Memorandum submitted by David Andrew Cockroft
1. My name is David Andrew Cockroft, a British
Citizen currently resident in New Zealand.
2. I studied Mathematics, Computer Science and
Geology at the University of Bristol in the late 60s early 70s,
with a special emphasis on Numerical Analysis and Stochastic Processing
(these latter terms have been rebranded over the years but remain
fundamental to today's computer-based prediction and modelling
3. I have remained employed from then till
now in the IT industry with very specific hands-on capacity. All
my skills are current with many post-graduate qualifications and
4. I declare my interest to be that of concerned
citizen, with IT professional and personal pseudo-academic interest
in Climate Modelling.
5. I do not feel that the terms of reference
announced by University of East Anglia (UEA) are adequate, in
that it only will look at evidence held at CRU. There is a plethora
of parallel studies, some peer-reviewed, some not, that should
be considered alongside evidence held internally.
6. Allegations of impropriety must be addressed
not just relevant to the emails, but to the amassed allegations
elsewhere. Of specific clarity to me, is Steve McIntyre, who is
perhaps the most disciplined of those with contrary opinion to
Prof Jones. (refer http://climateaudit.org)
7. The legitimacy of the NOAA source data
is also subject to dispute, and since it appears CRU bases its
findings almost entirely on NOAA data, it is appropriate to also
investigate the problems reported here.
8. Is it also appropriate that one untested
and highly-criticised data source (NOAA) should be the basis for
a massive global-initiated economic upheaval? The implications
for getting it wrongeither wayare horrendous.
9. Russia's Institute of Economic Analysis
(IEA) issued a report condemning Hadley CRUSpecifically
about dropped station data. (presumably they share the same data
source as UEANOAA or CRU itself):
(a) "The IEA believes that Russian meteorological
station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming
theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most
of the country's territory and that the Hadley Centre had used
data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. The
Russian station count dropped from 476 to 121 so over 40% of Russian
territory was not included in global temperature calculations
for some other reasons rather than the lack of meteorological
stations and observations."
10. Canada, China, Australia, Africa, USA
and S America all seem to suffer similar deficiencies in current
station selection. The so-called "Migration to the Coast"
of temperature stations where many stations that would naturally
return lower temperatures (due to altitude, distance from coast,
latitude etc) have been retired.
11. Indeed, many of the complaints of impropriety
centre around this apparent arbitrary dropping of station data
despite continuous and contemporaneous records still being available.
The allegation is that the current source of surface temperature
data is deliberately selected from warmer coastal lower-altitude
stations, thereby producing an average higher than previous. This
would be perhaps acceptable if the historic data from the inland,
cooler and higher elevations was removed from the historical averagesbut
it appears not.
12. File "Harry_Read_Me.txt" apparently
contains comments by Ian Harris (aka Harry), which if correct,
is especially telling of the methodologies employed:
(a) [The] hopeless state of their (CRU) database.
No uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that
continues to grow as they're found|I am very sorry to report that
the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state
as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs
of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping
and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps
if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.
(b) This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder
I needed therapy!!
(c) I am seriously close to giving up, again.
The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough
into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter
has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions
that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the
updateprog. I could be throwing away all kinds of correctionsto
lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do
about all these duplicate stations?
13. NOAA data is also being questioned where
older, manual stations are replaced by modern automated stations.
In many instances, these have to be connected by cables to nearby
buildings, in doing so are resited so as to no longer conform
to the recommended positioning over grass and 30 metres from buildings
(a) In a volunteer survey project, Anthony Watts
and his more than 650 volunteers (http://www.surfacestations.org)
found that over 900 of the first 1,067 USHCN stations surveyed
in the 1,221 station US climate network did not come close to
meeting the required specifications. Only about 3% met the ideal
specification for siting. They found stations located next to
the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt
parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks
and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. They found 68 stations
located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste
digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding
areas. In fact, they found that 90% of the stations fail to meet
the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations
must be 30 metres (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial
heating or reflecting source.
14. All of the deficiencies mentioned above
should be taken into account, tested, and the final outcome should
be sufficiently wide ranging to ensure that best scientific procedures
have and will be followed. Most especially the data, methodologies
and computer code must be made publically available for scrutiny.
It's the only way the "science" will ever have a hope
of being settled.
15. Distance prevents me from requesting
an Oral Presentation.