Guest post by David Middleton
Featured image borrowed from here.
If you can set aside the smug, snide remarks of the author, this article does a fairly good job in explaining why the surface station temperature data have to be adjusted and homogenized.
There is just one huge problem…
Zeke Hausfather/Berkeley Earth”… I added the the natural variability box and annotation. All of the anomalous warming ince 1960 is the result of the adjustments.
Without the adjustments and homogenization, the post-1960 US temperatures would be indistinguishable from the early 20th century.
I’m not saying that I know the adjustments are wrong; however anytime that an anomaly is entirely due to data adjustments, it raises a red flag with me. In my line of work, oil & gas exploration, we often have to homogenize seismic surveys which were shot and processed with different parameters. This was particularly true in the “good old days” before 3d became the norm. The mistie corrections could often be substantial. However, if someone came to me with a prospect and the height of the structural closure wasn’t substantially larger than the mistie corrections used to “close the loop,” I would pass on that prospect.
Just for grins, I plotted the UAH and RSS satellite time series on top of the Hausfather graph…
I think I can see why the so-called consensus has become so obsessed recently with destroying the credibility of the satellite data.
Addendum
In light of some of the comments, particularly those from Zeke Hausfather, I downloaded the UAH v5.6 “USA48” temperature anomaly series and plotted it on Zeke’s graph of US raw, TOBs-adjusted and fully homogenized temperatures. I shifted the UAH series up by about 0.6 °C to account for the different reference periods (datum differences)…
I used a centered 61-month average for a 5-yr running average. Since there appears to be a time shift, I also shifted the UAH ahead a few months to match the peaks and troughs…
The UAH USA48 data do barely exceed the pre-1960 natural variability box and track close to the TOBs-adjusted temperatures, but well below the fully homogenized temperatures.
Is that Dick Dastardly from Wacky Races?
“I think can see why the so-called consensus has become so obsessed recently with destroying the credibility of the satellite data.”
And now that the El Nino is starting to ease, that desperation will become MANIC !
And great fun to watch….. as the dodgy bros salesmen go to work !
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!” “We must get rid of the pause!” “We must get rid of the Satellite data!” “We must discredit any one who would questions us!” “We must exaggerate the threat so that people will listen!” “We must get the people to do what we tell them to do!”
Does any of that sound scientific in the slightest. No, of course not. In order for the AGW myth to continue, science itself must be redefined or discredited, and that is exactly what is happening.
The satellite data was right…until it was wrong…because they are falling out of orbit….even though they have been adjusted for that since day one…………
What would you get for a global mean if you used the temperature data as concentration for mineral X using the tools that you use? ± 1°C?
I don’t know how difficult it is to homogenise the data in oil and gas exploration but the data is simply the mass of mineral divided by the sample mass for many samples taken in places for that specific purpose. You are then using this to get the mass of product in a large volume of the Earth’s crust. This is a lot different to using means of max and min temperatures that are affected a lot by very localised conditions other than the change in amount of thermal energy in the atmosphere in the region so that data from even nearby stations rarely look alike (if you expand the axis to the change in GMTA since 1880). On top of that, would you base your decision on a result that is merely a few % of the range of values that you get in the one spot?
The changes to the global temperature anomaly are the very suspicious ones. Just what was needed to reduce the problem of why there was a large warming trend in the early 20th C that wasn’t exceeded when emissions became significant. And this is the difference between data homogenised in 2001 and now. The problem is not (just) homogenisation but the potential to adjust the data to what you want to see.
OMG!
As far as I can see they will have to do a major adjustment to the ocean temperature record as well, to get the observations in line with the predictions: Have you ever wondered if any warming is really missing?
In terms of temperature:
For 0 – 2000 m ocean depth, a temperature increase of 0,045 K is reported for the period from 2005 – 2015:
The temperature increase deduced from the theory put forward by IPCC is :
0,064 K for the lowest limit for radiative forcing (1,2 W / m2)
0,13 K for the central estimate for radiative forcing (2,3 W / m2)
0,19 K for the highest limit for radiative forcing (3,3 W / m2)
Hence, the observed amount of warming of the oceans from 0 – 2000 m is also far below the lowest limit deduced from IPCC´s estimate for anthropogenic forcing.
Can you show the ballon data also with sat data? Always makes for a better conversation with the agw religious brother in law?
I think can see why the so-called consensus has become so obsessed recently with destroying the credibility of the satellite data….
Are you missing an ” I ” ??…..I think ” I ” can see why the so-called consensus has become so obsessed recently with destroying the credibility of the satellite data.
The divergence of the raw data from the processed curves in the first graph seems to coincide with the Great Thermometer die-off. Raw data are thinned out to provide more scope for adjustments. Anyone who thinks that these wildly interpolated and thrice-processed data have any useful degree of accuracy should just hand back their science diploma.
“NOAA climate scientists”?
Excuse my skepticism, but anyone who works for NOAA and also calls himself, or herself, a climate scientist, has two strikes against them as far as credibility is concerned. As for adjusting past temperature data, that should be a no go. Too many questions can be raised. Just graph the data as it was measured. When collection instrumentation and/or methods change, draw a lineplot the new data, and note what and why it changed.
I would suggest that what needs adjustment the most is their willing suspension of critical thinking, but then I remember they’re getting paid to put this stuff out. Sad that to make the necessary adjustments to science to get it back on track, we’ll first have to make a major adjustment to the political climate.
You know it is political when Karl Mears of RSS starts to disown his own work. No matter that the satellites agree with the radiosondes (weather balloons).
The consensus will have a harder time disowning them. I imagine that attack will soon come along the lines of mostly land. We already know NOAA chose to fiddle SST rather than land to ‘bust’ the pause via Karl 2015. Much easier to fiddle sketchy ocean data pre Argo. And Argo aint that great.
“There is just one huge problem…
Without the adjustments and homogenization, the post-1960 US temperatures would be indistinguishable from the early 20th century.”
It’s not a huge problem. The US is not the world. It did indeed have a very warm period in the 1930’s, whereas the ROW had a much smaller variation.
And of course, comparing US and global RSS etc is also pointless. Regional averages are usually much more variable than global.
In the US, TOBS adjustment has a particular trend effect, for well documented reasons. But globally, adjustment has very little effect.
March 13th 2016. World Wide Discharge a CO2 Extinguisher Day.
I’m up for it – might even open a few 2L bottles of Lemonade simultaneously – and make some bread – and . . . .
Cannot wait to see how unprecedentedly hot April will be as a result of all that ‘harmful’ gas.
One key point they didn’t discuss was that the high quality 1/2 stations have a smaller warming trend than the low quality stations. They say all these corrections are eliminating the biases, yet the biases clearly remain.
And then they set their biased data on a pedestal to undermine all other datasets. In the case of the Pause-buster data, it sticks out like a sore thumb against many other curated datasets put out by establishment groups, yet they insist it’s the new standard.
For the two highest quality datasets, USCRN and ARGO, they have now adjusted BOTH of them to match low-quality data. The set the initial conditions for USCRN at an anomaly of almost +1 degree, based on historic USHCN data. And they adjusted the ARGO data to match the ship intake data, rather than doing the opposite.
It’s as if they don’t WANT high quality data as a solid reference point.
Global temp: it’s like a boring two horse race you can’t see properly, if you can see it at all.
“I think I can see why the so-called consensus has become so obsessed recently with destroying the credibility of the satellite data.”
You should have plotted the RAW RSS data.
Nobody is obsessed with destroying the credibility of the modelled data produced from satellites.
People are interested in what the actual adjustments are and the uncertainties.
But Look Dave..
You like RSS. RSS has to perform a TOBS correction.
Do your trust the physics of that TOBS correction?
If yes… Then you just trusted a GCM.. because RSS corrects its data with the aid of a GCM
I fail to see the point in debating the various temperature effects (cart) of climate change before the CO2 cause (horse) has been solidly demonstrated. Anthro CO2 is trivial, CO2’s RF is trivial, GCM’s don’t work. Trust the force, Luke!
Prior to MLO the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, both paleo ice cores and inconsistent contemporary grab samples, were massive wags. Instrumental data at some of NOAA’s tall towers passed through 400 ppm years before MLO reached that level. IPCC AR5 TS.6.2 cites uncertainty in CO2 concentrations over land. Preliminary data from OCO-2 suggests that CO2 is not as well mixed as assumed. Per IPCC AR5 WG1 chapter 6 mankind’s share of the atmosphere’s natural CO2 is basically unknown, could be anywhere from 4% to 96%. (IPCC AR5 Ch 6, Figure 6.1, Table 6.1)
The major global C reservoirs (not CO2 per se, C is a precursor proxy for CO2), i.e. oceans, atmosphere, vegetation & soil, contain over 45,000 Pg (Gt) of C. Over 90% of this C reserve is in the oceans. Between these reservoirs ebb and flow hundreds of Pg C per year, the great fluxes. For instance, vegetation absorbs C for photosynthesis producing plants and O2. When the plants die and decay they release C. A divinely maintained balance of perfection for thousands of years, now unbalanced by mankind’s evil use of fossil fuels.
So just how much net C does mankind’s evil fossil fuel consumption (67%) & land use changes (33%) add to this perfectly balanced 45,000 Gt cauldron of churning, boiling, fluxing C? 4 GtC. That’s correct, 4. Not 4,000, not 400, 4! How are we supposed to take this seriously? (Anyway 4 is totally assumed/fabricated to make the numbers work.)
Is that “raw” data the data from all surface stations including those that are not properly sited and those that are in recognized Urban Heat Islands BEFORE any adjustment(s)?
This data “adjustment” stuff reminds me of contract claims disputes in the construction industry. You have raw data, which typically everyone can agree on. Then you have methods and assumptions for calculating the claim amount, which are disputed almost 100% of the time. I’ve seen cases with highly credentialed experts on both sides of a contract claim coming up with widely differing cost analysis, depending on whether they represent the owner, or the contractor.
Especially considering the tiny temperature anomaly scales, it strikes me as extremely likely the final adjusted graphs being produced by these environmental activists posing as scientist are showing wildly exaggerated warming.
What’s really disturbing to me as that the public only sees the “warmist” version of the (adjusted) data. And that data is presented to the laymen as concrete evidence, as if the graphs themselves represent undisputable raw data.
Adjustments should be seen not as a necessity, but as an opportunity.
I have a question for anyone with knowledge: These “TOBS” adjustments. Are they done on a case by case basis? Or as a global change? In other words did someone actually comb through each and every record looking for time of observation changes? or did they just sort of “wing it” with a single adjustment to all the data at once?
This is not science, it is political speech. Re-read Mr Scott K Johnson’s statements . They are attacks on congressman L.Smith.
Note the insults to him, the misrepresentation of of the facts that prompted his interest. Note the term “stump speech”
He received Whistle blower’s statements that something was wrong. He is required by law to investigate.
Since Mr Johnson choose to make it a campaign issue , the forums distributing his “political ads” must grant equal time for dissent.
michael.
People who work in the applied sciences often have to make assumptions and/or interpolate data when no better data is available. However, they do so on the condition that they will receive feedback in the future which will allow them to make adjustments to account for incorrect assumptions. If we have to know everything there is to know before we start a project, then no buildings will get built, no patients will get cured and no oil will be found.
But historical temperatures are just that – historical. And historical data, with known errors, should be scrapped, not tweaked. There is no way to go back in time to see if you are “right”. They cannot form the basis of geoengineering i.e. trying to control the “temperature” of the planet.
This brings to light the two factors that make geoengineering the climate impossible. 1) Insufficient power to affect the system and 2) Lack of timely feedbacks to make adjustments.
Irregardless if CAGW is true or not, the most we can do is what humans have always done – adapt.