I noticed the post http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2525 by googling «
sst bucket adjustment».
I don't think this issue is like a «
SST bucket adjustment» or a TOBS adjustment or an adjustment for lapse rate due to altitude change.
Not exact matches
Hmm... Many
adjustments also reduce the trends (such as correcting for UHI and the
bucket corrections on the
SST).
CA readers are aware that I discussed
bucket adjustments on a number of occasions long before Thompson et al 2008, in particular, questioning the absurd IPCC assumption that all
SST measurements switched from
buckets to engine inlet on the -LSB-...]
A combined physical - empirical method (Folland and Parker, 1995) is used, as in the SAR, to estimate
adjustments to ships
SST data obtained up to 1941 to compensate for heat losses from uninsulated (mainly canvas) or partly - insulated (mainly wooden)
buckets (see Box 2.2).
Therefore the
bucket adjustment methodology and the
bucket adjustments themselves need to be prominently illustrated and adjusted in any
SST estimate that purports to be scientific.
CA readers are aware that I discussed
bucket adjustments on a number of occasions long before Thompson et al 2008, in particular, questioning the absurd IPCC assumption that all
SST measurements switched from
buckets to engine inlet on the day after Pearl Harbour.
Steve, I think the first time i heard about problems with the
bucket adjustments and dip in
SST mid century was in 2005, I think Mike McCracken told me about this.
As a result, Folland et al introduced an abrupt
adjustment of 0.3 deg C to all
SST measurements prior to 1941 (with the amount of the
adjustment attenuated in the 19th century because of a hypothesized use of wooden rather than canvas
buckets.)
re
bucket adjustments I just can not believe that data from such an uncontrolled method could possibly be taken too seriously, at least to establish
SST on a global basis.
Very early in CA history (for example here), I had pointed out the critical dependence of
SST trends on «
bucket adjustments».