Thanks to Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, 1998 is no longer ranked as the warmest year on record in the USA, due to the correction of a significant error. That honour now goes to 1934.
More here at ICECAP
Roger Pielke Sr also has a post about this on his climate science weblog, where Steve McIntyre has posted this comment:
“I have made my 3rd request for access to GISS source code to try to decode what they do. They have refused prior requests. Lack of access to source code makes this sort of exercise far more time consuming than it ought to be.
Yesterday they completely overwrote their US data set, changing virtually every number prior to 2000, explaining this only with a cursory comment on their webpage. In addition, they have changed their UHI adjustments so that in many cases the changed UHI adjustments offset the error in their “raw” data.
Even before these change, I was unable to track their pre-2000 data to any archive. It was sort of like USHCN adjusted data in the 1990s but diverged in earlier periods. I’ve requested a copy of the original data set or information on its provenance.
I would welcome letters to GISS urging them to fully disclose their source code.
BTW the CRU situation is much worse as they have refused to even identify the stations that they use. In fairness to GISS, they provided enough information that you could leverage on it, but CRU has resolutely refused such information. ”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Source code for GISS is right here:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
That’s not the code SM has asked for.
Then he should make it clearer what he is asking for, if he’s encouraging us to send letters requesting its release – an action I would strongly support.
It’s clear that the code you posted is the source code for the GISS GCM computer model – the source code for the GISS ‘temperature data’ is the one in question.
I am suprised that we don’t have a quality global reference set like BoM’s. e.g. http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi
So if the USA has this error – what’s the global situation? And where is McIntyre up to with his CRU detective work.
Yes but Luke you should know that BOM are continually updating their data sources and analysis and even the data from fully automated stations is only now less prone to error than when they first started collecting and using said data. Some stations were way out so they corrected them to bring them back to the norm.
So there are errors and corrections to the raw figures which in turn may also contain errors.
Hottest years (adjusted)
1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 , 1939
And your reference for that is?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Let me get this straight. One country has a single year warmer that 1999 and 2006, so GLOBAL warming is, in fact, not happening. This is the same relatively small land mass in which 1999 is now the second hottest year on record but, funnily enough, 1999 was a relatively cool year GLOBALLY (1998 was the hot one). It is almost as though the US is not the entire planet. I’m shocked!
One would almost think denialists are clutching at straws (although McIntyre should be congratulated for his work, even if he has been wrong so many times in the past http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/2/1001/2006/cpd-2-1001-2006.pdf)
Opps, I stand corrected it is 1998 in the US, not 1999. Oh well, point still stands, the US isn’t the globe.
Nobody mentioned GLOBAL warming but it should be pointed out that GISS data is arrived at from global sources (eg satellites) and has been subject to chang on several occasions.
No Rog – your Australian comment about measurement error.
In any case this is now about measurement error – moreover a discontinuity bug in US series.
“more than measurement error”
Paul’s comment in the other thread:
” [SJT]”The rate of change is remarkable, and no other forcing is active at present to cause it.”
Yawn!
“With the changes to the GISS data made today after an error was found by Stephen McIntyre, 1998 falls to #2 behind 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999 and 1953. Expect more changes to come in the months ahead as more scrutiny of the data bases takes place. Note in the graph below, the peak in the five year mean around 2000 is a mere 0.25F higher than that in the early 1930s.”
No specific mention of GLOBAL, but Paul appears to be implying that GLOBAL rate of change negated by McIntyre’s revelations (I note he made no mention that these were US figures there).
Nexus 6, why the U.S., in the eyes of the left, eptomizes carbon emissions and global warming. It’s perfect to serve as a benchmark rather than say that it’s too small in area.
As Steve M said, CRU are being less than co-operative. I sent him the GCOS UK Surface Station Network list from NOAA, at his request, but I’m not sure if this is the network used by Jones et al.
CO2 was of course measured at 315ppmv in 1958, which is a while after the 1910ish to 1940ish warming. 1998 had El Nino and considerably more atmospheric CO2 (367ppmv), which now stands at around 380ppmv.
Here’s the ranking again for your delectation:
1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 , 1939
Lean’s solar irradiance reconstruction is here:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
Mauna Loa CO2 data here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001/maunaloa.co2
The good news is that the US has reduced it’s mean annual temperature without Kyoto.
Furthermore, this is another illustration of the fact that you can’t uncover the truth without so-called ‘skeptics.’
Steve M broke the ‘hockey stick,’ now he has broken GISS. How will he get his ‘hat-trick’, I wonder?
Not sure what he means by source code for the GISS ‘temperature data’…the link I provided has tar files with all the temperature data inputs to the model. Or is he talking about code for the algorithm that makes the data adjustments (for UHI etc.)?
Dylan – “Or is he talking about code for the algorithm that makes the data adjustments (for UHI etc.)?”
No McIntyre wants the cookbook again. Really it does not matter what you release to him he will still squeal and see a conspiracy when the reality is that busy scientists that really do not like him very much do not have the time or inclanation to release the source code and then give McIntyre free lessons on what to do with it.
BOM quality control
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/headers/qc.shtml
“The Bureau of Meteorology’s rainfall and temperature analyses use reliable data collected through electronic communication channels and screened for errors, but not yet fully quality controlled.
Full quality control is completed some weeks after the end of the most recent month when
* extreme values are confirmed by written reports, and
* data is compared with nearby stations so that values and date of occurrence are similar.
From the AWS section of BOM
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/services_policy/pub_ag/aws/aws.shtml
“The quality of the final data received by the researcher or farmer can only be as good as the quality of the sensors used. No post analysis of the data can improve the accuracy or reliability of the information obtained.
Many AWS manufacturers use sensors which have poor accuracy, and whose calibration may drift significantly over a short time. Some sensors, particularily cheap ones, are also prone to premature failure.”
Dylan – we’re not talking about global climate modelling which involves million of lines of computer code and a simulation of the planet’s atmosphere in a 3 dimensional grid. We’re simply discussing the computer code and climate stations that calculate an “average” temperature for the USA or the world. It’s conceptually much simpler. Paul is right – the two are unrelated.
The last paras do not particularly reflect on BOM AWS, it is general information.
BOM did have a section on errors from AWS but I cant find it?
From http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/about-stats.shtml#quality
“Data quality control processes, and some of the methods used to derive climate parameters (such as the calculation of clear and cloudy days), have changed since records were first kept by the Bureau of Meteorology. This means there may have been quality issues with the climate statistics (calculated from historical records).
We will soon finish reprocessing many of the data which are used to calculate the climate statistics. This will improve the quality of the statistical information provided to you. In the meantime, the statistics will be based on the same (updated) datasets as used previously.
..Some of the previously identified climate extremes may disappear in this new product. This is associated with data quality issues.”
Rog – yea so what?
That’s why their AWS systems cost a mottsa.
All monitoring systems have error, instruments break etc. So what else is new. Affects all science.
And the reference network gets its share of data quality review.
They’re simply saying data measurement isn’t perfect. A duh – I think we know that. You may not have. But is the bias systematic – are the measurements subject to some enormous series jump like we’re talking here. Well never say never – but I bet not.
Email David Jones and ask him if you’re serious.
Paul
Now you can’t say “as we all suspected” on this issue. I suggest you’re all as surprised as the rest of us.
(1) It’s not a general error or UHI issue. The surface stations attack has been focussing on the temperature rise in the last 30 years as being UHI.
(2) Not a global number – yet ! Despite Rog’s mumblings I’d back the independent Australian reference network analysis as solid.
(3) I’d agree it really does behove GISS and CRU to put everything on the table as a lot of other people are counting on these guys being right in their maths.
(4) Still a swag of proxy data that implies a sudden warming
(5) Still can’t see a solar mechanism to explain the current recent warming trend if the effect moved to global
(6) Nevertheless the PR value if fantastic and I’m sure will muddy the waters no end. A possible implication would be to slow decision making on the issue down for a decade. Which might be a great thing or the last laugh is on us.
Climate Audit is experiencing a DDOS today. I just received an email from them. They say they’ll be up in a day or so. They’re moving to a new server.
Evidently someone doesn’t like the idea of the temperature geting cooler.
It may well be that the the corrected data would indicate that the decade of the ’30s, the dustbowl years, were the hottest in the US.
The problem is not that the data may contain some errors it is the formulation of theories and policies using such data.
Ok, so if the issue is over the code that actually calculates the global average, then I gather the issue is to what extent can we be confident that global temperature increases that are being “observed” are actually accurate.
Have GISS at least given a reason for not releasing this code?
As for it really making much a difference to policymakers…doubtful. Human nature dictates that we’re going to leave tough decisions to the last possible moment – and our nature has presumably evolved that way for a reason. For now we need to get moving on the easy decisions.
How’s your weekly grocery shopping bill looking folks? I see global grain markets continue to forge new highs, dare I say continue to hyperinflate. No better guage of changing weather than plummeting grain output. Eastern Europe, western China, Argentina, eastern Australia, northern Western Australian wheatbelt, central Canada all succombing to unusually dry and warm growing conditions. Food inflation is a tax on ignorance and it is running double digit at the moment. No-one is immune. Oh and grain stocks are now heading towards 45 days of consumption, the lowest since records began being kept in 1960 …
As posted on Bolty’s blog which this one seems to be mirroring more and more is this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
1984 .00 -.01
1985 -.42 .22
1986 .73 .29
1987 .83 .25
1988 .32 .51
1989 -.19 .50
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *
Looking at the 5 year means which contain the real information rather than the annual means which Mcintyre is trumpeting about you will see that you have to go back to 1984 for a year that has a negative anomoly. All the years since 1998 have had a positive value of over 0.50 deg. If you look at the 1934 data there is a much sharper spike. And as someone pointed out 1934 was the dustbowl in the US. So much for the beneficial effects of global warming that has been falsely put about by the skeptics. If you want to see some of the regional effects of higher global temperatures look no further than the US in 1934.
Plus, and I say this only because I think some people are not getting it, this is the US only.
Only in the strange skeptic world that McIntyre inhabits is the hockey stick ‘broken’. Now to this bizarre world is added the notion that correcting data means that SM has ‘broken’ the GISS data. His hat trick could be going to Uni and doing a degree in climate science and participating in the peer reviewed science. Of course this would really screw up his sensationalist crap however he would be off the air for a few years which would be a good thing.
I seem to recall in “State of Fear” that Chrichton made the assumption that the best temperature record was the one done by the USA.
re: “Only in the strange skeptic world that McIntyre inhabits is the hockey stick ‘broken’.”
Now Mr Ender — didn’t you used to be more open-minded? The “strange world” has now proven to be the inbred peer-review network where the HS survives. Fortunately that network is small and didn’t carry much weight in AR4 — you did notice what was missing from AR4 didn’t you?
mccall – “Fortunately that network is small and didn’t carry much weight in AR4 — you did notice what was missing from AR4 didn’t you?”
Really so the proxy studies were all deleted were they?
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch06.pdf
page 35 of 66 – MBH99 there in all its glory. Along with all the other studies that have extended and confirmed the original study.
and yes Mr mccall I am open minded enough to recognise peer reviewed science.
Ender: a report on ABC radio earlier today had me hunting for the “Smith” model
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12453-prepare-for-another-ten-scorching-years.html
But we now have several write ups on Doug Smith and his model from the UK Met
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-10.html
“Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5839/796.
Ender is emerging as nothing more than an apologist for a clearly established pattern of obfuscation and deception by omission on the part of the climate mafia.
A refusal to subject oneself to scrutiny is THE primary attribute of the dishonest. And GISS/CRU are to be condemned, at the very least, for allowing themselves to be even perceived as such.
By the way, given the climate mafia’s penchant for delivering hindcasts as fact, what was the atmospheric CO2 reading for 1934? Indeed, what was it for the sequence of five of the ten warmest years on record from 1921 to 1939?
And one thing has now become incontestable fact, the current US temperatures are ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION.
Ian Mott – “Ender is emerging as nothing more than an apologist for a clearly established pattern of obfuscation and deception by omission on the part of the climate mafia.”
Really Ian and how would you describe yourself? An apologist for the cherry picking and deception by outright lying climate denial mafia?
“A refusal to subject oneself to scrutiny is THE primary attribute of the dishonest. And GISS/CRU are to be condemned, at the very least, for allowing themselves to be even perceived as such.”
Absolute and complete bollocks. There are many reasons why the source code is not released. First and foremost given McIntyre’s demonstrated ignorance of what is source code he may be asking for something that does not exist or is part of another system. Secondly they may be using proprietary commercial software – good luck on getting the source for that. Finally it may be someone’s intellectual property that is saying f–k you MacIntyre, write up your own f*****g source code like a real scientist would. Scientists are human too.
“And one thing has now become incontestable fact, the current US temperatures are ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION.”
Maybe but they are rapidly departing from them into completely unknown territory. As you have clearly not been listening no-one has said that ALL climate changes variations are driven purely by CO2. There are many factors that drive climate. However right now the greenhouse forcings are starting to overwhelm all the other ones and will drive GLOBAL temperatures into areas not seen for millions of years with unknown consequences.
Aside from having a foul mouth, it seems that Ender does not understand anything about the need for science to be able to be replicated and the legal requirements surrounding this for US Govt employees.
The fact of the matter is that Hansen as a US Gov’t employee does not own any of the computer code he develops.
Carl Smith – “Aside from having a foul mouth, it seems that Ender does not understand anything about the need for science to be able to be replicated and the legal requirements surrounding this for US Govt employees.
The fact of the matter is that Hansen as a US Gov’t employee does not own any of the computer code he develops.”
I am not saying that this is the case as I do not know what the problem is, assuming of course that there is a problem and it is not something that exists only in SM world. And I only added the expletives to emphasise that
If Hansen or any other scientist developed code outside working hours or before they were employed then that would be that scientist’s intellectual property. Also unless he/she specifically signed a employment agreement containing the statement that that software written by employees became the property of the employer he/she would be perfectly able to claim that software as his/her intellectual property and tell anyone who wanted to see it to pay up.
You do not know that the US Govt owns Hansen’s code and you do not know from any independant source that anyone in GISS/CRU is refusing to release source code.
Ender
It appears that you still miss the point. Regardless of who owns the intellectual property, if it is to be considered “science” it has to be replicable, and therefore the full methodology (including code) has to be published and available.
“If Hansen or any other scientist developed code outside working hours or before they were employed then that would be that scientist’s intellectual property”. Fine, but if they don’t publish / make everything available, then it ain’t science as it’s not peer reviewable (i.e. anyone with a similar amount of expertise should be able to get exactly the same result – and having two “peers” run a spellchecker over a paper is not peer review).
Bottom line – by publishing and providing access to the methodology, a scientist does not relinquish intellectual property – in fact that is how they establish it. This is why there are requirements to cite authors (i.e. acknowledge “owners of intellectual property”) and “academic misconduct” rules re plagiarism etc.
Case in point: if Hansen made all the algorithms used to adjust the US temps available; this would have been picked up far earlier and been a lot less embarrassing.
cheers
Arnost
Ender – without the discredited PC1, r2, and Bristlecones, there is no hockey stick.
Arnost – “It appears that you still miss the point. Regardless of who owns the intellectual property, if it is to be considered “science” it has to be replicable, and therefore the full methodology (including code) has to be published and available.”
No it appears you missed the point. If the methodology involved using MS Windows does that mean that the scientist needs to disclose the code of MS Windows? The normal method that is used is, for the data and methods to be made available and the scientist that wants to check or replicate the work uses whatever tools that he/she is comfortable with to replicate the results. If he/she is unable to do this it is not normal to then demand the source code that the other researcher used. Usually in such a situation the original researcher will co-operate with the second one as again usually there is no question of ‘auditing’ the first researcher and that may involve swapping of code that was used in the original study.
What McIntyre does is demand the code because he, not being a climate scientist, does not have the requisite tools to replicate the study. He then demands that the researcher demonstrate line by line what he/she did and basically teach him how to do it. If the researcher will not do this he then gets on his high horse and announces that there is a conspiracy to cover up data.
“Case in point: if Hansen made all the algorithms used to adjust the US temps available; this would have been picked up far earlier and been a lot less embarrassing.”
It is not embarrassing for Hansen as this thing happens all the time. I did not notice McIntyre auditing the satellite MSU work of Christie and Spencer that was later shown to be wrong. Perhaps that was because the original study was used as evidence against global warming. Do climate change skeptic scientists not have to be audited? I also did not see McIntyre auditing the orbital parameters of the MSU satellites that caused the corrections – perhaps that is because not being a real scientist he is not capable of this.
The only really embarrassing thing is that McIntyre thinks that this is a huge victory for science and he is the skeptical white knight – that is really embarrassing.
Ender – the Spencer and Christy satellite data has never been shown to be ‘wrong.’ The 2005 correction was 0.035C, which was within the 0.05C margin for error.
Climate Audit is down at the moment, due to Denial of Service attacks.
Ender says “However right now the greenhouse forcings are starting to overwhelm all the other ones and will drive GLOBAL temperatures into areas not seen for millions of years with unknown consequences.” How very dogmatic – I recommend you go back and re-read the Green and Armstrong forecasting paper which shows that climate forecasts/projections/predictions come nowhere meeting established forecasting criteria, and are no more than speculation.
Ender:
>If the methodology involved using MS Windows does that mean that the scientist needs to disclose the code of MS Windows?
Ok, now you are being foolish. MS Windows etc would be part of the tool set. You identify the tools, and then publish the methods that use them. If they are using excel, then the spreadsheet is all that is needed.
It is really simple here, a problem has been discovered. It is part of a dataset used for political purposes, and people with an axe to grind are hollering loudly.
Far better to get the data out, take the lumps, and get the science right.
I would rather know ‘for sure’, and data hiding, obfuscation and obstruction ring the alarm bells. That isn’t science, it’s politics, and dirty politics too.
Robert
MB: 09 August 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Jim Giles
“Temperature records will be repeatedly shattered over the next few years, say researchers behind the first rigorous look at how global climate will change during the next decade”
Robert: Its easy to correct old instrument records when you know what you are doing.
McIntyre crying foul helps nobody
“McIntyre crying foul helps nobody”
It did help expose a significant error in the US temperature data Gavin.
Surely we want the most accurate information in this debate?
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Good to see a discussion about auditing claims re AGW!
Now we’re getting somewhere….
Jim: The US data errors will be lost in the wash.
Our own BoM data makes up for it over a significant Global region given the Southern Ocean bases and baseline stations since 1958.
Mate: we must move on without too many backwards glances
Paul – “the Spencer and Christy satellite data has never been shown to be ‘wrong.’ The 2005 correction was 0.035C, which was within the 0.05C margin for error.”
Equally MBH98 was never shown to be wrong either. There was only a small correction to make MBH99.
Robert – “I would rather know ‘for sure’, and data hiding, obfuscation and obstruction ring the alarm bells. That isn’t science, it’s politics, and dirty politics too.”
Which only exists in the mind of Steve McIntyre. The rubbish that SM puts out does not add to knowing for sure. His entire purpose is not to clarify but inject doubt which he does brilliantly.
Jim – “It did help expose a significant error in the US temperature data Gavin.”
Except that it was GISS that made the changes as a normal part of reviewing data as far as I can see. The only input SM made was to blow it up into a conspiracy where none existed.
MBH99 acknowledged that the bristlecone series are flawed and need an adjustment to remove the CO2 fertilization effect. But they only applied the correction to the pre-1400 portion of the series. When we apply the correction to the full series length the hockey stick shape disappears regardless of how many PCs are retained.
Ender,
Reading through the thread nobody apart from you is talking conspiracy – and knee-jerk damage control (that you appear to be taking) generally makes things worse…
Consider… That NASA / GISS immediately made the “corrections” on identification of the error is of course commendable.
But things generally don’t move this fast. You first need to confirm that there is an error, you then need to assess the materiality of the error (i.e. is it significant), you then need to identify the corrective action, and then finally you need to implement it. On top of this you need to manage the impact on “brand” (for lack of a better term). To confirm, assess, and quantify corrections to data from 1200 odd stations and to analyse and assess brand impact will not happen in a couple of days if it is to be done properly.
Given this, I am surprised that a change was done this quick, and I am concerned that this is a knee-jerk reaction that may not be fully thought through. The consequences of this may require subsequent changes to the records yet again as the issues are more fully understood – and this will do nobody any good.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – “Reading through the thread nobody apart from you is talking conspiracy – and knee-jerk damage control (that you appear to be taking) generally makes things worse…”
What?? Have a look at the comment McIntyre posted.
Paul Biggs – “When we apply the correction to the full series length the hockey stick shape disappears regardless of how many PCs are retained.”
Yeah right – again this only happens in M&M land.
“Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.”
Ender,
Questioning “science” can only improve it. This is a great example of this in action. And I would challenge you to find one quote from Steve McIntyre where he actually denines the existence of Anthropogentic Global Warming. He only challenges bad science. So you and your ad homs against him are rather tiresome.
For anyopne interested, there’s a good summary (albeit with a bit of a global warming cynic slant) here:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html
(Probaly will get hit with a Denial of Service attack soon and go off line…)
cheers
Arnost
Arnost
McIntyre’s blog is essentially depressing in many respects – it’s not building – just an ongoing full on investigative assault into everything AGW. But he’s very selective – you won’t find him auditing the Archibald paper for example. Any amount of contrarian stuff can float past with little comment. It’s only a selective war on establishment IPCC style science. Known targets – not known science. And it’s scatter gun stuff.
Fair enough – he’s smart – he’s got a copy of “r” – he knows his stats and he’s going for it. But don’t give us the “service to science” crap – it’s simply declared full on war on selected targets.
If he was totally fair dinkum he’d be right into checking out all the bulldust solar correlation stuff too. But all that just flows past.
But fair cop on the USA temperature data sets – looks like by NASA-GISS’s web site acknowledgment that he’s got them with an error.
On the one hand you have to wonder CRU and GISS would not have an archive of their data sets, methods and algorithms for anyone to inspect. So you can either suspect they’re “up to something”. I don’t think it’s that myself – I think they’re simply distrustful of motives of others – in competitive science processed data sets and science methods can be a leg-up for your competitors in the field. Perhaps they simply don’t want to be pestered by the many looney’s out there who want to fiddle and ask silly questions.
But regardless none of these emotions will wash anymore – I think they have to put up the data and analyses – otherwise on an issue of this magnitude – the future climate of the planet and energy use – nobody will be satisfied.
Similarly I fail to see why an audit of all the met stations is not undertaken and anything not up to scratch for UHI effects is eliminated. Why don’t they have have a BoM quality reference network?? So stop arguing and get it done. They should put surfacestations.org out of business by simply removing the problem stations
But also be fair – the GISS crowd didn’t stall for time either. Looks like they responded and made the changes within a week or so.
Luke, thanks for the reply…
You are quite right in saying that [Climate Audit is] a full on war on selected targets. However, that is the raison d’être of the forum. McIntyre is on record that he only checks “mainstream” (i.e. supporting AGW) work – he doesn’t check the “crackpot” stuff and actively discourages discussion of these in his forum.
The fact that in the discussions there is a bit of anti-AGW emotion is well … unfortunate … but that’s life if you don’t have strict censorship.
And I acknowledged that the changes that GISS made are commendable – though as I noted, I have some reservations.
By the way, Gavin’s throwaway line that “the global mean temperatures are basically unaffected” may still burn him. Has he checked? GISS uses GHCN as a basis – as does NCDC – and we still have that discrepancy from Dec 2006 http://i19.tinypic.com/4zbb11x.jpg . Maybe the global adjustments also have an error.
OK… I don’t suspect that “they” are up to something. You make a very valid point that controlling the data may give a “leg-up” on competition. However, this data is/will be used to support multi-trillion investment decisions, so the fact that there are discrepancies as McIntyre just found should be a cause for concern – and consequently more transparency should be the order of the day competition notwithstanding.
Cheers
Arnost
MB: 09 August 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Jim Giles
“Temperature records will be repeatedly shattered over the next few years, say researchers behind the first rigorous look at how global climate will change during the next decade”
Oh good! Another climate model prediction.
Another one here:
Major climate shifts have occurred or will occur around 1913, 1942, 1978, 2033, and 2072 according to the authors of this recent paper, who also predict a 0.2 Celsius cooling between 2005 and 2020 which should be followed by a 0.3 Celsius warming until 2045 or so – then cooling for the rest of the 21st century.
Tsonis, Anastasios A.; Swanson, Kyle; Kravtsov, Sergey: ‘A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts’, Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 34, No. 13, 12 July 2007
http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf
Some global warmers seem to walk on the dark side – the fibre optic cable to surfacestations.org has been cut, and Climate Audit is down again.
Arnost: Are you miss quoting me? “The US data errors will be lost in the wash” or is it the RC guy that bothers you most hey
Paul: I won’t miss CA in the slightest. I reckon real climate science starts in your met. Have you looked for the obvious there yet?
OK – so you’ve all been busting to hear what Realclimate would say.
Here it is:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=465
“1934 and all that” – 10 August 2007
Check the comments too. Any bets on how long the comments will get to – a record number ?
Also worth pondering the graphs at Deltoid (which has really gone off with a bang !!)
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php
Is this true, that Hansen refused to release the alogorithm so McIntyre worked the graph in reverse, found the error which was then corrected by Hansen?
Hansen had previously asserted that the Govt felt it was “their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public”.
It now appears that Hansen is the one who is censoring information that should rightfully be made public.
re: what’s missing in AR4?
No Mr Ender, it’s obviously not “the proxy studies” that are missing. At least you’re rusty OPEN-minded instincts had you sniffing down the right trails — even with an uncustomarily crude (for you) follow-up.
Keep looking. Where’s the OPENing? Or maybe better, where are the OPENings?
Sorry Gavin – I meant Gavin Schmidt at RC.
I’m puzzled.
Why is evidence that AGW may not be as catastrophic as assumed, be unwelcome news to some?
I don’t think it says anything about catastrophism. See Deltoid’s graph (link above) and see how much it means to you. The big trends are all still there. Not much has changed except perfection is tarnished and a few red-faces.
I hope the reference to Hansen and perfection was tongue in cheek Luke?
Read the Deltoid link ( usually can’t be bothered with the rigidity of the Deltoid / Quiggin ” must sing from the same hymn book” crowd ) but can’t see what it adds to the debate?
I haven’t heard anyone here suggesting that the data disproves AGW theory or automatically translates globally.
What it does do ( hopefully ) is inject a bit of realism back into things – the science isn’t ” settled” , there’s still a lot of conflicting data , sceptics are playing a useful role and the majority relevant expert opinion is unchanged – man made CO2 is having an unprecedented affect on the climate and we should do something about it.
It might also be the case that the contribution McIntyre has made will cause the many here and elsewhere who have sneered constantly at him to find some humility?
I don’t expect open minds at aforementioned blogs but we generally have a more robust and healthy exchange here.
Arnost – “Questioning “science” can only improve it. This is a great example of this in action. And I would challenge you to find one quote from Steve McIntyre where he actually denines the existence of Anthropogentic Global Warming. He only challenges bad science. So you and your ad homs against him are rather tiresome.”
However the false claims, repeated on TV by a well known skeptic, that Micheal Mann was guilty of fraud is OK?????
McIntyre’s ONLY objective is to inject doubt into the case for AGW so people in the street will link one particular icon with the false notion that AGW is wrong. He succeeded brilliantly with hockey stick campaign. Now that is getting a bit tired he is now turning to the surface temperature record.
The problem is that such campaigns have delayed measures to mitigate the effects of global warming which is exactly what the original architects of the FUD programs wanted.
The fact that McIntyre accidently found a very minor error in the temperature data of one continent while searching for for FUD material does not make up for the damage that he has done to action on global warming.
Jim – yea fair cop he showed up an error. Got one in. Full marks.
But he’s not interested in furthering climate science per se – he’s a priori decided AGW is b/s or politically unacceptable. He’s mounting a war on all AGW science to find errors in any time series. And fair enough you might say – but let’s not suggest it’s for some high and mighty lofty noble science morality. It’s just one-sided political warfare.
You see if he was fair dinkum he would also be blow torching the solar-philes with the same gusto. Now all these diverse solar theories can’t all be right. I’ve lost track of the number. Because if we back off a serious problem on the basis of their bogus science that’s just as bad.
So true sceptics would be “up” everything with equal fervour. But we don’t see that do we.
Have a look at the regular menu of try-on’s served up here.
So yep let him go for it – give him all the code and data he needs – but don’t expect he gets my respect. Don’t like the style.
And fascinating that a major new bit of science mentioned above by Paul has come out in Science journal this week discussing how natural climate variation interacts with greenhouse and nary a bit of discussion. Certainly not a blog post or comment from Marc Marano eh?
Paul
he has ‘broken’ the GISS? Good grief, get a hold of yourself man. He has done nothing of the sort. He found an anomoly in measurments when the data collection for a subset of US data changed from one method to another. He has done nothing to affect the global record. 1938 was almost as hot as 1998 before the adjustment, of about 0.01 degree.
“The hard work of of Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Anthony Watts (www.surfacestations.org) has resulted in the identification of a significant error in the assessment of the rankings of what have been the warmest years in the United States as identified by GISS. The current warmest year is 1934. This new information can be read at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880#more-1880.”
What a beat up, and no end of conspiracy theory accusations behind it. It is of little significance, since the adjustment is very small. However, the way it is lapped up as ‘breaking the GISS’ is nothing short of amazing. Reminds me of creationists.
An error? she’ll be right mate, its only a little error.
Climate Audit now back online.
Does Hansen’s Error “Matter
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885#more-1885
YES IT DOES!
For me, CA still not online — JohnA tells of host switch, and to try again on Monday.
Hint for Mr Ender: in spite of all the MBH-9x errors (PC1, r2, and BCPs), what was justifiably missing from the TAR, that is unjustifiably missing from AR4? Come on now, study the spaghetti and keep an OPEN mind and remember extraordinary claims REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.
Luke,
“if he was fair dinkum he would also be blow torching the solar-philes with the same gusto. Now all these diverse solar theories can’t all be right. I’ve lost track of the number. Because if we back off a serious problem on the basis of their bogus science that’s just as bad.”
Couldn’t agree more – but you will recall me arguing EXACTLY the same principle in respect of AGW proponents.
In my view their credibility is also tarnished by their refusal to hop into the gross exaggerations served up by so many fervent true believers.
If we move too rashly , in the wrong direction on the basis of the Schneider principle that’s just as bad IMO.
It cuts both ways doesn’t it?
Ender,
“The fact that McIntyre accidently found a very minor error in the temperature data of one continent while searching for for FUD material does not make up for the damage that he has done to action on global warming.’
Even if he found a significant error in one of the most reliable modern cliamte records?
So it’s more important that the public faithfully accepts without question what it’s being told than the information it’s being given is correct?
You wouldn’t swallow that proposition from Howard or Bush ( a guess but a pretty confident one ) so why from Hansen or anyone else pushing any other argument?
McCall
that quote about extraordinary claims is in regards to supernatural ones, not ones that involve basic science based on well known processes. To claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is in no way extraordinary, and the basis for it has been understood for over a hundred years. It’s just basic physics.
“Hansen’s Y2K Error” ??? For goodness sake, it had nothing to do with Y2K, and it has nothing to do with Hansen.
As ClimateAudit is still offline, you will find a quite interesting piece by Steve McIntyre as a guest poster on Anthony Watt’s blog, where he gives a good summary of the process that led to the recent GISS adjustment:
Does Hansen’s Error “Matter”? – guest post by Steve McIntyre
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/does_hansens_error_matter_gues.html
A second guest post deals specifically with Hansen’s response, and Steve’s interactions with him:
Lights Out – Guest post by Steve McIntyre
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/lights_out_guest_post_by_steve.html
These posts should give you some good backgound on all this.
Jim – “Even if he found a significant error in one of the most reliable modern cliamte records?
So it’s more important that the public faithfully accepts without question what it’s being told than the information it’s being given is correct?”
You have touching faith in the US system to describe it as the most reliable climate records. Indeed if you are trying to spin it that way I can see where McIntyre is going here. The assumption is that the US has the best record so if there is something wrong with it then all the rest must be wrong too. I think the US climate recording system is actually about on par with it’s voting system. It is a rather ramshackle underfunded system that has to have major corrections in the data to get any sort of data at all. The US does not have the best system and it is not surprising that there are errors in it. The error was very minor and easily corrected.
Do you expect all data that climate scientists use are perfect? I do not expect expect without question the data I do expect the people that keep the data to have systems in place that contain and correct for the inevitable errors that creep into data. Which is exactly what happened here. The error that made almost no difference was corrected quickly.
Ender
“It is a rather ramshackle UNDERFUNDED [my caps]system that has to have major corrections in the data to get any sort of data at all…” This is rather sad to see comming from an CO2 AGW apologist.
If this is so well known, then why hasn’t some of the billions channeled into AGW/Climate Change research been used to correct this?
And no matter which way you spin it, the error “that almost made no difference” was in one of the world’s better weather station networks and was 25% of the global warming trend since mid century and 33% of the global warming trend since ’85 – when the sun’s role is meant to have diminished !
You obviously have great perspectives to offer – but you seem to be taking this a tad too personally. I just don’t see anybody here “crowing” as you constantly suggest. Look, we’re all really on the same side – we’re all just trying to figure out how best to manage the looming crisis. So I suggest you get over it – an error has been identified, fixed and science is better for it.
And SJT – it has everything to do with Hansen, he runs the shop.
cheers
Arnost
No spin at all Ender.
The US is on of the most technologically developed and wealthiest nations on earth – and it has quite a geographical spread. I think it’s fair to assume that it has amongst the most relaible climate records.
And I haven’t seen anything that suggests this result automatically brings other climate data into disrepute. I actually said that in this thread previously.
“Do you expect all data that climate scientists use are perfect?”
Not at all – but I do expect that when an error is not discovered/corrected for years that it should receive some substantial coverage.
Incidentally , why the disparagement of the electoral system?
Because it elects the wrong people?
It’s certainly superior to the system at work in Cuba for example…..
” (this) matter is certainly not the triviality that Gavin Schmidt would have you believe, but neither is it any magic bullet. I think that the point is significant for reasons that have mostly eluded commentators on both sides.”
McIntyre certainly doesn’t seem to be going overboard about it.
Arnost – “If this is so well known, then why hasn’t some of the billions channeled into AGW/Climate Change research been used to correct this?”
Right the so-called billions into AGW/Climate change research that otherwise goes under the name of basic research. Funnily enough most of this research supports the AGW case. Perhaps there might be something to this AGW after all.
Weather records are one of the ‘boring’ parts of meteorology that has to be done however no-one ever want to spend money on them and they are always the first to be cut when budgets are tight. Like most areas of basic research that politicians cannot milk votes out of these areas are left with dedicated and usually unpaid people making up for the lack of money.
And don’t as me why money has not been spent on this vital part of the weather record ask your local member of parliament. Since this newly awakened interest in the surface temperature record this is the perfect time to lobby them to fund the network better.
“Look, we’re all really on the same side – we’re all just trying to figure out how best to manage the looming crisis. So I suggest you get over it – an error has been identified, fixed and science is better for it.”
I totally agree.
Jim -“The US is on of the most technologically developed and wealthiest nations on earth – and it has quite a geographical spread. I think it’s fair to assume that it has amongst the most relaible climate records.
And I haven’t seen anything that suggests this result automatically brings other climate data into disrepute. I actually said that in this thread previously.”
OK you say these things however the assumption is built into these two statements. When you say that you think that the US automatically has the best climate network you are implying that all the rest are worse. It is implicit in the statement that you think the US has the best system when in fact some third world countries have better systems. Australia’s is actually one of the best a fact that we can be proud of.
“Incidentally , why the disparagement of the electoral system?”
Because like a lot of things in the US the electoral system they have is a ramshackle underfunded affair with no mandated way of running the voting. Americans do a lot of things really really well however they also do some things really badly. States and counties are responsible for the voting machines etc and there is no commission in overall control. We are lucky enough to have the AEC that sets the rules and ensures that elections here are run in a professional standard manner all over Australia. Also we have preferential voting which I think is the fairest method.
The climate measuring system is run a bit the same way with volunteers running most of the stations. As far as I know there is no central control over the whole system.
“McIntyre certainly doesn’t seem to be going overboard about it.”
No but his cronies are. To listen to Ian Mott you would think McIntyre had stormed NASA and purged the evil from the empire.
Perhaps you guys can step down the rhetoric a bit and I will certainly give it a rest. I am as sick of it as you.
Ender,
” amongst the most reliable ” isn’t anything like “the US automatically has the best climate network “.
I think you certainly do need to rest.
Jim – “” amongst the most reliable ” isn’t anything like “the US automatically has the best climate network “.
I think you certainly do need to rest. ”
Really then why say it at all? If this is nothing then it does not matter if 1934 had 0.02° mean temperature anomoly than 1998. If you were not trying to cast doubt on the climate record then you should have said:
“Minor data error found in US temperature record – please download new data” – end of story. As it is the title of this post is
“And the winner is……1934”
I think it is you that needs the rest.
Guys: some time back I picked up part of a recycled collection, about a thousand discs of vintage jazz. After dozens of hours listening, IMO some had been “Digitally Remastered” properly and some hadn’t so I reduced what I though we could do with out in the private library.
Eventually I got round to re examining the remainder regardless of quality. There are essentially two streams including the well known British and US Bands with their more famous leaders.
Good Jazz and its history is a complex business even for fans. Imagine leaving its art or heritage to engineers and scientists who can’t play a single instrument. The evolution of jazz depended on manual instruments in good hands and I contend we are no better off with the advance of electronics since however dubious the record. Jazz remains as much as ever a master apprenticeship relationship for both the players and the audience.
One of my mates tried to invent infinite tone control on our bench via a pair of “floating” coils and a ball. Gear stick driven jazz is hardly an option even with today’s programs. Digitising the records should also leave a shudder. I grew up listening to impromptu jam sessions as experienced players got to know each other. Brilliance and harmony depends greatly on mutual respect.
Digitising turbulence models from “digital” records likewise requires considerable observer skills. I expect the creative individuals to be enhanced by the band in both engineering and science. Climate scientists should be all toe tapping with their models now.
And another example of that old retention deficit, Ender. You said “To listen to Ian Mott you would think McIntyre had stormed NASA and purged the evil from the empire”.
But all I have ever said was the simple fact that the corrected data makes it clear that all the recent US annual mean temperatures have been ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION.
Now if that constitutes “storming NASA” then maybe NASA really does have a problem. But you, and apparently the body of climate creeps, have this article of faith that even the US portion of the global mean has already moved well beyond the norm.
The evidence is clear. You may not, in good faith, imply that this has already taken place when it has obviously not done so.
Best you get back to that rock now. There must be some reassuring slime moulds under there to make you feel at ease again. Time for some quality time with Mr Thumb.
The DrudgeReport has linked to a story on the Toronto Star’s website. The Drudge’s site has millions of hits a day so the word may finally get around despite NASA’s lack of a press release.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027
Ian Mott – “But all I have ever said was the simple fact that the corrected data makes it clear that all the recent US annual mean temperatures have been ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION.”
So show me the 8 year period where temperatures have stayed high and then swung back up again like 1998 – 2006. Assuming recent warming is entirely within the historical range it should be easy.
“Best you get back to that rock now. There must be some reassuring slime moulds under there to make you feel at ease again. Time for some quality time with Mr Thumb.”
Not sure why you do not get banned from here Motty – you really think insults and intimidation will work and will make up for your total lack of knowledge on climate – sad really
Ender appears to be incapable of comprehending that remaining within the bounds of a range of variation does not demand the replication of an identical pattern within that range. Clutching at straws, sad really.
And a remarkable contrast to all the crowing that was associated with the apparent extension of that range under the old uncorrected data. Furthermore, if Ender had bothered to read my posts carefully he would note that my supposed insult consisted of nothing more than the imputation that he might feel comfortable in the company of slime moulds. This could not possibly be interpreted as any implication that he might actually be a slime mould himself. But therein we see that old comprehension deficiency being exhibited once again.
Ian Mott – “Ender appears to be incapable of comprehending that remaining within the bounds of a range of variation does not demand the replication of an identical pattern within that range. Clutching at straws, sad really.”
So you expect this to be a substitute for actual data? I take it then that there is no period that corresponds to recent warming so therefore the current temperature pattern is not within the bounds of past variation.
“This could not possibly be interpreted as any implication that he might actually be a slime mould himself……”
I accept your apology as veiled and obscure at it is.