Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I do a lot of work with the CERES satellite dataset. An image of their data collection system is above. From their website:
The CERES project has advanced the state-of-the-art in Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) observations through improved accuracy of the CERES instruments and extensive use of coincident higher spatial resolution spectral imager measurements on both low-Earth orbit and geostationary platforms. CERES involves a high level of data fusion. During the CERES period, the team has processed data from 7 CERES instruments, 2 MODIS, 2 VIIRS and 20 geostationary imagers, all integrated to obtain climate accuracy in radiative fluxes from the top to the bottom of the atmosphere. Over 90% of the CERES data product volume involves two or more instruments.
However, recently, there have been claims in an analysis by Nikolov and Zeller (N&Z) that the IPCC is misusing the CERES satellite data. Now, I hate to write about this analysis for reasons I’ll get into, but as the saying goes, “Needs must when the Devil drives.”
The analysis is Nikolov & Zeller: Misrepresentation of Critical Satellite Data by IPCC, and it’s hosted over at Tallbloke’s Talkshop.
The reason I didn’t want to write about it is that I’ve had run-ins with Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller before, and also with Roger Tattersall, AKA “Tallbloke”.
With N&Z, a while back they published a scientific paper using aliases. I figured it out, which wasn’t all that hard given that the aliases were Den Volokin and Lark Rellez. So I wrote to the editor pointing this out, and the fat was in the fire. Suffice it to say, they weren’t happy with me.
They also published an analysis claiming that gravity is what is keeping the atmosphere warmer than it would be given the distance of the Earth from the sun. And that, of course, isn’t physically possible … and I said so.
With Roger Tallbloke, I’m banned from commenting on his site, Tallbloke’s Talkshop. It started with him banning Joel Shore from his site for saying that N&Z’s gravity analysis violated the conservation of energy. From a post during that time:
Roger’s exact words to Joel were:
… you’re not posting here unless and until you apologise to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about conservation of energy in their theory all over the blogosphere and failing to correct it.
Now, I have done the very same thing that Joel did. I’ve said around the web that the N&Z theory violates conservation of energy. So I went to the Talkshop and asked, even implored, Roger not to do such a foolish and anti-scientific thing as banning someone for their scientific views. Since I hold the same views and I committed the same thought-crimes, it was more than theoretical to me. Roger has remained obdurate, however, so I am no longer able to post there in good conscience.
Then, in a separate incident, I put up an actual proof that N&Z’s claim violated conservation of energy. I’m sure that didn’t endear me to N&Z. In the comments to that post, Rog got angry at me and banned me. I guess I’m double-banned.
So me commenting on an N&Z post hosted at Tallbloke’s Talkshop … well … let me just say there are forces at play and leave it at that.
To be fair, after someone pointed the N&Z out to me a week or so ago, I did get curious and started to take a quick look at the paper. I got a few paragraphs in, laughed, and moved on. Here’s why.
N&Z’s claim in the paper is that the IPCC is totally misrepresenting the CERES data by inverting it. From the opening of the paper:
We found out that the CERES global anomalies of reflected shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation have been multiplied by -1 in the computer code employed to generate Fig. 7.3. This caused inversion of the long-term trends of these key climate parameters. Dr. Matthew Palmer, one of the authors of Section 7.2.2, admitted in an email message that this trend inversion was done intentionally, but failed to provide a convincing justification for it.
When they said that, I immediately knew what had happened. Let me explain.
In the CERES datasets, generally all fluxes are positive in sign. So for example, in the CERES dataset the average value of TOA solar radiation heading towards the Earth is + 340 W/m2, and the average value of reflected solar heading away from the Earth is + 99 W/m2. Both are positive.
However, this is not the only convention in use. The IPCC, for example, considers energy fluxes heading towards the Earth as positive, and fluxes heading away from the Earth as negative. The logic behind this is that inward fluxes warm the Earth so they should be positive, and outbound fluxes cool the Earth so they should be negative. Fair enough.
So the IPCC would say that solar radiation is + 340 W/m2, and reflected solar radiation is – 99 W/m2. The outgoing radiation is negative.
The same is true about the upwelling longwave at the top of the atmosphere. The CERES data gives that as a positive value, + 240 W/m2 … but under the IPCC convention it’s a negative value, – 240 W/m2.
There’s nothing sacred about either of these conventions. Both are perfectly valid ways of doing business. For that matter, it would also be perfectly valid to consider fluxes headed towards the Earth as negative, and those going out away from the Earth as positive.
As long as you know which convention is in operation, it’s not a problem. For example, in CERES fashion, since all flows are positive, the net solar remaining after reflection is calculated as solar minus reflection.
But using the IPCC convention, where reflection is negative, the net solar remaining after reflection is calculated as solar plus reflection.
And when you understand and follow the convention in use, both give you the correct answer.
So after reading that small bit of their paper, I could already see where the misunderstanding lay. It was just different sign conventions. And since I didn’t want to write about it, I stopped reading the analysis right there, and I went on to other things.
However, today Anthony asked me to take a look at the paper because it seems to be causing a bit of a disturbance in the force. So it was “Once more into the breach, dear friends”, and I read it to the end. And near the end, to my surprise, they discussed their interaction with the authors, viz
We received a reply from Dr. Palmer on July 10, 2024, where he acknowledged that the reflected solar and outgoing thermal flux anomalies had intentionally been multiplied by -1. However, his explanation for this data manipulation was simply an expansion of the justification stated in the caption of Fig. 7.3 that invokes flux direction. Specifically, Dr. Palmer wrote:
“… reflected SW and outgoing LW are both defined as positive in the upward/outward direction. Therefore, for those timeseries we multiply by -1 so that they are expressed in a way that is consistent with the rest of the chapter. This means, for example, that a decrease in reflected SW means a relative GAIN of energy in the Earth system. Similarly, an increase in outgoing LW means a relative LOSS of energy in the Earth system. Note that in the figure we label these as “global solar flux anomaly” and “global thermal flux anomaly” rather than “reflected SW flux” and “outgoing LW flux”.”
Man, did I laugh when I read that. It said the exact same thing I’d already figured out was the problem. However, N&Z just blew him off saying:
As discussed above, this explanation makes no physical sense, because anomalies are always defined with respect to a chosen reference value and, therefore, have nothing to do with flux direction. Also, expressing a timeseries in terms of anomalies is not supposed to change the temporal trend of the original data.
Yeah … no. That’s not how it works. Sign conventions are just that, a convention. All the authors did, and rightly so, was to make their analysis consistent with IPCC conventions and more importantly, consistent with the model results they were comparing it to, by multiplying the outgoing flows of shortwave and longwave by -1. Totally legitimate, and in their case, totally necessary.
Anyhow, that’s N&Z, wrong again. However, my guess is that they won’t admit it, they’ll just keep on keeping on.
And that’s all I’m going to say on the N&Z claim. Here on our forested hillside with a tiny view of the Pacific Ocean six miles (ten km) distant to the west, the temperature has dropped and the fog is back. Saw a red fox scurrying by today looking for his lunch … life is good.
My best to all.
w.
I gotta say it: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.
NB: Today at the time when this publishes, I’ll be ripping the innards out of a toilet and taking them to town to find a replacement … so my replies will be delayed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis, why would these two guys have a need to publish under pseudonyms? Bizarre to say the least.
If you were publishing nonsense, you would use a pseudonym also.
but a smarter one
Noticed earlier today (𝕏) that they were still going with “atmosphere can’t ‘hold’ heat”.
Seems everything else, water, rock, a plank of Wood or a F’ing hard drive on my desk can ‘hold heat’ but an atmospheric gas Gas ?
Clown show masquerading as ‘Science’…
Here, I will heat this Iron ingot to 1200℃, now grab it while believing that ‘matter’ can’t get ‘warm’ or hold that ‘warmth’. F’ing tools.
Things might not even be where “we” believe they are.
Try and get yourself(s) a copy of Jim Al-Khalili on The BBC “The Secrets of Quantum Physics”.
Many aspects were “spooky” enough but the “Photosynthesis” element was enough of a “GTF” for me.
If ‘real’ it destroys the “random walk”. Like I says … spooky.
Edit: spelling and format
Did your mother name you “karlomonte”?
Of course not, but posting blog comments is hardly akin to publishing peer-reviewed journal articles.
True but motivation for anonymity would be the same – not wanting to show up at a meeting and have someone ask “aren’t you the guy that wrote …”.
Well… If one is testing the quality of “peer review” – I think it is valid to use pseudonyms. This avoids “pal review” and cuts to whether there is “ideology review.”
In that case, no names at all, just a random generated 8 or 10 digit number known only to the editor.
However, when published, the authors should be named.
“pseudonyms”
Their problem was that Willis had already taken their paper apart at WUWT, and they didn’t want to be googled.
Why were Gulliver’s Travels and many other important books published under pseudonyms? Why does science advance one death at a time?
Why did Samuel Clemens write as Mark Twain?
Or Mary Ann Evans as George Eliot
It was a lot easier to get published and read as a male author in Victorian England. And her later subjects were ones which would have been thought more suitable for a male author.
Leslie Stephen on George Eliot is very interesting – available on gutenberg. Her finest work was Middlemarch, the only thing in English that will stand comparison with Anna Karenina. But Stephen, writing not much later, approves of the slight and charming Mill on the Floss and the early work, and denigrates Middlemarch, Adam Bede and Felix Holt. There is a strong whiff of what is suitable for a woman to write about in his account.
And of course Daniel Deronda, where he is right, she unfortunately ruined a really fine work, the connection between Gwendolen Harleth and Grandcourt, by mixing it up with the dead as a dodo exploits of Deronda.
I wish you luck. I have rarely been able to do plumbing with only one trip to the store.
Thanks. I thought it was just me.
Talking about standardization of conventions (or lack thereof), plumbing is more mixed up than climate “science” could ever get.
Only trailer wiring inflicts more mixed-up conventions.
But isn’t our Wills a glutton for punishment –
having just unraveled a sh1tshow of CERES conventions disputes,
he throws himself at a PLUMBING problem!
Outstanding valor, that man!
Trailer wiring has nothing on old boat wiring that has gone through 6 or more previous owners.
Trailer wiring problems and light not working are usually associated with grounding issues. Always run ground wires form the back lights to the front near the hitch.
This insures than the negative is always working. If you switch the polarity it just want work!
Funny you should say that, because this was my third trip. However, the shutoff valve to the toilet is now replaced, along with everything from there to the ballcock and float. Oh, plus a new handle and flushing lever.
And the toilet now flushes, so life is good.
w.
The worst I encountered was the shutoff for the condo being bad, and having to wait for the association replacing that.
It’s replace vs. repair and permanent vs. temporary.
I have four different waste pipe bores, three different heating pipe bores and every radiator in the house has different fittings. I feel your pain.
I always turn off the water main when I do plumbing. The old valves will almost always leak because the seals are degraded, especially the valves with multiple turns. When leaking after opening them again they should be replaced with 1/4 turn ball valves. Sometimes you need a plumber to change these because old connections may be difficult to replace because of corrosion or need for copper soldering.
This wasn’t an option, because it would have left the whole ranch without water for hours while I searched for parts …
And yes, I replaced it with a 1/4 turn valve.
Regards,
w.
G’day Willis,
“…search for parts …”
In the mid 70’s. Was reworking a 1920’s bear hunter’s cabin in Wrightwood, CA, 6,000 foot elevation. It snows there. Walked into a plumbing supply store in San Bernardino, “Need three frost-free hose bibs.”
“What’s that?” Finally located in a catalog. A phone call. “There’s a wholesaler just down the street, they have what you want. We’ll give you one of our company purchase orders, they don’t do any retail.” That worked, as did the hose bibs.
That’s so weird, that’s exactly what I’m planning to do this weekend!
Once more unto the breach….
I say po-tay-to and you say po-tah-to. Call it a buffalo and the usual pedantic crowd will tell you it’s a bison. Ask them if they call their dog a canid and they don’t get it.
Nice post, WE. A shame that stuff like that happens in the climate skeptic crowd, because cheapens the good efforts of many others.
Good luck with the toilet innards. I had to replace a broken part in the guest bedroom bathroom, but got lucky. Got the broken part out without too much hassle, took it to the local Ace hardware store, and a guy there was able to locate a perfect replacement part out of the several different ones they had in stock. Easy peasy.
Toilets last forever.
I’ve had the same one for ~ 30 years, and only had to replace the bowl, the seat, the cistern, the water shut-off float mechanism, the water supply valve and pipe, the wax gasket seal at the outfall connection, and the cistern lid.
Come to think of it, I have an ax that has a similar history of longevity . . .
At my Wisconsin dairy farm, I keep a stock of two spare axe handles. It is that bad.
A fellow trail worker had an ax like that. Two handles and a head replaced.
“Best ax he ever had.”
If that was the ACE on Commercial, it is old school staffed by talented septugenarians who can look at a fastener and tell you “oh yeah that’s an M16, metric screw thread” and take you right to the replacement.
Exactly the one.
Yeah, that’s what ended up happening to me. I showed him the offending parts, and he pulled the kit will all the pieces off the shelf and handed it to me. And yep. It had all the pieces.
w.
I am a believer in their slogan: ACE is the place. Works for me.
Sad story. The ACE I used to frequent for decades at the Wisconsin dairy farm was driven out of business about ten years ago by the giant Walmart then recently opened in Iowa county seat Dodgeville. Let me tell you, Walmart is NOT the place. Didn’t carry replacement wood burning stove pipes. Didn’t carry logging chain. Only carried popular modern plumbing fixtures, hardly a full range; my dairy farmhouse was last updated about 1980.
A couple of headbangers.
They got the basic Ceres interpretation part right…the surface gets warmer when the sun shines on it.
Apparently didn’t go far enough into checking the numbers or they would have realized their alternate sign convention.
I am afraid I don’t read Nikolov and Zeller. While I usually like their conclusions, I don’t trust the way those conclusions are reached.
Thank you Willis. Well done.
I completely agree with you on your views on the Nikolov & Zeller issues, Willis. Gravity is not the answer to the energetics of the atmosphere. Unless the Earth’s gravity changes it could not affect energy fluxes without violating energy conservation. And I also realized that this last paper was an issue of not understanding the sign convention used by the IPCC. I already run into that issue while reading a paper by Loeb, because the sign convention on ToA energy fluxes is different for different authors and papers. Tallbloke is being irrational over this. Disagreement is how science advances.
“With N&Z, a while back they published a scientific paper using aliases. I figured it out, which wasn’t all that hard given that the aliases were Den Volokin and Lark Rellez. So I wrote to the editor pointing this out, and the fat was in the fire. Suffice it to say, they weren’t happy with me.”
They thought nobody would be smart enough to figure it out? With such aliases, it’s as if they were begging someone to figure it out. They should have thanked you.
Argh, I don’t if it is funny or sad that authors ‘N&Z’ can’t seem to ‘get’ a physics convention like keeping straight a minus sign as an alternative to just subtracting. Then they say that a minus sign is ‘data manipulation’.
What is sad here is that their basic thesis, that “gravity is what is keeping the atmosphere warmer than it would be given the distance of the Earth from the sun”, that in itself is *not* necessary a dumb idea (although Willis E., would seem to say so, by way of “And that, of course, isn’t physically possible”). As with most things, what you consider possible may depend on maintaining a bit of nuance, including keeping signs straight, *and* including some nuance on what you consider the energy implications to be?
Look, suppose I tell you that the ultimate cause of my house being cooler than the outside air is the fact that I’ve got my home thermstat set at 22 degrees C right now. Then, say that your response to me is something on the order of ‘oh my gosh, you don’t understand thermodynamics, no way that thermostat is causing heat energy to just disappear from inside your house’. Maybe the implication then, is that I’m claiming energy conservation violation, when all I’m doing is attributing cause and effect to the thermostat (in effect).
How could gravity, or the weight of the air as such, be a cause of higher than expected temperature at the ground? Well, for instance, one of the things we depend on for keeping the ground as *cool* as it is, is convection. Convection in turn happens because the little packets or ‘moities’ of air expand and rise, from the combined effects of gravity and the volume response to being heated, right?
It just seems to me, that *if* someone could make the case that a heavier atmosphere makes that process more difficult (in the sense that a *higher temperature* is then needed to make everything balance), *then* they could truly say that atmospheric weight, i.e., gravity, is a primary cause of higher ground temperature.
You could say that gravity is what keeps an atmosphere around earth, which in turn makes it possible for the earth to be warmer than it would be with no atmosphere. Therefore, gravity makes the earth warmer. But it seems to me that reasoning is so simplistic as to be useless.
LoL, a nice tautology! Consider though that Mars’ lightweight atmosphere seems to do little to warm that planet, despite a higher partial pressure of CO2 as such, compared to the Earth? Even your tautology, that gravity makes atmospheres possible, seems to fit in, it’s not an inconsistent perception.
The only thing I can figure is air warms when compressed, so in a static state, increasing gravity would compress the air and heat it as it is pulled down.
N&Z had better never go into accounting. They would be totally confused by the concept of “expenses”.
Leaving the real dirty work until later…
My reply to the third or fourth person reporting the Tallbloke post as as a tip…
I hope that nobody takes this as “signs are irrelevant.” Signs are ALWAYS relevant – dependent on what you are trying to measure.
The “global temperature” measure boils down to “measuring kinetic energy in that portion of the Earth’s system that affects human beings.”
Kinetic energy CANNOT be negative, only (theoretically) zero at the lower bound – therefore an increase in it is ALWAYS positive, while a decrease is ALWAYS negative.
Thanks for looking into this. I, too, ignored it because it was N&Z, but before you investigated I couldn’t be sure that the blind-squirrel rule hadn’t struck.
It looks like a couple a steps were missing in the gravity makes the Earth warmer.
Gravity keeps the water vapor from floating away into space and having the water vapor in the air warms the Earth.
I’m a home expert. My advise has long been to upgrade & buy a new toilet.
Home Depot always has Kohler or American Standard specials for high quality toilets.
Get the taller toilet too.
Don’t most new toilets use 1.6 gallons per flush?
And weren’t most sewer systems designed for 2.5 gallons per flush ?
So ….. flush twice !
😉
Modern 1.6 gal toilets work marvelously. That flushing problem was in the first generation low flow toilets. It’s ancient history 🙂
the plumbing in place, after the toilet, generally doesn’t care if it is 1.6 or 2.5
Put your hand on the high pressure side of a heat pump vs the low pressure side. Convection is the pump, gravity is the orifice.
Please, in the interests of the advancement of science, will those who have put bans on others please lift them and grow up a little.
Enormous harm is being done by the current trend loosely named “cancel culture”. Do not engage in it. It is childish, ignorant and unbecoming of adults.
Geoff S
The Holder Inequality guarantees that while there is a unique solution when converting temperature to average radiation, there is an infinity of solutions when converting radiation to average temperature.
This infinity means that anyone can prove anything in climate science. The lack of progress in spite of millions of people hours and hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars is sure proof of this.
Willis, Many thanks for saving me from some suffering. I saw the Z&H inverted sign note awhile back and thought it implausible but might be worth looking into. I’ve seen many screwy things on the flight missions I’ve worked on over the years, and they are usually fixed by the time the data pipeline is commissioned, or not long after by a legion of confused post-docs and grad students.
Nikolov and Zeller published the reason they used pseudonyms which may or may not satisfy all.
Quite. Reminds me of the two ways electron flow theory can be taught.
Or U=Q+W for chemical engineers but U=Q-W for mechanical engineers, a matter of whether you feel W is something you put in or something you take out…