Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

[Devonian]

Not at all; there is a warming at the end of the 20th/beginning of the 21st that is distinct in the last millennium. But I don't like seeing the last 1000 years revised for idealogical purposes. AGW? evidence looks reasonable. Alarmist AG and I'd have to say I'm naturally skeptical of such an anthropocentric and catastrophic perspective, especially given the number of elephants standing in the room.

You posted a logical trap: "only some kind of denialist...", So, not only an the impression planted, if I defend the HS I'm a denialist and the impression of said is reinforced - nothing to do with the right or wrong of the matter...

Well, anyway, no, we don't know what the pre instrument temperature past was like. We have a fair idea and the HS is in line with other reconstructions.

Then you go on to say that you "don't like seeing the last 1000 years revised for idealogical purposes." which is in fact a serious allegation directed at certain scientists (as if certain scientists don't get enough flak - hey throw enough and clearly some will stick I guess ...) , or rather said as if that too is proven! It is not - it's your perception, indeed, to adopt your debating tactics, only someone with a deeply held irrational prejudice towards sound science would say what you did - see what I mean?

[parmenides3]

Not at all; there is a warming at the end of the 20th/beginning of the 21st that is distinct in the last millennium. But I don't like seeing the last 1000 years revised for idealogical purposes. AGW? evidence looks reasonable. Alarmist AG and I'd have to say I'm naturally skeptical of such an anthropocentric and catastrophic perspective, especially given the number of elephants standing in the room.

As you may be aware, qmoran, I'm not by nature an alarmist, but I'm curious to know whether the latest info on sea-ice might persuade you a little bit that there could be genuine causes to be concerned about the future? http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/17/...-US-Low-Ice.php

(and see the sea-ice thread).

all the best,

:)P

[gmoran]

You posted a logical trap: "only some kind of denialist...", So, not only an the impression planted, if I defend the HS I'm a denialist and the impression of said is reinforced - nothing to do with the right or wrong of the matter...

Well, anyway, no, we don't know what the pre instrument temperature past was like. We have a fair idea and the HS is in line with other reconstructions.

Then you go on to say that you "don't like seeing the last 1000 years revised for idealogical purposes." which is in fact a serious allegation directed at certain scientists (as if certain scientists don't get enough flak - hey throw enough and clearly some will stick I guess ...) , or rather said as if that too is proven! It is not - it's your perception, indeed, to adopt your debating tactics, only someone with a deeply held irrational prejudice towards sound science would say what you did - see what I mean?

[gmoran]

You posted a logical trap: "only some kind of denialist...", So, not only an the impression planted, if I defend the HS I'm a denialist and the impression of said is reinforced - nothing to do with the right or wrong of the matter...

Well it's a play on words, as AGW advocates often label opponents as denialists. And the hockey stick produced in MBH98 is beyond being defended, Mann's statistical methodology was proven to be wrong, and it was only Mann's reconstruction that I was criticizing.

Well, anyway, no, we don't know what the pre instrument temperature past was like. We have a fair idea and the HS is in line with other reconstructions.

Mann's reconstruction was discredited. Before then the accepted data did not show that trend. Some Reconstructions post Mann have HS attributes, those based on bore holes (regarded by some as being a better source of data) don't. The evidence for past climate variability is good, and furthermore is what would be expected.

Then you go on to say that you "don't like seeing the last 1000 years revised for idealogical purposes." which is in fact a serious allegation directed at certain scientists (as if certain scientists don't get enough flak - hey throw enough and clearly some will stick I guess ...)

Fair cop

[biffvernon]

Why do some folk like to point out that 1934 was the warmest in USA without at the same time reminding us that 1917 was the coldest?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Why do some folk like to point out that 1934 was the warmest in USA without at the same time reminding us that 1917 was the coldest?

1917 was closer to the Little Ice Age. More ice about, colder temperatures could be reached.

as per 20c warming you can observe a racheting effect, with 1990s warming building on top of the 1930s warming with a slightly warmer cold baseline in between.

Since the 1990s warming is not much different to the 1930s warming the traditional models of GW are put into question, and hypothesis of cycle become more influential.

Edited August 18, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[biffvernon]

1917 was closer to the Little Ice Age. More ice about, colder temperatures could be reached.

Ha! And 1921 was closer to the next interstadial.

Mine was, of course, a rhetorical question.

Edited August 18, 2007 by biffvernon

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Ha! And 1921 was closer to the next interstadial.

Mine was, of course, a rhetorical question.

Nope, don't understand what you mean. Sorry.

[parmenides3]

AF:

Since the 1990s warming is not much different to the 1930s warming the traditional models of GW are put into question, and hypothesis of cycle become more influential.

Can you explain how this is so? You make two statements here, one about climate models and another about cycles, based on your current favourite graph, which you have now posted about ten times. In what way does the graph above, or the data from which it derives, relate to the competence or otherwise of climate models? And I should also point out that there are many cycles which are considered in existing models; why should this data make their status any the greater?

all the best

:)P

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

This thread is about the US temperature anomaly series - that is why I repeatedly post the graph.

I would suggest if past trends are accurate as reflected in the US temperature anomaly graph the climate models are not accurate enough to say what the future climate will do.

[parmenides3]

This thread is about the US temperature anomaly series - that is why I repeatedly post the graph.

I would suggest if past trends are accurate as reflected in the US temperature anomaly graph the climate models are not accurate enough to say what the future climate will do.

Thanks for the straightforward reply, AF. There is still a little ambiguity in the first half of your reply. If you are saying that 'if climate data is, like the US temperature trend, inaccurate, then the climate models cannot be accurate enough', then my response would be; if the data put into climate models was wrong enough, then this would certainly be the case. But is the alteration to US temperatures since 2000 sufficiently large to effect the temperature trends which the models use? On a global scale, not a bit, and even on a US scale, its very unlikely that such an adjustment would materially effect the long -term variability trends.

On the other hand, if you are saying that we should be looking at the US temperature graph instead of a global graph of temperature trends to tell us what has gone on in the past 100 years, the obvious question would be why? Why use a smaller database when a larger one is readily available? I'd also point out that climate models don't produce the observed trend data; this is simply done from measurements.

So, this will come down to the question of how good the input into climate models is, and how good the models are as a result. Ine one sense, it doesn't matter; both James Annan's work and the work done at the climateprediction.net has shown that climate model output is relatively insensitive to initial conditions, so long as they are constrained by margins which relate broadly to real world conditions.

On the other thread, i'll try to find time tomorrow to give a balanced evaluation of the latest research on model skill. Before we get into that, though, I think it is important to look at the questions I asked C-Bob earlier.

Best wishes,

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Well it seems pretty significant to me. As a base line for global trends I would go for US temps compared to UK temps as a guide to warming/cooling. Its a good point AFF and of interest. Whether it proves /disproves in favour of any argument I don't know but it certainly has put the cat amongst the pigeons

BFTP

[parmenides3]

It isn't a baseline for global trends, and is hasn't put any cats anywhere. It's a lot of fuss over something which tells us nothing about GW, in spite of the wishes and hopes of those who don't want to agree with the apparent evidence.

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

It isn't a baseline for global trends, and is hasn't put any cats anywhere. It's a lot of fuss over something which tells us nothing about GW, in spite of the wishes and hopes of those who don't want to agree with the apparent evidence.

:)P

Yes it does P....many tout UK temps as further proof of AGW...this is more significant. It doesn't prove/disprove like I say but it is significant.

BFTP

[parmenides3]

Yes it does P....many tout UK temps as further proof of AGW...this is more significant. It doesn't prove/disprove like I say but it is significant.

BFTP

If anyone touts a regional temperature trend as 'proof' of AGW, they are making a mistake. Can you point out anyone else who is actually doing this? The CET, like many other measurements, is one strand among many lines of evidence from observation which indicates that our climate, in the UK is changing. Other lines of evidence point to the observation that this is also the case for many other parts of the world, though not all. When all of these lines of evidence are considered together, and when the regional observations are combined in a global average, or mean, they invariably result in an unequivocal trend of warming. No matter what happens to the US temperature trend (and, irrespective of what you have claimed, not much has happened), it will not change the bigger picture.

Sorry to be blunt, but on this one, you are simply overstating the significance of the whole 'event'.

Regards,

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Sorry to be blunt, but on this one, you are simply overstating the significance of the whole 'event'.

Regards,

:)P

You're not blunt P that's fine and I don't begrudge your respected viewpoint. It makes a difference to my opinion [maybe slight] but let's just say it hasn't weakened my stance.

BFTP

[parmenides3]

I think that it is good to make a point that temperature records, any records, even very recent ones, can be messed up by simple mistakes, and that these can have an effect on how we look at an issue like the recent warming trend. It is also good to post a warning about relying too much on data, reminding us not to make any absolute assumptions based on even supposedly reliable 'facts'.

I also think it's good that you have an opinion and (so far!) are sticking to it. The original reason for responding on this thread is because the original title has two factual errors in it, which are then subsequently used in an inappropriate whay to imply that 'the AGW hypothesis' is flawed, or by implication false. I hope at least that the errors and false implications have been cleared up. AGW could (in theory) still be proven to be wrong, but not by this.

In the meantime...

all the best.

:)P

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

IThe CET, like many other measurements, is one strand among many lines of evidence from observation which indicates that our climate, in the UK is changing.

:)P

The US CET suggests the UK CET is either wrong or otherwise on a trend due to very regional influences. I'd suggest the former is more likely.

2% of Earth is a fair chunk of coverage.

I believe Brazil is a large CET area with records dating back to early 20C but record collection there has been less than rigorous and affected by rapid, urban development.

[parmenides3]

The US CET suggests the UK CET is either wrong or otherwise on a trend due to very regional influences. I'd suggest the former is more likely.

2% of Earth is a fair chunk of coverage.

I believe Brazil is a large CET area with records dating back to early 20C but record collection there has been less than rigorous and affected by rapid, urban development.

You seem to be suggesting that the trend in US temps. should be similar to the trend in UK temps. , and if they are dissimilar, one of them must be wrong. There is no reason to believe this, afaik. Not all regions experience the same weather/climate at the same time.

:)P

[jethro]

I think it certainly adds grist to the argument that the CET should not be taken as a clear cut indication of AGW as some people maintain it does. The CET is merely an historical record of our weather, taken from a small portion of a small island.

[parmenides3]

I think it certainly adds grist to the argument that the CET should not be taken as a clear cut indication of AGW as some people maintain it does. The CET is merely an historical record of our weather, taken from a small portion of a small island.

There never should have been an argument that the CET is a clear indicator of AGW. Perhaps the misunderstanding is that the CET, when matched against the global mean surface trend, shows a better correlation than many other metrics, and thus is sometimes handy as a 'guide' (but not more than that). This year is a good case in point; the CET anomaly will not resemble the global anomaly much, month by month, for much of the year. So we agree.

:)P

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

You seem to be suggesting that the trend in US temps. should be similar to the trend in UK temps. , and if they are dissimilar, one of them must be wrong. There is no reason to believe this, afaik. Not all regions experience the same weather/climate at the same time.

:)P

Given the tiny sample area there WILL be a regional influence. Changing sea temperatures, ice levels to our north, teleconnections etc.

Yet I suspect the UK graph overplays the recent warming vis-a-vis the warming around the 1930s due to unaccounted-for urban factors.

In the US chart which averages records from over 48 states, over 2% Earth surface area, the urban affect is likely to be less even with the exact same methodology simply because there is far more space in US, and many more stations in rural areas - 100s of miles away from cities with millions of people in them.

Compare

1930s barely makes a mark. I posit that's not just regional factors but the relative lack of development in UK at that time.

What's +/- 0.5C ??

Edited August 23, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[parmenides3]

AF: apart from the fact that the USA has a continental system & the UK a maritime one, so the things influencing temps. are inherently different, and though the teleconnection will provide some knock-on from the North American continent to NW Europe, you still cannot claim that UK and US temperatures should run parallel. That they don't is visible from these records.

There is a detailed paper availbale on the adjustment to the CET to account for urbanisation available from the Met or CRU. The calculations have been done & the adjustments made. Maybe they missed something, but if they didn't account for something & I don't know what they might have missed, I'm content to accept that the CET is an accurate record of mean temps in Central England.

Funny you should say that the USA ought to be inherently more accurate, as some 'doubters' are working hard at the moment to prove the exact opposite, largely because of claimed uncertainties arising from the rural stations; which version would you prefer?

Another question: the UK graph is the anomaly from the 1961-1990 mean (I thought they had upodated this...?); what does the US graph show? Are they using the same baseline? This would make a difference.

Finally, the UK graph shows a +0.2 anomaly in the middle of the 1930's somewhere. Though the max anomaly in 1934 was higher, for most of the decade, it appears to have been around +0.4. So, both are, in fact, showing anomalies at the same time, or so it seems.

If none of this satisfies you that the two graphs are not really an issue, I give up. Try http://tamino.wordpress.com/

:)P

[jethro]

There never should have been an argument that the CET is a clear indicator of AGW. Perhaps the misunderstanding is that the CET, when matched against the global mean surface trend, shows a better correlation than many other metrics, and thus is sometimes handy as a 'guide' (but not more than that). This year is a good case in point; the CET anomaly will not resemble the global anomaly much, month by month, for much of the year. So we agree.

:)P

Yup, we agree. CET records our weather, it may show a correlation with mean global temps, it may not. What it doesn't and could never do is indicate or validate or indeed prove our baseline temps have risen BECAUSE of AGW. It's the same old correlation versus causation, the two are worlds apart.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

AF: apart from the fact that the USA has a continental system & the UK a maritime one

Yet there are similarities between the chart. Warm 1930s. Cool inbetween then 1980s warming. The big difference is the exaggerated warming in UK in the 1980s+

There is a detailed paper availbale on the adjustment to the CET to account for urbanisation available from the Met or CRU.

Perhaps it is not detailed enough?

I'm content to accept that the CET is an accurate record of mean temps in Central England.

The US graph raises some questions.

Funny you should say that the USA ought to be inherently more accurate, as some 'doubters' are working hard at the moment to prove the exact opposite, largely because of claimed uncertainties arising from the rural stations; which version would you prefer?

US chart is not 100% accurate but logic suggests it is a better record than UK CET.

Another question: the UK graph is the anomaly from the 1961-1990 mean (I thought they had upodated this...?); what does the US graph show? Are they using the same baseline? This would make a difference.

Agreed. You can still see the pattern in both charts whatever the baseline. Perhaps that explains UK's wild upswing compared to 1930s, perhaps it doesn't.

Finally, the UK graph shows a +0.2 anomaly in the middle of the 1930's somewhere. Though the max anomaly in 1934 was higher, for most of the decade, it appears to have been around +0.4. So, both are, in fact, showing anomalies at the same time, or so it seems.

Yes. But UK is just one tiny area compared to the US and all stations are exposed to the sea and effects of urban warming.

If none of this satisfies you that the two graphs are not really an issue, I give up. Try http://tamino.wordpress.com/

That link doesn't account for the issues I've raised. Nor have you. I don't expect you to though as clearly you and that link are in full agreement.

Edited August 23, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower