Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

well, that settles it once and for all.

 

There are several ways to consider reliability of global temperature records/compilations/reanalyses. For one thing, they are several in number and independent to one extent or another. This leads to the possibility of intercomparisons, which have certainly been done, but more could be.

If only a few people worked in this area (and worked together) a conspiracy to mislead could be imagined. It would rely on motivation, agreement, and secrecy. With a larger number of people involved, and working independently, any such conspiracy becomes less workable.

One such compilation that is extensively used for ecological research is worldclim

worldclim.org/version1

I mention it for having used it myself But mainly because it is usually not included in climatologists' lists.

Another aspect can be found by internet searching for 'weather forensics' or similar. Use of weather evidence in court cases requires a 'chain of custody' from initial collection to evidentiary use. It is something one has to pay for, and the search will lead one to suppliers. I have often thought (and even here as I recall) that a person interested in demonstrating that 'books had been cooked' would follow that path.

The most independent T record of all is the RSS UAH microwave satellite passive microwave radiometry. It is not precisely a T record, but is recalculated to act as proxy. It measures temperatures over a range of the troposphere, where T averages something like -15 oC. It is much more sensitive than ground-based thermometers to the ENSO cycle, which presumably happens because more 'lower' air mixes upwards during El Nino. That is not a demonstrated mechanism, but it fits observations. Also it started only in late 1970s. These are shortcomings. The advantage it offers if being independent.

As we have seen, both it and ground-based measurements show T increases every decade. All records do, on a global or hemispherical basis, to the extent it almost gets boring. Yet interest in the topic of data collectors (or others 'downstream') cooking the books continues.

For me, such a global conspiracy is unlikely for a wide variety of reasons. Yet if it existed, it could be clearly demonstrated in a court of law. That would cost money though. Apparently nobody wants to pay. Few if any want to bet that the next decade won't be warmer than the current.

So we are left observing some very enthusiastic attacks (as here), but an apparent underlying lack of confidence. It has always puzzled me. Would also like to say that Mr. Heller's presentation (our starting point here) was dedicated to Dr. William Gray, recently deceased. He revolutionized our understanding of factors controlling hurricane formation. He also 'locked horns' with the American Meteorological Society on the subject of climate change.

Having just checked, there still appears to be no obituary or 'resolution of respect' about Dr. Gray on the AMS website. This falls somewhere between petty and egregious, depending on one's perspective.

A couple of months ago I was on about that with one of Gray's close collaborators, who assured me that such would be appearing soon. Well, soon has come and gone. Am not pleased.

 

Interesting, that, all we know, or think we know, no matter how many of our colleagues agree with us, our scientific analysis and research, our support from the Press, Government, etc, etc........we may still know very little, perhaps, almost nothing. The total working of our World are still mostly unknown but always fun to contemplate.

 

Extensive overview of Gray's research published in BAMS

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0116.1

It is not an obituary or resolution of respect authored by AMS leadership. I still don't know if they have done such. Klotzbach would know

 

Curious quote from paper:

In the later decades of Gray’s life, he was a prominent “skeptic,” or critic of the prevailing view on climate change science. He had a well-known distrust of climate models and believed that the water vapor feedback from increasing CO2 was negative, not positive. He argued that the recent increase in global temperature was primarily due to a long-term weakening in the strength of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (Gray 2012).​

What an interesting thought that water vapor decreases with higher levels of CO{2}. I'm OK with SST having a major effect but find it curious that CO{2} is postulated as a reduction in SST.

Bob Wilson

 

The way that would happen is:

+T -> +WV -> +cloud albedo

Assuming cloud condensation nuclei supply themselves as needed. Also that atmospheric T lapse rates are where and as needed.

Look, all that may be overextended and ill supported by data. However:

Bill Gray made notably large contributions to other aspects of atmos sci. By all accounts he was the kindest, most supportive collaborator one could ever hope for. His last '10%' may have wandered off, OK? He rubbed AMS the wrong way. And they (seem to have) not presented dignified 'last words' in re. I would find fault with AMS here.

 

The summaries of his storm analysis around the equator are excellent. I had heard his terms used in modern reports including 'the dry line.' Just I'll have to scratch my head about CO{2} having a negative coefficient with SST.

Bob Wilson

 

Bill Gray created a new way of thinking about how hurricane formation 'teleconnects' with weather action upstream. Many others now follow and are probably doing it better. More satellite and better ways to use surface observations. Just love that.

He being set aside by AMS is fuel for folks with really weird climate ideas. it seems dysfunctional.

 

almost nothing@4. I disagree. Mostly because this presumed not knowing is too easy to 'serve' short-profit-driven further changes.

If earth system would just be allowed unchanging forcing, I reckon we could know next year, next decade, pretty well. Aside from ocean's mysteries

But forget about that. Humans are here and will change things. Models responding to change? Well you either like them or you don't.