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.
HR your assertation that the Surface record matches the Satellite record is not born out by the peer reviewed literature. Matter of fact Dr. Pielke Sr. has in his post the paper that shows that:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf
Now for the sake of disscussion lets say your assertation is correct, however I don’t believe you realize that the surface record matching the satellite record is not an indicator of AGW. For AGW to work the way it is said to work the satellite record should show greater warming then the surface record due to the fact the troposphere is suppose to warm faster then the surface. You might of heard of this phenomena it’s called the “hot spot” and so far can’t be found by observations, it’s only seen in the GCM’s.
So as Dr. Pielke Sr. has pointed out the problems have already been laid out in the peer reviewed literature and really doesn’t require what the UK Met office is doing.
When Peter Thorne says WUWT readers WILL MAKE the project crash and burn before it even takes off is a big tipoff that what the project really is: To give HadCRUT3 a shiny new coat of sceptic approved paint. They can wave to the “white” papers as proof that the sceptics approved of the project. If we don’t play the game that little project Crashes and Burns. It is nothing more then the comments to the EPA in reconsideration of their finding on CO2, an exercise in futility. Just like the EPA the Met Office is too tied to their prior findings and no matter what comments we input they will quickly be ignored.
Jeff says:
August 26, 2010 at 6:31 am
That is the whole point Jeff. Even with all the filling-in, missing data points, homogenization and on and on and on the instrumant record still matchs the satellite record for the past few decades. Quite amazing really given you think it’s essentially been made up.”
It was close, but does not match. The cooling of pre satelite, lowering the past late 1930s high is also well known. The recend divergence is also not a match at all, “Must get rid of the MWP and the recent flatline with no significant warming since 1995..( See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/giss-shaping-up-to-claim-2010-as-1/
August 26, 2010 at 6:31 am
Doubting Thomas says:
August 26, 2010 at 8:17 pm (Edit)
A graph of the ARGO data is here: http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/nino3_4_atlas.gif
Thanks. That’s a small subset of the data. I guess we’ll have to rely on Bob Tisdale to interpret the data the KNMI obtain from NODC.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iheat700_global.png
That step change right around the splice from XBT to ARGO sure looks dodgy to me…
Steven Mosher says:
August 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm
…..
Steve, thanks for your considered reply. I’m mainly just very frustrated and was lashing out, so apologies for that.
If I remember correctly, most of the land surface data used by both Hadley/CRU and GISS was obtained ‘ready adjusted’ from NCDC. Are the NCDC adjustments going to be clarified by this process do you think? Or will they remain ‘the man behind the curtain’?
Mosh,
Can you please explain to a die-hard skeptic like myself (particularly post-Climategate) why I should trust the Met Office to run this project? As a skeptic I trust the UK Met Office as far as I can proverbially ‘throw them’. Based on my personally research of their past publications, ‘Thornie’ and ‘Stottie’ are exemplary examples of ‘true believers’.
Could you please explain to me why it is acceptable to allow the same organisations that produce projections of future catastrophic anthroprogenic global warming (e.g. UK Met Office and NASA GISS) to also produce the mean global surface temperature (MGST) indices? You (and your fellow soul mates over at Lucia’s Blackboard e.g. Zeke H, Ron B, Nick S etc) seem to think that this is an acceptable situation? If so why?
Here’s another Argo graph (slightly different to the one I see above)…
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/images/graph4_evans.jpg
Accompanying text says:
“Figure 4: Ocean heat content from mid 2003 to early 2008, as measured by the Argo network, for 0-700 metres. There is seasonal fluctuation because the oceans are mainly in the southern hemisphere, but the trend can be judged from the highs and lows. (This shows the recalibrated data, after the data from certain instruments with a cool bias were removed. Initial Argo results showing strong cooling.)”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2626711.htm
Michael Larkin: This website will be of help –
http://www.sugartech.co.za/psychro/index.php
This is an online psychometeric chart. (No, it doesn’t calculate a score for US Politicians, it calculates Enthalpy, or “total energy” per cubic foot or cubic meter of air for various temperatures and humidities.
I reviewed my calcs, and found that I was wrong. 105 F and 10% RH (Phoenix type weather) has a mere 30 BTU/Ft^3 and 86 F, 60% RH (which we have had several times this year in MN) has 38 BTU/Ft^3.
Yes, indeed, mappping the “enthalpy content” of the atmosphere, both near the surface and upwards IS a valuable exercise. And Dr. Peilke has alluded to this.
I hope we can get this, albeit, more intellectually demanding and more calculationally intensive, concept across!
Max
I’ve long expressed the opinion that atmospheric temperature alone is a false metric, so I have a question.
How many monitoring stations have humidity monitoring, either by direct measurement or wet bulb thermometer?
DaveE.
I can answer part of your question:
1. GISS does use GHCN adjusted data as its raw data for it’s analysis, I don’t know about CRU.
2. NCDC is comming out with a new version of GHCN this year, at least they are suppose to, that is suppose to also have the codes available.
Way back on Dec 23rd Willis got a reply back from Dr. Peterson about Darwin Zero and he posted that email in the comments section. In it Dr. Peterson stated that GHCN will be converted over to the adjustement method used in USHCN v2 which is based on Menne et al 2009 I believe. Also he expected that the new version would be released in either Feb or Mar of 2010. See this link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/#comment-272529
Now for whatever reason GHCN v3 has been delayed and won’t be seen until late this year according to GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0803.pdf
So if what Dr. Peterson told Willis back in Dec. is correct the GHCN v3 is suppose to come with the code and method as well as intermediate steps.
Stephen Mosher:
As far as I am concerned people can homogenize all they want to — take the temperature of the earth or whatever. I question the whole approach of making data from nothing to determine a single temperature for the earth. However, I would never dream of interfering with anyone who wished to do so.
As far as the papers go, downloading them was not an issue. Quoting them was. I can extract quotes using my Slackware Linux boxes — 64 bit and 32 bit versions — depending on the reader chosen. My Windows Vista box with Adobe Reader 9.3 will not extract and text. Why? Don’t know or care. I decided that this effort is going ahead whether it provides anything of value or not. The only useful comment I could provide anyway is that “infilling” data by using a formula is highly unlikely to produce temperatures in the infilled area that relate to real values. Some simple experimentation with real data seems to confirm that. That is good enough for me but likely to fall on deaf ears. But, maybe somebody will take the hint and apply for a grant to do some research to prove that I am wrong. So don’t claim I was no help at all! 🙂
Paging Mosh…Paging Mosh
Izz der a Mosh in da house!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/26/pielke-senior-on-the-surfacetemperatures-org-effort/#comment-467847
Any chance of a reply Mosh?
The surfacetemperatures blog has been up for a month and as of tonight only 59 comments total have made it through moderation on the entire blog. If the scorecard is # of comments, then that is not very good.
The problem is that it’s not easy to comment there. For example I posted a comment this morning recommending some management control best practices with respect to segregation of duties. The comment was meant to be constructive and posted in good faith. I don’t think I broke house rules, although I might have stretched them :-). Here is the thing, reading the house rules, my comment won’t even be moderated until monday afternoon, so I won’t know if I broke the rules or not for 2+ days, only then can I try to rephrase and try again…. we will see……
Anyway 59 comments is way to low. I would definitely think that the commenters at WUWT ought to try to get some constructive thoughts documented over there. Just beware that, as others have said already, it might try your patience.