Back in February, I signed a www.number10.gov.uk petition to the Prime Minister concerning the scandal at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. This was set up by Mike Haseler and received 3296 signatures (or 3273 depending on which page on their site you look at).
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.”
The detailed version can be found here
On the 24th March, some six days before the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee published the findings of its very cursory inquiry into the goings on at CRU, Number 10 circulated its response to the petition:
The Government believes that all these allegations should be investigated transparently.
An independent review is currently examining the scientific conduct of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and is due to report its findings later in the spring. More information on the review can be found at: http://www.cce-review.org/. The University of East Anglia also recently announced that there will be a separate review to examine the CRU’s key scientific publications. The findings of both these reviews will be made public.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is also investigating the matter. On 1 March the Select Committee heard evidence from a wide range of contributors, including Professor Jones, who has temporarily stepped down from his post as Director of CRU.
CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by, prepared for, or published by the Government. The resulting outputs are not Government statistics.
Our confidence that the Earth is warming is taken from multiple sources of evidence and not only the HadCRUT temperature record, which CRU scientists contribute to. The same warming trend is seen in two independent analyses carried out in the United States, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These analyses draw on the same pool of temperature data as HadCRUT, but use different methodologies to produce analyses of temperature change through time. Further evidence of this warming is found in data from instruments on satellites, and in trends of declining arctic sea ice and rising sea levels.
Science is giving us an increasingly clear picture of the risks we face from climate change. With more research, we can better understand those risks, and how to manage them. That is why the Government funds a number of institutions, including the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.
It is, no doubt, true to say that Phil Jones’ global temperature estimates are not, strictly speaking, government statistics, but they are certainly statistics that the government relies very heavily in formulating policy and in AGW propaganda. There also appears to be a blatant contradiction concerning government funding of the CRU:
CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by ….. by the Government.
That is why the Government funds ….. the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.
But perhaps most startling of all is the omission any reference to human caused global warming. One suspects that six months ago that would not have been the case.
The main thrust of the Downing Street response is that there is no need whatsoever to be concerned about the robustness of the CRU’s research into historic global mean temperatures. All must be well because Phil Jones’ findings are confirmed by other, similar research carried out at GISS and NOAA. This once again raises a question that has been puzzling me for some tim; the claim that the similarity of the findings published by CRU, GISS, and NOAA is proof that the quality of the CRU research is beyond question. I find this unconvincing.
The well worn argument, now being trotted out on an almost daily basis by high profile climate scientists and assorted politicians and activist, goes like this: all three institutions use the same data pool, but applying different methods for homogenisation, adjustment, and analysis, they reach much the same conclusion about what the global mean temperature is, or has been, in the past. This, we are told, satisfies the normal requirements of the scientific method, to confirm findings by independent replication. And of course the word ‘independent’ is very important here.
For anyone who has even scratched the surface of the complexities that are involved in attempting to identify a global temperature signal from large amounts of surface station data stretching back to the mid 19th century, there can be no doubt about the challenges this presents. That data pool that they are all using is a very muddy one indeed.
Problems concerning the siting and periodic relocation of weather stations abound, which are aggravated by changes in instrumentation, in recording regimes, the inevitable introduction of scribal errors, and an extremely inconsistent geographic distribution of data sources. Then there is the urban heat island effect and the influence on temperature measurements of changes in land use around weather stations. All these factors require adjustments to the raw temperature data.
Worse, there is the discontinuous nature of many records. Periods when no temperature measurements are available have to be infilled by processes of estimation.
All these problems have to be seen against a background of a data processing regime that relies on computer algorithms. Concerns have been expressed about the quality of the programming at both CRU and GISS.
In spite of all these complexities and uncertainties, we are told that three of the worlds leading climate research institutions can derive global temperature estimates accurate to within tenths of a degree centigrade, which more or less agree with each other. And that this is achieved independently, without collusion of any kind.
It would seem to me that inconsistency in the results from CRU, GISS and NOAA would be far less surprising.
TonyB,
Another phrase that isn’t generally used is “I have done a great of work on the subject” with the implication that “therefore I am some sort of world expert”.
Its not just computers that, from time to time, work quite hard to produce heaps of garbage!
Tonyb,
Re: # 24
Considering all of the factors involved (adjustments, station movement, urban sprawl, agencies using different equipment, varying time scales)…………is there any reliable, consistent, unbiased dataset available?
I must admit, prior to delving into this topic I naively thought that temperature readings were gathered and posted at a central repository without tampering………”it is what it is”………I’ve now come to realize that scientists and agencies with differing political philosophical views are creating, (or instructed to create), datasets to support their personal political agendas.
With the revelations discovered in the “Climate-gate” E-mails and the admitted “adjustments” by activists such as James Hanson , Michael Mann and Phil Jones, I really don’t know who or what to trust.
I had previously posted temperature data from three stations within a 100 miles radius located in Florida………two showed no temperature increase and one showed the classic “hockey stick”.
Being familiar with these three areas personally, I know that the area surrounding the “hockey stick” has seen a marked increase in development over the last 30-40 years (coinciding with the increase)……the other two remain relatively rural and were flat line.
Keep at it………persistence pays off in the end………I ‘m just disappointed that truth and integrity seems to be a casualty of “activism” and has permeated/saturated the scientific community and our society so thoroughly.
Brute,
You say “I really don’t know who or what to trust.”
Why not do what you usually do, and go with whatever sounds most to your liking?
Max,
I have give you lots of “empirical data” on the subject of AGW. The IPCC reports have even more.
What I’m still waiting for is for you to tell me who, or what, might consider mankind to be ‘arrogant’? That was your word not mine.
Also, you led us to believe that your initial arguments on the AGW were reasoned and presented scientifically. Not as some hysterical semi-religious rant. Do you still have the links to these or recall what you said and where you said it? Cos I can’t find them!
You can call me cynical and disbelieving if you like, but I’m finding it very difficult to accept that science is your real motivation. The evidence of your postings, unless I’ve missed something, shows you’ve decided the IPCC were wrong first then looked for a pseudo-scientific rationale afterwards.
And, no, you can’t equate that response with those 99.9% who didn’t understand the science any better than you did but still accepted it anyway. There are many dickheads out there who are claiming all sorts of flaws in established science. Its quite possible, in the future, that some of it will be shown to be incorrect. But because they really don’t know why its wrong, right now, the dickheads will still be dickheads though!
PeterM
You wrote:
Please get specific, Peter. I have seen no “empirical data” from you which provide evidence to support the premise that AGW, caused primarily by human CO2 emissions, has been a principal cause of past warming, or that AGW is a serious potential threat.
I have also seen none in IPCC AR4. Just a bunch of doubtful model simulations.
If you would like to point to specific examples, please do so.
Max
PS You opined
Yeah. And there are a bunch who swallow everything they read in IPCC, too.
And some, who are even stupid enough to equate IPCC with “established science”.
Peter
You have a real blind spot with history. Yes, I am an ‘expert’ on historic temperature records. Look at my web site, do you think the stations and the information just presented itself?
I have looked at the circumstances behind each of the stations I cite, and also many of those that Hansen orginally gathered.
This is the original article by James Hansen from 1987 where he identified the stations worldwide that he felt could be used in his own dataset that was to start from 1880. Figure 2 sums the numbers up. This is essential reading for climate researchers as it puts the GISS datasets into context.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
He chose to believe- as you also seem to- that gathering a load of disparate stations together and calling them a global temperature will provide an accurate insight into what has happened over the past 350 years of instrumental recording.
My article here (part 1 of a series of three) examines the period around 1850/80 when Global temperatures commence, and looks at the long history of reliable observations and records prior to the development of instrumental readings.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-%e2%80%93-history-and-reliability/
The point that needs to be made is that there is very little relationship between the data from the original stations and that provided now. Stations experience changes in personnel, equipment, location and the circumstances of their site. Many stations have disappeared and have been substituted by data from some distance away. Others have moved shorter distances and been absorbed into an airport or other conurbation.
I have tracked these changes through their history Peter, and it is obvious that very many of the individual stations are not recording the same microclimate as when they started. This is quite separate to poor siting issues etc.
If you take hundreds of stations, change their position and circumstances radically, then their individual data will be severely compromised. Collating them all to form a global temperature only makes things worse -not better. Why do you find it so difficult to understand that concept?
Tonyb
PeterM
You ask (29):
Please refer to my #223 on the NS thread for examples of “arrogance” as related to the AGW premise.
Max
PeterM
Your #12 and our back and forth in response really have little to do with the reliability or validity of the “globally and annually averaged hand-picked land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (the subject of this thread), and should probably be over on the NS thread.
Max
Tony N pointed out that all three (NCDC, GISS, HadCRUT) use the same basic data, but subject it to different “homogenizing”.
I’d say it’s more like “pasteurizing” (i.e. “cooking”) the data.
Accountants who do this sort of thing usually end up in prison.
Max
During the last week, and more, our part of the world has been experiencing some of the most glorious spring weather that I can remember. Days of unbroken sunshine, pleasantly warm with crystal clear air that still has a chilly edge to it when one strays into the shade, have made it a perfect time to deal with some pressing outside work rather than sitting in front of a VDU. So this blog has been wilfully neglected by its owner recently. If I’ve missed comments that have been aimed at me then I apologise.
Reviewing the comments on this thread, most of you, and particularly PeterM in #3, seem to have missed the payload of the header post, which is in the final sentence, not the headline.
This morning, when I sat down at my screen to catch up on developments, I found news of a seismic event, but not in Iceland. A visit to Bishop Hill here sets the scene. Don’t miss a very important supplementary comment from the same source further down the page, and then the consequences at RC. Judith Curry seems to be in the process of manoeuvring Gavin and The Team into a corner that they will find it very difficult to escape from with any semblance of credibility. Along the way she has some interesting, and so far as this thread is concerned confirmatory, things to say about the surface temperature record.
Brute #27
You said
“Considering all of the factors involved (adjustments, station movement, urban sprawl, agencies using different equipment, varying time scales)…………is there any reliable, consistent, unbiased dataset available?
The answer is No.
I have written a series of articles on historic temperatures.
This article links three long temperature records along the Hudson river in the USA. They illustrate that a start date of 1880 (Giss) misses out on the preceding warm climatic cycles and that UHI is a big factor in the increasingly urbanised temperature data sets from both Giss and Hadley/Cru
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/triplets-on-the-hudson-river/#comment-13064
I have never believed in the wilder realms of the climate conspiracy theory but there is little doubt that a bias has been shown in the manner that temperatures have been presented.
If you look at my previous link to Hansens paper and my article I cite above, it will be noted that the 1880 Giss start was illogical as
it did not represent the breadth of stations that Hansen said he wanted. In addition it enabled calculations to start from a deep trough in temperatures as 1880 was the last gasp of the LIA (thereby making the subsequent uptick much sharper)
A more logical start for Giss would have been 1920 when much more global data was available and the stations were more consistent in as much the Stevenson screen was in universal use.
Have a read of Hansens (excellent) paper and my article and perhaps you can come up with your own reasons for the 1880 start. (It was the year the US weather service started, but remember this is supposed to be a GLOBAL’ record-not a US one)
Tonyb
Thanks Tony, I’ll give it a read.
You’ve obviously done your homework. I just was wondering if there is anything salvageable from any of the record(s).
My main concern is that the originals have been fudged and mangled so badly that no one knows whether they are truly accurate……the authenticity will always be in doubt.
I suppose the project that you are working on will be as close to original documentation as can be attained without all of the “adjustments” and “homogenization”.
Retroactively manipulating the record is, in my mind, malfeasance.
What a pity that all of the time and money spent developing these databases has been for naught.
Brute
The EU has funded several projects to examine the historic temperature records-Phil Jones has been involved in two to my knowledge.
Records up to 300 years old have been retrospectively changed in order to provide homogenisation to modern standards. In my view this is a little like some of the restoration that has gone on in previous years on famous paintings, in as much researchers in the future will claim their predecessors have ruined what was previously there.
The next generation will want to change the historic temperature records again I am sure, but many have been deleted or lost.
There is no doubt that in the past records were kept in a variety of differing ways-for instance those at Prague derived from hanging the thermometer from a north facing window on a metal bracket. Howevere they were probably kept in a more diligent manner than in modern times because the instruments were so costly and their employers so jealous of the acuracy of records.
The great problem these days is that locations are highly compromised and the micro climate bears no relationship to the location from where the readings originally started.
Global warming largely tracks the development of the jet engine as a huge proportion of records now come from airports.
I think we should all be aware that records only show the generality of a trend-thermometers were never intended to be accurate to more than 0.5 Degrees. To parse them to fractions of a degree is unrealistic.
Historic records are very useful for seeing the distinct cycles that IPCC seem to want to ignore. Current temperatures are remarkably similar to the 1730’s, it is probably cooler today than in the 1530’s and certainly cooler today than in the MWP.
Castle architects knew a thing or two about climate and for nearly 200 years they designed castles to accommodate a climate notably warmer than current.
tonyb
TonyN
It has been striking, hasn’t it? Just a coincidence that the skies have been largely empty of air traffic, I suppose?
Brute,
You write to Tonyb ” You’ve obviously done your homework”
Well, maybe so but what marks did he get for it? If he’d handed it in at any reputable university in the UK or the USA he’d be getting kept back after classes and told to redo it!
It’s a pity that his dog didn’t eat it :-)
Peter
If you think I have made some mistakes you must have read-and understood- my work. I therefore cordially invite you to point out any inaccuracies so I can get better marks next time.
Tonyb
TonyB,
Well the first thing you could fix up is your graph of the CO2 record.
According to the ice core record, CO2 levels stayed fairly constant at around 280ppmv by volume until the middle of the 19th century then started a gradual rise towards their present level of around 385ppmv.
To suggest otherwise is just nonsense. Nonsense that even Steve McIntyre won’t tolerate on his climate audit website.
I perhaps should have added that they have were constant at this level for the last few thousand years. There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 levels were as high as they now are in the 19th century.
Any measured variability was due to experimental error. Errors in the measurement and errors in not using uncontaminated sources.
Peter
Have you actually read the article? Or read the 200 plus comments? If so it will be quite apparent why the graph has been used (together with the conventional ones). You have missed the whole point of the article-quite deliberately of course. :)
‘Experimental error? Are you aware how many times CO2 was measured by award winning scientists who were perfectly aware of the issues of contamination? Are you suggesting that these measurements were experimental after several hundred thousand attempts?
0 out of 10 for your observations Peter. How about trying again with the Historic Ice variations article? This demonstrates the long periods of melting during the 19th century.
Tonyb
PeterM
Have been following your discussion with TonyB.
It is quite apparent that he has given some time and effort to the topic of “pre-Mauna Loa” atmospheric CO2.
The IPCC opinion on this is based on some ice core data. (That’s it, folks…)
Tony’s opinion is based on records of hundreds of analyses taken throughout the 19th and early 20th century by several different scientists using vaious analytical methods.
It is true that Steve McIntyre has opted not to take up this battle, since there are many more battles out there that are much easier to win (such as trashing the phony Mann hockey stick, etc.).
This does not mean that SM has taken a definite stand on this issue, one way or the other, as far as I can tell.
But leaving pre-Mauna Loa CO2 aside for a moment, the more significant indicator here is the temperature.
I am sure that you, as an intelligent individual, do not subscribe to the absurd suggestion (as promulgated by Mann et al.) of an essentially constant global temperature prior to human CO2 emissions, do you?
It is apparent that IPCC has not dropped this canard, even though they have shoved Mann’s discredited piece of super chartmanship and bad science into the back pages of the latest report (together with a whole bevy of “spaghetti copy-hockey sticks”) rather than giving it front billing.
What do you think?
Do you buy this story?
Or do you place more credence in the many historical records of LIA and MWP plus the twenty-odd studies from all over the world, using a variety of paleo-climate techniques, which show that the MWP was warmer than today (all ignored by IPCC, curiously)?
What do you think, Peter?
Was “pre-industrial” global temperature essentially constant, as IPCC tells us, or was there a naturally-caused LIA (colder than today) and MWP (warmer than today)?
Max
Max
Thank you for getting the point concerning my interest in historic Co2 levels.
I am asking the reader in effect;
1) Do you subscribe to the notion of a constantly variable concentration of Co2 helping to cause a constantly varying climate? (to some degee or other)
2 A constant level of Co2 and a constantly varying climate?
3) A constant level of Co2 and a constant climate?
In scenarios 2) Co2 would appear to be a much weaker climate driver than natural variabilty. If you believe the scenario 3 your name is Dr Mann. I can’t believe that Peter subscribes to scenario 3) but it will be interesting to hear his thoughts.
tonyb
You say “[19th century] scientists who were perfectly aware of the issues of contamination”. Were they? “Perfectly”? Or, did they think it was good enough to collect samples on top of a nearby mountain rather than have to go to places like Antarctica or to a high altitude on an isolated Pacific island?
And, were they capable of accuracies of the order of a few percent as you have previously claimed?
They can’t have been – otherwise the measured results from the 19th century, and later, would not have been all over the place with measured values anywhere between 150ppmv and 500ppmv.
What does ‘constantly variable’ mean?
CO2, and other GHG’s have varied and climate has varied in line with the associated climatic forcings, but neither has varied at anywhere near the rate you erroneously suggest.
If Steve McIntyre thought he could make any headway with this line of argument, why wouldn’t he? Maybe he doesn’t wish to identify himself with the more extreme of the cranks of the anti-AGW disinformation campaign?
Peter
You have obviously not read the article, where all your questions are answered. They had accurate instruments, were fully aware of contamination issues and travelled very widely to take measurements. All the links and references are there.
I suggest you look at the issues of fractionation, also discussed in the article, which makes ice core readings nowhere near as reliable as you seem to believe.
You should also have noted in the article that I played devils advocate and cited numerous sources who posed the view you do, including someareboojums and Real Climate. The article gives a far more measured and balanced viewpoint than ever appears from you or the IPCC as I wanted to create a debate.
You will also note that I do not claim absolutely that the historic measurements are 100% correct, but that they need reevaluation. I would be 60% certain of their accuracy but they need proper auditing. They have been swept under the carpet but are far too numerous and come from far too many reliable sources for that to be allowed to happen.
With regards to climate variability lets take the last 2000 thousand years Peter and yoo can tell me whether the climate has remained stable within narrow parameters as the IPCC and Met office claims. In other words the MWP and LIA and Roman Optimum etc barely registered and it is only in the last 100 years or so that temperatures have risen rapidly.
Tonyb
This is one question where even people like Lindzen, Spencer, and Mcintyre would side with Realclimate, rather than the nonsense you are promoting.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/
The second graph on this link says it all. Is it really likely that CO2 levels jumped around like crazy until 1958 then suddenly started to follow a much smoother and more predictable curve?
Don’t you think that its just possible that modern methods are accurate and older ones weren’t?
PeterM
You fell into a trap when you wrote (regarding analysis of atmospheric CO2):
If by “modern methods” you mean those being used at Mauna Loa, I could agree.
If you mean paleo-climate data from ice cores, I would disagree that these give more accurate results than the analytical techniques available in the 19th and early 20th centuries, measuring actual samples at the time.
And, Peter, that questionable ice core stuff is what the whole IPCC record prior to 1958 is based on!
Max