Well unfortunately my posts are going to slow down a bit for the next week. I have to travel again to the backside of the planet and will have some difficulty logging on as I did before. Don’t worry, I’ll be back.
In the meantime, this is something I have been wondering about for some time. GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) temperature data has a substantial amount of corrections built into it. The corrections are designed to address temperature station bias due to things like this.
If you click on it you can see the original Watts Up With That post.
You see the temperature measuring station is mounted right next to a brick wall by what is apparently a parking lot. Tell me that doesn’t trap heat from the sun. Whats worse is the correction that GISS applies to the data to account for buildings.
See how the blue original data was hotter in history than the corrected GISS data creating a higher upslope in the GISS data. The corrections are supposedly for just this issue. This is clearly unreasonable for a station placed next to a modern building which would add heat in recent times. Watt’s up has a huge project which is documenting all of the stations across the country. There are many with this exact problems. GISS corrects temperatrues using an algorithm which determines the quality of the location based on its proximity to light sources in a night time satellite photo. With so much money being spent on AGW research, they can’t take time to treat each station individually.
Well enough bitching about that. The real issue is the correction of a trend. In data and instrumentation absolute value is sometimes poorly known but repeated measurements with the same instrument give a very high quality trend. This is because instruments most often are repeatable to a high degree of accuracy. What GISS has done, which I strongly disagree with, is to impart a correction in the TREND. Now we have not only the absolute temp value corrected but the trend corrected.
Well fortunately for us we have satellites for the last 30 years. The UAH and RSS datasets are satellite measurements of the lower troposphere at altitiudes which are less affected by buildings. The RSS has multiple corrections in the data and John Christy has recommended UAH over RSS in several publications. I chose UAH for this comparison.
Below is a simple plot of UAH and GISS data.
I have included the trend lines for each. GISS is in black UAH is in red in raw anomaly units as presented by those who compile the data. I have two least squares fits for the data which are fit only to the 30 year period that UAH actually covers (no data before Dec 1978). Now any engineer who sees this type of thing should react pretty strongly to the difference in slope. The curves which both measure lower troposphere temp. are on a different temperature scale.
Slope of GISS for last 30 years = 0.0183 DegC/yr
Slope of UAH for last 30 years = 0.0127 DegC/yr
What people should understand from this is that slope from hundreds of measurements is well known. Any error in measurement is averaged out so these slopes are both allegedly known within thousandths of a degree per year. Therefore, how can they be so different.
I once asked Gavin Shmidt on Real Climate about the divergence between satellite and GISS, his answer was “what divergence?”. I hadn’t done this plot so I had no answer for him. Now I say “that divergence!”.
The difference in the “Well Known” slope is .0056 degC/year or .56 degrees per century. We can’t even measure temperature within a half degree per century with today’s instruments yet we can PREDICT temps will rise by 2deg C.
Well I tell you what, every time you hear GISS temp curve. Remember this plot, it shows clearly that the data has an imparted slope of 0.56 degC/century which likely is FALSE.
Here is an image capture of the front page of GISS website. Click on it to see for yourself.
See the last entry in their unbiased site, Dangerous human made interference. It sounds like they have made up their minds. These guys have a horse in the race, and they are clearly NOT scientifically unbiased.
If you have ever seen how few weather stations which made up GISS before 1940, you wouldn’t believe what we are basing climate change on. Let’s see what happens when I take the artificial and obviously INCORRECT temperature trend out of the GISS dataset. I simply applied a 0.56 degree per century reduction in slope to the GISS data.
The black line is GISS again with the ERROR in TREND subtracted out, you can see now that the CRITICAL slope values match exactly. If this was the correct curve we wouldn’t be talking about warming would we? Before you react to strongly, the correction cannot be applied across the entire century as I have done because GISS has multiple correctons to the historic data. Relative to measurement noise these slopes are known to THOUSANTHS of a degree per year (the number is from my other posts, I’m tired and don’t feel like replicating the calc). I can’t say it loudly enough. This is a real problem with the data and we know it ain’t the corrections to UAH that are the problem.
I’ve known about this for a long time. These are the reasons I don’t trust what I am hearing from the CONSENSUS! The one place where we should have the best data and the temp curve is being exaggerated by the correction algorithm. Damn, there are a bunch of expensive PhD’s out there who work on this data, how is it acceptable. If they say GISS is right, let’s shoot down the F’n satellites giving us such bad data.
GISS needs to address this and as far as I’m concerned they have to address the early 1900’s corrections as well.
the Air Vent 
Jeff just thinking out loud a bit here. I am not an expert on this kind of stuff so sorry if I am off base.
An interesting analysis would be to compare the post 1978 slopes of all the temp anomaly data sets statistically. Trying to identify a bias in a particular data set using only one other data set for comparison would limit the inferences we can draw. If the slopes of all the data sets are similar then there would be some confidence in identifying an outlier.
I liked the comparison you did of the slope adjusted GISS anomalies with UAH. Just eyeballing the graphs seems to indicate that the correlation between the two would be very tight. Is there a statistical analysis that can be done that may show any slope differences are not due to noise ergo must be due to a systemic bias (such as adjustment algorithms perhaps) affecting the trend?
Jeff,
I seem to recall that UAH temps require multiplying by 1.2 (?) to get values comparable with ground temperatures – did you already do that?
Chris, I did not. Actually the procedure as I understand it, is to divide UAH by 1.2 or 1.3 in the tropics per John Christy.
Link here
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687#comments
Ratio factor:
Climate models display a fairly robust ratio of the troposphere anomalies/trends represented by the surface variation vs. the LT profile of MSU temperatures of 1:1.2 globally, and 1:1.3 in the tropics (Steve: it is 1.3 for the tropics and 1.2 for the globe). These have been called amplification factors. Models indicate that anomalies and trends of the surface become larger by these factors in the LT profile (See CCSP report for example or Douglass et al. 2007 for model results). Observations have not agreed with these model-calculated ratios for long-term trends, but do agree on monthly scale anomalies. (see Christy et al. 2007 on Tropical Tropospheric Temps) and Douglass et al. 2007.
Dividing would flatten the slope of the satellite even further but it wouldn’t be as interesting to say I used a factor derived from modeling and I got this.
I think the reason it isn’t discussed is that the slope difference over the 30 year period is so small. But it does have a big effect when projected over 100 years and it is detectable.
#1,
I did that statistical analysis once before on this blog. It was quite late so I finished with what I had.
That’s why I make the claim that we know temp trends within thousandts of a degree due to measurement accuracy. The thousandths number wasn’t corrected for autocorrelation so it is somewhat larger than my original number. As far as blaiming GISS over UAH you only need to look at the history of GISS corrections and UAH measurement to understand which has the problem.
Jeff,
Satellites and surface stations do measure the same metric. One measures surface temperature and one measures temperature throughout the troposphere. You can’t make comparisons as you do here.
Also, we do know that either UAH or RSS is wrong, since they purport to measure the same thing. Or both could be wrong.
That should be “do not measure the same metric.” Sorry.
Jeff, Thanks for your blog, and your input to WUWT. Hansen fiddles wih the numbers so much I am surprised they track anything else. His increased slope exaggerates longterm trends too, since he lowers the past temperatures.
Boris, I dare say that Jeff has done what GISS did, except maybe that he did not use a jonted equation. GISS takes similar stations to compute their bias of the trend. Jeff took similar data to correct the GISS bias of the trend. Methodology is the same. You should take your complaint to GISS. In fact, this is similar to your post about UAH vs RSS, we know that GISS could be wrong, and Jeff could be wrong. But if Jeff is right, GISS is wrong. However, Jeff being wrong will not make GISS right.
Jeff,
You touched on something that has really been bothering me for a long time. The fact is we don’t know what the real temperature trend even is. BILLIONS of dollars spent on global warming research, and yet there are huge uncertainties in the most basic metric. It is a completely unacceptable situation. According to Gavin (if memory serves, might have been someone else), they only devote approximately 1/4 of a full time position to maintaining the GISS temperature database. BILLIONS! The GISSTEMP code is a cobbled together undocumented mess of spaghetti according to Climate Audit. BILLIONS! SurfaceStations.org has shown that finding a reasonably placed surface station is the exception, with most being a joke. BILLIONS! Where the hell do the billions go? How about getting a decent temperature measurement before studying how global warming will affect the long term anxiety levels of eskimos? The warming is a foregone conclusion apparently, not even worth investing money to study. All the capital seems to end up in scary computer models and ever increasing predictions of catastrophe. Who is allocating all this money, and why does so little go to actually measuring the thing we are so worried about? The cynic in me tends to believe the alarmists might prefer it this way. No need to worry about the temperature not following expectations when you can always apply another “correction” to the garbage data. How many times has Hansen readjusted the temperature data now? I remember someone doing a statistical analysis of the percentage of corrections that increased the warming trend as opposed to lowering it or leaving it unchanged. The odds were practically nill. Just listening to the guy, is it any surprise that his biases creep into the data when the corrections are bigger than the signal? The fact that they fight tooth and nail against releasing data and code certainly doesn’t help alleviate suspicions. Billions spent, a gullible media relentlessly chanting the “settled science” mantra, and still any honest person would have to admit we don’t even know what the current warming trend really is. Maddening.
It might all be worth while if the “global temperature” actually was a meaningful metric, but what does it tell us, particularly as it is a poor average of max and min temperatures at a few locations and at different elevations etc. But actually what we are really interested in is the global energy (or enthalpy). But then again, are we interested in the energy in the atmosphere, or the energy in the atmosphere and oceans. And since the energy deep in the oceans is irrelevant to climate in the short term (weather), are we only interested in the deep ocean energy on a much longer timescale?
Whatever it is that is measured, it should be obtained in a consistent and unbiased manner, since trillions depend on it. Billions should be spent on getting good measurements before, not after, billions are wasted on computer models trying to calculate a temperature which has cost billions to get and on which 0.25man/year quality assurance is spent.
Retroactively correcting data is not scientific. The data are the data. Lacking a time machine, a scientist is forced to come up with methods that use climate data as is.
If one thought there we meaningful trend data to be had by examining station temperature data in the aggregate, the best approach is to determine the individual trends for each station on it’s own, without correction, and then report on these trends in the aggregate.
Using this approach one can make statements like “50% of all urban stations have a trends of at least X degC/century”, and then perhaps compare this to the trend distribution of rural stations. This might give us some meaningful insight into UHI effects. Also, looking at the trends distributions of rural station data would perhaps give us some meaningful insight into actual warming trends – lacking UHI, those stations trends should tell us something about underlying warming effects. I don’t think you could scientifically put a firm number on warming amounts – but you could make statistically valid claims about the aggregate data and distributions of trend.
Jeff, do you know of anyone who’s attempted such a thing? Basically the idea is to just perform a regression on each station’s temperature record individually, and store the slope, and any other regression data, in a database indexed by station metadata (rural vs. urban, elevation, instrument type, lat/lon). One could then generate histograms for various slices of meta data to so if there are substantial differences in trend. You could answer all sorts of meaningful questions with such a database.
in electronics we used a feedback resister to get rid of noise, I know this is different But there must be a way to get rid of the giss human induced error.
and the UHI noise as well. If you can or we can get it, I am afraid that the temp drop will be quite big. know one will believe it. Everyone says we are in a warming or warm period, well lots of ag. issues say different.
re: #1 and #4
Jeff, I refreshed myself on the work you did in “Tamino’s Folly”. Was the temp data set comparison done with raw anomaly data or with the trends adjusted to a common slope (as per your corrected GISS slope above). Sorry if I have missed something obvious.
Off thread, have you seen this: Soot reduction ‘could help to stop global warming’ at http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/soot-reduction-could-help-to-stop-global-warming-1224481.html Here is one quote from the article that is based on a paper by GISS: “Black carbon, the component of soot that gives it its colour, is thought to be the second largest cause of global warming after carbon dioxide.” Methinks that even the worst AGW alarmists are looking for a way out!
Jeff Id is behaving the like the creationists and still looking, in vain, for climatology’s “missing links” …
Hey, Jeff, are you still trolling this trip on science-and-reality based websites?
How much are you being paid to spread disinformation and lies, Jeff?
It doesn’t much matter any more, does it? Seems like your side lost.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Jeff,
Methinks it is time to kick David out of your home. He is only here to spread his childish abuse and would appear to be of no use to anyone (and that includes himself). Unless he grows up he will continue to be a complete waste of everything.
No! The dude spends his time with eagles! He’s an eagle-whisperer!
So, David, it appears you think the scientific community knows absolutely everything there is know about climate. Of course, this would be unique in the anals of science for a complex chaotic system.
I guess David doesn’t have any clue how silly he sounds.
Phillip
“But actually what we are really interested in is the global energy (or enthalpy)”
I have been wondering about this for some time. I am sorry that you comments are so short because, in my mind this is what the discussion should be all about. Temp. is only part of this discussion.
Hello TSH,
“He’s an eagle-whisperer!”
Amen to that, TSH. I’m an eagle whisperer. I’m seeing eagles nearly every day and am looking forward to seeing a lot of baby eagles in the months ahead.
Richard says:
“So, David, it appears you think the scientific community knows absolutely everything there is know about climate. Of course, this would be unique in the anals of science for a complex chaotic system. ”
I never made such a claim. Only scientifically illiterate uneducated conservatives makes such claims and they apply the “principle” widely … science doesn’t know everything about cosmology, geology, evolution, and climate change so they are all wrong!
Science doesn’t need to know everything. Only denialist trolls like Jeff Id and propaganda news sources such as Fox News and the loudmouth ignoramuses of Talk Radio imagine otherwise.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Let’s see if I get this right, David. You chide Jeff for looking for “climatology’s missing links”, inferring they do not exist and yet deny you made such a claim. Your logic is the obvious “missing link” on this blog. I am getting a good laugh out of your silly attempts to sound intelligent, all the while making one obvious gaff after another.
“Boris, I dare say that Jeff has done what GISS did, except maybe that he did not use a jonted equation. GISS takes similar stations to compute their bias of the trend. Jeff took similar data to correct the GISS bias of the trend. Methodology is the same.”
What you fail to realize John, is that surface trends and tropospheric trends, as measured by satellites are not supposed to match. So Jeff pointing out that they don’t match is not surprising to anyone who knows what each measures.
Boris, why are the trends not supposed to match? Is there hard science on this somewhere? Will GISS have always have a steeper trend?
Hello Richard,
“ Let’s see if I get this right, David. You chide Jeff for looking for “climatology’s missing links”, inferring they do not exist and yet deny you made such a claim. Your logic is the obvious “missing link” on this blog. I am getting a good laugh out of your silly attempts to sound intelligent, all the while making one obvious gaff after another. ”
Richard, your lack of scientific literacy is showing.
The fossil record is full of missing links. Evolution is still true. The creationists are merely grasping at straws.
Climatology remains a developing science. The scientists haven’t answered every question or solved every mystery or resolved every problem. Yet Global Warming is still occurring. The Denialists are grasping at straws.
Anyone who demands that science have the answer to every question is either uneducated or a conservative troll.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Boris, unfortunately your statement of “”are not supposed to match”” taken in the common context is not correct. What you refer to as surface trands actually measure part of the troposphere. As to all the huffing and puffing on both sides of the AGW question, the general trends from GISS or Hadley Center, or UAH or RSS agree offset by a factor. Thus your nuance is actually an incorrect statement. Though they measure technically different areas of the troposphere, the offset is a factor. They do potentially measure different areas of the earth. However, in that many of the areas that unmeasured by one are also unmeasured by the other. One big differnce is that the satellites cover areas that are only marginally covered by GISS or the Hadley Center. In that respect, I was being “kind” to consider that GISS or Hadley have the same or close to the same advantage of coverage or “large numbers”.
So in pointing out how they don’t match is not necessarily a positive point for GISS or Hadley. And in particular, some prefer Hadley since it tends to be closer to the satellites. I prefer GISS, though not complete, they have at least tried to provide the code and be transparent as is required in scientific endeavors.
None of the metrics are pefect; and thus, it is not I that do not realize the nature of themethodology that I used. Rather, your post indicates you did not realize the validity of the methdology that GISS and Jeff used, since they are essentially the same. The differnces are only in the eyes of the beholders, or not, as the case may be.
Please note, in that the satellites measure more of the troposphere, in depth and area, than do “surface” measurements, the satellites should be chosen for coverage over GISS or Hadley. Hadley and GISS need to be standardized to satellites not the reverse.
All of these metrics have problems. Each has something to offer, and none are without caveats, assumptions, and other “”unknown unknowns.””
The MSU data measures temps throughout the troposphere. The troposphere does not warm as quickly as the surface, so the trend is lower. Things are complicated by the fact that there is likely stratospheric contamination of the MSU trends.
John F. Pittman sounds exactly like a creationist …
“ Boris, unfortunately your statement of “”are not supposed to match”” taken in the common context is not correct. What you refer to as surface trands actually measure part of the troposphere. As to all the huffing and puffing on both sides of the AGW question, the general trends from GISS or Hadley Center, or UAH or RSS agree offset by a factor. Thus your nuance is actually an incorrect statement. Though they measure technically different areas of the troposphere, the offset is a factor. They do potentially measure different areas of the earth. However, in that many of the areas that unmeasured by one are also unmeasured by the other. One big differnce is that the satellites cover areas that are only marginally covered by GISS or the Hadley Center. In that respect, I was being “kind” to consider that GISS or Hadley have the same or close to the same advantage of coverage or “large numbers”. ”
Conservative trolls imagine that complexity constitutes a refutation of the conclusions of science. Unfortunately for conservatives, complexity is expected.
Fortunately the conservatives are a politically irrelevant minority so their failure to comprehend science will no longer serve as a road block to government action against pollution.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
David, your post #24 is a bit out of date. It was proposed as far back, as immedaitely after Darwin’s publication itself, that there were “missing links.” Several proposals for clarifying the original theory have been made; and several have been generally accepted. One is that Darwin’s original theory is basically linear. In studying Protista, it was realized that evolution was occurring not in a linear fashion, but in that ALL surviving organisms are subject to it as they procreate and/or exist. With the discovery of genes and their influence, it was realized that each individual genetic expression could potentially be a mutation in the Darwinnian sense. Later as computers, and our database grew, it was ralized that for sexual species, each individual was unique and potentially a new species. Modern population studies, assisted by computer modelling showed that it was expected that species would appear and disappear so fast that “missing links” would be appear missing. The truth is they probably never existed. The successful reproduction by the new AND replacement of the previuos species was, and needed to be rapid, and not necessarily gradual. Note, a gradual improvement by the competing new species would likely be offset by a gradual improvement in the old species in a general statistical sense. Of the interseting timelines of this story which is considerd as supporting evidence, is that based on statistics, this phenomena was predicted prior to computers, languages, and programming being developed capable of modelling the necessity of rapid replacement.
In modern theory, to talk of a missing link has to be very specific, or it indicates a lack of understanding of modern genetics and biology.
Boris states:
“The MSU data measures temps throughout the troposphere. The troposphere does not warm as quickly as the surface, so the trend is lower. Things are complicated by the fact that there is likely stratospheric contamination of the MSU trends.”
Boris, I see nothing in your statment which explains why there should be a slope difference over a 30 year period or how future relative trends should evolve. Shouldn’t differences in the rate of warming should eventually correct itself? There may be contamination from the stratosphere but would this affect the trend? A reference to a paper with hard science that explains how these mechanisms can account for a trend bias would be appreciated.
Hello John F. Pittman,
“ bit out of date. It was proposed as far back, as immedaitely after Darwin’s publication itself, that there were “missing links.” Several proposals for clarifying the original theory have been made; and several have been generally accepted. One is that Darwin’s original theory is basically linear. In studying Protista, it was realized that evolution was occurring not in a linear fashion, but in that ALL surviving organisms are subject to it as they procreate and/or exist. With the discovery of genes and their influence, it was realized that each individual genetic expression could potentially be a mutation in the Darwinnian sense. Later as computers, and our database grew, it was ralized that for sexual species, each individual was unique and potentially a new species. Modern population studies, assisted by computer modelling showed that it was expected that species would appear and disappear so fast that “missing links” would be appear missing. The truth is they probably never existed. ”
Tell that to a creationist and see what sort of response you will receive.
The irrationality of the creationists is very similar to the irrationality of the Global Warming Deniers. Both groups grasp at straws in order to reject the conclusions of science regardless of how senseless or outdated their arguments become.
Jeff Id spends all of his time trolling with creationist-type arguments against Global Warming. It is really, really sad to observe conservatives repeat the same dumb mistakes over and over again.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
David #27. Your #27 post is as cogent as your #24 post. I actually argue the opposite of your claim of “Conservative trolls imagine that complexity constitutes a refutation of the conclusions of science. Unfortunately for conservatives, complexity is expected.” I don’t care if the troll or poster is conservative or not. The question is how well was the statement or the question articulated. I assume you did not realize that GISS or Hadley are using an average of a dependent, not intrinsic metric in using temperature anomolies? A proper metric would be a mass/energy balance. The difficulties of this are quite extensive. Thus, GISS, Hadley, IPCC, and about everybody on earth who converses some way about global warming have agreed to at least discuss the recent phenomena based on an obvious simplified metric. Some of the complexities of the discussion reflect not the complexity of what is attempted to be discussed, but rather, in choosing a simplified metric, it pre-ordains complex discussions.
Don’t confuse or project your reasonings on me, if don’t mind. It is hard enough to be myself without having to worry about what you may want me to be or assume that I actually am 🙂 .
Layman,
I’m not sure about a ref, and I’m no kind of expert on these matters. The trends are supposed to be different. However, it is unknown if values from the cooling stratosphere are affecting the trends we see. I think RSS and UAH try to weight their trends to end up with a surface-compatable number, but with the many errors in satellite temps, this is questionable. So, I will correct myself and say that trends are supposed to match for the long term (at least for RSS, but I’ll make the assumption with UAH as well).
However, short term trends are going to be problematic because the troposphere has a lot more variability than the surface (see the satellites vs surface in el nino and la nina years, for example).
Check out RSS’s MSU site for more info.
I too would like to know why GISS slope differs from UAH slope. Anythony Watt’s blog has shown how badly many of the GISS sites are, that their “Urban Heat Island” correct tends to be insufficient, and can even make it worse rather than better. So even if there is a theoretical reason why the slopes should differ, I still suspect some of the reason is due to GISS error.
David, at the risk of feeding a troll (well you use lots of highly emotive words, seemingly to try to provoke a response) :
1. How is saying that the GISS-measured warming less than reality (but still occurring) somehow a “denialist”? Looks more like a rational attempt to check what we are being told IMHO…
2. Do you believe that Global Warming is mostly man-made or natural? While I personally am still not convinced that the Global Warming has stopped (I do believe it has occurred), I think that CO2 has only contributed somewhere between 1% & 50% of the increase in the last 50-100 years, and therefore that 99% to 50% of the rise is natural, and probably expected due to leaving the Little Ice Age.
“Boris, unfortunately your statement of “”are not supposed to match”” taken in the common context is not correct”
You’re right, John. However, I don’t see why we should treat satellites as the best data source, since they have been prone to so many errors. Much was made of UAH’s corrections, but RSS had an error in January that UAH was instrumental (no pun intended) in correcting.
If I’m not mistaken, RSS and UAH use the same sounders–and they cannot even agree with one another! There’s better agreement between Hadley and GISS.
David is *still* desperately seeking attention. This is getting sad.
Hello John F. Pittman,
“ I assume you did not realize that GISS or Hadley are using an average of a dependent, not intrinsic metric in using temperature anomolies? A proper metric would be a mass/energy balance. The difficulties of this are quite extensive. Thus, GISS, Hadley, IPCC, and about everybody on earth who converses some way about global warming have agreed to at least discuss the recent phenomena based on an obvious simplified metric. Some of the complexities of the discussion reflect not the complexity of what is attempted to be discussed, but rather, in choosing a simplified metric, it pre-ordains complex discussions. ”
You aren’t making an argument at all, John. You are making a baseless accusation against science established upon your own misperceptions regarding how science is supposed to operate.
The entire “argument” contained above is nothing more than an example of conservative scientific illiteracy and nothing else.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Hello Chris H,
“ I too would like to know why GISS slope differs from UAH slope. Anythony Watt’s blog has shown how badly many of the GISS sites are, that their “Urban Heat Island” correct tends to be insufficient, and can even make it worse rather than better. So even if there is a theoretical reason why the slopes should differ, I still suspect some of the reason is due to GISS error.
I don’t care what you suspect, Chris. You are not a scientist. You are scientifically illiterate.
1. How is saying that the GISS-measured warming less than reality (but still occurring) somehow a “denialist”? Looks more like a rational attempt to check what we are being told IMHO…
The creationists make a similar claim regarding the motivation for their “critique” of geology, biology and paleontology. Self-proclaimed good intentions does not render obscurantism an honorable activity.
2. Do you believe that Global Warming is mostly man-made or natural? While I personally am still not convinced that the Global Warming has stopped (I do believe it has occurred), I think that CO2 has only contributed somewhere between 1% & 50% of the increase in the last 50-100 years, and therefore that 99% to 50% of the rise is natural, and probably expected due to leaving the Little Ice Age.
Your opinions are of no concern to me. You come across as an ignorant conservative grasping at straws. I accept the conclusions of science as contained in the IPCC report and am not about to allow the Fox News – Talk Radio audience overturn those conclusions simply because they love pollution and refuse to make any sacrifices.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Hello Terry,
“ David is *still* desperately seeking attention. This is getting sad.
Jeff Id is still a conservative denialist troll. That’s especially sad.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Boris, I assume you are not the same one as on other blogs (not necessarily true, I know)where it has been pointed out repeatedly that GISS and satellite renditions of temperature anomolies have all had mistakes. The Y2K or the September08 revolution of GISS are just an inkling of the problems ALL metrics have. Hadley gets a bye since they don’t release code…however, that means they are not scientific in the strict sense; they are political (can’t replicate equals not science). “”Better agreement”” means little without the stats and CI’s, Boris. And in the case of Hadley, since they have not released the code, you are confusing a science discussion (here) with politics, there (Hadley).
Question is, is “”better”” the “”same””?? A trick question, I know, but you started it. Comparing faults is all too often in the eye of the beholder. I prefer how Jeff has shown it. He even has a decent writeup of methodology. Please send me a copy of Hadley’s (in detail) when you get it 🙂 .
David you say “You aren’t making an argument at all, John. You are making a baseless accusation against science established upon your own misperceptions regarding how science is supposed to operate.
The entire “argument” contained above is nothing more than an example of conservative scientific illiteracy and nothing else.””
No. Your assertion is incorrect. Temperature does not describe energy. There is no conservation of temperature.
Boris states:
“it is unknown if values from the cooling stratosphere are affecting the trends we see”
Presumably, any contamination from the stratosphere would be constant over time – causing a shift but not a trend shift. Such contamination would have to be increasing over time to account for a trend difference.
“I think RSS and UAH try to weight their trends to end up with a surface-compatable number, but with the many errors in satellite temps, this is questionable.”
Do they weight the trend or do they weight the data with a constant factor (such as described by John) as a correction?
“However, short term trends are going to be problematic because the troposphere has a lot more variability than the surface (see the satellites vs surface in el nino and la nina years, for example).”
30 years?
Hello John F. Pittman,
“ No. Your assertion is incorrect. Temperature does not describe energy. There is no conservation of temperature.
Who made any of these claims, John?
Let me rephrase my comment to you: Scientific illiterate conservatives are making a great deal out of nothing.
That’s typical for the Talk Radio crowd, by the way …
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
I imagine this will be a waste of time, but David, I would invite you to make a substantive critique of the content of Jeff’s article. What in particular do you take issue with?
David #42 you ask “”Who made any of these claims, John?”” In reply to my post “”No. Your assertion is incorrect. Temperature does not describe energy. There is no conservation of temperature”” which ignores the gist of the previous post that you replied to, where I discuss complexities. You stated “”You aren’t making an argument at all, John. You are making a baseless accusation against science established upon your own misperceptions regarding how science is supposed to operate.
The entire “argument” contained above is nothing more than an example of conservative scientific illiteracy and nothing else.””
I pointed out, and I point out again, temperature is not conserved, mass/energy is. Your claim was that I was “”making a baseless accusation against science established upon (my) own misperceptions regarding how science is supposed to operate.””
This statement is incorrect. Mass/energy is conserved acccording to all the established science you like to talk about, temperature is not. That complexities are introduced by simplifications when people make nuanced arguements is intrinsic to language and time dependent conversation. If the physics and math were complete and understandable, few, if any, would be able to have contra arguments leading to the present conversations. That we are engaged in conversation does not necessarily mean, as you state, “”The entire “argument” contained above is nothing more than an example of conservative scientific illiteracy and nothing else””, it may rather be there are substantive factors that need to be explained by the simplification.
Hello Josh,
“ I imagine this will be a waste of time, but David, I would invite you to make a substantive critique of the content of Jeff’s article. What in particular do you take issue with? ”
I take issue with scientific illiterates making scientific sounding arguments and pretending thereby to refute the conclusions of science. The creationists make similar arguments and they are all reasonable enough (no one disputes the existence of missing links) but their conclusions based upon such arguments are erroneous and prime examples of straw-grasping on behalf of irrational ignorance.
Jeff’s a denialist troll. His arguments differ very little from the creationists.
Of course, the Talk Radio set doesn’t really understand science so you imagine that irrelevant tripe might actually refute the conclusion reached by thousands of actual scientists who have devoted their careers to studying this very subject (unlike Jeff Id the Troll).
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Hello John F. Pittman,
“ This statement is incorrect. Mass/energy is conserved acccording to all the established science you like to talk about, temperature is not.
Wow! I must be talking to a Nobel Prize winner!
John, the Talk Radio set is ignorant sounding enough. Are you people really as stupid as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh?
“ That complexities are introduced by simplifications when people make nuanced arguements is intrinsic to language and time dependent conversation. If the physics and math were complete and understandable, few, if any, would be able to have contra arguments leading to the present conversations. That we are engaged in conversation does not necessarily mean, as you state, “”The entire “argument” contained above is nothing more than an example of conservative scientific illiteracy and nothing else””, it may rather be there are substantive factors that need to be explained by the simplification. ”
You’ve degenerated into incoherence, John. This is a typical condition of the Talk Radio set when they begin talking about science … something which they know almost nothing about … and I don’t imagine that there is an cure for your malady.
Thank God you people are a politically irrelevant minority extremist group now. The rest of America has bypassed you. You people are trolling for nothing now.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
David, your logic is consistent … completely non-existent. First you say “climatology’s missing links” and then try to slip by with “The fossil record is full of missing links”. So little time so many silly screw ups by David.
Isn’t it time for your next nap? I think your attention deficit problems need some rest. You are the one showing “incoherence”.
David #46, the mass energy conservatism was accepted by scientists long before the Nobel prize. One does not need to be win a Nobel prize in order to be able to understand what did win. You have claimed that I have degenerated into incoherence based on your denial of your own posts. It was your claim of my making a baseless accusation that was used in support of your claim that you made no claims.
Perhaps you DO listen to “Talk Radio” since your science and argument are the equivalent of what you claim theirs’ is. I don’t know. I listen to “Talk Radio” when I want a laugh. I laugh because it is good to get a different point of view.
I find your statement that “”The rest of America has bypassed you”” in reference to others, particularily unamerican and undemocratic. The United States, democracies, and the Democrats, in general and in particular, include citizens of all persuasions, recognizing that in our differences there is strength, and that “inalienable” rights cannot be abridged. Popularity, or being a “politically irrelevant minority extremist group” has no bearing on our jointly held inalienable rights.
Your arguments are anti-democratic and anti-scientific.
Hello Richard,
“ David, your logic is consistent … completely non-existent. First you say “climatology’s missing links” and then try to slip by with “The fossil record is full of missing links”. So little time so many silly screw ups by David.
Isn’t it time for your next nap? I think your attention deficit problems need some rest. You are the one showing “incoherence”. ”
Oh my, Richard, I think we’re talking completely past each other …
I was and still am drawing an analogy between the “reasoning” of the creationists and the Global Warming Denialists. What I am suggesting is that the conservative troll Jeff Id’s critique of Global Warming constitutes nothing more than a search for missing links which uneducated conservatives imagine constitute a refutation of Global Warming although it does no such thing.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Boris,
“The MSU data measures temps throughout the troposphere. The troposphere does not warm as quickly as the surface, so the trend is lower. Things are complicated by the fact that there is likely stratospheric contamination of the MSU trends.”
In the uah data I used the Lower troposphere channel for this measurement. The thought being the measurements should be as close as possible. I see no reason why there should be such a big difference in trend.
—
The RSS data is corrected with trends, the satellites for RSS don’t have station keeping (i’m 95% sure) so they drift back to earth. There is therefore a ‘trend’ correction to the satellite data for RSS. It was pretty controversial but I haven’t see much of that after some additional changes were made. I believe the UAH sat’s now have station keeping thrusters so the trend is better.
I’m in a hurry again so I read above somewhere that someone asked why trust satellites vs ground. The AGW guys say it’s a denialist thing. I say its because of better coverage and less messing around with the data.
—
Dave has shown his complete lack of knowledge enough I think. I won’t have time to monitor him today.
Hello John F. Pittman,
“ I listen to “Talk Radio” when I want a laugh. I laugh because it is good to get a different point of view. ”
That’s really sad, John, and it reveals so very much about you.
“ Your arguments are anti-democratic and anti-scientific. ”
If you say so … but it still doesn’t change the political reality: Conservatives lost. Jeff Id is a whining troll.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Hello Jeff Id,
“ Dave has shown his complete lack of knowledge enough I think. I won’t have time to monitor him today.
So said the anti-scientific conservative troll …
Jeff, your side lost! Keep on whining!
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
“I take issue with scientific illiterates making scientific sounding arguments and pretending thereby to refute the conclusions of science. The creationists make similar arguments and they are all reasonable enough (no one disputes the existence of missing links) but their conclusions based upon such arguments are erroneous and prime examples of straw-grasping on behalf of irrational ignorance.”
I asked for any specific issues you have with the scientific or statistical arguments Jeff makes in this post. Do you have any? Or are we going to be treated to the same regurgitated pablum about missing links and talk radio over and over again?
David rambles on with:
“I was and still am drawing an analogy between the “reasoning” of the creationists and the Global Warming Denialists.”
ROTLFMAO.
David, your denial at being caught making silly, nonsense statements will get you nowhere. You are making at complete fool out of yourself. Your pillow is calling …
David #51
>>“ I listen to “Talk Radio” when I want a laugh. I laugh because it is good to get a different point of view. ”
>That’s really sad, John, and it reveals so very much about you.
Now doesn’t that tell us all we need to know about David? According to him, it’s “sad” that some people like to hear more than one point of view in their lives. Of course David is so certain of his righteousness that he doesn’t even need to hear the opposing arguments.
David, can you please actually make some sort of scientific argument? All we’ve had from you so far are claims that “X is not scientific” or “You lost!”. Anyway, the Republicans lost because they had been taken over by religious nutjobs. It had nothing to do with AGW – it was because many Americans decided that they didn’t want to run the risk of a fundie like Palin. Atheism and Secularism ftw! But Socialism will lose eventually because it doesn’t work. And AGW will lose eventually because climate is not driven by anthropogenic gas emissions – it’s driven by solar irradiance. You looked at Solar Cycle 24 lately David? There’s not much of it to see, I’m afraid. Hope you’ve got your woolies ready!
PS I’m not an American myself, but even I know that your Constitution implies that there is no such thing as a “politically irrelevant minority extremist group”.
PPS re your remarks about “uneducated conservatives”, I might add that I take that as an unjustified insult, especially since it should be abundantly clear that most of the commenters on this site are extremely well-educated, and in fact Jeff Id himself is a qualified engineer – uneducated people don’t tend to be qualified engineers, David. As for your insistence that “Conservatives losing” makes us all irrelevant, what will you say when the Conservatives win the UK at the next General Election? It’s obvious as heck that Labour won’t win it! I suppose you’d rather your country has twelve years of Socialist government, like mine did – Labour totally destroyed the UK. Take a look at it some time. To quote Saatchi & Saatchi; “Labour isn’t working”.
Jeff, hope your trip is a success. Though, I don’t know if I would go so far as to say “”less messing around with the data.”” I think I would say it is because of better transparency, and more rigorous methodology that I prefer the satellite data. One of the impressive facts, for those like myself on the sidelines, is the openness of the RSS or UAH compared with GISS or Hadley. I come from a background where lack of transparency and methodology means failure. The nature of “failure” is deterined by others. One of the realities that the AGW proponents do not seem to grasp is that it IS (will be) others that determine the definition of “failure.”
David #52:
“So said the anti-scientific conservative troll …”
Does this ‘David’ guy not realise just how dumb he’s making himself look?
David, take this on board: Calling your opponents ‘anti-scientific’ does not make them so. Jeff Id has supplied far more science to this blog that you. In fact you have yet to make a single scientific argument whatsoever.
By the way, don’t compare AGW freethinkers to Creationists. The whole point about the AGW skeptics is that we followed the evidence. You’re the one who’s blindly following your dogma. Go pray to your idol of Al Gore, David. We all know you have one really.
Hello Josh,
“ I asked for any specific issues you have with the scientific or statistical arguments Jeff makes in this post. Do you have any? Or are we going to be treated to the same regurgitated pablum about missing links and talk radio over and over again?
No, Josh, I will not respond to a post filled with trivialities and thereby grant it more legitimacy than it deserves.
You people lost. Resume your whining.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Hello Soundandfury,
“ Now doesn’t that tell us all we need to know about David? According to him, it’s “sad” that some people like to hear more than one point of view in their lives. Of course David is so certain of his righteousness that he doesn’t even need to hear the opposing arguments.
If you are listening to Talk Radio in order to get “more than one point of view” then you really are about as ignorant and unedcuated as Sarah Palin. There’s a reason why you people are a politically irrelevant extremist minority, ya know!
“David, can you please actually make some sort of scientific argument? All we’ve had from you so far are claims that “X is not scientific” or “You lost!”. Anyway, the Republicans lost because they had been taken over by religious nutjobs. It had nothing to do with AGW – it was because many Americans decided that they didn’t want to run the risk of a fundie like Palin. Atheism and Secularism ftw! But Socialism will lose eventually because it doesn’t work. And AGW will lose eventually because climate is not driven by anthropogenic gas emissions – it’s driven by solar irradiance. You looked at Solar Cycle 24 lately David? There’s not much of it to see, I’m afraid. Hope you’ve got your woolies ready!
Funny that a person who is arguing like a fundamentalist wants to blame fundamentalism for Republicanism’s failure. As to the rest of your argument … you don’t need to tell me that you are a scientifically illiteratre ignoramuses. I knew that much already.
“ PS I’m not an American myself, but even I know that your Constitution implies that there is no such thing as a “politically irrelevant minority extremist group
Your ignorance of the Constitution equals your ignorance of everything else. Your ignorance is truly staggering. I’m stunned.
“ PPS re your remarks about “uneducated conservatives”, I might add that I take that as an unjustified insult, especially since it should be abundantly clear that most of the commenters on this site are extremely well-educated, and in fact Jeff Id himself is a qualified engineer
Jeff’s an engineer? I guess that explains why I have so little regard for engineers … Sarah Palin, where have you gone?
“ As for your insistence that “Conservatives losing” makes us all irrelevant, what will you say when the Conservatives win the UK at the next General Election? It’s obvious as heck that Labour won’t win it! I suppose you’d rather your country has twelve years of Socialist government, like mine did – Labour totally destroyed the UK. Take a look at it some time. To quote Saatchi & Saatchi; “Labour isn’t working”.
Drawing analogies between British politics and American politics is absurd and irrelevant.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Hello John F. Pittman,
“ One of the realities that the AGW proponents do not seem to grasp is that it IS (will be) others that determine the definition of “failure.”
[snip]
The comments have nothing to do with reality.
Hello Soundandfury,
“ Calling your opponents ‘anti-scientific’ does not make them so. Jeff Id has supplied far more science to this blog that you. In fact you have yet to make a single scientific argument whatsoever.
You are revealing the depths of your own ignorance and lack of education … which is, by the way, a typical condition for a conservative.
“ By the way, don’t compare AGW freethinkers to Creationists. The whole point about the AGW skeptics is that we followed the evidence. You’re the one who’s blindly following your dogma. Go pray to your idol of Al Gore, David. We all know you have one really.
Duh … the creationists claim to “follow the evidence” too. They think in an identical manner to you and their politics is nearly identical to your own. Ignorant anti-science illiterates think alike, ya know (wink, wink!).
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
I don’t think poor David even realizes what a cliche troll behavior has become. David, it’s been going on for 15 years now. If your entire life’s ambition has been to beomce a cliche, congrats, you have achieved your goal.
Hello Richard,
“ I don’t think poor David even realizes what a cliche troll behavior has become. David, it’s been going on for 15 years now. If your entire life’s ambition has been to beomce a cliche, congrats, you have achieved your goal.
Funny that you would say that here … you know, a blog owned by the troll Jeff Id and populated by similar like-minded ignorant uneducated conservatives.
Richard … you people lost. Resume whining now!
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Poor David, when faced with the truth he reverts back to name calling … just like every other troll. If only he had the intellect to put forth a single reasonable argument. Alas, I won’t hold my breath. I already know name calling is the best he can do.
However, David has come through just like I predicted. He is now calling me an “ignorant uneducated” conservative, just like the previous troll I mentioned called me a liberal. Don’t ya just love it when these trolls are so easy to manipulate.
I think Jeff needs to begin thinking about showing David the door. Forums (both real and virtual) do tend to be a magnet for any individual, like David, who has no interest in participating in the discussion and learning and instead just abusing the space in a rather desperate need to make himself the centre of attention.
Jeff, it would be in keeping with David’s behaviour to conclude that he’d count it as a personal success were you to throw him off your blog – and this appears to be what he is trying to goad you into doing. Were you to do so, I think all other visitors here would understand it as David’s failure… regardless of any small-minded triumph he might carry away with him at having achieved his goal.
From what he writes, I would say that David is all too familiar with experiencing his own failure in this way – the ‘pleasure’ he derives from it is perhaps the only way he knows of finding any value in his life. It’s not unusual to witness delinquent children using exactly the same patterns of attention seeking within wider groups.
I suggest giving him a “three strikes and you’re out” warning as a last chance for him to focus on the topics under discussion rather than attempting to divert everyone’s focus onto ‘David’.
Hello Richard,
“ If only he had the intellect to put forth a single reasonable argument.
You people don’t merit a single reasonable argument. No more so than the creationists. Conservative anti-science trolls are going to spend at the very least the next four years weeping bitterly because no one cares any longer about their ignorant opinions.
Jeff Id can troll all he wants now. His side lost. He’ll spend the next four years weeping.
Peter says:
“ I think Jeff needs to begin thinking about showing David the door. Forums (both real and virtual) do tend to be a magnet for any individual, like David, who has no interest in participating in the discussion and learning and instead just abusing the space in a rather desperate need to make himself the centre of attention.
You can teach that troll Jeff Id with your comments, Richard. He’s been thrown off blogs for his anti-science trolling. Justifiably, too. Jeff Id is just a loser troll and he knows it.
“ Jeff, it would be in keeping with David’s behaviour to conclude that he’d count it as a personal success were you to throw him off your blog – and this appears to be what he is trying to goad you into doing. Were you to do so, I think all other visitors here would understand it as David’s failure… regardless of any small-minded triumph he might carry away with him at having achieved his goal.
This is so ironic it is absolutely delicious. Have you reach the troll Jeff Id’s recent posts about his own experiences being thrown off of blogs because of his trolling?
[snip]
[snip]
Hi Jeff,
I second comment #65 (Peter S.). I’m here to learn and wading through all of David’s drivel makes it difficult to follow the actual discussion.
Hello Page48,
[snip again] more name calling. I’ll leave the one directed to me.
Jeff Id is a loser troll.
David make an attempt at a comeback:
“You people don’t merit a single reasonable argument”.
And we know we won’t get one from David.
BTW, I suspect David doesn’t realize all these posts are increasing Jeff’s hit count (as if David had any idea what that was). All by himself little David is helping Jeff out. Kind of funny in a sick, pathetic way.
Jeff,
Is there not a way to just ban an internet address?
DAVE is making a mess, trying to read through.
TX Tim
Hello Richard,
“ BTW, I suspect David doesn’t realize all these posts are increasing Jeff’s hit count (as if David had any idea what that was). All by himself little David is helping Jeff out. Kind of funny in a sick, pathetic way.
This is the sort of solace that foolish trolls take in their own failure.
“ And we know we won’t get one from David.
[snip] name calling is not acceptable dave, I have asked every way possible to keep it clean. You are an ignorant and obnoxious young man (this is not name calling). Please try to learn and do some of the reading you talked about.
David: You seem to be inteligent. Please provide a working definition of science as you realize it. Without knowing what your vision of reality is I do not know how to discuss matters with you.
When David says at 71 that “the science is already settled”, then you know it’s time to show him the door. Unfortunately you forgot to get him to wipe his feet on the way in (and he isn’t polite enough to realise that is what normal people do), so he has left a lot of you-know-what on the carpet.
David Jeff is very clever and it shows on this blog.
You are not and it shows on this blog.
Now go away, your mummy is calling and your nappy needs changing.
Hello Mike,
” Please provide a working definition of science as you realize it. Without knowing what your vision of reality is I do not know how to discuss matters with you.
I’m not here to educated ignorant conservatives, Mike. If you don’t know what science is that just means that you are a typical Sarah Palin conservative.
Phillip says:
“ When David says at 71 that “the science is already settled”, then you know it’s time to show him the door.
The science is settled for everyone except creationists, flat earthers and scientifically illiterate uneducated conservatives. The ppolitics is also settled, too. The America people have rejected Idiot-Conservativism. You people are a minority now.
Andy says:
“ David Jeff is very clever and it shows on this blog. You are not and it shows on this blog.
Jeff Id is a troll. If you think that he is clever that just demonstrates that you are an Idiot-Conservative as ignorant about science as Sarah Palin and the creationists.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
David wrote:
“I don’t care what you suspect, Chris. You are not a scientist. You are scientifically illiterate.”
“The creationists make a similar claim regarding the motivation for their “critique” of geology, biology and paleontology. Self-proclaimed good intentions does not render obscurantism an honorable activity.”
“Your opinions are of no concern to me. You come across as an ignorant conservative grasping at straws. I accept the conclusions of science as contained in the IPCC report and am not about to allow the Fox News – Talk Radio audience overturn those conclusions simply because they love pollution and refuse to make any sacrifices.”
David, your replies make it very clear that you are a Troll: Your “arguments” tend to contain no facts, but rather just unsubstantiated claims & reference to authority figures, liberally sprinkled with insults, seemingly in an attempt to provoke people into responding further.
EVERYONE ELSE, David is best ignored (he may then get bored eventually & go elsewhere), although ideally Jeff would just ban him.
Hello Chris,
snip,
Sorry Chris,
Dave — enough with the name calling. You lost the debate here so of course you are angry. You expected to run into dogma and found only reason. Accept it.
My readers are of a higher caliber and deserve better treatment. If you wish to negotiate, the topic is the slope difference between GISS and UAH otherwise be quiet and learn.
Another thing, I may be the only conservative on this blog. There are plenty of readers here who are smart enough to disagree with me. Chris H and I have had a discussion or two about math. Until you learn the point of a post, perhaps reading is your best option.
There is no denial in noticing a difference in slope. I even know the correct (yet flawed) AGW argument for the difference, but I’m not telling you as that would be spoon feeding and in your case you need to build knowledge.
LOL
Dave, you really are a complete cockend.
David:
As I already commited I am not a wordsmith as you probabley thing you are. But please enlighten me some more with your brand of inteligence. I mearley asked how you would define science as many people have differing definitions based on their level of training and experience. You see I have had a bit of experience in dealing and working with people from all walks of life and understand. The The first requirement for communication is to come to an understanding of definitions. While you may think or come to an immediate decision about my level of knowledge or the extent of my experience. I am courious to get to understand yours.
Thank you for your time.
Please guys do NOT try to have a discussion with David. He is not interested in having any kind of discussion. As with any troll he is only interested in trashing people and trying to get a reaction.
As for his motives, I would assume he is one of the faithful AGW believers and got all bent out of shape when Jeff disputed his religion on some other site. He is here to attack Jeff and anyone who supports him.
The only way to deal with troll behavior is to attack the behavior. Anything else is a waste of time.
I second Richard M. in Post #81
Thanks for the interventions Jeff. I hope business is good for you in China.
For RSS there was a warming step in 1992 coinciding with the switch from NOAA 10 to NOAA 12 data. This transition for UAH was obviously processed differently. Christy points out that this step is not present in any of the other data sets. Would correction for this step account for much of the difference in the 30 year trend slope between RSS and UAH? What is the slope comparison between RSS and UAH post 1992? The reason I ask is to provide further clarity on the notion of GISS trend as an outlier among temp anomaly data sources.
You mentioned the AGW argument for the trend slope differences. Could you explain that to us now? Are there citations for that argument?
#83,
I just woke up for about the tenth time tonight. I love jetlag.
Christy has at least two papers which mention with citations to others that the UAH source is superior to the RSS and others. The RSS temp used to be much flatter sloped from what I understand. I haven’t followed the links on the RSS homepage in a while but as I recall, there were several corrections implemented which resulted in a better match to the upslope of GISS.
Because RSS crosses the same areas of earth at different times each day, the rate of warming during the day must be known to correct for diurnal drift. I believe there is also an orbital decay correction, and an angle of measurement problem where the sensors measure at different angles to the surface at different times.
Here’s a paper I found for RSS by searching google for diurnal drift after I wrote the paragraph above.
Click to access Correcting_MSU_Channel_2_Temperature_for_Diurnal_Drifts_IGARSS.pdf
BTW:Ya don’t sound much like a layman to me.
I can’t remember what site I found the giss corrections at but someone had a plot of them at one time and the corrections were almost as big as the actual signal. It was one of the moments which really turned my head about AGW.
I had been conversing with Gavin Shmidt on RC (something hard to do now) on GISS trying to get a few quick answers on AGW so I knew what to believe and could get on with life. He told me the data is the data. I didn’t know about the temp stations WUWT had been collecting so I accepted his word. When I found the articles on massive GISS corrections I asked him about it and he said they were based on light levels from sat photos and well accepted. I didn’t know who this Gavin guy even was, but he was a cocky SOB.–pretty funny looking back.
I actually felt sorry for him being constantly attacked with snide questions in the threads. But once I realized how massive the corrections were and how controversial they were I felt deceived.
I didn’t go back until the Mann08 paper came out, I asked some tougher questions (on topic and polite) and now I’m the one who’s banned.
Since that time I have learned that tamino Foster has published with Gavin and also doesn’t like difficult questions.
Sorry for the long answer, that’s what happens when you’re tired.
As far as the outlier and other questions, there are so many problems with the GISS data it is hard to begin. The number of stations outside the US was so small pre 1940 there is absolutely no way this “corrected” data is accurate. CA has a nice understated article. You can even see it in the noise level of the temp before 1920. The corrections are actually necessary, but when people like Hansen are in control of the magnitude, can you trust what you get from the data?
Why don’t we have a government project to catalog and track history of each station correcting them individually? Why aren’t there demands for better measurement systems which don’t require human monitoring? Why not put these instruments on 30 foot poles?
That’s why GISS has a different slope IMO. I’ll do some digging on the AGW UAH trend difference for another post.
Jeff I remebered the discussion at Tamino’s comparing UAH and RSS where he talks about the 1992 step in RSS and that was the basis for my comment.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/rss-and-uah/
All data validity issues aside, it would be interesting for the sake of argument to correct for this step and then compare the 30 year trend with UAH. With the “corrected” RSS the GISS slope question could perhaps evolve into a comparison with all data sets and a statistical case presented for GISS as an outlier. I thought maybe you might just be the man for the job.
“BTW:Ya don’t sound much like a layman to me.”
Thanks but shucks, I’m just a layman who loves science. Because I am a layman I guess I tend to ask questions rather than make assertions.
Hello Ya’ll,
Jeff Id is an anti-science troll.
That much is evident. His audience is composed of Sarah Palin conservatives.
Fortunately, John McCain lost the election and Sarah Palin’s back in Alaska.
So John Id can keep on lying about science and slandering scientists. It won’t make a bit of difference.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Hi Everyone-
Please go look at David’s vacation pictures. He posts the link on most of his comments.
Go look. Go comment. Go do whatever.
You might note that David travels the world over taking these poorly framed, unprofessional photos – leaving one hell of a carbon footprint behind.
Take care all,
page48
Jeff,
Watts has been harping on the quality of the stations, and the Fort Scott station is about number 90 or so on his list. GISS doesn’t have the money to do a world wide check of stationsby visiting them, and and figure out a correction for every station individually on the basis of visits. These stations are maintained by volunteers.
There are two kinds of problems that need correction:
1) Changes in equipment or construction nearby that creates an abrupt change in the trend.
2) Gradual changes due to urbanization causing an Urban Heat Island effect.
They use the stations that are available and generate the best algorithms they can figure out how to compensate for these effects by using nearby rural stations which are unaffected. This is easy to do in the US where there is generally a relatively high density of stations.
There is a page on the RealClimate.org web site which explains this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/
The points made in the above link seem to deal with your points regarding the stations.
A more detailed description of how these corrections are made, together with references can be found
at the following link:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/hcntmptrends.php
“…Methods that have been used to correct temperature data are described in more than a dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). A series of data corrections was developed to specifically address potential problems in trend estimation of the rates of warming or cooling in the USHCN. They include:
1. Station moves and instrumentation changes (Karl and Williams 1987, Quayle et al. 1991),
2. changes in observing practices, such as observing time changes (Karl et al. 1986), and
3. urbanization (Karl et al. 1988).
These data correction schemes have been applied to the USHCN to determine temperature trends across the United States up until the end of 2006. Beginning in 2007 improved correction schemes for items 1 and 3 above have been applied to the USHCN observations (Menne and Williams 2005, Menne and Williams 2007). They have been shown to improve our ability to monitor climate change and variations. Because different algorithms were used in making corrections to the station data in 2007 there are small differences in annual average temperatures between the older corrections (Version 1) and newer Version 2 corrections. These small differences in average temperatures result in minor differences in annual rankings for some years. The new correction scheme has virtually no impact on the long-term temperature trend as annual temperature trends in Version 1 from 1895-2006 were 0.112°F/decade and in Version 2 the trends were 0.110°F/decade.”
If you are going to make comments that criticize what has been done, I would think that you would consult the literature which says what has been done, and explain why you take exception to it, before you jump to conclusions that it is wrong.
Jeff said,
“Well fortunately for us we have satellites for the last 30 years. The UAH and RSS datasets are satellite measurements of the lower troposphere at altitiudes which are less affected by buildings. The RSS has multiple corrections in the data and John Christy has recommended UAH over RSS in several publications. I chose UAH for this comparison.”
There are actually 4 different products that measure temperature based on satellite data.
They all use the same data and come to different conclusions about the temperature anomaly.
The multiple corrections in the RSS version results from multiple problems that have occurred with the satellite data, including changeover of satellites creating discontinuity,equipment problems causing erroneous shifts in time of day of temperature measurements. In addition data from different heights gets mixed together and must be sorted by some kind of algorithm. The 4 different versions of the satellite data disagree much more than HADCRUT and GISS. With thousands of stations rather than a single satellite, errors are more likely to average out.
Looking at RSS versus UAH and GISS, we find that the slope of the GISS linear trend is in between the other two.
Jeff Says,
“That’s why I make the claim that we know temp trends within thousandts of a degree due to measurement accuracy. The thousandths number wasn’t corrected for autocorrelation so it is somewhat larger than my original number. As far as blaiming GISS over UAH you only need to look at the history of GISS corrections and UAH measurement to understand which has the problem.”
UAH actually has an embarrassing history of problems and a reluctance to correct problems that were discovered by others because the UAH results did not make sense. Getting meaningful numbers from satellite sounding data is difficult.
“…It is important to know that the 5.2 version of Christy et al.’s satellite temperature record contains a significant correction over previous versions. In summer 2005, Mears and Wentz (2005) discovered that the UAH processing algorithms were incorrectly adjusting for diurnal variations, especially at low latitude. This correction raised the trend line 0.035°C/decade, and in so doing brought it into much better agreement with the ground based records and with independent satellite based analysis (e.g. Fu et al. 2004). The discovery of this error also explains why their satellite based temperature trends had disagreed most prominently in the tropics.
Within measurement error, all of these records paint a similar picture of temperature change and global warming. However, climate models predict carbon dioxide based greenhouse warming should result in lower atmosphere warming roughly 1.3 times higher than the surface warming. This prediction is consistent with the RSS vs. surface comparison, though by contrast the UAH vs. surface comparison suggests a troposphere warming by slightly less than the surface of the Earth..”
The above is not the only problem. The satellite data was calibrated by radiosonde balloon data, which had faulty equipment and posed a lot of problems. Multiple corrections had to be made to the radiosonde balloon data before the satellite data could be calibrated.
Eric #89,
From the same link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
The lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar. However, the expected trend in the lower troposphere, given the surface data, would be around 0.194 °C/decade, making the UAH and RSS trends 66% and 81% of the expected value respectively.
The 0.194 expected slope in satellite records is the .161 times 1.2. This is old data, since we know the temp trend in GISS is 0.183 we would expect a trend now of 0.220 in the sat records. (think about that)
I did use the global V2 data from UAH.
Again, I need to say the satellite temps are substantially different in slope from the ground data.
——
In 88 you make this statement which I’ll put up in bold.
If you are going to make comments that criticize what has been done, I would think that you would consult the literature which says what has been done, and explain why you take exception to it, before you jump to conclusions that it is wrong.
Your criticism is unjustified. It is not the intent of my article to provide all the links for you which I have already read. I am happy to see someone looking for themselves though and not taking my word for it.
Also, it is a policy here not to accept real climate references here as a rule. They are not honest on their site. I would point out as a quick example the biased interpretation of model results in the link you gave. Models do have parameters which are adjusted to match surface measurements the RC blog makes it sound like they are independent and researchers don’t feed back new improved parameters for temp. matching purposes.
—-
I also don’t agree with the statement below. I’ll address this paragraph in my next post.
Within measurement error, all of these records paint a similar picture of temperature change and global warming. However, climate models predict carbon dioxide based greenhouse warming should result in lower atmosphere warming roughly 1.3 times higher than the surface warming. This prediction is consistent with the RSS vs. surface comparison, though by contrast the UAH vs. surface comparison suggests a troposphere warming by slightly less than the surface of the Earth..”
Jeff says,
“Also, it is a policy here not to accept real climate references here as a rule. They are not honest on their site. I would point out as a quick example the biased interpretation of model results in the link you gave. Models do have parameters which are adjusted to match surface measurements the RC blog makes it sound like they are independent and researchers don’t feed back new improved parameters for temp. matching purposes.”
I am a newcomer here and did not know RealClimate references are forbidden.
My recollection from reading their site, is that the corrections made to the models are for the purpose of fitting the empirical parameters to better data as it becomes available. That is what they say. One source of empirical data is clouds, which cannot be predicted from physical equations because of the small temporal and physical grids required. So as they get better data on clouds, they adjust the parameterization of clouds to fit the cloud data better.
They wouldn’t agree with your claim that they fit the parameters to achieve a better end result of the model which is the temperture and other aspects of climate they are modelling.
That seems a legitimate thing to do. If you claim they do not do this and do something else, and are therefore dishonest, I am curious to know what your information sources are.
Jeff Says,
“In 88 you make this statement which I’ll put up in bold.
If you are going to make comments that criticize what has been done, I would think that you would consult the literature which says what has been done, and explain why you take exception to it, before you jump to conclusions that it is wrong.
Your criticism is unjustified. It is not the intent of my article to provide all the links for you which I have already read. I am happy to see someone looking for themselves though and not taking my word for it.”
So what is wrong with the algorithms used to correct for station moves and equipment changes, using adjacent undisturbed sites as a reference? Is there a better way to correct for urbanization than what they have done, using lights?
Realistically how many people should be involved in improving the quality of weather stations, and how should they go about it? According to RealClimate, GISS has a total of 3 people working on improving the quality of surface data? Apparently what they have done is to develop software to fix up the problems with the ones that exist so that anomalies can be calculated. Should more funds be allocated to this and should there be an army of inspector generals traipsing all over the world looking at weather stations? If they find bad ones what should they do about it? None of the people managing the stations are directly responsible to GISS. Even if they fix the current ones, they still have the job of understanding the past data relative to the current data. Maybe making a lot of changes to fix stations that are not ideal will inject even more noise in the system, making it harder to discern a long term trend.
Eric #93. Did they validate the program(s)? Did they verify that the software fixed the problems? Did they re-do the verification after a sufficient time? Did they verify using “out of sample” that were that the field (in-situ) were of x, -x, y, -y known attributes for sensitivity of fitted relationship?
I beleive if you read the works that were used for the corrections, you will understand my questions.
John says,
“Eric #93. Did they validate the program(s)? Did they verify that the software fixed the problems? Did they re-do the verification after a sufficient time? Did they verify using “out of sample” that were that the field (in-situ) were of x, -x, y, -y known attributes for sensitivity of fitted relationship?
I beleive if you read the works that were used for the corrections, you will understand my questions.”
Your question doesn’t have any relevance to Watt’s criticism of specific conditions of the weather stations, echoed by Jeff, which doesn’t go into the software at all.
I can’t answer your question.
I don’t have the time to go fishing into the literature in an attempt to figure out what you are talking about. I don’t know what particular papers you are referring to, and what the specific criticisms of the algorithms are. Also, they are couched in jargon that I am not familiar with.
My post 93 was an exposition of the principles involved in software correction, and why it seems like the only way to deal with the facts of life – the weather stations are imperfect; and the factors, that confound the analysis of trends; have to be dealt with by software.
Visiting the sites, changing their locations and rearranging them, as Watts implies should be done, is not going to help.
The algorithms have been published and the publications peer reviewed. I can assume that any errors that slipped by peer review will ultimately be found by the scientific community will be eventually corrected. That is what the publication process is for.
#95 The algorithms have been published. Your statement and conclusions about Watts should be opposite of what you stated. Without taking real data as Watts is doing, the algorithms are assumed to be correct. Not that the software was necissarily verified or not, but that it was not necessarily validated.
My question about the literature search was in reference to the one you posted “” 1. Station moves and instrumentation changes (Karl and Williams 1987, Quayle et al. 1991),
2. changes in observing practices, such as observing time changes (Karl et al. 1986), and
3. urbanization (Karl et al. 1988).”” I did not mean for you to do an open ended literature search. Was their code validated? Was it verified? Was out of sample data in a 2×2 true false matrix used to check verification?
Watts has been researching 1 and 3. There are other stations other than the ones in the historical network, and there are ones in the historical network where changes can be traced to 1 and 3. My questions 1.) were the algorithms verified with out of sample data 2.) have they been retest since a number of years ans changes have been made on stations that did or did not need changes to see if they now do or do not need changes, and if so are all four conditions true?
This is standard QA/QC for a continuing data correcting algorithm, if it is possible. Watts has shown that it is possible and it is necessary.
Doing it may very well show that the cited papers 1,2,3 are in fact quite good. However, it should not be assumed. It should be demonstrated.
Data is often imperfect. The qualtiy of the data or the corrections do impact the confidence of the claims. The QA/QC of data corrections does impact the confidence intervals and the confidence instilled in end users. Retesing out of sample if possible is usually considered a requirement. Someone showing that data from stations corrected that either show overcorrected or no correction for demonstrable problems indicates that this QA/QC is needed. That someone has shown that there could be items not accounted in the corrections such as a new asphalt driveway would also mandate QA/QC and investigation to the magnmitude and extent of the effect at a minimum.
There have been problems with #2 that have been admitted and/or denied in the past. A real mixzed bag, where some data corrections are being discussed that occurred aroung the 1940 to 1960 time period.
David Mathews is a known troll. I’ve seen him elsewhere, and he grows his trollism to unbearable hubris-filled doom-scaremongerings.
He’s quite funny though. A terrible photographer and a loser overall, while pretending to be better than anyone else. What’s funnier than that?
PS: Nice discussion over GISS et al.