tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post1314032314421306511..comments2023-07-29T05:11:23.558-04:00Comments on Climate Observations: The Basis For The HADSST Discontinuity/Blip Corrections?Bob Tisdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-86637672919025334442009-12-05T18:45:28.831-05:002009-12-05T18:45:28.831-05:00Anonymous 5:45PM: You wrote, "The 1910s-1970s...Anonymous 5:45PM: You wrote, "The 1910s-1970s warming-cooling is within the range of natural variability(so your ENSO hypothesis seems a good one),<br />BUT THE WARMING AFTER THE 1970s IS NOT, they break 2000 years of temperature records from paleo-climate data!"<br /><br />My representations of the multiyear effects of ENSO start in 1975 or 1981, so your statement is incorrect. Also you assume that whatever paleoclimatological data you're referring to agrees with other reconstructions. Refer to the shorter-term reconstructions here that show higher SST anomalies in the past:<br />http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/sst-reconstructions.htmlBob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-65383178259946606372009-12-05T17:45:10.916-05:002009-12-05T17:45:10.916-05:00Bob, yes the 1910-1940 warming followed by slight ...Bob, yes the 1910-1940 warming followed by slight cooling in 1950-1970 is odd.<br /><br />And I admit that my hipothesis is only a guess. <br /><br />But remeber that CO2 levels are at the highest levels in 2 MILLION YEARS!<br /><br />The Big question will be:<br />If we shattered 600 000 years of Co2 under 280 ppm as early as mid-1800s, why record temperatures started only from the 1980s?<br /><br />And the sulfate negative forcing seems the only possible answer.<br /><br />And remember: the emissions of sulfate droped drastically in late 1970s and 1990s, and guess what happened?<br /><br />Global warming became evident only after that!<br /><br />The 1910s-1970s warming-cooling is within the range of natural variability(so your ENSO hypothesis seems a good one),<br />BUT THE WARMING AFTER THE 1970s IS NOT, they break 2000 years of temperature records from paleo-climate data!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-7367350278376103522009-12-05T17:30:28.047-05:002009-12-05T17:30:28.047-05:00Jiri: I’ve added scaled sunspot numbers to the gr...Jiri: I’ve added scaled sunspot numbers to the graph of Tropical Pacific OHC vs NINO3.4 vs Sato Index data:<br />http://i47.tinypic.com/2dugxop.png<br /><br />The anomalous rise in OHC that occurred in 1995 happened at the solar minimum between SS#22 and SS#23. The biggest factor in that rise was the strengthening of the trade winds above normal levels for the size of the La Nina. Refer to discussion under the heading of IS THERE EVIDENCE OF AN IMPACT OF ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE GASES ON THE RECHARGE MODE OF ENSO?<br />http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html<br /><br />Regards.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-893107486117507012009-12-05T16:48:01.098-05:002009-12-05T16:48:01.098-05:00Anonymous 12:59PM: You concluded your remarks abou...Anonymous 12:59PM: You concluded your remarks about sulfates and black carbon with, "This is simple explanation why global warming become evident only after the 1970s."<br /><br />But you didn't explain the warming from the 1910s and 1940s. You wrote, "Apparently, that masking('global dimming') dwindled between 1920s and 1940s(maybe Soviets dump there more BC than sulfate? Anyone knows the sulfur fraction of Soviet coal mines?)" That was conjecture.<br /><br />The aerosol/black carbon hypothesis also does not work with Ocean Heat Content. The rises in it coincide with ENSO events.<br />http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html<br /><br />This is why attempts to model and project the rise in OHC are such an utter failure. Hansen et al (2005) assumed that aerosols and greenhouse gases are what caused the rise in OHC. <br />http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/nodc-corrections-to-ocean-heat-content.html<br />Link to Hansen et al (2005):<br />http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf<br />Link to Pielke Sr.'s discussion of Hansen projections:<br />http://climatesci.org/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-25149030985674203072009-12-05T16:17:00.026-05:002009-12-05T16:17:00.026-05:00Jiri: You wrote, "I'm planning to invest...Jiri: You wrote, "I'm planning to investigate past ENSO, but it takes me a long time as I'm just learning how to find all required information."<br /><br />I assume you've found the KNMI Climate Explorer. What other data are you looking for?Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-83241680852834600422009-12-05T12:59:54.553-05:002009-12-05T12:59:54.553-05:00REMEMBER THAT CO2 STARTED GROWING IN LATE 1700.Tha...REMEMBER THAT CO2 STARTED GROWING IN LATE 1700.That is just history:Industrial Revolution.It began in:<br />- England: 1780s<br />- West Europe: 1830s<br />- East Europe/Soviet Russia: 1930s<br />- China/India: 1980s<br /><br />AGW began 200 YEARS AGO.<br />NOT just IN THE 1970s.<br /><br />But it was masked by sulfate aerosols.<br /><br />Apparently, that masking("global dimming") dwindled between 1920s and 1940s(maybe Soviets dump there more BC than sulfate? Anyone knows the sulfur fraction of Soviet coal mines?)<br /><br />The post WII industrial boom released a lot of sulfate aerosols, and global cooling followed(1950-1970s)<br /><br />Then in late 1970s the Northern hemisphere sulfate emissions stabilized in thanks to West Europe Regulations.<br /><br />And in 1990s this was enhanced by USSR collapse: less sulfate thanks to new post-soviet power plant regulations and the collapse of Collectivized Agriculture(Kolchozes were abolished and agricultural practices get back to the prehistoric method of spring burning to clean the fields from grass) releasing a lot of more BC.<br /><br />So remember the effect of GLOBAL DIMMING!<br /><br />SULFATE: cooling<br />BC(BLACK CARBON): warming<br /><br />This is simple explanation why global warming become evident only after the 1970s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-72648927762917638422009-12-05T12:58:18.989-05:002009-12-05T12:58:18.989-05:00Bob,
I'm not sure that you've got my poi...Bob, <br /><br />I'm not sure that you've got my point. Cloud cover modulates energy entering the ocean during La Nina. But the amount of energy is also modulated by the solar cycle. There was solar maximum in 2000 and hence extraordinary jump in OHC during 2000 La Nina. <br />During 2007 La Nina there was solar minimum and there is no rise in OHC.<br />It is possible that there is going to be La Nina in 2010 or 2011. As long as solar cycle is weak the response to OHC should be weak to. I'm planning to investigate past ENSO, but it takes me a long time as I'm just learning how to find all required information.<br />I think that your ENSO connection to SST jumps was a good idea. But, the OHC and insolation is what really matters for climate. I can see SST good only to generate clouds and modulate insolation.Jirinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-63169847618547874042009-12-05T08:16:19.365-05:002009-12-05T08:16:19.365-05:00Sorry, I made a mistake in the above post.
The l...Sorry, I made a mistake in the above post. <br /><br />The last chart I posted was a southern ocean temperature index I was using rather the Hadcrut3 SH temps.<br /><br />Its been awhile since I worked with this.<br /><br />The actual Hadcrut3 SH temps have less variability than the last chart I posted but more-or-less follow the trends of it.<br /><br />Sorry about that.Bill Illisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-33076960721837466892009-12-05T07:06:06.565-05:002009-12-05T07:06:06.565-05:00One of the reasons for the 1944 blip is because it...One of the reasons for the 1944 blip is because it mainly comes from the Southern Hemisphere. We always look at the global temperature and forget to look at the hemispheres separately (Bob excluded of course since he always takes a regional scan).<br /><br />The Southern Hemisphere has much, much more variability than the Northern (this could be error or lack of coverage but it is still there nonetheless).<br /><br />Have a look at the bottom chart <br /><br />http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/hemispheric/southern/<br /><br />If you take off the grey error bars and just plot the average, the variability is huge and clearly shows the 1944 blip is nothing really unusual for the SH. <br /><br />http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/7797/shtempanomalybq1.pngBill Illisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-89783781543827871062009-12-05T06:08:42.355-05:002009-12-05T06:08:42.355-05:00Jiri: The link between solar and SST is difficult ...Jiri: The link between solar and SST is difficult to illustrate. Simply scaling monthly sunspot numbers misses the fact that the cloud cover over the tropical Pacific allows more downward shortwave radiation to enter the ocean during La Nina events.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-39352862439637295732009-12-05T03:55:18.812-05:002009-12-05T03:55:18.812-05:00Bob,
I like your link between La Nina and SATO rai...Bob,<br />I like your link between La Nina and SATO raising OHC. But I think there is a link to solar cycle too. 2000 La Nina happened during solar maxima, 2007 La Nina hapenned during solar minima. The diffeence is there for previous La Ninas too. I'm not so skilled to investigate myself. What do you think about that idea? Is it worth to add to you charts TSI? <br />-JiriAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-24068691238713982942009-12-04T21:29:24.983-05:002009-12-04T21:29:24.983-05:00Thanks, Bill. I assume you've let Anthony kno...Thanks, Bill. I assume you've let Anthony know.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-62920015535738877782009-12-04T21:20:42.855-05:002009-12-04T21:20:42.855-05:00Hi Bob,
The newest info (minutes ago that is) sho...Hi Bob,<br /><br />The newest info (minutes ago that is) shows that HadSST3 is not going to come out anytime soon.<br /><br />The UK Met Office (which partners with CRU in the Hadley Centre temperature series) just threw out the HadCrut temperature series and plans to re-do it (over 3 years?).<br /> <br />The lead author on the new HadSST3 (John J.J. Kennedy) now works at the UK Met Office so it is going to be on hold now.<br /><br />http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.eceBill Illisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-16697899260226994742009-12-04T20:07:02.162-05:002009-12-04T20:07:02.162-05:00Thanks, Bill. It looks like they also pulled down ...Thanks, Bill. It looks like they also pulled down the step change in 1997/98 a little. Refer to:<br />http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/step-change-in-hadsst-data-after-199798.html<br /><br />The 1945 to 1955 correction should also bring them more into line with the ERSST.v2 and ERSST.v3b.<br /><br />As soon as it's released I'll ask Geert Jan to add it to the KNMI Climate Explorer. There are a number of other things I want to check, like did they clean up ENSO at all before the 1950s? If you wiggle match NINO3.4 and Global SST anomalies from 1910 to 1950, there are rises and falls in the global SST anomalies but no ENSO events to match them.<br /><br />RegardsBob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-36810203414794952482009-12-04T19:48:12.427-05:002009-12-04T19:48:12.427-05:00Hi Bob,
A chart of the new draft HadSST3 shows th...Hi Bob,<br /><br />A chart of the new draft HadSST3 shows the email suggestions from Wigley were already being implemented.<br /><br />The green line is HadSST3 while HadSST2 is the red line.<br /><br />http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1205/hadsst3.png <br /><br />It was from a draft paper from the WMO but it has been removed now. I linked to it at WUWT this morning and now it is gone. Too late, I saved it (I suspected this would happen).<br /><br />Bill IllisUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10497004107509905201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-73625386717488651272009-12-04T14:31:23.911-05:002009-12-04T14:31:23.911-05:00Dennis, thanks, you just made my point. Quit per...Dennis, thanks, you just made my point. Quit personalizing the discussion, and maybe you won't have ole fools like me calling you out for carping. Sheesh!!!<br /><br />BTW, I'm done. I've made my point.CoRevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04596551339753480833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-40060356782212277042009-12-03T17:03:44.487-05:002009-12-03T17:03:44.487-05:00CoRev,
First of all Bob personally invited me to ...CoRev,<br /><br />First of all Bob personally invited me to come and join in on this blog site to present my opinions.<br /><br />I will only stop questioning and discussing climate change issues with Bob here if and when HE tells me to stop. Not because you or anyone else here wants me to.<br /><br />Sorry I obviously disturbed your skeptic love fest you wish to have here with Bob. Maybe you need to broaden your list of favorite web sites to include contrarian opinion sites.<br /><br />Dennis H.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-2066626425160473702009-12-03T16:07:50.686-05:002009-12-03T16:07:50.686-05:00Dennis: You wrote, "Let me get this straight,...Dennis: You wrote, "Let me get this straight, you are telling me that despite that obvious step increase problem in the SST2 data, you use it anyway just to make your last point to me by showing the resulting negative slope in the comparative data sets?"<br /><br />As noted above, the reason I used HADSST2 in the example was because this post is about the replacement for HADSST2, not about a replacement for HADISST. HADCRUT3 is the combination of HADSST2 and CRUTEM3.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-43712061182815012122009-12-03T16:06:47.925-05:002009-12-03T16:06:47.925-05:00Dennis, for heaven's sake drop the carping. Y...Dennis, for heaven's sake drop the carping. You're losing ground. Your points are meaningless.CoRevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04596551339753480833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-47758904780168350642009-12-03T14:49:07.517-05:002009-12-03T14:49:07.517-05:00Bob: "But continue to make your nonsensical c...Bob: "But continue to make your nonsensical claims about my motives."<br /><br />Yet you seem to portray yourself here as somehow having this tremendous clairvoyant "all-knowing" ability to know exactly what Phil Jones (or anyone else) is actually thinking or what their motives are when they presents their data analyses and conclusions.<br /><br /><br />Let me get this straight, you are telling me that despite that obvious step increase problem in the SST2 data, you use it anyway just to make your last point to me by showing the resulting negative slope in the comparative data sets?<br /><br />Seems to me that a little data manipulation and the need to the spread some misinformation is at play here too.<br /><br />Dennis H.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-16642729926269423792009-12-03T12:30:04.221-05:002009-12-03T12:30:04.221-05:00And Dennis, another reason I use HADISST data regu...And Dennis, another reason I use HADISST data regularly. The HADSST2 data has a step change in 1997/98 because the Hadley Centre merged two incompatible datasets. I discussed it here:<br />http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/step-change-in-hadsst-data-after-199798.html<br /><br />Here's another illustration to show the step change. It's HADSST2 MINUS HADISST:<br />http://i48.tinypic.com/2uzb3ir.pngBob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-66859959589239984212009-12-03T12:12:34.959-05:002009-12-03T12:12:34.959-05:00Dennis: This post is about the HADSST3 dataset tha...Dennis: This post is about the HADSST3 dataset that is to replace the HADSST2 data. It is not about the HADISST data. <br /><br />FYI: I use HADISST data for many of my posts because it is presented in 1 deg latitude and longitude grids, where the HADSST2 is in 5 deg grids. Also, there are numerous gaps in the HADSST2 data for the NINO3.4 region during the 1940s, some as long as a year. Refer to the graph here:<br />http://i47.tinypic.com/21aweqe.png<br />And the table here:<br />http://i50.tinypic.com/2ufsfbo.jpg<br />Both are from a post about the HADSST2 data that I haven't gotten around to finishing. <br /><br />The HADISST NINO3.4 SST data runs continuously from 1870 to 2009. <br /><br />But continue to make your nonsensical claims about my motives.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-57464960188805757272009-12-03T10:50:57.445-05:002009-12-03T10:50:57.445-05:00So Bob,
Are you telling me that the HADISST data ...So Bob,<br /><br />Are you telling me that the HADISST data that you used in this chart to compare with NINO3.4 data:<br />http://i42.tinypic.com/iom6ab.jpg<br /><br />is not really valid here and that you should really have used HADSST2 data instead? Is it because the HADSST2 would not have correlated as well with the rising NINO3.4 data?<br /><br />See the problem is the HADISST data that you use to to make your earlier point with NINO3.4 shows the difference of 0.08C compared to the RSS, UAH, CRU, and GISS data, but then you now come up with this whole other SST data set to completely make another point showing a negative slope.<br /><br />Seems like a devious and underhanded interchanging of the data sets depending on what type of argument you want to make. Pretty much what you and your followers are accusing Phil Jones of. Oh the irony of it all!<br /><br />Dennis H.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-30378406590363318462009-12-02T18:22:25.378-05:002009-12-02T18:22:25.378-05:00Dennis: You wrote, “The 31-year satellite data sho...Dennis: You wrote, “The 31-year satellite data shows the same temperature increase and relative SST difference of 0.08C.”<br /><br />Really? I suggest you download Global UAH MSU TLT anomaly and Global HADSST2 anomaly data and subtract the SST data from the TLT data. <br />http://i46.tinypic.com/2mzfi8p.png<br /><br />The Hadley Centre’s Global SST data is rising faster that the UAH MSU Global TLT data, Dennis. That’s why the trend is NEGATIVE. Or weren’t you aware of that? <br /><br />Much of what you’d written above could have been avoided had you bothered to check the facts.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-56266986224283103342009-12-02T16:59:20.967-05:002009-12-02T16:59:20.967-05:00Bob,
OOOH I left out the question mark. How dare...Bob,<br /><br />OOOH I left out the question mark. How dare me leave that out of the direct quote. Another perfect example of the typical non important side-track issues you bring up in order to distract from the main points of our discussion.<br /><br />Your sub-title is still very accusatory with or without the question mark.<br /><br />The 31-year satellite data shows the same temperature increase and relative SST difference of 0.08C. Jones has no responsibility or oversight for that satellite data. That is how you should really be "pointing out the obvious" in the data set by making that same data comparison. But then why should you be fair about that because he is the enemy and you need to take him down no matter how much the actual data he has no control of says otherwise.<br /><br />This latest post of yours is much ado about nothing and is just another "Blame it all on Jones" battle cry you and your fellow believers are currently having fun with. Such political folly.<br /><br />Dennis H.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com