Hi RiH008,
Daily minimum temperatures show much more of a UHI impact than maximum temperatures, as you suggest. We looked at it in some detail for the U.S. in this paper: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/hausfather-etal2013.pdf
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath)
↧
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath)
The whole point of this post is to evaluate the effect of NOAA adjustments using a single-instrument dataset (buoys) that do not require any adjustment.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by jim2
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath)
Here are the trends over the ARGO period (Jan 2005-December 2014) for each series:
ARGO – 0.12 C per decade (per Willis’ figure below)
ERSST v3 – 0.07 C per decade
ERSST v4 – 0.12 C per decade
Buoy-Only – 0.13 C per decade
So it looks like ARGO agrees pretty well with other Buoys and the adjusted ERSST v4.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by jim2
Thanks to the authors for writing about and discussing this.
↧
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by mwgrant
For this the trend differences are significant.
? Clarify statement with respect to adjective ‘significant’. Sigh.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Barnes
Well, whether or not the point of the post is as you claim, there is also the fact that such studies will be held up by warmunistas, the clapping seals masquerading as journalists, and left leaning politicians as further proof that cagw is real and requires urgent and drastic action to decarbonize the world.
As for your earlier comment about the IPCC sticking to a 6 month cut off date, Donna Laframboise has evidence to the contrary which she documented in the Delinquent Teenager.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by billw1984
Any line with zero slope can easily obtain a positive or negative slope if you change the data at each end in opposite directions. I agree that it is better to look at longer time periods but you don’t want to fit a straight line to data unless it really is “straight”.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by pmhinsc
All this started with an AGW hypotheses about man made CO2 causing a tropospheric hot spot, melting of both the Arctic and Antarctic, and atmospheric temperature increase. None of that appears to be happening, so we are talking about sea surface temperatures. Are we now discussion a new hypotheses? If so what shall we call it?
↧
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by PA
Mr. Hausfather:
I would take these criticisms seriously if not for two things (the short list):
1. the rush to papers before each meeting. They need a longer cooling off period
2. Further: there is World Wrestling Federation literature used by the IPCC. While it is noted in the document it doesn’t appear in the free standing citation list, The “scientist”s names don’t even show in the free standing citation list, one example is:
Christie, P. and M. Sommerkorn, 2012: RACER: Rapid Assessment of Circum-Arctic
Ecosystem Resilience, 2nd edn., WWF Global Arctic Programme, Ottawa, Canada,
72 pp.
The World Wrestling Federation (or any other WWF acronym) is not known for objectivity or science.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Stephen Rasey
6.) Who is going to receive the money?
I really shouldn’t bother with the Fools’ Errand of…
7) How do we measure whether those in 6) earned it?
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by PA
The problem is that what should be a historic record is being used as a political tool.
1. You can use the temperature record as a scientific toy that you play with.
2. You can use the temperature record as an official record for official pronouncements.
NOAA/GISS don’t get to do both. Attempting to do both should be banned by law.
If the historic temperature record is going to show the stability of a video shot in an off road rally car there is no point in allowing it to be used for historic comparisons and that use should be banned by law.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by angech2014
by Zeke Hausfather and Kevin Cowtan
“A buoy-only sea surface temperature record supports NOAA’s adjustments.”
yet
“ship and buoy SSTs are measured differently and at slightly different water depths, thus there is a statistical difference of ship-buoy SSTs of about 0.12ᵒC.”
So much to ask.
Which buoys are we talking about?
What level are we measuring for SST?
How can we compare buoys with ships NOAA adjustments when they occur at different levels?
Are their important differences between the different types of buoys used?
Who owns/runs the different buoy sets?
How many buoys are there?
Is ARGO included?
Then important stuff,
If there are only a few thousand active buoys, with limited half lives, floating in the ocean hence moving in position,how many are original from 1995? how many have been replaced?
[Mosher is very insistent that a replacement actually causes a new record to be formed].
How many new ones are being added?
what do you do with data when a buoy “dies” which happens reasonably often going by ARGO?
Finally,
Are the results and grids then infilled [because there are so few accurate working buoys]?
How many infilled grids are there?
90% of the 70% areas we have buoys in, real and modeled?
How much of the data of the buoys is actually synthetic [modeled] data?
Why do you chuck out the inconvenient stuff like buoys that do show real variation?
[You also did this with your “inconvenient truth ” Russian island arctic temp measurements].
I would happily state that if put 10 of your buoys in a half kilometer radius anywhere in the sea that the variations would be at least 0.2 degrees C in most locations, not 25 kilometers.
Why do you Guarantee that such accuracy can extend 25/50 or 550 kilometers ?
Quotes you really said , fellas.
“the daily data are placed into 550 km equal area grid cells based on the location of the buoy for that day,”
“preliminary analysis on the homogeneity of the buoy records by comparing buoys within 25km. For most buoys the differences are 0.1-0.2K”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by popesclimatetheory
OK, you win, they are not sick, they are getting rich at our tax payer expense.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by angech2014
“A buoy-only sea surface temperature record supports NOAA’s adjustments.”
As a statement means zip.
“makeup sales were way up, which scientists believe is a bad sign for the economy.”
Same logic, or lack thereof, confusing coincidence with causation or proof.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Steven Mosher
Bob dont use KNMI.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Steven Mosher
It seems everyone including Judith has missed the point.
1. Karl did adjustments.
2. Skeptics screamed fraud, and demand emails.
3. Skeptics said the bouys the bouys the bouys are best
Now H&C demonstrate that a bouy only record gives the same
answer as Karl.
Raising the issue of other NOAA datasets.. is a diversion from the real issue.
That issue is the crass claims of fraud and the fricking witch hunt.
↧
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Mike Flynn
Zeke Hausfather,
You wrote –
“Regarding your discussion of CO2, it’s not really germane to this discussion. We are talking about evaluating the effectiveness of adjustments done to ocean temperature records.”, in response to me asking what your work was supposed to achieve.
I appreciate that you may feel an uncontrollable desire to furiously analyse historical figures due to some form of OCD. I agree that you don’t need a particular reason, and it may have nothing at all to do with the peculiar idea that CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface warmer, winter or summer, day or night.
I restate my original contention that if you haven’t any idea why you are trying to make two dissimilar sets of figures agree, then you are wasting time and money. If it’s your own, I don’t give a fig. If it’s someone else’s money, that could have been spent usefully, I might well demur.
Your choice, I guess. It still seems about as pointless as Steve Mosher’s bizarre preoccupation with historical temperatures. They were what they were. They do not carry any predictive ability whatsoever. Carry on regardless!
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Why is the Arctic climate and ice cover so variable? by popesclimatetheory
Many processes are significant, but it may have been a matter of confirmation bias to wilfully attribute all or even the majority of Arctic sea ice decline to global warming.
When the globe does warm, the oceans warm. Polar Sea Ice always thaws when oceans are warm. Polar Oceans always freeze when oceans are cold. Polar Sea Ice Decline is always due to global warming. Polar Sea Ice Increase is always due to global cooling. That is simple Physics.
When warm oceans thaw Polar Sea Ice, that is when the open oceans provide moisture to rebuild the ice on Greenland, Antarctic, and the Mountain Glaciers. It rebuilds the ice until there is enough ice on land such that ice advances and increases Albedo and increases the amount of ice that is dumped into to oceans and on land. Earth always cools after a warm period with more snowfall. Earth always warms after a cold period with less snowfall. Ice core data does always correlate with this.
↧
Comment on Why is the Arctic climate and ice cover so variable? by popesclimatetheory
The temperature that Polar Oceans Freeze and Thaw does provide the Thermostat setting for both Hemispheres.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
