Note: clearly satellites can see urban heat, as demonstrated by this recent paper unveiled at the 2010 AGU meeting by NASA. See: Satellites Image the Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast. It can also be demonstrated that the UHI biases the thermometers upwards. As cities grow, so does the increased bias. In that paper NASA says:
The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside…
So when you see images like this one above, where the satellites can clearly see the UHI, wouldn’t it make sense to then just look at the biggest low pass filter heat sink on the planet, the oceans, to see what the difference might be? After all, we don’t have urban heat islands in the oceans. Frank Lansner thinks it is worth exploring in this guest post. – Anthony
UAH reveals Urban Heat
Guest post by Frank Lansner
How UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) satellite temperature data supports Urban Heat (UHI) as a real and significant factor when estimating global temperatures.
Northern Hemisphere temperatures in recent years:
Fig1. UAH global temperatures trend equals global sea surface temperatures: The black temperature graph – average RSS+UAH satellite NH (Land + Sea) – has a smaller warming trend than the other (brown) land data series – but in fact resembles the cooler Sea Surface Temperature trend. (The blue graph “CSST” is an average of the rather similar SST´s: MOHSST6, HADSST1, HASSST2, ERSST.v3b, HADISST1and Kaplan SST 98.)
The satellite data represents both land and ocean temperatures – and yet they resemble only the SST´s. Why ?
Satellite temperatures and SST do have one thing in common: They are for sure without the UHI warming error from the cities and airports – they are excluding UHI:
Fig2. Now we split the UAH data up in a land fraction and an ocean fraction. Both still seems to yield considerably lower temperature trends than the land data (brown) measured from mostly cities and airports on the ground.
So UAH land temperatures have colder temperature trend than the ground based land temperatures. Are the land-data deviations due to general issues with the satellite data then? Perhaps the satellite data happens to show colder trends for some “known” reasons etc?
Not likely: There is a good resemblance between the UAH ocean temperature trends and then the directly measured ocean data, SST (“CSST”). This shows that satellite data (and thus also satellite land data) are indeed useful and likely to be correct.
So, unless the satellites always starts to fail just when flying over land, the deviation between land data measured on the ground (mostly from cities and airports) vs. satellite land data is likely to originate mostly from the ground based land measurements. This “extra heat trend” seen in the ground based land temperature data may be explained by UHI + possibly faulty adjustments of data and siting problems.
– One more result might also support the correctness of UAH data:
Systems will always seek equilibrium.
On fig 2 we see a pattern of gabs between the UAH land and ocean data. However, after the gabs the UAH land and ocean data these data unite again and thus despite the temporary deviations, they still seem to produce a common trend.
Is it surprising that the temperatures over land and sea will seek equilibrium? Or would it rather be surprising if they did not? What force should maintain a still bigger difference in temperatures between land and see trends?
Fig 3. Lets focus on the temporary gabs between satellite land and ocean temperatures. The green curve represents a de-trended version, just the difference between the land and ocean temperature data from satellite. From fig 3 it appears to some degree that land and sea temperatures align or reaches equilibrium mostly when temperature do not change fast.
Lets take a look at the same phenomenon in the decades just before the satellite age – I use original temperature data published en around 1974-84 for this:
Fig 4. On this illustration we have confirmed, that the land-AIR temperatures are fastest to reach a temperature change “100%”, then the Marine-AIR temperatures comes soon after “80%” and finally the sea water surface temperatures reaches the new temperature level. Again it seems, that after a given time ocean temeperatures and land temperatures tends to find equilibrium. The bac-to-equilibrium-between-land-and-sea-surface-temperatures seems to happen whithin few years, escpecially if general warming/cooling pauses or reverses.
With a reasonable argumentation that also the Land fraction of satellite data is a good indicator of land temperatures, lets look at the “extra heat” seen in the ground based land temperature measurements (mostly from cities and airports). How much “extra heat” do the ground based land data contain?
Fig5. The extra heat in CRUTEM3 land data compared to UAH on NH is 0,103 K per decade.
Fig6. On global scale, the extra heat in CRUTEM3 land data compared to UAH on NH is 0,088 K per decade. (0,23K over 26 years from 1981 to 2007).
If the extra heat in data measured on land is applied to a period 1900-2010 – just to get a rough idea of the possible impact – using 35-40% land area as hadcrut does – we get global extra heat of +0,34 to +0,39 K added to the overall warming of the Earth related to the extra heat occurring when measuring from cities, Airports etc.
0,34-0,39 K is roughly half the supposed global warming 1900 – 2010 , but in this context we cannot claim to have quantitative precision, obviously. But the rough estimate of 0,34-0,39 K suggests that the impact of “extra heat” that cannot be detected by satellites plays an important role when trying to estimate global temperature trends.
The problem of “extra heat” in land temperatures (likely to be UHI and more) is escalated by GISS because they extrapolate the ground based land temperature measurements over the oceans in stead of using real ocean data:
Fig7. In the case of Hadcrut temperature series they use around 35-40% land data when calculating global data, but GISS have a temperature product using roughly twice this fraction for land area as fig 7 shows.
Fig 8 until around 2008 this illustration of land vs ocean temperatures was online at the NASA/GISS website. As we have seen, satellite data indicates that land temperatures from ground has trend around twice the trend of land data from satellite data – and as almost twice the warming trend of SST, ocean data. This tendency is confirmed on fig 8. From 1880 to 2007 we have an ocean warming trend around 0,6K and for land its around 1,2 K – twice.
Again, we saw from 30 years of satellite temperatures that global satellite data matches ocean temperatures rather closely. If valid, then the fig 8 indicates a 0,6 K faulty extra heat, UHI etc from 1880 to 2007.
****
Article from which most graphics where taken:
Review and feedback of the above article by E.M.Smith, Musings from the Chiefio:
“The rewritten past”: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/the-rewritten-past
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bob, you write:
“Frank, your post is titled “UAH reveals Urban Heat”, but your post does not show urban heat island effect. ”
THIS is true, Bob 🙂 I show extra heat as described and in the text where besides UHI we have also adjustments and siting issues.
So, yes, the headline I made is inaccurate.
Then you write, Bob:
”
about six months ago, we discussed that GISS no longer uses the dataset you presented in Figure 7. I thought you had finally agreed to that. ”
Bob, NASA/GISS still presents the land-projected-over-sea-product map on their official site.
What am I then to think?
(Besides, for both the Arctic and the Antarctic they still use the land-projection method even though you choose Hadcruts ocean data (because they dont cover the Arctic, Antartic) so the land projection method appears alive and well, sadly:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=11&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg)
K.R. Frank
And further: For example in the Arctic, do not GISS use land-projected data over see
Bob, i just re-checked the NASA/GISS temperature FRONTPAGE:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Yes, look in te right side, there is presented NOT the LOTI you mention but the Tsurf (where GISS project land data over the oceans over the whole world). If you say that in some contexts, this land-temperature projection map is no longer used, I believe you, but i certainly still exists on first class.
Therefore it is obviously also 100,00 % relevant that I show the fig 7 with GISS Tsurf as i do in my article.
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner says: “Bob, NASA/GISS still presents the land-projected-over-sea-product map on their official site. What am I then to think?” And you wrote, “Therefore it is obviously also 100,00 % relevant that I show the fig 7 with GISS Tsurf as i do in my article.”
Refer to the comment by Zeke Hausfather on your July 27 post here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/#comment-434647
Refer also to my rebuttal post to your July 27 post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/07/land-surface-temperature-contribution.html
It also ran here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/bob-tisdale-on-giss-landsea-ratios/
Do you recall these discussions? You commented on the WUWT rebuttal to your earlier post.
You’ve been made aware that the dataset you’ve presented in this post is not GISS’s official dataset, yet you continue to treat it as if it is. Not only are the title and introduction of your post misleading, but you intentionally mislead readers here who aren’t aware (as you are) that what you’ve presented is not the GISS official dataset.
You continued, “Besides, for both the Arctic and the Antarctic they still use the land-projection method even though you choose Hadcruts ocean data.”
GISS uses two SST datasets in their LOTI product, Frank. They start with HADISST, and in December 1981 they switch to Reynolds OI.v2 SST data. The minimal differences between the two datasets do not warrant the effort needed for me to splice two datasets together to reply to your post, Frank. And I don’t need to be lectured on how GISS treats the Arctic and Southern Ocean data. I mentioned it in one of my comments above, and as you may recall I wrote a post about it:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/05/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean.html
I am not sure why you continue to argue and provide questionable explanations.
Frank It’s not advisable to smooth the data and subtract. Try doing as I suggested,
subtract and fit a line. and make sure you use the variance adjusted data. after you are done you can smooth for presentation only.
Bob, you write:
”
You’ve been made aware that the dataset you’ve presented in this post is not GISS’s official dataset, yet you continue to treat it as if it is. Not only are the title and introduction of your post misleading, but you intentionally mislead readers here who aren’t aware (as you are) that what you’ve presented is not the GISS official dataset.
”
Bob, you think that Nasa can present the Tsurf product on their front page AND in their product catalogue and still, I cant show it on my fig 7. in a blog?
Besides i still see many references to the Tsurf i show in fig 7. this very day. Nasa Still updates the numbers just like allways on tsurf. For example in the Danish debate, the TSurf value november 2010 of +0,95 plays a domintaing role(!!!!)
Bob, many many many times i have used time to investigate all your links etc. to figure out why you claim “error error” everyhere. But often I just dont find significant support for your claims.
Discussions are “irritating” especially when yo dont agree 🙂
K.R. Frank
Steven Mosher says:
December 18, 2010 at 11:17 pm
“Frank It’s not advisable to smooth the data and subtract. Try doing as I suggested,
subtract and fit a line.”
Steven, since you want me to do this i will and I can mail you the result between Christmas and New Year.
But-but-but Steven, statistically the odds that this will change the big trend difference between landbased lanf temp and UAH-based land temp is 0,00%. Therefore this is somthing I do exclusively only for you 🙂
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner: You can use whatever dataset you wish. But when you write in a post here at WUWT, “The problem of “extra heat” in land temperatures (likely to be UHI and more) is escalated by GISS because they extrapolate the ground based land temperature measurements over the oceans in stead of using real ocean data,” I will remind you that GISS notes the errors in the dTs data on their webpage:
“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.”
So the next time someone on a Danish blog uses the dTs dataset in a post, refer them to that quote.
Bob, thanks for the last answer.
In the climate debate I have often seen ONE thing presented to the audience with a rather alarmistic message and then you have to read some deeper notes to get the full picture. This is smart propaganda because most peoble get the fast message and never ever reads the “notes”.
So when NASA presents the Tsurf on their front page (and NOT LOTI) and then have a note as you show, then they can send the Tsurf warm – message, and we are not allowed to critisize because they have a note. How convenient.
I think that as long as NASA promotes the Tsurf as they do, it is important that we critisize it. But! The fig 7. would stand stronger noting that NASA has this note.
And Bob, dont forget that even the LOTI uses the GISS-land-over-ocean projections over the Arctic and Antarctic, so the procedure I question is still alive and well even in their LOTI product.
Ok, The overall total Critic that I have seen you able to defend:
1) The header only mentions the UHI while in the article it appears that the “extra heat” besides UHI is likely to contain adjusting problems and siting problems.
2) fig 7. – The Tsurf NASA product used on NASA´s GISS-temperature front page is shown, allthough NASA has a note that they considder the LOTI product more precise. Yet its not the LOTI product you see on their front page, and for some reason they keep updating their Tsurf product. The article would have been stronger if I had used the GISS LOTI product that ALSO use the problematic land-projections over sea around the Arctic and Antarctic.
And?
So, Bob, what do you think of the main contents of the Article????????????????????????
1) What do you think of my new thinking concerning the equilibrium tendency seen inUAH data but not in conventionel data?
2) Dont you find it relevant to examine UAH land vs ground based land data to explore the extra heat from land stations??
My article is in fact not only useful for skeptics… it also indicates an upper limit of problems with land stations: If UAH is correct, problems from UHI (and edjustments etc.) should not be bigger that the difference between UAH-land and the land based stations.
I think there is SO much exciting to discuss here and it would be nice with some reflections of this kind too.
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner says: “And Bob, dont forget that even the LOTI uses the GISS-land-over-ocean projections over the Arctic and Antarctic, so the procedure I question is still alive and well even in their LOTI product.”
If you use the LOTI dataset, then you can discuss the “land over ocean” problem in the Arctic and Southern Oceans. Using the dTs dataset does not allow you to do so because they extend the land surface data out over the oceans everywhere.
You asked, “What do you think of my new thinking concerning the equilibrium tendency seen inUAH data but not in conventionel data?”
SST and land surface temperature data are different variables. The TLT ocean and TLT land are the same variable and they are not isolated from one another.
You asked, “2) Dont you find it relevant to examine UAH land vs ground based land data to explore the extra heat from land stations??”
Your 5-year smoothing hides the facts that the divergences are caused by the different responses to ENSO, volcanic eruptions, and the KOE.
You wrote, “If UAH is correct, problems from UHI (and edjustments etc.) should not be bigger that the difference between UAH-land and the land based stations.”
That’s an assumption on your part. As noted in my earlier reply, the annual variations in monthly global land surface temperatures are 4 times higher than those of TLT.
http://i51.tinypic.com/34dr6de.jpg
With differences that large, one might expect the trend of the land surface temperature to be higher than the trends of the other datasets.
Bob, you write: “Your 5-year smoothing hides the facts that the divergences are caused by the different responses to ENSO, volcanic eruptions, and the KOE.”
Nonsense. 5 year smoothing does not account for 30 year trend difference (!). How can yo even think this for a second is amazing.
you write more: “The TLT ocean and TLT land are the same variable and they are not isolated from one another.”
So where do you think i got the TLT land vs TLT ocean data from?
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
And then you DEMAND that everyone here at WattsUpWIthThat must not critisize the NASA Tsurf product Even after I have showed you that NASA gisstemp has it on their very front page still. “ohh they have a note, then they can continue showing Tsurf to peoble for ever”.
You and I both now the Tsurf stinks, and you should not help silencing critic of it. The day NASA take Tsurf maps and update data O F F their product catalogue, that day you have a point.
(But im happy that we can agree that the land-over-ocean bizarre method is also used in the LOTI.)
Frank
Frank Lansner: You quoted me, “Bob, you write: ‘Your 5-year smoothing hides the facts that the divergences are caused by the different responses to ENSO, volcanic eruptions, and the KOE.'”
Then you replied, “Nonsense. 5 year smoothing does not account for 30 year trend difference (!). How can yo even think this for a second is amazing.”
You are misunderstanding what I wrote. I was not discussing trends. I was discussing your Figure 3, which does not include trend lines. Your 5-year smoothing in that graph hides the reasons for the “gabs between the UAH land and ocean data.” (That should be “gaps” by the way, not “gabs”. Gab is a verb that means to talk.) If you smooth the data you used in your Figure 3 with a 13-month filter to remove the seasonal noise…
http://i52.tinypic.com/ejx5pt.jpg
…you can see that the land TLT data diverges from the sea TLT data due the volcanoes and ENSO events (which also carry over into the TLT response to the KOE). And since you can’t see that in your Figure 3, I wrote, “Your 5-year smoothing hides the facts that the divergences are caused by the different responses to ENSO, volcanic eruptions, and the KOE.”
Then you quoted me: “The TLT ocean and TLT land are the same variable and they are not isolated from one another.”
And you replied, “So where do you think i got the TLT land vs TLT ocean data from?
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt”
You excluded the first part of my reply. Here it is in full. “SST and land surface temperature data are different variables. The TLT ocean and TLT land are the same variable and they are not isolated from one another.” The point I was trying to make is that there are shorelines that separate the oceans from the land and that SST data and land surface data are measuring two completely different variables. One is land surface temperature and the other is sea surface temperature. But the TLT data over the oceans and over land are not separated by shorelines. UAH isolates them by the coordinates of the data, but in the real world, they are not isolated from one another. Atmospheric circulation is constantly mixing them.
Hi Bob and thanks for answer, honestly I was looking foreward to the latest answer(!!)
The GaPs 🙂 are visible in all graphs for land data, also conventional land data and they are of dimilar magnitude. Or to put it more precisely, all the land-graphs 5 year smoothed shows these shorter term changes.
But its the long trends that does the difference. The long (30 years) trend of conventional ground/city based land data is so warm that the gaps/peaks never reaches back to equilibrium, in fact they go further and further from equilibrium which at some point is difficult to explain thermodynamically. But the long term trend of UAH land data is so close to the UAH ocean data that equilibrium is reached every time tempertures generally pauses from rising.
Therefore Bob, its the long trends that does all the difference, not what ever 5 year averaging i have done to all graphs.
And then, Bob, the different type of data: Its likely that different data type it self can be responsible for different degree of variation etc. but certainly not a long ever ongoing change of trend.
K.R. Frank
And Bob, we should take care not to make the following error:
Its widely accepted that difference between UAH and conventional temperature trends are small and thus, “everythings OK”.
Now when we realise that trend difference specifically for land (NH) is significant, the we should say “its different data types, everythings OK” ?
One of the most central issues in the climate debate is the quality of exactly ground/city based land data. Therefore the clear message that ALSO UAH does not support ground/city based land data is important.
K.R. Frank
Oof. Frank, take some time and check your posts as best you can before sending. When you get excited your English grammar “goes to pot” (deteriorates to the point it becomes very hard to follow).
There is a “weasel word” I like to watch for in official (and other) pronouncements, by the way: “slight” or “slightly”. Sez who? After what fiddles and fudges? Excluding what inconvenient data? Etc.
Frank Lansner says: “But the long term trend of UAH land data is so close to the UAH ocean data that equilibrium is reached every time tempertures generally pauses from rising.”
The green curve in Figure 3 is the difference between the Land and Sea TLT data. It is not detrended data. The actual land and sea TLT may be rising or falling when the green curve is at or near zero. When the green curve is at or near zero it only means that the land and ocean surface temperature anomalies are equal, not that the absolute temperatures are equal. So I do not understand how you can write, “equilibrium is reached every time tempertures generally pauses from rising.”
You wrote, “But its the long trends that does the difference. The long (30 years) trend of conventional ground/city based land data is so warm that the gaps/peaks never reaches back to equilibrium, in fact they go further and further from equilibrium which at some point is difficult to explain thermodynamically.”
I have no idea how you can look at a graph of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature anomaly data and discuss equilibrium and thermodynamics.
Frank Lansner: As you can see by my last comment, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Please find other words for equilibrium and thermodynamics to express what you are talking about.
Frank Lansner, regarding your entire December 20, 2010 at 8:24 am comment. I will repeat a comment I have made twice before on this thread.
the annual variations in monthly global land surface temperatures are 4 times higher than those of TLT.
http://i51.tinypic.com/34dr6de.jpg
With differences that large, one might expect the trend of the land surface temperature to be higher than the trends of the other datasets.
Hi Bob!
I think we are the only ones following this debate by now, and for the moderators i´d say: Mail me on fel@nnit.com If you like.
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner: There’s no need to discuss this outside of this thread (via email).
You are assuming that comparisons of Land TLT and Ocean TLT anomalies somehow indicate that they come into equilibrium for periods. And what I was working towards showing you was that you can’t make those assumptions using anomalies. Here’s a graph of the TLT anomalies for a TLT Ocean dataset in the North Atlantic (15N-25N, 50W-20W), and it’s compared to a TLT anomalies for a TLT Land dataset in North Africa (15N-25N, 10W-20E). They’re the same size in area at the same latitudes, and they are separated by 10deg longitude, which includes the western Africa coastline. I used your 5-year smoothing and have also shown the difference. The graph is similar in format to your Figure 3. And based on how you describe the data in your post, those two datasets are in equilibrium in the 1980s and early 1990s.
http://i54.tinypic.com/fnbr89.jpg
In reality, they are not.
If we look at the TLT data (not anomalies) for those two datasets, either in their monthly form…
http://i51.tinypic.com/vnh55k.jpg
…or in the way you present data, with a 5-year filter, we can see that the ocean and land surface TLT data is not in equilibrium at those times.
http://i53.tinypic.com/25p0hdu.jpg
I could do the same thing for land surface and sea surface to illustrate the same thing. So your post is in error in that description also.
Bob, I think it is unfair that the moderators have to use time on our internal discussion, but since you insist to keep our dialog here, let’s continue until moderators say stop.
You write: “The green curve in Figure 3 is the difference between the Land and Sea TLT data. It is not detrended data. ”
I know what it is Bob (!) and that its not a “real” detrend (!) however trend is of course minimized by just looking at the difference, so there’s not much juice in your comment, I don’t know want you want to prove. Please stick to few essential things so we can end this.
You ten write: “The actual land and sea TLT may be rising or falling when the green curve is at or near zero. When the green curve is at or near zero it only means that the land and ocean surface temperature anomalies are equal, not that the absolute temperatures are equal.”
Yes, that obvious Bob, the point is that at some temperature levels (probably very different mechanisms around the world) the land vs. ocean surface temperatures acts as an equilibrium, then its not our worry in this context to figure out at what temperatures etc this occurs at. All systems will seek a situation where energy is distributed as evenly as possible. You are correct that this does not necessarily mean that they have exact same temperature, but in this context this exact temperatures are not whats interesting.
No, what IS interesting is that UAH data land vs. ocean again and again reaches the same temperature difference (!!!) This is the thermodynamically logical behaviour. We do not need to now exact temperature etc. as you for some reason talk about. We can see that a specific temperature land vs. temperature ocean is repeatedly returned to. And this appears exactly when global temperatures are taking a pause or a little reverse.
It appears we are near an equilibrium, ho so? Take a look at fig 4. You can see that the sequence and pattern of the big cooling is very similar to the warming – but just opposite direction. So temperatures in both cases react pretty much the same on a change, and this the 2 start situations must have been close to an “equilibrium”.
Of fig 3, i cannot say if my “0” line is the quantitatively perfect estimate of the equilibrium, but that’s not the point. If the “real” equilibrium should have been a little lower on fig 3 it changes nothing, this system acts as if it seeks equilibrium.
Unlike UAH data, conventional data land vs ocean does NOT at all seems to return to a equilibrium state between land and ocean. In stead the land goes higher and higher and higher compared to the ocean temperatures.
Bob, the real discussion here is : Can there be a natural explanation that land temperatures should rise more and more and more compared to ocean surface as city based land temps suggests?? How can this be? What should enable such a growing distance in temperature?
THIS, Bob, is what we are talking about.
You can easily argue, that land changes temperature faster than ocean surface, i showed just that in fig 4. BUT! The problem is, that when temperatures then stop rising, city/land temperatures don’t return to equilibrium with ocean – if we believe land/city temps. UAH land do.
Then Bob, I see you once again tell me that variance in the one set is difference from the other set. I don’t know what to say to you Bob. Variance does not make the overall trends. We are talking about trends. Do land trend loose contact with ocean trends or not. This is not and will never be a variance issue.
Then finally you show a specific limited land area vs a specific limited ocean and show that these areas are not exactly equilibrium with one another. Bob, we are talking about an immensely complex system. I certainly did not respect some ocean square to be in equilibrium with some other square of land. Of course the ocean square you show will interact with all areas all around the square and in fact in turn with the whole globe. So to expect an equilibrium between these to squares as you do is it self a misunderstanding.
By looking at the NH (which is rather slowly interfering with the SH) THEN we have a system where we all together see land totals in equilibrium with ocean totals. Certainly not some random fragment in a complex system.
But again Bob, the real discussion here is : Can there be a natural explanation that land temperatures should rise more and more and more compared to ocean surface as city based land temps suggests?? How can this be? What should enable such a growing distance in temperature?
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner says: “I know what it is Bob (!) and that its not a “real” detrend (!) however trend is of course minimized by just looking at the difference, so there’s not much juice in your comment, I don’t know want you want to prove. Please stick to few essential things so we can end this.”
It is essential. It was a part of your post and it is wrong. You wrote this in the post, “The green curve represents a de-trended version..” But it is not detrended.
You wrote, “No, what IS interesting is that UAH data land vs. ocean again and again reaches the same temperature difference (!!!) This is the thermodynamically logical behaviour.”
But you are looking at anomalies not temperatures.
You wrote, “Unlike UAH data, conventional data land vs ocean does NOT at all seems to return to a equilibrium state between land and ocean. In stead the land goes higher and higher and higher compared to the ocean temperatures.”
There is no equilibrium. Only YOU believe there is equilibrium.
You wrote, “But again Bob, the real discussion here is : Can there be a natural explanation that land temperatures should rise more and more and more compared to ocean surface as city based land temps suggests?? “
I have repeatedly shown you why with this graph but you fail to acknowledge it, like you failed to acknowledge earlier comments I made to you.
http://i51.tinypic.com/34dr6de.jpg
You wrote, “How can this be? What should enable such a growing distance in temperature?”
There is no growing difference in temperature. Since annual land surface temperatures are on average less than sea surface temperatures, the temperature difference between land and ocean is decreasing, not increasing, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your evaluation.
Good bye, Frank. All I’m doing is repeating myself.
Bob you write: “But you are looking at anomalies not temperatures. ”
Im looking at temperature anomalies.
If temperature anomalies for UAH allways tend to return to the same distance between land and sea , this means that temperature allways tend to return to the same distance between land and sea. (!!!!!!)
Only thing missins when working with anomalies and not absolute temperatures is… the nowledge of absolute temperatures for a given time. But in NO way does this affect the picture of how the temperauter TRENDS behave.
A simpler picture is, that the long trend UAH land resembles UAH ocean. Yes, this goes for temperature anomalies.
So there is a BOND between land vs. sea in UAH. This BOND is not seen when you compare direct surface water temperature with mostly city based temperatures. The latter keep growing and growing and growing compared to the sea surface temperatures. This missing BOND is NOT a result of using Temp anom in stead of temp. It is NOT a result of one data type having more monthly oscillation than the other data type, thats completely irrelevant.
I dont know what more to write to make you understand these things too. I have come to that conclusion earlier, therefore i suggested we did not bother WUWT with it anymore. I think we can agree that we dont agree. However, I have shown this to several extremely good heads, and they have just no problem understanding the clear message in data i present here.
A look at fig 2:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/UAHUHI/UAHurban2.jpg
says it all. We have TREND differences that suggests that city-land data trend goes warmer than the other data can support, including UAH land. UAH land is much more bonded to ocean temps than city-land, and thus the discussion is as I said: Should city-land temps be bonded to ocean temps to some degree or can they fly off like city-land suggests. Thats the question.
To me, your constant focus on more monhtly variation to explain trend difference, your focus on absolute temperatures in stead of temp anomalies when focusing on trend differences etc etc simply shows that you are fundamentally missing the point and seak where you should not be seaking. Claim errors when its your logic that errors.
K.R. Frank
And, Bob, to your wish to prevent critique of GISS Tsurf even though its still on NASA GISStemp frontpage:
As we talked about GISS still has this product up. Keeping Tsurf maps available and updated for all to see and use.
But more:
The Tsurf is the “identity” of GISS/Hansens products. This is what they did in 1981, and especially from 1986 and foreward. The Tsurf is the “pride” of Hansen.
If GISS one day takes this xbdsjbckjxb Tsurf back and OFF, then what does this due to Hansen?
Have you seen the NASA GISS page where Hansen is described like this legendary hero, then Hansen did this, then Hansen did that? Can you see why they can never take the Tsurf off?
No, GISS only has the option to write some note to avoid too much critic, and then Bob, some sceptics plays along, some dont.
The errors in Tsurf are a huge blow to GISS, and off course we sceptics should scream out about this at any chance we get. Why not reveal the nakedness of the GISS´s major “achievement”??
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner says: “So there is a BOND between land vs. sea in UAH.”
They are measured the same way, from the same satellites. There are no boundaries separating them. Maybe this is why you think there is a bond between them.
You continued, “This BOND is not seen when you compare direct surface water temperature with mostly city based temperatures.”
First, based on your post and this comment, it appears you have analyzed land surface datasets. I say that because you wrote, “mostly city based temperatures.” I assume you are talking about the land surface temperature data and that you are claiming that it is made up of “mostly city based temperatures.” What percentage of the land surface data are categorized in your analysis as urban and what percentage are rural?
Second, why would you expect to see this “bond” between land and sea surface temperatures? Unlike the UAH land and ocean TLT anomalies, sea surface and land surface temperature data are not measured the same way, and there are boundaries between them.
Your December 23, 2010 at 1:19 am reply starts with, “And, Bob, to your wish to prevent critique of GISS Tsurf even though its still on NASA GISStemp frontpage…”
I have not asked you not to critique GISTEMP data, Frank. You can critique it all you like, but the GISS dTs data is not the “current” GISTEMP dataset. And since it is not the “current” GISTEMP dataset, your critiques have little to no meaning in discussions of land plus ocean datasets. I’ve quoted the word “current” for a reason. Here’s a link to the recently published Hansen et al (2010):
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf
In it Hansen et al write, “[15] The current GISS analysis employs several independent input data streams that are publicly available on the Internet and updated monthly. In addition, the analysis requires a data set for ocean surface temperature measurements in the presatellite era. In this paper and in the monthly updates on our Web site, we now show results using alternative choices for presatellite ocean data and alternative procedures for concatenating satellite and presatellite data.”
In other words, their current analysis uses sea surface temperature data and they present two different datasets. One is based on HADISST SST data before the satellite era, and the other based on ERSST.v3b data. If their “current” analysis uses SST data, then the dataset you referred to in the post is “not current”, meaning it is outdated, or obsolete.
Hi Bob
You write: “the GISS dTs data is not the “current” GISTEMP dataset. And since it is not the “current” GISTEMP dataset, your critiques have little to no meaning in discussions of land plus ocean datasets”
(You then describe the well known components of LOTI)
Bob, when I show a potential problem for land ground based data measurements, this is a problem for the official GISS online Tsurf product where land data are used for both land and ocean.
You then personally define that we are talking about “land+plus ocean datasets” and that I somehow therefore cannot mention the Tsurf problem using land data over sea in the end of my article. Bob, I am not 100% sure that its not my fault but I simply just cant follow your logic, I really wish I could.
(We are going in circles. You find It irrelevant to criticise Tsurf because GISS don’t define it as their current dataset. I find it relevant to criticise because its still on their GISStemp front page still and they still update maps and values and Tsurf is in their product catalogue for all to see every month.)
Bob lets move on: Why do you think that GISS keep the Tsurf available online with fine maps and data updated every month? Why this constellation with a Tsurf product online that is not “the current” ?
(Bob, im now writing a post for hidethedecline.eu only with all the odd claims of “errors” here at WUWT for reference when needed.)