Surface stations were used in the Antarctic with RegEm to infill satellite and AWS data for the establishment of the warming trend. This is the data used in the final reconstruction. It is much more complete than the AWS data so I plotted all of the trends to see what they look like. I had to calculate my own anomaly this time so I used a monthly mean method and subtracted it from the temp data to create the black curves below. These plots are typical to the data and represent the set pretty well as far as completeness.
These stations are located all around the antarctic.
So the data isn’t too sparse or too limited, it is concentrated at the peninsula though. I’ve already run this through RegEm but I won’t get a chance to do the writeup until later today.
5 thoughts on “Surface Station Data”
but what ?
Btw, I thought the AWS was a relatively minor part of Steigs paper. Is is primary reconstruction impossible to replicate due to proprietary data or something ?
The AWS was for use as a verification of the Tir data. Since we don’t have the Tir data or code used to process it, we can start by working with this.
Don’t forget that Steig already stated this….
[Response: What is there about the sentence, “The code, all of it, exactly as we used it, is right here,” that you don’t understand? Or are youasking for a step-by-step guide to Matlab? If so, you’re certainly welcome to enroll in one of my classes at the University of Washington.–eric]
And like this
“[Response: I do routinely make all our data available, as does everyone else that I know. In this particular case, anyone legitimate who has asked for all our data, including the intermediate steps, has received it. To continue with the analogy with financial auditing, let me very clear on what I mean by legitimate: In the business world, auditors 1) don’t publicly accuse a company of withholding data prior to requesting said data; 2) are not self-appointed; 3) have to demonstrate integrity and competence; 4) are regulated. On this point, if you are suggesting that Steve McIntyre be regulated by an oversight committee, and have his auditor’s license revoked when he breaks ethical rules, then we may have something we can agree on.–eric]”
He is still stonewalling any attempts to see how the calculations were done.
Yeah, I followed all that as it happened, I was just curious if the reason for focusing on AWS was due to what was missing, or due to preference.
The implication that McIntyre should have some kind of oversight committee really takes the biscuit. Ammann and Wahl are fine handpicking meaningless statistical values to claim 0 benchmark on RE for MBH and getting it cited all over the peer reviewed literature, but McIntyre should be monitored for having finally forced it (and other nonsense like it) into the open.
I may be a simple guy, but after looking at all that went into all of this, and everything it has taken for you to reconstruct it, this looks like a case in point to something I come back to often in my work (both professionally and on my blog): Building up from detailed information is often subpar to simply looking at all the information (or larger subsets of that information) combined.
This all looks like one big gyration that looks very impressive and has a lot of theoretical meat behind it, but in the end simply produced a result that they desired, which was only one of many possible results that could be produced depending on parameters and assumptions made. In fact, in a recent post, I discussed this exact thing as I increased the sine waves to try and fit to the HadCrut data. Vastly different wave amplitudes and lengths after two waves could be fit that produced similar least-squared fits, with dramatically different future extrapolations.
This whole question just seems kind of silly, in the end.
The fact is, there is so much potential bias introduced into all of this through assumptions and individual extrapolations that the end result is nothing but a curiosity. Nobody in their right mind would look at it and state that it is conclusive of anything. The best that should be stated is that “Under these assumptions, the results are A, and under these assumptions the results are B.”