Circling Yamal 3 – facing the thermometers

This is a guest post by Lucy Skywalker which looks further at the local temperature records from the Yamal region.  Link to the original post is here.

————————————————

Let’s look closely and compare local thermometer records (GISS) with the Twelve Trees, upon whose treerings depend all the IPCC claims of “unprecedented recent temperature rise”.
For my earlier Yamal work, see here and here. For the original Hockey Stick story, see here and here.

Half the Hockey Stick graphs depend on bristlecone pine temperature proxies, whose worthlessness has already been exposed. They were kept because the other HS graphs, which depend on Briffa’s Yamal larch treering series, could not be disproved. We now find that Briffa calibrated centuries of temperature records on the strength of 12 trees and one rogue outlier in particular. Such a small sample is scandalous; the non-release of this information for 9 years is scandalous; the use of this undisclosed data as crucial evidence for several more official HS graphs is scandalous. And not properly comparing treering evidence with local thermometers is the mother of all scandals.

I checked out the NASA GISS page for all thermometer records in the vicinity of Yamal and the Polar Urals, in “raw”, “combined”, and “homogenized” varieties. Here are their locations (white). The Siberian larch treering samples in question come from Yamal and Taimyr. Salehard and Dudinka have populations of around 20,000; Pecora around 50,000; Surgut around 100,000; all the rest are officially “rural” sites. Some are long records, some are short.

Hockeystickization Revisited

I’ve got plenty of posts right now to work on but today Steve McIntyre called our attention to a couple of acerbic replies from Keith Briffa to Steve’s discovery that the Briffa Yamal temperature data which has a HUGE hockey stick blade was actually the EXACT same data as the orignal H&S Yamal which shows NONE. The difference is in the RCS “standardization” method (AKA – hockeysickization) used to correct for tree ring widths. If I don’t miss my guess, we’ll be seeing more of RCS with improper exponentialesque curve standardizations as in my opinion it’s a near guarantee of a hockey stick blade and after Mann and now Briffa I don’t trust these paloclimate ‘scientists’ any farther than I can throw them.

I’ve got to say again Briffa’s original Yamal is a disgusting piece of garbage work and the sooner paleo’s drop the P.O.S. the better. It’s got an unreasonable blade created from RCS with NO science or verification to prefer the ‘accidentally’ chosen exponential curve that is ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for the big evil bullcrap blade. See one of my posts on this HERE.

Well I’m not happy with Briffa or anyone who chooses to defend this garbage work so I’ve decided to dig through his reply to Steve a bit and make a little trouble. In particular, I want to focus on this little gem by Briffa himself.

We would never select or manipulate data in order to arrive at some preconceived or regionally unrepresentative result. However, as we will show here, the fact that we did not incorporate the KHAD data has no serious implications for the general validity of our published work.

My emphasis. But those of us who follow climate know that is not the case. So I went looking for a few examples from his own PUBLISHED work. Here is an article from Briffa. although Osbourne was the lead author. I assure you this is standard in paleo science where proxy’s are often assumed to be temperature without any verification other than mathematical correlation. There are many papers which have similar statements, Mann08 is no exception. I could write a whole post on the differences between clear and obvious selection or the ‘partial selection’ created by multivariate methods where non-correlating proxies are deweighted rather than deleted resulting in a less transparent selection of data based on preconceived conclusions.

Tax^2

This came to me by an email just to remind people how far we’ve come.  I can’t tell people how much tax is right but I can say we have too much.

 

A Tax Poem

At first I thought this was funny…..
then I realized the awful truth of it.

Be sure to read all the way to the end!…

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he’s fed.

Satellite Temps Getting Closer

 

Dr. Christy offered some explanations for the divergence in RSS vs UAH which is visually related to land vs sea, originally discovered in blogland by Chad at treesfortheforest – link on the right.  Chad is doing some very interesting work beyond this minor issue.  His plots lately could take a dozen posts up.

First, Dr. Christy gave an explanation of the types of corrections for RSS and UAH which was new to me.

RSS computes diurnal corrections based on climate model diurnal signals for each grid. UAH calculates the effect empirically (from 3 AMSUs which observed the earth simultaneously for about 13 months but at different times of the day – so sampling a specific grid 6 times per day from which we could reconstruct a diurnal cycle for land or ocean for each month of the year.)

UAH focuses on large-scale precision, so at each latitude a single land diurnal correction is applied to all land grids in that band, and similarly for oceans. It turns out that the noise generated in trying to calculate the diurnal correction of a single grid is so great, that more harm than good comes of it. Our goal is to make the zonal and large scale averages as precise as possible, so we deal with large scale corrections since the noise is beaten down that way. In a pleasant outcome, our gridpoint anomalies more precisely match those of radiosondes at those grids than either RSS or ZOU-STAR

So for the pre-2002 years RSS using models to correct for diurnal cycle and UAH using a 3 satellite calulation from actual data came up with what visually seem to be the same answer. The next figure shows that the main difference between the two sets seems to be latitude based prior to 2002. Two completely different methods got what appears to be almost the same result.

Land/Sea Bias In Satellite Temperature Metrics

This may be one of the most important posts done here.

Chad at TreesfortheForest has done a couple of very cool things lately. Besides his excellent work debunking Santer’s paper, Chad plotted the difference between RSS and UAH gridded data along with Giss and HadCRUT. If I had to bet this one will catch the attention of the pro’s in the field. However in the case of RSS and UAH we have a unique opportunity to see the effects of different processing methods on the same dataset prior to 2002 and a different one after 2002. These satellite based temperatures are highly complex, full of corrections and uniquely unbiased by other human interaction. – It may sound a bit paranoid but the files come down automatically and for those who question everything, it’s one less interaction.

I’m not an expert, but as an aeronautical engineer who spent his career working with electromagnetic energy I do have some insight into a few aspects of the corrections needed for a microwave thermal sensor. In my opinion the sensors, data and corrections are highly complex and absolutely necessary to get a temp from this data. One of the aspects of satellites which I doubt many have a handle on is that despite the fact that they are in space, there are rarefied particles everywhere. These atoms and molecules are like microscopic stones pummeling satellite hardware at ridiculous speeds. In low earth orbit, the result is always a reduction in orbital energy causing the satellite to lose altitude. This is a plot of the times of the numerous satellites used to calculate temperature when they cross the equator.

Why Reconstructions Matter Part II

When both of my computers went down, I received several offers for guest posts which are immensely appreciated.   This one is from John Pittman, a unique person who like myself doesn’t fear disagreement.  This time he looks at a question often asked most often in blogland by non-skeptic AGW believers.  Why do reconstructions matter:

============================

The following quotes are from IPCC AR4 Chapter 9 Section 6 and are indented for clarity and bolded, underlined for emphasis. This is to establish why the problems with MH9x, Briffa, stripbark, JeffID’s deamplification, do matter. The last post was about attributing climate change. In that post, climate sensitivity was introduced but the relationship was stipulated as correct. In this post, an examination of climate sensitivity and reconstructions is conducted to examine the impact of reconstructions that differ from the “spaghetti graph.” We start with definitions.

‘Equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS) is

the equilibrium annual global mean temperature response to a

doubling of equivalent atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial

levels and is thus a measure of the strength of the climate

system’s eventual response to greenhouse gas forcing.

We will come back to this definition. But for now, we use this as the working definition.

‘Transient climate response’ (TCR) is the annual global mean temperature

change at the time of CO2 doubling in a climate simulation

with a 1% yr–1 compounded increase in CO2 concentration (see

Glossary and Section 8.6.2.1 for detailed definitions). TCR is a

measure of the strength and rapidity of the climate response to

greenhouse gas forcing, and depends in part on the rate at which

the ocean takes up heat.

Later, we will explore the relation of ECS and TCR, but will first look at ECS. The next quote outlines the problem for the IPCC.

While the direct temperature change

that results from greenhouse gas forcing can be calculated in

a relatively straightforward manner, uncertain atmospheric

feedbacks (Section 8.6) lead to uncertainties in estimates of

future climate change.

This is about climate change; in fact future climate change. Thus, GHG must be forceful and the uncertainties reduced if a ROBUST, VERY LIKELY claim is to be maintained. For if not, the human species has no need to worry about climate change. This is NOT an accusation of a conspiracy or wrong-doing. It is simply a fact that if predictions of climate change in the future were a non-issue much of the past scientific efforts would have been unnecessary and directed elsewhere. Stating the constraints necessary for one to claim that climate change needs to be addressed should cause no one to claim someone else is reaching for their tin foil cap with antennae. So let’s bring in the proxies.

Walk Away

Damn, I’m sick to death of morons. From an article on CNN working hard to hype some lame demonstrations.

“I believe climate change is the 21st century’s greatest human rights and security challenge,” said Maldives President Mohammed Nasheed, who is one of the messengers. His country, an archipelago of 1,200 islands, is threatened with disappearing under water if sea levels continue to rise.

“If we cannot save 350,000 Maldivians from rising seas today, we cannot save the millions in New York, London, or Mumbai tomorrow,” he said in a recorded statement released by 350.org. “Climate change is happening, and it is happening faster and with greater severity than previously thought.”

Well if global warming and emergency flooding were true, you have a hundred years to build a barrier around the island or build 150,000 canoes. Warming by humans or nature doesn’t matter either way — the island WILL flood — again. However the question of how to save New Yorkers from global warming is a bit simpler.

Walk away.

Socialized Medicine, My Experiences – Pt 1

Well the laptop has a virus now so I’m flat out of working computers. This means no climate blogging today but no problem, I can still use notepad in safe mode and I’ve promised a story about my experience with China health care. This is a little story about my experience with socialized medicine China style. Since our glorious leader chairman Pelosi and Obama are recommending full marxist style medicine, I want people to understand how what they are proposing works. I’m not claiming that single payer would do this immediately but destroying what IS the finest health care system in the world (despite what European, Asian, and US Leftist news says) in favor of socialized medicine is something every American, and European (Asia is lost) should consider carefully.

==========

A few years ago, at the tender young age of 38, I had just gotten off a 12ish hour flight from Chicago to Bejing exhausted as always from not sleeping, I needed a connecting flight to Schenzhen which is adjacent to HongKong in the South – like a 4 1/2 hour flight. It hurts even writing about this story.

While waiting for the connecting flight in Bejing, my back started to hurt. I don’t have back problems but thought I must have pulled something – it was a 12 hour flight after all. I stretched, twisted walked but nothing would stop the pain. It wasn’t terrible but the constantness of it was irritating. By the time the plane was boarding my back really hurt but what could I do, I didn’t know anyone in Bejing and thought I would just ride it out.

Some comments on AGW

My computer has a virus so I can’t do much of anything.  Sorry for not interacting much on the threads.   I’m working on repair and will probably be back up tomorrow.  In the meantime Dr. Weinstein has a few thoughts on conclusions in AGW he wanted to share.

———————————————

Leonard Weinstein, ScD

October 23, 2009

The “Positive Feedback” issue:

A write-up at http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/re-visiting-cff/ reviews the climate forcing/feedback concepts. The basic review of the direct effect of CO₂ seems very reasonable, and concludes that a doubling of CO₂ would give a temperature rise of about 1⁰C if there were no feedback. The write-up then states that best evidence, as stated in the IPCC 2007 report, indicated that the actual effect would be 2⁰C to 4.5⁰C per doubling of CO₂ rather than 1⁰C, due to positive feedback effects. The paper then shows a figure with several model calculations of possible contributions from all expected main sources of the feedback. All of the expected terms except water vapor are relative small and may even result in a slightly negative feedback. However, the contribution due to expected increased absolute water vapor content at higher altitudes is calculated to give a feedback multiplier about 2, and is by far the dominate term in the expected feedback. However, the absolute water vapor content as a function of altitude and date has been measured, and is shown in http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/moisture.html. The data, which was obtained from ESRL, is shown for near ground level to 30,000 ft altitude. It should be pointed out that the higher altitudes are where the feedback is supposed to occur. The only conclusion seen for data from 1948 to 2008 is that the absolute level is slightly dropping except very near the ground. This is the opposite of what is needed for positive feedback, and in fact shows that a slight negative feedback should exist for that time period due to water vapor.

Residence time of CO₂:

UAH Anomaly Video

Chad at TreesfortheForest lit a fire under me to get the gridded data from the major temperature metrics downloaded. Here I’ve created a less than perfect video of UAH for the whole record length. Still it’s pretty cool, there will be more improvements to come.

UAH Anomaly Video - Complete LT record - You Tube Link CLICK TO PLAY.

Gridded Comparison of Temperature Metrics

Chad at TreesfortheForest has done a post I was hoping to do at some point.   He’s compared the different temperature metrics on a gridded basis.  I found the results surprising.  Check it out.

——————————————————————————————

I had begun calculations for a post on urban warming, but as usual, I got sidetracked on something else. This is that sidetrack. There’s much interest in the differences in the RSS and UAH temperature data sets. We’ve seen plenty of graphs showing the difference in the spatial averages of both data sets. But I think we can learn more by looking at the differences between the gridded data. I took the difference between UAH and RSS from January 1979 – Sept 2009 and calculated the trend at each grid point.

New Box

Computers are getting pretty powerful these days. I just ordered a video card with 192 separate processors on it. In my company we do a bunch of raytracing which is a form of calculation for optics design. We write our own software so it will allow us to cram huge numbers of rays through different designs. My work computer just completely died. It was 3 ish years old and it was a motherboard or CPU that went so it means new computer. Honestly, I hate spending the money and the time involved in building another but this is what we chose.

From NewEgg:

2009

Common sense constrained

Intellectualism refrained

Affronted by rationalism

Logic forlorn

Creativity to porn

Fear not the change

The old free is the blame

Eyes closed, relax

‘Tis help- not tax

Worry not mine.

Have hope not greed

Collective will provide

Thus ye may survive

Free, in the womb.

Crossing the Rubicon – An advert to change hearts and minds

Update: This post recently picked up by WUWT.

Tony Brown – The author of Historic Variation in Arctic Ice – Tony B has authored a guest post on the recent history of climate change. This post is extraordinarily well referenced. There are a large number of excellent links which make very clear the direction the environmental movement and some in the government would like us to head. Tony makes the points better than I can so here it is:

==================

Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939… Each person would receive an electronic card containing their year’s carbon credits …see the Tyndall Centre’s study on “domestic tradable quotas”… and their recent establishment on the political agenda…the card would have to be presented when purchasing energy or travel services, and the correct amount of carbon deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct debit systems and credit cards could be used.”

(Environmental Audit Committee minutes-House Of Commons-London)

Preface. This is a factual account of the highly politicised concept of ‘catastrophic man made climate change’. The views quoted above are supported in principle by the UK govt but said to be ahead of their time. However, the means to achieve them are now being quietly introduced into main stream thinking, through the systematic use of a political agenda that uses the alarming notion of man made climate change as the means to force through a measure of social engineering unequalled in the UK in modern times.

In promoting this notion, many alternative and well researched views that oppose the science lying behind the unproven carbon hypothesis are stifled, and derision heaped on those pointing out previous well documented warming and cooling periods that occur in, as yet, little understood cycles throughout our history.

This is a long and complex document so it is suggested that a read through of the text that can be seen on your screen should serve as a useful introduction to the highways and byways of our political and scientific establishments. Additional information is provided in many of the links-some deserving of considerable time- so a second much more leisurely examination of the account will enable the reader to acquire a deeper knowledge of the subversion of science in pursuit of political objectives.

******

Finnish Professor Atte Korhola said;

“When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.”

Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a lead author with the IPCC recently said:

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

An advert on ‘climate change’ –aired for the first time in Oct 2009- is part of a long term £6 million campaign to change the ‘hearts and minds’ of a mainly sceptical British public. This form of communication is known as ‘ad-doctrination.’

Link 1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece

What is Up With This

Ok, say you’ve got two sets of temperature data from the same island in the Antarctic. Suppose further that you have a team of qualified scientists recording and archiving the data. Imagine that there are two highly qualified multi-million dollar programs for maintaining qc checking and dispensing the data for the good of science. What would you expect to see if you examined the data recorded from a single thermometer and two different highly qualified government organizations?

I’ve been discussing data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology with a friend by email who does not wish to be credited. He has provided me daily temperatures for four stations from the BOM archive which match four stations used in Steig et al. The BOM requires payment to receive their data which he has done for quality evaluation purposes. We’ve been investigating whether there are significant differences between the datasets.

This first plot is from Macquarie Island. It was one of the stations used in Steig et al which employed the British Antarctic Survey version of the data (red line). The black line is the Australian BOM. I have processed the data by grouping months together so that both series are by month.

The data from both groups is clearly the same information by the excellent visual match. However my next step was to anomalize the data and look at trend significance. Steig et al used a 1957 – 2007 window of the data but we’re looking at QC issues so this is the whole series.