Trenberth: “Unbelievable” Breakdown in Defensive Zone Coverage

Kevin Trenberth recently expressed his consternation at the breakdown in Team defensive zone coverage that enabled publication of Spencer and Braswell:

“I cannot believe it got published,” said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Trenberth and Phil Jones were Cover 2 in the rock-solid IPCC AR4 defense. Readers will recall Jones’ promise of a goal-line stand against McKitrick and Michaels 2004:

Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Trenberth’s own tenacious defense is sort of cross between James Harrison and Troy Polimaru. No wonder he was upset about the recent breakdown in Team defensive zone coverage.

In the past, occasional breakdowns of Team defense have led to new defensive personnel e.g. when new personnel had to be brought into shore up Team defensive schemes at GRL in 2005:( 591. 1132094873.txt):

The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there.

Trenberth did not comment on whether new personnel would be needed to plug the leak at Remote Sensing or whether changes in Team defensive zone coverage would be instituted.

Trenberth was most recently discussed at CA here in connection with his plagiarism of Hasselmann (2010).

More Disinformation from New Scientist about Climategate

New Scientist has used the occasion of CRU’s release of CRUTEM station data in response to the ICO’s rejection of CRU excuses to disseminate further disinformation about the Climategate dossier.

Anyone can now view for themselves the raw data that was at the centre of last year’s “climategate” scandal.

The Climategate dossier is about the Hockey Stick, not the CRUTEM temperature record. CRUTEM is mentioned in only a few emails. Muir Russell’s list of common words in the emails (p 147) doesn’t list CRUTEM, but, according to this list, Yamal is mentioned 100 times. While I had an outstanding FOI request for CRUTEM data in 2009, the primary concern of Climate Audit has been with proxy reconstructions, rather than the temperature record. Continue reading

NOAA’s Pillars of Climate

Obviously US federal spending is under a lot of pressure given budgetary problems. In the course of cutting curtailing federal spending, there will be great pressure to curtail even the most worthy programs, such as NOAA’s sponsorship of the display Pillars of Climate at the recent American Meteorological Society’s Applied Climatology and Climate Change Adaptation conference in Asheville. Other sponsors are the University of North Carolina, NOAA, ARC, ArtPLex Solutions and Monotour Productions. The Pillars of Climate is described as follows:

“Pillars of Climate” is an installation that investigates the issues of perception and dissemination of data in climate change. The sculpture invites the audience to go beyond ‘face value’ and inspect more closely the integration of humanity, nature and fossil fuels.

Continue reading

Osborn: “I don’t have any core measurement data and therefore have none to give out!”

In yesterday’s post, I discussed the inconsistency between the climate community’s desire to rebuild trust and CRU/East Anglia’s continuing refusal of FOI requests, most recently for the 2006 version of the Yamal regional chronology. The moral of that post was that providing such information – even if they didn’t “have” to – was the sort of small concession that the community should willingly make as a means of “rebuilding trust” as opposed to the polarization caused by refusals that merely lead to further FOI appeals.

Given their refusal to make even the smallest concession voluntarily, today’s post is going to be more pointed and will directly address issues of hypocrisy and mendacity that are directly raised by the most recent CRU/East Anglia refusal.

Climate Audit readers are well aware that CRU fought the archiving of measurement data of Taimyr, Yamal and Tornetrask for years and were ultimately brought to heel only by Phil Trans B, a journal that had broader interests than climate and required them to archive measurement data.

After arguing for years against the archiving of measurement data, CRU now claims, at least for FOI purposes, that a regional chronology is “incomplete” without accompanying metadata (such as measurement data) and that they are thus entitled to EIR exemption 12(4)(d) for “incompleteness”.

I absolutely agree that a chronology is incomplete without accompanying measurement data. Indeed, I tried unsuccessfully to get CRU to archive measurement data for their most important chronologies (Taimyr, Tornetrask, Yamal), but CRU resolutely refused to archive the measurement data. One thing that is definitely “complete” is the hypocrisy and two-facedness of CRU and the University of East Anglia.

Their hypocrisy obviously invited the re-examination of their past refusals of measurement data, on which I’ll report below. The re-examination of their past excuses is infuriating, to say the least. But worse, unfortunately, is that re-examination of these refusals, in my opinion, reveals outright lies by Tim Osborn of CRU (also an IPCC AR5 Lead Author) both to Sciencemag and to me. In particular, Osborn’s claims that he was not in possession of the requested measurement data are contradicted by Climategate emails, Climategate documents and, most recently, by information in the FOI refusal itself.

The validity of the Yamal chronology and its use in multiproxy reconstructions has been core CA issue and has been discussed in many CA posts over the years – see here. Continue reading

“Building Trust” and FOI Refusals

Judy Curry has written many posts on “climate communications”, linking to a small academic industry to which Andy Revkin, Keith Kloor and others pay attention to. Whenever I read one of these articles, I cannot help thinking that academic concepts of “communication” are forged far too much by their day-to-day experience with essentially captive audiences of students, and not enough from experience with customers or investors, i.e. adults with other interests and opportunities not subject to control or grading.

I’ll reflect on this in connection with the most recent East Anglia refusal of my FOI request for the Yamal regional chronology referred to in a Climategate email of April 2006. Continue reading

Andy Hayman

Richard Drake introduces us to Andy Hayman, another character in the phone hacking scandal. Hayman was in charge of the first phone hacking investigation. Their Muir Russell, so to speak.

Hayman seems to have been on friendly terms with Neil Wallis; he dined rather chummily with Wallis, then News of the World deputy editor, and Andy Coulson during his “investigation” [here using quotation marks as with the Muir Russell “investigation”] into phone hacking (April 2006). MP Chris Bryant observed reasonably enough:

“A judge sitting in a court case on the newspaper would not be dining with its editors and I don’t see why members of Scotland Yard should have done either.”

Richard Drake’s comment contains a short Wikipedia bio of Andy Hayman, a bio that contains another bizarre coincidence. Between 2002 and 2005, just prior to Hayman’s phone hacking “investigation” in 2006, Hayman was Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary 🙂 rejoining the Met Police in 2006 to look after Counter Terrorism:

In 2002, Hayman was appointed Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary, a role in which he established the county’s Major Investigation Unit, responsible for providing a quick response to serious crime in Norfolk…

Rejoining the Met in February 2005, Hayman left Norfolk to become the Metropolitan Police Service’s Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations, a role which placed him in overall charge of counter-terrorism operations conducted by the now defunct Special Branch and the Anti-Terrorist Branch.

East Anglia’s Toxic Reputation Manager

At the Guardian symposium last summer, George Monbiot’s opening question (to Trevor Davies of East Anglia) was:

why was CRU’s response to this issue such a total car crash?

Davies’s response:

It’s very difficult for a good employer to get reputation management right.

A few days ago, we learned (h/t reader Chu) that the University of East Anglia had used Neil Wallis of the Outside Organisation for “reputation management”. Wallis turns out to have been a former News of the World editor, who was recently arrested in connection with the NOTW scandals.

The University of East Anglia was not the only UK institution that employed Wallis for reputation management. Concurrently he was employed as a consultant for the Metropolitan Police Services in London, where he had been hired on the recommendation of Deputy Commissioner John Yates, who was also responsible for counter terrorism operations in the UK. Wallis’ former close associate at the News of the World, Andy Coulson, was press secretary for Prime Minister David Cameron, to whom Wallis is now said to have provided “informal” advice.

In organizations other than the University of East Anglia, hiring Wallis as a consultant has proved to be toxic, resulting in the resignations of one leading official after another.

First came the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Services. Stephenson appeared before the Home Affairs Committee yesterday.

Next came the resignation of John Yates, Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Services.

An investigation into the role of a third police official, Dick Fedorcio, has commenced with the aptly named IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission).

Earlier this year, Coulson resigned as David Cameron’s press secretary. Yesterday, Cameron cut short an African trip to answer fresh questions about Coulson.

As Davies’ said, it’s “very difficult for a good employer to get reputation management right”. Presumably making the problem that much harder for East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. That their first instinct was to seek counsel from a former News of the World editor on “reputation management” speaks volumes about the University’s attitude.

George Monbiot’s advice to the environmental community was simple: that they’d “only get past this by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate, and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.”

Instead of taking Monbiot’s advice, the University decided that their priority was to “fire back some shots on the scientists’ behalf”. They also commissioned tainted inquiries (Muir Russell, Oxburgh) that not only failed to clear the air, but who arguably made matters worse. Whether these courses of action were advised by Wallis or merely abetted by him hardly matters. Precisely what contribution, if any, Wallis made to the University’s strategy and statements remains unknown. Indeed, until a few days ago, none of us were even aware of his involvement. Presumably more will become known in the weeks ahead.

It’s too bad that the University of East Anglia decided that the Climategate problem was merely a “reputation management” problem and the sort of advice that they needed could be obtained from a former News of the World editor (let alone one with Wallis’ baggage). The advice that they needed had already been provided by George Monbiot – that they could “only get past this by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate, and demonstrating that it cannot happen again”. Had the University paid attention to Monbiot’s advice, subsequent events would undoubtedly have been different and healthier.

Update: Keith Olbermann showed this post on his show in which he disseminates Joe Romm’s unsupported theory of Neil Wallis as agent for Murdoch at UEA:

“Covert” Operations by East Anglia’s CRU

Today brings news of the arrest of the managing director of a firm hired by the University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climatic Research Unit) to carry out “covert” operations – h/t reader Chu here). Neil Wallis of Outside Organisation was arrested today in connection with the spreading News of the World scandal.

Last year, Wallis’ partner at Outside Organisation , Alan Edwards, was profiled in Music Week in a story that led with:

Don’t tell the conspiracy theorists. But one PR company was at the centre of the Michael Jackson funeral, Climategate and Naomi Campbell’s appearance at Charles Taylor’s trial in The Hague.

Edwards is described as the “man who has also helped shape the careers of Amy Winehouse, Blondie, The Rolling Stones, Jimmy Cliff, David Bowie, Spice Girls, David Beckham, P Diddy, Kevin Pietersen and Shayne Ward” and the man who masterminded PR for Naomi Campbell’s trial. Outside Organisation’s handling of Climategate for CRU was described as “more covert”.

Less apparent is its work in the corporate field, where its activities tend to be rather more covert. [my bold]

“We don’t advertise a lot of the things we do,” says Edwards, who was called in by the University of East Anglia when Climategate blew up. “That was really interesting. It’s very high level, and you’re very much in the background on that sort of thing.”

The university’s Climatic Research Unit wanted Outside to fire back some shots on the scientists’ behalf after leaked emails from the unit gave climate change skeptics ammunition and led to an avalanche of negative press about whether global warming was a real possibility.

HadSST3

A new HadSST3 version has been recently published. It starts the process of unwinding Folland’s erroneous Pearl Harbour bucket adjustment, an adjustment that has been embedded in HadSST for nearly 20 years. Continue reading

Bucket Adjustments: More Bilge from RealClimate

NASA blogger Gavin Schmidt has once again fabricated claims against Climate Audit’s posts on bucket adjustments.

CA readers are aware that I discussed bucket adjustments on a number of occasions long before Thompson et al 2008, in particular, questioning the absurd IPCC assumption that all SST measurements switched from buckets to engine inlet on the day after Pearl Harbour. In March 2007, a year before Thompson et al 2007, in light of new historical information bucket usage, I provided a scoping estimate of the potential impact of a different changeover scenario, based on then-just-published Kent et al 2007. The direction of the impact is precisely the same as that shown in the present HadCRU estimates over 4 years later. The difference between the two appears to be that the present HadCRU estimate assumes that bucket changeover impact has ended by 1970, while, in my 2007 post (based on Kent’s evidence of widespread bucket usage in the 1970s), I presumed that the changeover continued until the 1990s.

In May 2008, upon publication of Thompson et al 2008, I reviewed the prior CA posts and slightly updated the March 2007 Climate Audit graphic made a year before Thompson.

Despite Schmidt’s sniggering, it seems to me that I was entirely correct to raise the issue of bucket adjustments and correctly foresaw the direction of required adjustments long before the publication of Thompson et al. HadCRU’s estimate of the size of the adjustments is about half of the estimate based on my interpretation of the Kent et al information; they also appear to assume that the changeover was complete much earlier than I had scoped.

My original issue with bucket adjustments was that they are quantitatively as large as the trend being measured and rest on a rather frail historic foundation. As a result, in my opinion, the bucket adjustments in any SST temperature calculation need to be clearly shown and discussed in any publication of HadSST or HadCRU in the “literature”. (Accompanying the data being released is a new Hadley Center article on bucket adjustments that provides a LONG overdue review of bucket adjustments, one that looks thorough. I’ll try to cover this on a future occasion.)

Once again, Schmidt misrepresented Climate Audit. Schmidt sneered at me for becoming part of a “cottage industry” responding to Thompson et al 2008. In fact, I had looked at this problem long before Thompson et al 2008 and the diagram criticized by Schmidt was only slightly modified from a diagram made nearly a year before Thompson et al. Nor did I attempt to “predict” how HadCRU would implement the errors discussed in Thompson et al 2008 article on HadCRU. If I were predicting HadCRU’s calculations of the impact, I would have predicted that they would say that the error didn’t “matter” to the recent temperature record, as indeed they now appear to be saying. (“Recent” in this case being 1975 on).

[Update July 11 4.30 pm: An RC reader has observed that I made the following response to Peter Webster in a comment here on May 29:

If the benchmark is an all-engine inlet measurement system, as seems most reasonable, then the WW2 blip is the one part of the record that, oddly enough will remain unchanged, as it is the one part of the historical record that is predominantly consistent with post-2000s methods. Taking the adjustments at face value – all temperatures from 1946 to 1970 will have to be increased by 0.25-0.3 deg C since there is convincing evidence that 1970 temperatures were bucket (Kent et al 2007), and that this will be phased out from 1970 to present according to the proportions in the Kent et al 2007 diagram.
Recent trends will be cut in half or more, with a much bigger proportion of the temperature increase occurring prior to 1950 than presently thought.

The comment, like the post, is hardly a “prediction” of what the Hadley Center would do.

Further on May 31, 2008, in a head post, I stated;
Further on May 31 in a head post here, I stated:

A CA reader emailed me, observing that there may be relevant differences in insulated and uninsulated buckets in the post-World War 2 period, which could easily affect adjustment schedules. This makes a lot of sense to me and might reconcile a few puzzles and opening others.

Let’s say that the delta between engine inlet temperatures and uninsulated buckets is ~0.3 deg C (and here we’re just momentarily adopting one of the canonical Folland numbers as this particular number surely deserves to be cross-examined). Insulated buckets would presumably be intermediate. Kent and Kaplan 2006 suggest a number of 0.12-0.18 deg C. So for a first rough approximation to check our bearings on this – let’s suppose that it’s halfway in between. Maybe it’s closer to engine inlets, maybe it’s closer to uninsulated buckets. We’re not trying to express viewpoints on such conundrums here – we’re merely examining what assumptions are latent in the temperature estimates.

The new Hadley estimate contains two new adjustments” 1) an adjustment for the transition to insulated buckets being complete by 1975 or so. This was presented as a mitigating point by a CA reader on May 30 and immediately incorporated into the head post; 2) an adjustment for a “cold bias” in buoys relative to engine inlet after the 1980s.

The Hadley Center adjustment seems to be about half the amount in the 2007 calculation (and the May 28 refreshed version), pretty much along the lines contemplated by the insulated adjustment.

[End Update]

Continue reading