Variability Analysis of Surface Climate Observations
VASClimO was a joint climate research project of the Global
Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) at
the German Met Service (DWD) and the Institute
for Atmosphere and Environment – Working Group for
Climatology at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt.
The project was funded by the Bundesministerium für Bildung,
Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie BMBF within the German Climate Research Program DEKLIM(DEKLIM
Project-No.: 33 11 0307 - "Development of an observational data basis
(Europe and global) for DEKLIM and related statistical analysis with regard to
climate variability on a decadal to centennial time scale"). Funding was
provided over a 5-year period for 3 scientists. Two scientists (Dr. Christoph
Beck and myself) spent their time in part project A at GPCC. Their task was the
creation of worldwide gridded datasets of 4 meteorological variables
(precipitation, near surface temperature, snow cover and air pressure) in 2 temporal
resolutions (monthly and daily). The datasets should have been built on long,
quality controlled (homogeneity, outliers, station location) records of
observations.
|
In VASClimO part-project A at the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre
(GPCC) not a single product was generated. The GPCC (especially Dr. Bruno
Rudolf, Udo Schneider and Tobias Fuchs) deliberately spreads wrong
information about the project VASClimO A. I was employed as a research scientist in part project A until I
finally quit after 4 years and 9 months suffering from lies and cheating.
Within the first 6 months of the project I sorted stations for which we got
precipitation and temperature data from FAO of the UN in three groups: (1)
already known to GPCC, (2) definitely new to GPCC, and (3) not decidable by
the criteria of GPCC which I got from Udo Schneider. This was a very boring work but it seemed to be necessary to easily
merge new data with already known data. So I worked as hard as possible to
get through it. However, when I finished it I had to learn that Udo Schneider
gave me wrong criteria and the sorting was worthless. Following this first
experience with GPCC I complained and offered to quit. The project lead,
Prof. Christian-D. Schönwiese, however, asked me to stay. I thought that all
learned from this incidence and stayed. The next two years I spent learning how the software that is
especially designed to load data into the GPCC database worked and loading
the FAO dataset to the database. There are many reasons why this took so
long: (1) Nobody could explain how the software worked, (2) again I got wrong
information by Udo Schneider concerning the quality of the station
information in the database, (3) the station metadata (like spatial
coordinates) had to be checked for each observation loaded, e.g. 1200 times
for 50 years of monthly data of temperature and precipitation at one single
station, (4) in some cases the software did not allow to load the data to the
correct station even if all meta information was exactly identical, (5) Observations
themselves are not used to automatically identify whether 2 stations are the
same. This is why that boring work (a) took so long and (b) did not yield
reliable results. During that time I complained several times. Dr. Bruno Rudolf, head
of the GPCC at that time, declared to take full responsibility for the fact
that it was not possible to do a reasonable quality control and data merging.
The boss of Dr. Bruno Rudolf, Volker Vent-Schmidt, did not allow me to fully
inform the project lead about the extent of the problem. I further spent several months to load a dataset of temperatures
which we got from another DWD department although these data were already
uniquely linked to the GPCC database. Bruno Rudolf ordered to invent meta
data and to control them with the software of the GPCC. He declared to take
full responsibility for this decision and I wrote a report to clearly
describe this situation. Now you may ask why I did all this fruitless work. One reason was
that Dr. Bruno Rudolf repeatedly claimed to take full responsibility for his
orders. Another reason is that he did not allow me to install any programming
language on my desktop PC or to get more than 1Gb disk space on the big
computer of DWD although I asked him many times and made absolutely clear
that I cannot do any reasonable work without a compiler and a minimum of disk
space. Since (a) I had to go to office as an employee of DWD, (b) I got no
chance to do reasonable work there, (c) Dr. Bruno Rudolf repeatedly declared
to take full responsibility for his orders, (d) I trusted the project lead,
Prof. Schönwiese, and (e) I didn’t want to leave my hometown if not
absolutely necessary I did all that and hoped for the best. On top of that I
agreed submitting massively wrong annual reports about our activities to the
funding agency. Dr. Bruno Rudolf claimed to take full responsibility also for
that. Following three years as a research scientist with the GPCC of the
German Met Service I couldn’t stand the situation any longer. I started
producing one of the products on my own initiative with my private computer
and in privately purchased VB6. The latter made it possible to prove that this
product is not produced by means of VASClimO. I interpolated observations of about 5000 globally distributed
stations which I got from my colleague, Dr. Christoph Beck, who selected them
from the GPCC database according to reasonable criteria. I compared several
interpolation methods and concluded that Kriging with local and monthly
variograms gave the best results. I also compared a dozen different variables
for interpolation. It turned out that instead of just interpolating
observations, as it is done in GPCC, it is much better to interpolate
relative deviations from the long-term mean. This could easily be tested by
means of the Jackknife error. GPCC claims to have a huge database of observed
long-term precipitation averages. However, neither Dr. Bruno Rudolf nor Udo
Schneider, agreed to point me to that data. After even a written proposal to
use these data was declined by them I used the about 30,000 data from FAO for
the interpolation. I offered the final dataset to GPCC under the condition that Dr. Bruno
Rudolf takes full responsibility for the fact that I could not have produced
it within GPCC. He did not agree but asked me to take about 1000 more
stations into consideration which are all within France, i.e. a region with
already high data density. I made clear that doing that means that GPCC
pretends to have more data globally than it really has. Nevertheless, to have
something I agreed and interpolated the dataset again now with 6000
precipitation stations worldwide. After I finished this Bruno Rudolf again did not accept the product
as a GPCC product unless the even more German stations were included. Again I
disagreed with the strategy to increase data density in an area with already
high data density to pretend that the global product is based on that many
stations. Meanwhile my private laptop got damaged and I either had to buy a
new one to produce the dataset or to get the opportunity to finally work on
GPCC or VASClimO computers. However, Dr. Bruno Rudolf did still not agree
providing absolutely necessary working conditions even though they would not
have caused any additional costs. I bought a new computer, did the
interpolation again and Dr. Bruno Rudolf accepted the third global dataset
which is based on more than 9,300 stations (1000 of which in France and about
3,300 in Germany) and based on FAO long-term averages as the GPCC product
VASClimO. With the end of the project coming closer I started writing a
publication about the interpolation of the dataset and sent a first draft to
some potential co-authors. Dr. Bruno Rudolf did not allow me to further work
on the manuscript but ordered that I should now do something completely
different and new to me: recalculate Koeppen Climatology. Again I had to do
that on my private computers. Since he again claimed to take full
responsibility for the fact that the 5-year project might end without any
scientific publication, I agreed again, knowing that this would mean my end
as a climatologist and scientist in case he wouldn’t keep to his word. Half a year before the end of the project, Dr. Bruno Rudolf suggested
that I should try and find a job outside meteorology and research. I was so
shocked by this suggestion that I packed my stuff and never returned to my
desk. Three months later I got the offer to start as a consultant with FAO,
quit with the German Met Service and left Germany. During my time at DWD it I became coauthor and reviewer of the 4th
assessment report of the IPCC. As all authors of IPCC I was not allowed to
inform others in advance about the report. Since at that time I trusted Dr.
Bruno Rudolf I put emphasis on advertising GPCC products in the report. The
effect was that the GPCC now claims to have contributed to IPCC. I was fully loyal to Dr. Bruno Rudolf, the GPCC and DWD and Dr. Bruno
Rudolf became division director at DWD. My former colleague, Dr. Christoph Beck,
wrote a nice final report, in which the success of the project is highlighted
and got a nice position at a university. The German tax payer paid more than
€500,000 for a project which should have produced 8 datasets but in which the
responsible person, Dr. Bruno Rudolf, declined to provide absolute minimum
conditions to perform reasonable work and produce at least one product,
although it would not have caused any additional costs. I told the authors of the final report that I cannot agree with that
report given my changed conditions of life. In fact I severely disagreed with
the report and asked them not to publish it but to search for a common
solution. However, they published it and submitted it to the funding
administration for final review. I informed the responsible person there (Dr.
Lars Schanz) immediately without any response. So I informed the executive
board of DWD and asked to find a common solution. I told everything to Dr.
Wilfried Thommes, member of the executive board of DWD, who informed me that
I am not allowed to spread secrets. I asked lawyers whether I can do
something, but they agreed that as long as Dr. Christoph Beck and Prof.
Schönwiese stay to their report and declare that they have written the truth
I have no chance to successfully take any legal action. Therefore I again informed the funding agency and the German research
ministry. They highlighted the success of the project and that is the end of
my life in Germany and as a climatologist and scientist. The only thing I can do is to warn everyone. Dr. Bruno Rudolf, Dr.
Christoph Beck and Prof. Christian-D. Schönwiese are not honest. |
Therefore today I declare the following:
1.
From the 8 datasets that should have been produced
within the VASClimO part-project A only one is available. This one is not
produced with project means.
The VASClimO part project A was
supported generously by the German government over five years with two postdocs
(which means about 500,000 €). But still none of the eight products that should
have been produced is actually produced with means of the project.
2.
I interpolated the VASClimO dataset (see http://gpcc.dwd.de and further to VASClimO) and
all associated maps published on the web page of the German Met Service (DWD)
on my own initiative and on my private computers.
Within the research project VASClimO
I was never asked to produce any dataset. I was never paid to produce any
dataset.
3.
I never got the opportunity to produce a dataset
within the GPCC although it would have caused no additional costs to provide
the necessary equipment to produce a dataset.
I was not allowed to install a free FORTRAN compiler or
any other programming language on the available office computer within the
VASClimO project although I regularly asked for it for years. I never got
enough disk space (10Gb) on the large-capacity computer of the DWD although I
applied several times for it. Therefore I never had the opportunity to produce
a single product within the 4 years and 9 months I was employed at the GPCC.
Also the installation of graphic programs (even free ones like R or GrADS) was
refused. I informed all involved timely that I cannot produce anything without
minimum equipment.
4.
The GPCC VASClimO dataset is based on long-term
averages of FAO which are not quality controlled.
According to Dr. Bruno Rudolf the
GPCC has monthly long-term averaged observations of about 30,000 stations
worldwide. Although I asked him and Udo Schneider several times whether they
can provide these data to me (I even made a written proposal and submitted it
on 22nd September 2005) I never got these data. This is why GPCC’s
VASClimO dataset is based on the freely available climatic data of FAO rather
than GPCC’s own long-term averages.
5.
There is not a single publication in an international
journal about the activities of the research project VASCLimO A which was
funded by the German Government with 2 post docs over 5 years (about 500,000€).
In December 2005 I offered a raw
manuscript about the production of the dataset to Dr. Bruno Rudolf and three
further potential co-authors. Dr. Bruno Rudolf did not allow me to further work
on this manuscript. He declared to take full responsibility for this decision.
6.
Dr. Bruno Rudolf, Udo Schneider and other members of
the GPCC demonstrated clearly that they do not understand the interpolation
method used within the GPCC.
GPCC uses Shepards Method in order
to directly interpolate observed monthly precipitation data. The computer code
was provided by foreign scientists. The massive misinterpretation of Shepards
Method by Dr. Bruno Rudolf et al. (Rudolf, B., H. Hausschild, M. Reiss
und U. Schneider, 1992: Die Berechnung der Gebietsniederschläge im 2.5°-Raster
durch ein objektives Analyseverfahren. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 1992,
H1, 32-50.) was repeated by Dr. Bruno Rudolf in 2004 without any disagreement
of other members of the GPCC. The results of an interpolation method that would
work as described by Dr. Bruno Rudolf et al. were completely useless.
7.
I am not co-author of the final report of the VASCLimO
project.
I didn’t write a single word of the
final report (published in March 2007)[1]. I read the manuscript
and severely disagreed. The
authors (especially those involved in part-project A, namely Dr. Christoph
Beck, Dr. Bruno Rudolf and Prof. Christian-D. Schönwiese) put my name against
my will on the authors list.
I regret that – in order to avoid a scandal, bound to
my contract and for existential reasons – I could not inform you earlier.