Guest post by Willis Eschenbach
I've done a lot of work on the CERES satellite data set. Above is an image of their data collection system. From their website:
The CERES project advances state-of-the-art Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) observations by improving the accuracy of the CERES instrument and by extensively using synchronized higher spatial resolution spectroscopic imager measurements in low Earth orbit and geostationary platforms. CERES involves a high level of data fusion. During CERES, the team processed data from seven CERES instruments, two MODIS, two VIIRS, and 20 geostationary imagers, integrating all of this data to obtain a picture of the radiation flux from the top to the bottom of the atmosphere. Climatological accuracy. More than 90% of CERES data volume involves two or more instruments.
However, a recent analysis by Nikolov and Zeller (N&Z) claimed that the IPCC misused CERES satellite data. Now, I hate writing this analysis, for reasons I’ll get into later, but as the saying goes, “It must be necessary when the devil drives.”
This analysis is Nikolov & Zeller: The IPCC's Twist of Critical Satellite Data, hosted by Tallbloke's Talkshop.
The reason I don't want to write about this is that I've had previous run-ins with Ned Nikolov and Carl Zeller and Roger Tattersall (aka “The Tall Man”).
Not long ago, together with N&Z, they published a scientific paper using aliases. I figured it out, and considering the aliases are Den Volokin and Lark Rellez, it's not that hard. So I wrote to the editor pointing this out, which only added fuel to the fire. Suffice it to say, they were not happy with me.
They also published an analysis claiming that gravity keeps the atmosphere hotter than the Earth's distance from the sun. Of course it's physically impossible…that's what I'm saying.
Regarding Roger Tallbloke, I was banned from commenting on his website, Tarblock's Talking Room. First, he banned Joel Shore from his website because he said N&Z's gravity analysis violated the law of conservation of energy. Post from that time:
Roger's exact words to Joel were:
…you wouldn’t post here unless you apologized to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about the conservation of energy theory throughout the blogosphere and failing to correct it.
Now, I did the same thing as Joel. I said on the Internet that the N&Z theory violates the law of conservation of energy. So I went to the talking room and begged, even begged Roger not to do something so stupid and anti-scientific as banning someone from expressing their scientific opinions. Since I hold the same views and commit the same thought crimes, this isn't just theoretical to me. However, Roger remains opinionated, so I can no longer in good conscience post there.
Then, in another incident, I presented actual evidence that N&Z's claim violated the law of conservation of energy. I'm sure this didn't endear me to N&Z. In the comments on that article, Roger got mad at me and banned me. I think I've been double banned.
So I'm commenting on the N&Z post hosted by Tallbloke's Talkshop…well…let's just say there are some forces at work, that's all.
To be fair, after someone pointed out N&Z to me about a week ago, I did get curious and started flicking through the paper. I read a few paragraphs, laughed, and moved on. Here’s why.
N&Z claimed in the paper that the IPCC completely distorted the CERES data by inverting the data. From the beginning of the paper:
We find that in the computer code used to generate Figure 7.3, the global anomalies in CERES' reflected shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation have been multiplied by -1. This results in a reversal of long-term trends in these key climate parameters. Dr. Matthew Palmer, one of the authors of Section 7.2.2, admitted in an email that this trend reversal was intentional, but failed to provide a convincing reason.
As soon as they said that, I knew what was going on. Let me explain.
In the CERES data set, generally all fluxes have positive signs. For example, in the CERES data set, the mean value of TOA solar radiation toward the Earth is + 340 W/m2, and the mean value of reflected solar radiation away from the Earth is + 99 W/m2. Both are positive.
However, this is not the only convention used. For example, the IPCC considers energy fluxes toward the Earth to be positive and energy fluxes away from the Earth to be negative. The logic behind this is that inward fluxes warm the Earth, so they should be positive, while outbound fluxes cool the Earth, so they should be negative. fair enough.
Therefore, the IPCC would say that solar radiation is + 340 W/m2 and reflected solar radiation is – 99 W/m2. The outgoing radiation is negative.
The same goes for long waves rising from the top of the atmosphere. The CERES data gives 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 these agreements. Both are perfectly valid ways to do business. For that matter, it's also perfectly correct to think of the flux toward the Earth as negative and the flux away from the Earth as positive.
As long as you know which convention you're running, that's not a problem. For example, in the CERES approach, since all flows are positive, the net solar energy remaining after reflection is calculated as Solar reduce reflection.
But when using the IPCC convention, the reflection is negative, and the net solar energy remaining after reflection is calculated as solar energy add reflection.
When you understand and follow the conventions used, Both will give you the correct answer.
So after reading that short section of their paper, I can already see where the misunderstanding lies. It's just a different notation convention. Since I didn't feel like writing about this, I just stopped reading the analysis and moved on to writing about other things.
However, today Anthony asked me to take a look at this document because it seemed to be causing some commotion among the troops. I see “Breaking through again, dear friends”, I read it to the end. To my surprise, near the end, they discussed their interaction with the author, i.e.
We received a response from Dr. Palmer on July 10, 2024, who admitted that the reflected solar and outgoing heat flux anomalies had been intentionally multiplied by -1. However, his explanation of this data manipulation is simply an extension of the argument cited in the title of Figure 7.3, which refers to the direction of flux. Specifically, Dr. Palmer wrote:
“… Both reflected SW and outgoing LW are defined as positive values in the upward/outward direction. Therefore, for these time series we multiply by -1 so that their expression is consistent with the rest of this chapter. This means, for example, that a reduction in reflected waves means a relative gain in energy in the Earth system. Likewise, an increase in output LW implies a relative loss of Earth system energy. Note that in the figure we label them “Global Solar Flux Anomaly” and “Global Heat Flux Anomaly” instead of “Reflected Southwest Flux” and “Outgoing Longwave Flux””.
Man, I laughed when I read this. It says exactly what I've discovered is the problem. However, N&Z dismissed him:
As mentioned above, this interpretation makes no physical sense since the anomalies are always defined relative to a selected reference value and are therefore independent of the flux direction. Furthermore, expressing time series in terms of anomalies should not alter the time trend of the original data.
Yes…no. That's not what happened. Symbolic conventions are conventions. All the authors did was to make their analysis consistent with the IPCC Convention and, more importantly, do so correctly, Consistent with the model results they comparedmultiply shortwave and longwave outbound traffic by -1. completely legalfor them it is completely necessary.
Anyway, that's N&Z, wrong again. However, I guess they won't admit it and they'll just keep going.
That's all I have to say about N&Z's claim. On our forested hillside, with views of the Pacific six miles (ten kilometers) to the west, temperatures have dropped and fog has returned. Saw a red fox scurrying by today looking for lunch…life is good.
My best wishes to everyone.
w.
I must say: When you leave a comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. This avoids endless misunderstandings.
Notice: Today, when this post is published, I will be removing the guts from the toilet and taking them to town to find replacements… so my reply will be delayed.
related
