the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

GHCN Antarctic, 8X Actual Trend – Uses Single Warmest Station

Posted by Jeff Id on December 13, 2009

A blogger identified as hpx, over at the well named SaveCapitalism blog started messing around with the GHCN temperature dataset. The GHCN data is apparently 95% used in the recently implicated east Anglia university dataset by professor Phil Climategate Jones. His post was extremely interesting because it has to do with the GHCN overstatement of Antarctic Warming. It’s important to me because we need to verify that the datasets Ryan is using are of good quality for publication and reliance on previous work isn’t always enough. In this case, however, instead of temp records, I found a box of old socks.

Before getting into it, I’d like to say that hpx did a great job. He grabbed hundreds of records and their duplicates, compiled them into a database, sorted for what he needed and plotted the results. He found a trend of 4C/century in the Antarctic as calculated from the ‘adjusted’ value added data. I’ve been able to verify this value to within a couple of tenths of a degree, using some slightly different methods. Check out his post at this link.


This email from Phil Clmiategate Jones describes which data is in CRU.

Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same
> as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used
> by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center

And that is the key– almost all. If they used the GHCN Antarctic stations, there is a teenie tiny problem. Of course as with anything in science these days, the devil is in the detail.

First, each GHCN station can have multiple records. These records are taken at different times and simply recorded with the others so for each station the data might look like this one from the Antarctic.

Which is then processed and adjusted to look like this.

It’s a bit difficult to see which series are what because many of them are absolutely the exact same numbers as others in the raw format. These are absolute temperature values in Deg. C so for my analysis, I simply averaged the three series. This is different from SaveCapitalism’s analysis in determining what GHCN is exactly saying about trend.

In the raw data from GHCN there are 27 stations from which data was collected. Their positions are shown on this map.

This data is reduced in the final version to only ten adjusted stations. All the denialist blue stations have been removed, including Amundsen Scott at the South pole. The peninsula stations here show up as black.

Not very much data left. We want to know how the results above modify trends from the raw data to the final data? These next plots are created as follows;

1 – Average multiple series from same location together in Degrees C

2 – Calculate anomaly for each individual station

3 – Average all anomalies together ignoring area weighting effects

4 – Plot

The slope in C/Decade is in blue on the graphs. So by the raw data we’re looking at 2.3C/century, this is a several times higher trend than the results from a more complete BAS dataset. For those familiar with the GHCN it’s no surprise that after the data is “homogenized” the trend leaps upward to 4C/century.
So the next step was to look at the data a little closer at the ten series.

There are like 1500 six figure people in the Antarctic and the primary GHCN global dataset has only one single series since 1993. The heroic global warming scientists at Rothera Point have been slaving away, reporting data for all of the Antarctic. That’s 16 years without anyone else bothering to take a temperature reading in the Antarctic for the GHCN or anyone from the GHCN making a phone call to any of the Antarctic towns for the data.

Oops, not so quick. There was data in the other series. In the GHCN’s unique value added process, (invented and widely sanctioned in the superior science of climatology) denialist data has been eliminated from the Raw data as we can see below.

There were several of the remaining ten series which were chopped!! Whell, since Rothera Point has the magic continental thermometer, I wonder which series Rothera Point exactly is on the map.

Below is the same map as above with a different temperature scale so we can see the magnitude of the black dots. The red circle is surrounding Rothera Point station.

So as we can see, of all the stations available in the antarctic, GHCN has chosen to use a single station on the Antarctic Peninsula to represent an entire continent of the earth for the past 17 years (red circle). But it’s not just any station, it’s a special one. Rothera Point has the single highest trend of any of the adjusted station data.

Coincidence?

In the meantime, the BAS maintains an up to date, value added dataset of their own. Using 63 stations and simple area weighted averaging we get antarctic trends of 0.05 C/decade with a temperature distribution in C/Decade that looks like this:

The temperature trend and trend distributions are robust to a wide variety of methods and input data from the BAS. The results would have no chance to survive the GHCN homogenization process.

Ok, so for the regulars, you know I’ve maintained my calmness quite well. However, it’s not easy. I’m sick to death of advocate scientists pretending there are only minimal problems in the temperature record. Currently the ‘homogenized’ value added version of GHCN has a trend that is EIGHT times higher than actual for the ENTIRE ANTARCTIC CONTINENT. So I wonder if we can now, spend some of the ‘BILLIONS OF DOLLARS’ on cleaning up the temperature record!!! It’s no coincidence that AGW scientists aren’t demanding this be done in my opinion either.

Which of these records is used in CRU, GISS, NOAA — hell if I know (nobody else does either because at least CRU won’t say) but it’s pretty clear none of this data should be used in this condition.

It’s time the GOOD scientists demand GOOD TEMPERATURE DATA. It’s time the world embarked on a real project for gathering the true warming data rather than this kludged mess. It’s past time that the whole thing was done in an open and transparent way. The whole experience with GHCN this weekend felt like looking through a box of old socks.


87 Responses to “GHCN Antarctic, 8X Actual Trend – Uses Single Warmest Station”

  1. Third Party said

    Why not contact Eric Steig to get the true story of how the GHCN temperature trend in the Antarctic is calculated? I hear he offers courses for $$$$ to teach his methods.

  2. Does any one know the difference between GHCN data file v2.mean and v2.mean_adj? I plotted both files. V2.mean shows a fairly steady rise of temperate from may 9 degrees C in the 1700′s to about 14 degrees C today. V2.mean_adj shows trash from 1701 to 1838. From 1838 to present day it shows a pretty flat 10 degrees C and a slight decline in the last ten years. The read me file says the v2.mean_adj was computed from v2.mean but says nothing about what the adjustments/corrections might be. In view of the fact that the adjustments trashed all reading from 1701 to 1838 you have to wonder about what it going on.
    You can see the charts on my blog newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com.

  3. Jeff Id said

    #2, The adjusted data is the adjusted version of the other. There are papers on the methods on the GHCN homepage.

  4. VJones said

    Jeff,
    GISS uses more than GHCN stations for Antarctica. I’ve only really started to look into GHCN. GISS uses 30 stations including the ones above (I can email the list if you wish), although the data may well have been adjusted prior to the GIStemp homogenisation step. The homogenisation and zoning of Antarctic data by GIStemp uses data from Base Orcadas (60N)* and uses it to ‘represent’ Antarctica until Faraday, Rothera Point and others kick in in the 1940s.
    *http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/ghcn-antarctica-ice-on-the-rocks/ The following is substantially reposted from one of my comments:

    “When you look at the spread of stations reporting climate data, a large proportion is on the warming West Antarctic Peninsula. The way GISS deals with the data just shows their whole attitude to climate and world temperature. Base Orcadas is the whole foundation of the Antarctic record for the Southern Polar Zone from 1903 to 1944.

    The GISS Southern Polar Zone is 64S to the pole itself at 90S. The (GISS) temperature trend in this zone uses their ubiquitous anomalies and shows overall a warming rate for the region of 0.018⁰C per year, or 1.8⁰C per century.

    Here’s what the overall GISS Zonal data looks like when plotted as an anomaly (differences from average of 1951-1980 base period). The Base Orcadas data is again overlaid. The last part of the figure shows it nicely. It is a plot of the data for the Zonal Mean subtracted from that of Base Orcadas. It shows just how little adjustment there is for the Base Orcadas data before it is used as the Zonal mean.

    And the worst part is that Base Orcadas is not even in the 64S-90S Zone – it is at 60S, in the South Orkney Islands. It is more than 1300km from Rothera Point. Rothera Point itself is more than 2500km from Amundsen-Scott Base at the South Pole. This is one big continent, and yet data from one station, barely altered, is used to represent the whole expanse for forty-three years.

    My other gripes with this? How can so many relatively warm areas be used? and was there no adjustment for altitude? A quick glance at the GISS stations used suggests about 40% of them come from the West Antarctic Peninsula, or its associated islands. Only a handful (Amundsen-Scott; Vostok; Byrd and a few others possibly) are not coastal. The others are close to the coast, or near the edge of the permanent ice in summer, so at least coastal in relative terms. And, by the way, the trends for Amundsen-Scott and Vostok are flat. If you plot the whole zone data from 1956 onwards, by which stage more stations have kicked in and there are twenty-five in total, the warming rate is halved.

    Never in the field of modelling was so much represented by so little for so long.”

    The whole point is that GISS uses Base Orcadas as a ‘modifying station’ and it is inappropriate to do so.

  5. Plato Says said

    Crikey – WTF – whoa

    This is ‘science’?

    I thought the funnies in California/Japan were bad – but this?!

  6. Third Party said

    I wonder if this is related:

    (1134418588.txt) 2005!

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: HadCRUT2v
    Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:16:28 -0700
    Cc: Tim Osborn , Ben Santer

    Phil,

    Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75 thru
    Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept 88,
    Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.

    Also — more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented
    by a single
    box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It
    would be
    better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.

    I have had to do this in my code — but you really should fix the ‘raw’
    gridded data.

    For area averages, the difference is between having the S Pole represent
    the whole
    region south of 85S, and having (as now) it represent one 72nd of this
    region. It
    is pretty obvious to me what is better.

    This affects the impression of missing data too of course.

    Tom.

  7. STEPHEN PARKER said

    Easy tiger!

  8. Pompous Git said

    VJones said: “GIStemp uses data from Base Orcadas (60N)”

    How odd! I thought the Orkneys were in the southern hemisphere.

  9. Nick Moon said

    I’ve been playing with the GHCN data. Doing much the same thing as hpx. The adjusted data is a very much smaller pile of data than the raw. Also, in may cases the adjusted data doesn’t run over the same time period as the raw data it is based on. For example, in my brief look, they seem to have stopped generating adjusted data for the UK after 1990.

    But I’m not sure it as simple as it might seem. Reading something on the NOAA web-site I got the impression that if there is no adjusted data – they use the raw data instead.

    However, I don’t know if they use all the stations. Possibly they pick a subset of the possible stations/records and put them through adjustment. But when building the gridded dataset they then only use that subset.

    So it might be that you need to look at the adjusted data to get the list of data series that they use. You then have to merge the raw and adjusted data, using the adjusted data where it exists and the unadjusted data otherwise.

  10. VJones said

    @#8 Ah sorry that shoudl of course be 60S

  11. per said

    fantastic.

    it is like a thriller you can’t put down. Err, or a pair of sock you can’t take off…

    great stuff, and looking forward to the paper !

    cheers
    per

  12. [...] GHCN Antarctic, 8X Actual Trend – Uses Single Warmest Station [...]

  13. Kon Dealer said

    I worked down at Rothera in the 1990′s. It didn’t strike me at the time but it does now. Rothera Point has been largely cleared of ice and snow, for personnel safety reasons. The underlying rock is very dark. It also has a huge matt black gravel runway right alongside the main base.

    Of course this change in local albedo would have no effect on local temperature readings would it?

  14. Jeff, great sleuthing, as always. As someone mentioned above, it might be a bit more complicated than them just truncating, and then not using, the raw from the stations. However, if it is like you’ve shown above, the this is truly unbelievable — and unsupportable.

  15. [...] up with that, and more soon discovered fraud in the Giss surface temperature series,  and now fraud in the GHCN [...]

  16. wolfwalker said

    So as we can see, of all the stations available in the antarctic, GHCN has chosen to use a single station on the Antarctic Peninsula to represent an entire continent of the earth for the past 17 years (red circle).

    Did I miss something? I don’t see how you get from 10 stations in the first cut to 1 station in the second cut.

  17. Al said

    Wolfwalker, if you look at the plot with this name: gchn-adjusted-103.jpg, there’s only one series with data in the past 17 years.

    The data is present in the raw data, but not in the adjusted series.

    That is: much more data was gathered, but not included in determining any average for that era.

  18. Creation Man said

    It all adds up. Does GHCN have a single historical temperature record that the rest of us can trust?

    “But he has no clothes on,” cried a little boy who held no post and was too young to be called “stupid.” (Hans Christian Andersen)

    http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d13-Antarctic-weather-station-data-found-flawed

  19. Jeff Id said

    Sorry for not interacting today. We’ve been busy getting ready for Christmas.

    #14– the data was chopped right off. — yup. Chopped, hacked, sliced, excized, deleted, removed Bobbetted and Briffa’ed.

    #16 The same way they went from 27 to ten. There is only one adjusted, homogenized, peer reviewed series in the antarctic since before 1993.

  20. Mike said

    To: David Starr (#2):

    you said “V2.mean shows a fairly steady rise of temperate from may 9 degrees C in the 1700’s to about 14 degrees C today.”

    I also looked at the data. It turns out that at the beginning of the historical record most thermometers were at high latitudes – at cooler locations in northern Europe. As time passed, more stations were established in warmer locations closer to the equator. You can see this if you graph # stations per latitude band per year. So, to get an accurate average temp over time you need to assign each thermometer to a geographic grid and then average the thermometers in each grid. This is “gridded” temperature and is just one of the complications that lead me to believe that it is probably impossible to calculate an “average global” temperature.

  21. Al said

    I keep hoping for an attempt at actually calibrating a random GHCN thermometer to “the average gridcell temperature” as calculated from satellite data.

    They’re carrying on as if a thermometer in a parking lot near the barbeque still has the error marked on the instrument’s box when used to measure the average temperature of several hundred square miles.

  22. yonason said

    Al – December 13, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    “I keep hoping for an attempt at actually calibrating a random GHCN thermometer to “the average gridcell temperature” as calculated from satellite data.”

    I’ve asked that a few times over the last 6 or so months, too. From my experience I can tell you not to hold your breath waiting for an answer.

  23. Al said

    Well, I can get pseudo-live “satelite” data from weather.com. Probably not the same as RSS or UAH’s real data, but hey. Close enough for Climate Science.

    The other key issue is getting the lat/long boundaries of a gridcell somewhere with a decent GHCN station inside.

  24. E.M.Smith said

    I’ve put in a link to this article from my arctic page:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/ghcn-antarctica-ice-on-the-rocks/

    This page has the “GIStemp Vision” of antarctica. They do add in a bunch of direct data for Antarctica from SCAR:


    For Antarctica: SCAR – http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/stationpt.html

    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/temperature.html

    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/awspt.html

    That is from the GIStemp readme.

    I break down the usage of stations by time and by region. It’s still pretty darned sparse and then the GIStemp UHI and homgenization routines spread data from the warm perimeter into the colder areas. But at least you can see how stations are left in the baseline, then lost later in time, broken out by each region and for the whole.

    Different way to cook the books, same book stew at the end… IMHO, of course.

  25. KDK said

    Forgive me, but do models that are supposed to be able to predict the future have to predict the past accurately in all cases to have scientific standing?

    If so, what is the analysis of this sham, as it relates to the past realities of our climate? I’ve heard it cannot reproduce our historical records–especially using only one main, but basic element, CO2.

    Thanks

  26. Aqua Fyre said

    Jeff,

    SEWAGE RUN-OFF & HIGH TEMP INCINERATION HEAT PLUMES.

    Has anyone had a look at the Sewage & waste disposal issue at Rothera Station ?

    There are two reasons for bringing this up.

    First point (this may no longer be the case) is that the UV treated grey water is apparently dumped straight into the sea. 24/7-365 days a year. Does this plume of water effect local sea temperature. Is there a temperature effect due to any increase in microbial sea life ?

    Secondly, it appears that Rothera Station now uses a Two stage Incinerator that uses very high temperatures to burn waste materials.

    I cannot find any data with regards to how such a heat plume would be contained and not effect air temperature readings in the surroundings.

    But this is an overview report.

    http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rpts/82039.htm

    * I have also posted this question at Watts Up with That.

    Cheers

    Aqua Fyre

  27. Al said

    KDK: Exactly true.

    Forecasting – or extrapolation – is one of the true problems in modeling. It isn’t something anyone has any business doing until they have a lock on predicting current and recent experiences with exquisite thoroughness.

    The early climate models had a dramatic problem with the instrumentally observed warming of the 1930′s. That is: they don’t show any such hump in the slightest – they follow the near-exponential curve of ppm CO2 slavishly. That is: Extremely sensitive to the ppm CO2, with all other potentialities (sun, ocean, whatever) minimized.

    With some analysis and introspection, they’ve decided that aerosols were the cause of the 1930′s peak, and our cleaning up of our smog caused a strong downward trend in the aerosol levels – and thus back to ‘dominated by carbon dioxide.’

    Unfortunately, they have no solid numbers of any sort for aerosols. So they’ve fiddled around until they have a hump that looks good but is based on “Well, maybe it is aerosols.” Ignoring minor details like the aerosol output of India and China, which have very little to do with smog levels in the USA. That brings us to the current best models – which sort-of have a hump in the 1930s, and are helped by an inexplicable lowering of the historical temperatures recorded for the 1930s.

    When they “hindcast” prior to the 1900s, the extreme climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide means near-zero variation when you’re pre-industrial. So… there’s no Medieval Warm Period at all, no Roman Climate Optimum, nothing out to prehistory where there’s some carbon dioxide variations.

    There’s currently an exceedingly deep solar minimum – which the models consider essentially irrelevant. There’s also some information about cloud feedback – a key piece of AGW is the expectation that more clouds means more warming. But… it is quite difficult to calculate exactly how much energy is reflected by clouds as opposed to retained by clouds. The fundamentals are easy – the higher energy visible and ultraviolet light are able to pierce clouds much more readily than infrared.

    But the tops of clouds are white – and thus reflective.

    There are a couple of ongoing satellite experiments to measure the energy balance of clouds – and at least one indicates problems with the models approach to clouds. That is: it is possible that the key cloud types of interest actually reflect more light than they retain – and thus the whole AGW formula has issues.

    More co2 -> more heat -> more clouds -> more heat -> more clouds….

    becomes

    More co2 -> more heat -> more clouds -> less heat -> less clouds…

  28. Kondealer said

    Have you guys seen this?
    “Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists
    Key claim of global warming sceptics debunked”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists-1839867.html

    This is the front page headline of “The Independent” a pro-AGW broadsheet in the UK.

    Many sceptics who accept that global temperatures have risen in recent decades suggest it is part of the climate’s natural variability and could be accounted for by normal variations in the activity of the Sun. Powerful support for this idea came in 1991 when Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, published a study showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and the length of sunspot cycles.

    A further study published in 1998 by Mr Friis-Christensen and his colleague Henrik Svensmark suggested a possible explanation for the warming trend with a link between solar activity, cosmic rays and the formation of clouds.

    However, many scientists now believe both of these studies are seriously flawed, and that when errors introduced into the analysis are removed, the correlations disappear, with no link between sunspots and global warming. Peter Laut, a former adviser to the Danish Energy Agency who first identified the flaws, said there were practically no observations to support the idea that variations in sunspots played more than a minor role in global warming.

    Mr Laut’s analysis of the flaws is accepted by most scientists familiar with the research, including Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on understanding the hole in the ozone layer. “There is definitely a problem [with these studies]. Laut has really pinned it down but the [sunspot] argument keeps reappearing and its quite irritating,” Professor Crutzen said.

    Professor Stefan Rahsmstorf, of Potsdam University, agreed: “I’ve looked into this quite closely and I’m on Laut’s side in terms of his analysis of the data.”

    Some scientists believe the flaws are so serious that the papers should be retracted or at least the authors should acknowledge that their work contains problems that question the correlations they have apparently established.

    “Their controversial papers must be retracted or at least that there will be an official statement by them acknowledging their mistake,” said Andre Berger, honorary president of the European Geosciences Union.

    Messrs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen stand by their studies and continue to believe there is evidence to support their sunspot theory of global warming, despite the doubts first raised by Laut.

    “It’s not a critique of the science or the correlations, it’s a critique of person,” Mr Friis-Christensen said. “It’s a character assassination. [Laut] is not interested in the science, he’s interested in promoting the idea Henrik did something unethical.”

  29. [...] December 13, 2009 at 3:12 pm | #1 GHCN – Antarctic Warming Eight Times Actual « the Air Vent [...]

  30. Geoff Sherrington said

    Jeff,

    1.Thinking back on Steig’s Antarctic paper, there was some secrecy about the new method used for satellite data to tell between clouded areas and cloud-free areas. Did you ever track down the secrets of this masking algorithm?

    2. While you have them before you, can you make a quick list and post here, of the names of the stations critical to your analysis? It is possible I have some data on some of them for cross-checking.

    3. Keep it up. I’ve been going round the world chasing asjusted slippery dips too.

    4. The site http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station_data returns DNS Error – Server cannot be found. Has this site been shifted or is the normal GISS service closed for maintenance?

  31. Amabo said

    Geoff # 4

    For me it says Resource is no longer available!

    Could be they’ve moved it to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ something something.

  32. PaulM said

    Kondealer, Friis-Christensen wrote a rebuttal of the Damon and Laut paper, but the rag (EOS) refused to publish it. Amazingly, the ‘error’ Damon and Laut refer to is in fact not in a paper by F-C, but an earlier paper by D&L themselves!!! You couldnt make it up.
    The response is at
    http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/comment to eos_28_sept_04.pdf

  33. Amabo said

    See if you can get something useful from here:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

  34. Jeff Id said

    #21, 22

    Guys, I’ve got no idea what you mean by ‘calibrate’ to satellite data. My belief is that a properly (not-automatically) adjusted high quality surface temperature station which hasn’t been moved and doesn’t live on blacktop or by an air conditioner outlet etc. , will give a superior trend than the current satellite data.

    The satellite data is improving now though and hopefully in 10 years, things will be more sensible. There are differences also in that the Sat data measures lower troposphere whereas temp stations measure surface.

    I spent about 15 hours reading up on GHCN, writing a downloader, understanding and processing the data for this post. With that kind of time, I’ve got to do what interests me, If you’re interested, I would encourage you to check it out.

  35. [...] the East Anglia CRU records showed an increasing temperature trend for Antarctica. I wonder how that happened. Comments #13 and #26 in the thread are also [...]

  36. iceandclimate said

    Could someone please point me to this paper that (supposedly) presents an Antarctic continent average temperature time series based _only_ on GHCN data?

  37. I note with increasing unease the sorry saga of manipulated and carefully selected data that pervades the thinking and actions of “establishment” climatologists and their data sites. The wealth of posts here shows that there are many who, like me, have learned to mistrust information that emanates from these sources. But we doubters have a real problem, and one that must be solved if common sense and ethical analyses of the data are to be undertaken, and more importantly, can actually influence the actions of the politicians who are in thrall to the scenes of catastrophic outcomes that dominate the MSM. The problem is to identify exactly how /available/ “data” can be managed so that it truly represents the conditions that existed at its supposed location and time. Only when that can be done shall we have the information that is essential for the generation of reliable climate time series.

    At that point real, engineering quality, analyses (eg Steve McIntyre’s) could be undertaken with the virtual certainty that the outcomes will be a true representation of the state of the planet.

    Will someone ever have the time and skills to undertake this task? I can think of some names who clearly have the capability, but what about the time? Is there a case for contemplating setting up a “research fund” to finance the work? I would be very happy indeed to contribute.

    Robin

  38. [...] one showing temperature increase.  The others… [...]

  39. Jay said

    However, many scientists now believe both of these studies are seriously flawed, and that when errors introduced into the analysis are removed, the correlations disappear

    Which is pretty much where AGW would is (seriously flawed) and would be (when errors {read: ‘corrections’} introduced…are removed the correlations disappear) if it’s advocates were willing to consider reality as an option.

    “there is a fine line between vision and hallucination”

  40. Jeff Id said

    #36, I doubt there is one, however the usage of GHCN data has a readily apparent bias in this case. It leaves us to wonder whether the choice of the final station since 1993 is an act of random computer coding.

  41. Sinan Unur said

    See also http://www.unur.com/climate/ghcn-v2/700/89063.html and compare to other stations in Antarctica available at http://www.unur.com/climate/ghcn-v2/700/and methods explained at http://www.unur.com/climate/ghcn-v2/

  42. CO2 Skeptic said

    Isn’t it ironical. Our world leaders are currently in Copenhagen to get an agreed mandate on how much each country should be taxed and how it should be divided up amongst the poorer countries. This is an effort to combat Global Warming/Climate Change as recommended by people in the UK and US now under investigation for manipulating global temperature anomalies.

  43. [...] used to record the temperature for the whole thing. Then, here is the same material which has been peer reviewed in public (as it were) and the obvious fudging of the numbers made even more [...]

  44. iceandclimate said

    #40 Jeff, If there isn’t a paper that is claiming to present an “all Antarctic average” temperature record based _only_ on GHCN data, then why are you making all this fuss?

    The GHCN dataset documentation makes it absolutely clear what stations were used in this dataset (look it up on the National Climate Data Center web site). GHCN itself doesn’t include a time series of a constructed Antarctic average (although your post gives the impression that it does). GHCN is a useful, if limited, resource. All recent studies of Antarctic climate variability have been based on datasets that are much more comprehensive (from an Antarctic perspective) than GHCN, e.g. the READER dataset (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/). Analysis of such data shows (as you correctly state) rapid warming confined to the Antarctic Peninsula and relative stasis over the rest of the continent. This pattern has been shown to be entirely consistent with the changes one would expect to be associated with rising CO2 levels and declining stratospheric ozone (Gillett et al,Nature Geoscience, 2008, doi:10.1038/ngeo338).

    Arguments about urban heat island effects at Rothera are totally specious. Temperatures at Rothera correlate closely with those at Faraday/Vernadsky a little further north (Lat. 65° 15′ S, Long. 64° 16′ W). While Rothera station has expanded over the past 20 years, there has been little or no development at Faraday/Vernadsky. The rapid warming trend at both stations is dominated by warming in winter, which has been driven by a decline in winter sea ice extent in the Bellingshausen Sea to the west of the Peninsula. This, in turn, has resulted from an increasingly cyclonic atmospheric circulation, which has probably been driven by ozone depletion and greenhouse gas increases (Turner et al., 2009, Geophysical Research Letters doi:10.1029/2009GL037524).

    Bottom line: Recent Antarctic temperature trends are not inconsistent with the hypothesis that recent climate variability is largely the result of anthropogenic forcing.

  45. EJ said

    Hi Jeff,

    I have to say thanks again for all the work you and the other authors have done here. I am a big fan.

    I have to ask, what do you think all the product you have put here would have cost the climate community to produce. I know you don’t have to collect the data, but after that, a stats analysis and report are basically what’s left.

    I think you should be paid to correct all this incompetent work which flew through peer review. How much garbage does it take before an author/reviewer/journal is finally discredited? All one needs to do is read Wegman’s report about the incestuous nature of the IPCC authors and the journals.

    Do you have any rough numbers of the costs it takes to put up a study like Dr. Steig’s data analysis and report? I would think they have to have budgets, no? If not, then that is also telling.

    I wonder if Dr. Steig regrets having teamed up with Mann et al. Dr. Steig is now burdened with the forever shadow of doubt.

    Climate science is still in it’s infancy and far from settled. It is a big universe out there. If I were a budding climate scientist I would steer way clear of those who refuse to stick up for their work by refusing to release data and code. This is just like any typical physics homework problem while in school. One would never accept an answer without demanding to see the calcs. If you got a different answer than your teacher, you would demand to see his work. Prove it! And you have!

    Thanks Again,

    EJ

    PS – Was going to hit the tip jar, but couldn’t find it

  46. yonason said

    iceandclimate – December 14, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    “Recent Antarctic temperature trends are not inconsistent with the hypothesis that recent climate variability is largely the result of anthropogenic forcing.”

    Yes, they are inconsistent with AGW.

    http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/10/antarctic-warming-not.html

    Urban Heat Islands, what are they good for?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warming_up_antarctica/

    See more here.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/frigid-folly-uhi-siting-issues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/

    “…using stations here (e.g., Rothera Pt.) to represent trends on the main body of the Antarctic continent is plain wrong, becuase the peninsula is in a different climate zone.”

    …and here…

    http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d13-Antarctic-weather-station-data-found-flawed

    …and here…

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antarctica-ain%E2%80%99t-cooperating/

  47. Jeff Id said

    EJ, thanks for the kind words. We soon will publish a paper for which the group will ask for help. Currently this is just a hobby so no money is required.

    #44, Thanks for stopping by. My views on this are pretty simple.

    First, I have no idea whether urban effects are getting to the thermometer. If it is downwind, I wouldn’t be surprised. My primary view is that the stations in the peninsula are measuring ocean temperatures more than anything.

    The Gilette paper is a bit to convenient for my liking, but I haven’t studied it enough. Clearly climate science has had no lack for ability to waive a problem away by flapping one’s arms- see divergece for reference. I no longer trust what I read. After climategate, nobody else should either.

    Also, here we have a global set of temperature data. We should be able to count on it for reconstructing a reasonable global temperature record. We cannot. There is only a single station from the antarctic since 1993 and it’s an obviously cherrypicked station. Data was systematically eliminated for some reason from the record. If you say–what studies use GHCN for the antarctic. The record is abysmal, there are none. I therefore expect you are a climate scientist. However, there are whole global temperature datasets which use GHCN. Since the GHCN didn’t write in their documentation – don’t use the Antarctic data from our survey, anyone who does will experience an unreasonable positive bias. Maybe it’s not enough to offset other data, but it’s certainly not helping.

    If I can find problems this severe in the data in a weekend, how many others exist in the rest of the data. If you are a climate scientist, please help us push to get reasonable data, analyzed in an open transparent way with reasoned corrections and using only the very best of stations.

    Its too important to trust to this kind of horsecrap science. It’s to damned important to not do right. If we are required to spend trillions, we deserve to see why. The scientists have been shown discussing the intentional exaggeration of warming in multiple instances.

    Bottom line: Recent Antarctic temperature trends are not inconsistent with the hypothesis that recent climate variability is largely the result of anthropogenic forcing.

    I wonder what level of warming you attribute to the Antarctic. Do you like my 0.05C/Decade or Steig’s 0.12 or is the Giss .18 right.

  48. EJ said

    Jeff said: “First, I have no idea whether urban effects are getting to the thermometer. If it is downwind, I wouldn’t be surprised. My primary view is that the stations in the peninsula are measuring ocean temperatures more than anything. ”

    Having lived in a variety of climate and population densities, I can attest to the UHI effect. I have lived in the least population density in the country and the highest population density outside of NYC. I have lived in rural AZ and traveled to Phoenix on many occasions. The UHI, in dry air, was measurable. Prevailing winds do matter. I currently reside in NW WA, wet air. UHI has less effect when it is raining. The rain absorbs and removes a lot of heat. Just my 2 cents worth.

    Watts and his boy did a stand up job measuring the desert UHI effect.

    The point being that different climate zones have different fudge factors.

  49. Amber said

    Hi Jeff, I think I might’ve identified where you and I diverge.

    In science, a person publishes a theory which in their view explains a set of observations. In the process, theoretical foundations and experimental methodologies are detailed. A second person has the opportunity to publish an alternative theory which in their view better explains the observations. Persons in the field assess the scientific arguments of the two theories and form a preference for one over the other, or reserve judgement pending more data or theoretical development.

    You say, “I no longer trust what I read.”

    I say, if one disagrees with a finding then trust plays no part in the issue. If one doubts the data, one measures one’s own data. If one doubts the explanation, one proffers one’s own explanation.

    Science is the development of a robust theoretical framework which explains that which we observe, not the disproving of an aspect of theory without supplying an alternative. Science is constructive criticism, not destructive criticism.

    I respect the (huge) effort you make, Jeff, but I feel you could achieve better value for it.

    When AGW doubters publish alternative mechanisms that explain observations better than current theories, they will be taken more seriously.

  50. Jeff Id said

    Amber,

    Come on, we diverge where the data begins. You don’t do numbers.

    I don’t know if you’re aware of this but you are welcome to create your own guest post here. The only requirements are, climate science first. Then it must be well enough written. The facts you want to make must be established not conjecture or simple points from misread papers and you must present your own data. It’s quite easy really.

    I really don’t mind people who disagree with me. I will be happy to tell them when they’re wrong, but I’ll give them the forum to let loose. It’s science not dogma. We don’t get to choose physics, in the meantime, I’m old enough and not fool enough to recognize when something is politics rather than science.

  51. Jeff Id said

    #48, I have no doubt about the truth of urban warming bias in general. In this case, the circumpolar currents appear to be very regular in comparison to other weather patterns. If they put stations downwind from the living quarters,runways etc. it might have an effect, upwind, maybe not so much.

  52. yonason said

    The UHI effect.

    In Philadelphia it was in the upper 90′s, day and night. We went to the country (about 60 – 70 miles away at same latitude) for a camping trip. While daytime temps were nearly the same as city temps, at night we shivered if we had to get out of our sleeping bags, with temps in the upper 60′s.

    And so when I hear that the pirates at CRY base their nonsense on temps taken primarily in cities, and the have the nerve to “adjust” those temps UP! That’s just ridiculous.

  53. yonason said

    “…the pirates at CRY…” should have read “…pirates at CRU…” Sorry.

  54. Amber said

    Jeff, I haven’t seen you publish any alternative theories. I haven’t read everything on your site so if you have published theories, please point me to them. If I’m correct in you not publishing alternative theories then *that* is where we differ. Let your alternative be examined. Let the respective scientific arguments be assessed.

    If you distrust the raw data, measure your own. Set up a weather station to your satisfaction, ask others to do likewise and form a global project to measure data you do trust.

    Thank you for your invitation.

  55. Jeff Id said

    Alternative theories to what?

    This is where we differ. I look at data and papers, I do vent so you pretend not to see the effort from a short review. You say ‘alternative theories’ and assign stupid goals like measure a planet by myself. It’s certainly frustrating, but there’s no rationale behind it.

    It took literally 15 hours to find out that the GHCN didn’t have any damned data after 1993, why the hell would they do that. Amundsen Scott has lots of data since then. Why the hell would they choose the single highest trend station (after corrections) in the continent to represent such a huge fraction of the earth.

    You must admit my findings are odd.

    My invitation stands to all here, but I won’t publish junk, only well reasoned posts. Honesty is an unequivocal requirement.

  56. EJ said

    Amber, get a clue!

    Jeff lays out the data and his methods. If you need a journal to interpret the science herein then fine. Go read a journal.

    Publish Smublish. This blog is a publication. And it don’t cost us a dime! You wish to refute the calcs, put up your own. Otherwise, Chatta.

    Chatta = Chut da hell up

  57. Ryan O said

    Amber . . . of all things to try to criticize Jeff on . . . well, let’s just say that you don’t have a clue. ;) Haha!

  58. Jeff Id said

    #57, I think Amber is young. Frustrating, but she obviously hasn’t figured out what you’ve done here.

  59. Mike said

    Amber (49, 54):

    Long before I heard of climate science I was reading about the history of nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, relativity and other fields in science. In all of these fields scientists constantly attempted to disprove and find flaws in the new theories. Einstein, for example, even described the experiments that should be done that could possibly invalidate his theories if he was wrong. So I am afraid that your idea that science advances only through constructive criticism and alternative theories does not match with history. Sometimes progress is made simply in invalidating an existing theory without offering an alternative. If this process was good enough for these other areas of science, then it is good enough for climate science as well.

  60. David Jay said

    Don’t they teach the “Null Hypothesis” anymore?
    Amber:

    It isn’t about coming up with a better theory, it is showing that the data does not violate the null hypothesis. If it doesn’t violate the null hypothesis then there is no need for ANY explanatory theory.

    BTW Jeff – I am in China at the moment. This trip they have “freed the code” – WordPress code, that is. I can read you, Anthony and Steve’s new site without having to RDP through my (US) office desktop.

    Blogspot and typepad still appear to be on the “naughty” list.

  61. David Jay said

    Don’t know where you go when you are over here, but I was able to access from Shanghai, Jilin province and Shandong province, so my guess is that it is across the board.

  62. Nic L said

    Good work, Jeff (and hpx). Who would have imagined that Rothera has for some time been the source of all the GHCN adjusted Antartica temperature data! How ridiculous.

    In fact, Rothera has a very strange record, perhaps partially linked to the UHI effect. Temperatures recorded in the first five or six years of its operation (1977-1982) averaged much below subsequent temperatures, but from 1982 to 2009 average recorded temperatures changed relatively little overall. Using monthly temperature anomalies, the slope calculated from December 1976 (the first data point) to July 2009 (the latest I have loaded) is 0.70 degrees C /decade – very high. But starting from January 1983, it is only 0.05 C /decade.

    However, 1993, when Rothera appears to have become the sole source for GHCN adjusted data, was a year when temperatures there were unusually low. From 1993 to July 2009, Rothera shows a very high trend of 0.53 to 0.62 C /decade, depending on when in 1993 it is measured from.

  63. Amber said

    Jeff, I don’t think I’ve disputed any of your findings, have I, so why do you say I “pretend not to see the effort from a short review” (I’m not regarding CRU files as “findings” although I do agree some of their contents warrant investigation, as I have already said on this site)? I read your findings with interest and use them along with all other information sources to make my own assessments. I do agree with you that some things don’t quite add up and look forward to resolutions in due course, for good or for bad — I don’t have a barrow to push, I just want the facts.

    If you don’t accept a theory, science obliges you to put forward an alternative theory.
    If you don’t accept a dataset, science obliges you to measure your own data.
    I said this already in #49.

    I most certainly did not say you had to measure a planet by yourself. On the contrary, I said to “ask others to do likewise and form a global project to measure data you do trust” (#54). Using people power and the Internet, such a project is doable. It will be hard, yes, but it involves nothing that hasn’t been done before.

  64. Jeff Id said

    #63, again what theory?

  65. Jeff Id said

    Amber,

    You have not read tAV’s old posts. We know that because you bashed on the ‘antarctic’ temperature study and publication. I’ve just spent a substantial portion of the last year on the thing. It’s an amazingly patient response you’ve received for your comment.

    Last Feb Dr. Steig, published a very cool paper on Antarctic warming. It’s been more fun to work on reconstructing and improving as any paper I’ve looked at. The concept of the paper is mathematically interesting and the payoff is an improved temperature trend distribution across the woefully under sampled Antarctic temperature record. Nobody is disproving global warming which we all believe in, what we are trying to point out is what the data shows. Nothing else, we really don’t have a choice.

  66. Amber said

    Mike, the difference with those situations is that the intention was to improve the understanding of the science. For example, Einstein was happy to have his theories invalidated or validated. Either result gave him more data to work with. If a section of work was invalidated, he knew he had to try a new approach. He considered that an advance. Thus, invalidating any of Einstein’s work was in fact constructive criticism, because Einstein was a theoretical genius and he co-existed with the experimental scientists in a symbiotic relationship.

    Science is always constructive.

  67. Amber said

    #64 It’s up to you. If you agree with the climate theory, fine. If you don’t, propose an improved theory that in your view better explains the observations we have. I’m not telling you what to accept or not accept.

  68. yonason said

    “Einstein was happy to have his theories invalidated or validated.”

    Amazing. Can you “channel” Schrodinger as well? (I want to know if he’s really dead.)

    Sorry, Jeff Id, didn’t mean to interrupt the spat you two are having, but too much is enough already!

    BTW, is there a pdf of Dr. Steig’s paper online that I don’t have to pay for to see it? Thanks.

  69. Amber said

    #68 Yonason, in #59 Mike said, “Einstein, for example, even described the experiments that should be done that could possibly invalidate his theories if he was wrong”. So go take up your unneccesary allegations of channelling with him, eh?

    A number of people here are taking the nitpicking way too far. Stick to valid critique.

  70. Layman Lurker said

    Jeff, there is a certain someone here who reminds me a lot of (a more polite and less intelligent version) of TCO.

  71. yonason said

    “A number of people here are taking the nitpicking way too far. Stick to valid critique.”

    That was just a light-hearted aside at your waxing so philosophical. Athough I disagree with Jeff about the warming (from what I know so far) I am confident that he’s objective, as evidenced by his grappling with a difficult issue. It doesn’t seem he needs any lectures on how to do what he is already doing well.

    And, while that may be between you and Jeff, it doesn’t really add much to my knowledge of what’s going on in the Antarctic, which is why I took that jab before returning to topic by asking about the Steig paper.

  72. Jeff Id said

    #67, Amber, you have indirectly challenged me to go after climate theory. I won’t, because that’s not where the argument lies.

    Someone explain, how do you explain to a brainwashed person that they don’t understand anything about science until they look at the data and math. The mystery Amber, is in the data and the stats. I hope (ever more naively) you’ll begin to listen because there are a lot of smart SOB’s with a hell of a lot of ability kicking about these threads.

    We do believe in the theory that CO2 is a heat capturing gas. It is, and we have no damn choice in the matter.

    What’s more, if we did have a choice, we wouldn’t change anything.

    So to be more clear, you’re asking a bunch of believers in a theory for an alternate theory for what they believe in. We can make some up if you like but why?

  73. Jeff Id said

    #71, Of course I don’t speak for everyone and shouldn’t write as though I do.

    My point is that CO2 captures additional heat, not that the heat is dangerous or even measurable. We don’t really know.

  74. yonason said

    #73

    “#71, Of course I don’t speak for everyone and shouldn’t write as though I do.

    My point is that CO2 captures additional heat, not that the heat is dangerous or even measurable. We don’t really know.”

    I’m OK with that.

  75. Creation Man said

    Everyone:

    I realize that I’m only a guest here–and in climate science I’m a rank amateur. I don’t pretend to be a scientist. I am here as a journalist. In fact, I was the first pro or semi-pro journalist to mention the infamous CRU Archive on my page.

    So, with Jeff Id’s permission, I’ll give you all a journalist’s perspective:

    I see no proposals for a theory, followed by a reasonable and honest defense of it. I see a tyrannical, corrupt, and incestuous clique determined to insist that their theory was as settled as were Newton’s law of gravitation. I see the worst examples of dry-labbing, a travesty of peer review, and a deliberate attempt to suppress data, and in the end to distort and even obliterate it.

    And I see something else: I see another clique of multicultural dandies converging on a tourist-trap city in 1200 limousines (with one dignitary each) and 490 business jets. Does any regular commenter here truly imagine that a single one of those dandified ne’er-do-wells actually believes in the premise that they are trying to sell to bodies politic all over the world, but especially in the developed world?

    If that were my conference, I would charter a limited number of commercial aircraft, advise each delegate to make his or her way to a central city or cities on each continent, and then lay on a limited number of flights into the destination airport–and I wouldn’t hold it in ice-cold Copenhagen, but in Amman, Jordan, or perhaps Istanbul, Turkey–nice and hot, or at least temperate, and centrally located. And at that venue, I would gladly accept any special trains or buses that the host city laid on–and positively forbid any delegate to travel about in a chauffeured limousine! The now-despised Christians are always told to “be an example to the believers, in word and in conduct, of love and faith and purity.” (I Timothy ch. 4) Well, as I was saying: if COP-15 were my conference, I would insist that every delegate be an example to the world’s people, in word and in conduct, of conservation and sustainable living and at least halfway-sustainable travel.

    Some of you here appear to be coming to this forum to uphold what’s left of the honor of the AGW premise, this after its credibility is utterly destroyed. Now if you think I’m wrong in that, then I invite you to chastise me, either here in this comment space, or in my own comment space–say, the space attached to this article. You’ll find that I don’t bother to delete comments, unless they are duplicative or vulgar. Everybody gets a chance. As a journalist, I cannot in good conscience offer anything less.

    Let me be perfectly clear: if anyone here can show me why the developed world must shell out trillions of dollars to various and sundry LDCs, and in effect “un-develop” itself–well, consider this a request for interview. Perhaps someone might actually have a valid argument to make in favor of the premise of anthropogenic global warming–though at the moment, and in the light of everything that I have thus far been able to discover, I cannot imagine what that might be.

    Terry A. Hurlbut
    Essex County (New Jersey, USA) Conservative Examiner

  76. yonason said

    #75 – Re the ‘one important person per limo’ was analyzed by a blogger who actually took the trouble to calculate who much Copen-ha-ha-ha-ha-thejokesonyou-hagen cost, by their own carbon standards.

    http://sweasel.com/archives/5056

    Whatever one believes about how the planet’s temperature is changing, I do hope we can all agree that these guys are NOT the ones we want in charge of dealing with it.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/15/morning-bell-they-cant-even-run-a-conference-let-alone-the-global-economy/

    Finally, regarding the suggestion to go and get our own data if we don’t like what they have. That’s just silly. They are the ones who have been charged with collecting it. They have the obligation to do it right, and they are NOT.

    http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wbz/wbz/2009/may/SurfaceStations.pdf

  77. yonason said

    Another article on why we must be wary.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d11-Global-weather-dataset-being-systematically-corrupted

  78. Amber said

    Jeff, my post #49 was constructive and neutral. You respond by misrepresenting my position not once but twice.

    Firstly in #55 where you say I expect you to measure a planet by yourself in patent contradiction to my #54 where I say you can ask others to do likewise and form a global project to measure data you do trust.

    Secondly in #72 where you say I’m asking for a second theory as an alternative to one you and others already believe, in patent contradiction to my #49, #63 and #67 (!) where I say if (note the word “if”) you disagree with a theory then put forward an alternative. It logically follows that if you agree with a particular theory then you don’t need to propose an alternative to it.

    These are two more examples of your failure to comprehend simple English. When they were brought to your attention, you lacked the courtesy to acknowledge your error.

    Good luck with your number crunching.

  79. Jeff Id said

    Amber,

    I still have no idea what theory I’m supposed to come up with. I’ve repeatedly pointed out that little tiny detail and you’ve been unwilling to tell me an I’m the one who fails to comprehend English. Fine, stop playing games.

    That’s what facebook and twitter is for.

    And again, I’m not going to go measure the planet again by myself. It’s been done, the data exists, it just needs proper QC and open verification.

    I would be happy to admit my error if I had any damn clue what you were talking about.

    If you wish to continue commenting on this thread, your next response better be what the hell theory needs an alternative or I’m just going to snip it. You have wasted too much of my time.

  80. Creation Man said

    @Amber:

    Courtesy, indeed!

    You state that, if one disagrees with any given theory that explains a given set of fact, one must propose an alternative theory that explains those same facts. But your argument, such as it is, assumes “facts” that are manifestly not in evidence. I go further: those “facts” of which you are so fond are the biggest tissue of lies ever put forward in support of a scientific premise. I put it to you that even Piltdown, Peking, Nebraska, and Java Men pale in comparison. Why? Because apart from Piltdown Man (an obvious fraud), those others might even be supposed to be honest mistakes. The truncation of a dataset to, as one of them put it, “hide the decline,” is most certainly not.

    In sum, Amber: they lied to us, and our “courtesy” to them ends at this point. I would like to see certain appropriate authorities (if any can be found who are not themselves thoroughly corrupt) do them the “courtesy” of affording them a scrupulously fair, speedy, and public trial. The charge: fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud. The specification: in that, for decades, they have defrauded several bodies of taxpayers of billions of dollars and now propose to defraud them of trillions more, all in the name of a scientific premise that they know is false. And how do they know it? Because those same pious men and women flit about in private business jets and chauffeured limousines, that’s why!

  81. Layman Lurker said

    Amber, since #49 refers to AGW, I presume that is the theory you are refering to which you feel requires an alternative. Might I suggest that you stick to the topic of the thread if you truly wan’t to be “constructive”. How is your demand for alternative theories to AGW related to this thread?

    Not only do you do the discourtesy of off topic posts, you continue to throw out vague, confusing, careless assertions then declare victory if the response is not according to your twisted framing of the logic. FWIW, disproof of “A” does not depend on proof of “B”.

  82. iceandclimate said

    #46 Yes, they are inconsistent with AGW.

    http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/10/antarctic-warming-not.html

    You refer to a blog post that cherry-picks a single figure from a publication in the peer-reviewed literature (Tedesco and Monaghan,2009, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL039186) and misrepresents the findings of that paper. The first sentence of the Conclusions section of that paper reads:

    Negative melting anomalies observed in recent years do not contradict recently published results on surface temperature trends over Antarctica [e.g. Steig et al., 2009]

    Always go for the original source, not the spin that some blogger with an agenda has put on it.

    BTW, I can confirm that there is no Starbucks at Rothera, not even a Costa or any other coffee shop, come to that.

    So long, and thanks for all the fish.

  83. Jeff Id said

    #82, There are a lot of previous papers which show trends about half of Steig et al. I wonder if you have an opinion on the matter.

  84. EJ said

    Hi Jeff,

    I guess this thread is as good as any to ask this. I have been looking at the Arctic sea ice graph linked to at WUWT and found some curious declines in the ice extent that are not present in any of the other years.

    The third week of October, the first, second and last week of November show significant downturns.

    Do you think this seems reasonable, as none of the previous years show any declines during this period?

    Thanks,
    EJ

  85. kevoka said

    Not sure what the GHCN method of homogenization is, but the CRU – Hadley team might use one like this:

    The problem:

    Tom Wigley to Phil Jones

    Phil,
    > >
    > > Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75
    > > thru
    > > Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept
    88,
    > > Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.
    > >
    > > Also — more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented
    > > by a single
    > > box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It
    > > would be
    > > better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.

    Tim Osborn concurs, there is a problem:

    “Clearly the dates Tom listed are missing in my version
    too. Furthermore, the values from 1971-1975 are abnormal. They are
    not all identical, but are all near zero. Perhaps multiplied by 0.1?

    Similar problems are apparent in HadCRUT and CRUTEM2v too.”

    And then Tim suggests puzzles over some solutions:

    “Regarding the weighting issue…

    Given that the grid doesn’t have equal-area boxes, there are always
    going to be compromises with weighting. Even if you do something to
    sort out the problem at the S. Pole, how about the isolated boxes
    around the coast of Antarctica, which will be given much less weight
    than an isolated box in the tropics which might also have only 1
    station in. This is partly reasonable because of differences in
    spatial correlation of temperatures between tropics and high
    latitudes, but I’m sure that they don’t compensate exactly.

    Specifically for the poles…

    Putting the temperature data into a single box will clearly
    underweight its contribution in area averages (is it significant from
    a practical point of view once you get to hemispheric or global
    scales though?).

    Replicating it into all boxes in the bottom row will, on the other
    hand, gives it too much weight. If the area weighting is calculated
    simply as cos(latitude) then the South Pole data will be given this
    weighting:

    72*cos(87.5) = 3.14

    whereas one box on the equator (or just off) will be given this weighting:

    1*cos(2.5) = 1.00

    so, if replicated around all boxes at 87.5 S, the South Pole would
    have three times the weight of a single tropical box (compared with
    23 times less weight if South Pole data appears in only one box).

    Perhaps put it in every fourth box, giving a weighting of 0.79 (bit
    less than tropical, which is reasonable for spatial correlation reasons)?

    Cheers

    Tim”

    Phil has a more pratical solution:

    Phil Jones to Jen Harwick:

    Regarding the weighting issue…

    Given that the grid doesn’t have equal-area boxes, there are always
    going to be compromises with weighting. Even if you do something to
    sort out the problem at the S. Pole, how about the isolated boxes
    around the coast of Antarctica, which will be given much less weight
    than an isolated box in the tropics which might also have only 1
    station in. This is partly reasonable because of differences in
    spatial correlation of temperatures between tropics and high
    latitudes, but I’m sure that they don’t compensate exactly.

    Specifically for the poles…

    Putting the temperature data into a single box will clearly
    underweight its contribution in area averages (is it significant from
    a practical point of view once you get to hemispheric or global
    scales though?).

    Replicating it into all boxes in the bottom row will, on the other
    hand, gives it too much weight. If the area weighting is calculated
    simply as cos(latitude) then the South Pole data will be given this
    weighting:

    72*cos(87.5) = 3.14

    whereas one box on the equator (or just off) will be given this weighting:

    1*cos(2.5) = 1.00

    so, if replicated around all boxes at 87.5 S, the South Pole would
    have three times the weight of a single tropical box (compared with
    23 times less weight if South Pole data appears in only one box).

    Perhaps put it in every fourth box, giving a weighting of 0.79 (bit
    less than tropical, which is reasonable for spatial correlation reasons)?

    Cheers

    Tim

  86. [...] http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/ghcn-antarctic-warming-eight-times-actual/%5D [...]

  87. [...] around Nashville; data collected in Antarctica, which, after adjustment, comes out to be from a single site near the ocean; data from the Baltic and Scandinavian countries; even in Central [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: