Will Global Temperature Need Upward Adjustment post 1945?

I could be wrong because I don't have access to the full text of the paper today, but I think that the correction will move sea temperatures prior to 1945 down. If that is the case, the land and sea temperatures in 1880 will approximately coincide corresponding to a system in equilibrium. The correction, if substantiated, would impact our understanding of thermal time constants.

I commend Jeff M for the thoroughness of tangible answering the question even however he starts off with a definite, yet... whilst this is alleged that 10 years is in basic terms too short a timeframe to make any remark some trend, what which ability is this is a quick volume of time for placing apart noise from a sign which hence ability CO2 from organic variability. that on no account prevents somebody from claiming that for the previous ten years, temperatures have been flat or fairly reducing over maximum archives gadgets. For some reason, that certainty ought to be distorted so it would not sound as undesirable because it curiously does (Edit: the two solutions under me are situations in factor.). And with connection with ENSO, this ten 12 months trend could be lots decrease without the sturdy El Nino that gave us an extremely heat 12 months in 2010.

I will SPECULATE that any adjustment would be nudged down. Sea surface measurements over the years, have been taken by ships utilized varying techniques with varying results. Today, hull-sensor and engine inlet readings... not bucket readings......provide the vast majority of 'physical' temperature data.The bucket readings were more accurate (though less convenient) than the former. Obviously, the hull sensor and inlet readings are much more prone to biases induced by the actual structure and operation of the ships.

This is an interesting topic that has had substantial discussion for some time.

It certainly shows that if you crunch the numbers long enough and with a certain goal in mind you can achieve the result you want. How were the numbers tweaked? Was Jim Hansen of GISS involved? He's quite expert at 'correcting' data until it fits his preconceived notion and the cooling period mid-century has been very inconvenient. Now, like the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age it can be redacted by carefully only examining certain datasets and ignoring any that don't fit your criteria.

Based on that letter it appears that their "filtering" of the data is what created this cooling, not any actual cooling but I won't make that claim. It just seems awfully convenient to me and I'm naturally skeptical.

Well I'm a little confused as to how this is going to alter the temperature record. They conclude

"Corrections for the discontinuity are expected to alter the character of mid-twentieth century temperature variability but not estimates of the century-long trend in global-mean temperatures."

I'm a bit confused as to whether this correction would move the temperature record upward every year since 1945, or just one year, or a few years, or what. And 0.3 C seems really big, since the drop in 1945 was only about 0.1 C.

This finding actually influences mid century cooling quite substantially--meaning less cooling more upward trend (though still fairly flat) from the 40s to the 70s.

What this means is that our understanding of aerosols and how they influenced climate of the period are going to need a bit of a tweaking (maybe more). This, of course, will heavily influence modeling of the period as well.

And another look at solar will be necessary.

Here is Nature's news article on the subject:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080528/full/453569...

Oh, and Steve McIntyre blogged about this discontinuity and the likely cause some time ago:

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=226

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=231

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1272

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1276

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2525

JS said:

"cognitive dissonance"

It is funny how this term has suddenly come into fashion as of late. How is it related to this question?

We don't need any more reasons to respond, but perhaps that latest correction will clarify the severity of the problem. If that paper's findings are upheld by further inquiries, it'll adjust the data sets upwards after1945.

At this point obsessing over obscure scientific data is a distraction. The most tangible and productive thing we can do is to write politicians, as James Hansen is doing, to cancel the construction of new coal plants:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080528_Ka...

Tipping points exist among people as well as climate systems. The action with the greatest potential to initiate positive feedbacks—to lead to the benefits that will accompany a cleanenergy future—is a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants until the technology is developed to capture the carbon dioxide and store it underground, out of the atmosphere. Such a moratorium would do more than put the brakes on global warming. It would also provide the industrial world with sufficient moral authority to urge China and other developing countries to join the battle against climate change. As its name suggests, global warming is a global problem, and arresting it will take a global effort. At present, developing countries don’t want to hear the rich guys tell them to curb their own, burgeoning use of coal and other fossil fuels. If the rich countries banned new coal plants, the developing world would be more likely to pay attention.

I am optimistic that greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced and atmospheric concentrations stabilized at levels short of disaster. But the chances diminish with each new coal-fired power plant. That is why we must summon the leadership to declare that any new coal plant without the technology to capture carbon is off the table.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080529_De...

...the urgent, essential action is a coal moratorium.

...solution of the climate problem can only be obtained with an

unambiguous renunciation of coal except where CO2 emissions are captured and sequestered.

...construction of a single coal-fired power plant obviates actions by millions of people to reduce their emissions.

---

The time we spend picking nits on Yahoo Answers with people suffering from cognitive dissonance is time spent not sending letters to elected officials and candidates. Read James Hansen's letters regarding coal-fired power plants, and send one for every one or two Yahoo posts you write, and we'll solve this problem in no time.

This is proof that AGW has become one of th e greatest perversion of science in the history of science. When the data does not fit the theory, you change the data. How many times has that happened?

For a technical analysis read:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3116

sounds like a possible partial answer to the bit of weirdness that confuses me in the comparison of the north/south temps and the land/sea temps.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aq...

Unfortunately, the deniers will see this, not as a correction, but as a way to rewrite history.