Latest IPCC Exaggeration

IPCC AR4 reported:

The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced.

Dutch newspaper Vrij Nederland reported today (Google translation):

In its last Assessment Report on the impacts of climate change shows that 55% of Netherlands is below sea level in this area and that 65% of the gross national product is produced. These figures are far too high. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) is only one fifth of the Netherlands below sea level and there are only 19% instead of 65% of the GDP generated.

Not that 20% is something to be ignored if that’s what they think. But the percentage below sea level is the sort of thing that primary school geography classes should be able to get right.

The Hockey Stick and the Milankovitch Theory

The 20th century warming counters a millennial-scale cooling trend which is consistent with long-term astronomical forcing.

MBH99

According to the UMass researchers, the 1,000-year reconstruction reveals that temperatures dropped an average of 0.02 degrees Celsius per century prior to the 20th century. This trend is consistent with the “astronomical theory” of climate change, which considers the effects of long-term changes in the nature of the Earth’s orbit relative to the sun, which influence the distribution of solar energy at the Earth’s surface over many millennia.

“If temperatures change slowly, society and the environment have time to adjust,” said Mann. “The slow, moderate, long-term cooling trend that we found makes the abrupt warming of the late 20th century even more dramatic. The cooling trend of over 900 years was dramatically reversed in less than a century. The abruptness of the recent warming is key, and it is a potential cause for concern.”

MBH99 Press Release

The long-term [northern] hemispheric trend is best described as a modest and irregular cooling from AD 1000 to around 1850 to 1900, followed by an abrupt 20th century warming.

IPCC TAR WG I: The Scientific Basis


The above figure has four familiar looking graphs. One of them is the original Hockey Stick, and three are “fake”. Can you tell which one is the real?

Although most of the original Hockey Stick methods have been uncovered, there are still a few remaining oddities. Apart from the confidence interval calculation there has been another mystery relating to MBH99. This is remarkable as the rather short MBH99 paper seems to be on the surface a simple extension of MBH98: a step (1000-1399) is added to the existing MBH98 NH temperature reconstruction using the same methodology. However, a wealth of material in the four page paper is devoted to “correcting” the (Mannian) North-American tree-ring series PC #1. How exactly or even why this was done has been somewhat a mystery. Two years ago Steve wrote notes about the issue (here, here, and here). It is worth reviewing those before continuing reading this post.

The problem with the methods described by Steve was that it was impossible that they had been actually used. The reason is that it is easy to see from the published data that the actual “correction”, or the “fix”, applied was piecewise linear. There is simply no way such a function could be obtained with any type of smoothing operations from the original data.

For the calculations Steve was using his private copy of Mann’s later destroyed UVA ftp archive infamously known for the CENSORED -directories. For the rest of us, data archived there has been unreachable — until now. The FOIA documents contain an MBH data directory structure obtained by Tim Osborn sometime back in 2003. It can be argued that the UVA ftp site was originally specially prepared by Scott Rutherford for Osborn, but that is another story. Anyhow, the files in Osborn’s archive seem to correspond to those originally located in UVA ftp site. The files in the directory TREE/COMPARE relate to the PC1 “fixing”.

While I was checking the files, I noticed a FORTRAN code “residualdetrend.f“, which I had not seen discussed anywhere. In the beginning of the file there is a comment:

c
c      regress out co2-correlated trend (r=0.9 w/ co2)
c      after 1800 from pc1 of ITRDB data
c

Wow! Exactly the same comment is found in “co2detrend.f” discussed by Steve here. Further down, we find

c
c      linear segments describing approximate residuals
c      relative to fit withrespect to secular trend
c

Indeed, there it was: a code removing a piecewise linear segment from the PC1, and further I found out that the segment matched nicely with the “secular trend in residuals” graph in MBH99 Figure 1(b). Mystery solved, well, kind of.

Now the question was, what the heck is then “co2detrend.f”?! I noticed that both these codes output to a file with the name “pc01-fixed.dat”. FOIA files include such a file, and its content matches to the output of “residualdetrend.f”. So IMO it can be safely assumed that Mann tried another CO2 “adjustment”, but for some reason ended up with the one described in “residualdetrend.f” (why to approximate the “secular trend” is another new Mannian mystery).

After establishing this, I had another surprise. I noticed that there is also a file “pc1-fixed-old.dat“, which I presumed to be the output of “co2detrend.f”. Well, it turned out that the “fix” contained in the file was neither of the methods described so far. Thus Mann had at least three methods for “adjusting” his PC1! Here is a plot of different “fixes” (to be subtracted from the original PC1) uncovered so far.

A natural question is now, why the fix used is “better” than the ones disregarded? Maybe the “skill” measures used by Mann contain the answer. MBH99:

The calibration and verification resolved variance (39% and 34% respectively) are consistent with each other, but lower than for reconstructions back to AD 1400 (42% and 51% respectively – see MBH98).

I (as Steve and UC) have been able to emulate the main MBH procedure for a while. Especially, my emulation of the AD1000 step is exact. So I ran the algorithm, but replaced the “fixed” PC1 with the other two “fixed” PCs. For the “co2detrend.f”-fix the calibration and verification REs are 0.37 and -0.09, respectively. So even according to Mann’s standards (negative RE) that “fixed” PC had to disregarded. For the “old fix” the RE scores were 0.37 and 0.20, so I guess they are not “consistent with each other”, and maybe this was the reason for trying yet-another-fix. However, the real surprise came when I tried the algorithm with the original Mannian PC1, i.e. without any “fixing”. The RE scores are 0.38 and 0.33, so based on these “skill metrics” there is no reason to “fix” the PC in the first place!

It gets more interesting: MBH99 has the linear trend (1000-1900 as in the IPCC figure) of -0.020°C/century, but without PC1 “adjustment” the cooling trend is reduced to less than -0.005°C/century! MBH99:

The substantial secular spectral peak is highly significant relative to red noise, associated with a long-term cooling trend in the NH series prior to industrialization (δT = -0.02°C/century). This cooling is possibly related to astronomical forcing, which is thought to have driven long-term temperatures downward since the mid-Holocene at a rate within the range of -0.01 to -0.04°C/century [see Berger, 1988].

Finally, the answer to the question posed in the beginning. The original Hockey Stick is Exhibit B. Exhibit C is obtained using the “old” AD1000 NOAMER PC1 “fix” keeping everything else the same in the Mannomatic. Exhibit D corresponds to the “co2detrend.f fix” , and Exhibit A is obtained using the original Mannian PC1 (no fixing). (click below to see an animated GIF of the different versions)

IPCC and the Antarctic Boot Cleaning Manual

Anthony and Jeff Id have both covered climatequotes observation that IPCC WG2 (section 15.7.2 Economic activity and sustainability in the Antarctic) cited a guide for cleaning boots:

IAATO, 2005: Update on boot and clothing decontamination guidelines and the introduction and detection of diseases in Antarctic wildlife: IAATO’s perspective. Paper submitted by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) XXVIII. IAATO, 10 pp. http://www.iaato.org/info.html.

as authority for the following statement:

“The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005).”

Aside from the oddity of citing a submission by Antarctic tour operators, the boot cleaning manual didn’t actually mention climate change or connect boot cleaning protocols to climate change, a small point overlooked by the Love Guru and his Groupies. The manual expresses concerns about increased activity in both tourism and science:

Acknowledging concerns towards the increase in activity in tourism, science, logistics, and the build-up toward the International Polar Year, as well as concerns raised by Australia (ATCM XXVIII WP 28 CEP 4 (d)) and IUCN (XXVXIII IP 63 CEP 4(d)), IAATO offers its boot and clothing decontamination guidelines for discussion and possible adoption, in whole or in part, by other visitors and activities in Antarctica.

I wonder whether Steig observed the boot and clothing decontamination guidelines cited by IPCC.

The First Inquiry to Report

The Penn State Collegian archive once again is first on a story, breaking the news that the Penn State Inquiry has finished its inquiry and that results will be available later this week. They report:

Penn State President Graham Spanier addressed the inquiry and the panel’s work during the Board of Trustees meeting on Jan. 22.

“I know they’ve taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides,” Spanier said.

They didn’t contact me. The only inquiry that has contacted me so far has been an anti-terrorism officer seconded to the Norfolk Police who interviewed me about FOI requests and my views on climate change. Nor have any CA readers notified me that they’ve been contacted by the Penn State inquiry. I wonder who they interviewed. I wonder what they meant about “looking at issues from all sides”.

I’ll be looking for both how they address issues arising out of Climategate and issues that Cicerone kept out of the 2006 NAS inquiry:
– whether Mann was justified in providing results (and code) that contain “dirty laundry” only to “trusted colleagues” and not to potential critics. (The example, of course, being Mann’s provision of residuals to Osborn and Briffa, while refusing them to me.)
– the failure to report adverse verification r2 results for early steps in MBH (while reporting favorable results for later steps), and a consideration of the associated IPCC TAR comment;
– claims that MBH98 results were “robust” to the presence/absence of all dendroclimatic indicators when they were not robust to presence/absence of bristlecones;
– failure to display principal components from the “Censored” directory;
– the unique extension of the Gaspe tree ring series from 1404 to 1400;
– whether the retention of 5 principal components in an effort to salvage MBH results was, as Wegman observed, “of no statistical integrity”.

A few other topics will undoubtedly occur to me when I read the report.

Climategate News and Links

It’s hard to keep up with the explosion of stories on Climategate, Pachauri and similar stories now that coverage has expanded outside the climate blogs. I’m going to insert links into comments, either with no commentary or less than a dozen words or so about the content – no editorializing or comment. Please feel free to contribute, but do so on the basis that this is not for discussion, merely listing. Most of us can find our way to the climate blogs. I would particularly appreciate links to newspaper stories and non-climate blogs.

The IPCC’s Love Guru

You can’t make this stuff up.

Rajendra Pachauri was apparently too busy to check into glaciergate problems in December. We now know why. Instead of proofreading climate articles, Pachauri has been busy launching a softcore novel about the sexual adventures of a climate expert in his late 60s
( WUWT here, Telegraph here, Indian Times here. The Telegraph:

Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri’s native India earlier this month, tells the story of Sanjay Nath, an academic in his 60s reminiscing on his “spiritual journey” through India, Peru and the US.

On the way he encounters, among others, Shirley MacLaine, the actress, who appears as a character in the book. While relations between Sanjay and MacLaine remain platonic, he enjoys sex – a lot of sex – with a lot of women.

In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.

The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has “endangered the fragile ecosystem”.

The Telegraph continues:

But talk of “denuding” is a clue of what is to come.

By page 16, Sanjay is ready for his first liaison with May in a hotel room in Nainital. “She then led him into the bedroom,” writes Dr Pachauri.

“She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed… Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.

“May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.

“Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’.”

More follows, including Sanjay and friends queuing to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local: “Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before … He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”

Sadly for Sanjay, writes Dr Pachauri, “the excitement got the better of him, before he could even get started”.

While teaching meditation to women in the US, Sanjay can once more barely contain his ardour. Again, breasts – usually heaving or else voluptuous – are thrust to the fore.

“He enjoyed the sensation of gently pushing Susan’s shoulders back a few inches, an action that served to lift her breasts even higher,” writes Dr Pachauri. “He was excited by the sight of her heaving breasts, as she breathed in and out deeply.”

A friend of Susan is taken to a motel by Sanjay but only after he has fondled her breasts – “which he just could not let go of” – inadvertently sounding the car horn at the same time.

Other passages in the novel involve group sex and more risqué sexual practices.

The novel was launched amid much fanfare with Bollywood stars and wealthy industrialists in attendance, a reflection of Dr Pachauri’s esteemed status in the country.

In breaking news, Vivid Entertainment has bought the film rights to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. They plan to give new meaning to the terms Working Group 1, Working Group 2 and Working Group 3. They promise to give “peer review” an entirely new interpretation.

Update: Anthony posted up the following trailer connecting the Love Guru to the Toronto hockey team.

Lazarus of the Thermometers

The “Great Dying of Thermometers”, to use E.M. Smith’s (Chiefio) apt phrase has been discussed here from time to time for several years. Contrary to some misconceptions, it’s not that people mysteriously stopped taking temperatures around 1990. GHCN had said that it would update its non-CLIMAT (mostly airports) station data from time to time and it seems that such an occasion hadn’t arisen since the reign of Bush I.

The combined inability of NOAA and NASA to locate up-to-date from such locations as Wellington NZ, Dawson, Canada and the Bolivian sites whose existence Tamino denied has been a regular source of amusement here.

Bob Koss wrote in to report the resurrection during of some long-dead stations in 2009. Bob:

GHCN updated about 380 neglected stations in their database during 2009. GISS has picked up many, and maybe all of them. As of 11-14-2008 GHCN had 1233 records for 2008. Now they have 1613 of them. Seems they updated early 2009, as my June GHCN download contains them. Didn’t check until downloading it today.

In early 2008 I scraped GISS for just basic information. Below are the start/end dates GISS showed for a few of the stations. Now they are current through 2009 with many having the intervening years filled with data.

———————–Back from the dead——————
306840080000 SAN CRISTOBAL -0.9 -89.6 RURAL AREA 1951 1991
507932920000 GISBORNE AERO -38.65 177.98 30000 1962 1991
507930120000 KAITAIA -35.13 173.27 RURAL AREA 1961 1985
507936150000 HOKITIKA AERO -42.72 170.98 RURAL AREA 1880 1991

EPA Response to Comments

Lost in the Climategate events has been the publication of EPA’s response to comments on the Endangerment finding on or about Dec 18, 2009.

Followers of the various IPCC gates will appreciate the following quotation from Volume 11 of the Responses:

As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated:

IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment

Pachauri continued:

The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.

Volume 2 contains some discussion of recent events at CRU. There are a number of discussions of issues discussed at Climate Audit and in our papers. Monckton’s comment here was responded to in connection with its exposition of issues discussed by, among others, the NAS Panel, the Wegman panel and IPCC 2007:

The commenter also contends IPCC’s Third Assessment Report gave a proxy data series, which appeared to indicate that the present was warmer than any previous period in the past 600 years, 390 times the weight of a data series that appeared to show the MWP was warmer than the present, raising the question whether the two data series were objectively weighted. Further, the commenter asserts, the computer program that calculated the Mann et al. (1998 and 1999) hockey stick graph relied upon by IPCC in its 2001 report generated graphs indicating that the present is warmer than any previous period in the past 600 years, even when random red noise rather than genuine proxy temperature data was input to the program, raising the question whether the program had been tuned to bias the results so as to
overemphasize the comparative magnitude of recent warming.

To which EPA responded:

With respect to the allegation that an inappropriate weighting was used in IPCC 2001, we note that the comment does not adequately support this assertion. The comment includes a figure with two panels and claims the upper panel was given 390 times the weight of the lower panel, but fails to list the source of the panels or provide attribution for them. Thus, it is impossible to evaluate the whether the claim is reasonable and credible.

Regarding the comment about the “random red noise,” we find that the comment does not adequately support this assertion. The comment includes a figure (with two panels) intended to demonstrate that the
proxy data from Mann et al. (1998—in the upper panel) produces the same result as model with random red noise (in the bottom panel). However, the comment fails to list the source or provide attribution for
the panel showing the model results or describe any documentation for what model was used and how the results were obtained. Thus, EPA cannot evaluate whether these graphs provide reasonable and credible
information.

Monckton’s comment refers to McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005) as follows:

The unsatisfactory statistical methods in Mann et al. were thoroughly exposed by McIntyre & McKitrick (2003, 2005).

However, Monckton did not include a list of references. Thus EPA was stumped as to what to do.

Elsewhere, EPA did provide an odd sort of recognition with my name listed in bold in the Table of Contents of Volume 2 as below. Briffa’s post at CRU was quoted in full – but not my original criticism.

A number of commenters referred to blog posts at Climate Audit, which were dismissed by EPA as not being peer reviewed. No such observations was made about Briffa’s webpage on Yamal.

There is an entire volume about legal and procedural issues. Given the large number of comments, I can understand why EPA can’t respond to every comment. However, they are obligated to respond to all issues.

My submission raised issues with the peer review process at IPCC and elsewhere – that do not appear to have been dealt with in Volume 11. Questions about whether EPA had properly ensured that IPCC peer review processes met the statutory standards required for EPA reliance and whether EPA had carried out the required due diligence to ensure that the peer review processes met those standards.

The various IPCC-gates since the publication of the EPA responses make these questions even more pertinent today – and the failure of EPA responses to respond to these issues more apparent.

Take a look at the site.

The End of CRUTEM?

The UK Met Office has updated their CRUTEM webpage, providing a list of countries that have thus far responded with release permissions. CRU is now pretty much redundant in CRUTEM, with the Met Office having stepped in to do the things that CRU should have done long ago. This is a transfer of responsibility that has been called for at Climate Audit for a long time. Continue reading

Odd-ball winter weather caused by Global Warming: NWF

Put this in the column:  you knew it was coming…
Watts Up With That:  NWF’s winter weather wackiness

As Steve outlined in the WWF and the EPA Endangerment Finding, the IPCC relied upon the World Wildlife Fund’s  production of non-peer-reviewed literature as a climate science authority.  Anthony reports on the IPCC being riddled with WWF citations.  Not to be left out, our friends at the National Wildlife Federation have put out another timely piece on Confronting Global Warming. Continue reading