[Vision2020] Climate Scientist Pielke's Peer Reviewed Criticisms of GISS Temperature Data: E. Michael "Chiefio" Smith's E-mail Address
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Sun Jan 17 14:46:50 PST 2010
I don't have the time or the full scientific qualifications necessary to
sort through the rampant junk science regarding climate change on the
Internet. I focus on credible peer reviewed science publications or
statements from well published scientists currently publishing on climate
science, assuming, I think correctly, that most of the garbage science is
filtered out.
Are you suggesting there is more reliable scientific work done outside the
peer review system for science publishing, than within? There is a huge
potential for dishonesty and shoddy science on many of the Internet websites
that make claims of doing reliable science on climate, when they have not
passed a rigorous scientific peer review process. I have no significant
evidence at this time to call E. Michael Smith's (aka "Chiefio") work on
climate "science."
However, I do study peer reviewed publications and papers for critical
analysis of the science arguing for anthropogenic climate warming. I will
include below references to peer reviewed papers authored in part by climate
scientists Roger Pielke Sr. and/or Jr, claiming a warming bias and other
errors or misstatements originating from GISS temperature analysis, posted
to the "Pielke Research Group: News and Commentary" website Jan. 16, 2010.
This was posted at this time I think in part because GISS/climate scientist
James Hansen et. al. recently issued a statement regarding 2009 annual
global average surface temperature as tied for the second warmest year in
130 years, and the southern hemisphere in 2009 as the number one warmest
year:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf
----------------------
This analysis no doubt will arouse the ire of many anthropogenic warming
skeptics, and much critical response from those arguing for a cooling trend
in global climate.
----------------------
E. Michael Smith is not mentioned as an author in the papers listed on the
Pielke website info pasted in below, but given I have not read all these
papers, I do not know if the specific charges he has raised regarding
manipulation of temperature data are addressed.
However, I found a source with an e-mail address for E. Michael Smith, that
appears to quote him directly, regarding his temperature data error analysis
allegations, which clearly involve implications of fraud among some climate
scientists, not just incompetence:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40749822.html
E. Michael Smith at *pub4all at aol.com* <pub4all at aol.com>
Comment below from website above:
Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange
pattern he was finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation
process. "The more I looked, the more I found patterns of deletion that
could not be accidental."
-------------------------------
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
January 16, 2010
NASA GISS Inaccurate Press Release On The Surface Temperature Trend
Data<http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/nasa-giss-inaccurate-press-release-on-the-surface-temperature-trend-data/>
*UPDATE PM JANUARY 16 2010 – Jim Hansen has released a statement on his
current conclusions regarding the global average surface temperature trends
[and thanks to Leonard Ornstein and Brian Toon for alerting us to this
information]. The statement is If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned
Cold?<http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf>by
James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, Ken Lo
*
*My comments below remain unchanged. Readers will note that Jim Hansen does
not cite or comment on any of the substantive unresolved uncertainties and
systematic warm bias that we report on in our papers. They only report on
their research papers. This is a clear example of ignoring peer reviewed
studies which conflict with one’s conclusions. *
****ORIGINAL POST****
*Thanks to Anthony Watts for alerting us to a news release by NASA GISS (**
see<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/15/hansen-responds-to-john-colemans-kusi-special-report/#more-15286>)
which
reads*
*“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the
annual GISS global temperature analysis. The analysis utilizes three
independent data sources provided by other agencies. Quality control checks
are regularly performed on that data. The analysis methodology as well as
updates to the analysis are publicly available on our website. The agency is
confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically
based conclusions regarding global temperatures.” (GISS temperature analysis
website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)” [note: I could not find the
specific url from NASA, so I welcome being sent this original source].*
*This statement perpetuates the erroneous claim that the data sources are
independent [I welcome information from GISS to justify their statement, and
will post if they do]. This issue exists even without considering any other
concerns regarding their analyses.*
*I have posted a number of times on my weblog with respect to the lack of
independence of the surface temperature data; e.g. see*
*Further Comment On The Surface Temperature Data Used In The CRU, GISS And
NCDC Analyses<http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/further-comment-on-the-surface-temperature-data-used-in-the-cru-giss-and-ncdc-analyses/>
*
*An Erroneous Statement Made By Phil Jones To The Media On The Independence
Of The Global Surface Temperature Trend Analyses Of CRU, GISS And
NCDC<http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/an-erroneous-statement-made-by-phil-jones-to-the-media-on-the-independence-of-the-global-surface-temperature-trend-analyses-of-cru-giss-and-ncdc/>
.*
*There remain also important unresolved uncertainties and systematic
biases in the surface temperature data used by GISS [and CRU and NCDC] which
we reported in the peer reviewed literature, i.e.*
*Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K.
Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R.
Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: **Unresolved
issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature
trends <http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf>. J.
Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229*
*with only one Comment in the literature on just two of our issues by the
CRU group*
*Parker, D. E., P. Jones, T. C. Peterson, and J. Kennedy, 2009: C**omment on
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface
temperature trends<http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321b.pdf>.
by Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.,J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05104,
doi:10.1029/2008JD010450*
*which we refuted in*
*Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K.
Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R.
Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2009: **Reply to
comment by David E. Parker, Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, and John Kennedy
on “Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land
surface temperature
trends<http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321a.pdf>.
J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05105,
doi:10.1029/2008JD010938*
*with the referees agreeing with our Reply (**see reviews contained within
this post<http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/reply-by-pielke-et-al-to-the-comment-by-parker-et-al-on-our-2007-jgr-paper-unresolved-issues-with-the-assessment-of-multi-decadal-global-land-surface-temperature-trends/>
).*
*The NASA GISS (and NCDC and CRU groups) have also not responded to the
systematic warm bias that we reported in*
*Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T.
McNider, 2009: **An alternative explanation for differential temperature
trends at the surface and in the lower
troposphere<http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf>.
J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.*
*Klotzbach, P. J., R. A. Pielke, Sr., R. A. Pielke, Jr., J. R. Christy, and
R. T. McNider (2010), **Correction to “An alternative explanation for
differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower
troposphere”,
<http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-345a.pdf>J. Geophys.
Res., 115, D01107, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655.*
*The GISS news release is symptomatic of the continued attempt to ignore
science issues in their data analysis which conflict with their statement in
the press release. This is not how the scientific process should be
conducted. *
*We urge, based on the exposure of such type of behavior in the CRU e-mails;
i.e. see*
*The Crutape Letters <https://www.createspace.com/3423467> by Steven Mosher,
Thomas W. Fuller, 2010 ISBN/EAN13: 1450512437 / 9781450512435*
*that the suppression of alternative viewpoints ends.*
**
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On 1/17/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> You have a higher opinion of the climate science peer review process than I
> do. I think this kind of grassroots science is necessary until changes are
> made to make the peer review process in this area more transparent.
> This guy is not publishing papers in peer reviewed climate science
> journals. That I know about, anyway. What he is doing is working with
> publicly available data sets and is using publicly available temperature
> modeling software and is blogging about what he finds. You can download the
> data sets, the gistemp software, and in some cases software that he has
> written to make data conversions easier. With access to a linux box or
> virtual machine and some knowledge of programming, you can replicate what he
> is doing yourself. I believe he even has instructions on his website to
> help you get the gistemp software installed.
>
> If you wish to blow this off as science unworthy of critical attention,
> that's your prerogative.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> Apparently I failed to be specific enough in my request for verification
>> of certain statements you wrote regarding research you referenced from E. M.
>> Smith, aka "Chiefio," on climate science. You made a specific implication
>> regarding */climate scientists errors in temperature data/* */gathering,/*
>> /*based on Smith's research.*/ In quoting you below my statements in this
>> post, I will in bold italics highlight the essential statement involved.
>> I requested support for this statement you wrote, support sourced from a
>> */credible peer reviewed science journal./* Based on what you stated was
>> research conducted by a so called "E. M. Smith" */(you did not verify this
>> is a "real" name, which I requested),/* temperature data has been gathered
>> (regardless of the number of temperature stations),/* in a way to slant the
>> results toward warmer temperatures,*/ which could imply the climate
>> scientists involved in this effort are incompetent and/or corrupt. Unless I
>> misread or misunderstood, you did not offer any peer reviewed source from a
>> credible science journal to support this implication /*specifically*/
>> /*addressing E. M. Smith's research,*/ /*nor did you reference any peer
>> reviewed science publications by the Smith in question.*/
>> /*Instead, you sourced a peer reviewed science journal article regarding
>> temperature data errors, that did not specifically address E. M. Smith's
>> work, as far as I determined. The*/
>> *//* Unless you can offer a reference from a credible peer reviewed
>> science journal regarding "E. M. Smith's" climate science research, I do not
>> regard Smith's analysis of climate science as worthy of study.
>> */-------------------------------/*
>> Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-January/068125.html
>> A programmer named E. M. Smith has done some work with the GISS dataset
>> (I've been using the NCDC one). He has found that many of the measuring
>> stations which are used for temperature reconstructions across the globe
>> have been removed from the global temperature data sets for recent years.
>> In fact, the data drops off quickly starting in the 80's (at least in the
>> dataset I've been working with).
>>
>> */He has done some research into which stations have been removed, and has
>> apparently found that lots of higher altitude stations have been removed,
>> which would have shown cooler temperatures - leading to a corresponding rise
>> in the average temperatures over the years./* He has a blog which covers
>> this (he goes by the alias "chiefio"). Here is an entry in the blog giving
>> an overview of this topic:
>> http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>> On 1/16/10, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:
>> godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> He's just a guy with a blog. He's looking at public data and is
>> interpreting the results himself.
>>
>> I would bring up the possible "gaming" of the peer review system
>> as implied by some of the Climategate emails, but since I can't
>> find any peer reviewed references making this claim I guess it
>> can't be true.
>>
>> I know the numbers of temperature stations drop off precipitously,
>> I've verified that personally.
>> Here are some links I've found to the temperature station drop off
>> phenomenon:
>>
>> An interesting mpeg of station counts by month from the University
>> of Delaware (pay close attention to 1990 - present):
>> http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/air_ts2.html
>> <http://climate.geog.udel.edu/%7Eclimate/html_pages/air_ts2.html>
>>
>> A graphic showing station record length, station counts, and
>> coverage:
>> http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/air_ts2.html
>> <http://climate.geog.udel.edu/%7Eclimate/html_pages/air_ts2.html>
>> Note that by "coverage", they mean "is within 1200km of a
>> temperature station", which is about the distance from here to
>> Provo, Utah.
>>
>> Here is a link to a paper published in Climate Research that calls
>> into question the claim that non-climatic effects such as economic
>> activity and socio-political concerns have been removed from the
>> gridded surface temperature data. The authors find a warming bias
>> in the data based on such things as the lack of surface station
>> data because of political unrest in countries such as the old
>> Soviet Union and China, as well as other concerns such as the
>> ability for countries with economic troubles to purchase and keep
>> up temperature recording equipment.
>>
>> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/gdptemp.html
>> <http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/gdptemp.html>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure there are others out there.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>
>> Please cite a credible peer reviewed science journal
>> publication where the E. M. Smith (or is this name false?) in
>> question has published this work on temperature data that you
>> reference.
>> If the information on temperature data you provide is not
>> sourced from a peer reviewed credible science journal, I'm not
>> going to spend time contemplating it in detail.
>> Junk science on climate issues on the Internet is so rampant,
>> someone could spend all their waking hours separating the
>> wheat from the chaff. The peer review process in science
>> publishing greatly reduces the garbage science that a person
>> would otherwise have to sort through.
>> Can you offer information on the professional qualifications
>> of E. M. Smith that render his climate science work credible?
>> I found information on E. M Smith's qualifications on the
>> "Musings from the Chiefio" blog, but they offer no reason to
>> take his work on climate science seriously (
>> http://chiefio.wordpress.com/about/ ). With admitted limited
>> effort, I found no references to */any/* "E. M. Smith" peer
>> reviewed climate science publications. He misspells
>> "Bachelors" when he informs he has a "Bachlors in Economics."
>> Of course, sometimes peer reviewed science journals make
>> mistakes, and junk science slips past the peer review process.
>> And there are no doubt worthwhile ideas that are not published
>> in peer reviewed journals.
>> But I don't find credible the allegation that there is a vast
>> international conspiracy among scientists (or widespread
>> incompetence) to fabricate a hoax or manufacture faulty
>> science that is deceiving the world about human impacts on
>> climate. Given the consensus on this issue, this is what
>> would need to be occurring for the professional science from
>> nations around the world to be in error while also in such
>> compelling agreement that human impacts on climate are profound.
>> E. M. Smith's (or whoever he or she is) professional
>> background, from his blog:
>> http://chiefio.wordpress.com/about/
>>
>>
>> Paper Trails
>>
>> I have an Bachlors in Economics from the U.C. system. I also
>> have a pot load of credits from some various Community
>> Colleges in everything from “Transistor and Semiconductor
>> Theory” to “American Sign Language”. Oh, and a load of
>> graduate level Education Theory units needed to get a teaching
>> credential from the California State University system. And
>> dozens and dozens of “industrial” classes that various
>> employers sent me off to over the years. Everything from the
>> RAMIS II database system on IBM mainframes (All of it. Every
>> class for the 13 or 14 volumes of the manual set. I was a
>> consultant on it for the maker and they had us “do it all”.)
>> to “online automated” certification “classes” in Sun’s flavor
>> of Unix so that a vendor I worked for could keep their sales
>> certificate. And about 9 units toward an MBA (but that’s
>> another long story…) that I may finish some day, or maybe not.
>>
>> I did pick up a Lifetime Teaching Credential at the Community
>> College Level from the State of California (they don’t make
>> those any more, but I’m “grandfathered”) in Data Processing
>> and Related Technologies and have taught for a few years at a
>> local community college. Fun gig.
>>
>> Wouldn’t mind doing it again. But lots of places now want a
>> Microsoft Certification and, well, I’m just not interested in
>> that, and never will be. (I can “do” MS stuff, and have; but
>> see no reason to send MS even more money. Gates has enough.)
>> The idea that a manufacturers certificate (for which you must
>> pay a bundle every couple of years) would trump a formal
>> Credential (and all the mandated training including graduate
>> level education theory) is, IMHO, broken; but such is life.
>> Why one needs Microsoft (or Red Hat) to tell you (for a large
>> fee) “what you know”; is beyond me. That’s what the C.V. and
>> Credential are for…
>>
>> Oh, and the Institute For The Certification of Computing
>> Professionals (ICCP) has what they called their “capstone”
>> certification, the CDP, that I also hold. Why? Don’t ask why…
>> it seemed like a good idea at the time…
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>> On 1/16/10, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com
>>
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm replying to myself because I got to wondering if Windows
>> and/or most people's email clients natively handle png files,
>> since it is an open source format. So I'm attaching the same
>> files after converting them to ..jpgs.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>>
>> Some of you know that I was at one time playing around with
>> graphing global temperature data in order to satisfy my
>> curiosity on a number of points related to global
>> warming. I
>> wish I'd stuck with it. It turns out that someone else
>> (probably many others) has been doing the same thing. A
>> programmer named E. M. Smith has done some work with
>> the GISS
>> dataset (I've been using the NCDC one). He has found that
>> many of the measuring stations which are used for
>> temperature
>> reconstructions across the globe have been removed from the
>> global temperature data sets for recent years. In
>> fact, the
>> data drops off quickly starting in the 80's (at least
>> in the
>> dataset I've been working with).
>>
>> He has done some research into which stations have been
>> removed, and has apparently found that lots of higher
>> altitude
>> stations have been removed, which would have shown cooler
>> temperatures - leading to a corresponding rise in the
>> average
>> temperatures over the years. He has a blog which
>> covers this
>> (he goes by the alias "chiefio"). Here is an entry in the
>> blog giving an overview of this topic:
>>
>> http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
>>
>> I have not tried to analyze the stations that drop off
>> of the
>> NCDC data set yet, perhaps I can get a little work done on
>> that soon.
>>
>> I'm also attaching a couple of graphs that I created
>> from the
>> NCDC data which graph the station counts by years.
>> These are
>> from the global minimums data sets, both normal and
>> adjusted.
>> I hadn't yet gotten to graphing station counts for the
>> global
>> means and global maximums data sets. All uniques
>> stations and
>> sub-stations are counted, which will mean that some
>> sub-stations are counted twice if the thermometer is
>> moved or
>> something in that year. I was at one point trying to
>> find out
>> why these counts dropped off so quickly. It makes
>> sense that
>> the number of stations would increase over the years,
>> but why
>> the dramatic decrease in station counts? I had originally
>> thought that perhaps there are delays in collecting data
>> together, but 20-30 year delays? That doesn't seem
>> plausible.
>>
>> By the way, I learned of this work that E. M. Smith has
>> been
>> doing by watching John Coleman's hour long news special
>> titled
>> "Global Warming - The Other Side". You can find links
>> to the
>> various parts of this here:
>>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/
>>
>>
>> Even I thought this video was a bit high in the
>> sensationalist
>> and propagandist categories, but it did cover many of the
>> standard skeptical viewpoints that I've run into. It
>> might be
>> worth watching, even if you're completely convinced we're
>> cooking ourselves with carbon dioxide.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100117/83300fab/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list