When RC posted this, I thanked them for crediting
Steve McIntyre. the post of course didnt make it through. sarcasm filter must have been on.

It’s odd, they lend more credibility to their opposition by refusing to engage, than by actually engaging.

Imagine a world where you believe that you should talk to Iran, but should not talk to mining guy from canada. weird.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/buckets_diff.jpg

Realclimate presented this graph:

I do they achieve the 0.1 C difference between the bucket and the inlet while most of the graph shows a difference bigger than the 0.1 C.

It has 25-30 years that Jones is responsible for the UK version of the temp graph. He always have refused to share his data source and code. Yet he and his team only discovered the origin of the problem with the data recently even though there was several mention of problem with SST’s data.

Who knows what other problem could be found if it was available for auditing. Biases for land data are just has numerous and problematic.

is wrong.

Google, you will find plenty of mentions of the known problems.

What’s new is that someone did the hard work of finding and studying the numbers and publishing the article. Lots of people have talked about it at length.

One off the first page of hits for
ocean temperature bucket intake
http://www.cmos.ca/Ao/Abstracts/v160301.pdf

On The Accuracy of Sea-Surface Temperatures and Salinities Observed in the Northeast Pacific Ocean
S. Tabata, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, B.C., Canada
[Original manuscript received 8 June 1977;
in revised form 30 December 1977]

“Whatever they come up with will be a considered and reasonable approach that will include the buoy and drifter issues as well as the post WW-II canvas bucket transition. Second guessing how that will work out in the absence of any actual knowledge would be foolish.”

After it took them 30 years to realize that something was wrong or what was wrong with their SST’s data, we should wait upon their “expertise” to tell us the impact of what they discovered.

It is more then time that Jones release is methodology and data be maid available so that his “expertise” could get audited.

I have explored the Independent graph in a bit more depth here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001447visually_pleasing_te.html

So what did you mean with 5 year trends presented in the Independent graph?

Thanks for your comments, but The Independent graph is in error. It does not show a 5-year average, it shows a smoothing from a 21-point filter.

The period of trends that I am comparing are 1950 to 2007, as this was the period used by the IPCC in its AR4 report.

Adding error bars is a good idea (here and elsewhere)!

…..Temperature errors from the five thermometers ranged from minus 2.0 F to plus 3.9 F.