Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I do a lot of work with the CERES satellite dataset. Picture the data collection system above. From the website:
The CERES project has advanced state-of-the-art observations of the Earth’s Radiation Budget (ERB) through the improved accuracy of the CERES instrument and the extensive use of higher spatial resolution spectral measurements on both Earth orbit and geostationary platforms. CERES involves high-level data fusion. During the CERES period, the team has processed data from 7 CERES instruments, 2 MODIS, 2 VIIRS and 20 geostationary imagers, all integrated to obtain climate accuracy in the radiation flux from the top to the bottom of the atmosphere. More than 90% of the CERES data product volume consists of two or more instruments.
However, recently, there have been claims in the Nikolov and Zeller (N&Z) analysis that the IPCC misrepresented the CERES satellite data. Now, I hate writing about this analysis for reasons I’ll get to, but as the saying goes, “Necessary when the devil drives.”
The analysis is Nikolov & Zeller: Misrepresentation of Critical Satellite Data by the IPCC, and is hosted on Talkshop Tallbloke.
The reason I don’t want to write about it is that I’ve had run-ins with Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller before, and also with Roger Tattersall, AKA “Tallbloke”.
With N&Z, some time ago he published scientific papers using an alias. I thought out, which is not all that hard given that alias Den Volokin and Lark Rellez. So I wrote to the editor pointing this out, and the fat was on the fire. Simply put, they don’t like me.
He also published an analysis stating that gravity is what makes the atmosphere warmer than the distance of the earth from the sun. And, of course, it’s not physically possible… and I say.
With Roger Tallbloke, I am banned from commenting on the site, Talkshop Tallbloke. It started by banning Joel Shore from the site because he said N&Z’s gravity analysis violated conservation of energy. From a post at the time:
Roger’s exact words to Joel were:
… you should not post here unless and until you apologize to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about the conservation of energy in their theory throughout the blogosphere and failing to correct it.
Now, I have done the same thing that Joel did. I have said on the web that the N&Z theory violates the conservation of energy. So I went to Talkshop and asked, even begged, Roger not to do stupid and anti-scientific things like banning people for their scientific views. Since I have the same views and I commit the same crimes, it is more than theoretical for me. However, Roger remains stubborn, so I can’t post there in good conscience.
Then, in a separate incident, I presented concrete evidence that N&Z’s claim violated conservation of energy. I’m sure that doesn’t endear me to N&Z. In the comments on the post, Rog got angry and banned me. I think I’m double banned.
So I commented on the N&Z post hosted on Tallbloke’s Talkshop… well… I just said there were forces at play and left it at that.
To be fair, after someone pointed out N&Z to me a week ago, I got curious and started looking at the paper pretty quickly. I got a few paragraphs in, laughed, and moved on. This is why.
N&Z’s claim in the paper is that the IPCC totally misrepresented the CERES data by altering it. From the opening of the paper:
We found out that CERES global anomaly of reflected shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation has been multiplied by -1 in the computer code used to generate Fig. 7.3. This results in an inversion of the long-term trends of these key climate parameters. Dr. Matthew Palmer, one of the authors of Section 7.2.2, admitted in an email message that this inversion of style was done intentionally, but failed to provide a convincing justification for it.
When they spoke, I immediately knew what was going on. Let me explain.
In the CERES data set, most all fluxes are positive in sign. So for example, in the CERES dataset the average value of TOA solar radiation towards the Earth is + 340 W/m2, and the average value of sunlight reflected away from the Earth is + 99 W/m2. Both are positive.
However, this is not the only convention used. The IPCC, for example, considers the flux of energy towards the Earth as positive, and the flux out of the Earth as negative. The logic behind this is that the incoming flux warms the Earth so it must be positive, and the outgoing flux cools the Earth so it must be negative. Fair enough.
So the IPCC will say that the solar radiation is + 340 W / m2, and the reflected solar radiation is – 99 W / m2. The outgoing radiation is negative.
The same is true of longwave upwelling at the top of the atmosphere. CERES data gives as a positive value, + 240 W/m2 … but according to the IPCC convention it is a negative value, – 240 W/m2.
There is nothing sacred about either of these conventions. Both are the right way to do business. If this is the case, it is also valid to consider the flux towards the Earth as negative, and that which leaves the Earth as positive.
As long as you know the convention in operation, it is not a problem. For example, in CERES mode, since all flows are positive, the net solar remaining after reflection is counted as solar minus reflection.
But using the IPCC convention, where reflection is negative, the net solar remaining after reflection is counted as solar plus reflection.
And if you understand and follow the conventions used, both give the correct answer.
So after reading that little paper, I can already see where the misunderstanding lies. It’s just a different sign convention. And since I didn’t want to write about it, I stopped reading the analysis there, and I went on to something else.
However, today Anthony asked me to take a look at the paper because it seems that it will cause a bit of disturbance in the force. So yes “Once more to the breach, dear friends”, and I read it to the end. And near the end, to my surprise, he discussed his interaction with the author, ie
We received a reply from Dr. Palmer on July 10, 2024, where he admitted that the solar thermal flux anomaly and the reflected outflow were deliberately multiplied by -1. However, this explanation for data manipulation is only an extension of the justification mentioned in the caption of Fig. 7.3 which asks for the direction of the flux. Specifically, Dr. Palmer wrote:
“… reflected SW and outgoing LW are both defined as positive in the upward/outward direction. Therefore, for timeseries we multiply by -1 so that they are written in a way that is consistent with the rest of the chapter. This means that, for example, a reflected SW decrease means a relative GAIN of energy in the Earth system. Additionally, an increase in outgoing LW means a relative LOSS of energy in the Earth system. Note that in the figure we label them as “global solar flux anomaly” and “global thermal flux anomaly” instead of “reflected SW flux” and “outgoing LW flux”.”
Man, I laughed when I read that. Said the same thing I already know the problem. However, N&Z just blasted him saying:
As discussed above, this explanation makes no sense, since the anomaly is always defined with respect to the chosen reference value and, therefore, has nothing to do with the direction of the flux. Also, expressing the timeseries in terms of anomalies is not supposed to change the temporal trend of the original data.
Well… no. It’s not like that. Sign conventions are just that, conventions. All the authors do, and rightly so, is to make the analysis consistent with IPCC conventions and more importantly, consistent with the results of the model they comparedby multiplying the outflow of shortwave and longwave by -1. Totally legitand in that case, it is absolutely necessary.
Anyway, it’s N&Z, wrong again. But, my guess is, he won’t admit it, he’ll move on.
And that’s all I’ll say about N&Z’s claims. Here, on our wooded hillside with a small view of the Pacific Ocean six miles (ten km) away to the west, the temperature has dropped and the fog has returned. Saw a red fox walking around looking for lunch today…life is good.
All the best to all.
w.
I have to say: When you comment, please mention the exact words you are discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.
NB: Today when this is published, I will tear the underwear out of the toilet and take it to the city to find a replacement… so my reply will be late.
Related
