Climategate 3: Thank you Mr FOIA
Posted by jennifer, March 15th, 2013 - under Information, News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
SOMEONE hacked into the Climatic Research Unit, CRU, at the University of East Anglia and published thousands of confidential emails between leading climate scientists online in November 2009 [1]. Many of the emails showed that leading proponents of anthropogenic global warming were having great difficulty justifying their own propaganda. One of my favourite emails is from Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, to the infamous Michael Mann complaining that there has been no global warming:
“Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)…
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
While the hack was widely condemned by mainstream climate scientists and the hacker would likely go to jail for a long time - if only he could be found. For me, the stolen emails represented a first opportunity to see the extraordinary deceit and corruption within the mainstream climate science community; the very people running the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, at the United Nations.
Indeed I have always held the hacker in high esteem. He is one of my heroes. Along with Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) and Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), he is a great champion of science.
Anyway, yesterday the hacker provided several high profile bloggers, including Anthony Watts, with password access to some 220,000 additional emails!
WUWT will be publishing some of the new material over the next few days and probably also weeks and months [2].
In a covering email [3] the hacker explained he had done this because he was keen to off-load the remaining material and was not in a position to sort through the material and cull the sensitive and potentially socially damaging material:
“I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment. Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.”
I have often wondered who the hacker was, and what motivated him. In this latest email he provides significant insights. In particular, like many readers of this blog, he is clearly concerned about the increasing misallocation of resources by government in the name of anthropogenic global warming.
He is acutely aware that the opportunity for any one individual in a community to be fed, clothed and educated depends to a large extent on the collective wealth and wellbeing of that society. Towards this end, the covering email is also a plea for the better allocation of the “assets” at our collective disposal.
Mr FOIA, as he calls himself, wrote:
“Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Clearly Mr FOIA also places a premium on the truth, writing:
“Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.”
Thank you Mr FOIA.
******
[1] All the emails, documents and computer code, from the original release in November 2009, can be downloaded from Wikileaks at
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009
******
[2] I’m guessing that What’s Up With That will be a best place to find new emails as they are released. This morning the following was posted…
“In response to a polite media inquiry from Wall Street journal editorial writer Anne Jolis, Michael Mann rages — and then cc’s his response to Media Matters, Joe Romm and other allies in the warmest-media industrial complex.
The e-mail exchange is below.
###
from: Michael Mann subject: Re: From the Wall Street Journal: to: Anne Jolis , Joe Romm , Media Matters Erikka Knuti , DarkSydOTheMoon@aol.com, Dan Vergano , Bud Ward , george@monbiot.info, AJ Walzer , “Paul D. Thacker”, Chris Mooney
Ms. Jolis,
I’ve taken the liberty of copying this exchange to a few others who might be interested in it, within the broader context of issues related to the history of biased reporting on climate change at the Wall Street Journal Europe,
Yours, Mike Mann
On Oct 23, 2009, at 12:42 PM,
Michael Mann wrote:
Ms. Jolis,
I am traveling through this weekend and have only brief email access, so can only respond w/ a very short email to your inquiry.
I’m sad to report that the tone of your questions suggests a highly distorted, contrarian-driven view of the entirety of our science. The premise of essentially everyone of your questions is wrong, and is contradicted by assessments such as the IPCC report, reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, etc. The National Academy of Science report (more info below) reported in 2006 that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence…”.
The conclusions in the most recent 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment report have been significantly strengthened relative to what was originally concluded in our work from the 1990s or in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report, something that of course should have been expected given the numerous additional studies that have since been done that all point in the same direction. The conclusion that large-scale recent warmth likely exceeds the range seen in past centuries has been extended from the past 1000 years in the TAR, to the past 1300 years in the current report, and the confidence in this conclusion has been upped from likely in the Third Assessment Report to very likely in the current report for the past half millennium. Since then, the conclusions have been further strengthened by other work, including work by us.
Please see e.g. the reporting by the BBC:
[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8236797.stm [2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7592575.stm
You don’t seem to be aware of the fact that our original “Hockey Stick” reconstruction didn’t even use the “Yamal” data. It seems you have uncritically accepted nearly every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the science of climate change itself. Furthermore, I doubt that the various authors you cite as critics, such as Pollack and Smerdon, would in any way agree w/ your assessment of this work.
Misrepresenting the work of scientists is a serious offense, [what irony! - jen]
and would work to further besmirch the reputation of the Wall Street Journal, which is strongly been called into question in the past with regard to the treatment of climate change. I’ve copied my response to a number of others who might wish to comment further, as I will be unavailable to speak with you until next week.
I’ve pasted below various summaries by mainstream news venues which reported
a couple years ago that the National Academy of Sciences, in the words of Nature “Affirmed The Hockey Stick” below this message.
In addition, here are a few links you might want to read to better
familiarize yourself with what the science actually states with regard to the issues raised in
your inquiry below:
[3]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
[4]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourthassessment-
summary
-for-policy-makers/
[5]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academiessynthesis-
repor
t/
[6]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-round-
27/
[7]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/new-analysisreproduces-
graph-of-l
ate-20th-century-temperature-rise/
[8]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-tothe-
latest-hockey
-stick-controversy/
[9]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-anold-
millennium/
Finally, let me suggest, under the assumption that your intent is indeed to
report the reality of our current scientific understanding, rather than contrarian
politically-motivated spin, that any legitimate journalistic inquiry into
the current state of the science, and the extent to which uncertainties and controversy
have been overstated and misrepresented in the public discourse, would probably choose
to focus on the issues raised here:
[10]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-abrief-
review/
Yours,
Mike Mann
___________________NEWS CLIPS ON ACADEMY REPORT_____________________
from BBC (6/23/06 “Backing for ‘Hockey Stick’ graph”)
The Earth was hotter in the late 20th Century than it had been in the last
400 or possibly 1,000 years, a report requested by the US Congress concludes. It backs some of the key findings of the original study that gave rise to the iconic “hockey stick”
graph.) from New York Times (Andy Revkin, 6/22/06 “Science Panel Packs Study on
Warming Climate”):
At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several
members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had
intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.
“I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation,” said one member, Peter
Bloomfield, a statistics professor at [11]North Carolina State University. He added that
his impression was the study was “an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure.
Boston Globe (Beth Daley, 6/22/06 “Report backs global warming claims”):
Our conclusion is that this recent period of warming is likely the warmest in
a (millennium), said John Wallace, one of the 12 members on the panel and
professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington.
Los Angeles Times (Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan, “U.S. Panel Backs
Data on Global Warming”):
After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation’s preeminent
scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree
over the last century, a development that “is unprecedented for the last 400 years and
potentially the last several millennia.”
and
The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years
correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times. It concluded that, “with a high level of confidence,” global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.
Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level,
committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University
said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.
The committee supported Mann’s other conclusions, but said they were not as
definitive. For example, the report said the panel was “less confident” that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from
before 1600. Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that
finding the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial
report.
Associated Press (syndicate with 100s of newspapers accross the U.S. (John
Heilprin, 6/22/06 “The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, perhaps
even longer”):
The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes
research from the late 1990s was “likely” to be true, said John “Mike” Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the ’90s research “are very close to being right” and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.
and
Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the
20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a “Little Ice Age” from about 1500 to 1850.
Washington Post (Juliet Eilperin, 6/23/06 “Study Confirms Past Few Decades
Warmest on Record”):
Panel member Kurt M. Cuffey, a geography professor at the University of
California at Berkeley, said at a news briefing that the report “essentially validated” the
conclusions Mann reported in 1998 and 1999 using temperature records. The panel also
estimated there is a roughly 67 percent chance that Mann is right in saying the past 25 years were the warmest in a 1,000 years.
Nature (Geoff Brumfield, 6/28/06 “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph”)
“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North,
the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less
certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics
claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600.
Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a
two-to-one chance of being right.
and
says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in
Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. “This study was the first of its kind, and
they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed,” he says,
adding that he “would not be embarrassed” to have been involved in the work.
New Scientist (Roxanne Khamsi, 6/23/06, “US report backs study on global
warming”):
It was really the first analysis of its type, panel member Kurt Cuffey of the
University of California, Berkeley, US, said at a news conference on Thursday.
He added that it was the first time anyone has done such a large-scale and
continual analysis of temperature over time. So its not surprising that they could have
probably done some detailed aspects of it better.
But it was a remarkable contribution and gave birth to a debate thats
ongoing, thats teaching us a lot about how climate has changed.
Science (Richard Kerr, June 30, 2006, “Yes, Its been Getting Warmer in Here
Since the CO2 Begain to Rise”): In addition, none of the three committee members at the press briefing– North, Bloomfield, and paleoclimatologist Kurt Cuffey of the University of California, Berkeley- -had found any hint of scientific impropriety. “I certainly did not see anything inappropriate,” said North. “Maybe things could have been done better, but after all, it was the first analysis of its kind.”
– On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:41 AM,
Jolis, Anne wrote: Dear Dr. Mann, My name is Anne Jolis, and I’m with the Wall Street Journal Europe, based in London. I’m working on a piece about climate change, and specifically the growing questions that people outside the field have about the methods and processes used by climatologists and other climate-change scientists – and, necessarily, about the conclusions that result.
The idea came from the recent controversy that has arisen once again over Steve McIntyre, the publication of the full Yamal data used in Keith Briffa’s work. This of course raises questions among climate scientistis, and observers, about whether the socalled “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures , as produced by Dr. Briffa and originally by yourself, was drawn from narrow data which, and then when broadened to include a wider range of available dendroclimatological data, seems to show no important spike in global temperatures in the last 100 year .
I realize this is not exactly the silverbullet to anthropogenic global warming that some would like to read into it, but it seems to me that it does underscore some of the issues in climate science. Specifically, the publication of the data, and the earlier controversy over your work, seems to illustrate that best practices and reliable methods of data collection remain far from established, and that much of what is presented as scientific fact is really more of a value judgment based on select data. Would you agree?
I’d love to get some insight from you for my article. I’ll be filing this
weekend, but I can call you any time it’s convenient for you on Friday – just let me know
the best time and number. Please note that if we do speak on the phone, I will email you
with any quotes or paraphrases that I would like to attribute to you, before publication, so
as to secure your approval and confirm the accuracy of what I’m attributing to you.
Additionally, if you’d like to correspond via email, that’s fine too. I’ve listed below some of the questions and assumptions I’m working on – if, in lieu of a phone call, you’d like to answer and/or respond to these, as well as share any other thoughts you have on these issues, I’d be most grateful. Feel welcome to reply at length!
I thank you in advance for your time and attention, and look forward to any of your comments. All the best,
Anne Jolis Mobile: +44 xxxxxx
- Given that methods in climate science are still being refined, do you agree with policy makers’ and advocates’ use of data such as your own? Do you feel it is accurately represented to laymans, and that the inherent uncertainties present in the data are appropriately underscored? As a citizen, do you feel there is enough certainty in the conclusions of, for instance, the latest IPCC report, to introduce new economic regulations? Why or why not?
-What methods do you feel are the most accurate for predicting future climate change, for evaluatinag the causes of climate change and for predicting whether or what man can do to try to control or mitigate climate change in the future in the future? Why do you feel these methods are the most accurate? Do you feel they’re given enough weight in the current debate?
-What is your opinion of the value of Steve McIntyre’s work? Clearly he is not a professional scientist, but do you feel there is nonetheless a place for his “auditing” in the climate science community? Why or why not?
-Do you think McIntyre’s work and findings are likely to change the way leading climate scientists operate? Do you think his recent campaign to get Dr. Keith Briffa to publish the Yamal data he used is likely to make climate scientists more forthcoming with their data? Do you think his work will make scientists, policymakers and advocates any more exacting about the uncertainties in their procedures, methods and conclusions when they present scientific data?
-How would you respond to the critique that, as a key part of the review processes of publications in the field of climate science, as something of a “gatekeeper,” you have rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work. Is this fair? Why or why not? How would you characterize your selection process for work that is worthy of publication? -Do you stand by your original “hockey stick” graf, even after the publication of borehole data from Henry Pollack and Jason Smerdon that seems to contradict your conclusions? Or work published in 2005 by Hans von Storch that seems to indicate that the predictive capabilities of the method you used in your original “hockey stick” would not be able to predict current temperatures? – Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) xxxxx 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxxxx The Pennsylvania State University email: [12]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [13]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html “Dire Predictions” book site: [14]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
***
[3] Following is the entire covering email from my hero, Mr FOIA
It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.
Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural 
If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).
The “all.7z” password is [redacted]
DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like.
Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.
I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.
Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.
To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.
Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.
I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.
I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.
That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.
If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…
The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.
Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.
It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.
Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.
Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.
We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.
If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.
It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.
Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.
Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.
If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.
I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan .
Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.
Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).
Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.
I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.
More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.
Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.
Over and out.
Mr. FOIA
****
Try this link.
http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell1.pdf
wow – it’s broken too.
it’s on this page under pre-prints.
http://landshape.org/enm/about-the-author/
Thanks John; I don’t know why that link isn’t coming up; but I noticed sometimes I cannot link here at Jen’s; the paper is:
BIASES IN THE AUSTRALIAN HIGH QUALITY
TEMPERATURE NETWORK
David R.B. Stockwell* and Kenneth Stewart
Luke you’re talking garbage again. I’ve told you before about Christy’s estimate of the impact of 1000 nuclear power stations and it’s zilch.
Here are the only numbers that matter, the projections to 2035 of OECD and non OECD co2 emissions.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm
Until you look at and understand these simple sums you’ll be forever yapping silly nonsense and helping create an argument for delusional idiocy like a co2 tax.
Remember I agree that doubling co2 will probably increase temps by 1C, but I’m certain that co2 taxes etc are ridiculous and won’t change the climate or temp.
Also I’m not sure whether a 1C temp is a problem at all. Certainly we’ll see many less deaths from a temp increase than from a decrease.
Steve McIntyre shows how Marcott etc hid the decline and provides a graph of the holocene temps using the omitted end numbers from the real studies.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/17/hiding-the-decline-the-md01-2421-splice/#comments
How did these fools expect to get away with this deception?
You’re the one banging on about a CO2 tax Neville not me. Funny how funnies such as yourself never ask anyone else what they think isn’t it?
What would Christy know? Mate as you said you’re a not scientist and it shows – you don’t even understand half the stuff you read and live off Bolt’s every nuance. Hopeless. You wouldn’t even understand what McIntyre is on about. If you can’t do kindy stats I wouldn’t be hanging around over there. He could tell you anything. All you are doing is parrotting what others tell you to think.
John – ADAM is BoM’s climate database. Like where the data are?
So is the data in Adam different to the data online?
Luke – everybody agrees you are talking rubbish. Thats a concensus, a bit like the “science is settled” climate concensus.
Only you are convinced you know everything about everything, except your own fallibility.
Time to change sides – the CO2 alarmist game is over, and you will only look more stupid in 1 or 2 years than you do know.
Stop being nasty and see some sense – come on over and join the rest of humanity.
Yep, come over to our side Lukebaby, but leave the Pajero with the polar bear skin car seat covers behind. It might give you away.
ADAM is the raw data – well after basic error checks etc.
No argument from me Luke,
It definitely looks like a mugs game.
To be fair, maybe something needs to be done about the PR dept? They’re not doing BoM any favours.
ADAM is the raw data – well after basic error checks etc.
well Luke- actually it isn’t either – it’s the Torok adjusted data, the raw data is no longer available online, it was removed probably when the HQ data set was established.
Basic Error checks you say – let’s compare the before and after.
Here’s the current chart of Sydney Observatory Hill from the BoM site for monthly maximum temperatures.
http://johnlsayers.com/Stuff/Sydney_Max_BoM.PNG
Here’s Sydney Observatory Hill from the raw data – the data I have is up till 1993 and was the Data Torok documented and made his adjustments to.
http://johnlsayers.com/Stuff/Sydney_Max_Torok.PNG
chalk and cheese.
That’s the problem as we now have ACORN – Who knows how much that has been adjusted!
Sayers you are just talking utter shit. You’ve shown NOTHING except you’re a twit. So you’re comparing someone’s analysis (context, purpose??) with a chart you have – get real doofus. Context zero?
I assume you’d think a 3 degree temperature reading at Burketown in mid-summer would be a correct reading and you would accept it unquestioningly ? Have you ever seriously worked with met data – answer no.
Here’s your standard JS – ask a serious question then retort with some random crap. WTF?
Is the Torok data what’s in ADAM – that’s right JS – engage mouth and wait for brain to catch up.
The crap just drivels out of you lot. Content free, context free drivel.
I really am disgusted at your pathetic amateurism.
Luke – you are full of shit. You told me that trend is the important factor and I just demonstrated that the trend has been changed by the BoM.
My data is real – it doesn’t take a genius to operate Excel, just someone who has spent the time to learn it as I have.
I have all the Torok data in a TXT file – every site he adjusted and all original data up to 1993.
I’m no stupid fool as you would try to portray me, I’m currently in Dubai designing a 500 sqm, 4 studio recording complex for an Emerati Client. What are you doing Luke? living off my taxes again?
“Torok may have adjusted the daylights out of what ever he did – who knows – it’s a separate topic”
It IS the topic and you are avoiding it like the plague. You know damn well that the data on BoM online is NOT the raw data adjusted for basic error checks.
I give up.
No doubt about it Steve McIntyre is a sane, decent man. Just read his reply to a fellow blogger at Watt’s latest post. What a contrast to the haters out there who seem to despise him and put in the boot ( or so they think) at every opportunity.
Steve McIntyre says:
March 18, 2013 at 12:58 pm
I agree with many of Robert’s points.
I try to write clearly enough so that an educated non-specialist can understand the issues, which often are fairly elementary points of data analysis. On some of the Marcott issues, I think that some people have arrived at “informed” agreement.
However, there is also a considerable amount of piling on by readers who “like” the result. I delete many comments at CA for “piling on”.
On the other hand, there was widespread endorsement of the Marcott results by reporters and specialists who did not have an informed understanding of the results in the paper – in the sense, that an informed understanding is emerging through ongoing analysis. Robert, I think that your criticisms on this issue would be more telling if you had equally criticized the promotion of the paper.
On the truncation of data points: I report phenomena and try to avoid speculating on motives. It is possible that the truncation of negative recent values arose through the application of an undescribed algorithm rather than manual truncation (in the style of Briffa’s deletion of data after 1960, a procedure often and inaccurately referred to as Mike’s Nature trick.). As I stated in the article, I am unable to identify such an algorithm in the Methods and thus far am unable to think one up, but I do not exclude the possibility. While Marcott’s answer to my original inquiry was uninformative, I agree that he should be given an opportunity to comment on this point and I will contact him directly and give him that opportunity.
Debbie – “no answer” was to his last response my dear. He changed the subject.
How about grow up Debs – you’re opinionated as anything, but like all on here scientifically clueless which have demonstrated again and again. Yet oh so happy to put the boot in on people you don’t know and opine on matters you clearly have no idea bout.
Listen to sp rant. Another clueless advocate. Rant/rave – engage mouth think less. Having produced a statistical fact sp continues to talk shit. Difference between sceptics and computers – you have to punch the data into the computer once. sp is as dense as a brick. I have never seen an intelligent contribution from him/she/it – a complete tool of a troll. That’s what you all are – simple an stupid cheer squad. No wonder fascist regimes come to power. Witch burnings anyone?
Here’s that encouragement from Labor’s resources minister to turn the Latrobe valley into another Pilbara etc. See above to back up my argument.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/pilbara-plan-for-victoria-20120418-1x7ox.html
Starting to think for oneself are we you hopeless little sheeple?
LUKE?????
SKS??????
SERIOUSLY??????
Jennifer Marohasy plus other commenters are HIGHER QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS than Cook!
SHEEESH!
And since Cook is an accolyte of Lewandowsky’s I guess I could possibly deduce that either
a) Your remarking friend got that quote from SKS and/or something written by Cook and/or Lewandowsky and/or a commenter at the SKS site…. or….
b) YOU got it from SKS and/or something written by Cook and/or Lewandowsky and/or a commenter at the SKS site….or….
c) Something very similar to a) or b).
But that’s just a guess because of your following comment and link.
Shooting messengers because you can’t deal with the message is entirely political and nothing to do with science or even a respect for science and/or scientists and/or scientific/statistical methodology.
Your little lecture to me about ‘scientifically clueless’ is totally farcical and highly ironic.
I also note you failed to answer the questions.
WHAT (REPEAT WHAT????) ARE THESE “PEOPLE” WHO ARE IN “DENIAL MASQUERADING AS SCEPTICISM”…… IN DENIAL ABOUT??????????
AND WTF IS THIS “MASSIVE GLOBAL CONSPIRACY” THAT THESE PEOPLE “IN DENIAL MASQUERADING AS SCEPTICISM” ARE DEPENDING ON ?????????
You obviously thought your remarking friend said something clever and lucid….?????
OK then Luke?
What was so clever/intelligent/lucid or even vaguely logical about that remark????
Luke – I really don’t care whether you reckon I answered your pathetic rave or not. You are the one in denial. I showed you two different sets of data for Sydney Observatory hill, yes I didn’t have an x axis on one because I’m on my laptop with the junior version of Excel – it really doesn’t matter in the demonstration of the differences between the two curves.
As I said, I have a TXT file that contains all the original data of every station in Australia prior to it being adjusted by Simon Torok and the BoM.
To say that ADAM contains the raw data adjusted for basic error checks is just wrong!.
luke, great link to s..tscience! I nearly cacked myself; they endorse Marcott! What mirth.
And then this, a graph from the Foster nutcracker paper:
http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67
It purports to show that because all elements of ENSO have the same temperature trend consistent with the temperature data that therefore AGW is real. Great stuff! The decomposition of ENSO is predicated on this assumption:
“Short-term cyclical factors like ENSO and the solar cycle average to about zero net effect over time, and volcanic influences are temporary.”
So, when the ENSO components, La Nina, El Nino and Neutral, are isolated the remaining trend is due to AGW. In effect the knuckleheads are treating the linear trend as an independent variable and therefore they have shown that global warming is well correlated with global warming!
What they have done is take a series of data points on a line with slope 1, intercept 0,0. Call these ENSO. Call the slope Trend.
ENSO= (0,0)(1,1)(2,2)(3,3)(4,4)
By linear regression fit this to
ENSO = 1.0 * Trend + 0.0 * anything
subtract and you get
0 = 0 * anything
Therefore you have proven that you have removed “anything” from ENSO and whatever is left is a valid Trend.
You truly are an entertainer luke!
Sayers – Why is ADAM wrong – your proof is what? What has your retort got to do with ADAM – your chance for the big explanation. This should be good. HAve you sourced data from ADAM (I’m trying hard not to laugh)….
Cohenite after your outings with crayons I don’t think you shoudl be passing comments on Foster’s paper.
As I remind you continuously the simplest PCA analysis of SSTs does not show ENSO as the primary component of centennial change. The end. Clearly you believe in Jack’s beanstalk where you get a big something from nothing.
Frankly arts graduates having done the odd geography assignment should keep away from science.
Sayers – you ask a question then change the topic.
Luke, are you thick or something? I asked you what ADAM was and you said it was the BoM data base. I then asked if it is the same data that is available online. You said it was , “it’s the raw data adjusted for basic error checks” was your answer.
Now I happen to disagree with you.
So I accessed the BoM data and showed you the Max Temp chart for Syd Observatory Hill site. I then showed you a different Max Temp chart for the same site. They were totally different. One shows temperatures flat, or decreasing, the other shows temperatures increasing.
I then pointed out that the first chart from the BoM site ( the one increasing) was in fact the adjusted temperature data by Torok in 1996. The second chart, the flat chart, was taken from the TXT file I have of the raw data BEFORE Torok adjusted it.
I therefore confirmed that the data on the BoM ADAM site is NOT the raw data adjusted for basic error checks. It dramatically different and it applies to all sites. Like the Uni of East Anglia data in the UK the original raw data appears to have been removed.
Now what don’t you understand about that?
cohenite says: “And then this, a graph from the Foster nutcracker paper:
http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67”
The nonsensical graph is a Dana Nuccitelli (Dana1981) creation. It’s not from the self-contradictory Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) paper.
Regards
Luke, Nuccitelli from SkepticalScience had to redefine El Niño, La Niña and ENSO-neutral years over the past 45 years and assume there were 15 of each in order to create his meaningless graph. NOAA’s method provides only 8 El Niño years over that period.
http://i45.tinypic.com/141qj4o.jpg
Note also that Nuccitelli made 2010 an ENSO neutral year, when, in fact, the 2009/10 El Niño was a moderately strong El Niño.
http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67
As noted above in my reply to cohenite, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) contradict themselves. They provide Trenberth et al (2002) as a reference for using linear regression to remove the linear effects of ENSO from the global surface temperature record, but Trenberth cautioned against doing so, stating that it leaves an ENSO residual.
Luke wrote, “And the great unpublished Tisdale is back selectively torturing data sets till they squeal.”
You contradict your complaint by providing links to SchlepticalScience with that nonsensical graph from Dana Nuccitelli.
I consider myself pretty tolerant, but I’ve just deleted about a dozen of the worst of the last lot of comments. If you want more people to chat with, on these threads, then try and stay civil. Use of the term “idiot” is not enlightening. Lowering your standards because you have been provoked is not becoming. And I’ve always had a policy that allows and respects pen names.
Poor luke, still mired in Parker; this shows a larger role for ENSO, albeit a complex one as determined by PCA:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2012_jclim_karnauskasetal.pdf
My critique of s..tscience only indirectly dealt with Foster; the idocy of the s..tscience post stands by itself.
Thanks for the link to Karnauskas et al (2012), cohenite. I enjoyed their two implications:
“1) If nature exhibits such strong natural variability of tropical Pacific SSTs on centennial time scales, then assumptions that the observed trend over the past century to a century and a half is a response to radiative forcing are tenuous. It could in fact be that the observed trend over the past century and a half is merely reflective of internal variability. If so, it could strengthen or weaken in the future as the natural variability evolves. This will combine with, and potentially interact with, any forced response and thus have implications for tropical Pacific and global climate.
“2) If the centennial variability in the models is spurious, then it nevertheless is a robust component of the three analyzed models, is likely to exist in other models, and therefore will continue to influence coupled GCM projections of future climate, as well as initialized decadal hindcasts and forecasts conducted with GCMs. In all cases, it must be known at what stage the natural centennial variability exists at the beginning of a forecast or projection to isolate the forced change from the modeled internal variability.”
I haven’t seen a lot of references to it. Sounds like a good idea for tomorrow’s post!
cohenite: Slipped my mind. I had already presented a post about it:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/unforced-centennial-variations-simulated-by-coupled-gcms/
John – ADAM contains daily data for a start. You’re looking at annual summaries. Might tell you something eh?
If you want to prove your point you need to get the daily data from ADAM and recalculate the means. I would be personally very concerned if this was adjusted as one couldn’t even then justify the adjustments should they be justifiable.
As far as I am concerned any data shown to be highly erroneous or unlikely should be deleted if it is deemed to be an error. i.e. 3 degrees in Burketown on Xmas day. This is not “adjusting data” – this is basic quality control.
This is why I get really angry with you lot – you’re talking through your hat – wildly making accusations and have not checked even the most basic of facts. Disgraceful.
Just because BoM has some data sets online does not imply they are directly from ADAM.
Cohenite – dumber gets dumber. Parker merely makes the analysis. It shows a dominant PCA which is a centennial trend not ENSO. PC2 is the IPO and PC3 the AMO.
Doesn’t prove what the centennial trend is – just that one exists in the SST data and is the dominant PC. Analysis 101.
Thought you lot would have at least determined the major patterns in the data !!
Luke – ADAM has daily and monthly data. From that the get the annual data.
What I have is the monthly data (max and min) Torok used when he adjusted the monthly data of the whole nation. It is decidedly different to what the BoM now put up as their current monthly data because of his adjustments.
Torok adjusted all the data in 1996 and justified his actions to no one except a couple of peer reviewers who facilitated his PhD. There are adjustments of 1.3C made to the data. (that’s two centuries of global warming)
the original website I got the data from was
ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
but it no longer exists.
In the directory there was a readme.txt file that says:
“The files in this subdirectory are associated with the Australian
High Quality Temperature Data Set”
Yuh and that is not ADAM daily data which was my answer to your question.
If raw daily data in ADAM were adjusted beyond basic quality control, I for one would be mortified. You have no evidence to say they are, except what you want to believe, as like all sceptics you believe in the grand conspiracy and must continually feed it.
1996 eh? Torok must have known what was coming in the big AGW scam and got adjusted early. Strange that new data flow into ADAM every day. Strange that nobody has reported the big ADJUSTMENT that occurs as they go in.
In terms of your issue with Torok’s analysis you could do something unheard of and actually correspond with him -there’s this technology called email and THE telephone ? – surely for a international class bloke building gold plated recording studios for noveau riche oil shieks – a mere bagatelle. As you earn vast amounts of export income for Australia all fully declared of course solely for propping up all those parasites trying to enslave the nation into UN world government.
More from Pielke jnr on Oz’s so called hot angry summer and what insurance losses really show.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/thou-shall-not-critique-australian.html
As soon as Abbott gets in he should close down the Climate Commission.
McIntyre exposes more fiddled nonsense from Marcott.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/19/bent-their-core-tops-in/#more-17592
When will they withdraw this stupid study?
Good on you Bob.
Luke, a good concession by you; indeed Parker does not exclude natural variation for the trend; you say it can’t be ENSO, my link says otherwise; read Bob’s post.
Toorak 1996:
http://210.8.186.60/amm/docs/1996/torok.pdf
Was appraised by Della-Marta in 2004;
http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf
This paper revised Toorak and is the source of data for the current ACORN and former HQ temperature networks. The process whereby Della-Marta ‘revised’ Torrak is discussed by Stockwell and Stewart:
http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell1.pdf
Stockwell and Stewart say:
“The HQN is an Australian network of selected individual stations (or sites),
currently composed of 100 rural and 34 urban continuous temperature series dating
back to 1910 [14; 15]. Subsequently reviewed by Della-Marta et.al. (2004) [21] (DM),
they found on average six homogeneity adjustments per site to control for changes in
location, instrumentation or measuring practice at sites. DM noted that ”the decision
[by Torok] whether or not to correct for a potential inhomogeneity is often a subjective
one”.2
Sites were originally classified as urban by Torok and Nicholls [15] if their
population exceeded 10,000. However, Torok et.al. [22], who studied urban heat island
(UHI) effects of small Victorian towns and Melbourne, found that “smaller but
significant UHI can be detected even in small towns”. DM reclassified 15 formerly
urban sites as non-urban and included them in the rural network. One site (Innisfail) is
classified as urban although its population is less than 10,000. Plausibly, UHI is site
specific and not dependent entirely on population size, as Australian regional cities are
rarely more densely populated than most country towns. The potential effect of
excising urban sites from the average of Australian regional trends needs to be
clarified.”
Following Luke’s mention of daily temperature data I inverstigated the data I have more thoroughly.
The data is laid out in a text file like this:
6606210011859M 25.731 25.428 24.231 23.130 19.531 15.730 14.731 17.731 18.330 23.931 23.630 25.431 22.6
the first number stating the site (this is Observatory Hill site 66062 in 1859, Note the BoM has changed it to 066062) then follows monthly averages for January thru December followed by the yearly mean.
Yet when I compare it to the current data it is identical (though to 3 decimal places) except for the yearly mean. If you add the monthly mean and divide by 12 you get 21.4 NOT 22.6.
It appears Torok and Nicholls changed all the daily data, which changed the monthly data, but he didn’t change the annual mean in the Data I have. So when I plotted the annual mean and compared it to the current annual mean I got a different curve.
Further the difference between the two is 1.2 degrees which is the adjustment Torok and Nicholls made to the original data.
So Yes Luke – the original daily data has been altered by the BoM and I suggest there is no record of what the original data was unless you reverse engineer back using their written methodology as listed in the method.utx file.
This is what my associate Greg Connolly ( a retired engineer ) did for me when I first posted about this. He asked for the data as he was curious. I made up a full graphic using the images and text he sent me so the comments are his.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Observatory_Hill_Full_Adjustments.png
This is how he replied to my question:
So using the FTP data method one could re-engineer all the data back to the original data??
“Yes. Off course many of the white coats have nibbled at the adjusting game so it may be equivocal. But I don’t think we should have to. What has happened is clear. It is wrong. The BoM should be commissioned to trash it and show only original data – so the “climate change” contour map of Australia would be all blue instead of all red. That is where I will be attempting to exert pressure. I do not see any desirable career in doing all this work for free. It would be OK if the BoM also gave “the public” their suggested adjustment scheme for each and every station with some logical argument. These should be subject to open public criticism.”
My gut feeling is the dominant influence on Australian “Climate Change” is the stations at Sydney, Melbourne and Darwin.
Cohenite – far from a concession. It’s simply what the analysis shows. That there is a global centennial scale signal and it don’t look like ENSO old chum. I’d think if ENSO was the big driver of increased centennial temperatures one might find some evidence of that signal….. hmmmm
Incredible that you lot cannot undertake the most basic data analysis.
John Sayers – doing some investigation. I’m incredibly sceptical.
“My gut feeling is the dominant influence on Australian “Climate Change” is the stations at Sydney, Melbourne and Darwin.”
And Sydney and Melbourne are going nowhere:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/eight-reasons-the-australian-heatwave-is-not-climate-change/#more-26542
“doing some investigation. I’m incredibly sceptical.”
Thank you Luke – you are the first person who has shown interest in investigating this. I’ve been trying since early 2010 to get this looked into.
You can download the files from here
http://johnlsayers.com/Stuff/readme.zip
sadly John, I dont think that is what he meant……..he is sceptical of you doing research…….
Yeah, luke only researches his navel.
However I have passed John’s work onto some researchers and I am waiting to see what they think.
Thanks Tony.
They seem enthused John; if what you done is right it means BOM has been feeding artificially high data into the world averages, for a start.
Do you want to sent your email to Jennifer and she can pass it on to me?
Ignore that John, I’m going senile!