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.
Sorry carroteater, but when I was doing research, the raw data in my case referred to only the averaged inkpen copier tracings spit out by the machine, and the hand entered peak measurement worksheets. Once entered into the computer, it was no longer raw data but a computer file of the raw data. We understood that we were required to maintain the raw data in its original condition, safe and sound, but if the computer file became corrupted, no sin. I still have carbon copies of the raw data and it has been decades since I collected that raw data. I can easily recreate a computer file from it, but if a researcher wanted to see the raw data, he/she would not get a computer file, but high quality copies of the tracings and worksheets. Another researcher repeated my study with 9 new subjects. Her raw data is as safe and secure as mine.
That raw temperature data appears to have been eaten by the lab cat or dog, (or so we have read from the emails) speaks of very poor lab research methods and requirements at the most basic ground level. Further, to describe the current data as raw also speaks of poorly understood basic research methodology and the transformation of raw data to other kinds of data. That you speak of such data files as “raw” gives me pause.
Rattus Norvegicus says:
June 18, 2010 at 10:26 am
And just where does Dr. Pielke suggest we get another planet?
Any of the others will do – Mars, Jupiter, Neptune. They have zero population growth, no viable economies, no improvement/evolution of individual lives through technological advancement. They are all perfect environmentalist utopias.
From the reference: How best to log local temperatures?
Quote from summary: Sub-daily, kilometre-scale temperature records are needed to monitor and predict local impacts of climate change.
More than anything else, the italicized remark above points out everything that’s wrong with the whole: It starts out with a preconceived notion that:
[A] There’s so-called ‘climate change’
[B] It’s causes by humans
[C] Something can be done to remedy all of that
It fairly reeks of hubris.
Why don’t they just admit that the whole idea is defunct, set aside ALL of the current results, do a COMPLETE reevaluation of all data sets, review ALL the weather stations (Stephenson screens and other sensors) as to siting, calibration, types of sensors, etc., and disallow the use of ‘selected’ sites and instead use ALL the available sites which fall within the placement criteria?
But then I woke up …
stevengoddard says:
June 18, 2010 at 9:30 am
Agree
Errony is the new irony.
Nature duped with claim of independent surface temp data sets
I suspect Mike!
stevengoddard says:
June 18, 2010 at 9:30 am
Yeah I though after the 4th quarter of the NBA finals game 7 last night officiating could not be worse. I was wrong!
Quinn the Eskimo says:
June 18, 2010 at 9:37 am
Then…call the cavalry!
@carroteater “It really shouldn’t be in any way surprising that they all use largely the same source data, though. What do you expect –”
It could just be me, but it seems the overwhelming response here is that they’d expect a little honesty regarding the data. I commend Dr. Peilke for calling them out. To restore credibility to the “science”, it will take many more people participating in calling out the systemic misinformation campaign from the climatology branch of the sciences.
On Raw Data….. And What Raw Data Is and Is Not.
Consider a raw egg. A freshly opened whole egg dropped into a bowl is analogous to a freshly recorded (hand written or auto logged) data point. If the oblate liquid yellow egg yolk is intact and surrounded by the transparent, gelatinous egg white, we can examine it and easily verify that it is in the original raw condition and unaltered.
If the egg has been individually scrambled, fried, sauteed, poached, beaten, mixed with other ingredients, or otherwise ‘adjusted’ to suit some personal desire, it is no longer a raw egg. If it is mixed with other raw eggs and homogenized for single serving use (averaging), they are no longer raw eggs.
Similarly, if data has been scrambled, averaged, mixed with other ingredients, cooked, or otherwise ‘adjusted’ to suit some personal taste, it is no longer raw data.
Bottom line: Cooked data is not raw data and, for analytical replication and verification purposes, it is completely unpalatable.
Zeke the Sneak:
…They are all perfect environmentalist utopias
This is it!, let’s see how it looks within a few years. You’ll be emigrating like those Antarctica penguins. Anyway, we’ll welcome all of you except for the green ones.
….,believe me, temperatures will be the last thing you will ever, ever, think about. BTW, you already ate today, didn’t you?
If you never get ill you’ll never appreciate health. That is why God send us the Al Gores, the Hansens, all those little devils, all those idiots, to spoil everything. It’s the earth’s renewal by the hard way.
Enneagram says:
June 18, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Zeke the Sneak:
…They are all perfect environmentalist utopias
This is it!, let’s see how it looks within a few years. You’ll be emigrating like those Antarctica penguins. Anyway, we’ll welcome all of you except for the green ones.
It can’t hurt to have one’s passport updated. And thank you very much 🙂
But you will get green ones in Peru. They always move on to a new state after they ruin their own. See “Californians living in Washington State!”
Rod:
Peripheral to the point of the article, but since you asked…. Yes, it’s a real weatherstation. The marker reads “Adelia W ….Wife of Jess…Baldwin…Sept 23, 1888….July 4, 1940. A search of the LDS genealogical record yields an Adelia Winget married to Jesse Clarke Baldwin, b. 9/23/1888 d. 7/4/1940. Adelia appears to have been a lifelong Utah resident.
The curator of this station has accepted the responsibility of running it for many years. I had a conversation at the local BLM office while trying to locate the station that left me with the impression that she is a well known and respected member of the community–not likely someone who would raid the cemetery for a souvenir. So I assume that Adelia was someone special to her, and I’m inclined to think that she is actually interred there.
Ms. XXXX wasn’t home when I visited, so I didn’t get to talk to her. A shame; I’m finding a lot of human interest stories in talking to the COOP volunteers.
This was up at Wikipedia for a while this morning, before it was taken down. An accurate assessment of the abomination which occurred this morning in South Africa.
http://www.blogcdn.com/soccer.fanhouse.com/media/2010/06/screen-shot-2010-06-18-at-12.10.50-pm.png
Enneagram says:
June 18, 2010 at 7:29 am
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.
Acabado. Now there is a word we Americans would be well advised to take into our lexicon, since the Administration is so madly in love with the green policies that Spainhas implemented.
They may have independent selection criteria, but they all come from the same general data.
Have the Big 3 sufficiently justified thier selection bias?
Would be an interesting compare.
stevengoddard says:
June 18, 2010 at 9:30 am
“Yeah I though after the 4th quarter of the NBA finals game 7 last night officiating could not be worse. I was wrong!”
Yes, but the Ron Artest post-game interview is one for the ages.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Ron-Artest-is-the-undisputed-king-of-the-postgam?urn=nba,249382
stevengoddard “I have grave concerns about the refereeing at the World Cup. The US was literally ripped off of a win this morning by a referee who was either incompetent or anti-American.”
Steven,
With only 5% of the global population, the U.S. consumes 25% of the world’s energy. According to the NRDC, Americans are 94.7% more comfortable than their international counterparts. Given this degree of social and climate injustice, you cannot expect the calls to go the U.S.’s way at The World Cup. Sorry, it’s called karma.
peace,
dz
Clearly Messrs Stott & Thorne are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, otherwise they would not have tried to spin yet another climate fairytale to try and fool the public into thinking that the raw data-sets used to produce the three different came from different sources.
Time these guys wised up and realised the public are a tad sharper than that, and any climate publication, peer reviewed or not, will come under the spotlight. Time to pull the plug on the hypothesis of CAGW, it’s well past its sell-by date.
Very interest, but what’s CCSP?
‘Fraid not. Check out the definitive Surface Stations report (thanks to Anthony) at
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=2665.
One would hope that NCDC will officially archive the surfacestations record, and then update it every 10 years or so with new photos.
So how did a COOP station end up over a gravesite??
So nobody noticed the antlers? Is this a new requirement for stations?
Brent in Calgary
The headstone looks pretty new — perhaps the long-time volunteer observer asked to be buried under his station?
Anyway, Anthony’s interesting study of latex vs oil-based paint characteristics is not too relevant here, since this isn’t much paint of either kind!