Open Mind

Temperature 2007

November 10, 2007 · 161 Comments

This last January showed a strong el Nino, leading to the largest monthly global temperature anomaly ever recorded (according to NASA GISS), 0.87 deg.C. This caused researchers at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change Research to announce that 2007 would probably break the record for hottest year ever.

I said at the time that I thought the pronouncement was premature, because sometimes el Nino lasts a good long time (like 1998) but sometimes it’s very brief. The 2007 el Nino turned out to be brief, and it’s very unlikely that 2007 will break the record after all. The good people at the Hadley Centre will end up with egg on their faces. Even so, 2007 will turn out to be one of the hottest on record. Although it’s not yet complete, let’s use NASA GISS analysis to estimate where it will fall on the all-time-hottest-years list. The ten hottest complete years ever recorded, with their average temperature anomalies, are:

  • 2005 @ 0.6225
  • 1998 @ 0.5667
  • 2002 @ 0.5592
  • 2003 @ 0.55
  • 2006 @ 0.5383
  • 2004 @ 0.4867
  • 2001 @ 0.4792
  • 1997 @ 0.3992
  • 1995 @ 0.3792
  • 1990 @ 0.3775

So far this year, the average temperature anomaly is 0.597, which would put 2007 in 2nd place. If the average anomaly for November and December combined is greater than 0.415, then 2007 will indeed edge out 1998 for 2nd place. This is very likely to occur. The last time any month showed an anomaly less than 0.415 was July of 2004; since then we’ve had 40 months in a row hotter than that.

These results are for the calendar year, which runs from January to December. The climatological year runs from December through the following November. That way it includes uninterrupted seasons, winter (Dec, Jan, Feb), spring (Mar, Apr, May), summer (Jun, Jul, Aug), and autumn (Sep, Oct, Nov). The ten hottest complete climatological years ever recorded, with their average temperature anomalies, are:

  • 2005 @ 0.6158
  • 2002 @ 0.5717
  • 1998 @ 0.5683
  • 2006 @ 0.53
  • 2003 @ 0.5233
  • 2004 @ 0.5008
  • 2001 @ 0.4533
  • 1997 @ 0.3817
  • 1995 @ 0.3792
  • 1990 @ 0.3692

So far this climatological year the average temperature anomaly is 0.6055, which would also put 2007 in 2nd place. If the anomaly for November is greater than 0.2, then 2007 will indeed edge out 2002 for 2nd place. This too is very likely to occur. The last time any month showed an anomaly less than or equal to 0.2 was December of 2000; since then we’ve had 82 months in a row hotter than that.

Is it possible 2007 could still surpass 2005 for 1st place? In order for the calendar year 2007 average to exceed 2005’s, November and December would have to show an average anomaly of 0.75, which has only happened for three months in history (Jan 2007 @ 0.87, Mar 2002 @ 0.84, and Feb. 1998 @ 0.79). So it’s not impossible, but not very likely. In order for the climatological year 2007 average to exceed 2005’s, November would have to show an average anomaly of 0.73, which again has only been observed on three occasions.

So it seems very unlikely that 2007 will break the 2005 record, and similarly unlikely that it will fail to move into 2nd place on both all-time lists.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

By request, here’s part of figure 7 from Thompson et al. 2003, Climatic Change 59, 137–155.

compare.jpg

Categories: Global Warming · climate change

161 responses so far ↓

  • Lab Lemming // November 10, 2007 at 3:23 am

    Tamino,
    Very cool. Just out of curiosity, when was the last negative monthly anomaly?

    [Response: The last negative anomaly was November 1992, at -0.09. There was a 0.0 in September of 1993. But the anomalies have no absolute significance; they're just the deviations from the 1951-to-1980 averages (which is an arbitrary choice).]

  • Conard // November 10, 2007 at 10:10 am

    Sorted gistemp US lower 48 anomalies:
    1934 @ 1.25
    1998 @ 1.23
    1921 @ 1.15
    2006 @ 1.13
    1931 @ 1.08
    1999 @ 0.93
    1953 @ 0.90
    1990 @ 0.87
    1938 @ 0.86
    1939 @ 0.85

    Observing that (US lower 48 land surface temps)
    a) gistemp’s Fig.D.txt has a different set of ten
    b) the warmth in the US lower 48 is not always (4 of 10) reflected in the global set of ten.

    I would like to ask a few questions– the hour is late but I will do my best to be coherent but you may have to read with a generous eye. I am fairly new to the particulars of the topic so if this has been covered I offer my apologies. Expository comments and links to references would be appreciated. Demagogue’s need not reply

    1. Is it safe to assume that the anomaly calculations for the world data set are the same or similar to those used by gistemp?

    2. Does the world data, or it’s subsets, employ the same or similar adjustments { rounding, TOB, missing data, UHI } as those used in the giss data?

    3. What is the estimated error for the giss data versus the world data? I wonder if I should be asking if there is a difference in quality { equipment, maintenance, training } and if there is similar coverage: N stations per unit of { area, latitude, sea and land sites } and how these differences are accounted for and how confidence or error is quantified.

    Is comparing the gistemp data to your posted set a mistake? Am I comparing an apple to something apple-like but not an apple? What should I be learning from such a comparison?

    Thanks

    [Response: The data I used for the world is GISTEMP data. The results you've quoted for the lower 48 U.S. states are GISTEMP data restricted to that small region. The most important difference is that the lower 48 U.S. states constitute only 1.5% of the area of the globe.]

  • Pinguin // November 10, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Hi Tamino,
    you once wrote, that the year 1998 is on the satellite record the warmest, because the satellites dont accurcate measure the temperature of the arctic (and the record was mainly made in the arctic). Did I pick it up right?
    I am currently discussing with a few skeptics and therefore it would be great if you have a source for this statement.
    (please excuse my bad englisch)

    [Response: It's not that satellites measure the arctic inaccurately, it's that they don't measure latitudes above 82.5N or below 70S at all. But the main reason they show such a hotter 1998 than NASA GISS (see here) is that el Nino (responsible for the extra warmth in 1998) affects lower-troposphere temperature (TLT) more strongly than surface air temperature (SAT).]

  • san quintin // November 10, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    Hi Tamino
    Interesting post, but I thought that 1998 was the warmest year, closely followed by 2005. Or is this only with the HadCRU data set? Can you clear this up ? Thanks.

    [Response: That's according to HadCRU data; NASA GISS have shown 2005 as the hottest (since 2005, of course). I prefer NASA GISS because they approximate the north polar region by interpolation while HadCRU simply omits it.]

  • funfacts // November 10, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    I was searching for this kind of a blog for months now. Actually lost the hope of finding one, but here i am :) Thanks for the great articles! Looking forward for a little read after dinner :)

  • cody // November 10, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    Tamino, just a couple of questions.

    1) What proportion of the land surface is the US?

    2) What proportion of the land surface is covered by the GISSTEMP data?

    Thanks

    [Response: The lower 48 states make up about 5.3% of the world's *land* area. Including Alaska increases that to 6.5% of the world's land area. GISTEMP data covers the entire land surface with varying degrees of data *density*, but averages are area-weighted and the high spatial coherence of makes it possible to estimate global average temperature anomaly.]

  • Gareth // November 10, 2007 at 9:17 pm

    Nasa posted an interesting article about Hansen and the development of the GIS global temp database last week. A good read, with some excellent graphics.

  • Charles Whitney // November 10, 2007 at 10:36 pm

    You’ve given data for the world. How about the northern and southern hemispheres separately? How about the U.S.? Is there a chance 2007 could set a new U.S. record?

    [Response: For southern hemisphere land stations, 2007 is on pace to become the 4th-hottest (after 1998, 2005, and 2002). For northern hemisphere land stations, 2007 is on pace to break the 2005 record and become the hottest year ever. I don't have monthly data for hemispheric land+sea temperatures, or sufficiently up-to-date monthly data for the U.S. only.]

  • henry // November 10, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    Lab Lemming said:

    “Tamino,

    Very cool. Just out of curiosity, when was the last negative monthly anomaly?”

    [Response: The last negative anomaly was November 1992, at -0.09. There was a 0.0 in September of 1993. But the anomalies have no absolute significance; they’re just the deviations from the 1951-to-1980 averages (which is an arbitrary choice).]

    If the anomolies have no absloute significance, why report on them?

    Again, since we now have data up to 2006, why on earth can’t we re-average on the 71 - 2000 time period?

    I know “trend won’t change”, but we’re basing these current “insignificant” values to a 20-year old average.

    Please re-compute and re-list the “top 10″ years with an updated average period.

    Also:

    [Response: It’s not that satellites measure the arctic inaccurately, it’s that they don’t measure latitudes above 82.5N or below 70S at all.]”

    Your response, then to the following:

    What would be the result on global averages, if we were to average in those temps above 82.5N or below 70S?

    [Response: We report anomalies because they tell us whether temperature has changed or not, and if so, whether it's getting warmer or cooler.

    Choosing a different reference period (replacing 1951-to-1980 with 1971-to-2000, or any other choice) will change all the numbers by a constant. That constant will be the difference between the 1951-to-1980 average, and the 1971-to-2000 average. Adding or subtracting a constant to *all* the numbers has absolutely no effect on which years are hottest or coldest; the top-10 list will NOT change, not even a little bit.

    You seem to think I implied that anomalies have no significance. I said they have no *absolute* significance, meaning that the choice of the "zero point" for the scale is arbitrary. If you re-label your thermometer so that instead of reading degrees Celsius, it reads "degrees Celsius minus 4", and recompute all your temperature measurements in similar fashion, it will obviously have no effect on measured temperature trends, temperature changes, or which days/months/years are hottest or coldest.

    Global averages in the GISTEMP analysis do include direct measurements south of 70S latitude, and interpolation estimates north of 82.5N latitude. Also, satellite data don't give estimates of *surface air temperature*, they give estimates of *lower troposphere temperature*. They're different critters.]

  • S2 // November 11, 2007 at 12:26 am

    “The last negative anomaly was November 1992, at -0.09. There was a 0.0 in September of 1993.”

    I hesitate to contradict you, but I think the last negative anomaly was -0.05 in February 1994.

    If I haven’t made a mistake then we haven’t been below +0.10 since May 1995, we’ve been above +0.20 since October 2000, above +0.30 since July 2004 and above +0.40 since July 2006.

    (This is using GISS’s land-ocean temperature index).

    Is the 2007 temperature important? I thought that the trend was the thing we ought to be worrying about.
    Over at Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre (who should know better) is trying to use the “low number of hurricane days” this year to rubbish climate change. I thought that it might be fun to plot a trend of his data, but the links that he posted don’t work.

    [Response: Oops! My mistake. I guess I get to wear a little egg on my face too.

    Yes, it's the trend that's important. But of course individual years tend to get a lot of publicity. Perhaps we should include a disclaimer that "Individual annual results are for entertainment purposes only."]

  • Hank Roberts // November 11, 2007 at 12:48 am

    Yup. Look at Google’s top hit right now — coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
    Florida State University, thanking CA and Limbaugh and Drudge for the publicity and Google for the top ranking. Scientific competition at its … something.

  • Hank Roberts // November 11, 2007 at 12:59 am

    Gareth, great NASA link, thanks.
    And — I found that downloading the seviri_water_vapor movie and setting Quicktime Pro to “play all frames” makes it run slower with much more detail, beautiful to watch that way.

  • Insoluble // November 11, 2007 at 4:43 am

    I wonder what would explain the large GISS temp differences between the North American average, and the Northern Hemisphere average?

    And what percent of the Northern Hemisphere land mass is comprised of North America?

  • Hank Roberts // November 11, 2007 at 5:46 am

    I recall mention of that recently, this was one report:
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-01/teia-crr012203.php

    This is also interesting:
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/herweijer/ATLAS_joc_revised.pdf
    North American Droughts of the last Millennium from a
    Gridded Network of Tree-ring Data
    “… Drought is the most economically expensive recurring natural disater to strike North America in modern times. Recently available gridded drought reconstructions have been developed for most of North America from a network of drought sensitive tree-ring chronologies, many of which span the last 1000 years. ….

    Recently, climate models forced by the observed history of tropical Pacific SSTs have been able to successfully simulate all of the major North American droughts of the last 150 years….
    ———

  • henry // November 11, 2007 at 6:58 am

    Tamino:

    [Response: We report anomalies because they tell us whether temperature has changed or not, and if so, whether it’s getting warmer or cooler.]

    Agreed. But anomalies give us a “warmer or cooler” reading based on an average. And according to you, this average period is an arbitrary selection.

    [Choosing a different reference period (replacing 1951-to-1980 with 1971-to-2000, or any other choice) will change all the numbers by a constant. That constant will be the difference between the 1951-to-1980 average, and the 1971-to-2000 average. Adding or subtracting a constant to *all* the numbers has absolutely no effect on which years are hottest or coldest; the top-10 list will NOT change, not even a little bit.]

    I also agree. But if you took your list,

    Top ten/average anomalies:

    2005 @ 0.6158
    2002 @ 0.5717
    1998 @ 0.5683
    2006 @ 0.53
    2003 @ 0.5233
    2004 @ 0.5008
    2001 @ 0.4533
    1997 @ 0.3817
    1995 @ 0.3792
    1990 @ 0.3692

    and subtracted, say .4 from all (the effect of average rising), then at least the last 3 years in the list would have NEGATIVE anomalies.

    I’m just curious about what the new numbers would be if new average dates were used.

    [You seem to think I implied that anomalies have no significance. I said they have no *absolute* significance, meaning that the choice of the “zero point” for the scale is arbitrary. If you re-label your thermometer so that instead of reading degrees Celsius, it reads “degrees Celsius minus 4″, and recompute all your temperature measurements in similar fashion, it will obviously have no effect on measured temperature trends, temperature changes, or which days/months/years are hottest or coldest]

    Thats why, to me at least, it wouldn’t take much more than a line on the charts saying “zero = X degrees”. That would make matching past or future trends much easier (simply raise or lower the zero line by the difference)

    But in another comment, it was asked when the last negative anomaly was. Re-zero the charts with a new average period, and the negative anomalies get closer to current, don’t they?

    [Global averages in the GISTEMP analysis do include direct measurements south of 70S latitude, and interpolation estimates north of 82.5N latitude. Also, satellite data don’t give estimates of *surface air temperature*, they give estimates of *lower troposphere temperature*. They’re different critters.]

    So we can get “ranking” for:

    GISTEMP (U.S., NH, SH, and ROW)

    HadCRU (U. S., NH, SH, and ROW)

    and Satellite data (World minus Arctic/Antatctic).

    Does each of these show a different “hottest” year, and does the trend match all of them?

  • cody // November 11, 2007 at 7:31 am

    @ Insoluble

    You have two choices in the way of explaining the difference between US and ROW surface temp divergence.

    Possibility #1 is that the US is unrepresentative either of the globe, or of the Northern Hemisphere. As our host remarks, it is some 6% of land surface, and the earth seems to be about 29% land and 71% ocean. It could simply be that the world has warmed, but this particular 6% of the surface has warmed less than the other 94%.

    Possibility #2 is that the divergence is to do with data measurement. People who say this argue that the ROW stations, particularly in the third world, are maintained to lower standards, that there is less station history on them, and that, particularly in China, there may be urbanization effects. If you take this view, you would argue that the US record is more likely to be right.

    It is undoubtedly true that there has been urbanization in China on a grand scale, and it is also true that station metadata is missing in a lot of cases. Dr Jones recently revealed what stations some of his work had been using, and this emerged. It is clear this happened, but what it means if anything is a lot less clear.

    Its a complicated subject. Before just accepting the assertion that the US is not representative however, one might like some real evidence that in climate history we can point to other continental scale divergencies from the global trend, lasting at least decades.

    It does seem to need proving, particularly if the other part of the argument is going to rely on global averages. Because if it happens, over and underrepresentation by area in even the GISSTEMP record needs to be addressed carefully as a possible source of error.

    Probably the AGW proponents would say that the MWP and LIA are examples of regional phenomena on the same scale as the US/ROW divergence, and you’d encounter the usual heated debates on this one too!

    [Response: I'm afraid your theory just doesn't hold water. One need not look any further than the continental U.S. to find sizeable regions with substantively different behavior. Comparing the American west with the southeast over the 20th century shows that these two large regions have shown very different behavior. From 1930 to 2006, e.g., the southeast cooled but the west warmed strongly.

    It's also a mischaracterization to say that the continental U.S. shows "divergencies from the global trend." The early 20th-century U.S. warming is also observed in the rest of the world, but it's stronger in the U.S.; the recent warming (during the "modern global warming era" from 1975 to the present) is, again, plainly visible in the world and in the U.S. In fact during this time period U.S. warming is quite a bit stronger than world-wide warming, but indistinguishable from the northern-hemisphere-land trend.

    In fact it's simply not credible to expect that we would *not* see significant regional differences, even on continental scales. Furthermore, many of the regional differences are exactly what we would expect: stronger warming in the arctic, stronger warming in the NH than the SH, significantly less warming in the Antarctic interior with very strong warming on the Antarctic peninsula.

    The use of regional differences is sleight-of-hand by denialists, to cast doubt on the validity of the global nature of warming (which refers to the global average, not small locations), and to cast doubt on the validity of the surface temperature record. I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief, but I think you've been hoodwinked.]

  • Insoluble // November 11, 2007 at 9:35 am

    Hank. The GISS Temp are anomolies, that is differences between the average temperature for the region. A permanent weather feature like the one alluded to in your first link, cannot explain a relative change such as the differences between Worldwide GISS Temp and North American GissTemp.

    So what has changed over the time period of temperature record to account for the difference between the two records?

  • Hank Roberts // November 11, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    Of course a fixed feature can have different results downstream, when the conditions change. The jet stream’s moved, it hits the mountains differently.

  • John V // November 11, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    Regarding the differences between the USA48 temperature trend and the rest-of-world temperature trend:

    I was faced with this question over at Climate Audit so I did a little analysis. Basically, I looked at the differences between the Western, Central, and Eastern USA48 compared to the differences between the USA48 and the world.

    I found that the differences between *regions* of the USA48 are as large as the differences between USA48 and the rest-of-the-world. Based on this, I find nothing unusual about the USA48 deviations from the world trends.

    There’s more detail available in my original posts at CA:
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2200#comment-150237
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2200#comment-150434

  • Hank Roberts // November 11, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    John, your patience is amazing.
    Anything happen over there since the thread got locked at the end of October?

  • BrianR // November 11, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    JohnV…reading through that comment thread is very interesting. You did a great job of explaining what you did and what you think it means. I would second Hank’s query about what happened over there since then…it’s very difficult to follow the evolution of discussions there when they jump from topic to topic and are embedded in multiple “unthreaded” posts.

    I guess CA has moved on from that topic (?) … seems they are now having fun making fun of Gore.

  • John V // November 11, 2007 at 11:42 pm

    Hank and BrianR:
    I lost my patience a few times over at CA, so I’ve just been lurking for a couple of weeks. As far as I can tell, the GISTEMP and surface station threads didn’t go as planned, so the instrumental temperature record has been dropped as a topic of conversation.

  • sirlurksalot // November 12, 2007 at 12:06 am

    John V great comments at CA. It seemed to me too that just as your opponents were getting trounced they closed the thread.

  • Hank Roberts // November 12, 2007 at 12:23 am

    > GISTEMP and surface station
    > threads didn’t go as planned,
    > so the instrumental temperature
    > record has been dropped

    What became of the tree core thread?

  • Steve Bloom // November 12, 2007 at 1:18 am

    In the end, the tale of CA is that anything that’s not seen as helpful to undermining AGW theory (however defined) becomes boring and falls by the wayside. Such an approach isn’t science, and I doubt even meets the standards for auditing.

    Thanks for all of your excellent work over there, John V. It stands as a neat demonstration of the “power of large numbers.” McIntyre and Watts could have saved themselves a ot of trouble if they had just read Tamino’s early post on that subject. :)

    BTW, it’s possible that Climatic Change (Steve Schneider) would be interested in a write-up of the whole experience.

    A question: Did the translation of that French station standards paper ever turn up? My suspicion was that the standards are more qualitative than quantitative (contrary to what the auditors assumed), but I’d still like to see it.

  • Insoluble // November 12, 2007 at 2:57 am

    John V. In your last chart post #487 Climate Audit ref:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2200

    “the difference of each section trend from the total USA48 trend (calculated using all CRN123R stations). For comparison, the difference between USA48 and the world is also shown”

    The USA48-World matches the USA48 Central-All until about 1960 and doesn’t rejoin till about 1998.

    The magnitude may be similar, but it looks like, all other things being equal, in the absence of some exclusively non USA Central temperature event between 1969 and 1998, the World temperature record is wrong for that period.

  • sirlurksalot // November 12, 2007 at 3:24 am

    Two graph lines agree part of the time then disagree part of the time so the world temperature trend is wrong? By what twisted logic do you come to that conclusion?

    [Response: A more civil, even genial, tone generally makes ones point more effective.]

  • cce // November 12, 2007 at 3:46 am

    Speaking of the CA efforts, has there been any discussion of how they intend to analyze the ROW? Certainly they don’t intend to take pictures of every temperature station in the world. Or will they admit that NASA’s method works just fine, now that they’ve essentially replicated the results (for the US) using an entirely different method?

    I know, I’m dreaming.

  • Insoluble // November 12, 2007 at 3:51 am

    Do you know why the lines would diverge otherwise?

  • dhogaza // November 12, 2007 at 3:58 am

    Response: A more civil, even genial, tone generally makes ones point more effective.

    This comment is civil, at least by the standards of someone raised on the West Coast of the United States.

    (or pretty much anywhere, conferences I’ve atteneded over the years are filled with much worse)

    The only possible offensive statement here is “twisted logic”, and …

    That’s not offensive by any rational standard.

    [Response: Neither is it genial. But perhaps you're right, I'm being a little too sensitive.]

  • John V // November 12, 2007 at 4:08 am

    Insoluble:
    The point of the plots is to show that even in a relatively small region like the USA48, there can be substantially different temperature trends. It is therefore not surprising that there are different temperature trends between regions of the world.

    The USA Central temperature is different than the USA West and USA East temperatures. This does not mean that the USA West and East temperatures are wrong. Similarly, the differences between USA Central and the World do not mean that the World temperatures are wrong.

  • tamino // November 12, 2007 at 4:18 am

    I’d guess that the USA48 curve would be roughly equal to the average of west, central, and east. If west+east remains roughly constant for a while, then shifts to a different value, the relationship between USA48-world and central-world would change.

    I do get the impression that your assumption, that this indicates the world temperature record is wrong, is jumping to the conclusion that you wanted without any justification.

    JohnV, any comment?

  • cody // November 12, 2007 at 5:35 am

    Don’t think I can have been hoodwinked, since I don’t have a firm opinion on this, but do find the surface temp situation very problematic.

    First, surely it was very odd that Jones only released the identity of his Chinese stations in response to an FOI request? It doesn’t inspire confidence. What was so secret about it? What about the Australian ones? That strikes one as just plain weird. Or is this not true? Did Jones have this data in the public domain all the time?

    Second, this regional stuff seems deeply puzzling. We are simultaneously arguing that different regions can have sharply divergent temperatures, but that in some way, averaging them all will lead to some meaningful measure. Well why? How do you rule out a preponderance of some local events at some times? How do we weight the representation?

    Third, the surfacestations project came in for much ridicule, but it does seem reasonable that if an agency operating met stations has standards, they should be adhered to, and it doesn’t seem absurd to check and see if they are. You can see the absurdity of the ridicule if you consider how we would react to a proposal to permit station siting on the lines of some of the more egregious absurdities they discovered and documented. Again, it may not matter, but it doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Fourth, on CA and Gore, I found their thread on that quite shocking. If they are right, the movie seems to show the MBH Hockey Stick, so decisively trashed by M&M, Wegman and North. However, it seems to be attributed to Thompson, and it seems to be being argued that the exhibit shown is different work by Thompson that confirms the Mann Hockey Stick, when in reality it is just the Mann Hockey Stick. Well, that is really rather shocking, its a basic howler, and one had thought that we had moved on from MBH98 and 99, which are really rather embarrassing.

    [Response: I leave it to others to comment on most of this, but I will express this opinion: M&M, Wegman, et al. have trashed the hockey stick but by no means refuted it, and by their efforts have embarrassed themselves more than anything else.

    I don't know the source of the graph in Al Gore's film, but if he attributes it to Thompson I'll accept the attribution until I see some *evidence* to the contrary.

    I'm not going to allow yet another debate over the Mann, Bradley, & Hughes hockey stick. We've both made our opinions clear, let's agree to disagree.]

  • John Cross // November 12, 2007 at 6:15 am

    John V: Let me add that as an occasional lurker on CA I have been impressed at your patience and ability to provide a solid analysis.

    Regards,
    John

  • Insoluble // November 12, 2007 at 7:01 am

    JohnV. Sure relative temperatures change in different regions. Why did the Central US48 Temp track the World Temp for 58 years, and then not? If CO2 is the dominant driver of Temp, was CO2 in the Central US falling?

    And by the way, looking at some of your other posts, you say that the US48 inter regional variability is not a major issue, but that variability is as much as the claimed warming attributed to CO2

  • John V // November 12, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    Tamino:
    You are correct that the USA48 curve is roughly equal to the average of the West, Central, and East curves. It’s not exactly equal because the regions do not have equal areas.

    I can not think of any justification for Insoluble’s conclusion.

  • John V // November 12, 2007 at 1:22 pm

    cce:
    “Speaking of the CA efforts, has there been any discussion of how they intend to analyze the ROW?”
    Absolutely not. The only ROW discussion has been individual station comparisons plotting the yearly absolute data to obscure any trends (the “Where’s Waldo” series).

    I would like to do a ROW analysis using only rural non-airport stations after I fix a few issues with my program. Work and life have been getting in the way though.

    “Or will they admit that NASA’s method works just fine, now that they’ve essentially replicated the results (for the US) using an entirely different method?”
    Many CA’ers do not yet accept that the GISTEMP USA48 results have been replicated using only the best rated rural stations. They are clinging to the “coincidence” argument.

  • Hank Roberts // November 12, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    Insol wrote:
    > Do you know why the lines would
    > diverge otherwise?
    (”know” appears extra bold on my screen, possibly meant for emphasis)

    This is not unsolvable.

    Try here, for example; they have visualization tools that help explain why heating doesn’t occur evenly all over the planet at the same time.

    http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/weakwinds.htm

  • Steve Bloom // November 12, 2007 at 6:14 pm

    Answering Cody’s first three points:

    First, Jones has clearly stated (on excellent grounds IMHO) that he will cooperate as little as possible with McIntyre et al. It seems reasonable to extend that attitude to not revealing the location of data that’s in the public domain.

    Second, we avoid those problems by not drawing climatological conclusions from short time series.

    Third, there was a little sleight-of-hand performed with those standards. They were put in place for the new network (CRN) and were never intended to be retroactively applied to the old network (USHCN) . Note that the new network will do the job with a much smaller number of stations.

  • cce // November 12, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    The graph in AIT (book and movie) is the Mann et al Hockey Stick. I thought this was pointed out some time ago, but it is apparently new to the auditors. It was, however, taken from a Thompson paper where it was compared to his ice core data.

    Compare figure 7 (c) vs 7 (d):
    http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Abstracts/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf

    Either Gore, or whoever was responsible for creating the chart for the book and movie, used figured d instead of c. Anyone who takes half a second to actually look at the source paper, will see that both charts (Thompson vs Hockey Stick) are virtually indistinguishable to a layman, which was probably the reason for the mixup in the first place. Not exactly a “howler.”

    Regarding the OpenTemp project (which I find extremely interesting), perhaps Tamino could lend his big mathematical brain to help apply the statistics.

    [Response: I'm flattered. From what I've seen, it looks like JohnV has the situation well in hand. But if he wants some consultation, I'd consider it (although I'm kept pretty busy with my job and this blog).]

  • Hank Roberts // November 12, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    > used figure (d) instead of figure (c)

    Good explanation. Is this posted somewhere with the images? I keep hoping the AIT folks will create a website with errata (there are always errata) and updates (there are always updates). I’ve never found one, it’s a gaping absence of information I expect must be available somewhere.

    Tamino, you could perhaps compare the (c) and (d) charts usefully, to set out the difference the error actually makes in the conclusion if any (again, if AIT hasn’t got this somewhere already)

  • Conard // November 13, 2007 at 5:39 am

    re Steve Bloom

    Could someone please provide a link to Dr Jones’ clear statements? I (quickly) searched this site, realclimate, and google but did not see it, or perhpas overlooked it. I will keep looking but would appreciate any help.

    thanks

  • cody // November 13, 2007 at 6:26 am

    Steve Bloom,

    It is not a reasonable explanation of a refusal to reveal one’s data to anyone, until compelled to by FOI proceedings, that one does not want to work with some specific individual. Jones’ refusal to reveal the identities of the stations to anyone at all, was quite different from a refusal to work with McIntyre. The first was unprofessional, the second quite understandable.

  • cody // November 13, 2007 at 8:04 am

    http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Abstracts/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf

    is apparently where the Gore hockey stick came from. P 151. What is said in the movie is that Thompson’s work shows that the MWP was just about non-existent. To prove this, what purports to be Thompson’s chart is shown - which would have to be one of the other charts on p 151. What is actually shown however is Thompson’s version of the Mann/Jones HS. If you look at the left charts, which are Thompson’s, they do support modern warming…but they also seem to have a medieval warming.

    So what I find rather shocking is not that a correct chart was shown with a mistaken attribution. That is not what happened.

    What seems to have happened is that the text mentions that the Mann/Jones hockey stick has been criticized. It then cites what it alleges is independent confirmation of the underlying phenomenon, which is no such thing, but is just the Mann/Jones hockey stick again.

    They could have done one of two intellectually respectable things, but did neither. The first was to say, Mann/Jones has been criticized, we reject those criticisms, it is the truth about recent climate, and here it is. The second would be to say, we accept the criticisms, and here is another different independent series that shows that whether they were wrong or not, what they described is real.

    To do what they did, pretend they were citing an independent confirmation while actually just repeating the same thing, falsely attributed as being independent and different. Well, its very sleazy. Very sleazy indeed. Especially when its for general public and educational consumption. Its propaganda tactics.

  • steven mosher // November 13, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    Bloom gets it wrong, cody.

    The CRN rating system was developed by Dr. LeRoy to evaluate the historical system in France and was adopted as a siting guide by NOAA.

  • steven mosher // November 13, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    “The CRN will use the classification scheme
    below to document the “meteorological measurements representativity” at each site. This
    scheme, described by Michel Leroy (1998), is being used by Meteo-France to classify their
    network of approximately 550 stations. The classification ranges from 1 to 5 for each measured
    parameter. The errors for the different classes are estimated values.”

  • luminous beauty // November 13, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    Cody,

    “What seems to have happened is that the text mentions that the Mann/Jones hockey stick has been criticized. It then cites what it alleges is independent confirmation of the underlying phenomenon, which is no such thing, but is just the Mann/Jones hockey stick again.”

    I can find no such mention or allegation in the text. I’ve read it twice, looking for even some inferential reference to what you are saying. Perhaps you can point to page and paragraph or supply a quote?

    If you compare fig.7c (average of ice-core measures) and fig.7d (MBH99), there is significant correlation and therefore independent corroboration between, specifically, Thompson et al.’s upper elevation tropical temperature reconstruction and MBH’s lower elevation NH reconstruction, which are quite different measurements.

    If you compare fig.7a to fig.7b, you can see the strong MWP and LIA signals in the Andean record are greatly canceled out by the measurements from the Tibetan Plateau. This is strong evidence that those features were not global in nature, but regional oscillations.

    The only meaning of ‘what seems to have happened’ I can infer from your statement is a measure of your own confirmation bias.

    Not ’sleazy’, necessarily, but intellectually weak.

  • cody // November 13, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    luminous,

    Well, I may have drawn a wrong conclusion from the picture and the quote on CA. My recollection of the movie is admittedly not precise or detailed enough to be reliable. I did recall Gore standing in front of the chart, and thought he was speaking about Thompson. So I have told a couple of people that this section was based on Thompson’s ice core work. Apparently wrongly however.

    What is quoted on CA is the following line:

    “But as Dr Thompson’s thermometer shows, the vaunted Medieval Warm Period (the third little red blip from the left below) was tiny in comparison to the enormous increases in temperature in the last half-century - the red peaks at the far right of the graph. These global-warming skeptics…. launched a fierce attack against another measurement of the 1000 year correlation between CO2 and temperature known as the “hockey stick”, a graphic image representing the research of climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.”

    Now, this is accompanied by a still of Gore standing in front of what is undoubtedly Mann/Jones, though Steve M seems not to have realized this until some kind people pointed it out, but it is clearly being described as Thompson.

    I don’t know. Maybe Gore was not standing in front of this particular pic when he said these exact words. I can’t swear to it or the exact words, and am not about to buy the movie to find out. Once was enough. Steve M clearly is saying he was, and no-one has questioned it so far. The text does seem to me to say (assuming it is correctly quoted) that the chart he is speaking to is Thompson’s and not Mann’s. He does use the word ‘another’ in reference to Mann’s chart, which would imply that the one on display was not that. Or that’s how I recall it, and now how I read it.

    If you have the time, take a look at the thread on CA. Has Steve M simply made this up? Perhaps he has ‘decentered’ the still from the spoken text, and no-one has noticed? It seems unlike him, he is rather a stickler for this kind of detail. Or have I misunderstood something else? If I have, its an honest misunderstanding, on the above basis. Whether its intellectually weak or not, who knows? It still seems to me the natural way to take it.

    [Response: I've watched An Inconvenient Truth five times or so (but not in the last year), and I don't recall *any* mention by Al Gore of anything even close to "These global-warming skeptics.... launched a fierce attack against another measurement of the 1000 year correlation between CO2 and temperature known as the “hockey stick”, a graphic image representing the research of climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues." Are you sure the CA people attributed this statement to Gore?]

  • John V // November 13, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    I found a complete transcript of An Inconvenient Truth (see link below). I can’t find the quote in question anywhere.

    http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/03/17/an-inconvient-truth-transcript/

    Maybe the quote was from the book? I’ll ask at CA.

  • cody // November 13, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2335
    is the link.

    Steve M is writing, and he says:

    Quote

    In Inconvenient Truth, after a segment discussing glaciers, Gore stands in front of a Hockey Stick graph for the last 1000 years and tells his audience that “Dr Thompson’s thermometer” had shown the inconsequentialness of the Medieval Warm Period and that “Thompson’s ice core record [was] one of the most definitve” confirmations of Mann’s Hockey Stick.

    Unquote

    This is just a cut and paste.

    And then, below this, in blockquote html, you find the quote that I gave in the post above, that you do not recall hearing, which surely is implied to be Gore speaking? And then immediately below this, there is a pic of Gore speaking, with what is said now to be the Mann/Jones graphic in the background. If its not Gore speaking, who is it? Is the implication of the bit of the post I quoted not that what follows must be Gore speaking?

    Well, it would be nice to know the answer. If it is Gore speaking and standing in front of the Mann/Jones graphic, my original judgment stands, and if it isn’t, or if everyone says this is not what the post is saying, one hardly knows what to think. Have I totally misunderstood what its saying? Or has Steve M got the transcript wrong?

  • cce // November 13, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    The quoted passage is from the book, not the movie. I don’t have it in front of me, but it is on the two-spread page featuring the Hockey Stick (again, what should have been figure c, or Thompson’s composite ice core data)

    [Response: I don't recall it from the book either. Does anybody have a copy, to confirm or deny this?]

  • Steve Bloom // November 13, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    Thanks for correcting yourself, mosh.

    An unofficial but apparently complete AIT transcript (including the principal slides) can be found here. At a quick glance I don’t see what McIntyre is talking about.

  • cce // November 13, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    Perhaps someone can post Thompson’s composite ice core graph and the Hockey Stick from the paper and rotate them, because it certainly seems to me that one reinforces the other.

  • Steve Bloom // November 13, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    A search finds that McIntyre’s probable source is this CEI document, beginning on page 24. The references are to the book. Lacking a copy of the book or the movie, it would be hard for me to parse all of this even if I had the time, but McIntyre appears to have conflated the book and the movie somewhat, perhaps following CEI’s lead since the latter appear to make the same basic argument.

  • cody // November 13, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    “Correcting oneself”. I do hope no-one thinks I am Steven Mosher. I am not and do not even know him (other than by his posts).

  • BrianR // November 13, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    CA’ers advocacy, and criticism of climate scientists, (ad nauseum) is for accurate documentation/archiving of all data, citations, statements, etc.

    I would certainly agree that this is indeed important to science. But, if that is their mantra, they better adhere to it themselves.

    Even if confusing the book and the movie does not have significance to what SteveMc is arguing, being that anal-retentive is what they are arguing for constantly. When you ask them about the significance of their auditing, they’ll say ‘it doesn’t matter…we’re exposing the process, and the process is sloppy, which does not inspire confidence’, and so on.

  • cody // November 13, 2007 at 7:43 pm

    On page 23 and again on page 25 of the CEI source that Steve Bloom cites, the quotes that CA uses do appear. Whether the CEI paper was the source is not clear, but one would conclude not, from the fact that the CA quote is slightly more extensive.

    Are we saying that these quotes appear neither in the book nor in the movie?

    Surely they cannot simply have been invented? It would be absurd and self defeating?

    [Response: Absurd yes. Self-defeating maybe not. After all, how often are such claims checked in detail? And for every person who's interested enough to find out, how many simply accept what is claimed without confirmation?]

  • tamino // November 13, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    By request, I’ve updated this post with a reproduction of the relevant part of figure 7 from Thompson’s paper. Note that after being rotated, time runs from right to left.

  • John V // November 13, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    Apparently, the quote is “from the book, page 65 or so” (according to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit).

  • dhogaza // November 13, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    Surely they cannot simply have been invented? It would be absurd and self defeating?

    Making stuff up about Al Gore isn’t exactly a new trick, and while this may seem absurd, why would you think it’s self-defeating?

    Al Gore invented the internet.

    Surely you remember that one …

  • steven mosher // November 13, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    Ah… Bloom gets it wrong again. I am discussing the use of site ratings. He claimed they were developed for CRN and not useful for historical sites. Clearly false.

    WRT to AIT. As many have pointed out it is a movie. I would not hold it to a high standard of proof. I would not hold blog posts to a high standard of proof, or TV shows, or Comments on blogs or comments by Bloom.

    Bloom simply gets the facts surrounding the site rating wrong. The system of rating was not developed for CRN. It was developed by Dr LeRoy for evaluating existing sites.

    He is wrong. AGW may be be correct. AIT has mistakes. AGW may be correct. Bloom has been correct. AGW may be false. Tamino has been right. AGW may be false.

    I think most of the debate over AIT is as useless as pointing out errors made by editors in ELY nevada or errors may by Gore or Bloom or me or tamino.

    Find spelling errors here.

  • BrianR // November 13, 2007 at 11:47 pm

    Hmm…maybe I misunderstood… if pointing out errors made by Bloom is useless, why did you comment about him making an error (”Bloom gets it wrong again”)?

  • Steve Bloom // November 14, 2007 at 12:17 am

    mosh, note that I said “put in place” rather than “developed.” I’m well aware of their origin, as you can see from my previous comment above. (Speaking of the French paper, did that translation ever turn up?)

    To be fair, “put in place” was ambiguous. What I meant is that they were *adopted* by NOAA for the CRN and not for the USHCN. Of course one can apply them anyway (as was done with the outcome we all know about), but after that was done I seem to recall endless snarking about how numerous USHCN stations don’t meet the standards. That’s what I was referring to when I said “sleight-of-hand.”

    My suspicion is that the French rated their sites because they planned to use existing sites to place their new CRN-type stations rather than looking for entirely new sites as was done by NOAA. IOW, the rating of existing stations made sense there but not here.

  • Steve Bloom // November 14, 2007 at 12:22 am

    It was all a big mistake, Brian R. :)

  • cce // November 14, 2007 at 12:29 am

    I scanned the pages from AIT that talk about Thompson and the Hockey Stick (page 63-65). The image on page 63 (vertical hockey stick) is clearly wrong and is supposed to be Thompson’s ice core graphic. The image on page 64-65 (horizontal hockey stick) is the same image turned on its side, but he may actually intend to refer to the Hockey Stick. Gore cites “IPCC” which would indicate it’s supposed to be the Hockey Stick, but the text talks about Thompson’s “thermometer” showing how small the MWP was.

    The AIT images are here:
    http://cce.000webhost.org/ait-63.jpg
    http://cce.000webhost.org/ait-64-65.jpg

    Here is the images from Thompson’s paper:
    http://cce.000webhost.org/thompson-mann.jpg

    And here is the same image flipped and rotated.
    http://cce.000webhost.org/thompson-mann-rotated.jpg

  • EliRabett // November 14, 2007 at 12:33 am

    It’s from the book pp64-65. The quote is accurate enough.

    “The correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations over the last 1000 years - as measured in the ice record by Thomson’s team- is striking.

    Nonetheless, the so-called global-warming skeptics often say that global warming is really an illusion reflecting nature’s cyclical fluctuations. To support their view, they frequently refer to the Medieval Warm Period.

    But as Dr. Thomson’s thermometer shows, the vaunted Medieval Warm Period (the third little red blip from the left below) was tiny compared to the enormous increases in temperature in the last half-century (the red peaks at the far right of the chart).

    Those global-warming skeptics-a group diminishing almost as rapidly as the mountain glaciers-launched a fierce attack against another measurement of the 1000-year correlation between CO2 and temperature known as “the hockey stick”, a graphic image representing the research of climate scientist Michael Mann (nb-even Gore rasools Hughes and Bradley) and his colleagues. But in fact, scientists have confirmed the same basic conclusions in multiple ways - with Thompson’s ice core record as one of the most definitive.”

    to be exact. There is no picture of Gore near this.

  • Hank Roberts // November 14, 2007 at 4:08 am

    I recall the Wegman hearing and someone on the committee starting a rant about Mann and the “Hockey Stick” and pointing to that same chart in the book and having someone try to explain to him that not every chart of that shape was based on Mann’s work. He sort of burbled into silence looking very unhappy — he’d clearly believed that any chart of that shape had to live or die on whether Mann’s work was sustained, and being told he was looking at an ice core chart left him befuddled.

    Now, he’s refuddled, I guess.

  • cody // November 14, 2007 at 7:07 am

    Bottom line then is that CA is basically right. The text (in the book) is as quoted. The graphic is indeed of Mann/Jones. The (book) text does indeed represent this as being independent confirmation by Thompson’s ice core work of MJ, which it is not. Very glad to have cleared this up.

  • henry // November 14, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    And it still doesn’t explain on the chart how you can be both cold and hot at the same time…

    Check the temps closest to the year 2000.

  • JesusChristHimself // November 14, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    I know people who worked with Joe Barton at Atlantic Richfield, which was a clown act masquerading as an oil and gas company.

    All I’ll say, whether Wegman understood it or not, it was a high-tech lynching.

  • cce // November 14, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    The graphic is wrong but the point is not. Thompson’s ice core data is an independent verification of the Hockey Stick.

  • luminous beauty // November 14, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    Yes, Cody,

    CA got the quote right, and the graphic is obviously the wrong one. It is also, obviously, an errata and no insidious intent to deceive, as the text is correct in its assertions, and would be reinforced had the correct graphic been used and this specious little bit of confused nit-picking could have been avoided.

    Hope we have cleared that up?

  • sod // November 14, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    The (book) text does indeed represent this as being independent confirmation by Thompson’s ice core work of MJ, which it is not. Very glad to have cleared this up.

    just to “clear me up” as well:

    what part do you think is telling us that the graph is of a Thompson ice core?

    certainly NOT pages 64/65.

  • henry // November 14, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    Also, which of Thompson’s ice core studies is being used to verify the MJ chart?

    from CA:

    “In 2002, Lonnie Thompson drilled a 460 meter ice core in a col between Mounts Bona and Churchill in Alaska. As of October 2003, they had analyzed over 5600 samples and concluded that the core covered approximately 2500 years. A presentation was made at AGU in December 2004. The data was not discussed in IPCC AR4 or even in Thompson’s 2006 PNAS article. Actually, not only is the data completely unarchived, to date, there is no journal publication whatever of these results (funded by the National Science Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs grant OPP-0099311).”

    Not this study…

  • dhogaza // November 14, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    It is also, obviously, an errata and no insidious intent to deceive, as the text is correct in its assertions, and would be reinforced had the correct graphic been used and this specious little bit of confused nit-picking could have been avoided.

    And, as any one who’s been involved in the production of a book will know, Gore may not even be the source of the error.

    I got roasted once out at the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge by a friend who read one of my articles in a birding magazine. The photo editor had swapped captions on two photos, causing a dunlin to be labeled a dowitcher and vice-versa. Causing me to look like a bloody idiot in the eyes of the world.

    This kind of stuff happens all the time.

    Of course, Gore himself might be responsible for the mix-up, but I wouldn’t bet too much on it. And it’s the sort of thing that’s easy to miss when reviewing proofs, too.

  • windansea // November 14, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    what part do you think is telling us that the graph is of a Thompson ice core?

    certainly NOT pages 64/65.

    the book continues the same error of confirming the Mann hockey stick with the Mann hockey stick

    the only thing the book corrected was to reverse the Y axis which showed negative anomalies above the baseline instead of below.

  • sod // November 14, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    no, this study:

    http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Abstracts/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf

    but you are not the only one, who did NOT read it.

    over at CA they are making a huge story out of the claim, that the hockey stick is used to verify itself.

    the truth of course is, that 18-O is a temperature indicator. Thompson does show this in the paper above by making looking 25000 years back, others did for short terms:

    http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/events/antarctic06/presentations/schlosser.ppt

    so in short:

    the Thompson paper shows, that 18-O shows a hockey stick form for 1000 years.

    18-O is a temperature indicator

    AIT does NOT claim that the the graph is the Thompson termometer (though it could be mistaken as saying that)

  • luminous beauty // November 14, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    windy,

    you’re a bit late to the show and a bit slow to catch up. But that’s not peculiar.
    The text is a reasonably complete explanation of Thompson’s study, and stands on its own without depending on the graphic. It is only the graphic which is the cause of confusion. I should hope Gore or the publishers will hear the criticism, and in subsequent editions, correct the graphic to one more illustrative of the point being made. He should also be gracious in acknowledging the CA crowd for demonstrating the wild confusion such an insignificant error can cause among the intellectually challenged.

  • henry // November 15, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    If 18-O is a temp indicator, explain slide #30 in the PPT presentation (81 MB) by Lonnie Thompson (referenced on CA).

    I’m talking about the unpublished, un-archived data from Bona-Churchill showing NO INCREASED 18-O during the last half of the 20th century, as the rest of his cores do.

  • henry // November 15, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    For those of you who don’t want to visit CA, here’s the link to the PPT.

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/ppp/IPY-APCV/LonnieThompsonWorkshop.pps

  • steven mosher // November 15, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    Hi Mr. Bloom,

    The Translation is back with LeRoy for checking.

    WRT to checking the USCHN network using the rating system, preliminary analysis shows that including class 5 sites does increase the warming trend. However,There are several outstanding issues.

    1. assesing when a class 5 became a class 5.
    2. Acually doing statistical tests.
    3. Expanding the database. Hint, if you compare
    “unrated sites” to rated sites you see that the unrated sites tend to be warmer.

    The effect size for bad sites is likely to be small.
    the percentage of class5 is on the order of
    15%. For the 1221 sites in the US this will
    amount to less than 200 sites.

    Hypothetical: If the trend of the best 1000 sites
    was .6C/century and the trend of the worst
    221 was .65 C/century would you suggest that the worst 221 be excluded?

    Open question?

    It might be nice

  • John V // November 15, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    Regarding the temperature trends from USHCN ratings, it is true that the class 5 stations show a warming bias relative to the best stations. Most of the warming trend is from the 1940s to the 1970s.

    However, it must also be noted that the GISTEMP USA48 temperature trend matches the trend from the best rural stations.

    Considering the large regional variability found in the USA48, we have to be very careful about geographic distribution when making comparisons. I have some preliminary paired-station comparisons that I hope to write up soon.

  • Steve Bloom // November 16, 2007 at 8:23 am

    mosh, I think this whole issue became pretty boring as soon as John V. was able to establish that consistency.

    BTW, have any of you folks ever had a substantial conversation with any of the relevant NOAA scientists? They have listed phone numbers, you know, and in sharp contrast with GISS bridges have yet to be burnt. A couple of months ago I talked to the guy in charge of the the CRN network. He told me he was very happy about the USHCN site survey and would probably have some suggestions to make the data-gathering more useful were someone to actually get in touch with him. I told him not to hold his breath since doing so would be seen as ruining the fun.

    Thanks for the update on LeRoy.

  • JamesG // November 16, 2007 at 11:16 am

    Happily there was enough data in US48 to weed out those biases by software and satellites - though it is clearly much more complex, slower and costlier than actually just identifying some good rural stations, doing zero adjustments and one page of R coding. Unhappily the rest of the world is not so well endowed with data.

    But how can 2007 be found to be among the warmest ever when Europe and much of the Southern hemisphere have had a colder than usual Summer followed by a colder than usual Autumn?

  • Jason // November 16, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    sod,

    Over at Climate Audit they have the transcript of a hearing in the United States congress in which a Democratic representative from Illinois clearly states that the graphic is from Thompson (in an effort to correct a Republican from Florida who says the graphic is from Mann).

    This isn’t some straw man that Climate Audit made up. Policy makers have read the Al Gore materials and interpreted the graph is this way. If Policy is being based on false information, that makes this a big deal, whether it should be or not.

  • steven mosher // November 16, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    Hi JohnV,

    What would really be cool would be to get GISSTemp running and then pull the class 5 out of it. That would make an interesting comparison. Maybe Mr. Bloom can get NASA to do it. Its a simple datafile change and a few minutes of comuter time.

  • Bill Bodell // November 16, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    Here’s someone’s chance to set me straight and keep another soul away from ClimateAudit.

    I am a civilian that has been interested in the GW debate for some time but has only recently been reading blogs like this and CA. I know very little about the math, statistics and climate science, but I am capable of rational thought.

    Here’s what bothers me; I naively thought that scientists routinely provided the data they used in their papers along with the programs or statistical methods used. After all, how could anyone confirm their results if they couldn’t independently verify the data? If someone publishes a paper claiming that they have created “cold fusion”, then I would expect that the next step would be for others to examine the data, question the methods, etc. I find it hard to believe that any credibility could be assigned to a paper claiming to have examined data and reached a conclusion where the data, the adjustments to the data and the method of processing the data were not put in the public domain.

    CA seems to feel that the above happens all the time in the field of Climate Science. I have seen here (in what clearly seems to be a pro-AGW site) what seems to be confirmation that underlying data and methods are indeed sometimes not put in the public domain (i.e. Dr. Jones). I find this very disturbing.

    So, what’s the real situation?

    1) Am I naïve and scientific papers in all fields routinely do not publish data and methods and is CA therefore holding Climate Science to a standard not found anywhere else?
    2) Do Climate Scientists routinely publish their data and CA is picking on one or two rare exceptions?
    3) If the science is sound, what reasons (other than hiding something) could be valid for withholding data. There may well be no attempt to “hide” data, but why allow others the chance to claim that that is what is being done.
    4) Are there any good reasons to not make data, adjustments, methods, etc. available?

    This topic alone is enough to predispose me in favor of the skeptics?

    Why shouldn’t it?

    This is not a rhetorical question; I am truly looking for enlightenment.

    Thank you

    [Response: As a matter of fact, papers in all fields routinely do not publish data. Getting data can be an immense amount of work, and some people don't want to give away for free what they've sweated blood for, so they guard it like a miser. Others want to "shout it to the mountaintops" and go to great lengths to make data available. Some are very open, some are very secretive.

    Usually, whoever does the work to get the data will take the "first crack" at analyzing it, to get scientific publications from the information. Some will keep it private longer -- until they've milked it for all it's worth. And some don't ever want to let it go.

    In climate science too, some do, some don't. If you're interested in the NASA GISS analysis, it's pretty much an open book; the data are all on the web, the analysis is thoroughly described in their publications, and they have even recently released their computer code. In fact, if I'm not mistaken one of the readers here (JohnV) has undertaken a project ot reproduce the analysis. The Hadley Centre, on the other hand, spurns such an open policy.

    Looking for climate data on the web, my experience is that I'm surprised how much of it is easily available. In my opinion, in climate science you're just as likely to be able to get data as in just about any scientific discipline, maybe even more likely.

    Those who haven't actually done science, generally don't realize how much effort is required to do it well. Scientists are people too, and some just don't want to share. This can be especially true if we feel there may be further discoveries which could win publications, reputation, even glory. If you spent 7 years training to learn a discipline, then spent 15 years enduring the climate in Antarctica to apply your training, maybe you too would be a little reluctant to give it away free to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who sent you an email.

    Bear in mind also that providing data can itself be a lot of work. Take a good look here and ask yourself, how much time and effort was required to make that much data available that easily?

    Yes, sometimes data are withheld, for all the usual reasons: jealousy in guarding "potential" discoveries, laziness in organizing hundreds of megabytes (or more) for web download, or just plain stinginess. The situation in climate science really is not any different than in other sciences. Anybody who tells you different, is selling something.]

  • cce // November 16, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    If Gore and his staff believed that the graph was from Thompson, and someone asked them where it came from, they would say that it came from Thompson. I’m having trouble understanding the the nefarious intent behind showing the Hockey Stick instead of the Thompson “thermometer” when they are obviously so similar that most people would not be able to tell them apart, unless they were side by side.

    http://cce.000webhost.org/thompson-mann-rotated.jpg

  • John V // November 16, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    steven mosher:
    I would like to see GISSTEMP running as well. That project seemed to fizzle out at CA. Hopefully, there will be a cleaned-up version in the near future. Actually, it would be even better if they’d hire a developer to modernize the whole thing — I know a guy who’d love to do it. :)

    =====
    Bill Bodell:
    When I first wandered into the mess of AGW websites a couple of months ago, I also believed that the data and programs would be available. It perplexed me that they sometimes (often?) aren’t.

    IMHO, much of the contrarian position is based on conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theories thrive where there transparency is lacking.

    At least some of the blame for the lack of transparency belongs with sites like CA that do not review the data and methods in good faith. They dig for little problems and amplify them. They seem to think that not being perfectly right implies being perfectly wrong.

  • John V // November 16, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    Tamino:
    “In fact, if I’m not mistaken one of the readers here (JohnV) has undertaken a project ot reproduce the analysis. ”

    That’s a common misconception. I have not been trying to reproduce GISTEMP (the results just worked out that way). OpenTemp is my attempt at an independent and completely transparent instrumental temperature analysis.

  • sod // November 16, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    sod,

    Over at Climate Audit they have the transcript of a hearing in the United States congress in which a Democratic representative from Illinois clearly states that the graphic is from Thompson (in an effort to correct a Republican from Florida who says the graphic is from Mann).

    i m sorry to disrupt your view of the world, but MPs are as likely to make faults as normal people are. hell, even de4mocrats get things wrong now and then.

    as i told you above, i see how the part could be misread.

    but even then, it doesn t change a lot: the Thompson graphs SUPPORT the hockey stick. fact.

    Here’s what bothers me; I naively thought that scientists routinely provided the data they used in their papers along with the programs or statistical methods used. After all, how could anyone confirm their results if they couldn’t independently verify the data? If someone publishes a paper claiming that they have created “cold fusion”, then I would expect that the next step would be for others to examine the data, question the methods, etc.

    science works completely different. i think CA is really messing up the perception of people here!

    in short, a scientific article will NOT provide data, but general information about the data, and the way it was aquired.

    then, REPLICATION means: get your own data, and do it with your own program.

    in social science for example, basically NO raw data will be made available, as it would be possible to reconstruct the person providing that dataset.

    there is a single reason, why any data is available at all: bless the internet, and GORE, who supported it early on!

    without the web, data would need to be printed expensively… it didn t happen a lot…

  • Heretic // November 16, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    Thanks for that clarification Tamino. The cries for giving away all data, all the time, immediately, have always seemed strange to me and certainly not akin to what happens in other fields, where often times it goes like this: “I’m explaining exactly how I gathered my data, feel free to go get your own until I am thoroughly done with this set.”

    It is perhaps unfortunate but, when one has spent a few years in leeches infested swamps to gather said data, can be understandable. By the same token, the conspiracy-like claims for relesing code would be equally surprising in any other field. If you know what an algorithm is supposed to achieve, make your own code to achieve the same and you’ll have a more reliable confirmation/falsification.

    It is kind of ironic that many who so eagerly defend libertarian types of ideas, such as private property, or being able to enjoy the benefit of your hard work, would so easily deny them to some when they deem convenient.

  • Heretic // November 16, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    John V, can this be quoted?
    “I have not been trying to reproduce GISTEMP (the results just worked out that way). ”

    Because, you know, it’s really telling something.

  • Jason // November 16, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    The major journals across a variety of disciplines have requirements that the data be archived.

    Despite numerous instances of falsification (notably in Biology), these requirements a routinely ignored.

    But the scientific community has undeniably recognized the importance mandating access to the data. (It just lacks the will to enforce this requirement).

    If the purpose of your scientific paper is to support a new theory, the absence of this data is unlikely to have any important consequence for the research.

    If your paper is being used to support a multi-billion dollar (or even multi-trillion dollar) public policy initiative, a failure to provide the underlying data is a catastrophic flaw.

    If:

    1. It is desirable for the idiots in congress to rely on the scientific community when making decisions and

    2. Providing all of the raw data will provide further support for the scientific consensus.

    Then it is a catastrophic error for all the data desired by CA not to be provided.

    Conservatives will, like the CA folk, assume that missing data is unfavorable and/or hides errors in the published papers.

    If your goal is just to publish papers and receive accolades within the Climate Community, then being completely transparent is decidedly less important.

    As long as you don’t want actual legislative action to be taken on global warming, there isn’t any negative consequence to keeping to fruits of your labor all to yourself.

  • luminous beauty // November 16, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    Jason,

    Archiving the data used for publication usually means putting a file of various printouts, field notations, paper and electronic records of instrumental readings, lab tally sheets, sometimes physical specimens, etc. on a shelf in some academic departmental library with some identifying tag, so it can be examined by other researchers who go to the effort to look it up. It doesn’t mean publishing it all in a neat and tidy user friendly format on the internet and making it available for free.

    It would be nice if all information was free, wishes being horses and all.

    What is disturbing about the CA crowd, is even when they get data, they mis-interpret it.

  • Heretic // November 16, 2007 at 9:05 pm

    Jason, I don’t think any one paper would ever be used alone to support a trillion dollar initiative. It’s an entire body of research that would be used for that, and one that has a lot of data publicly available, as Tamino pointed.

    Furthermore, you’re suggesting a double standard: politicians can rely on data that’s secret, but turns out to be downright laughable, to launch a $trillion project like the Iraq war but should have flawless, public data for others, so long as science is involved. There is room for discussion there.

    I tend to be very wary when people start talking about trillions (as Baliunas did to Congress about CFCs). I am also wary of stuff that I see has the potential to be in the trillion(s) range and appears to be minimized by those promoting it (like BAU).

    In addition, we’re talking about an area in which some have already demonstrated bad faith concerning the data, as CA/Watts did with the surface station record, leading to John V comments at CA and on this thread.

    What is the point of releasing data to people that you know will try to find every little flaw in it and then blow it out of proportion, by using complacent or biased media outlets, in order to influence public policy decisions according to their beliefs and preferences, and regardless of what the data actually says?

    Would that truly be in the interest of science or the public? I doubt it.

    I know that this is impossible to achieve, and an opinion that you, or Steve Mosher, or many others, will scream about, but really, it would be better for the integrity climate science that climate science data be available to climate scientists and kept out of the hands of the agenda driven wackos, whether they’d be right or left handed.

  • Jason // November 16, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    Luminous Beauty,

    1. I don’t believe that you are familiar with the written archiving policies of the more prominent journals. To be fair, these policies are consistently ignored, and Climatology does not appear to be any worse in this regard than, say, Microbiology.

    But the scientific community as a whole would be much better off if the requirements were rigidly enforced.

    2. You are most definitely not familiar with the efforts that CA has made to obtain data. If the data were available on some dusty shelf, CA would have it already.

    CA can’t find all the data because researchers refuse to provide it. CA then (rather obnoxiously) documents its efforts to get the data on the website.

  • Jason // November 16, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    Heretic,

    The decision to go to war with Iraq was sabotaged in spectacular fashion by:

    1. A culture of secrecy in which information was transmitted on a need to know basis.

    2. A culture of consensus in which those who disagreed with the consensus were rapidly identified and removed from the process.

    Despite a past investment of hundreds of billions of dollars in our diplomatic, military, and intelligence infrastructure, those two factors alone proved sufficient to sabotage the process.

    It looks like Climatology is suffering from the same problems. And the investment that has been made in Climate research thus far is not even remotely comparable to what was invested in US security infrastructure prior to the war.

    Do you seriously believe that the scientific basis for global warming is so weak that it can be sabotaged by giving the public access to the underlying data?

    If you think so, then it is far weaker than I thought. Either way, hiding the data is bad science.

    BTW, I’m not familiar with what CA has done to act in bad faith.

    CA has previously corrected a major error in the US surface station record. NASA said thanks.

    CA has observed that according to the US surface station record, there is a smaller temperature anomaly in the US than in the rest of the world.

    CA wonders if this is because the US has warmed less rapidly, or if sites in the rest of the world (which on average are sparser, younger and more difficult to verify) have a systematic bias.

    John V. demonstrates that the difference between the US and the rest of the world is not so large as to constitute evidence of such a bias. It is a good analysis with which I agree.

    It does not demonstrate the absence of such a bias in the rest of the world, and to my knowledge John V. makes no such claim.

  • Bill Bodell // November 17, 2007 at 12:12 am

    Moderator, John V.

    Thanks for the prompt response. Don’t you people