Posted by Jeff Id on September 2, 2010
Steve M may have found the holy grail for climate skeptics. We don’t know what is in this data, and I’m guessing that neither do most climatologists and it covers 70 percent of the earth. What if the historic ocean temp trend is modified significantly by manual or algorithmic adjustment – I’m not saying it was, but it wouldn’t shock me after reading the discussions in the UEA emails. Link below.
Although the formatting of the SST datasets needs to be completely freshened up, once again, before commenting, I commend the SST collaters for honoring their data by ensuring the preservation of comprehensive metadata – as opposed to their cousins at CRU and GISS. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any statistical analyses of SST measurements – by this, I mean, where the authors analyse the actual bias of changing measurement systems and provenance. (Although Thomson et al [Nature 2007] challenged earlier bucket adjustments, they didn’t do the sort of patient data analysis that the field cries out for.
The statistical problems are by no means easy. As I mentioned the other day, I’ve collated data from a few gridcells in the Pacific (one pair at Honiara near Bougainville and one pair at Hawaii.) Today I’ll illustrate the nature of the problem with a graph that took me a long time to articulate. [Click for a larger version]. I’ll explain below.