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.
Seems to me a great big fuss over one sentence in a paper about something else entirely. Maybe some of you should get over yourselves.
What Temperature data ? It’s Temperature anomaly data isn’t it ?
I don’t see any gathering of global temperature data; that would cover a range from about -90 deg C to about +60 deg C, insead of about =/- 0.5 deg C
These people don’t seem to be very robust with their terminology. So where are the International Standards of Temperature Anomaly maintained; and who is responsible for them ?
How come that you never ever see any mention of what Temperature it is exactly that correcponds to zero deg C Temperature Anomaly; so that you know what the true mean global surface temperature as measured by Mother Gaia is.
Rick K says:
June 18, 2010 at 10:04 am
stevengoddard says:
June 18, 2010 at 9:30 am
Maybe the lost goal is buried in Hanksville, bUT, what do I now?
Mac the Knife says: “Consider a raw egg….”
Okay, yes, the problem is all the egg-heads in climate science.
What’s the problem? The consensus of data sets agree. Each effectively peer reviews the other. That confirms they are correct. The debate is over.
Rattus Norvegicus says:
June 18, 2010 at 10:26 am
And just where does Dr. Pielke suggest we get another planet?
Dear Sewer Rat (Rattus Norvegicus)
If you spend your life living in the sewers it is no surprise everything looks like it has turned to sh*t 🙂
Cheers
This is like paying for the same job to 3 people for the same study.
Hmmmmm.
stevengoddard says:
June 18, 2010 at 9:30 am
“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.”
Sure. The USA was robbed of a great victory (and I say that as a Brit). However, I doubt the ref. was anti-American. He just made a bad call. Pity footy doesn’t allow instant review of video footage, as is done even in rugby these days.
The video footage was an utterly accurate representation of the raw data, and showed that the pushing, shoving and holding was done by the opposition. However, we are stuck forever with the decision and the powers that be would never back down on that. It’s a matter of hubris and the desire to control.
Hmm. Now why does that sound familiar…
Die Zauberflotist,
I hope that comment was parody. If not, you sound about as scientific as a Scientologist.
Karma, Pf-f-ft.
I got your karma right here.
Rod said “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?”
Sure looks like an old deer carcass, good eyes; the station is no joke, that’s the way it is or was, part of the “science is robust”.
Die Zauberflotist
One of the main things the US uses energy for is to provide jobs and food for much of the rest of the world. China and India used to be starving before they started selling products into western consumer markets.
What on earth does that have to do with football? Your thought process is severely flawed at many levels.
Smokey@June 18, 2010 at 4:58 pm, easy….easy. 😉
Thanks, Mike H, but I’m not quite finished responding to the haters:
stevengoddard says at 1:34 pm:
Truly shameful that a referee would use his hatred of one country to justify cheating in order to allow another country to win.
And it doesn’t say much for anyone who proclaims that it is deserved in the name of ‘climate justice,’ whatever the hell that is. It certainly isn’t science.
Die Zauberflotist:
You would be happy if a third of American citizens were living in shacks with no access to electricity?
Shame on you American people for providing for your citizens! We demand that you cut off power to half your citizens, then you will be rated well along with the nations that allow their people to starve.
If you allow your people to starve, karma (in the guise of a referee) will not get your team at the world cup.
My question to all of this environmental wacko-ism and non-believers:
If all of the data is wrong and our activities have nothing to do with Global Warming, then why don’t we simply follow the rule of return the area to the manner it was prior to use? Care of resources to include earth, wind, water, and fire is a basic human requirement. Why can’t we just do this and forget about the back and forth on the data?
sustaintolive,
Please stop it, you’re scaring me.
since when is it socially unjust that Americans live in a Nation that has a lot of natural benefits that we work our asses off to give to the rest of the world.
Do you know how many trillions of US tax payers money have been given to third world countries? Do you know how many sewers and bathrooms and homes have been built in Third world countries by Americans from American tax payer money?
Please, I feel sorry for poeple in other countries but don’t tell me that there is social insjustice. I have been working hard since I was 13.
You want to talk social insjustice why don’t you talk to George Soros and ask him to give over some of his Billions, Why don’t you talk to Pachauri and tell him to give over some of the money he has illegally gained as the head of the IPCC which has lied cheated and stolen money from several governments of the world. Why don’t you talk to the corrupt governments that keep their people poor rather than sharing their wealth. Like the Somali Government. Or perhaps the idiots in Haiti who agreed to abide by the WTO treaty with the UN and through the Codex Alementarius forces tons of food sent to Haiti by the US to sit on docks and rot while families starve and die.
Rich Americans and social injustice my gluteus maximus.
Now, getting back to the topic at hand.
So many people seem surprised over the behavior in this paper and the dozens if not hundreds of others that are full of lies, deceit, trickery and really bad science.
But why do they continue to push it?
Because of Cap and Trade and greed. These scientists know that if they keep pushing this agenda long enough and if cap and trade goes through, they are on easy cushy street.
They have Gore, Pachauri, Soros and other pushing them to continue their agenda because they want the money from Cap and Trade. Scientists like Mann and Briffa and Jones are way to deeep into this to back out now. This is a conspiracy that would make Hollywood cream their jeans, but everyone turns a blind eye to the truth while idiots like Leonardo DiCaprio take their cues from Gore and try to get the young to be swayed by his hollywood charm.
Gore isn’t worried about the oceans rising, if he was he wouldn’t have just spent 30million for a house on the Beach in Southern California. He doesn’t care about polar bears other than he sees them as a money making tool for his 2 carbon trading firms.
Dere’s smoke commin’ out da machine (agw)!
The Fix Is In: The Showbiz Manipulations of the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and NASCAR by Brian Tuohy
http://www.amazon.com/Fix-Showbiz-Manipulations-NFL-NASCAR/dp/1932595813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276925097&sr=1-1
E.g., “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”?
Steve Goddard; “China and India used to be starving before they started selling products into the western consumer markets”.That’s right,they managed to starve their way to a combined population of two billion. 😉
SM says:
June 18, 2010 at 8:02 am
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
Yeah, declaring someone a conspiracy nut or on a “witch hunt” like Joe McCarthy is a very good way to marginalize anyone who stumbles across the truth behind the wide spread propaganda.
For example here is the USDA and FDA truth that has been hidden from the public:
Lies and deception: How the FDA does not protect your best interests
The Festering Fraud Behind Food Safety Reform
History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job
Anyone who tries to make this public is labeled as a hysterical conspiracy nut, yet the food companies have donated millions to the campaign chests of congressman
…Quite a coincidence that the woman buried in that grave in Hanksville UT, died exactly
30 years on the day before the WC referee Koman Coulibaly was born [ and he most probably wrongly disallowed a US goal…] and that the date is JULY 4…The Devil is always in the details…just ask Carl-Henrik Svanberg…
What does it say about the mindset of Nature’s reviewers that they let this blooper through?
What other, less blatant, bloopers have they waved through?