Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Whose data is wrong?  (Read 2996 times)

lanevn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Whose data is wrong?
« on: November 02, 2013, 04:28:58 PM »
How to explain difference between http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php that show now below average and http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.html that show for same region above average?

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2146
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2013, 08:04:31 PM »
Let me hazard a guess.  Neither is wrong.  It looks like you may be presenting an apples to oranges comparison.

The ESRL chart is for the entire world.

The DMI chart is for the area north of 80 degrees.

If you look at the ESRL chart and visualize the area north of 80 degrees (i.e. attempting to compare apples to apples) it looks to be pretty consistent with the DMI chart.  Then one has to research the measurement methods of the two sites and see if they use different methods and/or metrics.  If they do not use the same then one would also expect variations between them.

We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

ggelsrinc

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2013, 10:42:37 PM »
How to explain difference between http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php that show now below average and http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.html that show for same region above average?




Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.html

Notice the base period is 1985 to 1995 smoothed with a 5 day running average!

The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.
 More information can be found here.


Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Notice the base period is 1958 to 1995, is called ERA40 and more information can be found here:

The green curve is based on ERA40 data for the period 1958 to 2002. ERA40 data
are in fact analyses, made in the same way as above, but done as a hind-cast,
using a fixed version of the NWP model, and spending time on carefully
validating and eventually correct or remove all observations found to be in
error, before the data assimilation. These, so-called "re-analysis", data
represent our best estimate of the properties of the atmosphere for the period
they cover.


http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newest.pdf

NOAA uses NCDC data, which is the largest archive in the world of weather data and DMI is:

The Danish Meteorological Institute (Danish: Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut, Danish pronunciation: [ˈd̥anmɑːɡ̊s meteɐ̯o̞ˈlo̝ˀisɡ̊ə e̞nsd̥iˈtud̥]) is the official Danish meteorological institute, administrated by the Ministry of Transport and Energy. The institute makes weather forecasts and observations for Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Meteorological_Institute

The world doesn't have great data on areas 80 degrees and above or areas of the whole world even today, so data from 1958 has to be lacking even more. Using the exact same data to compare with two different base periods isn't going to create the same anomaly. If you check GISS and CRU, you will notice 5 degree by 5 degree areas that are blank, even when good present data exists in those areas, because they lack good data for the base period to compare with.

In all cases of checking temperature anomalies, they are just doing the best they can with what they have and wrong has nothing to do with it. 

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3954
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2013, 10:44:24 AM »
The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.

In other words: modeled data, not observation. Still very useful though.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

lanevn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2013, 11:21:03 AM »
Notice the base period is 1985 to 1995 smoothed with a 5 day running average!
Notice the base period is 1958 to 1995, is called ERA40 and more information can be found here:

But in this case 1958-1995 must be warmer than 1985-1995.

lanevn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2013, 11:30:47 AM »
Also DMI show that last summer were coldest among latest 56 summers. It looks strange, as I know noone confirm such record?

ggelsrinc

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2013, 02:19:34 PM »
The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.

In other words: modeled data, not observation. Still very useful though.

True, it is modeled to establish the base period, creating the early missing data, but Denmark doesn't have the resources of the US and uses much of the same data to make their analysis or product. The big difference in those two examples is the base period, whether modeled or not. Anomalies based on two different base periods only produce the same product when things don't change over time, which doesn't happen in our present world. Neither base period is absolutely correct, nor are the past and present measurements compared to it, so it's the relative correctness of the difference between measurements compared to a base period that counts and once a base period is established, only the correctness of current measurements compared to it counts as uncertainty, because the base period is a constant. It should be obvious that corrections to a base period require listing the present data to a new version, so accurate comparisons to the past can be made, if past data can't be corrected. An example like de-trending global warming to monitor climate patterns comes to mind as an example of creating a new version. 

Sticking to the theme of this thread, in other words:

In all cases of checking temperature anomalies, they are just doing the best they can with what they have and wrong has nothing to do with it. 

No one pays scientists to lie or paint an improper picture of our universe, because scientists live on their reputation to provide accurate information or use their imagination to support good hypotheses to explain the universe they live in. Much of that university work in climate science is done by students who volunteer their time and the same is true for many branches of science. The few devils with science degrees who have sold their souls should have insisted on a better price, because no good scientist will ever take them seriously about anything in the future. It's a sin greater than idol worship, without a god to forgive them, like getting a death in science sentence. Science encourages speculation, but banishment is the price for lying in science's name and there is no mercy.

The majority of scientists work for corporations, not the government or institutes of higher learning and very few scientists even in corporations sell out. I have had people confess to me, they were paid to go on the internet and lie, but have never heard someone claim they were paid on the internet to tell the truth. For a scientist, truth in itself is the perpetual reward. The wise appreciate correction.

I hope it's obvious what I said, my ramblings, aren't directed at you or anyone in particular on this site and are just general statements. This subject brought back bad memories of an attack on my first love and I was foolish enough to launch another pre-emptive strike, instead of just petting my dog.   

VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2017, 11:53:55 PM »
F. Trinoli, so many thanks for taking the opportunity to respond and to give your perspective!
<Discussion moved here from "The 2017 Melting Season" thread:>

Drawing from my 39-year experience (1978-2017) of hearing experts' sea ice forecasts, so that you perhaps understand my perspective listening to this almost four decades - and also drawing on complaints made to the UN Secretary-general's offices by nations outside the US-UK-EU axis:

that back:

- in 1980's when I was at school, I was taught that climatic warming from GHG was becoming a problem but it would be around year 3,500 (or about a millennium and a half) before the Arctic Ocean becomes "ice free" in summers.

- in February 2007, the Arctic Council's "Arctic Impact" report predicted summer sea ice loss occurring by the year 2150 (then 143 years in future). The Arctic Council also produced sea ice area and extent forecast maps for two periods (2040-2060's and 2070-2100) as enclosed

- in May 2012 Professor Sir John Beddington stated that summer sea ice may survive until the year 2099 or 2100 (for 87 or 88 summer seasons) as stated by HM Government reply to AMEC on 30.05.2012 as enclosed. This was apparently a stretch from the UK Meteorological Office's view of ice being lost by 2070 using creative wording "towards the end of the 21st century"

I see these 'geological time' scale-based optimisms melt time and again. Sadly, I fear to have to see more of them come and go. For me, "job finished" is that for all practical intents and purposes all frozen water of Arctic is gone soon after the blue ocean emerges:

(1) Bøllinger Warming by methane, followed by
(2) exhaustive North GrIS surface melting and
(3) Heindric Ice Berg Armada (= Ice Debris Flows + Slip-Slide Ice Discharges + Hydrofracturing of North Greenland Ice Sheet on land + Rapid Erosion Forces + Perimeter and Continental Slope Failures), producing the job finished:
(4) the Last Dryas as Greenland Ice Sheet land containment failure fills the Atlantic/Arctic Ocean with ice debris. During this final - brief - episode sea ice suddenly spreads out far to the Atlantic,
(4a) so that the Gulf Stream is pushed sideways (towards the Iberian Peninsula) and that
(4b) rapid ice and snow advance results until the ice bergs melt away and only then
(5) resumed warming of ice-free Northern Hemisphere emerges (with high CO2-base-load, unlike the Ice-Ages-of-185-ppm whose warming was driven by seabed and permafrost methane destabilization) as lighter-than-air methane accumulates at stratum well above land (ice) surfaces to leave no mark on ice cores.

I have expressed in geoengineering circles my view that at the point (5) Arctic Geoengineering will become acceptable to the general public to prolong the Last Dryas induced sea ice. Before that Solar Radiation Managment (SRM) is unlikely to get adequate public support for it to be tested, financed and deployed in large scale. My work at Sea Research Society is based on this time horizon. (Yet, I hope things do not go my way and I am totally wrong this time, but many earth systems are showing signs of great stress already). Neither is the past sea ice / ice shelf / land ice destruction time scaling proved anywhere reliable and so UN will see more complaints.

My position is that current "fast-forward" ice melting saga will continue seamlessly from sea to land at the same speed of change, or even greater than that we have seen since optimism of pre-Jim Hansen 1988 testimony era and Rio summit 1992 and all above misguided 'glacial' timescales.

We'll see within 10 years from now, if you are right or me, on post-blue ocean melting job finished on a fast or a slow lane. I exclude minor, thick ice in rugged elevated mountain pockets of Arctic. The totality prospects of absolute ice loss is comprehended my many nations of the world outside US-UK-EU group-think and reflected in the statement by the UN Secretary-general Ban ki-Moon (enclosed).

: F.Tnioli  August 10, 2017, 12:09:31 PM

    : VeliAlbertKallio  August 10, 2017, 12:02:50 AM

        "...to finish the job?"

        Misconception. I disagree! The job isn't "finished" at that point, but only at its very beginning! The ocean melting advances and its re-freeze delays further. This exposes the ocean to sunlight much closer to the solstice and then staying exposed to that sunlight for longer. I say, this will be the beginning, not the end! This because sun's extra energy from growing insolation will be mopped up by the glaciers, permafrost soils and seabed containing methane. The real drama, 'ko.yaa.nis.katsi', then begins.  :-\

    Not misconception on his part. Misunderstanding on yours, rather. He meant the specific job of making Arctic go blue for the 1st time, most probably. Even if he didn't mean exactly that, - what he said _means_ exactly that. While what you described - is a set of "next jobs" in line. The term "job", itself, implies finite amount of work required to complete it; what you described is (practically) not finite, but rather geological thing in terms of its timescale. This topic is practical.

VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2017, 12:28:20 AM »
Further: <text from UN Secretary-general's excerpt on this matter>

While Her Excellency Verónica Michelle Bachelet Jeria raised this to then-current UN Secretary-general Ban ki-Moon for the ABC Nations at New York during the UN General Assembly of September 2007, I raised it simultaneously for the First Nations at Arctic Mirror of Life symposium convened by Ban ki-Moon's predecessor the former UN Secretary-general HE Kofi Annan.

My representation there (RSE VII) was based on the First Nations ethnoclimatology motion (UNGA 101292) which was presented to the United Nations General Assembly in immediate aftermath of The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit (ECO92), held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Both motions of the above nations stipulate a very rapid loss of cryosphere which is occurring well within one's lifetime, instead of long geological period (beyond one's lifetime) as advocated by the Western academia. Here is Ban ki-Moon's statement on resultant sea level rise after meeting ABC nations (Argentine | Bolivia | Chile) representatives that maintain Antarctic research communities.

The First Nations position is likewise but based on their ancient recollections of the rapid collapse of Foxe-Laurentide ice dome from the Hudson Bay area.

My evidence-giving at the UK Houses of Parliament has been largely reflecting these nations' positions and Germany's decisions to pull out nuclear reactors from the sea sides as a precaution of perceived risk of unpredictable sea level instabilities in future. The draft paper can be read here: https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 12:57:38 AM by VeliAlbertKallio »

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 390
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2017, 11:10:14 AM »
(3) Heindric Ice Berg Armada (= Ice Debris Flows + Slip-Slide Ice Discharges + Hydrofracturing of North Greenland Ice Sheet on land + Rapid Erosion Forces + Perimeter and Continental Slope Failures), producing the job finished:
This is 100% a glaciological prediction - can you find peer reviewed publications by glaciologists predicting this mode of ice-sheet failure in Greenland? I've spent quite a bit of time talking about the Greenland ice sheet with professional glaciologists and I don't recall it ever been mentioned. References please.

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 627
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2017, 01:53:44 PM »
That 2040-2060 projection from 2007 looks like it is already here.

Frankly I'm not sure yet if this is the beginning of abrupt climate change or a preview of  abrupt climate change (I'm hoping for another hiatus).
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 390
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2017, 05:15:27 PM »
(3) Heindric Ice Berg Armada (= Ice Debris Flows + Slip-Slide Ice Discharges + Hydrofracturing of North Greenland Ice Sheet on land + Rapid Erosion Forces + Perimeter and Continental Slope Failures), producing the job finished:
This is 100% a glaciological prediction - can you find peer reviewed publications by glaciologists predicting this mode of ice-sheet failure in Greenland? I've spent quite a bit of time talking about the Greenland ice sheet with professional glaciologists and I don't recall it ever been mentioned. References please.
Hey VAK care to comment on the above? Have you invented a new failure-mode for the Greenland ice sheet or is this already known in the glaciological community?