Phil Jones of Climategate fame made some extraordinary remarks that seem to have been overlooked until now. This was a presentation for Help Rescue The Planet’s St George’s House Consultations in Windsor, 2012.
Jones remarks of interest start at 5:30. He says average sea and land temperatures “can’t really differ that much as a global average”.
If he didn’t adjust sea surface temperatures, you’d “have great differences in sea and air temperatures that just couldn’t happen naturally”. I’d agree, UHI and land use change can make such differences and those aren’t natural occurrences, but why adjust SST data up to match? Watch:
h/t to Marc Morano
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The fact this guy still has a job in climate science should tell any one who knows about Climategate
all there is to no about the morals of some climate scientists and Team members,
Disgusting that he still called upon to give talks/lectures!
Hmm. I say let’s stay away from the toss-’em-in-the-clink bit.
That sword cuts both ways.
Very recently, two individuals were actually looking for ways to have me prosecuted for stating what I think to be the facts (and I am a lukewarmer, at that).
Dead-catting the lot of them would be more than sufficient for all practical purposes.
” Steven Mosher says:
January 17, 2014 at 8:23 am
ah yes, adjust the air temps down by .3C to .5C and youll get an even bigger trend since 1950 to present.. you know when AGW has had its effect. in short you INCREASE the rate of warming by cooling the past
you might if you try really hard find a UHI effect of less than .1C. not much more”
Yes Steve, unlike you we dont care what the result is. We simply want good science. We dont for example favor making up volcanic models that cant even model recent eruptions in order to pass of all prior climatic events as being caused by volcanoes.
Gotta love the quotes from Phil Jones. Real scientists don’t “worry” about the direction of data, real scientists don’t “worry” about what their branch community “thinks” of them so they must fudge the data. Yes, we are just chasing the adjustments and they call those adjustments “global warming”.
Without:
http://i39.tinypic.com/1118rnl.png
http://i44.tinypic.com/29axhua.png
The question is did something actually happen from 1944 to 1950 in which temperatures actually fell by a large amount over that period. Is it, in fact, real? It might look out of place, but that does not mean it is not real.
Something did happen in my local temperature records (which haven’t been mucked around by Phil Jones or James Hansen or Tom Karl). Temperature fell by 3.0C on a moving average basis over that period.
Jimbo, thanks for reminding us of this:
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
I would point out that “worried” doesn’t mean that we’ll see anyone recanting or calling off the next COP meeting. “Worried” means scrambling like mad looking for ANY excuse other than an earlier miscalculation of climate sensitivity. “Worried” means finding heat in the deep oceans, blaming on non-existent volcanoes, or using a statistical technique to “find” an upward trend even if it is insignificant. They’re not done yet. For the public, that means a lot more graphs that stop in 2010. It means more emphasis on a quiet sun and lack of El Nino, despite assuring us in 1998 that a monster El Nino and an active sun were minor factors in global temperature.
Clearly they’re worried. If there’s no warming in 2015 look for more excuses about how Antarctic sea ice, a consequence of global warming, is masking warmer surface waters, or how someone in South America left his freezer open all year and created a cold spot. One way or another there will be plenty of excuses and shrill warnings no matter how long warming remains absent.
Tanner says:
January 17, 2014 at 8:04 am
Agreed, the land temperatures should rather have been adjusted down where there is an UHI effect! If you are going to make adjustments.
Now that most of the ground weather stations are urban or at airports making any present UHI a negligible 0.01C we will see if the upward trend continues as before when this pause ends.
Higher SST! OMG! We’re all gonna drown! /sarc
Massive Antarctic Glacier Uncontrollably Retreating, Study Suggests
http://news.yahoo.com/massive-antarctic-glacier-uncontrollably-retreating-study-suggests-173655740.html
He explains the need to refer to log books to identify how the SST was measured.
Trouble is, when Hadley do the adjusting they actually _invert_ about 30% of what the written logs indicate for measurement method when they find the proportion of bucket vs engine intake does not match their “expected” statistical average for a particular grid cell.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2
Phil needs to use the new standard of temperature adopted at the Guardian Newspaper which is Hiroshima Bombs worth of heat. 😉
“I’d agree, UHI and land use change can make such differences and those aren’t natural occurrences, but why adjust SST data up to match?”
Correction for the change in SST sample method from buckets to subsurface sensors is the reason he gives.
here is what the adjsutment looks like: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/hadsst-icoads1.png
So they are _cooling_ the later data , not warming it up. The point of all this , as always to make the data fit the model. Without the adjustments the would be a much more linear rise starting way before when it “should”, and late 19th c. would be too warm, with a strong cooling towards early 20th c.
So what the adjustments do is to remove about 2/3 of the variation from early data (ie flatten it) then drop the whole post war period by about 0.5C to leave the overall pattern closer to something that can be regressed against CO2.
The original HadSST2 “correction” (Folland’s Folly) was a crude -0.5C step in 1946. This was blatantly wrong physically unrealistic and was strongly criticised by Steve McIntyre.
As a result it got reworked as “right for the wrong reason” and the same adjustment was made to slide in over 20 years instead of the step change. The new logic is what requires ignoring the specific entries in the ships logs stating the sampling method to selectively apply “corrections” where they are needed to achieve “right for the wrong reason” reproduction of the previous 0.5 step in the overall series.
So the big picture remains the same and no one has to say “oops” we mislead everyone with a silly adjustment and no one has to start changing the models they’ve spent so long trying to “tune” to the existing record.
Pachygrapsus says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 10:29 am
….Clearly they’re worried. If there’s no warming in 2015 look for more excuses about how Antarctic sea ice, a consequence of global warming, is masking warmer surface waters, or how someone in South America left his freezer open all year and created a cold spot. One way or another there will be plenty of excuses and shrill warnings no matter how long warming remains absent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If a mile high glacier is sitting on Chicago they will claim it is because of CAGW.
The other little problem with Hadley SST is that it removes a strong 9.05 year peak that is witness to a notable lunar effect on climate.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/icoad_v_hadsst3_ddt_n_pac_chirp.png
This is the 9.1 +/-0.1 that N. Scafetta finds and demonstrates to be of lunar origin and was recently reported in the “decadal variations” of land data by the BEST team.
timetochooseagain says (January 17, 2014 at 9:01 am ): [snip]
Thanks for the link. I was vaguely aware of the bogus “Pearl Harbor” adjustment to sea surface temps, but hadn’t read up on it.
He says average sea and land temperatures “can’t really differ that much as a global average”.
HOLD THE PHONE!. Why Not?
Why cannot the Land be the natural radiator of the planet? Or the Oceans?
If the Earth had most of it’s land in the tropics and the oceans mostly in the temperate and polar zones, would we expect the average temperature of land and ocean to be the same? Hardly.
Yet, we seem to have the opposite, most land in the Temperate and polar regions, and water makes up more than it’s share of the tropics.
Maybe I’ve slipped a cog, but I think that assumption / theory needs some explicit proof before it is used to adjust anything.
Some adjustments around that time concerned bucket and non-bucket measurements of the sea.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/reports/parker85.pdf
When you turn a field of study into a normative discipline, what you have is not science. If, in fact, there is an unusual difference in temperatures between land and sea and part of that reason is due to man’s influences, than treat those differences as fact and base studies on the real temperatures, not what an alleged scientist thinks the temperatures ought to be.
When you make adjustments to actual data based on normative valuation, what you have is speculative fantasy, perhaps fit for the Sunday Supplement of your local newspaper.
Steven Mosher says:
January 17, 2014 at 8:23 am
“you might if you try really hard find a UHI effect of less than .1C. not much more”
UHI in a city is on the order of several deg C; so I suppose what you mean is the change over the entire 20th century for global average temperatures when effect of UHI is averaged over the entire globe. Is that what you mean?
I’ve finished Phil’s trick of tacking on land temperatures to hide the decline.
“Jones remarks of interest start at 5:30. He says average sea and land temperatures “can’t really differ that much as a global average”.”
What utter nonsense! Land is dry (mostly), that’s why they call it land. Sea is wet. Hello?! Evaporation?? Cooling??
Wait a minute. I thought they have been telling us that their climate models do a good job of reproducing the real world data from the past. Now we find out that the ocean temperature data, where most of the energy is, has an uncertainty of more than half a degree! Then their models must be very very messed up, right?
I live 3 miles from where I work and there is no elevation difference, flat lands. I live outside of town and it is typically 7 degrees cooler where I live than where I work in town. Small town too of just 6,000 people. The place where I work was built in the 1970’s. UHI exists, and it’s huge.
Steven Mosher says:
January 17, 2014 at 8:23 am
you might if you try really hard find a UHI effect of less than .1C. not much more
——————————————————————
You can easily find UHI of 10.0 Celsius and more. Up to 2 deg from air conditioning.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/15/new-light-on-uhi/
UHI is todays main reason for heat waves where people live.
Holw does BEST correct for a slowly increasing UHI ? -> not at all.
How does BEST correct for station relocations due to UHI, with perhaps such a shematic UHI curve over time ?
http://cobocards.s3.amazonaws.com/card/480_300/9/91974013.jpg
They split the curve into pieces and hence add all UHI. Doing nothing would have been correct.
McKittrick found half of the warming due to UHI.
Watts found a similar contribution.
Frank Lansners study.confirms this.
The tree ring divergence confirms this.
The missing difference between ground based and tropospheric temperatures confirms this.
Slower increasing ocean temperatures confirm this.
How sad to spend your career of “some thirty odd years producing the global temperature record” only to end up with a total mish mash.
A quote from the Harry_read_me.txt:
‘OH F*** THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.’
Poor Phil Jones. He is not responsible for data recording.
The underlying database is corrupted!… by lack of uniform experimental procedures. By all means, adjust away.
Silk purse, sows ear anyone?
(Sea temperatures are ‘adjusted’ because canvas buckets cool? Seriously?)