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 (14:38:53) :
Richard, read the comments on that thread. You’ll see that there’s no claim that Giorgio’s result is a fallacy. Both approaches show that the average effect of adjustment is a mean rise of about 0,0175 C/decade (GG’s figure). The max slope of Romanm’s curve is about 0.023C/dec. Noticeable, but nothing like Willis’ figure for Darwin, which is in the tail of the distribution.
dorlomin (10:57:25), you raise an interesting question.
I made no attempt to contact them. Science is built on and depends on transparency. I am tired of being turned down, or pointed in the wrong direction, or put off for another day, or flat out lied to when I ask climate scientists to live up to that requirement. See my story here. So instead, I analyze the scientist’s results to see if they contain errors.
An international and respected news magazine such as the Economist, however, has a long standing and well-respected requirement to verify its facts. As such, accusing me in public of being a liar, without contacting me, is a breach of journalistic ethics. People believe what they read in The Economist, because they believe that The Economist journalists have checked their story and made sure it is true.
But in my case, The Economist journalist did not check their story. They simply lied about what I have said and done. That is unconscionable and despicable.
PS – Why would I contact the Australians or the met office folks in Darwin? My article said nothing about what they’ve done to the Darwin record, that’s a whole other subject entirely.
Excuse the length of this post, but perhaps the suggestion will be of value going forward.
During MIT’s “The Great ClimateGate Debate” (http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730) Lindzen said he was very surprised about the recent interest in science by the general public, and even named Watt himself and his temprature station project.
I think that with projects like Watt’s ground station inventory, McIntyre and McKitrick’s double checking of fishy peer reviewed work, Willis, RomanM and others double checking the raw temperature data, I think it is clear that amateur climate science has reached a new maturity that calls for a formal pro-am collaboration forum — a “Pro-Am Climate Science Institute”.
For those who think this is a radical idea it is not new and below are examples from two sciences where I know there is extensive and valuable pro-am collaboration. It is an obvious solution for those sciences that study parts of the natural world where the sheer volume and/or vast geographic distribution is just too great for professionals to do alone. Climate science is an area where this is the case. The opportunities from just the above projects have enough work to keep an army of volunteer amateurs involved indefinitely, along with new projects (like perhaps establishing a network of amateur temperature instruments).
Having a formal pro-am collaboration forum will also help neutralize critics that ignore people like the Watt himself by giving volunteers credibility as they contributing as equals. Jones wanted to “redefine what peer-reviwed literature was” (e-mail 1089318616.txt) so perhaps we can do it for him (he seems a bit busy right now) A pro-am forum also helps legitimate scientists in the field (ie the non-warmists) to tap into an army of helpers when needed. And probably it will bring many other benefits. No doubt the idea will be scoffed at by the warmists but I think those who are already doing this level of pro-am work should consider forging forward with this as over time it will be accepted.
————————————————–
Amateur astronomers have many, many formal pro-am collaboration relationships and organizations that are valued and embrased by professionals. Amateurs have even detected planets oribiting other stars, a feat that has only just becaome possible for professionals a decade or so ago. Here’s are a few examples of the sophisticated level of collaboration taking place, although in the early years it was tough going as pros were reluctant partners, but now about 5 years later its 180 degree turnaround.
Pro-Am collaboration to unveil the atmosphere of Venus
http://www.europlanet-eu.org/demo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=41
Results from an ongoing collaboration between amateur astronomers and the European Space Agency to support the Venus Express mission will be presented at the European Planetary Science Congress in Potsdam on Wednesday 22nd August. Silvia Kowollik, from the Zollern-Alb Observatory in Germany and one of the participants in the project, said, “This is the first time there’s been a European collaboration between amateur astronomers and scientists. In the United States, they have a long tradition and a lot of experience in this kind of work. In Europe we are just starting.” “There have been huge advances in relatively cheaply available equipment, which means that amateurs can take images in wavelengths from infrared through to ultraviolet with impressive accuracy and content. These amateur observations are the last link in a chain that starts with Venus Express and continues with the professional ground-based activities. When joined together, all these observations will all help to peel back the atmosphere of Venus and reveal her mysteries.”
Amateur Discovers Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglow
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3307961.html?page=1&c=y
Last July 25th Berto Monard of Pretoria, South Africa, became the first amateur astronomer to discover a gamma-ray burst’s fading visual afterglow. Dubbed GRB 030725, the burst was first spotted by the NASA/Massachusetts Institute of Technology High Energy Transient Explorer-2 (HETE-2) spacecraft, which immediately relayed its approximate coordinates to astronomers worldwide.
Gamma-Ray Bursts monitored by Amateurs
http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/astronomy-topics/gamma-ray-bursts.html
The afterglow starts to fade right away, so the earlier you catch the explosion, the more likely you are to be able to photograph the afterglow. Astronomers have sent x-ray telescopes into orbit to scan the sky, to catch the first x-ray afterglow of a burst as soon as possible. The latest of these satellites, called Swift, has been making a slew of discoveries since its launch in November 2004. True to its name, the Swift satellite instantly dispatches e-mail alerts to amateur and professional astronomers around the world. Many observers alerted by Swift will be on the wrong side of the world or under cloudy skies, but a few have a chance to catch the visible afterglow. As there are many more amateur than professional astronomers, and many have the kinds of telescopes and CCD cameras needed to measure the fading brilliance of a gamma-ray burst, the odds are that the discovery will be made by an amateur. As described in our film, the amateur astronomer Michael Koppelman captured just such an image, and it turned out to be one of the most distant gamma-ray bursts ever observed—its distance a staggering 11 billion light years. One day when the different kinds of gamma-ray bursts are better understood, it is likely that the amateur astronomy community will have played a significant part in exposing the secrets of these violent events.
Astronomers Launch Pro-Am “Registry” (check out the amateur’s observatory)
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3309186.html?page=1&c=y
The past decade has seen an explosion in the number of backyard observers using high-end equipment and sophisticated software to record faint asteroids, discover supernovae, and even detect extrasolar planets. So it’s not surprising that many accomplished amateurs yearn to contribute directly to scientific research. Among the dozens of practicing astronomers attending the AAS special session was Alan Harris (Space Science Institute), who points out that amateur observers have determined about a third of the 1,500 known rotation periods for asteroids. “Amateurs are always thanking us for the interest we professionals show in their work, but I think it’s going in the wrong direction,” Harris comments. “It’s we who should be thanking them for their involvement.”
—————————————————
Another example is in ornithology
Association of Field Ornithologists
http://www.afonet.org/about/index.html
The Association of Field Ornithologists (AFO) is a membership organization dedicated to the study and conservation of birds and their natural habitats. The AFO prides itself as serving as a bridge between the professional and the amateur ornithologist. The organization’s membership and governing council consist of both amateur and professional ornithologists, in recognition of the contributions that both make to ornithology.
[snip – no name calling. Stick to facts. ~dbs, moderator.]
Thinking quickly hypocrite is the wrong word. Sloppy researcher and fast with the accusations.
Exactly how was figure 8 generated?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg?w=510&h=489
What files, including full URL were used for the data?
If transparency from climate scientists is expected then surely it is also expected from the skeptics.
MindBuilder (16:07:02) :
If transparency from climate scientists is expected … ???
The fact that there is an “if” in that sentence is very discouraging. It is absolutely expected that climate scientists will reveal their data and methods, as it is in all parts of science. This is neither novel nor restricted to a particular branch of science. It is fundamental to science itself.
In the current case, I have already given the names and locations of the files in the other thread. However, despite your accusatory tone, I’m happy to give them again.
The files are from the GHCN website. The current versions are available at
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/
They are named
v2.mean.Z
and
v2.mean_adj.Z
To make Figure 8, I extracted the Darwin Zero record from the adjusted and the unadjusted files, and subtracted one from the other.
w.
-12.465882° 130.842310°
Location of pre 1942 post office.
judging from this photo
http://www.territorystories.nt.gov.au/handle/10070/35756
PO lies between esplaenade and mitchell street.
-12.423888° 130.892511°
Location (probable) of screen at airport 1941 to end.
Shows reasonable placing and not near main runway 270 metres from taxiway.
Use google earth to view locations
I do hope you will offer a response to the Economist’s counter response:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/climate_manipulation_gun_still
Even with a Ph.D. in physics, it is still too difficult (or tedious) to figure these things out for myself. I am grateful for the work you do, but have been frustrated by a lack of honest debates between qualified parties. I’d pay good money for a ring-side seat to McIntyre vs. Mann, but that isn’t going to happen.
The economist seems willing to engage in such a debate by posting a response to your response. I would love to see this play out further. I learned a great deal watching the old Firing Line debates on PBS. I hope something similar might play out here.
Dr. P (16:28:18) :
I have written a reply to The Economist which will appear very soon here on WUWT. Thanks for the encouragement.
w.
Willis Eschenbach (01:34:54)
Great! I am looking forward to it.
Willis,
Making the point that weather stations are important for aviation and that aviation sources can be of help, here is a 2006 air photo of the SE part of Darwin airport, annotated to show a station shift of unknown date, of 800 m. (Other lats and longs put the temp station as the white dot about 100m to the N-E of the end of the green arrow, which is where it plots on the current Google Earth photo. But I do not know the date that these lats and longs were officially recorded – this was their position in April 2007 BOM records, updated ???).
I’m trying to get more info on station shifts. This photo is fact that at least one happened. It less less clear whether different locations needed, or had, adjustment, and if so, why, when and in which sense.
Will keep you posted. Happy Christmas Geoff.
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii14/sherro_2008/DarwinAirportpost2006a.jpg?t=1261621917