| Revision as of 08:28, 3 May 2009 editSausageLady (talk | contribs)40 edits Undid revision 287604626 by Atmoz (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:55, 3 May 2009 edit undoKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits Reverted to revision 287604626 by Atmoz; rv discussion => consensus => change. using TWNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}} | |||
| Climate Audit is a ] devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data started by ] in January 2005. | |||
| It was co-winner of the 2007 Best Science Blog award.<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> | |||
| McIntyre's blog has as a recurrent topic the struggle to obtain underlying data from peer reviewed papers. McIntyre has stated that he started Climate Audit so that he could defend himself against attacks being made at the climatology blog ].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=592#comment-18326 | title=Blog comment | author=Stephen McIntyre | publisher=Climate Audit | date=] ] | accessdate=2007-09-01}}</ref> An earlier website, www.climate2003.com, provided additional information for papers co-written by McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, including raw data and source code. | |||
| ===Inspiration=== | |||
| McIntyre became interested in these issues after advocates of the ] used the ] from the 1998 paper by ], ] and ]<ref>{{cite journal |author=Mann M.E., Bradley R.S., Hughes M.K. |date=1998 |title=Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries |journal=Nature |volume=392 |pages=779–787 |doi=10.1038/33859 }}</ref> in ways that he found similar to ] and other ] ]s, leading him to try to ] the data and analysis. He launched the blog in January 2005 just before '']'' published a paper by McIntyre and Ross McKitrick critiquing the Mann ''et al.'' paper. 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 {{cn}}. 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> | |||
| 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 U.S. 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 and "thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000".<ref></ref> The adjustment caused the average temperatures for the continental United States to be reduced about 0.15 °C during the years 2000-2006. Changes in other portions of the record did not exceed 0.03 °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></ref>) adjustment procedures. These need to be carefully examined.</blockquote> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{Reflist}} | |||
| == External links == | |||
| * | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 09:55, 3 May 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.
- For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use {{R with history}} instead.