Tuesday
Dec082009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Willis says he's found it
Dec 8, 2009 Climate OK everyone, grab a cup of coffee and go and read Willis Eschenbach's analysis of the temperature records for Darwin Australia. This is very important.
Reader Comments (45)
Stunner, innit? Now, if we really are facing undeniably unprecedented global warming, why would you have to doctor the records?
Hypothesis: there has been pronounced warming in the 20th century in Europe and North America - so Europeans and Americans are probably easily persuaded that it is a Global phenomenon if you just cook the records for the rest of the world.
It is absolutely astonishing. I wonder if the press will pick this up?
A very interesting post. When all the email and "Harry" smoke settles in a week or three, this surely is the hard core. What do the original data say and what was done to them and why. That last word is probably the most critical of all. If there's a smoking gun, it is surely to be found there.
Interesting stuff. The snowball is rolling and growing larger. What's needed now is for a whistle-blower working at NOAA, GHCN, GISS, NASA, or even CRU; to give the world some more examples of value-added data. The Christmas season is upon us so perhaps something is in the offing.
Anyone who has worked in Sales or Accounts departments knows that you can get figures to show anything you like.
In the days before the annual sales conference the pressure is on to produce nice upward trends on the graphs. Even if you have to graph customer complaints and label the axis "customer interactions"....
I'd just like to see an average annual temperature plot for Central England - don't the records go back to around 1700? Or better still average summer and average winters over the whole time period.
-Absolute temperature, not some variance against a jiggery pokery "norm".
-Unadjusted by someone for reasons which may or may not valid and are not transparant.
If you try and get this data/chart via google all you seem to get is selective Met office spin and comments ove rthe years by Jones of course- no real hard numbers.
Surely someone must have done this and it must be published somewhere? I read that someone had done it for Ireland (Armagh I think) and there was no warming trend. But no chart to back up this assertion.
Surely charts like this would get more media traction here than charts about Darwin?
But anyway I'd really like to see what they show, whatever case they may or may no support.
Can anyone advise whther these are available somewhere, and if not why not? Tks.
Mark (or indeed anyone ?) - Does this data contain the Jones "Tricks" or is it "raw" ?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/
Apologies for potential naivety (and possible bad spelling).
Obama plays his joker card for Copenhagen: EPA regulations to control CO2.
I thought America is a democratic country??
This seems more like what a dictator would do: ram through EPA legislation so that he can get through the NWO agenda at Copenhagen and impose a hefty tax on middle-class Americans.
Even the Australians were smart enough to avoid this (so far) by shooting down Rudd’s ETS bill.
Will Americans fight for their rights or bend down to the new dark lords?
Chris;
Tks for Met Office reference.
However they say regarding individual station sites that;
"Data is indicated as provisional until the full network and quality control has been carried out."
- whatever that means. Possibly more reliable than what they finally issue on a national basis? (cynicism, sorry)
Anyway the published raw (?) site data only seems to go back to 1959. Think there were some pretty hot years before then?
Hmm. One would have thought that they would have carried out data quality control some time ago.
The RAW data can only be a series of DAILY temperature readings. Maybe max and min ? I'm not sure if they had max and min thermometers at the start.
Any other numbers have already been PROCESSED.
If someone kept a daily log of temperatures then that is the raw data. If someone did calculations like average then they have started to cook the data - it's no longer raw. You would lose the variation etc.
I think Willis Eschenbach's post is a remarkable piece of forensic climatology. But above and beyond everything it shows the value of going back to the raw data and doing an independent analysis.
The raw data is critical.
This is the sort of thing we expected, given the unwillingness of anyone to release data. But what use is this?
Willis Eschenbach has done the work and found a major unexplained alteration in the data for one part of the Team's raw data. But there exists no mechanism for warning anyone, and nobody will listen anyway. We can be sure the team members will:
1) - not reply to any requests or accusations
2) - label WE a 'denier', and refuse to address his comments on the grounds that it's 'like talking to a flat-earther'.
3) - say 'you don't understand the adjustments' and refuse to provide any further details on the grounds that these are confidential
4) - claim that this is a 'minor issue' and that 'the vast majority of climate data is robust'.
This last can simply be repeated ad infinitum for any problem that is brought to their attention.
We should be trying to find ways of forcing people to address these issues - but I can't think of any way to make someone listen if they don't want to...
Maybe it's time to get off our keyboards and start some kind of protest ?
"We should be trying to find ways of forcing people to address these issues - but I can't think of any way to make someone listen if they don't want to..."
I can....
Agree entirely with S Norman, Splice and Dodgy Geezer. The emails and comments in the code point to a willingness to distort various aspects of the scientific process (to put it mildly). This should make any reasonable person believe that these men should not automatically be trusted not to present false evidence. However, it does not prove that they did so and it seems to me that that's where a significant sector of the public has got to just now.
For this to progress, we need urgently to know what was the relationship between raw and "value added" data. If the adjustment is almost invariably upwards then it follows that the thermometers have almost invariably been moved to colder sites (thus necessitating the adjustments). Is this really likely? If it is indeed the case, can we see the rationale in each case? Please.
Willis's detailed analysis (destruction) is astonishing in its forensic objectivity !
Its been a real education.
Main stream media + Politicians need to read this asap.
@Mark
I was also wondering about historic data from UK Weather Stations (my nearest is Leuchars) which you can download from Met. However it doesn't appear on the list of UK stations which are part of the GHCN (see link below) which was used in Willis Eschenbach's analysis. It would appear that there are only 10 stations in UK currently collecting data (5 in England) for GHCN
www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx
Enjoy the raw data while you can, boys. If forced transparency makes it difficult for the Global Warmmongers to "fudge" the adjustments, they'll fudge the "raw" data instead.
Sorry for OT
Not sure where to write this (used heavily in the MSM)
2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE says WMO
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html
Rank and file may need succinct rebuttal points
The warmest decade is just a headline grabber. If you have climate variability over long period cycles (hundreds of years), and we have just reached the zenith of a cycle then....(yawn)...the decade will be the warmest for a long time.
I think most sensible people and everyman on the Clapham omnibus realises this.
It is no longer a big story, except for the eco-freaks in Copenhagen who are only preaching to the converted.
Let's not get bogged down in this and concentrate on the science as Willis has shown us.
A stunning article - so why are the other 4000 odd climate scientists not on this trail...or are they and we just dont know?
This 'smoking gun' analysis is indeed excellent work.
I was most impressed with the way Willis showed the adjustments. No wonder the raw data got eaten by a dog (must have been a pack, actually ...!).
And no wonder CRU dug their heels in, in regard to FOIA and to showing their data to others not in the team.
I only hope they aren't teaching this sort of junk science to their students.
Met Office's warmest decade neatly timed for maximum effect at COP15. Being spun heavily and ignoring the quality of the data, and man-made warming applied to it.
As for Obama descending on Copenhagen to 'seal the deal', looks like there's a new deal on the cards curently upsetting the UN's plans to get rich quick managing their megafund-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
Highlights include-
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable"
Does that include us? We're a poor island nation vulnerable to rising sea levels, but more vulnerable perhaps to global warmists.
Even more interesting ..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
Mark/Chris
The Central England temperature series is at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/ and there is daily data there from 1772 and monthly from 1650 not sure why both aren't the same length). See the dowload data link on the right for access to the full set. You can drop these into spreadsheets and look at it anywhichway.
Bishop
Since I know you are fairly local to myself I thought you might be interested in looking at the Scottish temperature records in their "unadjusted" mode. You can plot them at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climatedata.aspx?Dataset=GHCNTemp and select the UK and the Scottish stations come up on the first page. I think Darwin is not the only station with problems.
Ed
Willis did an excellent job - on one station. But all these discoveries need to be looped back to the underlying AGW hypothesis in a manner that helps the average world citizen get the problem. The problem is that much of the planet has been wired to accept global warming. The media is a tough nut to crack because of their ignorance levels.
Anyway, it was a great job, and if more and more of this was done on the data the case data fudging would grow. I expanded on Willlis' work (hope he doesn't mind) to show how those IPCC model runs are dynamite when it comes to disproving AGW.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11787
Willis proved that the alarmists have to fudge their data, else their own climate models disprove AGW
Cumbrian Lad
Thanks very much. Just what I wanted, except it says sources are;
1659-1973 MANLEY (Q.J.R.METEOROL.SOC., 1974)
1974ON PARKER ET AL. (INT.J.CLIM., 1992)
PARKER AND HORTON (INT.J.CLIM., 2005)
Looks like I've got some background reading to do as well as plotting and analysis. Have Parker et al mucked around with the raw data do you know?
Surely someone has already done all this already? yourself perhaps Cumbrian Lad?
Further to my comment above the data set seems to be a "value added" combination of "Central England triangle" sites with a "big hockey stick" at the end - you can get to graphics of it via the RMS site. suppose I'll have to read the IJC papers to get up to speed properly.
Off topic on the raw versus value added issue, but Richard Black has just posted this on his BBC Copenhagen website.
"Then there are satellites. And these too are showing increasing temperatures, as demonstrated in the latest bulletin from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, where John Christy, Roy Spencer and their team collect and collate satellite readings.Their value for the global trend since 1978 is 0.13C per decade, with 2009 featuring the warmest November in the 31-year record. That's slightly less than the Met Office figures that show about 0.18C per decade; but a clear trend nevertheless."
So for "slightly less" I calculate a 28% less for satellites versus Hadcru, if Black's reported the numbers right.
But I thought yesterday they were all saying close correlation between all the data sets?
Unfortunately this isn't the case. Most people I know either (1) say "climate what?" or (2) repeat what they read in The Times last week. I'm afraid that without some kind of Churchillian speech, broadcast to the nation by a sceptic/denier, this train can't be halted. I had the displeasure of watching Ed Millipede and Lord Lawson battling it out on UK TV earlier. I have to say Ed's argument is difficult to refute: "the vast majority of scientists say `this'. I'm not a scientist so who am I to question them? Therefore, here is my action plan for solving the problem".
Argh!
This kind of story is interesting to a sceptic, but unfortunately it's not broad enough to merit a national debate. That's the problem you see: there are lots of little stories here but nobody in the mainstream is interested in weaving them together into a narrative.
The thing to remember about the satellite data is that they don't read surface tempature, but a point in the atmosphere. So back when they started they had to "calibrate" the Satellites to know good surface tempature series. Now take a guess what they used....
I have an idea.
The people should buy/build their own weather stations and gather the raw data themselves. I am sure there are more than enough people in almost every country that would volunteer to participate in a project like this. The stations would have to be located on private property within prescribed conditions and monitored by the volunteers and/or property owners.
Most important, the project would have to be transparent. The locations and data would be available to the project's participants, scientists, and the public.
I would volunteer to participate in such a project. Anyone else?
Mark (Embra) - some datasets go back longer which is why I asked if its been "done" (in the words of a local vet). The local one to Edinburgh is only from 1957 or something, but others go back to 1911 or earlier.
"I would volunteer to participate in such a project. Anyone else?"
Yep, my back garden seems suitable and I'm geeky enough to make it log automatically...
The first target was GISStemp code and data. that road ends in GHCN data
The second target was CRU code and data. That road ends (mostly) in GHCN data.
The next target for FOIA is going to be the NOAA adjustment codes. How does
GHCN data get adjusted.
If you look at GHCN, CRU, and GISS indicies you will see as Willis points out, broad agreement.
The differences are minor. In performing an area average of temperature stations its hard to
go very wrong ( although hansen does some weird things as noted by jones and McIntyre)
The big game in this hunt is GHCN. That's were the audit will finally end. That is were it will get really
interesting, as Willis has pointed out.
Perhaps its time to ask for the adjustment code. I've done it before in a personal mail. Is the time
ripe for FOIA on NOAA?
December 8, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMark, Edinburgh
So for "slightly less" I calculate a 28% less for satellites versus Hadcru, if Black's reported the numbers right.
Mark, if you take it the other way round CRU is 38.5% greater than satellite. (By my reckoning). Which probably why Mr Black quoted it the way he did, he's no a fool.
Steve Mosher
Yup.
After you...
"It is absolutely astonishing. I wonder if the press will pick this up?"
It's doubtful. I've yet to see anything on the New Zealand "adjustments" outside of the blogs.
"Will Americans fight for their rights or bend down to the new dark lords?"
Don't expect action from us. We are still wrapped in the loving embrace of our Dear Leader. At last, we are RESPECTED in the world!
I got one little quibble on the messaging,,,,,,
is the message that "we agree there is warming, its part of a natural cycle, nothing to do with man"
or
"raw data says there is no warming"
The raw data anlaysis (Darwin smoking gun) suggests the latter is the case........but then we get the Solar cycle stuff, MWP/LIA etc which would support the first case.........
getting confused.
Cumbrian Lad, I did a half-assed analysis of the CET a while back. It's here.
AJStrata, you say:
Expand away. I cast my words on the electronic winds in the hopes that they will find fertile soil ... your piece is a nice addition, well done.
Willis, do you know if any explanation is offered for the adjustments ? One that might apply is a TOBs adjustment, this might even be legitimate although I have to say that I have no idea of a reasonable magnitude for that, and it should apply at specific times as a specific amount. That sliding adjustment, WTF ?
TOBs adjustments generally are in the range of 0.2 C. Introduction of the MMTS sensor system is thought to be about 0.06 C. So no, I don't have any explanation.
In particular, how can it be valid to take five temperature records which for years have given very similar readings, discard two, keep one unchanged, adjust one somewhat, and adjust the other a lot? That's not "adjustment", that's "un-adjustment"?
And if they are all giving very similar readings, why adjust them at all? Sure, if one wanders off the reservation, you might adjust it so that once again it agrees with the others.
But "adjusting" them to disagree? That's why I said Yikes!
We'll see. I made the tone of my post deliberately aggro, so they would be called out in public and would have to either put up or shut up ... I'm betting my reputation on the latter, because if they come up with five good reasons for the five big adjustments, I'll be a worldwide fool.
But I don't think that will happen. My prediction is that everyone who is not using the GHCN adjustments will say "Oh, my, we'd never let that happen to our adjustments," and the GHCN folks will say either nothing, or "Oh, it was just a minor error, we've fixed it, nothing to see here, folks, move along".
Time will tell. Thanks for the question.
w.
Gutsy move by Willis. I like it.