I wonder … if the oil or coal companies took data, and “adjusted” it to show something other than what the raw data said … you’d be all over that.

It is one thing to make a correction for a known calibration or measurement problem.

But filling in “interstices” means filing in the gaps in the data. In that case, you are clearly estimating what you think the data should be in that gap. That is data *creation.*

Data “reconstruction” (as used in climate modeling), is likewise data creation. Be honest. Nobody knows what the actual temperature was, but you might come up with an estimate based on certain proxies. But as is being demonstrated on the “denier” sites that you profess to abhor, these “reconstructions” have problems as well.

And you question whether I know what I’m talking about … well, I do have a degree in mechanical engineering and a law degree … so I think I have a better grasp of math and statistics than the average person might.

[JR: I deleted a post to a denier website. I have also blogged why the NASA and Hadley temp records likely underestimate actually warming. I'm glad people are out there pointing out insignificant points for the real scientists to factor in or not depending on whether they are real or bogus.
I just think it is irrelevant stuff. Pretty much every place on the planet that could be melting is.]

However, you need to be honest, filling in the “interstices” and gaps in data using some sort of estimation algorithm is, in essence, creating data.

Granted, there is actual data mixed in with the “model data” … but even I can take a set of data showing a slight cooling trend (or warming trend, it doesn’t matter) and fill in the gaps in the data to reverse the trend.

Again, you don’t deny that Bromwich said that the literature showed statistically insignificant cooling and warming trends, depending on the dataset used.

[JR: Final paragraph deleted since I'm tired of links to denier sites.

Your first paragraph above suggests to me you have no idea what you are talking about. Either data is "reconstructed" or it isn't. Anytime you aren't physically measuring something directly, you are reconstructing data. It ain't a big deal here.]

Did you even read the new study — or my post?

Bromwich has now combined three different data sets in his new study. And he used a new analytical technique he recently refined for his snowfall work.

And, yes, the OLD study you linked to only went through 1999. We’ve had another decade of data since then — and while you deniers may not accept the fact, this last decade has been by far of the warmest in the 150 year temperature record.

So it is absurd to write, “the research goes both ways apparently, depending on the data.” The research goes one way as the planet heats up and we get more data — and we get smarter about how to analyze it.

Bromwich appears to be a real pioneer in this specific area of figuring out the temperature in Antarctica. So it is no surprise that his techniques are improving over the years.

Finally, data is reconstructed in much if not most of all scientific research. We gather photons from telescopes so essentially all of our extra-solar-system science is “reconstructed.” Same for particle physics. Same for medicine actually. What do you think CT and MRI scans are? They don’t actually go inside your brain, you know.

What is especially funny about your critique is that of all the recent temperature datasets in climate science, the ones that are the most “reconstructed” — and hence, according to you, the least trustworthy — are the satellite data. Satellites don’t measure temperature directly at all. And they take their data through a column of the atmosphere.

If you want to start rejecting constructed temperature data sets, start by ignoring all of the satellite data. Indeed, if we have left that analysis up to Christy and Spencer — who had screwed up the reconstruction for years (all their mistakes mysteriously in the same direction) — we would still be left with the denier meme that the satellite data doesn’t show warming. Fortunately, the scientific method triumphs in the end.

Furthermore, it’s not “slander” to cite someone’s words back at them. Bromwich said, a mere six years ago, that the literature showed that there was no statistically significant trend (either up or down) in the temperature data. I note that you don’t deny that he said that. How could you, I provided the link.

You need to read the abstract. The “data” is “reconstructed.” In other words, he took the actual data (which he previously stated showed no statistically significant trend up or down), and then used a computer program which attempted to fill in more data. So it is very accurate to say that he created data, and based his statements on the created data. Not surprisingly I suppose, he finds a warming trend in the “model data.”

But only six years prior, he acknowledged that the literature was conflicting. From the article I cited … “In recent years, scientists have discovered surprising, and occasionally conflicting, climate changes taking place in the Antarctic. Jones (1995) finds an average warming at the surface over all of Antarctica (especially the Antarctic Peninsula) by analyzing station data from 1957 to 1994. Comiso (2000) notes a cooling trend between 1979 and 1998 from infrared Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) imagery and from station records, but the trends are not statistically significant for either dataset.”

So some researchers found warming, others cooling, and “the trends are not statistically significant for either dataset.”

I’m merely pointing out that the research goes both ways apparently, depending on the data. And that there was no statistical significance in the up or down trend. In other words, you could make no real judgment about the trend from a statistical standpoint. That is what Bromich (who you linked to in the OP) stated.

Even though this same author previously noted in another publication that he authored that there were statistically insignificant trends either way. http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/ PolarMet/ PMGFulldocs/ bromwich_monaghan_jc_2004.pdf

Can I model my bank account so that there is more money in it, and then claim that reality needs to match my model?

Why not stick with the actual data? Either the trend is there or it isn’t. I don’t need to artificially “compute” what the data “should” be.

[JR: I love you deniers. First off, you have cited a paper that was submitted in 2002! There has been a want of data and improved analysis since then. Second, all analysis of long-term trends is done with the help of computers. What are you some sort of a Luddite? If you want to accuse scientists of fraud, as you do in the third paragraph, why don't you? The reason that fraud, especially fraud that persists for an extended period of time, is still rare in science compared to pretty much every other field is that the results must meet the review process, and then they are published for all to see, and challenge. If you want to slander the good name of climate scientists, you probably belong on another web site.]

” . . . on centennial to millennial time scales Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) can melt and moderate warming in the Southern Hemisphere, by up to 10°C regionally, in a 4 × CO2 scenario. This behaviour stems from the formation of a cold halocline in the Southern Ocean, which limits sea-ice cover retreat under global warming and increases surface albedo, reducing local surface warming. . . .”

from “Antarctic ice-sheet melting provides negative feedbacks on future climate warming” in GRL 2008, by Swingedouw and others.

So land ice melts, freshens the sea water, slows sea-ice retreat, reduces albedo, cools the air (a little) locally. This masks AGW. Holy cow.

Tons of references there.

Those two trillion tons of land ice lost since 2003 have mean fresh water going into the oceans, lowering the salinity and raising the freezing point. Thus you would expect the sea ice to freeze earlier in the autumn and thaw later in the spring. We don’t see that.

In other words, lower salinity might actually be temporarily masking a larger catastrophe at the poles.

Does this “hold water”?

Last year we had lots of thin 1st year ice, which is why there was so much summer ice melt even though temperatures were cooler. If this current trend continues were going to have lots of thin 1st and 2nd year ice but less ice refreezing overall. And then if we get an El Niño come spring…

2008 Arctic Sea-Ice Refreeze Trend Line Dropping Below Last Year’s

Blogging for the future at Climaticide Chronicles