Willis: Reply to the Economist

This replaced the previous sticky, and I have this comment about the Economist. Bad form and unprofessional to use the word “denialists”. For WUWT  readers who wish to complain: letters@economist.com or use their online form here. – Anthony

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ECONOMIST

On Dec 11th, the Economist published an unsigned article attacking both me and my work. This open letter is my reply.

TO: The Person Unwilling to Sign Their Economist Article

Dear Sir or Madam;

Recently, you wrote a scathing article about me in the Economist discussing my post called  The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero. Some of it was deserved, but most was undeserved and false. The URL for your unprinicpled attack is http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists … trust_scientists? Trust_scientists?? Have you read the CRU emails?

But I digress … you begin by quoting from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, viz:

A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious. It is for this reason that these early data are currently not used for monitoring climate change. Other common changes at Australian sites over time include location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations.

The impacts of these changes on the data are often comparable in size to real climate variations, so they need to be removed before long-term trends are investigated.

While this is true, it doesn’t apply. None of the GHCN adjustments are from any of those sources. This is because the GHCN does not adjust for location moves. Nor does it adjust for construction of buildings, nor for any of the other items listed. The GHCN uses none of those to make its adjustments. So all of that is totally meaningless.

Next, you say the “explanation for the dramatic change in 1941 is simple”:

As previously advised, the main temperature station moved to the radar station at the newly built Darwin airport in January 1941. The temperature station had previously been at the Darwin Post Office in the middle of the CBD, on the cliff above the port. Thus, there is a likely factor of removal of a slight urban heat island effect from 1941 onwards. However, the main factor appears to be a change in screening. The new station located at Darwin airport from January 1941 used a standard Stevenson screen. However, the previous station at Darwin PO did not have a Stevenson screen. Instead, the instrument was mounted on a horizontal enclosure without a back or sides. The postmaster had to move it during the day so that the direct tropical sun didn’t strike it! Obviously, if he forgot or was too busy, the temperature readings were a hell of a lot hotter than it really was.

This might make sense if there were any “dramatic change in 1941”. But as I clearly stated in my article, <b>there is no such dramatic change</b>. The drop in temperature was gradual and lasted from 1936 to 1940. The change from 1940 to 1941 was quite average. So that claim of yours is nonsense as well. In any case, the change in screening did not coincide with the 1941 move. In my article I cited a reference to a picture of a Stevenson Screen in use in Darwin at the turn of the century. Perhaps you didn’t bother to read that.

So, to sum up your first arguments, changes in the Stevenson Screens and other local conditions cannot be the explanation for any of the GHCN adjustments because 1) the GHCN doesn’t use local conditions to make adjustments and 2) the timing of the screen change is wrong. In addition, there was no “dramatic change in 1941”.

Next, you point out two actual mistakes I did make.

First, in my proofreading I did not catch that I that I had written “the 1941 adjustment” when I meant the 1930 adjustment. That should have been obvious to me, because there is no 1941 GHCN adjustment. My bad.

Second, I had said that the Darwin temperature data couldn’t have been adjusted by using the GHCN method. This method requires five neighboring stations to which Darwin can be compared. Why couldn’t the GHCN method be used? I said it was because in the earlier time periods like the 1930s, there were no such stations covering that time period within 500 km of Darwin. I was wrong, it fact there is one such station.

Neither of these errors of mine affect my point, which is that there are not enough neighboring stations to adjust Darwin using the main GHCN method. The GHCN folks mention this possibility, saying:

Also, not all stations could be adjusted.

Remote stations for which we could not produce an

adequate reference series (the correlation between

first-difference station time series and its reference

time series must be 0.80 or greater) were not adjusted.

The homogeneity-adjusted version of GHCN includes

only those stations that were deemed homogeneous

and those stations we could reliably adjust to make

them homogeneous.

SOURCE:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf

Unfortunately, they adjusted Darwin anyway. Consider the GHCN adjustment in 1920. To find five stations around Darwin covering 1920, you have to go out 1,250 km. Nor is there any guarantee that those stations will be suitable. You need to have five stations with an 80% correlation with the Darwin record … I wish you the best of luck finding those five stations.

So while my statement about stations nearer than Daly Waters was wrong as you point out (there is one nearer station that covers the 1930 adjustment), my point was correct – there are not enough neighboring stations to adjust Darwin using the GHCN method. The first GHCN adjustment to Darwin was a single year adjustment in 1901. To get five “neighboring” stations for that adjustment, you have to go out 1728 km. You fail to deal with that issue at all. Instead, you say:

“So is it reasonable, if the GHCN is using complex statistical tools to adjust the temperature readings at Darwin based on surrounding stations, that they might come up with the figures they came up with? Sure. No. Yes. I have no idea. And neither does Mr Eschenbach. Because in order to judge that, you would have to have a graduate-level understanding of statistical modeling. … I don’t understand that formula. I don’t have the math for it.”

“Surrounding stations”? We’re talking about stations a thousand km away and more, not surrounding stations.

And while I am sorry to hear of the lacunae in your math education, please don’t make the foolish assumption that others are similarly limited. I have no problem with the GHCN math. If you truly have no idea on the question as you say … then why are you excoriating my ideas on the question?

Nor is it inherently a complex question. The question is, should temperatures more than a thousand km away from Darwin be used to arbitrarily adjust Darwin’s temperature by a huge amount? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Next, as an aside you make the scurrilously false statement that I said that claims of damage due to sea level rise in Tuvalu “stemmed from attempts by locals to blame subsidence problems on the developed world, and cash in on it”. I said no such thing nor do I believe it. The claims stemmed from misguided environmentalists.

Next, you say “He makes it sound as if he’s just happened to stumble across this one site whilst perusing a debate over climate change in northern Australia. But as his link to that conversation from 2000 makes clear, Mr Eschenbach is already aware that climate change denialists have been trumpeting the apparent anomalies at Darwin for nine years.” BZZZZT, poor understanding of the implications of chronology. I looked up the conversation after I stumbled across Darwin. How dare you accuse me of lying? As I said, I went to  AIS to see if what Professor Karlen had said was true. I called up a list of all of the stations in Australia that covered 1900-2000. Darwin was the first on the list, so that’s the one I looked at. Try it and see. You accusation is both wrong and totally unfounded.

You go on to say

“[Climate change denialists] do so because of that errant data at Darwin from before 1941, which makes it look as though there was a cooling trend there. The fact that climate-change researchers have to do a particularly strong correction on the data at Darwin, because they moved their dang instruments from the downtown post office to the airport, makes Darwin a perfect place to look for support if you want to claim that climate-change scientists are cooking the data.”

While a correction in Darwin is perhaps necessary, it is cannot be because they “moved their dang instruments” in January of 1941. LOOK AT THE DATA. There is no big change in January of 1941. It occurred gradually over the previous five years. So your theory falls apart upon the simplest examination of the facts.

Next you say: “Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand.”

Your understanding of statistics is as poor as your understanding of chronology. The statistics used by GHCN are average college level tools. You are dazzled by the fact that you don’t understand them, so you make the incredibly foolish assumption that no one without “a PhD in a related field” can understand them either. Some of us actually paid attention in class, you know.

Finally, you use your closing arguments to cheerlead for peer review. Curiously, I agree with you in theory … but the peer review system in climate science is badly broken. First, as the CRU emails clearly show, it has been subjected to enormous “old-boy” pressures to pass through bad studies without a second glance, and to deny opposing papers a fair hearing. How do you think we got the Hockeystick and its cousins? Here’s Phil Jones from the emails, talking about keeping peer-reviewed papers out of the IPCC report:

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

And you give your article the URL “trust_scientists”???

Second, the peer-review system is ripe for abuse. This is because the reviewers often know who the author is, while the reviewers (like you) hide in anonymity. This invites malfeasance. The system needs to be changed so that after the review, the [authors] sign their names to the paper as well as reviewers. At present, we have no way of knowing whether the paper was seriously reviewed by inquiring scientists, or simply passed through by the authors friends.

So I, like you, support peer review. I just want a peer review system that works. It must be double blind during the review period, with neither the reviewers nor the author knowing the others’ names. And the reviewers should reveal their names at the end, so that we know it wasn’t just the author’s best mates doing the author a favor.

Since we have an easily manipulated system instead of a real peer review system, I opt for public peer review by putting my work on the web. This lets anyone, even anonymous innumerates like yourself, register your objections.

Finally, the Economist did not contact me before publishing an article full of false accusations, incorrect assumptions and wrong statements … looks like peer review is not the only system in trouble here. I thought journalists were under an obligation to check their facts before making accusations …

Willis Eschenbach

0 0 vote
Article Rating
487 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
L Gardy LaRoche
December 8, 2009 9:59 am

Anthony,
would a PDF be available ?

HLx
December 8, 2009 10:03 am

There isn’t a possibility to add Facebook-shortcut links to your post/blog?
I know I for sure would be more prone to share your link on the net this way. Sorry but don’t know if that is possible, just wondered.
HLx

3x2
December 8, 2009 10:06 am

Good move. Can we keep the sticky on topic though if poss (mods?). With Copenhagen i’m sure there will be plenty of other threads to “get it off your chest” (guilty as everyone else)

Hysteria
December 8, 2009 10:15 am

good – but will the author address the criticisms leveled in the comments – The most obvious being the rebuttal to his point about the absence of stations within 500km……. It is a great analysis – but let’s make sure it is right eh?

bill
December 8, 2009 10:19 am

Anthony something is amiss here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero7.png
compared to the giss plots:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/1061/darwinrawhomgenisedgiss.png
In no way do the plots from Giss match those in the article.

EdB
December 8, 2009 10:21 am

Do you think the CNN reporters will understand fraud when it is in black and white in front of them? I hope so, but I will not hold my breath.
Steve M is a Canadian genius, who has almost single handed stopped the biggest scientific lie of our age, but the media are finding it hard to grasp the significance(yet).(ditto Ottawa of course)

Mr. Alex
December 8, 2009 10:30 am

The Hathaway prediction Graphic has been updated for December 2009.
The predicted maximum height remains the same but the predicted maximum timing has been shifted forward a few months :
http://picasion.com/pic15/07d489691ef74786dc651436c22bbcec.gif

Invariant
December 8, 2009 10:30 am

That’s right Anthony, I was thinking the same – this brilliant post should not be drowned by the terrible noise from Copenhagen. We know that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years is an illusion, as it is for the US:

Journalists: please take your time to watch this video.

December 8, 2009 10:30 am
Richard
December 8, 2009 10:32 am

How about making a list of important stories – in order of importance and sticking it on top, so that they dont get buried.
You may need some help with the order of importance. The one on the Medieval Warm period for example. The clearest explanation of Mann’s hockey Stick, Briffa’s Yamal, the various upside down ones, Richard Lindzen’s piece on the radiation budget, Lord Monkton?, Warren Mayer from Climate-skeptic has given a very good piece on Catastrophe Denied, excellent, if a bit long

Jeff
December 8, 2009 10:38 am

Why does it seem that everytime a stations raw vs “valued data” manage to get compared by an independent source we find unwarrented upgrade adjustments … ? seems like you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting bad data …
I used to think the problem was Correct Data –> Garbage Code –> Semi-Garbage Out
Now it appears to be Garbage Data –> Garbage Code –> Garbage2 Out
G2O – the new global warming gas …

Steve S.
December 8, 2009 10:42 am

This will be front page in all of our newspapers soon.
What? Oh.

poetpiet
December 8, 2009 10:47 am

hi, first timer here, Watts as in the Reagan era, use it up before our dating of all datage the apocallous dote.
‘The’ climate(change)? The world, the supremacy? All hogwash
how bout changing your microclimate one 5 story familytreehousing foundation, fun and funding package at a time (also known as seed, funny moneylike).
i gather you gather a lot of negativity here (from a 40 sec look, connectivity rationed to punish yall for too little support, mind you, have yet to write a will to make up for not dribbling this and thataways already).
anyhoo, just to save myself fruitless searching and frust:
(check the discuss. page too)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_D._Hamaker

December 8, 2009 11:02 am

Forget about HArry: He’s only trying to fix Tim’s code.
“Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ’s imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).
Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church.
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13

Jack in Oregon
December 8, 2009 11:03 am

I believe what we need to do now is to start a surfacestation type project that is focused on finding the raw daily data for the actual surfacestations around the world. Since we can not trust the data anymore, and we cant trust the custodians of the data, lets build an open source, station by station database of the RAW daily data.
A rebuilding of the US records data base with the original data is necessary. a PDF of the original data for each station with a txt file holding the same raw data, with a google map location for the station.
While some of the stations are available for free, some of them are behind government paywalls. That is not an issue for someone with a .gov email addy. I have one of those available, if we know which stations we want.
This would allow us to build a public wiki type project around the raw data. If we can get auditors for Australia and N.Z. locations to show what the known fudges are there. We can make this a global audit of public data base of raw temps.
I would suggest that any time a station is moved, we treat it like a new station. That is, each data series run is left to itself and designated as such. This way we can see what the *REAL* raw trend is.
Its time to FREE the DATA, MAKE it PUBLIC, and than we can argue about WHAT steps are applied to it.

Hysteria
December 8, 2009 11:04 am

bill (10:19:42) – interesting observation – but I think you will find it is the different scales on the three plots that is misleading you – I’ve printed then out and taking a sample date series that is displayed on each graph (1970 – 2000) I reckon they line up pretty well. The compression of the “y” axis is pretty severe and this is hiding some of the smaller peaks and troughs I think.
But yes a full analysis would need the raw data in a spreadsheet I guess…:(

View from the Solent
December 8, 2009 11:04 am

Perhaps related, perhaps not. ‘.. something odd about Australia and New Zealand. …’
Early analysis of data released by UK Met Office from here
http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/12/problems-to-watch-for-in-met-office.html
via
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/8/met-office-data.html

manfred
December 8, 2009 11:24 am

shouldn’t homogenization generally enhance a temperature trend ?
trends are known to be much stronger on land masses than on oceans.
in a network of land based temperature stations, coastal locations are peripheral, in land-locations are central.
shouldn’t that, in general, lead to a higher use of trend enhancing inland locations to homogenize others compared with coastal locations ? that should result in a warming bias.

Ian B
December 8, 2009 11:49 am

I’m sure this has already been answered before, so apologies for being a n00b.
Is there some stated algorithmic, reproducible method for deriving an “adjustment curve” from the data to apply to the data, or is it officially acknowledged as being done “by eye”? That is, is it purely judgement calls we’re looking at here, or is there an algorithm that any suitably skilled person could apply to derive an adjustment curve?

Leon Palmer
December 8, 2009 11:50 am

I’m wondering if it isn’t recursive homogenization.
A station in question is homogenized using surrounding stations. Are those surronding stations homogenized beforehand? how? Using surrounding stations including the one to be homogenized? So once it starts with up’ing one station, it’s surrounding stations will be up’ed, which will be used to up the first station, to up it further, and so on, causing runaway global warming 🙂

Jordan
December 8, 2009 11:56 am

OT: The MET office release of a subset of the HADCRU3 data at the following link:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html
From the Q&A:
“1. Are the data that you are providing the “value-added” or the “underlying” data?
The data that we are providing is the database used to produce the global temperature series. Some of these data are the original underlying observations and some are observations adjusted to account for non climatic influences, for example changes in observations methods.
2. What about the underlying data?
Underlying data are held by the national meterological services and other data providers and such data have in many cases been released for research purposes under specific licences that govern their usage and distribution.
3. Why is there no comprehensive copy of the underlying data?
The data set of temperatures back to 1850 was largely compiled in the 1980s when it was technically difficult and expensive to keep multiple copies of the database.”
This is not the end – looks like this is only the start of the homogenising debate.

Chris Polis
December 8, 2009 12:06 pm

Looks like the UHI is being added instead of taken away..

Ed Scott
December 8, 2009 12:20 pm

“they’ve been completely above board and objective in what they have carried out…”
“there’s no definitive evidence, is there, for global warming?”
“By the time we get definitive evidence, I think it will be much too late…”
The sleazy politician, pseudo-scientist, Pachauri, gives more than enough cause to defund the IPCC and pursue charges for malfeasance in office.
An example of intellectual stupity: There is no definitve evidence (scientific fact), but that is beside the point.
Peter Liss competes with Pachuri, by saying to the skeptics: Prove that global warming/climate change is not caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide emission.
These guys are practicing criminal science.
————————————————————-
IPCC chief Dr Rajendra Pachauri tells CNN’s Becky Anderson controversial climate e-mails were just colleagues “letting off steam”
Climate chief dismisses ‘climategate’
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/12/07/pachauri.ipcc.anderson.intv.cnn

janama
December 8, 2009 12:45 pm

Aussie temps have been adjusted before – here are the papers associated with the changes.
Torok – 1996.
http://134.178.63.141/amm/docs/1996/torok.pdf
Della Marta – Collins in 2003
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Della-Marta2004.pdf
Collins and Della Marta 1999
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Collins1999.pdf

John W.
December 8, 2009 1:28 pm

Ian B (11:49:49) :
I’m sure this has already been answered before, so apologies for being a n00b.
Is there some stated algorithmic, reproducible method for deriving an “adjustment curve” from the data to apply to the data, or is it officially acknowledged as being done “by eye”? That is, is it purely judgement calls we’re looking at here, or is there an algorithm that any suitably skilled person could apply to derive an adjustment curve?

I ran a test series once. Afterward, I sent a critical instrument out for calibration. It was off by a fixed amount. In the test report, I presented the raw data (measurements), the cal lab results, and the adjusted data. That’s the right way to do it.
For the met data in question here, it would involve running the new system/location and the old system/location in parallel to obtain “calibration” data to be used in converting from one data set to the other.
One of the constant complaints about the AGW “scientists” is precisely that they:
1. Conceal/withhold the raw data.
2. Don’t explain/ disclose their conversion methods.
If it’s being “done by eye,” without any disclosure, it’s fraud.

Invariant
December 8, 2009 1:30 pm

Wow, today even the coolest web page with news from computer HW and SW industry covered ClimateGate. The Inquirer is surely most witty, well written and technically superior web page that tells you what’s hot in Silicon Valley. Please read the post by PaulW. “I’ve seen the code”
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1565081/hackers-target-climate-science-boffins
“You don’t get a hockey stick when you 1) don’t use faked data, 2) include all the data (no cherry picking allowed, don’t use 5 outliers trees as your sole data points for the present, as they did! and they hid it for years!) 3) don’t use some data upside down, which they did, or 4) splice in thermometer data at the end of proxy data. I could go on…”

Neville
December 8, 2009 1:53 pm

Please have look at the GISS temp of Darwin Airport from1880’s to 2009.
It’s an average of the high and low temp and it’s definitely a downward trend

Ed Scott
December 8, 2009 1:53 pm

At last, playing in the right ball-park.
——————————–
What Is — and What Isn’t — Evidence of Global Warming
William M. Briggs
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-is-%e2%80%94-and-what-isnt-%e2%80%94-evidence-of-global-warming/?print=1
“Climategate” has everybody rethinking global warming. Many are wondering — if leading scientists were tempted to finagle their data, is the evidence for catastrophic climate change weaker than previously thought?
Actually, the evidence was never even evidence.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding — shared by nearly everybody about the nature of anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) — over exactly what constitutes evidence for that theory and what does not.
Remember when we heard that the icebergs were melting, that polar bears were decreasing in number, that some places were drier than usual and that others were wetter, that the ocean was growing saltier here and fresher there, and that hurricanes were becoming more terrifying? Remember the hundreds of reports on what happens when it gets hot outside?
All of those observations might have been true, but absolutely none of them were evidence of AGW.
Diminishing glaciers did not prove AGW; they were instead a verification that ice melts when it gets hot. Fewer polar bears did not count in favor of AGW; it instead perhaps meant that maybe adult bears prefer a chill to get in the mood. People sidling up to microphones and trumpeting “It’s bad out there, worse than we thought!” was not evidence of AGW; it was evidence of how easily certain people could work themselves into a lather.
No observation of what happened to any particular thing when the air was warm was direct evidence of AGW. None of it.
Every breathless report you heard did nothing more than state the obvious: Some creatures and some geophysical processes act or behave differently when it is hot than when it is cold. Only this, and nothing more.
Can you recall where you were when you heard that global warming was going to cause an increase in kidney stones, more suicides in Italy, larger grape harvests in France, and smaller grape harvests in France? How about when you heard that people in one country would grow apathetic, that those in another would grow belligerent, and — my favorite [1] — that prostitutes would be on the rise in the Philippines? That the world would come to a heated end, and that women and minorities would be hardest hit?
Not a single one of these predictions was ever evidence of AGW.
For years, it was as if there was a contest for the most outlandish claim of what might happen if AGW were true. But no statement of what might happen if AGW is true is evidence for AGW. Those prognostications were only evidence of the capacity for fanciful speculation. Merely this and nothing more.
So if observations of what happens when it’s hot outside don’t verify AGW, and if predictions of what might happen given AGW were true do not verify AGW, what does? Why did people get so excited?
In the late 1990s, some places on Earth were hotter than they were in the late 1980s. These observations were indirect — and not direct — evidence of AGW. The Earth’s climate has never been static; temperatures sometimes rise and sometimes fall. So just because we see rising temperatures at one point does not prove AGW is true. After all, temperatures have been falling [2] over the last decade, and AGW supporters still say their theory is true. Rising — or falling — temperatures are thus consistent with many theories of climate, not just AGW.
Climate scientists then built AGW models, incorporating the observed temperatures. They worked hard at fitting those models so that the models could reproduce the rising temperatures of the 1990s, while at the same time fitting the falling temperatures of the 1970s, etc. They had to twist and tweak — and with the CRU emails [3], it now appears they twiddled. They had to cram those observations into the models and, by God, make them fit, like a woman trying on her favorite jeans after Thanksgiving.
They then announced to the world that AGW was true — because their models said it was.
But a model fitting old data is not direct evidence that the theory behind the model is true. Many alternate models can fit that data equally well. It is a necessary requirement for any model, were it true, to fit the data, but because it happens to is not a proof that the model is valid.
For a model to be believable it must make skillful predictions of independent data. It must, that is, make accurate forecasts of the future. The AGW models have not yet done so. There is, therefore, no direct evidence for AGW.
The models predicted warmer temperatures, but it got cooler. One of the revealed CRU emails found one prominent gentlemen saying, “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
It is. But only if you were concerned that the AGW theory will be nevermore.

Bryn
December 8, 2009 2:03 pm

To see Darwin in a regional perspective, visit JoNOva for additional data across tropical northern Australia. It only reinforces Willis’s thesis.

Bryn
December 8, 2009 2:04 pm

I’ll try that again, hopefully the link to JoNova will show:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/#more-5172.

Ed Scott
December 8, 2009 2:08 pm

Keeping up with the warmist (cold-hearted) political whores.
———————————-
The Copenhagen Diagnosis
Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf

Dev
December 8, 2009 2:23 pm

Sorry for the OT. Very Interesting from Newsbusters.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2009/12/08/met-global-warming-u-s-csv-data-dump-erroneous
Major Media Spread Erroneous U.K. Temperature Data
By Terry Trippany (Bio | Archive)
December 8, 2009 – 15:12 ET
If you go to Google today and search on the phrase “warmest decade” you will get a result set with thousands of breathless articles claiming that 2000 to 2009 is the warmest decade on record. This is on the cusp of an announcement from the UN climate talks in Copenhagen where world leaders are desperate to speed past Climategate and refocus the world’s attention on their apocalyptic global warming agenda.
The media that couldn’t bring themselves to report on the growing scandal surrounding falsified data is all on board with reporting this latest news. Yet it is clear that the Huffington Post, CBS News, the New York Times and others didn’t even bother to check the data that was released from the the UK MET (UK Government Department of Climate and Weather Change). If they had they would have immediately discovered what I found, that the US csv (comma delimited) data dump from 1851 to 2009 is erroneous in its compilation. The January column for each year shows period information instead of temperature records and the latitude appears transposed as well. It appears that they incorrectly shifted the column headers when compling the dump. (Load the raw file into Excel and compare it with the UK csv data to see the erroneous data columns side by side. Data provided by the Guardian UK.)
This data was provided as a means to “dampen the row over the hacked climate science emails”.
The Met Office also released the raw data from around 1,500 global monitoring stations in an effort to satisfy critics who have demanded that researchers be more transparent with their data in the wake of the email hacking row at the University of East Anglia. (UK Guardian, Met Office figures confirm noughties as warmest decade in recorded history)
Don’t jump to any conclusions that this is some sort of conspiracy or that the data itself is incorrect. That can not be surmised without extra information. It is just another indication of the desperation by a group of scientists, policy makers and scare mongers that are too sloppy to check their own facts and figures; even before releasing it to the whole world as proof to counter valid questions concerning the validity of their data.
With full unquestioning faith we are expected to buy into this sloppy sort of science as a foundation toward making public policy that will affect nations of the world’s people for generations to come. If they can’t even get the release of the simplest of data sets correct then what are we to wonder about what it is that they got wrong?

Colin Porter
December 8, 2009 2:25 pm

Anthony,
On a similar theme ,but with a slight digression, I don’t know if you have seen this before, but it seems that you have been concentrating too much on climategate and may have been pipped at the post by a sixth grader called Peter, who has made a direct comparison of rural sites with urban sites, with very interesting results.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheseData#p/a/u/1/LcsvaCPYgcI
I picked it up in a thread by gjg on
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553#comment-865483
Unfortunately it seems not to have been “Peer” reviewed but has most definitely been “Pater” reviewed.

D. King
December 8, 2009 2:28 pm

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray…
“The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.”
Wait till they figure out the whole reduced food thingy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

Neville
December 8, 2009 2:29 pm

I’ll repeat again why does the GISS data ( see Bill above ) show a DEFINITE COOLING TREND for Darwin 1880’s to 2009?

Spenc Canada
December 8, 2009 2:44 pm

Is Google censoring? Now I only show 8 mill hits for climategate. This am it was 34 mill, which is also low in my opinion. Now it auto suggests “climategate-Copenhagen” and the articles in the lead are all pro GW? Seems suspicious to me.

Ed Scott
December 8, 2009 2:48 pm

Climategate: Obama’s Science Adviser Confirms the Scandal — Unintentionally
Posted By Myron Ebell On December 5, 2009
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-obamas-science-adviser-confirms-the-scandal-%e2%80%94-unintentionally/?print=1
I remember when Copenhagen Diagnosis came out because nearly every major paper ran a story on it. Global warming is happening even faster than predicted, the impacts are even worse than feared, and that sort of thing. I also remembered that the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis included many of the usual conmen who are at the center of the alarmist scare. So I asked my CEI colleague Julie Walsh to compare the list of authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis with the scientists involved in Climategate.
I’m sure it will come as a shock that the two groups largely overlap. The “small group of scientists” up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis [6] belong to the Climategate gang? Small world, isn’t it?
Here’s the list of tippity-top scientists who both wrote the authoritative report that Holdren relied on to support his statements and belong to the “small group of scientists” who are now suspected of scientific fraud:
Nathan Bindoff, also a lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (hereafter LA-IPCC FAR)
Peter Cox, also LA-IPCC FAR
David Karoly, also LA-IPCC FAR and the Third Assessment Report (TAR)
Georg Kaser, also LA-IPCC FAR
Michael E. Mann, also LA-IPCC TAR (the hockey stick scandal made him too radioactive to participate in writing FAR)
Stefan Rahmstorf, also LA-IPCC FAR
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, merely “a longstanding member of the IPCC.”
Stephen Schneider, also LA-IPCC FAR, TAR, and the First and Second Assessment Reports (SAR) plus two of the IPCC’s synthesis reports
Steven Sherwood, only a contributing author to IPCC-FAR
Richard C. J. Somerville, co-ordinating LA-PCC FAR
Eric J. Steig, no connection to IPCC listed
Andrew Weaver, also LA-IPCC FAR, TAR, and SAR
In the interests of space, I’ve left out all of their distinguished positions as professors, editors of academic journals, and heads of institutes. You can search for their Climategate emails here [7].
Then there are those Climategate figures who didn’t help write Climate Diagnosis, but who have been involved in the IPCC assessment reports. Here are three that come to mind:
Phil Jones, contributing author IPCC TAR
Kevin Trenberth, co-ordinating LA-IPCC FAR and SAR, LA-IPCC TAR, and an author of the summaries for policymakers for FAR, TAR, and SAR
Ben Santer, convening LA-IPCC First Assessment Report
Now, I wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusions here, but it kind of looks to me like the “small group of scientists” caught out by Climategate are pretty much the same people who make up the vast and strong scientific consensus on global warming and write the official reports that the U.S. and other governments rely on to inform their policy decisions. I’m sure Dr. John P. Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, has a plausible alternative explanation. He always does.

brnn8r
December 8, 2009 2:51 pm

So what was the temperature yesterday in Darwin?
What I mean by that is when my weather forcaster tells me what the high and low was are they telling me the raw data or the value added data?

Graeme W
December 8, 2009 3:14 pm

Hysteria (10:15:01) :
good – but will the author address the criticisms leveled in the comments – The most obvious being the rebuttal to his point about the absence of stations within 500km……. It is a great analysis – but let’s make sure it is right eh?

His article clearly stated that he was referring to other stations in 1941. I checked the Australian Bureau of Meterology website and all of the stations you listed as being within 500km have data starting after 1941.
The other issue, that was raised in the other thread, is that the ‘station zero’ data isn’t an actual station, but is the spliced data from two different stations (the Darwin Post Office, which was destroyed in 1941, and the Darwin Airport that has records starting from 1941). That’s not identified in the raw data he’s using.

yonason
December 8, 2009 3:23 pm

I repeat (a comment I made on another thread about Darwin), go to Wolfram Alpha
http://www.wolframalpha.com/
Enter the search terms darwin airport uk temperature
Then, from the popdown menu, select “All” to see that Darwin’s avg., temp has been a very constant 80DegC for the last 50 years.
See, also, the lead article here for Greenland’s precipitous and sustained DROP in temperature, that you will not hear about from the warmers.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/09/melting-greenland-you-would-be-hard-put.html
If a warmer’s lips are moving, he’s almost certainly lying.

Peter S
December 8, 2009 3:30 pm

The Jo Nova link is an excellent one – following through on Darwin Smoking Gun by looking at nearby stations.
Anthony might consider this report deserves a follow-on post of its own.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/

tokyoboy
December 8, 2009 3:35 pm

I’m getting heavily confused. The GISS graphs displayed here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
have been prepared from raw temp data, or are those after “adjustments” ?

3x2
December 8, 2009 3:35 pm

poetpiet (10:47:47) :
I can only suggest ventilating the room for a few hours before posting. While I appreciate that there is a correlation between crack use and HadCRUT post 1980, I’m just not convinced of causation.
manfred (11:24:57) :
shouldn’t homogenization generally enhance a temperature trend ?
Enhancement is the problem. Homogenization [in this sense] should seek only to make a sensible series out of the data available for that station. Enhancement as seen here is otherwise called “fudge”.
As for coastal v inland, I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that a station can only ever be compared to itself and even then only if it is the same station. If my coastal station shows a -0.3°C trend and you decide to “enhance” it using a bit of “inland” warming, you have made “liars” of both stations. Try it with your bank balance if you don’t see my point.
Leon Palmer (11:50:17) :
I’m wondering if it isn’t recursive homogenization.
Was asking myself that very same question while reading the source article this afternoon. It is obviously a question that will take a lot longer to answer than most. It does seem plausible though. [for Australia] Target Alice Springs.. grab 5 stations … adjust Alice Springs. Move in any direction .. get a new target .. grab 5 stations [including Alice Springs] … adjust… Positive feedback is real.
Ian B (11:49:49) :
Is there some stated algorithmic, reproducible method for deriving an “adjustment curve”
Plenty. And that is the core of the problem. Pick an algorithm (or combination of) that when applied in a “one size fits all” fashion to every station on the planet gives you the answer you expect then simply quote the source paper. You too are now peer review proof. Station details? We don’t need no stinkin station details.
Jack in Oregon (11:03:34) :
I believe what we need to do now is to start a surfacestation type project that is focused on finding the raw daily data for the actual surfacestations
While I agree it would be nice and I would certainly get involved with a kind of “open source” project to do all that, I don’t know that it helps in this instance.
The problem (as I see it) here is that we have a series..
(A) 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10
GISS take that series and come up with …
(B) 9,9.3 ,9.5,9.7,9.9,10,10.25,10.5,10.75,11,11.25,11.5
CRU (will we ever know?) come up with ..
(C) 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,11,13,15
It really doesn’t matter in this case that (A) is accurate. The real question is how did (B) and (C) using (A) arrive at their respective series?

Robinson
December 8, 2009 3:51 pm

The mentalists have taken over Richard Dawkin’s forum. One of them, posting in response to this debate over Darwin, has come up with an interesting image:
http://reg.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/trendmap/rain/0112/aus/1970/latest.gif
This appears to show that Darwin is in a somewhat unique position, would you not agree?

Akira Shirakawa
December 8, 2009 3:52 pm

Regarding Darwin temperature data and the recently officially released HADCRU data subset I found this link on Climate Audit. It’s a rather interesting find:
http://www.di2.nu/200912/08a.htm

Akira Shirakawa
December 8, 2009 3:54 pm

Sorry, I meant the Air Vent blog.

DocMartyn
December 8, 2009 3:58 pm

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml
Alice Springs: Station # 015590 23.7 S, 133.88 E
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501943260004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
I get a slope difference that is really different for different months.
Are these the same stations; or is the difference between the town and airport 10 km away?
This is a nice area to do UHI.

Fred Harwood
December 8, 2009 3:59 pm

I really miss Steve, and hope for less personalities and more auditing. The subject matter, matters.

al
December 8, 2009 4:02 pm

“Some prefatory comments about adjustments to the temperature records are in order. The aim of adjustments is to make the temperature record more homogeneous,” i.e., a record in which the temperature change is due only to local weather and climate. However, caution is required in making adjustments, as it is possible to make the long-term change less realistic even in the process of eliminating an unrealistic short-term discontinuity.
Indeed, if the objective is to obtain the best estimate of long-term change, it might be argued that in the absence of metadata defining all changes, it is better not to adjust discontinuities.”
A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change
Hansen et al., 2001

Robinson
December 8, 2009 4:04 pm

Sorry mods, can you edit my post above with the new Richard Dawkins link:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=101888
I mistakenly put up a link to reply to a post there!

E.M.Smith
Editor
December 8, 2009 4:07 pm

Thank you for the sticky! I’d missed this excellent posting in the flood. I’ve added a link to it in my persistent GHCN analysis aggregator link:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/ncdc-ghcn-airports-by-year-by-latitude/
There is another look at the adjusted vs not at:
http://savecapitalism.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/ghcn-database-adjustments/
that has some rather interesting graphs of the differences induced by adjustment.
IMHO, NCDC via GHCN are the START of the “data corruption” chain, then GISS via GIStemp and UEA via HadCRUT, pick it up and put frosting on it.
GHCN / NCDC / NOAA need a great deal more digging…

December 8, 2009 4:08 pm

Couldn’t you ad a list of ‘Favorite posts, worth rereading’ or something like that, i addition to the ‘most recent posts’. And keep the say five best ones available there?

E.M.Smith
Editor
December 8, 2009 4:09 pm

Dang it… The GHCN Analysis aggregator link is :
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
the other one is a new look at airport bias, not the persistent aggregator…
(Proof read, then hit submit…)

royfomr
December 8, 2009 4:12 pm

Excellent idea of making this thread a sticky. It has been clear to me, recently, that disputing AGW on establishment-chosen battlefields is wasteful at best.
Too many ‘sceptical’ arguments are rapidly diverted and thus diluted by misdirection.
Take the recent televised SMc debate in which the other ‘sceptical’ contributer allowed himself to be diverted by his opponent.
That simply muddied the debate in favour of the official line.
Meanwhile, SMc stuck to the subject on hand. This is the strategy that will reap the greatest dividends. Chip, chip and chip away at the weakest points. Identify these weak points and focus on them and them alone.
This thread may turn out to be a weak point.
If so, pursue it, publicise it and push it to the public. Sow the seeds of doubt in one area, make sure they germinate and grow then move on.
If this study does, indeed, demonstrate a distortion of reported facts then curiousity will seek other examples.
AGW is a mighty fortress. It cannot be brought down at all if its foundations are ‘robust’. It may not even be brought down, if it’s foundations are shaky, if its besiegers spread their efforts too much.
Chip, chip and chip away but only at the weakest points.

Michael
December 8, 2009 4:19 pm

Bret Baier on Climategate, American Physical Society Members Dispute 12-08-09

E.M.Smith
Editor
December 8, 2009 4:20 pm

bill (10:19:42) :
Anthony something is amiss here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero7.png
compared to the giss plots:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/1061/darwinrawhomgenisedgiss.png
In no way do the plots from Giss match those in the article.

Your “Giss” needs to be identified as to “which GISS”… It looks to me like the “As Combined” but “before homoginization” but you would need to go to their web site to sort it out. They offer 3 different levels of graph corresponding to the output of STEP0 (glue in Antarctica and USHCN), STEP1 (merge disjoint records, throw some out), and STEP2 (final homogenizing and UHI “adjustement” and throw out some more).
Oh, and they periodically change the thing, so you need a datestamp provenance as well. For example, a few weeks ago they finally put the USHCN Version 2 records in, so the USA from 2007 to date will all have changed.
So you have to watch both hands at all times to see which data ended up where… Care to play again? Ok, the data is going under this walnut shell in the middle, now, watch closely and place your bets….

George E. Smith
December 8, 2009 4:20 pm

“”” View from the Solent (11:04:32) :
Perhaps related, perhaps not. ‘.. something odd about Australia and New Zealand. …’ “””
Watch your language there; we Colonials from the crusty side of the pizza, take a dim view of being described as odd; specially by folks on the cheesy side of the pizza. Yes we pull each other’s legs a lot; but we stick together when either one is being attacked. So we don’t have as many thermometers as you folks up topside have; but then we don’t care about it as much as you do. All we have to do is go outside to see that the climate is just fine and dandy.
And yes Wellington does put Chicago to shame when it comes to wind; I was there for Christmas 2006 (we don’t have a winter holiday at year’s end like Y’alls does up here) so we call it Christmas instead. Our rental car almost got blown from the downtown motel parking lot onto the Ferry boat. Funny thing was once we got out of the harbour, Cook Strait was as calm as a millpond; which can’t be relied on to happen a whole lot.

pat
December 8, 2009 4:20 pm

australia features strongly in the report instantly covered by all MSM to show decade warmest ever and this year 5th warmest:
Decade shapes up as the world’s warmest ever
As the La Nina weather event, linked to cooler and wetter conditions in Australia, turned in June to El Nino, associated with hot and dry weather, Australia was one of the regions to experience “more frequent and intense extreme warm events”, the report said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/decade-shapes-up-as-the-worlds-warmest-ever/story-e6frg6nf-1225808422879
in the previous ‘darwin’ thread, chris gilham posted something very interesting, which should be looked at by Willis Eschenbach and other capable analysts to see if the ‘value-added’ temps for august in west australia could have provided the basis for the claims 2009 could be one of the warmest on record.
check gilham’s post for all the figures, but this was the reply he got from the met office when he pointed out the august temps had all changed in an upward direction:
‘I’ve questioned the BoM on what happened and received this reply …
“Thanks for pointing this problem out to us. Yes, there was a bug in the Daily Weather Observations (DWO) on the web, when the updated version replaced the old one around mid November. The program rounded temperatures to the nearest degree, resulting in mean maximum/minimum temperature being higher. The bug has been fixed since and the means for August 2009 on the web are corrected.”
I’m still scratching my head, partly because the bug only affected August, not any other month including September or October. There’s been no change to the August data on the BoM website since I pointed out the problem and they’re still the higher temps.’
please look into this, as australian data has seemingly played a part in the today’s alarmist alarm!

pat
December 8, 2009 4:37 pm

further to my previous post re gilham’s west australian met office figures for august, i just found that august is one of the months WMO is using for australia:
ABC: UN report singles out Australian weather
The WMO report said the heatwaves happened in January/February, when the hot
weather contributed to the disastrous Victorian bushfires, in August and
again in November..
The report is based on data from NASA and the US Government’s National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with data from the UK’s Hadley
Centre and the University of East Anglia, the university at the centre of a
scandal involving leaked emails from climate researchers.
The data is preliminary as 2009 has not yet ended. It will be revised early
next year.
Mr Jarraud said the WMO issued its 2009 summary early so it could be
factored into discussions at Copenhagen on global warming.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/un-report-singles-out-australian-weather-20091208-khtd.html

Seth
December 8, 2009 5:05 pm

Anybody else hear that 2009 is the warmest on record?!?
From the WMO?

Seth
December 8, 2009 5:06 pm

Sorry, can you delete these? The radio report had it wrong!

hysteria
December 8, 2009 5:07 pm

Graeme W (15:14:49)
thanks – I guess I need to read things more carefully – but there is just SO much stuff!!!!

robr
December 8, 2009 5:09 pm

Ok, so I have some questions. We talk about temperature, raw, adjusted or homogenized. When a temperature is recorded from a thermometer at an airport or wherever, what is it? I am a BSME so my experience with thermodynamics relates to HVAC and combustion.
From a heating ventilation and air-conditioning viewpoint, temperature consists of two components, sensible heat and latent heat. We are generally concerned with changing a condition from one state to another and we use a change in an intrinsic property called enthalpy to do so. Enthalpy is basically the internal energy plus a pressure-volume term of a system whose units are kJ/Kg. The zero point for enthalpy is arbitrary, but a change in enthalpy is the change in internal energy (heat because we neglect work).
To change the temperature in a system we must reduce the sensible heat, which is measured by the temperature of the dry air mass. This is easy to do because it only requires a change of about 1 kJ/kg per degree C to do so; however, we cannot reduce the sensible heat until we reduce the latent heat. The latent heat is the energy tied up in the water vapor in the dry air and changing that can require several times the energy of dry air depending on the relative humidity.
For example, roughly estimating from a psychometric chart, the enthalpy of 40 degree C air at 20% relative humidity is the same as 25 degrees C air at 80% RH.
So my question is; are the temperatures recorded adjusted for RH and barometric pressure? If not, has anyone done so, because it is a rather simple calculation? My final question: Am I totally missing something where none of this matters?

pat
December 8, 2009 5:11 pm

apologies for wrongly marking a sydney morning herald (SMH) article as ABC in my second post on gilhams data post for west australia. please correct if possible.

jakop
December 8, 2009 5:22 pm

I’ve often wondered whether i am worthy to post on you blogs anthony – with my limited knowledge of the science – and for that reason I have too often shirked away. Sadly, from my perspective, I am not highly educated in this field but I have known for a long time that there is definately something fishy going on – and climategate just confirms this. I notice you are far more willing recently (unsurprisingly) to put yourself in the conspiracy camp following the recent developments. Let me openly say that AGW is not the only conspiracy i believe in – and when will we have the courage to admit to ourselves, and to others, that that this misinformation is taking place across all aspects of the mainstream media. It was only a few months ago that you were mocking comments made on a subject to do with contrails/chemtrails. Lets think about this: with all the billions thrown left right and centre at proving unprecedented manmade warming, when there franlkly is’nt any, what’s to stop the orchestrators of this conspiracy to investigate highly sophisticated and covert means of manipulating the atmosphere to achieve the warming they so crave. This is really the greatest of all ironies – There’s nothing the alarmists want more than the reality of a runaway global warming catastrophe! What if military aviation programs are seeding cirrus clouds to trap heat, particularly to melt the arctic ice? Chemtrails cannot be ignored – nor can the many other conspiracies! Copenhagen will go ahead as planned and there’s nothing we can do about it – starting to have doubts yet?

royfomr
December 8, 2009 5:25 pm

Man is, perhaps, unique of all the Carbon-Based lifeforms on Planet Gaia by having the ability to Lie!
AFAIK, dogs, cats, begonias and, even, trees are stupidly honest. They can’t even spell the word, far less comprehend it’s meaning. Fair dinkums even the stupidest mutt may eventually work out that you’re not going to throw that stick. If you don’t know what that means then you’ve never had a dog as a pet.
But, that iota of canine understanding still precludes old four-legs from coming up with a Ponzi plan!
I think I’m getting a possible scenario for the anger shown by Prof Jones and his buddies. It was born of a frustration that emanated from the swinging sixties!
Trees are notoriously truthfull. To my knowledge no one has ever accused any of our aboreal cousins of untruthfull utterances. Apart from George III that is and, mayhaps, some of his double-helixed descendants.
Perhaps the humble tree may yet turn out to be the ultimate, a-grade thermometric device. The reported UEA divergence that highlighted the schism between human thermometry and tree-ring density et al characteristics may have an unexpected explanation.
It wasn’t that the trees stopped being less accurate proxies for temperature from the roaring forties until 1960, on the contrary. They diverged simply because the trees couldn’t keep up with the mathematical techniques and tricks needed to be part of the peer-reviewed literature.
Briffa and buddies were right all along but they couldn’t tell anyone. Now that’s frustrating!

December 8, 2009 5:28 pm

yonason (15:23:02) :
I repeat (a comment I made on another thread about Darwin), go to Wolfram Alpha
http://www.wolframalpha.com/
Enter the search terms darwin airport uk temperature
Then, from the popdown menu, select “All” to see that Darwin’s avg., temp has been a very constant 80DegC for the last 50 years.

well, it’s damn hot, but 80C? I hope that is 80F or they’re going to need a lot more beer…..

December 8, 2009 5:35 pm

robr (17:09:03) :
To change the temperature in a system we must reduce the sensible heat, which is measured by the temperature of the dry air mass. This is easy to do because it only requires a change of about 1 kJ/kg per degree C to do so; however, we cannot reduce the sensible heat until we reduce the latent heat. The latent heat is the energy tied up in the water vapor in the dry air and changing that can require several times the energy of dry air depending on the relative humidity.
For example, roughly estimating from a psychometric chart, the enthalpy of 40 degree C air at 20% relative humidity is the same as 25 degrees C air at 80% RH.
So my question is; are the temperatures recorded adjusted for RH and barometric pressure? If not, has anyone done so, because it is a rather simple calculation? My final question: Am I totally missing something where none of this matters?

Very sensible point, and yes – it all matters a lot. I shall have to add it to the list of things that make temperature readings difficult to use. Having said that, we are after trends, so it may not matter much, but is is certainly a factor.
For example, I have long been wary of averages – if the temp is 10C all day apart from 1 hour in the afternoon when the rain stops, sun shines, and it reaches 20C, does that make the average for the day 15C? Of course not. Also, the trend we are measuring is way lower than our error band anyway – how can that be accurate enough?

Rich Horton
December 8, 2009 5:38 pm

Can anyone point me to an instance where raw data was homogenized downward to account for increased urbanization at a site? I would have thought that would have been the most common form of homogenization process, but I’ve never actually seen one in action.
If so, we could check to see if any “steps to hell” emerge that would be the mirror of the “pyramid to heaven.” If they dont appear I’d think that would be pretty conclusive proof that what was going on was fraud, and not just an innocent result of regular corrections.

Alan S. Blue
December 8, 2009 5:41 pm

robr,
The actual completely raw readings from the observer’s forms have enough information to do the corrections you mention – which happen immediately and are part of the “raw” records before they are entered into the databases.
If dealing with wet bulb and dry bulb temperatures was the extend of the adjustments, I think I can safely say we’d all be dancing in delight at this point.

Evan Jones
Editor
December 8, 2009 5:52 pm

For example If 55% of the value added data is shifted up, vs 45% down, would that not prove that there was a bias in the resulting conclusions?
Well, I can say that US HCN1 adjustments were two thirds up and one third down.

robr
December 8, 2009 5:52 pm

JER0ME (17:35:13) :
Having said that, we are after trends, so it may not matter much, but is is certainly a factor.
If the temperature trends up and the humidity trends down so the enthalpy stays the same, is there a heating trend at all?

Norman
December 8, 2009 5:53 pm

I was curious about the effects of the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) on Climate. The link to the graph follows the periods of Global warming and Cooling nicely. I also read they are not sure of the cause yet, some ideas but no solid proof.
http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/amoraw200811.jpg

robr
December 8, 2009 6:01 pm

Alan S. Blue (17:41:33) :
Thanks, I sort of expected that to be the case, I’ve been reading here and other places for about a year or so and never read it, so it has just been fermenting in my brain until I had to ask.

yonason
December 8, 2009 6:17 pm

JER0ME (17:28:48) :
yonason (15:23:02) :
LOL! Ooops, that WAS a typo. Yes, it was supposed to be “F,” not “C.” Thanks for catching that.

INGSOC
December 8, 2009 6:18 pm

Look for Cop15 to come down to little more than transferring cash. The agreement will involve the US shifting enormous amounts of money to China and India among others. The EU will also be ponying up an enormous amount of cash. This is no more than a trade fair. India and China will agree to “cuts” in return for transfer payments.
It’s already done.

Graeme W
December 8, 2009 6:30 pm

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml
Alice Springs: Station # 015590 23.7 S, 133.88 E
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501943260004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
I get a slope difference that is really different for different months.
Are these the same stations; or is the difference between the town and airport 10 km away?
This is a nice area to do UHI.

Make sure you’re comparing the same things. The BOM site has separate charts for mean maximum and mean minimum temperatures. The GISS site is graphing mean temperature, which I take to be the average of the maximum and minimum.
I took the two sets of data from the BOM site, averaged the annual figures and plotted a graph. It matched to the GISS graph pretty well for most of it, but for the last decade or so, the GISS data varied slightly. Most of the time it was less than the BOM data. That could be the quick and dirty way I did the calculation, though.

robr
December 8, 2009 6:43 pm

Alan S. Blue (17:41:33) :
The actual completely raw readings from the observer’s forms have enough information to do the corrections you mention – which happen immediately and are part of the “raw” records before they are entered into the databases.
This just seems a little strange, is there a link to the method where the raw “raw” data becomes “raw” data. Thanks

Editor
December 8, 2009 6:51 pm

L Gardy LaRoche (09:59:25) :

Anthony,
would a PDF be available ?

I have put one up here .
w.

D. King
December 8, 2009 6:54 pm

Hoaxenhagen!

paul
December 8, 2009 6:55 pm

best post i have ever read anthony well done
brought tears to my eyes

Ron de Haan
December 8, 2009 7:03 pm

UN, Human role Climate Change not in doubt!
Ban Ki Moon must be an idiot to think that.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N08198995.htm

DocMartyn
December 8, 2009 7:05 pm

Graeme W (18:30:40) :
I did the average max/min and I also saw that GISS was less than BOM. The really odd thing to do is plot JunBOM vs JunGISS and compare with DecBOM vs DecGISS
June gives me 0.8578x + 1.1415 and Dec gives me 0.6259x + 10.712.
I swear that the winter months have a different processing than the summer ones.
The GISS has about twice the temperature increase as the BOM; 0.0149x vs. 0.0086x.
Very very odd.

Editor
December 8, 2009 7:12 pm

I’m now watching this thread as well, and will gladly answer questions. The question about humidity is a very good one. Basically, heat in the air exists in two forms — sensible and latent.
Sensible is heat we can sense. Latent is energy in the water vapor, which is released when it condenses.
I know of no one who has allowed for this in a global temperature database. It’s tricky because the records are much scarcer than temperature records.
This is another reason why atmospheric temps are a terrible measure of the state of the system. Ocean temps would be better … but we have what we have.
w.

Editor
December 8, 2009 7:17 pm

Jack in Oregon (11:03:34) :

I believe what we need to do now is to start a surfacestation type project that is focused on finding the raw daily data for the actual surfacestations around the world. Since we can not trust the data anymore, and we cant trust the custodians of the data, lets build an open source, station by station database of the RAW daily data.
A rebuilding of the US records data base with the original data is necessary. a PDF of the original data for each station with a txt file holding the same raw data, with a google map location for the station.
While some of the stations are available for free, some of them are behind government paywalls. That is not an issue for someone with a .gov email addy. I have one of those available, if we know which stations we want.
This would allow us to build a public wiki type project around the raw data. If we can get auditors for Australia and N.Z. locations to show what the known fudges are there. We can make this a global audit of public data base of raw temps.
I would suggest that any time a station is moved, we treat it like a new station. That is, each data series run is left to itself and designated as such. This way we can see what the *REAL* raw trend is.
Its time to FREE the DATA, MAKE it PUBLIC, and than we can argue about WHAT steps are applied to it.

Already started, as of last night. Email me at willis [at] surfacetemps.org if you want to volunteer.
w.

Ron de Haan
December 8, 2009 7:17 pm

Gore Effect
weather by seablogger
Though there are disagreements, many models suggest polar easterlies will continue to move frigid air-masses from Greenland and the high Arctic down the middle of North America for weeks to come. As these Arctic impulses phase with a moist southern jet, they could cause more major winter storms for much of the US, especially the Midwest and Northeast.
Meanwhile a similar pattern is expected to settle into Europe during the next few weeks. Polar easterlies could bring Siberian air as far west as Spain, and the models of pre-Christmas snow cover for the continent are showing some remarkable depths. Nearly all of Europe could see a white Christmas.
East Asia has already experienced polar bouts, with unprecedented early snows in Beijing last month. The entire northern hemisphere is caught in atmospheric upheaval. Yesterday a low in the North Atlantic dug to a central pressure of 944 mb — equivalent to a major hurricane, but covering a much larger area. A similar North Pacific storm has generated the biggest swell in 11 years for Hawaii.
All in all, the world is seeing a real weather crisis — the worst case of Gore effect yet.
http://www.seablogger.com/?p=18283&cpage=1#comment-164275

D. King
December 8, 2009 7:29 pm

Willis Eschenbach (19:17:39) :
Jack in Oregon (11:03:34) :
“Since we can not trust the data anymore, and we cant trust the custodians of the data, lets build an open source, station by station database of the RAW daily data.”
This gives me a creepy sick feeling.
Thanks for your post Willis, very well done.

Patrick Davis
December 8, 2009 7:32 pm

“Willis Eschenbach (19:17:39) :
Already started, as of last night. Email me at willis [at] surfacetemps.org if you want to volunteer.
w.”
I think I’d like to volunteer also for the Sydney, Australia region, and help out as much as I can. I will e-mail you Willis.
Cheers.

Norman
December 8, 2009 7:52 pm

Mr. Willis Eschenbach
I want to let you know I thank you for putting in the time and effort to get the actual temps from Darwin and show how the data has been changed.
Have you contacted the Group that put in the changes to learn why they did this?
If you go on RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt does give some explanations. When I complained about temperature adjustments he sent me to a link explaining why they did this in the U.S. I did not find the reasons valid and it does not seem there are valid reasons for what you find.
But when I read RealClimate and the posts it does not seem like the players are involved in a deliberate hoax. From my own experience on this web page, it seems everyone is quite serious and actually afraid of the runaway Greenhouse that will kill off most species currently alive.

Nigel S
December 8, 2009 7:55 pm

Hysteria (10:15:01)
See the answer on the first post.
Willis Eschenbach (19:16:09)
Turboblocke (04:33:51)
Someone else asked why start with Darwin? I guess all the ‘flat earther’ comments (including from our Dear Leader Macavity) made it a natural.
Really excellent work by Willis Eschenbach, thank you.

Nigel S
December 8, 2009 8:30 pm

Willis Eschenbach (18:51:25)
Sorry to add to your workload but some of the most important charts flow off the righ side of the page in the pdf that I downloaded.

John Simpson
December 8, 2009 8:34 pm

Have a look at the Hadley CRU temperature data just released by the UK met office.
href=”http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html”>CRUTemps Look in folder 94 for the Darwin temperatures. Very interesting!

Queenslander!
December 8, 2009 8:42 pm

The 3 stations in north Australia being Darwin, Alice Springs, and “Yamba”. I just checked BOM file of weather stations in operation more than 50 years and found that Yamba (Pilot Station) at 29.4333 S 153.36 E started operating in 1944.
That’s right . 1944.
So they really only have 2 stations. Why do they lie?
There are many sites that have been settled for 150 years- do they have no records from them? Eg Cloncurry recorded Australia’s highest ever temperature in 1889. It would be 2000 km closer than Yamba to Darwin.
I would gladly help with auditing Australia- central coastal Queensland.

pat
December 8, 2009 9:03 pm

a small victory perhaps! cap’n’tax may be off the menu:
UK Telegraph: Copenhagen climate summit: UN pleads for investment deals to be done
The United Nations executive secretary has begged companies to “do some deals” behind the scenes at the Copenhagen climate change conference to encourage market investment, as the US leaned towards more regulation on industry emissions
Speaking about the US plans, Mr de Boer said: “We all know taxes and regulation tend to be a lot less efficient and much more expensive than market based approaches.”
“Please please, please, if you are a business man, do a deal in Copenhagen and please, please, please make it market-based. Because if we fail to get a market-based agreement, we will be forced to turn to tax and regulation.”
However, his defence of market-based solutions to funding climate change measures came as the UN admitted its administration of global carbon offsetting, the Clean Development Mechanism, had lost its way.
The UN, which unveiled an independent review of the system by consultants McKinsey, said they needed to get the system “back to its original intent” and acknowledged it suffered long delays, poor documentation and staff shortages.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762729/Copenhagen-climate-summit-UN-pleads-for-investment-deals-to-be-done.html

Andrew
December 8, 2009 9:06 pm

I am seeing this correction more and more.
It starts as level, followed by a small drop and then level again, then a sharp rise. When I wrote the bit on the AGW Virus I did not expect that it would actually appear to be so prevalent world-wide. Seriously, many sites appear to have applied the same trick so that their corrections would all be in line with each other. It is a virus that has infected climate science.
The question in my mind is how much of climate science, and how many research papers can actually be traced back to those three lines of code.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103

bill
December 8, 2009 9:14 pm

I’m sorry Willis but I must question your plots
I have plotted raw GHCN Raw Giss Homogenised GISS and they do not compare with yours at all. Will you please show the source of your (faulty?) data.
Here are my sources
Giss: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501941200004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
ghcn: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/v2.mean.Z
Here are my plots:
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/9677/darwingissghcn.png
I suppose giss or ghcn may have adjusted their figures but this seems unlikely
Note that my plot shows 2 discontinuities 1940 and 1995. If these are removed then a warming will be shown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comments please

Nick Stokes
December 8, 2009 9:20 pm

John Simpson (20:34:10) :
Yes, it is interesting. On the other thread, I put up this plot my own plot of the CRU data as posted, vs the GISS data, raw. In the overlap interval, they superimpose almost exactly. There’s no evidence of big adjustment there. Nor is there with GISS – from this GISS site here are the raw and homogeneity-adjusted plots. There’s no evidence that GISS or CRU adjustments make any big change. So the interesting question is, what’s different about GHCN/NOAA? Something to do with the fact that it’s a subset of the Darwin data?
[REPLY – To the best of my knowledge, there IS no “raw” NASA/GISS data. GISS starts with already-adjusted NOAA/NCDC/HCN data, “unadjusts” it and “redjusts” the shattered remains. So if GISS “raw” data looks like CRU adjusted data, that would come as no surprise. ~ Evan]

steven mosher
December 8, 2009 9:34 pm

You know what is funny?
In McIntyre’s Appeal of his FOI rejection, He asked CRU if they could at least release the information that was NON Confidential.
On Nov 13th in rejecting this appeal CRU argued that they could no segregate confidential data from non confidential data. It would take too long.
QUOTE:
Regulation 12(11) requires that we provide as much requested information as is possible outside the coverage of any applicable exception. After consultation with Phil Jones and other relevant staff in regards the nature and composition of the requested dataset, I have concluded that the data is organised in such a way as to make it extremely difficult and time-consuming to segregate the data in the manner that you suggest and would indeed, in our view, amount to an unreasonable diversion of resources from the provision of services for which we, as an institution, are mandated. Further, we would maintain that where no such segregation has, or will occur, we should not release any of the data for fear of breaching such restrictions as do exist.
OH REALLLLY. Let’s see on November 13th prior to the leak it was too time consuming to segregate the data for Steve McIntyre.. But after Nov 19th when they get hit with a crushing PR blow, they suddenly find the time to segregate the data.
I got two more FOIA into these guys.
Maybe I will add another FOIA. Did jones tell the truth when he represented that it would take too long? Did he merely say that to thwart access to the data?

janama
December 8, 2009 9:49 pm

Queenslander! (20:42:57) :
GISS has a Yamba record from 1900.
The Yamba Lighthouse was built in 1880 but was demolished in 1955 and replaced with an automatic lighthouse.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945890000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Editor
December 8, 2009 9:53 pm

Nigel S (20:30:15) :

Willis Eschenbach (18:51:25)
Sorry to add to your workload but some of the most important charts flow off the righ side of the page in the pdf that I downloaded.

Thanks, Nigel. I reformatted it and reuploaded it. Try again.

Editor
December 8, 2009 9:58 pm

Queenslander! (20:42:57) :

The 3 stations in north Australia being Darwin, Alice Springs, and “Yamba”. I just checked BOM file of weather stations in operation more than 50 years and found that Yamba (Pilot Station) at 29.4333 S 153.36 E started operating in 1944.
That’s right . 1944.
So they really only have 2 stations. Why do they lie?
There are many sites that have been settled for 150 years- do they have no records from them? Eg Cloncurry recorded Australia’s highest ever temperature in 1889. It would be 2000 km closer than Yamba to Darwin.
I would gladly help with auditing Australia- central coastal Queensland.

This is a recurring problem. The data at Yamba goes back to 1880, see here for the raw data. However, for their own reasons the BOM cuts off the early part. One of the many reasons I want a public examination of all of this.
w.

Editor
December 8, 2009 10:01 pm

bill (21:14:27) :

I’m sorry Willis but I must question your plots
I have plotted raw GHCN Raw Giss Homogenised GISS and they do not compare with yours at all. Will you please show the source of your (faulty?) data.
Here are my sources
Giss: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501941200004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
ghcn: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/v2.mean.Z
Here are my plots:
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/9677/darwingissghcn.png
I suppose giss or ghcn may have adjusted their figures but this seems unlikely
Note that my plot shows 2 discontinuities 1940 and 1995. If these are removed then a warming will be shown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comments please

Thanks for the question. You have downloaded the adjusted giss file, which is little different from the GHCN data, except it doesn’t go back further than 1963. I got my data where you got yours. Next try comparing GHCN raw to GHCN adjusted …

Paul Vaughan
December 8, 2009 10:18 pm

E.M.Smith (16:20:23) “So you have to watch both hands at all times to see which data ended up where… Care to play again? Ok, the data is going under this walnut shell in the middle, now, watch closely and place your bets….”
The homogenization I’ve looked at is a serious mess. Sorting it out will be very time-consuming.

Paul Vaughan
December 8, 2009 10:27 pm

bill (10:19:42) “In no way do the plots from Giss match those in the article.” / bill (21:14:27) “[…] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! […]”
Willis Eschenbach (22:01:27) “[…] Next try comparing GHCN raw to GHCN adjusted …”

Interesting exchange.

Andrew
December 8, 2009 10:29 pm

Willis Eschenbach (21:58:01) notes that Yamba only started in 1944. The other interesting thing (as an Australian) is that the three stations are thousands of kilometres apart. Darwin is tropical, Alice Springs is desert and Yamba is temperate. How you can even average these disparate locations and come up with a single figure that represents Australia is beyond me. Darwin’s records run from 10.4C to 38.9C (28.5C range), Alice Springs’ from -7.5C to 45.2C (53C range).
Also when you look at the GHCN categorisation for each of these locations, they are pretty much meaningless. I assume that these land types are fed into their temperate adjustment generators. Darwin is listed as Sea, whatever that means. It is in fact one of the biggest (in land area) military/civilian airports in Australia.

David
December 8, 2009 10:32 pm

Maybe this is not related, but maybe it is. Why not just take the daily temperature range (Tmax, Tmin) and plot that instead? Then you have a range instead of a point, which would be more useful. Wouldn’t the effect of CO2 be much more pronounced on Tmin than Tmax?

Steve S.
December 8, 2009 10:48 pm

Willis,
Incredible job.

Ross Handsaker
December 8, 2009 11:02 pm

Slightly off topic; Australian Government Year Book 1980 edition shows average temperature for Adelaide (Capital of South Australia) as 17.2C between 1910-1940, which covers much of the period for the previous positive PDO. Average temperature for period 1977-2009 is also 17.2C.
If temperature data for Adelaide Airport (9.8 kms west of Adelaide) is preferred, the average for period 1955-2009 is 16.4C! Nothing unusual about recent temperatures here in Adelaide.

anna v
December 8, 2009 11:15 pm

David (22:32:35) :
Maybe this is not related, but maybe it is. Why not just take the daily temperature range (Tmax, Tmin) and plot that instead? Then you have a range instead of a point, which would be more useful. Wouldn’t the effect of CO2 be much more pronounced on Tmin than Tmax?
These, and other similar analysis show that there is no meaning in a global temperature and in a global temperature anomaly.
The physics is shaky all over and according to George E.Smith the statistics is absolutely inadequate too.(Nimquist or so).
Temperature measurements are inextricably attached to the location through the gray body radiation which varies from geographical spot to geographical spot. Temperature changes because of radiation, i.e. changes in energy input output ( and convection and evaporation and precipitation), but there is no algorithm to go simply from temperature to energy changes and vice verso, and it is the energy that is important and a constant of the equations and can be summed and averaged the world over.
The only use is as maps of temperature and maps of anomalies, that show heating and cooling quantitatively. Integrating over the globe is nonsense.
The effect of greenhouse gases and clouds shows at the low temperatures. Humid nights are warmer than dry ones. It would be interesting to see the high and lows of dry deserts . That is where the effect of CO2 could be untangled from the effect of water vapor, but I do not know of temperature sensors in deserts. Maybe could be done with the satellite records.

Nick Stokes
December 8, 2009 11:16 pm

Nick Stokes (21:20:44) :
[REPLY – To the best of my knowledge, there IS no “raw” NASA/GISS data. GISS starts with already-adjusted NOAA/NCDC/HCN data, “unadjusts” it and “redjusts” the shattered remains. So if GISS “raw” data looks like CRU adjusted data, that would come as no surprise. ~ Evan]

Evan, I don’t think that is true. As I understand it, Gistemp works from v2.mean, which is where Willis took his unadjusted data from.
Anyway, the key complaint of this post is that Darwin has been adjusted to show a rapid rise in GHCN’s v2,mean_adj. However, CRU’s data, and GISS, show no rapid rise, but rather a downtrend, corresponding to the raw data in Willis’ Fig 7.
So why is GHCN “Darwin 0” different? I’m inclined to think now that it is relevant that “Darwin 0” is one of 5 duplicate files. As Willis says, the others do not show the same adjustment. At an early stage in processing these duplicates get merged, so the question is, how does this adjustment in Fig 7 come out after the merge with the five other duplicates?

December 8, 2009 11:19 pm

As a follow-up to my message on the first thread re the Bureau of Met programming bug affecting how their website presented the August 2009 min and max mean temps in Western Australia…
On November 17, the BoM website had an approximate .5 degree C upward adjustment of August 2009 data that had first been posted on September 1 for Western Australia recording sites.
I asked the bureau why and received this response:
“Thanks for pointing this problem out to us. Yes, there was a bug in the Daily Weather Observations (DWO) on the web, when the updated version replaced the old one around mid November. The program rounded temperatures to the nearest degree, resulting in mean maximum/minimum temperature being higher. The bug has been fixed since and the means for August 2009 on the web are corrected.”
The BoM has replied to my email in which I sought clarification as to whether the temps on their website before or after November 17 are the official temps.
Reply: “The bottom ones are correct. The bug only affected averages for August 2009.”
The answer relates to how I put my question and means the higher temps on the BoM website since Nov 17 are officially correct.
It also confirms an upward adjustment was only made for the August 2009 data, so researchers of Western Australia temperatures should make sure their databases are accurate if recorded from the BoM website before November 17. I don’t know if the bug affected only WA figures or all Australian figures.

Ross Handsaker
December 8, 2009 11:32 pm

Refer my earlier comment about Adelaide temperatures, the Year Book should read 1965 not 1980. My apologies.

Mr. Alex
December 8, 2009 11:56 pm

Recent Solar Indices have been updated by NOAA:
2009 11 7.7 4.2 0.55 -1.0 -1.0 73.6 -1.0 3 -1.0
Ap yet again at 3!
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt

crosspatch
December 9, 2009 12:00 am

This doesn’t have anything to do with Darwin but I have noticed what I believe are two major errors with NOAA in their “all time record highs” over the past few days.
First they report Pavillion, WY had a record high of 61 degrees on 2 December when I can’t find anything in the area above 20F. This looks like a possible transposition of 16 to 61 as Lander had a high of 18.
Then there is Samburg, TN which reported a record high of 78 degrees on 5 December when I can’t find anything anywhere nearby with a temperature above 40 for that day. And that can’t be a simple transposition of digits.
Looks like NOAA might be manufacturing Global Warming the “old fashioned way” … simply making temperatures up.
What catches my eye is when I see a map like the HAMweather records page and see a “record high” surrounded by “record low high” temperatures or “record low temperatures” in the same area.

December 9, 2009 12:19 am

Having seen the current edition of the Economist (“Stopping climate change”), I sent this letter :
“Sir,
A front page headline which reminds us of King Canute.
A leader, a 14-page special report. Several articles: Asia: back to basics, emissions trading row; Science and technology: what lies beneath, more climate change; Business and technology: Chinese wind, carbon management software, shale gas.
In all of this, no analysis of the CRU/Penn State etc. revelations. No analysis of the FOIA.zip file. No analysis of the e-mails (the “tiny scraps”). No analysis of the Fortran code (“fudge factor”??). No analysis of the data. No mention of the “Harry_read_me.txt” file.
No journalism. No more “severe contest”. Just “unworthy, timid ignorance”.
Shame on you.
Richard Barnes
Luxembourg”
I received the following reply :
“Dear Mr Barnes,
We ran a leader and a lead piece in our Science section on the CRU story the week before my special report. Nothing further had happened on the story, other than Rajendra Pachauri saying that the IPCC took it seriously, so there was no reason to return to it.
Best wishes,
Emma Duncan
Deputy Editor
The Economist
25 St James’s Street
London SW1A 1HG
020 7830 7046”
How reassuring to know that Mr Rajendra Pachauri is taking this “seriously”. His speech on the 7th of December suggests that Ms Duncan’s remark is correct.
Note that Ms Duncan says “my special report.” The Economist is put to bed on a Thursday, so the dates between which “nothing further had happened” are the 26th November to the 3rd December.
Please feel free to contact Ms Duncan on the number provided, or by email ( emmaduncan@economist.com ) if you are aware of any issues that arose between those dates.

Nick Stokes
December 9, 2009 1:38 am

Willis, here’s an odd thing. For Darwin 0, I subtracted the annual averages of v2.mean from v2.mean_adj. I did not try to calculate anomalies. Like you, I got a sequence rising by about 2.5C, although the adjustments in number terms are big (negative) at the start, down to about zero at the present. But instead of a long rise from about 1940 to 1980, I got four very distinct step rises (and one drop), each about the same amount. The graph is here.

Nick Stokes
December 9, 2009 2:17 am

Another oddity. If you look at a monthly plot of corrections (v2.mean_adj-v2.mean), there’s a marked seasonal oscillation in the corrections. This has uniform amplitude between the step changes – increasing as you go back in time. It’s not a perfect sinusoid; there can be two minima per summer. It’s as if they are correcting for an error depending on strength of sunlight, or maybe the wet season. Plot here.

December 9, 2009 3:02 am
December 9, 2009 3:32 am

Norman (19:52:56) :
“But when I read RealClimate and the posts it does not seem like the players are involved in a deliberate hoax. From my own experience on this web page, it seems everyone is quite serious and actually afraid of the runaway Greenhouse that will kill off most species currently alive.”
That’s how all good conmen operate. They seem just so sincere.
Once you can fake sincerity you’ve got it made.

Don Penman
December 9, 2009 3:47 am

To anyone else living in the UK.Why is average monthly (tmax and tmin) only given on the British met. office website for historical weather station data.Is it possible to estimate how warm a month was by looking at the hours of sunshine given for each month with the data? There has to be a difference between a day when it rains all day and only reaches tmax for an hour and a day when tmax is maintained all day
take a look at these.What are the chances of having a white Christmas this year?
http://www.theweatheroutlook.com/twodata/datgeneral.aspx?type=nao
http://www.theweatheroutlook.com/twodata/datgeneral.aspx?type=ao

Charles. U. Farley
December 9, 2009 4:22 am

Have already sent links to the BBC’s newsnight programmed pointing to the smoking gun, have also successfully had a letter published in the local paper and have complained to the PCC regarding the Sun newspapers useage of disinformation ( a polar bear with a dead half eaten cub in its mouth) and requested the RAW data from the met office amongst other things.
I advise all others to do the same and start to apply pressure, otherwise theyll think they can just sweep this under the carpet

December 9, 2009 4:43 am

Charles. U. Farley (04:22:39) : the Times runs with the polar cannibalism story too.
Do these people know or check nothing? On the basis of this argument – my cat who ate a dead kitten is doing so because I don’t feed her enough.

Ryan Stephenson
December 9, 2009 4:44 am

I took a look at the data for Ross-on-Wye from the GHCN database. I took this one because Ross is an old town with long records, untroubled by very heavy traffic and therefore any Stevenson screen there is unlikely to have been tainted by “adjustments”. This was the first station I looked at – NO GLOBAL WARMING!
I would give you a link but the GHCN database is down. What a curious coincidence….
Anyway, I’m looking in detail at the statistics for Stornoway now. A small island in the far north. Had hoped that the data would be untainted but it seems the Stevenson screen is next to an airport – bet that wasn’t there in the 30’s! Oh, and it now has electronic thermometers for remote reading – bet they didn’t have those in the 30’s either!
Anyway, the means for the annual distribution show a 0.35Celsius increase in the last 10 years compared to the first 10 years. Problem is the averaged monthly show a variation ranging from -0.03 to +1.0 Celsius taken over the same period. That tells you that you can’t rely on the annual means because they don’t necessarily reflect the means of the underlying distributions. Furthermore even in the monthly averages you can see a variation of 6Celsius over each January from 1931 to 2008. This is due to what is commonly referred to as weather. So the Climate change signal is 0.35Celsius hidden in a weather signal of 0.35Celsius. Is that statistically significant? I don’t think so.

JonesII
December 9, 2009 5:02 am

The BIG business behind global warming/climate change is this:
1.-They (the beneficiaries of this swindle) will pay CARBON CREDITS US$3.- per hectare of third world forest.
2.-As each hectare of forest captures 5500 tons of CO2…
3.-They will sell to carbon polluters each forest / hectare at US$137500 (US$25/ton of CO2-reference EU price now-)
-They, of course, won´t care for the conservation or whatever of the forests.
-The big “spread”makes possible the bribing of any “objections” in between.
It´s the perfect financial bubble ever conceived.
Now…my bet is that this “business” will fail before it really begins.
The best advice, is investment in land property. That makes people independent from the financial system, i.e. from them.

P Gosselin
December 9, 2009 5:17 am

AT keeps em coming!
Great for laypeople like myself.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html

December 9, 2009 5:18 am

anna v (23:15:14) :
The effect of greenhouse gases and clouds shows at the low temperatures. Humid nights are warmer than dry ones. It would be interesting to see the high and lows of dry deserts . That is where the effect of CO2 could be untangled from the effect of water vapor, but I do not know of temperature sensors in deserts. Maybe could be done with the satellite records.
I shall be looking at the Oz datasets soon (see my comment on the original post regarding how easily it can be done). I think Oz has more desert, or at least v low humidity, weather stations than any other country, even the US. I may be wrong, but as about 75% of Oz is very, very dry, I suspect not.

December 9, 2009 5:18 am

shouldn’t homogenization generally enhance a temperature trend ?
trends are known to be much stronger on land masses than on oceans.
in a network of land based temperature stations, coastal locations are peripheral, in land-locations are central.
shouldn’t that, in general, lead to a higher use of trend enhancing inland locations to homogenize others compared with coastal locations ? that should result in a warming bias.

Pearland Aggie
December 9, 2009 5:55 am

Congratulations, Willis. Hotair.com has picked up your analysis!
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/09/east-anglia-homogenization-falsified-declines-into-increases/

Chris
December 9, 2009 6:24 am

tell Obama to wear his warmest clothes!
Copenhagen will be arround -10°C at the 18. of Dec.
Looks like a record low for this day. Good timing?
Chers from Austria
http://i47.tinypic.com/6r1344.png

Archonix
December 9, 2009 6:48 am

Incredibly OT but I just went back over the code I was writing this morning (php, so not exactly rocket science) and noticed that I’d written a comment over a particularly hacky bit of code that said “Harry thinks this is a TERRIBLE HACK”. I don’t work with anyone called Harry – or anyone at all since I’m freelance. I think I may have been tired.
Makes me wonder if other developers have started referring to Harry in their code.

n00by
December 9, 2009 6:55 am

The Google ad at the top of the page that links to <a href="www.iscanadaready.org" is a joke, right?

Ken Coffman
December 9, 2009 6:59 am

Here’s a letter to the editor from the Calgary’s The Globe and Mail, Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009. I have not edited this in any way.
As a scientist, I have never doubted that the carefully contrived natural balance developed over millenniums is being seriously impacted by the ceaseless activity of humans.
Exponential population growth is leading to an impasse and each individual’s footprint, be it carbon or waste, is depleting the delicate buffers of nature’s systems. Watching the debate, I am reminded of the fatal human flaw, the power of denial.
– Carolyn Inch, Ottawa

chainpin
December 9, 2009 7:19 am

The Darwin Zero post made it to the front page of HotAir!
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/09/east-anglia-homogenization-falsified-declines-into-increases/
The graph is there along with this headline:
NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases
You have to scroll down the page so see it.
http://hotair.com/

AdderW
December 9, 2009 7:30 am

Cold air drifting down from the North, that can’t be accurate? The ice is melting on the poles as well as on Greenland, surely that must be warm air drifting down now, causing the recent snow storms in the western and central US of A?
i am confused

December 9, 2009 7:49 am

Richard Tol has responded to my post earlier today
Richard Tol said…
The kicking came from all sides, actually: green, brown, what have you
http://plato-says.blogspot.com/2009/12/venal-secretative-sloppy.html

December 9, 2009 8:04 am

A great lead story on this site and a challenge for Canadians capable of sorting thru’ this stuff
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

Steve S.
December 9, 2009 8:06 am

Early last week, Mann said he is glad Penn State decided to conduct the inquiry and abide by the university’s policies.
“I’m very happy they’re doing it,” Mann said last week.

A total idiot
December 9, 2009 8:22 am

On the basis of these data, we’re supposed to reduce our food intake, and consumption (thus our carbon footprint) to an amount, in order to reach it, that will reduce our caloric intake down under 1100 calories a day, we’d have to sit in the dark, without heat, and we would not be able to travel by any means save on foot, we cannot eat meat, and most plants are off the menu, meanwhile reducing our population growth and existing population…
On the grounds that millions yet unborn may be harmed?
So we’re supposed to kill millions (or billions) currently living to save millions yet unborn that *may* be harmed in 50 years time, while reducing the population so they are not ever born?
Makes perfect sense to this total idiot…

December 9, 2009 8:36 am

OT, but good for a laugh :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394168.stm
Frightening, though. Doubtless being repeated in “science” lessons in many British schools.
Peer-reviewed by Jones, Briffa et al, based on their model for grown-ups.

JonesII
December 9, 2009 8:51 am

A total idiot (08:22:45) :
Don’t worry, they won’t do that, that will diminish global markets.( their golden calf ) It is all about global power in their hands, global economy. Fossil fuels consumption will not change, price of fossil fuels will increase of course. Life as we know it will not change a bit..owners will change, and freedom…forget it!
However…they do not govern the universe, though they may have thought they do.
There is always a beginning and an end for everything…you know…what goes up must come down…
He who laughs the last laughs the better!…☺

Mr Lynn
December 9, 2009 8:57 am

Ed Morrissey at HotAir has picked up on this important post, quoting much of it:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/09/east-anglia-homogenization-falsified-declines-into-increases/comment-page-1/#comments
And, BTW, a commenter points out,

. . . This scam was uncovered by John Daly in 1989 (follow the “Still Waiting of the Greenhouse” link).
John exposed the Darwin data that WUWT posted yesterday 9 years ago!
gh on December 9, 2009 at 8:55 AM

/Mr Lynn
REPLY: and the article on WUWT in fact credits Mr. Daly. Some people just can’t read. – A

Ray
December 9, 2009 9:29 am

I was intrigued by this infamous 1960 – Hide the decline and if NOAA was also part of it. Well, this would need to be checked with other “corrected” temperature at different sites but from their own page, I find it quite odd that the corrected data depart from a certain slope to a steeper slope right about 1960…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

JonesII
December 9, 2009 9:32 am

Any timne soon a bearded guy will come down from a certain mountain, bringing with him two tables, and will find his people adoring a golden calf….

Rod Smith
December 9, 2009 9:54 am

I have never heard of any “proof” that homogenization can be done accurately. Couldn’t a reasonable test be devised for the purpose?
I would think that just plain common sense would lead one to assume that any temperature “adjustments” that don’t take into account such things for example as frontal passages, down-slope winds, precipitation, clouds and a few other things are absolutely ridiculous.

Antonio San
December 9, 2009 9:54 am

Anthony, Willis,
A Meteo France statistician Mr. Olivier Mestre is justifying extracting climate signal from temperature series through the following:
http://www.math.univ-toulouse.fr/~prieur/meteo.pdf in English
His comment comes on http://skyfal.free.fr/?p=446 in french but the google translation can provide the gist of his rebuttal following the Eschenbach piece, suggesting it is misleading to use raw data.
Can Willis or other knowledgeable in stats comment whenever you have a chance…
Thanks

Scott B
December 9, 2009 10:18 am

Not sure if it was intentional, but I laughed at the title’s reference to an original Battlestar Galactica episode “The Gun on Ice Planet Zero”. Kudos to Willis. Now to crawl back in my nerd cave 🙂

Gary Palmgren
December 9, 2009 10:22 am

I have always been amazed how the temperature adjustments always increase the century long rate of increase (if any). This goes against all common sense. The UHI effect should have caused false increases in recent temperatures so recent temperature corrections should, on average of all stations, show a decrease from the raw temperature numbers.
It also seems that the surface station gallery shows mostly stuff that will give higher temperature readings such as pavement, air conditioning outlets, etc. The only thing I can think of that would cause reduced temperature readings would be trees growing up and shading the thermometers.
Is there a reference that I could use to judge the direction of the temperature error from the surface station gallery? The network rating guide does not seem to identify the direction of the error, only the magnitude. I would like to do a random survey of the surface station gallery to see if the likely error is generally positive or negative. One calculation would be: Sum{(station error sign) x (station error rating)] / number of stations. Since the pictures are recent, this number should reflect the recent adjustment to temperatures. If, for example, the number comes out as +2.8°C, then the average recent station adjustment should be negative.

Mr Lynn
December 9, 2009 10:36 am

REPLY: and the article on WUWT in fact credits Mr. Daly. Some people just can’t read. – A

Well, it was in the ‘Further reading’ section; if elsewhere, I missed it. Sue me. /Mr Lynn

JonesII
December 9, 2009 10:40 am
Paul Vaughan
December 9, 2009 11:33 am

anna v (23:15:14) “[…] Humid nights are warmer than dry ones. It would be interesting to see the high and lows of dry deserts . That is where the effect of CO2 could be untangled from the effect of water vapor […]”
Please let us know if you find anything further regarding this approach to untangling (i.e. for non-UHI sites!)

steven mosher
December 9, 2009 11:34 am

Nick Stokes (02:17:28) :
The only adjustment I know that takes into account the position of the sun
is the TOBS adjustment. Which according to my knowledge only gets applied to US stations ( I could definately be wrong about this one as other countries may also adjust for TOBS which was validated on a US dataset)
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/25/2/pdf/i1520-0450-25-2-145.pdf

December 9, 2009 11:48 am

I’ve been suggesting a transactional form of record for temperatures, following well-established accounting systems structures, to make the components of every temperature value (raw data, UHI/location/altitude/etc adjustments, overall adjustments etc) visible.
But reading Steve Mosher’s post above, a bleedingly obvious thought has occurred.
What if the major temperature data series are already stored in this form?
What’s made public is the single figure for Tmin and Tmax per day. Could it be that the components of each are actually available anyway?
After all, a lot of the confusion about the temperature data is caused because that single figure is what is ‘disclosed’. But if, under that single figure, lies the sort of transactional series that I’m urging for any open-source replacement, we could all save a great deal of work.
Because one of the amazing things to be deduced from the harry_readme file, is that the CRU have simply no clue about data archiving or versioning, source code control, or in fact any of the things that capability maturity models have been banging on about for over a decade.
Harry was working with a plethora of text outputs, and this is what’s publicly disclosed every time an FOIA or similar request is lodged. But that doesn’t mean to say that, tucked away right at the base of the entire edifice, isn’t a proper transactional data structure.
Seems to me that a bit of digging under the FOIA or equivalent, to establish the core data structures used by the major series, would be very worthwhile indeed.

Jordan
December 9, 2009 11:49 am

I posted the following text yesterday, believing it to be quite newsworthy for this site. I think the data had been published on the web only a few hours before. But I see no mention of it here or on CA. Or have I missed something?
Having looked briefly at it, I don’t know which is “true” raw data and which has been derived (using data which is now reported as lost). I think it is will be quite important to provide clear infromation to tell users which is which.
Here is my post:
“The MET office release of a subset of the HADCRUT3 data at the following link:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html
From the Q&A:
“1. Are the data that you are providing the “value-added” or the “underlying” data?
The data that we are providing is the database used to produce the global temperature series. Some of these data are the original underlying observations and some are observations adjusted to account for non climatic influences, for example changes in observations methods.
2. What about the underlying data?
Underlying data are held by the national meterological services and other data providers and such data have in many cases been released for research purposes under specific licences that govern their usage and distribution.
3. Why is there no comprehensive copy of the underlying data?
The data set of temperatures back to 1850 was largely compiled in the 1980s when it was technically difficult and expensive to keep multiple copies of the database.”
This is not the end – looks like this is only the start of the homogenising debate.”

Nick Stokes
December 9, 2009 12:37 pm

steven mosher (11:34:00) :
This looks to me like a correction based on the equipment, which is indeed not a normal GHCN issue – they say they don’t use the historical metadata. But the seasonal oscillation (2:17:28) of varying amplitude looks to me as if someone is correcting for imperfect shading, which underwent sudden improvements with equipment upgrades.

Ed Scott
December 9, 2009 12:50 pm

Lest we forget, the EPA has its own whistleblower, Alan Carlin.
————————————————————-
EPA whistleblower’s office on the chopping block
By Michelle Malkin • August 26, 2009
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/26/war-on-watchdogs-epa-whistleblowers-office-on-the-chopping-block/
Following a whistleblower report that criticized a global warming rule, the Environmental Protection Agency is reportedly considering shutting down the agency office in which the critical report originated.
Dr. Alan Carlin, the senior analyst whose report EPA unsuccessfully tried to bury, worked in EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). According to a story in last Friday’s Inside EPA, the agency is now considering shutting that office down.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman was sharply critical of the proposed EPA move.
“Economists are the most likely professionals within EPA to examine the real-world effects of its policies,” said Kazman. “For this reason, the NCEE is a restraining force on the agency’s out-of-this-world regulatory ambitions. EPA would love to get that office out of the way, especially since it has within it civil servants like Dr. Carlin, who are willing to expose the truth about EPA’s plan to restrict energy use in the name of global warming.”
Carlin’s study found that EPA failed to consider recent science data showing that global warming is not the problem the Administration claims. For example, the study found that ocean cycles, rather than anthropogenic carbon dioxide, appear to be the single best explanation of global temperature variations.
————————————————————-
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic
The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html

December 9, 2009 1:34 pm

I bring AGW demotivational posters to share with AGW fanatics during these difficult times. Feel free to copy!
http://agwdemotivated.blogspot.com/

Tenuc
December 9, 2009 1:42 pm

Great piece of work, Willis, and now at last it seems we’re getting down to the nuts and bolts of why CRU/GISS/IPCC took great pains to stop access to the raw data. This deception has been exposed in all it’s despicable glory.
3×2 (15:35:53) :
“…Enhancement is the problem. Homogenization [in this sense] should seek only to make a sensible series out of the data available for that station. Enhancement as seen here is otherwise called “fudge”.
As for coastal v inland, I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that a station can only ever be compared to itself and even then only if it is the same station. If my coastal station shows a -0.3°C trend and you decide to “enhance” it using a bit of “inland” warming, you have made “liars” of both stations. Try it with your bank balance if you don’t see my point.”
anna v (23:15:14) :
“…These, and other similar analysis show that there is no meaning in a global temperature and in a global temperature anomaly.
The physics is shaky all over and according to George E.Smith the statistics is absolutely inadequate too.(Nimquist or so).
Temperature measurements are inextricably attached to the location through the gray body radiation which varies from geographical spot to geographical spot. Temperature changes because of radiation, i.e. changes in energy input output ( and convection and evaporation and precipitation), but there is no algorithm to go simply from temperature to energy changes and vice verso, and it is the energy that is important and a constant of the equations and can be summed and averaged the world over.”
Good points from both. Our chaotic climate is fractal and this means that it is only the exact point at which the measurement is taken that it has any information. Move a few hundred yards away, and you will see a different result.
When the supposedly best climate scientists in the world cannot see this, it just shows how bogus the who charade is. Only by summing the observed energy across the billions of three dimensional geographic micro-climate cells in real-time can an accurate climate diagnosis be made. Looking at trends based on the low granularity and the poor quality raw temperature data is a complete and utter waste of time.

Mike
December 9, 2009 1:54 pm

This is well worth a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZW-BF70TsI
“Criminal Fraudsters” … they can’t “hide the decline” any longer, they either have to put up their data to real peer review in front of a jury, or shut up and effectively admit they were committing fraud!
And that will bring down the whole Global Warming sham!

Nick Stokes
December 9, 2009 2:16 pm

Tenuc (13:42:05) :
Great piece of work, Willis, and now at last it seems we’re getting down to the nuts and bolts of why CRU/GISS/IPCC took great pains to stop access to the raw data. This deception has been exposed in all it’s despicable glory.

This is totally muddled. Willis has queried GHCN adjustments to Darwin’s raw data (which have been available for years). CRU and GISS have published their data for Darwin, and it shows no significant adjustment to the raw GHCN data that Willis used. The IPCC used CRU data, not GHCN adjusted.

Ed Scott
December 9, 2009 2:44 pm

Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels. He examnines the hypothesis and it fails the test. Inconvenient Truth author Al Gore would find his presentation contradicted by this presentation? Will kyoto`s greenhouse reduction goals be in vain?
AGW-RELIGION RULE ONE
NEVER discuss the science.
Attack the man.
Repeat the mantra
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4

Climate change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 3 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4

dadgervais
December 9, 2009 3:04 pm

re: 3×2 (15:35:53) : et al
Before we try our hand at the same pseudo-science (even though with more honorable motives) we should each try the following physics quizz!
1. Consider a perfect-insulator enclosing two chambers. Each chamber contains “air” and the two chambers are separated by a perfectly-insulating removable partition of negligible thickness. If the two gas filled chambers initially have the following parameters:
Chamber-1 Chamber-2
Volume V1 V2
Pressure P1 P2
Temperature T1 T2
with each chamber in a state of equilibrium, then, when we open the partition, what are the correct algebraic expressions for
a. Total Volume (TV) { = (V1+V2) will be accepted. }
b. Total Pressure (TP)
c. Total Temperature (TT)
2, Assume the same conditions as question 1 above, with the added condition that
chambers 1 and 2 each contain volumes of water W1 and W2 respectively, and the air above the water has humidity H1 and H2 respectively. Again give correct algebraic expressions for TV, TP, and TT. Don’t forget to account for latent heat due to evaporation or condensation or freezing or thawing or sublimation.
Note: You may assume P1 and P2 are in the interval (0.9, 1.1) atm., and T1 and T2 are in the interval (-25,+50) C., and W1 and W2 are sufficient to ensure a liquid (or solid?) water resevoir remains after the mixing.
3. In light of your answers to questions 1 and 2 above, justify the assertion that the “daily average” air temperature computed as follows Tavg = (Tmin + Tmax)/2 is a meaningful metric for the purpose of determining the global atmospheric temperature of “Water World” Earth.
————————————–
If we go to yesterday’s financial page in the local paper, we can add together all the closing currency exchange rates and divide by the number of currencies listed and get a number, but the number cannot be understood as an “average” exchange rate, it has no definable meaning.
robr (17:09:03) : is saying the same thing from a HVAC point of view.

Tenuc
December 9, 2009 3:30 pm

Nick Stokes (14:16:26) :
[“Tenuc (13:42:05) :
Great piece of work, Willis, and now at last it seems we’re getting down to the nuts and bolts of why CRU/GISS/IPCC took great pains to stop access to the raw data. This deception has been exposed in all it’s despicable glory.”]
“This is totally muddled. Willis has queried GHCN adjustments to Darwin’s raw data (which have been available for years). CRU and GISS have published their data for Darwin, and it shows no significant adjustment to the raw GHCN data that Willis used. The IPCC used CRU data, not GHCN adjusted.”
CRU/GISS/IPCC scientist are the ones who lead the deception – I’m sure GHCN have to fall into line and ‘follow the consensus’.

Nick Stokes
December 9, 2009 3:53 pm

So what about nearby stations in the NT. I did a test on a block of stations in the v2.temperature.inv listing, which are in north NT. I noted that wherever there was an adjustment, the most recent reading was unchanged. So I listed the adjustment (down) that was made to the first (oldest) reading in the sequence. Many stations, with shorter records, did not appear in the _adj file – no adjustment had been calculated. That is indicated by “None” in the list – as opposed to a calculated 0.0. Darwin’s 2.9 is certainly the exception.
In this listing, the station number is followed by the name, and the adjustment.
50194117000 MANGO FARM None
50194119000 GARDEN POINT None
50194120000 DARWIN AIRPOR 2.9
50194124000 MIDDLE POINT 0.0
50194132000 KATHERINE AER 0.0
50194137000 JABIRU AIRPOR None
50194138000 GUNBALUNYA None
50194139000 WARRUWI None
50194140000 MILINGIMBI AW None
50194142000 MANINGRIDA None
50194144000 ROPER BAR STO None
50194146000 ELCHO ISLAND 0.7
50194150000 GOVE AIRPORT None

December 9, 2009 3:53 pm

Great piece of work, Willis, and now at last it seems we’re getting down to the nuts and bolts of why CRU/GISS/IPCC took great pains to stop access to the raw data. This deception has been exposed in all it’s despicable glory.

Robert Austin
December 9, 2009 4:09 pm

I guess that if you can use upside down proxies (upside down Mann etc), then why not upside down UHI corrections?

Queenslander!
December 9, 2009 4:42 pm

Janama, Willis:
Thank you, my apologies.
So the BOM list of stations has its own gaps, anomalies, and adjustments. Therefore in Australia if we want the correct info on weather stations we have to go to GISS?
OT, last year I asked BOM local office re the CSIRO/BOM report on worsening drought due to climate change. Their own maps and time series graphs show that the bulk of Australia is in fact slightly wetter than it was 100 years ago. The reply was that if you look at the trend since 1970 there is a clear decline. Of course, 50’s and 70’s were unusually wet decades. Trust us, we’re good at cherry picking.
BOM, CSIRO, and WMO all belong in the same bin. Show us the data!

3x2
December 9, 2009 6:09 pm

dadgervais (15:04:33) :
re: 3×2 (15:35:53) : et al
Before we try our hand at the same pseudo-science (even though with more honorable motives) we should each try the following physics quizz!
(…)
If we go to yesterday’s financial page in the local paper, we can add together all the closing currency exchange rates and divide by the number of currencies listed and get a number, but the number cannot be understood as an “average” exchange rate, it has no definable meaning.
robr (17:09:03) : is saying the same thing from a HVAC point of view.

robr (17:09:03) :
For example, I have long been wary of averages – if the temp is 10C all day apart from 1 hour in the afternoon when the rain stops, sun shines, and it reaches 20C, does that make the average for the day 15C? Of course not. Also, the trend we are measuring is way lower than our error band anyway – how can that be accurate enough?
It has taken a while to unravel all that and it would have been a much easier job had you simply quoted the relevant bit of whatever I said earlier and then made your point. I think I see your point though I’m still not sure how it relates to anything I had written at (15:35:53). help me out with a simple…
3×2 : (15:35:53)
(….whatever I wrote…..)
Followed by your comment/point/observation
Ta

VG
December 9, 2009 6:33 pm

As I predicted (and probably most here) this ain’t gonna go away. Its what we call positive feedback. I’d venture to suggest… say that in 2 weeks time AGW might in fact be stone dead… or at least that the 36% that believes its caused by humans in the USA will have reached maybe 15% and so on and on. At this stage the polticians will give it up by simply “forgettin bout it” LOL so will the newspapers and maybe even this site will slowly fade away as it will no longer be a subject of interest… AGW that is…

bill
December 9, 2009 7:31 pm

Willis Looking at the unadjusted plots leads me to suspect that there are 2 major changes in measurement methods/location.
This occur in january 1941 and June 1994 – The 1941 is well known (po to airport move) . I can find no connection for the 1994 shift
These plots show the 2 periods each giving a shift of 0.8C
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2505/darwincorrectionpoints.png
The red line shows the effect of a suggested correction
This plot compares the GHCN corrected curve (green) to that suggested by me (red).
The difference between the 2 is approx 1C compared to the 2.5 you quote as the “cheat”.
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4617/ghcnsuggestedcorrection.png

Ed Scott
December 9, 2009 7:35 pm

A contemporary question: Will Steve McIntyre’s FOI requests to NASA be honored and Mann-made global warming be thereby verified?

Ripper
December 9, 2009 8:16 pm

Here is the difference BOM homozinising has made to Halls creek mean maximums
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hallscreek.jpg
Data sources
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=wa&station=002012&period=annual&dtype=raw&ave_yr=T
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=002011&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=002012&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
Not that the two series 2011 & 2012 overlap and there is 2 years where the difference is zero and two years where the new site is 0.1 degrees hotter.
I will do the mean minimums later on when I get time.

pat
December 9, 2009 8:25 pm

has anyone posted this:
Spectator: The smoking iceberg
by Melanie Phillips
So how did the Met Office/WMO pull off this particular ‘trick’ (to coin a phrase)?
At least part of the answer would appear to be provided by an amazing set of disclosures by Willis Eschenbach at the Watts Up With That blog….ETC
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5620571/the-smoking-iceberg.thtml

David
December 9, 2009 8:46 pm

Why the mean anyway? Why not study the trend in the mode? Since you have a range large enough to go from freezing to scorching, why not simply study the trend in the mode? Makes sense in my head, is there a good reason not to do this?

Spenc Canada
December 9, 2009 10:04 pm

Just did a major scan of all MSM in NA and ma finding very little prominent stories on Cope 15. Ant theories on this lack of coverage of what is supposed to be a major conference? Maybe I am missing something?

David
December 9, 2009 10:24 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MonthlyMeanT.gif
Note how insanely bitterly cold the Antarctic is, yet the oceans play damper well during the SH winter. During the NH winter, the landmasses in the NH bear the brunt of absorbing the cold. This shows that atmospheric physics play a smaller than believed role in the climatic processes of Earth. The oceans are a very effective damper on temperature. This is because the oceans radiate heat much more slowly than the landmasses.
So, I really think that analyzing Tmax/Tmin would be helpful to debunking AGW. It seems that the time of day when energy escapes the system would be the more important way to look into the problem. Unfortunately, I believe that the best way to analyze this would be to take an entire years worth of data in a desert scenario, where there is very little water vapor, and track the hourly temperature to note the daily energy absorption and energy release phases. This should also be compared to jungle settings where the water vapor plays a dominant role. The changes have to happen on a daily basis because the system fluctuates between absorb and release on a daily basis. If radiative physics are the crux of CO2 causing global warming, then you have to observe each process to note what is different, right? This stuff about averaging Earth’s wildly variable temperature is nonsense as far as proving anything goes.
Why not study the absorption/release rates? Energy (temperature as a proxy here) should release more slowly and absorb more quickly if CO2 is preventing radiation from escaping, right? Why not study that for the so-called fingerprint? I am confused as to the general methodology, I guess. I don’t understand how averaging temperature over tons of different actual physical differences (jungles and plateaus of Tibet for starters) can be at all helpful. Why hasn’t this been done yet?

David
December 9, 2009 10:27 pm

Sorry, I meant to delete ‘an entire’ in front of ‘an entire years’. I mean that it would take loads of actual hourly observations, noting all circumstances relevant to radiative forcing, to really determine whether or not radiative forcing plays an integral part in climate fluctuation. I may be wrong, but I would like to know how.

VG
December 9, 2009 10:40 pm

Ot but is it possible that SH compensates for NH iceand vice-versa? look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MonthlyMeanT.gif

VG
December 9, 2009 10:59 pm

re previous SH v NH Ice (should have added temps as well sorry). I have observed this time map (days)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.anim.html
regularly and have noticed that invariably/repeatedly, when “cold in SH pole”, “Hot in NH pole” then a flip/flop occurs “Hot in SH Pole and Cold in NH Pole”. Anyone noticed as well?. Probably described already.. Is this a mechanism of earth temp control to within ~14oC?

David
December 9, 2009 11:06 pm

VG (22:40:41) :
I posted that link because it illustrates the silliness of averaging temperature. The Tibetan plateau is a great example. Note when it goes blue. What I think that illustrates is Milankovitch cycles and the tendency of water to damp temperature changes drastically. Notice that because the SH is mostly water, Antarctica is bitterly cold in the winter, but the Arctic is not. This is because of the landmass on the South Pole. There is no land mass on the North, but the landmasses in the NH lose their temperature much further south in the winter. I felt this illustrates how 1) it is silly to average temperature that includes SSTs and 2) that average temperature is essentially meaningless when you consider that temperature changes based on physical properties of the point in question. How can you add it all together without accounting for the physical differences of any given point?

anna v
December 9, 2009 11:37 pm

Da Capo:
. Is there a meaning to temperature measurements and predictions?
Absolutely yes for the locality. From airport conditions to planting conditions to dressing conditions, our lives improve by knowing the temperature,wind, humidity etc, and the predictions for the locality. When I go to my vacation cottage I do not look at the weather in New York, but at Corinth, Greecce.
. Is there a meaning in trends of temperature?
Yes. Except they are not reliable for more than a few days presently. Almanacs (distilled folk wisdom from previous experiences?) have a use though, and farmers seem to rely on them.
. Is there a meaning in averaging all temperature trends globally and projecting for a century?
A qualitative, yes. Qualitative because we do not know the underlying physics/mathematics/statistics to the detail needed for a rigorous summing and averaging to get one number. Qualitative also because the meaning is fuzzy: it might tell us that a little ice age is arriving , it might tell us a medieval maximum is coming, but not more.
There is no way to get from these numbers watts/meter^2 in a one to one fashion with reasonable errors. The equations needed are an enormous number and depend on constants that have not been measured, like the gray body constants that differ in microlocalities and make the microclimate , the wind turbulances, the evaporation sublimation, photsynthesis water use etc.etc. . This makes the problem intractable by even envisaged computer power for the future.
What the GCMs do is whitewash over the physics problems with approximations and assumptions that cannot hold water in a rigorous physics/statistics/mathematics analysis. This is evident from the weather predictions, that are given by programs with similar mathematics/assumptions/logic. The predictions fail after a few days.
At best, GCMs are models of an ideal world with ideal black body behavior that allows them to connect temperatures to watts/meter^2. This cannot apply to the real world, to the accuracy of 1watt/meter^2 that is claimed to boot. It is a video game after a few iterations.
In this whole mess how can the CO2 contribution be untangled except with handwaving by using the GCM virtual world as if it represents the real world? And the western world is asked to commit hara kiri on the basis of these video games.
This is an inherent problem that cannot be overcome with more computing power, as others have analyzed. The system is chaotic, it has deterministic equations but they have to be applied in too many three dimensional and fractal ( think of forests, think of craggy mountains, wavy oceans) localities and times to be able to process in a digital computer.
The only future for climate modeling lies in chaos and complexity techniques, which is a vigorous new field in all sciences growing by leaps and bounds. Tsonis et al have made a start, but it is only a start.

steven mosher
December 9, 2009 11:49 pm

Nick Stokes (14:16:26) :
Tenuc (13:42:05) :
Great piece of work, Willis, and now at last it seems we’re getting down to the nuts and bolts of why CRU/GISS/IPCC took great pains to stop access to the raw data. This deception has been exposed in all it’s despicable glory.
This is totally muddled. Willis has queried GHCN adjustments to Darwin’s raw data (which have been available for years). CRU and GISS have published their data for Darwin, and it shows no significant adjustment to the raw GHCN data that Willis used. The IPCC used CRU data, not GHCN adjusted.
Nick part of the issue, if your read CRU responses to our FOI, was that they didnt have to make their data public because IT WAS ALREADY AT GHCN!
except for the bit held under confidentiality agreements.
At some point in this whole MESS, somebody needs to draw a diagram of what data goes into what index, what is raw what is adjusted.
For example GISS say they use USHCN raw, but raw means after USHCN adjustments.
At least with GISS I can look at the CODE, I can see what data file they ingest and I can then hunt that puppy down. Sadly with CRU we dont have that yet
In the end, when its all in the Open, these issues will become easier to sort out.

VG
December 9, 2009 11:52 pm

David thanks for explanation on SH NH Ice etc… The point in general too is I think that no one here is/was particularly interested in denying AGW. I certainly believed it when I saw the old hadcrut graphs on wikipedia etc..> After looking into it more carefully ie Svensmarks theory, SM analysis on tree ring data ect we started to look into and looking even at the cooked data it does not stand up. This affair climategate has now confirmed it further. I think this will sink in to the majority of people and scientists as they realize that since their childhood the climate has not changed.

Ripper
December 9, 2009 11:58 pm

More on Halls Creek.
Mean minimums
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hallsmin.jpg
Data from
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=minT&area=wa&station=002012&period=annual&dtype=raw&ave_yr=T
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=002011&p_nccObsCode=38&p_month=13
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=002012&p_nccObsCode=38&p_month=13
And the mean temperature and net adjustments
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hallsmean.jpg
I think that illustrates the problems trying to homoginise two stations with 62 metres difference in elevation and 12 odd km apart..
Take two flat trends and end up with a warming trend and manage to get rid of the 1940 blip as well.

Fredrik
December 10, 2009 1:06 am

I start to think that this kind of blog science is actually destructive. My guess is that a year from now hundreds of posts have been produced alluding fraud and incompetence, thousands of cheering comments have been written praising the free thinking scientist at WUWT, but in the end the sum of the nitpicks (some legit and some not) will probably have an impact on the global trend that is a full order of magnitude less than the decadal trends in the official record, that is, instead of being a nail in the coffin for the official record it will be an affirmation of the robustness of the official record. The problem is that no one will take a step back and contemplate this fact. The lasting impression will be that climate scientist are all frauds while the actual results of the blogposts add up to confirm the exact opposite. It’s kind of absurd and in my opinion destructive.

vdb
December 10, 2009 1:57 am

@ Fredrik
“The lasting impression will be that climate scientist are all frauds…”
No, you’ve missed the point. It’s not about the scientists as much as it is about the science. Most people here want the raw data, the adjustments made to that raw data, the reasoning behind those adjustments and the computer code making those adjustments.
If those requests are not met with, then of course there will be the accusation of fraud. Because there cannot be any other reason for withholding it. And if they continue to withhold, of course people are going on a quest to prove the fraud. It’s logical.
So the destructiveness that you notice is a direct consequence of the continued withholding of data and methods. And to be honest, anyone claiming to be a scientist who withholds data and or methods is not a scientist in my book, hence worthy of being destroyed. (not literally of course. let’s not resort to ‘Santer-ising’)

bill
December 10, 2009 2:16 am

steven mosher (23:49:41) :
I think if you look back at the FOI requests CRU very early on said that the free data was already available at GISS / GHCN. It’s just that no one believed them

December 10, 2009 2:46 am

Fredrik (01:06:15),
Then what is your suggestion? What should we do?
If you haven’t noticed, things are improving. The very last thing these crooked CRU climatologists want to do is explain. Slowly but surely, they’re being forced to start explaining.
It’s entertaining to hear them try to explain that the emails were ‘taken out of context’. Here’s one example [out of many] of an email from Harry_read_me:
“The 1990 – 2003 period is missing… what the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”
That is an admission of thirteen years of fabricated data. And that’s not all.
There are over a thousand emails, plus plenty of code comments and code showing they did ‘make it up’. They fabricated the record to show artificial warming. That has caused others to look at the record of rural stations unaffected by UHI, which show little to no warming.
The entire mainstream media is run by people who have a Leftist bias. They would prefer to never mention climategate again, but the very obvious fraud involved is forcing them to begin to cover it. They will print and broadcast one-sided propaganda when they can, but their bottom line is too important: if they don’t cover the story, their competition will — and the public is beginning to wake up and demand answers. When they see that the CRU data was fabricated, and that data is being used as the pretext to jack up everyone’s taxes, they will tune in to the news programs and papers that report the story.
The same thing happened in Watergate. At first, it was dismissed as “a third rate burglary attempt.” No major papers wanted to connect the dots, because President Nixon had just been re-elected by a huge majority. But eventually they had to cover the story. Best sellers appeared, like All the President’s Men. Watergate was lucrative for lots of people, and it brought down the President.
The same thing happened in the Monica Lewinsky story. President Clinton had just been re-elected, and who cared about rumors of his philandering? But then Drudge was tipped off about the blue dress, and Clinton’s carefully constructed edifice started to crumble, until the President was finally impeached.
You are correct in saying that this will taint honest scientists; the ones who don’t get million dollar grants bribes to ‘study global warming’, and who aren’t accorded rock star status in return for lying about the global warming edifice they have constructed out of their fictional climate data. As you say, that is destructive: honest scientists in other fields have already started to speak out. More will follow. Because their fields have been starved by the $Billions that have been diverted to ‘study global warming’.
The CRU emails are the 2009 version of Monica’s blue dress: proof that a relatively small clique of climate scientists, who wield enormous influence over the mainstream climate peer review process, are corrupt. And the U.S. ringleader of the Hockey Team is a 30-something upstart who is arrogant and steps on a lot of toes. Surely other scientists with sore toes won’t mind the opportunity to give a little payback.
When Clinton tried to explain Lewinsky’s accusations, he looked into the camera and said, “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski… never, not a single time… and I never asked anyone to lie… .” That’s the stage we’re at now with Michael Mann, Phil Jones and some others. Climategate will play out more or less according to the same pattern. Human nature doesn’t change, and some enterprising reporter will get one of the players to spill the beans. Matt Drudge was a nobody before he scooped every major newspaper on Monicagate. Now he’s rich and famous.
The first reporter who gets a solid, revealing interview from one of the Team will get a big payoff, and so will the paper that prints it. Scooping the competition on a really big story like this, involving $Trillions and self-serving countries and politicians around the world is the dream of every reporter. Especially at a time when newspapers desperately need new readers. And if the mainstream media won’t report it, others will. Bishop Hill is already working on a book exposing the fraud. And the market will be hungry for more climategate tell-all books.
If you think this “blog science” is destructive, ask yourself: who is going to be destroyed? And who will turn state’s evidence? As Will S said, all the world’s a stage, and each must play his part.

VG
December 10, 2009 3:59 am

Its seems that CA has shut down…or hes sleeping… We are all watching as it unfolds….No need for more auditing its (AGW) collapsing on its own…

California Station Adjustments
December 10, 2009 6:18 am

Analysis of Some California Stations Adjustments – Forcing the fit
What I did:
• Went to GISS
• Picked out 10 Mid Northern California Stations &
Reno, Nevada. All had 100+ year records.
• Had GISS output the station data as text and
copied to Excel
• Used Data->Text to Columns Menu to convert.
• Did this for Raw and Homogenized data for each
station.
What I did #2
• Calculated the adjustment for each station to
homogenize for annual averages.
• Realized it appeared to be very manual, systematic and
in .10 of degree increments.
• Tested and confirmed it was the same adjustment for
monthly as for yearly.
• Noticed it was wildly different for each station, but the
dates and changes were not at all consistent to NCDC
station change histories. So this was excluded as the
reasons.
• The changes in the cities were not consistent with
discounting a Urban Heat Island effect, in fact most were
opposite with earlier data being changed more and
recent data changed less.
What I did #3
• Plotted for each station:
– Raw data
– Homogenized Data
– Adjustments made to homogenize
• Some adjustments were positive, some were negative, some were
big, some where small. There was no obvious formula or logic.
• They were not hiding a decline as some stations were up long term,
some were down.
• Some stations they enhanced a warming trend, other stations they
reduced it.
• What were they trying to do? The changes in all case were modest
incremental steps over time, just very different for each city.
• I played with plotting various averages
What I saw #1
• The San Francisco chart really had me perplexed. The raw data showed a strong
warming trend and they were seemingly reducing it significantly. Not for Urban Heat
Island, because they were increasing the past, not decreasing the present. Again, the
changes to the temps moderated over time and varied from early positive
adjustments to recent negative adjustments, to very recent positive adjustments.
• Then I realized what the adjustments were doing…..
• They were forcing all stations to conform to a similar curve…..and that curve told the
story they wanted to tell.
• I can’t yet figure out the exact formula used, but I’m getting close with a 6 order
polynomial fit from excel. The left scale is annual temp average
– The right scale is the homogenizing temp adjustment
– The raw and homogenized temps are plotted
– The curves are an Excel 6 order polynomial trend line
– The GREEN curve is the resulting polynomial trend after homogenizing.
• See what you think.
NOTE: I can’t upload the graphs to this comment thread..Anthony let me know how and I will. They really show what “homogenization” means in practice at least here in the US.
What I saw #2
• The story of the curve they seem to be forcing all stations to is:
– The 30s were warm, but not as warm as today.
– The past was more stable, the 90s climb is steeper and unusual
– There is a consensus story amongst the stations, rural or city.
• The raw data does not support their story, the “homogenized” does.
– If GISS releases the reasons for every single adjustment, there could be
other explanations.
– Adherence to the scientific method demands an explanation.
– Otherwise, Ocam’s Razor suggests this was done to force all reviewed
stations to a similar set of characteristics over time regardless of the raw
data.
• There is a trend to zero adjustment in the late 90s, early 2000s for
all cities. It is the past that is being adjusted making the current first
and second order temperature trends in comparison be interpreted
differently.

imapopulist
December 10, 2009 6:54 am

Anthony, This chart is what liberals are using to say “the science is settled”.
Someone needs to construct a similar graph that represents the unmanipulated change in temperatures.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/a-picture-thats-worth-a-thousand-stolen-emails/

wws
December 10, 2009 7:25 am

“The lasting impression will be that climate scientist are all frauds”: although not the end I hope for, it would certainly be one acceptable solution to this manufactured crisis. The people who have hidden the data and squashed all criticism have only themselves to thank if this happens.
Anything that serves to destroy the justification for further government action is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Mike G
December 10, 2009 7:44 am

You need a sticky for the one by the sixth-grader, too, just in case any talking heads or info-babes do a drive by of this site. It’s probably still way over their heads, but they might be able to get something out of it.

WAG
December 10, 2009 7:48 am

Do none of you get the hypocrisy of criticizing the RAW data for siting errors while simultaneously saying that adjusting for those errors constitutes fraud? Probably not, because there is so much hypocrisy inherent in climate skepticism. I’ve listed 11 ways here:
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-of-hypocrisy.html
Also, Tim Lambert has done an excellent job of pointing out the problems in Willis’s “analysis” here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

PaulH
December 10, 2009 7:49 am

Great work Anthony. I’m seeing links to your research all over the web.
I’m also noticing folk talking more about CO2’s effect on ‘Ocean Acidification’, shifting the pH down from around 8.2. Lots of discussion on effects on plankton, shellfish, food chain, etc. My intitial research seems to indicate that ocean pH was probably about the same as many years ago when CO2 concentrations were much higher.
The key concern seems to be (relatively) big pH changes in the last 30 years (naturally, caused by man-made CO2) that may not allow sea life to adapt quickly enough. I get that life ALWAYS adapts, but perhaps not a great idea if we lose a big chunk of our food supply in the transition period.
As always, I’m skeptical of big headline threats and would appreciate if anyone could point me in the direction of the scientific equivalent of ‘non-homogenised’ ocean CO2 research.

Al Forno
December 10, 2009 7:53 am

I believe this is a reasonable explanation
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
Anybody care to comment?

December 10, 2009 8:03 am

WAG (07:48:36) :
“Do none of you get the hypocrisy of criticizing the RAW data for siting errors while simultaneously saying that adjusting for those errors constitutes fraud?”
Unlike WAG, I understand the meaning of conflate.
The siting issue is completely different from the raw data issue.

California Station Adjustments
December 10, 2009 8:23 am

WAG,
Good engineering demands independent verification of the details. When I did my check of 10 california stations such as others did for Australia, there were no adjustments made when the sites had documented changes. Such changes would be warranted. There was zero correlation.
The 6th grader’s work on UHI states the obvious that IPCC seems to deny.
The adjustments in CA, like in Australia were very stepwise and incremental over time. They defy any common sense for UHI or any other known effect.
Siting change adjustments would be one time events. What I saw was clearly curve shaping where the raw data of all 10 stations were being reshaped to fit a model curve.
You don’t change the data to fit your model, you go back to find out why your model is broken. Scientists publishing papers may get away with this for a while. Engineers that must build stuff that actually works quickly lose their jobs.
A detailed review and criticism is standard procedure. If they can justify all these adjustments in Darwin, CA, Nordic, Alaska, and otherwise, then they should. In detail.
Hand waving and generalities don’t cut it when we want to reengineer the world economy. I’ll be green without being extreme..

Evan Jones
Editor
December 10, 2009 9:04 am

Do none of you get the hypocrisy of criticizing the RAW data for siting errors while simultaneously saying that adjusting for those errors constitutes fraud
Do none of you get any red flags from warming adjustments being applied to stations whose bad siting calls for cooling adjustments?

Cassandra King
December 10, 2009 9:26 am

Fredrik,
Your logic escapes me completely, if blogs like this did not exist there would be far less awareness of the fraud and fakery within the climate science cabal.
Its as if you are trying to say that the victims of the fraud are to blame for exposing the fraudsters?
Perhaps you are saying that the minority of fraudsters who have brought shame and dishonour to the whole scientific community should be protected in order to save the reputations of the majority of scientists who did not partake of fraud/rent seeking/manipulation/fakery and greasy pole climbing but stayed silent to protect their own positions? All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
I

rick
December 10, 2009 9:34 am

looks like “climategate” autosuggest completely taken off google news now. You have to type the whole word. Its obvious google is involved in suppresiing its further dissemination

Mike G
December 10, 2009 9:46 am

WAG, adjusting for the errors does not constitute fraud. That’s good science. Adjusting for the errors in an obviously fraudulent manner; now, that’s fraud.

Roger
December 10, 2009 9:52 am

You need only one to wreck everything!
from the Times
“One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said. “

theduke
December 10, 2009 9:59 am

Like reports of Mark Twain’s death, predictions of the imminent demise of AGW are premature. The debate is only beginning.
Those of you making this claim are no different than those predicting a 3 foot rise in sea levels by the end of the century. The truth needs to be discovered. You can’t just throw mud at a theory and expect it to be disproved. This is something for the scientists to hash out. The good news is that the reins of the debate are now being freed from the internal control of the IPCC, CRU, the Met Office, GISSS, etc.
Now, on the subject of coercive implementation of policy, that is worth fighting tooth and nail against. No one here is more outraged than I by the recent EPA finding. Until the science is truly settled, nothing should be done to harm economies by imposing draconian solutions.

Fredrik
December 10, 2009 10:07 am

Cassandra King:
“Your logic escapes me completely, if blogs like this did not exist there would be far less awareness of the fraud and fakery within the climate science cabal.”
There is a post right now about Peter and his dad; they’ve found a huge UHI signal. This signal is due to a bug in peter and his dad’s spreadsheet. When this bug is fixed the result from the spreadsheet will be probably be in line with the scientific consensus: UHI has a minor impact. I mean, think about it, such a huge signal would have been picked up a long time ago by the math savvy people at climate audit if nothing else.
The problem is that an endless stream of accusations of fraud will be produced here about the official temp record. My guess is that the sum of the legit points will have about 0 impact on the actual records, and the majority of the accusations will have as much merit as the you tube film by Peter and his dad. So, we will have 100 accusations of fraud, and 0 impact on the official record. What would be a sensible conclusion? Well, maybe that there was no fraud to begin with, but It seems that no one here will ever reach that conclusion, instead they will look at the 100 accusation and conclude that the official record is falsified 100 times, while the truth of the matter is that the official record has been vindicated 100 times. That is a huge problem.

Pearland Aggie
December 10, 2009 10:53 am

Warwick Hughes Disagrees with Some of Willis’ Assessment…
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=357

theduke
December 10, 2009 10:56 am

Fredrick wrote: There is a post right now about Peter and his dad; they’ve found a huge UHI signal. This signal is due to a bug in peter and his dad’s spreadsheet. When this bug is fixed the result from the spreadsheet will be probably be in line with the scientific consensus: UHI has a minor impact. I mean, think about it, such a huge signal would have been picked up a long time ago by the math savvy people at climate audit if nothing else.
——————————————
If you chose a specific location, say, a street corner in London, and had a temperature reading from say, Dec. 10th, 1880 and another one from this morning, how would you correlate them? How can you possibly say that conditions today would require a 1 or 2 or 3 degree adjustment with any level of certainty? And the same goes for the countryside where forests may have been cleared for development.
How can you possibly do this with any sense of certitude? Given that uncertainty, how can you possibly predict what temperature will be in fifty or a hundred years with any confidence whatsoever?
And, on the subject of “bugs,” what about the “bugs” noted by hapless Harry
in CRU’s code?
As for your “guess,” until all these issues are adequately explained, it’s as worthless as any 100 year prediction of imminent catastrophe.
Has temperature risen? Probably, although not even that is adequately proven given all the secrecy surrounding the data and code. Has it risen because of CO2 emissions? Correlation is not causation.
Given some of the monstrous solutions to solve a problem that has not adequately been identified, skepticism is the only wholly defensible position at this point in the debate.

Bob B
December 10, 2009 11:13 am

Fredrick, a peer reviewed paper by McKitrick has already shown at least 1/2 of the warming in the US id due to UHI

Gino
December 10, 2009 11:29 am

Fredrik (10:07:39) :
Cassandra King:
“Your logic escapes me completely, if blogs like this did not exist there would be far less awareness of the fraud and fakery within the climate science cabal.”
There is a post right now about Peter and his dad; they’ve found a huge UHI signal. This signal is due to a bug in peter and his dad’s spreadsheet. When this bug is fixed the result from the spreadsheet will be probably be in line with the scientific consensus: UHI has a minor impact. I mean, think about it, such a huge signal would have been picked up a long time ago by the math savvy people at climate audit if nothing else.
________________________________________________________________________
And it was noticed a LONG time ago. Go look at the surface stations pages. The issues addressed by siting weather stations are a serious part of UHI (pavement, a/c systems, cars, buildings, land use).

Philip Madams
December 10, 2009 11:53 am

I can see why there are reasons to adjust the temperature readings downwards (urban developments and proximity to other heat inducing constructions). I can also see that the use of lower level stations would indicate a heat reduction. What changes to station circumstances would make an upward adjustment in temperature plausible?

Cassandra King
December 10, 2009 11:54 am

Fredrik,
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post, you seem to think that the leaked emails and documents contain no proof of fraud and fakery yet the ‘Harry read me’ file is explicit and damning alone, the refusal to publish raw data for years and the collusion between US GISS and CRU is a fact.
The historical temperature record has yet to be verified, the raw data has been subjected to manipulation, it has become a synthesised product from the raw data that isnt available and the method of manipulation which is not available. In effect the CRU temperature series is a finished product using unknown ingredients and unknown manufacturing methods, this is a known fact BTW. Are we to blindly trust what feels like a scam, looks like a scam and uses the methods of a scam simply because those with most to gain and most to hide simply state that their data is correct and are we to trust the unverified word of those who have done so much to bring doubt and suspicion on their own heads?
If the CRU had nothing to hide then why on earth did they move heaven and earth to hide so much? If the CRU had nothing to fear then why did they try so hard to mislead and lie?
The huge and lasting damage to the scientific community is being caused by a minority of bad apples within a corrupted system NOT by those who seek the truth, most here only want the truth to emerge, we all want to trust scientists and we all want to know that the facts will be laid out for all to see, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Frankly I would be happy if there were no fraud and fakery involved but until the day comes when we can know for sure then I continue to have my doubts.
You confidently state that there will be zero impact on the official record, I wish I had your confidence my friend, we neither of us know what the outcome will be do we? I suspect that if the MWP can be erased then there is more to this particular pudding than meets the eye, time will tell all.

Philip Madams
December 10, 2009 11:55 am

You article on the Darwin station makes great reading. How possible would it be to simplify this so that a number of volunteers could so similar work to look at other station data? At least to the point where we could generate a graph showing raw data and the adjusted data and the adjustment amount?

Scott O
December 10, 2009 12:19 pm

Do you guys see the eco-nazis invading Moncktons speech with banners and chants? How come if the skeptics were to do this at the alarmist speeches they would get pulled out by security?

theduke
December 10, 2009 12:56 pm

Philip Madams (11:53:42) :
I can see why there are reasons to adjust the temperature readings downwards (urban developments and proximity to other heat inducing constructions). I can also see that the use of lower level stations would indicate a heat reduction. What changes to station circumstances would make an upward adjustment in temperature plausible?
———————————————————–
A related question would be: why would they adjust early temperature readings downward, which I’ve heard is also and adjustment device that they use? Like you, if I might presume to know the thinking behind your question, to me it seems counter-intuitive to adjust the present data upwards and the historic data downwards.

Michael
December 10, 2009 1:10 pm

My Christmas present this year is Climategate. I don’t need or want anything else. I want to give as a present a DVD titled “ClimateGate: Everything They Didn’t Want You to Know” to everyone I know. When the ask, who are they? I’ll say, watch the movie.
I need you to help me with this. Can we put together a Climategate video we can burn to DVD from a torrent file of the information we have so far? The movie can always be revised in the future. Lots of snow blizzard scenes and stuff about the Solar Minimum in it. I need your feedback on this. Please address this comment directly with your feedback. Can we do this?
Thank You
MJN

Green RD Manager
December 10, 2009 1:20 pm

Philip,
It is easy to check station and determine what changes they made, but not why they did it.
First, go to the GISS web site: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
First get the raw data by selecting: “after combining data at same location” option.
Then select an area on the map. I chose the area I have lived in for a very long time.
Pick the station you want to analyze.. click on it.
Near the bottom left is an option to “Download monthly data as text”
Click on this, it will display on the screen the data in monthly and annaul summary format.
Select all the data by CTRL-A on your keyboard. Copy it with CTRL-C.
Open Excel. Copy the data to Excel by CTRL-V.
Select in Excel on the DATA menu, TEXT TO COLUMNS. just follow the defaults…you now have the data in excel.
Now go back to the first GISS page with the map and selection “after homogenity adjustment ” option. Click on the map, find your station, and do repeat “Download Monthly data as text” and copy to Excel.
Then if you subratct the Raw temps from the Homogenized temps and plot you can get exactly the adjustments either by annual or monthly.
You can use the Excel charting tool to plot the raw vs adjusted and put in trend lines to see how they changed it or not. Linear trend for general direction. Polynomial for curve fitting.
The other thing you can do is look at NCDC for each station (use the id to make sure it is exactly the same one.) You can then see if the station history has any reason for the adjustments. I found zero correlations so far.
In my case for California, they took what was a mixed bag of up and down trends (no surprise the growing cities were up and rural was flat to slightly down). The end result was all stations suddenly conformed to a curve that look suspicuously like the main global trend curve.
They are certainly “homogenizing” in my area….. all the curves are being driven to the same story. That story is the main theme on the overall GISS pages. Then they go back and say all the data agrees with the summary. Nice circular confirmation.
I’m hoping others will be encouraged to the same so we can compare. I was expecting “hide the decline” I found instead “we are the borg and your output will conform” …:-).
When someone puts in unexplained data adjustments as large or larger than the change they are claiming to detect, and those changes cause the data to conform better to their predictions when before it did not full conform…..It is not a very convincing argument.
Good luck.

DocMartyn
December 10, 2009 1:26 pm

“Ripper (20:16:06) :
I will do the mean minimums later on when I get time”
Is there any possibility you could look for a discordance with respect to June and December in the two data sets. A truely sick individual like myself would ‘homogenize’ june differently from december to generate the largest max/min, but leaving the smallest foot prints. Indeed, just who is going to look for slight differences in months.
So pretty please; compare June and December; as well as the yearly averages.

Ian George
December 10, 2009 1:37 pm

There seems to be a discrepancy in the BOM records re raw data and their anomaly graphs in their Australian high-quality climate site data. A blogger on Andrew Bolt’s site noticed that when the mean temp for Cape Otway Lighthouse station was calculated from the raw data it was not reflected in the anomaly map.
I checked Yamba Pilot Station (NSW Australia) and found a similar discrepancy straight away.
1915 had a max av temp of 23.6C and a min av temp 0f 15.9C.
2008 had a max av temp of 23.6C and a min av temp 0f 15.5C.
Clearly, 1915 has a slightly higher mean av temp than 2008.
Yet the anomaly graph shows 2008 higher than 1915 by 0.2C. Eh! It should be the other way around.
These discrepancies (which also show up in Cape Otway) give a false impression that the recent warming is greater than it really is.
Anomaly data at:-
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=aus&station=058012&period=annual&dtype=anom&ave_yr=10
Raw data (max temps) at:-
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=058012
and min temps at:-
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=38&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=058012
There must be many examples of this (NZ, Darwin, Arctic stations, etc).
And to Al Forno
Darwin has had a Stevenson Shield from at least 1890. See photo evidence at:-
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=302

Michael
December 10, 2009 1:53 pm

Can the record amount of ice now in the Arctic and Antarctic be explained by the current solar minimum?

PaulD
December 10, 2009 2:42 pm

Al Forno (07:53:55) wrote”
“I believe this is a reasonable explanation
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
Anybody care to comment?”
You are being sarcastic? Right? Before I comment, why don’t you read the main post here and then read deltoid’s rebuttal.

Green RD Manager
December 10, 2009 3:12 pm

Ian,
Graph the change values they made to the raw over time for the station you are interested in. My interest now is are they forcing all raws to a rough model curve. What has shown up for curve modification is a stepwise adjustment to stations that does not fit any UHI or station change reasoning that I can find.
That has generally meant at least in my region:
Make the 1900 to mid 60s area flatter. Sometimes they must push up sometimes they must push down. Make sure the 1930s are not well above the 90s. Ensure the late 20th century has a steep ramp. I want to know how widespread this theme is.
My point is…Hide the decline for overall temps is not the point. That was the divergence in the backward looking reconstructions. The question on the table is what are the “homogenizations” and the logic behind them. One theory evolving is they modify to fit the narrative. Other theories are these are necessary and innocent to meet changing conditions at that station, but so far not one has been able to reproduce the docs for this. Good science demands the ability to reconstruct the decisions. The facts will set us free….

December 10, 2009 3:33 pm

Green RD Manager wrote:
“It is easy to check station and determine what changes they made, but not why they did it.
First, go to the GISS web site: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
First get the raw data by selecting: “after combining data at same location” option.”
That does not seem to be raw data in many cases. For Darwin Airport it seems to be similar to raw but for Grand Canyon it’s not:
Grand Canyon raw:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI190020081200111AR42572376008x
Grand Canyon adjusted:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI190220081200101AR42572376008x
GISS site “after combining data at same location”:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425723760080&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Here “after combining data at same location” is in fact adjusted data.

Brian B
December 10, 2009 4:40 pm

–bill (02:16:14) :
steven mosher (23:49:41) :
I think if you look back at the FOI requests CRU very early on said that the free data was already available at GISS / GHCN. It’s just that no one believed them–

That’s not accurate. A bunch of free data has always been “available”. What has never been available, among other things, is what data out of that pile CRU actually used.

bill
December 10, 2009 5:19 pm

an B (16:40:28) :
–bill (02:16:14) :
steven mosher (23:49:41) :
I think if you look back at the FOI requests CRU very early on said that the free data was already available at GISS / GHCN. It’s just that no one believed them–
That’s not accurate. A bunch of free data has always been “available”. What has never been available, among other things, is what data out of that pile CRU actually used.

The gave Mcintyre (or group) a list of stations used some time ago. It is very easy subtract from this list the giss/ghcn stations. Those left are CRU only stations.
In fact McIntyre has done it already in October 2007:
Argentina: CRU had quite a few stations not at GHCN.
Australia: nearly all match, but two CRU stations didn’t match GHCN – Maryborough and Brisbane Airport. Why these?
Austria – quite a few stations not at GHCN
Bolivia – a couple didn’t match
Brazil – a couple didn’t match
Canada – quite a few stations not at GHCN. I noticed a duplicate GHCN for Parry Sound, which is near Toronto and which occurs in two alter egos in GHCN.
Chile – a couple didn’t match. A couple were called “UNKNOWN” in the CRU list. Perhaps they are connected to the UCAR “Bogus Stations”.
China – quite a few stations not at GHCN
Denmark – a couple didn’t match
Dominica – a couple didn’t match
Germany – one didn’t match
Finland – one (Kuopio) didn’t match
Greenland – possibly a couple didn’t match
Guinea – one didn’t match
Iran – one didn’t match
Ireland – one may not match (Phoenix Park)
Israel – a few don’t match
Italy – a couple don’t match
Kyrgyz republic – one doesn’t match
Netherlands – a couple don’t match
Norway – a few don’t match
Oceania — a few don’t match
Peru – one doesn’t match
Sweden – a few don’t match
Syria – several don’t match
Taiwan – quite a few don’t match
UK – a couple don’t match (Kirkwall, Wick)
USA – about 25 don’t match e.g. Moroni, Lahontan
Russia – a couple may not match
http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/03/a-first-look-at-the-cru-station-list/
So what is your beef now!

Editor
December 10, 2009 5:58 pm

bill (17:19:57) :

an B (16:40:28) :
–bill (02:16:14) :
steven mosher (23:49:41) :
I think if you look back at the FOI requests CRU very early on said that the free data was already available at GISS / GHCN. It’s just that no one believed them–
That’s not accurate. A bunch of free data has always been “available”. What has never been available, among other things, is what data out of that pile CRU actually used.
The gave Mcintyre (or group) a list of stations used some time ago. It is very easy subtract from this list the giss/ghcn stations. Those left are CRU only stations.
In fact McIntyre has done it already in October 2007:
….
So what is your beef now!

Don’t know what their beef is, but I can tell you what mine is. I had asked in the FOI request for a list of the stations used, and which data for each station they had used. They replied with a list of the stations but didn’t say where they got the data. Was it from the Aussies? From GHCN? From the WMO? Half an answer is no answer at all …

steven mosher
December 10, 2009 8:30 pm

bill (02:16:14) :
Bill as one of the people who wrote an FOIA to CRU I will tell you that I asked for the data AS USED. Not a representation that they used GHCN, but rather the ACTUAL DATA AS USED. You see they could point me to GHCN, but I still need to verify that they used it. That they downloaded it properly. that they ingested it properly into their code.
See Willis’ responses as well. Basically I had seen GISS screw up data ingesting from USHCN.
Try this. Next time you get stopped by a cop and he asks for your license, give him the number of the DMV and tell him you got your license there.

Evan Jones
Editor
December 10, 2009 8:32 pm

We have 3 different sites for Darwin (oops, make that Wellington, NZ!). So why not simply take the three relevant intervals (excluding overlaps) and treat them as if they were three different stations entirely?
Look at the three different raw trends and combine them (on a pro-rated basis). It seems to me that combining the graphs first and then trying to dope out the trend is an utterly wrong way to go about it.
First figure the trend (as outlined above). Once one has figured out the composite trend, then, and only then, combine the graphs (color coding them for station moves) using the correct overall trend as a guide.
The result is a graph for data adjusted only for station moves. (Other adjustments might be called for.)

Green RD Manager
December 10, 2009 8:33 pm

Nick from NYC,
I’ll reply more fully tomorrow. Did a first pass look. Not totally sure on the data sources for the AIS data you linked and how they relate to the GISS data that could be really important to resolve your question.
I’ll look at it some more before a better reply. My first impression is they are almost inverse between GISS and the AIS source. Interesting. Let me poke some more.
When I plot the GISS “raw” vs “homogenized” I again got data nudged towards a common curve type. But your AIS sources may say otherwise…the joy of open review!

Deb
December 10, 2009 8:49 pm

Green RD Manager (15:12:22) :
Ian,
Graph the change values they made to the raw over time for the station you are interested in. My interest now is are they forcing all raws to a rough model curve. What has shown up for curve modification is a stepwise adjustment to stations that does not fit any UHI or station change reasoning that I can find.
That has generally meant at least in my region:
Make the 1900 to mid 60s area flatter. Sometimes they must push up sometimes they must push down. Make sure the 1930s are not well above the 90s. Ensure the late 20th century has a steep ramp. I want to know how widespread this theme is.

Chalk up another for the flattening the past theme. Here’s what Calgary Int’l looks like:
http://tinypic.com/r/2isd3c0/6
I added a 15 year moving average to both the raw (in blue) and adjusted (in red) data and what they’ve done is quite striking. The warm “blip” between roughly 1915-40 has been adjusted down by as much as a full degree C while leaving the cold years in the late 1800’s and warm years post 1970’s more or less alone. Niiiiiiice.
I haven’t had any luck digging out metadata on the site or even spotting the weather station on GoogleEarth for that matter. The coordinates are listed as 51° 6.600′ N, 114° 1.200′ W according to Canada’s National Climate Data and Information Archive if someone else wants to give it a go. This plots smack dab on the road that loops right past the current terminal building. It’s a veritable sea of concrete and asphalt. Perfect site for a weather station. /sarc
The adjustment curve itself is an interesting shape.
• The early years are a constant -0.1C.
• 1902 is the start of the steep decline
• 1912-1919 – the greatest negative correction to the data set bottoms out at -1C over this period
• 1920-1985 – slowly bringing the adjustment back up to 0C
• 1986+ requires no adjustment
So UHI (or something) was apparently just dreadful in the early part of last century, but then whatever the problem was… well it seems to have gone away and requires no correction by the end of the (warming) data series?! Maybe GISS has a perfectly valid reason to do this, but it certainly makes me suspicious when basically *just* the inconvenient warm years require such a large downward adjustment and the endpoints aren’t shifted much. Meanwhile, the proliferation of airport tarmac through the 70’s and 80’s doesn’t require a correction? Go figure.
If you add up enough of these squirrely “homogenized” data series from around the world where the past has been artificially lowered, then no wonder we’re talking about tipping points, melting ice caps and crippling taxation. Talk about gaming the system. Oh and this station also apparently falls into the ‘dropout’ category since NCDC/GISS only have data up to 1990 while the weather station is indeed still up and running… It’s snowing. 😉

phlogiston
December 11, 2009 3:12 am

Green RD manager
California station adjustments
Good work. Those agw hacks who protest that when all the dust settles from accusations of fraudulent climate adjustment, the climate record will be little changed, are missing or obscuring the subtle nature of the fraud that really is happening. The most dangerous lies are those close to the truth. The ocean-driven multidecadal cycles of climate – that agw-ers contempuously and dismissively refer to as ‘natural’, have always caused osscillations in global temperature. This century roughly speaking, temps rose up to 1940, then fell till about 1970, then rose again till a little after 2000. This recent cyclical rise is being presented as co2 reated agw. It is important to understand that the massaging of both the temp data and – equally importantly – the setting of the goal posts and the temporal frame of reference of the debate, needed by the agw-ers to argue their case, is limited and subtle. They ride on the 1970-2000 atlantic multidecadal upswing. The 40s – 70s decline does require a little hiding, not too much of course, just enough to make it look more like a plateau. The highs of the 30s – in reality close to our current ‘warmest’ decade, need a little downward pressure. But only a little – this is the important point. And the frame of debate must be post 1900s of course, they really do need, as they so charmingly stated themselves, to ‘lose the MWP’. That part is easy – it is natural for attention to focus on living memory and the recent period with the technology available for accurate temp measurement.
Thus the importance of the careful detailed observations of Green RD manager and California station adjustments. The adjustments observed are not a crude blatant twist to hotter now, colder then. Just clever massaging to manufacture simple conformity to a plausible ‘scientific’ story – if not a ‘party line’ then a ‘party curve’.
To be honest, my instinct from the biomedical sciences where i work is to be appalled by any sort of quasi-arbitary data adjustments. In the drug testing clinical – pharmaceutical field it is the sort of thing that can land you in prison. Data is sacrosanct, and even if it is clear that a bias or problem exists, data are NEVER altered. If they are, they are no longer data.

Green RD Manager
December 11, 2009 8:26 am

Nick From NYC,
I dug some more on AIS. They claim to be using GHDC and HadCrut…;-). Selecting the GHDC data set is what I assume you did. GHDC claims to be an aggregate of numerous data sets (they had a long list on the website). Much of it appears to be “value add” but the list is too summary to state definitively for any given set.
When I follow your links and use AIS myself, I get what you sent in the links. So I can reproduce what you talked about. However I am unable to trace the data set down to the station and back to reconcile with GISS output.
So, while the AIS tool says raw vs adjusted GHDC, I cannot reconcile AIS to station data via GISS. Nor can I understand what is their basis for raw vs adjusted. I am not in any way claiming the tool is bad. I’m just saying I cannot follow the trail from claimed data set to their output to try to reconcile what I see using the GISS server.
One idea could be we are seeing homogenization and then further “value add”. Another idea is garbage in – garbage out. Or it could be I just don’t get it…:-).
I did plot that station Raw vs Adjusted on GISS. I again got a similar stepwise adjustment over time and the same polynomial curve shape. I’ve added it to my growing collection. The plots you sent also had the final same shape, but were overall higher. The huge difference was the raw data for AIS already had the “standard curve” so it did not make the dramatic transformation that GISS raw(basically a straight line) vs GISS homogenized (standard curve) did. Hence my (unconfirmed) thought that GHDC via AIS may already have some value add in their raw.
Sorry I could not do better. Maybe someone can help us on how AIS, GHDC and GISS sit in a relation to eachother and adjustments. We really should know the answer of how many and what value adds are being put in. Open processes demand this.

Green RD Manager
December 11, 2009 8:41 am

Deb,
I followed the link. Looks about the same!
I’m trying to get a standardized plot for apples to apples.
In Excel. I select the custom charts. I used 2 line with 2 axes. Left axis is the temps. Right axis is the adjustment. For the trend lines, I put in the polynomial curve with 6 degrees. I put the raw in Red for the curve and the adjusted in Green. For the temps I try to keep the range to about 5 degrees so the amount of adjustment can be seen…
This may change, as we want a useful presentation that does not distort anything.
Let’s see what others find.
Importantly, Nick from NYC highlights that the full linkage from raw to adjusted to IPCC output needs to be understood. But it seems some good folks have been trying to figure that out via FOIA for years. A fully open process where the key players were not making it deliberately hard to figure out (as the CRU emails showed they were) would answer this….:-).
If you do more sites or adjust that one, let us know.

Oslo
December 11, 2009 9:45 am

Watts Up with the global warming advertising on the front page? The link is pure propaganda and greenwash.
We are starting to loose faith here…

Oslo
December 11, 2009 9:54 am

The “Frontline World” adverisement on the front page must be removed at once. This is a link to a hysteric/green-globalist site. Exactly the opposite of everything this blog is about. I am flabbergasted. It has to be romoved quickly!!

Ed Scott
December 11, 2009 1:00 pm

Algore famously had a questioner’s microphone shut-off to avoid embarrassment.
Now, Journalist Phelim McAleer asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about ‘Climategate’ emails. McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider’s assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard.
Compare with the honesty and integrity of the prominent skeptics, who do not avoid confrontation.
How do we make it short? Bring in the muscle.
Armed Response to ‘Climategate’ question

Rob in Katy
December 11, 2009 2:07 pm

I like this hockey stick graph…I like it less when you zoom out and see where we really appear to be heading!
Crops just don’t grow under 40ft of ice…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

edward
December 11, 2009 2:07 pm

Here is a simple way of framing the discussion on data corruption. Show two graphs from Willis’ example above.
1) Here is a graph of the raw temperature data.
2) Here is a graph of the same temperature data on drugs.
Just say no to drugs!
Shiny
Edward

December 11, 2009 2:17 pm

Ed Scott: I was just about to post a link on Prof. Schnieder’s conduct. You beat me to it. This is disturbing if not at all surprising.
Please excuse the political reference. Green is but a means to an end. This walks like a facist duck and quacks like a facist duck, (yes the term is oft misused but this is accurate by definition).
1] Exalts nation [insert Green ideology for nation] above the individual,
2] Uses violence [ELF and ALF for example] and modern techniques of propaganda [Prophet Gore et al] and censorship [Denier!] to forcibly suppress political opposition,
3] Engages in severe economic [Cap & Trade] and social regimentation [EPA CO2 ruling, etc],
4] Engages in corporatism, [what corporation is not ‘going green’?].

Mr Lynn
December 11, 2009 4:02 pm

Can’t keep up with the flood of WUWT. Did Willis Eschenbach respond to this?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php#c2136694

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends
Posted on: December 9, 2009 2:21 PM, by Tim Lambert
Remember how the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the warming trend in New Zealand go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site? Well, Willis Eschenbach has followed in their foot steps by using the same scam on Australian data. . .

/Mr Lynn

old construction worker
December 11, 2009 4:52 pm

It’s beena long time, but has anyone found Waldo?

bill
December 11, 2009 4:57 pm
royfomr
December 11, 2009 7:05 pm

If, as was the case in the 1970s, the scientific consensus was that we were going to freeze to death,rather than fry, would we be talking about “hide the incline”?
I kind of suspect that it would be.
I also suspect that Carbon Dioxide would still be Public Enemy Number One because (a) it’s taxable (b) the climate models would incorporate a high negative feedback wrt water vapour (c) the physics would be unarguable and the Peer-reviewed literature r
irrefutably robust (d) lowering the temperature of the planet would depress the ability of the Biosphere to sequester Carbon thereby increasing atmospheric concentration of this “harmfull pollutant” refrigerator gas.
There’s a saying in Scotland that He who pays the Piper calls the tune. In other words provide the Carrot of funding to prove a point and that point will be proven.
No need for conspiracy, the carrot is enough for the willing. The stick is only required for those who refuse to toe the party line!

royfomr
December 11, 2009 7:21 pm

As a bonus, the UHI effect would give a sensible rationale to reducing recent temperatures while increasing earlier readings.
Unlike the current orthodoxy that does the opposite and seems to think that upside down is the same as the right way up – eg Tilander (sp) anyone!

Nick Stokes
December 11, 2009 9:09 pm

bill (17:38:01) :
Willis you seem to have ignored my analysis so I will repost it. Please comment.

Yes, Bill, Willis has been rather quiet. Some cumulative questions I’ve posted:
1. (16:48:04) 12/8 What is the relation between the IPCC pictures posted and the GHCN corrections to Darwin? Do you agree that IPCC is based on CRU, and the CRU set shows no such corrections to Darwin?
2. “Sticky thread (15:53:24) 12/9 and here (05:11:33) 12/11 Any comment on the observation that the nearby stations do not seem to have big corrections?
3. (04:34:46) 12/11 Any comment on Blair’s specific information on the Darwin site history, and particularly on the explanation for a big change pre 1941?
And perhaps to add one – any response to the rather detailed analysis of The Economist?

VG
December 12, 2009 1:16 am

On the face of it, some of the temp graphs posted here suggest that the raw data would even seem to suggest that you don’t have to use “urban island effect”, as an argument (of course there is an UIE, but even without it it seems the data shows a cooling in many stations)). That is, the temps from 1880 seems to be have been much higher and have been deleted to show only a more recent warming?

VG
December 12, 2009 2:43 am

I am curious to why Anthony would keep this posting on the top for so long as this has not been done before. To me it means that he is convinced of it and it is very important. As a meteorologist I assume that he has really thought hard and analysed the data on this one. I still would like to see a detailed response to this
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists
and I am pretty sure there will be.

VG
December 12, 2009 2:54 am

Why is this
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
so different to this (unless I’m color blind?)
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2009/anomnight.12.10.2009.gif
????
Maybe some SST expert can explain?

December 12, 2009 3:14 am

Having watched the video regarding the Brazilian forests and the Carbon trading schemes,
is it also worth noting this present protest, with maybe a sticky thread of other similar protests / events happening around the world because of the AGW / Carbon credits scam.
http://agmates.ning.com/group/peterspencerhungerstrike?unfollow=1&xg_source=msg_com_group
I think this explanation of what has happened in Australia and why links together what we already mostly know,
namely the connection between AGW and Govt’s regardless of how it effects the people.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/12/12/carbongate-the-great-carbon-heist/

December 12, 2009 3:16 am

I realise that thread is not specifically about the embedded advert, but….
Having watched the video regarding the Brazilian forests and the Carbon trading schemes,
is it also worth noting this present protest, with maybe a sticky thread of other similar protests / events happening around the world because of the AGW / Carbon credits scam.
http://agmates.ning.com/group/peterspencerhungerstrike?unfollow=1&xg_source=msg_com_group
I think this explanation of what has happened in Australia and why links together what we already mostly know,
namely the connection between AGW and Govt’s regardless of how it effects the people.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/12/12/carbongate-the-great-carbon-heist/

KeithGuy
December 12, 2009 5:16 am

VG (02:43:01) :
“I still would like to see a detailed response to this
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists and I am pretty sure there will be.”
I’m trying to be as objective as possible about the issue of the adjustments to Darwin Zero and the more I look into the issue the more confused I become. I followed the link provided by VG above (thankyou VG), and read the article, which is critical of Willis Eschenbach post. This part caught my eye.
“Mr Eschenbach complains about the GHCN’s adjustments, saying that there are too few nearby stations to make an adjustment: “The nearest station that covers the year 1941 is 500 km away from Darwin. Not only is it 500 km away, it is the only station within 750 km of Darwin that covers the 1941 time period.” He’s talking about the Daly Waters Pub, but he’s inexplicably wrong. The GISS website he used for his own data shows two closer stations operating in 1941, Katherine Aer (272 km) and Wyndham Port (454 km). Both had temperature data series that ran for a long time.”
OK so let’s agree then that the Katherine Aer Station at 272 km is the closest. The author of the article makes some play about the intellectual authority of PHDs using supermaths to be able to make adjustments based on locality and he even sites a formula, which he admits he does not understand, to explain how clever these people are, even though the methodology behind the formula is rejected.
As a simple check as to what adjustments might be made to Darwin Zero as a consequence of the proximity of Katherine Aer I plotted the raw data for the two stations together, between the years 1941 and 1984; the full length of the Katherine Aer data.
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=t2QD%2BVcjymV7QaPNV9kaVoh4l5k2TGxc
Series 1 is Darwin, Series 2 is Katherine Aer
Why am I confused?
Well take a look and will someone please tell me what it is about the raw Katherine Aer data that could justify any change to the raw Darwin data. Or is it a case that the raw Wyndham Port Data is used to justify changes to the Katherine Aer data which has a “knock on” effect to the Darwin Zero data.

old construction worker
December 12, 2009 6:02 am

VG (02:43:01) :
‘I am curious to why Anthony would keep this posting on the top for so long as this has not been done before.’
“This isn’t from the GHCN, or from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. It’s from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). They conduct their own “homogenisation” of Australian temperature data sites, independent of the GHCN. And here’s the temperature plot that the BOM came up with for the Darwin site:” From the “The Economist”
My qauestion would be: Has “Australian Bureau of Meteorology” Adjustment method been V and V? Or are they using an off shoot of URC adjustment?

KeithGuy
December 12, 2009 6:45 am

Apologies for the error in my previous post
series 1is Katherine Aer and series 2 is Darwin Zero
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=t2QD%2BVcjymV7QaPNV9kaVoh4l5k2TGxc
Makes no difference to the point I’m trying to make.

RoHa
December 12, 2009 7:13 am

We do indeed need a detailed response to
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists
REPLY: I agree. Oddly there is no author name attached to the Economist piece last time I looked, which is strange and in my opinion, poor form. It appears that it was written mostly by Tim Lambert. Lambert of course deserves no attention, because he’s shown himself to be juvenile and rude by immediately claiming “lying” in his title. He works at a university. I suggest he look at their publishing standards.
The Economist piece however, makes no such juvenile claims and gets a wider audience, and is well worth rebuttal. Perhaps Wills will rebut, I’ll suggest. -Anthony

Hoi Polloi
December 12, 2009 8:16 am

“Yes, Bill, Willis has been rather quiet. Some cumulative questions I’ve posted:”
Since you’re mentioning it, I’m still waiting for Mann/Jones to answer some cumulative questions posted all over the intarnet…

dorlomin
December 12, 2009 9:19 am

Why this been unstickied? Its the smoking gun and all that.
REPLY: edit error on my part – thanks for pointing it out! back now – Anthony

VG
December 12, 2009 9:49 am

cherry picking but LOL
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html

K. Gustafsson
December 12, 2009 9:57 am

Actually I would not trust BOM adjusted data too much these days considering the Australian government’s agenda and pressure for them to “perform”

KeithGuy
December 12, 2009 11:10 am

RoHa (07:13:26) :
We do indeed need a detailed response to
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust
OK riddle me this because I’m still confused about the rational behind the arguments in the Economist’s article.
I am sure that the station change to Darwin airport in 1941 and the adjustments applied as a result, are a “red herring”. Although suspicious, it clouds an issue which I believe has a more significant impact on the reliability of adjusting temperature data.
In the article, three stations are quoted to refute Willis Eschenbach’s post by suggesting that the data adjustments applied to Darwin can be justified on the grounds that nearby raw station data (Katherine Aer-272 km ,Wyndham Port-454 km and Kalumburu-approx 500 km), demonstrates a warming trend that is not apparent in Darwin.
I would dispute this. For as long as the raw data are available, Darwin has an almost identical trend to both Katherine (1941 to 1980) and Kalumburu (1945 to 1992).
http://i45.tinypic.com/30bg4xz.jpg
(series 1 is Katherine, series 2 is Kalumburu and series 3 is Darwin)
The odd one out appears to be Wyndham Port, which does display a divergence of approx 0.4 of a degree between 1941 and 1963. However, during this time the data adjustments applied to Darwin by GHCN increase the temperature by a whopping 0.6 of a degree. This excludes any possible issue relating to 1941, and shows that either the Wyndham Port data has a totally disproportionate influence on the temperature metric for the area or… I’m missing something obvious!
What’s up with that? You tell me!

Steve
December 12, 2009 11:50 am

I would love to see how the NIWA data has been “value-added.” I understand that the raw data in NZ shows no real trend, but when adjusted, suddenly the trend appears. I would love to know what percentage of data points have been adjusted to increase the slope vs those that decrease the slope.

VG
December 12, 2009 2:58 pm

Looks like AP has come on board
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980
This is just the start, probably. Wait until thy see the data and programming files! and of course the real smoking gun.. the raw data…

janama
December 12, 2009 3:16 pm

Where I get confused with this Darwin biz is WHAT Data are we referring to?
These two papers spell out clearly that the BoM data has already been adjusted for site changes, adding Stephenson screens etc etc.
First by Torok in 96
http://134.178.63.141/amm/docs/1996/torok.pdf
Then by Della-Marta in 2004.
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Della-Marta2004.pdf
Therefore there is no justification in any other organisation (CRU etc) to make any further adjustments to the data.
May I suggest you run a calc for Darwin here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_networks.cgi?variable=meanT&period=annual&state=nt
but run the mean MONTHLY stats and you’ll see it’s a 0.01C/decade trend – same with the nearest stations – all around 0.01/dec – 0.02/dec
Yet if you do the Annual Anomaly you get 0.13C/dec trend.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=aus&station=014015&dtype=anom&period=annual&ave_yr=T

janama
December 12, 2009 3:39 pm

i might add that if you want the data that Torok used and his methodology you can find it all here:
ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
“The files in this subdirectory are associated with the Australian
High Quality Temperature Data Set
The directory should contain these files
UNIX FORMAT
readme ‘This file’
method.utx ‘Outline of the method used to prepare the data sets.’
alladj.utx.Z ‘List of adjustments made to the data
and reasons for adjustment.’
finaln.utx.Z ‘Data file of minimum temperatures’
fianlx.utx.Z ‘Data file of maximum temperatures’
Files ending in .Z have been compressed using the unix compress
command. To uncompress them type uncompress FILENAME at the
unix promt once you have transferred the file to your system.

janama
December 12, 2009 3:59 pm

From the above files I have been able to create a Maximum Temperature chart for Darwin from 1882 – 1993
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin.png

Mal
December 12, 2009 4:02 pm

Have you read Iowahawk’s entry regarding global warming? It is very good.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html#more

janama
December 12, 2009 4:08 pm

with a trend line over 100 years.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin_T.png

janama
December 12, 2009 4:21 pm

Here’s Sydney from 1859 – 1993
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney.png

Doh
December 12, 2009 4:43 pm

Will, i suggest you withdraw the new article temporary, sleep a night, and edit it when you have calmed down.

Bill Illis
December 12, 2009 4:53 pm

You could use the GISS map of the change between 1939 to 1941 which clearly shows a cooling of more than -0.5C for Darwin. (although 1938 to 1942 shows a warming).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1939&year2=1941&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

December 12, 2009 4:57 pm

Is it just my imagination or are warmists actually saying that no matter what the emails say the north pole is still losing ice therefore AGW is still true, yet when ice cores show the MWP and warmer periods far into the past that is just regional weather and not climate?