Comments on: This is Getting Absurd

By: Leo

Leo — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:37:26 +0000

We skeptics are taking all this far too seriously. The power of words and suggestion are indeed very powerful. We must therefore be artful and playful and not use alarmist terminology to debunk……. “Gullible” Warming.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:37:12 +0000

Magnus: what is that graph supposed to show us? If it’s the offset you’re showing, well, obviously, if you measure the temperature anomaly relative to two different periods in your two datasets, there will be an offset. If it’s the slope you’re showing, well, you need to go one step further and calculate the errors on the derived trends. Are they statistically different? You might also wish to plot GISS vs. HadCRUT and GISS vs. RSS.

By: Magnus

Magnus — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:07:42 +0000

Jennifer:

I’m tired of your repeated annoying idea that I don’t know how a trend is calculated (or the math behind it) but I think this proves you’re wrong. Please show me your figures.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2007/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2007/trend

By: gjg

gjg — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:41:37 +0000

Urban Heat Island Effect.
Here is a comparison between urban and rural sites that are within 100 km of each other across the US. This covers 111 years of data.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:58:10 +0000

Magnus: still not clear what trends you are deriving and how. You can't just draw a line from the first point in a time series to the last.

I am right about there being no offset between the datasets. You can verify this easily. Download the monthly anomalies for all the major temperature measures, choose any suitably long reference period you like, scale each dataset so that the mean anomaly in the reference period is zero, then plot them.

By: Magnus Andersson

Magnus Andersson — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:30:37 +0000

“it’s almost like you think that drawing a line from the first point to the last would be a valid way to characterise a trend. Please clarify.”

A trend is characterized by its magnitude as well as its direction, and an increase by 0.2 degrees C isn’t exactly an increase by 0.4 degrees C.

“no offset between GISS and satellite measurements when the anomalies are quoted relative to the same base period”

If that is correct for any base period then the GISS record is identical to the satelite record, which is of cource not the case. If you’re right you have to prove that there is no difference for all time intervals.

One can visually see the difference of 0.2 degrees C in distance between 1980 and 2006 in e.g. this graph:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3160/3018086463_83af7e71c8_o.png

By: An Inquirer

An Inquirer — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:30:42 +0000

Suzanne Morstad:

You have a valid concern. In fact, one of the stations that GISS uses has been closed for 12 years, but the GISS algorithm calculates a value for it each month.
I am greatly intrigued by the question of to what degree GISS uses satellite data for oceans and to what degree its ocean data comes from surface stations on islands and the coasts. We know that for the Arctic Ocean, GISS uses surface stations that are heavily subject to micro issues such as nearby heat sources. On some islands and some coasts, UHI issues may also be a problem.
So far, no answer from RealClimate.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:38:19 +0000

Magnus Andersson: with your question about 0.8 and 0.4, it’s almost like you think that drawing a line from the first point to the last would be a valid way to characterise a trend. Please clarify. And you will find, if you do the calculations, that there is no offset between GISS and satellite measurements when the anomalies are quoted relative to the same base period.

By: Suzanne Morstad

Suzanne Morstad — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:23:10 +0000

Re: comparison of GISS data and MSU data
Actually the GISS data is not all surface data. According to Dr. Hanson's 2005 paper, to get a temperature reading from all grids, computer generated temperatures are entered as the temperature for grids that do not have a weather station. This means that the temperature anomaly registered for some grids in areas like Russia, parts of Africa, the Antarctic and Arctic are highly suspect and probably have a warm bias. There is so evidence this practice was ever changes and the discrepancy between UK-Hadley data and GISS data seems to confirm this.

By: S. Fraser

S. Fraser — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:22:31 +0000

What would it cost to develop and deploy a simple "surface temperature measurement pod" that could be deployed globally to report automatically via satelite temperature measurements made using an single, agreed-upon measurement technology and data processing protocol? Measurements could be downloaded to multiple ground sites to be made available to the public via the internet. True, both Hansen and Steve McIntyre would be out of a job, but at least the arguments over data capture, processing, etc. might end.

Accurate, consistent measurement would be valueable not only in determining what's really going on, but in the off chance that skeptics loose the current debate, we could begin to measure the results of any climate reenginerring programs and hold the alarmists and politicians accountable for the havoc they may wreak.