The other day, Gavin Schmidt stated that the amplification factor over land for tropospheric trends to surface trends for GISS models was only 0.95. A reader reported that an amplification factor of 1.1 had been reported in an article by Pielke Sr et al, relying on a pers comm. Some readers expressed frustration over the lack of documentation of a seemingly important number.
In our analysis of Santer et al 2008, Chad Herman did an enormous amount of work benchmarking an algorithm to extract synthetic satellite information and then extracting results for A1B models.
This collation has wider application than our article e.g. for verifying Schmidt’s assertion about amplification factor. While the underlying data is at PCMDI, huge data sets have to be downloaded and processed to extract the relatively small data sets that are of interest for downstream analysis.
I’ve made the data available as R-files at http://www.climateaudit.info/data/chadh/GLOBAL/sat/ and http://www.climateaudit.info/data/chadh/TROPICS/sat/. The objects are in files land.tab, ocean.tab, loti.tab but the name of the object in each case is “runs”. Each matrix is 3000x37x3. By month from (1850,1) to (2099,12). 57 A1B runs summarized in http://www.climateaudit.info/data/chadh/info.chad.tab. R-objects can be downloaded easily using download.file(…..,destfile, mode=”wb”); load(destfile). Each object is about 3 MB in size.
I’ve also made Chad’s collation to 17 tropospheric levels available in corresponding directories named “TA” instead of sat. The structure is the same but each matrix is 3000x57x17 and is about 17 MB in size.
I’ll show how to use these objects in a companion post examining Gavin Schmidt’s assertion about amplifcation factors.
B model runs showing synthetic satellite runs are fundamental to a variety of analyses.
Climate Audit 
27 Comments
Maybe Gavin is lately starting to build a personal evidentiary record of how helpful he can be in service to science via posts here?
Trying desperately not a make a joke about “runs”.
Surely Schmidt stated a fact, not an assertion. He seemed so sure of himself, as he so often is, and came all the way down to here to put the uneducated plebs right with out being very condescending at all.
In the post on the Keystone pipeline, Raypierre refers to a climate model tuned to match IPCC sensitivity.
Gavin said this:
“actually equivalent to a factor of ~0.95 +/- 0.07 according to the GISS model”
He probably knows what is in the GISS model. If what the GISS model uses is correct is another matter. And if what the GISS model uses is what the other models use is still one more matter. It will be interesting to get Steve’s take now that we have the teaser.
The GISS model and its convective and cloud parameterization, feedback effects and other energy transfer processes may have been parametrized in part with GISS or similar temperature data which may include unaccounted UHI. If it does, a too low factor over land may have resulted for best match.
tilo the models dont use a value. the models GENERATE a value.
the amplification factor is an result, an output. you have to compare the surface temp
generated ( which differs for each model) to the TLT which differs for each model.
that is why ( read it slowly ) gavin puts a +- on his estimate of the amplification factor.
They also have the airport heat island effect. Anthony Watts survey of the United States stations showed that a large number of the observations come from airports. Airports have several bad things happening for them to be used in the temperature record. 1st – increase in size, power, and number of jets. Uncrease in passenger volume. Increase of runways, roadways and parking. The other day i pulled up map of the Lancaster, PA area and 3 locations were shown. The airports temperature was 8 and 5 degrees higher than the two close to the airport readings.
BEST shows cooling at japanese airports..
Hey Mr. “RC” of “FOIA” fame:
I think we need to talk. What exactly do you want? Please contact me at s w i f t h a c k at m a i l dash o n dot u s.
Your chronology is wrong.
around 7pm pst on Nov 17th the liberator posted a comment to WUWT containing a link to the
files. The Mod took a screen capture, deleted the comment, and downloaded the file.
see the mosher timeline on CA
Mosher, unless you can let us see that particular screen capture, I’d prefer that you just get the heck out of the way, and allow me to get in direct contact with Mr. “RC” of “FOIA”. Thank you.
Mr. “RC” of “FOIA”: again, please contact me at s w i f t h a c k at m a i l dash o n dot u s.
frank, its all covered in the book. at 735PM on Nov 17th, charles the moderator at WUWT called me with the news. By 9pm he handed me a CD. You can also read his account and Anthony’s account.
Mosher, in that case please stuff your sales pitches up your orifice while I try to get in direct contact with Mr. “RC”.
Mr. “RC” of “FOIA”: again, please contact me at s w i f t h a c k at m a i l dash o n dot u s.
— frank
You asked for corrections. The proper chronology is laid out in the blog here. You want to get things correct
I dont think RC will take you seriously unless you show that you can read.
Nov 17th around 7pm he sent a comment to WUWT. that comment contained the link. CTM downloaded the file.
I’ll suggest you correct it. its not about the book. Its about your ability to get the facts right.
Facts which RC knows
Mosher,
If it’s not about you selling your stupid book, then you should have no problem showing all of us that screen capture of the comment by “FOIA” to WUWT. And while you’re at it, why not also show us a screenshot of the “FOIA” comment which CTM replaced with his “much is being coordinated among major players …” reply?
Unless you provide the screenshots, I’ll have to conclude that you’re just trying to grab another opportunity to sell your silly book — and I’ll make darn sure the whole world knows that.
And why are you so scared of me, a lone blogger, getting in contact with Mr. “RC”?
— frank
Steve Mc – you’ve left your request that RC of FOIA get in touch with you. Given RC’s uncommunicativeness, I doubt that you will hear back, but maybe we’ll all be surprised. But please don’t allege or imply that the matter is under the control of Mosher (or anyone else here). Neither I, nor, to my knowledge, Mosher, have any ability to require RC of FOIA to comply with your request. Nor have you given any reason why RC of FOIA should suddenly decide to communicate with you, of all people.
You will note that my first reference was to CA.
read the Mosher time line
also read the accounts given by Anthony and CTM
You asked for corrections to your account on your blog. I’m providing them here where my IP is safe.
You seem terribly angry. That’s odd.
frank, you gotta be Sam Flag, reincarnate. Bless you.
😉
they dont do 3 shows at the sands,
why do you allege that Mosher is in your “way” or that Mosher has any ability to “allow” you to get into contact with RC of FOIA. I don’t know who RC of FOIA is nor, to my knowledge, does Mosher. Nor do I know what the chances are of RC of FOIA reading your request.
As a matter of curiosity, given that you are adverse in interest to RC of FOIA, I’m puzzled as to why you think that he/she would have an interest in chatting with you. Particularly given RC’s uncommunicativeness since the release of the Climategate dossier. Why, after all this time, would RC decide to chat with you? And why would it be in his/her interest to do so, fascinating as your repartee undoubtedly is?
Lots of people, including the Norfolk Constabulary, have been interested in the identity of RC of FOIA. I’m unclear why you expect him/her to jump to attention for your request.
Yes, my understanding of RC would indicate that he would not take kindly to Frank’s comments directed at Me. Especially when RC knows that Frank has the chronology wrong and won’t correct it. And then to be rude on top of that.
It would seem Frank is working against his interests, for whatever reason. That said, we are approaching the anniversary, perhaps the allusions made in other conversations will materialize…
Steve Mc: I suspect that RC of FOIA has other substantive reasons for not responding to “Frank’s” invitation other than Frank’s rudeness to you and Frank’s errors in the chronology.
to be sure. however, he may enjoy a good cat and mouse game
To repeat:
Hey Mr. “RC” of “FOIA” fame:
I think we need to talk. What exactly do you want? Please contact me at s w i f t h a c k at m a i l dash o n dot u s.
— frank
Self-appointed importance is a fascinating trait. Or not.
And who, pray tell, “appointed” Steve McIntyre to any position of “importance”? Who “appointed” Steven Mosher to any position of “importance”?
Mr. “RC” of “FOIA”: again, please contact me at s w i f t h a c k at m a i l dash o n dot u s.
— frank
Err..
the newstatesman?
http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2010/09/climate-mcintyre-keeper
As for me? nobody appointed me to a position of importance. dumb luck dropped the mails in my lap.
obviously the story would have been told regardless. But you asked for corrections, so I thought
you might want to make fewer mistakes than wikipedia. Everyone has their own standards for accuracy.
Readers will of course judge for themselves and act accordingly.
It runs a audio-video ad when you click on one of his threads.