Nice to Critique You

WUWT has found another blockbuster email in the CRU files. This is actually an interesting exchange between Tom Wigley and Phil Jones. WUWT is focusing on Jones’ claiming that Hansen’s GISS surface data is inferior to CRU. This is important because GISS has shown warming in the last twelve years, whereas HadCrut has not, among other reasons. But there is a (to me less) shocking statement about satellite data, too.

Phil Jones wrote:

Tom,
I don’t think AR4 (Ch 3) went into the TLT/surface amplification issue. You can get
the pdf of the chapter from here [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html . This
amplification issue is only addressed in some recent papers – mainly Ben’s.
The timescale argument is quite convincing. It is a pity that there is only Pinatubo
that you can test it on. El Chichon ought to work but it is confused by ENSO. Does the
amplification work well for the 1997/98 El Nino?
Did you pick up that Thompson et al paper due out in J. Climate soon? Factoring out
ENSO and volcanoes might help in isolating this.
[2]http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/faculty/thompson.php
where there is a link to the paper and also the data
[3]http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy/
It seems as though you can get all the extraction parts. No need for the dynamic bit.
Anyway my thought is as Pinatubo gives the amplification then ENSO ought to as well.
A thought might be to take Dave Thompson’s ENSO and volcanic subtraction series, then
scale them by thermodynamic theory value then subtract these from RSS and UAH. Small
issue of base periods to sort out
and assume there is no lag.
Need to do this with NCDC surface as well – have to use Dave T’s numbers here. This
can’t do the 20N-20S – just the globe.
It would of course, at this and any other time, be very nice to show that UAH is wrong.
A couple of minor things in the paper
– the amplification should work for a cooling as well – not just warming trends?
In Fig 5 in your legend LOUAH should be UAHLO. This is in Fig 4 as well.
By the way – meant to add this to the earlier email.
NCDC ERSST3 side does talk about missing data, so any of this would mean the (NH+SH)/2
won’t equal the global average that NCDC calculate.
I recall you asking about GISS. One thing I have learned about GISS is that they have a
cut off date of the 8th of each month. After this date nothing is changed for the
previous month and nothing earlier either. This means they never incorporate any back
data and they don’t get the second tranche of CLIMAT data which comes about the 16th of
the following month. Countries like Paraguay and Bolivia mostly come in this way, plus
some in Africa.
I’ll see Tom Peterson later in the week. I’ll ask him about their cut offs. I think
they don’t change a month later. This won’t lose you much data though. It was Tom who
told me about the data they can’t use.
Cheers
Phil

Always nice to critique you!

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Nice to Critique You”

  1. Fix the Pause… « Hypothesis Testing Says:

    […] as showing warming over this period. However, it now appears that HadCrut is about to receive the UAH treatment. If you read the article that Roger points to, you will learn that, among other things, climate […]

  2. Temperature data, Internally Consistent Beliefs, and Data bias | Hypothesis Testing Says:

    […] independent work confirming some of them. I would note that some have the attitude that it would be nice to show UAH is wrong. At any rate, I’m using it for this analysis, and as we shall see, I think an interesting […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: