Climate Audit

Antonio San

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

Steve the Hockey Stick is back and the story unapologetic…

PaulS

Steve, not sure where to post this, but I would like some advice please!

I have been looking at several sets of data at NCDC. I have spotted a commonality in most studied so far (not many, as I have just started). The commonality appears to be data recored in early years (early 1900’s for example) have regular TMIN and TMAX information, however, the later years (1990 onwards for example) have regular info for TMAX, but not TMIN.

Can anyone give a reasonable insight as to why this would be and, if it has any effect on deriving mean temperatures?

Many thanks!

A Mullen

“I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. ” Benjamin Santer

Everything I have seen before and following the Hadley disclosures confirms this.
You, Mr. McIntyre, are an arse!

Shona

He discusses tree density from about 3:38

I take back everything I said about treemometers: they really do work as long as you look at what they really do and not “hide the decline”

patrick courrielche

Interview Request for Steve McIntyre.

Is it okay to send you a few questions. A few links to my articles are provided in the Website. Please advise. Thanks!

J B Micawber

Here are three abstracts of our papers rejected by JGR, Nature and EOS all journals previously published my work.
Perhaps it illustrates the closed nature of the climate community and inability to conduct fieldwork to assess problems
.
SST IN THREE ABSTRACTS with buckets etc

Abstract 1
Discrepancies between two major instrumental tropical Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) datasets approximately coincided with changes in measurement methods from buckets to engine seawater intake (SWI) to satellite and buoy measurements. These data sets are important for ENSO climate trends. We report collection and analysis of hourly SST data from buckets, SWI, full meteorological data, and noon CTD profiles in central Pacific between Marquesas and Hawaiian Islands, May-June 2008. Eighteen observers simulated many archived-data observers. Related satellite, moored and drifting buoy, and Voluntary Observer Ships (VOS) data were obtained for comparison. Differences between wood, canvas and rubber bucket SSTs were insignificant for all 311 records in all conditions, day or night. No evaporative cooling was seen for canvas buckets, consistent with short sample time ~<1 minute and high humidity ~80%. SWI temperatures were 0.3oC±0.2oC cooler than bucket temperatures consistent with the ~3m intake depth, confirmed by noon CTD profiles. Buoy and VOS data were too few to be conclusive but in general agreed with bucket data. There were no differences between moored or drifting buoy data. Later OSTIA datasets including satellite data were in general agreement with bucket temperatures. A surprising weak correlation of 0.24 was observed between bucket SST and dry bulb air temperature. Some archived canvas bucket data were adjusted for evaporative cooling, and archived SWI data adjusted for engine room heating ~0.3oC-0.7oC. We conclude that neither adjustment was justified. Engine room heating is physically unlikely and unproven.
Our field work suggests that discrepancies in sea surface temperature data sets are likely to be found in seawater intake temperature data because bucket and satellite data were found to be in broad general agreement. However, we have shown engine room warming cited as a possible source of seawater intake temperature data error to be negligibly small and the cause of the statistically derived bias remains unclear.

Abstract 2
It is reported that an abrupt temperature drop of ~0.3oC in 1945 in data sets used to monitor Earth’s climate may be due to uncorrected biases in sea the surface temperature record from engine room warming of seawater intake1. Seawater intake temperature is used in place of sea surface temperature based on a well-mixed 10m surface layer and suggested warming is based on statistical analysis of simultaneous bucket and seawater intake data 2,3,4,5,6,7. Oceanographic reports suggest engine room warming is not proven and that accuracy of measurement, depth of intake and near-surface thermocline are most important 8,9,10,11,12. Seawater intake depth was not recorded until 1995 and even then by untrained, non-scientist observers 13. Engine room warming and assumption of a 10m well-mixed ocean surface has not been tested by experiment. We show from physical and engineering principles and practical experience that engine room warming is negligible and assumption of a 10m well-mixed ocean is invalid with reported near-surface thermocline gradients ~-0.01-0.3oCm-1. Near-surface thermocline and halocline data contain valuable information and may allow computations of rates of evaporation, precipitation, runoff and ice melt but are poorly studied 14. We suggest that large discontinuities in the mid-twentieth century record may be resolved by completely removing sub-sea surface observations, and that scientists should collect and analyse detailed near-surface salinity-temperature-depth data as priority ground truth for climate change assessment and modelling.

Abstract 3
Corrections for non-existent engine room warming of seawater intake (SWI) temperatures caused discrepancies between climate models and probably missed a major shift in sea temperatures. Multidisciplinary Eos brought the climate model problem to our attention. Vecchi et al [2008] report US models indicate more El Niño-like conditions; UK more La Niña-like. This is attributed to transition between surface seawater temperature (SST) measurement methods from buckets to SWI to modern satellite and buoys. SWI engine room warming and evaporative cooling in buckets were suggested errors. As a retired multidisciplinary experimental geophysicist and undergraduate student interested in climate change, we applied Newtonian experimental physics. Experimental data comprising 311 hourly measurements of SST by many methods with simultaneous meteorological and oceanographic data in central Pacific between Tahiti and Hawaii were analysed. There was good agreement between all buckets and modern near-simultaneous constructed satellite-buoy datasets within the limits of monthly averages over 1 degree latitude and longitude. Evaporative cooling was absent due to humidity ~80% and less than 1min sampling times. Engine room heating is impossible with ~1second time to intake thermometers and high volumes. A thermocline depth of 5m with gradient -0.1oC per meter was found. Average correlation between SST and marine air temperature (MAT) was ~0.24. Climate models assume well-mixed ocean to 10m and substitute MAT for SST. Neither assumption was supported by field data. We suggest this arose from reliance on statistical analysis of data from non-professional observers on World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Voluntary Observing Ships (VOS) scheme and ships’ logs, lack of ground truth and absence of communication across geophysical sciences and peer-review in narrow specialist disciplines. The depth of SWI was not recorded from 1955 to 1995 so is useless as measurement of SST. Peer-review becomes crony-review in very narrow disciplines. Thus wrong assumptions can propagate and appear in text books without challenge from close colleagues. Large numbers of authors may also inhibit challenges. We believe the solution is broad training in Newtonian physics and applied mathematics coupled with multi-disciplinary study, field and laboratory work and a return to scientific method. Theory, experiment, analysis and further refinement is essential. We cite examples of multidisciplinary education and focussed well-managed cross-disciplinary research programs. If basic misconceptions arise when we know the equations, how much more difficult it will be when tackling complex earth systems problems? Climate change is too important to be left to climatologists. We need well managed and funded, tightly-focussed multidisciplinary programs using investigators from many disciplines working cooperatively in future.

Reference
Vecchi, G. A., A. Clement, and B. J. Soden (2008), Examining the tropical Pacific’s response to global warming, EOS, 89(9), 81, 83.

• Jim
  Posted Nov 23, 2010 at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

  Hi J. B.
  While I pity any academic who has success limited by unfair reviewers, I want more from your comment.
  It would be helpful if you posted some of the comments you got from the reviewers (namely the reasons for rejection). Without that sort of information it would be easy for anyone who is not your friend to discount you as a “sore loser” who is bitter about a flawed paper’s rejection. I am not saying that you are, I am only saying that your post provides insufficient information to prove your rejection was unreasonable.

  Another note: Nature really? They mostly publish newsworthy breakthroughs in fields. Your work, while important, does not sound that important.

  Sorry if I was to frank in this post.
  No offense intended

Richard Darienzo

J B Micawber your research high lights a issue i’ve always had with climate data. Until satellites and modern measuring equipment most methods seem to be arbitrary and lacking accuracy. It also seems to me that there is little regard for determining the sample size and Lat\Long locational distribution for temperature, co2 and other global measurement. Were those types of observations part of your thought process to start your research? To me to get an accurate average earth temperature measurment one would need millions of temperate readings spread around the globe. Would you further argue that maybe all global temperature measurements before satellites are simply subject too to many inconsistencies, errors and poorly and too few in quantity to be accurate enough to make strong conclusions?

• George Spalding
  Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

  I think you are absolutely right, have wondered the same thing myself. I calculate that with spacing and number similar to the US it would take at least 60K world-wide,but satellites should even things out, esp w/comfirm from ARGOS and landside stations.But when you are talking a bout 1-2 degrees C making a big diff. reliance on any global info before about 1995 has to be assumptive and is therefore by definition subject to the character of the assumer, which appears in short supply with the AGore crowd. GS

• JBnID
  Posted Dec 27, 2009 at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

  All it takes for me to determine land-based thermometers are no good for ‘climate’ determination is to ride a motorcycle across the county. *Where* is a meaningful spot to put that pesky instrument?

  Since ground temperature (and ground water) reflects average, year-round temperature, why isn’t it used to determine long term changes? Most well logs note the temperature of the aquifer.

  • iron
    Posted Nov 23, 2010 at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hi JBnID
    If you are studying a phenomenon in the earth’s atmosphere, it would be common sense to measure that air’s temperature. Once a tradition and convention start with measurement, who would think of making things inconsistent.
    I see your point about ground temperature having some advantage but it would also bring a host of uncertainties of its own, rising and falling water tables, different soil types est..

George Spalding

Please look at http://www.glaciergirl.com for an offset site to AGores crumbling Greenland glacier. Some US p-38’s had to land in SE GL in 1942, and when Shoffner dug one up in 1992 they had to go down 262′ to get it. Doesn’t seem like any warming there.

Ashley Kwak

Subject: The Four Major Rivers Restoration Project in Korea.

Dear Steve McIntyre

Greetings, I am a PR Manager for the Office of National River Restoration, Korea. I have known your blog for a while and very impressed about your efforts in articles and posts related in climate change. It is no doubt that climate change is one of the most urgent agenda nowadays. From this respect, I would like to introduce our governmental green growth initiative – The Four Major River Restoration Project.

On 15 August 2008, at a national address on the 60th anniversary of the Republic of Korea, President Lee Myung-Bak announced a “low-carbon, green growth” strategy as a new vision to guide the nation’s long-term development. Six months later, in January 2009, the Government of the Republic of Korea responded to the deepening recession with an economic stimulus package equivalent to US$ 38.1 billion of which 80 per cent (the highest ratio among comparable packages from other G20 governments) was allocated to environmental themes such as fresh-water, waste, energy-efficient buildings, renewable energies, low-carbon vehicles, and the rail network.

More recently, on 6 July 2009, the Republic of Korea announced a Five-Year Plan for Green Growth to serve as a medium-term plan for implementing the National Strategy for Green Growth over the period 2009-2013. With total funding of US$ 83.6 billion, representing 2 per cent of GDP, this Five-Year Plan intends to turn the strategy into concrete and operational policy initiatives towards achieving green growth.

The Four Major Rivers Restoration Project is one of the major initiatives for achieving the green growth and addressing climate change. In detail, the project is intended to address such water-related problems as recurring floods and droughts caused by climate change and to create riverside cultural facilities in a bid to upgrade the quality of life of residents in adjacent regions. It has begun in January 2009 and comprised an essential part of Korea’s mid-and long-term master plan for green growth including a national strategy and a five-year plan to achieve green growth.

Would it be possible if you could publish our news& information on your blog? If you are interested in knowing more about this project and/or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. We will provide additional reference materials and information.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

PR manager
Ashley Kwak
Mousedot.com Inc.

Andy

Dear Mr Mcintyre.
I think this should be brought to your attention. It is an article about finance of people arguing against AGW. Seeing as they actually include your picture and website they are saying you are in the pay of Exxon at least that is how I read it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html

• bill
  Posted Nov 23, 2010 at 2:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

  andy
  Agree that financial conflict of interest is a concern. His allies would argue that you should judge him by the quality of his arguments and data rather than his sponsors. This poses a problem since only a minuscule percentage of people have the expertise to fully understand the complexity of this science, let alone figure out why Mac’s arguments may be flawed or correct.

  I respect MacIntyre for his successes though.

Terrence

Hello, I am responding to “your” Facebook site.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=17258&post=97038&uid=271730154259#!/pages/Steve-McIntyre/271730154259

Judging from the contents I doubt you even know you have one. While it is great that you have a following on Facebook, I want your position on the global warming issue to be represented accurately.

• bill
  Posted Nov 23, 2010 at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

  I agree with Terrence. There are a lot of sources that try to establish an individuals views from one out of context quote. Without a clear, short, freely available online statement you cannot clear confusion easily.

Harold

I saw this article on peer review simulations – a pretty good argument for considering overhauling peer review:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43691

• bob
  Posted Nov 23, 2010 at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

  nothing new. But their recommendations sound like a replica of the old system. The article did not specify whether the model led to a bias toward accepting weak papers or rejection good ones. If I was judging based on what I have seen published, flawed papers can fly right past a lazy or inattentive reviewer.

  In my field authors submit a list of peer reviewers who they want to review their work and the editors normally honor those requests. One would naturally pick reviewers to maximize odds of acceptance. I was under the impression that all fields of science do it that way.

Robert J. Guercio

I’d like you to consider posting my blog explaining how greenhouse gases cause the stratosphere to cool on your site. See:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric-Cooling-and-Tropospheric-Warming.html

Thank you,
Bob

mpaul

Steve, I don’t seem to be able to post to CA any longer. I’ve tried different browser and different computers, byu8t every time, my comments simply disappear. The only explanation I can come up with is that I’m on a blocked list for your WordPress account. Could this be the case?

Skiphil

Steve, don’t know if it’s important or not, but Firefox is giving me an “Invalid Security Certificate” for Climate Audit, and I’ve never gotten that message before. I was accessing from a link within a WordPress automated email (I had subscribed to updates on a thread). Perhaps something needs to be renewed or corrected with the site certificate…..

Adrian O

AT ARM’S LENGTH or
THE CONSENSUS ON THE CONSENSUS

Hello Steve,

I found last night this amazing gem, in an obscure Doha newspaper

Climate Change panel chief says ‘not invited to COP18’

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will not be attending the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP18/CMP8) in Doha, chairman Dr Rajendra K Pachauri has said.

“For the first time in the 18 years of COP, the IPCC will not be attending, because we have not been invited,” he told Gulf Times in Doha.

COP18 is to be held from November 26 to December 7.

http://tinyurl.com/bryqa9p

Greetings

Adrian

Russel Blair

Hi Steve! How do I contact you? I’ve already explored your website but I can’t find a way to contact you. I would like to donate and put a banner on the sidebar if it’s just okay. I thought this is the best place to tell you.

Please reply to me by email if you have the time.\

Thanks!

Wayne Delbeke

I tried to email this but it bounced so will post it here in case others have comments:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Environment Canada Data: How reliable is it?

Some years ago while working as an civil engineer I used EC weather and stream flow data. I started to get concerned about changes in data from year to year. Temperature and rainfall data used to be readily available and well presented. Gradually it became obfuscated. I think it is still available and probably in improved form, but only if you know how to get at it.

Doesn’t matter for me as I have been retired for 11 years but whenever I see pronouncements from EC about the change in our climate, I have doubts after having had to use their information and watch it change over the years both in content and presentation. EC seems to have become an alarmist organization.

I also note that information put out by different parts of EC doesn’t always agree. They couch their presentations with modifiers that make the data almost meaningless.

They say winters have warmed 3.2, 3.6, 4.9 degrees C over the last 65 years (depending on source or adjectives used). Some of this may be due to media interpretation and spin, though they claim they are quoting EC staff.

Now, from an engineering perspective, much of their alarmist data is meaningless as we are more interested in 50, 100, 200, 500, or 1000 year events along with a cost analysis of differences so annual variations don’t mean a lot, nor do short term trends.

However, having seen odd changes in the base data over the years and having tromped about the woods looking at physical evidence to verify design decisions as I am sure you have, I worry that EC data is suspect.

Have you had any experience comparing their published information with raw data?

By the way, thank you so much for all your work in demonstrating the difference between sound science and sloppy science.

You are one of the people who have made a difference in this world.

Thanks.

Wayne Delbeke

Mr Mookie

I found this blog site by chance following a link from Seth Roberts, before that Nassim Taleb, my favourite author. While I am quite interested in your topic of discussion I found that I struggled to identify what you and your fellow posters’ position was. It did eventually come to me. Your posters seem to be very interested in arguing the facts. Temperatures, evidence, all as if that mattered. However, if you read anything from Taleb at all (and I have read pretty much everything) you will know that attempting to predict future events is an utterly fruitless activity, and what is worse, history (data) is irrelevant, except perhaps in identifying a trend. (you don’t weight yourself ten times a day to see if you are losing weight) In the apparently polarising context of the Climate Change position and being a skeptic, when it all washes out, either one side or the other, or both, will be wrong in their predictions.

The second thing Taleb asserts is, in the most part, there is no cause-and-effect.

So in that light, I like to treat the climate change discussion as two separate questions or arguments.

We can agree that, for whatever reason, the climate is getting warmer, on average. There’s not much doubt. Ice cores, sediments, blah blah.
So:
Q1. What are we going to do about a warmer global climate? We have to live here, and since we are unlikely to perfect efficient space travel any time soon, so do our great grandchildren. What do we do?

Q2. The atmosphere of the Earth is a closed system, Nothing escapes (except a slow release of Hydrogen from the upper atmosphere, which is replenished by ice from space). Humans have been polluting the air for a couple of centuries now. CO2 is a pollutant. This is not very smart, because we have to breathe the air. You wouldn’t piss in your own drinking water. When are we going to stop polluting the air. I don’t care when, just pick a date. Mankind needs to pick a date when we all stop. Keep asking the question, what’s the date?, until you get one.

Set all the other bullshit aside, and answer two ‘simple’ questions. Then we can move on.

Go ahead, make an argument.

• JohnC
  Posted Jun 2, 2015 at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

  Mr Mookie, you were doing OK until you announced that CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 is plant food, CO2 essential to life on this planet. Now too much water, too much oxygen, too much sunlight are all potentially fatal, but they are not pollutants. Since you disavow the CO2 greenhouse gas allegation, and since the current and likely CO2 levels are still both below optimum for plants and well below toxic levels for animals, you must recognize that CO2 is a good thing.

Angela Landolt

>> German text below <<

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am a student at the Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research (IPMZ) University of Zurich. As part of my Master's thesis, I am conducting a survey on how climate change bloggers’ perceive themselves and their role in the climate change debate.

If you blog about climate change, I would like to ask you to participate in my survey. Your contribution will help us to gain valuable insights into the field of climate change blogging.

Link to the survey: http://ww2.unipark.de/uc/landolt_Universit__t_Z__rich/64cf/

The questionnaire will take about 7 minutes to fill out.
There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested in your personal opinion.
The study does not serve any commercial purpose. The data provided is solely for the purpose of scientific analysis and is evaluated anonymously.
The questionnaire can be filled out in English and German.
Please feel free to contact me if there are further questions or comments.

Angela Landolt B.A.

++++++++++

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren

Im Rahmen meiner Masterarbeit am Institut für Publizistikwissenschaft und Medienforschung (IPMZ) der Universität Zürich führe ich eine Befragung über das Selbstverständnis von Klimawandelbloggern durch.

Falls Sie über den Klimawandel bloggen, möchte ich Sie bitten an meiner Befragung teilzunehmen. Sie leisten damit einen wesentlichen Beitrag dazu, Erkenntnisse über Ihr Tätigkeitsfeld zu gewinnen, an denen es bislang noch mangelt.

Link zur Befragung: http://ww2.unipark.de/uc/landolt_Universit__t_Z__rich/64cf/

Das Ausfüllen des Fragebogens dauert etwa 7 Minuten.
Es gibt keine richtigen oder falschen Antworten. Ich bin an Ihrer persönlichen Meinung interessiert.
Die Studie dient keinem kommerziellen Zweck. Die Daten dienen ausschliesslich dem Zweck einer wissenschaftlichen Analyse und werden anonym ausgewertet.
Sie können den Fragebogen auf Deutsch oder auf Englisch ausfüllen.
Bei Fragen oder Hinweisen können Sie sich gerne bei mir melden.

Angela Landolt B.A.