Guest post by Steven Mosher
I’m feeling lazy today, after a few months of writing code around the metadata question, I have a post to write up about 230 land stations that are located in the ocean. But, I’m feeling lazy today, tired from doing basic quality checks on the data the “team” uses routinely and hopeful that NCDC will answer my mails about the corrections I think need to be made.
As we approach the anniversary of Climategate, with our book well stocked in the remainder bin and it’s pages lining bird cages in the offices at UEA, I’m going to donate some excerpts to the WUWT community. Thanks for all your support. Thank you more for your criticism. And thank you to Anthony for hosting people with different views.
Steve McIntyre’s recent series of posts on Dr. Jones seminal 1990 paper on UHI, brought back to the foreground a comment made in the mails by Kevin Trenberth that seem particularly applicable to my current work on checking the accuracy of metadata in GHCN. And Judith Curry’s recent posts on climate science “dogma”, a term I don’t think is helpful to address the issues at hand, brought up the variety of methods that the “Team” either used or contemplating using in response to data requests from McIntyre and others. “We can say they are lazy.”
The issue, as Tom and I wrote in the book, is not the science. The mere fact that some small group of scientists expressed less than wholesome ideas about sharing data, the mere fact that they cast aspersions on those requesting the data or thought about casting aspersions, does not in and of itself establish or refute any scientific fact. The world is still warming, despite their all too human behavior. Unfortunately, the public seems less inclined to have the same high regard they once had for climate scientists. The Minnesota satirists have yanked the team off their pedestal and there is no answer to that form of humor. That first laugh was the last laugh. And no, this
does not count as humor despite the pedigree of the writers. You do not answer the satire of midwesterners with self parody.
As we review the statements of the team below, I need to add this: It is neither fruitful to make too much of the comments or to brush them aside as inconsequential. They don’t change the science, but they do show that some would do well to examine their attitudes and beliefs, especially their attitudes towards citizens who want to check the numbers for themselves.
Excerpt from Climategate: the Crutape letters
Climate Audit again is on the radar of Phil Jones of CRU and Kevin Trenberth of UCAR. Ben Santer, a former CRU employee, is also alarmed at what is transpiring. Inspired by McIntyre’s work, Doug Keenan is reviewing the Jones 1990 case and notices some discrepancies in the work of Jones’ co author Wang, a scientist from China. Construing Wang’s work as academic fraud, (a charge later dismissed by Wang’s university), Keenan starts writing letters to Jones. The case is more interesting for the attitudes and preconceptions it reveals about Jones, Trenberth and others than it is about the questionable work of Wang. Trenberth on April 21 to Jones:
I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don’t think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothing better to do seems like a good thing to do. How about “I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn’t have such a paper because he has not done any constructive work!” :
There is no evidence at all that McIntyre has ever wanted to ‘undermine the science.’ He’s really just asking for the tools to do what they should have done themselves—check their numbers.
Rather than answer Keenan’s rather minor issue (which the university will eventually do), Trenberth suggests a personal attack, suggests impugning their motives. Rather than provide the data, Trenberth suggests a false attack on the abilities of those requesting the data. Ironically, the community reading on the internet has far more capability as a whole than Jones at managing large datasets and documents. Many of the engineers, scientists and academics that regularly visit Climate Audit could give lessons on the subject. Trenberth’s attack on McIntyre and his readers is reminiscent of the early attacks on bloggers by the mainstream media who tried to label them as “pajamas media.” What Trenberth failed to realize is that they were an army of Davids ready to tackle that large database work and in the end provide detailed documentation that NOAA would actually request for its own papers.
Mann weighs in with his views and he politicizes the problem and fails to understand that the story has a life of its own, independent of politics and the Main Stream Media:
So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least in the U.S.–the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only place they can broadcast their disinformation
Jones also explains some of the confusion about the actual sources of the data. In CRU FOIA responses, CRU has argued that they should not have to supply the data they used because it is available from GHCN and NCAR. Jones reveals that this is not the case:
As for the other request, I don’t have the information on the sources of all the sites used in the CRUTEM3 database. We are adding in new datasets regularly (all of NZ from Jim Renwick recently) , but we don’t keep a source code for each station. Almost all sites have multiple sources and only a few sites have single sources. I know things roughly by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while. GHCN and NCAR don’t have source codes either. It does all come from the NMSs – well mostly, but some from scientists.
As has been pointed out earlier, the construction of a global temperature index is largely a book keeping job. Yet Jones seems singularly ill-equipped to keep a handle on the data or accurate records of where data comes from. His breezy assertion that he ‘could probably reconstruct’ the database record could not be more sharply in contrast to McIntyre’s style—or accepted best practice in data handling and management circles. McIntyre’s work in the mining industry auditing reports is focused on the issue of provenance.
Santer’s solution to this “problem” of Climate Audit readers request for data is not a careful exposition of what data sources were used but rather this, from April 25th:
I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley.
Jones’s best thought at clearing up this confusion in data sources and data provenance is to deliberately confuse the matter more. He writes:
Ben,
Thanks for the thoughts. I’m in Geneva at the moment, so have a bit of time to think. Possibly I’ll get the raw data from GHCN and do some work to replace our adjusted data with these, then make the Raw (i.e. as transmitted by the NMSs). This will annoy them more, so may inflame the situation.
Reviewing the ideas the scientists have for dealing with data requests we have the following: Lie about the dedication and work habits of the requester, ignore requests, beat requesters up in a dark alley, and deliberately confuse the provenance of the data. Later they will add obstruction of the FOIA process to their bags of tricks, demonstrating that they should never in the future be trusted with data that is fundamental to our understanding of the climate. Releasing the data and letting the “auditors” discredit themselves never occurs to them.
(pgs 99-100)
“Releasing the data and letting the “auditors” discredit themselves never occurs to them.”
Steven is it possible that the reason this never occurs to them is that, inspite of their arrogance, they know that they are engaging in sloppy, dodgy science and somewhere in the back of there brains they realise there is a good chance the “auditors” will expose this resulting in the loss of funding, prestige etc.
redneck.
you said that. I try to avoid reading their minds.
the print’s too fine.
Steven says:
“Reviewing the ideas the scientists have for dealing with data requests we have the following: Lie about the dedication and work habits of the requester, ignore requests, beat requesters up in a dark alley, and deliberately confuse the provenance of the data. Later they will add obstruction of the FOIA process to their bags of tricks, demonstrating that they should never in the future be trusted with data that is fundamental to our understanding of the climate. Releasing the data and letting the “auditors” discredit themselves never occurs to them.”
==========
Is not this behavior illegal, not to mention unethical.
If not, it is surely shameful.
paulhan.
more C02 will warm the planet. This is known physics.
the addition of C02 does not cause immediate warming.
the additional warming does not cause “natural cycles to disappear” in occurs on top of those cycles.
the cycles cannot explain ALL of the warming we have seen
The amount of warming that C02 will cause, the lag in that warming, the distribution of that warming, the effects both positive and negative, and WHAT we should do about it are all open questions. Most of them are not even answerable questions.
But those uncertainties don’t change the fundamental physics. More GHG? you get a warmer planet than you would otherwise, not cooler. THAN YOU WOULD OTHERWISE. So a cool cycle + GHG is warmer than a cool cycle without GHG.
How much? dunno. thats the real debate.
Some of the dialogue reads like something in an episode of the Sopranos.
Steven, I agree we can’t know motive, but the actions and expressed emotions speak volumes.
“more C02 will warm the planet. This is known physics.
the addition of C02 does not cause immediate warming.”
For the sake of argument then, isn’t it possible that the factors preventing immediate warming from C02 may prevent future warming, too?
Andrew
Steven mosher says:
November 7, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Redneck.
You said that. I try to avoid reading their minds.
The print’s too fine.
———————————————
Steve:
At least ONE WUWT reader read that comment. Took about 5 seconds for the gears to turn in his tiny mind (mine!) and laughed my head off.
As a “religious friend” of mine was fond of saying (an illusion to an Old Testament event involving Samson), “Slain, by the jawbone of an ass..”
But in your case, I’d say…”Run through, by a rapier sharp wit, leaving them with less than the orginal half they had!”
Steven Mosher says:
November 7, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Tenuc:
The harry file is meaningless. Sorry it just is. Even if the code WAS connected to anything that CRU currently do it would still be meaningless.
If you looked at my notes on nightlights for example you would find me writing all sorts of horrible things as I struggled through problems. If you looked at my early code for doing the SSTs you would find lots of errors. Errors that I didnt catch, and that others didnt catch. In the end those errors get fixed and you find out that even with errors the answer comes out generally the same.
Weasel words.
The fact of the matter is just this: THEY —the CRU/NASA/MANN team— VERY shoddily constructed a data set, pretended that it was prime, and passed it off onto the unsuspecting world as ‘the truth.’
And here YOU are pretending that they still have validity.
Now you backpedal over the Harry code, pretend that it doesn’t exist or even was used by the CRU groupies, point fingers and cry out ‘Liars! Liars! Liars!’
The cat is OUT of the bag, the beans have been spilt, and you are caught making excuses where no excuse should have even been tendered.
Shame on YOU, Steven Mosher!
Every time I read these e-mail exchanges between Jones, Mann and Santer I feel my blood pressure rise. At the risk or re-stating the obvious, these are not statements made by those that hold the pursuit of truth in high regard. Despite their pious claims to scientific fidelity, these statements are, rather, those of a cabal intent on the perversion of truth for the sake of self-aggrandisement. And every time I read these exchanges I am reminded of just how distasteful is their dismissal of external checks on data sources and analytical techniques.
Steven mosher says:
November 7, 2010 at 6:42 pm
paulhan.
more C02 will warm the planet. This is known physics.
the addition of C02 does not cause immediate warming.
the additional warming does not cause “natural cycles to disappear” in occurs on top of those cycles.
the cycles cannot explain ALL of the warming we have seen
The amount of warming that C02 will cause, the lag in that warming, the distribution of that warming, the effects both positive and negative, and WHAT we should do about it are all open questions. Most of them are not even answerable questions.
But those uncertainties don’t change the fundamental physics. More GHG? you get a warmer planet than you would otherwise, not cooler. THAN YOU WOULD OTHERWISE. So a cool cycle + GHG is warmer than a cool cycle without GHG.
How much? dunno. thats the real debate.
Yeah, right.
And Mars is as warm as Venus, right?
It’s already been shown here on WUWT that in the geological past —several times— that the CO2 in the atmosphere has been FAR HIGHER than at present, yet the atmospheric temperature was either LOWER or the same as now.
Yet here you are playing the CO2 game as though someone addicted to gambling.
What is it, Steve? Did all those invested CO2 credits go tits-up on you, and you’re trying desperately to resuscitate them before they expire?
Steven mosher: November 7, 2010 at 6:35 pm
LOL
The excerpt is timely – I should have drawn attention to it in my notes. Sorry about that. I’ll amend. Right back to Warwick Hughes as well. I’ll be carrying the notes forward to Jones et al 2008 and the “inquiries”,
Steven mosher says:
November 7, 2010 at 6:42 pm
the cycles cannot explain ALL of the warming we have seen
====================================
This is the bit I can’t get my head around. Lets say our planet has warmed 0.4-0.7°C during the last 70 years (depending on who’s data is used). However, and notwithstanding the known cyclical nature of all climate change, this more recent rate of warming between the 1940s and 2010 seems to be consistent with the warming trend between the LIA and the 1940s. Should we be even the slightest bit concerned about a rate of warming measured as part of 1.0C over a long time period of time.
This is the bit that hurts my head. Many climate scientists tell us this “observed” 1.0C per century warming will accelerate and cause catastrophic destruction to our planet. Yet how can this be when our planet isn’t warming faster. In fact our planet’s temperature seems to have stabilized and is maybe even starting to cycle into a cool phase and this is despite all the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere.
These CAGW climate scientists must be some really crazy people to get us all so wound up over nothing of any significance.
It’s a travesty that we can’t find the missing integrity.
=====================
Steve:
Thanks for your post, and for your book, by the way, which I enjoyed. One statement that you keep making that nags at me, however, is that the activities of the scientists “don’t change the science.” It is unclear what you mean by the science.
Do you mean that their behavior doesn’t change the underlying facts of nature? If so, then I wholeheartedly agree.
Do you mean the exceedingly simplistic notion that additional GHG concentration in the atmosphere will lead to more warmth, all else being equal, is a scientific fact? If so, then I hesitatingly agree.
Do you mean “climate science” in the broader sense, namely what we broadly know and understand about the climate? If so, then the behavior of key scientists in the field most certainly does impact the science. Science isn’t simply an objective set of facts. It is a collective understanding of certain facts, based upon proposed theories and assumptions, data collection, data analyses, publication of such analyses, give-and-take between competing viewpoints, refinements of positions, etc. and ect. Much of what we understand as science — certainly much of what “scientists” do — is very much about the process, not just the underlying facts of nature. And when there are good and valid reasons to question the a priori assumptions, the poor data collection efforts, the biased analysis of that data, the one-sided publication process, the refusal to acknowledge and debate competing viewpoints, the siege mentality that does not acknowledge the need to revise entrenched viewpoints, and on and on, it most certainly does impact the science.
I don’t know what it is that you so trust that causes you to keep saying that “it doesn’t change the science.” Again, if you are talking about the underlying physical facts or a simplistic, nearly definitional, statement of what a GHG does, then your statement is correct, but almost to the point of triviality. Of course the emails and the related things that have come to light don’t “prove” any particular theory wrong in a purely logical sense. But they certainly should cause us to pause and reassess the assumptions, the data, the storyline, the process — in short, the science.
Regarding Steven mosher says:
November 7, 2010 at 6:42 pm
paulhan.
“more C02 will warm the planet. This is known physics.”
Steve, over what time scales? Actually the known physics as I have seen explained are that more CO2 will warm the atmosphere. The oceans may be another question entirely. If there is validity to the arguement that increased downwelling LWIR cannot warm the oceans, for reasons I am certain you are familiar with, and a decrease in SWR due to albedo of even high clouds causes a reduction of SWR into the oceans that is cumlitive (due to the long residence time of SWR heat that penetrates into the ocean) as long as clouds are increased, then the short term effect of additonal CO2 could be atmospheric warming, and at unknown time scales, ocean cooling. But as you say, the questions are not currently answerable.
I do wish that the fact that Steven Mosher is a luke wazrmer would not bother anyone. Additional GHG warms the atmosphere, and there is actually very little lag time. I find Mr Mosher honest and willing to dialogue, and in general very detailed and informed. I have never heard him express a view of CAGW, and that, IMV, is where the real debate is. One can state that Mr Mosher is over polite considering the additudes expressed and methods used by certain climate scientist, but there is no reason to be disrespectful.
Steven Mosher,
“The world is still warming, despite their all too human behavior.”
Uhh, no it isn’t and no one has reliable data to prove either of us right. In the last 10 years I think we can be reasonably certain that it HASN’T warmed though. Are you claiming psychic power and saying it is going to start warming again in the next 10 years??
Maybe you don’t believe the ice core data that says we will probably be cooling a whole lot before even the climate model warming could cause problems?? If you do not accept the ice core data you have nothing to support your idea of warming by CO2.
Get over it bud.
P.S., I am a lukewarmer as well.
I may not agree with Mr. Mosher’s personal views on AGW but I applaud his attempt to separate the real data from the erroneous however those errors arose.
Kindest Regards
Philip Thomas says: (November 7, 2010 at 2:19 pm) I think your book was written as damage limitation for the AGW movement.
This is perhaps why I always get a feeling of unease when I read Steve Mosher.
Thanks Max.
The comments above seem very much on-target to me, especially the last one. My comments on the initial Climategate threads here argued that what the Team had done and said wasn’t all that “dark,” and that the temperature records were probably fairly close to reality, but that the Team had proved themselves untrustworthy, that this intangible outweighed all the tangibles on their side, and that in the end their battle-winning tactics would lose them the war.
It’s happening, in a delayed-reaction, as Judith Curry will be followed silently by others who have been disillusioned by the untrustworthiness of the key players in the alarmist camp.
Hi Kuhnkat! and others too who want to take issue with the whole GHGs do warm the planet issue.
what I’d say is this. We will have to agree to disagree. Nothing I’ve seen or read can convince me that the physics I’ve used to build things that work is wrong. I know I can’t convince you. That’s ok. I don’t question your sincerity, your intelligence or your motives.
we can agree that data should be properly collected and shared. So, I’d choose to focus on our areas of agreement. peace.
A few fellow commenters should remember that Steven Mosher has aquired most of the disputed temperature data and proceeded to examine that data in some detail, writing quite a bit of his own code along the way. So he has a reasonable feel for the whether or not the earlier efforts of the Phil Jones and James Hansen teams produced realistic results. My impression is that from the same data Mosh gets global trend results similar to those of Jones and Hansen. Therefore when Mosh speaks of a degree of confidence in the facts it is with the advantage of substantial detailed knowledge.
So the question turns to the extent of non-climatic influences like UHI and climate-station microenironments. It may also turn towards the collection of more comprehensive modern data and proxy data relating to the pre-instrumental era. For instance the GHCN database contains data coded by country. In the case of New Zealand this database contains less than 10% of the available data. Crucially the NZ data that GHCN does contain is biased towards urban sites and airfields, more so as time has advanced. So will the real tempertature record for New Zealand please stand up? This is non-trivial particularly in connection with GISTemp because groups of small to medium sized Islands provide much of the record for a large portion of the planets surface.
Some time soon we should expect to see our host (Anthony) weighing in on bias introduced as a result of poor temperature measurement practices in the USA. This is likey to come in the form of a major peer-reviewed paper. I suspect data quality issues such as those already revealed by Anthony and his volunteer crew are spread world-wide.