Like me, Dr. Pielke was queried for this article in the Economist, and like me, he responded. Like Dr. Pielke, I documented some of the responses that were not printed in the Economist here. Additionally, Dr. Pielke documents below how the leader of the new surfacetemperatures.org effort for the UK Met Office, Peter Thorn, didn’t bother to invite him to a recent special conference on the issue as well as some previously documented instances of attempting to “suppress other viewpoints”. Not a good start.
Comments On The Ecomonist Article “Green View: Could Temperature Be Less Intemperate?”
Guest post by Roger Pielke Sr.
I was queried on Monday of this week by the Economist regarding the September Exeter meeting regarding the project surfacetemperatures.org which I posted on in
My comment to the Economist when asked
I wondered what you thought of the surfacetemperatures.org project/plan of action. I know you objected to some of what Peters Thorne and Stott said in their piece in nature about current surface temperature records, but I wondered what you thought of their ideas for making things better in the future.
My response was
In terms of monitoring global warming, the successful installation of an upper ocean heat monitoring system which has been in place since earlier this decade (Argo as complemented with satellite measurements of the ocean) supersedes the need to use the surface air temperature data as the primary metric for this purpose [as I summarize in my article
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf].
We can obtain a much more robust measure of global warming (and cooling) by monitoring the upper ocean heat changes.
In terms of improving the surface temperature data (which is, of course, needed for a variety of other purposes such as agriculture, recreation, etc), the goal to improve the access and audit of the data is commendable.
However, they seem to be ignoring known (i.e peer reviewed published) problems with this data. There is, for example, a need to photograph the sites and to seek past photos of these locations in order to see how well they are sited.
They also appear not to be considering other issues that we raised in the papers that I posted on this morning. This includes the warm bias we have found in the minimum land surface temperatures that are used in their construction of a land average temperature trend, and the need to include the effect of concurrent surface air, water vapor trends on the surface air heat (i.e. its moist enthalpy).
There are also issues with the “homogenization” of the data which they use to create grid area averages. When poor- and well-site locations are blended together, for instance, the result appears to be biasing the results [a subject we will be presenting in a paper that is almost complete]. The quantitative steps in their homogenization adjustment needs further scrutiny and it is not clear they will be doing this.
Please let me know if you need further feedback.
Best Regards
The article has now appeared [August 25 2010]
Green View: Could Temperature Be Less Intemperate?
and my response to it is given below.
Thank you for sending. With respect to adding comments on their weblog surfacetemperatures.org, Peter Thorne and colleagues already have seen the issues that we have raised in the set of peer reviewed papers that we have published on this topic; e.g. e.g.
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2009: Reply to comment by David E. Parker, Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, and John Kennedy on .Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05105,
doi:10.1029/2008JD010938.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321a.pdf
[and see the reviews of the above Comment/Reply of Parker et al where the referees agreed with our Reply – http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/reply-by-pielke-et-al-to-the-comment-by-parker-et-al-on-our-2007-jgr-paper-unresolved-issues-with-the-assessment-of-multi-decadal-global-land-surface-temperature-trends/.
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2010: Correction to: “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841”, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D1, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655
Indeed, Peter Thorne has a documented history of suppressing other viewpoints as I have documented with e-mails and in a Public Comment; i.e
Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. 88 pp including appendices.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/nr-143.pdf
I agree with Anthony Watts that “[a]pprised of it, he says that while ‘a noble effort, it is a reaction to a series of data transparency blunders rather than a proactive approach to open replication.’”
I would also add, that despite the significant involvement of myself and my colleagues in assessing uncertainties and biases with respect to the land surface temperature record in the peer reviewed literature, we were not invited to the Exeter meeting.
For these reasons, I disagree with your statement
“So, while Dr Thorne and his colleagues try to do something that is both difficult and worthwhile in a way that increases transparency, critics outside the community have to date more or less ignored the opportunity to get involved.”
We have very much been involved and Peter Thorne and his associates continue to fail at being inclusive. This meeting looks like “business as usual.
Best Regards
Roger Sr.
“Peter Thorne and his associates continue to fail at being inclusive”
Same old same old.
When will they ever learn?
Which just goes to show that there’s more than one way to do a whitewash.
I can see why Prof Pielke Snr wasn’t invited to the party, no one wants to be told that their pet project isn’t worthwhile whilst their guest’s is the way to go. The curse of The Ego strikes again!
However, some of what the Prof says later, appears to indicate that this exercise is somewhat of an exercise in coming to a pre-determined conclusion, that everything’s OK, apart from a few little points and they don’t matter?
We can obtain a much more robust measure of global warming (and cooling) by monitoring the upper ocean heat changes.
But I thought the oceans were likely hiding Trenberth’s missing heat. If the oceans can hide away roughly half of the built-up heat that MUST be present from anthropogenic global warming, in some mysterious undetected manner, how can we trust measurements of ocean heat content for anything?
But look at the colours!!!!
The Earth is practically a fireball!!!
What more do you need, to be convinced?
THE COLOURS!!!
The earth is Hot Hot Hot! Don’t tell us anything different! Tszzzzzzzzzz!
I wrote to the project team yesterday with much the same comment(s). Ie. Thorne and Stott is not a good start. The problem for the project is where do they look for team members who will follow the party line and still be moderately acceptable to the rest of the scientific community. Pope? NO, Hansen, Schimdt etc.
This is very worrying. I said yesterday that if this MET office plan is an honest, open, inclusive and genuine attempt to establish scientific truth, whatever this exercise uncovers, then it would be a good thing.
So far it looks like they cannot ignore the backlash from the “climate-gate” email and code release, so they are creating a dog and pony show to re-validate the biased and inaccurate surface temperature record.
Perhaps they will include a way to verify the “trick” used to “hide the decline” which was the divergence between tree-ring proxies and thermometer data in the 1960s. Perhaps they will find a way to explain how and why trees in the 1960s suddenly and mysteriously started reacting to increasing temperatures in a way which is opposite to how they have always reacted in the past?
It is beginning to look very dodgy indeed. It looks like instead of a genuine, honest and open search for truth, that this is actually a defence of the “hockey stick” at any cost instead.
Everything they do must be fully open to public scrutiny and every single area where they fail to employ the scientific method must be exposed.
So they know the answer and just need to phrase the question right.
Or they know what temps they want they just need to homogenise the data now.
Adam Gallon reckons that he …” can see why Prof Pielke Snr wasn’t invited to the party, no one wants to be told that their pet project isn’t worthwhile whilst their guest’s is the way to go.”
But if the cap fits?
Re: Adam Gallon
That’s the risk and why not being more inclusive wastes an opportunity to reduce scepticism. As Pielke Snr says, it looks like BAU and ignores many of the criticisms already levelled against the surface record, and suggestions for improving it like site photos. Newer weather stations are more automated and better connected giving more scope for instrumentation. A webcam could be added so if there are anomalous results, images could be checked. From Stott’s comments regarding the proposal in Nature, it also repeats one of the biggest data errors-
The climate community needs to gather temperature records from around the world — including measurements that are not currently freely available — into one, open database. Those data will then need to be corrected and adjusted in a transparent way, to ensure that the resulting data sets are sound, and to allay any public concerns that scientists could have skewed or ‘spun’ the data.
Why the ‘need’ to correct and adjust the data given that’s where scepticism arises? The project should stick to collecting, maintaining and publishing the raw data, plus site information. If climate scientists and suppliers of ‘value added’ services like GISS or CRU then want to turn raw data into adjusted product, they can but should be expected to justify their processing methods. If the data isn’t raw, then concerns the data’s been ‘spun’ will remain.
True to form: bad to the bone.
we all know how this is going to work out. they will examine a few stations and make a report. in said report it will find a few flaws but will gloss them over as minor issues that bear no cause for concern. they will get paid handsomely and the MSM will have their story to run with while we all try to refute the misinformation. its the same cycle every time.
Just to be clear, when I wrote
“So, while Dr Thorne and his colleagues try to do something that is both difficult and worthwhile in a way that increases transparency, critics outside the community have to date more or less ignored the opportunity to get involved.”
I was not referring to Dr Pielke, who I would see as inside the community; that said, he seems to see it differently.
Re: stephen richards
Easiest way would be to make it more neutral. If the project is essentially a data collection and organising exercise, then it doesn’t need to be managed by climate scientists. Have it run by data managers and database specialists who have more expertise in doing this, especially if it sticks to being a raw data repository. Climate scientists should just be the customers.
Does all this matter little given that the satellite data seems to match the instrument record for the passed couple of decades?
We are more interested in effect than actual causes of climate and science in general.
So, actual physical evidence is fluffed off for theories that can save careers.
Currently I am looking into a new , as yet not considered, source of CET’s variability during the last 350 years. Results are very encouraging.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
There is obvious discrepancy 1700-1720, but here the data on both variables has a degree on uncertainty.
It is a bit of a puzzle why during last 30+ years ( if relevant ! ) CETs are gradually showing delayed and enhanced response, unless of course there is another external factor such as TSI or even CO2.
If there is any doubt as to whether “climate science” or rather the dogma flowing from it is completely religious/belief orientated then here is a perfect example. We have an opportunity to engage in problem solving a vital component, which if correctly done stands to leave little doubt in the results, while also guaranteeing a far broader if not complete acceptance by participating critics. The reluctance to engage, test and evaluate alternative inputs is most certainly probably the greatest scientific “crime”, sufficient to render the one-sided result false. It would not be paranoid for an observer to conclude that the reluctance to include non –partisan participation is indeed part of a wider deception, the motivation of which can only be ascribed as sinister. With respect to the heads/followers of the various faiths, this is exactly the response one would get if one were to request an audience in critical evaluation of that faith. It may be a no-no at the religious level, but there is no place for this at the scientific table.
The thing that strikes me is that these clowns are totally dishonest and corrupt.
In something as simple as surveying the health of the reporting network or collecting the data, these miscreants can not resist some sort of underhanded actions designed to give them some sort of advantage.
I don’t think the Emperor was interested in inviting the child to Court to tell him he was nude, either.
HR says:
August 26, 2010 at 4:32 am
All this matter for the opposite reason: The satellite data should be the compliment of the instrument record, if AGW were to be taking place, not the exact copy of it. In the zeal to adjust and homogenize the surface record, the underpinnings of warming have been falsified.
As I have said before, the folks behind the global warming dog and pony show have zero interest in improving the science. All they seek is compliance. We are in the early stages of a concerted marketing campaign aimed at rehabilitating their image, and destroying anyone that has stood in their way. The Cameron debate fiasco is an exemplar of what is to come. Those that appeared at that conference were vilified. They have no desire whatsoever to discuss anything. Trust them at your peril.
HR says:
August 26, 2010 at 4:32 am
Does all this matter little given that the satellite data seems to match the instrument record for the passed couple of decades?
==============================================
Well maybe HADCRUT isn’t a bad match over the satellite record but the biggest problem is the longer term trend. There is notable concern that temperatures in the 30’s/40’s part of the instrumental record have been incorrectly downwardly adjusted relative to current day temperatures. That is the first and foremost issue to resolve.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with Pielke’s comment:
“In terms of monitoring global warming, the successful installation of an upper ocean heat monitoring system which has been in place since earlier this decade (Argo as complemented with satellite measurements of the ocean) supersedes the need to use the surface air temperature data as the primary metric for this purpose [as I summarize in my article
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf%5D.
We can obtain a much more robust measure of global warming (and cooling) by monitoring the upper ocean heat changes.”
Based on that, it is apparent that something very counter to warming alarmist cries of burning doom is going on given that ocean heat content has essentially been flat or slightly declining since 2003. Since sea level rise through the 20th century averaged over 1.7 mm per yr., one would expect that on average the oceans have been absorbing about 1.2 x 10(power 22) joules per year if this sea level rise had primarily been driven by thermosteric expansion through this period (which it was) as the radiative imbalance created by oceans cooled through the little ice age was pushed towards equilibrium. What is apparent is that starting in the 21st century this trend has now stopped with sea level rise rates dropping significantly (and now primarily fed by glacial melt from the 20th century warming), all indicating that the earth’s is now close to radiative balance (or even has a negative balance as per the Douglass/Knox paper last year. )
Indeed if this trend continues, and given the weak solar cycle 24 there is every indication it will, the reality as determined by ocean heat content and associated sea level rise, is as stated by Pielke the true measure of what is really occuring from the perspective of climate change. This is the reality the warmists don’t want the world to recognize.
This effort is not different in any way from the whitewashes of Mann & Crugate.
HR ?
really, the satellite data matches the thermometers ? what about the locations that have no thermometers ? the filling in of grids with no thermometers records is not “data” but simply guesses and bad ones at that … a data records with made up data points is no longer a record but an opinion …
Just a quick note to thank Anthony for raising the presence of the meeting blog and urging folks to comment upon it. Please do comment critically upon the content whilst observing the stated house rules which are there for a reason and are being strictly enforced. If you follow the house rules then I will post your comment regardless of whether I personally scientifically agree with it or not. The blog is there precisely to be inclusive and to try to garner scientifically relevant and critical input that will help any project that may result from the meeting. The meeting itself cannot have everybody who has an opinion there for logistical reasons. Invitees were selected by ALL members of the international organizing committee and include many non-traditional views and a broad range of expertise and international representation. In keeping down to a manageable number tough calls were required and there are many folks who will feel they should have been included who aren’t like Roger Pielke Sr. does. This is the primary reason for the blog and I would particularly welcome input to that forum on the specific details discussed within the relevant white papers from Roger Pielke Sr. (needless to say which follow the house rules on comments) who as he states has a publication record in the area. We have steps in place to ensure all comments are considered but we will not be considering comments hosted on other sites at the meeting so to have a voice at Exeter anyone must post on the meeting blog.
As to the project itself, the white papers describe the creation of a single holistic global data and metadata bank and the challenges that pertain. We know there are far more data out there than in the present databanks. The need for multiple, redundant dataset construction efforts starting from that databank with full transparency at a range of space and time resolutions. The need for a consistent benchmarking of algorithm performance. And the need to include much greater numbers of individuals and a broader range of constituent expertise. It is something that at working scientist level we have been lobbying for for many years. Although there are several datasets at global and regional levels and reanalyses products we could do so much better. As Nature pertinently put it monitoring is a cinderella science, under-resourced and under-appreciated. It is hard. We never made observations of meteorological parameters (CO2 and some other trace gases being an exception) that are traceable to fundamental standards and they have been undertaken with weather forecast requirements in mind meaning the vast majority of sites have seen changes even without micro-environment issues so we have to carefully analyse. But many of those choices I or anyone else makes to create a best-guess dataset have no rigorous basis. If we truly are to understand what we can say we need a robust framework and many eyes on the prize – multiple redundant efforts and a benchmarking and an agreed set of minimum requirements. This project with the momentum behind it is the first and potentially best shot we as a global community have had of making a meaningful step forwards in this regard certainly in my career and seeing a real step change for the better.
More importantly, the Exeter meeting is solely a planning meeting. The work plan that results will not be some project undertaken by a clique or even a preserve of the climate science community. It can’t be. The task is too big. There will hopefully be a lot of data to digitise. There will be a lot of stations to dig out metadata for including site surveys akin to the valuable surfacestations.org effort but more importantly spending time in dingy dusty records offices getting historical info. For those with even more interest there is no exclusivity to creating homogenised records at anywhere from the station to global level. It needs time and effort but is not something that is necessarily the exclusive preserve of full-time scientists in ivory towers.
In conclusion, readers of WUWT have fundamentally two choices. The first is to take pot shots at this effort before its off the ground and make it crash and burn. The second is to pro-actively try and help make it happen and help to focus it by pointing out critical gaps in what exists in the white papers which are there solely as a starting point. If it gets off the ground it has the potential to create a suite of verifiable, robust, benchmarked datasets useful to a wide range of users and to really inform on a multitude of questions (even if the answer is no, the data can’t answer that question). Regardless of ones view on climate change the second option is the preferable aim I would contend. So please do read the white papers and provide scientific input. Then if it does get off the ground please note that there is no exclusivity in taking part. If you have something useful to offer within the agreed framework that results from Exeter offer it.
Finally, if we truly weren’t wanting to be inclusive we wouldn’t have put stuff out for public comment, we wouldn’t be engaging with the media (there is also a letter in today’s Nature which was originally slated for a fortnight ago and pulled at the last minute) and I wouldn’t be typing this message. We are trying to be inclusive and to garner viewpoints at this pre-planning stage and to maintain otherwise is simply false.
I would urge Roger Pielke Sr. , Anthony and others to comment pro-actively on the white papers on the blog (following the house rules … I think I mentioned this already?) and will personally along with other members of the International Organizing Committee ensure that their views as given in the comments are heard at the meeting along with everybody else who comments on the blog.
Peter
Oliver Morton,
Peter Thorne’s reputation as an enhancer of climate misinformation, and his bias well known both inside and outside the climate community as a global warming proponent, would hardly inspire much confidence in the surfacetemperatures.org project. And certainly not any significant cooperation from skeptics, as Peter has proven time and again his willingness to ignore and suppress any views that disagree with his assessments, or to even allow a miniority to have any input. Frankly, I wish you had done more research into Thorne, and perhaps you wouldn’t even have needed to write your story in the first place, as it’s quite obvious to anyone who is objective that Peter Thorne is not worthy to be associated with such a project. It hardly inspires any confidence that anything will be done to clean the mess left by his predecessors. Just another whitewash IMO.
Then again, perhaps you aren’t an objective reporter, and since your views mirror Peters, it’s not that important that you get the story right. You should correct me if I’m wrong, but we’ve seen so much biased reporting in this area, you can hardly blame me for being cynical about your intentions.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 26, 2010 at 1:16 am
“But I thought the oceans were likely hiding Trenberth’s missing heat. If the oceans can hide away roughly half of the built-up heat…”
I don’t think you should go around ascribing bad motives to the oceans. They are honest, hard-working bodies of water, and any obscurity is entirely unintentional. They never intended to hide the heat, they simply didn’t keep the records of where they put it. Things were done differently a few years back, y’know.
“Invitees were selected by ALL members of the international organizing committee and include many non-traditional views and a broad range of expertise and international representation. In keeping down to a manageable number tough calls were required and there are many folks who will feel they should have been included who aren’t like Roger Pielke Sr. does. ”
AND
“In conclusion, readers of WUWT have fundamentally two choices. The first is to take pot shots at this effort before its off the ground and make it crash and burn. The second is to pro-actively try and help make it happen and help to focus it by pointing out critical gaps in what exists in the white papers which are there solely as a starting point.”
Funny how it’s “unmanageable” to invite Pielke sr. who has extensively published on the subject in peer reviewed journals but very manageable to have anyone contribute meaningfully from WUWT or the local chapter of Slow Food…
I went to the site linked by “Peter Thorne” — I went to the White Paper and looked at Day 2 Link 8 & 9,
I was going to copy a quote — but I am not sure that you can — good document security I guess. That makes these documents eminently ignorable in my mind.
And after reading about how data would be created to infill — at least that’s how I read it — I again thought of the work that Richard Wakefield did on the Canadian Temperature sets and his comment on “estimating” infilling and otherwise homogenizing the data.
See here…
http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/
I am beginning to believe that we will shortly be inundated with “magic temperature data” — i.e. data created from “nothing”.
Peter I hope it works out and something is achieved, but after a lifetime of designing data collection and prediction and forecasting systems I find it tough to believe that “things will just happen to work out”.
Good Luck and best wishes.
Is it RED or BLUE?
It’s cool!:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
One of the issues I think ought to be mentioned is the need to correct obvious instrument and other related mistakes. As a reader and not a poster of these sorts of things I do not have the data or references but I recall two or three WUWT posts wherein, it seems, the NWS would not alter readings resulting from instrument failure for a reason like ‘we don’t know what to put in its place’. Another I remember is the failure in a coding scheme to put an “M” – for minus – (I think that is the issue) whenever it is called for, thereby having the temperature record bouncing up-and-down like the tethered ball on a paddle board. I can’t imagine anyone objecting to the principle of doing this so the issue is doing something reasonable, documenting it, and others could choose to accept it or make an additional adjustment. [I recall Hawaii and Florida posts on instrument errors but I’m not 100% sure.]
I have been a regular reader at Dr. Pielke’s (both of them) blog(s) for a very long time. When one combines that information with WUWT and CA one can only draw one conclusion. The Met Office is undertaking a public relations event in the guise of Scientific review. Another example of the scientific method being sacrificed on the alter of ideology.
Why would you have thought they were interested in real science first? It’s all about constructing a better story for the public, to support their foregone conclusions.
The folks in the U.K. have got this down to a science now. All the blustering and posturing, all the pomp and ceremony ending in another WHITEWASH.
Ref – “The Complete Unabridged Book of Human Nature”, Adam ‘n Eve Enterprizes, Garden of Eden Press, Ltd. (Out of Print, Last volume destroyed in the Great Fire of The Library of Alexandria, Egypt, 48BC )
“You can’t remake, revamp, remodel anything into anything better than it already is with the same idiots in charge of the main office.” (Eve)
“By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes.”
It is interesting that Dr Thorne acknowledges possibility that readers of WUWT could cause his efforts to crash & burn, though truthfully I am not convinced he’s really that worried. OTOH, it is sensible to place on record the numbers of dissenting views, in order that those opinions are given light of day.
The weight of opposition is mighty indeed. Mayhap common sense will again lead to a more transparent ( that’s a weasel word, almost on a par with “robust”) & scientific analysis of the “raw”temperature data. I won’t hold my breath though!
However, they seem to be ignoring known (i.e peer reviewed published) problems with this data. There is, for example, a need to photograph the sites and to seek past photos of these locations in order to see how well they are sited.
#######
Dr. Peilke.
See the following in white paper 14:
“Organisations like Google might be able to help promote the project and provide
344
significant support in visualisation. For example through adding additional layers or
345
markers on for example “Google Earth”, identifying the location of all sample sites,
346
together with the associated high resolution satellite imagery this could help identify
347
sampling errors due to environmental effects as well as historical images for the location.
348
”
WRT imagery, it would seem there are at least three kinds you want.
1. Historical ( google earth has some, but crowdsourcing can help here )
2. Real time satillite updates
http://www.spotimage.fr/web/en/1663-pleiades-very-high-resolution-satellite-imagery.php
3. on site.
if more folks from here add postive constructive suggestions on the blog over there, thats a start
I agree with Pielske, Sr. on the overarching importance of ocean temps as the prime indicator of the state of Earth’s climate.
I would also add the land stations that are heavily influenced by the proximity of the ocean equally good indicators.
Landfall of air masses passing over the N. Pacific and the N. Atlantic. Ground zero areas.
The Alarmists are fond of pumping them up.
You get the idea.
Looking at the The Economist picture: They forgot the Sunspots, or rather, Terraspots.
There, our sky blue atmosphere has turned into a Solar Corona!
John F. Hultquist says:
August 26, 2010 at 8:32 am
“One of the issues I think ought to be mentioned is the need to correct obvious instrument and other related mistakes.”
I have to disagree, John. There should be one database, available to the public, that has the raw data – period. Let the user look to the obvious outliers and make (or not make) adjustments accordingly. And footnote any changes they’ve made. I don’t like this idea of correcting “obvious” problems before anyone else can see the data because sometimes “obvious” isn’t.
The CAGW want trillions of dollars of economic changes becsause of their fears.
They should be willing to put a few billion into accurate data collection. They can only gain credibility now by collecting and displaying openly the raw, non-adjusted data, including display of information re the data collection systems’ sources of error (eg airport siting, urbanization, mechanical changes in instruments, etc.) Kind of like embracing the scientific method.
Then the data should be pubished openly, and the scientific community can have at it.
Hi Mr Thorne,
I hope the Chopok and Lomnicky peak stations in Slovakia, the two truly rural ones, will find their way back into the 21st century dataset, from which they miraculously disappeared in 1989.
Oh my SIMPLISTIC “dirt grubbing” Chemical/Metallurgical and Mechanical Engineering MIND! I just guess I’m not able to compete on the level of a Phd “climatoligist”. Just SLAP ME silly for PREACHING for a couple years that:
Minnesota: 85 F, 60% RH, Enthalpy of 1 ft^3 of air = 38 BTU (roughly)
Arizona: 105 F, 10% RH, Enthalpy of 1ft^3 of air = 33 BTU (roughly)
THEREFORE at the LOWER TEMPERATURE there is “more Gorebull Warming” as the ENERGY CONTENT IS HIGHER.
Thus the conclusion: AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURES WITHOUT KNOWLEGE OF MOISTURE ARE MEANINGLESS!
But, then, I guess having a marvelous Phd in “Climatology” make that same statement (albeit in a more archane manner)…maybe that will get traction.
Oh well, back to my cave..
Peter thorne has been accepting my comments since I first found the site.
he puts the choice to people fairly. Make your comments over there. make them constructive. See what they do and judge the results. There are quite a few white papers so put your reading caps on.
take a role, even if you would have done things differently.
Dear poorer parent,
As you may have heard, next month’s school governors’ meeting will be discussing disbursements from the special discretionary fund for gifted students.
Some time ago, we invited some of the richer parents to attend this meeting so that we can decide the criteria for determining what kinds of students would be eligible.
It has come to our notice that some of the poorer parents have complained that they should have representation at the meeting. The worry has been expressed that the criteria will end up being skewed towards already advantaged students.
We have decided that any such complaints are invalid because our impartiality and goodwill, as well as those of the rich parents, is unimpeachable. Besides, were you not aware that we had invited written submissions from you some time ago? We placed a notice to that effect prominently in the foyer of the FGC (Forfilthyrich Golf Club) bar, and all the rich parents saw it, so why didn’t you?
All you had to do was to shift your lazy arses over there and take a look, and please, no complaints that you couldn’t do that, because long before you had got there, you would have been ejected from the vicinity by club stewards. All you would have had to do is dress in your Sunday best and doff your caps to your betters, and no one would have batted an eyelid.
Notwithstanding, from the depths of our unending charity, we are now letting you know, having incurred the expense of postage on your behalf, that you have one week to send in your submissions.
Rest assured that they will be given due and diligent attention. We do not want to read any complaints on those submissions about how you have been treated in past exercises of this nature. Yes, we know that rich children nearly always end up with the special benefits, but can we influence the results of unbiased surveys and statistical methods?
We feel you are, as usual, being cynical about our motives. It will not look good to the wider community if you decline the offer to take part. You will doubtless be blamed for intransigence, and if none of your children end up as beneficiaries, you will have only yourselves to blame.
Note to Brenda:
Please make sure you get this printed on appropriate stationery, and sent out to the plebs first thing tomorrow. We can’t afford to delay any longer as it’s essential the governors have the evidence of this letter having been sent out at least a week before the special discretionary disbursement meeting. We will then be able to cover our arses against any future complaints that we didn’t seek to involve the lower orders.
PS:
For God’s sake, don’t forget to delete this note before you print the letters off and post them.
I think your probably right that its a whitewash, but I think some other response is needed than what you and Roger said so far – you sound a bit like crybabies because they didn’t invite you to the party. While, on the warmist blogs, they’re actually discussing what needs to be done in the project. Heres one I just came across today:
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1856
I think they might end up outmanouvering us on this. Rather than ad-homing this Thorne guy, maybe we should come up with our own set of ideas for how to build a proper surface temperature record?
Having read the whitepapers again, seems like one of the biggest challenges is in WP5, line 130, “Many NMH’s charge for data” which could hamper the project. Anyone know the total current market revenues for existing raw data from the NMH’s that do charge? It’s sad that given the supposed social and economic costs of climate change, governments aren’t funding NMH’s to make this data available for the common good.
WP14 may present some options under access/licence arrangements, eg access free for academic and personal use, but chargeable for commercial usage. But that would mean extra overhead to manage, monitor and enforce and no doubt political bun fights around revenue sharing amongst data contributors.
The doc’s security settings don’t make commenting easy either 🙁
Can’t we just summarise this and conclude that were are about to be subjected to another bout of decision-based evidence making?
As a long time subscriber to The Economist, I assure you that they are not in the least bit interested in any opinion other than AGW is a catastrophic fact that must be dealt with severely. The magazine has even compromised its strong suit, economic analysis, to pound away, often irrationally, about global warming. The entire editorial board and the three lead geo-political opinion writers, are hard Obama style leftists, professing reasonableness while proposing draconian solutions, often to imagined problems.
Max Hugoson says:
August 26, 2010 at 9:43 am
“Thus the conclusion: AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURES WITHOUT KNOWLEGE OF MOISTURE ARE MEANINGLESS!”
Fascinating. I genuinely wasn’t aware of the effect of RH on enthalpy (I had to look up the meaning of that word, actually).
So if for every temp measurement there was an RH measurement, would that mean we could map enthalpy distributions temporally and spatially? And if so, what would be the kinds of inferences we could draw from such maps?
This is a genuine question – I am just interested in any comments. TIA.
Peter Thorne says:
August 26, 2010 at 6:38 am
“….In keeping down to a manageable number tough calls were required and there are many folks who will feel they should have been included who aren’t like Roger Pielke Sr. does. This is the primary reason for the blog and I would particularly welcome input to that forum on the specific details discussed within the relevant white papers from Roger Pielke Sr. (needless to say which follow the house rules on comments) who as he states has a publication record in the area….”
From my perspective it wasn’t so much an issue of tough calls as it is that an errors in selecting input to the discussion has been made. Roger Pielke Sr. should not have been but has been excluded. Regardless of whether it was with that specific fundamental intention in mind, Roger Pielke Sr., perhaps the only one who prominently and persistently focuses on the need to expand the scope of deliberations on what constitutes climate, has been excluded from the key meeting that will discuss and determine what is necessary to primarily measure, track and record climate data that focuses almost exclusive on the one preconceived aspect, the calculation of global average temperatures, that has been proven to be spectacularly inadequate for objectively assessing climate trends.
It is illogical to insist that “[t]his is the primary reason for the blog” set up and moderated by Peter Thorne.
Peter Thorne further said: “In conclusion, readers of WUWT have fundamentally two choices. The first is to take pot shots at this effort before its off the ground and make it crash and burn. The second is to pro-actively try and help make it happen and help to focus it by pointing out critical gaps in what exists in the white papers which are there solely as a starting point.”
Aside from that being an ad-hominem attack that the rules of Peter Thorne’s blog would enable him to prevent from being posted at his blog, both of the alternatives pointed out are a result of a confusion of actions and consequences.
It was primarily the presence of WUTW and people like Roger Pielke Sr. and their focus on the failures of the system for global temperature tracking that brought the Exeter meeting into existence. The Exeter meeting is a reaction to the “proactive” actions of WUWT. Peter Thorne not only prevents the messenger from attending the meeting that ostensibly will determine and design the actions necessary for a solution to the problems that the messenger brought to his attention, he besmirches the character of the messenger.
Well I read Prof P.Sr’s message; and then I looked at what Dr. Thorne had to say; and I’m still not sure that I get what it is that they are proposing to do. Evidently it is something to do with looking for heat in the oceans for some reason.
I’m not up enough on the GCMs to understand fully how the GCMs treat heat in the ocean and how they would/could/might/whatever, benefit for more study of the ocean heat.
That might be useful; if only for better weather predictions; excuse me, that’s projections; but I’m not sure of the climate benefits.
I look at that by now well known 600 million year proxy record of earth Temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere; and the most striking thing about those graphs, is the fixed, “do not exceed”, +22 deg C ceiling, that must remain inviolate.
Dare I suggest that something a bit more important than heat hiding in the oceans, is forcing that 22 deg C ceiling on us; despite all that has gone on in that 600 million years, including orbital shifts, and solar output changes in TSI.
Something has remained FIXED for at least 600 million years; so what could it be ?
Well I know what has remained fixed for at least 600 million years, so as to ensure that the + 22 deg C ceiling is not breached; and won’t be breached anytime in the foreseeable future; or any part of it in which humans would have any interest. Even the termites that likely will follow us on the world stage, will not see a breach of that fixed Temperature ceiling.
What has remained fixed for over 600 million years are the Physical and Chemical properties of the H2O molecule, as they are manifested in all three ordinary phases of physical matter.
That is what hasn’t changed through thick and thin, and sea level rises and falls (think of what happened to ocean heat storage then) or earth orbital shifts; or changes in the solar Temperature, and radiant emittance.
So I would neither encourage; nor discourage this effort to learn more about ocean heat; if it helps make the nightly weather report more interesting; but I suspect that it would be more productive in the long run, to study just how the Physical and Chemical properties of WATER VAPOR/WATER/ICE act to regulate via powerful negative feedback the maximum temperature that earth can reach; so long as we still have our oceans.
Hey Dr P.Sr and Dr Thorne; IT’S THE WATER !!
From: WillR on August 26, 2010 at 8:05 am
Start of Link 8:
I right-clicked, saved link as, dropped the pdf on the desktop then opened it. The line numbering appears to be a separate element of the document, if I try to highlight any number I get that and the remaining line numbers and then the text. When I highlight only the text for copying then it works.
However, I am using Debian Linux, a free and open source software product, using the standard included free and open source file viewer that also handles pdf files, Evince Document Viewer, which may be insensitive to security features that “official” programs like Adobe Reader would recognize. You can try to mark the text as I’ve said above, if that doesn’t work you may need a less “official” pdf viewer.
George E. Smith says: August 26, 2010 at 10:54 am
Hey Dr P.Sr and Dr Thorne; IT’S THE WATER !!
How right you are ! In case of this green island (GB) not any water, but the water of the cold North Atlantic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
Walter Schneider says:
August 26, 2010 at 10:28 am
…Roger Pielke Sr. should not have been but has been excluded…
I totally agree with you and i think this is the kernel of the problem.
These troll-like persons who urge a “light a candle rather than curse the darkness” response, and characteristically use the wrong metaphor, seem to think we’re so psychologically inept that we can’t detect a direct insult if they blow a little smoke around.
Whitewash and/or skulduggery in the making, as usual.
Ron Zelius says:
August 26, 2010 at 9:57 am
“Can’t we just summarise this and conclude that were are about to be subjected to another bout of decision-based evidence making?”
I like that phrase 🙂
WillR on August 26, 2010 at 8:05 am [unquoted]>
Sounds like you’re using Adobe Acrobat Reader – the text selection-for-copying tool is stupidly obscure, but it should be there.
The Adobe selection tool simply does not work for me on the documents — white papers. Maybe it is a version issue in conjunction with the document security. As suggested I will try my Linux Workstation and another reader.
I wanted to add a comment but wanted to quote a short section for clarity. Regardless I will leave the work for others with more time and patience.
Steven Mosher says:
August 26, 2010 at 9:45 am (Edit)
Peter thorne has been accepting my comments since I first found the site.
he puts the choice to people fairly. Make your comments over there. make them constructive. See what they do and judge the results. There are quite a few white papers so put your reading caps on.
take a role, even if you would have done things differently.
So you think we should leave the process in their hands?
When they make it hard to even copy the white papers?
I think they need to publish the raw data first.
Is the raw ARGO data available? I feel like bypassing these… lovely people.
Max Hugoson, I posted a similar comment a few weeks ago. (I think you meant to write Btu/lb, not Btu/ft3.)
I think the whole exercise is a monumental waste of time and money. It was probably invented by Prof. Thorne as a job security project. I don’t think any instrument temperature record, or even an entropy record, is ever going to be accurate enough to tell us how much the earth has warmed over any meaningful time frame. The older data will be far less accurate so that correlation with CO2 output is not going be reasonably possible. Even if it were possible that will tell us nothing about man-caused warming because correlation might sometimes imply causation but it sure doesn’t prove it.
Frankly I’m shocked that Thorne and others, who are PhD scientists, have even suggested such an incredibly silly task. They of all people should know better. Anthony’s surfacestation.org is proof enough that a rejiggering of the instrumental temperature record is never going to yield significant results. I’m sure there are many good climate scientists doing lots of good work but Thorne and anyone else involved in this silly waste of time are not among them. They should go do real science, like studying clouds, ocean/atmosphere heat exchanges, etc.
As I write this, I’m sitting on a balcony in Maui watching the wind kick up white caps on the Pacific and move the cumulus clouds and rain squalls around. The temperature on this balcony varies dramatically on time scales of a few minutes. Ours is a very dynamic climate.
Since a strong El Nino, 1998 for example, can have such a dramatic effect on the thermometer record for the entire atmosphere of the planet (according to all records I’ve seen), how can we make any sense of a thermometer record without having a detailed understanding of those kinds of phenomena? I think we can’t.
“Scientists” like Thorne steal media attention and research funds for their silly projects and, by doing so, impede real research that could actually help us understand our environment. Dr. Pielke Sr. should be pleased that he was not invited to that conference of fools.
dT
” tallbloke says:
August 26, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Is the raw ARGO data available?”
I’m having difficulty getting any results (error) from this link..
http://www.usgodae.org/las/getUI.do
I also don’t believe this is the raw data.
Awhile back I came across this comment on the Australian ABC website:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2626711.htm
“The Argo data is extraordinarily difficult to find on the Internet. There is no official or unofficial website showing the latest ocean temperature. Basically the only way to get the data is to ask Josh Willis (above). The graph above come from Craig Loehle, who got the data from Willis, analysed it, and put the results in a peer reviewed paper available on the Internet. Given the importance of the ocean temperatures, don’t you think this is extraordinary? ”
Not sure where to go from here…
“Not sure where to go from here…”
Except asking Josh Willis (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory), of course.
Walter Schneider says: August 26, 2010 at 10:28 am
Surely this is the heart of the matter.
Peter Thorne, please include Anthony / SurfaceStations collaborators and Pielke, not only in your invitations but also in your most basic planning of what to do in order to make the data easily accessible in its raw form, metadata likewise so that people can make independent informed assessments of corrections needed for UHI; changes of location, instrumentation, and routine; and station microenvironment.
Your invitation and inclusion will do more than anything else to inspire our confidence that you have a realistic desire to restore integrity.
There are only 24 hours in the day. Many people here have good reason to suspect that the above basic factors (UHI etc) have not been dealt with adequately, let alone openly and verifiably. Most of us have had to take precious time out to grasp essentials and check with others who seem to ask similar reasonable questions (ie skeptics), in order to check the basics.
Because of their openness and “back to basics” approaches that avoid impenetrable scientific verbiage, terminology, and paywalls, we have come to trust McKitrick and Pielke, and amateur bloggers and amateur researchers, that UHI etc have not been properly dealt with, and that if dealt with, the “anthropogenic contribution” is shown to be the effect of UHI etc, and any other variation cannot be proven to be anything other than natural variability.
Of course, committment to cleaning up the data should include willingness and ability to scrutinize the best professional contributions. But it should also have an ear to the very challenges that have made you set up this new project to clean up surface stations records – and the valid contributions from these directions, even though they may not have read your white papers or even have the time or the ability to read them.
Tallbloke:
“So you think we should leave the process in their hands?
When they make it hard to even copy the white papers?
I think they need to publish the raw data first.”
1. “leave” the process in their hands? They have opened “their” process to comment. I may not be happy with who they have in their process. I may not be happy with every detail of how they decided to go forward. But they asked for comments, spend your time giving comments. That doesnt preclude you from complaining. You can do both. complain and offer constructive criticism.
2. I have no issue with the white papers.
3. you think “they” need to publish “the” “raw” data?
1. who specifically, many organizations are present
2. which ‘raw’ data
3. there is no such thing as ‘raw’ data. ‘raw’ data is what the thermometer showed.
(even thats not raw since thermometers dont measure “temperature” )
the best we can have is a written record of what an observer wrote down. In the case of electronic monitoring the best you have is the data that was recieved. not the instrument reading, but rather the data that the reciever thinks the instrument sent to it.
4. They are defining a protocal for publishing the data they have. weigh in and comment.
HR says:
August 26, 2010 at 4:32 am
Does all this matter little given that the satellite data seems to match the instrument record for the passed couple of decades?
It’s the adjustments to the earlier part of the record which matter more. Something which won’t be addressed by this sideshow.
WillR and others homogenization is a level 5 data product. You cannot stop people from homogenizing data. you cant stop then from filtering, smoothing, eliminating errors. What you can do is demand accountability and auditing of every step. As long as you have access to level 0 through level 4, what a researcher does at level 5 is a choice.
papers download fine:
Inhomogeneities in temperature records can arise for a wide variety of reasons (for a
broad review of these see Trewin (2010)). The process of creating a homogenised
dataset from the databank involves two principal stages: the detection of
inhomogeneities (also known as changepoints or shifts) in the data, and making
adjustments to remove those inhomogeneities and create a homogeneous dataset. For
some applications only detection is required, with users making their own judgements
about adjustments (if any). The extent to which users wish to remove inhomogeneities may also vary depending on the application: for example, in detection of global climate change signals, it is desirable to remove any inhomogeneities arising from urbanisation, but some users may be explicitly interested in anomalous local trends arising from urban growth. “
Have you seen this? Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable Charles Anderson over at the Objective Individualist has been studying satellite records and found some real doozies of errors, such as that parts of Lake Michigan are boiling. Apparently he has dragged some grudging admission of satellite errors from NOAA, but they’re keeping it close to the chest.
Steven Mosher says: August 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm
They have opened “their” process to comment.
… they asked for comments,…
So did the EPA.
If WUWT takes this seriously and the posters can make meaningful contributions to the ideas for how to clean up the data mess, there will be plenty of time later to gripe and complain if they don’t implement those suggestions or dismiss them out of hand. As a nightly reader of the blog (but just an average person, not educated in the higher exercises of the mathematics, statistics, etc. though I have read The CruTape Letters twice and get more out of it each time) I would love to see some solid, reasonable, and scientifically sound ideas from WUWT, and the other blogs, for how to proceed. It sounds like they are proposing to look at both the historical records, as well as the records going forward (“going into dusty rooms” kind of thing) so if we have access to those records as they stand, we should be able to go over them as see what is being done to them. Here’s our chance… sure, we wish that our guys were invited to the team in the first place, but let’s give them a little time and input and see what they do with it. For all we know, they are recognizing that the warming trend has already stopped, and this is their way of getting out of the tangle that they are in… the wasted money is going to be blamed on something, it might as well be those sloppy past adjustments.
Jeff says:
August 26, 2010 at 6:31 am
That is the whole point Jeff. Even with all the filling-in, missing data points, homogenization and on and on and on the instrumant record still matchs the satellite record for the past few decades. Quite amazing really given you think it’s essentially been made up.
Mark says:
August 26, 2010 at 6:05 am
I take your point that there are still question marks over the historical record beyond the satellite era but it seems hard to know how to retrospectively solve that problem. Sounds like a trawl through a mountain of paper records, something I imagine has already been done to generate the present data sets.
tallbloke says:
August 26, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“Is the raw ARGO data available? I feel like bypassing these… lovely people.”
I am, surprised that the ARGO data gets such little attention. Does anyone have plots that go up to 2010?
It would be a valuable project for one of WUWT skilled posters to plot the data?
I got the impression that the NASA folks were disapointed since it does not show warming of the oceans and they decided to “adjust” or hide the data.
Everybody says its all about the Oceans, yet the ARGO data is supressed?
Is it included in the GISS?
Or am I mistaken, What am I missing?
A graph of the ARGO data is here: http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/nino3_4_atlas.gif
Don’t know if it’s raw or not but its sure not getting hotter.
dT
HR your assertation that the Surface record matches the Satellite record is not born out by the peer reviewed literature. Matter of fact Dr. Pielke Sr. has in his post the paper that shows that:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf
Now for the sake of disscussion lets say your assertation is correct, however I don’t believe you realize that the surface record matching the satellite record is not an indicator of AGW. For AGW to work the way it is said to work the satellite record should show greater warming then the surface record due to the fact the troposphere is suppose to warm faster then the surface. You might of heard of this phenomena it’s called the “hot spot” and so far can’t be found by observations, it’s only seen in the GCM’s.
So as Dr. Pielke Sr. has pointed out the problems have already been laid out in the peer reviewed literature and really doesn’t require what the UK Met office is doing.
When Peter Thorne says WUWT readers WILL MAKE the project crash and burn before it even takes off is a big tipoff that what the project really is: To give HadCRUT3 a shiny new coat of sceptic approved paint. They can wave to the “white” papers as proof that the sceptics approved of the project. If we don’t play the game that little project Crashes and Burns. It is nothing more then the comments to the EPA in reconsideration of their finding on CO2, an exercise in futility. Just like the EPA the Met Office is too tied to their prior findings and no matter what comments we input they will quickly be ignored.
Jeff says:
August 26, 2010 at 6:31 am
That is the whole point Jeff. Even with all the filling-in, missing data points, homogenization and on and on and on the instrumant record still matchs the satellite record for the past few decades. Quite amazing really given you think it’s essentially been made up.”
It was close, but does not match. The cooling of pre satelite, lowering the past late 1930s high is also well known. The recend divergence is also not a match at all, “Must get rid of the MWP and the recent flatline with no significant warming since 1995..( See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/giss-shaping-up-to-claim-2010-as-1/
August 26, 2010 at 6:31 am
Doubting Thomas says:
August 26, 2010 at 8:17 pm (Edit)
A graph of the ARGO data is here: http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/nino3_4_atlas.gif
Thanks. That’s a small subset of the data. I guess we’ll have to rely on Bob Tisdale to interpret the data the KNMI obtain from NODC.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iheat700_global.png
That step change right around the splice from XBT to ARGO sure looks dodgy to me…
Steven Mosher says:
August 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm
…..
Steve, thanks for your considered reply. I’m mainly just very frustrated and was lashing out, so apologies for that.
If I remember correctly, most of the land surface data used by both Hadley/CRU and GISS was obtained ‘ready adjusted’ from NCDC. Are the NCDC adjustments going to be clarified by this process do you think? Or will they remain ‘the man behind the curtain’?
Mosh,
Can you please explain to a die-hard skeptic like myself (particularly post-Climategate) why I should trust the Met Office to run this project? As a skeptic I trust the UK Met Office as far as I can proverbially ‘throw them’. Based on my personally research of their past publications, ‘Thornie’ and ‘Stottie’ are exemplary examples of ‘true believers’.
Could you please explain to me why it is acceptable to allow the same organisations that produce projections of future catastrophic anthroprogenic global warming (e.g. UK Met Office and NASA GISS) to also produce the mean global surface temperature (MGST) indices? You (and your fellow soul mates over at Lucia’s Blackboard e.g. Zeke H, Ron B, Nick S etc) seem to think that this is an acceptable situation? If so why?
Here’s another Argo graph (slightly different to the one I see above)…
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/images/graph4_evans.jpg
Accompanying text says:
“Figure 4: Ocean heat content from mid 2003 to early 2008, as measured by the Argo network, for 0-700 metres. There is seasonal fluctuation because the oceans are mainly in the southern hemisphere, but the trend can be judged from the highs and lows. (This shows the recalibrated data, after the data from certain instruments with a cool bias were removed. Initial Argo results showing strong cooling.)”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2626711.htm
Michael Larkin: This website will be of help –
http://www.sugartech.co.za/psychro/index.php
This is an online psychometeric chart. (No, it doesn’t calculate a score for US Politicians, it calculates Enthalpy, or “total energy” per cubic foot or cubic meter of air for various temperatures and humidities.
I reviewed my calcs, and found that I was wrong. 105 F and 10% RH (Phoenix type weather) has a mere 30 BTU/Ft^3 and 86 F, 60% RH (which we have had several times this year in MN) has 38 BTU/Ft^3.
Yes, indeed, mappping the “enthalpy content” of the atmosphere, both near the surface and upwards IS a valuable exercise. And Dr. Peilke has alluded to this.
I hope we can get this, albeit, more intellectually demanding and more calculationally intensive, concept across!
Max
I’ve long expressed the opinion that atmospheric temperature alone is a false metric, so I have a question.
How many monitoring stations have humidity monitoring, either by direct measurement or wet bulb thermometer?
DaveE.
I can answer part of your question:
1. GISS does use GHCN adjusted data as its raw data for it’s analysis, I don’t know about CRU.
2. NCDC is comming out with a new version of GHCN this year, at least they are suppose to, that is suppose to also have the codes available.
Way back on Dec 23rd Willis got a reply back from Dr. Peterson about Darwin Zero and he posted that email in the comments section. In it Dr. Peterson stated that GHCN will be converted over to the adjustement method used in USHCN v2 which is based on Menne et al 2009 I believe. Also he expected that the new version would be released in either Feb or Mar of 2010. See this link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/#comment-272529
Now for whatever reason GHCN v3 has been delayed and won’t be seen until late this year according to GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0803.pdf
So if what Dr. Peterson told Willis back in Dec. is correct the GHCN v3 is suppose to come with the code and method as well as intermediate steps.
Stephen Mosher:
As far as I am concerned people can homogenize all they want to — take the temperature of the earth or whatever. I question the whole approach of making data from nothing to determine a single temperature for the earth. However, I would never dream of interfering with anyone who wished to do so.
As far as the papers go, downloading them was not an issue. Quoting them was. I can extract quotes using my Slackware Linux boxes — 64 bit and 32 bit versions — depending on the reader chosen. My Windows Vista box with Adobe Reader 9.3 will not extract and text. Why? Don’t know or care. I decided that this effort is going ahead whether it provides anything of value or not. The only useful comment I could provide anyway is that “infilling” data by using a formula is highly unlikely to produce temperatures in the infilled area that relate to real values. Some simple experimentation with real data seems to confirm that. That is good enough for me but likely to fall on deaf ears. But, maybe somebody will take the hint and apply for a grant to do some research to prove that I am wrong. So don’t claim I was no help at all! 🙂
Paging Mosh…Paging Mosh
Izz der a Mosh in da house!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/26/pielke-senior-on-the-surfacetemperatures-org-effort/#comment-467847
Any chance of a reply Mosh?
The surfacetemperatures blog has been up for a month and as of tonight only 59 comments total have made it through moderation on the entire blog. If the scorecard is # of comments, then that is not very good.
The problem is that it’s not easy to comment there. For example I posted a comment this morning recommending some management control best practices with respect to segregation of duties. The comment was meant to be constructive and posted in good faith. I don’t think I broke house rules, although I might have stretched them :-). Here is the thing, reading the house rules, my comment won’t even be moderated until monday afternoon, so I won’t know if I broke the rules or not for 2+ days, only then can I try to rephrase and try again…. we will see……
Anyway 59 comments is way to low. I would definitely think that the commenters at WUWT ought to try to get some constructive thoughts documented over there. Just beware that, as others have said already, it might try your patience.