Could be of interest. I doubt it is anything dubious in terms of trying to get traffic and with part comment of "I’m sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature. "

WUWT publishing suspended – major announcement coming

Something’s happened. From now until Sunday July 29th, around Noon PST, WUWT will be suspending publishing. At that time, there will be a major announcement that I’m sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature.

To give you an idea as to the magnitude of this event, I’m suspending my vacation plans. I weighed the issue, and decided (much to my dismay) this was more important. I can go on vacation trips another time, but this announcement is not something I can miss now and do later.

Media outlets be sure to check in to WUWT on Sunday around 12PM PST and check your emails.

If you wish to be automatically notified of the updates, click on the “Follow Blog via Email” button about midway down the right sidebar.

Comments are closed, and I will not be responding to emails until Sunday.

Thank you for your consideration and patience  – Anthony Watts


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/27/wuwt-publishing-suspended-major-announcement-coming/

Obviously a man not shy of publicity. I wonder why he unsuccessfully tried to shut this video down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM&sns=em

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 7:24am:

Obviously a man not shy of publicity. I wonder why he unsuccessfully tried to shut this video down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM&sns=em

wow what a revelation that you keep recycling as if you win something. You lose.

New paper on the quality of USHCN station siting

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/new-paper-trends-in-precipitation-and-temperature-in-florida-usa-by-martinez-et-al-2012/

Ooh, such drama! It must be exciting to be the vanguard battling to expose a vast global conspiracy of evil scientists like Anthony Watts. I bet he wears a cape with his underwear on the outside while he works on his blog.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

Ooh, such drama! It must be exciting to be the vanguard battling to expose a vast global conspiracy of evil scientists like Anthony Watts. I bet he wears a cape with his underwear on the outside while he works on his blog.

Quite possibly. You?

So it's ticking down to this imminent announcement. Your excitement must be palpable?

There is the best data and there is Better than best data, a paper.

Temperature upward trend doubled by badly placed thermometors.
Possibly invalidates many peer-reviewed papers that relied upon the faulty data

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.



This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication.

The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American’s Michael Lemonick in “Science Talk”, said:


I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.

The USHCN is one of the main metrics used to gauge the temperature changes in the United States. The first wide scale effort to address siting issues, Watts, (2009), a collated photographic survey, showed that approximately 90% of USHCN stations were compromised by encroachment of urbanity in the form of heat sinks and sources, such as concrete, asphalt, air conditioning system heat exchangers, roadways, airport tarmac, and other issues. This finding was backed up by an August 2011 U.S. General Accounting Office investigation and report titled: Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network

more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2

Hide the decline comes to mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZiAVi5D4BA

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 8:07am:

The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American’s Michael Lemonick in “Science Talk”, said: I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.

Oh, you mean the same Muller that now has concluded that AGW is real?


Quote:

Climate-change denier changes his mind Neela Banerjee, AAP Updated July 30, 2012, 11:37 am The verdict is in: Global warming is real and greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are the main cause. This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, a MacArthur fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago. However, the difference now is the source: Muller is a longstanding, colourful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change. In an opinion piece in Saturday's New York Times titled The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic, Muller writes: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. "I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." The Berkeley project's research has shown, Muller says, "that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1 degrees Fahrenheit over the most recent 50 years. "Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases." He calls his current stance "a total turnaround." Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Koch Foundation, said the support her foundation provided, along with others, has no bearing on results of the research. "Our grants are designed to promote independent research; as such, recipients hold full control over their findings," Mullins said in an email. "In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy." Some leading climate scientists said Muller's comments show that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully. http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/14402548/climate-change-denier-changes-his-mind/

Not that I expect that to change your foil hat wearing mind lolly.

Gist wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 8:07am: The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American’s Michael Lemonick in “Science Talk”, said: I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees. Oh, you mean the same Muller that now has concluded that AGW is real? Quote: Climate-change denier changes his mind Neela Banerjee, AAP Updated July 30, 2012, 11:37 am The verdict is in: Global warming is real and greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are the main cause. This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, a MacArthur fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago. However, the difference now is the source: Muller is a longstanding, colourful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change. In an opinion piece in Saturday's New York Times titled The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic, Muller writes: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. "I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." The Berkeley project's research has shown, Muller says, "that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1 degrees Fahrenheit over the most recent 50 years. "Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases." He calls his current stance "a total turnaround." Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Koch Foundation, said the support her foundation provided, along with others, has no bearing on results of the research. "Our grants are designed to promote independent research; as such, recipients hold full control over their findings," Mullins said in an email. "In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy." Some leading climate scientists said Muller's comments show that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully. http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/14402548/climate-change-denier-changes-his-mind/ Not that I expect that to change your foil hat wearing mind lolly.

Muller was never a skeptic. There is plenty of material that says otherwise. He is fooling you, not me.

LOL! he breathlessly suspended publication (putting off his vacation at that!!!) for this???  :o

Come back when it passes peer review

/yawn

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:

LOL! he breathlessly suspended publication (putting off his vacation at that!!!) for this???  :o Come back when it passes peer review /yawn

No, as with Muller, everyone should just accept it now.

It would seem that there are plenty of AGW sites using the berkley (so called) best data without it being peer-reviewed. Cant remember anyone being upset about that, but go figure. Hypocrisy abound with you lot

http://www.skepticalscience.com/BEST-October-2011.html

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:

LOL! he breathlessly suspended publication (putting off his vacation at that!!!) for this???  :o Come back when it passes peer review /yawn

progs job is to chew up the entire internet address space: you'll get used to it!  ;) ;)

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

It would seem that there are plenty of AGW sites using the berkley (so called) best data without it being peer-reviewed. Cant remember anyone being upset about that, but go figure. Hypocrisy abound with you lot

Not upset. Just think it's amusing considering what happened last time Watts breathlessly released his last "ground breaking" research before getting reviewed  ;D

From The Guardian - Google the text for the source link.


Quote:

He set up a site called surfacestations**** for readers to post photos of poorly located weather stations, particularly in places that could be influenced by artificial heat, such as air conditioning units or car parks. The photos were compiled into a book published by the right-wing thinktank the Heartland Institute. In it, Watts wrote: "The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable. And since the US record is thought to be 'the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable." But scientists at the National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) in North Carolina have analysed the weather station data to see what difference poor location actually makes. Watts had ranked the stations by his estimation of the quality of their location, so Dr Matthew Menne and colleagues compared the results from high- and low-ranked stations. They described their results as "counterintuitive" – poorly located stations were actually more likely to be cooler than those in better locations. This is probably because the poorly located stations are more likely to use more up-to-date measuring equipment called Maximum-Minimum Temperature System (MMTS), which has a slight "cool" bias that is already well documented.

Mene et. al. even went so far as to thank Watts and Surfacestations**** for their diligent efforts in discovering this cooling bias in the US temperature record ;D

"We wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations."

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 12:41pm: LOL! he breathlessly suspended publication (putting off his vacation at that!!!) for this???  :o Come back when it passes peer review /yawn No, as with Muller, everyone should just accept it now.

Have you ever heard of something called a Tu quoque fallacy? It's the debating equivalent of "I know you are, so what am I?'" - you're doing it.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 8:58pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 12:45pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 12:41pm: LOL! he breathlessly suspended publication (putting off his vacation at that!!!) for this???  :o Come back when it passes peer review /yawn No, as with Muller, everyone should just accept it now. Have you ever heard of something called a Tu quoque fallacy? It's the debating equivalent of "I know you are, so what am I?'" - you're doing it.

Not at all. I am saying Muller and others have made precedence, so you should be happy to follow it as your ilk accepted it.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 4:50pm: It would seem that there are plenty of AGW sites using the berkley (so called) best data without it being peer-reviewed. Cant remember anyone being upset about that, but go figure. Hypocrisy abound with you lot Not upset. Just think it's amusing considering what happened last time Watts breathlessly released his last "ground breaking" research before getting reviewed  ;D From The Guardian - Google the text for the source link. Quote: He set up a site called surfacestations**** for readers to post photos of poorly located weather stations, particularly in places that could be influenced by artificial heat, such as air conditioning units or car parks. The photos were compiled into a book published by the right-wing thinktank the Heartland Institute. In it, Watts wrote: "The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable. And since the US record is thought to be 'the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable." But scientists at the National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) in North Carolina have analysed the weather station data to see what difference poor location actually makes. Watts had ranked the stations by his estimation of the quality of their location, so Dr Matthew Menne and colleagues compared the results from high- and low-ranked stations. They described their results as "counterintuitive" – poorly located stations were actually more likely to be cooler than those in better locations. This is probably because the poorly located stations are more likely to use more up-to-date measuring equipment called Maximum-Minimum Temperature System (MMTS), which has a slight "cool" bias that is already well documented. Mene et. al. even went so far as to thank Watts and Surfacestations**** for their diligent efforts in discovering this cooling bias in the US temperature record ;D "We wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations."

I am sure you will be thanking him.

What do you think, progs?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/initial-thoughts-on-the-watts-et-al-draft/

MOTR wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 4:29am:

What do you think, progs? http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/initial-thoughts-on-the-watts-et-al-draft/

I would expect  response from Watts would be the important factor in what one would think. I couldnt find a crtique of the Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project . Unless you can point to one of those as there has been plenty of time for back and forth from author and critique


There is a discussion going on at the moment about TOB.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/31/watts-et-al-paper-2nd-discussion-thread/

What has Muller's paper have to do with the viability of Watts' paper. I've read Watts' response and I can't see how he has parried the substantive criticisms that have been made against his paper. Do you need me to outline the criticisms or did you get them. And if you got them tell me why you don't think they're significant. Perhaps you can do a better job than Watts.

MOTR wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 7:59pm:

What has Muller's paper have to do with the viability of Watts' paper. I've read Watts' response and I can't see how he has parried the substantive criticisms that have been made against his paper. Do you need me to outline the criticisms or did you get them. And if you got them tell me why you don't think they're significant. Perhaps you can do a better job than Watts.

Go ahead and link whatever you like. make sure that whoever does have a go at Watts, also has an article having a go at Muller, seeing as Muller cant get peer-reviewed. Gives them more cred that way, but I would not hold my breath.

So you didn't comprehend the specific criticisms.

MOTR wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 8:47pm:

So you didn't comprehend the specific criticisms.

Maybe you should explain what you comprehended of the critisim that would change the outcome of the paper. Just make sure you have a link of the same site having a go at a paper from Muller that cant get peer-reviewed, or at the very least, I will not find an article that see's all the good in Mullers paper.

Why are we talking about a paper written by a former radio announcer anyway?

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 8:50pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 8:47pm: So you didn't comprehend the specific criticisms. Maybe you should explain what you comprehended of the critisim that would change the outcome of the paper. Just make sure you have a link of the same site having a go at a paper from Muller that cant get peer-reviewed, or at the very least, I will not find an article that see's all the good in Mullers paper.

That is illogical, progs. Watts' paper will stand or fall on its own merits. Now I'm quite happy to spoon feed you, progs, but I was expecting more from a self acclaimed skeptic.

The essential problem with the paper is that Watts et al are using raw unhomogenised data. I know you use homogenised as a dirty word but for real scientists raw data will always be misleading if there are significant variations in how that data is collected. Specifically, there has been a systematic tendency over time for US stations to shift from evening to morning observations, resulting in an artificial cooling of temperature data at the stations affected.


Quote:

If observations are taken and maximum-minimum thermometers reset in the early morning, near the time of minimum temperature, a particularly cold night may be double-counted, once for the preceding day and once for the current day.  Conversely, with afternoon observations, particularly hot days will be counted twice for the same reason.  Hence, maximum and minimum temperatures measured for a day ending in the afternoon tend to be warmer on average than those measured for a day ending in the early morning, with the size of the difference varying from place to place.

The kicker is that there is virtually no time of observation bias in urban-based stations which have taken their measurements punctually always at the same time, while in the rural stations the times of observation have changed predominantly from afternoon to morning. This causes a cooling bias in the data of the rural stations.

Now Watts comes along with his reasonable hypothesis that the data from rural stations is more pristine than the data from urban sensors which are more likely to be affected by heat sinks and new anthropogenic heat sources. He not surprisingly picks up that there has been greater warming in urban areas, which he attributes to the urban heat island. His implicit assumption is that the TOBS impact is insignificant.

It would seem that Watts et al must either prove that TOBS is insignificant or quantify and remove it before they determine the effect of the urban heat island.

Here is what Watts has to say on the TOBS criticism.


Quote:

The TOBS issue is one that may or may not make a difference in the final outcome of the Watts et al 2012 draft paper and it’s conclusions, but we asked for input, and that was one of the issues that stood out as a valid concern. We have to work through it to find out for sure.

Progs, if Watts can understand why his paper requires further work, why can't you.

spot on Muso.  :)

muso wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 8:52pm:

Why are we talking about a paper written by a former radio announcer anyway?

Because a paper is a paper regardless of you.

There is a mirror site that's still publishing:
http://wottsupwiththat.com/

muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 5:53pm:

There is a mirror site that's still publishing: http://wottsupwiththat.com/

I'd rather progs engaged in a real debate.

MOTR wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 8:55pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 8:50pm: MOTR wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 8:47pm: So you didn't comprehend the specific criticisms. Maybe you should explain what you comprehended of the critisim that would change the outcome of the paper. Just make sure you have a link of the same site having a go at a paper from Muller that cant get peer-reviewed, or at the very least, I will not find an article that see's all the good in Mullers paper. That is illogical, progs. Watts' paper will stand or fall on its own merits. Now I'm quite happy to spoon feed you, progs, but I was expecting more from a self acclaimed skeptic. The essential problem with the paper is that Watts et al are using raw unhomogenised data. I know you use homogenised as a dirty word but for real scientists raw data will always be misleading if there are significant variations in how that data is collected. Specifically, there has been a systematic tendency over time for US stations to shift from evening to morning observations, resulting in an artificial cooling of temperature data at the stations affected. Quote: If observations are taken and maximum-minimum thermometers reset in the early morning, near the time of minimum temperature, a particularly cold night may be double-counted, once for the preceding day and once for the current day.  Conversely, with afternoon observations, particularly hot days will be counted twice for the same reason.  Hence, maximum and minimum temperatures measured for a day ending in the afternoon tend to be warmer on average than those measured for a day ending in the early morning, with the size of the difference varying from place to place. The kicker is that there is virtually no time of observation bias in urban-based stations which have taken their measurements punctually always at the same time, while in the rural stations the times of observation have changed predominantly from afternoon to morning. This causes a cooling bias in the data of the rural stations. Now Watts comes along with his reasonable hypothesis that the data from rural stations is more pristine than the data from urban sensors which are more likely to be affected by heat sinks and new anthropogenic heat sources. He not surprisingly picks up that there has been greater warming in urban areas, which he attributes to the urban heat island. His implicit assumption is that the TOBS impact is insignificant. It would seem that Watts et al must either prove that TOBS is insignificant or quantify and remove it before they determine the effect of the urban heat island. Here is what Watts has to say on the TOBS criticism. [quote]The TOBS issue is one that may or may not make a difference in the final outcome of the Watts et al 2012 draft paper and it’s conclusions, but we asked for input, and that was one of the issues that stood out as a valid concern. We have to work through it to find out for sure.

Progs, if Watts can understand why his paper requires further work, why can't you.
[/quote]
I didnt say it didnt need further work. Do you have a link to that.

I know what Watts is doing. He is doing brainstorming on an internet scale. He knows he will need help to fine tune the presentation of the paper as well as the hypothesis. I dont believe to be complete but he has my support in his ability to fix the abysmal US temp records and station siting.

LOL ^^

Tell you what? I'll ignore Muller as the craven little attention whore he is if you do the same with Watts. Let's agree to never mention either again until either one's work passes peer review in which case the work can stand on its merit like all other peer review research? Deal?

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 9:15pm:

LOL ^^ Tell you what? I'll ignore Muller as the craven little attention whore he is if you do the same with Watts. Let's agree to never mention either again until either one's work passes peer review in which case the work can stand on its merit like all other peer review research? Deal?

I dont do deals with one person. It is not worth the trouble.

WUWT - ?
sorry don't rec the acro.

If you's  ::) are still trying to argue that humans are innocent in the current on-going climate change we are experiencing you's are really blind.!!
Safer to argue about technicalities of ancillary 'papers' ... :(

AS IF THAT MATTERS  -- ITS HAPPENING.!!
Whether or not we have culpability, we hold responsibility for trying to undo the harm.
Thats undeniable.

Or would you prefer to think that the millions of the poor in the world, dependent on basic sources for survival , should act first.  ::)

Good Grief!!

Emma wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 9:25pm:

WUWT - ? sorry don't rec the acro. If you's  ::) are still trying to argue that humans are innocent in the current on-going climate change we are experiencing you's are really blind.!! Safer to argue about technicalities of ancillary 'papers' ... :( AS IF THAT MATTERS  -- ITS HAPPENING.!! Whether or not we have culpability, we hold responsibility for trying to undo the harm. Thats undeniable. Or would you prefer to think that the millions of the poor in the world, dependent on basic sources for survival , should act first.  ::) Good Grief!!

Act on what. Nothing is happening with the temp while co2 has gone up and up.

Why hasn't it warmed while co2 has gone up. There is no correlation, so why?

I am not a scientist involved in environmental research... Are you??

So if not,  you choose which set of propaganda you support, through a miasma of decisions...

..if a scientist,, what IS YOUR field?.  Hmm?  Or are you an observer, like me.?

If you just skim the info for stuff that supports your view, ..you are wholly suspect in your approach.

I personally look to the natural world, not corporate stats, for my affirmation.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 8:57pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 8:55pm: progressiveslol wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 8:50pm: MOTR wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 8:47pm: So you didn't comprehend the specific criticisms. Maybe you should explain what you comprehended of the critisim that would change the outcome of the paper. Just make sure you have a link of the same site having a go at a paper from Muller that cant get peer-reviewed, or at the very least, I will not find an article that see's all the good in Mullers paper. That is illogical, progs. Watts' paper will stand or fall on its own merits. Now I'm quite happy to spoon feed you, progs, but I was expecting more from a self acclaimed skeptic. The essential problem with the paper is that Watts et al are using raw unhomogenised data. I know you use homogenised as a dirty word but for real scientists raw data will always be misleading if there are significant variations in how that data is collected. Specifically, there has been a systematic tendency over time for US stations to shift from evening to morning observations, resulting in an artificial cooling of temperature data at the stations affected. Quote: If observations are taken and maximum-minimum thermometers reset in the early morning, near the time of minimum temperature, a particularly cold night may be double-counted, once for the preceding day and once for the current day.  Conversely, with afternoon observations, particularly hot days will be counted twice for the same reason.  Hence, maximum and minimum temperatures measured for a day ending in the afternoon tend to be warmer on average than those measured for a day ending in the early morning, with the size of the difference varying from place to place. The kicker is that there is virtually no time of observation bias in urban-based stations which have taken their measurements punctually always at the same time, while in the rural stations the times of observation have changed predominantly from afternoon to morning. This causes a cooling bias in the data of the rural stations. Now Watts comes along with his reasonable hypothesis that the data from rural stations is more pristine than the data from urban sensors which are more likely to be affected by heat sinks and new anthropogenic heat sources. He not surprisingly picks up that there has been greater warming in urban areas, which he attributes to the urban heat island. His implicit assumption is that the TOBS impact is insignificant. It would seem that Watts et al must either prove that TOBS is insignificant or quantify and remove it before they determine the effect of the urban heat island. Here is what Watts has to say on the TOBS criticism. [quote]The TOBS issue is one that may or may not make a difference in the final outcome of the Watts et al 2012 draft paper and it’s conclusions, but we asked for input, and that was one of the issues that stood out as a valid concern. We have to work through it to find out for sure. Progs, if Watts can understand why his paper requires further work, why can't you.

I didnt say it didnt need further work. Do you have a link to that.

I know what Watts is doing. He is doing brainstorming on an internet scale. He knows he will need help to fine tune the presentation of the paper as well as the hypothesis. I dont believe to be complete but he has my support in his ability to fix the abysmal US temp records and station siting.[/quote]

Watts has so far been unable to prove exactly what you take for granted in your last statement. Ironically, your last sentence does exactly what you are saying you are not doing.

If you think this is just fine tuning you really dont understand the weakness of the paper. Making the implicit assumption tht TOBS is insignificant voids Watts et al.'s conclusions and really takes them back to the drawing board.




http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ushcn-adjustments.jpg

Emma wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:38pm:

I am not a scientist involved in environmental research... Are you?? So if not,  you choose which set of propaganda you support, through a miasma of decisions... ..if a scientist,, what IS YOUR field?.  Hmm?  Or are you an observer, like me.? If you just skim the info for stuff that supports your view, ..you are wholly suspect in your approach. I personally look to the natural world, not corporate stats, for my affirmation.

This is what I think too. I havent participated in the stupid "debates" because imo they are stupid - who cares whether its man made or whatever. It cant hurt to clean up the earth. Make it better for our descendants. Of course taxing the poo out of it doesnt do anything. Doesnt even tax the ppl making the pollution - gets everyone else! If they made it stick - told them they are not allowed to pass it on - it might work.

SOB

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 6:22am:

muso wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 8:52pm: Why are we talking about a paper written by a former radio announcer anyway? Because a paper is a paper regardless of you.

Well this one might be useful for something, but it lacks softness and strength and they can't get golden retriever puppies to go anywhere near it for advertising purposes, due to its odour. 

http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2010/9/cottonelle-sleeping-puppy2.jpg

Some related light reading from the good folk at SkS:


Quote:

Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique Posted on 2 August 2012 by dana1981, Kevin C "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends" Paper authors: A. Watts, E. Jones, S. McIntyre and E. R. Christy In an unpublished paper, Watts et al. raise new questions about the adjustments applied to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) station data (which also form part of the GHCN global dataset).  Ultimately the paper concludes "that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled."  However, this conclusion is not supported by the analysis in the paper itself.  Here we offer preliminary constructive criticism, noting some issues we have identified with the paper in its current form, which we suggest the authors address prior to submittal to a journal.  As it currently stands, the issues we discuss below appear to entirely compromise the conclusions of the paper. The Underlying Problem In reaching the conclusion that the adjustments applied to the USHCN data spuriously double the actual trend, the authors rely on the difference between the NCDC homogenised data (adjusted to remove non-climate influences, discussed in detail below) and the raw data as calculated by Watts et al.  The conclusion therefore relies on an assumption that the NCDC adjustments are not physically warranted.  They do not demonstrate this in the paper.  They also do not demonstrate that their own ‘raw’ trends are homogeneous. Ultimately Watts et al. fail to account for changing time of observations, that instruments change, or that weather stations are sometimes relocated, causing them to wrongly conclude that uncorrected data are much better than data that takes all this into account. <snip> Adjustments Make Little Difference Globally While Watts et al. identify possible issues concerning the adjustments applied to station temperature records, it wisely makes no attempt to assess the global impact of the adjustments, which are beyond the scope of the work. Nonetheless, this is a significant question from a public interest perspective. In order to answer this question, we willl try and estimate the maximum possible impact of station adjustments on the instrumental temperature record.  To minimise the warming signal, we will use the simplest method for calculating a global temperature average - the CRU method, which is known to yield poor coverage at high latitudes and hence underestimate recent warming.  Further, we'll assume that entirety of the data adjustments are wrong (ignoring proven bias corrections such as TOB).  If we calculate land temperature averages from both the raw and adjusted data, we can see how much difference the adjustments make. The result is shown in the figure below (red and green lines). http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/temps.png Just to be absolutely sure, we can do a further calculation using just rural unadjusted data (using the GHCN station classifications) - the blue line. While the adjustments do make a difference, the difference is small compared to the overall warming signal since 1979. Using a more sophisticated temperature calculation reduces this difference. Furthermore, we are only looking at land temperatures - 30% of the planet. Including the remaining 70% of the planet (the oceans which, if not precisely rural, are certainly not urban!) dramatically reduces the remaining impact of the GHCN adjustments.  Indeed, comparison of warming trends over the oceans and over large inland lakes (including the North American Great Lakes) shows a high degree of consistency with terrestrial trends. Warming over the oceans and lakes is presumably not due to urbanisation. The entire CRU-type calculation requires 65 lines of python code (by comparison, a modern airliner requires upwards of a million lines of code to fly).  The code is available below.

Quote:

Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction Posted on 4 August 2012 by John Hartz This is a repost of Eingestellt von Victor Venema's original article, A short introduction to the time of observation bias and its correction, posted on his blog site, Variable Variability on 02 Aug 2012. This article supplements Dana and Kevin C's Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique previously posted on SkS. Due to recent events, the time of observation bias in climatological temperature measurements has become a hot topic. What is it, why is it important, why should we and how can we correct for it? A short introduction.

Quote:

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming Now as Muller notes, the BEST team has weighed in on the causes of that global warming, finding that as the rest of the climate science community had already demonstrated, it is almost entirely due to humans.  In response to the BEST announcement, Michael Mann noted: "Muller's announcement last year that the Earth is indeed warming brought him up to date w/ where the scientific community was in the 1980s. His announcement this week that the warming can only be explained by human influences, brings him up to date with where the science was in the mid 1990s." Ken Caldeira told Climate Progress: "The basic scientific results have been established for a long time now, so I do not see the results of Muller et al as being scientifically important.  However, their result may be politically important.  It shows that even people who suspect climate scientists of being charlatans, when they take a hard look at the data, see that the climate scientists have been right all along." The BEST approach in determining the attribution of the observed warming was a simple one, examining the correlations between the various radiative forcings and the temperature data.  The BEST team found that greenhouse gases and volcanic eruptions could account for most of the observed temperature change, and suggest that the remainder of the variability is fairly consistent with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), an ocean cycle, and very little contribution from changes in solar activity (Figure 2).  Note that while the BEST approach is based on correlations, they are correlations of variables with known causal relationships (i.e. an increased greenhouse effect is known to cause global warming), although they do not appear to have considered some important influences like human aerosol emissions or the El Niño Southern Oscillation.  Tamino also provides a good critique of the BEST approach.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:32pm:

Act on what. Nothing is happening with the temp while co2 has gone up and up. Why hasn't it warmed while co2 has gone up. There is no correlation, so why?

It has warmed and there is a correlation. Your premise is invalid.

Here, not that I expect that you will read the following link or bother trying to understand the issue, Follow the lkink for the text, in the meantime a picture tells a thousand words:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_2002_2008.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1964_2008.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1900_2008.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/forcings.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/forcing_v_temp.gif

muso wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 8:44am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 6:22am: muso wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 8:52pm: Why are we talking about a paper written by a former radio announcer anyway? Because a paper is a paper regardless of you. Well this one might be useful for something, but it lacks softness and strength and they can't get golden retriever puppies to go anywhere near it for advertising purposes, due to its odour.  http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2010/9/cottonelle-sleeping-puppy2.jpg

Well you need to flush it first. Being used on your bum tends to void its usefuleness.

Quote:

How to be a Blog Scientist* 1) Accuse real scientists of not properly accounting for biases in their data. 2) Conduct ‘analyses’ wherein you do not account for any biases or systematic errors in the data. 3) Complain that real scientists do not release their data or code, even when they have. 4) Do not release your data or code. 5) Accuse others of ‘improperly’ releasing papers prior to publication. 6) Release your paper prior to submission for publication. 7) On releasing your paper, expect that others on the internet will do the hard (and no-so-hard) intellectual work for you. 8) Bugger it, ask your ‘scientific’ mates to do the work for you, but don’t tell them exactly what you have and haven’t done to clean your data. 9) ‘Teach’ yourself statistics two days before you release your first draft. 10) Add your mates as authors to your paper, without asking them, or telling them where the paper is to be sent, or with supplying authorship statement forms. 11) Disseminate a press release that is at odds with both your draft paper, your coauthors, and with the real scientific literature. 12) Dig and delve. [* Qualifications, training,and experience not prereqisite.]

Thanks to Bernard J, a poster at Tim Lambert's Deltoid blog.

yes  -- I like that MOTR  :)

From Gavin Schmidt at RC


Quote:

Let the games begin! 4 August 2012 I picked a good weekend to be out of cell phone range and unconnected to the internet – and judging from how the rest of the week has gone, I’d have been minded to stay there… As most readers are probably aware, there was an op-ed in the Saturday New York Times from Richard Muller announcing the Berkeley Earth team’s latest results. It was odd enough that a scientific paper was announced via an op-ed, rather than a press release, odder still that the paper was only being submitted and had not actually been accepted, and most odd of all was the framing – a ‘converted skeptic’ being convinced by his studies that the planet has indeed warmed and that human activity is the cause – which as Mike and Ken Caldiera pointed out has been known for almost 2 decades. Not wanting to be upstaged, plenty of ‘unconverted skeptics’ – including Anthony Watts and Ross McKitrick decided to stage dramatic press events and release barbs of their own. This was followed by a general piling on of commenters and bloggers trying to spin the events in their preferred direction combined with plenty of cluelessness in the general media about exactly who these people are (no-one special), what earth-shattering discovery had been made (none) and what it all means (not a lot). The ‘best’ response to this circus is to sit back and see how pretzel-like the logical justifications can become. I particularly like the recent twist to the “No true scotsman” post-hoc rationalisation. Since the ‘converted skeptic’/prodigal scientist meme is a very powerful framing for the media, the obvious riposte for the ‘skeptics’ is to declare that Muller was not a true skeptic. But since these terms have become meaningless in terms of any specific position, this ends up as a semantic argument that convinces no-one but the faithful. The actual trigger for all this hoopla is the deadline for papers that can be cited in the Second Order Draft of the new IPCC report. They needed to have been submitted to a journal by Tuesday (31 July) to qualify. Of course, they also need to be interesting, relevant and known to the IPCC lead authors. But there seems to be far too much emphasis being put on this deadline. The AR5 report is pretty much 90% written, and the broad outlines have been known for ages. Very few of the papers that have been submitted this week are anything other than minor steps forward and only a small number will be accorded anything other than a brief mention in AR5, and most not even that. Furthermore, once the SOD is finalised (Aug 10), Tuesday’s deadline becomes moot, and the only thing that matters for the final report is whether papers are accepted by March 2013. (In a spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that I was working on a couple of papers with an eye to making this deadline, but in the end decided it was preferable to take the time to do a good job on the papers than to submit something shoddy). The only worthwhile substance to any of this is the work that has mostly been done by Robert Rohde on the Berkeley Earth code and database as we’ve noted previously – and once this weeks drama has faded into the distance overshadowed by some new blog-storm, this work will still be a useful advance. But still the games go on. Senate hearings are one of the longest running games of political theatre going – where the Senators pretend to listen to the panelists and the panelists pretend that this is an efficient way to inform policymakers. This week’s was little different from the ones in the past – some earnest submissions from the mainstream, and a cherry-pickers delight of misinformation from the Republican invitee, John Christy, who even quoted the woefully inept first draft of the Watts paper as if it meant something. To confuse the metaphor even further, Roger Pielke Sr loudly declared that whatever the results of the Watts paper it will end up being a game changer: [indent]The TOB effect could result in a confirmation of the Watts et al conclusion, or a confirmation (from a skeptical source) that siting quality does not matter. In either case, this is still a game changing study.[/indent] If only people would change the games they play… My inclination is just to sit back and watch the spectacle, admire the logic-defying leaps, marvel at the super-human feats of hubris and, in two weeks time, remark on how little actually changed