UPDATE: the question has arisen about “occupied” aka “manned” weather stations in Antarctica (Stevenson Screens etc) versus the Automated Weather Stations. This picture on a postage stamp from Australia, celebrating the Australian Antarctic Territory in 1997, may help settle the issue. Note the Stevenson Screen near the “living pod” on the right.
Here is the larger photo of the first day of issue card, the Stevenson Screen is also just visible above the snowbank in the lower right. Rather close to human habitation I’d say. Looks like its in the middle of an AHI (Antarctic Heat Island).
Here’s another picture of a Stevenson Screen close to a building in Antarctica, from the British Antarctic Survey:
![[10004058]](http://www.photo.antarctica.ac.uk/external/guest/image/water/70/10004058)
Location: Fossil Bluff, Alexander Island
Season: 1994/1995
Photographer: Pete Bucktrout
It seems that folks are all “wild about Harry” over at Climate Audit, with the revelations occurring there, and no good kerfluffle would be complete without some pictures of the weather stations in question. It seems a weather station used in the Steig Antarctic study , aka “Harry”, got buried under snow and also got confused with another station, Gill, in the dataset. As Steve McIntyre writes:
Gill is located on the Ross Ice Shelf at 79.92S 178.59W 25M and is completely unrelated to Harry. The 2005 inspection report observes:
2 February 2005 – Site visited. Site was difficult to locate by air; was finally found by scanning the horizon with binoculars. Station moved 3.8 nautical miles from the previous GPS position. The lower delta temperature sensor was buried .63 meters in the snow. The boom sensor was raised to 3.84 m above the surface from 1.57 m above the surface. Station was found in good working condition.
I didn’t see any discussion in Steig et al on allowing for the effect of burying sensors in the snow on data homogeneity.
The difference between “old” Harry and “new” Harry can now be explained. “Old” Harry was actually “Gill”, but, at least, even if mis-identified, it was only one series. “New” Harry is a splice of Harry into Gill – when Harry met Gill, the two became one, as it were.
Considered by itself, Gill has a slightly negative trend from 1987 to 2002. The big trend in “New Harry” arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together. It’s a mess.
So not only is there a splice error, but the data itself may have been biased by snow burial.
Why is the snow burying important? Well, as anyone skilled in cold weather survival can tell you, snow makes an excellent insulator and an excellent reflector. Snow’s trapped air insulative properties is why building a snow cave to survive in is a good idea. So is it any wonder then that a snowdrift buried temperature sensor, or a temperature sensor being lowered to near the surface by rising snow, would not read the temperature of the free near surface atmosphere accurately?
As I’ve always said, getting accurate weather station data is all about siting and how the sensors are affected by microclimate issues. Pictures help tell the story.
Here’s “Harry” prior to being dug out in 2006 and after:
Harry AWS, 2006 – Upon Arrival – Click to enlarge.
Harry AWS, 2006 – After digging out – Click to enlarge.
You can see “Harry’s Facebook Page” here at the University of Wisconsin
It seems digging out weather stations is a regular pastime in Antarctica, so data issues with snow burial of AWS sensors may be more than just about “Harry”. It seems Theresa (Harry’s nearby sister) and Halley VI also have been dug out and the process documented. With this being such a regular occurrence, and easily found within a few minutes of Googling by me, you’d think somebody with Steig et al or the Nature peer reviewers would have looked into this and the effect on the data that Steve McIntyre has so eloquently pointed out.
Here’s more on the snow burial issue from Antarctic bloggers:
The map showing Automated Weather Stations in
Antarctica:
Click map for a larger image
The Gill AWS in question.
From Polartrec
Theresa was placed at this location partly to
study the air flow in the region. Looking out the window of the plane we can
definitely see the air flowing!!! Jim estimates the wind at about 25 miles per
hour.
Wind blown snow at Theresa
With the temperature around 0F the wind chill
was about 20 below, it is obvious this is going to be quite a chore.
Starting to dig out Theresa
The weather station has not been working, so
George needs to figure out what is wrong with it and then fix it. The station is
almost buried in the snow so we will also need to remove all of the electronics,
add a tower section and then raise and bolt all of the electronics and sensors
back in place.
George unhooking the cables.
After refueling the plane, with the fuel in
the 55 gallon drums, Jim and Louie helped dig down to the electronics boxes that
were completely buried plus they built us a wind break that made huge difference
in helping us not be so cold. After about 4 hours we are almost through. As I am
hanging onto the top of the raised tower in the wind, one bunny boot wedged onto
the tower bracing, the other boot wrapped around the tower, one elbow gripping
the tower, my chin trying to hold the wind sensor in place and both bare numb
hands trying to thread a nut onto the spinning wind sensor I really appreciate
the difficulty of what is normally Jonathan’s job. After checking to make sure
Theresa is transmitting weather data we board the plane and head to Briana our
second station.
Notice the difference between this
picture and the first one of Theresa.
From Antarctic Diary
More movement
It’s been another flat-out week. The vehicle team have dug
up and moved the Drewery building, which was getting do buried snow was
almost up the windows. Team Met have been on the move too – all the
remaining instruments are now bolted securely to the Laws roof, so we headed
up the the Halley VI building site to relocate the weather station.
Jules starts digging out the weather station
Only 15km away, the Halley VI site looks a lot like Halley V. It’s flat,
white and snowy. Very snowy. The weather station had about 1.5m built up
around it!
Jules and Simon recovering the solar panel
In the hole!
The weather station was a survey reference point for the build project so we
had to find a suitable replacement. Could this be Antarctica’s first
pole-dancing venue?
Penguin Party memories…
After an hour or so sweating it our with shovels, the weather station popped
out and was loaded onto the sledge. Like the reference point, the station’s
new location had to be precise as vehicles are banned from the upwind
section of the site to keep that area ultra-clean for future snow-chemistry
experiments.
Weather station on the move
Driving on a compass bearing and GPS track, we found the new site just under
a kilometre away.
The final setup
UPDATE: here’s another buried station story from Bob’s Adventures in cold climes. Apparently this station is used as a reference for some sort of borehole project.
I dig weather stations
My main task for today was to get a start on raising my weather station. I’d installed it 2 years ago, and with the high accumulation at Summit, it’s getting buried. The electronics are all in a box under the snow, and the only things visible at the surface were the anemometer for measuring wind speed and direction, the thermistor for measuring air temperature, and the solar panel to keep the batteries charged.
The buried weather station. The flat green bit is the solar panel, which was about 1.5 meters off the surface when I installed the station. Can you guess why I would mount it facing down?
In the morning I downloaded all the data from the station, and checked to see that it was all in order. Then it was time for digging. I’d carefully made a diagram when I inastalled the station, so I knew exactly where to dig. A couple of hours later I’d found my box!
At the bottom of the pit with the datalogger electronics.
I brought everything up to the surface, and then was about to fill in the pit, when I realized at least one more scientist at Summit might want to make measurements in it; the pit’s already dug! So tomorrow I’ll help Lora with some conductivity measurements, then fill in the pit, re-bury the box just beneath the surface, and it’ll be ready to go for another 2 years!
And there’s more….
The Australians seem to have AWS problems as well. From the Australian Antarctic Division:
On Monday two groups headed out, with Largy and Denis going up to the skiway to check on the condition of the equipment stored there for the winter and beginning preparations for the coming summer flying season.
Bill, Brian and Ian went up to the Lanyon Junction Automatic Weather Station (AWS) to check its condition and retrieve some of the sensors in preparation for the annual servicing of the various remote units.
|
|
And the University of Maine, participating in USITASE, has the same troubles, they write:
We reached our first major destination at the end of today’s travel, the site of the Nico weather station. There are several automatic weather stations spread out over the surface of Antarctica. These stations measure things like temperature, wind speed and wind direction and then relay this data back to scientists via satellite. Anything left on the surface of the snow will eventually be drifted in and buried by blowing snow. This particular weather station (NICO) has not been seen in several years. They tried to locate it via airplane a few years ago and were unsuccessful. Our task was to find the weather station, record its position with GPS, and mark the location with flags so that in the near future, the weather station can be raised and serviced.
We arrived at the coordinates of the station around 10 pm. Our initial scans of the horizon were not productive, so Matthew and John took the lead tractor (with our crevasse-detecting radar) out to survey a grid near our stopping point. The radar should detect a large metal object like a weather station, but the survey was also unsuccessful. After a fine pasta and tomato sauce dinner, John went outside for an evening constitutional. He saw a shiny object out in the distance – further inspection with a pair of binoculars determined that it was the top of the NICO weather station! Several of us marched out to the station, which was actually about a half mile distant, marked the location with bright orange flags and recorded the position via GPS for future reference. Only the top foot or two of the station was still visible. John was in exactly the right place at the right time to see a reflection from this object while we were near the kitchen module, and so allowed us to complete our first task successfully.
Tomorrow, we drive on.
This regular burial and digging out of stations brings the whole network of AWS stations to be used as sensitive climate measurement stations into question.
This February the Dutch Prince Willem-Alexander (1st heir to the Dutch throne) and his Argentinian wife Maxima will visit the South Pole region, together with the Dutch minister of Science und Culture, Ronald Plasterk. They will convince themselves on the effects of (A)GW in this area.
Also Prince Albert of Monaco is currently visiting Antartica.
Last year the Scandinavian heirs to the throne, Victoria of Sweden, Haakon of Norway and Fredrik of Denmark visited antartica to convince themselves about the problems of GW in this area.
All these people do have more than a quite decent life, materially speaking. In practice, they are quite pityfull and can’t, because of their position as head of state for lifetime (and hence being a uniter), say what they think, feel or experienced, just to avoid any schisms in their countries.
Last year I went to Rome with my family on a cheap bargain trip. We had a fabulous time and told all our relatives and friends about this.
This year my friends and relatives are going to visit Rome, all on cheap bargain trips.
I’m now looking for bargains to the South Pole!
“Why is the snow burying important? Well, as anyone skilled in cold weather survival can tell you, snow makes an excellent insulator and an excellent reflector. Snow’s trapped air insulative properties is why building a snow cave to survive in is a good idea.”
I think that this applies to a warm body that is looking to conserve the movement of heat from the warm to the surronding cool. I’m wondering if it applies to bodies exhibting ambient temps only (a thermometer). Would a thermometer at night at the surface of a 50 foot snow pack at -40F read any lower than a thermometer buried 5 feet down in that 50 foot snowpack?
Anthony,
Since you build these AWS stations, I’m curious for your expertise, how much heat is generated by their electronics package?
Lex, to visit exotic locations cheaply, join the IPCC and travel at taxpayer expense. 🙂
In answer to a statement that Global Warmmongers began as fifth-rate physicists and only slowly became dishonest, Tegiri Nenashi wrote:
Several years ago I wanted to verify AGW supporters list. Therefore I contacted one Nobel Physics Laureate (the real Nobel Prize, not the “peace” one). The reply I got back was quite upsetting, in line with AGW cult: “those evil oil industry, and so on and so forth..” (10:14:17)
Yes, this only one prize-winning physicist. However, I think a very important question to ask regarding the “real Nobel Prize” is: Would the Nobel committee, given their record lately, have awarded any prize to a scientist who is not either left-leaning or not in lock-step with the global warming agenda?
Zeke Hausfather (10:08:14) wrote
“The data and code is available:
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/imputation
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER”
I haven’t read from anybody to be able to reproduce the results with above information. instead, the information is too unsufficient to even try to start this effort.
wouldn’t it have been more honest too give no information at all ?
What still gets me in all this is the fact that only in 2004 Gavin Schmidt and Drew Shindell (co-author with Steig) were referring to Antarctica cooling not warming. I just don’t believe that so many scientists at that time were that wrong. I believe, rather, that people have short memories.
What I see in the 2004 NASA article, alongside the legit-looking 2004 temperature anomalies map, is a wretched Climate Model picture that shows Antarctica right in the middle of a frenzy of warming. I am sure they have now looked for what they believe in, consciously or unconsciously – I don’t need to assume intentional bias.
AGW: One more time, “Fake but accurate”.
How do these stations operate during the Antarctic winter? No sun for several months.
Lucy Skywalker (02:45:12) :
E M Smith that’s another brilliant post. You’ve done so many brilliant posts here, you need to think about publishing IMHO… with pictures to keep the “kitchen science” feel and to be accessible.
I’ve thought about publishing something formally, but then ‘life happens’…
Thank you for the complement! All I can say is that a mind reflects how it was fed, and when I was a child those around me gave me classics to read. Twain, Brothers Grimm, old musty things written with a quill … and I prefer to write with a fountain pen to this day (though they have become ever harder to find… FWIW the ‘drag force’ and ‘grip force’ are far lower than a ball point; so in addition to making the letter shapes subtiley different they are more kind to arthritic hands… though avoidance of beef has cured that problem for me…) At any rate, anything I am and do I owe to those who nurtured a young spirit half a century ago.
I reckoned school science hit problems the moment “Health and Safety” interfered
Probably onto something. We had times the whole lab was cleared out onto the grass and the ‘giant sucker fan’ at the end of the room evacuated ‘whatever it was’ in a hurry! (Once it was H2S I think… mild headache and smell of rotten eggs…) Yes, the whole lab was a giant fume hood if the ‘oh drat’ switch was flipped! Can’t imagine that today… And kids playing with molten glass with no gloves?… (we did have glasses and aprons…)
and made people wear masks, distancing themselves from that important moment of participation with the bangs, the smells, the flashes.
I asked my kids Chemistry teacher about practical chemistry that the kids might do or be shown. After some puzzlement he said, in a derisive tone, “Oh, you mean demonstrations, I prefer to work from the book.” Now I know why they both hate chemistry despite my best efforts. Computing reaction kinetics is not chemistry, it’s a post facto explanation…
But it was those bangs, pops, smells and even stains on the fingers that got me hooked on chemystery… Mr. McGuire knew this… he made Nitrogen Tri-Iodide as one of his ‘demonstrations’. When he touched the filter paper with the meter stick (BANG!) everyone suddenly was AWAKE. He then pointed out why we needed to pay attention to what we were making lest we accidentally run into something like this… Now imagine the headlines today if a chemistry teacher made a contact explosive in class…
Lucy Skywalker (02:47:56) : E M Smith, the post I meant was the one BEFORE your C**** post which looks like it belongs better at CA. We collided in hyperspace, nice to meet you.
Yeah, I figured… Not many folks really want to see ‘code’, especially if the language is alien. That’s why I included the comments instead (as evidence that I was ‘not making it up’). I’ve admired your style and name from afar for a while… I dearly hope it’s your real name and not a pseudonym (the romance in it has me seeing an Indian Princess in a spaceship 😉
I’ve avoided getting involved with CA beyond the occasional read. There is only so much of me and I can’t do both here and there full justice as a participant. But I suppose with some discipline I could restrict my topics there…
Frank K. (05:18:53) :
“Steve McIntyre’s site may be a better place for this.”
No, I disagree – WUWT is the perfect place to post this. In fact, E.M. Smith should be given permitted to post this as an article. After all, GISTEMP is the source of the infamous GISS temperature “anomalies”.
I’ve pondered a synopsis “The Trouble With GIStemp”…
The ‘good news’ is that I’m reaching the end of GIStemp. I have to wrap my brain around Step3, 4, and 5 as an atomic operation, since the same code is recycled in them, but then the whole understanding will form. The bad news is that it’s filling my brain with such crufty stuff.. (It’s like being a Cordon Bleu chef forced to endlessly gorge on only Mc Happy Meals… )
I’m presently trying to figure out how best to make an article. I’ve come to the conclusion that two are needed. 1) Weather Guy overview: Things like the SFO vs Lodi inverse correlation consequences of the code. (probably right for here) and 2) A Computer Geek ‘companion’ article that goes into what code does which ‘nasty bit’ demonstrating the support for #1 ( and probably right for CA). But that’s about 2 months away…
pyromancer76 (06:20:11) :
I think some of this brilliant detective work of Mr. Smith’s is absolutely essential to WUWT.
Again, many thanks for the encouragement! But really it’s something any decent programmer could do. The only really ‘hard bit’ is keeping track of the dozens of temporary intermediate files that parade across the stage endlessly for no reason (and the constant data format mutations…)
EM Smith is helping to show millions+ (per month now) what fools we be if we believe ANY of the Global Warming Apocalyptics.
Frankly, this is my major motivator now. I started looking at the GISStemp code expecting to find a well written but terribly complex temperature model (My PhD brother-in-law used to work at NASA doing aerodynamics work and his code is very good… set my expectations wrong I guess.) What I have found has made my skin crawl.
It’s largely a ‘one trick pony’ in terms of function: “The Reference Station Method”. But it is applied wrong, recursively, with mindless data deletions, and with several poorly documented places for manual intervention (that ought not to exist in anything reproducible… )
It’s not just the quality of the code (heck, if it works it’s good enough most of the time) but the built in biases and far flung flights of fancy the code embodies. Those are the things I’ve tried to put here.
Things like the endless recasting of data changing its values, the use of stations from dramatically different climate regimes to re-write each others data, the lack of any kinds of ‘sanity check’ code (I’ve found nothing to check for or prevent moving a stations historical data by ANY amount. If the blender says “Reduce by 100 degrees in 1890” it will do so…), the tendency to just chuck out large chunks of data (with no test for what that does to the trends, or conclusions), etc.
Please, EM Smith, with an invitation, also post on Climate Audit and publish elsewhere.
I will. Eventually. WUWT will get the first cut of the conclusions, but a ‘final piece’ will be put on CA, if they will have me. And the ‘in the guts’ details will find a home somewhere, I’m sure.
( I’ve toyed with the idea of writing a “Deconstructing GISS Temp” book, but don’t have the time to do it and make money to live on too; and I have to think the market for a book limited to the intersection of computer geeks and weather geeks is not going to sell very well 😉 If only those Oil Companies that are supposed to be paying off everyone were actually doing it! I’d be ‘all set’! But the reality of “Kitchen Science” is that it’s just one old semi-retired guy with a brain, a keyboard, and a computerized notebook… )
TerryBixler (08:58:29) :
Zeke
Translation, the measurements cannot be trusted. I think that is the thrust of this thread. We can speculate as to the actual temperatures but we really don’t know.
And in addition to the temperature data being ‘broken’ from collection to ‘adjustment’; the anomalies are even more ‘broken’ since they make untested and unfounded assumptions, then magnify those errors over ever larger areas and times. They assume perfection where significant error is proven, then magnify the error grossly, then discover ‘significance’ that is dwarfed by the error bands and claim Ultimate Truth.
Frankly, I wouldn’t trust GISS nor anyone trained in their methods to balance my checkbook or even tell me the weather with a window in front of them. I would eject them from any drug trial statistical analysis so fast they wouldn’t hit the ground for a mile. And don’t even think about using their ‘pasturized processed data food product’ for anything more critical than a coffee table yarn.
But maybe I’m biased… I’m working with a friend on doing stock market prediction code. He wrote the real time control software for part of the flight controls of a fast not-so-detectable bomber that we are still using… I did some code for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program and wrote accounting software that had to be accurate to the penny at all times. Period. Maybe my standards are just too high. I expect things to be provably correct and good enough to literally bet your life on.
Tim L (20:04:17) :
As an object gets bigger, surface area goes up more slowly than does volume.
A snake could probably be approximated by a rod of constant diameter.
The surface of the rod is Pi * r * l. It’s volume is Pi * (r**2) * l.
All biological activity generates heat. As a result of this, the bigger an animal is, the more easily it can heat itself with internally generated heat. Even cold blooded animals.
If I remember right, the time when this snake lived, both O2 and CO2 were higher than today. Enhanced CO2 meant more plants. Which meant more animals to eat those plants. Lots of food for the snake.
More O2 is good for animals.
Most authors that I have read attribute the large animals found during that period to enhanced CO2 and O2. Not to the temperature.
Anthony et al
How long based on the past cycles does it take for the earth to respond to the solar cycle. If as I agree that we are in a cooling phase (hopefully not an Ice Age) how many years would it take to see effects that the AGW could not deny.
how many years did it take for the Little Ice age to begin affecting crops / summer weather / ice flows.
I am guessing we are about a year into the cycle 24 cooling ??
MarkW
Batteries
People challenge results that run counter to their beliefs more rigorously than they do the results that confirm them.
And the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
Are you claiming that the warmists don’t spend more time challenging data that disproves their theories as well?
Regardless, a good scientist doesn’t get upset when his data and methods are challenged. If it’s solid, it will withstand the challenge. If it isn’t, it needed to be challenged.
jarhead, enough batteries to last all the way through the winter?
1) In the period before and after winter, there is very little sunlight.
2) Even in the summer, there isn’t that much sunlight. Yes it’s light for 24 hours, but much of that time, the sun is not in front of the solar panel. It’s to the side or behind.
3) The output of batteries is affected by cold. The colder it gets, the less output from the batter. (It’s darn cold down there in the winter.)
They already say the extreme cold shows the seriousness of the global warming crisis, so I’m sure they won’t change their tune for many years.
Since everything is consistent with the models, my guess is they will keep denying it right until the funding ends.
Zeke Hausfather (08:14:45) :
Zeke, that’s not how science works. If you want to use a data set, it’s up to you to prove that the data set is valid. You can’t just assume that it is good until someone else shows a problem with it.
Zeke Hausfather (10:06:46) :
Frank K.: I’m completely aware of heat transfer and the potential effect of warm buildings. However, what it being analyzed here is not the temperature at the station. Its the trend in temperature at the station. Co-location with a station will have absolutely no effect on trend over time if the station itself does not significantly change.
I keep seeing this claim and something keeps nagging at me. If I have something that varies from -30 to 0 and place it next to something that varies from -5 to 0 I’d expect it’s temperature to A) rise and B) moderate swings. ( -30 -5 ought to transfer more heat than 0 0).
It is A that ‘does not change the anomaly trend’ but B that does… At zero zero the HIE is zero. At -30 -5 it is enhanced. Now make that -80 -10 …
So as the average temperatures drop, the impact of the HI increases and that, I would expect, ought to show a change of anomaly trend. It will take ‘doing the math’ or ‘kitchen science measurements’ to show if this is significant. (But I don’t think it can just be ignored without investigation…)
Clearly heat island effect is proportional to heat delta, and with the heat source being a constant (internal, at least) temperature, the HIE ought to vary with the actual temperature trend…
(Not picking at you Zeke, it could be in the 20th decimal place for all I know , just hoping someone else will do the math for me 😉
Let’s not confuse the Nobel Peace Prize with the Nobel prizes awarded for science or medicine. I don’t know how many peace prizes have been awarded, but there’s never been much peace in my lifetime. But in science or medicine, those prizes are awarded for something demonstrable. Those awards are awarded years, perhaps decades, after a discovery or a breakthrough. You don’t have to actually accomplish anything to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
Per snow covered stations:
Don’t we use ‘bore holes’ to get a reading of past temperatures?
And don’t they need to be adjusted (calibrated) for the constant supply of heat from below (geothermal)?
So I see two things here, one of which may be trivial.
1) Snowed in stations are reporting more of an average of the past and less of a ‘right now’. That ought to bias against showing any trend in either direction.
2) To the extent that geothermal heat still has to leak out even at -50F through km of ice; the temperature will trend higher. May be trivial in impact.
And maybe a 2a) To the extent that buried stations are collocated with geothermal hot spots (volcanic regions) #2 will be exaggerated.
I am not quite clear on the reason for supposing that a warming trend will occur when a temperature sensor is buried by snow. If it is buried by snow of the same temperature as the air, and the sensor itself is not a heat source (or connected to one), I suppose it would continue to register the same temperature (assuming the temperature measurement is not affected by the wind).
Obviously if I sheltered in a snow hole, I would stay warmer, but that is because I would be losing less heat as I was initially warmer than my surroundings, but the sensor is at the same temperature as the surroundings. I guess the question is, does the sensor pick up more heat from its own batteries etc when buried that when it is exposed? If not, the readings should just be a highly damped measure of the temperature changes on the surface (as jarhead said a few posts back). I’d hope there are some measurements of this effect (has anyone compared a buried and unburied sensor at the same location?).
Zeke Hausfather (10:08:14) :
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/imputation
This looks like an interesting collection of ‘hand tools’ but I don’t see the blue print nor the assembly line anywhere …
Do I build a doll house or a skate ramp with this wood, hammer, and nails…
REPLY: I agree, and I was initially misled also. What Steig posted was NOT his data and code, but simply matlib standard libraries. There appears to be no data nor original code in the TAR file he links to, making replication impossible. – Anthony
I’m coming into this dialogue a bit late, and haven’t read the whole lot – but Simon Evans has a valid point. If there is doubt about the validity of some data, in this case weather stations may have been buried at times, then it is important to review the data accordingly.
That is not to say that results obtained from the data must necessarily be thrown out. If prima facie it is reasonable to assume that the problem would not have caused a bogus temperature trend, then it is OK to continue to use the results with a caveat. (This covers all Antarctic data, not just Eric Steig’s paper).
On RealClimate, Gavin/Eric have stated that the Harry/Gill data was not used in Eric Steig’s paper, or that it had no impact (I would have to check back to verify the exact wording). It would be a good idea to check Eric’s data and workings to verify that statement too. If correct, then the paper is not discredited. If incorrect then Gavin/Eric’s credibility becomes zero.
Let’s not assume that zero until it’s proven.
OTOH, if the data and workings for Eric’s paper are not available, and if he refuses to make them available, then it is absolutely reasonable to assume that the paper is invalid and that the authors’ credibility really is zero.
John Philip
Well it does matter. As Dr. Mann says over on RC:
They know that 35-45 is warmer than any other time in the century. So they pick the warming trend from 1957 – 1969. Why because that 1957 lies withing the coldest time in the century.
This mean that there was 12 years of cooling, 12 years of warming, then 31 more years of cooling, but this paper only wants to talk about the 50 year trend from 57 to 2006. Why not do the US 1934 to 2000 trend and show that the century was cooling. It is the same thing. If 30 years is climate, then 12 years warming out of 55 of cooling is why this is cherry picking.
John Philip (10:01:03) wrote:
“From other references i’ve seen it appears the entire study is based on a cherry picked starting date.
Well you have to start somewhere! … Steig’s paper … starts in the International Geophysical Year when many manned research bases and meteorological stations were established and hence the bulk of the data available dates from that year.”
This is practical but not scientific reasoning.
if the results are actually strongly dependent on the starting date, a sensitivity analysis is required.
if this analysis leads to the conclusion that the decision “waming or cooling antarctica” is depending on the starting date, it should be admitted, that the data is simply unsufficient to draw a conclusion.