Whitewash and bias, Painting over the historical record

[Stratos Ferric]

This has nothing to do with whitewash, satin finish or gloss but it does question the validity of the temperature record; thought some might find it interesting.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGR07-background.pdf

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html

I think we've been here before. Given that AGW requires urbanisation then there should be no surprise that urbanisation correlates to measured local warming. I'm afraid that people invariably leak, and I suspect the authors' motives are revealed in the observation that over reaction will lead to needless investment in solutions by the Canadian government, which will then be passed on to individuals - like the author.

At best they may have uncovered a very slight skew (even they admit that less than half the warming observed can be dismissed). Where I have a huge problem with their argument that their model can be used to correct flaws in their own data is around how it would account for the excessive warming at the pole, where, unless we're being hoodwinked on the scale of an Appollo 11 never landed on the moon type scam, there has been no urbanisation.

[jethro]

I think we've been here before. Given that AGW requires urbanisation then there should be no surprise that urbanisation correlates to measured local warming. I'm afraid that people invariably leak, and I suspect the authors' motives are revealed in the observation that over reaction will lead to needless investment in solutions by the Canadian government, which will then be passed on to individuals - like the author.

At best they may have uncovered a very slight skew (even they admit that less than half the warming observed can be dismissed). Where I have a huge problem with their argument that their model can be used to correct flaws in their own data is around how it would account for the excessive warming at the pole, where, unless we're being hoodwinked on the scale of an Appollo 11 never landed on the moon type scam, there has been no urbanisation.

You may well be right SF, but when we are talking about temperature rises in points of a degree, then any skew is relevant. To be fair to these authors and other similar reports, if the trustees and reseachers involved with the global temperature record made their data available for scrutiny, this problem wouldn't exist. Instead, they clutch it close to their chest and refuse access. The entire IPCC prophecy hinges on the increases in temperature during the christmas pudding, without such increases or with less pronounced increases, their stance becomes more questionable. One cannot help wonder on the motives of the IPCC and those researchers guarding this info so assidously; if it is solid research, with unquestionable findings, then it really shouldn't matter who looks at it.

[Stratos Ferric]

You may well be right SF, but when we are talking about temperature rises in points of a degree, then any skew is relevant. To be fair to these authors and other similar reports, if the trustees and reseachers involved with the global temperature record made their data available for scrutiny, this problem wouldn't exist. Instead, they clutch it close to their chest and refuse access. The entire IPCC prophecy hinges on the increases in temperature during the christmas pudding, without such increases or with less pronounced increases, their stance becomes more questionable. One cannot help wonder on the motives of the IPCC and those researchers guarding this info so assidously; if it is solid research, with unquestionable findings, then it really shouldn't matter who looks at it.

Here we go again. You get cross with me for questioning what you say re warming when you suggest your stance is clear, yet here you are appearing to question whether or not we're warming. My response is stock re the warming: glaciers, flora, fauna, ice sheets; however you choose to assess it the globe is warming. The argument is the extent to which it's anthropogenic.

I wasn't aware that anyone was holding any data close to their chests. I can't believe that Hadley is alone in being open access when it comes to climate records. If the data is guarded how come the proliferation of papers you and others post querying the hockey stick etc? I'm sure they aren't making it up.

[Chris Knight]

Here we go again. You get cross with me for questioning what you say re warming when you suggest your stance is clear, yet here you are appearing to question whether or not we're warming. My response is stock re the warming: glaciers, flora, fauna, ice sheets; however you choose to assess it the globe is warming. The argument is the extent to which it's anthropogenic.

I wasn't aware that anyone was holding any data close to their chests. I can't believe that Hadley is alone in being open access when it comes to climate records. If the data is guarded how come the proliferation of papers you and others post querying the hockey stick etc? I'm sure they aren't making it up.

The processed temperature datasets that make up the historical records for Hadley, GISS, etc., are published, but the raw data that is gridded, corrected and averaged to produce these published datasets are not available AFAIK.

[jethro]

The processed temperature datasets that make up the historical records for Hadley, GISS, etc., are published, but the raw data that is gridded, corrected and averaged to produce these published datasets are not available AFAIK.

Indeed; http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column....html?id=145246

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column....html?id=145245

And the man responsible for this: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ is refusing to play ball and answer the questions being asked.

[Chris Knight]

Indeed; http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column....html?id=145246

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column....html?id=145245

And the man responsible for this: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ is refusing to play ball and answer the questions being asked.

It is also odd that the meaninglessness of "global mean temperatures" has not attracted more scientific study. The only mention of Andresen's critique of this on NW was by Mondy, I believe, back in March.

C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. 32, 1-27 (2007).

http://www.fys.ku.dk/~andresen/BAhome/ownp...lT_JNET2007.pdf

By analogy, it may be meaningful to compare the relative wealth of two nations by looking at their mean per capita annual incomes, over time, but to work out a global per capita income by averaging all nations would be meaningless.

The nature of averages, where 20 degrees in one place and 20 degrees in another gives a mean of 20 degrees, does not mean the same as 5 degrees in one place and 35degrees in another, also giving a mean of 20 degrees.

A global mean temperature may have some relevance when comparing generalities between two different planets, but not for inhomogeneous variable climate regimes on a planet with a range of temperatures of nearly 90 degrees C from minima near the poles to maxima in the tropics, especially since the summer maxima and winter minima can occur at the same time in opposite hemispheres.

No wonder that analyses of these mean global datasets increasingly indicate markers for solar, lunar and planetary perturbations affecting the temperatures - all other global forcings are neatly cancelled out!

Edited December 10, 2007 by Chris Knight

[Magellan]

Hello all.

A UHI study using empirical data from Barrow, Alaska.

http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/..._JGR-A_2007.pdf

IPCC says UHI isn't an issue. Is it?

[Devonian]

It is also odd that the meaninglessness of "global mean temperatures" has not attracted more scientific study. The only mention of Andresen's critique of this on NW was by Mondy, I believe, back in March.

C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. 32, 1-27 (2007).

http://www.fys.ku.dk/~andresen/BAhome/ownp...lT_JNET2007.pdf

By analogy, it may be meaningful to compare the relative wealth of two nations by looking at their mean per capita annual incomes, over time, but to work out a global per capita income by averaging all nations would be meaningless.

The nature of averages, where 20 degrees in one place and 20 degrees in another gives a mean of 20 degrees, does not mean the same as 5 degrees in one place and 35degrees in another, also giving a mean of 20 degrees.

A global mean temperature may have some relevance when comparing generalities between two different planets, but not for inhomogeneous variable climate regimes on a planet with a range of temperatures of nearly 90 degrees C from minima near the poles to maxima in the tropics, especially since the summer maxima and winter minima can occur at the same time in opposite hemispheres.

No wonder that analyses of these mean global datasets increasingly indicate markers for solar, lunar and planetary perturbations affecting the temperatures - all other global forcings are neatly cancelled out!

The global mean average temperature is simply that - and it's close to the temperature simple radiative physics calculation would give (incoming radiation +ghg's plus a dash of anthro).

Some people are tall some short, it's still just maths to come up with an average - and an average it would be. Now, short or tall people might object to such an average, but that would be to not understand what 'average' means.

Anyway, how hot is the Sun?

Edited December 10, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

The global mean average temperature is simply that - and it's close to the temperature simple radiative physics calculation would give (incoming radiation +ghg's plus a dash of anthro).

Some people are tall some short, it's still just maths to come up with an average - and an average it would be. Now, short or tall people might object to such an average, but that would be to not understand what 'average' means.

Anyway, how hot is the Sun?

Morning Dev; an average temperature is as you say, exactly that but doesn't it make you wonder when thus far we are talking about a figure of 0.6 degree increase? Even the official figures say there is a margin of error of 0.2 degrees, there is a growing body of evidence which raises valid questions about the UHI, the man responsible for the figures used by the IPCC declines all requests to allow other scientists to look at his body of work from which he has collated these figures. I always thought the peer review process meant research should be available for others to tear apart, and see if they come up with the same result - isn't it? So, if 0.6 is the increase, give or take 0.2, given that we have fewer and fewer stations with data being used, given that UHI does have an impact which may or may not be being accounted for and given that natural variations play a substancial role too, aren't you left wondering an incy tincy bit, that we might not have warmed that much? When you throw in the fact that the first increases in Co2 have a far greater impact than the increases foreseen in the future, then don't you wonder where the vast increases in predicted temps and all the forecast climate changes are coming from? Not even a glimmer of a doubt?

Oh, and the sun is very hot. At the core it is 15 million degrees Celsius or 27 million degrees Farenheit. Phew, scorchio!!!

Edited December 10, 2007 by jethro

[Chris Knight]

The global mean average temperature is simply that - and it's close to the temperature simple radiative physics calculation would give (incoming radiation +ghg's plus a dash of anthro).

Some people are tall some short, it's still just maths to come up with an average - and an average it would be. Now, short or tall people might object to such an average, but that would be to not understand what 'average' means.

Anyway, how hot is the Sun?

I gave the link to the Essex et al. paper, and their answer to your first point appears in the introduction:

While that statistic is nothing more than an average over temperatures, it is regarded

as the temperature, as if an average over temperatures is actually a temperature itself, and

as if the out-of-equilibrium climate system has only one temperature. But an average of

temperature data sampled from a non-equilibrium field is not a temperature. Moreover, it

hardly needs stating that the Earth does not have just one temperature. It is not in global

thermodynamic equilibrium — neither within itself nor with its surroundings.

It is not even approximately so for the climatological questions asked of the temperature

field. Even when viewed from space at such a distance that the Earth appears as a point

source, the radiation from it deviates from a black body distribution and so has no one

temperature. There is also no unique “temperature at the top of the atmosphere”. The

temperature field of the Earth as a whole is not thermodynamically representable by a single

temperature.

The global temperature statistic is also described as the average, as if there is only one

kind of average. Of course there is an infinity of mathematically legitimate options. Indeed

over one hundred different averages over temperatures have been used in meteorology and

climate studies with more appearing regularly. For the case of temperature, or any other

thermodynamic intensity, there is no physical basis for choosing any one of these from the

infinite domain of distinct mathematical options.

It might be interesting to hear some criticism of their objections to the concept of a "global mean temperature":

1. Sums or averages over the individual temperatures in the field are not temperatures.

Neither are they proxies for internal energy.

2. Temperatures from a field (individually or averaged) neither drive dynamics nor thermodynamics.

Instead dynamics are driven by gradients and differences, in temperatures

and other variables.

3. A global spatial average cannot be an index for local conditions, otherwise nonlocal dependence

(i.e ”thermodynamics at a distance”) for local conditions would be required.

4. The utility of any global spatial average of the temperature field as an index for global

conditions has been presumed but not demonstrated.

5. It is easily demonstrated that different spatial averaging rules over temperatures can

have contrary trends in time (i.e. some increase while others decrease in time) when

the two fields being compared have range-overlap, as they do in this context. This

is demonstrated here in a basic example and subsequently with actual atmospheric

temperature-field observations.

6. No ground has been provided for choosing any one such statistic over the rest as the

one proper index for global climate.

7. If there are no physical or pragmatic grounds for choosing one over another, and

one increases while the others decreases, there is no basis for concluding that the

atmosphere as a whole is either warming or cooling.

Averages are as representative of inhomogeneous populations as a billion stopped clocks are representative of the time of day, and we know that each of the clocks is correct exactly twice each day.

So if you take an inhomogeneous group, such as dogs, and measure the annual historical record mean height of dogs taken as samples around the globe in selected dog walking areas, you can predict the mean height of dogs in the future? And tell me the predicted height of dogs in the future from these figures in locations such as Central Park NY or on the beach at Scarborough? Fashion in dogs must be at least as predictable as decadal weather trends.

I suppose it would be possible to get the currently accepted temperatures of the various parts of the Sun, and average them, but the final figure would be meaningless too. Why do you ask, Dev?

[jethro]

http://www.climatecooling.org/

[Stratos Ferric]

I gave the link to the Essex et al. paper, and their answer to your first point appears in the introduction:

It might be interesting to hear some criticism of their objections to the concept of a "global mean temperature":

Averages are as representative of inhomogeneous populations as a billion stopped clocks are representative of the time of day, and we know that each of the clocks is correct exactly twice each day.

So if you take an inhomogeneous group, such as dogs, and measure the annual historical record mean height of dogs taken as samples around the globe in selected dog walking areas, you can predict the mean height of dogs in the future? And tell me the predicted height of dogs in the future from these figures in locations such as Central Park NY or on the beach at Scarborough? Fashion in dogs must be at least as predictable as decadal weather trends.

I suppose it would be possible to get the currently accepted temperatures of the various parts of the Sun, and average them, but the final figure would be meaningless too. Why do you ask, Dev?

So are you suggesting that we're not actually warming at all Chris?

[Chris Knight]

So are you suggesting that we're not actually warming at all Chris?

I've heard that before. Have you got a macro to write that for you, SF?

[pottyprof]

I bet he uses a formula to insert the name, Sharon..