Like me, Dr. Pielke was queried for this article in the Economist, and like me, he responded. Like Dr. Pielke, I documented some of the responses that were not printed in the Economist here. Additionally, Dr. Pielke documents below how the leader of the new surfacetemperatures.org effort for the UK Met Office, Peter Thorn, didn’t bother to invite him to a recent special conference on the issue as well as some previously documented instances of attempting to “suppress other viewpoints”. Not a good start.
Comments On The Ecomonist Article “Green View: Could Temperature Be Less Intemperate?”
Guest post by Roger Pielke Sr.
I was queried on Monday of this week by the Economist regarding the September Exeter meeting regarding the project surfacetemperatures.org which I posted on in
My comment to the Economist when asked
I wondered what you thought of the surfacetemperatures.org project/plan of action. I know you objected to some of what Peters Thorne and Stott said in their piece in nature about current surface temperature records, but I wondered what you thought of their ideas for making things better in the future.
My response was
In terms of monitoring global warming, the successful installation of an upper ocean heat monitoring system which has been in place since earlier this decade (Argo as complemented with satellite measurements of the ocean) supersedes the need to use the surface air temperature data as the primary metric for this purpose [as I summarize in my article
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf].
We can obtain a much more robust measure of global warming (and cooling) by monitoring the upper ocean heat changes.
In terms of improving the surface temperature data (which is, of course, needed for a variety of other purposes such as agriculture, recreation, etc), the goal to improve the access and audit of the data is commendable.
However, they seem to be ignoring known (i.e peer reviewed published) problems with this data. There is, for example, a need to photograph the sites and to seek past photos of these locations in order to see how well they are sited.
They also appear not to be considering other issues that we raised in the papers that I posted on this morning. This includes the warm bias we have found in the minimum land surface temperatures that are used in their construction of a land average temperature trend, and the need to include the effect of concurrent surface air, water vapor trends on the surface air heat (i.e. its moist enthalpy).
There are also issues with the “homogenization” of the data which they use to create grid area averages. When poor- and well-site locations are blended together, for instance, the result appears to be biasing the results [a subject we will be presenting in a paper that is almost complete]. The quantitative steps in their homogenization adjustment needs further scrutiny and it is not clear they will be doing this.
Please let me know if you need further feedback.
Best Regards
The article has now appeared [August 25 2010]
Green View: Could Temperature Be Less Intemperate?
and my response to it is given below.
Thank you for sending. With respect to adding comments on their weblog surfacetemperatures.org, Peter Thorne and colleagues already have seen the issues that we have raised in the set of peer reviewed papers that we have published on this topic; e.g. e.g.
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.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
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, 2009: Reply to comment by David E. Parker, Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, and John Kennedy on .Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05105,
doi:10.1029/2008JD010938.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321a.pdf
[and see the reviews of the above Comment/Reply of Parker et al where the referees agreed with our Reply – http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/reply-by-pielke-et-al-to-the-comment-by-parker-et-al-on-our-2007-jgr-paper-unresolved-issues-with-the-assessment-of-multi-decadal-global-land-surface-temperature-trends/.
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2010: Correction to: “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841”, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D1, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655
Indeed, Peter Thorne has a documented history of suppressing other viewpoints as I have documented with e-mails and in a Public Comment; i.e
Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. 88 pp including appendices.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/nr-143.pdf
I agree with Anthony Watts that “[a]pprised of it, he says that while ‘a noble effort, it is a reaction to a series of data transparency blunders rather than a proactive approach to open replication.’”
I would also add, that despite the significant involvement of myself and my colleagues in assessing uncertainties and biases with respect to the land surface temperature record in the peer reviewed literature, we were not invited to the Exeter meeting.
For these reasons, I disagree with your statement
“So, while Dr Thorne and his colleagues try to do something that is both difficult and worthwhile in a way that increases transparency, critics outside the community have to date more or less ignored the opportunity to get involved.”
We have very much been involved and Peter Thorne and his associates continue to fail at being inclusive. This meeting looks like “business as usual.
Best Regards
Roger Sr.
“Peter Thorne and his associates continue to fail at being inclusive”
Same old same old.
When will they ever learn?
Which just goes to show that there’s more than one way to do a whitewash.
I can see why Prof Pielke Snr wasn’t invited to the party, no one wants to be told that their pet project isn’t worthwhile whilst their guest’s is the way to go. The curse of The Ego strikes again!
However, some of what the Prof says later, appears to indicate that this exercise is somewhat of an exercise in coming to a pre-determined conclusion, that everything’s OK, apart from a few little points and they don’t matter?
We can obtain a much more robust measure of global warming (and cooling) by monitoring the upper ocean heat changes.
But I thought the oceans were likely hiding Trenberth’s missing heat. If the oceans can hide away roughly half of the built-up heat that MUST be present from anthropogenic global warming, in some mysterious undetected manner, how can we trust measurements of ocean heat content for anything?
But look at the colours!!!!
The Earth is practically a fireball!!!
What more do you need, to be convinced?
THE COLOURS!!!
The earth is Hot Hot Hot! Don’t tell us anything different! Tszzzzzzzzzz!
I wrote to the project team yesterday with much the same comment(s). Ie. Thorne and Stott is not a good start. The problem for the project is where do they look for team members who will follow the party line and still be moderately acceptable to the rest of the scientific community. Pope? NO, Hansen, Schimdt etc.
This is very worrying. I said yesterday that if this MET office plan is an honest, open, inclusive and genuine attempt to establish scientific truth, whatever this exercise uncovers, then it would be a good thing.
So far it looks like they cannot ignore the backlash from the “climate-gate” email and code release, so they are creating a dog and pony show to re-validate the biased and inaccurate surface temperature record.
Perhaps they will include a way to verify the “trick” used to “hide the decline” which was the divergence between tree-ring proxies and thermometer data in the 1960s. Perhaps they will find a way to explain how and why trees in the 1960s suddenly and mysteriously started reacting to increasing temperatures in a way which is opposite to how they have always reacted in the past?
It is beginning to look very dodgy indeed. It looks like instead of a genuine, honest and open search for truth, that this is actually a defence of the “hockey stick” at any cost instead.
Everything they do must be fully open to public scrutiny and every single area where they fail to employ the scientific method must be exposed.
So they know the answer and just need to phrase the question right.
Or they know what temps they want they just need to homogenise the data now.
Adam Gallon reckons that he …” can see why Prof Pielke Snr wasn’t invited to the party, no one wants to be told that their pet project isn’t worthwhile whilst their guest’s is the way to go.”
But if the cap fits?
Re: Adam Gallon
That’s the risk and why not being more inclusive wastes an opportunity to reduce scepticism. As Pielke Snr says, it looks like BAU and ignores many of the criticisms already levelled against the surface record, and suggestions for improving it like site photos. Newer weather stations are more automated and better connected giving more scope for instrumentation. A webcam could be added so if there are anomalous results, images could be checked. From Stott’s comments regarding the proposal in Nature, it also repeats one of the biggest data errors-
The climate community needs to gather temperature records from around the world — including measurements that are not currently freely available — into one, open database. Those data will then need to be corrected and adjusted in a transparent way, to ensure that the resulting data sets are sound, and to allay any public concerns that scientists could have skewed or ‘spun’ the data.
Why the ‘need’ to correct and adjust the data given that’s where scepticism arises? The project should stick to collecting, maintaining and publishing the raw data, plus site information. If climate scientists and suppliers of ‘value added’ services like GISS or CRU then want to turn raw data into adjusted product, they can but should be expected to justify their processing methods. If the data isn’t raw, then concerns the data’s been ‘spun’ will remain.
True to form: bad to the bone.
we all know how this is going to work out. they will examine a few stations and make a report. in said report it will find a few flaws but will gloss them over as minor issues that bear no cause for concern. they will get paid handsomely and the MSM will have their story to run with while we all try to refute the misinformation. its the same cycle every time.
Just to be clear, when I wrote
“So, while Dr Thorne and his colleagues try to do something that is both difficult and worthwhile in a way that increases transparency, critics outside the community have to date more or less ignored the opportunity to get involved.”
I was not referring to Dr Pielke, who I would see as inside the community; that said, he seems to see it differently.
Re: stephen richards
Easiest way would be to make it more neutral. If the project is essentially a data collection and organising exercise, then it doesn’t need to be managed by climate scientists. Have it run by data managers and database specialists who have more expertise in doing this, especially if it sticks to being a raw data repository. Climate scientists should just be the customers.
Does all this matter little given that the satellite data seems to match the instrument record for the passed couple of decades?
We are more interested in effect than actual causes of climate and science in general.
So, actual physical evidence is fluffed off for theories that can save careers.
Currently I am looking into a new , as yet not considered, source of CET’s variability during the last 350 years. Results are very encouraging.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
There is obvious discrepancy 1700-1720, but here the data on both variables has a degree on uncertainty.
It is a bit of a puzzle why during last 30+ years ( if relevant ! ) CETs are gradually showing delayed and enhanced response, unless of course there is another external factor such as TSI or even CO2.
If there is any doubt as to whether “climate science” or rather the dogma flowing from it is completely religious/belief orientated then here is a perfect example. We have an opportunity to engage in problem solving a vital component, which if correctly done stands to leave little doubt in the results, while also guaranteeing a far broader if not complete acceptance by participating critics. The reluctance to engage, test and evaluate alternative inputs is most certainly probably the greatest scientific “crime”, sufficient to render the one-sided result false. It would not be paranoid for an observer to conclude that the reluctance to include non –partisan participation is indeed part of a wider deception, the motivation of which can only be ascribed as sinister. With respect to the heads/followers of the various faiths, this is exactly the response one would get if one were to request an audience in critical evaluation of that faith. It may be a no-no at the religious level, but there is no place for this at the scientific table.
The thing that strikes me is that these clowns are totally dishonest and corrupt.
In something as simple as surveying the health of the reporting network or collecting the data, these miscreants can not resist some sort of underhanded actions designed to give them some sort of advantage.
I don’t think the Emperor was interested in inviting the child to Court to tell him he was nude, either.
HR says:
August 26, 2010 at 4:32 am
All this matter for the opposite reason: The satellite data should be the compliment of the instrument record, if AGW were to be taking place, not the exact copy of it. In the zeal to adjust and homogenize the surface record, the underpinnings of warming have been falsified.
As I have said before, the folks behind the global warming dog and pony show have zero interest in improving the science. All they seek is compliance. We are in the early stages of a concerted marketing campaign aimed at rehabilitating their image, and destroying anyone that has stood in their way. The Cameron debate fiasco is an exemplar of what is to come. Those that appeared at that conference were vilified. They have no desire whatsoever to discuss anything. Trust them at your peril.
HR says:
August 26, 2010 at 4:32 am
Does all this matter little given that the satellite data seems to match the instrument record for the passed couple of decades?
==============================================
Well maybe HADCRUT isn’t a bad match over the satellite record but the biggest problem is the longer term trend. There is notable concern that temperatures in the 30’s/40’s part of the instrumental record have been incorrectly downwardly adjusted relative to current day temperatures. That is the first and foremost issue to resolve.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with Pielke’s comment:
“In terms of monitoring global warming, the successful installation of an upper ocean heat monitoring system which has been in place since earlier this decade (Argo as complemented with satellite measurements of the ocean) supersedes the need to use the surface air temperature data as the primary metric for this purpose [as I summarize in my article
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf%5D.
We can obtain a much more robust measure of global warming (and cooling) by monitoring the upper ocean heat changes.”
Based on that, it is apparent that something very counter to warming alarmist cries of burning doom is going on given that ocean heat content has essentially been flat or slightly declining since 2003. Since sea level rise through the 20th century averaged over 1.7 mm per yr., one would expect that on average the oceans have been absorbing about 1.2 x 10(power 22) joules per year if this sea level rise had primarily been driven by thermosteric expansion through this period (which it was) as the radiative imbalance created by oceans cooled through the little ice age was pushed towards equilibrium. What is apparent is that starting in the 21st century this trend has now stopped with sea level rise rates dropping significantly (and now primarily fed by glacial melt from the 20th century warming), all indicating that the earth’s is now close to radiative balance (or even has a negative balance as per the Douglass/Knox paper last year. )
Indeed if this trend continues, and given the weak solar cycle 24 there is every indication it will, the reality as determined by ocean heat content and associated sea level rise, is as stated by Pielke the true measure of what is really occuring from the perspective of climate change. This is the reality the warmists don’t want the world to recognize.
This effort is not different in any way from the whitewashes of Mann & Crugate.