Misplaced Pages

Climate Audit: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:04, 8 December 2008 edit79.66.225.21 (talk) →Auditing: rm strange, possibly malicious link, and untrue sentence.← Previous edit Revision as of 22:05, 5 February 2009 edit undoNathan Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers12,381 edits merge content to Stephen McIntyreNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}}
'''Climate Audit''' is a ] run by ] devoted to auditing the statistical methods and data used in ] of past climate, especially ] reconstructions such as the 1998 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes ("MBH98"), which was prominently featured in the 2001 ].

===Inspiration===
McIntyre became interested in these issues after advocates of the ] used the ] from MBH98 in ways that he found similar to ] and other ] ]s, leading him to try to ] the MBH98 data and analysis. He launched the blog in January 2005 just before '']'' published a paper by McIntyre and ] critiquing MBH98. The blog is largely concerned with McIntyre's efforts to audit current climate publications. It supports comments, but topics not related to auditing results in climate science are generally discouraged.

===Auditing===
The ClimateAudit blog was credited with spurring two hearings on the Hockey Stick Graph, open documentation and the reliability of peer review in government-funded science research by the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee in 2006 at which Stephen McIntyre testified. Of the role of the Climate Audit blog in inspiring the hearings, the Prometheus blog of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research of the University of Colorado at Boulder said, referring to ClimateAudit, " also have provided a case study in the power of blogs in today's worlds of science and politics".<ref></ref>
Climate Audit has been highlighted by the press including '']''<ref>{{cite web |title=Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire |url=http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113027943843479277-5reMaU4_37mSf3Us8BhDeHITDyA_20061026.html?mod=blogs}}</ref> and ],<ref>{{cite web|title=Article in ''The Washington Times''|url=http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050225-011112-4288r.htm}}</ref> and was co-winner of the 2007 Best Science Blog award.<ref></ref>

In 2007, McIntyre started auditing the various corrections made to temperature records, in particular those relating to the ] effect. In the course of his analysis of the records for individual sites, he discovered a small discontinuity in some US records in the ] (GISS) dataset starting in January 2000. He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and within a couple of days GISS issued a new, corrected set of data<ref></ref> and "thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000". The adjustment caused the average temperatures for the continental United States to be reduced about 0.15&nbsp;°C during the years 2000-2006. Changes in other portions of the record did not exceed 0.03&nbsp;°C, and it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies.

McIntyre later commented:<ref></ref>
<blockquote>y original interest in GISS adjustment procedures was not an abstract interest, but a specific interest in whether GISS adjustment procedures were equal to the challenge of “fixing” bad data. If one views the above assessment as a type of limited software audit (limited by lack of access to source code and operating manuals), one can say firmly that the GISS software had not only failed to pick up and correct fictitious steps of up to 1 deg C, but that GISS actually introduced this error in the course of their programming. According to any reasonable audit standards, one would conclude that the GISS software had failed this particular test. While GISS can (and has) patched the particular error that I reported to them, their patching hardly proves the merit of the GISS (and USHCN <ref>United States Historical Climate Network </ref>) adjustment procedures. These need to be carefully examined.</blockquote>

==See also==
*]
*]

== References ==
{{Reflist|3}}

==External links==
*
*
*], for new or occasional Climate Audit readers.


]
]
]

Revision as of 22:05, 5 February 2009

Redirect to:

  • From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.