“GISScapades“. Willis Eschenbach tries to support Joe Bastardi’s ignorance with accusations about Arctic surface station temperature extrapolation. It boils down to this claim: “No data available? No problem, just build in some high temperatures …”
Willis can make up some number series that show decent correlations, which is very clever of him. But it doesn’t undermine the fact that the surface station data used to represent the Arctic Ocean is real. His chart also deliberately minimizes the legitimate overlap of the two dozen surface stations that are used to extrapolate into the Arctic Ocean. There is no theoretical surface station being generated in the center of the Arctic Ocean as Willis tries to insinuate.
The most damning thing that Willis can actually say at the end of all this is (bolding mine): “Their trends may not be similar at all.” All that waving of charts and polar maps, and this is what it boils down to?
Quadruple those surface station ranges and tell me how poorly represented the Arctic Ocean is (from wattsupwiththat).
Of course if you want to avoid the extrapolation, just use a different data set. There are several. They show similar results regardless of whether they include extrapolations for the unavailable Arctic Ocean temperature data.
Or you could use satellite data and avoid the whole issue.
Wott's Up With That? 
The satellites have very poor coverage at the poles, unfortunately. I’ve never fully understood why (orbits? angles of incidence? Something like that), nor do I understand why we can’t just airdrop some disposable temperature stations into the Arctic.
But in this uncertain world, there are things we can rely on, to wit: Willis Eschenbach is a flaming idiot.
a very feeble attempt too discredit another site get a life will ya.
[Thanks for the intelligent input. – Ben]
Ben, my point is simple. GISS justifies their extrapolation of station data out 1200 km into areas where there is no data by saying that correlation is greater than 0.5 between stations.
What they didn’t notice is that although the correlation is high, this means nothing about the trends. Because of this, extrapolating trends as GISS does is not mathematically valid. I note that you do not deny this, you just talk around it. [Neither you or I are qualified to credibly assess this, but you are the one making accusations based on limited understanding. I’ll link here to your statistical smack-down when someone gets around to it. – Ben]
GISS is the only organization that does this. CRU, USHCN, and GHCN just leave blank areas blank, rather than fill them with imaginary data. [And how do the results from these different methods of compiling global temperatures differ? Your article is silent on that relevant subject. – Ben]
Oh, and the comment about “build in some high temperatures” was a direct quote from Kevin Trenberth, a noted AGW supporter, not me. [No, that’s not a direct quote. It is a possibly tampered-with quote mined from the stolen CRU e-mails. Even that is out of context, as the longer version begins with “My understanding is…” etc. Dr. Trenberth is not describing his own work. You have a low threshold for ‘definitive’. = Ben]
I see Robert has called me a “flaming idiot” … that’s an excellent scientific argument.
Ah, well, life goes on. As before, all this site does is drive traffic to WUWT, so I guess that’s a net gain. [You keep saying that don’t you?… I’m happy for people to land on WUWT if they have a bit of science in their bellies to cut the denialist gruel. – Ben]
w.
it’s too bad your criticisms of mr. watts articles don’t make a lick of sense. you should try harder.
[Thanks for the intelligent input. – Ben]
The whole concept that GISS is “making up data where there is none” is completely bogus. If that objection were valid, then surface stations would give us only a bunch of one-dimensional points on the map — representing the temperature of each sensor.
If you accept the use of one-dimensional sensors to create a two-dimensional anomaly map, then the practice of extrapolating the surrounding temperatures from the closest sensors is implied. But it’s not enough for these jackasses to say “I disagree with the methodology of your extrapolations of the sensor data to the Arctic.” No, it’s always “You’re making stuff up, it’s fiction.”
Ben is a archivist of this stupidity. He doesn’t discredit them; they discredit themselves.
“I see Robert has called me a “flaming idiot” … that’s an excellent scientific argument.”
You wouldn’t know a scientific argument if it bit you on the ass, Will. Your fabrications of data, statistical mistakes, and inability to comprehend basic scientific concepts like the null hypothesis and external validity, fully earn the reputation as a liar and an incompetent which is yours everywhere outside Watt’s echo chamber.
Would you care to discuss your history of data manipulation in a forum where the moderators won’t swoop in to protect you?
[I’ve been away from a real computer for a few days, which has delayed processing this comment. I’m all for the searing scrutiny of denialist claims but caution that while a ‘slanging match’ is therapeutic it doesn’t necessarily advance the discussion. I’ll let this comment through, but if Willis takes up your challenge I expect the conversation stick to substance… – Ben]
Ben, a draft paper by J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo states the following in relation to arctic temperatures:
“The GISS analysis assigns a temperature anomaly to many gridboxes that do not contain measurement data, specifically all gridboxes located within 1200 km of one or more stations that do have defined temperature anomalies. The rationale for this aspect of the GISS analysis is based on the fact that temperature anomaly patterns tend to be large scale, especially at middle and high latitudes.
“Thus HadCRUT implicitly assumes that the Arctic area without observations has a temperature anomaly equal to the hemispheric mean anomaly. Given the pattern of large temperature anomalies in the fringe Arctic areas with data (Figure 12), this implicit estimate would seem to understate Arctic temperature anomalies.
“Qualitative support for the greater Arctic anomaly of the GISS analysis is the following. The Arctic temperature anomaly patterns in the GISS analysis, regions warmer and cooler than average when the mean anomaly is adjusted to zero, are realistic-looking meteorological patterns. More quantitative support is provided by satellite observations of infrared radiation from the Arctic [Comiso, 2006]. Although we have not yet attempted to integrate this infrared data record, which begins in 1981, into our temperature record, the temperature anomaly maps of Comiso [2006] have the largest positive temperature anomalies (several degrees Celsius) during the first decade of this century over the interior of Greenland and over the Arctic Ocean in regions where sea ice cover has decreased. Because no weather stations exist in central Greenland and within the sea ice region, our analysis may understate warming in these regions. An exception is the station on Sakhalin Island, which is located in a region of decreasing sea ice cover and which does show relatively large warming in the past decade.”
Click to access gistemp2010_draft0319.pdf
Was there a WUWT post about the appearance of Foster, et al’s reply that was published recently?
I’m just looking for an excuse to link to Prof. Rabett’s excellent excellent post.
Ben,
Keep up the good work. The word is getting out, & we don’t mean Jebuses’.