UPDATE: The “ghost author” has been identified, see the end of the article.
When I first saw it, I laughed.
When I saw the internal memo circulated to top managers at NOAA, I laughed even more.
Why? Because NOAA and NCDC are rebuking an analysis which I have not even written yet, using old data, and nobody at NOAA or NCDC had the professionalism to put their name to the document.
First let’s have a look at the National Climatic Data Center’s web page from a week ago:
I was quite surprised to find that my midterm census report on the surfacestations.org project evoked a response from NCDC. I suppose they are getting some heat from the citizenry and some congress critters over lack of quality control. I was even more surprised to see that they couldn’t even get the title right, particularly since the title of my report defines most of what NCDC is all about; Surface Temperature Measurement.
Here’s the title of my report released in March.
“Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?”
But NCDC calls it: “Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?”
True, a small omission, the word “surface”. But remember, this is a scientific organization that writes papers for peer reviewed journals, where accuracy in citation is a job requirement. Plus, the director of NCDC is Thomas Karl, who is now president of the American Meteorological Society. The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society is considered a premiere peer reviewed journal, and Karl has written several articles. For him to allow a botched citation like this is pretty embarrassing.
[NOTE: For those that just want to read my report, please feel free to download and read the free copy here PDF, 4 MB]
But the citation error is not just in the NCDC webpage, it is in the PDF document that NOAA and/or NCDC wrote up. I can’t be sure since they cite no named author.
You can download it here (PDF 91KB)
I had few people point out the existence of the NCDC rebuttal to me in the last week, and I’ve been biding my time. I wanted to see what they’d do with it.
Over the weekend I discovered that NOAA had widely circulated NCDC’s “talking points” document to top level division managers in NOAA. I was given this actual internal email, by someone whom appears not to agree with the current NOAA/NCDC thinking.
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:26:48 -0600
From: Andrea Bair <Andrea.Bair@noaa.gov>
Subject: Talking Points on SurfaceStations.org
To: _NWS WR Climate Focal Points <WR.Climate.Focal.Points@noaa.gov>,
_NWS WR MICs HICs DivChiefs <wr.mics.hics.divchiefs@noaa.gov>,
_NWS WR DAPM-OPL <Wr.Dapm.Opl@noaa.gov>,
Susan A Nelson <Susan.A.Nelson@noaa.gov>,
Jeff Zimmerman <Jeff.Zimmerman@noaa.gov>, Matt Ocana <Matt.Ocana@noaa.gov>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
Recently I was asked if we had any official talking points on the surfacestations.org report that came out recently. Attached are some talking points from NOAA that we can use.
AB
Note the “NWS WR MICs HICs DivChiefs” It seems pretty much everyone in management at NOAA got this email, yet a week later the citation error remains. Nobody caught it.
I find it pretty humorous that NOAA felt that a booklet full of photographs that many said at the beginning “don’t matter” required an organization wide notice of rebuttal. Note also some big names there. Senior NOAA scientist Susan (1000 year CO2) Solomon got a copy. So did Matt Ocana, Western Region public affairs officer for the National Weather Service. Along with Jeff Zimmerman who appears to be with the NWS Southern Region HQ. The originator, Andrea Bair, is the Climate Services Program Manager, NWS Western Region HQ.
There are lots of other curious things about that NCDC “Talking Points” document.
1. They give no author for the talking points memo. An inquiry as to the author’s name I sent to my regular contact at NCDC a week ago when I first learned of this has gone unanswered. Usually I have gotten answers in a day.
2. They think they have the current data, they do not. They have data from when the network was about 40% surveyed. They cite 70 CRN1/2 stations when we actually have 92 now. Additionally, some of the ratings have been changed as new/better survey information has come to light. They did their talking points analysis with old data and apparently didn’t know it.
3. They never asked me for a current data set. They know how to contact me, in fact they invited me to give a presentation at NCDC last year, which you can read about here in part 1 and part 2
Normally when a scientific organization prepares a rebuttal, it is standard practice to at least ask the keeper of the data if they have the most current data set, and if any caveats or updates exist, and to make the person aware of the issues so that questions can be answered. I received no questions, no request for data and no notice of any kind.
This is not unlike NCDC’s absurd closing of my access to parts of their station meta database in the summer of 2007 without notice just a few weeks after I started the project:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/07/07/noaa-and-ncdc-restore-data-access/
4. They cite USHCN2 data in their graph, but they can’t even get the the number of stations correct in USHCN2. The correct number from their AMS publication is 1218 stations, they list 1228 on the graph. While the error is a simple one, it shows the person doing the talking points was probably not fully familiar with the USHCN2.
On page 6 of Matthew J. Menne, Claude N. Williams, Jr. and Russell S. Vose, 2009: The United States Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data – Version 2.(PDF) Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (in press) there is this sentence:
As a result, HCN version 2 contains 1218 stations, 208 of which are composites; relative to the 1996 release, there have been 62 station deletions and 59 additions.
Sure maybe it is a typo, but add the fact that they couldn’t get my report title correctly cited either, it looks pretty sloppy, especially when you can’t count your own stations.
When I was invited to speak at NCDC last year, I had a lengthy conversation with Matt Mennes, the lead author of the USHCN2 method and peer reviewed paper here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/12/ncdcs-ushcn2-paper-some-progress-some-duck-and-cover/
What I learned was this:
a) The USHCN2 is designed to catch station moves and other discontinuities. Such as we see in Lampasas, TX
b) It will NOT catch long term trend issues, like UHI encroachment. Low frequency/long period biases pass unobstructed/undetected. Thus a station that started out well sited, but has had concrete and asphalt built up around it over time (such as the poster child for badly sited stations Marysville, now closed by NOAA just 3 months after I made the world aware of it) would not be corrected or even noted in USHCN2.
5. They give no methodology or provenance for the data shown in their graph. For all I know, they could be comparing homogenized data from CRN1 and 2 (best stations) to homogenized data from CRN 345 (the worst stations), which of course would show nearly no difference. Our study is focusing on the raw data and the differences that changes after adjustments are applied by NCDC. Did they use 1228 stations or 1218 ? Who knows? There’s no work shown. You can’t even get away with not showing your work in high school algebra class. WUWT?
For NCDC not to cite the data and methodology for the graph is simply sloppy “public relations” driven science. But most importantly, it does not tell the story accurately. It is useful to me however, because it demonstrates what a simple analysis produces.
6. They cite 100 year trends in the data/graph they present. However, our survey most certainly cannot account for changes to the station locations or station siting quality any further back than about 30 years. By NCDC’s own admission, (see Quality Control of pre-1948 Cooperative Observer Network Data PDF) they have little or no metadata posted on station siting much further back than about 1948 on their MMS metadatabase. Further, as we’ve shown time and again, siting is not very static over time. More on the metadata issue here.
While we have examined 100 year trends also, our study focus is different in time scale and in scope. If I were to claim that the surfacestations.org survey represented siting conditions at a weather station 50 or 100 years ago, without supporting metadata or photographs, I would be roundly criticized by the scientific community, and rightly so.
We believe most of the effect has occurred in the last 30 years, much of it due to the introducing of the MMTS electronic thermometer into the network about 1985 with a gradual replacement since then. The cable issue has forced official temperature sensors closer to buildings and human habitation with that gradual change.
NCDC’s new USHCN2 method will not detect this long period signal change introduced by the gradual introduction of the MMTS electronic thermometer, nor do they even address the issue in their talking points, which is central to the surfacestations project.
7. In the references section they don’t even cite my publication!
References
Menne, Matthew J., Claude N. Williams, Jr. and Russell S. Vose, 2009: The United States Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data – Version 2. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, in press.
Peterson, Thomas C., 2006: Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87, 1073-1080. It is available from http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/87/8/pdf/i1520-0477-87-8-1073.pdf.
Yet they cite Mennes USHCN2 publication where the 1218 USHCN2 station number is clearly found.
It seems as if this was a rush job, and in the process mistakes were made and common courtesy was tossed aside. I suppose I shouldn’t be upset at the backlash, after all bureaucrats don’t like to be embarrassed by people like me when it is pointed out what a lousy job has been done at temperature measurement nationwide.
I’m working on a data analysis publication with authors that have published in peer reviewed climate an meteorology journals. After learning from John V’s crash analysis in summer 2007 when we had about 30% of the network done, few CRN1/2 stations, and poor spatial distribution that people would try to analyze incomplete data anyway, I’ve kept the rating data and other data gathered private until such time a full analysis and publication can be written.
As NCDC demonstrated, it seems many people just aren’t willing to wait or to even respect he right to first publication of data analysis by the primary researcher.
By not even so much as giving me a courtesy notice or even requesting up to date data, it is clear to me that they don’t think I’m worthy of professional courtesy, yet they’ll gladly publish error laden and incomplete conclusions written by a ghost writer in an attempt to disparage my work before I’ve even had a chance to finish it.
This is the face of NCDC today.
UPDATE:
WUWT commenter Scott Finegan notes that Adobe PDF files have a “properties” section, and that the authors name was revealed there. Here is a screencap:
Thomas C. Peterson is the author.
I think it would be far more informative to see the CRN1/2 and CRN 3/5 night time and daytime temperatures compared, assuming of course they can get the correct number of stations for analysis. But then again this might actually contradict the talking points.
Truly remarkable.
This is, in a bigger way, all about the progress of society. The NCDC/NOAA now know there is such a thing as accountability. Everything they do and write, from station siting, to talking points and internal memos–it’s all public record, and it’s all permanent.
For them, this episode carries the whiff of Watergate, an unnecessary initiative that ultimately undermines the integrity and credibility of the organization.
Please forward this to Dr Meier and get his take.
I wonder what the temperature profile looks like if you throw out all the bad station data and only use the ones that are properly sited? I’m sure NASA/NOAA is doing that now and won’t like the answer. They will be most certainly working the problem backwards as well.
Interesting and the next thing to check would be how many stations will be adjusted with some kind of forcing?
Thanks and keep up the good work.
And if they eliminate the ASOS stations (which evidently are not deemed suitable for climate monitoring) from the best of, how many “good” stations are left?
Thomas C. Peterson *. NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina from properties of the email sent and then a google search. These people are politicians and enablers not scientists. This is a direct threat to their money source- fear of the world ending due to AGW.
Amazing when the lights come on fraud science isn’t it. I wonder if there are any “talking points’ from when this project first came out. I’m sure they disregarded it at first but when the surprise conclusions came out- panick.
This is something any layman can understand. If your thermometer shows the baby’s temperature is 105 you will rush to the emergency room. But if you know the thermometer is wrong after much effort you will just throw it away.
NOAA is going to loose the trust of the people over this one.
The NOAA/NCDC talking points make this statement:
“But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown.”
– which is interesting considering that the USHCN has depended on many thousands of volunteer observers with varying levels of expertise to record temperatures all over the country for a century.
Sure, there are training and instructions for observers. The Surfacestations project has instructions for taking photographs and conducting a survey too. Observers don’t do the data processing and Surfacestations surveyors don’t do the ratings so what’s the problem?
We have found out how good the degree of standardization of USHCN siting is. Reproducability? Well, they don’t even run parallel measurements when they change a station location to detect a bias.
Maybe the quote is just a statement of fact. But when coupled with the unprofessional behavior of NOAA Climate Services that fails to adequately reference the Project or even contact Anthony, you have to think maybe it was meant as an insult.
It’s easier and cheaper for them to savage your work Anthony, than it is for them to fix problems with the surface station network.
Anthony, you are writing history now. Good work.
The House of Cards is falling down.
Interesting that Thomas C Peterson wrote this publication as well. I haven’t read it yet but it has to do with surface station measurements.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/87/8/pdf/i1520-0477-87-8-1073.pdf
Normally when a scientific organization prepares a rebuttal, it is standard practice to at least ask the keeper of the data if they have the most current data set, and if any caveats or updates exist, and to make the person aware of the issues so that questions can be answered. I received no questions, no request for data and no notice of any kind.
Uhm. Hello. That is the defacto standard in Climate Science, isn’t it?
Send me a list of those KY ones….I’ll can go now, you have my e-mail
======
alexis anders (02:58:24) :
I think its very disingenuous of you to 1) write a blog post once or twice a week about how terrible the surface temperature record is 2) express indignation that someone has rebutted your points “which I haven’t even published.”
I mean, I know the standards that apply to others don’t apply to you, but still…
=====
Oh my heck… You want to compare the two? In one case, the facts are simply stated, supporting documentation provided, information on how the data was obtained is given, and any individual could recreate the data if they desire. In the other case, the data is mysteriously obtained, poorly presented, unsupported – reproduction is simply impossible.
What standards are you trying to apply here????
“Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier
in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. And a multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, upward as well.”
What a load. All these things aren’t happening everywhere, and each could be explained by causes other than CO2 increases which have supposedly increased global temp a paltry 1degree.
On a lighter note, I’d really like to see where fish are extending their ranges upward in mountainous areas.
As a minor bureaucrat, I instantly recognise this document and its attached email for what it is: a middle level bureaucratic “circle the wagons”, cover our collective asses, everybody-had-better-be-singing-the same-song-or-else email that govt middle managers everywhere send out when they sense that the politicos are going to want to know what the h*ll is going on. Its the pre-cursor cognitive dissonance stage.
All the while, you can bet some are already crafting their own internal emails that show they questioned the upper-level orthodoxy, but of course, deferred to the Senior Team to provide the public response, while privately expressing sincere personal concerns to their immediate supervisors…
Gary P wrote:
“Have the words “peer review” now become the ‘tell’ of a liar?”
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that, but I think its now clear that the real “peer review” is happening in the better science blogs. The journalistic “peer review” is beginning to look more and more like the “crony review”, rather than the much-vaunted intellectual review it probably never really was.
alexis anders (02:58:24) :
How is this disingenuous he has not published the paper yet they don’t have the courtesy to even check that the data is up to date and our good Mr. Watts is rightly upset about that. keep up the good work and keep them scared.
Under Jane Lubchenco NOAA will be eroding into a political activist organization, period.
BS will be regularily distributed.
Scott Finegan (06:08:01) :
“According to the “Properties” dialog, thomas.c.peterson is listed as the author.”
That was very good, Scott. A quick search shows that the good Dr. Peterson has a very extensive and impressive CV. Much of his work seems to be in the area of station siting and climate data integrity and analysis. Much of his work, including a statement before a Congressional Committee, are avaolable in PDF format and make interesting reading.
Initial Selection of a GCOS Surface Network
The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation by the NRC Transportation Research Board (TRB) which was released March 11, 2008
• Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure — Gulf Coast Study, US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Synthesis and Assessment Report 4.7, released March 12, 2008
• Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, US Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Report 3.3, released June 2008.
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific by Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck
Peterson, Thomas C. and Russell S. Vose, 1997: An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature data base, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, 2837-2849.
Peterson, Thomas C., Russell S. Vose, Richard Schmoyer, and Vyachevslav Razuvaev, 1997: Quality control of monthly temperature data: The GHCN experience. International Journal of Climatology, submitted.
Easterling, David R., Thomas C. Peterson, and Thomas R. Karl, 1996: On the development and use of homogenized climate data sets. Journal of Climate, 9, 1429-1434.
Easterling, D.R. and T.C. Peterson, 1995: The effect of artificial discontinuities on recent trends in minimum and maximum temperatures. Atmospheric Research, 37, 19-26.
Easterling, David R. and Thomas C. Peterson, 1995: A new method for detecting and adjusting for undocumented discontinuities in climatological time series. International Journal of Climatology, 15, 369-377.
Peterson, Thomas C. and David R. Easterling, 1994: Creation of homogeneous composite climatological reference series. International Journal of Climatology, 14, 671-679.
An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature database
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society; Dec 1, 1997; Peterson, Thomas C; Vose, Russell A ;
If a station is surrounded by asphalt:
On a day with minimal or low wind would show the maximum bias.
But on a windy day, that bias would not be as great.
How do you correct for this accurately in the adjusted data?
(and keep a straight face?)
OK, so:
1) This report does not have an author.
2) The “author” did not request any data from you what-so-ever.
3) The data the “author” DID use was old and incomplete.
That about sum it up Anthony?
Peter Hearnden,
“Anthony, I ALWAYS post using my real name, would that many of your most outspoken correspondents, notably the people who ad hom James Hansen, here showed that same ‘professionalism’…”
What do you think of this unauthored NCDC report then?
Pingo
PS I suggest other people check out Peter Hearnden’s postings at CLimate Audit where he got chased off with his tail between his legs having been thoroughly outwitted, and his postings under the “Devonian” handle at http://www.theweatheroutlook.com where he makes a habit of not contributing to debates apart from inciting moderators to get involved by making despicably false accusations of “lying” when he has lost the debate. He has history.
They quote 1228 instead of 1218 sites. I believe this is simple typo that has slipped through.
Peter Hearnden (03:38:01) :
Look at this – http://www.xcweather.co.uk/ – note that it’s warmer or as warm as London across large part of the country (Keswick for example or Exeter, indeed here on Dartmoor it’s only a degree or so colder than London (think height…)). Btw yesterdays high temperature for the Uk was in Glasgow, the day before Durham.
I haven’t had a chance to travel to Durham yet Peter but I do know that there’s been a new housing estate built to the west of the observatory within the last 2 years.
DaveE.
Stephen Wilde
“I need only refer you to this morning’s (24th June) TV charts which showed temperatures in the range 17 to 22 for the whole country but 24 for London. We have a wind from north or north east coming off the cool north sea but they are trying to talk up a heatwave.”
Well they are desperate that we may have another summer where 30c is only reached in bogus UHI spots. I dread the think what colour they will use as the graphics’ backing for teperatures, since they have gone through all their oranges and reds and we’ve only got up to around 25c so far. Perhaps we’ll see purples and blacks? More spin and no substance from the taxpater-looted Met Office.
Actually, they did cite you by name, and in the title page of the information report. They just spelt that incorrectly as well.
.
.
.
.
.
“Watt’s New?”
More document properties:
File: response-v2.pdf
Author: thomas.c.peterson
Created: 6/12/2009 4:10:21 PM
Modified: 6/12/2009 4:10:22 PM
Application: Acrobat PDFMaker 9.1 for Word
PDF Producer: Adobe PDF Library 9.0
PDF Version: 1.5 (Acrobat 6.x)
It’s pretty shocking to see such an inept response to your project on the part of a government agency. Where have the intelligent life forms gone? Private sector? Sheesh.