Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
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.
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.
“[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
Richard (03:53:38) :
Excellent, excellent!
Do I sense a Paul Ehrlich-John Holdren-John Harte/ Julian Huxley moment??
So, what is the game and what are the stakes? The price of a carbon credit? I’ll be making book on side bets….
Yes, yet another anonymous coward but that issue I explained earlier for The Economist and in the AGW debate I seldom post, mostly read and study.
Mr. Watts maybe you won’t like how I see things, but I’m betting that you’ll take any critics present as a proof of my sincerity and I do think you do a useful job and in the current context maybe you’re a much needed counterpart to the likes o RC (who in my humble opinion are way more biased and present way more “trash” than you do i.e. shock/caricatural )
I usualy come here to find leads for my own “research and opinion” on the climate issue (BTW my personnel opinion is that we are within normal climate for millenium but may have 0.2 human impact)) and I read from both sides, be it CA or RC, air vent or tamino. That usualy gets me labeled as a “denier” in most discussions in real world.
I just wanted to share my complaint to The Economist (copy from complaint through site)
Best regards
I subscribed to the Economist for many years and continued reading it for in your site (but still bought most issues at the newsstand more often than not)
Through personnel curiosity, though my degrees are in economics and an mba, I took an interest in the AGW issue. After reviewing data and studies I have come to be what is normaly called a “lukewarmer” and was not particularly pleased to see how stong a stance The Economist was taking in the debate.
Nevertheless it was a position I could understand, given the uncertainty and zeitgeist involved.
A completely different issue is joining the desinformation and ad hominem attacks on skeptics (even those who have a less than pristine selection of “news” often point to useful information and many times point valid critics.
WUWT may have certain shortcommings but a potentialy libelous , and certainly biased and in my opinion wrong, article without due dilligence is not what The Economist has made me expect.
Best Regards
aidlife (00:15:07) :
“To be honest though, a psychological investigation of the denialists would be more interesting, ”
Err, no thanks. I prefer evidence-based enquiry. Analysis of motives are for those who have run out of ideas.
“debunking … as the Economist points out, is just too time-consuming when it never leads to anything.”
Which only goes to show that the Economist (and you) have no concept of the scientific method. If you are too impatient to allow scientific enquiry to progress, your propositions will be continually dragged down by their uncertainties. And that will just lead to public demonstrations of your frustration. Just like that shown in your post.
“So if you reject GHCN you have to reject the data. ”
Now you are starting to make more sense. If the underlying data series need to have cooling trends arbitrarily converted into warming trends, then I say reject the data and start again. Next time do it better.
***********
Ricky Oberoi (22:12:55) :
“Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited.
****************
It’s scary to think that a group of people, the ones who wrote the article (or maybe it was just one – how could we know?), could be that ignorant!!
@ur momisugly Green RD Manager (13:20:56)
Just took a look at the data for Central Park in NYC. In 1895 they adjusted the temperature down by 1.5 degrees. By 1998 the adjustment was reduced to 0 degrees.
So lets see if we can understand their methodology here:
– UHI increases as the size of the city increases
– UHI will mean a station will show higher temps as the area around it becomes developed
– To adjust for the effect of UHI, show that the older temps were cooler than measured
– To further adjust for UHI, newer temps should be shown to be equal to or higher than the measured temps
I might not be the brightest guy, but that just seems backward to me. If you know the current temperature is reading higher due to known UHI effects, wouldn’t you correct the newer temperatures down while not adjusting the older temperatures?
– Charlie K
@ur momisugly djrabbit (22:18:03) :
“All of which is to say, Mr. Watts, that you were smacked down by The Economist itself, not by a single journalist.”
—
Yes, Sir. Many of us commenting on the sneaky nature of the attack understand it. We are smacking down not just this anonymous fellow and his emotional rant. We are smacking down The Economist itself.
I started reading The Economist about 22 years ago and I know their policy. I am ashamed to admit that in my youthful vanity I was then much impressed by their pompous style and it took me quite a while to figure out what they were doing. I say now that while their style was always peculiar it has become outright ridiculous in the digital age. How do I respond to them? “SIR: I hear that you woke up the other morning to find that you would have to confront yet another headache …” or “SIR: May I suggest what you are, like, supposed to do the next time you wake up in an irritable disposition …”?
Michael Lewis said that The Economist “is written by young people pretending to be old people. If American readers got a look at the pimply complexions of their economic gurus, they would cancel their subscriptions in droves.”
Well, they aren’t even pretending to be old people anymore, are they? At least some of them are just arrogant, overbearing kids who not only know how to speak the part but are encouraged to show it.
The Economist has beclowned itself again but I don’t expect them to change their policy as long as it sells subscriptions. It’s part of the racket.
Reference:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/1991/10/the_economics_of_the_colonial_cringe_about_the_economist_magazine_washington_post_1991.php
Willis Eschenbach
“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 …”
Hmmm just rereading the original smoking gun story on wattup. I am missing the bit where Willis Eschenback contacted the relevant people at GHCN, Darwin or the Autralian Met Office.
Id appreciate if someone could cut and paste that bit of the article as I really cant find it.
Dear Willis,
Like Zosima (20:58:47), I am puzzled about your use of the 500 km limit. I can’t find that in the GHCN papers; in fact, my reading of those papers indicates no such limit. Can you point to a reference for the this?
Thanks,
Kevin
dorlomin (10:57:25) : Hmmm … you may have a point there. But Willis Eschenbach has answered the criticism. Thats the nub and GHCN, Darwin or the Autralian Met Office should answer his too. Dont you think?
Enough of this endless madness. I may surrender to heavy drinking.
Why does this graph
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/ecomomistgraphic-9.png
Stop in about 1990? Where is the following 18 or so years?
@dorlomin (17:23:42) :
There are several records of adjusted temperature data for Darwin station in GHCN data set. The earliest or “zero record” stops at 1991. From the initial post with my emphasis:
“Intrigued by the curious shape of the AVERAGE of the homogenized Darwin RECORDS, I then went to see how they had homogenized EACH of the INDIVIDUAL STATION RECORDS. What made up that strange average shown in Fig. 7? I started at ZERO with the EARLIEST RECORD.”
dorlomin (17:23:42) :
Still think that graph shows a big adjustment in 1941?
djrabbit (22:18:03) :
All of which is to say, Mr. Watts, that you were smacked down by The Economist itself, not by a single journalist.
Mr. Watts was smacked down and by the Economist itself? I don’t think that happened, djrabbit. Are you sure you read anything Anonymous wrote? I read it all by Anonymous, but didn’t see that. Also “sparkleby” took credit for the critique in the comments, though I didn’t read all of what sparkleby said there.
I thought the Economist did a better job of engaging Willis’ science by way of the Scientific Method, than the ipcc and its elite Climate Scientists have done, certainly in some critical cases where they didn’t engage the Scientific Method at all.
Richard (14:25:35) :
But Willis Eschenbach has answered the criticism.
I’d like to see an answer to Giorgio’s demonstration that the GHCN adjustments, of which Darwin’s is just one item, have a distribution of trends which is almost symmetric, with adjustments almost as frequently trending down as up. Darwin is in the upper trend tail.
dorlomin (10:57:25) :
“I am missing the bit where Willis Eschenback contacted the relevant people at GHCN, Darwin or the Autralian Met Office.”
This may be a fair point, but it cuts both ways. Steve McIntyre, for example, can’t be faulted for any lack of willingness to contact or engage with climate scientists and institutions. Yet climate scientists have been slow to commend him for this; there has even been some suggestion that his approach was unwelcome or in some way inappropriate…
Nick Stokes (22:07:48) :
Roman M. has produced a response to this. I can’t vouch for it myself.
anonymist (23:18:13) :
Nick Stokes (22:07:48) :
Roman M. has produced a response to this. I can’t vouch for it myself.
Yes, it’s a response. But if you read through the comments, I think you’ll see it agreed that it is another way of looking at the same thing, and not a refutation. My version of that is upthread (01:49:34).
I don’t think anyone has posted a link to the Economist’s reply to your reply
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/climate_manipulation_gun_still?page=2
I was very impressed by the Darwin post until I read the Economist counterpoint that “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.”
Of course – I thought – Darwin must be an outlier – maybe the most extreme, so I’ve just checked using the GHCN v2 data available via Realclimate.
I ranked the stations by the average annual difference between raw and adjusted data (sqrt((raw-adjusted)*(raw-adjusted)/years of data)
Darwin is 6th out of c2600, of which about 1440 have some adjustment – Darwin has an average adjustemnt of 1.6 degrees (median 0.3 amongst all adjusted stations) – but another 10 stations have average adjustments of more than 1.5 degrees. Amongst these 10 only 1 – CHUL’MAN RUSSIA – shows upwards adjustment.
The same signature profile of adjustent as Darwin – with the gradually decreasing downweight up to about 1980 – can be clearly seen in the data for Poona, Sulina and Lankaran. The others apart from Chul’man and Haripur all also show heavier downward adjustement in the earlier data series, reducing over time. These are:
JAKOBSHAVN
PRINCE ALBERT A SASK. CANADA
KRASNOVODSK
VESTMANNAEYJAR ICELAND
TANANA
I went to check the economist answer AND same answer Peterson and Vose…
let’s just see if we can make it clear IT’S THE ADJUSTMENTS STUPID
as another paper sums things up
Substantial effort has been devoted to developing improved global temperature datasets from surface observations (Hansen et al. 1999; Jones et al. 1999; Peterson and Vose 1997; Vinnikov et al. 1990; Jones et al. 2001; Folland et al. 2001); rocketsondes (Keckhut et al. 1999); and the microwave sounding unit (MSU) on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) polar-orbiting satellites (Christy et al. 2000). These efforts focus on adjusting, or homogenizing, the data to remove both gradual and abrupt artificial temperature changes that might result from station moves, instrument and procedural changes, and urbanization (in the case of surface observations), or changing orbital configuration, instrument drift, and differences between instruments on different platforms in the case of satellites.
Anyone notices the usual suspects?
BTW taken from this article where, probably a newbie, is too candid on the radiosonde adjustments, think it’s worth reading and then be used to explain WHY data set agree… high temperature pasteurization
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2003)016%3C0224%3ATHOMRT%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
Willis,
An aspect of data capture which has not been commented on is the move to real time computerised temperature collection. Compared to hourly recordings they must also contribute to higher temps. Hourly readings have a high chance of missing the peak which is an appreciable difference especially for the max temp. I have seen up to 1.5C difference between hourly figures and max from continuous measurement.
I have plots of 2 stations in Australia, from Sydney (Observatory Hill) and Newcastle (Nobbys). They are about 100 km apart but Nobbys is on a small peninsula away from the city of Newcastle. Up to about the sixties the diff was always negative. It grew positive during the 60-70’s indicating a change taking place in either data or Sydneys UHI. But also it may coincide with the move to computerisation and real time data.
Nick Stokes (22:07:48) :
Richard (14:25:35) :
But Willis Eschenbach has answered the criticism.
I’d like to see an answer to Giorgio’s demonstration that the GHCN adjustments, of which Darwin’s is just one item, have a distribution of trends which is almost symmetric, with adjustments almost as frequently trending down as up. Darwin is in the upper trend tail
Nick Stokes Giorgo says GHCN Darwin adjustments trends have a normal trend. Thus the negative and the positive should balance each other out. RealClimate says QED end of story. Not so.
This is the claim made of all adjustmenst, homogenisation, pasteurisation of the records.
Bollocks! It only applies if the adjustments are random.
In the case of Darwin – they are not!
Have a look here: The fallacy of the “Giorgio’s demonstration” / argument clearly shows up when you plot the adjustments OVER TIME. A clear trend shows up.
Sorry that was sent in haste. Here is the same thing with spellings corrected and the link to the trends
Nick Stokes (22:07:48) :
Richard (14:25:35) :
But Willis Eschenbach has answered the criticism.
I’d like to see an answer to Giorgio’s demonstration that the GHCN adjustments, of which Darwin’s is just one item, have a distribution of trends which is almost symmetric, with adjustments almost as frequently trending down as up. Darwin is in the upper trend tail
Nick Stokes Giorgo says GHCN Darwin adjustments trends have a normal trend. Thus the negative and the positive should balance each other out. RealClimate says QED end of story. Not so.
This is the claim made of all adjustments, homogenisation, pasteurisation of the records.
Bollocks! It only applies if the adjustments are random.
In the case of Darwin – they are not!
Have a look here: The fallacy of the “Giorgio’s demonstration” / argument clearly shows up when you plot the adjustments OVER TIME. A clear trend shows up.
http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/
Corection “have a normal distribution”