This article in the January/February edition of WIRES Climate Change doesn’t surprise me at all. With the uncertainty of the surface temperature record in question, the Met Office’s Peter Thorne and NCDC’s Tom Peterson, who once wrote a ghost authored attack against the surfacestations project, take aim to elicit controversy (their word) over Christy and Spencer’s satellite derived temperature record.
Personally, I have little trust of NCDC’s motives, and especially Peterson, after his ghost authored attack on me and the surfacestations project. A true scientist doesn’t need to write ghost articles to discredit the work of others. I’ve put my name on every criticism I ever made of the surface temperature record and NCDC. I thought it was the ultimate cheap shot that Peterson and NCDC didn’t, and then posted it to the NCDC main web page. Remember, this is the same NCDC that used photoshopped flooded houses in government reports. But I digress.
I’ve posted a figure below, along with the abstract and concluding remarks from the article, it is well worth a read.
Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy
Peter W. Thorne, John R. Lanzante, Thomas C. Peterson, Dian J. Seidel and Keith P. Shine
Changes in atmospheric temperature have a particular importance in climate
research because climate models consistently predict a distinctive vertical profile
of trends. With increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, the surface and
troposphere are consistently projected to warm, with an enhancement of that
warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Hence, attempts to detect this distinct
‘fingerprint’ have been a focus for observational studies. The topic acquired
heightened importance following the 1990 publication of an analysis of satellite
data which challenged the reality of the projected tropospheric warming. This
review documents the evolution over the last four decades of understanding
of tropospheric temperature trends and their likely causes. Particular focus
is given to the difficulty of producing homogenized datasets, with which to
derive trends, from both radiosonde and satellite observing systems, because of
the many systematic changes over time. The value of multiple independent
analyses is demonstrated. Paralleling developments in observational datasets,
increased computer power and improved understanding of climate forcing
mechanisms have led to refined estimates of temperature trends from a wide
range of climate models and a better understanding of internal variability. It is
concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement
between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when
uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively.
…
CONCLUDING REMARKS
There is an old saying that a person with one watch always knows what time it is, but with two watches one is never sure. The controversy over surface and tropospheric temperature trends started in 1990 when the first satellite upper air ‘watch’ was produced
and it was na¨ıvely assumed that it told the correct time. Over the subsequent years, with the advent of not just two but multiple watches from different ‘manufacturers’ and using two distinct ‘technologies’, a more accurate measure of the structural uncertainty
inherent in estimating what the ‘time’ truly is has emerged.
The state of the observational and model science has progressed considerably since 1990. The uncertainty of both models and observations is currently wide enough, and the agreement in trends close enough, to support a finding of no fundamental discrepancy between the observations and model estimates throughout the tropospheric column. However, the controversy will undoubtedly continue because some estimates of tropospheric warming since 1979 are less than estimates of surface warming, or fall outside of the range of analogous model estimates (e.g., Figure 8).
There are several key lessons for the future:
1. No matter how august the responsible research group, one version of a dataset cannot give a measure of the structural uncertainty inherent in the information.
2. A full measure of both observational uncertainty and model uncertainty must be taken into consideration when assessing whether there is agreement or disagreement between theory (as represented by models) and reality (as represented by observations).
3. In addition to better routine observations, underpinning reference observations are
required to allow analysts to calibrate the data and unambiguously extract the true climate signal from the inevitable nonclimatic influences inherent in the routine observations.
================================================================
#3 What? The “true climate signal” hasn’t been extracted? And, “inevitable nonclimatic influences”? What, noise and uncertainty? What a concept! I agree though, that better routine and reference observations are needed. Problem is, we don’t have much of that that extends back 100+ years. The Climate Reference Network in the USA was only recently completed, and many countries have no equivalent. We really have very little surface data that is free of “inevitable nonclimatic influences inherent in the routine observation”. Are we getting better at pulling the signal from the noise? Yes. Have we got it right yet? I’m doubtful.
I also find lesson #2, “observational uncertainty” quite interesting, given that we’ve just shown the high level of “observational uncertainty” in the US Historical Climate Network with Fall et al 2011. We all need to get a better handle on this, as well as the “observational uncertainty” of the Global HCN, which NCDC’s Tom Peterson just happens to manage.
The full article is here Thorne_etal_2011 h/t to Dallas Staley
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No need for scare quotes around “controversy,” the UAH data have been a source of controversy among climate scientists for many years.
First, because they showed something different than other data showed, and Spencer & Christy used that difference to criticize the others. Second, because when inconsistencies in the UAH data were pointed out (by Tamino, among others), S&C ignored them. Eventually others showed that the UAH measurements were biased, and needed to be corrected. S&C finally agreed, but if they’d been more conscientious they would have admitted these problems when they first became obvious, and corrected their own data and erroneous conclusions without prompting.
Controversy about other aspects of the UAH data continue. Most recently, shifting their baseline up to make the anomalies go down, and subsequently writing about “negative anomalies,” may have impressed nonscientists but did nothing good for their reputation among scientists.
Gneiss says:
“…if they’d been more conscientious they would have admitted these problems when they first became obvious, and corrected their own data and erroneous conclusions without prompting.”
Like Michael Mann et al. admitted their problems in MBH98/99, and corrected their own cherry-picked data and erroneous conclusions?
…Oh, that’s right, it’s thirteen years later and Mann still stonewalls.
Gneiss is worried about a speck in someone else’s eye, when he has a beam in his own.
Gneiss can you show me where Tamino (Grant Foster) points out to S&C that they needed to correct their diurnal drift adjustment?
How do you improve your understanding of climate forcing when you don’t yet have the climate modeled to a state where it can be forecast?
Either one or both are clearly not understood.
stan says: “The science is settled until the data doesn’t match. Then uncertainties grow and grow until they can be made to overlap.”
Well and succinctly put!
steven mosher says: “…after 4 years of arguing that the ISSUE is the UNCERTAINTY, and not the BIAS, I’ll welcome the support for my position.”
Given the AGW industry’s efforts to conceal uncertainty, you may have put your chips on the best number. But it’s not the only number, quite yet.
Road trip Update: Day 1 at NCDC
Posted on April 23, 2008 by Anthony Watts
I felt right at home when I walked into Dr. Bruce Baker’s office for the Climate Reference Network (CRN) …
I have never forgotten that story, Anthony, and how pleased I was to know I had donated towards it — and then how sour it became with their subsequent deplorable attitudes and actions.
Those attitudes and actions were contemptible, and I will never forget, nor forgive them.
Ross McKitrick says (May 13, 2011 at 9:42 am): [snip]
Thanks for the references.
This is all part of the settled consensus, I have so often heard about, I presume.
‘The science is settled’ was by all accounts then a tad ambitious! Uncertainty rules the climate as ever and pushes the science back to maybe not infancy, more it’s formative years
what about embryonic
It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement
between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when
uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively.”
“After we have adjusted the data that needs adjusting to fit our preconceived results”
Gneiss
Most recently, shifting their baseline up to make the anomalies go down, and subsequently writing about “negative anomalies,” may have impressed nonscientists but did nothing good for their reputation among scientists.
They brought their ‘climatic period length’ into line with the other datasets. 30 yrs. The satelite had been working 29 yrs in the preceding days.
Why do you trolls never ever read reports properly? Are you incapable of proof reading?
Thanks so much Anthony for a proper response. I’ll study it in due time. It was cathartic to get that out of me.
Potech writes,
“Gneiss can you show me where Tamino (Grant Foster) points out to S&C that they needed to correct their diurnal drift adjustment?”
The error in UAH shown by Tamino’s analysis involved a strong seasonal cycle in the UAH TLT, which had no physical explanation and was not present in RSS or other temperature records. Others also noticed and wrote about the problem with UAH well before the UAH team admitted or tried to correct it. Eli Rabbett (Jan 26 2008) noted the increasing divergence between RSS and UAH, which seemed to occur in steps,
“The most interesting thing here … is that there was a systematically increasing difference between RSS and UAH (shown by the trend line btw 1979 and 2005), but that appears to have decreased starting in 2002 and disappeared in ~2005. ”
Atmoz took the analysis several steps farther in an Apr 21 2008 post,
“There are two main things that jumped out at me from this simple graph. …
First, the earlier years in the UAH data are warmer than the RSS data. This is the same finding as Eli found in January.
But what I found is that there doesn’t appear to be a relatively slow decrease in the difference, but instead there appears to be a jump at around 1992. I’ve highlighted this on my plot by using the colors red and blue. From eyeballing the graph, it appears that on average pre-1992 years were around 0.5C warmer than post-1992 years.
The main thing that shocked me was that for most of the post-1992 time, there is a definite interannual signal. Keep in mind that both of these datasets are supposed to be monthly anomalies. That is, they are anomalies from the monthly average. So there should be no interannual signal at all in either of the time series.”
Tamino saw this cycle in his own analysis. From Open Mind, Oct 30 2008:
“I find that the annual cycle shown in recent UAH TLT data is implausibly large, is implausibly very strong in the tropics, is implausibly larger over NH ocean than land, and is implausibly of roughly the same phase in both hemispheres. My conclusion is that the hypothesis that this cycle represents a real physical change in the annual cycle of temperature variations due to enhanced winter warming, is untenable.
My final conclusion from the previous post stands: there’s something wrong with UAH TLT data.”
stephen richards writes,
“Why do you trolls never ever read reports properly? Are you incapable of proof reading?”
3 false assumptions:
1. I’m not a troll, I mean everything I write and state the facts as accurately as I can.
2. I did read the report and found the stated rationale unconvincing.
3, I’m capable of proofreading, and also of thinking, analyzing data, and looking up research for myself.
But away from stephen richard’s name-calling and back to the substance … I wrote that scientists were unimpressed by UAH shifting the baseline for their anomalies because that step, by itself, makes no statistical difference. Trends will remain the same. Its main impact, however, was to shift the UAH anomalies downwards, so they would appear to be lower, and have a better chance to sometimes become negative. That can fool the many people who don’t understand anomalies. So when I read about the changeover I wondered if that might be why they did it. Sure enough, a few months later we see headlines that the UAH anomalies had “gone negative.”
REPLY: And the baseline argument in reverse is true for GISS and their 1951-1980 base period…it makes their anomalies appear higher. But you never complain about that. GISS graphs and “highest ever” pronouncements from their anomalies get probably 100x the press UAH gets. But it’s all good, because Dr. James Hansen is a “bias free” scientist /sarc – Anthony
Anthony writes,
“And the baseline argument in reverse is true for GISS and their 1951-1980 base period…it make their anomalies appear higher. But you never complain about that. GISS graphs and “highest ever” pronouncements from their anomalies get probably 100x the press UAH gets. But it’s all good, because Dr. James Hansen is a “bias free” scientist /sarc – Anthony”
Baselines don’t work that way. A record high anomaly would be a record high regardless of baseline chosen. 1951-1980 was the standard “period of climatology” in wide use when GISTEMP started, and they’ve kept that to maintain data comparability. Scientists know it would make no difference to the trends or extremes if they changed baselines now, but shifting to an earlier, colder period to make the recent anomalies seem “more positive” for public consumption would be dishonest. They won’t do it.
Shifting UAH to a later, warmer baseline likewise makes no difference to the trend or extremes. It just allows the anomalies to sound lower in public announcements.
REPLY: You are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about trends. Note the /sarc tag. My point like yours is about public consumption and choice of baseline. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. GISS is using an outdated standard “period of climatology”, even NOAA/NCDC is moving on to a modern one this year. It will be interesting to see. – Anthony
Based on surface versus hot spot alttitude, the warming observed is around 2.3 times greater then should be expected at the surface via greenhouse gas theory. This implies that either the theory is wrong or the surface has an error that is this times greater then should be observed with no other sources. Therefore reduce the warming observed by 2.3 times to get the true theoretical CO2 temperaturebcontribution towards climate trends. This would represent a global figure rise over the decades of only 0.07c per decade at most, not even taking into account natural variability.
The report reads like New, New, Bafflegab trying to delete the Cold Spot and imply that this means the Null Hypothetical Hot Spot is real, after all. Another effort to tangle the web and continue weaving.