Curry on the Cowtan & Way 'pausebuster': 'Is there anything useful [in it]?"

Dr. Judith Curry writes about the Cowtan and Way paper which (according to some pundits) purports to “bust” the temperature pause of the last 17 years by claiming we just didn’t pay enough attention to the Arctic and Antarctic where there is no data. They do this by infilling data where there is none, such as NASA GISS tries to do by infilling temperatures from stations far away with their smoothing algorithm.

GISS station data with 250km smoothing:

GISS_polar_250KM

GISS station data with 1200km smoothing:

GISS_polar_1200KM

Breathless interpreters of Cowtan & Way claim that by doing the same with satellite data instead of tortured surface data, Voilà “the pause” disappears.

Cowtan & Way are trying to address this lack of surface station data in these regions by doing infill from satellite data. At first glance, this seems an admirable and reasonable goal, but one should always be wary of trying to create data where there is none, something we learned about in Steig et al’s discredited paper on the supposed Antarctic warming. Plus, as some WUWT readers know, there’s a reason that satellite temperature data coverage doesn’t fully cover the poles. See the information on the UAH data at the bottom of this post.

A video of their methodology follows.

WUWT readers will note the before and after HadCRUT imagery from Cowtan & Way below. Take special note of the Arctic.

Cowtan-Wray_before-after

A discussion on that Arctic temperature infilling addition at high latitude follows Dr. Curry’s analysis.

Dr Judith Curry writes:

=============================================================

Let’s take a look at the 3 methods they use to fill in missing data, primarily in Africa, Arctic, and Antarctic.

  1. 1.  Kriging
  2. 2.  UAH satellite analyses of surface air temperature
  3. 3.  NCAR NCEP reanalysis

The state that most of the difference in their reconstructed global average comes from the Arctic, so I focus on the Arctic (which is where I have special expertise in any event).

First, Kriging.  Kriging across land/ocean/sea ice boundaries makes no physical sense.  While the paper cites Rigor et al. (2000) that shows ‘some’ correlation in winter between land and sea ice temps at up to 1000 km, I would expect no correlation in other seasons.

Second, UAH satellite analyses.  Not useful at high latitudes in the presence of temperature inversions and not useful over sea ice (which has a very complex spatially varying microwave emission signature).  Hopefully John Christy will chime in on this.

Third, re reanalyses in the Arctic. See Fig 1 from this paper, which gives you a sense of the magnitude of grid point errors for one point over an annual cycle.  Some potential utility here, but reanalyses are not useful for trends owing to temporal inhomogeneities in the datasets that are assimilated.

So I don’t think Cowtan and Wray’s [sic] analysis adds anything to our understanding of the global surface temperature field and the ‘pause.’

The bottom line remains Ed Hawkins’ figure that compares climate model simulations for regions where the surface observations exist.  This is the appropriate way to compare climate models to surface observations, and the outstanding issue is that the climate models and observations disagree.

aahawkins

Is there anything useful from Cowtan and Wray?  Well, they raise the issue that we should try to figure out some way obtain the variations of surface temperature over the Arctic Ocean.  This is an active topic of research.

===============================================================

More from the same post at Dr. Curry’s site here

What is really funny is how Dana Nuccitelli has done an about-face since the satellite data now supports his argument. In his Guardian 97% piece [cited in Dr. Curry’s article] he’s all for this method.

But, just two years ago he was trashing the UAH satellite data on SKS as “misinformation”.

Dana_bozoed_UAH

[http://www.skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part1.html]

But Dana thinks UAH data is apparently OK today. What a plonker.

I will give Dr. Cowtan props though for realizing what the hypers don’t. He says this in the Guardian article:

“No difficult scientific problem is ever solved in a single paper. I don’t expect our paper to be the last word on this, but I hope we have advanced the discussion.

I give him props for having a sense of reality, something sorely lacking in climate science today.

Here’s why trying to use the satellite data to infill surface data at the poles is problematic:

Take a look at this latest image for 1000mb (near the surface) from the polar orbiting satellite NOAA-18, one of the satellites UAH now uses for temperature data:

NOAA18_polar_1000mb

Source: NOAA/NESDIS Office of Satellite Data Processing and Distribution (OSDPD)

Note how the data near the poles starts to get spotty with coverage? Note also how the plot doesn’t go to 90N or 90S?

NOAA doesn’t even try to plot data from there, for the reasons that Dr. Curry has given:

Second, UAH satellite analyses.  Not useful at high latitudes in the presence of temperature inversions and not useful over sea ice (which has a very complex spatially varying microwave emission signature).

NOAA knows high latitude near-pole data will be noisy and not representative, so they don’t even try to display it. UAH is the same way. Between the look-angle problem and the noise generated by sea ice, their data analysis stops short of the pole. RSS does the same due to the same physical constraints of orbit and look angle.

As you can see, the polar orbit isn’t truly polar. Here are maps from UCAR that helps to visualize the problem:

As you can see, the orbit path never reaches 90N or 90S.

Source: http://www.rap.ucar.edu/~djohnson/satellite/coverage.html#polar

They write:

Note that the orbit is slightly tilted towards the northwest and does not actually go over the poles. While the red path follows the earth track of the satellite, the transparent overlay indicates the coverage area for the AVHRR imaging instrument carried by NOAA/POES satellites. This instrument scans a roughly 3000 km wide swath. The map projection used in this illustration, a cylindrical equidistant projection, becomes increasingly distorted near the poles, as can be seen by the seeming explosion of the viewing area as the satellite nears its northern and southern most orbital limits.

CAPTION: This is a polar stereographic presentation of the north polar region, showing the tracks of seven consecutive overpasses by a polar orbiting satellite. This shows the considerable degree of overlap between consecutive orbits. The orbital period is slightly greater than 100 minutes, with just over 14 orbits in a day. These seven passes thus represent only about half of the daily passes over the north pole. Source: http://www.rap.ucar.edu/~djohnson/satellite/polar.html#north_pole

So, not only is the satellite coverage distorted at the poles due to the look angle, the look angle issue actually causes the satellite to image a wider swath of an area known to produce noisy and highly uncertain microwave data. Basically, the higher the latitude of the satellite imaging past about 60N/60S, the more uncertain the data gets.

It seems to me that all that Cowtan & Wray have done is swapped one type of highly uncertain data infilling with another. The claim that the addition of this highly uncertain data to HadCRUT4 seems to contradict ‘the pause’ most certainly isn’t proven yet, as even Dr. Cowtan admits to in his caveat.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

When you wrote “A video of their methodology follows”, I thought I was going to be treated to some amusing shots of chimpanzees flinging feces at one another. Well, same difference.

Judge

Way not Wray – “Robert G. Way”

MattN

Si, we don’t know anymore now than we did before, right?

ordvic

Dr Curry has a misspelling (just so you know):
It’s Robert Way (not Wray)
Kevin Cowtan (University of York) and Robert Way (University of Ottawa)
REPLY: yes, and I picked up on that and repeated it in my post. This is now corrected in the post, and I added a [sic] next to Dr. Curry’s typo. – Anthony

Just like Kloor has shown it’s ridiculous now for alarmists to do their regular ambulance chasing at every hurricane or drought, likewise scientists should stop claiming to have found the missing heat in the most convenient of places, namely where nobody can get much reasonable data from (it was the depths of the ocean, not it’s the most remote of the North Pole).
There are also many other problems with this pausebuster. Have the scientists involved deliberately misled the IPCC by telling nobody about what was incoming two months later? If they are right, isn’t Dear Kev wrong about the oceans?
If they are right, then people claiming that there was a pause (based on non-infilled data)were right, and Dana and SkS wrong in dismissing the pause.
Also if the North Pole puts the trend back to expected values, this means the recent warming is becoming more and more northern-polar than global.
Furthermore this would be yet another AGW miracle, with values magically going back to be exactly as expected.
Etc etc.

Kev-in-Uk

Here we go again – more data from the ‘middle of nowhere’, literally! I dunno whether I can stomach to watch the method video. Someone tell me if it makes sense, and if I can use the same methodology to magic money into my bank account, as there is none there at present!

Carrick

It’s not really a “pausebuster”, that’s just the way Stefan Rahmstorf describes it.
If you look at the actual reconstruction (Cowtan & Way, Figure 4a), which I think is “hybrid” method…what pops out at you initially is a big difference in trend.
If you look at it more carefully, what you notice is, actually it tracks the other curves pretty well except for the period 2010-2012, where there is a big excursion. If you look carefully, at the most recent points, the “hybrid” method seems to be converging back to the other curves. Whether it will end up tracking the other methods, time will tell.
If you ordinary-least-fit (OLS the curve, where you have a large excursion near one end point, OLS will over-weight this excursion in it’s fit. Especially if you cherry pick the intervals like Rahmstorf did. The claim by Ramhstorf “Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half” is owned by Rahmstorf and not by Cowtan. The paper does not make this claim, nor do I think, do Cowtan nor Way.
Regarding the 2010-2012 excursion, “R”, over on Lucia’s blog suggests:

If I remember correctly 2010 was really hot in northern Canada – where there probably was less coverage. Think it was the much discussed warm Arctic-cold continent year. 1998 being a super el nino probably caused a lot of warming in the mid latitudes.

It’s worth verifying his recollection, but the bigger point is, adding more data points in the Northern Arctic mixes into the stew the variations from that region that were previously missing. You’ll get more features in the global mean temperature series associated with polar variability. That’s pretty sensible.
Time will tell whether or not the small trend difference seen from 2005-now is real, or just associated with longer period polar variability. Obviously it’s too short of an interval to be popping the champagne, as Rahmstorf appears to be doing, celebrating 20 more years of global warming [funding].

Even GISS figures with their 1200km smoothing (right or wrong) show the same pause as the other sets, so they cannot argue the poles are being ignored.
Indeed, take out the poles from the GISS dataset, and I would imagine you would end up with a cooling trend.

Lots of sciency talk. Lets just simplify: “We made stuff up.”

Lots of Sciencey talk. Here’s the bottom line: “We made stuff up to support the cause.”

Filling in data is worse then doing nothing.

DirkH

Carrick says:
November 14, 2013 at 9:38 am
“If you look at it more carefully, what you notice is, actually it tracks the other curves pretty well except for the period 2010-2012, where there is a big excursion. If you look carefully, at the most recent points, the “hybrid” method seems to be converging back to the other curves. Whether it will end up tracking the other methods, time will tell.”
Let’s call the excursion “the ghost of warming past”. I haven’t looked at their method but wouldn’t be surprised that if you repeated their computation in a year from now you would see the ghost of warming past following the present in a convenient constant distance. Because that would be a great Way (no pun intended) to create the necessary science. I think we don’t need scare quotes around the word science anymore. There is korrekt science, and then there is anti-science, which is evil.

Bwilliams

So, just to clarify:
At first they claimed there was no pause. Then they admitted there was a pause but it didn’t matter because all the heat was teleporting into the deep ocean via some yet-to-be-decided upon mechanism. Now they claim there is no pause because all the heat is actually in the Arctic?

John

They seem to like satellite data when it suits them. Why not just use the satellite data, period, so that you aren’t picking and chosing from different sets of data?
Can Steve Mosher chime in on this?

milodonharlani

Bwilliams says:
November 14, 2013 at 9:50 am
So, it must be really, really hot in the depths of the Arctic Ocean!

rogerknights

There’s a missing “y” near the start of the quote from J. Curry:
“The state that most of the difference . . . .”

Rob Dawg

“reconstructing the unobserved regions”
There… are… no… words.

Eliza

I dont’ know why such drivel (The paper) even gets mentioned here.

jeanparisot

So they are basically saying that we can’t measure the earth’s “temperature”, and shouldn’t draw any conclusions from our current data – warming or cooling. OK, lets improve our data collection and let our great-grand children revisit this debate.

Doug Proctor

Does this not mean that “global” warming is actually regional warming?
There is a concerted attempt to translate a global, CO2-induced, IR re-radiative warming force into a series of local or regional events. The warming is not in the troposphere, it is lower or higher. The drought is not here or here, but there, the rainfall etc. Even the oceans: the warming is not at the surface or even in the top 700m, but deep. In each of these examples a purported global phenomenon – retained heat proportional to the local insolation and re-radiation – has been collected and concentrated without altering conditions of the greater parts. We are supposed to see meaningful spikes without a trend in spikes or a trend in the background. Haiynan, for example, is ferocious because of global warming, but only that hurricane, not the other storms of the season or seasons past.
If you frame “global” as the sum of “regional”, you have what I call Computational Reality. The numbers work that way. But if you see “regional” as indicative of regionality, i.e. a non-random distribution of situations that may or may not have a global cause, you are working towards what I call Representational Reality. Which is not necessarily the same thing.
These authors – and many others, including butterfly specialists – put out papers that profess to show Representational Reality. I say they only achieve Computational Reality; the greater Reality remains to be determined. Unfortunately, neither the MSM nor the editors nor the grant-dispensing machines care to ensure that difference is noted.

Bill Illis

A bit more info at Dr. Cowtan’s website including some data and code.
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/index.html

KevinM

Off topic, you must hear Larry the Cable Guy’s global warming bit.

ordvic

I have a very basic question and asked a BEST person on Climate Etc of which may be directed to Dr Way. That is when I strike a midsection trend (not OLS trend) through Hadcrut 4 (1979-2013) the trend shows up at about a 20 degree angle. When I did the same on Cowtan and Ways chart that shows up at the end of that video (1980-2013 and posted on another site) it shows up at about a 35 degree angle. Then when I plot it through the UAH chart (1979-2013) it shows up at somewhere between 10 to 15 degrees. This is all very approximate; it is obvious to the eye which is why I bothered. Why are there big differences?

son of mulder

“Bwilliams says:
November 14, 2013 at 9:50 am
So, just to clarify: ”
No, you missed out that the lack of warming is also because of the reduction of CFC’s.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/busted-messaging-cfcs-cause-warming-and-cooling/
In reality all of the wind turbines are causing such a breeze that they must have cooled things down as well. Also replacing the space shuttle with Russian rockets plus Chinese, japanese and Indian rockets means that more and bigger holes are being punched in the stratosphere and letting more heat out (;>)

The ghost of Stefan-Boltzmann haunted the debate from day one and now it is back.
For easy figuring, it takes about 1.8 w/m2 to raise the temperature in the Antarctic from 200K to 201K, or 1 degree. But that same 1.8 w/m2 in the tropics at 303K only raises the temperature by less than 0.3 degrees!
The mind numbing stupidity of averaging temperatures from widely disparate temperature ranges is ridiculous in the first place. But hey, let’s role with their version of exactly where the Lock Ness monster is hiding anyway. Let’s say these places where nothing lives, nothing grows, and everything is frozen, warm by several degrees. The result will be that these are now places where…. nothing lives, nothing grows, and everything is frozen. Yay! We’re saved! The rest of the planet will be fine because the poles took a few photon torpedoes for us.
Question – how do they justify feed backs at the poles? At those temps, water vapour is pretty much zilch, and warming by a few degrees would increase the holding capacity by about… zilch. So if we assume for a moment that they are right, that the heat is accumulating at the poles, then an absence of water vapour and low ozone levels pretty much gaurantees that the heat gets radiated to space anyway.
Or are we now concerned that the heat may suddenly come back from outer space too?

Brian Davis

My first thoughts were the same as Bwilliams. How come Dana et al can once again embrace ‘no pause’ denialism if they’ve already ‘explained’ the pause in surface temperatures as the result of heat accumulating in the ocean depths? Was that just an ad hoc theory they spun to keep their support base happy? Or is it even worse than we thought? Or are they just making it up as they go along?

I don’t understand how they can infill the poles with satellite data when:
UAH only covers up to 85N and 85S
And
RSS to 82.5N and 70S.
Are they infilling from their infill?

I can prove anything by making up the data.
So…. I assume they are correct — and further that saves the effort having to fully read this post or their paper. It’s a real time saver.
Any other questions?

“Or are we now concerned that the heat may suddenly come back from outer space too?”
It bounces off the moon.

Like the country gal said regarding infilling data, although she might have thought we were talking about inbreeding:
We don’t need no outside data when we have our own “dada”.
🙂

numerobis

The page with the figures about the orbits keeps talking about geostationary satellites — but POES is obviously very much not geostationary, and the ground track of AVHRR is not 3000km. I’m not sure what’s going on there. Instead, let’s look at some engineering data about these particular satellites:
http://www.osd.noaa.gov/Spacecraft%20Systems/Pollar_Orbiting_Sat/NOAA_N_Prime/NOAA_NP_Booklet.pdf
The satellite orbits at 870km, with inclination about 98. AVHRR can see 55.4 degrees from nadir. That means the satellite gets to 82 degrees North, and can see about 700 km (6.5 degrees latitude) further North than that. So there’s only a hole above 88 degrees. AMSU can see 48.3 degrees off nadir, making for a slightly larger polar hole in that instrument, three degrees latitude radius. Two poles, so they’re missing 0.15% of the surface, as opposed to 14% for surface instruments.
High latitudes get a lot more coverage than low latitudes, because the view tracks overlap up there; the satellite sees the same spot several orbits in a row, rather than once a day. I can well believe the data is harder to use though.

Jimbo

But Dana Nuccitelli said the missing heat went into the deep oceans.

lemiere jacques

read lubos motl post about it…

Jimbo

It’s really funny how the ‘missing heat’ always goes into locations where we don’t have thermometers.

Jimbo says:
November 14, 2013 at 11:13 am
But Dana Nuccitelli said the missing heat went into the deep oceans.

I believe the claim was that it was hiding there.
Once we found the hiding place, it moved, according to “them” it is now at the poles.
But, now we found it again, so where will it go next?
I’m suggesting under the seats of the CAGW alarmists.
🙂

numerobis

davidmhoffer: “Question – how do they justify feed backs at the poles? At those temps, water vapour is pretty much zilch, and warming by a few degrees would increase the holding capacity by about… zilch. So if we assume for a moment that they are right, that the heat is accumulating at the poles, then an absence of water vapour and low ozone levels pretty much gaurantees that the heat gets radiated to space anyway.”
The main feedback for arctic amplification is albedo, not water vapour. Melt the ice and snow in summer (but leave the surface frozen in winter), and less of the solar energy will be reflected.
Your argument about water vapour is backwards: the lower the temperature, the more relative increase you get in water vapour from a given number of degrees temperature increase.

Jimbo

What have we seen in the Arctic this year? It was a chilly one and sea ice extent was significantly higher this September on last year. This past summer it was the record coldest daily mean temperature for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

numerobis;
Your argument about water vapour is backwards: the lower the temperature, the more relative increase you get in water vapour from a given number of degrees temperature increase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh is it now? What was my argument? My argument was that at very cold temperatures holding capacity doesn’t change very much, almost none.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-air-d_854.html
As you can see, below freezing the numbers get so low that they don’t matter, let alone at -40C to -80C at the poles.

M Courtney

Dana’s Guardian blog is a bit like the missing heat. It’s always lurking there until sceptics come tolhave a look. Then it moves somewhere new.
Dana was all over this paper as proof that the world is ending after all.
But now that WUWT has broadcast Professor Curry’s review the Guardian has dropped Dana’s blog from the front of its environment page. Of course, it was yesterday’s news and there have been bicycle crashes in London so it may just be a matter of newsworthiness. AGW has to compete with other dangers for vital electronic newsprint.
Which is rather a shame as my one of my favourite comments of all time was plopped onto Dana’s blog by Danabanana. I think he must be taking the mickey as the pause is being discussed and the Poland Climate talks are not:
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/28840072

I’d like to know, out of curiosity, how many sceptics have changed their minds in the last couple of years. In any case, those people you refer to -deniers, not sceptics- should be in line for castration. Not sure humanity needs that gene pool in the future.

Hilarious.

Jeef

Oh look. Another hockey stick. We’ll have enough for a game now.

‘John says:
November 14, 2013 at 9:54 am
They seem to like satellite data when it suits them. Why not just use the satellite data, period, so that you aren’t picking and chosing from different sets of data?
Can Steve Mosher chime in on this?
###################
1. Its well known that leaving out arctic data causes a cool bias
A) reanalysis ( which anthony uses) shows this
B) when CRU added more arctic stations they warmed ( as I predicted)
C) We use more arctic data than CRU and are warmer.
In a nutshell. The CRU method forces them to only consider a small subset (5K) of all stations.
When they leave out the arctic they implicitly imput the GLOBAL AVERAGE to the missing
data. Folks need to get that. We see a pattern of warming as we go from 0-70degree
That pattern says warming trend increases with latitude. Now, when CRU leave the pole missing, that imputs a LOWER trend to areas north of 70 degrees. Giss, extrapolate over the pole. They imput the SAME trend at 70 to areas from 70 to 90.
As we look at other sources of data, namely bouys and short data series closer to the pole,
we can see that CRU is wrong to imput a lower trend to areas north of 70.
2. How do we estimate the ‘missing data’
A) if you leave it out you are STILL imputing a trend. you are imputing the lower trend
of the entire globe. And all your data says that trend increases from 0 to 70 degrees..
Why on earth would you asssume it would go down from 70-90. Understand, leaving
this area ‘unestimated’ HAS THE MATHEMATICAL EFFECT of imputing a lower trend
to areas north of 70
B) extrapolate from 70 north to 90 north. This effectively argues that the warming
trend versus latitude CEASES at 70 north. On what basis is this assumption made
C) come up with a method that is based on some data.
So Kevin and Robert choose to do something similar to what Mcintyre, Jeff ID, Ryan Odonnel, and nic Lewis did for antarctica.
Use the PATTERN of UAH data to draw inferences about the missing data
lets show a really simple example
measure A Measure B
7 5
7 5
7 (held out)
4 3
4 3
4 (held out)
7 missing
4 missing
So, you use measure A to infer what is at measure B. And you ‘hold out” samples
of measure B.
you then predict those hold outs.
you then compare your prediction to the hold outs
That test the validity.
You then use the method to fill in the missing.
the great thing about this study is that somebody finally used arctic bouy data.
you see there ARE observations of surface air temp in the arctic but to date nobody
has figured out how to use them. CRU can NEVER use them because CRU requires
20 years of data between 1960 and 1990. But more advanced methods dont have this requirement
So here is the question.
CRU predicts nothing for the artcic
GISS extrapolates 70degrees to 90.
Way uses data from UAH to predict a temperature north of 90 and then CHECKS IT
against bouy data.
Which gives you a better picture
CRU, which infers that warming north of 70 will be LESS THAN warming at 70
GISS which infers that warming north of 70 will be the SAME as warming at 70
or Keven and robert, who make an estimate based on a methodology that passes
cross validation? and who test this using actual measures.
For the record, if the UAH data were garbage at the pole it never would have passed the validation.
and hint…. there might be an even better source of data ( hehe).. maybe I’ll let folks say a few more dumb things first…

FrankK

“That if desperate times call for desperate measures, then I’m free to act as desperately as I wish.”
― Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire

numerobis

Water vapour isn’t believed to be the main reason for arctic amplification. After all, the water feedback operates everywhere.
That said, the strength of the feedback is logarithmic: you get X warming by doubling the number of molecules. That’s why trace gases are more bothersome than more common gases: it’s easier to double the number of molecules of CFCs than to double the amount of CO2, so each molecule causes more warming. So yes, there are very few molecules of water in cold air. But that means a change of 1 degree, which is a bigger relative change in temperature at 200K (polar winter) than at 300K (every day in the tropics), and thus a bigger relative change in the number of H2O molecules, has a bigger effect.

numerobis;
That said, the strength of the feedback is logarithmic: you get X warming by doubling the number of molecules.
>>>>>>>>>
Provided that they are evenly distributed through the troposphere….which water vapour is NOT.
My point remains that the main greenhouse gas is water vapour, it is 30,000 to 40,000 ppm over the oceans in the tropics and only dozens at the poles. A few degrees change in temp at the poles isn’t going to make a substantial difference in terms of what the ghg’s do, but it does make a substantial difference in terms of energy being radiated to space. So the heat can “go” to the poles, but it can’t “hide” at the poles.

James Evans

Steven Mosher,
“maybe I’ll let folks say a few more dumb things first…”
Life has been enriched once again. Well done you.

Steven Mosher;
That’s all well and good, but you can look at it both ways. Not including arctic regions may result in the global trend being under estimated, or you could as easily say that including them results in the global trend being over estimated.
The truth of the matter is that unless, and until, the temperature data is FIRST converted to w/m2 and THEN averaged,the trends from UAH, RSS, GISS, HadCrut and BEST are meaningless. You cannot use temperature averaged in any way shape of form as a proxy to measure energy balance. In other words, any estimation of temperatures in the arctic regions is just a new way of understanding energy balance that like the old way, is wrong.

Just for the record, I got in the second comment on Dana’s piece, which also gathered the most ‘recommends’. It was removed by a moderator. Can anyone tell me what was so offensive and outrageous about this that it warranted censorship? –
http://oi44.tinypic.com/2ebhjyv.jpg

milodonharlani

Steven Mosher says:
November 14, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Should the gatekeepers find Arctic temperatures too cold, they’ll just “adjust” them upwards, anyway.

1200 km for estimating temperature? I live in Richmond, VA. I’ve lived in Kalamazoo, MI, (~900 km from Richmond) and New Orleans (~1350 km from Richmond). I wouldn’t have thought that the temperature data from anyone of these would be an appropriate substitute for the other. Particulary the years I spent getting on an airplane in 90F NOLA and getting off in the snow in KZ. I guess that’s why I’m not an expert climate scientist because I’ve always been a bit less sloppy with estimating missing data.

Steve Reddish

Doug Proctor says:
November 14, 2013 at 10:19 am
davidmhoffer says:
November 14, 2013 at 10:37 am
Both make good points. And since the warming only affects certain remote and uninhabited regions, people living in inhabited regions have nothing to fear from Nonglobal Warming! (Typhoon Haiynan turned out NOT to be an example of Global Warming Catastrophe – it did not track over unprecedentedly hot waters, nor blow unprecedentedly hard.)