The equator, that is, you’ll find the southern hemisphere. In our survey of NASA’s recently released year-end temperature data we’ve looked at global results, and at northern-hemisphere (NH) land data. Now it’s time to give SH (southern hemisphere) land areas (where quite a few people live) their due. For SH land, the hottest years on record are 1998, 2005, 2002, and 2003, with 2007 (last year) coming in 5th:
During what I like to call the “modern global warming era” (1975 to the present) the SH has warmed significantly. Here are the monthly data values since 1975 (small open circles), annual averages (large filled circles), and a smoothed curve (red line):
Since 1975 the SH has warmed by 0.011 deg.C/yr. We can see this more clearly by removing the monthly data points and expanding the y-axis:
The warming is “statistically significant” (a loaded term) and I’d say conservatively that the rate is 0.011 +/- 0.005 deg.C/yr (2-sigma). This is not as fast as the warming we saw in the NH:
Just as NH warming was not evenly distributed latitudinally, so too it has been in the SH. The strongest SH warming has been in the most equatorial latitude band, from 24S to the equator (for latitude bands, NASA reports annual averages but not monthly data):
Since 1975 we have:
This latitude band (the largest of the southern hemisphere) has experienced about 0.7 deg.C warming since 1975. But the next southerly band, from 44S to 24S, has seen a mere 0.2 deg.C warming in the modern era:
The warming further south, in the 64S-44S latitude band, is only slightly less than that in the 44S-24S band. But the estimate itself is less certain because the noise level is higher:
The warming rate is again about the same in the 90S-64S (south polar) band, but again even more uncertain as the noise level is yet higher:
The three most southerly latitude bands, combining to form all land regions south of 24S latitude, indicate warming but only at about 0.006 to 0.007 deg.C/yr, showing a net of about 0.2 deg.C warming or thereabouts in the last 33 years. SH lands from 24S to the equator, on the other hand, are warming substantially faster, at about 0.019 deg.C/yr. And all the NH latitude bands are warming faster still.
By plotting the warming rate from 1975 to the present, with 2-sigma (conservative) error bars, for each latitude band from south to north, we get a more detailed picture of how the planet’s land warming rate depends on latitude:
There are two things not to miss about this graph. First is the fact that all the estimated rates are positive. Hence all eight latitude bands show signs of warming, and for 6 of the 8 the evidence is pretty much incontrovertible. Second is the fact that the further north one ventures the faster is the warming rate. Here are, for both hemispheres and each latitude band from north to south, the warming rates from 1975 to the present, and the net warming accrued over 33 years at the linear warming rate.
| Land Region | Rate 1975-2008 | Net(linear) |
| NH | 0.031 +/- 0.006 | 1.0 |
| 64N-90N | 0.057 +/- 0.018 | 1.9 |
| 44N-64N | 0.038 +/- 0.010 | 1.3 |
| 24N-44N | 0.029 +/- 0.008 | 1.0 |
| Equator-24N | 0.021 +/- 0.006 | 0.7 |
| 24S-Equator | 0.019 +/- 0.006 | 0.6 |
| 44S-24S | 0.007 +/- 0.006 | 0.2 |
| 64S-34S | 0.006 +/- 0.008 | 0.2 |
| 90S-64S | 0.006 +/- 0.015 | 0.2 |
| SH | 0.011 +/- 0.005 | 0.4 |
130 responses so far ↓
J // January 17, 2008 at 3:56 am
Nice post, Tamino (as always).
It would be interesting to see how closely the rates listed in your final table are correlated with the percent land (vs. ocean) in each latitude band.
I just tried this myself, in a very quick and dirty way — using the global 1-degree AVHRR land cover data set from GLCF (http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/data/landcover/data.shtml).
I aggregated it to a 2-degree grid, recoded it as a binary mask (water=0,land=1), summed along each row, multiplied by the cosine of latitude, then aggregated to the same zonal ranges (90-64 N, 64-44 N, etc.)
Aside from the polar regions (i.e., the northernmost and southernmost zones) there looks to be a pretty good correlation between the percent land area in each zone, and the zone’s rate of warming.
Of course, that seems like an obvious relationship, but it was interesting to see it directly.
(Note that for some reason, the GLCF 1 degree land cover data excludes Antarctica and Greenland, though their 8km data set includes them…)
Anyway, thanks for all the work you do on this blog.
J.
Ross Nixon // January 17, 2008 at 7:00 am
Are these NASA figures from ground stations or satellite? (And no wonder I am forlornly waiting to notice any warming; I’m in the band that supposedly had 0.2 degrees).
fred // January 17, 2008 at 7:36 am
Nice series. When you look at the two together, it is clear that since ‘75 the climate has warmed, which is presumably the point. Also that the smallish downturns in recent years, where they have happened at all, are consistent with the rising trend.
Yes, but that was never the worry for those who are agnostic on AGW. The issues are whether the post ‘75 warming really is exceptional on a time scale of centuries or millenia, and whether it really is caused by CO2.
Well, maybe there are some worries about the accuracy of the measurements from surface stations, particularly in third world countries, but these probably are not so great as to justify scepticism about some warming, just the degree of it. It would be great to see a surfacestations project in China, for instance. But it probably would only modify the trend in degree not kind.
It is a bit worrying when you speak of “only at about 0.006 to 0.007 deg.C/yr”. Is the station data really known to be accurate enough to justify such precision?
Lab Lemming // January 17, 2008 at 8:02 am
Are these land only? Because it may be worth pointing out that the 44-64S band contains almost entirely ocean, with only the slender tips of Antarctica and South America and half the south island of New Zealand above water. So calling those few locations a “band” requires a lot of extrapolation.
Gareth // January 17, 2008 at 11:00 am
Thanks T. Appreciated. The southern oceans do us some favours….
CraigM // January 17, 2008 at 12:20 pm
nice post. thanks.
the diff between temperature of the NH and the SH can be put down to the oceans, yes? They have a large heat capacity. So things should obviously warm less in the SH because it has more water.
Off on a slight tangent here. A question thats being going through my head recently: why is the moon so hot during the day? Its temperature ranges from above 100 C during the day to minus something ridiculous at night. I think id be right in saying that its Av temperature would be less than Earths 15 oC, due to it obviously having no atmosphere. But why so hot during the day?
Would i be right in saying that the main reason why the moon is hotter during the day than Earth is because it has no water, or oceans? It also, perhaps, has a lower albedo? Maybe other reasons????
A thing to note about the moon is the great difference between day and night temperatures. Heat comes in from the sun during the day and is quickly lost at night due to the lack of an atmosphere. If we were to give to it a greenhouse effect by adding an atmosphere we would see a narrowing of the difference between day and night time temperatures!…?…!…? The atmosphere would retard heat loss at night and we would see night-time temperatures increase more than day. This is what we actually see on Earth i believe. We see less of a difference between day and night temperatures. AND, we currently see night-time temperatures increasing more than day time temperatures. Which is an indication that the current warming is due to the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and not due to the sun.
Anyway, have i got all that basically right???? Anyone? Sorry for going off on a few tangents here btw :)
Bob // January 17, 2008 at 3:36 pm
The global oceans have warmed at a rate of only about 0.013C/yr over the past 40 years or so. Since 1880, the rate is even lower, about 0.005C/yr.
NCDC NOAA is the only global temp data base that I know of that breaks out ocean v land. The data are summarized here:
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#NCDC
Interesting to note that the global SSTs have plummeted over the last 12 months presumably due to the end of an el nino and beginning of a la nina. A total swing of about 0.28C, with more probably to come as the la nina continues and intensifies.
Bob // January 17, 2008 at 3:45 pm
One thing puzzles me, Tamino calculates land warming rates that are higher in the NH. The conventional wisdom is that the SH has a larger area of ocean which is warming at a slower rate than land. The implication is that the ocean cools the SH land by the way of prevailing on shore winds and weather patterns. But the ocean surface on average is much warmer than the land surface (16C v 9C), and the oceans can therefore only have a warming effect on land (e.g., the gulf stream effect on northern Europe).
Barton Paul Levenson // January 17, 2008 at 5:18 pm
CraigM — you’re right about the moon having a low albedo; I think Bonnie Buratti and her team pegged it at 0.11, compared to 0.306 for Earth. The lack of atmosphere also makes the temperature range extreme, as you correctly noted. One more factor — the moon rotates only once in 28 or so Earth days, relative to the sun. That’s a lot of time for the day side to heat up and the night side to cool down.
bigcitylib // January 17, 2008 at 5:23 pm
You give great graph.
EliRabett // January 18, 2008 at 5:15 am
As Barton said, dust has a fairly low specific heat (which is why deserts warm and cool so fast between day and night)
Hank Roberts // January 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Bob, don’t rely on the junkscience guy’s presentations. We all hope he can be evenhanded because he expends so much work doing so many presentations to so many people. But so far he’s not known for getting things right, and he’s a declared partisan with a political agenda. Of course he wants to present himself as an honest broker of facts, it’s how one gets employment as a lobbyist and PR agency, having a reputation to sell.
Go to the actual sources of the information. You _have_ to remain skeptical, particularly when you happen to agree with a site’s political spin. People make honest errors, and people make livings being dishonest, and there’s no way to know.
Trust, but verify.
Always, always, go to the source and cite to the source, even if you get there and tell people you got there by first reading about things on second and third hand sources.
Cato is a declared partisan with an agenda. Don’t cite to political sites for science. Learn to doubt.
null{} // January 18, 2008 at 10:14 pm
EliRabett // January 18, 2008 at 5:15 am
Do you have pointers to temperature distributions beneath the surface of the sand/dirt/dust in desert areas over a time period that includes both day and night?
thanks
Jim Arndt // January 18, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Hi Guys,
The way I read this is that the temperature has increase .15 degrees since 1880. Is that a fair assumption considering the time scale of 128 years.
Jim Arndt // January 18, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Hi ,
Sorry my error .25 degrees
Alan Woods // January 19, 2008 at 1:08 am
Jim, I’d imagine the errors due to limited coverage in the 1880s would be rather large, so I don’t think its reasonable to merely compare the beginning and end of the series.
inputted // January 19, 2008 at 1:36 am
Which “this” Jim?
What are you looking at to get 0.25, and what units are you using?
Hank Roberts // January 19, 2008 at 1:54 am
Stupid WordPress software’s following me around the web again. That was again mine.
Jim, degrees C. or F.? What are you reading to get your 0.25 degrees since 1880 number?
Barton Paul Levenson // January 19, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Jim Arndt — I think NASA GISS estimates the world’s mean global annual surface temperature is up 0.7 K over the last ventury. Not sure where you got 0.25.
fred // January 19, 2008 at 2:22 pm
“Don’t cite to political sites for science. Learn to doubt.”
Geese and Ganders.
Do we have an account of the funding sources of Real Climate? Yes, I have read the very carefully worded explanation that the individuals who post there do not receive payment or expenses.
Tempting to adopt a new handler from here on in, “Learning to Doubt”!
Bob // January 19, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Hank,
The junk science site links directly to the NCDC data file. There is no controversy or doubt about the data presented there. I dont rely on Junk Science for interpretation or opinion; the site provides a handy compilation of data, thats it.
tamino // January 19, 2008 at 3:27 pm
fred,
RealClimate is a science site — the individuals who post there are actual climate scientists doing actual research. Why do you even raise the issue of the funding of the site and its contributors? You say you have read the “very carefully worded” (why this modifier?) explanation that the individuals who post do not receive payment or expenses. What part do you not understand?
I think you do it because you so strongly want to maintain that everybody gets equal credibility in the debate that you will object to any suggestion that there’s such a thing as a source that can be judged untrustworty. So if anybody plays the “untrustworthy source” card, you’ll play it on RealClimate or NASA GISS or whoever’s handy — just to put some gander with the goose.
Here’s an “epiphany opportunity” for you: it’s high time you took your blinders off. There *really are* untrustworty sources; if you can’t get the fact that the Cato institute is a political organization with a fossil-fuel industry agenda and cannot be taken as a reliable source for climate science information, then you’re no longer being logical, you’re just being stubborn. You might as well get your climate science prognostications from psychic Sylvia Brown — does she get equal time too?
Deech56 // January 19, 2008 at 3:43 pm
RC’s domain is hosted by Environmental Media Services. They’ve been pretty up front about it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=120. But if you keep up with the literature you can see for yourself whether the information they post accurately reflects what’s been published. Trust, but verify. RC also often includes comments from the authors of manuscripts they highlight.
I’ve seen Milloy cherry pick data so my confidence in his accuracy is fairly low. Does he allow author comments on his site?
Hank Roberts // January 19, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Bob, they draw their own charts and their past history of distortion is very long, you can look it up. It makes no difference what spoke on the political wheel you occupy or how far out you are from the center — don’t trust PR sites, don’t trust sites financed to support lobbyists.
They may give you 90 percent good information, and one carefully crafted lie. They may not be after _you_ exactly, they’re after the public.
Don’t trust anyone. Verify.
It’s an election year. The sweet coating on the lies is going to be thicker and the colors prettier.
When someone with a declared agenda like those folks starts putting up a lovely, well laid out, nicely colored, extremely handy compilation of science data — run the other way.
Try globalwarmingart if you want pictures from a scientist.
Seriously, I don’t care if it’s Greenpeace or Larouche or the ID people or Junkscience.
Avoid. Verify. Mistrust.
The bullshit is getting deeper and deeper lately, seems to me.
Look to primary sources and check them and read the footnotes. Check the axis on the charts.
This stuff gets _stretched_.
Heretic // January 19, 2008 at 6:00 pm
The CATO institute is a freaking joke altogether. It is exclusively driven by ideology and the poeple there are so engrossed by their ideology as to be downright blinded by it. I remember comments there about not putting any limitations or government oversight/regulations on lending practices during the so-called housing bubble. Tremendous insight indeed. The masses of useless denialist trash on climate that I have seen there make it profoundly irrelevant as an information source on climate science, or just about anything else for that matter, even economics. Incidentally, it should be noted that this pathetic think tank had never managed to get any significant media exposure before the Bush 1 administration.
dhogaza // January 19, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I’d suggest any one reading Milloy’s stuff look to see if there’s any topic he covers that you know about, and go over it with a fine-toothed comb.
In my case, I personally knew enough about the effects of DDT on bird reproduction to know that his coverage of the topic is utter bullshit.
After reading that pile of doo-doo, I won’t trust him on anything.
Eli Rabett // January 20, 2008 at 3:32 am
Null (and I appreciate the request for pointers) it’s fairly straightforward to figure out that dry sand is a lousy heat conductor, which is why the temp under the surface is much more constant. This ain’t rocket science. That is is two semester course.
Another interesting and related point why it cools so much faster in the desert is that the humidity is so low, so the surface can radiate much more efficiently to space.
Deech56 // January 20, 2008 at 3:35 am
dhozaga, we must have been reading the same article. ” 100 things you should know about DDT… #45: Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use. [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]”
As Hank said, “Look to primary sources and check them…” and as Eli says, RTFR. The manuscript really is about the correlation between raptor population declines and severe eggshell thinning.
There is momentum to actually address CO2 stabilization/reduction in the US and the stakes are high, so the pushback will be hard and it will be ugly, but in the end “Nature is the Only authority” and the data are the data.
Bob // January 20, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Hank,
Fair enough, I agree. The Junk Science site puts together all of the global temperature records in one place, and presents the data in multiple ways. It is extremely convenient to go to one site and get access to all that data. Is anyone aware of another site where I can find a similar compilation?
Jim Arndt // January 20, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Hi Guys,
Look I just took the beginning and the end of the first graph using the degrees in C. That I feel is an accurate interpretation of that graph. If you feel that the numbers in the graph are incorrect then you must contact the author for what you feel are errors. I just look at it and see. It may be simplistic but is an accurate interpretation. Also realize that the mercury thermometers have a degree of error of 0.5 degrees C.
For some good debate with people of knowledge on this suject also try Climateaudit.org the problem I have with Realclimate is that you are subjected to personal attacks if you present a argument that runs contrary to the their opinion along with some censoring. Site like junkscience, icecap and co2 science should be used for reference and verify the claims. Never take any site for granted because all authors put their slant on it.
Jim Arndt // January 20, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Hi Guys,
Barton the problem I have with GISS is that it is always much higher than the other methods of taking temperature. This may be due to the extrapolation used for the polar regions.
Hank Roberts // January 20, 2008 at 10:46 pm
> The Junk Science site puts together
> all of the global temperature records
No they don’t. You’ll see similar ‘convenient collections’ at every lobbying/PR site focusing on their area of spin. You get a subset consistent with the spin they’re selling.
It looks like a simple picture because it’s predigested to spoon feed.
Hank Roberts // January 20, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Look him up for yourself. Just put ‘junkscience’ into your search engine of choice and read a bit and think it out.
Example, from a recently updated page:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
Alan Woods // January 21, 2008 at 1:11 am
Jim, see
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/stations.gif
Look at the coverage for the southern hemisphere in the 1880s - its below 20%. Its not a matter of contacting the author about the errors, its a mtter of using your own common sense. To merely compare the beginning and of the series is not an ‘accurate interpretation’ of the graph.
dhogaza // January 21, 2008 at 9:07 am
Oh, my, Real Climate is filled with personal attacks while those really polite people at Climateaudit never stoop to that behavior?
That’s your observation?
Then please explain this post by McIntyre which is a personal attack on Lonnie Thompson:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2598
Chris O'Neill // January 21, 2008 at 4:25 pm
That would never happen in a million years at climateaudit.
Hank Roberts // January 21, 2008 at 4:54 pm
There are two charts that look almost the same next to each other on the same page, and whoever put the book together picked the wrong one to copy. If you just look at the caption and the source page it’s obvious. The text is correct, the citation is correct, and the squiggly line in the little box is almost the same, though if you look you can see the label in the picture identifies it.
None of this, of course, gets mentioned by McI, and his followup in the thread is rants from the usual pack of froth-mouthed ankelbiters who think they’re following his lead but — lacking any actual help from McI to identify the error — haven’t a clue what they’re attacking so they attack everything they can imagine.
Stupid, stupid.
Heretic // January 21, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Jim Arndt, If you really want to see personal attacks, go on climate audit and start saying that the Hockey stick is valid after all, that’ll show you!
CO2science should be used for reference? Now that is laughable.
Here are some examples of sources to be used for reference: NASA, AGU, NOAA, ERBE, CERES, NSIDC, ARM, Sciencemag.org, nature.com, ifremer.fr, awi.de, etc, etc, etc…
Note that this does not include any blog. And if you have no idea what some of these are, or have never seen them before, then you are not nearly as well informed as you think.
Want references about science? Go where science is done and published.
steven mosher // January 21, 2008 at 6:27 pm
D Hog.
It’s simple.
1. Lonnie lists in his CV that he was an advisor on AIT.
2. AIT made a blunder WRT a graphic, citing Thompson as a source. Something an advisor
might check.
3. Thompson was asked publically by a fellow professor to correct the record. He acknowledged the error, but won’t demand a correction.
Oink oink, Dhog. Squeal for me piggy.
John Mashey // January 21, 2008 at 6:58 pm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Shows where US oil imports come from. Canada is #1.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_m.htm shows where US imports of natural gas come from [i.e., 90% from Canada.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre says:
“He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003″
If your background were minerals, oil & gas in Canada:
1) You *could* say “under no circumstances should there be any restrictions on CO2, because that would be less profitable for us.”
2) OR you could do something else, like attacking any reasons for restricting CO2.
dhogaza // January 21, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Pfft, Mosher, I’ve been involved as author, photographer, or advisor for more than a few magazine and newspaper articles, and books.
It’s entirely possible that Gore himself didn’t screw up the graphic but rather that a copy editor did. It’s rather common for copyeditors to move around graphics as they work a book, and to correct what they think is an error (and usually they’re right).
Oh, did I mention I have a friend who’s a copyeditor specializing in technical books?
So the big deal is, as Hank says, that the wrong graphic got used with the right caption and the right explanation. And Lonnie “won’t correct it”. It’s not his place to do a correction, it’s the publisher’s.
This is idiocy.
Certainly you’re not holding McIntyre to the same standard, a man who doesn’t bother to read an article looking for “B” before deciding that it doesn’t say “B” because the line “A” was drawn with red ink. And trying to make a federal case of it (scientific misconduct, to be precise).
Hey, Jim Arndt, I thought you said those people at Climate Audit are nice and don’t personally attack people, unlike those nasty people at Real Climate…
Jimmy - look what Steven Mosher - A REGULAR AND PROMINENT POSTER AT CA - just did.
Not only is he making a shitpile out of a dung pellet but he’s being downright insulting, on a very personal basis.
Are you SURE you made that post above, about those rude Real Climate people vs. those nice people at CA, with a straight face?
Oh, BTW, Mosher.
It’s dho gaza. I don’t expect you to know what one is, much less a bal chatri, mistnet, or bownet, or any other tool used by a volunteer science field tech, but don’t be playing stupid games with my handle.
We wouldn’t want Jim Arndt to think CA types are rude after all, would we?
dhogaza // January 21, 2008 at 8:13 pm
From my own experience I’d say it would actually be quite a rare thing. After all, it’s the author, copy and project editors, and publisher who are getting paid.
The author, of course, is supposed to review but it’s not actually that easy to do, and mistakes are often missed.
If checking were easy, we wouldn’t have proofreaders who check the work of the copy editors who correct the prose of the author, would we?
Of course, it’s also possible that Thompson gave it a read and missed the error. Happens all the time.
But more likely as an advisor he was answering questions and reading bits of the book as they were put together, with a marker in the book saying “graphic 123 here” and graphic 123 mixed in with a pile of hundreds of graphics.
Which he very likely never saw anyway, since final graphics are often developed in parallel with editing.
Given the process, there’s no reason in the world for Thompson to feel ownership for the error.
And there’s even less cause for CA to ream him because he hasn’t taken ownership.
You guys are nuts.
dhogaza // January 21, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I’m posting too much over this silly statement by Mosher, but to finish …
Not to mention errata that follow, and corrections made in the 2nd printing, and more corrections made in the 3rd printing, etc etc.
I’ve been approached in the field by birders laughing at me - “look at him! doesn’t know the difference between a dowitcher and dunlin!” - because photos or captions got swapped when a page in an article I wrote was composed.
Do you think the magazine issued an errata? Do you think the editor responded when I huff’d and puff’d and said “I can’t show my face in public!”
Of course not.
And then there was the time a newspaper editor called western gulls “birds of prey” because I mentioned that they’re predators in seabird nesting colonies off the Oregon coast.
My birder friends, chasing me, shouting “gulls of prey! gulls of prey!”, buckling over in laughter at “my” blunder.
Anyone who’s ever been involved in writing an article, submitting photos for publication, working on a book, has similar stories (or has only done so once or twice). Comes with the turf.
It’s meaningless.
CA’s being so foolish … but hey! Mosher! Piggy-wiggly here wants to squeal!
“please (squeal!) don’t (squeal!) stop!”
you guys are your own worst enemies when you concentrate on crap like the someone not running around making high-profile apologies for what amounts to a friggin’ typo THAT THEY’RE NOT EVEN RESPONSIBLE FOR!
That’s very strange of you folks. You want Thompson to issue a correction for an error HE DID NOT MAKE.
Martin // January 21, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Is it not a bit odd that in order to show that AGW people are more sinned against that sinning when it comes to personal attacks, this thread suddenly has become a magent for personal attacks on Stephen McIntyre?
As a mere newcomer in observing the debate this does not seem to me to be a very good way of proving that the AGW side is the innocent party in all this.
I deplore all personal attacks on scientists and contributors to the debate. Simply saying “Well he started it” is a pretty poor excuse.
[Response: The topic arose because a comment suggested that the website RealClimate more often indulges personal attacks than the website ClimateAudit. In my opinion, even a modest scan of those two sites will quickly establish the opposite: RealClimate is a rather civilized place while ClimateAudit can get nasty.
I quite understand the instinct to deplore all personal attacks on contributors to the debate. Unfortunately the denialist side has made personal attacks a ubiquitous, unavoidable part of the debate. Do you deplore the way they talk about Al Gore?]
dhogaza // January 21, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Oh, come on! He *IS* fat!
Surely climate science is false …
Jim Arndt // January 21, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Hi,
OMG guys lightin up. I’m not going to dump my cookie bin so you can see every little thing I’ve done on the net. I mostly use the universities to confirm my results and use the others as”reference”. The “reference” sites will crunch some of the numbers for you. As for my interpretation of the graph it is perfectly accurate to use the start and end points as a reference. That is why they are there. It is also accurate to use the graph to see trends as is 1979 to 2007. As for GISS data I suspect it has a positive bias in temperature do to the fact that it appears to extrapolate the polar regions and not simply show the data with or without the polar regions. It is not correlating to the other three sources RSS, UKMET and UAH. As for comments on climateaudit.org and other sites, well there are loons everywhere.
Jim Arndt // January 21, 2008 at 10:04 pm
dhogaza
Look in the mirror
Martin // January 21, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I enjoy reading RealClimate and ClimateAudit, but they are both spoilt by gratituitous insults and attacks on the good will of their opponents.
On CA recently I read one of their regular writers making exactly the opposite point to yours - saying that while CA might be justifiably critical, RC was nasty.
I have no intention in judging between the two sites as to which is the biggest offender at attacking the contributor to the debate rather than the argument they make. What would be the point of that? They are both guilty, they should change their ways, and stop saying that the other one is worse than they are.
Every time that someone attacks the person rather than the case they are making they are doing themselves and their case harm.
steven mosher // January 21, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Dhog.
“Pfft, Mosher, I’ve been involved as author, photographer, or advisor for more than a few magazine and newspaper articles, and books.
MORE THAN FEW!!!! how proflic of you.
It’s entirely possible that Gore himself didn’t screw up the graphic but rather that a copy editor did. It’s rather common for copyeditors to move around graphics as they work a book, and to correct what they think is an error (and usually they’re right).”
Tell me all you know about copy editing piggy,
but wait…
I didnt claim that GORE screwed it up. I claimed that an Error had been made. By whom? who cares? The point is this. Thompson was an advisor. Thompson was credited by Gore in the film . Thompson has since admitted the graphic was in error, but has refused to have the record corrected.
None of this is disputed by your squealing.
“Oh, did I mention I have a friend who’s a copyeditor specializing in technical books?”
I bet they dont go around claiming you as a friend.
“So the big deal is, as Hank says, that the wrong graphic got used with the right caption and the right explanation. And Lonnie “won’t correct it”. It’s not his place to do a correction, it’s the publisher’s.”
Actually, when you lend your scientific credibility to a documentary and they get something wrong pertaining to your work, and you claim it on your CV, then you do have a duty to inform them and others of this lapse. It’s no big deal. Just do it.
“you’re not holding McIntyre to the same standard, a man who doesn’t bother to read an article looking for “B” before deciding that it doesn’t say “B” because the line “A” was drawn with red ink. And trying to make a federal case of it (scientific misconduct, to be precise).”
Actually, I thought it was a sloppy piece of work on his part. Once for example, he beat up JohnV for something that was bogus, so I told SteveMc that he was out of line. You can ask JohnV. We all make mistakes. It has no bearing on AGW. So, McIntyre makes mistakes, Gore makes mistakes, Hansen makes mistakes, mann makes mistakes. Acknowledge them, correct them and move on. It’s easy piggy, no squealing required.
“Hey, Jim Arndt, I thought you said those people at Climate Audit are nice and don’t personally attack people, unlike those nasty people at Real Climate…”
I like pigs, hogman. how’s that being nasty?
Pigs are smart. Dirty, but smart. There, I gave
you a compliment. Oink.
“Jimmy - look what Steven Mosher - A REGULAR AND PROMINENT POSTER AT CA - just did.
Not only is he making a shitpile out of a dung pellet but he’s being downright insulting, on a very personal basis.”
Dhog, Don’t insult pigs. I didn’t.
“It’s dho gaza. I don’t expect you to know what one is, much less a bal chatri, mistnet, or bownet, or any other tool used by a volunteer science field tech, but don’t be playing stupid games with my handle.”
Right Dhog, I’ m not playing with your handle . you go play with your “handle.” I’m sure you are well practice in the arts of onan.
John Mashey // January 21, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Martin: if you want to know about personal attacks, you should look carefully at the Monckton + Schulte + Ferguson + Morano attack on Naomi Oreskes last summer, accusing her of unprofessional conduct, demands that she apologize or resign, sent to her Chancellor, and publicity about those demands sent out over Businesswire. That wasn’t casual or accidental. Zero Carbon was kind enough to post my dissection of this:
http://www.zerocarbonnow.org/wordpress/?cat=6
But, if you’re new to this turf, it will give you an idea of the stuff that goes on…
Hank Roberts // January 22, 2008 at 1:28 am
Or remember the amazing well organized political attacks on researcher Benjamin Santer, back in 1996. Those who don’t remember this sort of thing are always shocked, shocked when it’s repeated.
Eric // January 22, 2008 at 1:41 am
Steven Mosher, you wrote ‘proflic’ … you could do with a copy-editor yourself. Guess we have to disregard everything you say now, simply on the basis that you can’t spell. Yes, your credibility is ruined, because you can’t spell ‘prolific’. Unless of course you issue a correction or something. Indeed, you must loudly and often insist that the word was supposed to be ‘prolific’. Doesn’t matter that sh*t happens in publishing, does it? It’s an error. ‘[P]roflic’? No one knows what you’re talking about. Indeed, we may safely assume you to be an incompetent, or even a complete liar, on the basis of such an error. It’s your responsibility to correct it. No big deal. Come on, fess up.
Martin // January 22, 2008 at 2:12 am
Attacks on people such as Naomi Oreskes are to be deplored. They do absolutely nothing to further the argument. I love reading these boards to learn about the science of climate change; it has to be the most exciting area of study for anyone with the time to spend on it. But the ad hominem stuff is just boring and childish.
cce // January 22, 2008 at 5:13 am
In order for the error to have been corrected, Thompson would have had to have known about it first. Was it his role to review all of the graphics? Or did he review the text? Or did he provide advice? McIntyre knows none of these things, but has absolutely no problem writing countless words on this subject and jumping to conclusions, which he is predisposed to do. All for an error that is immaterial, like every other “flaw” that “he” has discovered to date. If the correct graphic was used, it would have made exactly the point that Gore was trying to make. But who cares about larger points when people can debate when someone knew about whatever problem and did they do enough to stop it, assuming they had the opportunity to stop it. The end result, of course, is mindless commentary like “Gore used the Hockey Stick to prove the Hockey Stick.”
John Mashey // January 22, 2008 at 7:24 am
Martin: of course they are, but unfortunately, they are sometimes effective, especially in slowing down real researcher’s legitimate work, and making scientists keep their heads down and avoid speaking up.
Of course, unmoderated blogs get filled with junk.
Just out of curiosity, which boards do you especially find worth reading?
dhogaza // January 22, 2008 at 9:29 am
Mosher continues to call me “piggy”. I haven’t done any such thing.
Perhaps you need to look closer?
However, it’s moot, as I don’t *claim* to be nicer than the people at CA. If I’m not nice, it’s not disproving any claim I’ve made.
On the other hand, you claim the people at CA are nice, while people at RC aren’t nice. It is your claim that Mosher, by posting here, is showing to be false (as would a 30 second read of CA).
He’s not a nice man. And if you don’t understand why his “point” is crap, well, it’s not my problem.
Well, here’s a gratuitous insult for Mr. Mosher: your posts speak for themselves, and I can’t be bothered answering them. Readers can draw their own conclusions from your words easily enough without being distracted by anything I might say.
dhogaza // January 22, 2008 at 9:38 am
Martin … yes, they do further the argument, from the denialist point of view.
Intimidation of this sort might easily make another researcher think twice about doing the same type study. Might not be worth the hassle of defending one’s CAREER over a McCarthy-style attack in the press and one’s boss.
The Inhofe hearings where climate scientists were, in effect, personally accused of scientific misconduct serve the same purpose.
And now we see Thompson being attacked in his professional life because of a PUBLICATION ERROR he didn’t make.
You do see the point behind these attacks, right?
And you do understand why the denialist machine continues to crank them out? They can’t win on the science, but they can certainly make researchers reluctant to stick their heads up out of their foxholes.
Which certainly furthers their cause, which is to prevent humanity from taking any effective steps to reduce CO2 emissions.
dhogaza // January 22, 2008 at 9:42 am
Tamino .. there’s “not being nice” and then there’s shit like this:
Really, even *I* have limits. Do we really need this kind of crap here?
[Response: No we don't. It's my fault for not being more alert.
If you want to call your fellow commenters ill-informed, illogical, statistically naive, or ideologues, then you might have a point. But "go play with your handle" is just infantile.]
Hank Roberts // January 22, 2008 at 3:28 pm
> just infantile
Typical CA-CA stuff. Sigh.
null{} // January 22, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Eli Rabett // January 20, 2008 at 3:32 am
You got it correct that time, Eli. It’s the humidity, not the sand/dirt/dust. There’s that nasty H2O again.
Heretic // January 22, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Wow, I left this thread a while ago and what do I see when I come back? Tamino you did sleep on the job a little here. OTOH, that had the advantage of clearly showing who is ready to go all out with the insults.
Mosher, you probably don’t care, but know that the respect I had for you (earned by smart comments and a higher quality of scepticism than most) is now lost.
jl // January 23, 2008 at 6:27 am
when CA’ers and RC’ers meet sparks will fly
if you really want to test AGW
test if the greenhouse effect is intensifying.
preferably in many locations at different altitudes
to verify water vapors role.
good luck to all and focus on light not sparks and heat
fred // January 23, 2008 at 6:29 am
tamino, I don’t know about the Cato institute, never having visited the site. Life is too short, I can’t visit them all. But I can tell you, that is one place I do not get my science from. Nor junkscience for that matter.
CA is interesting. Not always right, but interesting. And even when its wrong, you learn something. Pielke is interesting too. As is openmind.
fred // January 23, 2008 at 6:43 am
dhogaza
Came back to Open Mind after a week or so. This was a very depressing series of posts. If this is what you’re going to turn Open Mind into, I prefer CA.
There are two scientific topics on which I’m seeking enlightenment. One is feedbacks, their nature, their size, the empirical evidence for them. The other is falsification and predictions: what, if it happened, however unlikely it may be, would prove that AGW as opposed to GW is not happening.
But that’s science, and the regulars here may not be interested in that sort of thing any more?
Hank R, I agree of course about the need for verification. Have you any thoughts about Steve M’s assertions about various people’s refusal to archive data - Thompson, Jones, Esper if memory is correct. Mann of course, in the days before the Congressional Committees. Is he right that the data is not or was not archived, and how do you feel about it?
dhogaza // January 23, 2008 at 9:10 am
When have they been right about anything *important*. Yes, they found a glitch in data handling at NASA that led to statistically insignificant changes in NASA’s anaysis of surface temps, but that’s not scientifically important, just politically important (”see, we told you they’re bozos and frauds and wrong about everything, see!”)
So, give us an example, keeping in mind that McIntyre’s claim to have “broken the hockeystick” is not accurate.
Hank Roberts // January 23, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Fred, how long have you been a working scientist? What data archives have you personally created? Have you any ice cores in storage? What temperature?
If you’re not aware that McI is trying to ignore a conversation and process that’s been actively worked on in the sciences — it’s mostly about funding, if you’ve ever written a grant and asked for that you know the typical answer.
This has been a lively area in scientific (and medical, and statistical) research for a couple of centuries now, check it out. It’s quite rare for data to be completely in the public domain — corporations don’t want the government data released freely because right now there are nice incomes being made repackaging and reselling it.
You should be aware of all this to understand what kind of spin McI is doing, but if not it’s much like the other stuff — dotted line? red line? hand-drawn line? — that you’ve seen him do. He’s a teapot-tempest-maker.
And it’s a pity, because he could have been a skeptic if he worked at the actual assessment instead of I think I’m going to start self-editing right here in the interests of keeping it temperate.
If you do have personal experience, my apology, but your questions are written with such a naive approach that it’s hard to tell how much you know.
Lab Lemming // January 23, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Dear Tamino,
Why is the Pinatubo effect greater in the Southern hemisphere than the North, when it is a northern volcano? Was the ITCZ north of the philippines at the time of the eruption?
Martin // January 24, 2008 at 1:42 am
Hank, can you explain why you responded to Fred’s questions about preserving data with a remark about storing ice cores?
I am not a scientist but I had thought that there was a difference between data, which can be saved on computer discs or even on paper, and evidence from experiments or fieldwork which it is often impossible to preserve. Fred is asking about the archiving of data - which seems a reasonable thing to do. I am new to this debate, but is your reply an example of what is sometimes referred to as “handwaving”?
Hank Roberts // January 24, 2008 at 4:28 am
Look up Lonnie Thompson.
ChrisC // January 24, 2008 at 6:57 am
Lab Lemming,
I’m not sure about the answer to your question about Pinotubo, but Typhoon Yunya (Category 3) was centered 75km to the north of the volcano when it errupted. This certainly effected the distribution of particulates throughout the atmosphere!
As an aside, the comments at this blog seem to have degraded into petty name calling and a Steve McIntyre pile on. I think Stevie Mc is wrong about more or less everything. However, deal with the arguments, not with the man.
The petulant name calling is boring and is not interesting to read. It distracts from the really, really interesting science of climatology. If people could return this blog to a science oriented discussion forum, based on evidence, then this blog would be better for it.
John Mashey // January 24, 2008 at 7:04 am
martin:
you may also want to look up Wikipedia entires on:
Jim Tozzi
Data Quality Act
or read about them in detail in Chris Mooney’s book “The Republican War on Science”.
The generic tactic is:
For any science whose results are inconvenient, raise the requirements for documentation so high that no one ever gets anything useful done.
fred // January 24, 2008 at 7:07 am
Hank, I do recently archive both code and data, and have never found it terribly hard work. At least, a lot less hard than writing or collecting it in the first place. But I don’t see that what I do has any bearing on the question. Its a common tactic in this field to reply to a fairly simple question with a personal insinuation, but it doesn’t answer it. You have set quite high standards in terms of the checking you expect readers to do, and it is a reasonable question whether such checking is in fact possible, or whether it is made difficult by the refusal of climate scientists to archive and make available their data.
But let us get specific about Jones and Mann. Is it true that Jones only revealed the stations of his Chinese network when compelled to do so by an FOI request? Is it true that Mann refused to reveal the algorithm he applied to his proxies to generate the hockey stick? If it is, what does it show? I’d like to see you apply the same standards to believers and to unbelievers.
Or you could say, no, this is simply not true, Jones’ network has been available for years, so was Mann’s algorithm, and it still is, it can be found at XXX site, and its incomprehensible that Steve M could not find it. And the guy who placed the FOI request to UEA, he seems to have had the same difficulty.
Look up Lonnie Thompson. Yes, I know who he is. Where is the Dunde data the studies are based on. Is it true, that as Steve M says, its not available and so one cannot verify, as you recommend, that the data has been accurately represented in the articles?
dhogaza // January 24, 2008 at 8:32 am
A longer answer is that the issue of the storage of the ice cores is another attack strategy employed by our good friends at Climate Audit.
CA’s answer runs along the line that without access to the original preserved ice cores, you can’t trust the data generated by Lonnie Thompson. And that if the ice cores haven’t been preserved, then there must be a nefarious reason.
Because, as we all know, climate scientists are engaged in fraud blah blah blah.
conard // January 24, 2008 at 9:09 am
Martin,
It is not called hand-waving it is called condescension. Why take the opportunity to teach when it is so much easier to assume the questioner is ignorant and incapable of reasoned thought, not worthy of one’s own considerable intellect and accomplishment.
Hank,
Can you post a link to your cv?
Martin // January 24, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Hank, you could have answered Fred’s question about the archiving practices of Thompson, Jones, Esper and Mann by saying either:
- that they make sure that all relevant data is freely available for inspection;
or by saying
- that they do not, but that this is not their fault and/or in some way irrelevant.
I would have been interested to learn which of those is closest to the truth.
Your questions about the temperature needed for storage of ice cores or whether Fred has himself stored any cores or whether he has any personal experience of data archiving appear to be irrelevant - and could be thought of as an attempt to throw sand in the eyes of lurkers like me who are interested in learning about the debate.
tamino // January 24, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Perhaps the “fairly simple question” isn’t so simple, the details of its answer aren’t part of the regular archiving procedure in science (right or wrong), and the real reason the question was ASKED in the first place was not to make a scientific point or a personal “insinuation,” but a blatant personal *attack* including accusations not just of incompetence, but of fraud.
I don’t know what Mann did or didn’t do about his algorithm, but I do know that others claim to have reproduced his analysis, and some say they have done so with variations in order to determine the effect of changes on the behavior of the algorithm.
The salient point is that admittedly you don’t know, but you’re *still* spreading the accusation. And no sir, you’re not just “asking a simple question” which we need to investigate. You’re asking a loaded question *with a very clear implication of fraud* (”If it is, what does this show?”), which has been beaten to death by CA and others. But I still haven’t seen any hard evidence that Mann committed fraud or anything even close, or even that his analysis is incorrect! Is it true that Mann refused to reveal? What does that say about his character? Does he still beat his wife?
I sure as hell would like to see you, and a lot of others, apply ANY standard of honesty and accuracy to the unbelievers. If so, many of them would be run out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered.
Martin // January 24, 2008 at 5:02 pm
dhogaza, you say: “CA’s answer runs along the line that without access to the original preserved ice cores, you can’t trust the data generated by Lonnie Thompson. And that if the ice cores haven’t been preserved, then there must be a nefarious reason.”
I am new to all this, but I had assumed that what McIntyre was asking for was access to the raw data that Thompson had used. Are you sure that he actually wanted the ice cores themselves, because on CA he simply seems to be asking for the data?
While it would seem reasonable to ask for the raw data so that the statistical analysis can be checked - and indeed a bit dodgy to refuse access to the figures behind such an important study - it is surely well out of order to demand the actual ice cores themselves.
tamino // January 24, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I don’t know exactly *what* Dunde ice-core data McIntyre is asking for, but it was pretty easy for me to find this:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/trop/dunde/dunde-d18o.txt
Martin // January 24, 2008 at 5:30 pm
tamino, on CA http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1833#comments Steve McIntyre said, 30 July 2007, that : (quote)
In the case of (say) the Dunde ice core, the only information archived by Thompson at WDCP is here:
http://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/trop/dunde/dunde-d18o.txt
This only covers isotope information for part of the core and this is not an a sample-by-sample basis but has been aggregated into decadal averages. (end quote)
You are a statistician so you should be able to tell me whether McIntyre is simply asking for too much irrelevant information and being unreasonable; or could his request for more detail be justified.
It does appear that those who suggested that McIntyre actually wants the ice cores themselves were wide of the mark.
dhogaza // January 24, 2008 at 7:26 pm
That may be what he’s asking for, the raw (not processed) data from the core analysis.
Tamino, the link you found is to the processed data, not the data for each slice giving detailed information for various gas concentrations, etc.
Apparently McIntyre and Thompson have a disagreement about what archiving the data means in this case.
McIntyre has done his usual dance of accusing Thompson of violating PNAS requirements for archiving data, for lying about it, etc. The obvious intent being to discredit the analysis, to make people believe that just maybe Thompson MADE SHIT UP and is guilty of scientific misconduct.
dhogaza // January 24, 2008 at 7:28 pm
One thing I wonder, Martin, what makes you think that McIntyre has the right to dictate what data scientists archive, who the data is given to, etc?
Do you feel that you have the right to walk up to any ‘ole researcher you happen to meet and say, “oh, BTW, give me all your data, and give me all your data in a form that meets my arbitrary demands, and if you don’t, I’M GOING TO ACCUSE YOU OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC AND DEMAND THAT YOU BE PUNISED”?
Do you really think this is how the world works?
Is this how the world SHOULD work?
fred // January 24, 2008 at 8:09 pm
You misunderstand Tamino, it may be my fault, I may have given the wrong impression.
The accusations are around. CA makes them. There really was a Freedom of Information Act threat to UEA to get Jones’ stations. Whether for that reason or some other they were then released. I’d like to know what really happened. There is that famous remark about not sharing data with people who only wanted to criticize it - I think that was relayed by no less a person than von Storch, if memory is correct? I think Wegman too made remarks about ability to replicate and sharing of data.
I am not making them myself, and was not earlier, because I don’t know enough to tell whether that is warranted.
But it is one of many topics that I would really like to see settled once and for all, put to bed, the answer there in black and white, and we could all stop hearing about it. I don’t much care which way it turns out, I just want the answer beyond reasonable doubt. There are only a few data series, no more than 10, about which these accusations and insinuations have been made. Lets list them all and find out the facts. And move on.
fred // January 24, 2008 at 8:23 pm
dhogaza
I do think that in a field where so much hangs on the statistical treatment of raw data to extract trends and faint signals, yes, the raw observational data should be archived, in for instance a robust form like tab delimited. So results can be replicated.
I also think Jones ought to have revealed his station details, if it is really true that he refused to do so.
And I think we should get once and for all to the bottom of who wants what, who is supplying what, and who is being unreasonable. If anyone.
Martin // January 24, 2008 at 8:31 pm
dhogaza, do I take it that you are withdrawing your claim that McIntyre actually wanted the ice cores themselves?
As for how the how the world or science should work, don’t ask me - I am not a scientist. To me, as a lurker, it seems reasonable, granted the extremely high profile given to Thompson’s work, that his data should be available to others so that they can see if it really justifies the conclusions that he comes to. On the other hand maybe I am wrong about that.
On the link I posted above McIntyre said in a letter to Thompson’s publisher (quote)
“Thompson et al 2006 describe results from ice cores drilled at Dunde, Guliya, Dasuopu, Puruogangri, Quelccaya, Huascaran and Sajama. For each core, several thousand samples were taken and analyses on a sample-by-sample basis made for isotopes, chemistry and other indicators. The information for each core constitutes a large data set within the meaning of your policies.
In a responsive data archive, you could identify the sample number, top, bottom, isotope, chemistry and other indicators. Since several thousand samples were taken for each core, there would be several thousand lines in the archive. If there was more than one core for a site, each core would require a separate data file.(unquote).
He is certainly asking for a lot of data, but I do not see why Thompson would not be willing to let him have it. Surely it must all be on some computer database in a form that could be easily found and transfered.
Those of you who are scientists may be able to tell me how reasonable a request for raw data of this sort is. If Thompson did make the data available it would presumably disprove any suggestions that he made anything up, although as far as I can see McIntyre it is not looking to prove bad faith, but for possible inadvertent errors in statistics.
null{} // January 24, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Many commenting here seem to be completely unaware that requirements, or lack thereof, for archiving data and making data available come with grants and research contracts. The results of (non-secret) research funded by taxpayers is generally required to be freely available to everyone. Information on these matters is a simple click or two away by use of Google.
But my impression is that several commenting here have no interest in true facts and instead much prefer to sling incorrect assertions around. Many of these on a personal basis.
Steve McI nor anyone else associated with or commenting at CA have ever made up data archiving and availability requirements. It should be an extremely simple thought process that leads you to know without a single doubt that it is completely impossible for anyone to do such a thing.
As a researcher I have successfully complied with all requirements that came with the money. Data archiving and making the same freely available is not rocket science. Computer codes and calculated results included.
ps
To end this note, because the subject seems to frequently come up on this blog, what are your funding sources tamino?
[Response: For this blog, I have no funding. Even the blog itself is free (wordpress provides free blogs), but one of these days I might exceed the size limit and have to pay (out of my own pocket) for a paid account. All resources consumed in the maintainence of this blog are donated by me with no remuneration or compensation, and all opinions expressed in my posts are my own; they do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of my employer, colleagues, or others.]
Hank Roberts // January 24, 2008 at 9:33 pm
http://www.science.org.au/events/rowland/index.htm
http://www.science.org.au/events/rowland/Slide36.JPG
Hank Roberts // January 24, 2008 at 10:05 pm
> As a researcher I have successfully
> complied with all requirements that
> came with the money. Data archiving…
Since you are an example of how you consider it should be made available — pointer please to your archive so we can look? Always good to see how it’s done.
When were your contracts written? Is the language any different now than 20 years ago?
fred // January 25, 2008 at 8:00 am
Oh dear Hank R, one starts to rather lose respect. It doesn’t make any difference how well he personally has archived anything. The issue is how well the others have.
Anway, I did some work, and here’s the result.
OK, I have done some of my own share of the work on Jones.
The applicable data is that which underlies Jones et al 1990, which was a study of the UHI effect.
On April 3 2007 CA reported on the progress of its FOI request to UEA. McIntyre is requesting the identies of the stations used. The relevant sites which appear unknown are those of the Chinese and Australian networks. For the Chinese network, there were 84 stations in 42 sets of matched pairs, one rural one urban. MacIntyre says he tried to get that a couple of years earlier, but provides no evidence of having done so.
Why was it important, and why should anyone have cared or had a legitimate reason to know what exactly the stations were?
Because Jones et al say “The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.” (Quoted by Keenan, author of one of the FOI requests, and one who has made public allegations of fraud, not against Jones but against Wang, who he considers to have originated the claim).
It was therefore reasonable to want to examine the stations to see whether in fact this claim about their histories was true.
In terms of Jones’ approach, MacIntyre has this to say: “At the NAS Panel hearings, Hans von Storch posted a slide with Phil Jones famous refusal: “We have 25 years invested in this, why should we let you see the data when your only objective is to find something wrong with it?” von Storch said that he could not believe that a responsible scientist had made such a statement and that he asked Jones to confirm the truth of this story - which Jones did.” (CA April 23 2007).
Either MacIntyre or von Storch is lying, or this really was Jone’s approach. I have looked for a copy of von Storch’s presentation to NAS to verify if this slide exists, but haven’t found one.
There are allegations of refusal to reveal from Warwick Hughes too, but there is also a page on which he describes his attempts at reconstructing the identity of the stations:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/echina42.htm
If we are to believe there was no refusal to reveal, Hughes will have had to engage in an elaborate fraud also - or have been incredibly stupid and not seen what was in front of his nose.
You can find quite a few references, and a copy of the actual paper at:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/90lettnat.htm
Keenan says of this matter:
“In early 2007, McIntyre and I separately filed formal requests for the data
under the U.K. Freedom of Information Act. The university initially refused to release
the data. I then drafted a letter to the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office,
alleging that the university was in violation of statute, and sent the draft to the
university, asking them to let me know if they believed the letter to be inaccurate. The
data was then released.” (this is in Keenan’s paper in Energy & Environment · Vol. 18, No. 7+8, 2007)
What does the evidence show?
If you are to believe that Jones always had made the 1990 station data available to anyone who wanted it, you have to believe that McIntyre, Keenan and Hughes were all lying. They would have had to fabricate the reports about the FOI request - because obviously the UK Government would not have participated in an FOI request for public domain data. The publication by Jones of this data would either not have happened, or would have been the installation of more accessible link, or a reposting.
I’m afraid the onus of proof is on Jones to show that he always had made the identities of the stations available.
What did the data show? Well, I have not personally verified it. Keenan says that it shows that the claim about station histories was false, and he goes a bit further than that. Read the E&E paper. Different topic. This was about making data available.
Martin // January 25, 2008 at 11:15 am
Tamino, you have not replied to my question about whether or not McIntyre’s request for raw data from Thompson is reasonable. There are obviously strong feelings about this: dhogaza got upset that the question was even asked and started shouting about how wrong McIntyre was to try to get hold of the data.
Since you are yourself a statistician I wonder if you would like access to Thompson’s data so that you could prove that everything is as it should be.
[Response: I really don't know the details of this case, so I can only offer my opinion based on heresay.
It seems to me that it is *not* reasonable to request the raw data in order to confirm or deny the correctness of the published results. It appears that the only "processing" done from raw data to that archived on the net was the computation of decadal averages. Hence there are only three possibilities: 1) the averages were computed incorrectly; 2) Thompson is lying; 3) the results are correct.
Computing an average is about as simple as statistics gets; what evidence is there -- even the faintest -- that the averages were miscomputed? Thompson has a lifetime of quality work in the peer-reviewed literature, and as far as I know there's not even a hint of any misconduct on his part, ever. In my opinion an allegation of misconduct against a researcher with a lifetime of quality work, no history of misconduct, and absolute zero evidence to support it, is unethical.
The suggestion that we need to examine the raw data in order to "prove that everything is as it should be" has no basis. None. In fact it appears to me that the only reason McIntyre requested the raw data is that he doesn't like the result. So he'll do whatever he can, including crossing the boundary of ethical behavior, to cast doubt on it.
In the broadest sense, perhaps it's reasonable to require free access to the raw data for other reasons, I don't know. Exactly how much data is there, and how much work would be required to make it available? Is it relevant to the publication in question? Has Thompson completed his studies of the raw data (he really does deserve first crack at analysis, since he did the work to get it)? Who "owns" the data? Who paid for it? Who *will* pay for the work required to make it freely available? But requiring raw data access in order to "prove that everything is as it should be" strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to discredit the man and his work, with no basis (zero, nada, zip-squat) whatever. Beneath contempt.]
null{} // January 25, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Again, a very simple thought process is all that is needed to know, without any doubt whatsoever, that claims to data cannot be simply made up by those requesting the data. All requests for data can only be based on procedures and processes established by those you own the data. If a request falls outside the established procedures and processes, the owner simple states the applicable sections and ‘moves on’.
Almost all Scientific and Engineering Journals have established requirements for archiving data on which papers they publish are based. Funding organizations all have such requirements and established procedures for anyone obtaining the information. If you will simply read what has been requested by those involved at CA you will find that all requests have been made under the established policies of the organizations associated with the subject data. How can it be any other way?
These concepts are so simply and straightforward it is difficult to comprehend how anyone can fail to understand.
Martin // January 25, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Null, I am sorry for failing to understand, but I am still unsure about what to think on this issue.
To take the example of Thompson’s ice data: it seems that he has made available the data, but not in sufficient detail to satisfy McIntyre.
My question to Tamino is whether or not it reasonable to request access to all the raw data - or whether Thompson and PNAS are right in their attitude that aggregated data meets the requirements.
There is clearly a difference of opinion about this, so I cannot be the only person new to this debate who wants to find out more about it.
dhogaza // January 25, 2008 at 2:10 pm
This is the basis of McIntyre’s complaint to PNAS. He says that Thompson’s not followed the PNAS requirements for putting raw data into a database accessible by other researchers.
Now, there are some problems with this complaint of McIntyre’s. PNAS also says that if no database is available, online Supplementary Information can be made available as an alternative.
Which is what Thompson did - the file Tamino mentions above. McIntyre even mentions it.
McIntyre’s saying “that’s not good enough, because there’s a public database available within which Thompson could store the raw data”.
Now, McIntyre doesn’t even know if that raw data even exists. If it doesn’t, certainly PNAS isn’t going to require that it be archived, right? And the fallback Supplementary Information made available online is perfectly reasonable by PNAS standards when no alternative is available, right?
Now, if PNAS felt that wasn’t sufficient, they could have REJECTED THE PAPER.
The fact that they didn’t means that they felt that the supplementary information made available online was sufficient to meet the disclosure requirement that authors must meet.
McIntyre insists on something entirely different - “the journal doesn’t enforce its own requirements”.
I call bullshit.
dhogaza // January 25, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I will also say that if PNAS publishes papers that don’t meet its own data archiving standards, it’s not the author’s problem. It’s PNAS. Go after them, not the author.
The author’s job is to submit a paper and to do whatever the journal insists upon in order to get the paper published. When the journal says “OK, we’re satisified, you’ve meet our requirements, peer review has led to a “publish” recommendation, so your paper is accepted” the author has done what the author needs to do.
Now, if the author claims that data’s been publicly archived in a database that meets PNAS’s standards for availability, and hasn’t, then the author is guilty.
But in this case, it seems that PNAS explicitly accepted online Supplementary Information in lieu of data archived in a public database. Sorry, that makes Thompson off the hook in regard to PNAS.
fred // January 25, 2008 at 8:42 pm
dhogaza,
Maybe you’d like to consider, and Hank R too, the implications of the Jones issue. Where, to post the names of some 84 stations could hardly be considered either too difficult or too unreasonable a request.
If Thompson doesn’t have the data, in organized form, I don’t see how he was able to do a quality job of calculating his decadal averages. And it would have been totally irresponsible not to have kept them, considering their unique value to the field.
I mean, you don’t have your data organized where a program can get at it, how exactly do you calculate averages? And check for errors?
dhogaza // January 25, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Clearly it was available when he created the averages!
Why? The ice cores themselves are kept in deep freeze, THAT’S what’s of unique value to the field.
Any LEGITIMATE bitch would involve the actual measurement of elements and isotopes within the ice cores, not “can these guys and 2+4 and divide by 2 and get 3 or not?”
There’s a certain level of competence assumed in any field, after all.
And, then, what’s next? Send McIntyre the source for the compiler that translated (2+4)/2 into machine code? And then the microcode within the computer that executes the “divide” instruction? (”add” is typically executed directly.)
And afterwards, the circuit diagrams of the ICs that make up the processor upon which the machine code produced by the compiler that compiled “(2+4)/2″ on the data the was measured previously …
And what then? How deep does the “audit” go?
The “audit” by a man who couldn’t even detect that “scenario B is probably the most plausible” in a Hansen paper he was trying to expose as “fraud”.
Thompson isn’t computing that data today, so the question “if that data’s not available in organized form today, how could he …” is ummm … I can’t think of a polite word. Let’s just say you’re not thinking things true.
You’re awfully eager to jump on the “Thompson’s done something wrong” bandwagon, here.
His peers, employers, journal publishers, medal award judges, etc know it’s “normal science”.
McIntyre comes along saying “well, I am going to apply standards of the business world to science”, and, finding that standards are different, is aghast.
Guess what. They’re different fields.