Why Reanalysis Data Isn’t

[ScienceRocks]

Why Reanalysis Data Isn’t …

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach
Why Reanalysis Data Isn?t ? | Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I was reading through the recent Trenberth paper on ocean heat content that’s been discussed at various locations around the web. It’s called “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content”, paywalled, of course. [UPDATE: my thanks to Nick Stokes for locating the paper here.] Among the “distinctive climate signals” that they claim to find are signals from the massive eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in mid-1991 and El Chichon in mid-1982. They show these claimed signals in my Figure 1 below, which is also Figure 1 in their paper.

ORAS4 OHC joulesORIGINAL CAPTION: Figure 1. OHC integrated from 0 to 300 m (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble members. The time series show monthly anomalies smoothed with a 12 month running mean, with respect to the 1958–1965 base period. Hatching extends over the range of the ensemble members and hence the spread gives a measure of the uncertainty as represented by ORAS4 (which does not cover all sources of uncertainty). The vertical colored bars indicate a two year interval following the volcanic eruptions with a 6 month lead (owing to the 12 month running mean), and the 1997–98 El Niño event again with 6 months on either side. On lower right, the linear slope for a set of global heating rates (W m-2) is given.

I looked at that and I said “Whaaa???”. I’d never seen any volcanic signals like that in the ocean heat content data. What was I missing?

Well, what I was missing is that Trenberth et al. are using what is laughably called “reanalysis data”. But as the title says, reanalysis “data” isn’t data in any sense of the word. It is the output of a computer climate model masquerading as data.

Now, the basic idea of a “reanalysis” is not a bad one. If you have data with “holes” in it, if you are missing information about certain times and/or places, you can use some kind of “best guess” algorithm to fill in the holes. In mining, this procedure is quite common. You have spotty data about what is happening underground. So you use a kriging procedure employing all the available information, and it gives you the best guess about what is happening in the “holes” where you have no data. (Please note, however, that if you claim the results of your kriging model are real observations, if you say that the outputs of the kriging process are “data”, you can be thrown in jail for misrepresentation … but I digress, that’s the real world and this is climate “science” at its finest.)

The problems arise as you start to use more and more complex procedures to fill in the holes in the data. Kriging is straight math, and it gives you error bars on the estimates. But a global climate model is a horrendously complex creature, and gives no estimate of error of any kind.

Now, as Steven Mosher is fond of pointing out, it’s all models. Even something as simple as

Force = Mass times Acceleration

is a model. So in that regard, Steven is right.

The skeptic thinking of reanalysis. So 1# Are these fools saying that E-3 and 4 volcano's don't cause a global cooling from aerosols? LOL. 2# That's perfectly lined up with the volcano's....So what the fuck are they saying? Each one of those events show a drop within the shaded area right after they occurred. So the effects happen fast...Well, what a shock!

I wouldn't take much from this place seriously...So Yellowstone super volcano wouldn't cool our planet within their mind? More loll's!!!!

3# You wouldn't expect a enso event to add or take away from the oceans. LOL. HAHA!!!! Maybe transfer some of the energy between levels, certainly!

 

[skookerasbil]

Levels of certainty = awesome. ( see list on BOTTOM!!! )


Pew list of "Concerns" for Americans.






Only internet science hobbyists care.

 

[IanC]

Why Reanalysis Data Isn’t …

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach
Why Reanalysis Data Isn?t ? | Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I was reading through the recent Trenberth paper on ocean heat content that’s been discussed at various locations around the web. It’s called “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content”, paywalled, of course. [UPDATE: my thanks to Nick Stokes for locating the paper here.] Among the “distinctive climate signals” that they claim to find are signals from the massive eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in mid-1991 and El Chichon in mid-1982. They show these claimed signals in my Figure 1 below, which is also Figure 1 in their paper.

ORAS4 OHC joulesORIGINAL CAPTION: Figure 1. OHC integrated from 0 to 300 m (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble members. The time series show monthly anomalies smoothed with a 12 month running mean, with respect to the 1958–1965 base period. Hatching extends over the range of the ensemble members and hence the spread gives a measure of the uncertainty as represented by ORAS4 (which does not cover all sources of uncertainty). The vertical colored bars indicate a two year interval following the volcanic eruptions with a 6 month lead (owing to the 12 month running mean), and the 1997–98 El Niño event again with 6 months on either side. On lower right, the linear slope for a set of global heating rates (W m-2) is given.

I looked at that and I said “Whaaa???”. I’d never seen any volcanic signals like that in the ocean heat content data. What was I missing?

Well, what I was missing is that Trenberth et al. are using what is laughably called “reanalysis data”. But as the title says, reanalysis “data” isn’t data in any sense of the word. It is the output of a computer climate model masquerading as data.

Now, the basic idea of a “reanalysis” is not a bad one. If you have data with “holes” in it, if you are missing information about certain times and/or places, you can use some kind of “best guess” algorithm to fill in the holes. In mining, this procedure is quite common. You have spotty data about what is happening underground. So you use a kriging procedure employing all the available information, and it gives you the best guess about what is happening in the “holes” where you have no data. (Please note, however, that if you claim the results of your kriging model are real observations, if you say that the outputs of the kriging process are “data”, you can be thrown in jail for misrepresentation … but I digress, that’s the real world and this is climate “science” at its finest.)

The problems arise as you start to use more and more complex procedures to fill in the holes in the data. Kriging is straight math, and it gives you error bars on the estimates. But a global climate model is a horrendously complex creature, and gives no estimate of error of any kind.

Now, as Steven Mosher is fond of pointing out, it’s all models. Even something as simple as

Force = Mass times Acceleration

is a model. So in that regard, Steven is right.

The skeptic thinking of reanalysis. So 1# Are these fools saying that E-3 and 4 volcano's don't cause a global cooling from aerosols? LOL. 2# That's perfectly lined up with the volcano's....So what the fuck are they saying? Each one of those events show a drop within the shaded area right after they occurred. So the effects happen fast...Well, what a shock!

I wouldn't take much from this place seriously...So Yellowstone super volcano wouldn't cool our planet within their mind? More loll's!!!!

3# You wouldn't expect a enso event to add or take away from the oceans. LOL. HAHA!!!! Maybe transfer some of the energy between levels, certainly!

did you read the article Matthew? his point was that volcanic activity does not show up in the actual data until it has been 'reanalysed'!

Now for me, anyone who looks at Figure 4 and claims that they can see the effects of the eruptions of Pinatubo and El Chichon and Mt. Agung in that actual data is hallucinating. There is no effect visible. Yes, there is a drop in SST during the year after Pinatubo … but the previous two drops were larger, and there is no drop during the year after El Chichon or Mt. Agung. In addition, temperatures rose more in the two years before Pinatubo than they dropped in the two years after. All that taken together says to me that it’s just random chance that Pinatubo has a small drop after it.

that is somewhat different than the strawman you are proposing.

 

[IanC]

no comment matthew? willis actually had an article a few years ago talking about how climate models get the effects of volcanoes wrong. Nature compensates for volcanoes by making a big correction in the other direction, which leads to overshoot, then a smaller correction with a small overshoot, etc. climate models get the timing of everything wrong but especially they produce long, smooth, slow corrections to large disruptions to the climate systems.

 

[IanC]

I looked up the article for you. Overshoot and Undershoot | Watts Up With That?

enjoy

 

[skookerasbil]

I looked up the article for you. Overshoot and Undershoot | Watts Up With That?

enjoy

winning

 

[Old Rocks]

Posting nonsense from Anthony Watts is winning

 

[IanC]

Hey Flac - I know you were pissing on Trenberth's reanalysis parade in one thread or another. here are a coupla links that show "its worse than we thought!"

enjoy

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Flac - I know you were pissing on Trenberth's reanalysis parade in one thread or another. here are a coupla links that show "its worse than we thought!"

enjoy

Where's MY LINKS dude???? Dont be such a tease...

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Matthew:

Before you attack -- you should discuss. IanC gave you the NOAA analysis of the same type of broad ocean data WITHOUT the spikes. It's not hard to figure that by the time the surface signature GETS to 1000M deep, that these cooling trends would be more attentuated and SPREAD OUT. It's not like all the water got there via the same pathways.

Lots of skepticism on how much volcanic sigs should show in deep ocean data. I read 2 papers saying it was overestimated in the models. But BEYOND the point that it DOES'NT show in raw data, you need to know the model INJECTS volcanic signatures into the process. Looks like that part of the model is weighted wrong or mishandled to me.. Didn't come from the direct measurements pal..

 

[westwall]

Why Reanalysis Data Isn’t …

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach
Why Reanalysis Data Isn?t ? | Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I was reading through the recent Trenberth paper on ocean heat content that’s been discussed at various locations around the web. It’s called “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content”, paywalled, of course. [UPDATE: my thanks to Nick Stokes for locating the paper here.] Among the “distinctive climate signals” that they claim to find are signals from the massive eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in mid-1991 and El Chichon in mid-1982. They show these claimed signals in my Figure 1 below, which is also Figure 1 in their paper.

ORAS4 OHC joulesORIGINAL CAPTION: Figure 1. OHC integrated from 0 to 300 m (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble members. The time series show monthly anomalies smoothed with a 12 month running mean, with respect to the 1958–1965 base period. Hatching extends over the range of the ensemble members and hence the spread gives a measure of the uncertainty as represented by ORAS4 (which does not cover all sources of uncertainty). The vertical colored bars indicate a two year interval following the volcanic eruptions with a 6 month lead (owing to the 12 month running mean), and the 1997–98 El Niño event again with 6 months on either side. On lower right, the linear slope for a set of global heating rates (W m-2) is given.

I looked at that and I said “Whaaa???”. I’d never seen any volcanic signals like that in the ocean heat content data. What was I missing?

Well, what I was missing is that Trenberth et al. are using what is laughably called “reanalysis data”. But as the title says, reanalysis “data” isn’t data in any sense of the word. It is the output of a computer climate model masquerading as data.

Now, the basic idea of a “reanalysis” is not a bad one. If you have data with “holes” in it, if you are missing information about certain times and/or places, you can use some kind of “best guess” algorithm to fill in the holes. In mining, this procedure is quite common. You have spotty data about what is happening underground. So you use a kriging procedure employing all the available information, and it gives you the best guess about what is happening in the “holes” where you have no data. (Please note, however, that if you claim the results of your kriging model are real observations, if you say that the outputs of the kriging process are “data”, you can be thrown in jail for misrepresentation … but I digress, that’s the real world and this is climate “science” at its finest.)

The problems arise as you start to use more and more complex procedures to fill in the holes in the data. Kriging is straight math, and it gives you error bars on the estimates. But a global climate model is a horrendously complex creature, and gives no estimate of error of any kind.

Now, as Steven Mosher is fond of pointing out, it’s all models. Even something as simple as

Force = Mass times Acceleration

is a model. So in that regard, Steven is right.

The skeptic thinking of reanalysis. So 1# Are these fools saying that E-3 and 4 volcano's don't cause a global cooling from aerosols? LOL. 2# That's perfectly lined up with the volcano's....So what the fuck are they saying? Each one of those events show a drop within the shaded area right after they occurred. So the effects happen fast...Well, what a shock!

I wouldn't take much from this place seriously...So Yellowstone super volcano wouldn't cool our planet within their mind? More loll's!!!!

3# You wouldn't expect a enso event to add or take away from the oceans. LOL. HAHA!!!! Maybe transfer some of the energy between levels, certainly!

Hey, the warmists think that GCM's are "data". Take that fallacy up with them first.

 

[westwall]

Posting nonsense from Anthony Watts is winning

It's far more factually correct than the crapola you're comic book editor posts at scepticalscience.

 

[flacaltenn]

I looked up the article for you. Overshoot and Undershoot | Watts Up With That?

enjoy

Love that control systems type of discussion. ALL natural and man-made processes are built on these principles.. There's a canonical form of servo control called P I D, built on the principles discussed in that link. The P is some proportion of the raw variable(s). The I and D in PID is integral and derivatives. The integral is there to inject the longterm estimated mean, and the derivative is there to inject rate of change information quickly into the feedback.

This is why I keep harping on understanding the STORAGE and DELAYS in the climate system. Where they are, and how they act. Because STORAGE is the Integral part of the feedback and DELAYS are the basis for the derivatives. Someday, we'll be able to predict ENSOs and understand the oscillations of the AMO/PDO based on control systems theory.

 

[Abraham3]

Why Reanalysis Data Isn’t …

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach
Why Reanalysis Data Isn?t ? | Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I was reading through the recent Trenberth paper on ocean heat content that’s been discussed at various locations around the web. It’s called “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content”, paywalled, of course. [UPDATE: my thanks to Nick Stokes for locating the paper here.] Among the “distinctive climate signals” that they claim to find are signals from the massive eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in mid-1991 and El Chichon in mid-1982. They show these claimed signals in my Figure 1 below, which is also Figure 1 in their paper.

ORAS4 OHC joulesORIGINAL CAPTION: Figure 1. OHC integrated from 0 to 300 m (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble members. The time series show monthly anomalies smoothed with a 12 month running mean, with respect to the 1958–1965 base period. Hatching extends over the range of the ensemble members and hence the spread gives a measure of the uncertainty as represented by ORAS4 (which does not cover all sources of uncertainty). The vertical colored bars indicate a two year interval following the volcanic eruptions with a 6 month lead (owing to the 12 month running mean), and the 1997–98 El Niño event again with 6 months on either side. On lower right, the linear slope for a set of global heating rates (W m-2) is given.

I looked at that and I said “Whaaa???”. I’d never seen any volcanic signals like that in the ocean heat content data. What was I missing?

Well, what I was missing is that Trenberth et al. are using what is laughably called “reanalysis data”. But as the title says, reanalysis “data” isn’t data in any sense of the word. It is the output of a computer climate model masquerading as data.

Now, the basic idea of a “reanalysis” is not a bad one. If you have data with “holes” in it, if you are missing information about certain times and/or places, you can use some kind of “best guess” algorithm to fill in the holes. In mining, this procedure is quite common. You have spotty data about what is happening underground. So you use a kriging procedure employing all the available information, and it gives you the best guess about what is happening in the “holes” where you have no data. (Please note, however, that if you claim the results of your kriging model are real observations, if you say that the outputs of the kriging process are “data”, you can be thrown in jail for misrepresentation … but I digress, that’s the real world and this is climate “science” at its finest.)

The problems arise as you start to use more and more complex procedures to fill in the holes in the data. Kriging is straight math, and it gives you error bars on the estimates. But a global climate model is a horrendously complex creature, and gives no estimate of error of any kind.

Now, as Steven Mosher is fond of pointing out, it’s all models. Even something as simple as

Force = Mass times Acceleration

is a model. So in that regard, Steven is right.

The skeptic thinking of reanalysis. So 1# Are these fools saying that E-3 and 4 volcano's don't cause a global cooling from aerosols? LOL. 2# That's perfectly lined up with the volcano's....So what the fuck are they saying? Each one of those events show a drop within the shaded area right after they occurred. So the effects happen fast...Well, what a shock!

I wouldn't take much from this place seriously...So Yellowstone super volcano wouldn't cool our planet within their mind? More loll's!!!!

3# You wouldn't expect a enso event to add or take away from the oceans. LOL. HAHA!!!! Maybe transfer some of the energy between levels, certainly!

It has no relevance to the science, but Eschenbach lied when he stated that BTK 2013 was behind a paywall. It has NEVER been behind a paywall.

 

[mamooth]

After masseuse/carpenter/fisherman Eschenbach was caught fudging data on multiple occasions, the rational people began ignoring him completely. Alas, the WUWT crowd considers the ability to fudge to be an asset.

This is my favorite Eschenbach conspiracy rant.

"Very few continental birds or mammals are recorded as having gone extinct, and none have gone extinct from habitat reduction alone. No continental forest bird or mammal is recorded as having gone extinct from any cause."

No, I'm not leaving out any context. He's talking about the whole planet, claiming no forest species has gone extinct. And WUWT proudly publishes such masterpieces.

Where Are The Corpses? | Watts Up With That?

Eschenbach is just confused about volcanoes. He declares those volcano theories are wrong because minor volcanoes didn't affect temperatures. But since nobody ever said they would, he's going after a strawman. It takes a Pinatubo-scale eruption near the equator to affect global temperatures, and the Pinatubo aftermath did show a small effect.

Basically, he didn't understand the models. He saw a number for volcanic forcing, but didn't realize there were different time constants assigned with forcing values, which vastly reduced the effects of volcanoes in the models. From there on, the errors compounded, and it was all GIGO.

 

[IanC]

After masseuse/carpenter/fisherman Eschenbach was caught fudging data on multiple occasions, the rational people began ignoring him completely. Alas, the WUWT crowd considers the ability to fudge to be an asset.

This is my favorite Eschenbach conspiracy rant.

"Very few continental birds or mammals are recorded as having gone extinct, and none have gone extinct from habitat reduction alone. No continental forest bird or mammal is recorded as having gone extinct from any cause."

No, I'm not leaving out any context. He's talking about the whole planet, claiming no forest species has gone extinct. And WUWT proudly publishes such masterpieces.

Where Are The Corpses? | Watts Up With That?

Eschenbach is just confused about volcanoes. He declares those volcano theories are wrong because minor volcanoes didn't affect temperatures. But since nobody ever said they would, he's going after a strawman. It takes a Pinatubo-scale eruption near the equator to affect global temperatures, and the Pinatubo aftermath did show a small effect.

Basically, he didn't understand the models. He saw a number for volcanic forcing, but didn't realize there were different time constants assigned with forcing values, which vastly reduced the effects of volcanoes in the models. From there on, the errors compounded, and it was all GIGO.

Did you read the paper? It was pretty thoroughly explained. To prove your point all you have to do is provide a list extinctions that fall into that category. Do you even have one? I thought not.

It is actually a pretty good example of how well intentioned models can be dramatically wrong even by authorities like E O Wilson.

As far as your rant about volcanoes, be specific in your quote and claim and I am sure Willis will put you straight. Although it was probably already discussed in the comments.

 

[IanC]

Why Reanalysis Data Isn’t …

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach
Why Reanalysis Data Isn?t ? | Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I was reading through the recent Trenberth paper on ocean heat content that’s been discussed at various locations around the web. It’s called “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content”, paywalled, of course. [UPDATE: my thanks to Nick Stokes for locating the paper here.] Among the “distinctive climate signals” that they claim to find are signals from the massive eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in mid-1991 and El Chichon in mid-1982. They show these claimed signals in my Figure 1 below, which is also Figure 1 in their paper.

ORAS4 OHC joulesORIGINAL CAPTION: Figure 1. OHC integrated from 0 to 300 m (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble members. The time series show monthly anomalies smoothed with a 12 month running mean, with respect to the 1958–1965 base period. Hatching extends over the range of the ensemble members and hence the spread gives a measure of the uncertainty as represented by ORAS4 (which does not cover all sources of uncertainty). The vertical colored bars indicate a two year interval following the volcanic eruptions with a 6 month lead (owing to the 12 month running mean), and the 1997–98 El Niño event again with 6 months on either side. On lower right, the linear slope for a set of global heating rates (W m-2) is given.

I looked at that and I said “Whaaa???”. I’d never seen any volcanic signals like that in the ocean heat content data. What was I missing?

Well, what I was missing is that Trenberth et al. are using what is laughably called “reanalysis data”. But as the title says, reanalysis “data” isn’t data in any sense of the word. It is the output of a computer climate model masquerading as data.

Now, the basic idea of a “reanalysis” is not a bad one. If you have data with “holes” in it, if you are missing information about certain times and/or places, you can use some kind of “best guess” algorithm to fill in the holes. In mining, this procedure is quite common. You have spotty data about what is happening underground. So you use a kriging procedure employing all the available information, and it gives you the best guess about what is happening in the “holes” where you have no data. (Please note, however, that if you claim the results of your kriging model are real observations, if you say that the outputs of the kriging process are “data”, you can be thrown in jail for misrepresentation … but I digress, that’s the real world and this is climate “science” at its finest.)

The problems arise as you start to use more and more complex procedures to fill in the holes in the data. Kriging is straight math, and it gives you error bars on the estimates. But a global climate model is a horrendously complex creature, and gives no estimate of error of any kind.

Now, as Steven Mosher is fond of pointing out, it’s all models. Even something as simple as

Force = Mass times Acceleration

is a model. So in that regard, Steven is right.

The skeptic thinking of reanalysis. So 1# Are these fools saying that E-3 and 4 volcano's don't cause a global cooling from aerosols? LOL. 2# That's perfectly lined up with the volcano's....So what the fuck are they saying? Each one of those events show a drop within the shaded area right after they occurred. So the effects happen fast...Well, what a shock!

I wouldn't take much from this place seriously...So Yellowstone super volcano wouldn't cool our planet within their mind? More loll's!!!!

3# You wouldn't expect a enso event to add or take away from the oceans. LOL. HAHA!!!! Maybe transfer some of the energy between levels, certainly!

did you read the article Matthew? his point was that volcanic activity does not show up in the actual data until it has been 'reanalysed'!

Now for me, anyone who looks at Figure 4 and claims that they can see the effects of the eruptions of Pinatubo and El Chichon and Mt. Agung in that actual data is hallucinating. There is no effect visible. Yes, there is a drop in SST during the year after Pinatubo … but the previous two drops were larger, and there is no drop during the year after El Chichon or Mt. Agung. In addition, temperatures rose more in the two years before Pinatubo than they dropped in the two years after. All that taken together says to me that it’s just random chance that Pinatubo has a small drop after it.

that is somewhat different than the strawman you are proposing.

I hope everyone noticed the incredbly small variations in temp for 700-2000m. This is where the missing heat is supposed to be hiding. No one noticed it until it was necessary to find it and the data was 'reanalyzed'.

I have given many examples of temperature data that have been adjusted to the point that it is hardly recognisable. Ridging a few thousandths of a degree in an area that cannot be checked seems like small peanuts for these guys.

 

[Abraham3]

What do you mean "cannot be checked"? The data BTK worked with is all available as is the ORAS4 model.

The most common XBT goes to 2500 feet. There is a 6,000 foot model, but it costs over three times as much. If you want data from deeper than that, you're going to have to stop the ship and put a CTD probe over the side on a wire. Send it down and reel it back up. Guess what? That doesn't get done very often. The motivation behind the vast majority of all BT casts is to obtain environmental data with which acoustic figure of merit values can be calculated. For those purposes, the ocean below 2500 feet can be considered isothermal and isohaline. For these purposes, it cannot. But do not blame BTK for the lack of data.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why Reanalysis Data Isn’t …

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach
Why Reanalysis Data Isn?t ? | Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach



The skeptic thinking of reanalysis. So 1# Are these fools saying that E-3 and 4 volcano's don't cause a global cooling from aerosols? LOL. 2# That's perfectly lined up with the volcano's....So what the fuck are they saying? Each one of those events show a drop within the shaded area right after they occurred. So the effects happen fast...Well, what a shock!
M
I wouldn't take much from this place seriously...So Yellowstone super volcano wouldn't cool our planet within their mind? More loll's!!!!

3# You wouldn't expect a enso event to add or take away from the oceans. LOL. HAHA!!!! Maybe transfer some of the energy between levels, certainly!

did you read the article Matthew? his point was that volcanic activity does not show up in the actual data until it has been 'reanalysed'!

Now for me, anyone who looks at Figure 4 and claims that they can see the effects of the eruptions of Pinatubo and El Chichon and Mt. Agung in that actual data is hallucinating. There is no effect visible. Yes, there is a drop in SST during the year after Pinatubo … but the previous two drops were larger, and there is no drop during the year after El Chichon or Mt. Agung. In addition, temperatures rose more in the two years before Pinatubo than they dropped in the two years after. All that taken together says to me that it’s just random chance that Pinatubo has a small drop after it.

that is somewhat different than the strawman you are proposing.

I hope everyone noticed the incredbly small variations in temp for 700-2000m. This is where the missing heat is supposed to be hiding. No one noticed it until it was necessary to find it and the data was 'reanalyzed'.

I have given many examples of temperature data that have been adjusted to the point that it is hardly recognisable. Ridging a few thousandths of a degree in an area that cannot be checked seems like small peanuts for these guys.

There's another factor in how this data gets presented.. when you convert back to joules, the plots are scaled mutually to their relative volume.. So in energy form, like in BTK, it appears that the 3 layers are similiarly warming... And many folks reach the conclusion thattemps are climbing higher at 700m than it is nearer the surface.

 

[Abraham3]

The graph is clearly labeled OHC. It is NOT labeled temperature. I'm surprised you didn't complain that someone might think it was a graph of magic.