Comments on: West Antarctic Stations

By: Gavin’s Mystery Man « Climate Audit

Gavin’s Mystery Man « Climate Audit — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:24:13 +0000

[...] Sunday, Feb 1 at 4:41 pm Eastern (3:41 blog time), I published a post describing West Antarctic stations. In that post, I observed that there was a very limited amount of station data (6 stations) in the [...]

By: Dirty Harry 4: When Harry Met Gill « Climate Audit

Dirty Harry 4: When Harry Met Gill « Climate Audit — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:23:15 +0000

[...] Yesterday, I noted that Steig had criticised previous developers of Antarctic gridded temperature data for not having “paid much attention” to West Antarctica (e.g. the NASA GISS trend map left the area blank due to lack of data meeting their quality standards) and reproached his predecessors (including, it seems, even Hansen) for “calculating with their heads”, rather than “doing the math”, which, in his case, seems to be inseparable from the use of Mannian algorithms. [...]

By: Science in action, a confused and often nasty debate among scientists « Fabius Maximus

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:03:17 +0000

[...] network used. Steve McIntyre (of Climate Audit) discovered that it was seriously defective, and posted about the error at 4:41 pm EST, on February 1 (Super Bowl Sunday). The British Arctic Survey (BAS) corrected the [...]

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:43:46 +0000

Please continue discussion on new thread.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:36:36 +0000

#80. Well, how professional is it not to credit Climate Audit?

By: Tim C

Tim C — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:32:52 +0000

Re: Dishman (#80), I totally agree, thought, but didn't quite know how to put it. Everyone makes mistakes, me included but when blame game appears and hiding starts it is a bad slope.

By: Gerald Machnee

Gerald Machnee — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:19:44 +0000

Re: Dishman (#80),

"Note! The surface aws data are currently not available as they are being re-proccessed after an error was reported in the values at Harry station (2/2/09)"

Expect to see: "But it does not affect the calculations in the study." Great work, Steve and crew!!

By: Bob Koss

Bob Koss — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:19:11 +0000

Wow!
GISS interpolating the annual temperature in 1991 with that missing D-J-F quarter while all the monthly values are the same sure made a difference between the stations. 0.93 degrees.

I see the 1997-98 monthly values are also the same.

By: Tim C

Tim C — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:12:39 +0000

Update: -

The data has been changed. Now makes sense.

http://www.gpsl.net/data/agw-gill-harry-update.png

(refresh any caches)

I’ve eyeballed all the pressure datasets looking for any other obvious wobbles, saw nothing.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:01:47 +0000

I just noticed that they’d changed the data when I tried to re-run a script. I guess they’re monitoring CA. IT’s like last June when GISS data kept changing under our eyes as we were discussing. And needless to say, never providing credit to their source. I guess it’s Team policy. You can still get the screwed up series at GISS.

I’ll finish off my post on Harry in a few minutes.

However, I’ve got a copy of the data before they erased it … and will post it up later today.

And the bad news for the Team is that while it’s easy for British Antarctic Survey to erase their data and replace it with a fixed version, it’s not so easy for the authors of Steig et al 2009, who were unfortunate enough to rely on it.