Brandon
Are you able to compare NASA and BEST for the UK?
I am specifically interested in comparing them to CET. That is to say central England roughly bounded by Bristol Manchester and London.
Thanks
Tonyb
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by climatereason
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Brandon Shollenberger
Thanks Don Monfort. I’m actually terrible at making pretty graphs. It’s only when they’re simple like this that I can make them look alright.
By the way, you might be interested in a post I just uploaded. I’m offering to do the same comparisons I did for my area for anywhere. People can pick their home towns or random cities out of a hat. Anywhere, anyone picks, I’ll post the comparison (if there’s data, of course).
I selected Atlanta, Georgia for a demonstration of how bad things can get. There, GISS has a mild cooling trend while BEST has a significant warming trend. Obviously, they can’t both be right. Given I can’t find any location where BEST shows cooling, I’d guess it’s the one that’s messed up.
Interestingly, these graphs are making me more sure of a different criticism I’ve made about BEST. If I’m not mistaken, they may allow us to prove an entirely different problem with BEST as well.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Stephen Rasey
Good work on the nearby grid cells, Brandon.
It seems there are two conclusions:
1. you have not done something correctly and are not pulling data from the grid cells you think you are.
2. Your plots are correct. Wich means BEST uses a huge radius for station influence in creating its regional gridding algorithm. Thereby, stations may degrees away have influence and whether a station is 0.5 degrees, 1.0 degrees, or 2.0 degrees seems to make little difference. That is a dubious assumption. But it would be consistent with GISS and how it uses Greenland and Irish stations to adjust Iceland. [WUWT: 10/12/12 GHCN’s Dodgy Adjustments In Iceland.]
In support of #2, When you pull up the plots for cities, rather than stations, you get a plot of number of stations by year by distance away (50 km, 200km, 500 km, 1000 km, 1500 km, 2000 km)
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/39.38N-104.05W
I am quite interested in how many stations are within 50 km (about 1/2 of a degree). I’m interested in 100 km… they don’t show that. 200 km. mildly interesting, especially when it is under 100 stations.
But why do they show there are 2000 stations within 1000 km? they couldn’t possibly be incorporating all those in the regional picture for Denver could they? From your series of 1×1 grid cell results, it looks like they might.
What are the parameters for their gridding algorithm?
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Brandon Shollenberger
climatereason, funny you ask. I just uploaded a <a href="http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/pick-a-spot/" rel="nofollow">post</a> in which I invite people to select areas they want to compare the data sets for.
I can't select custom area shapes though. I can only select 2º x 2º grid cells (that's what GISS uses). I included a map in that post with a numbered grid to help people select the spot they want. People can use that, or if they'd prefer, they can give latitude/longitude and I'll convert it. Or I guess they could even just say where they want and I'll look up the latitude/longitude. Any of that works really.
Anyway, for your request, I selected the grid cell for 52º-54N, 2ºW-0ºW as that seemed to be the grid cell with the most land (I'm not using BEST's land+ocean data set as it's still preliminary). You can see the comparison <a href="https://hiizuru.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/7-13-giss-53n-1w.png" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It was nice to see in this case BEST and GISS agree quite well.
If you'd like another area compared, just let me know. It might be better to say so in a comment on that post. I'm sure to see any requests posted there. I might not see requests buried in the middle of this thread.
↧
Comment on Open thread by R. Gates
Skippy Ellison said:
“And if oceans aren’t warming there is no radiative imbalance.”
—-
And the contrary is true as well. If the oceans are gaining energy there is a radiative imbalance. You are correct to point out the need for more data to confirm which is most likely true. The majority of current data would suggest the later.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
Randy ‘the video guy’ Gates opines that – what – if the oceans aren’t warming and the atmosphere isn’t warming there is no radiative imbalance? That’s what I said.
I suppose all this other evidence consists of the oceans not getting fresher from all the melting?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/map3_zps6226a166.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2
Or outgoing energy not trending?
There is very little from these people but misguided, ill conceived and data less posturing and immature invective.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Brandon Shollenberger
Stephen Rasey, I have no doubt I'm pulling data from the grid cells I think I am. I could maybe believe I'm off by a single row/column due to getting the alignments wrong, but there's no way I'm off by enough to explain these results. As confirmation of that, I just did <a href="https://hiizuru.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/7-13-giss-53n-1w.png" rel="nofollow">one</a> for an area in the UK, and the results matched well for both data sets.
As such, I'd say your 2 is confirmed. And this isn't just for the gridded data I use. The gridded data is just a translation of the global temperature field they create (i.e. it breaks that field into gridded points). That means the effect I show holds for the BEST methodology in general.
Mind you, I don't know if this affects their global temperature record. The biases introduced by this could cancel out. Right now, all I know is it undermines all of their results for regional and smaller scales.
Well, I also know this makes it incredibly silly for them to have a web interface that lets you see temperature estimates for every city (and gridded data with a super fine scale. There's no point in any of that if they can't resolve the data at the scale of entire countries.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
Randy ‘the video guy’ Gates opines that – what – if the oceans aren’t warming and the atmosphere isn’t warming there is no radiative imbalance? That’s what I said.
I suppose that’s it’s ‘most likely true’ in Randy’s the video guy’s deeply informed scientific opinion – despite recent Argo ‘climatologies’ saying something else – so that’s OK
I suppose all this other evidence consists of the oceans not getting fresher from all the melting?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/map3_zps6226a166.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2
Or outgoing energy not trending?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rhyzotika
Sorry for the poorly formed comment above – was from a cell phone.
Maybe I had this past JC post in the back of my mind:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/01/pacific-ocean-heat-content-for-the-past-10000-years/#more-13583
Numerous commentators pointed out that the sample rate for the past 10K years was (for? in?) shorter intervals than the period ARGO has been measuring.
I’m sure there must have been *some* measurements of close to surface sea temps, but probably not anything like the various levels and attempted resolution being measured by ARGO. As is ever the case with climate issues, unless you have some kind of (very) long-term baseline, a blip in whatever direction of 30 years or so doesn’t mean much. In this case it happens to correlate with a claim, so it gets focus. Certainly the media/activist version of CAGW is guilty of constantly waving numbers in the air with no historical context.
My favorite being the 3-9 gigatons of CO2 added by humans every year. Somehow the 150-200 gigatons of annual CO2 flux from natural sources is never mentioned. (Also happens to be one of the starting points for my own process of doubting CAGW, when a friend was shouting those numbers like they were inherent proof of something. Without knowing the estimated totals I knew those could only be a fraction… & I started digging…).
(BTW ‘rhyzotika’ = ‘xypatia’ – slipped between wordpress accounts.)
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
An early El Nino that has already run out of steam resulting in months that might be in the warmest 10 – give or take error bounds?
Sure – whatever you reckon.
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by David Springer
Curry how about a blog focusing on what predictions “Climate Science” got right that are clear, unambiguous, and convincing to Feynman’s stereotypical barmaid.
That’ll be a short blog.
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by Matthew R Marler
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Hansen (and colleagues) wrote in 1981 to
That one again? It was wrong by a wide margin. The Earth surface has remained cooler than even the lowest of the three scenarios. There was no scientific basis to the claim that the warming of the Earth’s ocean surface would increase drought intensity and frequency. They just made it up.
what Hansen (and colleagues) wrote in 2014 …
that’s a puff piece.
Hansen is a perfect example of a scientist who should give up “communicating” and go back to scientific research.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Carrick
Kenneth, mainly I’m trying to understand the spatial resolution of the different algorithms. Knowing this has some operational value for studying regional scale climate change.
Of course that ties into the adjustment algorithm. Stephen Rasey is saying that for Denver, that BEST uses stations 1000-km away to “improve” the adjustments. This also can’t but help reduce the spatial resolution too.
↧
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by Matthew R Marler
a fan of *MORE* discourse: \text{Wealth}+\text{Conservatism} \equiv \text{Denialism}
Or liberals are just more gullible.
Take your pick.
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by dp
My first impression: This is an argument to fortify the consensus. I’ll read it again in the morning to see if my first impression holds. I sense a bias – urgency is expressed. If that perception is true how to resolve it given the duration of the inconvenient pause? What’s the hurry? I also sense some hysteria. People are not responding to their side of the debate. Well, maybe because the observed record does not support the alarmist message at this juncture. Maybe if they drop the “we’re on a death march to certain disaster” meme people will come around. A minimal trace lifestyle is self-justifying and doesn’t require a death march. But don’t expect me to give up my Harley. Life is inconsistent with a zero trace lifestyle. It just is.
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by David Springer
That’s all true Willis but I don’t care about the character of climate scientists. Whether a guy is an a-hole with ulterior motives or not won’t change whether a prediction his hypothesis makes is demonstrably correct or not.
For instance lets take severe weather. Where’s the increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts that was predicted to come with rising temperature? Missing in action is where it’s at. If anything there’s less severe weather associated with global warming. Where’s the crop failures and famine? Missing in action too. Global food production continues to grow apace with population. Where’s the accelerating rise in sea level? MIA. Where’s the 0.2C/decade warming? MIA. Where’s the huge push to develop dependable economical substitutes for the fossil fuels without which there would be a global population crash? MIA.
The science is all handwaving hyperbolic bullshiit. That’s the problem and no amount of communiphuckingcation is going to fix that.
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by David Springer
“lost the power to convince them of anything else”
They haven’t lost that power with me. Science, like math and engineering, speaks for itself through verifiable reproducible results. I’m still waiting for those.
↧
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by David Springer
Crank alert!
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by David Springer
@RiHoo8
+1
↧
Comment on Communicating climate science reconsidered by freeHat
I guess the debate over scientists being advocates, or “issue advocates” has been settled. It is afterall “psychological factors and from cues from influential elites and the media” that turn people off, not scientists behaving like Greenpeace.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
