tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post5204819455291518775..comments2023-07-29T05:11:23.558-04:00Comments on Climate Observations: Land Surface Temperature Contribution To Non-Polar TemperaturesBob Tisdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-2564547810889845802010-07-23T20:34:15.893-04:002010-07-23T20:34:15.893-04:00Frank Lansner: You wrote, “I offered you a bottle ...Frank Lansner: You wrote, “I offered you a bottle of wine if you would go through my new article:<br />http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php<br /><br />“If you had done this, you would certainly not have written as you do.”<br /><br />It was my intent to eventually address your request, in a few days. I have other priorities. Also, I don’t drink alcohol. I gave it up. <br /><br />You wrote, “One more time. Please look at PART 2 of my article, chapter 3.4.<br />This is where I explain that GISS inlcudes ocean in their station data series, and where I show a graphic of the ocean included.”<br /><br />But your analysis where you assume that GISS increases land surface area does not address this.<br /><br />You wrote, “I am sure that the algorithm or specific method used by GISS to combine Land temperature and SST explains some of these apparently odd findings. But whatever the 'algorithm' used by GISS is, can it be justified that GISS gradually weights the warm NH-Land graph more and more? And ends up with around 67% NH land fraction in 2007 although NH only has 40% land? Maybe, this algorithm or method deserves some attention?”<br /><br />But GISS does NOT weight “the warm NH-Land graph more and more.” You need to mask the areas where land surface data extends out over the oceans in your analysis. <br /><br />You wrote, “In general GISS defends use of larger land fraction due to their 1200km zones around land stations reaching some Ocean areas. But this does obviously not explain a land fraction that appears to go from near zero to around 70% globally during the 20th century.”<br /><br />Please provide a link to an article written by a member of GISS where “GISS defends use of larger land fraction due to their 1200km zones around land stations reaching some Ocean areas.”<br /><br />You wrote, “You focus on the similarities between CRU and GISS - i suppose to say that the resulting GISS is ok?”<br /><br />I also included NCDC data. Or did you miss that? This post was not about the accuracy of land surface temperatures; it was about the contribution of land surface temperature readings to combined land and sea surface temperature data. And there is basically no difference between those of GISS, Hadley Centre, and NCDC.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-51573142349213239842010-07-23T19:25:14.058-04:002010-07-23T19:25:14.058-04:00Dear Bob.
I offered you a bottle of wine if you w...Dear Bob.<br /><br />I offered you a bottle of wine if you would go through my new article:<br />http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php<br /><br />If you had done this, you would certainly not have written as you do.<br /><br />One more time. Please look at PART 2 of my article, chapter 3.4.<br />This is where I explain that GISS inlcudes ocean in their station data series, and where I show a graphic of the ocean included.<br /><br />So if anyone is aware of this, its me. The fact that you and others keep writing that you think im not aware of ocean data in GISS station "land" data might be my fault due to bad communication.<br /><br />I wrote in my article PART 4:<br /><br />"I am sure that the algorithm or specific method used by GISS to combine Land temperature and SST explains some of these apparently odd findings. But whatever the “algorithm” used by GISS is, can it be justified that GISS gradually weights the warm NH-Land graph more and more? And ends up with around 67% NH land fraction in 2007 although NH only has 40% land? Maybe, this algorithm or method deserves some attention?<br />"<br /><br />And in the WUWT article i write: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/#more-22126<br /><br />I write:<br />"In general GISS defends use of larger land fraction due to their 1200km zones around land stations reaching some Ocean areas. But this does obviously not explain a land fraction that appears to go from near zero to around 70% globally during the 20th century.<br />"<br /><br />Now, Your article, Bob:<br />You focus on the similarities between CRU and GISS - i suppose to say that the resulting GISS is ok?<br />The thing is, CRU and GISS ends up rather alike. But in CRU data i find much more direct land data adjustment than for GISS. On the contrary for GISS, the direct land data adjustments are not so big at all (to my surprice) but in stead the GISS warming trend thats similar to CRU comes when combining the SST and "land".<br /><br />SOmething thats messy in al this is, that you seem to trust that CRU land is not ocean while GISS is... Yes yes, GISS has ship and island data included, but a BIG part of the GISS ocean area in their "land" data is obviousy from coastal stations. These stations are exactly the same as for CRU. So its nonsense to say "CRU is just land data".<br />Just becasue CRU says that their coastal stations are land while GISS (the same) coastal stations covers huge ocean areas, you cant just treat the same data as if completely different.<br /><br />I have raised some serious problems in data, and I know you disagree strongly, but i have not seen conving arguments from you, its not bad will.<br /><br />K.R. FrankFrank Lansnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04770349799541616824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-5641612786808356662010-07-23T16:58:32.774-04:002010-07-23T16:58:32.774-04:00Frank Lansner: Did you read this post? Again, the ...Frank Lansner: Did you read this post? Again, the GISS land surface temperature data you are using is NOT only the temperature anomalies of the continental land masses.<br /><br />Did you read the comment referred to in this post? Here it is again:<br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/tipping-point-at-giss-land-and-sea-out-of-balance/#comment-435038Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-8388911190790952962010-07-23T15:46:56.914-04:002010-07-23T15:46:56.914-04:00Bob Tisdale:” Frank’s land surface data looked unu...Bob Tisdale:” Frank’s land surface data looked unusual, and I believe Frank’s observations are skewed by his choice of base years”<br /><br />To avoid misunderstanding like this, I have tried with 5 different baselines of which i published 2 for all to see (the 1951-80 and the 1960 = zero, hardly any change in results).<br />The 1951-80 is used for the GISS graph, so this choice appears most correct. <br /><br /> Bob, if 1951-80 is not your preferred as baseline, then which is and why?<br /><br />I went through all data and steps one extra time, and found nothing wrong with any impact worth to mention. <br /><br /><br />K.R. FrankFrank Lansnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04770349799541616824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-34783769628344665472010-07-23T04:45:13.944-04:002010-07-23T04:45:13.944-04:00John: While the SST trends of the early and late 2...John: While the SST trends of the early and late 20th century warming periods are the same...<br />http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/has-global-warming-accelerated.html<br />...the land surface temperatures do have a higher trend in the later period. This is likely the result of feedbacks from polar amplification, and land use changes, and urban heat island effect, and poor surface station siting, etc.Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-8239377974319407322010-07-23T04:37:46.436-04:002010-07-23T04:37:46.436-04:00d: Do you have a link to one of the discussions o...d: Do you have a link to one of the discussions of "Gulf loop shutdown" you're referring to?Bob Tisdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462377647970214137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-85167072842848580952010-07-23T00:01:36.278-04:002010-07-23T00:01:36.278-04:00Hi Bob -
Any opinion on why the land anomalies se...Hi Bob -<br /><br />Any opinion on why the land anomalies seem to have an increasing contribution starting in 1980 or so? <br /><br />I know you're an ocean guy, but curious if you had thoughts.<br /><br />Thanks!Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2220966763638300672.post-84789054895503267612010-07-22T23:33:07.810-04:002010-07-22T23:33:07.810-04:00Bob, what do you make of talk about the Gulf loop ...Bob, what do you make of talk about the Gulf loop shutdown resulting from the BP oil spill?magellanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12726459793004701427noreply@blogger.com