For Crickham- Critique of GISS Urbanization Adjustments

[flacaltenn]

Oh, here's a graph of GISS minus RSS.

RSS reads hotter than GISS during El Nino years, with GISS hotter in La Nina years.

Why? They're measuring two different things. GISS is surface, satellites are mid-troposphere. GISS goes all the way to the poles. UAH doesn't go past 85 North or South, while RSS has even less coverage.

More La Ninas recently means GISS is looking higher recently. No need to invoke conspiracies.

Ronan Connolly's other papers explain why the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist, and are complete nonsense. Hence I can't take anything he says seriously. That latest paper looks like a long Gish Gallup.

So lemme get this straight -- last night you were defending a zombie study that USED satellite data to fill in the surface temperature record at the poles. And today you're bitching about no coverage above 85deg.. Guess what Bullwinkle -- the SURFACE records largely stop at 85 degs also !!!!

Not to mention you lied about what portions of the atmos can and ARE measured by satellite method.. That record covers 96% of the globe's surface RELIABLY, UNIFORMLY and EVENLY SAMPLED... That's why it's the Record of record..

 

[mamooth]

So lemme get this straight -- last night you were defending a zombie study that USED satellite data to fill in the surface temperature record at the poles.

I don't think anyone except you knows what you're babbling about now, so you'll have to explain it.

And today you're bitching about no coverage above 85deg.. Guess what Bullwinkle -- the SURFACE records largely stop at 85 degs also !!!!

Surface stations are sparse near the poles, but they are there. And they are supplemented with other methods.

Basically, you've declared a conspiracy because satellites and surface stations measure different things. That's damn stupid of you.

Not to mention you lied about what portions of the atmos can and ARE measured by satellite method.. That record covers 96% of the globe's surface RELIABLY, UNIFORMLY and EVENLY SAMPLED... That's why it's the Record of record..

And don't measure the poles, while the surface records do. We'll keep returning to that point, being that it makes your conspiracy look dumb. The poles warm faster, the surface records include the poles, so the surface records show more warming. That doesn't mean either surface or satellite records are wrong. It means they're measuring different things, and that it's a stupid apples-to-oranges fallacy to compare them.

 

[flacaltenn]

So lemme get this straight -- last night you were defending a zombie study that USED satellite data to fill in the surface temperature record at the poles.

I don't think anyone except you knows what you're babbling about now, so you'll have to explain it.

And today you're bitching about no coverage above 85deg.. Guess what Bullwinkle -- the SURFACE records largely stop at 85 degs also !!!!

Surface stations are sparse near the poles, but they are there. And they are supplemented with other methods.

Basically, you've declared a conspiracy because satellites and surface stations measure different things. That's damn stupid of you.

Not to mention you lied about what portions of the atmos can and ARE measured by satellite method.. That record covers 96% of the globe's surface RELIABLY, UNIFORMLY and EVENLY SAMPLED... That's why it's the Record of record..

And don't measure the poles, while the surface records do. We'll keep returning to that point, being that it makes your conspiracy look dumb. The poles warm faster, the surface records include the poles, so the surface records show more warming. That doesn't mean either surface or satellite records are wrong. It means they're measuring different things, and that it's a stupid apples-to-oranges fallacy to compare them.

You said that satellites measure Mid-Trop only.. That's wrong.. And the last 15degs of lattitude are WOEFULLY undersampled in time and space by surface stations. That's why that one zombie study that Princess BigFont quoted used SATELLITE data to fill in the regions above 70degs at the poles..

 

[Crick]

My foot is slowly getting better, but the big black boot is a real pain in the tookus.

 

[IanC]

Oh, here's a graph of GISS minus RSS.

RSS reads hotter than GISS during El Nino years, with GISS hotter in La Nina years.

Why? They're measuring two different things. GISS is surface, satellites are mid-troposphere. GISS goes all the way to the poles. UAH doesn't go past 85 North or South, while RSS has even less coverage.

More La Ninas recently means GISS is looking higher recently. No need to invoke conspiracies.

Ronan Connolly's other papers explain why the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist, and are complete nonsense. Hence I can't take anything he says seriously. That latest paper looks like a long Gish Gallup.

I see that you didnt notice the most interesting thing about your graph......that the GISS and RSS are diverging rapidly. we only have 35 years of satellite data. pity.

oh, and I thought the temperature increase caused by CO2 was supposed to be higher as the altitude increased. the 'hotspot' in all the climate computer models?????

GISS has a 50% higher trend than RSS

 

[Kosh]

First:Your really amazing paper: "Version: 0.1 (non peer-reviewed)"

First off the peer review process for AGW is a sham and has been exposed as such.

Just like your belief in your AGW religion.

 

[SSDD]

does that mean you arent going to read it?

There are two primary types of papers he doesn't read..1) non peer reviewed papers which question his religion and 2) peer reviewed papers which question his religion.

you not the slightest bit interested in finding out whether there actually are faults? or at least finding out more about how the process works even if you dont consider anything to be a fault?

His faith is strong...he is not even in the very slightest interested in finding out whether there are faults in the data. If he questioned the faith, his priests would take back his secret decoder ring.

 

[Crick]

I guess SiD has appointed himself my personal spokesshit.

If you want to talk about religion, let's talk about religion.

I bet you believe in god, don't you. I think we'd find a tremendous correlation between those who accuse people following mainstream science to be following a religion and those who themselves follow an actual religion.

So, SiD, do you believe in the Christian god? The Jewish god? Some other god? How often do you go to church/temple/mosque? How much do you gold do you sacrifice to your priests each year? Where in your house do you keep your holy book? Did you make your kids go to services? Do YOU go to services?

 

[IanC]

Oh, here's a graph of GISS minus RSS.

RSS reads hotter than GISS during El Nino years, with GISS hotter in La Nina years.

Why? They're measuring two different things. GISS is surface, satellites are mid-troposphere. GISS goes all the way to the poles. UAH doesn't go past 85 North or South, while RSS has even less coverage.

More La Ninas recently means GISS is looking higher recently. No need to invoke conspiracies.

Ronan Connolly's other papers explain why the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist, and are complete nonsense. Hence I can't take anything he says seriously. That latest paper looks like a long Gish Gallup.

I see that you didnt notice the most interesting thing about your graph......that the GISS and RSS are diverging rapidly. we only have 35 years of satellite data. pity.

oh, and I thought the temperature increase caused by CO2 was supposed to be higher as the altitude increased. the 'hotspot' in all the climate computer models?????

GISS has a 50% higher trend than RSS

it is soooooo difficult to have a reasonable discussion with the warmers. when you point out the weakness of their own evidence they just change the subject, leave, or in mamooth's case, declare that everyone who disagrees with them is a conspiracy theorist.

 

[jc456]

Oh, here's a graph of GISS minus RSS.

RSS reads hotter than GISS during El Nino years, with GISS hotter in La Nina years.

Why? They're measuring two different things. GISS is surface, satellites are mid-troposphere. GISS goes all the way to the poles. UAH doesn't go past 85 North or South, while RSS has even less coverage.

More La Ninas recently means GISS is looking higher recently. No need to invoke conspiracies.

Ronan Connolly's other papers explain why the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist, and are complete nonsense. Hence I can't take anything he says seriously. That latest paper looks like a long Gish Gallup.

I see that you didnt notice the most interesting thing about your graph......that the GISS and RSS are diverging rapidly. we only have 35 years of satellite data. pity.

oh, and I thought the temperature increase caused by CO2 was supposed to be higher as the altitude increased. the 'hotspot' in all the climate computer models?????

GISS has a 50% higher trend than RSS

it is soooooo difficult to have a reasonable discussion with the warmers. when you point out the weakness of their own evidence they just change the subject, leave, or in mamooth's case, declare that everyone who disagrees with them is a conspiracy theorist.

That's because they have little to argue with. They have no evidence to support the Co2 claim, and they know the data is massaged. So the only alternative is to behave like they do.

 

[IanC]

I see that you didnt notice the most interesting thing about your graph......that the GISS and RSS are diverging rapidly. we only have 35 years of satellite data. pity.

oh, and I thought the temperature increase caused by CO2 was supposed to be higher as the altitude increased. the 'hotspot' in all the climate computer models?????

GISS has a 50% higher trend than RSS

it is soooooo difficult to have a reasonable discussion with the warmers. when you point out the weakness of their own evidence they just change the subject, leave, or in mamooth's case, declare that everyone who disagrees with them is a conspiracy theorist.

That's because they have little to argue with. They have no evidence to support the Co2 claim, and they know the data is massaged. So the only alternative is to behave like they do.

there is lots of evidence, unfortunately most of it is equivical and can be interpreted in various ways. groupthink caused the CO2 theory to crystallize in the catastrophic realm of thinking. a small variation in the assumptions made to initialize the climate models would drop the doomsday predictions to next to nothing.

 

[SSDD]

I guess SiD has appointed himself my personal spokesshit.

If you want to talk about religion, let's talk about religion.

Your religion? I thought that was what we were talking about.

bet you believe in god, don't you. I think we'd find a tremendous correlation between those who accuse people following mainstream science to be following a religion and those who themselves follow an actual religion.

I believe in God....want to persecute me for it? Want to deride me? Want to pretend that I am less intelligent because of it? Want to make the discussion about my belief rather than your inability to support your belief? I don't expect you to pay a penny towards my beliefs. How much do you want me to pay in support of yours? I don't follow any organized religion. I am spiritual, not religious.

, SiD, do you believe in the Christian god?

I believe in God. You want to hang a label on him, that's between you and him.

How often do you go to church/temple/mosque?

I don't go to any house of organized religion.

How much do you gold do you sacrifice to your priests each year?

Any money I give (alms if you will) go to people in need. I don't give money to any organized religion. That is just another scam perpetrated by people who want power over others. The tithe is a scam that gentiles borrowed from the jews. In the case of the jews, the tithe was a tax to their government which was a theocracy...gentiles are not ruled by a religious government so there is no requirement that they pay the tax.

Where in your house do you keep your holy book?

On the same shelf with my college textbooks, my collection of classics, my treatises on various philosophies, and my son's old star wars collection.

Did you make your kids go to services? Do YOU go to services?

I never made my kids go to church...their decision. They go now but started after they moved away...each chose a different sect. As I said, I don't attend, or support any organized religion.

Now can we get back to talking about your religion...which also happens to be the greatest hoax perpetrated on the modern world?

 

[Crick]

GISS analysis update notes http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

Indicating the level of detail available from GISS and some of the reasons they do what they do.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Updates to Analysis
Note: This webpage describes updates to the GISS analysis made in December 2011 and after, starting with the change to use of GHCN v3 data. Updates made before December 2011 are detailed elsewhere.

Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using the current data files of NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations) combined as described in our December 2010 publication (Hansen et al. 2010). These updated files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. Here we list updates of the data or procedures that have occurred since our 2010 publication (Hansen et al. 2010).

June 17, 2014: Analysis was delayed hoping the missing reports from China would become available. Unfortunately, this has not been the case yet. Please note, that the current May 2014 data are therefore not directly comparable to previous records.

Febuary 14, 2014: Two January 2014 reports from Greenland (Godthab Nuuk and Angmagssalik) and one from Mongolia (Dauunmod) were disregarded since they seemed unusual and proved to be inconsistent with other reports.

January 21, 2014: The GISS analysis was repeated this morning based on today's status of the GHCN data. The changes were well within the margin of error, e.g. the L-OTI mean for 2013 changed from 0.6048+-0.02°C to 0.6065+-0.02°C, a change of less than 0.002°C. However, rounding to 2 digits for the L-OTI table changed the 0.60°C used in some documents prepared last week to 0.61°C. This minuscule change also moved year 2013 from a tie for the 7th place to a tie for the 6th place in the GISS ranking of warmest years, demonstrating how non-robust these rankings are.

January 21, 2014: The GISTEMP maps webpage now defaults to using the Robinson map projection. The previous default "regular" projection is labeled as Equirectangular.

August 14, 2013: The July 2013 report from Jaskul (46.2N, 45.4E) is inconsistent with its June 2013 report unlike the reports from neighboring stations. In that region, the July mean has been consistently higher than the June mean and not 4.3°C colder as the current report would indicate. Hence that report was not used in our analysis.

May 24, 2013: The time series and seasonal cycle website plotting tools were restored, which completes the return of the interactive features disabled in January. A problem with porting graphics software between servers led to a longer delay than expected.

May 15, 2013: The 3/3013 report from Dushanbe was corrected and the 3/3013 report from Kuwait was deleted in GHCN v3, so that these two GISS deletions were dropped.

April 15, 2013: Two March 2013 reports, one from Kuwait International Airport and one from Dushanbe (38.5N, 68.8E), did not agree with neighboring reports or with Weather Underground data. Hence they were not used in our analysis. The faulty February 2013 report from Nema was replaced by a corrected report in GHCN v3.

April 1, 2013: A comparison of our global analysis using NOAA ERSST (our current approach) for ocean temperature as opposed to NOAA OISST concatenated with HadSST1 is available on Dr. Sato's webpage.

March 21, 2013: This update was delayed by an investigation of some unrealistic looking reports from various stations in Mongolia. NCDC eliminated the reports today. In addition, the February 2013 report from Nema also seems unrealistic and has been eliminated. Finally, from now on we will incorporate into our analysis the reconstructed Byrd station data provided by Prof. David Bromwich.

February 24, 2013: The GISTEMP maps and station data website plotting tools were restored.

January 16, 2013: Starting with the January 2013 update, NCDC's ERSST v3b data will be used to estimate the surface air temperature anomalies over the ocean instead of a combination of Reynold's OISST (1982 to present) and data obtained from the Hadley Center (1880-1981).

January 14, 2013: Due to technical problems with the webserver onto which the GISTEMP webpages were recently migrated, interactive plotting tools such as making maps of the surface temperature anomaly and line plots of station data were disabled as the site was migrated onto newer hardware.

November 19, 2012: The machine which hosted the GISTEMP web pages will be decommissioned shortly, and all files and utilities have been moved to a new server. As the new machine uses a different architecture and OS, many utilities required some adjustment. Please send email to reto.a.ruedy@nasa.gov if you notice any problems.

September 26, 2012: NOAA/NCDC replaced GHCN v3.1 by GHCN v3.2. Hence the GISS analysis is based on that product starting 9/14/2012. Version v3.2 differs from v3.1 by minor changes in the homogenization of the unadjusted data. A description of the modifications in the adjustment scheme and their effects are available here.

February 17, 2012: The analysis was redone on Feb 17 after learning from NOAA/NCDC that the operational version of GHCN v3 was only made available that afternoon.

February 12, 2012: The reported December 2011 data for the stations LIEPAJA, ALEKSANDROVSK, and ST.PETERSBURG were replaced by corrected reports and the strange Dec 1991 report from MALAKAL is no longer part of the adjusted GHCN v3. The corresponding entries in the GISS list of suspicious data were removed.

January 18, 2012: The reported December 2011 data for the stations LIEPAJA, ALEKSANDROVSK, and ST.PETERSBURG were clearly incorrect and were discarded. Also, a likely artificial discontinuity for the station record of SHIQUANHE was eliminated by disregarding the data for 2005-present.

December 14, 2011: GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.

 

[Crick]

Some pertinent Q&A from GISS FAQs at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html. Pay special heed to the very last Q/A:

Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.

Q. Can you illustrate the above with a simple example?
A. Assume, e.g., that a station at the bottom of a mountain sent in reports continuously starting in 1880 and assume that a station was built near the top of that mountain and started reporting in 1900. Since those new temperatures are much lower than the temperatures from the station in the valley, averaging the two temperature series would create a substantial temperature drop starting in 1900.

Q. How can we combine the data of the two stations above in a meaningful way?
A. What may be done before combining those data is to increase the new data or lower the old ones until the two series seem consistent. How much we have to adjust these data may be estimated by comparing the time period with reports from both stations: After the offset, the averages over the common period should be equal. (This is the basis for the GISS method). As new data become available, the offset determined using that method may change. This explains why additional recent data can impact also much earlier data in any regional or global time series.

Another approach is to replace both series by their anomalies with respect to a fixed base period. This is the method used by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK. The disadvantage is that stations that did not report during that whole base period cannot be used.

More mathematically complex methods are used by NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NCDC) and the Berkeley Earth Project, but the resulting differences are small.

Q. Do the raw data ever change?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.

Q. Does GISS deal directly with raw (observed) data?
A. No. GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations. GISS relies on data collected by other organizations, specifically, NOAA/NCDC's Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 adjusted monthly mean data as augmented by Antarctic data collated by UK Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and also NOAA/NCDC's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v3b data.

Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCDC applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCDC website.

Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands, whereby the long-term regional trend derived from rural stations is used instead of the trends from urban centers in the analysis.

Q. Does NASA/GISS skew the global temperature trends to better match climate models?
A. No.

Q. How accurate are the GISS results (tables, graphs)?
A. The GISS results are really estimates based on the available data. Accurate error estimates are hard to obtain. However, it is likely that the largest contribution to the margin of error is given by the temporal and spatial data gaps. That particular margin was estimated as follows: All computations were first made replacing the observed data by complete model data. Then the calculations were repeated after discarding model data where the corresponding observations were missing. Comparisons of the two results were used to obtain an estimate for that margin of error. Assuming that the other inaccuracies might about double that estimate yielded the error bars for global annual means drawn in this graph, i.e., for recent years the error bar for global annual means is about ±0.05°C, for years around 1900 it is about ±0.1°C. The error bars are about twice as big for seasonal means and three times as big for monthly means. Error bars for regional means vary wildly depending on the station density in that region. Error estimates related to homogenization or other factors have been assessed by CRU and the Hadley Centre (among others).

Q. Can I do my own analysis?
A. Yes. The full code and instructions for the GISTEMP analysis are available here, though it can be a little tricky to get to work. There is a more user-friendly independent replication of the GISTEMP procedure that has been created by Nick Barnes and colleagues at the clearclimatecode website. This matches the original GISTEMP code to 2 significant figures.

Q. Where can I find absolute temperatures on the GISS website rather than temperature anomalies?
A. Nowhere. The reasons for that are explained here.

Q. Why are the US mean temperatures in your 1999 paper so different from later figures?
A. In the Hansen et al. (1999) paper the GISS analysis was based on GHCN data alone; in the meantime, the group working at NOAA/NCDC had taken a closer look at the US data, an investigation that resulted in substantial modifications compensating for station moves, procedural changes, etc. These corrected data were made available as "adjusted USHCN" data. The adjustments and their effects are described here with a graph showing the effect of each of the 5 individual adjustments here. These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990. They had no significant impact on the global mean. About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler), the other half from changes in the time of observation (mostly as a consequence of a concerted effort to transition to a uniform time of observation for a whole network of stations). After 1999, GISS replaced the unadjusted USHCN reports by the adjusted reports, and reported on the differences this made in Hansen et al. (2001)

 

[IanC]

Crick- sorry no posting of late, life intrudes.

Have you been following the catfight between Goddard and the mainstream skeptics? Paul Homewood has some very interesting articles. While I expect Goddard to exaggerate ( like Joe Romm, etc) it seems as if he is correct on the massive 'replacement by estimate' going on at NOAA. Interesting times. The explanations by Zeke and Mosher only seem to make matters worse. More later.

 

[Crick]

No, I know nothing about any of that. I know none of the people you mention though I know some of the names have appeared here.

 

[mamooth]

That issue is a fine illustration of how assuming a vast conspiracy almost always makes the assumer end up looking stupid.

In 2013, at a weather station in Luling, Texas, a lawnmower or weed whacker damaged a data cable, causing temperature readings to suddenly plunge.

The processing algorithms notice if any station suddenly spikes very high or very low compared to neighboring stations, and corrects for such obviously bad data.

And that would be the sum total of the "conspiracy" here, a damaged cable. Goddard and pals are getting increasingly desperate and crazy in regards to what they define as a conspiracy. Ian, if you keep trusting them, you'll keep getting embarrassed.

 

[IanC]

That issue is a fine illustration of how assuming a vast conspiracy almost always makes the assumer end up looking stupid.

In 2013, at a weather station in Luling, Texas, a lawnmower or weed whacker damaged a data cable, causing temperature readings to suddenly plunge.

The processing algorithms notice if any station suddenly spikes very high or very low compared to neighboring stations, and corrects for such obviously bad data.

And that would be the sum total of the "conspiracy" here, a damaged cable. Goddard and pals are getting increasingly desperate and crazy in regards to what they define as a conspiracy. Ian, if you keep trusting them, you'll keep getting embarrassed.

Hahaha. You and your conspiracy theories!

I recommend the readers actually read some of the articles for themselves. The point is that NOAA 'estimates' rougly a third if all readings. Not just in the present but in the past as well. As so often happen, when you look at one thing other problems appear. Like the Y2K fiasco that took an amateur to find after being on the books for seven years.

 

[Kosh]

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.

 

[mamooth]

I recommend the readers actually read some of the articles for themselves.

Distancing yourself from weedwhackergate already? Good choice.

For intelligent discussion of such issues, which often means pointing out how badly Goddard or McIntyre screwed it up, Moyhu/Nick Stokes is a good read.

moyhu

Nick Stokes is also one of the few sane commenters at WUWT. He takes constant personal abuse from Watts and the peanut gallery, but always stays calm and just talks only about the science. Meaning Watts will eventually ban him. It's amazing he's lasted this long.

Like the Y2K fiasco that took an amateur to find after being on the books for seven years.

The "fiasco" that changed the global average by <0.001 C? Yeah, real game changer, that. But since it's about the only thing that Steve McIntyre has ever gotten correct, I guess it has to be highlighted.