First the article at issue:
How best to log local temperatures?
Peter A. Stott1 & Peter W. Thorne2
Abstract
The climate community must work together to create a single, clean, comprehensive and open repository of detailed temperature data, say Peter A. Stott and Peter W. Thorne.
Summary
- Sub-daily, kilometre-scale temperature records are needed to monitor and predict local impacts of climate change.
- Climatologists need access to local weather information currently protected for commercial use.
- Records need to be corrected and cross
Dr. Peilke writes:
An article has appeared in Nature on May 13 2010 titled
Peter A. Stott and Peter W. Thorne, 2010: How best to log local temperatures? Nature. doi:10.1038/465158a, page 158 [thanks to Joe Daleo for alterting us to this]
which perpetuates the myth that the surface temperature data sets are independent from each other.
The authors know better but have decided to mislead the Editors and readers of Nature.
They write
“In the late twentieth century scientists were faced with a very basic question: is global climate changing? They stepped up to that challenge by establishing three independent data sets of monthly global average temperatures. Those data sets, despite using different source data and methods of analysis, all agree that the world has warmed by about 0.75 °C since the start of the twentieth century (specifically, the three estimates are 0.80, 0.74 and 0.78 °C from 1901–2009).”
This is deliberately erroneous as one of the authors of this article (Peter Thorne) is an author of a CCSP report with a different conclusion. With just limited exceptions, the surface temperature data sets do not use different sources of data and are, therefore, not independent.
As I wrote in one of my posts
In the report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1” [a report in which Peter Thorne is one of the authors] on page 32 it is written [text from the CCSP report is in italics]
“The global surface air temperature data sets used in this report are to a large extent based on data readily exchanged internationally, e.g., through CLIMAT reports and the WMO publication Monthly Climatic Data for the World. Commercial and other considerations prevent a fuller exchange, though the United States may be better represented than many other areas. In this report, we present three global surface climate records, created from available data by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [GISS], NOAA National Climatic Data Center [NCDC], and the cooperative project of the U.K. Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit [CRU]of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v).”
These three analyses are led by Tom Karl (NCDC), Jim Hansen (GISS) and Phil Jones (CRU).
The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups. They are not “completely independent”. This is further explained on page 48 of the CCSP report where it is written with respect to the surface temperature data (as well as the other temperature data sets) that
“The data sets are distinguished from one another by differences in the details of their construction.”
On page 50 it is written
“Currently, there are three main groups creating global analyses of surface temperature (see Table 3.1), differing in the choice of available data that are utilized as well as the manner in which these data are synthesized.”
and
“Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence.”
The chapter then states on page 51 that
“While there are fundamental differences in the methodology used to create the surface data sets, the differing techniques with the same data produce almost the same results (Vose et al., 2005a). The small differences in deductions about climate change derived from the surface data sets are likely to be due mostly to differences in construction methodology and global averaging procedures.”
and thus, to no surprise, it is concluded that
“Examination of the three global surface temperature anomaly time series (TS) from 1958 to the present shown in Figure 3.1 reveals that the three time series have a very high level of agreement.”
Moreover, as we reported in our paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
“The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95% of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003).”
Peter Stott and Peter Thorne have deliberately misled the readership of Nature in order to give the impression that three data analyses corroborate their analyzed trends, while in reality the three surface temperature data sets are closely related.
Then we have these characters crying into their beer because the public is getting increasingly sceptical.
Not just an unfortunate turn of phrase. A deliberate porky!
Last paragraph. “Corroborate” rather than “collaborate” intended?
Dr Pielke says:
“With just limited exceptions, the surface temperature data sets do not use different sources of data and are, therefore, not independent.”
But it is worse than that!
The surface temperature data sets select from the same sources of data, mostly from met. stations. They differ in that they use different selection criteria and different methods to deterine a “global average” from THE SAME available data.
There are no “limited exceptions”: there are are only different selection criteria.
Richard
Well! GEE! 5% is Possibly independent! 😉 Also we know that 5% certainty is “Most Likely” and “Unprecedented” along with Robust! Two wrongs do not make a roght but in Climatology three or more wrongs are “Robust and Unequivocal” certainty!
I determined many months ago, with the help of WUWT and other sites, that the advocates of agw were lying to me. Lie to me once shame on you, lie to me twice shame on me. I no longer believe a single word they say. If they tell me the sun came up this morning, Ill still look out the window to see for myself!
“Deliberately erroneous.” That’s pretty strong language for the academic community. In common vernacular: they lied (and know it).
Does anyone know if Nature has replied to this claim?
Independent data is not the same as independent analysis.
I think you mean “corroborate” instead of “collaborate” in the last paragraph. Indeed, if they had given the impression that the three data sets were a collaborative work, they would have been speaking truthfully.
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – Science and Technology Committee
PROFESSOR EDWARD ACTON AND PROFESSOR PHIL JONES
1 MARCH 2010
Professor Jones: The simple answer is yes, most of the same basic data are available in the United States in something called the Global Historical Climatology Network. They have been downloadable there for a number of years so people have been able to take the data, do whatever method of assessment of the quality of the data and derive their own gridded product and compare that with other workers. There are two groups in America that we compare with and there are also two additional groups, one in Russia and one in Japan, that also produce similar records to ourselves and they all show pretty much the same sort of course of instrumental temperature change since the nineteenth century compared to today.
Q80 Ian Stewart: Can I ask you then just to explain—some of us are not scientists on this Committee—how it could be verified? Was that implicit in what you have just told us?
Professor Jones: That was implicit in what I told you because we are all working independently so we may be using a lot of common data but the way of going from the raw data to a derived product of gridded temperatures and then the average for the hemisphere and the globe is totally independent between the different groups.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/38711.htm
For the love of me, don’t these people know that everything they say and do, EVERYTHING, will be checked and checked and checked again by the many seekers of truth permeating the blogosphere.
Could they be so stupid? Don’t answer that.
“Peter Stott and Peter Thorne have deliberately misled the readership of Nature in order to give the impression that three data analyses collaborate their analyzed trends,”
I think Pielke Pere means ‘corroborate’ rather than ‘collaborate’.
I’ve collected data. Raw is a relative term. First, the machine collecting the data off the head of my subject averaged it over time and subtracted noise (it is no longer raw). Fortunately the signal the subject was listening to made the auditory pathway fire in metronome fashion so the machine could determine its response from the otherwise noisy brain signals.
What I got was a tracing. From there I had to place the curser on the highest point of each synaptic peak and hand record the number onto my chart (further from raw). Then I had to hand enter that data into a computer. The data was printed out and cross checked with my charts for transcription errors (checking less raw data against more raw data but none of it is absolutely raw anymore). The floppies were then sent to the statistician for analysis (ANOVA). What I got back was as far from raw data as you can get. And my study was a very clean straightforward piece of work.
Define raw data and you will begin to see just how “not raw” the raw data is, let alone the 3 interpretations of it.
Our temperature data is likely so collected. Some may still be handcharted, and then transcribed into a data base. Other data may be automatically recorded. How they marry the two data bases is a mystery. But somebody has to come up with a data set that is then used or picked through by various folks. But to say that the data is raw is a relative term.
Basil, yes, it seems that Roger Pielke is becoming more outspoken in his criticism.
“Peter Stott and Peter Thorne have deliberately misled the readership of Nature”
This is quite a serious allegation, but a valid one. Congratulations to Pielke for speaking out.
Another way in which Stott and Thorne deliberately try to mislead readers is by giving the false impression that over 6000 stations are used. In fact, we all know (and so do Stott and Thorne) that the number of stations actually used has dropped dramatically from around 6000 to around 1000 (the GISS graph on this is impossible to read) in the last 20 years, another reason why the graph is so unreliable.
It remains very puzzling the absence of wide spread public outcry demanding to stop public funding of the organizations like NASA GISS, Met Office Hadley Centre, CRU of U. East Anglia as well as individual researchers like M.Mann of PSU. It seems that a layman, typically referred to in the Real Climate blog as an uneducated troll by those who receive handouts from his hans, indeed doesn’t have even an approximate idea of hundreds of millions of dollars spent to maintain this fraudulent activity that brings salaries exceeding 3 times of the average, tenured positions, large pensions, and, finally, publications, fame, and feeling of great importance to those participants. In time of economic hardship, when more than 10% are unemployed, we all seemingly are ok with wasting huge amount of our tax money to pay to the academic fellas who either are incompetent or lie. I believe that academic freedom that of so great concern to Gavin et.al. should be paid by the private sources, like Gates, Bono, Sting etc.
Who cares about it?!
Global Warming is over since 1998 and, politically, died on November 19th 2009, its funeral was held at the city of Copenhagen last december.
It’s over, kaput, finito, tot, acabado…, just forget it!, if you don’t want to be considered a fool.
The big news here, as I stated many times, is that they agree these local temp readings are only “Sub-daily, kilometre-scale” in precision. I have posted many times that the accuracy of these readings deteriorate over time and distance. Therefore any regional or global derived numbers have enormous error bars (on the order of 5°C I estimate).
That means there is no way to use these measurements to detect any global changes below a degree.
Have you seen this on the UK MSN home page!!
http://him.uk.msn.com/in-the-know/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=152130685&page=5
I doubt anyone will be surprised. This is typical in climate science. It’s an offshoot of confirmation bias in that subjects are rarely studied closely. Since that answer is already assumed, it leads to statements and conclusions that do not match reality.
I expect Nature to … do absolutely nothing. 🙁
in darwin australia it’s the same ,the biggest scam of all time and we have kevin rudd who believes in this crap. thank christ not all of us believe in globle warming. what we should be doing is cleaning up the water soil and air no more grants to scientists please
I have to agree with John McGuire above. I am forced into the unpleasant position of doubting anything AGW proponents say.
Worse, I’m seeing hints that in other fields – such as medicine and biology and ecology – the scent of dishonesty and agenda-driven “truth” is wafting through the air.
This puts me in the unenviable position of appearing to be a bit of a conspiracy nut.
Swell.
The source raw data is largely the same for everybody (though not entirely the same), so nobody should claim otherwise. So I’d agree that sentence is poorly worded. But looking over the rest of the article, it is very well worth reading, as it gives you a good sense of where we are, what some of the challenges are, and where we might go.
The methods of analysis are quite different from each other, so they are correct on that count. Recently several bloggers have added their own different methods of analysis as well, and gotten pretty much the same results.
It really shouldn’t be in any way surprising that they all use largely the same source data, though. What do you expect – for them to divide up the global stations, and say NOAA and GISS can only use these stations, and CRU can only use those stations? That doesn’t really make any sense. Of course the source data are going to overlap.
Has this critique been sent to Nature? Dr. Pielke has standing to submit and he should do so.
A lot has changed in the last year, junk science like this can an should be challenged at its source.
I’ve enjoyed this site since I found it following Climategate.
Prior to the internet, rebuttals like this would have been buried in an unread (by the public at large, anyway) journal if it were allowed to be published at all, while the mainstream press would have trumpeted the findings of the original article. Now, Googling the name of the authors will soon bring up not only their article but also the claims (with links to the evidence) that the authors made “deliberately erroneous” claims in their article. Makes it a lot harder to propagate the propaganda successfully, doesn’t it?
And are those deer antlers on top of that weather station in the picture? And possibly the rib cage as well? This is a joke, right? Not a real station? Over a gravestone?
[snip]
[Enough ranting that everyone else is dishonest. ~dbs, mod.]