was in reply to Steven Mosher 7/10 12:20 am
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Stephen Rasey
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Stephen Rasey
No, it was to Steven Mosher’s 7/10 12:24 am.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by cafe verde
Greetings! Very useful advice within this post! It’s the little changes that
make the largest changes. Many thanks for sharing!
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by Alistair Riddoch
I hadn’t read much on Stadium wave, and 1/f noise, so am playing catch up here.
But it seems to me, that the Stadium Wave would be driven by the “ripples” in the gravity anomalies, as the circle the globe.
The pattern of gravity anomalies, that earth receives, constantly, can be viewed as an egg carton, or like the waves on the surface of a pool that has lot’s of kids playing in it. And it has periodic signals in it from each of our massive/proximity relevant neighbours. The earth is plowing through this “puckered” space, North pole forward, as is the sun. As we circle the sun, we enter and exit these “puckers”. Part of our planet in sync, and part of it diametrically opposed.
This “scissor” movement of gravity fluctuations, would have leading and trailing edges that would likely at least accelerate, or decelerate a stadium wave, if not be the metronome to which it ticks.
I have in other posts, but will refer again to the gravity anomaly maps available at the GRACE missions data portal, using TYPE Gravity Anomaly, and change the smoothing radius to it’s lowest setting – 25km, to see the data at it’s “rawest”.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Stephen Rasey
Imagine i spliced two stations 10km apart into one record and then told you there was important information in this “record”
First, are you saying that the bulk of BEST breakpoints are similar to 10 km station moves? Not from what I’ve seen.
When it comes to a TOBS application, or an instrument change, or a Stevenson screen is painted, or there is a vacation or hospital gap in a record, BEST has DECIDED that these are different stations.
That doesn’t mean they ARE different stations, nor should they necessarily be treated as different stations.
Even a station move within the confines of most airports ought not be a different station for the purposes of climatology. Suppose the station move is just to move it away from airport expansion, to restore an established station back to Class 1 siting. Should it be a separate station? According to BEST, of course. But keeping the same station preserves the longer term record and long length records are valuable.
The sawtooth case of gradual instrument drift and site contamination, then a discontinuous maintenance recalibration event to restore the quality of the station. If BEST makes a scalpel cut at a maintenance event, then it bakes in the drift as climate signal and discards the just as important recalibration information.
BEST is breakpoint happy. You think no harm can come from adding breakpoints. But you are wrong on this point.
Breakpoints do harm. The scalpel cuts away low frequency climate signal and keeps the weather, UHI, microsite, and drift noise. It shortens record segments and therefore increases uncertainty greatly.
↧
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by Edim
“…leading to speculation that the AMO’s reach is hemispheric, perhaps global.”
It’s definitely global – good that the professional scientists are catching up. Here the comparison of the detrended North Atlantic SST (the so-called AMO) with the detrended southern hemisphere surface temperature:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/hadsst3sh/detrend:0.72/plot/hadsst3sh/detrend:0.72/trend
So, AMO is a misnomer – it’s a pattern of climate variability found globaly. The secular trend removed from the AMO is just another ‘oscillation’, with lower frequency.
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by ordvic
I have been wondering how a solar minimum might effect the waves. When the current down cycles complete in the late 20s suppose the next solar cycle is really flat or non-existant. One (stadium) would suggest warming the other (solar) would suggest cooling. I also wonder if the band width of the stadium waves may show up differently if they were seen over a greater time period running through previous warm periods and ice periods.
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by beththeserf
That ol’ Hockey StickS designed to disappear the MWP and
the LIA is now, I believe, deceased – may it rest in peace.
The MWP and LIA were well established in the Historical Record,
CET Middle England temperature trends and voluminous witness
testimonies, farmers’ almanacs, ships’ logs, church records on
glacier movements, accounts of ice fairs on the Thames and
also Greenland archaeology, as Tony Brown presented in his
‘Long Slow Thaw’ post here at CE. So much better than an
artifact based on suss techniques applied to suss tree ring
proxies as temperature signals.
The historical record cannot be disappeared by the dismissive
word – ‘anecdotal.’ The events described occured and were
cross-referenced and further supported by Craig Loehle’s
2008 multiple proxy study of 2000 years global temperature
reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies.Can’t just be
chucked down the memory hole.
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by dalyplanet
What an excellent post Dr. Wyatt. You have clearly stated Dr. Mann’s paper and given an excellent rebuttal.
↧
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by Alistair Riddoch
Edim…
Please consider the oscillations in the gravity field through which Earth travels, and the impact they have on stadium wave speed of travel around the globe.
Easily viewed here: http://geoid.colorado.edu/grace/dataportal.html
I recommend viewing monthly gravity anomolies, setting the smoothing radius to 25mk, and checking out maps from 2002, 2008, and 2013. Paying special attention to Greenland’s up/down bounce, which is probably on a 23 year cycle, and the pattern of “ripples” across the continents, and their obvious “polarity” change, seasonally.
I like to think of gravity as an egg carton, (with varying hieght peaks and valleys, mashing into the side of earth, as it spins, orbits, and flies throught space. And the egg carton moves up, and down, as earth flies through it.
I believe this is relevant to the topic of discussion here, and is a potential underlying driver, for a stadium wave phenomena, that has been ignored/unrecognized, to date.
Cheers,
Alistair
:-)
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by R. Gates
Skippy Ellison said:
“…triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause.”
—–
Illogical. Causes to new climate states can be extremely short with the resulting transition sometimes considerably longer. Think about an asteroid strike or an ice dam breaking and releasing meltwater.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
“Alternatively, the physics behind the projections is sufficiently correct”
Good one! LOL
Far more likely technology progresses to the point where we can reverse deleterious effect in the unlikely event it should arise.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
It’s more fun and costs less watching you squirm. I can ask and the question looks reasonable. You refuse to answer and it looks evasive.
What did you boys do to the raw data recorded by an observer in 1950 at Portland-Troutsdale such that it’s been cooled by 0.7F?
Do you even know?
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
Of course I can say there’s pause. The satellite data is solid and it hasn’t shown any significant warming in going on 20 years. What are you boys smoking?
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by Brandon Shollenberger
Matthew R Marler, Marcia Wyatt responded to you, but she placed her response in the wrong spot. You can find it <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/09/disentangling-forced-from-intrinsic-climate-variability/#comment-606992" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
It doesn’t get adjusted because it’s inadequate for the task. There is no attempt to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. The adjustments are normal planned calibration for aging instruments and slight orbital drift.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
What… no thanks for explaining the TOBS adjustment in such a clear way? I understand this with crystal clarity. I’m not totally convinced it’s implemented appropriately with just a single paper and 200 stations to represent the entire world but the theory behind it is not rocket science.
David Springer | July 10, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
Time of observation does, on average, change the average temperature.
If you reset close to time when maximum or minimum is reached and next day isn’t as extreme then you get the extreme recorded two days in a row. Afternoon resets get more double extreme highs and mornings more double extreme lows.
So say there’s a more or less concerted shift from afternoons to mornings because 10am is very unlikely to be a high or low daily extreme. Which is what happened. So to normalize afternoon readings with morning readings you would subtract something from the afternoon numbers. To know how much to subtract is a different issue. It’s pretty clear there’s a warm bias taking afternoon readings vs. morning.
One way to estimate how much to subtract is to have hourly data and select a certain hour each day to take the previous 24 hour min/max from and see how much they differ. If you have enough data from enough different places to sift through you can get a good idea of how to adjust.
The thing of it is that the vast majority of land instrumentation is continental US and Europe which represents only a small fraction of the earth’s surface and happens to be areas with extremely high land use change due to industrialization and agriculture. In order to get a measure of global average temperature requires global coverage and, unfortunately, we only have that since 1979. No one more than me desires a better global temperature record to set things straight but it just doesn’t exist.
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
It’s only fair given how many people laugh at you. Knock yourself out.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
There’s no value in the land instrument record. It isn’t worth messing around with. Spatial coverage is pitifully inadequate, misses the oceans which are the real climate drivers, no discipline in siting, calibration, no repeatibility, amateur volunteers doing all the heavy lifting… A fool’s errand trying to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. An errand perfectly suited to people like you and Mosher. I just sit back and kibbutz while waiting for mother nature to prove me right in her good time. Seven years so far and she’s done a bang up job for me. In 2007 when I started blogging on this the pause wasn’t killing the cause. Now it is. I’m already vindicated and basking in the glow of being correct. It’s a wonderful feeling. I sincerely hope you get to experience it someday but you probably wont.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
Oh wait. Do you have a girlfriend?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
