocean) was weighted by GISS in their total temperature graph.
K.R. Frank
– in fact I too got the result that these land data from 4 sources are rather similar- GISS in fact the one with least warming:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig73.jpg
But as i wrote: what does it help that GISS land appears less heat correcyed than the others if the GISS combining process in stead induces the heat in their total?
Frank: “One more thing, Bob. My topic was how much the GISS “land” was weighted in the total GISS. Thats the ptopic.
Then you show that land data trends CRU, NCDC and GISS are similar.
But I did not attack GISS land data.
I attacked how the land (yes yes land incl ocean) was weighted by GISS in their total temperature graph.”
You don’t question that land data trends of CRU, NCDC and GISS are similar?
But GISS “land” IS dissimilar. Bob has a description of it above. Zeke showed you that the GISS “land” trend differs considerably from a true land trend that does not include ocean and which trends considerably higher – much in line with CRU and NCDC as you can see from Bobs figure 8.
You are really confused, Frank. In my opinion the odd GISS “land” index is not interesting at all. And you can’t use it the way you do. GISS doesn’t “use” or “weight” it in their combined land and ocean as you keep saying. Drop it.
Frank Lansner: You replied, “Bob, i use baseline 1951-80 on all data sets, and in the specific datasets used for this topic all are 5 yr averaged in the same way.
I dont know why you think otherwise.”
I showed you why I think otherwise. Refer to:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/#comment-435038
And again, what type of smoothing are you using? Is it centered on the 1st, 30th, or 60th month? Why does it extend from 1880 to 2009?
You replied, “I do no such thing. On the contrary, i highlighted to you that these compares are complicated because it seems that GISS is more confident than the others, that coastal stations cover 1200 km radius of ocean. But the others use the same coastal stations diferently it seems. So im not saying that there is a high precision 1:1 relation with these “land” data estimates.”
The reason the GISS land data extends out over the oceans is because that dataset was developed for use WITHOUT SST data. When GISS introduces SST data to create a combined dataset, the land surface data does not extend out over the oceans by 1200km.
You replied, “Due to the confusion with GISS claiming that coastal stations are 50% ocean area etc. well yes, if that where correct and you really wanted a LAND ONLY – would you not have to examine the stations more than 1200 km from coasts?”
No. If you wanted to research the GISS land data that is used in its combined product, you would examine the data only where it appears on land, and in order to do this you would not examine it where it extends out over the oceans.
And please provide a link to a GISS document “with GISS claiming that coastal stations are 50% ocean area etc.”
You wrote, “Here is a graphic that shows that the ocean area in the GISS “land” series was indeed reduced around 4% from 1980 to 1995:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GISSlandproblems/fig8.jpg”
That is the wrong map to use. GISS does not use all of that data when it creates the combined land and sea surface data with 1200km radius smoothing.
The following map shows (approximately) the areas GISS uses in its combined land plus sea surface temperature product with 1200km radius smoothing. The ocean data then fills in the rest. The exceptions to this are two small areas where there is no land or ocean data in the Arctic and Southern Oceans/Antarctica.
http://i25.tinypic.com/345c6bk.jpg
You wrote, “The ocean area used by GISS was reduced 4% from 1980 to 1995…”
Wrong. The amount on SST data GISS used in 1980 is the same as in 1995. Here’s a gif animation of the GISS (Hadley/Reynolds) SST anomaly maps for those two years. The same areas of the oceans are used.
http://i30.tinypic.com/iylnwi.jpg
You wrote, “…GISS over the same period [1980 to 1995] INCREASE their use of the GISS “land” (incl this ocean area) from 40% to 73%.”
Wrong. GISS used less land surface data in 1995 than it did in 1980.
http://i26.tinypic.com/1rf8gn.jpg
You wrote, “How on Earth can you explain the increased GISS ‘land’ use from 40 to 73% with the GISS ocean part, when this part over the sae period according to GISS them selves where reduced 4%?”
And you wrote, “In my approach we simply stick to analysing GISS data. According to GISS themselves their ‘land’ temperature stations coverage was redued around 4% 1980-1995. At the same time they increase their use of this “land” component from 40% to 73%.”
GISS did not increase “GISS ‘land’ use from 40 to 73%”. You are using the wrong GISS land dataset in your analysis.
Bob wrote: “The divergence of land surface temperatures from sea surface temperatures is not only impacted by UHI. Land surface temperatures are also affected by land use changes, polar amplification, thermal inertia, etc. Does Frank account for these in his analysis?”
I believe the main point to be that the land temperature records used for gloval trmperature calculations, and by GISS extrapolated far out in the oceans, despite the existence of SST data, are contaminated by a number of local factors such as those you mentioned, including also bad siting, measurement errors, reporting errors etc.
How much faith should we place in the accuracy of the result derived from such dubious data and seemingly dubious calculation and extrapolation methods? The claimed allegedly “unprecedented” warming is hardly outside the error bars of the instruments used to gather the data. Just asking…
I don’t think were anywhere close to building a modern Tower of Babel, but if and when that day comes, I just know something’s going to confuse our tongues and scatter us all to the four winds. Again!
Frank Lansner wrote: “But I did not attack GISS land data.
I attacked how the land (yes yes land incl ocean) was weighted by GISS in their total temperature graph.”
But GISS does not use the “lan incl ocean” data to create its combined dataset. And this is why your analysis is wrong.
Hi Bob. Pascvaks is correct, this is a stunning example of Babylonic problems…
Anyway, you write:
“I showed you why I think otherwise. Refer to:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/#comment-435038
And again, what type of smoothing are you using? Is it centered on the 1st, 30th, or 60th month? Why does it extend from 1880 to 2009?
”
Yur link is not to a graph but to another comment which holds this graph:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GISSglobal/fig1b.jpg
But data here goes from 1900 to 2007, i promise 🙂 The data foundation is from 1898 to 2009, so 5 yr avg for first point year 1900 is years 1898 to 1902 etc.
K.R. Frank
Bob, you wrote: “But GISS does not use the “lan incl ocean” data to create its combined dataset.”
I used data source:
1) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
“GLOBAL Temperature Anomalies in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980
sources: GHCN 1880-06/2010 (meteorological stations only)”
2) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
“GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980
sources: GHCN 1880-06/2010 + SST: 1880-11/1981 HadISST1 12/1981-06/2010 Reynolds v2”
The issue is that 2) temperatures relatively comes closer and closer to 1) – and thus longer and longer away from SST.
It doenst matter what GISS do when making 2) – as I see it – 2) ends up relatively more and more like 1). Thats the problem.
So you must use still less SST compared to GISS 1) to get a result like 2).
This is a problem, Bob 🙂
If you suddenly say they dont use SST, they dont use this or that, it doesnst matter. If you have to use more and more 1) in combination with SST to get the total 2) USED BY IPCC etc. we certainly have a problem! You dont get a sign of a data problem much better 🙂
Georgegr: You asked, “How much faith should we place in the accuracy of the result derived from such dubious data and seemingly dubious calculation and extrapolation methods? The claimed allegedly “unprecedented” warming is hardly outside the error bars of the instruments used to gather the data. Just asking…”
Unfortunately, or fortunately, that’s not the subject of this post. Frank Lansner has written a post…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/
…and continues to believe, incorrectly, that GISS changes the ratio of Land to Sea Surface data over the 20th century. That’s the topic of this post and the ongoing discussion on this thread.
Regards
If GISS uses relativly less and less SST and their overall temperature product, this wil certainly give a resulting temperature curve with a warm errortrend simply originating from smaller and saller SST use after 1980!
Obviously the Hansenizer organistaion has PILES of “methods” and blah blah, but you have to see the bug picture in all this:
1) The SST has just a slow slow warming trend.
2) GISS use SST less and less after 1980.
3) GISS does NOT have a coverage of ocean growing strongly after 1980 to make excuse for this!
Details are good, but dont miss the big picture 🙂
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner: You wrote:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
“I used data source:
“‘1) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
“‘GLOBAL Temperature Anomalies in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980
sources: GHCN 1880-06/2010 (meteorological stations only)'”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Again, you cannot use that dataset for the analysis you are trying to perform.
What ever SST fraction is “correct” to use, you have to use the same fraction in 1980 as in 1995 if you want a usefeul temperature series?
K.R. Frank
Bob, its true that i cant use 1) to say exactly how much land or sea GISS has.
But its just not the point here. Argh !! 🙂
K.R. Frank
if it suddenly takes much less SST and much more 1) to get the total GISS 2) after 1980 and this cannot be accounted for by strongly more ocean coverage in 1) – then there is a problem.
Thanks for the debate 🙂 I will spare the moderators further coments for now 🙂
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner: You wrote. “Bob, its true that i cant use 1) to say exactly how much land or sea GISS has.
But its just not the point here. Argh !! :-)”
What is the point then? You are using that dataset to determine the ratio of land to ocean, and you cannot do that.
Frank Lansner says: “if it suddenly takes much less SST and much more 1) to get the total GISS 2) after 1980 and this cannot be accounted for by strongly more ocean coverage in 1) – then there is a problem.”
And again, the problems are you can’t use anomalies and you can’t use that land surface dataset the way you are using it.
You can’t use anomalies because the percentages change depending on the base years YOU elect to use. And you can’t use that land surface dataset because it represents more than the continental land mass.
Frank, pretend this GISS “land” dataset doesn’t exist. It is irrelevant. It is not “used” in any way by GISS to calculate their combined land-ocean index.
Your patience is admirable, Bob.
I say that GISS LST can be used, NOT to conclude something specific about the actual land area, but to conclude on the essential point of all these writings.
Please then tell me where you think im wrong in the following logic:
1) The GISS LST is the temperature for the area (both land and some ocean) covered as illustrated here in 1980 and in 1995:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GISSglobal/fig7.jpg
2) GISS fills in the remaining ocean area not covered by GISS LST with SST data from HADISST/Reynoldsv2.
3) The GISS LST area has become around 4% smaller from 1980 to 1995, red areas shows where GISS LST area was bigger in 1980 than 1995:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GISSlandproblems/fig8.jpg
4) Therefore we should expect that GISS would need to fill in these missing ocean areas 1995 with more SST use from HADISST/ReynoldsV2
5) Therefore, the SST fraction used in 1995 was likely to be slightly bigger than in 1980. Likewise, the GISS LST fraction used in 1995 is likely to be slightly smaller than in 1980 ( -since the GISS LST area was reduced)
6) Fractions GISS LST and SST (HADISST/reynoldsV2) it takes to produce the combined GISS global:
year/ GISS LST / SST (HADISST/ReynoldsV2
1980/ 40% / 60%
1995/ 73% / 27%
7) So while the actual GISS LST got smaller 1980 – 1995, the fraction GISS LST it takes to produce GISS global increases massively from 40 to 73%.
How can this be?
8) Another problem: Since SST and Air temperatures are 2 significantly different sizes, it is wrong for GISS to use near 100% SST from 1900 to 1920, and then the much smaller fractions of SST in recent years.
9) SST and Air temperatures has differend warming trends and therefore, the gradual method shift from 1900 to 2007 it self induces a temperature trend.
10) If GISS clobal temperature graph should be useful, they should use same weight for all years (even though more GISS LST is available in some periods)
Yes, i might be wrong, But then pinpoint exactly where it is.
K.R. Frank
***
Niels A Nielsen says:
July 25, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Frank, pretend this GISS “land” dataset doesn’t exist. It is irrelevant. It is not “used” in any way by GISS to calculate their combined land-ocean index.
***
Niels,
1) take a good look at the links:
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
You want me to pretend that the GLB.Ts is NOT used in the GLB.Ts+dSST ?????
Where does this idea come from?
K.R. Frank