By S. Fred Singer (first published in American Thinker)
Global warming has re-entered public consciousness in recent days, partly because of the buzz surrounding the release of warming results from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. The reaction of the “warmistas” has been jubilant, yet hilariously wrong. Will they ever learn?
They’ve latched on to the BEST result as their last best hope for rescuing misbegotten schemes to control emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2. Leading the pack has been the Washington Post (Oct. 25), whose columnist tried to write off Republican presidential candidates Bachmann, Cain, and Perry as “cynical diehards,” deniers, idiots, or whatever.
I sent the WP a letter pointing out obvious errors, but I got a peculiar response. It turned out that they were willing to publish my letter, but not my credentials as emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Apparently, they were concerned that readers might gain the impression that I knew something about climate.
Unfortunately, it has become expedient (for those who condemn CO2 as the cause of warming) to deride their opponents with terms like “climate deniers.” A complacent and inattentive media has made the problem worse, by giving the impression that anyone who doesn’t buy the CO2 hypothesis doesn’t believe that climate changes, and hence is a total Luddite. Even the WSJ got carried away. Prof. Richard Muller, the originator and leader of the BEST study, complained to me that some eager editor changed the title of his op-ed (Oct. 21) to “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism” from his original “Cooling the Global Warming Debate. ”
The (formerly respected) scientific journal Nature chimed in and announced in an (Oct. 26) editorial[i] that any results confirming “climate change” (meaning anthropogenic global warming — AGW) are welcome, even when released before peer review. Of course, we’ve known for many years that Nature does not welcome any contrary science results, but it’s nice to have this confirmation.
Their hearts filled with bubbling joy and their brains befuddled, none of the warmistas have apparently listened to the somewhat skeptical pronouncements from Prof. Muller. He emphasizes that the analysis is based only on land data, covering less than 30% of the earth’s surface and housing recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in the U.S. and Western Europe. In addition, he admits that 70% of U.S. stations are badly sited and don’t meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is probably worse. He disclaims to know the cause of the warming found by BEST and favors naturally caused oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system that no climate model has yet simulated or explained.
The fact that the BEST results agree with previously published analyses of warming trends from land stations may indicate only that there is something very wrong with all of these. There are two entirely different ways to interpret this agreement on surface warming. It might indicate important confirmation, but logic allows for an alternate possibility: since both results rely on surface thermometers, they are not really independent and could be subject to similar fundamental errors. For example, both datasets could be affected by urban heat islands or other non-global effects — like local heating of airports, where traffic has been growing steadily.
But the main reason I have remained a skeptic is that the atmosphere, unlike the land surface, has shown no warming during the crucial period (1978-1997), either over land or over ocean, according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. And did you know that climate models run on high-speed computers all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface — and so does atmospheric theory?
BEST has no data from the oceans, which cover 71% of the planet’s surface. True, oceans are not subject to urban heat islands, but they have problems with instrumentation. It is very likely that the reported warming during 1978-97 is simply an artifact — the result of the measurement scheme rather than an actual warming. Anyway, supporting data don’t show any ocean warming, either.
And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called proxies: tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, stalagmites. Most of these haven’t shown any warming since 1940!
Contrary to some commentary, BEST in no way confirms the scientifically discredited hockey stick graph, which was based on multi-proxy analysis and had been so eagerly adopted by climate alarmists. In fact, the hockey stick authors never published their post-1978 temperatures in their 1998 paper in Nature — or since. Their proxy record suddenly just stops in 1978 — and is then replaced by a thermometer record that shows rapid warming. The reason for hiding the post-1978 proxy data: it’s likely that they show no warming. Why don’t we try to find out?
None of the warmistas can explain why the climate hasn’t warmed in the 21st century, while CO2 has been increasing rapidly. It’s no wonder that Herman Cain, a former math and computer science major in college, says that “man-made global warming is poppycock” (NYT, Nov. 12). He blames climate fears on “scientists who tried to concoct the science” and “were busted because they tried to manipulate the data.”
Mr. Cain is not far from the truth — at least when one listens to Rich Muller. Muller’s careful to make no claim whatsoever that the warming he finds is due to human causes. He tells us that one third of the stations show cooling, not warming. Muller admits that “the uncertainty [involved in these stations] is large compared to the analyses of global warming.” He nevertheless insists that if he uses a large enough set of bad numbers, he could get a good average. I am not so sure.
Muller thinks that he has eliminated the effects of local heating, like urban heat islands. But this is a difficult undertaking, and many doubt that the BEST study has been successful in this respect. Some of Muller’s severest critics are fellow physicists: Lubos Motl in the Czech Republic and Don Rapp in California. Somewhat harshly, perhaps, Rapp would change the study designation from BEST to “WORST” (World Overview of Representative Station Temperatures).
I am one of those doubters. While many view the apparent agreement of BEST with previous analyses as confirmation, I wonder about the logic. It might be a good idea if BEST would carry out some prudent internal cheeks:
** Plot number of stations used between 1970 and 2000 and make sure that there have been no significant changes in what I call the “demographics”: station latitudes, altitudes, or anything that could induce an artificial warming trend.
**I would pay particular attention to the fraction of temperature records from airport stations — generally considered among the best-maintained, but subject to large increases in local warming.
** I would also decompose the global record of BEST into regions to see if the results hold up.
Of course, the most important checks must come from records that are independent of weather station thermometers: atmospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures, and temperatures from non-thermometer proxy data. But even then, it may be difficult to pinpoint the exact causes of climate change.
I conclude, therefore, that the balance of evidence favors little if any global warming during 1978-1997. It contradicts the main conclusion of the IPCC — i.e., that recent warming is “very likely” (90-99% certain) caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases like CO2.
And finally, what to do if CO2 is the main cause, and if a modest warming has bad consequences — as so many blindly assume? I am afraid that the BEST project and Muller are of no help.
On the one hand, Muller is dismissive of policies to control CO2 emissions in the U.S. — much less in his State of California. In an Oct. 31 interview with the Capital Report of New Mexico, he stated:
… the public needs to know this, that anything we do in the United States will not affect global warming by a significant amount. Because, all projections show that most of the future carbon dioxide is going to be coming from China, India, and the developing world. … [A]nything we do that will not be followed by China and India is basically wasted.
On the other hand, Muller told MSNBC’s Morning Joe (Nov.14):
[W]e’re getting very steep warming … we are dumping enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we’re working in a dangerous realm, where I think, we may really have trouble in the next coming decades.
So take your choice. But remember — there is no evidence at all for significant future warming. BEST is a valuable effort, but it does not settle the climate debate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As for geomagnetic activity, see for yourself: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-2008.png As for sunspots
Tom_R says:
November 17, 2011 at 7:27 pm
>> John B says:
November 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm
It amazes me the lengths some people will go to to avoid truths they don’t like. UHI effect is real, but it does not skew the global temperature records. Deal with it! <<
So you resort to truth by fiat? How typical of a religious believer.
1. UHI changes with time.
2. These changes have not been measured.
3. There are very few totally non-urban weather stations. Even the top-rated stations can be affected by UHI as well as local microclimate changes.
4. The years between 1950 and 1980 were marked by at least three major additions that add significant heat to a local microclimate: air conditioning, air travel, and the use of black asphalt for paving. During these years there were no satellite measurements.
—————————–
Tom, Not by fiat at all. I said earlier in the thread that 'umpteen' studies had shown that UHI does not skew te temperature record. I was then asked to provide links to at least one such study, and I provided two. The evidence is there for all to see, but here is another way of looking at it:
Most of the globe is not urban, in fact most of it is not even land. Much of the fraction that is urban (I think I read 2% of land area, but I can't track that down right now) has been urban over the whole period we are interested in. So that doesn't leave much area to have a skewing effect, even if nothing else were done. But other things are done: Believe it or not, they don't average stations, they average gridded areas, so it doesn't matter that there are more stations per square mile in urban areas. On top of that, there are mathematical techniques that look for changes from a station's record that are out of step with neighbouring stations, and therefore probably caused by extraneous factors like a siting change or, yes, urbanisation. Step changes like that are removed from the trend contributions.
So that is the theory of why UHI doesn't skew the records, and the empirical evidence is in the studies I referred to earlier and others like them. And here's another link that explains the same thing:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
Theo, hope that answers your question ("Why?"), too.
It really is time skeptics stopped clutching at this particular straw.
If this is true, Dick has an actionable cause against the editor. Editors can make up headlines but they cannot mis-portray your views. Not unless you allow them to. First step, rather than complain to Fred, would be to contact the Editor in Chief at WSJ in writing with a complaint. See where that goes.
Newpapers can do a lot of things, but they cannot lie, unless those whom they lie about allow it to happen. Mis-characterizing what Dr. Muller said to portray it as the opposite of his views has been construed by the courts to be the same as lying.
The fact that Dr. Muller isn’t raising more of a fuss about it doesn’t (unfortunately) lend any credence to the notion that he is a skeptic.
If the papers chose to report something I said and imply I strongly believed/supported that which I held to be false; you would know it. I would probably be arrested for spraypainting it on their building. It would be on every website with a comment section.
Dr. Muller seems to play to whatever audience is in front of him. But he knows which side of his bread is buttered.
John B says “On top of that, there are mathematical techniques that look for changes from a station’s record that are out of step with neighbouring stations, and therefore probably caused by extraneous factors like a siting change or, yes, urbanisation. Step changes like that are removed from the trend contributions.”
But those mathematical techniques are exactly what are in question because they are used without any documentation of a siting or instrumental change. In fact when the massive switch in instruments happened in the 80’s there was very little adjustment during that period. They massively adjusted the data else where because simply it does not fit a trend at a neighboring site, and it is adjusted very asymmetrically. If those temperature changes were simply a function of regional weather patterns, indeed the temperatures should be more homogenous. However the raw data reported that such homogeneity was in fact very very rare. Instead of accepting that lack of homogeneity, they adjusted the data to fit their preconceptions whenever their was a pairwise mismatch. And as I stated earlier and it has been well documented, the dynamical difference between day time convection and night time inversions predicts that minimum temperatures will have many more inhomogeneities.
One should suspect that a drift in the thermometer calibrations would affect max and min data proportionately. Likewise for a relocation. Individual changes in a site that cause different exposure to direct sun would create differences amongst stations and affect max temps. However it is the minimum temperatures that are adjusted most often, and quite disproportionately to max data. And it has been the minimum temperatures most responsible for the rise in the reported rise in average heating. Look at Amherst Ma and Cuyamaca CA, very different environments subjected to very different ocean effects separated by 3000 miles. Yet both have their raw minimum temperatures adjusted to create the samee trend that is in gross disagreement with their station’s max adjustments and the raw data. It those mathematical algorithms used to “diagnose” change points that assume there should be a more uniform trend, while ignoring known oscillations. And this appears to have generate a systematic bias.
If you look at research on flowering times over the past century in western USA and England, the data supports peaks in the 30’s and 90’s. Arctic temperatures north of 70 degrees, likewise suggest there was a similar warm peak in the 30’s and today. Peak melting of glaciers in the Swiss Alps occurred in the 30’s and 40’s, followed by a period of advance and then by a second but less intensive receding of glaciers around the 90’s. Thus several well documented and published research all validate these bimodal peaks observed in raw data for minimum temperatures. However the adjustments homogenize those oscillating temperatures and create a steep linear trend of increasing temperatures. And minimum has driven the average with 3 times the weight of the maximum.
Several researchers looking at the global tree ring divergence problem have likewise suggested if maximum temperatures are used then our instruments and trees are talking the same language. D’ Arrigo was trying to solve the divergence problem and had to choose between adjustments from CAnadian Weather Bureau or NASA. The Canadian adjustments created a much less steeper trend and less of a divergence. Whether using old NASA homogenizations or BEST’s scalpel and splicing techniques, it is the undocumented changes to minimum temperatures that are highly suspect, and thus should be the focus of instrumental temperature debate. Singer’s comments seem much too casual to be supported out of hand. However he does point to a legitimate concern that some of the trend maybe an “artifact” and thus a function of subjective adjustments, not what the raw data has directly observed.
Jim Steele says:
November 18, 2011 at 9:10 am
…
———————————————
…and in any case, the most warming is seen in high Northern latitudes (as predicted by AGW, incidentally) where there is liitle urbanisation.
Multiple lines of evidence, all pointing the same way. That’s how science works!
John B says:
November 18, 2011 at 9:24 am
“Multiple lines of evidence, all pointing the same way. That’s how science works! . . . .”
No, John, you are wrong. Here’s how science works; you observe a phenomenon. You form a hypothesis about how the phenomenon works. You devise and experiment and collect empirical data.
You then study the data and draw a conclusion. THEN YOU SHARE ALL OF YOUR DATA AND METHODOLOGY, giving other scientists the opportunity to reproduce them. No where are there subjective ‘adjustments’ to the data. Nowhere do you get to lose your archived data or claim it is proprietary. Nowhere do you get to hide anything by refusing to comply with FOI laws. Nowhere do you get to game peer review. Nowhere to you get to conspire to exclude dissent from scientific debate.
But this all glosses over the real question of this article; why are Fred and Judith reporting that Dr. Muller is telling them one thing, then saying something completely at odds to what they have reported when talking to the press or to congress?
My understanding is that telling congress something you believe not to be true is a punishable crime. There’s three possibilities; Either he’s lying to professional scientists or to congress or Judith and Fred are both lying to us. I tend to doubt that very seriously. I don’t think either of them would ever mis-characterize what a fellow scientist told them. Mind you; they are pilloried and held in contempt by their colleagues for their refusal to ‘go along to get along’, but their integrity is seldom questioned by serious people.
Oh, and one more observation; multiple lines of evidence pointing in the same direction do not amount to science either. That is in fact the opposite of science. You must disprove the null hypothesis, not give corroborating evidence that your hypothesis is correct. Scientific advancement does not take place in a court room, consensus doesn’t matter, and eventually those who ‘adjust’ or hide their data and obfuscate their methodology are shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Always.
It will be fun to watch, assuming that there are any free people left to observe it when it happens.
John B says “and in any case, the most warming is seen in high Northern latitudes (as predicted by AGW, incidentally) where there is liitle urbanisation.”
Your response indicate you choose to ignore the minimum temperatures paradoxes, so I will assume that you do not disagree with those issues. Instead you choose to redirect the issue to the poles. So be it.
The models you refer to typically overestimated warming in Antarctica and grossly underestimated the rising temperatures in the Arctic. This was so because their models are driven by CO2 and do not adequately describe the oceans redistribution of heat. In Antarctica the circumpolar current prevents incursions of warm water, and thus Antarctica’s temperatures are not confounded so greatly by ocean dynamics, At the south pole during the winter night, where only water vapor no longer has any role, and convection quelled, only radiative heating by CO2 should effect the temperatures. BUt there has been a significant decline in winter temperatures at the South Pole. Sea ice coverage has not declined but increased, despite most Antarctic Ice being annual ice. Not a modeled prediction.
The models the predicted polar amplification were based on CO2 induced loss of snow and ice and the resulting loss of albedo. The warm lower layers of PAcific and Atlantic waters then can release heat and “amplify” the temperatures. However this could also be seen as a cooling of sequestered heat, not a warming of the ocean. And any other variable that impacts sea ice loss, would result in the same amplification. In fact radiosonde measurements over the northpole indicated a cooling similar to the south pole. I believe the paper was Kahl 1994 and Serreze was a co-author.
In the Arctic, the ice melt is not symmetrical. The greatest loss occurs around the Barents Sea and Chukchi where incursions from the Atlantic and Pacific have a tremendous impact. Likewise several studies have correlated warm water incursions to changes in the North Atlantic Oscillations and Pacific Oscillations respectively. Furthermore Rigor 2004, has shown that much of the ice loss was caused by sub-freeezing winds from Siberia moving ice away from the coast. Thus much of the open water was caused by cold winds, and such a phenomenon is well studied because open water polynyas are likewise formed winds, and are critical for wildlife at both poles. The winds have moved out the old multi-year ice making the release of heat from the ocean easier. There is much to do made about the Arctic’s multi-year ice, while Antacrtica has very little multi-year ice and yet the ice has increased. Furthermore several papers have challenged the polar amplification and pointed to the rising Alaskan temperatures as function of the PDO. The PDO shifted wind fields that not only redirected warmer air, but disrupted thermal inversions that generated warming much like happens in more populated areas.
Several papers by Woodgate has implicated that much of the ice melting was further advanced by incursions of warmer water that likely are associated with the PDO and NAO. In order to determine how much warming can be attributed to CO2, reserachers have tried to subtract the effects of these natural oscillations. Shimada has shown that despite the current shift in the PDO and the cooling of waters now entering the Bering Strait, the current lack of ice has allowed winds to vertically mix the ocean layers and bring warmer waters to the surface and create a positive feedback that temporarily maintains the lack of ice. If so, the current trend to a negative PDO and the dwindling of warm water incursions, suggests the Arctic ice will return in within a decade.
Papers in the 90’s from Levitus or Shindell and other all noted that much of the warming could indeed be accounted for by the positive trends in the NAO and AO. They all then argued that these oscillations were greatly influenced by CO2 and thus predicted that these positive trends will continue. Shortly thereafter, in contradiction to their modeled results these oscillations have now gone negative.
If you look at Hansen’ s 80’s paper where he presented the 3 scenarios which the CO2 advocates still point to as a modeling victory, one of Hansen’s predictions of warming was indeed close to future observation. But was he right for the wrong reasons? If yo look at his ocean temperatures there is a uniform rise in temperatures, but the PDO which was named after his modeled prediction, the bipolar shifts in warming and cooling completely discredits that modeled interpretation of temperature rise. He was wrong because the models were driven by CO2 that uniformly adds heat to the globe, and was unaware of the PDO. Those models do not accurately account for natural variations that redistribute heat from the oceans. And that is why they underestimated the Arctic and over estimate the Antarctic heating. The modeled result you hold onto were inaccurate but luckily got some warming correct but for the wrong reasons. Many are now scrambling to suggest that those same oscillations are and will be hiding the “real” warming. And they call skeptics deniers.
>> John B says:
November 18, 2011 at 7:43 am
Tom, Not by fiat at all. I said earlier in the thread that ‘umpteen’ studies had shown that UHI does not skew te temperature record. I was then asked to provide links to at least one such study, and I provided two. The evidence is there for all to see, but here is another way of looking at it:
Most of the globe is not urban, in fact most of it is not even land. Much of the fraction that is urban (I think I read 2% of land area, but I can’t track that down right now) has been urban over the whole period we are interested in. So that doesn’t leave much area to have a skewing effect, even if nothing else were done. But other things are done: Believe it or not, they don’t average stations, they average gridded areas, so it doesn’t matter that there are more stations per square mile in urban areas. On top of that, there are mathematical techniques that look for changes from a station’s record that are out of step with neighbouring stations, and therefore probably caused by extraneous factors like a siting change or, yes, urbanisation. Step changes like that are removed from the trend contributions.
So that is the theory of why UHI doesn’t skew the records, and the empirical evidence is in the studies I referred to earlier and others like them. And here’s another link that explains the same thing: <<
1. You linked to two abstracts about Chinese UHI. I cannot comment on the actual method they used, since the full paper is behind a paywall (assuming they actually describe the method in detail in the full paper). It is certainly not there 'for all to see.' However, in the first case the abstract claimed to use SST from 1950. I have doubts there are any meaningful measurements of SST until satellites measured it, and maybe not even until ARGO.
2. Your explanation in no way supports your claim. If urban heat affects only 2% of the land area but stations are predominantly in urban areas, then the gridding will exaggerate the UHI effect. The mathematical techniques add warming to sites as well as removing UHI from others, see Willis' analysis of what happened in Darwin. You may have FAITH in the mathematical techniques, but they have been proven to give ridiculous results when inspected more closely.
3. The BEST data show 1/3 of the stations trend to cooling. These stations are not bunched together, but spread among the warming stations. Regional variation cannot explain this. Either there are local microclimate or UHI effects that explain the differences, or the data is just garbage to begin with. If the former, since almost all microclimate changes are in the direction of warming the 2:1 ratio of warming vs. cooling can be explained without CO2, and without being global. If the latter, then pre-satellite global temperature measurements are worthless.
Jim,
The data and methods are all there. Manns’s data and methods, GISSTemp, HADCRUT, it’s all there. The “adjustments” were done for good reason, e.g. to correct for urbanisation, or elsewhere to correct for orbital decay, all sorts of reasons, but none of them dishonest. There is no conspiracy!!!
Here, try this for starters…
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/MANNETAL98/
See, data and methods. If you really think Mann screwed up, redo his work. And if you think UHI is not being treated properly, do it for yourself. That’s what Muller did and, if I remember correctly, he was lauded as a skeptic right up until he issued results that pseduo-skeptics didn’t like. Funny that.
Tom,
Just to pick you up on one point along your Gish Gallop:
“If urban heat affects only 2% of the land area but stations are predominantly in urban areas, then the gridding will exaggerate the UHI effect.”
No! If you can’t even understand this point, what hope have you got? The measured temperatures are added in to the average according to the area they represent, so if one area has 100 as many stations as another equal area, each station in the former area contributes 1/100 as much as each station in the latter. So the more densely represented area, in terms of station numbers, is not over-represented in the average. Do you get that?
You are clutching at straws to avoid accepting the unwelcome truth.
John B says:
“The data and methods are all there. Manns’s data and methods, GISSTemp, HADCRUT, it’s all there. The “adjustments” were done for good reason, e.g. to correct for urbanisation, or elsewhere to correct for orbital decay, all sorts of reasons, but none of them dishonest. There is no conspiracy!!!”
I never said there was a dishonest conspiracy. 1)I said there is a systematic bias created by attempts to homegenized data they should not have been unless documented. And there are a few published papers suggesting likewise. I am familiar with the methods and your reference to them is another misdirection on your part. I argued that the method of pairwise matching that then forces an assumed homogeneity needs further debate. I supported that by indicating that adjustments are done differently to max and minimum temperatures are very different because minimum temperatures will present many more pairwise inconsistencies. My first impression was BEST was avoiding those adjustments, but after reading their results they clearly indicated their scalpel techniques require even more adjustments 2) I offered several lines of research the clearly indicated that raw temperatures were not out of line with natural changes. I offered two weather stations at Amherst and Cuyamaca as examples but we can peruse the online USHCN and find several hundred similar adjustments. I ask you to explain why this systmatic bias creates a preponderance of steep linear trends and obliterates the raw data oscillating data.
Unable for whatever reasons to address those very reasonable questions, you switch to the polar amplification. And on that issue there is a greater abundance of debate over natural causes versus CO2 within the climate science community. And I pointed to several papers data bases. Again unable to respond to reasonable debate you deflect the issue with suggesting I “redo Mann’s research”. I thought we were debating substantive science not playing dodge ball.
Jim,
My sincere apologies, I was responding to Bob Kutz, who said:
“You then study the data and draw a conclusion. THEN YOU SHARE ALL OF YOUR DATA AND METHODOLOGY, giving other scientists the opportunity to reproduce them. No where are there subjective ‘adjustments’ to the data. Nowhere do you get to lose your archived data or claim it is proprietary. Nowhere do you get to hide anything by refusing to comply with FOI laws. Nowhere do you get to game peer review. Nowhere to you get to conspire to exclude dissent from scientific debate.”
I see why you thought I was being off-topic. Sorry again. But, on the thoer hand, I wouldn’t say I “switched” to polar amplification. I introduced it as yet another line of evidence that implies the surface temperature recrd is reliable and not tainted by the UHI.
John
>> John B says:
No! If you can’t even understand this point, what hope have you got? The measured temperatures are added in to the average according to the area they represent, so if one area has 100 as many stations as another equal area, each station in the former area contributes 1/100 as much as each station in the latter. So the more densely represented area, in terms of station numbers, is not over-represented in the average. Do you get that? <<
I get that.
If a grid square has one station, odds are the station is near a population center and UHI is spread over a whole square. If more than 80% of the stations are critically flawed, then microclimate effects will corrupt 80% of the grid squares with one station. And grid squares that have no stations will have the temperature anomoly interpolated from the nearest stations which are odds-on to be near population centers and have microclimate warming. Do you get that?
Gridding just corrects for station density. It does not correct for UHI, but can magnify it as in the examples I gave. Do you get that?
Tom,
Do you have any idea of how little of the Earth’s surface is “urban”? Even if corrections weren’t applied, the UHI effect would be small. With proper, honest, statistically-principled corrections, it is miniscule. Give it up, fight a better battle.
John
John B doesn’t understand what’s going on. Most temperature recording stations have been eliminated. The remaining stations are almost all urban.
JohnB says “My sincere apologies” Accepted and I look forward to continue a more focused debate.
JohnB says “I see why you thought I was being off-topic. Sorry again. But, on the thoer hand, I wouldn’t say I “switched” to polar amplification. I introduced it as yet another line of evidence that implies the surface temperature recrd is reliable and not tainted by the UHI.”
I also never argued that the record was tainted by UHI. My argument remains that undocumented inhomogeneities are being adjusted when they they shouldn’t. I pointed to the dynamic of thermal inversions that leads to greater pairwise mismatches in minimum temperature. The warming impact caused by changing wind fields redistributes heat when it disrupts thermal inversions, and thermal inversions are more pronounced the further towards the pole we travel. I am not calling the documented-adjusted-surface temperatures tainted. I have totally accepted all adjustments when fully documented. I do suggest that some adjusted surface data is indeed questionable and perhaps tainted by the pairwise methodology that assumes homogeneity where there is likely none to be found in reality. Ironically it can be said that those making adjustments based purely on statistical change point methodologies, are suggesting the raw data is more tainted than it really is. The raw observation data even after all documented changes have been processed, argues that homogeneity is rare. So why do it?
So to focus our discussion more, my questions is more about attribution. I argue that maximum temperatures reflect well mixed air masses and thus are better indicators of heating trends both natural and anthropogenic. The max temps indicate a much less severe trend. I further suggest that changes in minimum will not only reflect the same real trends as in max temps, but will confound the results by misdiagnosing the trends due to the redistribution of heat that is common when thermal inversions are disrupted by changes in wind fields and land use.
I readily debated your “switch” to polar amplification because the arctic temperature increases are probably the best example of dramatic rising temperatures that are likely caused by the redistribution of heat.And that’s why AGW models underestimated the warming. But I assume your reference to it, assumes that if justifies attributing the changes to the radiative warming of increased CO2, but there is wealth of research that suggests other more powerful factors. Papers like “Arctic climate change: observed and modelled temperature and sea-ice variability” 2004 by Johannessen et al is often cited as modeling evidence that only with CO2 can we simulate recent Arctic warming. However if you look at his Figure 1, after they add all the CO2 and sulfates to mimic and fine tune the model to the recent warming, the documented warming of the 30s simultaneously and inexplicably disappears. They got the recent temperatures right at the expense of obliterating historic natural rises. Like I mentioned earlier, these models keep missing because the have not adequately simulated the natural redistribution of heat, whether at the poles or with minimum temperature adjustments, and they then assume all warming trends are driven by CO2. And you appear to assume likewise.
John B says:
November 18, 2011 at 10:26 am
“…See, data and methods. If you really think Mann screwed up, redo his work. And if you think UHI is not being treated properly, do it for yourself. That’s what Muller did and, if I remember correctly, he was lauded as a skeptic right up until he issued results that pseduo-skeptics didn’t like. Funny that.”
John B, funny that straw man you created. Actually many questioned and warned Anthony not to trust Muller, warning which were demonstrated to be accurate. Or do you see no disconnect between what Muller says to J.Curry and other scientist, and what he says to the press? The fact that you still defend Mann speaks volumes.
Jim Steele says:
November 18, 2011 at 11:48 am
…
So to focus our discussion more, my questions is more about attribution. .
…
——————————-
But that is a whole other discussion. This thread is about BEST, and Muller specifically said they were not looking at attribution. They concluded that the surface temperature record is as reliable as mainstream scientists always said it was. Do you accept that?
David says:
November 18, 2011 at 12:07 pm
John B says:
November 18, 2011 at 10:26 am
“…See, data and methods. If you really think Mann screwed up, redo his work. And if you think UHI is not being treated properly, do it for yourself. That’s what Muller did and, if I remember correctly, he was lauded as a skeptic right up until he issued results that pseduo-skeptics didn’t like. Funny that.”
John B, funny that straw man you created. Actually many questioned and warned Anthony not to trust Muller, warning which were demonstrated to be accurate. Or do you see no disconnect between what Muller says to J.Curry and other scientist, and what he says to the press? The fact that you still defend Mann speaks volumes.
—————————————–
David, I don’t know, or care, what Muller said to whom, what matters is his results. And on the issue of defending Mann (which I only did in response to Bob Kutz), try this: forget everything you have read on the blogosphere and go out and look for yourself at whether it is true that Mann’s results relied on one tree, or an upside down proxy, or that he hid and continues to hide his methods and data. I alreeady provided a link to his methods and data, publicly available to anyone who cares to look, but go and do your own research. Then you might see why he just won a medal. Oh sorry, I forgot, the Eurpoean Goesciences Union are in on the conspiracy, too.
Tom_R says:
November 18, 2011 at 11:25 am
If more than 80% of the stations are critically flawed, [then microclimate effects will corrupt 80% of the grid squares with one station.]
——————-
And where on Earth do yet get that statistic from?
“John Whitman says:
November 18, 2011 at 12:32 am”
Nice interpretation or clarification as to what Singer is talking about when he says, “the atmosphere, unlike the land surface, has shown no warming during the crucial period (1978-1997)….” Thanks!
I thought he was talking about the “fingerprint”, too. Anyway, as I take it the argument is: there has been no recorded atmospheric “hot spot” [anywhere] and no increase in Oceanic heat, so the increased surface temps must be off/wrong as per Lindzen’s idea involving faulty near surface sampling in the tropics due to layer inhomogeneity below 2km. If that’s the logic, it makes sense of Singer’s statement, to me at least.
JohB says “But that is a whole other discussion. This thread is about BEST, and Muller specifically said they were not looking at attribution. They concluded that the surface temperature record is as reliable as mainstream scientists always said it was. Do you accept that?”
Come on John. You brought up the polar amplification and added it to the debate. But now you want to limit it to simply an intellectual drive-by shooting?
And yes this thread is about BEST, and Muller did say he is not looking at attribution. However that is an inappropriate demarcation. Regards to data adjustment attribution is implied whenever the data is adjusted without documentation. Change point detection is statistically neutral as long as it is merely pointing out change points. However when the data is subsequently adjusted and that change point is assumed to have been the result of human error, the data adjusters have engaged in attribution. Do you accept that? Which station now represents the best trend? Why are so many USHCN station adjusted similarly?
I will continue with the Amherst MA data but I can pull up 100 of others from the USHCN.
Compare the adjustments to the raw data for max and minimum and the explain why they differ so greatly and then explain how you can believe there is no implied attribution when those changes were done primarily on undocumented change points.. Notice how the peaks in the minimum are dramatically obliterated. Notice the huge difference in max and min adjustments. Based on what? You can’t hide behind “no attribution”.
MAX Raw: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=190120&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2010.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMAXRAW&minyear=1895&maxyear=2010
Max Adjust: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=190120&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2010.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMAX&minyear=1895&maxyear=2010
Raw minimum: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=190120&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2010.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMINRAW&minyear=1895&maxyear=2010
Raw adjusted: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=190120&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2010.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMIN&minyear=1895&maxyear=2010
John B says:
November 18, 2011 at 11:34 am
“Tom,
Do you have any idea of how little of the Earth’s surface is “urban”? Even if corrections weren’t applied, the UHI effect would be small. With proper, honest, statistically-principled corrections, it is miniscule. Give it up, fight a better battle.”
John B, interesting that you say this. It is perfectly true, less then 1%, but wait how many stations are in urban areas? Why do rural temp averages looks differently? You might have a look at RUTI which uses only rural data:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php
Jim,
I’m not hiding behind attribution. But I am saying it’s not the point of this thread (I only introduced polar amplifiation to point out that there has been most warming where there is no possibility of UHI). Now, you said you didn’t think there was a conspiracy – so that is good. But then you go on to question the adjustments. Why? They aren’t done to adjust for human error necessarily, they are done to correct for things that are not climatically likely, no matter what the cause. If a station suddenly jumps when those around it do not, the chances are something has happened – it might be land use, it might be siting, it might be urban sprawl, it might be all sorts of things, but it is not likely to be sudden, local climate change. So, the glitch is ignored. I don’t think they look at each station individually to see what caused the glitch, so in that sense there is no attempt at attribution. Do you doubt that that is (a) reasonable or (b) effective?
john
>> John B says:
November 18, 2011 at 11:34 am
Tom,
Do you have any idea of how little of the Earth’s surface is “urban”? Even if corrections weren’t applied, the UHI effect would be small. With proper, honest, statistically-principled corrections, it is miniscule. Give it up, fight a better battle. <<
You don't apply corrections to the entire Earth's surface. You apply corrections to station data, which are extrapolated over areas without station data to claim an anomaly of the temperature of the Earth's surface. Do you even understand that UHI affects the calculated anomaly, not the 'real' anomaly?