ClimateAudit has posted about stations in Peru. Steve McIntyre complains about the large adjustments made by NASA GISS to some of the data series. In fact, he displays graphs showing some of those adjustments, the largest of which are for Puerto Maldon, which has more than a 3-degree adjustment between 1958 and 1988. As usual, a question is asked which includes a none-too-subtle (in fact rather obvious) implication of deliberate misdeeds by NASA GISS:
The annual variation in monthly temperatures is only a few degrees. Given this very placid temperature variation, how can Hansen simply assume that something happened that threw the measurements off by 3 deg C?
Perhaps I can ask a question: How can Steve McIntyre simply ASSUME that James Hansen would “simply assume”?
Here’s the data for Puerto Maldon (raw monthly data, anomalies):
Clearly there’s a sizeable cooling trend in the raw data. Why would adjustments be made? We already know the answer, and so does Steve McIntyre! Non-rural stations are adjusted so that the trend matches the trend in nearby rural stations. Let’s take a look at some of that data, from the two nearest rural stations that cover most of the time interval covered by Puerto Maldon, namely Cobija and Rurrenabaque (raw monthly data, anomalies), superimposed on the data from Puerto Maldon (Puerto Maldon in black, Cobija in red, Rurrenabaque in blue):
Hmmm… One of these things is not like the others. That would be Puerto Maldon.
We can see the same thing if we compute annual averages for the period of overlap:
And it becomes even more obvious if we add trend lines to this data:
In the same time period (1958-1988) during which Puerto Maldon raw data show more than 2 deg.C cooling, its neighbors show about 1 deg.C warming. To make the Puerto Maldon trend match its rural neighbors (which will include a lot more than I’ve shown here), it needs an adjustment amounting to about 3 deg.C during that time period.
And that’s what it has.
Hansen (or anybody else at NASA) didn’t “simply assume” that a 3-degree error occured at Puerto Maldon. THAT’S WHAT THE DATA TELL US. It seems that McIntyre is willing to criticize the data and to nurture conspiracy theories about how it’s adjusted, but the one thing he’s not willing to do with the data is pay attention to it.
The most amazing thing about McIntyre’s entire charade is that he and his ilk already know what the procedure is (to adjust non-rural stations so that the trend matches that of nearby rural stations) but despite his repeated protestations that he’s just trying to improve the data, it seems that he didn’t even bother to LOOK at it. That’s one of the reasons I believe that Steve McIntyre lacks both the honesty, and the competence, to audit surface temperature data.
456 responses so far ↓
chriscolose // February 26, 2008 at 12:35 am
What is incredibly worrysome, if that people take McIntrye serious. It is most unfortuante the audit and “watts” mission to destroy the temperature record has led people into accepting the blogosphere over institutions like NASA, and the peer-reviewed literature.
McIntrye has absolutely no intention to “improve” anything. He complains about a decade old paper, and runs a fraudulent mission to discredit those who dedicate their lives to the analysis of climate science, and where we may be headed. I am not sure that much constructive has come out of him, and if so, it has been strongly outweighed by him misleading people.
Patrick Hadley // February 26, 2008 at 12:45 am
Another interesting post, thank you. As far as I can tell Climate Audit mainly seems to find stations that have been adjusted so that:
- either the past is made cooler than the raw data would suggest;
- or the present is made warmer than the raw data shows before adjustment.
I suppose if there are also lots of stations where NASA GISS has made the opposite adjustment to the data (making the past warmer and present cooler) that would be a pretty effective rebuttal to the CA auditing.
[Response: Take a look at Tokyo.]
Hank Roberts // February 26, 2008 at 1:28 am
Is that the same as this?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/gettempall.cgi?someone@somewhere+84658+PUERTO_MALDON+
P. Lewis // February 26, 2008 at 2:09 am
As Jimi Hendrix once said “… Where are you on this ah hot cold summer?”
It’s a real pity “Hot Gets a Little Cold” was written and sung by Cyndi Lauper … rather than by The Three Degrees.
Simon D // February 26, 2008 at 3:23 am
It might be instructive to show some examples where the adjustment has gone in the other direction, simply to convince any skeptical readers of the impartiality of the adjustment process.
Dano // February 26, 2008 at 4:31 am
The most amazing thing about McIntyre’s entire charade is that he and his ilk already know what the procedure is (to adjust non-rural stations so that the trend matches that of nearby rural stations) but despite his repeated protestations that he’s just trying to improve the data, it seems that he didn’t even bother to LOOK at it. That’s one of the reasons I believe that Steve McIntyre lacks both the honesty, and the competence, to audit surface temperature data.
Yes.
And?
Oh, yes. There’s nothing else. Man, behind curtain.
Thank you for your work, making complex things simple. Here’s to a large audience one day.
Best,
D
Heretic // February 26, 2008 at 4:41 am
Same old same old on CA and surfacestations. Their vocations have always been clear. I grow less interested in the all bizwax everytime they try a new trick.
EliRabett // February 26, 2008 at 4:56 am
Worse, falsifying the corrections has no effect on the GISS global trend or the maps, because only the rural stations contribute. Of course, Peterson and Hansen have shown that using uncorrected non rural stations has only a minor effect on the global trends. Toot sweet.
Hank Roberts // February 26, 2008 at 6:05 am
So who filled in all the missing data on those graphs? Aren’t these the originals, with blank spaces where the data file shows missing data?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/gettempall.cgi?someone@somewhere+84658+PUERTO_MALDON+
By the way the online tools at that site for making comparisons are astonishingly varied. Look into this.
Hank Roberts // February 26, 2008 at 6:07 am
Viz:
Climate Explorer
Time series
PUERTO MALDON mean temperature (all)
Retrieving data from GHCN v2 (all) database …
PUERTO MALDON (PERU), coordinates: -12.63N, -69.20E, 266m (prob: 210m), WMO station code: 84658 PUERTO MALDON , temp from v2.mean nodup [Celsius], (postscript version, raw data, netcdf)
Raw data as text, note missing info:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ta84658.dat
Martin Vermeer // February 26, 2008 at 7:15 am
This is probably a question that could be answered by looking at the original documents, but as there are many people on this list that have already done so, I’ll just ask :-) Is it true that in the GISS reduction
1) urban stations have their trend replaced by a weighted average constructed from nearby rural stations, and
2) independently, _all_ stations are cross-validated against their neighbours, and any outlier trends are replaced by a weighted average constructed from these neighbours’ data?
That’s the way I would do it.
It is of course sobering to realize that some stations contain error patterns on the 3 degree level. But then, they were never designed with climatology in mind.
Undoubtedly many more stations contain smaller error patterns that the cross-validation will never detect, so these get propagated into the final trends. The hypothesis is then, probably valid, that these error patterns are quasi-random and as often up as down.
fred // February 26, 2008 at 7:37 am
I wonder whether any of you have actually read the CA thread?
What the CA thread shows happening in Peru (and elsewhere) is not what is supposed to happen. What is supposed to happen is that rural stations = population less than 10k are to be used to adjust urban ones. Leave aside whether this is legitimate or useful.
What CA shows, with names and numbers, is stations which do not meet the criteria for ‘rural’ being used to adjust others which do not either. Go over and look. Or do I have to repost it before you will read it?
Eli and others making his point have to answer a fundamental question. If ‘using uncorrected non rural stations has only a minor effect on the global trends’ then what are we gaining from using any others? Why exactly are we doing it? We are making unjustifiable changes in some data series to gain nothing at all.
You cannot have it all ways at once. These are intellectual contortions in aid of defending the indefensible to no particular purpose anyway.
I have come across one case of what seems like a legitimate series of adjustments in the helpful references cited on the other thread. That was the adjustments to Quebec. They had detailed station histories, and using statistical analysis were able to tie down the element contributed by the detailed account of the changes of siting or surroundings.
The readings on the other thread made the point that to justify any changes to the readings, you have to have very good metadata. How good is the Peruvian metadata, where is it archived, and how was it used. What about Dawson? What about Vermont? Was the available metadata used to make the adjustments there?
Quebec is the standard here. I do not believe it is generally met elsewhere in the US, let alone the ROW. If you can’t do it right, stop doing it, because you are not adjusting, you are simply changing the instrumental record.
And tell me again, I didn’t hear the first time. It was about statistics. If the spread among adjusters is 3 degrees for some years, how, when you do your further processing, do you reflect this uncertainty when you pick on particular estimate, and has Hanson done that?
None of this proves it is not warming. We know it is. Those of us who have lived long enough know from experience. We also know it from plant data and other indicators. That is not an issue. The issue is just whether legitimate scientific method has been followed here in the treatment of surface temperature readings, and it has not.
[Response: I can tell that you actually paid attention to what's written here -- because it's making you squirm. The whole point of this post is that NASA GISS did in fact follow legitimate scientific method. THEY DID EXACTLY WHAT THEY CLAIM, IN EXACTLY THE WAY THEY SAID THEY WOULD, USING A PROCEDURE DESIGNED TO BE COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.
I'll agree with you on this: the issue is NOT about whether some stations in Peru have incorrect population data. It's all about CA doing everything in its power to get people like you to believe that NASA is violating legitimate scientific method, and to suggest (by innuendo, the coward's way) that such violations are deliberate and malicious. It appears your belief is somewhat shaken; I get the distinct impression that reading here is making you uncomfortable, and I'll guess this is because you're so deeply invested in believing the crap coming from CA that when I show how really wrong they are it makes you feel as though maybe you don't really understand what's going on.
You should trust that feeling.
The degree to which you've been brainwashed is indicated by your plaintive "If you can’t do it right, stop doing it..." Here's an opportunity for you to benefit from an epiphany: the REAL GOAL of CA is to get us to stop doing it, because they really really hate what the truth is.
You've bought into it so much they've got you convinced that if the standard set in Quebec isn't upheld everywhere in the world, then we should just stop doing it. Forget about using all available information in the best way possible, don't even try. Don't bother continually improving the data handling to make it better. And if there's a single station anywhere in the world where we can take a picture with asphalt within a country mile of the temperature sensor, then the entire global temperature effort is a sham, so just stop trying. That's what CA really wants you to believe because, again, if you start to believe the *truth* that would make them miserable.
Are there stations with incorrect population assignments? Certainly. Is the temperature record flawless? Of course not. Is there any part of the GISS procedure which introduces a cooling bias into the analysis? No. Is there any valid reason to believe that the global temperature trend is any less than indicated by the GISS analysis? No. It might be less -- but there's just as much chance that it's MORE.
If you, or Steve McIntyre, really want to improve our understanding of global temperature based on what's happening in Peru, here's a suggested title for the upcoming paper you'll be submitting to a peer-reviewed journal: "Effect of Improved South American Population Data on Surface Temperature Analysis." I'll predict the exact time at which you, or McIntyre, will submit this work: never. Frankly, when LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is applied to that issue, it's vastly more likely to come from James Hansen and/or his colleagues than from Steve McIntyre and/or any of his.
As a final note, I do wish that you and your friends could learn how to spell. There's no "o" in "Hansen."]
Peter Hearnden // February 26, 2008 at 9:58 am
Wrt Puerto Maldon*, is one question to ask (since the explanation presented wont convince any ‘auditers’): ‘Why does it show the trend it does while others around don’t?’. If that can explained then the ‘Oh, but how do we know the data needs adjusting?’ cries can be addressed.
* Is it actually called Puerto Maldonado? It has has an interesting history according to it’s wiki entry.
MarkR // February 26, 2008 at 10:17 am
Have you seen a picture of the weather station site? Find one and then tell me the weather station is “Urban”. By the way, as you only allow posts which support you point of view I’ll post a copy on Climate Audit.
PS Why not try doing a global Raw v Adjusted data comparison, and the see which regions have the largest adjustment?
EW // February 26, 2008 at 11:10 am
And why is Port Maldon cooling? There must be some physical cause, no?
Ade // February 26, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“We already know the answer, and so does Steve McIntyre!”
Errr, yes. And Steve points it out in his comments section.
It doesn’t answer the question *why* does the urban station need a 3 degree adjustment, though, does it?
Shouldn’t the UHI effect have biased the station in completely the opposite direction?
Don’t you want to know why?
Ed Davies // February 26, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Playing Devil’s Advocate:
1) What is the assumed physical cause of the cooling in this urban station (as EW asked)? At first glance one would expect a warming unless there has been an unusual change to the urban area.
2) If long-term trends of urban sites are unreliable, why not just discard them?
3) Doesn’t adjusting urban sites to follow local rural sites have the same effect as giving rural sites which happen to have a nearby urban site extra weight?
These questions are probably answered in the GISS papers but since what you’ve already posted here is presumably also described there it would make sense for you to complete your comments.
P. Lewis // February 26, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Re MarkR
A few observations:
(1) Anyone who actually frequents this blog would know “as you only allow posts which support you point of view” is clearly an error.
(2) Puerto Maldon is an airport serving Puerto Maldonado, a city near the Bolivian border, in the Amazon having a population between 10,000 and 50,000 (apparently)
Tony Edwards // February 26, 2008 at 1:26 pm
As far as I can see, this whole business of adjusting the data is fraught with potential error. As an engineer and machinist, I know that what you measure is what you measure, subject to the tolerance of your equipment . You don’t measure the diameter of something and then “adjust” the number for any reason before you machine the part. Similarly, the temperature that was taken would originally only have been in error by the built in error of the thermometer. Trying to hindcast for microclimate, site faults, UHI, etc. can never make the answer anything other than more dubious. Throw into the mixture a failure to show the exact operations that have been applied and the general public should have extreme doubts as to the accuracy of the final anomolys that get published.
null{} // February 26, 2008 at 1:29 pm
” … it needs an adjustment amounting to about 3 deg.C during that time period.”
Or maybe the instrument at Puerto Maldonado is going bad. Or maybe instruments at all three locations are incorrect. Or maybe all instruments are not in fact measuring the same quantity. Or …
But of course the *only* correct alternations of the data are those that produce a *trend* of increasing ‘temperature’ with time.
Given all the unknowns, way not rely on the LLN and random variations of noise?
Thanks for any insights.
Bob North // February 26, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Looking at the first Puerto Maldon graph, it appears that there is a discontiniuity around 1975. Similar discontinuities were present and much more distinct for the Cuzco and Pucallpa stations. Perhaps there was an equipment change around this time or a change in time of measurement. If that was the case, a direct shift of the data either before or after the discontinuity would seem to be more appropriate than a trend adjustment.
Bob North
R Clark // February 26, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Just a quick comment/question from a long time reader first time poster.
If the quality of data from a given station is so questionable that we have to make adjustments then isn’t the work being done by surfacestations.org even more important?
One would think their findings would only add to the justification for adjustments and support your position.
Just wondering…
fred // February 26, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Tamino, no I am not getting uncomfortable about anything to do with CA. I read it with interest, and sometimes with agreement. Like I read this. One of the most unattractive foibles of the AGW movement is to keep imputing all kinds of imaginary motives and feelings to people who raise questions. I thought you were above that stuff.
[Response: Are you really that naive? If you actually believe that McIntyre doesn't have a prejudicial purpose then you need more than an epiphany. You need to take your blinders off.]
It was also not CA who sent me to Quebec, it was a poster here on another thread who kindly gave us three interesting public references, one of which was an article about adjusting Quebec among other places. It was not CA who suggested that Quebec is a gold standard. I thought of that myself. It is. Now, whether everything has to be as good as Quebec, that can be left to the professionals to debate. But there is no doubt, its a good one, and I don’t have any worries about those particular adjustments, and it proves it can be done.
[Response: It was certainly CA that got you saying "Peru" just about every chance you got for the last several days, with strong statements here about how that effectively damns the surface temperature analysis. You made those statements based on McIntyre's posts, right? But I'll bet that *neither* of you bothered to look at the data enough to find out what the trend in neighboring stations might be. Did you?
As for Quebec, in your earlier comment you said:
The implication of that is quite clear: if it's not as good as Quebec, stop doing it. What else could you be suggesting? But now you say:
Which is it?]
McIntyre’s view is not the view you attributed to me. Don’t think its mine actually. His view is (and it seems to be also his view on proxies) that there is data in at least some of these records. That what we need to do is get at it. Perhaps by starting with a subset of records which are ‘gold standard’ and seeing how far we can move out from there.
[Response: I guess you really are that naive. That's what McIntyre repeatedly insists is his purpose -- but all he ever DOES is try to embarrass the surface record. Far more often than he insists his purpose is noble, he makes some suggestion, some innuendo, some implication, of either gross incompetence or deliberate deception or both by modern climate scientists. It's his bread and butter.
Actions speak louder than words.]
He raises the question, to which so far there has been no answer: If the adjustment is supposed to adjust by comparing to stations located in places with less than 10k population, why exactly are adjustments being made by comparing to towns with over 20k?
[Response: IF that's being done (I don't take McIntyre's word for it) then it's because the population classification is in error. If that's true then the classification should be changed.
That does NOT mean that GISS is violating the standards of scientific method, it just means there are errors in the metadata. But McIntyre has managed to persuade you that "The issue is just whether legitimate scientific method has been followed here in the treatment of surface temperature readings, and it has not." That's a direct quote from you.
So put up or shut up: in what way did GISS violate legitimate scientific method? Unless you answer THAT question, or admit that you were mistaken to make the claim, your credibility is nil.]
Let me tell you: I was never particularly sceptical about the surface temperature record until I started reading this site and encountering some of the tortuous defenses of truly crazed procedures with the data. Now, I am.
[Response: What truly crazed procedures? Just because CA calls 'em such and you repeat it, doesn't make it true. Answer the question or admit you're mistaken.]
I don’t know why GISS adopted and now retains the algorithms and methods it did. I don’t have much of a view of whether and in what direction they are distorting the trend. My view is, it is pretty clear they have to change, which is more interesting. Lets hope they are not in the same state of denial as most people here seem to be.
[Response: Let's sum up: 1. YOU DON'T KNOW why they do what they do. 2. YOU DIDN'T LOOK at the data from the rural neighbors (whether misclassified or not -- you didn't look at ANY of it). 3. But you still feel qualified to say that NASA has violated legitimate scientific method and that the procedures are "truly crazed." Did I get that right?]
And let us repeat the prime idiotic argument here. It makes no difference, is the cry. So tell me, if it makes no difference, why are we doing it?
[Response: You and Steve McIntyre can't think of a reason, so the idea must be "prime idiotic"? Well I guess I'll just have to post on that subject soon.
But not until I get answers from you. In what way did GISS violate legitimate scientific method? What procedures are "truly crazed"?]
Boris // February 26, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Nice post, Tamino.
Steve McIntyre has posted about 1,000 blog posts since his last publication. Apparently he hasn’t found anything worthy of sharing with the scientific community yet. (Keep in mind, even his hero Wegman said that blogs are not the proper place to discuss these kinds of issues.)
Also note that McIntyre referred to the folks at Real Climate as “vicious, little men” and you’ll perhaps see what I believe his true goal to be.
MarkR // February 26, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Clue for those who won’t check for themselves.
Google Earth for
Padre Aldamiz
Heretic // February 26, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“failure to show the exact operations that have been applied”
This statement shows that you have taken the whining at CA at face value without checking for yourself; incidentally, Tamino just showed the exact operations.
nanny_govt_sucks // February 26, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Why wasn’t the “nightlights” data used to adjust Peruvian urban sites, as was done in the USA? Why have two different adjustment methods depending on what flag the host country waves?
Adam // February 26, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“Wrt Puerto Maldon*, ….* Is it actually called Puerto Maldonado? It has has an interesting history according to it’s wiki entry.”
It is the same place, and it is an interesting one. The station is at the airport, also called “Padre Aldamiz”. The airport is about 1km-1m SE of the town. There is an object halfwat down the runway on the E side that *might* be the station (hard to tell from a sat photo).
The only history of the airport that I can find is that the main carrier stopped flying there in 1990 when it got closed down. Others now fly there, inc. the Peruvian military.
There is no info. that I can find on instruments, observers (even organisation), or possible moves.
As the station is/was in cleared forest land, it’s quite possible that it was affected by regrowth. But that is getting into guesswork. I would guess we’ll need a Spanish reader to find out more.
P. Lewis // February 26, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Fred, one has to be incredibly naive, incredibly stupid or incredibly mendacious if you believe
(1) The original data are almost invariably retained (though there are occasions when someone “boobs”). Why? Because people still want the original raw data for other purposes, at least one of which is to carry out more stringent/better homogenisation checks when such tests become available (or just plain different homogenisation checks, because one worker favours one suite of methods over another’s). That process has been going on for decades.
(2) The procedures outlined in Aguilar’s ppt presentation (or something similar) are carried out everywhere one wants to use the data to make comparisons between temperature series. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of papers in journals and conference proceedings to this effect.
(3) Do you think it’s only (near-)surface temperature data that are homogenized? Radiosonde data are, precipitation data are, atmospheric pressure data are, wind data are, …
dean_1230 // February 26, 2008 at 6:15 pm
In what way did GISS violate legitimate scientific method?
Well, if you assume that the sorting algorithm is doing what CA has determined that it’s doing (and there was some significant dialog on the FORTRAN code snippets as to exactly what it was doing), then the “legitimate scientific method” that was violated had to do with sloppy data handling. If Hansen wanted to use all sites with less than 10,000 people as rural, then there should have been some way to ensure that that was actually the case. When violations to that desire are found, they should be fixed.
Is Peru “cherry-picked”? Maybe (but CA says it wasn’t). Is Peru in conflict with what Hansen’s stated sorting algorithms? Yes, according to the data presented at CA.
So what do you do? You fix the errant datafiles and re-run the code. Steadfast refusal to do just that is NOT part of the scientific method. Likewise refusing to admit that there’s a problem is also not part of the scientific process.
[Response: It was NASA, not Steve McIntyre, who first indentified that there are problems using the population data supplied by GHCN. In fact that's the reason for using nightlights to classify stations in the U.S.:
(Hansen et al. 2001, J. Geophys. Res. vol. 106, noD20, pp. 23947-23963)
NASA isn’t refusing to admit that the population data has problems; they’re the ones who identified that the problem warrants a new approach to classification, and devised a method to do so. Here’s my guess: the improved method will be extended to the entire globe as soon as time, resources, and data permit.
So answer me this: Who has “steadfastly refused” to fix errant data files? Who has refused to admit that there’s a problem?
Steve McIntyre and his henchpeople have taken a problem which was identified by NASA, for which a new method was devised (by NASA), which is being applied in the U.S. (by NASA), done methodically (by NASA) rather than cherry-picked (by CA), and used it to slander NASA. That’s the BIGGEST problem in this whole mess. When will Steve McIntyre — and you, and Fred — stop “steadfastly refusing” to admit there’s a problem with CA?]
Phil. // February 26, 2008 at 6:35 pm
“It is the same place, and it is an interesting one. The station is at the airport, also called “Padre Aldamiz”. The airport is about 1km-1m SE of the town. There is an object halfwat down the runway on the E side that *might* be the station (hard to tell from a sat photo).”
Actually that’s the VOR station, they’re quite distinctive.
caerbannog // February 26, 2008 at 6:48 pm
It’s interesting to note that the Orland and Marysville USHCN stations are *still* featured front-and-center over at surfacestations.org, with the obvious purpose of giving the casual viewer the impression that new construction around the Marysville station (cell tower, air-conditioning units, etc) is responsible for the discrepancies in the temperature records.
A careful viewer would note that the temperature records for the two sites are strongly consistent with each other for the past 50 years or so, and would also note that the major temperature discrepancies occur prior to 1940 and pre-date all the man-made clutter around the Marysville station.
But careful viewers are not surfacestation.org’s intended audience.
Hank Roberts // February 26, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Nan, that’s been answered repeatedly. Are you just posting the question again for rhetoric?
Assuming you missed it before, you can tell where people live in the USA by how bright the area looks from space.
Is that true elsewhere? Look it up, e.g.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFX-4K1G554-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a7d1d93a878e2c2101b7e97ec4594ba1
ABSTRACT begins:
“Liberal reform programmes in developing countries were not designed with the need to extend electricity supplies to rural areas. This paper focuses on the Peruvian experience, examining the impact of electricity reform policies on the characteristics of rural electrification. In rural areas, electrification levels have traditionally been the lowest in the country – making them less or non-profitable for private firms. Only in 2002 did the government introduce a specific Rural Electrification Law, which was intended to promote electrification….”
NOTE that “rural” for “rural electrification” is not “rural” for temperature measurements.
Short answer is, there are no small towns in the USA that have no electric lights. There are many small towns in the rest of the world that don’t waste electricity sufficient to be lit up all night every night from space, and few countries tell the whole world where their electric grids are like the US does.
But you knew that, right?
MarkR // February 26, 2008 at 6:58 pm
The airstrip is 2.6 Nautical Miles from the town, and is mainly in “jungle”. The exact whereabouts of the weather station equipment is unknown. The station would appear to be rural, and therefor its down trending data should have been used to adjust the urban , and not the other way round as NASA GISS have done.
See how it helps to audit the data?
Now if some Spanish speaker were to email the airport, and ask for some photo’s of the weather station and environs, we could make some progress. A bit like Watts Gallery.
Tony Edwards // February 26, 2008 at 7:08 pm
[Response: I guess you really are that naive. That’s what McIntyre repeatedly insists is his purpose — but all he ever DOES is try to embarrass the surface record. Far more often than he insists his purpose is noble, he makes some suggestion, some innuendo, some implication, of either gross incompetence or deliberate deception or both by modern climate scientists. It’s his bread and butter.
Actions speak louder than words.]
Really, why does someone posting under a pseudonym have to be so exceptionally rude about someone who, so I believe, makes no money from his weblog, but is looking for answers which might get us closer to an accurate notion of what is happening to the world climate and why. Surely a serious scientist should be pleased that people are concerned enough about accuracy. As to Heretic’s suggestion that the operations “have been explained” why is it that the actual codes, operating procedures and algorithms haven’t, so far as I can ascertain, been put into the public domain?
Incidentally, the described procedure of adjusting urban areas to match up to adjacent (1000km is adjacent?) doesn’t seem to be a sensible way to get rid of any UHI. All it does is put spurious information, if you can call it that, into the mix. A better way, surely, would be to take the stations out of towns and site them in reliable locations.
Sometimes, when you are in a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging.
[Response: If Steve McIntyre were truly trying to "get us closer to an accurate notion of what is happening to the world climate," then I'd be one of his strongest supporters. I believe that claim is a LIE. McIntyre's real purpose is to discredit climate science.
You say that "the actual codes, operating procedures and algorithms haven't, so far as I can ascertain, been put into the public domain." You must not have tried very hard to "ascertain."]
Hank Roberts // February 26, 2008 at 7:15 pm
> (1000km is adjacent?)
Asked and answered repeatedly.
The scale takes into account the size of large weather systems. As those move through, temperature changes across a large area. You have to capture those changes at that scale to be able to tell them apart from climate trends.
Patrick Hadley // February 26, 2008 at 7:26 pm
As a global warming agnostic I am always happy to see comments such as those above pouring out scorn and bile on those who are investigating the theory.
When people who are genuinely unsure about AGW visit sites like this they will wonder why pseudonymous proponents of the theory find it necessary to be so rude about named people who are asking awkward questions. I have no doubt at all that the reaction of any fair-minded neutral would be to sympathise with those under attack.
[Response: If McIntyre were only asking awkward questions, he'd be helping. Alas, that's simply NOT TRUE. I question his motives because they are questionable. So here's a newsflash for you, Mr. Hadley: when, in my opinion, people behave in a despicable way, I'm gonna call it like I see it.
But I guess the case for CA is so weak that the only thing left is to resort to claiming that I'm rude, and pointing out that I post under a pseudonym.]
Tony Edwards // February 26, 2008 at 7:36 pm
You say that “the actual codes, operating procedures and algorithms haven’t, so far as I can ascertain, been put into the public domain.” You must not have tried very hard to “ascertain.”]
So, where are they, exactly?
[Response: These will get you off to a good start, and you may wish to examine references therein:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html
Here's the documentation:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
The programs are here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
]
MarkR // February 26, 2008 at 8:00 pm
So, has anyone other than NASA GISS been able to run the NASA GISS programs?
You for example?
nanny_govt_sucks // February 26, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Well this is hardly justification for having two different methods when it comes to the USA vs. Western Europe or Canada. It seems Hansen just slapped this code together without too much thought or investigation into what might be an appropriate way to adjust for … whatever he’s adjusting for. That’s really not a criticism, as no one else seems to have put much work into this before Hansen, but there should be an openness and willingness to come to terms with these issues, and modifications to the adjustment algorithm as new information comes to light. Certainly there’s a better and more consistent way to adjust for any UHI.
David B. Benson // February 26, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Off-topic, Tamino, but I have recently been seeing quite a few comments about “the world has cooled for the last ten years”. I am hoping there is a link (somewhere) that I can suggest that the (crdious, naive) posters might care to read before repeating this claim.
Thanks.
[Response: Try this, this, this, and this.]
Hank Roberts // February 26, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Yeah, he could have used the flat-earth maps where the continents get wider the farther north you go.
Dean P // February 26, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“NASA isn’t refusing to admit that the population data has problems; they’re the ones who identified that the problem warrants a new approach to classification, and devised a method to do so. Here’s my guess: the improved method will be extended to the entire globe as soon as time, resources, and data permit.”
But wait, I thought the predominant belief here is that there’s no problem with the data? Your comment doesn’t square with there being no problem with the data.
I understand funding constraints. Since there’s a problem with the data, IDENTIFY & QUANTIFY the problem, don’t sit there and say that there’s no problem (as most of the people here are saying). If the error analysis shows that the problem is serious, then elevate the importance of fixing it.
[Response: You are simply mistaken.
The only reason you think anybody ever claimed that there's no problem with the data, is that you've been spoon-fed that propaganda (from CA, I wonder?). If there were no data problems, they wouldn't be extensively documented nor would procedures be devised to compensate for them. Why do you think adjustments exist? If there are no adjustments, denialists complain about errors in the raw data; if there are adjustments, denialists complain about the adjustments.
And they'll try very hard to make you (and others) believe that climate scientists claim there are no problems -- when it's the climate scientists who are working HARDEST to find what those problems are so they can be compensated in the most effective way possible.]
Tony Edwards // February 26, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Source code and documentation for GISTEMP software is available here. The programs are intended for installation and use on a computer with a Unix-like operating system.
* Download GISTEMP_sources.tar.gz.
This archive is approximately 2.2 MB. It was updated Sep. 10, 2007, to clarify the procedures of some steps; finally it was updated Oct 10, 2007, to simplify and speed up STEP2 (homogeneization)
Once you have gunzipped and de-tarred the archive, you will have a directory containing a text version of the documentation and several sub-directories, the latter each named STEP*. Please read the documentation and follow the instructions to go through the steps of the analysis, proceeding through each subdirectory.
The subdirectories contain software which you will need to compile, and in some cases install at particular locations on your computer. These include FORTRAN programs and C extensions to Python programs. Some Python programs make use of Berkeley DB files.
This is helpful? Just reading this would seem to suggest that you have to write half of the code yourself. And it says “updated” Sep 10, 2007, but was it available to the public before that?
[Response: You claimed that the procedures and programs are not in the public domain. I pointed out that you were mistaken. You asked where to find 'em. I answered.
But apparently it's beyond your ken actually to *use* them. Pity.]
jim // February 26, 2008 at 8:50 pm
David, this might be what you are looking for.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/
Hank Roberts // February 26, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Homework help for Tony:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/data.giss.nasa.gov/*
dhogaza // February 26, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Yes, it is. Sounds like they’ve included everything I’d need to make it work, if I were so inclined.
No, it says you’re going to have to compile the code yourself.
It’s not put together like a distribution of a commercial software product built for everyday software consumers.
What did you expect? Would you rather have them spend the money to do that sort of expensive (time is money) packaging or on improving the models? I know where I’d put my money if it were my choice.
Mitchell // February 26, 2008 at 9:37 pm
[Response: If McIntyre were only asking awkward questions, [...]. I question his motives because they are questionable.]
Let’s talk about science. Last time I checked, particular motives had nothing to do with science. If you judged, then accepted or refused, all the scientific work on the basis of the motives of its authors, where would that get you?
Patrick Hadley // February 26, 2008 at 9:47 pm
It is describing McIntyre’s behaviour as “despicable” that will raise flags in the minds of those reading this site who have not yet made their minds up about AGW.
How are you going to convince someone who comes to this site with an open mind, particularly someone who lives in a democracy where the right to challenge the authorities is revered, that there could possibly be anything “despicable” about McIntyre criticising the use of data and statistics by proponents of AGW?
[Response: Steve McIntyre has taken a problem which was identified by NASA, for which a new method was devised (by NASA), which is being applied in the U.S. (by NASA), done methodically (by NASA) rather than cherry-picked (by CA), and used it to criticize NASA.
What would you call that?]
Adam // February 26, 2008 at 10:08 pm
“Actually that’s the VOR station, they’re quite distinctive.”
Thanks. Did think it might be something like that. I’ve never actually spotted a square from a sat pic, so would have been surprised if I’d started now.
As for the GISS code, sounds like slightly less effort than half the OS packages I’ve installed on my system.
sod // February 26, 2008 at 10:19 pm
How are you going to convince someone who comes to this site with an open mind, particularly someone who lives in a democracy where the right to challenge the authorities is revered, that there could possibly be anything “despicable” about McIntyre criticising the use of data and statistics by proponents of AGW?
you did not understand what tamino said. someone who comes here with an open mind and really READS what is written, will come to a different conclusion.
no one wants to deny CA the right to “challenge” anyone. the problem is, that CA is leaving people with a wrong impression.
dhogaza // February 26, 2008 at 10:28 pm
What word would you use to describe someone who continuously insinuates that leading climate science researchers are engaged in scientific misconduct and fraud?
Are you aware of the seriousness of such claims?
McIntyre was given the opportunity to declare that he does not accuse climate scientists of scientific misconduct right here on Tamino’s blog, but refused to answer direct questions on the matter.
I’m sorry, but there’s nothing wrong with accurately labeling McIntyre’s behavior.
For Tony’s benefit, “OS” means “open source”, and in this case specifically those distributed in source form, therefore requiring compilation.
null{} // February 26, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Adam // February 26, 2008 at 10:08 pm
ok, report back when you’ve go it up and running.
Mitchell // February 26, 2008 at 10:42 pm
“the problem is, that CA is leaving people with a wrong impression.”
Why would you worry about the impression CA leaves?
Tony Edwards // February 26, 2008 at 10:50 pm
[Response: You claimed that the procedures and programs are not in the public domain. I pointed out that you were mistaken. You asked where to find ‘em. I answered.
But apparently it’s beyond your ken actually to *use* them. Pity.]
Never said I wanted to use them, my expertise lies in different fields, but there are others who have the requisite expertise who, so far, have failed to get the programmes to run.
sod,
“you did not understand what tamino said. someone who comes here with an open mind and really READS what is written, will come to a different conclusion.
no one wants to deny CA the right to “challenge” anyone. the problem is, that CA is leaving people with a wrong impression.”
What the hey does it matter what impression ClimatAudit leaves people with?
Up until recently, I was, indeed in most matters still am, an open-minded, reasonably intelligent and experienced person who is always up for debate. But harangue me, shout at me “The science is settled”, tell me that I am too stupid to understand the experts who are so far above me, and I dig my heels in. I can understand most things if they are explained. Saying it’s ex-officio and not open for debate brings total opposition.
As for “you did not understand what tamino said. someone who comes here with an open mind and really READS what is written, will come to a different conclusion.”, oh yes, I understand him/her but am not convinced.
Real data and logical justified exposition is what leads me to a conclusion, not climate models and postulates.
[Response: And how did you conclude that climate models (and postulates) can't lead you to a conclusion? Are they no evidence at all? If we were "debating" evolution, would you protest that genetic models and postulates are meaningless?
I very much doubt that you reached that opinion by examining real data and logical exposition. I have no reason to doubt that you are indeed a "reasonably intelligent and experienced person who is always up for debate." But you might be seriously in need of an open-mind check.]
Hank Roberts // February 26, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Tony writes:
> Up until recently, I was, indeed in most
> matters still am, an open-minded,
> reasonably intelligent and experienced
> person who is always up for debate
Science isn’t debate; you’re experiencing what’s called ‘hard argument’ — a quite different form of discourse. You’re expected to hold up your end with citable published studies.
All involved should remember or re-read this very thoughful post and remember you’re writing for the ages, not for the moment:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-truth-is-losing-ground.html
…
the malefactors and their innocent sympathizers…. are trying, all too successfully, to convince their audience of several things including
* that there is a substantive scientific controversy (which delays and dilutes considerations of policy) about even the most well-established basic facts
* that the presentation of a consensus, even on totally unambiguously established results, is in itself an indication of dishonesty, bullying and arrogance
* that the motivation for all this fuss is a deeply corrupt scientific establishment that is motivated to lie because of huge and rapidly increasing grant money. (Don’t we wish…)
It all ties together into a pretty clever strategy:
1. say things that are exasperatingly ignorant
2. get real experts with little understanding of polemics to express their exasperation
3. cast that exasperation as arrogance and bullying
That’s not the whole strategy … but it’s emerging as a central feature.
The best counter is to avoid the appearance of arrogance in public forums. ….
——–end excerpt——-
And on the latter point, the best advice ever posted online, the last words from:
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Eric Steven Raymond
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
How To Answer Questions in a Helpful Way
Be gentle. Problem-related stress can make people seem rude or stupid even when they’re not.
…There is no need of public humiliation for someone who may have made an honest mistake. A real newbie may not know how to search archives or where the FAQ is stored or posted.
…
Be humble and honest; set a good example for both the querent and your peers.
If you can’t help, don’t hinder. …
Ask probing questions to elicit more details. If you’re good at this, the querent will learn something — and so might you. Try to turn the bad question into a good one; remember we were all newbies once.
While just muttering RTFM is sometimes justified when replying to someone who is just a lazy slob, a pointer to documentation (even if it’s just a suggestion to google for a key phrase) is better.
If you’re going to answer the question at all, give good value. Don’t suggest kludgy workarounds when somebody is using the wrong tool or approach. Suggest good tools. Reframe the question.
Help your community learn from the question. When you field a good question, ask yourself “How would the relevant documentation or FAQ have to change so that nobody has to answer this again?” …
If you did research to answer the question, demonstrate your skills rather than writing as though you pulled the answer out of your butt. …teaching them research skills by example is teaching them to grow food for a lifetime.
———————–
Look back at this history from a century in the future. How did we do, dealing with what we barely were beginning ot understand? Did we leave the world better than we found it?
luminous beauty // February 26, 2008 at 11:32 pm
“…but there are others who have the requisite expertise who, so far, have failed to get the programmes to run.”
I scarce dare point out the oxymoron in this statement for fear one might construe the criticism as haranguing one as too stupid to understand.
The problem with creating a false impression is it is a lie.
That matters.
Competence, my friend, is measured by the limits of one’s capability.
dhogaza // February 26, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Perhaps their claims to having the requisite expertise is as overblown as their claim that a few photographs will overturn years of work by NASA scientists, etc etc etc?
Since you have no faith in models, I trust you don’t fly in modern airplanes?
David B. Benson // February 27, 2008 at 12:24 am
Tamino — Thanks for the links.
I’ll put all four to good use.
Patrick Hadley // February 27, 2008 at 12:39 am
The complaints that McIntyre has made against members of the AGW consensus are that they have made mistakes in selecting and analysing data. Irrespective of whether he is right or wrong in any of these complaints simply asking awkward questions and offering an opinion about possible errors cannot be “despicable”.
McIntyre publishes under his own name detailed descriptions of where he thinks there may be problems in the methods of some climate scientists. These scientists typically have serious resources behind them which they can and do use to respond to these criticisms. I really do not see how someone who is publishing research which he hopes will lead to a dramatic change in public policy and in the lifestyles of billions of people, should consider it “despicable” if someone tries to poke holes in that research. In a democracy that is simply bound to happen, and it is a very good thing.
dhogaza // February 27, 2008 at 1:25 am
He goes far beyond that, and as I said earlier, when given the chance to positively state that he does NOT believe that leading climate scientists are guilty of scientific misconduct and fraud, he chose not to make such a statement. He continues to imply misconduct by NASA scientists.
Beyond the big accusations regarding folks like Michael Mann, he’s directly accused Gavin Schmidt of violating government regulations on the publication of information due to his activities at RealClimate, and has directly accused him of misconduct by blogging there during work hours. He’s threatened to “expose” him to his superiors at NASA.
What does that have to do with “mistakes in data an analysis”?
Surely your ability to read english is not so impaired that you are unable to distinguish tabloid-quality dirt-flinging when you’re confronted by it in the writings of McIntyre and his band of buddies?
me no understand // February 27, 2008 at 1:26 am
Going back to your original post, could you explain why the correction to Puerto Malden stops at 1988 (I am looking at the graph on CA)? Do your 3 trend lines run parralel from 1988 onwards and what will happen if they diverge again in the future? What happened in 1988 to abruptly halt the need for a correction factor?
I am sorry if you have already answered these questions but the debate moved into snark mode so quickly and it is hard to concentrate on content when the insults start flying. Many thanks
[Response: To answer confidently, I'd have to track down all the rural stations within 1200 km of Puerto Maldon and compare the trend of the rural neighbors. But here's a guess:
GISS uses a 2-legged linear adjustment, with the "hinge point" allowed to vary, so that the trend at the non-rural station can be adjusted to give the best agreement of its trend with that of its rural neighbore. If you look again at the first graph, you'll see that around 1988 the behavior of the raw anomalies changes: the steady nosedive from 1958 onward finally comes to a halt. So it's not implausible that 1988 turns out to be the hinge point.]
Michael Tobis // February 27, 2008 at 2:07 am
It’s kind of awkward for me to post something intemperate here when Hank has yet again linked to my blog entry counseling patience and understanding of the nature of the game you are playing. SO I’ll duck by quoting someone else
There is a strong case that the game McIntyre et al is playing is not honest. P Z Myers at Pharyngula put it this way:
===
the need to defend the climate change denialist, McIntyre — so many of you, after carping that I’m not meeting your demands, are protesting that he’s not a denialist, and you aren’t denialists, and you’re all here in the cause of good science.
Bullshit.
My expertise is not in climate, but in biology, and I’m familiar with his type — it’s a common strategy among creationists, who do dearly love to collect complaints. There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They’re called scientists. Then there are the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt. They lack perspective. They ignore everything that doesn’t fit their search criterion, and of course, they’re focused only on putrescence. They aren’t scientists, they’re more like rats.
And the worst of the rats are the sanctimonious ones that declare that they’re just ‘policing’ science. They aren’t. They’re just providing fodder for their fellow denialists, and like them all, have nothing of value to contribute to advance the conversation. You can quit whining that you and McIntyre are finding valid errors; it doesn’t matter, since you’re simultaneously spreading a plague of lies and ignorance as you go.
So bugger off, denialists. I am not impressed.
===
end quote.
It’s me again, polite and rational, reminding you that different folks play different games on the same playing field sometimes.
Boris // February 27, 2008 at 2:27 am
“McIntyre publishes under his own name”
McSteve doesn’t publish. He merely types. Do you see the difference?
[Response: McIntyre does have peer-reviewed publications, although all I've found (I really haven't looked that hard) are criticisms of the "hockey stick," many of which appeared in the highly dubious journal "Energy & Environment" (although there's at least one in Geophysical Research Letters).
Readers who have been following the series on PCA, in hopes that it will address hockey-stick critics: stay tuned.]
Hank Roberts // February 27, 2008 at 2:27 am
Chuckle. And I agree wholeheartedly, per Eric Raymond:
“… muttering RTFM is sometimes justified when replying to someone who is just a lazy slob, a pointer to documentation (even if it’s just a suggestion to google for a key phrase) is better….”
Give’em hell.
P. Lewis // February 27, 2008 at 2:46 am
So, Tony Edwards, are you saying that every casting or fabrication that has ever been machined in which an error has been made has gone to the scrap pile instead of somewhere else in the machine shop for rectification?
Are you telling me that no one has ever, say, reversed electro-discharge machine polarity to deposit, say, stainless steel in something like a gas turbine component that has been overmachined?
Such items were rarely scrapped in my day when I was in and around a tooling workshop, where errors were common, if not an everyday occurrence. Who in their right mind would scrap a casting costing on the order of tens of thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours of machine shop time when, with a little ingenuity and application, the problem can be ameliorated?
There are dangers in carrying out homogenisation incorrectly, but as a (suite of) statistical technique(s) it is a perfectly acceptable procedure that — at least as far as the SNHT procedure is concerned (and I’ve no doubt with other techniques, too) — has been tested on artificial data sets into which various inhomogeneities have been added and been found to be acceptable.
If you can’t see far enough, then try standing on the shoulders of someone who can, to paraphrase a rather famous scientist.
KH // February 27, 2008 at 3:40 am
There might be a good reason for the temperature trend at Puerto Maldonado. I visited Puerto Maldonado and area on a family vacation in 2005. I’m a bit surprised it has over 10,000 people. The roads are mostly dirt roads with lots of small motorcycles. The airport handles passenger planes (737’s). It is in a jungle area just across the Andes. When we arrived, the temperature was about 30 degrees Celcius. It stayed near that for a couple of days, then late one afternoon, there was a large thunderstorm and the temperature dropped to about 7 degrees Celcius and stayed near that all the next day. A mass of cold air had blown off the Bolivian Andes down into the jungle. I remember shivering in the open air airport waiting for the plane that we would be departing in, to arrive.
Puerto Maldonado appears to be in or close to a transition zone between a jungle climate and a mountain climate. Any trends seen in the climate there might not be very representative of either type of climate.
mmghosh // February 27, 2008 at 4:58 am
Excellent post Hank
Chris Colose // February 27, 2008 at 6:05 am
This discussion about climate audit vs. NASA does not appear to be very productive. The issue of surface stations, hockey sticks, and other such topics coming from his blog appears to get plenty of attention in blog protocol, and other secondary sources. McIntyre is obviously an interested and dedicated individual, but does not sit in the mainstream of research on these topics, has not done much refereed original research on it (primarily but not exclusively blogging), and is often (rightly or not) associated with one end of the political spectrum.
My advice to certain people here, is that if you are getting too much information from CA before checking with the relevant GISS publications on the topics, IPCC or NAS, etc then you are well off course for a dispassionate consideration of the issues.
There appears to be two audiences on subjects such as this–the ones that want to be entertained about the “controversy” that is AGW, and those that want to honestly improve every aspect of our understanding that we can.
The second crowd does not claim that every detail is solved, and no problems exist in the instrumental record. Life is not so easy. Understanding why adjustments or corrections take place is probably a good start rather than declaring that adjustements or corrections are a fraud.
To the first crowd, the details of individual stations are probably not relevant to you. I strongly suggest that people in this category look at the data from satellites, the surface record, air balloons, glacier balance records, ocean heat content, sea level rise, etc for a broad-brush picture of what is going on, and what the best scholarship has to say.
Patrick Hadley // February 27, 2008 at 9:53 am
KH, I don’t see how your suggestion that the cooling trend at Puerto Maldonado might be caused by its micro-climate could possibly be correct. Hansen has shown that the true trend in each weather station can be found by looking at the trend in stations up to 1200km away. The whole GISS methodology is based on this principle.
me no understand // February 27, 2008 at 11:37 am
Thank you for your reply but I am still confused. I want to know what happens to your 3 trend lines post 1988.
In your original post you justified the 3 deg C correction, applied until 1988 and then stopped, by reference to only 2 rural sites. With the benefit of up-to-date data for these 3 sites does the 3 deg C correction factor still seem reasonable?
What procedure is in place if the trends continue to diverge post 88? Will a new correction factor be applied post 88 or is the post 88 data considered accurate? Is this what you mean by a 2-legged linear adjustment?
What physical phenomenon, in your view, has caused the need for this correction factor?
Is the post 88 data available for these 3 sites?
I hope you don’t consider me presumptuous by seeking further clarification but the maths seems pretty simple and showing that these corrections make sense of the post 88 data is the first step to convincing a layman like me that these urban corrections are worthwhile.
[Response: A 2-legged adjustment refers to a line with a "turn" or "bend" at one point. So it's a "bent line" with the bend at a time which is determined by computing the best fit, but the line is straight both before and after the bend.
There's no post-1988 data for Cobija or Rurrenabaque. I selected those stations because they're classified rural in the GHCN, they cover the time period discussed in the CA post (the adjustment is nonzero from 1958 to 1988 but zero beyond), and they're not too far away. Then nearest rural station which covers the entire time span of the Puerto Maldon data is Cruzeiro Do S, more than twice as distant as either Cobija or Rurrenabaque.
If you look again at the very first graph, it's evident that the trend in Puerto Maldon changes significantly about 1988, from steeply downward to upward. Hence it's really no surprise that if you fit a "bent line" to the difference between that station and its rural neighbors, the bend will be about that time.
You shouldn't be too surprised that the correction after 1988 is exactly zero. Keep in mind that monthly average temperature is rounded to the nearest 0.1 deg.C. Hence if the Puerto Maldon adjustment post-1988 ranges from -0.049 to +0.049 deg.C, when rounded off the adjustment will be zero.
I don't know why the Puerto Maldon data 1958-1988 show such a strong cooling trend while its neighbors don't. My first guess would be that the trend is false, caused by undocumented changes in observing practice or instrumentation, or by land use changes. But it's not impossible that it's correct; contrary to what some may claim, "spatial coherence" does *not* mean that nearby locations share the same trend with certainty, just that it's far more likely than not. Therefore adjustments to bring the trends into agreement will give the overall most accurate picture of regional (and therefore global) trends, but *not* necessarily the most accurate picture of trends at an individual station. NASA emphasizes that the purpose of adjusted data is to estimate regional/global climate, but for studying individual locations it may be best to use the data without homogeneity adjustment.]
Tony Edwards // February 27, 2008 at 12:09 pm
P. Lewis // February 27, 2008 at 2:46 am
You have completely misunderstood my analogy. certainly, if an error is made, if possible, corrective action should be taken. My point was that if a measurement has been taken, say of a hole into which the part you are about to make should fit, you don’t then adjust the measurement to give something different.
So data that was taken a while back should be the start line and left alone. Recent data that has discoverable errors might need adjustment, but any correction or adjustment ought to be on a station by station basis not as a generic variation.
On the subject of station errors, I am amazed that the efforts being made by volunteers to investigate the state of the weather stations around the USA and collated on Anthony Watts’ site http://www.surfacestations.org
have drawn so much criticism. Surely any determination of defects in the data collecting system should be lauded and assisted. If decisions are to be made for the future they must be based on firm foundations, so why not stand on these efforts to get a better view of these foundations.
[Response: As I've said many many times, sincere and objective efforts to improve data quality are welcome. Prejudicial efforts intended to discredit rather than investigate, are not. See this.]
Adam // February 27, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“Now if some Spanish speaker were to email the airport, and ask for some photo’s of the weather station and environs, we could make some progress.”
Well you’d need photos going back to the 1960s to be useful. Plus it would help to have a station log including instruments, procedures, observers, etc. etc. Otherwise it won’t tell you much.
“ok, report back when you’ve go it up and running.”
What a silly thing to say. Why would you take my word on it?
Raven // February 27, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Chris Colose
“I strongly suggest that people in this category look at the data from satellites, the surface record, air balloons, glacier balance records, ocean heat content, sea level rise, etc for a broad-brush picture of what is going on, and what the best scholarship has to say.”
Virtually all of the metrics you indicate suggest that the world has stopped warming or that the rate of warming is nothing to be concerned about. For a long time GISS has stood out as the most alarmist of metrics. Perhaps it is time to do to GISS was Tamino has suggested be done to other data sets that do not match the others.
Before anyone responds by attempting to deny the obvious I suggest to look at this OLS trend for HasCRUT over the last 10 years:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/hadcrutandgiss7.jpg
The OHC, MSU and Sea Level metrics show similar trends.
[Response: What makes you think I haven't looked at the trend in HadCRUT3 over the last 10 years? You should pay closer attention.
You cherry-pick a HUGE el Nino event as your starting point, and the calculated trends are still positive. That's like asserting that people are not getting taller, and you'll prove it with the data -- but only if your trend *starts* with Shaquille O'Neill. Unfortunately for your case, Yao Ming walks in the door, so you then insist the trend is actually "negligible."
You need to read this and this. More important, you need to understand it. The "global warming stopped in 1998" mantra is perhaps the single most stupid claim of the denialist camp.]
Barton Paul Levenson // February 27, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Patrick Hadley writes:
[[The complaints that McIntyre has made against members of the AGW consensus are that they have made mistakes in selecting and analysing data. Irrespective of whether he is right or wrong in any of these complaints simply asking awkward questions and offering an opinion about possible errors cannot be “despicable”.]]
I agree. But lying about the motives of the scientists involved is despicable, and refusing to acknowledge refutations of flawed work is despicable. When I get a paper turned down by peer review, I don’t get all sulky and tell people there’s a conspiracy against me and the reviewers are arrogant. I try to fix the flaws in the paper.
Andy // February 27, 2008 at 1:44 pm
You didn’t comment wether eg Iquito is concidered by GISS as a rural site (population 400 000 according to Wikipedia).
Or why NASA keeps the temperature series for a station in different files, with 10 - 50 years data in each, instead of just having one file there?
Patrick Hadley // February 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I think I now understand why some people are so upset with McIntyre and Watts. It seems that they are deliberately going against the consensus by doing research or analysis that they hope to use to prove the establishment wrong.
If only we were in the time of Gallileo we would know what to do, or in Stalin’s Soviet Union when scientists who did not follow the party line were sent to Siberia.
After all science can only make progress if the established consensus is never questioned. How despicable Watt and McIntyre are to do such a thing.
[Response: People are upset with Watts and McIntyre because they are prejudiced, they take every opportunity to snipe at climate science based on innuendo, and all the while they are such hypocrites and cowards that they hide behind a veneer of "plausible deniability." One of the best examples of this is an infantile post by McIntyre, which he titles "Is Gavin Schmidt Honest?" He insults the reputation of a fine scientist (and a fine person), based on the flimsiest non-evidence, all over a childish peeve that there was a *delay* in one of his comments appearing at RealClimate. But you can bet he'll deny having insulted Gavin, insisting he was "just asking a question."
That's despicable.
Now you want to put them in the same class with Galileo? Because they disagree with the concensus? What a crock! For every Galileo who bucks the concensus because of his greater insight, there are ten thousand or more *crackpots* who claim that Einstein was wrong, Darwin was evil, cigarettes don't cause cancer, global warming is a fraud, or all of the above. You've put McIntyre and Watts in the wrong category.]
Boris // February 27, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Galileo and Stalin in the same post? You win!
kim // February 27, 2008 at 2:39 pm
And yet, it cools.
==========
Patrick Hadley // February 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm
It is a bit rich for an anonymous writer to describe Watts and McIntyre as “hypocrites and cowards who hide behind a veneer of plausible deniability.”
I have no doubt at all that anyone reading this thread with an open mind will be able to decide for themselves who deserves that description. I am not “trolling” i.e. deliberately provoking you into a negative reaction, but genuinely seeking to improve the way the debate is conducted. Unfortunately it seems you cannot stop yourself insulting your opponents. Surely you must know that does not win you any friends from the uncommitted.
[Response: It seems that YOU simply can't stop yourself from insulting ME.
But like McIntyre and Watts, you don't have the guts to say it without giving yourself an "out" by claiming that you're just trying to improve the way debate is conducted. This, in spite of the fact that your very first sentence is meant to imply that I'm a hypocrite and coward.
I have vastly more respect for someone who has the guts to say that I'm an idiot and a scoundrel, than for the coward who implies it while *claiming* to be working in the best interest of productive debate. Rather than take the coward's way, using innuendo by asking "Is Patrick Hadley Untruthful?" (while leaving myself the option to claim later than I was "just asking a question"), I'll say it outright: I don't believe you.]
Bob North // February 27, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Have McIntyre, Watt, and many posters criticized/insulted Schmitt, Tamino et al.? it would appear so. Have Schmitt, Tamino and many posters criticized/insulted McIntyre, Watt et al.? It would appear so. Nobody is a winner and nobody comes out smelling like a rose. The quote posted above by Michael Tobis ranks as one of the worst ad hominem attacks I have seen from either groups. Maybe it time to step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath.
Regards,
Bob North
kim // February 27, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Hey, Bob, most of that rant was PZ Myers, and he will live to regret it.
========================
Barton Paul Levenson // February 27, 2008 at 5:17 pm
It’s one of the sure signs of the crackpot pseudoscientist when they start comparing themselves — or the pseudoscientist they’re following — to Galileo. I like Carl Sagan’s comment — they laughed at Wilbur and Orville Wright, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Hank Roberts // February 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Like they say, it’s hard for passers-by to tell which one is the crazy one, once you engage on the sidewalk.
If you look in the science journals, you have no trouble telling them apart.
JCH // February 27, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“Hey, Bob, most of that rant was PZ Myers, and he will live to regret it. …” - Kim
What exactly does that mean? What is going to happen to him that will make him regret his “rant”?
kim // February 27, 2008 at 6:20 pm
He has compared climate skeptics to creationists. We know a lot more about genomes than climate.
=============================
Hank Roberts // February 27, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Chuckle. JCH,that’s because he’s attracting the “witnessers” — the people who make faith-based postings without citation. They, provably, will fill up any thread beyond the ability or patience of the reality-based to cite evidence or help people think for themselves.
The better the bridge you build, the more traffic your bridge gets, the more prolific the trolls that are attracted to live under it.
Gresham’s Law of Blogging. It’s what happened to Prometheus; it’s happening to Dot.Earth. The sites get so “popular” with the Witnesser crowd that nobody looking for fact cites goes there anymore.
Cautionary.
kim // February 27, 2008 at 6:24 pm
The belief that CO2 had much to do with recent warming is a ‘madness of crowds’. We are herd animals, and we’ve been stampeded into that belief. The globe is cooling, and CO2 continues to rise. Observe the reliable thermometers, the RSS and the UAH, and observe the quiescent sun. You’ll understand soon enough.
=====================
elspi // February 27, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Bob
There are SIX BILLION people in the world. I don’t have time to listen to each of them for even a second.
The first rule of APPLIED logic is that you don’t waste your time listening to someone who is not intelligent, honest, and well-informed. (notice that politeness is not on this list).
Shorter rule: Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.
You might think that you miss something by doing this, but if there is a legitimate argument to be made, then there will be some intelligent honest well-informed person making that argument.
McIntyre has argued dishonestly in the past (as the links on this very thread document) and therefore should be ignored.
What you ask, would honest argument look like? Did you see how the Climate Science community reacted when McIntyre (somebody they despise) found an error in the temperature record in the US? They acknowledged his contribution and immediate fixed the problem.
kim // February 27, 2008 at 6:31 pm
He is precisely backwards with the comparison. The hook that creationists have against the evolutionists is that the exact mechanism for the development of the so-called ‘irreducible complexities, such as hemostasis and flagellae, is still unknown. The analogue in climate science is that the exact mechanism by which small variations in solar output cause greater variations in climate is also unknown.
In fact, the ‘warmists’ of today will once be seen as creationists are now.
I realize that is a radical thought. Hold it your hand and your head, and turn it over a little.
=============================