Comments on: Barabinsk, Russia 57N, 77E

By: Inquiry Disinformation about CRUTEM « Climate Audit

Inquiry Disinformation about CRUTEM « Climate Audit — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:16:52 +0000

[...] early 2007 here, I’d observed that the HadCRU series for gridcell 57N 77E (containing the single Siberian [...]

By: dougie

dougie — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:44:40 +0000

Re: James Norton (#15),
hi james
i suggest if you are interested have a look here -
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view

By: Michael Jankowski

Michael Jankowski — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:11:02 +0000

Re Warwick:

Then studying Fig 6 we began pondering the Vose et al statement in their section 4 [14] that, “..9.4% of all grid-box trends differ by more than 0.100 [degree C per decade] in both magnitude and sign.”
It soon became clear that this clever use of the calming number 9.4% was in fact concealing the fact that a vastly greater number of grid points varied by more than 0.1 degree C per decade, regardless of sign. Vose et al are trying to show that GHCN and CRU are similar, so it does not matter if for any grid point one or the other is higher, it is DIFFERENCE that is the issue, so sign is a red herring…
…Last year we obtained a file of the various global grid point trends re Fig 5 from Russell Vose and found that in fact a staggering 57% of grid points differed by more than 0.1, either + or -.
So, 57% of grid points differ by greater than the magnitude of century long global warming…

Great observation and catch of Vose et al’s tricky wording.

By: Warwick Hughes

Warwick Hughes — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:57:57 +0000

Re #9 Jae, We have to understand that the various big groups “do their own thing” with the raw data, alter it here and there, chop bits off etc.
Then the period is a bit short, so that trend numbers change rapidly.
However, Vose et al choose this period, its their data, I am just presenting the trend differences clearly without trying to cover up anything.

By: Hans Erren

Hans Erren — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:02:27 +0000

re 10:
The difference between climate science and mineral exploration is that a false anomaly doesn’t have adverse impact to climate science (yet). In mineral exploration an empty hole drilled on a false anomaly can bankrupt a company. That’s why in mineral exploration every anomaly is squeezed out to the last bit to see if it’s a processing artifact before finally marking the map with an X (drill here).

By: John Norris

John Norris — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 03:13:20 +0000

re #8: I read Warwick Hughes’ blog. Not sure what it leads to yet. I need some help with that.

When comparing the two data sets, (that I’m guessing at least one is an input towards the Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policy makers SPM-3 chart that shows about .7 or .8 degrees c increase from 1900 – 2000) you have identified that 57% of the gridcells differ by at least 1 full degree c, per century, split pretty evenly between + and -.

Is it a problem to claim an uncertainty of less than +/- .1 degree c in the SPM-3 chart (I eyeballed their uncertainty) in measured global average surface temperature when over half your data when compared to another data set has differences of over an order of magnitude greater than your uncertainty?

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:44:25 +0000

#8. Readers of CA should check out Warwick’s blog. One of Warwick’s characteristic techniques – second nature to someone in mineral exploration, but not seemingly not used by the Team – is to look for anomalies e.g. gridcells with extreme trends and then analyze the data.

By: jae

jae — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:56:39 +0000

8: WOW. How on earth can that happen, when (I presume) they use the same raw data?

By: Warwick Hughes

Warwick Hughes — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:00:04 +0000

Steve,
Relevant to your ploughing on thru the huge landscape of USSR T data.
I have just constructed a new global map of GHCN minus CRU trend differences for the period 1976-2003, arising out of that 2005 Vose et al paper, “An intercomparison of trends in surface air temperature analyses at the global,
hemispheric, and grid-box scale”.
You and you readers might be amazed at the large differences between GHCN and CRU (CRUT2) all over the globe, not just over the old USSR. The two datasets, on which huge sums of taxpayer monies have been spent over two decades, are discordant at a rate greater than global warming, over a majority of grid cells for which co-located data is present. This is for a period chose by the Vose et al authors.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=91
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/vose05.htm

By: bernie

bernie — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:53:14 +0000

Mark:
No I understand the UHI effect are to do with local energy consumption per unit of area and the immediate physical location.
However, I in part noted the population numbers because of the pattern in the
figures circa 1980. It is only suggestive but without an actual view of the physical site who knows.

I guess I am more intrigued by another weather station that is very close by but apparently not in the data set.