Some sea temp stuff
arry Lu (20:11:48) :

” George E. Smith (18:08:33) :
Bob you are so charitable. LWIR warms the top few cm. I figure that atmospheric (tropospheric anyway) LWIR can hardly be significant below about 3-4 microns…; so lets be generous and say it might warm the top 10 microns. How much of that energy remains following the prompt evaporation from that hot skin.”

Have you not forgotten conduction? It operates in all directions!

So we have the top few cm heated by sw and lw and a few 10s meters down heated by UV

So the surface cm is absorbing a percentage of the SW (as does each cm of the deeper water except the percentage is of a progressively smaller maximum) plus all the LW re-radiated from GHGs.

The surface is also receiving LW from the layer under the surface and radiating LW down to this lower layer. Because the surface is hotter this will average out to an energy transfer downwards.

So the hotter the surface the less the lower water energy will be radiated (lost) into the atmosphere. Less loss with the same SW TSI heating the lower layers will mean a hotter temperature.

Of course the surface is loosing heat via conduction in all directions radiation in all direction, and forced air convection upwards (sideways!)

However, The surface layer heating must effect the lower layer cooling in my books.

According to your diagram of energy buget:

Only 169 w/m^2 of SW radiation gets absorbed (198w/m^2 hits the ground)
The back radiation from GHGs is 321 w/m^2 absorbed by the ground.

If 321W/m^2 is absorbed in the top layer and 169w/m^2 is absorbed in 10s meters the the top layer will be much warmer than the lower layers.

So is it not true that this top layer must control the temperature of the lower layers?


oh dear (updated 2010/06/16)

Where it started:
wattsupwiththat (16:51:06) :
You know, this REALLY chaps my hide, especially since I’m doing a lot of green things myself, and have made major green contributions in the past.

A few examples:

A drop of one or two degrees would devastate vast areas of food production on Canada, Northern Europe and Russia. An increase will do (has done) wonders for production. I can’t speak with authority on warmer climes, but would hazard a guess that a shift of one or two degrees in a warm climate will have less of an impact than a shift

It’s clear that you just don’t get it, thefordprefect: a somewhat warmer, more balmy and pleasant climate is more desirable than what we have now; while colder temperatures will certainly kill people.

If AGW really is a crisis, their is close to nothing you can do about it, and nothing at all that wouldn’t involve massive reduction in energy use and quality of life decline to go along with it. I will feel proud when I look at my children ... that I fought to keep them free and living in a world were their quality of life is at least as good as mine was if not better because I stopped self righteous zealots like yourself from reversing the industrial revolution. Good day sir.

I personally believe that the burning of fossil fuels such as coal are one of the only real things that mankind has done to benefit the earth as a whole. The total amount of available carbon and biomass on the surface of the earth has shrunk dramatically sin

You’ve lumped everyone into your world view and hurled a faux pau of major proportions.

Possibly true! I should have targetted better.

So “thefordprefect” whoever the hell you are (just another anonymous coward making unsubstantiated claims)

No! I sent you a private email with my full name warning about allowing comments that could be considered defamatory by those attacked (the comments could affect their ability to earn, and it would be difficult for you to prove that they truly were trying to defraud). By remaining anonymous as thefordprefect your contributors are welcome to defame me as much as they like! I am unknown!

This is the address section of the email:
To: info@surfacestations.org
Subject: FAO Anthony watts wattsupwiththat - be careful
From: M. xxxxxxx
Date: 01 March 2009 14:40:12

Also most of the statements I have made have been backed up with data. My accusations are in response to insults hurled my and others' way.

let me make this clear: apologize for your broad generalization as “we don’t care about the planet” or get the hell off my blog.

This was a general impression I got from some of the responses. It was aimed at them. I had already read of your low energy home.

I’m not interested in debating the issue, I’m not interested in your excuses. I’m not interested if you are offended. Apologize contritely or leave, those are the terms.

Do what you will - my appology would only be for not tagetting my comment. There has been no possibility of any enlightening debate from the responses I got (although this last comment seems to have drawn some sensible response).

I truly hope I (and others) are wrong about AGW. I truly fear that I am not.

Anthony Watts - ItWorks (*****@itworks.com)
Sent: Sat 3/14/09 6:20 AM
To: *******@hotmail.com

All you have to do is post an apology an move on. It's real easy. I'll even compose a sample for you.

"I'm sorry that I made a generalization that assumes all posters here don't care about our environment. I will be more careful with my words in the future."

Or something similar. If you don't wish to you are certainly not obligated, but you won't be posting anymore without such an apology.

Your previous multi-level reply won't fly. I have no record of any previous email from you, this email address is what you listed in your comment form.

Anthony Watts

bill (12:00:53) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

bill (10:40:11) :
REPLY: Get your own blog then, but please don’t tell me how to run mine. I’ll post as many threads as I wish. And where’s your data citation link? Shifted and spliced data? Prove that’s valid. And if you really want to be taken seriously, drop the “galactic hero” meme and come clean with your full name. No need to hide. -Anthony

Anthony you castigated me for posting the same message on the sticky smoking gun threads, I was trying to say that if you start similar threads with the same theme and no different data, then I was requesting to post the same messages on both.

If I recall correctly someone (a “warmist”) on McIntyres blog real name was exposed leading to an event (I missed what it was) that forced the whole thread to be deleted. If I post garbage or wisdom on a topic It should not be made more/less acceptable because of my real status.
Looking at some of the comments made by CRU and other scientists about “nasty” emails they have received I prefer the safe option. My real name would enable google to provide home address (=business), phone, and private email.

As for references
Angmagssalik 65.6 N 37.6 W 431043600000 rural area 1895 – 2009
“Raw” data

The ice core data is from the reference in the header

I said It was a rough tack of the instrumental record onto the plot. Is there another way of doing this with so little data available?
To only show data to 1850s and say there is no massive rise in temp in the 21st C is disingenuous

Row per year to month per row

Here is some rough excel code. It works.
NOTE that the excel sheet must be saved as a .XLSM macro enabled worksheet and macros will have to be enabled.

click developer tab
type a new macro name
e. g. YearPerRowToClmn

Assign to keybord if you like

click [create]
then between:

Sub YearPerRowToClmn()

End Sub

paste this (but not the “———”:

ActiveCell.Offset(1, 0).Range("A1:A11").Select
Application.CutCopyMode = False
Selection.EntireRow.Insert , CopyOrigin:=xlFormatFromLeftOrAbove
ActiveCell.Offset(-1, 2).Range("A1:K1").Select
ActiveCell.Offset(1, -1).Range("A1").Select
Selection.PasteSpecial Paste:=xlPasteAll, Operation:=xlNone, SkipBlanks:= _
False, Transpose:=True
ActiveCell.Offset(11, -1).Range("A1").Select

If Len(ActiveCell.Text) < 2 Then GoTo stopp
ActiveCell.Offset(1, 0).Range("A1:x11").Select

Application.CutCopyMode = False
Selection.EntireRow.Insert , CopyOrigin:=xlFormatFromLeftOrAbove
ActiveCell.Offset(-1, 2).Range("A1:K1").Select
ActiveCell.Offset(1, -1).Range("A1").Select
Selection.PasteSpecial Paste:=xlPasteAll, Operation:=xlNone, SkipBlanks:= _
False, Transpose:=True
ActiveCell.Offset(11, -1).Range("A1").Select
GoTo repeattranspose


to use:
get data in text form with 1 year of 12 months + other stuff
Select data [ctrl]+a selects the lot
Copy data [ctrl+c
open blank sheet in the workbook containing the macro
paste the data at cell a1
You now have a single column of data one year per row. If your excel is set up differently it may convert the data to columns automatically, ifnot
select the first to last year:
click first - scroll to last and click the last year whilst holding shift
select [data] tab
click text to colums
click delimited if you KNOW that there is always a certain character (space, comma etc) between monthly data
or click fixed width
click next (select delimiter character if necessary)
check the colums are correctly selected – move, delete or add. If station number is in data this usually has the date attached without space. If so add a separator to separate the date from the station.
If station number is in first column click next and select station number to be text click finish
else click finish
You should now have the data separated into columns.

Click the cell containing the first date (or the first cell to the left of january’s temperature)
Save the workbook as the next step is not undo-able.
Run the macro above (use keyboard shortcut or go to the developer tab and double click the macro name.
The macro should stop on the last line of data (looks for empty cell). However if it does not press [ctrl]+[break] a number of times. select end or debug from the options according to taste.
No guarantee is given with this software!!!!!

If you ever end up with a correctly formatted column of monthly data you will need to remove all data error indicators.
Mark the data column
on [data] tab select filter
on first line of column click the down arrow
deselect all (click the ticked select all box)
look through offered numbers for error indicators "-" "-9999.9" etc.
click the boxes associated with the error indicators
only the data in error is now shown
mark it all (be careful of the first box as this is patially obscured by the arrow)and press [delete]
Turn off filter by clicking filter in the ribbon again
Data is now clean
I data shows temp*10
the adjacent (right) to the first temp type
= [click temperature to left to enter cell]/10
mark all column including this cell to last row containing temperature
from [home] tab click fill then select fill down
This column now contains correctly scaled temperature but the cell contents are actually formulae.
with column marked copy column [ctrl]+c
right click first cell of this column and select paste special
select values only then ok it
The column now contains actual values and can therfore be copied to another sheet with dates in decimal format i.e. year+(month-1)/12. Note that excel does not like true dates before jan 1st 1900



From wuwt
Willis Looking at the unadjusted plots leads me to suspect that there are 2 major changes in measurement methods/location.
This occur in january 1941 and June 1994 – The 1941 is well known (po to airport move) . I can find no connection for the 1994 shift
These plots show the 2 periods each giving a shift of 0.8C
The red line shows the effect of a suggested correction
This plot compares the GHCN corrected curve (green) to that suggested by me (red).
The difference between the 2 is approx 1C compared to the 2.5 you quote as the “cheat”.


Defunct code found in Stolen data

Robert Greiner you state (on wattsupwiththat):

Line 8
This is where the magic happens. Remember that array we have of valid temperature readings? And, remember that random array of numbers we have from line two? Well, in line 4, those two arrays are interpolated together.

The interpol() function will take each element in both arrays and “guess” at the points in between them to create a smoothing effect on the data. This technique is often used when dealing with natural data points, just not quite in this manner.

The main thing to realize here, is, that the interpol() function will cause the valid temperature readings (yrloc) to skew towards the valadj values.

Lets look at a bit more of that code:
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

Does not this line give a yearly adjustment value interpolated from the 20 year points?

filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=21
Does not this line plot data derived from yyy


The smoking gun line!!!!
Does not his line plot data derived from yyy+yearlyadj The FUDGED FIGURE

This is further backed up by the end of file:
;legend,['Northern Hemisphere April-September instrumental temperature',$
; 'Northern Hemisphere MXD',$
; 'Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline'],$
; colors=[22,21,20],thick=[3,3,3],margin=0.6,spacing=1.5
legend,['Northern Hemisphere April-September instrumental temperature',$
'Northern Hemisphere MXD'],$

To me this looks as if 'Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline' would have been printed in colour 20 - just the same as the smoking gun line. HOWEVER you will note that this section is commented out also.

This code was written in 1998. If it had been implemented in any document then there would have been no leaked emails about hiding the decline!

So in my view this is code left in after a quick look-see.

Remember engineers ans scientist are human and play if bored and do not always tidy up.
have a look at:

From wuwt and woodfortrees
Here’s Gavin of RC on the subject (which was quoted by “Norman” in comments on your previous posting):

“It was an artificial correction to check some calibration statistics to see whether they would vary if the divergence was an artifact of some extra anthropogenic impact. It has never been used in a published paper (though something similar was explained in detail in this draft paper by Osborn). It has nothing to do with any reconstruction used in the IPCC reports.”

And indeed, in the same set of comments, “Morgan” pointed out that the Osborn et al. paper explicitly describes this step:

“To overcome these problems, the decline is artificially removed from the calibrated tree-ring density series, for the purpose of making a final calibration. The removal is only temporary, because the final calibration is then applied to the unadjusted data set (i.e., without the decline artificially removed). Though this is rather an ad hoc approach, it does allow us to test the sensitivity of the calibration to time scale, and it also yields a reconstruction whose mean level is much less sensitive to the choice of calibration period.”

I’m not sure which one of these your particular code snippet is doing, but either seem perfectly reasonable explanations to me – and both require the code to be added and them removed again. The lazy programmer’s way of doing this is by commenting and uncommenting.

If some hacker accessed some code illegally which contains commented out sections:
1. you do not know the status of the code - development or an issue or final issued. How can you criticise it?
2. Presence of commented out code or separate programme (that this thread is about) does not prove intent to commit fraud. As someone else commented the presence of unwritten code written by the invisible pink unicorn that says invisibly "this code creates a hockey stick" will not stand up in a court of law. To use use the argument here that "it could have been used so it must show intent to commit fraud" is disengenious to say the least.

WUWT entry

Line 4:
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
Line 10:

2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor


Notice that phrase "fudge factor" doesn't sound like hiding to me!

Lines 53-70

I feel that briffa_sep98_e.pro is the encoding of a lie.

did you notice this:

Next file calibrate_nhrecon
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
next file recon_overpeck
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
(I think they mean 1960 !! to agree with the code that follows)
Next File recon_esper.pro
All the same comment added in the header

Hiding?? I do not think so

Seems to be the later version of your files:
ml=where(densadj eq -99.999,nmiss)

Note no yearlyadj no valadj
So which programme was used to publish??