World's temperature datasets corrupted - Spencer

Climate scientist Roy Spencer believes the world surface station temp data may be irreparably corrupt, and essentially worthless in its current form.

In a wideranging analysis published today, Spencer pings CRU and NASA/GISS for the sins we've already pinged New Zealand's NIWA over, after finding CRU recording a "spurious" warming trend:

I am increasingly convinced that a much simpler, objective analysis of original weather station temperature data is necessary to better understand how spurious influences might have impacted global temperature trends computed by groups such as CRU and NASA/GISS. It seems to me that a simple and easily repeatable methodology should be the starting point. Then, if one can demonstrate that the simple temperature analysis has spurious temperature trends, an objective and easily repeatable adjustment methodology should be the first choice for an improved version of the analysis.

In my opinion, simplicity, objectivity, and repeatability should be of paramount importance. Once one starts making subjective adjustments of individual stations’ data, the ability to replicate work becomes almost impossible.

Therefore, more important than the recently reported “do-over” of a global temperature reanalysis proposed by the UK’s Met Office would be other, independent researchers doing their own global temperature analysis. In my experience, better methods of data analysis come from the ideas of individuals, not from the majority rule of a committee.

Of particular interest to me at this point is a simple and objective method for quantifying and removing the spurious warming arising from the urban heat island (UHI) effect. The recent paper by McKitrick and Michaels suggests that a substantial UHI influence continues to infect the GISS and CRU temperature datasets.

In fact, the results for the U.S. I have presented above almost seem to suggest that the Jones CRUTem3 dataset has a UHI adjustment that is in the wrong direction. Coincidentally, this is also the conclusion of a recent post on Anthony Watts’ blog, discussing a new paper published by SPPI.

It is increasingly apparent that we do not even know how much the world has warmed in recent decades, let alone the reason(s) why. It seems to me we are back to square one

For the record, before anyone raises the canard about satellite data showing a similar trend to the surface stations, it's worth bearing in mind that the satellites are calibrated against the surface data, so if the surface data is wrong the satellite data will be too.

Comments

[jaymam]

"independent researchers doing their own global temperature analysis" is the answer for sure. The raw data from each country should be easily available, with a note of any subsequent alterations. The independent researchers will check if the raw data is changed and should be free to post the data anywhere (unlike the present situation).

[CM]

>>>For the record, before anyone raises the canard about satellite data showing a similar trend to the surface stations, it's worth bearing in mind that the satellites are calibrated against the surface data, so if the surface data is wrong the satellite data will be too.<<<

So how does it explain the UAH series?

Spencer seems to argue that it's not calibrated to surface stations here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/12/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/

Shows virtually the same warming

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

[bammbamm]

No where does any of that data show man made global warming from CO2 emissions - and there is no scientific evidence for it.

CM - you are brain dead retard.

Soon, other scientists are going to come out and say the same thing, publically.

Everyone is too scared that they are going to lose their heads.

[Ian Wishart]

CM...the satellites don't directly measure temperature, but radiation.

To cross check how the radiation should be interpreted, the satellite data as I understand is calibrated against empirical temperatures taken in the same locations on the ground.

This paper goes into some detail of the methodology:

"In the past and at present infrared satellite data have been and are used to estimate the
same type of SST measured first by ships and then later by drifting/moored buoys. Referred to
generally as bulk SST, measurements from buoys and ships are collected at depths from 0.5 to 5
m below the sea surface. This is in contrast with infrared SST measurements which due to the
high emissivity of sea water are representative only of depths of approximately 10 microns
within the oceanic skin layer.

"Proper validation/calibration of these infrared skin SST
measurements requires simultaneous “in situ” skin SST measurements made below the
intervening atmosphere. At present the relatively few of these types of measurements that exist
have all been collected as part of specific research cruises. This lack of in situ skin SST
measurements had led to the common SST estimation practice to adjust the satellite SSTs to
match a selection of buoy SSTs.

"This forces the satellite skin SSTs to estimate buoy bulk SSTs
and ignores the physics that connect the skin and bulk SSTs. This relationship between the skin
and bulk SSTs depends on the wind stress and net air-sea heat fluxes (Wick et al., 1996) which
are parts of the climate system."

The paper notes:

"The
primary purpose of this paper is to clearly state the need for such measurements that are
accurate, reliable, widely spread geographically and continuous over time. We outline the
challenges of such a validation program and introduce a possible solution based on instruments
deployed on ships-of-opportunity and moored buoys."

It follows as a point of logic that if there is a fault in the data below, then the data from above will reflect that to a degree (npi).

[Ian Wishart]

Sorry, the link to that paper is
http://icoads.noaa.gov/advances/emery.pdf

[CM]

Thanks Ian, I'll look into it further.
I look forward to scientists coming out and conceding that I am a brain dead retard.

[CM]

Ian, I'm not seeing how that paper is relevant to Spencer's explanation of how UAH Global temperatures Are produced.

Here is his piece on his site:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/

"HOW THE DATA ARE CALIBRATED TO TEMPERATURES
Now for the important part: How are these instrument digitized voltages calibrated in terms of temperature?

Once every Earth scan, the radiometer antenna looks at a “warm calibration target” inside the instrument whose temperature is continuously monitored with several platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs). PRTs work somewhat like a thermistor, but are more accurate and more stable. Each PRT has its own calibration curve based upon laboratory tests.

The temperature of the warm calibration target is allowed to float with the rest of the instrument, and it typically changes by several degrees during a single orbit, as the satellite travels in and out of sunlight. While this warm calibration point provides a radiometer digitized voltage measurement and the temperature that goes along with it, how do we use that information to determine what temperatures corresponds to the radiometer measurements when looking at the Earth?

A second calibration point is needed, at the cold end of the temperature scale. For that, the radiometer antenna is pointed at the cosmic background, which is assumed to radiate at 2.7 Kelvin degrees. These two calibration points are then used to interpolate to the Earth-viewing measurements, which then provides the calibrated “brightness temperatures”."

Note his conclusion, where he considers and dismisses your issue:

"One can imagine all kinds of lesser issues that might affect the long-term stability of the satellite record. For instance, since there have been ten successive satellites, most of which had to be calibrated to the one before it with some non-zero error, there is the possibility of a small ‘random walk’ component to the 30+ year data record. Fortunately, John Christy has spent a lot of time comparing our datasets to radiosonde (weather balloon) datasets, and finds very good long-term agreement."

[CM]

Also from Spencer:

"Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer record of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

[(not so) Silent]

CM
UAH and RSS use different satellites. The RSS sats decacy in orbit.
Yours posts are correct on how UAH works but the below is a post showing the difference. I think your Sceptical Science graphs are inaccurate now. Still as warming in only minimal and not 2-4 degrees as "promised" then its pleasing to see you acknowledge the IPCC's claims are false.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/a-statistical-significant-cooling-trend-in-rss-and-uah-satellite-data/

[(not so) Silent]

CM said

"So how does it explain the UAH series?

Spencer seems to argue that it's not calibrated to surface stations here:"

And its not. RSS is not landbased. They are a satellite system.The graph you linked to at Sceptical etc is an RSS/UAH combined graph.
Not UAH with say, CRU Temp.
So Ian is right.

[CM]

>>>UAH and RSS use different satellites. The RSS sats decacy in orbit.
Yours posts are correct on how UAH works but the below is a post showing the difference. I think your Sceptical Science graphs are inaccurate now. Still as warming in only minimal and not 2-4 degrees as "promised" then its pleasing to see you acknowledge the IPCC's claims are false.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/a-statistical-significant-cooling-trend-in-rss-and-uah-satellite-data/<<<

IF UAH show warming and they are not calibrated to ground based temperature stations, then it's not a 'canard' as Ian suggests.

Which specific IPCC 'claims' have been proven false?

[CM]

Here are the linear trends from all four datasets, the slope is what counts, the only reason they vary along the Y axis is because they use a different baseline.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend

Both UAH and RSS show the same trend as GISTEMP and HADCRUT.

Spencer says "Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer record of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch."

So if that's the case, we can independently verify the ground-based warming (i.e. in a way that doesn't in any way rely on ground based stations).

No? If that is wrong, please explain.

[BammBamm]

Yawn~!

Satellite orbits decay? And this affects IR measurements how?

Spencer is wrong ... bigger yawn.
Look at the sensors used to detect the back IR spectra ... no calibration is necessary ...

[CM]

"It is an "increasingly remote possibility" that human activity is not the main cause of climate change, according to a major Met Office review of more than 100 scientific studies that track the observed changes in the Earth's climate system.

The research will strengthen the case for human-induced climate change against sceptics who argue that the observed changes in the Earth's climate can largely be explained by natural variability."

"Scientists matched computer models of different possible causes of climate change - both human and natural - to measured changes in factors such as air and sea temperature, Arctic sea ice cover and global rainfall patterns. This technique, called "optimal detection", showed clear fingerprints of human-induced global warming, according to Stott. "This wealth of evidence shows that there is an increasingly remote possibility that climate change is being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors." The paper reviewed numerous studies that were published since the last IPCC report."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/met-office-analysis-climate-change

Obviously everyone involved must be incompetent or corrupt. Probably both.

[CM]

"[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT's are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/05/february-uah-global-temperature-anomaly-little-change/#more-17030

Lies!
But it's from WUWT!
Lies!
*Denier heads explode*

[Sea Water]

I can't imagine how destructive this is for sea water level and living creatures..

[robk]

CM: "Obviously everyone involved must be incompetent or corrupt. Probably both."

Couldn't be! I'm sure all Climate change proponents are honest - all those damning e-mails were fakes! :-O

[AcidComments]

Of interest;

"The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms."

Well once again.

Overrated claims of socalled manmade Global warming. Causing less snow and the recent propaganda baseless pseudo science rubbish claiming it causes more snow are just that tripe as usual!

The CSI team was formed in 2007, following chaotic media coverage of the record U.S. warmth in 2006 (see CSI: NOAA Climate Scene Investigators). Here they have been called to the scene again, but now to explain cold, snowy conditions, and to reconcile those with a warming planet. After a series of record-setting snowstorms hit the mid-Atlantic region this winter, some people asked NOAA if humans could somehow be to blame. Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.

The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard.

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2010/articles/forensic-meteorology-solves-the-mystery-of-record-snows/all/1/

[AcidComments]

Record snowfall in HP revives 2,000 glaciers

MANALI: Record snowfall in Himachal this year has revived more than 2,000 glaciers.

Almora's G B Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development's senior scientist J C Kuniyal said apart from reviving the glaciers , this year's record snowfall would also boost the crop cycle. "It is difficult to understand the environment. As we start talking about the dry winters, record snowfall leaves stunned everyone," he said.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/global-warming/record-snowfall-in-hp-revives-2000-glaciers/articleshow/7512964.cms