Whitewash and bias, Painting over the historical record

[West is Best]

So you are even questioning were are warming at all?

I certainly think the world overall has warmed, and dramatically so. Whether we are still, or have peaked is another issue which only time, and much scientific evidence, will tell. But the thread raises valid issues, and I was wishing to respond to the slightly carefree manner in which, for instance, satellite data was being used to support long-term warming when, as we should all know, satellites have only been in orbit measuring weather and climate for a very short time.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Let's keep this one on topic. We're talking about Stevenson Screens and measurement variations. Nothing else.

Off topic posts will be removed and force will be used if necessary.

[Gray-Wolf]

Oooh Chris, I thought C-Bob was the naughtiest boy on here but I'm gonna have to revisit my opinions!

Cor yes, why didn't I see it all before? as paint technologies moved on (allowing an ever more intrusive/skewing dose of infra red to penetrate) so did our beloved 'hockey stick.

Then when they started coating the satellite lens's (purely 'cause JPL thought it looked 'cool') with the latest dollop of 'super white' the trend continued.

(Strange that so many changes at ground level that seem to imitate the effects of global temp hike seem to be occurring)

[Bobby]

I certainly think the world overall has warmed, and dramatically so. Whether we are still, or have peaked is another issue which only time, and much scientific evidence, will tell. But the thread raises valid issues, and I was wishing to respond to the slightly carefree manner in which, for instance, satellite data was being used to support long-term warming when, as we should all know, satellites have only been in orbit measuring weather and climate for a very short time.

Well, yes, I know satellite data hasn't been around long enough to determine a long term trend, I just mentioned it because they have shown warming during the time they'be been about. It's taking everything together that shows the clear warming trend.

[Chris Knight]

You are even questioning we are warming at all?

At the rates currently proposed, yes, but I do not doubt that there is warming going on, it has been since the last ice age, with various ups and downs. I doubt the early 20th century data is as warm as it should have been, and I doubt the current temperatures are as high as the records show, on the basis of artificially introduced bias as in #1 above.

[Chris Knight]

I've got a Stevenson Screen.

In the winter when the sun is low, or whenever it's cloudy, it really matter not a jot if it's white or super white - the box will measure ambient temperature. Now, in the summer in the Sun quality of paintwork might matter. But my Stevenson Screen is old and the woodwork partly rotten. That rotten wood gets wet and when warmed the water will evaporate - that will COOL the Stevenson Screen.

Surely this is also a major problem, a false cooling of the record. No?

In the winter, its just as important that radiation gain or loss from the SS does not affect the inside. White is a visible term, is your box a good insulator of external radiation effects?

Surely this is also a major problem, a false cooling of the record. No?

Precisely - all SS used to be like that, Modern ones, if regularly repainted, wont! therefore they will record warmer temperatures.

Don't use paint, use whitewash if you wish to retain the status quo.

Oooh Chris, I thought C-Bob was the naughtiest boy on here but I'm gonna have to revisit my opinions!

Cor yes, why didn't I see it all before? as paint technologies moved on (allowing an ever more intrusive/skewing dose of infra red to penetrate) so did our beloved 'hockey stick.

Then when they started coating the satellite lens's (purely 'cause JPL thought it looked 'cool') with the latest dollop of 'super white' the trend continued.

(Strange that so many changes at ground level that seem to imitate the effects of global temp hike seem to be occurring)

And how do they calibrate the bits of data the satellites send back? from the current ground readings, and they continually adjust the gain of the sensors as they degrade due to solar radiation effects - in line with the recorded air temperatures on ground stations!

Edited October 14, 2007 by Chris Knight

[Osbourne One-Nil]

That last bit....are you sure Chris? Absolutely sure?

Do you know how much higher a reading would be in a painted screen than a whitewashed one?

[Chris Knight]

There's any easy way to find out if this is true or not. Have two thermometers side by side, one protected with a stevenson screen with whitewash and another with ordinary white paint. Measure their readings over a day, and if there is a difference you may have a point. If there isn't, then the theory doesn't stand up.

No you need to standardise all sites if the record is to remain credible.

[Devonian]

No you need to standardise all sites if the record is to remain credible.

And you don't think the the Met Office is competent enough to do this? Why?

Edited October 14, 2007 by Devonian

[Chris Knight]

That last bit....are you sure Chris? Absolutely sure?

Do you know how much higher a reading would be in a painted screen than a whitewashed one?

How else can radiometer readings be calibrated?

I don't know! I just know that they (SSs) need to be standardised, perhaps made out of a modern infrared reflecting/insulating material that doesn't need "repainting" or "whitewashing".

And you don't the the Met Office is competent enough to do this?

I am sure they are competent enough, given enough money from the government to achieve it. I doubt if that will happen.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

But unless they're being callibrated on a calm, sunny day, there's not going to be a problem.

[Devonian]

But unless they're being callibrated on a calm, sunny day, there's not going to be a problem.

Exactly!

The whole basis of this thread is a red herring.

[Methuselah]

What 'older wisdom' are we missing: it's not really getting warmer, we only think it is?

[West is Best]

And you don't think the the Met Office is competent enough to do this? Why?

This strikes me as a weakening of the counter-argument.

I'm a great defender of the Met O, but I wouldn't want to use their 'standardisations' as a basis for my argument. From messing around with the CET stations to their persistent use of non-standardised sites, often for no logical reason (e.g. the LWC), they don't I'm afraid cover themselves in glory in this regard.

[Chris Knight]

But unless they're being callibrated on a calm, sunny day, there's not going to be a problem.

They can only be calibrated against ground that the satellite can "see", i.e. not under heavy cloud cover - those areas have to be extrapolated from surrounding temperatures, and compared from multiple passes of the satellites involved every 2 hours or so as they orbit.

These raw data need extensive processing to produce the temperature plots we know and use, that's why we do not get real-time satellite data in a digestible form, and that Met centres need the fastest computers available to do all the number crunching, not only for predictions and modelling, but to process all the data they receive.

They do an excellent job, and it is a pity, that there is no basic standard for the gold standard ground temperature measurement stations. Kind of devalues the whole effort, if you think about it.

Can anyone argue with anemometer standards or rainfall gauges in the same way? Doubtful.

Back to the question - yes, the calibration only takes place from fully irradiated areas on the ground, and many of these, globally, will not be windy or stormy at the time. Nighttime as well as daytime.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Chris Knight

[Devonian]

This strikes me as a weakening of the counter-argument.

I'm a great defender of the Met O, but I wouldn't want to use their 'standardisations' as a basis for my argument. From messing around with the CET stations to their persistent use of non-standardised sites, often for no logical reason (e.g. the LWC), they don't I'm afraid cover themselves in glory in this regard.

I'd like to see this critique of the Met O backed with with some evidence please.

[Paul]

Back to the question - yes, the calibration only takes place from fully irradiated areas on the ground, and many of these, globally, will not be windy or stormy at the time.

But IR satellites also use temperature to calculate cloud height and thickness, are you suggesting that this is all wrong as well?

[Devonian]

They can only be calibrated against ground that the satellite can "see", i.e. not under heavy cloud cover - those areas have to be extrapolated from surrounding temperatures, and compared from multiple passes of the satellites involved every 2 hours or so as they orbit.

These raw data need extensive processing to produce the temperature plots we know and use, that's why we do not get real-time satellite data in a digestible form, and that Met centres need the fastest computers available to do all the number crunching, not only for predictions and modelling, but to process all the data they receive.

They do an excellent job, and it is a pity, that there is no basic standard for the gold standard ground temperature measurement stations. Kind of devalues the whole effort, if you think about it.

Can anyone argue with anemometer standards or rainfall gauges in the same way? Doubtful.

Even a causal reading of any of the temperature records will note they comes allowances for uncertainties built in. We don't (and never will) know the temperature anywhere to five decimal places, but we do know it to the given uncertainty.

[Chris Knight]

But IR satellites also use temperature to calculate cloud height and thickness, are you suggesting that this is all wrong as well?

no, different process.

[West is Best]

I'd like to see this critique of the Met O backed with with some evidence please.

On the LWC see all the posts in the 30C this summer thread, especially posts from the likes of John Holmes (who also greatly respects the UKMO for obvious reasons)

On theproblems of standardisation and homogeneity in the Met Office Hadley CET, there are many papers and discussions about this issue. Check out:

(Warning - the Met Office paper is in pdf and lengthy, but well worth careful reading)

http://www.climate-uk.com/CETcheck.htm

http://www.climate-uk.com/CETcheck.htm

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...CTN/HCTN_50.pdf

Even the greatest fans of the Met Office, like myself, struggle to disagree with Philip Eden's critique:

Since Professor Manley’s death the Meteorological Office seems to have become the self-appointed guardian of the CET series, although one wonders whether it is a guardianship of which Manley would have approved. Their continuation of the series from 1974 onwards uses observations from a variety of stations in the English Midlands (including the southeast Midlands); neither Oxford nor stations on the Lancashire Plain have been utilised, and for 30 years one coastal site was included. It is therefore manifestly not the same series, and large inhomogeneities are apparent.

The Hadley Centre's CET calculation has recently undergone a major change, involving the replacement of several of the

contributing stations. Their series is now based on Stonyhurst (Lancs), Pershore (Worcs) and Rothamsted (Herts), all of

which are Campbell Automatic Weather Stations. The Philip Eden series continues to emulate Manley's original work

which calculates the mean between the Oxford district and the Lancashire Plain, and no changes have been introduced

to this series in recent months. You can draw your own conclusions as to the efficacy of the Hadley Centre's change.

Anyway, whilst this does relate in terms of standardisation we had better be careful not to wander off course.

[Chris Knight]

Even a causal reading of any of the temperature records will note they comes allowances for uncertainties built in. We don't (and never will) know the temperature anywhere to five decimal places, but we do know it to the given uncertainty.

I don't think we are talking about precision here. going off topic.

[Devonian]

I don't think we are talking about precision here. going off topic.

What are we talking about then? Are you saying this alleged paint effect is in fact large?

[Paul]

no, different process.

Why is is a different process - I've got a satellite receiver here and if you select the temperature measurement view it will display the temperature of the cloud tops if there is cloudcover and the temperature of the ground if there is not. That same cloud top temperature is used by the satellite to define where cloud is and at what height it is.

[Chris Knight]

On the LWC see all the posts in the 30C this summer thread, especially posts from the likes of John Holmes (who also greatly respects the UKMO for obvious reasons)

On theproblems of standardisation and homogeneity in the Met Office Hadley CET, there are many papers and discussions about this issue. Check out:

(Warning - the Met Office paper is in pdf and lengthy, but well worth careful reading)

http://www.climate-uk.com/CETcheck.htm

http://www.climate-uk.com/CETcheck.htm

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...CTN/HCTN_50.pdf

Even the greatest fans of the Met Office, like myself, struggle to disagree with Philip Eden's critique:

Since Professor Manley’s death the Meteorological Office seems to have become the self-appointed guardian of the CET series, although one wonders whether it is a guardianship of which Manley would have approved. Their continuation of the series from 1974 onwards uses observations from a variety of stations in the English Midlands (including the southeast Midlands); neither Oxford nor stations on the Lancashire Plain have been utilised, and for 30 years one coastal site was included. It is therefore manifestly not the same series, and large inhomogeneities are apparent.

The Hadley Centre's CET calculation has recently undergone a major change, involving the replacement of several of the

contributing stations. Their series is now based on Stonyhurst (Lancs), Pershore (Worcs) and Rothamsted (Herts), all of

which are Campbell Automatic Weather Stations. The Philip Eden series continues to emulate Manley's original work

which calculates the mean between the Oxford district and the Lancashire Plain, and no changes have been introduced

to this series in recent months. You can draw your own conclusions as to the efficacy of the Hadley Centre's change.

Anyway, whilst this does relate in terms of standardisation we had better be careful not to wander off course.

This is a move in the right direction, however, there are thousands of older stations that are not standardised.

[The PIT]

And now we got to use the right type of paint. I doubt very much a white washed one than a painted one would show much difference if any to the human eye. For the record our last one came from Castella and that was finished with gloss paint not whitewash.

Next thing we'll be talking about is people wearing glasses not reading correctly