Pielke Senior on the surfacetemperatures.org effort

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

Meeting September 7-9 2010 “Surface Temperature Datasets For The 21st Century” Chaired By Peter Thorne

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

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/e-mail-documentation-of-the-successful-attempt-by-thomas-karl-director-of-the-u-s-national-climate-data-center-to-suppress-biases-and-uncertainties-in-the-assessment-surface-temperature-trends/

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“Peter Thorne and his associates continue to fail at being inclusive”
Same old same old.
When will they ever learn?

Leon Brozyna

Which just goes to show that there’s more than one way to do a whitewash.

Adam Gallon

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?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

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?

Lew Skannen

But look at the colours!!!!
The Earth is practically a fireball!!!
What more do you need, to be convinced?
THE COLOURS!!!

NoMoreGore

The earth is Hot Hot Hot! Don’t tell us anything different! Tszzzzzzzzzz!

stephen richards

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.

Ken Hall

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.

Shevva

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.

FRIAR

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?

Atomic Hairdryer

Re: Adam Gallon

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?

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.

Roger Knights

True to form: bad to the bone.

Eddie

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.

Atomic Hairdryer

Re: stephen richards

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.

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.

HR

Does all this matter little given that the satellite data seems to match the instrument record for the passed couple of decades?

Joe Lalonde

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.

KPO

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.

Steve in SC

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.

Bill Marsh

I don’t think the Emperor was interested in inviting the child to Court to tell him he was nude, either.

rbateman

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.

INGSOC

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.

Mark

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.

hunter

This effort is not different in any way from the whitewashes of Mann & Crugate.

Jeff

HR ?
really, the satellite data matches the thermometers ? what about the locations that have no thermometers ? the filling in of grids with no thermometers records is not “data” but simply guesses and bad ones at that … a data records with made up data points is no longer a record but an opinion …

Just a quick note to thank Anthony for raising the presence of the meeting blog and urging folks to comment upon it. Please do comment critically upon the content whilst observing the stated house rules which are there for a reason and are being strictly enforced. If you follow the house rules then I will post your comment regardless of whether I personally scientifically agree with it or not. The blog is there precisely to be inclusive and to try to garner scientifically relevant and critical input that will help any project that may result from the meeting. The meeting itself cannot have everybody who has an opinion there for logistical reasons. Invitees were selected by ALL members of the international organizing committee and include many non-traditional views and a broad range of expertise and international representation. In keeping down to a manageable number tough calls were required and there are many folks who will feel they should have been included who aren’t like Roger Pielke Sr. does. This is the primary reason for the blog and I would particularly welcome input to that forum on the specific details discussed within the relevant white papers from Roger Pielke Sr. (needless to say which follow the house rules on comments) who as he states has a publication record in the area. We have steps in place to ensure all comments are considered but we will not be considering comments hosted on other sites at the meeting so to have a voice at Exeter anyone must post on the meeting blog.
As to the project itself, the white papers describe the creation of a single holistic global data and metadata bank and the challenges that pertain. We know there are far more data out there than in the present databanks. The need for multiple, redundant dataset construction efforts starting from that databank with full transparency at a range of space and time resolutions. The need for a consistent benchmarking of algorithm performance. And the need to include much greater numbers of individuals and a broader range of constituent expertise. It is something that at working scientist level we have been lobbying for for many years. Although there are several datasets at global and regional levels and reanalyses products we could do so much better. As Nature pertinently put it monitoring is a cinderella science, under-resourced and under-appreciated. It is hard. We never made observations of meteorological parameters (CO2 and some other trace gases being an exception) that are traceable to fundamental standards and they have been undertaken with weather forecast requirements in mind meaning the vast majority of sites have seen changes even without micro-environment issues so we have to carefully analyse. But many of those choices I or anyone else makes to create a best-guess dataset have no rigorous basis. If we truly are to understand what we can say we need a robust framework and many eyes on the prize – multiple redundant efforts and a benchmarking and an agreed set of minimum requirements. This project with the momentum behind it is the first and potentially best shot we as a global community have had of making a meaningful step forwards in this regard certainly in my career and seeing a real step change for the better.
More importantly, the Exeter meeting is solely a planning meeting. The work plan that results will not be some project undertaken by a clique or even a preserve of the climate science community. It can’t be. The task is too big. There will hopefully be a lot of data to digitise. There will be a lot of stations to dig out metadata for including site surveys akin to the valuable surfacestations.org effort but more importantly spending time in dingy dusty records offices getting historical info. For those with even more interest there is no exclusivity to creating homogenised records at anywhere from the station to global level. It needs time and effort but is not something that is necessarily the exclusive preserve of full-time scientists in ivory towers.
In conclusion, readers of WUWT have fundamentally two choices. The first is to take pot shots at this effort before its off the ground and make it crash and burn. The second is to pro-actively try and help make it happen and help to focus it by pointing out critical gaps in what exists in the white papers which are there solely as a starting point. If it gets off the ground it has the potential to create a suite of verifiable, robust, benchmarked datasets useful to a wide range of users and to really inform on a multitude of questions (even if the answer is no, the data can’t answer that question). Regardless of ones view on climate change the second option is the preferable aim I would contend. So please do read the white papers and provide scientific input. Then if it does get off the ground please note that there is no exclusivity in taking part. If you have something useful to offer within the agreed framework that results from Exeter offer it.
Finally, if we truly weren’t wanting to be inclusive we wouldn’t have put stuff out for public comment, we wouldn’t be engaging with the media (there is also a letter in today’s Nature which was originally slated for a fortnight ago and pulled at the last minute) and I wouldn’t be typing this message. We are trying to be inclusive and to garner viewpoints at this pre-planning stage and to maintain otherwise is simply false.
I would urge Roger Pielke Sr. , Anthony and others to comment pro-actively on the white papers on the blog (following the house rules … I think I mentioned this already?) and will personally along with other members of the International Organizing Committee ensure that their views as given in the comments are heard at the meeting along with everybody else who comments on the blog.
Peter

J. Knight

Oliver Morton,
Peter Thorne’s reputation as an enhancer of climate misinformation, and his bias well known both inside and outside the climate community as a global warming proponent, would hardly inspire much confidence in the surfacetemperatures.org project. And certainly not any significant cooperation from skeptics, as Peter has proven time and again his willingness to ignore and suppress any views that disagree with his assessments, or to even allow a miniority to have any input. Frankly, I wish you had done more research into Thorne, and perhaps you wouldn’t even have needed to write your story in the first place, as it’s quite obvious to anyone who is objective that Peter Thorne is not worthy to be associated with such a project. It hardly inspires any confidence that anything will be done to clean the mess left by his predecessors. Just another whitewash IMO.
Then again, perhaps you aren’t an objective reporter, and since your views mirror Peters, it’s not that important that you get the story right. You should correct me if I’m wrong, but we’ve seen so much biased reporting in this area, you can hardly blame me for being cynical about your intentions.

Dave

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 26, 2010 at 1:16 am
“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…”
I don’t think you should go around ascribing bad motives to the oceans. They are honest, hard-working bodies of water, and any obscurity is entirely unintentional. They never intended to hide the heat, they simply didn’t keep the records of where they put it. Things were done differently a few years back, y’know.

TomRude

“Invitees were selected by ALL members of the international organizing committee and include many non-traditional views and a broad range of expertise and international representation. In keeping down to a manageable number tough calls were required and there are many folks who will feel they should have been included who aren’t like Roger Pielke Sr. does. ”
AND
“In conclusion, readers of WUWT have fundamentally two choices. The first is to take pot shots at this effort before its off the ground and make it crash and burn. The second is to pro-actively try and help make it happen and help to focus it by pointing out critical gaps in what exists in the white papers which are there solely as a starting point.”
Funny how it’s “unmanageable” to invite Pielke sr. who has extensively published on the subject in peer reviewed journals but very manageable to have anyone contribute meaningfully from WUWT or the local chapter of Slow Food…

WillR

I went to the site linked by “Peter Thorne” — I went to the White Paper and looked at Day 2 Link 8 & 9,
I was going to copy a quote — but I am not sure that you can — good document security I guess. That makes these documents eminently ignorable in my mind.
And after reading about how data would be created to infill — at least that’s how I read it — I again thought of the work that Richard Wakefield did on the Canadian Temperature sets and his comment on “estimating” infilling and otherwise homogenizing the data.
See here…
http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/
I am beginning to believe that we will shortly be inundated with “magic temperature data” — i.e. data created from “nothing”.
Peter I hope it works out and something is achieved, but after a lifetime of designing data collection and prediction and forecasting systems I find it tough to believe that “things will just happen to work out”.
Good Luck and best wishes.

Enneagram

Is it RED or BLUE?
It’s cool!:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

John F. Hultquist

One of the issues I think ought to be mentioned is the need to correct obvious instrument and other related mistakes. As a reader and not a poster of these sorts of things I do not have the data or references but I recall two or three WUWT posts wherein, it seems, the NWS would not alter readings resulting from instrument failure for a reason like ‘we don’t know what to put in its place’. Another I remember is the failure in a coding scheme to put an “M” – for minus – (I think that is the issue) whenever it is called for, thereby having the temperature record bouncing up-and-down like the tethered ball on a paddle board. I can’t imagine anyone objecting to the principle of doing this so the issue is doing something reasonable, documenting it, and others could choose to accept it or make an additional adjustment. [I recall Hawaii and Florida posts on instrument errors but I’m not 100% sure.]

I have been a regular reader at Dr. Pielke’s (both of them) blog(s) for a very long time. When one combines that information with WUWT and CA one can only draw one conclusion. The Met Office is undertaking a public relations event in the guise of Scientific review. Another example of the scientific method being sacrificed on the alter of ideology.

Why would you have thought they were interested in real science first? It’s all about constructing a better story for the public, to support their foregone conclusions.

The folks in the U.K. have got this down to a science now. All the blustering and posturing, all the pomp and ceremony ending in another WHITEWASH.

Pascvaks

Ref – “The Complete Unabridged Book of Human Nature”, Adam ‘n Eve Enterprizes, Garden of Eden Press, Ltd. (Out of Print, Last volume destroyed in the Great Fire of The Library of Alexandria, Egypt, 48BC )
“You can’t remake, revamp, remodel anything into anything better than it already is with the same idiots in charge of the main office.” (Eve)

jorgekafkazar

“By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes.”

Perry

It is interesting that Dr Thorne acknowledges possibility that readers of WUWT could cause his efforts to crash & burn, though truthfully I am not convinced he’s really that worried. OTOH, it is sensible to place on record the numbers of dissenting views, in order that those opinions are given light of day.
The weight of opposition is mighty indeed. Mayhap common sense will again lead to a more transparent ( that’s a weasel word, almost on a par with “robust”) & scientific analysis of the “raw”temperature data. I won’t hold my breath though!

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.
#######
Dr. Peilke.
See the following in white paper 14:
“Organisations like Google might be able to help promote the project and provide
344
significant support in visualisation. For example through adding additional layers or
345
markers on for example “Google Earth”, identifying the location of all sample sites,
346
together with the associated high resolution satellite imagery this could help identify
347
sampling errors due to environmental effects as well as historical images for the location.
348

WRT imagery, it would seem there are at least three kinds you want.
1. Historical ( google earth has some, but crowdsourcing can help here )
2. Real time satillite updates
http://www.spotimage.fr/web/en/1663-pleiades-very-high-resolution-satellite-imagery.php
3. on site.
if more folks from here add postive constructive suggestions on the blog over there, thats a start

rbateman

I agree with Pielske, Sr. on the overarching importance of ocean temps as the prime indicator of the state of Earth’s climate.
I would also add the land stations that are heavily influenced by the proximity of the ocean equally good indicators.
Landfall of air masses passing over the N. Pacific and the N. Atlantic. Ground zero areas.
The Alarmists are fond of pumping them up.
You get the idea.

Enneagram

Looking at the The Economist picture: They forgot the Sunspots, or rather, Terraspots.
There, our sky blue atmosphere has turned into a Solar Corona!

Rhoda R

John F. Hultquist says:
August 26, 2010 at 8:32 am
“One of the issues I think ought to be mentioned is the need to correct obvious instrument and other related mistakes.”
I have to disagree, John. There should be one database, available to the public, that has the raw data – period. Let the user look to the obvious outliers and make (or not make) adjustments accordingly. And footnote any changes they’ve made. I don’t like this idea of correcting “obvious” problems before anyone else can see the data because sometimes “obvious” isn’t.

winterkorn

The CAGW want trillions of dollars of economic changes becsause of their fears.
They should be willing to put a few billion into accurate data collection. They can only gain credibility now by collecting and displaying openly the raw, non-adjusted data, including display of information re the data collection systems’ sources of error (eg airport siting, urbanization, mechanical changes in instruments, etc.) Kind of like embracing the scientific method.
Then the data should be pubished openly, and the scientific community can have at it.

Hi Mr Thorne,
I hope the Chopok and Lomnicky peak stations in Slovakia, the two truly rural ones, will find their way back into the 21st century dataset, from which they miraculously disappeared in 1989.

Oh my SIMPLISTIC “dirt grubbing” Chemical/Metallurgical and Mechanical Engineering MIND! I just guess I’m not able to compete on the level of a Phd “climatoligist”. Just SLAP ME silly for PREACHING for a couple years that:
Minnesota: 85 F, 60% RH, Enthalpy of 1 ft^3 of air = 38 BTU (roughly)
Arizona: 105 F, 10% RH, Enthalpy of 1ft^3 of air = 33 BTU (roughly)
THEREFORE at the LOWER TEMPERATURE there is “more Gorebull Warming” as the ENERGY CONTENT IS HIGHER.
Thus the conclusion: AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURES WITHOUT KNOWLEGE OF MOISTURE ARE MEANINGLESS!
But, then, I guess having a marvelous Phd in “Climatology” make that same statement (albeit in a more archane manner)…maybe that will get traction.
Oh well, back to my cave..

Peter thorne has been accepting my comments since I first found the site.
he puts the choice to people fairly. Make your comments over there. make them constructive. See what they do and judge the results. There are quite a few white papers so put your reading caps on.
take a role, even if you would have done things differently.

Michael Larkin

Dear poorer parent,
As you may have heard, next month’s school governors’ meeting will be discussing disbursements from the special discretionary fund for gifted students.
Some time ago, we invited some of the richer parents to attend this meeting so that we can decide the criteria for determining what kinds of students would be eligible.
It has come to our notice that some of the poorer parents have complained that they should have representation at the meeting. The worry has been expressed that the criteria will end up being skewed towards already advantaged students.
We have decided that any such complaints are invalid because our impartiality and goodwill, as well as those of the rich parents, is unimpeachable. Besides, were you not aware that we had invited written submissions from you some time ago? We placed a notice to that effect prominently in the foyer of the FGC (Forfilthyrich Golf Club) bar, and all the rich parents saw it, so why didn’t you?
All you had to do was to shift your lazy arses over there and take a look, and please, no complaints that you couldn’t do that, because long before you had got there, you would have been ejected from the vicinity by club stewards. All you would have had to do is dress in your Sunday best and doff your caps to your betters, and no one would have batted an eyelid.
Notwithstanding, from the depths of our unending charity, we are now letting you know, having incurred the expense of postage on your behalf, that you have one week to send in your submissions.
Rest assured that they will be given due and diligent attention. We do not want to read any complaints on those submissions about how you have been treated in past exercises of this nature. Yes, we know that rich children nearly always end up with the special benefits, but can we influence the results of unbiased surveys and statistical methods?
We feel you are, as usual, being cynical about our motives. It will not look good to the wider community if you decline the offer to take part. You will doubtless be blamed for intransigence, and if none of your children end up as beneficiaries, you will have only yourselves to blame.
Note to Brenda:
Please make sure you get this printed on appropriate stationery, and sent out to the plebs first thing tomorrow. We can’t afford to delay any longer as it’s essential the governors have the evidence of this letter having been sent out at least a week before the special discretionary disbursement meeting. We will then be able to cover our arses against any future complaints that we didn’t seek to involve the lower orders.
PS:
For God’s sake, don’t forget to delete this note before you print the letters off and post them.

Luke

I think your probably right that its a whitewash, but I think some other response is needed than what you and Roger said so far – you sound a bit like crybabies because they didn’t invite you to the party. While, on the warmist blogs, they’re actually discussing what needs to be done in the project. Heres one I just came across today:
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1856
I think they might end up outmanouvering us on this. Rather than ad-homing this Thorne guy, maybe we should come up with our own set of ideas for how to build a proper surface temperature record?

Atomic Hairdryer

Having read the whitepapers again, seems like one of the biggest challenges is in WP5, line 130, “Many NMH’s charge for data” which could hamper the project. Anyone know the total current market revenues for existing raw data from the NMH’s that do charge? It’s sad that given the supposed social and economic costs of climate change, governments aren’t funding NMH’s to make this data available for the common good.
WP14 may present some options under access/licence arrangements, eg access free for academic and personal use, but chargeable for commercial usage. But that would mean extra overhead to manage, monitor and enforce and no doubt political bun fights around revenue sharing amongst data contributors.
The doc’s security settings don’t make commenting easy either 🙁