Climate Audit

Fred

I’ll be waiting for David Suzuki and CBC to re-broadcast the show back here in the Great Whit North.

Waiting.

Still waiting.

cba

great article. i liked it. kudos steve. even the machine translation was cute – perhaps even a little viking…

snowmaneasy

Excellent work…I love it…I have spent many years in Finland and this is a typically Finnish response to an issue where they think their data has been mis-used…

Jarkko

For some reason, the Finnish broadcasting company (YLE), is holding back on the release. Usually the show get’s online about half hour after airing.

Well, while awaiting, here’s the youtube version. Ilmastokatastrofi [url]

Congratulations Steve.

andy

Good watching. It’s even shown how the core drilling from trees is done and how lake sediments are drilled. Also, the environment of the lake Korttajärvi is shown, fields are sloping deeply to the lake shore, no wonder the lake sediments are disturbed due human activities, or what was the nice scientific term used.

Lucy Skywalker

Here is a link to all 3 parts of the video. I hope there will be an English version soon.

Paul Z.

This is a well researched story by YLE but… Finnish TV??

This should be on CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc. – the global news channels. 😦

Steve McIntyre

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gmJiZfyDPE
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suySkDny-zk
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKSgj8Itbzs

• Paul
  Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

  Re: Steve McIntyre (#17),

  Thanks! I was going to post those up… the Jean S link didn’t work. I like it straight up (but the translation was pretty good).

Lucy Skywalker

Pity MOT used the earlier uncorrected version of Steve’s Yamal RCS chronologies instead of this one. Not that it makes any difference to the conclusions; it’s a nice example of Steve’s integrity, and a demonstration of how Science should proceed – mistakes are OK and perfectly normal, IF they are admitted and corrected.

UC

FMI Director Mikko Alestalo: MOT program “irresponsible communication”

http://www.vihrealanka.fi/uutiset/ilmatieteen-laitoksen-johtajan-mielest%C3%A4-illan-mot-ohjelma-on-vastuutonta-viestint%C3%A4%C3%A4

..statement made before the program was aired.

Richard Henry Lee

Great interview with Steve. We are fortunate that Steve decided to deconstruct the hockey stick several years ago. Without his perseverance, the stick might still be used as the icon it was when initially published.

Calvin Ball

As I understand it, Roy Spencer has some issues with Lindzen’s latest paper about feedback, so that part requires some caution; it’s still being hashed out. The rest of it, however, seems like a good summary of the highlights of the disputes.

Lucy Skywalker

from WUWT re: ianl8888 (#29),

Marco (11:10:51) : There is no such thing as bad publicity.

In this case there might be. The makers of this film are already under fire for revealing that the finnish prime minister had taken bribes. It was just one more revelation in the long list of corruption scandals that are currently ravaging the country. But unlike other cases, the full might of the party PR-machinery managed to spin the case so that the show was the one that ended up taking the heat.

I wouldn’t be surprised is this episode would be used as an excuse to silence a political critic and force the network to cancel the show.

Kasmir

Also from a machine translation of the Finnish Meteorological Institute response:

“Carbon dioxide by itself raise the temperature of half or one degree. But that’s not the whole truth. 2,5-6,0 degrees warming, calculated the positive feedback efektioita, covering areas such as water vapor and snow and ice disappear. Only through them achieve a stronger warming. Dioxide trigger other processes, however, is the whole cause of climate change. “

Interesting that the gent from FMI didn’t actually audit the show. Linden’s 0.5 C feedback estimate on a CO2 doubling stems from his claim to have experimentally measured negative feedback. The Lindzen-Choi paper is hugely important if true and deserves a post of its own here. It’s apparently controversial, and deserves an audit 😉

• ianl8888
  Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

  Re: Kasmir (#37),
  AGW proponents (& the populist “meeja”) are running a million miles from Lindzen & Choi 2009. From their viewpoint, it doesn’t exist

  I don’t know the validity of Lindzen & Choi 2009, but my experience says that if the AGW proponents call it “irresponsible” then they are terrified that it may contain some real accuracy (although Roy Spencer certainly doesn’t think so)

  Given the stakes here now, I expect we will not be enlightened any time soon. And I simply cannot trust RC

Steve McIntyre

I spent some time with Lindzen and Choi in Erice and was planning to some posts on this before the Yamal and Kaufman things came up – topics that are related to my areas that I specialize in. While I think that Lindzen and Choi are important and interesting, I’m not in a position to do a detailed analysis of their results. There are hundreds of climate scientists and I presume that some of them will analyze their findings.

• Calvin Ball
  Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 11:25 PM | Permalink

  Re: Steve McIntyre (#39),

  See Lubos’ post on that from about a week ago. He has some serious doubts, and he’s certainly no alarmist. Spencer has critiqued it, so I’d say that this one is still far from settled. And the nature of the dispute seemed pretty basic. It seemed strange that Lindzen could make such a simple error. Anyway, stay tuned.

  Steve: I’m not going to comment until I’ve examined the data.

  • Raven
    Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 11:54 PM | Permalink

    Re: Calvin Ball (#40)
    I am not sure it was simply an error. It appeared to stem from the type of climate model that Linzden used for his comparison and Linzden may have good reasons for the choice. I hope he clarifies.

• PeterA
  Posted Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 PM | Permalink

  Re: Steve McIntyre (#39),
  Roy W. Spencer, who I think is an AGW skeptic has analyzed their work and come up with an uncertain conclusion – see link below. He also makes the same comment that it’s up to other climate scientists to take a serious look at their work and make comments.

  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/

  • Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 12:12 AM | Permalink

    Re: PeterA (#42),

    As I said above, I haven’t personally considered the data and do not have an opinion on the matter. I’d prefer that readers hold off expressing opinions on this study until such time as I’ve familiarized myself with the topic or until someone more familiar than I with the issues can moderate the topic.

    • bender
      Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 6:34 AM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#43),
      What a nuisance when people comment without first reading the blog to get a sense for what is and isn’t suitable for discussion.

Matti Virtanen

We were aware of Spencer’s criticism, but decided to ignore it for the time being. After all, Lindzen & Choi is in the peerreviewedlitritchurch. And Spencer is no proponent of high sensitivity.

Lucy: We’ll try to correct the wrong graph. And to Marco’s comment about the prime minister and corruption: it was not MOT, but another current affairs show, on YLE TV2.

TonyN

Whoops! #45 should read ‘Were either Briffa …’ Sorry

Jean S

A version with English subtitles:
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2

• Just an EE
  Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

  Re: Jean S (#49),
  I’d recommend that this link be moved to the main page;
  the timely subtitles make all the difference!

  Perhaps you are reluctant to recommend your own posts, but this one deserves top billing, IMHO

fs

rather one sided this MOT program…

• bender
  Posted Nov 11, 2009 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

  Re: fs (#50),
  So go ahead and refute the facts presented there.

vg

52 Yes the English version needs to be publicized more. The implications are mind blogging….

Peter O'Neill

Re: Jean S (#49),
Thanks for the subtitles. Perhaps you can also explain something which puzzled me in the original Finnish: the hockey stick is sometimes an icehockey stick (jääkiekkomaila/lätkämaila) and sometimes just a hockey stick (kiekkomaila). Is there some logic behind this choice? A subtle linguistic joke perhaps?

I found the programme generally very clear, but one section was less clear. The Korttajärvi data graphs showed x-ray density but did not actually make clear that both graphs showed higher temperature at the top. This has led to some confusion, and may continue to do so. There is a blog comment for example at http://blogit.yle.fi/mot/ilmastonmuutoksen-syvin-idea, from Vainikka:

Tuo järvisedimenttikäyrän mukaan ottaminen onkin sitten todellinen riman alitus. Juu, käyrä on toisin päin mutta niin ovat numerotkin. Yleensäkin kuvaajat tehdään niin, että suuremmat numerot ovat kuvan yläpuolella. Kuva on erilainen mutta sen sisältämä tieto täysin sama l. vääristämätön.

This suggests that the Korttajärvi data was not actually inverted because both graph and numbers were inverted together, so confusing x-ray density (the numbers shown) with temperature (not shown). As I did not find any answer pointing this out in 8 comment pages, I have submitted a comment:

Mutta numerot ovat X-ray Density, ei lämpötila. Molemmissa kuvia, korkeammat lämpötilat ovat kuvan yläpuolella, joten tieto ei ole “täysin sama”, kuten kirjoitat, mutta on täysin vääristynyt.

As I understand Finnish rather better than I can speak or write it, perhaps you might correct my correction if necessary

cohenite

The x-ray density (inverted) graph has been ‘inverted’ by Mann, but so to has the vertical scale; forgive my statistical shortcoming (and any impression I want to give the hockeystick any support) but doesn’t that mean that the intrinsic values have been preserved?

Steve: No. It was used upside down. It’s been explained over and over. Why don’t you ask Mann to acknowledge this??

• bender
  Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 4:52 PM | Permalink

  Re: cohenite (#57),
  for god’s sake read the blog

bender

This suggests that the Korttajärvi data was not actually inverted because both graph and numbers were inverted together

How on earth do you determine if the data were inverted based on the presentation of a graph? Smarten up. You have to examine the output of the code that makes use of the data to determine how it gets used. Read the blog.

cohenite

Thanks John M; I think I’ve got it; Mann did a double or reverse flip so that the data and the scale were flipped in opposite directions.

Steve: I’m not sure that your explanation is particularly perspicacious, but if it helps you, that’s good. The point was explained clearly in the posts and is very simple. Lots of people have understood it easily, though close Team associates have complicated matters by refusing to acknowledge it and muddying the waters. As Gavin Schmidt says, it would be better if authors corrected their errors, but unfortunately this hasn’t happened in this case and even the Comment-Reply process at PNAS did not elicit a settlement of a highly trivial point.

• bender
  Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

  Re: cohenite (#63),
  You think you’ve got it? I guarantee that if you don’t read the blog you won’t get it. You have to understand how Mann’s algorithm works to understand how the business end gets flipped.

  • Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 14, 2009 at 11:14 PM | Permalink

    Re: bender (#64),

    But it’s also important to emphasize that in physical reality the blade of the stick has nothing to do with temperature and this was pointed out by the original authors. Therefore, even if the original authors had been mistaken about the theory of what the varve measurements meant in past centuries, in this last century or so the measurements were not caused by temperature and therefore any measurements during this time period should be eliminated before the larger record is put to any use for paleoclimatology.

Peter O'Neill

bender:
November 14th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

This suggests that the Korttajärvi data was not actually inverted because both graph and numbers were inverted together

How on earth do you determine if the data were inverted based on the presentation of a graph? Smarten up. You have to examine the output of the code that makes use of the data to determine how it gets used. Read the blog.

Apologies of causing further confusion in #55 by mixing languages. It was the Finnish quote just above which suggested …

… Yes, the curve is the other way around, but so are the numbers. Generally graphs are drawn so that higher numbers are at the top of the figure. The figure is different but the information is exactly the same i.e. undistorted.

And my short comment in Finnish below, which I asked Jean S to consider correcting if my Finnish had proved inadequate, is:

But the numbers are the X-ray density, not temperature. In both images, higher temperatures are at the top of the figure, so the information is not “exactly the same,” as you write, but is completely distorted.

And I have read the blog, and am aware of further aspects of this. There are severe limitations on in depth treatment in a short programme, but I thought that presentation of this point was a weak point in the programme, and allowed viewers to become confused because the X-ray density shown in both figures does suggest an inversion of “graph and numbers together”, drawing attention away from the fact that both are supposed to represent temperature reconstructions based on the same data.

Peter O'Neill

Re: bender (#72):

There are severe limitations on in depth treatment in a short programme, but I thought that presentation of this point was a weak point in the programme

Again I ask: what would you have shown in a video?

(With all the obvious benefits of hindsight) I (hope) I would have:

(1) Added an indicative high/low temperature anomaly scale alongside the X-ray density scale to the figure shown in the programme and described in the English transcript as “millennial temperature reconstruction from Korttajärvi done by the Finns”, and added a footnote explaining that the paper did not include an explicit temperature scale, but did indicate than X-ray density changes should be interpreted as temperature changes, up and down, in the manner shown in the figure.

(2) Matched the temperature anomaly scale for tiljander_2003_xraydenseave from Figure S9 in Mann’s original SI (this is still graphed in the updated SI, but, at least on my screen, is hard to find as the coloured key entry is almost invisible, and the graphed data needs to be located by a process of elimination). Added this alongside the X-ray density scale to the figure shown in the programme and described in the English transcript as “the same data presented by the hockey team”

(3) Added links to the discussion of this topic at climateaudit. (For anyone who only selected the “Transcript in English” button at http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/taman_viikon_mot/kasikirjoitus the “Lisätietoa” link leads to a set of URL links for the programme).

I would not have tried to discuss any issues of code (I’m near the end of STEP3 in porting GISTEMP to a single unified application in a modern language, with considerable additional output for analysis, and the basic output verified against the NASA intermediate files – I know only too well what lies within the code produced by some of these people, and would not wish to inflict any such torture on the unwary. There be dragons, interesting dragons perhaps, but dragons nonetheless).
As you say, read the blog …

I tried to watch the programme from the point of view of someone to whom all this is new, which I believe was the target audience. (Even if I did get sidetracked a little counting hockey vs ice-hockey sticks). Preaching to the converted would not be a priority. Unless such a person can see immediately within the few seconds available to make the particular point that the data has been subjected to gross abuse, that person will very likely not be motivated to dig deeper on this topic, and it may well stop there. How the data got used is for later.
So, having concentrated on making one initial point strongly by also showing it clearly in the associated graphics, I would hope that they would then take up the invitation to dig deeper, first by reviewing the program transcript (the “Käsikirjoitus” button is the same transcript in Finnish), then by reading the blog, for which I would have provided links on this topic, as I think it is a topic where the less mathematically inclined have a better chance of understanding at least some of the issues involved. Whereas issues such as cohort structure (not here criticising the mention of this in the program, just taking it as an example) or even sample size may be less accessible.

Overall, I believe that a strength of the programme was that it covered a limited range of topics at a reasonable and accessible depth and in plain language, rather than falling into the trap of bewildering the audience by trying to cover too much, or by over-detailed presentation. I just felt that a weak point was that these two figures as presented ran too great a risk of dismissal as a trivial difference in presentation. The second scale, particularly when the figures could be viewed later at leisure in the transcript, could have made the difference in interpretation of X-ray density as temperature proxy more immediately obvious.

Hope this makes my point of view clearer.

————————————-

As “taman_viikon_mot” translates as “This week’s MOT”, these links will presumably move shortly to the “Viime viikon MOT” (Last week’s MOT) section, and then to the archive. I’ve pasted these links “as is” below for anyone who may later wish to see what was linked without having to navigate the archive by guesswork. Try Google translation or just follow the links. (Steve, please snip this whole paragraph and the links if you feel it may infringe the YLE copyright agreements that Matti Virtanen referred to at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7650#comment-365158, although I would understood that post as referring to the actual programme productions rather than such ancillary items):

Lisätietoa
1) Kööpenhaminan ilmastokokous: http://en.cop15.dk/
2) Kööpenhaminan ilmastokokouksen sopimusluonnos loka-marraskuun vaihteesta: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf
3) Kansainvälinen ilmastopaneeli IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/
4) Al Goren elokuvan mainossivut: http://www.climatecrisis.net/
5) Michael Mannin lätkämaila IPCC:n vuoden 2001 raportissa: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
6) Lätkämaila ja sitä ennen vallinnut käsitys keskiajan lämpökaudesta: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00629/news-graphics-2006-_629636a.gif
7) Yhteenveto siitä, miten IPCC:n käsitys keskiajan lämpökaudesta on muuttunut: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_report
s
8) Steve McIntyren analyysit jääkiekkokäyristä: http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354

9) Michael Mannin ja kumppaneiden alkuperäinen lätkämaila-artikkeli: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf
10) Pohjoisamerikkalaisia vihnemäntyjä, joiden lustoihin Mannin lätkämaila perustui: http://images.google.com/images?q=Bristlecone+pine&rls=com.microsoft:fi&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=ffL3SrSsAsyD-Qah4uX6DQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCYQsAQwAw
11) Yhdysvaltain tiedeakatemian NAS:n raportti lätkämailakiistasta: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
12) USA:n johtavien tilastotieteilijöiden arvio lätkämailakiistasta (ns. Wegman-raportti): http://data.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
13) Keith Briffan ja kumppaneiden lätkämaila-artikkeli: http://data.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/Briffa.2001.jgr.pdf
14) Briffan työnantaja CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
15) Steve McIntyren analyysit Briffan lätkämailasta: http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=37
16) David Demingin lausunto USA:n kongressille: http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

17) Briffan uusi lätkämaila-artikkeli vuodelta 2006: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;311/5762/841
18) “Polar Urals” tarkoittaa Ural-vuoriston pohjoisinta osaa: http://welcome-ural.ru/urals/77/
19) Jamalin niemimaa: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal
20) McIntyre Jamalin vuosirenkaiden käytöstä IPCC:n vuoden 2007 arviointiraportissa: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7310
21) Metsäntutkimuslaitos Metlan lustotutkimuksia: http://lustiag.pp.fi/index.htm
22) Professori Kari Mielikäinen, Metsäntutkimuslaitos: http://www.metla.fi/pp/KMie/
23) Professori Atte Korhola, Helsingin yliopisto: http://www.helsinki.fi/bioscience/ecru/people/professor.htm

24) Atte Korholan julkaisuluettelo: http://www.helsinki.fi/bioscience/ecru/publications/pub_atte.htm
25) Atte Korholan tuore arvio ilmastotieteen ongelmista: http://www.co2-raportti.fi/index.php?page=blogi&news_id=1370
25) Professori Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf
26) Richard Lindzenin tunnin mittainen analyysi ilmastonmuutoksesta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmGiiNQ0yHQ&feature=PlayList&p=22D4DD5727161348&index=0&playnext=1 (Ensimmäinen kuudesta 10 minuutin osasta.)

Paul Z.

What happened to the YLE English transcript? It’s gone missing.

http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/taman_viikon_mot/transcript_english

• Jean S
  Posted Nov 16, 2009 at 5:20 AM | Permalink

  Re: Paul Z. (#75),
  It’s now here:
  http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viime_viikon_mot/transcript_english
  The original URL says “taman viikon mot” (mot of this week), and the new URL says “viime viikon mot” (mot of last week)… 😉 I’ll update (again) the link to the post when they’ll have the permanent URL published (should be after this week).

Bob Jones (USAF - Retired)

I watched the Finnish video. I have also read two books on global warming: Unstoppable Global Warming & The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming. As a side note, shouldn’t those titles now be changed to be “Climate Change” instead of “Global Warming”? 🙂
I am not a scientist but I was taken with Professor Lindzen’s reliance on nature instead of computer models. To me, computers have always been nothing more than rapid morons. So I was wondering if doing something as simple as checking the world’s tidal charts would, in any way, prove or disprove whether or not the arctic/antarctic ice was melting and causing seas to rise?

Paul Z.

Thanks Jean. Also in news:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977902140&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspace