Comments on James' Empty Blog: More on that SST change

NEU! Best Herbal Tabletten Geschlecht für Männer u...

2008-07-30T20:01:00.000+09:00

NEU! Best Herbal Tabletten Geschlecht für Männer und Frauen mit allen oben und mehr für mehr auf die Steigerung der Libido und die besten Männliche Herbal Geschlecht Tabletten und mehr auf die Steigerung der Libido und Weibliche Herbal Geschlecht Tabletten besuchen Sie unsere Website.

Thanks, Adam, that's much better! I've always bee...

2008-06-05T14:20:00.000+09:00

Thanks, Adam, that's much better! I've always been a bit murky on the whole Had vs. CRU business.

You could try the Hadley Centre site instead?http:...

2008-06-05T05:56:00.000+09:00

You could try the Hadley Centre site instead?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/index.html

(see also link at the bottom).

Thanks for the further info. On checking what I wr...

2008-06-04T11:29:00.000+09:00

Thanks for the further info. On checking what I wrote when I looked into this 10 years ago, it seems like the satellite data are actually a bit worse than I remembered, with persistent regional biases of perhaps several tenths of a degree. So further in-situ calibration would be required for a truly high-precision reconstruction. (If the biases are really persistent over long time scales, then this would not affect anomalies, but that is probably too optimistic an assumption).

Thanks for the clarification, Simon. It makes sen...

2008-06-04T09:27:00.000+09:00

Thanks for the clarification, Simon. It makes sense for them to still collect the ship data, but the lack of any reference to sat data seemed odd.

I have to say that the look of the CRU site is more or less sub-Web 1.0. OK, looks aren't everything, but then after a further five minutes I still couldn't find any obvious reference to the existence of the 1x1 set, to say nothing of anything relating to the Thompson et al results.

OTOH, up at the top of the home page was a link to the latest news: "Climate scientists at UEA are celebrating after winning a Silver Medal for their debut garden at the Royal Chelsea Flower Show"(!) I clicked to see the exciting details... but the link didn't work. Figures. :(

The 1 deg x 1 deg HadISST1 dataset uses COADS, the...

2008-06-04T08:31:00.000+09:00

The 1 deg x 1 deg HadISST1 dataset uses COADS, the source of the 1945 problem, and also AVHRR (satellite) observations. The 5 deg x 5 deg dataset doesn't use AVHRR observations. From what I recall, the 1985- AVHRR pathfinder SST dataset compiled by NOAA tracks reasonably well with the Hadley data. Adding that 0.3 C adjustment to the entire post 1945 record is unfounded.

No satellite data seems odd. Mind you, it has prob...

2008-06-03T15:08:00.000+09:00

No satellite data seems odd. Mind you, it has problems of its own and needs calibrated to in-situ data (ie buoys), but I would think it could still be useful to fill in the gaps.

As for Roger...I can't help but think of the navigational technique known as "aiming off". At least you know which side of reality he is!

t this point I'm completely mystified as to why Ro...

2008-06-03T14:40:00.000+09:00

t this point I'm completely mystified as to why Roger thinks he has any useful role to play. Will he now follow McIntyre off into solar-crazy land?

James, looking at the CRU documentation it appears that their SST data set continues to make use of ship-based measurements only (i.e. no sat data) right up to the present.

James-The smiley face is usually use to denote an ...

2008-06-03T12:20:00.000+09:00

James-

The smiley face is usually use to denote an attempt at humor. ;-)

I started by posting up the implications of adjustment proposed by Steve McIntyre. Why not? I said it was not the last word (so did he) and I said I was open to any other suggestions.

I then followed up with an estimate based on the graph proposed by Real Climate identified as a "good guess". Now I've replicated that graph, and it turns out to be quite misleading with a major error. Interesting. no?

There is nothing magical about 1950 or 50 years or anything else. Nor is there anything sacrosanct about the IPCC 2007 -- understandings evolve. Frankly, I don't have any idea what the future consensus will be on this subject, do you?

In the long run science will work its course, meantime, people will speculate, discuss, and try things out. So what? I am sure that this discussion has only begun, so get used to it.

Actually Roger, you started by saying the trend wo...

2008-06-03T12:05:00.000+09:00

Actually Roger, you started by saying the trend would be almost 50% lower. Then you said 30%, this latter calculation being based on an adjustment which was obviously implausible for reasons which I think are now clear enough to you. So from where I'm sitting, your patronising "you are catching up" comment seems a little misplaced, but I'm relieved to see you are not going to continue to claim black is white for another week or two this time.

If you would look at the figure I referenced from the Technical Summary, it is abundantly clear that the intervals used in that graphic all extend well past the year 2000 (I estimated the last year is 2005, although it is possible I'm a year out as I can't match their trends precisely). So other than the choice of smoothing (and minor differences in data source) it is clear that what I have done does exactly "jibe with what the IPCC did".

James-Good stuff, you are catching up;-)I can repl...

2008-06-03T00:37:00.000+09:00

James-

Good stuff, you are catching up;-)

I can replicate The Independent graph, and it is not as good a first guess as you think:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001447visually_pleasing_te.html

If you start your trend analysis in 1950 rather than 1956 (to jibe with what the IPCC did) and carry it declining-linearly through the mid-1960s (to match the adjustment dates specifically as suggested by Thompson et al.) you'll get a reduction in trend of about 20%. Now if you said that we'd be just about saying the same thing.

Like you I'm not wed to any specific adjustment, and think we should look at all of the uncertainties.

Of course the easiest way to deal with this would be to start a trend analysis after 1960;-)