Exceptional Arctic Warmth

[ORH_wxman]

8 hours ago, BillT said:

i will withdraw at this time nothing to be gained.....and the personal attack on Goddard is enough for this to end from my end.....BYE.

Goddard mostly focuses on USHCN data which by necessity must be adjusted due to all the changes made in observations since periods like the 1930s. Most notably the time of observation bias...most coops back then took their readings in the afternoon...that meant if you had a high of 96F which occurred around the time of observation, then the next day would count as 96F too even if only reached 92 in reality...because you reset your thermometer at 3pm the previous day. In the present, most reset their thermometers in the morning which has the opposite effect of double counting low temps. 

Once you take this difference in account, the past becomes colder relative to the present. This is generally only an issue in the US and North America (hence USHCN instead of GHCN). Most of the other world stations aren't as largely affected. If you read up on these adjustments, you will find they are valid. 

If you want to nitpick at the adjustments, you probably should focus on their UHI one which is very subjective...and quite poor IMHO. But this adjustment is still not that much. It maybe adds a tenth of a degree total to the mean temp since 1930s...so you are parsing relatively minor details at this point. The larger adjustments are valid. 

Even if you are 100% skeptical of the adjustments, if you use only stations that never changed their method of measurement including the time, guess what? You get a trend very similar to the adjusted data. That should be enough to tell you the adjustments are not some vast conspiracy. You eliminate a variable or set of variables that you are skeptical of skewing the data, and when you find out that it doesn't, that disproves that hypothesis. 

 

There is actually a US temp dataset that does exactly what you would want...it is called USCRN. It is stations only in pristine siting conditions that are not expected to be influenced by any outside forces such as urbanization or method of measurement. So it will feature exactly zero adjustments to the data. The only problem is that they started in 2004 so it needs a couple more decades at the minimum to become useful from a climate perspective. 

 

Most blogs and even the datasets themselves love to overstate the accuracy/precision of their data...which would be my biggest nitpick...not the data adjustments themselves. If you read the literature on the adjustments, most of them are valid. The only larger recent adjustment from a global perspective I have yet to find a convincing argument for is the SST adjustment made in the newer ESSTv4 dataset which added significantly to temperatures after about 2002. But this is completely different than the adjustments in land temps you are referring to. 

[BillT]

how does one "reset" a thermometer(the glass tube with mercury kind which they used in the 30's)?........taking readings involved NO reset or double counting.....you check daily at 3pm and you get ONLY the single reading at 3pm for that day....no double reading or reset.......i have a weather station here and do NOT "reset" it records the hourly readings as they come NO "reset" involved........i responded because you were civil ty, but still see nothing to be gained.........the data was altered and that takes it out of the realm of science PERIOD. 

[ORH_wxman]

5 minutes ago, BillT said:

how does one "reset" a thermometer(the glass tube with mercury kind which they used in the 30's)?........taking readings involved NO reset or double counting.....you check daily at 3pm and you get ONLY the single reading at 3pm for that day....no double reading or reset.......i have a weather station here and do NOT "reset" it records the hourly readings as they come NO "reset" involved........i responded because you were civil ty, but still see nothing to be gained.........the data was altered and that takes it out of the realm of science PERIOD. 

Of course you can reset a glass thermometer. Look up "Six's thermometer" or "max/min thermometer"...you don't need a digital thermometer to record max/min....how do you think they recorded minimums back in the 1930s when they checked the thermometer only once per day?

[HailMan06]

13 minutes ago, BillT said:

how does one "reset" a thermometer(the glass tube with mercury kind which they used in the 30's)?........taking readings involved NO reset or double counting.....you check daily at 3pm and you get ONLY the single reading at 3pm for that day....no double reading or reset.......i have a weather station here and do NOT "reset" it records the hourly readings as they come NO "reset" involved........i responded because you were civil ty, but still see nothing to be gained.........the data was altered and that takes it out of the realm of science PERIOD. 

By reset we mean repeat the daily cycle of observations. There's plenty of literature out there that discuss4e time of observation bias and the need to correct for that error. Basically as ORH explained most weather observations before the 1930's were taken in the afternoon, which is normally the warmest part of the day. After the 1930's most stations changed their time of observation to the morning, which is normally the cooler time of day.

Think of it this way with your weather station. Say you took a daily temperature reading everyday at 3pm for a year. Then the following year you took a daily temperature everyday at 9am for a year. If you take the average temperature for both years the second year would be cooler. The reason would be because it's generally cooler at 9am than 3pm.

[blizzard1024]

14 minutes ago, BillT said:

how does one "reset" a thermometer(the glass tube with mercury kind which they used in the 30's)?........taking readings involved NO reset or double counting.....you check daily at 3pm and you get ONLY the single reading at 3pm for that day....no double reading or reset.......i have a weather station here and do NOT "reset" it records the hourly readings as they come NO "reset" involved........i responded because you were civil ty, but still see nothing to be gained.........the data was altered and that takes it out of the realm of science PERIOD. 

I agree with BillT here. The adjustments to the data account for a lot of the warming in the USA. The TOBS adjustment I concur with and is reasonably scientific. But Karl et al 2015 which adds .12C to the data over the oceans which cover 70% of the planet mainly after 1998 is really suspicious. The great "pause" between 1998-2015 was inconvenient for grant hungry climate scientists so they "fixed" it. This is why people become suspicious. Some of the adjustments are warranted but there are so many , and I have yet to find one that cools the present and warms the past. You would think if there are adjustments to be made that it would be 50-50 some warming and some cooling but all we see is adjustments for warming only. Plus I also agree that when a reasonable question is asked about something on this forum, there are some who just come out attacking and are very condescending.  in any event, BillT I hope you keep posing questions, that is what science is about. This whole "the science is settled" mantra has put climate science studies back at least a decade or more. We need to learn more about the natural variability of the climate system.   Predicting seasons and internannual variability still sucks. More research is needed here. But nope, we are focusing on climate change which at the very least looks like a slow warming trend that won't cause any problems.... 

[BillT]

TY for the response blizzard........indeed i am dealing in the basic science here.......science as example when you have a system with countless factors some even unknown at this time, to assign "control" or call ONE tiny factor(co2) doesnt even begin to meet the common sense smell test..........as someone wrote earlier co2 only impact a small portion of the IR wave around 85% of the IR wave goes right on by the co2.....which means the claim is now the 15% of IR leaving the earth impacted by co2 is the CONTROLLER of the global temperature which to me is LUNACY.

[Blizzard92]

Come on. This thread is about Arctic warmth... not another ridiculous debate about "faking data." It is getting impossible to post in this forum. Here is a look at surface air temperature anomalies over the Arctic Ocean so far this month...

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

I agree with BillT here. The adjustments to the data account for a lot of the warming in the USA. The TOBS adjustment I concur with and is reasonably scientific. But Karl et al 2015 which adds .12C to the data over the oceans which cover 70% of the planet mainly after 1998 is really suspicious. The great "pause" between 1998-2015 was inconvenient for grant hungry climate scientists so they "fixed" it. This is why people become suspicious. Some of the adjustments are warranted but there are so many , and I have yet to find one that cools the present and warms the past. You would think if there are adjustments to be made that it would be 50-50 some warming and some cooling but all we see is adjustments for warming only. Plus I also agree that when a reasonable question is asked about something on this forum, there are some who just come out attacking and are very condescending.  in any event, BillT I hope you keep posing questions, that is what science is about. This whole "the science is settled" mantra has put climate science studies back at least a decade or more. We need to learn more about the natural variability of the climate system.   Predicting seasons and internannual variability still sucks. More research is needed here. But nope, we are focusing on climate change which at the very least looks like a slow warming trend that won't cause any problems.... 

The Karl et al adjustments are fair game to criticize...there is definitely controversy over their methods. But keep in mind that those adjustments actually warmed the late 1800s too and also significantly warmed the 1940s spike...so while it "got rid of the hiatus", it actually lessened the overall warming from the late 1800s somewhat.

The two biggest reasons that we adjust USHCN (US land temps) raw data upwards is because the switch from the old liquid thermometers to MMTS thermometers...the MMTS ones read a bit cooler, so you have to adjust for this difference....and the TOBs adjustment which you already mentioned. Both happen to make the past warmer than it was in reality relative to the present...if we didn't make those adjustments, then we'd have a spurious cool bias in the present.

[chubbs]

Here are the adjusted vs. non-adjusted land data from a post on Curry's blog. On a global basis, adjustment reduces the warming by a very small amount.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

[BillT]

the above graph shows my point prior to 1940 the adjustments were all LOWERING the readings and after that they all INCREASE the readings.......that creates an upward trend that the actual readings do not show.

[chubbs]

41 minutes ago, BillT said:

the above graph shows my point prior to 1940 the adjustments were all LOWERING the readings and after that they all INCREASE the readings.......that creates an upward trend that the actual readings do not show.

Yes but the adjustments over the ocean go the opposite direction prior to 1940 and are larger than the land adjustments. So the net effect is to reduce the warming.

[BillT]

10 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Yes but the adjustments over the ocean go the opposite direction prior to 1940 and are larger than the land adjustments. So the net effect is to reduce the warming.

please help me understand that graph shows the adjustments prior to 1940 were making it warmer than the raw data and that sir is FALSE.........

[LithiaWx]

Omg...  

[HailMan06]

I did my part and I'm still waiting for him to respond to my post.

[HailMan06]

I think it's best just to disengage from BillT or move this to another thread.

[Sundog]

I applaud some of you trying to explain why there is no vast conspiracy. 

You have the patience of a saint. 

[Sundog]

And this "grant" talk is too much for me to handle. We all know the most profitable companies in the world are fossil fuel based. 

Only a complete moron would go into climate change research "for the money." 

[ORH_wxman]

9 minutes ago, Sundog said:

And this "grant" talk is too much for me to handle. We all know the most profitable companies in the world are fossil fuel based. 

Only a complete moron would go into climate change research "for the money." 

While I agree it is a silly argument...the government spends $3 billion per year on climate change related research....far more than any private sector does, so it's actually a worse argument to imply that fossil fuel related companies are spending these massive gobs of cash on dissenting research. They aren't. 3 billion is still not a ton of money once you figure out how all of it is allocated. In short, money isn't a big influencing factor in the research.

[blizzard1024]

Back to the Arctic warmth...how do they get an accurate assessment of the surface temperatures all the way up to 90N?  Satellite temps only go to 82.5N. The DMI uses the ERA reanalysis which is prone to errors and should not be used for long term trends. The same goes for NCEP reanalysis.  Both show exceptional warmth so even if these are a little off it is still very warm up there, especially 80-90N which is the Arctic ocean basically. This fits the record low sea ice for this time of year (at least since the late 1970s). HADCRUT4 goes to 90N but the graph I showed is different than the one bluewave shows. The one I posted was from climate4you which suggests it is not exceptionally warm up there. Not sure where bluewave goes his. In any event, based on the proxy of sea ice there is not doubt the arctic ocean area is probably the warmest since the late 1970s suggesting climate4you graph is off?? However, to say this is not related to the strong El Nino is a pretty bold statement as was stated above. Also the use of a climate model to come to these conclusions makes me cringe.   

[BillT]

3 hours ago, HailMan06 said:

I did my part and I'm still waiting for him to respond to my post.

your content was insulting implying that i dont even know a 3pm temperature reading is warmer than one taken in the morning....i KNOW that......and that didnt address anything i posted.......the term "reset" was used referring to the old thermometers and CORRECTLY i asked how does one go about resetting those old type??????? please attempt civility.....you say around 1940 they changed the time they took measurements correct?  if so then you CANT compare the 2 different data sets because of the times the readings were taken.......and why on earth was no change made for around 6 decades when such a HUGE change was made in the data gathering method????? 

[LithiaWx]

2 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

While I agree it is a silly argument...the government spends $3 billion per year on climate change related research....far more than any private sector does, so it's actually a worse argument to imply that fossil fuel related companies are spending these massive gobs of cash on dissenting research. They aren't. 3 billion is still not a ton of money once you figure out how all of it is allocated. In short, money isn't a big influencing factor in the research.

For profit makes a huge difference in motives.  JMO. 

[HailMan06]

31 minutes ago, BillT said:

your content was insulting implying that i dont even know a 3pm temperature reading is warmer than one taken in the morning....i KNOW that......and that didnt address anything i posted.......the term "reset" was used referring to the old thermometers and CORRECTLY i asked how does one go about resetting those old type??????? please attempt civility.....you say around 1940 they changed the time they took measurements correct?  if so then you CANT compare the 2 different data sets because of the times the readings were taken.......and why on earth was no change made for around 6 decades when such a HUGE change was made in the data gathering method????? 

You got some thin skin if what I posted offended you. Anyways I'm done engaging with you. It's obvious that you aren't willing to learn and I'm not going to waste more of my time with this.

[BillT]

31 minutes ago, HailMan06 said:

You got some thin skin if what I posted offended you. Anyways I'm done engaging with you. It's obvious that you aren't willing to learn and I'm not going to waste more of my time with this.

no problem, but i will point this out the claim that temps were taken at 3pm until around 1940 and then  stations switched to 9am thereafter is something the entire record shows cant be true.....because the temperature swing between those 6 hours would be 10 degrees MINIMUM so suddenly the entire record should cool by 10 degrees or so.......but the graphs only show less than 1 degree of movement and then not some immediate one year shift... so in conclusion yes the time the temp is taken is important and to compare data sets it must be considered and dealt with,  but NOT by altering the actual data and certainly not always in the "desired" direction.

[chubbs]

7 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Back to the Arctic warmth...how do they get an accurate assessment of the surface temperatures all the way up to 90N?  Satellite temps only go to 82.5N. The DMI uses the ERA reanalysis which is prone to errors and should not be used for long term trends. The same goes for NCEP reanalysis.  Both show exceptional warmth so even if these are a little off it is still very warm up there, especially 80-90N which is the Arctic ocean basically. This fits the record low sea ice for this time of year (at least since the late 1970s). HADCRUT4 goes to 90N but the graph I showed is different than the one bluewave shows. The one I posted was from climate4you which suggests it is not exceptionally warm up there. Not sure where bluewave goes his. In any event, based on the proxy of sea ice there is not doubt the arctic ocean area is probably the warmest since the late 1970s suggesting climate4you graph is off?? However, to say this is not related to the strong El Nino is a pretty bold statement as was stated above. Also the use of a climate model to come to these conclusions makes me cringe.   

I'll take bluewave over climate4you. We are not going to know the root cause or causes of this years arctic warmth until detailed studies of this period are completed. The nino could have contributed to arctic warmth last winter, but is unlikely to be major factor now, other than through lingering feedbacks.

[Mallow]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

I'll take bluewave over climate4you. We are not going to know the root cause or causes of this years arctic warmth until detailed studies of this period are completed. The nino could have contributed to arctic warmth last winter, but is unlikely to be major factor now, other than through lingering feedbacks.

Again, a quick look at Arctic temperatures during El Niño events should be enough to show that there is no correlation. El Niño is not associated with extreme warmth in the Arctic.

As for how the values are generated, it's (as with everywhere else) a combination of many different sources. Nearby surface observations, satellite observations (probably including polar orbiters, not just geostationary satellites), etc.

[ORH_wxman]

6 hours ago, BillT said:

no problem, but i will point this out the claim that temps were taken at 3pm until around 1940 and then  stations switched to 9am thereafter is something the entire record shows cant be true.....because the temperature swing between those 6 hours would be 10 degrees MINIMUM so suddenly the entire record should cool by 10 degrees or so.......but the graphs only show less than 1 degree of movement and then not some immediate one year shift... so in conclusion yes the time the temp is taken is important and to compare data sets it must be considered and dealt with,  but NOT by altering the actual data and certainly not always in the "desired" direction.

I suggest reading Menne et al 2009 if you want answers to the TOBs adjustment. It's not that outlandish at all and is mathematically sound. 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2613.1

You need to read the literature before criticizing the adjustments. Blogs like Goddard's are meant to mislead...they aren't rigorous science. 

[pazzo83]

Florida John and others doing WORK in this thread.

[pazzo83]

On 12/27/2016 at 11:43 AM, Blizzard92 said:

Come on. This thread is about Arctic warmth... not another ridiculous debate about "faking data." It is getting impossible to post in this forum. Here is a look at surface air temperature anomalies over the Arctic Ocean so far this month...

Just fyi - you are a great follow on Twitter

[pazzo83]

Some of the closest land-based stations to the NP have shown some pretty warm temps the past week or so:

Svalbard, Norway (78.25 N, Dec avg: 12/0) - 

12/21 - 40/28

12/22 - 36/31

12/23 - 31/20

12/24 - 28/19

12/25 - 25/21

12/26 - 28/15

12/27 - 27/22

12/28 - 30/15

 

Vize Island, Russia (79.18 N, Dec avg: -4/-16) - 

12/19 - 24/11

12/20 - 24/18

12/21 - 21/17

12/22 - 23/19

12/23 - 15/11

12/24 - 10/9

12/25 - 9/3

[Blizzard92]

3 hours ago, pazzo83 said:

Just fyi - you are a great follow on Twitter

ah, well thank you!