USHCN Trends: Red States and Blue States

Jun 11, 2007 – 7:37 AM

I’ve calculated the trends for all 1221 USHCN stations after 1900 and plotted up the contour maps for the raw, time-of-observation adjusted and fully adjusted results. Pretty interesting results. Here’s the results for the “raw” data, the adjusted versions are shown below.

usgrid79.gif
Contour map of 20th century trends for 1221 USHCN stations – “raw” data. All plots show trends expressed as deg C/year.

I’ll also show directions for how to produce pretty contour maps from irregular data using two different R packages. Continue reading →

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Scripts, Surface Record | Comments (95)

IPCC: AR4 guidance on uncertainty

Jun 10, 2007 – 3:04 AM

John A writes: I thought this would be interesting to note in passing. The IPCC has “Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties“.
Continue reading →

By John A | Posted in IPCC | Comments (19)

Mannomatic Smoothing and Pinned End-points

Jun 9, 2007 – 4:45 PM

We’ve had a couple of discussions of dealing with end-points for smoothing. Here’s a little note about smoothing algorithms, which I think is pretty funny. It’s hard to imagine a note about smoothing algorithms being funny, but see what you think. Continue reading →

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Statistics | Tagged , | Comments (51)

Three "New" Sites from Anthony Watts

Jun 9, 2007 – 7:59 AM

Anthony Watts has three new sites: Lovelock, Electra and Fallon, and there’s something unexpected in them (Aside from the jet fighter discharging on the weather station – which is disappointing but almost expected by now.) Continue reading →

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Surface Record | Comments (116)

The Vose and Karl Response to Davey and Pielke 2005

Jun 8, 2007 – 7:44 AM

Anthony Watts has a couple more stations in hand (Electra and Fallon) about which I’ll comment later today. The detailed examination of USHCN stations fits into the prior debate initiated by the Davey and Pielke 2005 survey of sites in eastern Colorado.

The original Davey and Pielke article was accompanied by an official response from Vose, Karl et al in which one of their primary defences was that Pielke et al had merely found problems in one area and had not proved that there was a problem over the entire network.

If one views the Davey and Pielke study as a type of audit spot check, this aspect of the Karl and Vose response is both obfuscating and appalling and should have raised alarm bells in any properly administered system. Continue reading →

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Surface Record | Tagged , | Comments (36)

A small request

Jun 8, 2007 – 5:10 AM

In order to build a new dedicated server for CA, I need access to a Windows share or a Samba equivalent on the Internet for 24 hours. If anyone has such a facility with space for a 4.3 GB DVD image, then could they contact me?

By John A | Posted in General | Comments (7)

FOI Request to NOAA

Jun 7, 2007 – 1:54 PM

IPCC has just written me saying that they will send me review comments on chapter 6 subject to the following restriction:

As this additional form of distribution is being provided in conjunction with the review process, the compiled comments are not for re-distribution to others.

Given that the review comments are supposedly in an “open archive”, I don’t understand the basis of this restriction. Also I’m not clear whether this prohibits me from quoting even individual review comments. It’s all very strange and very inconsistent with the “open and transparent process” that IPCC is supposed to follow. Much as bureaucratic obfuscation amuses, even I’m getting tired of WG1 TSU, so I’ve tried this from a different angle.

Many of the key players in WG1, including the Chairman, Susan Solomon, and the TSU director, Martin Manning, are NOAA employees and have used their NOAA email addresses in any correspondence with me. The NOAA website (thanks to a CA reader for drawing this to my attention) contains lavish praise for the contribution of NOAA employees to WG1:

Feb. 2, 2007 – NOAA individuals and technology made major contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) international climate science report, of which the summary of the first chapter was released today in Paris. That summary, the Summary for Policy Makers, was subjected to line-by-line approval of the participating governments….

Susan Solomon, a senior scientist of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., is co-chair of Working Group 1 (WG1), the Physical Science Basis. Nine of the lead and review authors are from NOAA and 20 of the model runs were done by the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. Lead authors are nominated by their governments.

NOAA authors and IPCC review editors for WG1 include Thomas Peterson, David Easterling, Thomas Karl, Sidney Levitus, Mark Eakin, Matthew Menne of the NOAA Satellite and Information Service; and Venkatachala. Ramaswamy, David Fahey, Ronald Stouffer, Isaac Held, Jim Butler , Paul Ginoux, John Ogren , Chet Koblinsky, Dian Seidel, Robert Webb, Randy Dole, Martin Hoerling of the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and Arun Kumar of the NOAA National Weather Service. Roger Pulwarty of OAR is an author for Working Group 2, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, slated for release April 5.

Again with the assistance of a CA reader, I’ve sent the following FOI request to NOAA:

May 31, 2007

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
Room 10730
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

NOAA describes the contributions of NOAA employees to the recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, and, in particular, to Working Group 1 at its website http://www.cpo.noaa.gov/ipcc/first_ipcc.html.

I request that a copy of any NOAA records (documents, memoranda, review comments, reports, internal and external correspondence or mail including e-mail correspondence and attachments to or from NOAA employees) be provided to me on the following subjects:

(1) review comments on (a) the Second Order Draft and (b) the Final Draft of the Fourth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I, including, but not limited to, all expert, government and review editor comments;
(2) all annotated responses to such comments by Chapter Lead Authors.

A primary source for NOAA records is Susan Solomon. NOAA ( http://www.cpo.noaa.gov/ipcc/first_ipcc.html ) states that Susan Solomon, “a senior scientist of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., is co-chair of Working Group 1 (WG1), the Physical Science Basis.” Another primary source for NOAA records is Martin Manning, another scientist with the Aeronomy Lab in Boulder CO, who acted as director of the IPCC Working Group I Technical Services Unit.

In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the applicability of any fees, I note that I was a reviewer for WG1; that I have 5 peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate, all of which were cited in the WG1 Assessment Report; that I made an invited presentation last year to the National Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two invited presentations to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

I believe a fee waiver is appropriate since the purpose of the request is academic research. All review comments were submitted in digital format; collations have already been made and all the requested information should be easily located by the primary sources.

I also include a telephone number (xxx) at which I can be contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time, if necessary, to discuss any aspect of my request.

I ask that this FOIA request be processed within 20 days so that I can respond as an expert reviewer to the United States Climate Change Science Program’s request for expert review of the fourth and final volume of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (“Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”)” which relates to Chapter 6 Paleoclimate [Federal Register: May 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 97).] The closing date for comments on the Federal Register notice is June 27, 2007.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Stephen McIntyre
[address]

Notice one additional and interesting aspect to the request. The WG1 Timetable describes a date by which Author Comments have to be returned to TSU. These Author Comments have not been archived at the Harvard Library, but I’ve requested them.

I have a suggestion for CA readers. The email address of NOAA FOI is FOIA at noaa.gov. Any readers that are interested in the review comments (especially American readers) might wish to adapt the form of my request. It might be worthwhile varying the primary sources for individual requesters and see if any variations turn up.

If all interested CA readers obtain a copy of the IPCC review comments, perhaps we can have an online conversation after we have all obtained our review comments from NOAA (or any other branch of government that any of you think of.)

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in FOIA, IPCC | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (22)

New Pielke et al Article on Microsite Problems

Jun 6, 2007 – 11:20 PM

A CA reader has brought to our attention an interesting new article by Pielke Sr et al, Unresolved Issues with the Assessment of Multi-Decadal Global Land-Surface Temperature Trends, which disucsses microsite problems. There is a lengthy roster of co-authors: Roger A. Pielke Sr., Christopher A. Davey, Dev Niyogi, Souleymane Fall, and Jesse Steinweg-Woods, Ken Hubbard and Xiaomao Lin, Ming Cai, Young-Kwon Lim, Hong Li, John Nielsen-Gammon, Kevin Gallo, Robert Hale, Rezaul Mahmood and Stuart Foster, Richard T. McNider, Peter Blanken. (Note: also see discussion at Pielke Sr blog here )

They observe:

The integrity of climatological observations is often compromised by poor environmental exposure of instruments. Examples of poor exposure are provided by three United States HCN (USHCN) sites in Kentucky (see figures for Greensburg [153430] (Figure 5), Leitchfield_2_N [154703] Figure 6), and Hopkinsville [153994] (Figure 7). In each case, a combination of anthropogenic (e.g., asphalt and concrete surfaces, buildings) and natural features (e.g., trees and shrubs, slopes) of the microscale environment create forcings that are not representative of the larger mesoscale environment.

Below is their Figure 7, shows another site, which is in grotesque non-compliance with WMo standards. Note what appears to be a barbecue conveniently located below the temperature sensor. So the problems are not limited to northern California. Obviously Karl and Hansen have not performed the most minimal due diligence to ensure that the USHCN sites that they rely on meet the WMO standards that they presume.

kentuc35.jpg
Figure 7 from Pielke et al: Hopkinsville.

The article mentions Peterson 2006, which apparently says that these grotesque problems don’t “matter” and a response from Pielke et al 2007, which says that they do. .

Peterson [2006] concluded that any biases associated with the poor siting in eastern Colorado, when adjusted, did not affect estimates of regional temperature trends. However, in a response to the Peterson article, Pielke et al. [2007] pointed out several issues which Peterson did not adequately investigate, including often undocumented station changes, ignored uncertainties in the adjustments, and land-use/land-cover change issues associated with climate station adjustments.

The PEterson reference is: Peterson, T.C., Examination of potential biases in air temperature caused by poor station locations. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87, 1073-1089. 2006.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Surface Record | Comments (77)

De Bilt Adjustments

Jun 6, 2007 – 7:02 PM

I observed the other day that Eli Rabett had done a bait-and-switch, in which Eli showed a picture of a well-located new station at Niwot Ridge (started only in 2003) as a supposed refutation of criticisms of incinerators, barbecues and tennis courts at USHCN stations. In response, Eli observed his right to “carrot pick”. Rosanne D’Arrigo once told an astonished NAS panel that you have to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie and I guess the same applies to carrots.

However little Eli Rabbitt seems to have quickly retreated from the USHCN garden and decamped overseas, where his latest carrot pick is the De Bilt weather station in Holland, a site that is incinerator and barbecue free. The De Bilt station has moved a couple of times in the past century, but each move is relatively well-documented; there are photos not just of the current location but of the location in the 1930s and even the 19th century.

When I re-examined the De Bilt data, I was intrigued both by the size of the adjustment for a seemingly innocuous move of a couple hundred meters from a pagoda hut to a Stevenson hut and by the large discrepancy between the adjustments applied in 3 standard versions of the data. If the KNMi adjustment is “right”, then errors in the GISS and GHCN adjustments are up to 0.5 deg C in the 20th century and up to 1 deg C in the 19th century – extremely large errors in a well-studied site.

Anyone thinking about De Bilt needs to visit Hans Erren’s webpage , especially here where he has examined the De Bilt data from a variety of angles and I’m sure that Hans will correct any mis-steps here. Continue reading →

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Surface Record | Comments (51)

Karl and Hansen Condemn Poor USHCN Metadata

Jun 5, 2007 – 7:52 PM

Karl and Hansen have condemned poor USHCN metadata and, perhaps anticipating the need for something like surfacestations.org, gave a stunning endorsement to dramatically improving the collection and dissemination of photographs and other detailed site information for U.S. weather stations. In a statement, they said:

Are we making the measurements, collecting the data, and making it available in a way that both today’s scientist, as well as tomorrow’s, will be able to effectively increase our understanding of natural and human-induced climate change? We would answer the latter question with an emphatic NO. There is an urgent need for improving the record of performance.

They added:

It is necessary to fully document each weather station and its operating procedures. Relevant information includes: instruments, instrument sampling time, station location, exposure, local environmental conditions, and other platform specifics that could influence the data history. The recording should be a mandatory part of the observing routine and should be archived with the original data.

They concluded by saying:

The free, open, and timely exchange of data should be a fundamental U.S. governmental policy and, to the fullest extent possible, should be enforced throughout every federal agency that holds climate-relevant data. Freedom of access, low cost mechanisms that facilitate use (directories, catalogs, browse capabilities, availability of metadata on station histories, algorithm accessibility and documentation, etc.), and quality control should be an integral part of data management.

You think that I’m joking? Continue reading →

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Hansen, Surface Record | Comments (115)