Via the GWPF Date: 15/05/15 Levi Winchester, Daily Express
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), chaired by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson, has recently launched an inquiry into the reliability of global surface temperature records, with a group of international “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” set to probe current data.With different sets of results appearing to conflict each other, the GWPF say they have received questions and concerns about which records are accurate and why some adjustments in temperatures are made over the years.
But now their inquiry is underway, Dr Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF, has said he hopes the findings will address the lack of clarity and transparency he claims surrounds temperature records – while admitting his “growing concern” about the gathering of global warming statistics.
One key issue which Dr Peiser claims has caused confusion is a discrepancy between surface temperature data and satellite findings.
Figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) use a network of ground-based weather stations to compile their results and recently predicted that this year will outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”.
However findings from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH) – which use satellite data – show a strikingly different picture, with neither showing last month as the hottest March on record, nor 2014 as the warmest year yet.
Dr Peiser told Express.co.uk: “There’s a lack of clarity, a lack of transparency and a growing concern about what is going on.
“But all these adjustments, you would expect, should balance each other out. So you should expect that some of the adjustments will reduce the temperatures and some adjustments will make them warmer.
– See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/new-claims-murky-global-warming-statistics-are-guessed-at/#sthash.8nGI1N3x.dpuf
As we learned in Six Sigma training, Gage R&R, which stands for gage repeatability and reproducibility, is a statistical tool that measures the amount of variation in the measurement system arising from the measurement device and the people taking the measurement. I said all along that the conclusions of Global Warming proponents were suspect due to the lack of a gage R&R analysis
Anthony,
What is the latest information from the US reference stations network? I have been surprised that they have not been discussed more prominently. GISS and NOAA have continued to tout the adjusted data, but I don’t see comparisons to the reference stations.
The USCRN, with its pristine rural sites, and calibrated redundant Pt aspirated sensors shows NO warming for over ten years in the US.
This confirms the pause at least in the USA.
No adjustments needed.
So when NOAA data shows “pause” then data is reliable?
No, that just means it matches the satellite data at the time.
Thanks,
I was wondering why the USCRN has not been more widely reported.
Have they or someone provided a plot of the data for the last 10 years.
Why do NOAA and others avoid reporting on it?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/
catcracking,
There is little publicity because there is no way to spin these numbers. NO warming, and maybe a bit of cooling. It does not fit the narrative.
The warmists say, but the US is only 3% of the earth surface, but this data is the best we have, and it confirms the pause.
Temperature data from stations that used to be rural and now are surrounded by pavement have shown increased temperature readings, but that data is useless when using it to make an honest analysis.
If the wild predictictions made by the global cooling nuts of the 1960’s, and the global warming kooks of 10-15 years ago had come true, we would all be dead by now
Someone (Daly?) ran a study of stations in California. He found that there was a strongly positive correlation between warming and present day population of the county in which the station was located. In fact those stations in rural areas showed almost no warming.
““But all these adjustments, you would expect, should balance each other out. So you should expect that some of the adjustments will reduce the temperatures and some adjustments will make them warmer.”
1. you would NOT expect them to be balanced.
2. they are in fact balanced. In Berkeley earth the mean of all adjustments is zero.
3. they are not balanced in space and time.
4. UAH and RSS likewise do not have balanced adjustments in both space and time.
5. The ocean adjustments are cooling.. unbalanced.
The problem here is the prior. You have non experts speculating that the adjustments should be balanced.
There is no reason to expect this. In fact, our experience with the ocean informs us that when looking at the land we should NOT expect balance.
finally
‘Another issue is a supposed lack of widespread weather stations – resulting in some temperature figures having to be estimated, Dr Peiser claimed. ”
ALL DATA HAS TO BE ESTIMATED. When I accept a data record as given I am assuming that the record is correct. I estimate that the chances of a transcription error are low for example. I estimate that the chances for a small temporary drift in the sensor is low.
As Willis has shown in his last post the temperature at a location can be estimated to a high degree with simple geometry.
Mosh: enough equivocation. it’s beneath a man of your talents and intelligence.
Actually it really isn’t.
Yes, ‘you would expect’ isn’t technical. Maybe he consulted his astrologist.
As the satellite data has shown global temperatures are no longer rising.
Mosher is in the camp of change, ignore ,or manipulate the data if it does not support AGW.
davideisenstadt,
Agree. When almost every “adjustment” they make results in what appears to be more, faster, and scarier global warming, we should ask: Cui bono?
Fact: satellite measurements (the most accurate measurements we have) show NO global warming for the past 18+ years. “Adjustments” by government entities are just backing and filling to support an agenda: the push for carbon taxes.
Somehow the satellites didn’t read your post and still show increase in temps.
Wojciech Peszko,
Maybe not on your planet. But here on Planet Earth, global warming has stopped. <—[satellite data; the most accurate kind]
You mean this upward slope means it is horizontal? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/plot/rss/from:1999/trend
Yep, estimated up the fractions of a degree to always show a warming. The fox is in charge of the hen house.
The problem here is the prior…..yes it is
When a temperature record is published…..and the exact same temperature record is published again, 5 years later……changed to show it was 2 degrees cooler
like.
“2. they are in fact balanced. In Berkeley earth the mean of all adjustments is zero.”
Steven Mosher, does that mean that whenever Berkeley Earth wants to increase recent temperatures, all they have to do is lower past temperatures to make sure the mean of “all adjustments is zero”? That does not reassure us. All it proves is that you can maintain a zero mean and still create a fake warming trend.
Oh we all bow down to you Mosh, the expert of all experts concerning all things, because only experts can ever be right..
Follow the money, like Al did.
it seems to me that alarmists are taking a page out of hardcore creationism when it comes to global warming. They only count climate data from 1800 or 1850 onward, and write off the rest of the geologic record. Truly, we should have running averages of atmospheric co2 and GAT, so we can compare them to current levels. That isn’t done though, because that destroys the alarmist narrative.
Below is a nice link about NOAA getting busted big time for adjusting surface station temps:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/09/energy-physicist-implores-noaa-to-return-to-credibility-get-out-of-adjusting-business/#sthash.vRkfpK78.dpbs
Of course Brakey will be dismissed as in the pay of Big Oil. But NOAA can’t d*ny he busted them.
The climate con men do indeed mimic creationist sc*m artists. But they’re worse, since the courts have reined in lying creationists, while governments encourage and protect the equally anti-scientific, clownish climate criminals.
Exactly. The only data that is not biased is satellite data.
I doubt this will address anything other than to confirm what CAGW already believes. A politically driven science agenda can’t reach any other conclusion. Too much money is involved, too many people have staked their reputations on CAGW and a lot of harsh rhetoric has been spewed forth from the all knowing consensus on those that dare question the validity. In the event that anything contradicts any idea of anything but disasters, the evidence will be clear that it’ll happen in another 10 years. Nothing short of a new ice age will shut CAGW people up. Then somehow, we will be responsible for that too.
The marxists attacked the oil industry, primarily the frackers. Saying that fracking is causing earth quakes. But I have not read a single article about the pumping of ground water, natural cisterns, aquifers, etc. The fact that those that drill wells are having to go deeper. How much of this is caused by water bottling companies sucking the Earth dry so Lovey and Biff can parade around with their designer water bottles? get a fawcett filter and drink your own tap water. How many trillions of gallons of water are stored away in warehouses worldwide? Or are you telling me that these conditions are not playing a vital roll in surface temps and droughts?
There are many variables that make calculating land-based global temps accurately very difficult including: intermittent data from war-torn areas, no global standardized temp data protocol, no standardized global temperature recording device used, huge areas of the globe with little or no historic temp data, no global standardization for Urban Heat Island adjustments, many temp stations relocated/abandoned over the past 16 decades, no global standardization for in-filling missing temp data, and many other factors too numerous to mention.
To top it off, NASA’s temp adjustments show a bias to cool base-year temps and increase more recent temps, which obviously generates larger temp anomalies.
It’s a mess. Hopefully GWPF’s global temp audit can determine how accurate global land-based temps are.
Since satellite temps don’t have any of these shortcomings and can be confirmed through radiosonde data, perhaps satellite data is the best to calculate global temps; at least from 1979.
You can throw in no uniform training on how to read or maintain the stations. No uniform quality control on either the stations or the data being gathered.
The idea that we can estimate the earth’s “average” temperature within even 5C using this system is absurd on it’s face.
Cousins across the Pond may well be unaware of the context of the article ?
The Daily Express, AKA The Daily Diana, is owned by the pornographer Richard Desmond, he who has donated a cool Million to UKIP. The organ as a purveyor of actual ‘News’ is probably on a par with the National Enquirer in the USA, and alternates its front page between breakthrough cures for Cancer, Altzheimers and such, and alarming forecasts of imminent weather events that never happen.
So, the article is something of a breakthrough for the Express inasmuch as it concerns a subject of real concern. Given that the organ is pitched at the lower end of the IQ scale, its a sad fact that most of the readers will likely be unimpressed, and move quickly on to the next page in the hope of the more usual Salacious Fare 🙂
Actually, the National Enquirer is quite reliable. It has to be, or would face constant law suits. The quality of its reporting is far superior to the NYT, LAT or WaPo. However the subject matter upon which it reports is indeed generally trivial, at best.
You surprise me, is Elvis able to bring suit in the USA ? 🙂
Although to be fair, I have not looked the the Enquirer in many years, maybe it has moved upmarket ?
Its also worth remembering that the UK is smaller than most US States, which in turn makes possible a truly National circulation. Something not really possible in the USA ?
Didn’t the National Enquirer break both the Monica Lewinsky and John Edward’s scandals?
It isn’t up market, since it usually covers celebrities rather than “hard news”, but it has also broken big political stories (see below). It just has the highest journalistic standards. It adheres to the traditional need for multiple independent confirmations before printing a story, unlike the so-called Mainstream Media.
The bombastic tabloid did indeed break the John Edwards and Gary Hart stories, but not IMO the Lewinsky scandal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/monica-lewinsky-sex-tape-national-enquirer_n_3691061.html
Could be wrong.
Argumentative fellow aren’t you 🙂
I imagine if the owner had been a left leaning fellow, you’d be quick to want to know ?
But as it is, I’m quite happy to concede defeat to you, and admit that my prejudice against pornographers is hopelessly out dated.
You have a nice day now.
I could be wrong, but I recall the Drudge exposed the Lewansky/Clinton scandal. Another news media uncovered it but decided to withhold publication. I read http://www.drudgereport.com every day, they give a good summary of what’s going on via links to other sites.
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Fan,
The Enquirer is not a pornographer. I fail to see your point.
Mine is that the NE practices the highest journalistic standards, of necessity, and, as shown, has at times scooped the so-called prestige media on important political stories. Without its watchdogs, we might have suffered a President Hart or Edwards.
Fascinating how someone’s prior occupation and political affiliations are sufficient to disqualify anything his paper publishes.
Well being an active (not prior) Pornographer is pretty extreme is it not ?
Time was when it was a way to earn quite a bit of money, but at the price of being relegated to the fringes of society.
As for political affiliations, there was a time (as above) when political parties might have at least kept contributions from pornographers quiet 🙂
It still has no bearing on whether the story is true or not.
If that’s the best that you can do, and after two tries, it appears to be, then why not go ahead and admit that you have lost.
Uffa, my reply was aimed at MarkW not Sturgis, apologies for my cakhandedness 🙁
Ah, that explains it.
Any water well driller could solve the problem of taking reliable average surface temperatures. Put a temperature sensor 40 feet down in the ground. You will read the average temperature for several years, with some lag. But with one reading you will get the long term trend very easily and very accurately. Counties keep water well records including temperatures taken when they are drilled, so there is an historical data base available now. Then go around to current water wells and run the pump for a few minutes and take a well head temperature. Surprised that no one has undertaken such research to at least verify the surface averages in a given location.
It is very difficult to map this ground temperature into an average air temperature. While the average air temperature is a true average of temperatures, the subsurface temperature is actually a function of heat flux at the surface and there are many variables that impact this heat flux, including the disturbance of the surface from development of the well or related structures.
The shape of the Earth libration orbit precession depends on the albedo of the planet,and not from the albedo depends on the person climat.Climate Change is a measure of the Speed and one of the flags katastrrofy.
Monumental Earth Changes.
This Changes Everything.Een aute aanval van ontlastingsdrang die “ERNSTIG EN NAKEND” is. http://www.davidhanauer.com/buckscounty/ringrocks,http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31322817,http://go.nature.com/w6iks3
1.Change shape of the Earth http://shar.es/lnJxx0 ,http://www.newspaper.indianlife.org/story/2015/01/05/news/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue-warming-to-nasa-and-theworld 1582.html
2.Change gravity http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/earth's-gravity-dips-from-antarctic-ice-loss-141001.htm
3.Change pcession http://shar.es/1fFoSQ
4.Change orbit http://wp.me/p7y41-vDW,http://www.alphagalileo.org/View/ttem.aspx?/tem/d=149399& CultureCode=en
The changes were mixed and the planet to shift the center of gravity in the Earth-Moon system which violated and violate the timing of rotation in the Earth-Moon system catastrophically rapid climate Change has happened and willhappen because of the proximityof the Moon to the Earth,Which led and will lead to the tsunami and the earth’s happened happens at the speed of the Earth around its axis at a time.
[??? .mod]
принести больше свежих шлюх и виски для нас мужчин!
-1
Ummm … is that because:
a) you don’t get the humor in relation to the seemingly drunk poster?
b) you want everyone to think you’re a “sensitive male”?
c) you’ve already had your fill?
I saw that line on a bumper sticker on a pickup truck in Berkeley circa 1980. I’ve chuckled at the unlikely juxtaposition ever since.
+1
No concerns, only the finest scientific methods are employed in determining global temperature, especially at the Poles.
http://www.dreamwitness.com/WUWT/WUWT%202%20small.jpg
This illustration is NASA, EPA, NOAA, and DNC approved
It’s laughably bad science behind the global warming…er, climate change agenda. You can bet those with strong belief in its reality are skewing the data; after all their funding and their “stature elevation” depend on it.
The credibility of Al’s big bs hoax is GONE. We’re going on 18yrs with no measurable temp increases but there’s no dissuading those who’d like to see a worldwide chokehold on every facet of our lives by big world government.
“With different sets of results appearing to conflict each other….”
Er….apples and pears?
“People ask why they are the gatekeepers of the data if they have such strong opinions. Should they really be the guardians of data quality and high standards?”
Exactly. Its the fox guarding the hen house. A classic conflict of interest. The ammunition for action on global warming comes from the temperature data, so there has to be some independent auditing of the data keeping because the people keeping the data benefit if the temperatures rise.
Once the satellite system went up to measure sea level rise the man made tide gauge measurements seemingly became obsolete. At least tide gauge measurements are never quoted anymore as a source of sea level measurement. So why is it that the ground measurements of temperature, that need adjusting, are still quoted more than the satellite system measurements of temperature? It seems the climate community has chosen satellite measurements for sea level rise because that shows more of a rise than ground measurements, and they choose man made ground temperature measurements because they show more of temperature rise than satellite measurements.
The altitude of the the Jason-2 sea level measuring satellite is 1336 km (circular orbit). Jason-2 data is reported in measurements of sea level down to tenths of a millimeter. At 1336 km, the ocean in 1,336,000,000 millimeters away. Changes in tenths of a millimeter of sea level distance is a change in the eleventh significant figure of that distance measurement made by the Jason satellite. And we think that eleventh significant figure of a satellite measurement is more accurate than the second significant figure of tide gauge measurement made by man on the ground. But then we trust a temperature measurement on the ground with a man made fudge factor in it (NCDC data) more than a satellite measurement (RSS) data. I’m throwing the BS flag.
Precision vs. accuracy. Extreme precision can be useful if you don’t want someone to notice the lack of accuracy.
You got it!
Funny how these moronic climate “scientists” claiming the sky is falling are always caught fudging their data and deleted suspect emails every few years. Also funny how they all seems to be Dumocrats and liberal idiots.
Even today spatial coverage is severely lacking; witness the large swathes of Northern Africa, the north of South America, the south of South America, Northern Canada, Central Australia, Northern Scandinavia, the vast majority of Russia and India, as well as the poles which have little in the way of station data.
Who really considers that there is sufficient global coverage for a claim that we have global temperature data going back to the 1880s or 1850. In reality, we only have info going back to say the mid 20th century and even that as can be seen from the spatial coverage of today, is patchy at best.
The wmo give urban stations zero points for quality, just under three percent of the world is urbanised and 27 percent of temp stations are in these areas, the few in Africa are all in urban areas. With Africa one fifth of the world’s land mass it is frightening to think they are using this data to convince the world there is a problem.
Even if these stations were accurate to 0.1C, the lack of coverage would mean that any average would only be accurate to 5C or so. Through in the non-existant quality control on the immediate station environment, the macro station environment and the station record keeping and it’s obvious that no qualitive statements can be made from this data regarding the earth’s temperature.
The idea that we can use this mash-up of a network to determine the earth’s temperature to within 0.1C doesn’t even rise to laughable.
Don’t worry, “scientists” have an Al-Gorythm to fix these problem.
The science is settled, Global Warming is a total hoax designed to enrich Al Gore and all the carbon shufflers, and control the people of this earth.
All of this nonsense is such a waste of brainpower
I agree, but the Warmistas are publicly funded. We have to fight back aga9inst this
fraudnonsense.Jimheath
Understandable frustration. However, ignoring this admitted nonsense allows unaccountable politicians to tax your earnings for transfer to their benefit (UN, EPA US Department of Energy easily come to mind), as well as their selected “friends” (Solendra easily comes to mind).
There are serious heavy-metal academics and politicos in the UK questioning the Warmista insanity. I recommend also Ben Pile’s site, which explores the philosophy of the enviromentalists [sic].
http://www.climate-resistance.org/
point of order:
What is a “heavy-metal academic”?
A professor who can’t mind his own bismuth?
http://www.bismuthcrystal.com/n23-566d.jpg
That beamed in from Gosh knows where? How do you put this stuff together.?
CO2 made me do it.
In reply to:
It appears you are trying to distract us all, from the fact that there is a purposeful warming bias in GISS.
Temperature gate is alive in well. GISS is of course the go fabricated temperature record for the cult of CAWG.
Both HADCUT 4 and UAH continue to show the warmest year on record to be 1997. HADCUT4 and UAH show that 2015 is colder than a half dozen years.
If the facts do not support the cult of CAWG changes the facts.
The GISS based assertion that 2015 could be the warmest year is a complete fabrication, propaganda.
Any comments?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/to:2015/mean:5/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2015/mean:5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/to:2015/mean:5
Curious that we are now seeing record sea ice in the Antarctic all months of the year and a recover of both extent and thickness of the Arctic sea ice.
CO2 continues to rise yet the planet appears to be cooling.
Oh what can be the cause of the sudden increase in sea ice both poles? (Hint: It is the sun.)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
My complaint is that they take these point data, and then smear them across hundreds of kilometers to make a “map” that glows bright red in the north. Perhaps Spitsbergen’s airport is a good station, that isn’t affected by jet blast and tarmac, but to project its T out to the North Pole is simply BS. I wouldn’t object if the “world temperature” was based simply on taking each reporting station as a discrete datum, and mashing them all together. Then, we could take work such as Anthony and crew did, evaluate and discard the bad stations, and come up with a more accurate figure. Then we might actually know if the earth is warming of cooling. Whatever, the present system is BS, and one that I truly believe is being manipulated by unscrupulous people for various agendas.
I like the approach of using all the temperature data that go into initialization of the global forecast models four times each day. This data set is much more comprehensive spatially than the GHCN and has a period of record similar to satellite derived estimates. In recent years it shows fairly large departures from GHCN derived global temperature anomaly estimates.
It is also very important to keep in mind the large uncertainly associated with the GHCN derived global temperature anomaly trends. I believe the graph below is a conservative estimate.