Since NASA’s James Hansen finally released computer codes related to how climate data are collected and adjusted, anthropogenic global warming skeptics around the world have been waiting to see what a scientific examination of this information would produce.
On Monday, Canada’s Steve McIntyre, who himself debunked Michael Mann’s ridiculous “Hockey Stick” theory as well as identified Hansen’s Y2K bug, released information identifying that Hansen recently made additional changes to climate data akin to how companies like Enron used creative accounting to exaggerate earnings and defraud investors.
As published at Climate Audit moments ago (emphasis added, h/t Anthony Watts):
Shortly after, NASA published their source code on Sept 7, we started noticing puzzling discrepancies in the new data set. […]
On Sept 15, Jerry Brennan observed that the NASA U.S. temperature history had changed and that 1998 was now co-leader atop the U.S. leaderboard.
By this time, we’d figured out exactly what Hansen had done: they’d switched from using the SHAP version – which had been what they’d used for the past decade or so – to the FILNET version. The impact at Detroit Lakes was relatively large – which was why we’d noticed it, but in the network as a whole the impact of the change was to increase the trend slightly – enough obviously to make a difference between 1934 and 1998 – even though this supposedly was of no interest to anyone.
In very simplistic terms, SHAP and FILNET are computer programs used by climatologists to assist in the collation and interpretation of climate data. Each program does so differently, and, therefore, yields different final results.
As such, by suddenly switching from SHAP – which NASA had been using for decades – to FILNET, NASA was able to once again claim that 1998 and 1934 are now tied for the warmest years on record in the U.S. This despite Hansen’s claim in August that climate record changes precipitated by McIntyre’s Y2K bug find were irrelevant.
As McIntyre pointed out, what’s now happening at NASA is akin to companies changing from Generally Accepting Accounting Principles (GAAP) to what produced a lot of faulty earnings in the late ’90s and early ’00s, Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA):
Read the rest of the blog post here http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/17/nasa-s-hansen-playing-enron-accounting-games-climate-data
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Steve McIntyre has given the finest demonstration yet why accounting can be anything but booring. There are few “thrills of the chase” more rewarding than stalking, aiming, and ultimately taking out, a feral spiv like Hansen.
Auditors Rule, OK?
SJT and I are shocked and surprised that a “balanced blog” like this wouldn’t report other interesting comments at Climate Audit summarised here : http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/09/deniers-rediscover-hockey-stick.html
Of course such subtleties would be lost on the testosterone overloaded tree stranglers.
Clutching at straws aren’t you, Luke! The article you refer to claims on the basis of a US temperature record from 1850 that the “hockey stick” northern hemisphere temperature graph (1000AD to 2000AD) was correct. Do I need to spell it out for you? The region is different and the time period is different.
I think Steve McIntyre is doing a great job of auditing the claims of one “global warming messiah”. It’s not that Hansen may have just been a naughty boy but that his widely reported statements (and reputation) may have been based on false data, false processing and false claims. If this is the case then the influence of Hansen has brought climate science into very serious disrepute.
John are you that dour that you can’t see the tongue in cheekiness. Jeeeez. I think most of us do know the period of the original hockey stick.
Try reading the said article.
Looks to me that McIntyre is creating vasts amounts of noise and nothing much has changed.
And more framing “messiah”?? Your term. Hansen is just one of many scientists. And three “false”s in one sentence – more and more alarmist denialist framing.
“Since NASA’s James Hansen finally released computer codes related to how climate data are collected and adjusted, anthropogenic global warming skeptics around the world have been waiting to see what a scientific examination of this information would produce.
On Monday, Canada’s Steve McIntyre, who himself debunked Michael Mann’s ridiculous “Hockey Stick” theory as well as identified Hansen’s Y2K bug, released information identifying that Hansen recently made additional changes to climate data akin to how companies like Enron used creative accounting to exaggerate earnings and defraud investors.”
As Luke has already pointed out, the release of the source code has only validate the existing temperature record. Would you like to post a story on that too, Jennifer?
Why is the hockey stick ‘ridiculous’. A lot of science has been proven wrong, incorrect, superceded, but not ‘ridiculous’. ‘ridiculous’ is reserved for such papers as the CO2/SST temperature correlation, which are the equivalent of babies playing with razor blades.
If you read CA, it’s not a ‘change of accounting standards’.
My understanding of NOAA’s procedure is:
(1) Raw data
(2) Remove outliers
(3) Correct for TOBS
(4) Correct for station history issues (moves) -> SHAP
(5) Correct for missing data using surrounding stations -> FILNET
(6) Correct for UHI
Moving from SHAP to FILNET is a move to better quality data.
I don’t follow the logic of the topic.
He says
“Since NASA’s James Hansen finally released computer codes related to how climate data are collected and adjusted, anthropogenic global warming skeptics around the world have been waiting to see what a scientific examination of this information would produce.”
Then completely ignores the examination of the code, and talks about something completely different, what basis is used for the temperature record released to the public. Nothing at all to do with the source code.
The reason he plays a classic ‘bait and switch’ is that the evaluation of the source code actually validates what Hansen has been saying all along.
“Auditors Rule, OK?”
C’mon Motty – they’re usually real pains in the arse!
I’ve got a good stock of auditor jokes if you’re interested?
Like reformed smokers , former auditors can be quite sanctimonious!
So Luke and SJT – you want “balance” eh?
Funny – you’re not usually that keen on it? The airing of TGGWS springs to mind…..
What’s the latest set of ground rules ; both sides of an argument have to be presented or a source which presents alternative views is credible?
That’s how they did it. The 1934 record of drought, depression, crop failures, heatwaves, and human exodus, somehow after getting SHAM and FILNETed by NOAA became less severe weather then this year. You remember all those terrible things that happened this year, right?
Did you know there was only one temperature station for all of continental Africa in 1934? That’s a lot of fill to net. Eight stations in South America with a record stretching back 100 years. No stations at all on Antarctica until 1957.
What do you even use as a surrounding station in a case like that?
Just take a guess.
Hansen needs to be put out of the worlds misery.
To me perpetrating a fraud on the world, comparable to the Pithdown man, deserves prison time ~~ without A/C.
I have been looking at Australia’s time series weather data from the BOM (you can view it here: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi ). What I find curious is that the data only extends back to 1950, which happens to show significant warming in all seasons since 1950. Yet, looking at data in NSW for several stations (Mudgee, Lithgow and Bathurst), mean daytime summer temperatures were actually warmer in the 1911 to 1950 period than 1971 to 2000 (Mudgee 30.9°C then versus 29.8°C now, Lithgow 24.9°C then versus 24.8°C now and Bathurst, 27.3°C then versus 27.1°C now). Mean winter daytime temperatures however, have exhibited slight warming (Mudgee 15.2°C then versus 15.3°C now, Lithgow 10.9°C then versus 11.5°C now and Bathurst, 12.0°C then versus 12.2°C now). Perhaps the change in Lithgow is related to change in the built environment?
In Mudgee, the old post office site was closed in the mid 1990’s and replaced with an auto station at the more stable airport environment, which is 20m higher than the town. The data from this site (1991 to 2007) shows: a mean summer daytime temperature of 29.5°C and winter one of 15.2°C – no change from the historical data, and no different to observations from 1891 to 1920.
So while the artic is melting away to nothing, raw observational data from the tablelands of NSW tells that daytime temperatures haven’t changed enough to say the climate has changed over the last 100 years.
James
the australian temperature record pretty well concurs with Hansen. He hasn’t had anything to do with that.
Robert – try looking at BoM’s specially selected reference network for climate change studies – don’t bother with SILO.
Climate stations were computerised after 1957. Only a smaller number of temperature stations have been computerised pre-1957.
http://www.bom.gov.au/silo/products/cli_chg/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
Also worth knowing about for station density
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/how/climarc.shtml
James – “To me perpetrating a fraud on the world, comparable to the Pithdown man, deserves prison time ~~ without A/C.”
So you are publically accusing a scientist of fraud are you? You had better have some data to back that charge up or you might find yourself in court. Perhaps you should tone down the rhetoric and stick to the facts.
James you deranged sepo – mate it’s Piltdown Man for a start. You need some A/C – alternating current to the cerebral lobes.
What an amazing lot of denialist doo-doo you’ve penned. Hansen always had 1934 as significantly warm. Has he taken away your dustbowl – no – you’re just ranting like denialist drips love to do.
Extraordinary really – I McIntyre should be sued into the Stone Age – I mean really we have a drivelly wandering ongoing on-line analysis. How utterly unprecedented. Why doesn’t he simply piss off and do the BIG analysis and report back. We’re being drip fed unconnected rants which end being a few pooftenths of a degree difference. I mean WTF – why doesn’t he do some science instead of grunging around in other people’s rubbish bins like bottom dwelling auditors love to do.
Suggested weekly blog feature:
Which is Hansen’s warmest GISS year this week?
That said, poor old ‘Heinz’ Hansen seems to be out-adjusted by NOAA who are winning with 2006.
I wonder why newsbusting Noel Sheppharding the denialist ball spruiker has kept us fully up to date with developments at Climate Cesspit.
I mean if it’s reported at Climate Cesspit it must be right eh?
Oh look a Climate Cesspit viewer has analysed the US Watt’s CRN classification.
Seems to have validated GISTEMP !!
WTF did you say – validated GISTEMP.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061#comment-138432
and one of the said graphs http://www.inturnsoftware.com/downloads/crn12_crn5_giss.gif
Gee I wonder what the analysis tells us. Gee it’s sure hard isn’t it?
This information is the sort of stuff that just seems to slip through the cracks here at Denialist Central. Ya won’t be seeing any lead posts on this sort of breaking news kiddies.
So if you are going to get lathered up about wiggles and bumps – get equally lathered.
John V of course hasn’t done the last word ultimate analysis for sure – but hey the McIntyre-ites are grooving on it – in the new way of doing random public science by blog. And if it’s breaking news you’d think the devious decepto-con denialists would want to break it to the world. Unless of course you were a bunch of shonks.
Good, Luke, keep squirming. No amount of sneer and defamation on your part will alter the fact that Hansen had to be dragged kicking to supply even the most rudimentary attributes of open and transparent science.
But your commonality with Hansen is informative. You both dismiss relevant facts as “insignificant” but fail to appreciate the importance of data integrity. You’re a lot like Christopher Skase who, when presented with a poor set of accounting results from the current year, simply moved some revenue up from the previous one to fudge the current results and mislead the public about the nature of the trend.
And Jim, most of the people who think auditors are a pain in the ass are the ones with something to hide or the ones producing sub-standard work. I can swap you a spiv joke for every audit joke you can come up with. Auditors rule because the truth is not only important, it is also, ultimately, a lot less expensive than bull$hit.
What – “kicking and screaming” to have his analysis confirmed by CA. ROFTL.
It seems to me that this issue has major ramifications.
Repeatability is a fundamental principle of science. McIntyre et al are doing science a great service by insisting on maintaining this principle, and testing the experiments for repeatability.
It was this action that revealed the misrepresentaion by Mann et all which resulted in teh hockey stick graph, and the complicity of teh IPCC in showcasing this graph as the centrepoint for claims of impending disaster.
McIntyre’s action then led to the congressional enquiry which revealed the erroneous statistical methodology used by Mann et al, and the failed process of peer review implemented by the IPCC. This has forced teh IPCC to include estimates of uncertainty into their reporting, which helps to identify those results which are not statistically different from zero. It was a major insight to watch the drama unfold when the congress wrote to Mann, and each of his associates, demanding the algorithms and data, which had been developed using US taxpayers funding, and which therefore meant that copyright lay with the US government. Mann et al resisted for as long as was legally possible.
There are close similarities with the actions of James Hansen, whose work is government funded and therefore belongs to the American taxpayer. Any resistance on his part to public dissemination of algorithms and data are inexcusable. Again McIntyre is doing science a great service.
In the same vein, the work being done by the people at SurfaceStations.org is a major contribution to the science. It is cleaning data which contains systematic errors that should have been cleaned by the relevant authorities, but which were not, a clear case of scientific negligence.
I am not sure of the situation with the Australian network, I think Jennifer can help here. But I recall that the BoM removed photographs of a large number of its sites from its website about a year ago, largely because the photos showed similar negligence with UHI effects, hence systematic errors. The original network has been replaced with the current reference network. But this raises the question of which data set for Australia is being used by and for the IPCC assessments. If the IPCC is using data which is known to have systematic errors, then the entire process is subject to suspicion. If it is using the reference network, then the data set provides only about 50 years of data, which is a very short time span to use to assess climate change affects.
PP
It’s a load of rubbish, ian and pete. Just read the Climateaudit web site and his minions. It’s about attacking and bloodletting, with the ‘where’s waldo’ chorus thrown in for the troops. If I was Hansen or Jones, I wouldn’t give them the time of day.
Pirate Pete – “McIntyre’s action then led to the congressional enquiry which revealed the erroneous statistical methodology used by Mann et al, and the failed process of peer review implemented by the IPCC’
So what about the 5 or 6 subsequent studies that confirm MBH99? I do not see McIntyre auditing these.
“If the IPCC is using data which is known to have systematic errors, then the entire process is subject to suspicion. If it is using the reference network, then the data set provides only about 50 years of data, which is a very short time span to use to assess climate change affects.”
As McIntyre has found out rigorous checks and balances are carried out to ensure data quality. So much so that even selecting for the ‘worst’ sites in the data you do not get any difference in the result. As McIntyre is not qualified to participate in the science then the only thing that he can do is snipe from the sidelines. The BOM data is of very high quality BTW.
Pointless Pete – we’ve only been over this point about 100,000 times. The photos look to be there to me at
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
The 50 years myth comes from graph contained in this link http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/how/climarc.shtml
The reference station analysis goes back to 1910 with the Climarc project adding more.
Please stop blatantly misrepresenting the actual situation eh?
Luke, thanks for the correction.
Where can I find a table of the RCS stations and the duration of each of their records?
PP
Hello Luke,
Further to my last post, can you help me with a list or table of the Australian stations which were included in each of teh IPCC 1AR, 2AR, 3AR, and 4AR?
PP
PP – the best way to get what you want with associated metadata would be to email the National Climate Centre and ask.
They may or may not be able to assist with the second point, if not you would need to ask the IPCC chapter authors for each Assessment.
Sometimes just asking gives very good answers.
Email being webclim@bom.gov.au
Suggest you ask about the RCS network and 1910 to current trend analysis maps.
As an aside you will notice the RCS network does not include capital cities.
Ender, “So what about the 5 or 6 subsequent studies that confirm MBH99? I do not see McIntyre auditing these.”
You’re kidding, aren’t you? There are pages and pages examining the other multi proxy studies put out by the self-described “Hockey Team”.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=7
Among others, Crowley, Esper, Hansen, Hegerl, Jones, Juckes, Moberg and Osborn and Briffa.
For a tongue in cheek look at how the proxies could be interpreted differently, see “Making Apple Pie instead of Cherry Pie”.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=581#more-581
Paul – it behoves McIntyre to “get published” which he’s fairly tardy in doing. Science is not settled by sporadic blog “drive by shootings” and “ra ra ra” from rabid cheer squads.
Some may see all this as conspiracy – others may simple see it as the science process at work where positions are challenged. However not many people probably get as revved up about Lepidoptera taxonomy.
Interesting though blog debating is as a contact sport.
P.S. Although if the journal is Energy and Environment perhaps blogs are better quality 🙂
As Arnost has pointed out repeatedly on this blog, The NOAA/GISS data for Australia is not consistent with that from BoM.
And even BoM has some interesting anomalies, like recording rockhampton Qld as a hot bed of warming (as determined by the data back to 1910) yet the older data to 1870 shows a much higher mean.
Luke, how interesting that you consider McIntyre’s vast amount of work, posted on his blog almost daily, as “sporadic blog “drive by shootings””.
Said blog, (Climateaudit) being created in response to the formation of “Realclimate”, which is a blog formed for the purpose of pushing a dubious article “trashing” McIntyre and McKitrick’s 2003 E&E paper, which is (according to you) of lower quality than the blogs.
Obviously, Steve McIntyre has been published, though I suppose any Journal that publishes him would immediately be taken off your subscription list!
I find it amazing that so many commenters object to the data and methodology that supports AGW being subject to scrutiny. What if it turns out that all the $billions being spent on climate change are being mis-spent? Doesn’t that concern you? And if the data all stacks up, then there’s likely to be much more effective action against a proven threat.
Oh for heavens sake – are you that bereft. Data prior to 1910 isn’t reliable as it comes from different on-Stevenson screen instruments. A well known issue that’s “come in spinner” and “welcome to climate records 101” for young players. It’s the equivalent of asking the apprentice to get a left handed hammer from the shop.
To a mere accountant data may be just numbers but the conditions of the measuring box are quite influential.
In any case you will see anomalous spoltches on a map of broad warming trends across Australia. But would you be surprised that God would evenly jack up the temperatures everywhere equally. That there would not a few interesting feedbacks and wiggles on the broad national climate canvas. Sigh ….
You get half a point for knowing that NOAA/GIS ain’t BoM – but you have to ask yourself does the story change that much overall? You tell me?
I really should get right up you for such an error but I can’t type – in tears from the sheer tedium of your knowledge gaps.
What was that ! There’s one of those earth movement tremors again.
Paul – McIntyre is a clever guy. But from the tone of his posts and the nature of the discussion it’s VERY politically motivated enterprise he’s involved in.
Blog results are interim. Not reviewed. Work in progress. So who says what he says in any post holds up in the big swim. Where’s HIS peer review by a domain expert – not blog flotsam and jetsam.
He NEEDS to get MORE published. He needs to get involved formally. Just checking a few things in a series of sporadic blog posts is not advancing the science in the long term.
Realclimate at least is explanatory and educational. Not saying they never take a swipe but the tone is totally different.
CA is full on attack attack attack. The level of personal attacks on Hansen is really unprecedented due to the nature of the modern internet and blogging.
All climate data are messy. It’s difficult stuff. We’re puuting information togetehr that was never purpose built for climate change analysis – it was for weather prediction and just the need to monitor.
A lot more progress could be made with a less than full aggressive tone.
Scientists are only human. The overt political and nasty style of the attacks would make anyone less than accomodating in supplying information.
Hopefully with some new standards for full disclosure of research information we may look back on this period as one of learning and a regretable phase of public science.
From my viewpoint – I see a wide rsange of diverse global drivers showing warming, I see good knowledge of CO2 physics, I see on external driver to explain the current warming trends overall but CO2 – so regardless of details of a wiggle here and a wiggle there broadly there is definitely something going on.
My personal bet is that after all this is done the overall trends of warming will still be there. Ultimate warmest on record etc etc – who knows. Does it matter that much?
Errors have two sides too – perhaps we’re not taking the threat nearly seriously enough. That’s what the IPCC experts really think.
Luke, what a load of spin. The fact is that climate scientists did not adhere to their own institutions policies regarding archiving. They could, and should, have shown that they did not fudge their results by making their methods freely available, as in fact they are required to do.
Now it’s starting to unravel, and it’s interesting to watch the scrambling. Public opinion has already jumped off the AGW bandwagon, and these twists and turns by the AGW proponents will eventually reach the mainstream.
If they want to maintain public support, and funding, they will eventually have to prove their work is above reproach. If it is rock solid, they have nothing to worry about.
Twaddle Paul – are you an expert in institutional archival policies. Try rocking up to a lot of doors and obtaining information – there’s stacks of IP issues. Some FOI requests can take weeks of work because someone has a whim or flight of fancy.
Not to mention the practical issue of dumping a few terabytes of data. Be fun to see McIntyre work through a few petabytes of MODIS data. Then there’s a programs set up over a number of servers and data feeds. I suggest you have no idea of the sheer difficulties. Look up data curation in the UK.
Where would you like the terabytes of IPCC runs sent – what your FTP address. Can be done but are you ready??
This whole issue is a small microcosm of the climate change research universe. A backwater almost.
As for unravelling – frankly I would have said the the public support is getting more rabid for the cause if anything. And denialists are getting desperate. This is what we are seeing. But I’m not sure what the public really believe or know. Most people in the street don’t even know how the greenhouse effect works. Look at Morano – the whole style looks utterly desperate.
However it all doesn’t really matter – the research continues oblivious to blogdom and the data keep coming in. Data that confirm the AGW position more and more.
We’ll see who has egg on their faces soon enough.
You see the global atmosphere doesn’t care what we think – it will integrate it’s physical processes and do its thing.
Luke, it’s well documented that climate scientists are required to archive their data and methods, or else everyone else would just have to take their word for it. I know that is the preferred position of AGW stalwarts, that we all just accept the wisdom handed down, but it’s not how science works.
You’re right of course, I have no idea of the sheer difficulties. Maybe you do. But if the data is on computer discs, wouldn’t it be more sensible to follow policy and get them archived, rather than carelessly leaving them around for the dog to eat?
Writing papers without complete disclosure of the materials and methods used to support the conclusions, and having them peer reviewed and published, reflects rather poorly on the whole system.
Why would anyone object to full disclosure? If the conclusions are so rock solid, they should be pleased that they reach a wider audience.
Paul – where does it say for all institutions that data must be archived? Are you familiar with the various state, national and international archives acts? IP requirements. Copyright infringements for passing on 3rd party programs accidentally. Violations of licence agreements with collaborators.
Harvardism has made places like CSIRO go mcuh more commercial – do you want their competitors getting hold of their IP?
Let’s take the weather Bureau on for example – let’s say we want all your models and data as Steve McIntyre has just knocked on your front door and wants to audit you.
All FOI systems have limits whereby the burden of provision of information become onerous.
You can be talking about large networked multiple computer systems. Some of these information requests are not necessarily simple.
Could you handle receiving a few terabytes of data for example?
And who pays for this – do granting bodies provide adequate archival budgets or time for proper archival to Steve McIntyre’s gold standard – of course they don’t. So this is what a commercial attitude to research has brought you.
Thank you Harvard Business School !
Look at the massive cost of compliance and ongoing difficulties with SOX standards. And this is business – is Mottsa up with SOX??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act
It’s OK we’ll just need a few more billion $ to comply with it all a few more of these http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/CDE/_REDWOOD.GIF
http://cc.jlab.org/announce/newsletter/CCNLSep99_files/image004.gif
http://www.npaci.edu/online/v5.13/inside_hpss.jpg
OK – bit dramatic perhaps but it is not always simple – Hansen has made all his data and programs available – ripped from various systems I’ll bet. I’m sure he would have liked some more time to do a proper documentation job and present the system more thoroughly. Anyway too late now he’s got it “as is”.
The other point is that systems like the global temperature system “evolve” – procedures and data sources change, better algorithms are invented. Manevolent commentators call this “fudging” – but it’s not – better methods are invented all along. A better analysis is a better analysis if it’s statistically defensible.
Let’s ask Paul Biggs to send us all his medical research data and programs so we can check it ?? I’m suspicious those right wingers may be up to something.
I suggest you have NO IDEA of the sheer scope of difficulties facing modern science. As I said go Google “data curation and UK e-science data issues”.
P.S. of course I’d don’t object to full disclosure {in theory} if you are genuine, not a time waster, and not trying to rip me off.
Re the discussion about nit picking by McIntyre, the information presented by SurfaceStations about the stations that they have surveyed to date is astonishing.
Recall that the US network has been promoted as the international standard.
The SurfaceStation people have surveyed more than 330 of the 1221 stations in the US network. Each station surveyed has been classified according to the USHCN standards. They found that 17% of the stations are classified as Class 5, with errors of >5 deg C: 52% of stations classified as Class 4, errors >2 deg C; 16% of stations classed as Class 3, errors > 1 deg C, 10% classed as Class 2, and only 5% classified as Class 1, errors <1 degC.
This is astonishing. How anyone could even think of attempting to extract temperature series which quotes results with accuracy and precision to one tenth of a degree using data with systematic errors of this magnitude is beyond me.
I note that the sixth stage of the NOAA data cleansing procedure is correction for UHI effect, but the second stage is to remove outliers. When they are targetting precisions of one tenth of a degree, a three sigma screen would automatically remove at least 85% of all of the data set.
This is astonishing.
It makes me wonder if the same situation exists with the data set which was used for Australia.
It is about time that Hansen attached values for variance or uncertainty for the temperatures which he has published. Then we can make rational estimates of the claimed differences between years such as 1934 and 1998. On the basis of the information presented by SurfaceStations, one would have to suspect that any apparent, published difference at the order of tenths of a degree is statistically insignificant.
Hello Luke,
When you referred me to the BoM RCS network in response to my question about Australian stations used in the TAR and FAR, I assumed that you were fully conversant with the data set which was used. Looks like I was wrong.
We know that the Australian data set used was not the RCS set, so, do you actually know which stations were used?
If so, where can I find the data set?
PP
PP
Well as I said above you should email the Australian Natioanl Climate Centre and ask – beats supposition any day !
It’s not like that there has never been error analyses ever conducted
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Peterson-Vose-1997.pdf
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Smith-Reynolds-dataset-2005.pdf
And why just focus on the terrestrial data sets?
Assuming the yanks have the world’s best climate network is the height of cultural arrogance. I mean they don’t even play cricket. Surely only a British colony like Australia would be likely to have the world’s best climate network.
Luke, your comment to Paul re the current stage of research seems to miss the point of the discussion.
The discussion is not about whether there is a current warming effect, we know there is, and there has been for the past 10,000 years, since the last ice age. It is called nature. The warming is patchy, variable, inconsistent across regions, different between hemispheres. But is has happened, and is happening, and will continue to happen until the next ice age is upon us.
The issue is whether AGW exists.
You are right that arguing about which was the warmest year is trivial, and represents the level of the popular debate, particularly when promoted by the environmental lobby.
It seems to me that the case for AGW is far from established. That there is a warming trend at the same time as an increase in CO2 does not prove cause and effect. The old saying that correlation does not prover causation.
I agree that there is some very good science being done. Almost none of this ever reaches the public consciousness. I believe that if there was more public knowledge of what is really being discovered, rather than slogans promoted by the AGW lobby, public opinion would be very firmly against AGW.
As it is, a great majority of the people that I talk to about it, the common masses, do not believe in AGW. Interesting, particularly when young people are very sceptical. Particularly farmers whose families have been on the land for a hundred years, and have long memories, and albums of photos, and their own records of their own climate.
PP
Luke, re your sharp jibe at Paul about large volume data collation, archiving and processing.
Have you ever actually done this yourself? Not just on the periphery, but in the middle of it?
I have worked with an international data set of terabytes, with matrices of tens of millions by tens of millions. Not that hard when you know what you are doing. But it takes a lot of investigation, hundreds of phone calls to observing stations across the world to find out why the data set jumped at a particular time. It is enormously satisfying when the results are published and contribute to international knowledge and understanding.
So what is your experience in this matter?
PP
“Luke, how interesting that you consider McIntyre’s vast amount of work, posted on his blog almost daily, as “sporadic blog “drive by shootings””.
There is a lot of work, a lot of cries of “Where’s Waldo”, a lot of wheels about to fall off global warming, but, in the end, it produces very little. You would expect that with all the work the IPCC produces, there must be errors. It works, actually, as a validation of the scientific process. The few errors he has found are of no substance, and do not invalidate the basic science behind AGW. For all the bonfires around the ‘hockey stick’, his latest frenzy has only produced a validation of the accepted temperature records and the hockey stick.
“It is called nature.” nope that’s paganism – not science. Pretty poor if after all this science we just shrug and say “oh well it’s nature”. Jeeezzz !
Of course correlation doesn’t prove cause and effect, but (and oh God I’m not going to list the bloody references for the 1000th time)empirical mesurements with terrestrial and space borne instruments, a cooling stratosphere, satellite observations, good modelling agreement of major factors, a ton of CO2 radiative physics and major fingerprinting literature. Mate are you wandering around with your science eyes shut.
On terabytes well easy is it – bull ! that’s why things like http://www.sdsc.edu/srb/index.php/Main_Page – exist. Tell us when you’ve sorted it out hey? !!!
Luke,
Thanks for the reference to Peterson and Vose, the GHCN temperature network.
At table 1, it shows that the Aust Climate Centre contributed data for 785 stations. But the Aust reference network contains only 100 or so.
So now the task is to get the list of the 785 stations, identify the additional stations and do a survey similar to SurfaceStations.
This may be interesting. Only problem is that it will take a lot of time.
PP
Luke, so the bottom line is, no one can question the historical temperature record? Everyone just accepts what the Hockey Team says?
If Hansen can change his algorithms and as a result the historical temperature “changes”, the onus is on him to justify it. If he can remove one version of the data and replace it with another, he must have data files, it should be possible to make them available, despite your pictures of 20th century computers.
I’m not sure whether Paul Biggs keeps his data on file or not, but I’m sure he would make his materials and methods available to any serious researcher, so that his results could be replicated. That’s the basis of science. (Please don’t try and say that Steve McIntyre is not a serious researcher, that would be silly!)
Given that Hansen is on record as saying it is ok to exaggerate the threat of climate change in order to provoke public action, SOMEONE needs to monitor the changes he is making to the historical record.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1139
PS Luke. You say you agree with full disclosure (in theory). That’s what McIntyre is trying to get. But it seems that you, SJT, et al, don’t like what he’s found. If he had validated the results, you would have thought he was the toast of the town.
Well his blog has validated the results – you keep missing the John V story.
I don’t know of anyone else who does research by “blog opinion” and as a daily spectacle parades a litany of snide remarks with science. It’s MOST extraordinary.
Perhaps we should so the same with all our court cases. While they’re being heard we can get Steve like persons to pick away and make random comments.
I’m not against any investigation in principle except
(1) it’s a bit more complicated than handing over your Excel spreadsheet on a floppy disk – there is a bit more in it
(2) McIntyre’s modus operandi via his blog is basically vulgar
(3) His motivations and subject choice are totally political
(4) As for the temperature trend I await any major rewrite of the story
Hansen on record on exaggeration to provoke public action – really that’s obnoxious for a serious researcher. And somehow I don’t think the whole world will act just because he says so.
Paul can speak for himself but if his stuff was buried under a mountain of IP agreements I would not be surprised – standard operating style in biotech I’m afraid.
McIntyre isn’t doing this for the purity of science. It’s purely political. Otherwise his blog style would be 100% different in tone.
Anyway he’s got the code and data – why doesn’t he piss off, get on with it and report back.
BTW – who’s checking McIntyre?
Well Luke, you keep throwing out red herrings, not to mention outright incorrect statements, (or else you don’t really have a clue what McIntyre is doing).
He is checking on numerous issues involved with past temperature records. I don’t accept that his tone is vulgar and I don’t know what his motives are, other than what he has said on his site, but in any case it is irrelevant.
You have implied that to archive data so that others would have access to it is too big a task to do. Are you an expert on data archiving? Why do some institutions have a policy that such archiving be done, if it is impossible?
No, I haven’t missed the John V story. Considering it is from a commenter on a vulgar blog that is politically motivated to trash AGW, I’m a bit surprised that the warmers are all over it like seagulls after a sandwich. But maybe it also shows that Climate Audit is really about auditing.
Yep setting up everything for some nice external person to use is a lot of work. Governments, industry, citizens and researchers ought to do lots of things but there’s only so many hours in the day. The world should be perfect. Budgets and staff resources should be infinite.
You have not worked out that accountability costs – governments are now drowning in it. Expect with no budget increase for actual product output to go down. But if that’s what democracy wants that what it gets.
It’s not just data Paul – it’s networks, computers, procedures, metadata, what gets done when.
Nonetheless McIntyre has got it all – so spare us the “Where’s Waldo” crud and get on with it.
John V wasn’t anyone other than doing an analysis so I have no idea what you’re on about. His analysis implied things looked about right to me.
Luke, do you have an alternative to accepting Hansen’s adjustments on faith?
Yep – do what Hansen said all along – do an alternative analysis. See if it changes the big picture. Of course it’s a trap though isn’t it. McIntyre doesn’t like to commit to anything himself. He likes to expose rather than create. If he makes a mistake given his past posture we’ll be into him with a meat axe (rhetorically speaking).
I’m struggling to see how that would be easier or cheaper than Hansen documenting his methods for external audit. (I understand that you don’t like McIntyre, no need to keep reinforcing it).
Weeeelll – it’s probably not the only thing he’s doing. Check his publication list. Bet he didn’t write a fair bit of it – it’s codes that have been been written over years into a system.
But who says Hansen’s method of analysis is even right? Should it be repeated with new insights now available. That’s why an independent assessment would be more valuable.
Hansen keeps changing his results. No one except McIntyre is checking him (or his department), as far as I know.
I think it was Ross McKitrick who proposed a “counterweight group” to critically examine all aspects of global warming reseach and conclusions. Nice to see that you agree.
Well that might be OK while they’re into “kindergarten” stuff like simple time series. Wonder we’re they’re going to get their climate modellers from ROTFL and LMAO.
Hansen is changing his results to accomodate McIntyre’s hysteria which is jiggling curves around slightly – has he told us anything earth shattering yet. Do you still have a bloody big warming in the last 30 years with no solar driver and a truck load of other confirming evidence and CO2 physics?
Luke accuses McIntyre of excessive attack and ideology, bbbaaaarrrff. Do you seriously think readers will calmly undure all the blatant invective and spin you dish out on other posts and then take all your mock sweetness and light on this post on face value?
And lets get this clear, Hansen receives public funding to perform a task. And Hansen has used that funding to carry out work that he intends to influence not just US policy but global policy. And Luke has the gall to claim that proper work papers and record keeping is all too hard for such a busy boy. As if the efficient retrieval of data was not an integral part of proper record keeping and storage?
Get back under that rock, you clown.
Oh gee Ian – I’m sorry.
Perhaps you might considering funding things properly then.
P.S. I was only being nice as you were not here. (Note a correlation).
I declare a Winner from this exchange:
Luke has got the biggest one. But J Hansen’s must be even bigger.
Now back to the science…