Since 2002 (see the AASC 2002 Annual Meeting minutes), we have been seeking to have photographs of the US Historical Climate Network (HCN) sites made available. The HCN sites are used as part of the diagnosis of the surface temperature anomalies on monthly and yearly time scales, as well as the United States contribution to the construction of the global average surface temperature trend used in climate assessments such as the 2007 WG IPCC Report (see Figure SPM.3a, for example).
NOAA, however, has consistently failed to provide these photographs. As result, several scientists have independently obtained photographs for specific locations (e.g.,
Davey, C.A., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2005: Microclimate exposures of surface-based weather stations - implications for the assessment of long-term temperature trends. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., Vol. 86, No. 4, 497–504
and
Mahmood, R. S. Foster and D. Logan, 2006: The GeoProfile metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record revisited. Int. J. Climatol., 26, 1091-1124),
and have identified significant siting problems with a number of locations. Since this HCN data is so central to the discussion of climate change, it is imperative that the actual locations where the data is being collected be adequately documented.
Recently, Anthony Watts has established a website [www.surfacestations.org] to record these photographs. He has worked to assure that the photographs are obtained appropriately.
As a result of this effort, NOAA has removed location information from their website as to where they are located. This information has been available there for years. NOAA wrote in an e-mail defining their new policy which reads
“Your inquiry was forwarded to me by our webmaster. I’m glad you’ve found MMS to be a useful tool in your research. MMS is our primary source of station metadata for National Weather Service Cooperative Observer and several other networks, and we are actively working to provide increased detail for a larger number of stations.
It sounds as though you’ve used the system enough that once you’ve located a station using the search, you’re clicking on the station name hyperlink and opening a separate station details window. The managing party for a station has always been visible by clicking on the “Other Parties” tab. In the case of NWS Coop stations (the USHCN research network relies upon a subset of stations in the NWS Coop program), this is usually the NWS office that administers the site. This information was previously included at the bottom of the Identity tab’s “form view,” but was removed from that view early this week because in some cases it also revealed the name of the Cooperative observer.
Cooperative observers are volunteers who donate their time in the interests of the public good with a reasonable expectation that their personal information will remain private. It is the NCDC’s policy to protect observer details, based upon Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Update, Vol. X, No. 2, 1989, which exempts the application of FOIA in certain cases and establishes privacy protection decisions in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (2004 edition). This exemption applies when the personal privacy interest is greater than any qualifying public interest for disclosure.
If you have other questions regarding MMS, please feel free to contact me. I am often away from my desk, so my response may not be immediate.”
This is clearly a procedure to avoid making these photographs available. Indeed, in the papers that have been published with photographs of these HCN sites, care was taken to not publish the address or name of the observer.
This failure to permit interested parties to obtain the photographs is even more distrubing as the photographs for most of the sites apparently already exist! I have found out that
“over 4 years ago there was a big push in the Cooperative Observer program to make sure that all 7000+ sites across the country were photodocumented. All 120 Data Acquisition Programs were equipped with high quality digital cameras. Most took photos. However, at the higher levels where they were developing the upload and archive system for the photos the issue of observer privacy was raised and as best we can tell the result was that those photos were not archived and certainly are not available.”
This is a very disturbing development, as individuals in NOAA’s leadership have used their authority to prevent the scientific community and the public access to critical information that is being used as part of establishing climate and energy policy in the United States.
The solution to this issue is, of course, straightforward. Either make the photographs where datasets are being used in research (i.e. the HCN sites), available, or permit others to take them. Privacy rules, such as not publishing the names and addresses of the observers, should be made, however, the photographs themselves, viewing the site, and views in the four orthogonal directions must be public. Volunteers who are HCN Cooperative Observers need to either grant this permission or not volunteer.
The new NOAA policy is a deliberate attempt to avoid presenting this information for scrutiny.
There is a real bureaucratic possessiveness about these sites. Despite being a rank amateur at all this climate stuff, I have had fun contributing a couple of sites so far to the surfacestations.org data base.
Trying to track my first station down, I called the state climatology office to see if they had more specific location information on some USHCN stations I could not find at their exact Lat/long from the NOAA site. They were really taken aback by my request, and most of our interaction turned out to be them asking me questions about my motives rather than vice versa.
Our chief climatologist said an interesting thing to me in email. She said that they already had a lot of pictures of all their coop stations. I asked if I could get access to them, and was told that they are not really archived for public access.
Comment by coyote — June 29, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
By the way, how many of the sites in Watts’s data base are really private? I think I have seen perhaps one private residence. All the rest are at universities, sewage plants, fire stations, public offices, etc. I can understand protecting the privacy of the individual in charge of the coop station, but is there really a privacy concern for pictures of a site at a fire station?
Comment by coyote — June 29, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Old webpages are still archived in Google I believe. Someone clever could get them and save them locally.
Comment by JamesG — June 29, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
All - One of the links is not working correctly and we are working to fix it. It is the second “see” in the text
“NOAA, however, has consistently failed to provide these photographs. As result, several scientists have independently obtained photographs for specific locations (e.g. see and see), and have identified significant siting problems with a number of locations.”
The link should take you to the paper
The Geoprofile metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record revisited� by Rezaul Mahmood, Stuart A. Foster and David Logan June 30, 2006 International Journal of Climatology
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 29, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
RE3 that technique only works for static pages. Dynamic database driven web pages are not cached.
Comment by Anthony Watts — June 29, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Frankly, this sounds to me to be exactly what the email suggests it is…an attempt to protect volounteers from harrassment by the kind of conspiracy nuts that Surface Stations is likely to inspire.
Comment by bigcitylib — June 30, 2007 @ 5:32 am
bigcitylib:
You are assuming harassment is occurring. To this point I am not aware that any of the surveyors have been accused of harassment and in fact have gone out of their way to ask permission to photograph private and even public sites. When curators have been contacted, it seems from the surveyor’s notes that the curators generally have been quite chatty about the station they manage. That does not seem to be the reaction a harassed person would have.
I personally have emailed the curators of two sites to request photos and station history. While I have not yet received the data, the curators’ responses were quite positive and promised to provide the requested data. Interestingly, both curators were scientists and indicated they saw value in the data I was asking for.
Comment by JG — June 30, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
I just got back from trying to photograph a weather site and was told that the weather service had told them that people might come around asking to photograph the site. They were ordered to tell people that photographs are not allowed.
I will be emailing more information to Anthony Watts.
Comment by Douglas Hoyt — June 30, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Earlier this month I wrote about the 5-degree differences I observed in the temperatures recorded at my home and at the site used by Weather.com.
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/06/measuring-temperatures-update.html
I also noted that another (non-NOAA) private weather stations linked to Wunderground.com was reporting essentially identical temperatures to those I observed. It would be an interesting study to compare the temperatures from the NOAA sites shown to be poorly maintained or situated to the Wunderground sites (which would have to be screened for non-responsive locations… something I noticed). Wunderground gives very explicit instructions regarding equipment and location/siting for their private network.
I suspect that the photographs in the BAMS document are just the very tip of the overstating bias in high temperature reporting.
Comment by Bruce Hall — June 30, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
No I not assuming that harrassment is occuring. The whole point of the practice would be to put the kabosh on things before any harrassment occurs. You wouldn’t want the Minute Men on your property because they are LIABLE to shoot somebody or blow one of their own feet off, not because something like this has already occured.
From reading comments from people associated with Mr. Watts project (here and at Climate Audit, mostly), some of these folks seem to think that Al Gore gets ferried around in a black helicopter and that these stations are likely to contain a basement full of U.N. troops. Until Mr. Watts can insure that he’s weeded the crazies out of his project, I think the measures taken make a lot of sense.
Comment by bigcitylib — June 30, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
How will the restriction to the availability of data from the web affect the gathering of weatherstation photographs? Is it going to stop it in its tracks or will it only slow down the gathering of evidence?
Comment by Paul G. — June 30, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
NOAA is trying to cover this all up because they already know about the problems and do not want the public to see the absolutely incompetent job they are doing. Anthony’s site only discovered a few of the rooftop temperature stations, but the NOAA knows there are at least 50 of them. They were so proud of being involved in the IPCC’s latest report and now the evidence is overwhelming that the “science” they provided is BUNK.
Comment by John S. — June 30, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
bigcitylib wrote in #6: “…an attempt to protect volounteers from harrassment by the kind of conspiracy nuts…”.
bigcitylib wrote in #10; “Until Mr. Watts can insure that he’s weeded the crazies out of his project…”
You, sir, are needlessly defaming nameless people who are only trying to ensure that the science is above-board. Please provide some evidence of “crazies” and/or “nuts”, and in the event you don’t have such evidence, then please respectfully cease making such childish and baseless accusations.
Comment by Aaron Wells — June 30, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Re #13: #12 is perfect support for bigcitylib’s comment.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 30, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Thanks to the excellent contributions on the websites Watts Up With That (see http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/) and Climate Audit (see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1796, further evidence is presented that documents that the new NOAA prohibition on photographing HCN sites is just a cover up to prevent scientific scrutiny of the observing sites. These sites have been central to the NOAA presentation of the analysis of multi-decadal temperature trends and anomalies over the United States.
These comments are worth reading.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 30, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
#8 Douglas Hoyt - That is disappointing news. I am surprised NOAA can “order” station managers to not allow photographs. I don’t see how that can be allowed or enforced on public property. On private property that seems to be a personal decision. This is getting truly bizarre.
Comment by JG — June 30, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Steve Bloom Re #13: #12 is perfect support for bigcitylib’s comment.
So questioning the data collection and trrying to photograph a climate station is now harassment? Wow.
Comment by BlogReader — June 30, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
There is an excellent accurate news report by Ryan Olson in the Reb Bluff Daily News - The Voice of Tehama County entitled “Watching the weather”. http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/news/ci_6270370. It effectively summarizes the issue as to why we need photographs of the HCN stations and the value to the science community for what Anthony Watts is doing to accomplish this goal.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — July 1, 2007 @ 12:19 am
It turns out NOAA has a guide to putting photographs of observers and their stations on the web:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/photo_pointers.htm
No mention of a requirement for blue dots on the faces of the observers to protect thier identity.
Comment by Anthony Watts — July 1, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Maybe someone should send this to global warming sceptic Senator James Infoff (R-Ok).
Comment by davod — July 1, 2007 @ 5:47 am
From Climate Audit:
“It is time to kick these global warming alarmists and data record denialists out of their official positions in the official agencies of record for climate records.”
I don’t know that this guy is one of Watts volounteers or not, but would you want someone that looked at you in this light poking around your property?
Comment by bigcitylib — July 1, 2007 @ 5:55 am
Why all this obfuscation and concealment from the NOAA? It is best to clear the air, and bring everything out in the open! What are they trying to hide?
It is the coverup that always gets them in the end.
Comment by Howard Rutgers — July 1, 2007 @ 7:58 am
My comments on these issues, and some advice for Mr. Watts:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/07/surface-stations-project-science.html#links
Comment by bigcitylib — July 1, 2007 @ 8:40 am
Steve Bloom’s siding with the big city liberal is frankly risible. I have seen only an endless stream of shrill, baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks from this person, whose only contribution to this blog is to provide comic relief. If stations are being used to provide climate data then this information should be public. If, as is claimed, there is an overidding need for privacy then a request could be made to these individuals via the NOAA for permission to visit the sites.
Comment by Vince Causey — July 1, 2007 @ 8:41 am
Mr. Bloom and bigcitylib miss several things.
1. NOAA has in the past posted this information. So much for the expectation of privacy. So,By changing the policy
NOAA admit to violating privacy rights in the past?
2. NOAA routinely rewards volunteers and publishes their names.
3. The information was used to gain permission to take photos. If permission was denied, photos would not be taken.
4. A vast number of sites are at firestations, waste treatment plants, post offices. A small number are at private residences. In the current sample of 50, only a
few were at private residences.
5. NOAA indicates that privacy concerns outweigh public interest. Since the public interest here concerns global warming and more mundanely the collection of weather data used by business, it is hard to see how this privacy interest would prevail in a DQA lawsuit.
6. Given the large percentage of corrupt sites have been
identified already, the precautionary principle would dictate that we reject data from the network.
Comment by steven mosher — July 1, 2007 @ 9:31 am
Regarding my earlier comment (#8), a more plausible reason why they don’t want the site photographed is that in the last year the site has moved from a semi-rural environment to the middle of one of the largest parking lots in town and this move is not documented in MMS database, nor is the closure of the previous site documented.
Comment by Douglas Hoyt — July 1, 2007 @ 9:50 am
RE23 Thank you for the advice. However I don’t recall anyone mentioning “black helicopters” or “troops in the basement” those words are your invention, not mine, nor of the volunteers doing surveys. Please do not ascribe words to people they have not uttered or written.
As for the names of surfacestations survey volunteers, they are listed on the web page front page daily under “new stations” as well as attached to the photograph thumbnail for every photograph they submit. Where they have asked me to post the photos due to some sort of technical difficulty, I add their names to the description field at the top.
I have not received a single complaint about the surveys or the volunteers from any NOAA official, NWS official, nor NCDC official. I have not received a complaint from any COOP observer that has been visited. In fact most are quite interested in the project and are helpful.
I have however received advice from within the science and academic community on how to make the process better, and I not only heeded that advice, but implemented a large part of it.
If you have advice on how to make the process better, I welcome it.
Should NOAA et al desire a change in method to the survey process, the courtesy of a direct notification would be the professional and sensible thing to do. That has not happened so far, but I welcome it also.
It appears the issue of COOP observer privacy may not be an issue at all, since NOAA has a page of COOP observer names, their station names, pictures of the observers at their stations at their homes, and in some cases in the newsletters posted, portions of the observers life history. I fail to see then how NOAA’s removal of the observer names from the database has protected the observers privacy when NOAA has already clearly let the cat out of the bag with this page:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/coop_newsletter.htm
Comment by Anthony Watts — July 1, 2007 @ 10:30 am
bigcitylib-
Firstly, please spare us your self-righteousness.
Secondly, there is growing evidence that data collection and manipulation is being adjusted in ways that is not being fully disclosed. The work reported on at the climateaudit.org points out that we have a material problem. Science first and foremost rests upon high quality data. Recent activity around the world by certain scientists has called into question the integrity of the data. We need to address this issue concern.
I would appreciate it if you looked at this problem from a scientific rather than personal and parochial one. Let science proceed forward in an objective manner unfettered by your personal petty fears (that your ideologocal beliefs may be challenged).
Comment by bee — July 1, 2007 @ 10:38 am
There are two interesting comments, #142 and 143, on RC in this thread. Maybe these concepts would fit in here on Climate Science, with one UnThreaded devoted soley to the “shrill, baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks” that are the hallmark of certain people who post here. I especially like this aspect of the concept:
“That way anything off-topic in a thread like this could be deleted out of hand and the value of the entire thread preserved for future readers.”
Comment by Dan Hughes — July 1, 2007 @ 11:00 am
27 No, you did not use the term “Black helicopters”. But it would take me five minutes to search Climate Audit or this blog and pull together a series of remarks that mention cover ups, conspiracies,the U.N., Al Gore etc etc. etc., usually in close proximity to one another. As I say, these are some of the fish in the pool from which you are getting your volounteers.
More generally, though you and McIntyre have avoided such language, your approach has tended towards confrontational. There is no way you either of you could be viewed as a neutral party. For the NOAA to look at what you and your volounteers are up to and NOT worry about vigilante-ism would be irresponsible on their part. Note too that whether or not a particular COOP volunteer welcomed one of your people onto their site is not necessarily to the point if the NOAA might end of bearing some legal responsibility if something happened at one of their volunteer stations. (I suspect lawyers were consulted, or suggested, pulling the station information.)
Also, I don’t think the fact that pictures were previously published is relevant here. I imagine that there were indeed privacy regulations not strictly followed, because the stuff you note was generally in COOP news letters for the volunteers themselves and they probably figured nobody else would be interested in them. And now you guys have arrived.
Also, a name is not contact information. If you expect the NOAA to consult with YOU as to what their policies are regarding access to their stations, I would hope that you would work a little harder towards the goal of professionalism.
Comment by bigcitylib — July 1, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
RE30 Thank you for your comments
“Also, a name is not contact information.”
I’ve spoken with NCDC’s Dr. Thomas Peterson, and my contact email along with my name is on the http://www.surfacestations.org website. If he had concerns, he knows where to find me. I’m easy to locate for anyone in the weather service or otherwise. The Sacramento WSFO has me in their contact database and I know the MIC personally.
Again if you think you have good ideas on how to make the process better, I’m all ears.
Comment by Anthony Watts — July 1, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Big city lib has switched arguments again. After name calling failed to impress and his bluff was called over mention of black helicopters and other such nonsense he has invoked the charge of vigilante-ism out of thin air. Well, not exactly thin air but out of some quotes of conspiracy theorists, anti-Gorism (ouch) and anti-UN. All that was missing was anti-government, which if thrown in would have painted a wonderful picture of rough hewn bearded men with big biceps, sitting on stashes of arms in North Dakota, waiting to take on the Federal Government. These quotes that he ‘could easily find’ prove that a real risk exists to the poor unsuspecting coops. And if the quotes don’t move it for you, get this – McIntyre and Watts are NOT NEUTRAL. Wow. No wonder NOAA are responding rapidly to this threat, pulling information that could lead to their coops being ‘acquired’. But they missed one crucial piece of information - many have posted innocent newsletters unaware that they are being targeted by a predator. Jeez, call the FBI quick. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Comment by Vince Causey — July 1, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Douglas Hoyt, I would be very interested to know the details of your attempts to photograph a weather site, only to be told that photographs are not allowed. If you’d like, please contact me via my Web site.
David Appell, freelance science journalist
w: http://www.nasw.org/users/appell
m: Portland, OR
Comment by David Appell — July 1, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Folks, I ask lets please dial back the rhetoric on both sides. It serves no purpose. Let’s stick to the science.
Maybe there have been complaints by observers, I don’t know of any, and I think that if there had been somebody at NCDC would have contacted me, but if there have been I want to know about them.
Some of bigcitylib’s comments on his blog made sense, for example even though there’s a big telephone icon on the right hand side of the web page at surfacestations.org that says “contact” thats been there since day one, apparently some, including BCL, are missing seeing it.
So I’m adding it on the left side with other menu items to make it easier to find. If anybody sees other issues just tell me.
Comment by Anthony Watts — July 1, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Bigcitylib and Steve Bloom are just a couple of attack dawgs for the warmers. Straight out. Now that the game is up they are acting like little whiney children. Ignore them and keep on trekin’.
Comment by PA — July 1, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
I have a few questions for bigcitylib:
1)Do you believe that photographic documentation should be available to the general public on surface stations?
It should not be falling on the shoulders of volunteers to perform this fundamental documentation.
2)Do you not have any concerns from the small number of stations photographed so far, that possibly climate experts have been remiss in using data from some such obviously flawed sites?
3) Why have the generously funded climate experts not previously done a thorough, and proper assessment of these sites? If they have, where is the data and photos?
Being a climate professional does not exempt one’s work from public scrutiny. Our tax dollars fund their work, and climate expert or not, they are accountable to us.
Comment by Paul G. — July 2, 2007 @ 1:54 am
David Appell, somehow the name sounds familiar .
Comment by Hans Erren — July 2, 2007 @ 3:05 am
You have NOAA doing the coverup. It’s time to make them flinch.
I would send a copy of whatever letter or correspondence you send to Sen. Inhoff, to all the other Senators and Congressmen. Please also send a forward to Arnold Schwarzeneggar’s office (he has his head up his you know what about global warming - pretending this is middle ground politics).
Seriously. If AGW is nothing more then the gradual addition of carports around thermometer stations, taken to the extremes we have seen, given voice by the IPCC, Al Gore, Hansen, and every disreputable media outlet in the country, from the NYT to the Sacramento Bee (and all the evidence I have seen suggests as much), then that my friends is a conspiracy to defraud the public.
People in high places will be requiring time out in the crossbar motel.
Know how you can tell?
BigCityLib already peed a little.
Just enough to stain his Fruit of the Looms.
Bet you anything Rush Limbaugh mentions this during his global warming segment today.
Comment by Papertiger — July 2, 2007 @ 8:47 am
Papertiger - The issue of the station siting does not mean that concerns with respect to the human intervention into the climate system are overstated. It just means that use of the HCN surface temperature data to assess climate is less valuable than claimed. The radiative effect of the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere by humans is an important climate forcing, but, as reported repeatedly on Climate Science, it is not the only major one, and may not even be the dominant forcing.
Lets focus on the value of the HCN surface temperature data as a climate metric, without overinflating the importance of this issue.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — July 2, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Steve Bloom - Whether NOAA is just trying to protect volunteers or is engaging is politically motivated supression of data, I have one core question for you (and for Roger and the others here): how can we obtain access to the data and the details on how it is derived?
The core of science (at least Physics) is to understand the phenomena. The core of science is to know truth (which is contrary to the core of politics). Independent analysis and reproducible experiments. Granted, this seems more an observation based science than experimentally probable one - but why the fear about allowing independent analysis of the methods used to characterize our “global temperature”, whatever that really is? Whether intended or not, NOAAs actions cast suspiction on the data itself being used to defend AGW. It seems to be proving the point of politicized science rather than removing that concern. Regardless of the views of the merits of AGW - this seems bad for science and a disservice to ordinary citizens who look to science for some understanding of the political decisions being debated which come from climate concerns.
Comment by Phil — July 2, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Re #40: Phil, as you say it’s important to understand the phenomenon. I’m perfectly willing to grant the point that there are all sorts of problems with the land surface data. Such problems may be and probably are significant as applied to attempts to analyze and project regional trends, but of course that point is uncontroversial. Then there is the quite distinct issue of whether it is possible to get a useful global trend out of the data (with various adjustments to account for known biases, as documented on the GISS site). There’s a pretty good double-check for that, which is the satellite SSTs. There doesn’t appear to be a significant discrepancy.
Now, it’s possible to conceive of a conspiracy on the part of the the relative handful of researchers who compile the overall global temperature data, but it’s rather harder to imagine that in the case of the satellites SST records as it would require that a much larger number of people cooked the books over a course of decades. IMHO that gets into serious black helicopter territory.
Regarding the sociological aspect of all of this, it’s rather well-known from surveys that there is a willing audience for climate conspiracy theories. In the U.S. that audience is (IIRC) about 7% of the population, largely older white males with conservative politics. I imagine there’s a rather large overlap with Limbaugh’s radio audience.
If you look at the broad-brush history of climate change denialism in the U.S., it started out with various forms of straight-up denialism, transitioned into arguments about how climate change will be beneficial, but then as of the publication of the IPCC TAR focused on the “Hockey Stick.” Now that the HS has become less interesting, the focus has gone instead to the surface record and the models, much more the former since the latter require years of education to even have an intelligent conversation about them.
Comment by Steve Bloom — July 2, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
RE #41: I thought the HS had been discredited, not just “become less interesting”?
This is a great website for Science. But I am seeing more and more non-scientific comments, especially by those who are fronting for the movement to promote AGW and using innuendo and “ad hominen” attacks. I believe “freedom of the press” requires a measure of responsibility and integrity. I think it’s time Dr. Pielke addresses this growing problem on his website.
Comment by Samuel R. Glasser — July 2, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Re #42: “I thought the HS had been discredited(.)” Wrong. It’s alive and well in the AR4.
Sociology is also science, BTW. I’ll happily locate those survey results if you really want to see them.
Comment by Steve Bloom — July 2, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
RE # 43: I’m not interested in “survey” results. I just want to see any valid history in the HS. Also, I’m not interested in “sociology” on a “climatology” site. And I don’t like the use of “sceptic” or “denialist” to refute an opponent. It certainly diminishes the credibility of the user. But thanks for your reply. I do read your comments carefully. Sam
Comment by Samuel R. Glasser — July 2, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
In regards to Post #41 by Steve Bloom, I had a few comments.
=Steve Bloom says:=
=”I’m perfectly willing to grant the point that there are all sorts of problems with the land surface data. Such problems may be and probably are significant as applied to attempts to analyze and project regional trends, but of course that point is uncontroversial.”=
Should we not do something about the “problems” with the land surface data? Why have climate scientists apparently turned a blind eye to these self-evident problems?
And how is the land surface data only related to regional trends when much of this same data is part and parcel of the data used to calculate global temperature?
=Steve Bloom further states:=
=”Then there is the quite distinct issue of whether it is possible to get a useful global trend out of the data (with various adjustments to account for known biases, as documented on the GISS site). There’s a pretty good double-check for that, which is the satellite SSTs.”=
How does one adjust for known biases when no phyical inspection or maintainance of minimum standards for surface stations has ever been carried out?
And applying blind “adjustments” to sites never seen appears to simply muddy the quality of the data further.
You then suggest that double-checking the data with satellite SST’s is a valid exercise. But one can not check poor data with good data to confirm something else.
Lastly, if you are suggesting that we rely on satellite SST data instead, then we have, at most, an appoximately 25 to 30 year of reliable global temperature measurements at most. And where does that lead us?
Regards,
Comment by Paul G. — July 2, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
RE:41 Thank you Steve. My point is more to the appearance of evil rather than proclaiming such. Hiding data, or worse releasing data and hiding independent examination of the procedures, installations, calibrations and maintenance of the measuring setup invites suspiction. Personnally, I doubt any great conspiracy could bring so many measuring stations into question deliberately. But by forbidding the critics open access - NOAA seems to proclaim that they have something to hide. And if the critics find flaws in the design or operation of the station which might bias data one direction or another, are we not better served by discovering that fact - especially if the bias resulted from unintentional changes made over time. If the critics take their best shot and find no serious flaws capable of biasing the data - you just might win some converts.
Comment by Phil — July 2, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Sen Inhofe is no longer Chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment.
FWIW, if there was a complaint, I suspect it was from a station that is convenient to a large city and got photographed multiple times.
Comment by Eli Rabett — July 2, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
RE 46: The site I wanted to photograph is in a small town, is new, and has not been photographed by anyone. Halpern is just guessing.
Comment by Douglas Hoyt — July 3, 2007 @ 5:34 am
Re#43: *** “I thought the HS had been discredited(.)� Wrong. It’s alive and well in the AR4.***
“Well?” It seems to be ailing…at least according to the review comment/criticism from the hockey stick generator himself.
“The lack of a supporting graphic in the “A Paleoclimate Perspective� section is effectively a slap in the face to
chapter 6 authors. It also sends a disturbing message that AR4 is somehow backing away from paleoclimate-based claims made in the TAR where the results from paleoclimate studies were highlighted.�
— Michael Mann
Comment by Michael Jankowski — July 3, 2007 @ 8:56 am
A “slap in the face” may be what’s needed for the Wegman 43 - and those still defending the MBH98 HS, who are nobody but the most dogmatic.
Although not a death blow for them as they can still “come clean” - it is a definite chink out of their credibility. The longer they wait the less credibility they can recover.
Comment by Steve Hemphill — July 3, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Re #49: It did no such thing, as subsequent events bore out. If you look at that section in the SPM, can you see what is highlighted? Whether the peak of the MWP was about the same or a bit cooler than present temps really doesn’t mean much in the larger scheme of things. What sea level will do if we let things get a little warmer, OTOH, is a very big deal. I would have actually preferred to see a graphic placing the Pleistocene in a deep-time paleo context, but arguably emphasizing the Eemian made more sense since it’s much easier to understand.
Comment by Steve Bloom — July 3, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
Re #45: Climate scientists recognized the problem at least 15 years ago. The result in the U.S. is the CRN, which as you know was activated a few years ago and will be complete soon. Data from it will (and already does for at least some stations) allow the kind of data calibration that all the denialists are demanding. I don’t think they’ll be very happy when they get it, though.
Comment by Steve Bloom — July 3, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
Bloom #52- Sounds good. In 30 years we can compare the CRN and MSU satellite records to see how they track. Meanwhile, lets check the existing station network to see how many terds are in the punchbowl.
Bloom #41- I assume you meant satellite lower troposphere temperature readings over the same land regions where surface temperatures are being measured, rather than satellite SST data. If not, then how would you plan to reconcile sea surface and land temperature records? And yes, this only covers about 28 years.
Bloom #51-What will sea level rise do if “we let things get a little warmer”? It will continue its trend over the past century, with a slowly decreasing rate of rise.
Comment by paminator — July 4, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Douglas Hoyt appears to think that someone complained about him
Comment by Eli Rabett — July 7, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Joshua Halpern/Eli Rabett’s comment about me is completely false.
Comment by Douglas Hoyt — July 8, 2007 @ 6:35 am
Well the presence of the AGW attack dogs here and the level of their hysteria and the actions of the bureaucrats at the NOAAadd up to a serious indication of the fear this is causing amongst the AGW community.
Public scrutiny is the last thing reputable scientists fear.
Comment by GMF — July 9, 2007 @ 12:52 pm