Regular readers may recall our conversations this week on the hiccup in CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory. I’m pleased to announce that I received this encouraging email today from Dr. Pieter Tans, who is responsible for the Mauna Loa CO2 data. The data reporting will improve.
—– Original Message —–From: “Pieter Tans” Pieter.Tans@xxxxx.xxxTo: “Anthony Watts- TVWeather” awatts@xxxxxx.xxxSent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 12:11 PMSubject: Re: wrap up – again my thanksAnthony,
I will start a change log with the next update, and the monthly file for
MLO that can be downloaded will have the number of days that went into
each month. I will also add a description of how we actually make and
quality-control these measurements because I found a lot of
misperception about that. These descriptions are in the scientific
literature but that’s too far removed from most people.
Pieter
Let me be the first to publicly congratulate Dr. Tans on this. On behalf of myself and others that frequent here, we sincerely appreciate this improvement in data detail and reporting. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you Dr. Tans, you are truly a gentleman and a scholar.
Huzzah! A climate scientist who acts like a scientist!
I too congratulate Dr. Tans. The change log is very important with any notes. The QA function is of vital importance as well. A review of the measurements by a second party is part of the QA process. I believe the skill of the QA people must be on a par or better than the people doing the actual work. A second sign off of the work is typically in order (by whom, reviewed by whom).
Terry
hyonmin (13:40:44) :
re.: I too congratulate Dr. Tans….. Yep, agree – but – there’s more to do.
When Al Gore will get his – better deserved – Oscar for his movie ‘An Inconvenient Cold’ – somewhere between ’25 and ’40, then, only then, we succeeded.
Great move MLO.
This is a very good sign and should be celebrated as doing the right thing (as opposed to the correct thing).
Of course, it is to be expected from some who spells his name — Pieter — with an “i.”
More data, more openness and more information is always a good thing for science.
It may or may not be a good thing for various theories, but for science in general; I’ve never seen the problem be that too much data and information was available.
Thank you Dr. Tans.
Just as Anthony has demonstrated the importance of (or lack of) quality temperature data, we that frequent this site appreciate that you see the importance of your data quality.
(After all, trillions of dollars of our future economy depend on this type of data.)
With respect,
Gary
Dr. Tans
Thanks for adding the change log and number of days of data.
May I encourage you to also add the raw data by date, together with any calibration adjustments etc. That would give other scientists the opportunity to apply their own models to the raw data which may reveal features that would otherwise be hidden in conventional processing.
The relationships between Total Solar Insolation, Global temperature, Ocean temperature and CO2 are key differences between various climate theories. The relative phase differences between CO2 and ocean temperature may be detectable through some processing of raw data which may be hidden by conventional averaging.
cc: Dr. James Hansen?
Congratulations are in order to Dr. Tans. Such a move may add to his work but it also makes the work done more transparent.
As a skeptic, I’m really not interested if the data that comes out agrees with my understanding of the science or not. What is important is being able to see how the results were arrived at. With such understanding comes a greater appreciation of the work being done by a true scientist. Everyone has an opportunity to learn; even Dr. Tans might get a flash of unexpected insight from some hidden intellect out there in the general populace.
After reading Dr. Tans’ final sentence, let me just say not to underestimate the intelligence of the not so ordinary layman. He might be surprised what the ordinary layman can grasp if the layman thinks it’s something important enough to grasp.
Thank you Dr. Tans.
I am looking forward to see any further information about athmospheric C02 measurements at Mauna Loa Observatory.
More data, more openness and more information is always a good thing for science.
I’ve never seen the problem be that too much data and information was available.
I agree, the whole scientific community can benefit from this.
Regards from Hungary
Robert Cote (15:34:15) stole my thunder. Those who hide behind data secrecy need to be de-normalized; they have no place in the scientific community.
Doctor Hansen & his Team members could learn a lesson or two from Dr. Tans on how to conduct science.
Good news. Now if Dr. Tans could show the natural and man-made CO2 levels instead of lumping them together…
I am uncomfortable with this quote from Dr. Tans;
“We are very much aware that in a time when carbon dioxide emissions will cost a lot of money, there has to be an objective and fully credible way to quantify emissions. Without that, carbon markets cannot function efficiently, and policies cannot be measured relative to their objectives. We think that the atmosphere itself can provide objective quantification.”
Who sent down THAT directive? That is the root of the whole human induced global warming scam. I really don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems “the powers that be” are looking for “quantification” in order to levee the appropriate taxation on the wealthier countries in the name of saving the planet.
Pretty funny Mark.
Anthony,
This is OT, but EUReferendum.com references you. That is, oddly enough, where I found out about your site, it being one of their favorites. This time, however, the news is not so good, although the witty sarcasm they use in regards to AGW is deliciously funny. I don’t know how to put links in here without getting flagged, so I’ll just tell you it is under the heading of “There is Only One True God.”
I will quote it. Verify it if you like by visiting their page. I quote:
“In terms, there is no difference in the tenor of the messages. Thus, in “climate change”, we are not dealing with science but a belief system. The “scientists” are merely the High Priests of this strange new religion, their bible the IPPC assessment report. This is the Holy Writ, handed down from on High. There can be no deviation from The Word.
This is why the likes of Watts up with that and Climate audit, invaluable though they are, will never prevail. They are attempting to deal, methodically and dispassionately, with the science. But this is a religion. And there is only one true God … the God of climate change.
If you dispute this fact, you are an unbeliever, and you will be cast into to the Hell of a planet warmed by 4 degrees. We know this to be true – Professor Bob Watson has said so and The Guardian has printed it. No more proof is needed.”
What is the old saying? Never discuss politics and religion at the dinner table?
REPLY: Science is self correcting, and the process is usually methodical. While some would say I should fight fire with fire, that is not always productive. So far, my approach has made a lot of inroads.
Nature will be the final arbiter of truth.
Oh, by the way, their site has actual links to this site, climate audit, whatever Prof. Watson said and whatever the UK Guardian printed. Check it out yourself for references. Oh, but the spark of the column (not copied) was that yet another scientist has made yet another temperature rise predicition.
What this time? I’ll quote a bit.
“The EU is committed to limiting emissions globally so that temperatures do not rise more than 2C.”
But…”There is no doubt that we should aim to limit changes in the global mean surface temperature to 2C above pre-industrial,” Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told the Guardian. “But given this is an ambitious target, and we don’t know in detail how to limit greenhouse gas emissions to realise a 2 degree target, we should be prepared to adapt to 4C.”
And, as expected, of course…
“Globally, a 4C temperature rise would have a catastrophic impact. In the UK, the most significant impact would be rising sea levels and inland flooding. Climate modellers also predict there would be an increase in heavy rainfall events in winter and drier summers.”
Hi ho. Hi ho. It’s off to Hell we go.
I’m sorry to take up so much space, but when you read a funny story you have to share it. This is apparently from the Bart Simpson Institute of Science, where you’re darned if you do and darned if you don’t (to be polite). Again, from the Guardian article EUReferendum.com references:
“He also said as coal burning is cleaned up to remove harmful sulphur pollution climate change would actually get worse. The sulphur aerosols are actually preventing some warming from taking place currently.
“This offsetting effect, which is equivalent to about 100 parts per million of carbon dioxide, will largely disappear if China and India follow the lead of the US and Europe in limiting sulphur emissions, the cause of acid deposition,” he said.
[end]
Hmm, so it’s a choice between acid rain or runaway temperatures. Choices. Always choices.
Yep… Good on ya, Dr Tans.
Inching so close to 3 million hits…
Pieter Tans……………. Roy W. Spencer………..
I am happy
Re: Low Moaning CO2
Well, well…
Kudzu… kudos… sudoku… anyway congrats to you, Anthony! And a bushel or two of carbon credits to the doctor as well.
This is nice. Dr Tans gets the praise of all the sceptics because he was responsive and willing to improve the quality of the observations. If Hansen would have taken this tone, he probably would get just as much praise… instead we got all the unsufruct and gorilla insults from him. I’m still amazed that a NASA scientist would degrade the public then expect their cooperation. And in the mean time, the quack over at broken mind is still harping about Anthony’s response to bad data that NOAA provided.