Guest post by Bob Tisdale
The Met Office released its global HadCRUT4 land plus sea surface DATA recently. The HadCRUT4 dataset was first presented in the Morice et al (2012) paper Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 dataset.
In the race to have the highest trend since 1976, does GISS LOTI still hold its lead, or has the new HadCRUT4 data overtaken GISS?
And the current winner is…
HadCRUT4 has the highest short-term (1976-2010) linear trend, at a whopping 0.177 deg C/decade.
Figure 1
On a long-term basis, the new HadCRUT4 data comes in a lowly third, just behind the dataset it obsoletes, HadCRUT3.
Figure 2
NCDC: If you’d like to get back in the short-term trend game, you can stop infilling Southern Ocean sea surface temperature, which has been cooling for decades and leave most of the grids at those latitudes blank like HADSST3. That would help to raise your trend. Or you can extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans in areas where there is sea ice, like GISS, to take advantage of the higher rate of warming of land surface temperature. That would help too.
MY FIRST BOOK
The IPCC claims that only the rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gases can explain the warming over the past 30 years. Satellite-based sea surface temperature disagrees with the IPCC’s claims. Most, if not all, of the rise in global sea surface temperature is shown to be the result of a natural process called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. This is discussed in detail in my first book, If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop their deceptive Ads?, which is available in pdf and Kindle editions. A copy of the introduction, table of contents, and closing can be found here.
SOURCES
The land plus sea surface temperature datasets are available through the following links:
Thanks, Anthony
Great characterization Bob!
Maintaining the original data will prove very interesting in the future, too – if it can be recovered and/or kept as originally taken.
Great characterization Bob!
Maintaining the original data will prove very interesting in the future, too – if it can be recovered and kept as originally taken.
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
Hi everyone. I’m trying to put together a team to comment blast over at Rabett Run. They maintain that there is big consensus about global warming so let’s put it to the test. If so many people believe in the hoax, let’s see how many people come to their defense!
When I see science unravelling cellular complexity or superconduction, I feel pride in the human race, but then when I see such amateurish deceptions as these grid tricks paraded as if it were actual climate science, I wonder how these two extremes of quality can coexist in the same magazine. The word ‘schizoid’ seems unbearably apt.
In the long run this kind of shoddiness will inevitably spread like a cancer over the rest of science, in effect killing it off. But then killing off science always been an inseparable part of the Leftist project.of truth-destruction, with the Team and their AGW mob as eager executioners.
paullm @ur momisugly April 17, 2012 at 11:19 am,
What you refer to as the “original data” is the ONLY data. Once it is infilled, homogenized, pasteurized, folded, bent, spindled and mutilated, it becomes “un-data”, which is then combined to form what is referred to as the global temperature record.
Data are. They are readings taken from instruments. Good data are data taken from properly selected, sited, calibrated, installed and maintained instruments, read timely. All other data are either bad data or missing data. No process, transparent or opaque, can turn bad data or missing data into good data. That is beyond the capability of Rumplestiltskin!
Hopefully, the reign of “data” that aren’t and “models” that don’t is about to end, if it hasn’t already.
A question. How many incarnations of HadCrut will we have until they just give up and simply apply an algorithm which increases the temp readings in the present and gradually decreases the values as it moves further away from the present? I think GISS’ method is much easier to apply. Why waste all that time?
Interesting – the long term trend since ~1900 of all four Surface Temperature (ST) datasets is ~0.07C per decade, equal to my 2008 calculation of the apparent warming bias exhibited by ST datasets when compared with UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures, measured from satellites since ~1979.
So, if we deduct the 0.07C/decade warming bias from the ST data since 1900, does that mean there is NO net global warming since 1900?
Probably not true, since the ST warming bias (due to UHI, etc.) cannot be extrapolated that far back in time.
However, if Earth exhibits more global cooling, we’ll soon be able to say with confidence that there has been no net global warming since ~1940, and that is when combustion of fossil fuels really accelerated.
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
At that point, we will be able to say with confidence that actual measurements demonstrate that climate sensitivity to CO2 is near-zero, and insignificant to humanity and the environment.
But then, we said this with confidence a decade ago, in 2002.
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Thanks Bob. Isn’t it lovely that they all match so well! We can only wonder what the unadjusted data would have looked like……
http://images.clipartof.com/small/103500-Border-Or-Colorful-Wavy-Lines-Stars-And-Circles-On-White-Poster-Art-Print.jpg
James Sexton @ur momisugly April 17, 2012 at 11:36 am,
I am sure your are familiar with the KISS method. (Keep it simple stupid.)
I am familiar with the GISS method. (Get it sloped stupid.)
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:
April 17, 2012 at 11:29 am
Hi everyone. I’m trying to put together a team to comment blast over at Rabett Run. They maintain that there is big consensus about global warming so let’s put it to the test.
===========================================================
Would this require interacting with that idiot who refers to himself in the 3rd person and his regulars as sycophant bunnies? Here, you might find this useful….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/anderegg-et-al-revisited/
In my view, that destroys any thoughts to a scientific consensus. ….. as to the public,….
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153875/Worry-Water-Air-Pollution-Historical-Lows.aspx
7 out of 10 people who bothered to answer say they global warming is a non-issue.
“When I see science unravelling cellular complexity or superconduction, I feel pride in the human race,”
I’m afraid super-conductivity is another example of scientists hanging on to a theory despite the data.
Bob–
Downloading Hadcrut 3 I get a year in the first variable followed by only 11 months.
This is pathetic. 0.177°C/decade is only 1.77°C in a century. We need way more to have the oceans boiling in the foreseeable future, because at this rate their surface would get barely more than one and a half degree warmer by the year 2100 AD than it is today.
Fortunately we can always add an arbitrarily steep linear function to our data, because no one, not even deniers can deny the fact that old thermometers were manufactured earlier than new ones.
GISS and Hadley are going to have to better than this. Latest US Gallop poll shows global warming last in eco-concerns, and falling.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/94pfnrbxveiiamtlzbennw.gif
Why does the data stop at 2010? We’re well into 2012 now.
Berényi Péter says:
April 17, 2012 at 12:07 pm
….
Fortunately we can always add an arbitrarily steep linear function to our data, because no one, not even deniers can deny the fact that old thermometers were manufactured earlier than new ones.
_______________________________________________________________
The older ones were likely better.
Lance Wallace says: “Downloading Hadcrut 3 I get a year in the first variable followed by only 11 months.”
Sorry, Lance. I should have included the earlier web page links for the individual datasets as well. Here’s the one for HadCRUT3:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
and for HadCRUT4:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/download.html
For the annual HadCRUT3&4 data, the first column is year. The second column is the temperature anomaly, but the remainder are not months. They’re uncertainty ranges. See for HadCRUT3:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/time-series.html
And for HadCrut4:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/series_format.html
Regards
How much of this warming is man made (anthropogenic) and how much is natural (modern warm period) ?
Fred N. says: “Why does the data stop at 2010? We’re well into 2012 now.”
As far as I know, they’re working on a way to update the sea surface temperature portion (HADSST3) on a timely basis. They must not have found it yet.
On the subject of data manipulation, anyone know whether the Icelandic Met Office got a proper reply from GHCN re the outrageous reworking of the Reykjavik temperature data? It’s been 10 weeks now. Did I miss it?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/another-giss-miss-this-time-in-iceland/
cui bono, no reply, 3 months after asking. See Paul Homewood’s blog notalotofpeopleknowthat for a sequence of posts on GHCN adjustments.
“Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:
April 17, 2012 at 11:29 am
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.”
I think this is a troll trying to gen traffic for his site.
Before starting my present academic career I spent more than twenty years as an Industrial Instrumentation, Measurement and Control Engineer and it just plain amuses me when I read the nonsense about measuring global temperatures. Bottom line is garbage in garbage out and no amount of data massaging can alter that fact. Until we get reliable and accurate temperatue measurements covering the whole globe then proxy this and proxy that spliced to here today gone tomorrow temperature measurements and constantly recalibrated satelllite radiance data will tell us only what the modeller wants us to see. It is not only disengenuous but downright dishonest for climate scientists to state that we can measure to such an accuracy let alone produce trends which are then used to squander billions in tax payers monies worlwide on such nonsense as AGW. But then everyone seems to be awed by the Emperors new clothes and chasing green research grants to state the obvious. Sorry if that offends anyone but it seems that so much of this modelling is really just to obscure the fact that the initial data is so poor.
Next year, last year will be colder than you thought, although next year will be hotter than last year by a lot more than you thought …sheez where was I.