New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

Chico, CA July 29th, 2012 – 12 PM PDT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A comparison and summary of trends is shown from the paper. Acceptably placed thermometers away from common urban influences read much cooler nationwide:

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

All three papers examining the station siting issue, using early data gathered by the SurfaceStations project, Menne et al (2010), authored by Dr. Matt Menne of NCDC, Fall et al, 2011, authored by Dr. Souleymane Fall of Tuskeegee University and co-authored by Anthony Watts, and Muller et al 2012, authored by Dr. Richard Muller of the University of California, Berkeley and founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) were inconclusive in finding effects on temperature trends used to gauge the temperature change in the United States over the last century.

Lead author of the paper, Anthony Watts, commented:

“I fully accept the previous findings of these papers, including that of the Muller et al 2012 paper. These investigators found exactly what would be expected given the siting metadata they had. However, the Leroy 1999 site rating method employed to create the early metadata, and employed in the Fall et al 2011 paper I co-authored was incomplete, and didn’t properly quantify the effects.

The new rating method employed finds that station siting does indeed have a significant effect on temperature trends.”

Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.

Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.

Leroy 2010 adds one simple but effective physical metric; surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.

Using the new Leroy 2010 classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al. (2011), Menne et al. (2010), and Muller et al. (2012), yields dramatically different results.

Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that:

These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.

Other findings include, but are not limited to:

· Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.

· Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.

· Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

· Urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites.

· The raw data Tmean trend for well sited stations is 0.15°C per decade lower than adjusted Tmean trend for poorly sited stations.

· Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.

###

We will continue to investigate other issues related to bias and adjustments such as TOBs in future studies.

FILES:

This press release in PDF form: Watts_et_al 2012_PRESS RELEASE (PDF)

The paper in draft form: Watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease (PDF)

The Figures for the paper: Watts et al 2012 Figures and Tables (PDF)

A PowerPoint presentation of findings with many additional figures is available online:

Overview -Watts et al Station Siting 8-3-12 (PPT) UPDATED

Methodology – Graphs Presentation (.PPT)

Some additional files may be added as needed.

Contact:

Anthony Watts at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/contact-2/

References:

GAO-11-800 August 31, 2011, Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network Highlights Page (PDF)   Full Report (PDF, 47 pages)   Accessible Text Recommendations (HTML)

Fall, S., Watts, A., Nielsen‐Gammon, J. Jones, E. Niyogi, D. Christy, J. and Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2011, Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, D14120, doi:10.1029/2010JD015146, 2011

Leroy, M., 1999: Classification d’un site. Note Technique no. 35. Direction des Systèmes d’Observation, Météo-France, 12 pp.

Leroy, M., 2010: Siting Classification for Surface Observing Stations on Land, Climate, and Upper-air Observations JMA/WMO Workshop on Quality Management in Surface, Tokyo, Japan 27-30 July 2010 http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/qmws_2010/CountryReport/CS202_Leroy.pdf

Menne, M. J., C. N. Williams Jr., and M. A. Palecki, 2010: On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D11108, doi:10.1029/2009JD013094

Muller, R.A., Curry, J., Groom, D. Jacobsen, R.,Perlmutter, S. Rohde, R. Rosenfeld, A., Wickham, C., Wurtele, J., 2012: Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States. http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-station-quality.pdf

Watts, A., 2009: Is the U.S. surface temperature record reliable? Published online at: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

World Meteorological Organization Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation, Fifteenth session, (CIMO-XV, 2010) WMO publication Number 1064, available online at: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/CIMO/CIMO15-WMO1064/1064_en.pdf

Notes:

1. The SurfaceStations project was a crowd sourcing project started in June 2007, done entirely with citizen volunteers (over 650), created in response to the realization that very little physical site survey metadata exists for the entire United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface station records worldwide. This realization came about from a discussion of a paper and some new information that occurred on Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog. In particular, a thread regarding the paper: Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res.
2. Some files in the initial press release had some small typographical errors. These have been corrected. Please click on links above for  new press release and figures files.

3. A work page has been established for Watts et al 2012 for the purpose of managing updates. You can view it here.

==========================================================

Note: This will be top post for a couple of days, new posts will appear below this one. Kinda burned out and have submission to make so don’t expect much new for a day or two. See post below this for a few notes on backstory. Thanks everybody!  – Anthony

NOTE: 7/31/12 this thread has gotten large and unable to load for some commenters, it continues here.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Announcements, Surfacestations paper and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1,085 Responses to New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

  1. Steve Oak says:

    Well done!

  2. Bill Tuttle says:

    Kudos! I can hear the stuttering and sputtering from the Usual Suspects already.

    It’s popcorn time!

  3. John Tillman says:

    Shades (so to speak) of Steirou and Koutsoyiannis.

  4. Ron says:

    Seems legit

  5. ancientmariner says:

    the overstated increase is just an honest mistake??

    [REPLY: Read the paper first. Please. -REP]

  6. conradg says:

    Good work!

  7. Rujholla says:

    Congratulations Anthony, that represents a lot of hard work! I look forward to looking at it in detail.

  8. BSM says:

    Bravo!

  9. Rogelio Diaz says:

    What we all suspected UHI does have a tremendous effect on surface temps reading so we can conclude maybe 50% of the warming not significant well in the USA there is no AGW so ther is no global either AGW thank you Mr watts

  10. Philip Peake says:

    Final nail in the coffin?

    [REPLY: Read the paper first, please.]

  11. Interesting. Any chance we can have a list of station IDs with their new classifications to play around with? Replication being important and all that.

  12. Mark A says:

    SNIP -REP

  13. pyromancer76 says:

    Real science plus “investigative journalism”. What more can we want! Congratulations on completion. Now can you go on a well deserved vacation?

  14. AnonyMoose says:

    ” and endorsed was endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization”

  15. John in NZ says:

    The word “Vindication” springs to mind.

  16. Scott says:

    Small error – shouldn’t the bottom/blue coloring zone in the legend of Figure 20 be listed as 0.0?

    -Scott

  17. James says:

    Very interesting.
    Also interesting that Steve M. wrote that he didn’t know what this post was all about on his site…. DId he really not know ? I’d like not to believe that he was telling porkies.

  18. Edim says:

    good!

  19. FactHunter says:

    Great work Anthony et al.

    Thank you

  20. mpaul says:

    Just a suggestion — I think the press release needs a headline and lede. Without it, it will take an editor too long to figure out the significance of the release and might get it wrong.

  21. Aquix says:

    I picture a rug, being pulled hard..

    [REPLY: Please read the paper. -REP]

  22. lurker passing through, laughing says:

    Congratulations on your new paper. Turn about is fair play.

  23. JonasM says:

    Should we call this the BESTEST study? Since it improves on BEST?

  24. Excellent work Anthony. On my initial reading, your work seems robust and I hope it stands up well to peer-to-peer review.

  25. pouncer says:

    So which paper is best and which is second-best?

    [REPLY: Please read the paper and judge for yourself. -REP]

  26. Harriet Harridan says:

    Congratulations Anthony.

  27. Steve S says:

    First! Woohoo!

    And nice job, Anthony. I’ve been on pins and needles for the last two days waiting to find out what was going on…and I don’t mind admitting that I was afraid you’d sold WUWT, or had gone over to the ‘dark side’.

  28. Tim Crome says:

    Great work, any plans on a global analysis ?

  29. evanmjones says:

    What we all suspected UHI does have a tremendous effect on surface temps reading so we can conclude maybe 50% of the warming not significant well in the USA there is no AGW so ther is no global either AGW thank you Mr watts

    I wouldn’t go that far.

    But it’s safe to say NOAA has doubled the trend. Or even tripled, if you look at only rural, non-airport stations.

  30. Worthy of the weekend of silence. Well Played.

  31. Andy says:

    Well done.

  32. AnonyMoose says:

    “Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward” — adjusted by who?

  33. Jim Watson says:

    Three cheers for Anthony, et.al. !

  34. Joanie says:

    Garbage in, garbage out, BEST. This is what you should have been working on, had you been honest brokers. Anthony, well done, BRAVO!

  35. Well done.

    We need to stand back and try to put this information and the just issued Muller paper into their individual and joint context

    tonyb

    [REPLY: Well said, Tony. Please, everyone read the paper. -REP]

  36. Brendan says:

    Congratulations. Timely too, given Muller’s “conversion”…

  37. Otter says:

    Oh, this should fuel the fires for quite a while!

  38. johnbuk says:

    Anthony, you and your team are stars. I am no scientist but am fed up with the politically inspired garbage that goes under the name of Global Warming (CAGW as it was once called). I look forward to your paper being reviewed BY ALL SIDES and perhaps then it will set a new trend of publishing ALL the data in a timely manner (I’m not holding my breath however). I’m heading over to the Tip Jar now.

  39. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Well done Anthony. I think you and your family have now earned that holiday…

  40. evanmjones says:

    P.S.,

    NOBODY!
    NOBODY!
    NOBODY BEATS THE REV!

  41. Michael J says:

    Typo in the colour chart 1.0 ==> 0.1

  42. Caleb says:

    At long last!

  43. Mike Ozanne says:

    Oh Anthony, the team will be after you with cluster bombs and napalm now…I hope you serviced the radar and stocked up with SAM’s

  44. Manfred says:

    That reconciles land data with ocean data and satellite data.

  45. Bill says:

    Very interesting, especially coming the same day as Muller’s NYT Op-Ed. The next 10-15 years should give us real answers as we see what predictions and data analysis turns out to be correct.

    [REPLY: Bill, read the paper. We are not talking predictions here but historical observations and the tools used to make them. -REP]

  46. Dan in Nevada says:

    Richard Muller just today published an op-ed piece in the NYT explaining why he believes all the alarmist pronouncements are correct. This can’t be coincidence, can it? Sounds like there’s some background intrigue to this whole story.

    [REPLY: There is, but it's not all about Muller. -REP]

  47. theduke says:

    quoting Muller– nice touch.

  48. martinbrumby says:

    Excellent work, Anthony! You are a true modern day hero!

  49. Robert of Ottawa says:

    The outcome of a a massive effort! I’ve awaited this some years now! I’m going to study CIMO-XV, 2010. Those French are sticklers for logical precision :-)

    So if I understand right, you have applied an internationaly accepted standard reference to siting issues and determined that NOAA fixed the numbers got the numbers wrong – by 100% Ha!

  50. JJ says:

    Heh. Heh. Heh.

    Good on ya.

  51. Bob Tisdale says:

    Congratulations on the successful completion of one of your projects, Anthony, and a thanks to you, Evan Jones, Stephen McIntyre and John Christy for the work that went into it. Now, I’ll read the paper.

    Regards

  52. MarkS says:

    Hi Antony, great work!

    You’ve got a typo: “and endorsed was endorsed” should be “and was endorsed”, I presume.

    Cheers,

    Mark

  53. Congratulations, some reading to be done by us all.

  54. DonS says:

    Brilliant. Now, very quickly, get someone to clean up the typos lest they become the story.

  55. David, UK says:

    A 1.15C warming bias per decade – wow! Thanks for your tireless efforts Anthony. It seems the truth will out.

    No, a 0.15C bias. Half the record. That’s using all compliant stations. Go with rural only, no airports and we’re talking ~ 0.19 — a near tripling.

  56. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    I’m happy to see John Christy’s name in this work. He’s been working for years to find the real temperature of the earth. You can see from Anthony Watt’s work (with his volunteers help, but mostly him) reasons why the temperatures we’ve been seeing in the earth are not necessarily the real temperatures. I’m also happy to see Evan Jones involved.

    This work is real science, an example of how science is supposed to be done!

  57. Stephen Singer says:

    The trend scale has an error: .05 – 1.0 should be .05 – .10.

  58. TGSG says:

    Interesting. Why are the figures always higher after adjustments?

  59. Watts: “I fully accept the previous findings of these papers, including that of the Muller et al 2012 paper. These investigators found exactly what would be expected given the siting metadata they had. ….”

    A very nice way of saying GIGO.

    Figure 20 is very interesting. I would love to see the the same color map evaluation for BEST results. I do not trust their scalpel and suture technique because it must destroy and somehow recreate the critical low frequence data in the Fourier spectrum.

  60. Steven Hales says:

    “and endorsed was endorsed by” lose the first endorsed.

  61. Gilbert says:

    Wow! Just wow.

    Great work Anthony.

  62. Scott says:

    Anthony,

    Can you translate the implications of this for mere mortals like myself?

  63. Greg, San Diego, CA says:

    Thank you Anthony for all of your hard work on this project, your website, and all of the other areas of climate study that you have made an impact upon!

  64. Jonas says:

    Nice job everyone! But I think there is a tremendous uphill battle yet to come for this getting the attention, acceptance and appreciation it (hopefully) deserves!

  65. David, UK says:

    Oops – should have stated “0.15C” (not 1.15C, of course!)

  66. therealviffer says:

    Excellent news. Let’s hear the Church of Warming respond. Bring on the fraud trials.

  67. Anoneumouse says:

    “The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project”

    basinga!

  68. Dave says:

    Nice work. Found a few typos that you might want to fix in the following paragraphs:

    Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed was endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.

    Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 199 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.

    Endorsed is repeated in the first one (sentence in general is choppy) and 199 is missing what I assume is a nine in the second one.

  69. John Norris says:

    Excellent, can’t wait to see the forthcoming critiques.

  70. Scott says:

    Crap, my above comment didn’t work because of unexpected HTML. I think that the dark blue value in the legend of Figure 20 should be listed as less than 0.0, not greater than 0.0. Hopefully Anthony can fix this soon.

    -Scott

  71. Alan Clark says:

    Awesome! I’m flinging funds in appreciation of your tireless efforts. I must warn you though. Not only is it Oil money, it’s OilSands money. I hope this doesn’t automatically invalidate your research.

  72. Stephen Wilde says:

    “surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.”

    Neat.

    Common sense at last.

  73. James says:

    Important – the figures are missing from the draft pdf.

    REPLY – There’s a separate chart section to download. ~ Evan

  74. Wonderful stuff – congrats, Anthony…

  75. Skiphil says:

    note for mods only, to correct a typo, in 1st sentence of 3rd paragraph “or” should be “of”:

    “Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years or work by ….”

  76. erik sloneker says:

    Wonderful work. Here’s hoping it does get global exposure. Thanks Anthony for your tireless efforts to peel back the CAGW onion.

  77. John Kehr says:

    Gratz Anthony,

    This is what everyone has long suspected, but to see it proved is good news. I know this is a huge project and getting it done must be very gratifying.

  78. Congratulations, Anthony.

    Now, all we need is to factor out irrigation and other humidity affecting factors (in the rural sites).

  79. Laws of Nature says:

    Dear Anthony et al.,
    congrats for your paper, will it be published in time to be considered in the next IPCC-report?
    All the best
    LoN

  80. majormike1 says:

    Outstanding, and given the recent pronouncements of Muller, extremely timely.

  81. vukcevic says:

    So Muller had an agenda but fell flat on his face, the true skeptic wins again.
    Well done Mr. Watts.

  82. Telboy says:

    Well done Anthony!

  83. Strike says:

    Was waiting whole weekend, wondering what watts will warm.

    Cool, it’s Cooling. Congratulations!

  84. Crawford says:

    · Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.

    Where are these “adjustments” coming from?

    It sounds like the data is being manipulated to fit the theory, but that can’t be. The people doing this work are scientists, right?

  85. Philip G. says:

    Where is the paper being submitted to?

  86. Thomas H says:

    Anthony: Minor error found in the presentation slides: >0.0 should be <0.0 (less than).

  87. Craig Loehle says:

    In science the details matter. Hand-waving is not allowed. Anthony and team have bored into this data (and instruments and physics) with clarity and precision. Well-done.

  88. James Sexton says:

    Heh, Well done Anthony! Of course, the larger question will be is how or will this new method be applied toward global temps?

  89. murrayv says:

    Bravissimo!
    Now let’s add in the “march of the thermometers”, and upward rounding of airport thermometers.

  90. Thomas says:

    Why do sane people like Mr Watts continue to play the game of the AGW fanatics: 1979-2008? There has been no global warming at all since 1995.

  91. Data trumps hysteria, well at least for those willing to listen to reason. My fear is that reason has left the station.

  92. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Dear Moderators;
    Typo:
    Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed was endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)…

  93. Someone blew Muller’s BEST away.

  94. George says:

    We do not have a valid climate database from which we can draw proper conclusions. These adjustment methods are dubious and as Mr. Watts shows, seem to be exaggerated in one direction, “up”. In some databases such as NCDC they go so far as to retroactively re-adjust temperatures with each passing month. In these cases the scheme adjust pre-1950 temperatures colder and post-1950 temperatures warmer. These re-adjustments seem to be additive and this database is now used as the input data for others (e.g. HADCRUT4). Below is a graph showing the cumulative “re-adjustment” of temperatures in the NCDC database since May 2008 until June 2012. We do not have an accurate database on which we can base decision making.

    http://climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif

    Basically, what we have been basing decisions on is mathematical prestidigitation.

  95. Beesaman says:

    Over to you Warmists, time for Real Science not some post-modernist ersatz-modelling pseudo science you’ve been getting away with so far!

  96. Guy Fardell says:

    Typo I suppose ……adopting Leroy 199 methods should be leroy 1999 methods.
    Thanks for the excellent work!!

  97. Tucker says:

    Any idea on why and how NOAA came to their adjustment methodology?

  98. Henry Galt says:

    Massive congratulations to you. If the numbers are this big the whole edifice is shakey, which gut instinct told many of us when we were first presented with the “adjustments”.

    Thanks to all involved.

  99. Steven Hales says:

    Thanks for respecting the other work of BEST, etc. That certainly is how science is supposed to be done, one study with more complete data and better methods reaches a different conclusion and supercedes the prior until it too is replaced with better understanding. There are no high fives (except when the Higgs boson is concerned) in science, it is what it is.

  100. Peter Miller says:

    Whenever those using real science methodology scrutinize any cornerstone of ‘climate science’, the result is always the same: Disclosure of shabby, manipulated data, which has been deliberately distorted to produce results designed to alarm the general public.

    The practice of distorting results and data manipulation is so widespread amongst the practitioners of ‘climate science’ that is has not surprisingly fallen into total disrepute, except to dyed in the wool greenies..

    However, there are still far too many dodgy, devious politicians willing to milk the green agenda and use the ‘findings’ of the global warming industry as reasons for raising taxes and supporting economically insane renewable energy policies.

    Well done Anthony and others.

  101. Toby says:

    The US is how much? 2% of the earth’s surface.

    But it is warming at 0.155C/ decade, not far off the IPCC expectation of ~0.2C/decade.

    Seems like good and valuable contributory work, to add to the confirmatory analysis of the BEST group of Richard Muller.

  102. DirkH says:

    Thanks for your persistence, Anthony.

  103. Steven Mosher says:

    Data Problems

    1. Uses GHCN Version 2.

    2. In our urban-rural comparisons we use the Urban, Semi-Urban, Rural classifications provided by NASA.

  104. Mindbuilder says:

    So how does the trend from from good and bad stations compare to the trend from the satellites for the same area? This seems like a critical question.

  105. Bill Davis says:

    Just read your press release and went through the powerpoing presentation. I’m impressed with the quality of what I’ve seen thus far. Will dig into the paper in draft. Good work.

  106. David Oliver Smith says:

    Anthony:
    I found two typos in the press release. The first is in the 3rd paragraph after the heading “… Anthony Watts commented that”. In the second line after “Leroy 2010″ the release says “and endorsed was endorsed by”.

    The second is in the last bullet point before the reproduction of figure 20. The first line has “… show a significant differences …”

    Very interesting paper. Your hard work has paid off.

  107. Mike Bryant says:

    Congratulations Anthony and all who worked to make this study possible… The adjustments, the moving of and replacement of sites and the poor quality of sites has always been obvious to all… Thanks for your tenacity in finding the way to bring it all home. Mike

  108. David Ross says:

    Congratulations.

    This is not the end or the beginning of the end. But the end of the beginning.
    (Translation: the real battle has just begun)

    mpaul wrote:
    “Just a suggestion — I think the press release needs a headline and lede. Without it, it will take an editor too long to figure out the significance of the release and might get it wrong.”

    Fully agree. Keep it simple and in journo-speak but more understated than Fentonese. Say:

    Re-analysis of warming trends in United States yields surprising results.

    P.S. Josh even has a toon already over at JoNova

  109. Scarface says:

    Congratulations! To all four of you!

    And what a devastating conclusion from the numbers presented:

    Compliant: +0.155C/decade
    Non-compliant: +0.248C/decade
    NOAA final adjusted: +0.309C/decade What are they doing???

    If this will not have big implications, I wonder what would.

    And Anthony, you’re a master of suspense now too!
    My goodness, I didn’t know what to do to make time fly this weekend.

  110. George A says:

    How is it that I know this will not be treated as good news by the alarmists.

  111. Richards in Vancouver says:

    Kudos, Anthony et al. At first reading this looks wonderfully robust, both as to methodology and to results. Peer review (by the dozen! By the hundreds?) will be helpful and fascinating.

    And to think: it all started with a bucket of whitewash and some Stevenson screens!

  112. Bill says:

    REP: You said “[REPLY: Bill, read the paper. We are not talking predictions here but historical observations and the tools used to make them. -REP]”

    I was referring to Muller’s prediction and the data analysis in Anthony’s paper, which I do intend to read.

    I did just look at the graphs. I would like to see error bars on the figures and tables.

  113. Iane says:

    Interesting and obviously important (once peer-reviewed and published), but I doubt it will have any more effect on the warmists than the new BEST stuff has with us. I don’t really understand the big build-up, but perhaps that was us readers over-interpreting your previous posting.

  114. Eric Twelker says:

    Excellent! One comment: Shouldn’t >0.0 in the “Average trend” legend on the maps be <0.0?

  115. Poptech says:

    Much more interesting news than Muller pretending he used to be skeptic,

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

  116. The Faeces will now hit the fan. Don’t just admire from the bleachers, Fling Funds! Anthony will need them.

  117. RobertInAz says:

    Bless you Anthony. I love the way that the Rural MMTS no airports are presented at end almost as an afterthought. This gives some statistical basis to all of the anecdotal no trend situations. Thanks also to Steve M. for (I trust) making sure the statistics are tight.

    How will you make the individual station ratings available? How many folks participated in the rating process and what type of quality assurance did you apply to the ratings?

  118. HenryP says:

    Bravo. Well done. The 0.155 per decade corresponds well with my global result of o.14 per decade since 1980. It would be very interesting for me to know what the trend is for that class per decade since 2000.
    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

  119. Mike G says:

    Thank you Anthony Watts and everyone else involved in the research.

  120. Larry says:

    I was going to mention the typo but that is handled above.

    Don’t tell to read the paper–I will go back for the next pass, but I didn’t see if on the first pass–does your son get credit for the UHI experiment a few years ago?

  121. Robin says:

    This appears to me to be further confirmation that AGW is in fact a collectivist political theory using temperatures as an excuse to gain implementation to then try to alter reality. In effect changing behaviors to fit a desired compliance model without being honest enough to own up that’s what is going on.

    Pick sites to give inflated data. Ignore unbiased data and trends and then corrupt it all to provide the excuse for radical changes to political, social, and economic systems. That no one woul agree to voluntarily in the absence of dire transglobal threats to survival.

    It’s Lysenkoism where reality must give way to political ideology.

    Whatever it takes to gain the desired servitude.

    Good job.

  122. Gil R. says:

    I would have liked to see the in the press release total numbers for stations in each category/location, just to help us more quickly appreciate the extent of the problem — you know, 5 vs. 50 vs. 500 stations is something that can help one wrap one’s head around the issue.

    Congratulations on the paper, and the enjoyably subtle dig.

  123. anne says:

    Anthony just brilliant, and such hard work, well done

  124. Max Hugoson says:

    As an ENGINEER…used to SPC (Statistical Process Control) after reading Anthony Watt’s fine paper and the figures I gather THIS AT FIRST PASS:

    There are 10 decades of data, going back to around the turn of the century-

    1. Probable NET “real” change, 1.55 degrees C upward from “whatever” would be the baseline.

    2. Enough S.D.’s from the normal variance to be a real trend.

    3. NO exposition of the DECADE to DECADE changes, which I think would (will, Anthony isn’t just going to “hang it up” now..) show..particularly with the LAST decade in place, warm trends/cool trends,warm trends and cool trends. AND THAT is the “underlying oscillation” which always exists.

    THE FACT THAT WE’VE NOW LIVED THROUGH A DOWNTURN SPANNING OVER A DOZEN YEARS…should obviate the CO2 “dominance” argument from an empirical standpoint.

    Important CONCLUSION derived from EXCELLENT DATA and assessment of the GIGO (that’s a complex computer analysis term) difficulty.

    Sending this link to MANY…

    Max

  125. Jimbo says:

    I second (or third) the suggestion to give this press release a heading.

  126. RobertInAz says:

    On you pptx – bottom row of legends should be <0.0. Of course, those should never happen – right?

  127. Rogelio Diaz says:

    Its was always so obvious that Stevenson boxes situated in cities etc would show this. I was amazed that this was not shown before.. In a way its an anti climax. the obvious has been shown. THERE IS NO AGW. viva la ciencia

  128. Niklas says:

    Typos in the legend:
    >0.0 –> .05 – .10
    .25 – 30 –> .25 – .30

  129. Erik says:

    Congrats!
    “The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller…”

    no, “You Didn’t Build That” practice he he…

  130. Jeef says:

    199=1999. Honest observation of a typo, not nitpicking. I look forward to reading this in detail later, well done Watts et al.

  131. Robert of Ottawa says:

    It appears that Annex IV of CIMO-XV 2010 is the pertinent section

  132. I think it’s smart they you did a press-release on your study. Got to play by the current rules or get smashed out of the way.

    I agree with David and mpau, snazz this press release up some. Additionally, these two paragraphs, or something similar and more exciting should be first: (grab people)

    “Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years or 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.”

  133. John Doe says:

    SHAP down, TOBS to go. You listening Mosher? This is your pal from Climate Etc.

    [Moderator's Note: Let's not let this get too personal and not let's cast much aspersion toward BEST. What Anthony is showing is that the selection of tools is important to the result. BEST and the others have been using 15 year old tools, the latest Leroy method is only two. -REP]

  134. JohninOregon says:

    So what? This is NATIONAL, not global data about only ONE of many parts of the massive body of data that underscores the case presented by the vast majority of expert scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers concerning climate change. Furthermore, this report is presented by a team with an obvious axe to grind vis a vis mainstream climate science, so the conclusions and methodology are automatically suspect. But it’s interesting that people here want SO much to believe they have a block buster.

    [REPLY: John, read the paper and digest the methodological implications.... and keep suggestions of dishonesty to yourself. -REP]

    FURTHER REPLY – Suspect away! Unlike that “vast majority of experts” we will be providing full disclosure of data and methods. Upon publication, you will get to check for yourself. Furthermore, when we got totally different results for Fall, et al., we didn’t withhold the paper. We went with it anyway. That’s what honest scientists do. ~Evan

  135. Larry Logan says:

    Anthony, mpaul is correct. The PR release document needs a strong headline and lede! Editors simply will glance and pitchr otherwise. (The press has become extremely lazy form my early days.) You need to put the conclusion (the ‘take-away’) in the headline and explain significance in the lede.

    Bravo work and brilliant tactical approach on a highly public pre-release, making it obvious that politics are at work if rejected by the journals.

  136. Nozza says:

    Bravo! Anthony – well done!

  137. Mike McMillan says:

    Worth the wait. :-)

  138. From the PPT:

    NOAA adjustment procedure fails to address these issues. Instead, poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward (not downward), and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations. Well sited rural, non-airport stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

    Yesterday over in the Tips page, REP mentioned: What Anthony is going to publish tomorrow is not of the flashy fire-works variety, rather it is a tectonic sort of event. Lots of people are going to be, shall we say, non-plussed? Could even get bloody.
    NOAA’s adjustments need some exploratory surgery. The NOAA adjustment disease has metastasized into the great body of published work.

  139. RobertInAz says:

    Also on the pptx – recommend making the colors in the text match those in the legend. So most of the NOAA adjustments would show as orange instead of red. And the compliant thermometers would be a lighter blue.

  140. Tom in Worc.(usa) says:

    Scott says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:14 pm
    Anthony,

    Can you translate the implications of this for mere mortals like myself?
    ==========================================================

    Scott,

    Skip down to the “Conclusions” at the end.

    Haven’t read the entire thing as yet. Looks like an amazing amount of work, for you and others. Well done. It looks as if we can now apply some numbers to what we all suspected was going on.

    I hope you inculuded the series of pictures over time of the station at O’Hare airport.

    Sorry for any typos.

    Tom

  141. SanityP says:

    Will be interesting to see if this even gets msm attention. I do hope it will.

  142. Stu says:

    Even though the hype building stunt and revealing phrase- “The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller” feels like sour grapes and a bit of an ‘eye for an eye’, I congratulate you on your efforts to date Anthony. Let’s hope people focus on the science instead of ‘Anthony is a hypocrite’.

  143. Mac the Knife says:

    Team Watts et.al.,

    I just finished working my way through the power point presentation: Damning evidence of NOAA’s flawed/failed adjustment schema, that makes thermal mountains out of tepid molehills!
    I’ll distribute and discuss this with many folks, including several aspirants to local and state political offices, in the coming days and weeks. It is a great education piece, a ‘bedrock’ foundation paper for instrument siting, temperature sensing, temperature trend analyses, and the errors (willful or otherwise) induced by human biased ‘temperature adjustments’ to the data sets.

    I look forward to working my way through the referenced materials!

    Well Done, to all Team Watts!!!
    MtK

  144. Mr Lynn says:

    mpaul says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:08 pm
    Just a suggestion — I think the press release needs a headline and lede. Without it, it will take an editor too long to figure out the significance of the release and might get it wrong.

    Headline:
    Alarmist Claims Deflated—
    Review of US Temperature Data Shows Very Little Warming for Last 30 Years

    Other suggestions?

    /Mr Lynn

  145. Roy Hogue says:

    I hope this will settle the arguments about siting that have been around for so long. It does matter and you can’t make arbitrary corrections. Not anymore!

    Bravo! Well done to all.

  146. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Richards in Vancouver @ July 29, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    And to think: it all started with a bucket of whitewash and some Stevenson screens!

    Quite so!

  147. Niklas says:

    I’m sorry about the error in my comment. But you understand what I mean. Anyway, congratulations!

  148. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Rats, hit too soon. This is also the legacy of John Daly.

  149. Darrin says:

    Can’t wait for peer review to be over. I have several people I know who need to read this but wont until peer review is done because those are the only papers worth reading. AKA AGW proponents.

    I still have to read the entire paper and digest it but the slide show is pretty damning of NOAA’s methods.

  150. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    viewshed: the natural environment that is visible from one or more viewing points

  151. Juraj V says:

    So the result is just like Dr Christy’s PDAT data.
    They mixed good and bad and the result was the worst. Who would say that?

  152. pokerguy says:

    “Anthony, mpaul is correct. The PR release document needs a strong headline and lede! Editors simply will glance and pitchr otherwise. (The press has become extremely lazy form my early days.) You need to put the conclusion (the ‘take-away’) in the headline and explain significance in the lede.

    Bravo work and brilliant tactical approach on a highly public pre-release, making it obvious that politics are at work if rejected by the journals.”

    Agreed. Punch it up Anthony. It’s too important, and you’ve worked too hard.

  153. Randy says:

    “Comparisons demonstrate that NOAA adjustment processes fail to adjust poorly sited stations downward to match the well sited stations, but actually adjusts the well sited stations upwards to match the poorly sited stations.”

    I wish I was actually surprised.

  154. Just one little typo in the graphs – the y axis of Figure 12 – CONUS station class comparison using gridding, with a Class 1&2 baseline – should read DELTAtemp from Class 1/2.

  155. DJ says:

    As mentioned above, the % of global coverage of the U.S. being relatively small, I think it fair to say that the “new” calculation of warming being closer to the IPCC global estimates doesn’t provide any validity to the IPCC. Rather, it opens the door to examine more closely the remaining global network of temperature data.

    We could see a whole new picture of earth’s temperature history… and the one we should be seeing. Up, down, the same, oscillating, whatever.. we really do need to know what the truth is.

  156. Stephane says:

    Antony, there is a mistake in the color scales: it is writen “>0.0″ instead of “<0.0"

    REPLY – My mistake. (And the other one on that scale.)

  157. Robert of Ottawa says:

    “After NOAA Adjustments” …. always upwards.

  158. kim2ooo says:

    WELL DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *CLAPPING*

  159. Hari Seldon says:

    So observational data beat computer generated ‘data’.
    To paraphrase:
    Chance of these adjustments occurring randomly are vanishingly miniscule…
    So either its pure incompetence on behalf of a lot of different people over a long time or a conspiracy of a small set of people.

    Will there be scalps taken?

  160. H.R. says:

    Kudos, Anthony, et al.

    (This is useful and that’s a high compliment when I have seen so much “could, maybe, might based on ifs and wishes” published that, IMO, is useless.)

    I started learning about “How NOT to Measure Temperature” when I started visiting WUWT at around the time “How not To Measure Temperature #52 (or so)” was posted. I’m just a dumb ol’ engineer so I have a tendency to get a little leery when people are so sure of where we are going when we apparently didn’t know where we were and didn’t know where we’d been, temperature-wise. The hook was well set and I was easy to reel in; I have since been a regular to WUWT and have learned quite a bit about the complexity and issues (political and scientific) that make getting a handle on the Earth’s climate such a difficult task.

    Nothing like working on the fundamentals first. Yay! Good stuff!

  161. JR says:

    Well done Anthony! Congratulations and kudos to you and all your volunteers!

  162. Verity Jones says:

    Bravo. Worth waiting for and, for me anyway, it does live up to the hype. In fact it is the confirmation of much that I could see when delving into station data, but, frustratingly, not show conclusively in analysis. The result was a sort of cognitive disconnect and I’ve just breathed a huge sigh of ‘ahhh’.

  163. Tucker says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm
    Any idea on why and how NOAA came to their adjustment methodology?

    Confirmation bias, layered on confirmation bias, layered on confirmation bias.

  164. John says:

    AW – Slide 43 since is there a typo NOAA Adj Average at the top is .25 in the map .30?

    Great PPT looking forward to the paper. PS I could be wrong.

  165. Rogelio Diaz says:

    This is far important than people think. its WORLDWiDE (the UHI effect). There is NO AGW period so this posting is in fact as important as WUWT said.

  166. Why do sane people like Mr Watts continue to play the game of the AGW fanatics: 1979-2008? There has been no global warming at all since 1995.

    I’m not credentialed, but my take is he (they?) is talking about the :of record” the warmists talk about.

    No way to talk about “cooling since” with out the whole record.

  167. Bill Illis says:

    Finally, …

    We have a paper and analysis which makes sense.

    Which makes sense in terms of all the different situations we have seen with temperatures and trends and understanding that the UHI was an important factor.

    Which makes sense in terms of looking at Raw unadjusted data versus how it turns out after NOAA adjusts it.

    Which makes sense with our own personal experience garnered over the years looking at these issues and looking in your own backyard.

    Which makes sense in terms of how far the NOAA goes to make it impossible to do this analysis without starting from the ground up – surveying all the stations on your own personal time no less.

    Congratulation Anthony.

  168. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    NOAA? We’re with the Humane Association, we know what you’ve been doing, and we’re here to take the pooch away.

  169. Gunga Din says:

    I haven’t read the paper yet. But, though I’m not a scientist, I understand that “science” is based on accurate observation or “data”. Accurate data then leads to trying to understand it. Some, it would seem, (I’m being kind.) have taken questionable data and made it even more questionable to support an even more questionable theory that a particular political philosophy has embraced. (Was that a run-on sentence?)
    Anthony “et al”, Thanks for your efforts to keep the data honest.

  170. James says:

    Assuming this holds then, at the very least, you’ve demonstrated that the results on temperature trends are sensitive to siting and that an overestimate of temperature increase is likely to have been made. The fact that this is so far restricted to the US is irrelevant since it has a wider significance. This is important.stuff (if it holds) Well done for getting the work to the stage at which you’re happy that its sufficiently solid such that it can now go out for review. .

    You should be prepared that the likely response to it is (a) pretend it doesn’t exist (maybe this will work and you didn’t need to cancel the holiday). If (a) doesn’t work then argument (b) its not even peer-reviewed will be made, ignoring the fact that this doesn’t stop others talking about their work in advance of publication. Argument (b) will be joined by (c ), which is that its written by biased bloggers (with the implication that its therefore bound to be wrong). Failing all of this, argument (d) will be rolled out, which is a complicated refuting argument involving some very technical terms which sound impressive to an uncritical journalist. Peer review will also likely be a little rough….

    By the way, why doesn’t BEST and the other groups use this new site classification technique ? I assume its been discussed in the literature. If so, what are stated pros and cons ?

    .

  171. Randy says:

    FYI – minor grammar typo for/in – on lines 757 & 758

  172. John Blake says:

    This qualitative approach, including rural-urban temperature differentials with value-neutral distance measurements, most certainly confirms AW’s site-specific Weather Station theses. The fact that Big Government “climate researchers” (sic) have so adamantly opposed such self-evident determining factors is a damning indictment of AGW Catastrophism on every level.

    Next up: Might the Green Gang now admit that atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns plus Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) rather than some negligible trace-gas “forcing” drive cyclical climatic variations– that per a looming 70-year “dead sun” Solar Minimum, Earth faces not a “runaway Greenhouse Effect” [spare us] but a renewed onset of Pleistocene Ice Time in wake of a fading Holocene Interglacial Epoch?

    Alas, facts matter little to Kentti Linkola, Rajendra Pachauri, Hans Joachim Schellnberger. But after this, their Zombie Hypotheses will have to prick new dolls.

  173. Ron Broberg says:

    Zeke Hausfather: Any chance we can have a list of station IDs with their new classifications to play around with? Replication being important and all that

    I second the motion. BEST released code and data at the time of their preprint. Will WUWT do the same?

    REPLY – All will be forthcoming. Though you may have to wait until publication for every last bit. But you’ll get it all. I didn’t work so hard to see it all chucked in some dang inaccessible archive! ~ Evan

  174. Robert Austin says:

    Kudos, Anthony, Evan, Steve & John:
    Anthony, the SurfaceStations project shows your farsightedness. The rewards for your diligence and (and that of your volunteers) was a long time coming but your thoroughness and patience seem to be finally bearing fruit. While the initially speculated release of more climategate emails would have been more titillating, the release of new hard science is ultimately of higher worth than any politically oriented revelations. The paper would seem to be a solid first step in re-evaluation of the entire GHCN instrumental record. The temperature records before 1979 are rife with dubious TOBS and other adjustments that mostly serve to cool historical temperatures compared to the true raw data. I salute you and will toast you and your co-authors tonight at dinner.

  175. Be careful, not to be carried away by your enthusiasm. The difference between what you say in the paper and in the powerpoint presentation:

    Draft Paper:
    This is true in all nine geographical areas of all five data samples. The odds of this result having occurred randomly are quite small.

    PowerPoint:
    This is true in all nine geographical areas of all five data samples. The odds of this result having occurred randomly are vanishingly minuscule.

    is disturbing. Do don’t such things.

    REPLY – Depends on your definitions. For all nine areas to be cooler fro Class 1\2 is a 1/512 shot. For all nine to be significantly cooler is more like 1 in 20,000. Then on top of that, it holds for all 5 slices of data. That’s pretty darn vanishingly minuscule. ~ Evan

  176. George says:

    The fundamental takeaway for me is that they have apparently used the most contaminated data (the most poorly-sited stations) to adjust the least contaminated data (the best-sited stations) to match. That is just plain wrong of them to do, the adjustment process at any given station notwithstanding. It says they have more “trust” in the contaminated data than the uncontaminated data and that reeks of confirmation bias because the contamination moves the trend in the same direction as their hypothesis.

  177. James says:

    Another question..
    Was this work independently reproduced before today ? Here, I mean that there are several authors. Did the lead author ask one of the other authors (or indeed anyone else) to verify with wholly independent software the main results ?

    REPLY – St. Mac vetted it. We’ll be providing my spreadsheets. ~ Evan

  178. Scooper's Temporary Ghost Micro Bear says:

    Well done Anthony et al. Been looking forward all weekend to this post and it’s been worth the wait. The truth will set us free (eventually!).

  179. Major Johnson says:

    Anthony, if you want to generate press from this you”ll need to summarise your findings more coherently – or to put it bluntly, sensationally. I doubt you’ll get any publicity from this whatsoever unless you can reframe it in these terms:

    1. Temperature rises across the USA mainland over time have been overstated by a significant factor.

    2. It is therefore likely the threat of Global Warming has been overstated.

    3. This raises serious questions about current CO2 modeling and the urgency to react.

  180. commieBob says:

    Canonical !

    3. authorized; recognized; accepted: canonical works.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canonical

    Well done. Your work should become the standard by which others are judged. Given the coverage Muller has had recently it it good that you pushed to get it out in a timely manner. We need to be able to answer that stuff in a timely manner.

    Examples: Slashdot HuffingtonPost

  181. Gary Pearse says:

    What logic can NOAA et al point to that makes adusting temps upward for a station near a heat sink (or exhaust) a sensible idea?

  182. Gunga Din says:

    PS I’m sure that anyone who finds or points out a genuine mistake in the paper or this post won’t be refered as a “beetle larvae”. 8-)

  183. Laws of Nature says:

    Hello again :)

    I had to look it up and post.. Peter (and his dad) knew it all along..

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-temperature-records-so-easy-a-6th-grader-can-do-it/

    Cheers,
    LoN

  184. beng says:

    Hmm, Fig8 — the Rural MMTS stations, excluding airports graph would be my pick for the most uncontaminated site-grouping. The raw data shows averaged US trends during 78-to-present to be a mere .03C/decade.

    Oh, but it doesn’t include the TOBS, the TOBS…./sarc

  185. Jenn Oates says:

    Kudos from Yorkshire, Anthony,

  186. Sean Peake says:

    I’m curious about why the SE stations, for the most part, received the least amount of adjustment

  187. I just donated $50.00 Keep up the good work.

    [REPLY: Thank you vry much. -REP]

  188. son of mulder says:

    Well done so far (assuming no significant errors are found in the paper). Now the rest of the world’s stations need to be reviewed so there can be a credibility in the global record and put to bed once and for all CAGW story so far.

  189. Werner Brozek says:

    Congratulations everyone! I guess now Michael Mann will get a chance to peer review Stephen McIntyre’s work, but without having to wait for years to get the raw data.

  190. Ian W says:

    To me this is the really important paragraph:

    Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.

    The surface stations project was ‘just amateur Anthony being picky about the experts. But now the surface stations project data is being put through a World Met Office ISO standard. That will be extremely difficult to wriggle out of.

    Kudos to all Anthony.

  191. Wendellwx02 says:

    Congratulations Anthony…a job well done!

    TRUTH – Its the new hate speech.

    “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” George Orwell.

  192. John Morrow says:

    Spurious doubling of 30-year warming trend from well-sited surface temperature
    monitoring stations, 92% of which is due to erroneous upward data adjustments by NOAA of the actual data from those well sited stations? Does this pass the “close enough for government work” test? Wonder how much has been spent by NOAA making these erroneous adjustments, how much has been spent on research employing said erroneous data, and how much has been spent on misdirected public policies influenced by said erroneous data? Taxpayers want and deserve to know!

  193. Steve Koch says:

    Congrats, great stuff. Wonderful to see the meteorological standard being used to standardize the methodology. Also great to see the wide distribution of the paper before submission, should make for a more honest and thorough review process and expedite feedback from all perspectives. Poor Muller, your paper takes the wind out of his sails (GIGO).

    Beyond the scope of your paper, why is the emphasis in climatology on average temps rather than total heat (why isn’t humidity factored in?). Also don’t understand how surface temps can be used to calculate global warming or cooling when the vast majority of climate heat is stored in the oceans. Last, it seems like the process of computing ocean heat content is not as open as it might be.

  194. Larry says:

    This was a study of US stations, not world stations, if I read correctly.

    Be hard to say much about the world from that.

    Pure ignorance: Do “we” have any information about the quality of the global data (I think I recall a report of a single station being used to characterize all of Siberia)?

    Can a math relationship be developed for “US data:satellite data::satellite data:world data”?

    Almost as ignorant: Do “we” have the raw data from which to re-work the record, or is that among the things that have been lost?

  195. Dodgy Geezer says:

    Is there anyone starting to do the same study for another country which inputs a lot of temperature data into the World’s base data? Perhaps the UK, or New Zealand…?

  196. Manfred says:

    Figure 23 is impressive as well, tmin tmax and tmean with identical (!) trends for 1/2 sations but heavily increased tmin trends for 3/4/5 stations.

  197. Lars Silen says:

    please check line 300 in the article: ‘and are do consider’. Good work!

  198. Sam Yates says:

    I’m a bit puzzled; I’ve looked through the paper, but I can’t find it clearly stated whether the data you used for your analysis was the completely unadjusted data, or the data adjusted for time-of-observation (you state, of course, that you’re using the same data as in Fall et al.–but that was unadjusted, TOB adjusted, and homogenized data, with comparisons between all three, while unless I’m misreading things here the primary comparisons in this paper are between your own analysis vs. homogenized data. I can’t find it stated one way or another whether TOB data was used for your analysis or not). Would you mind clearing up this point (or, unless this is just an obvious case of my failing to read what was plunked down right in front of me, perhaps clarifying it in future edits of the paper)?

    REPLY – Raw, no TOBS. ~ Evan

  199. Roger Edmunds says:

    In line 498 should that be class 3 rather than class 2?

    REPLY – Yes. ~ Evan

  200. RCS says:

    Congratulations on a fine bit of work.

    I know very little about this, but has this rather simple minded experiment been done? Rather than using a single temperature sensor, a grid of temperature sensors are used at test sites that will encompass “contaminated” areas by heat sources and rather more remote areas. Eg: if one sensor is in a car park, what is the difference between its readings and ones 200, 500,1000 … yards away in a field?

    A number of different test sites, i.e. rural and urban would be needed.

    Using modern radio methods, logging can be done without cabling.

    This would give direct experimental evidence of the effects that are inferred (correctly in my view) in this paper. it would also give a better experimental basis for DESIGNING a surface temperature monitoring system than we have a present (assuming that one will be needed in the era of remote sensing).

  201. Die Zauberflotist says:

    Suggested NEW RULE #1 for my fellow CAGWers:

    1) NEVER piss off a weatherman.

  202. RobertInAz says:

    Lines 299-301 need an edit.

    REPLY – My bad. Should read “do not consider”. ~ Evan

  203. Rogelio Diaz says:

    Hi AW My father put up all the stevenson screen in Bolivia and Paraguay for WMO between 1963 and 1977 he would totally agree with you findings. He is no longer revolving in his grave about tis AGW ***** BTW I loved my dad very much…..

  204. wendellwx52 says:

    Congratulations Anthony on a job well done!!!

    TRUTH…. Its the new hate speech.

    “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” George Orwell.

  205. Nic Lewis says:

    Congratulations, Anthony. This must represent an awful lot of work: very well done.

  206. Luther Wu says:

    The local stations are reporting that it’s 105F right now in OKC. My thirst- o- mometer tells me they are close.

    Great job, Anthony (et al).
    Thanks for all that you’ve done and not just with this paper.

  207. Sam Yates says:

    Ah, okay. Thanks for the prompt response!

  208. The iceman cometh says:

    Really good to see science as she is done in this much-trampled-over area. The end results are not unexpected, but devastating nevertheless.
    Small typo on slides 5&6 of methodology “Compliant (Class 1\2) stations show a trend of 0.102°C/ Decade” should be comment on slide 5 and “Compliant (Class 1\2) stations show a trend of 0.095°C / Decade” should be comment on slide 6 – they are reversed.

  209. Araucan says:

    Translation in french of the Press release
    http://www.skyfall.fr/?p=1077

    Thank’s for all the work done !

  210. Tucci78 says:

    At 12:33 PM on 29 July, JohninOregon had posted:

    So what? This is NATIONAL, not global data about only ONE of many parts of the massive body of data that underscores the case presented by the vast majority of expert scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers concerning climate change. Furthermore, this report is presented by a team with an obvious axe to grind vis a vis mainstream climate science, so the conclusions and methodology are automatically suspect. But it’s interesting that people here want SO much to believe they have a block buster.

    Indeed, it’s “NATIONAL,” evaluating the surface stations network considered the technologically most reliable and best-maintained such information source on land surface temperatures in the world.

    If this is the best such land area surface temperature assessment system on the planet (covering, as well, a broad range of metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas), and the quality of the system is now proven to be demonstrably more prone to error than had been previously assumed – with the preponderance of error shown to produce the impression of warming in excess of real conditions prevailing – what may be reliably inferred about surface temperature monitoring systems data from even less reliable thermometers all over the rest of the world?

    Quoting from a popular science article in Analog magazine’s “Alternate View” column (titled “Lessons from the Lab,” published in November 2009, but written months in advance of 17 November that year), physicist Jefferey D. Kooistra reviewed the preliminary results of Mr. Watts’ SurfaceStations.org project under discussion here. He closed with:

    I have long wondered why most of my fellow physicists haven’t been as skeptical of global warming alarmism as I have been. I think one reason, perhaps even more important than their politics affecting their judgment, is that they naturally assume other scientists are as careful in how they obtain data as physicists are. I’ve been a global warming skeptic for some time now, and it didn’t even occur to me that most of the time the thermometers would be “sited next to a lamp.” What’s really ironic is that, if someone claims to see a flying saucer, which hurts no one and costs nothing, debunkers come out in force. But let a former vice-president claim environmental apocalypse is upon us, and suddenly we’re appropriating billions and changing our lifestyles.

    Cripes.

    As for the creebing about how these results are being “presented by a team with an obvious axe to grind,” isn’t the process of peer review supposed to be an infallible and absolutely reliable means of sustaining impartial objectivity in the presentation of scientific research?

    Well, hell. That’s what you warmist Watermelon clowns have been spouting for years, isn’t it?

    Even though Climategate 1.0 (FOIA2009.zip) and Climategate 2.0 (FOIA2011.zip) confirmed the decades-long suspicions that the “consensus” cabal had turned peer review into pal review both to evade error-checking of their own submissions and to suppress the publication of contrarian research and analyses.

    Fortunately, those of us in the ever-growing “denier” community are skeptical of every claim, including those supported by data and results which debunk the crippled conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.

  211. AnonyMoose says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    NOAA? We’re with the Humane Association, we know what you’ve been doing, and we’re here to take the pooch away.

    Leave him alone, he’s a physicist with papers.

  212. loquesea says:

    3 pages of abstract, 10 pages of references….52 pages in total…..To which journal are you going to send this “paper”???? :) :)

  213. Gordon Oehler says:

    A typo you may wish to correct in the PPT presentation “methodology — graphs — presentation. On slide 12 in the text at the bottom the 0.73 should be 0.073. Fascinating reading. Good job.

    REPLY – Again, my bad. ~ Evan

  214. Rogelio Diaz says:

    My Dad who worked for the WMO 1963 to 1977 in South America told me in 1997 that the AGW was a tax grab! he did not even mention the science hahahahahaha

  215. RobertInAz says:

    The discussion in 302-316 indicates a need for additional work to validate that the lack of consideration of ground cover and shade from the analysis impacts the results as stated. I wonder what subset of the 779 stations would need to be analyzed in depth to validate the hypothesis?

    The problem is that you can’t usually tell grass height from a photo, much less a satellite image. Shade would be easier. We’ll be looking at that eventually. But shade is intimately tied in with heat sink (which generally causes the shade). So separating the effects is somewhat (though not entirely) moot. ~ Evan

  216. Mardler says:

    MSM won’t touch this especially the NYT, BBC et al and if they do it will be to repudiate it.

    Very interesting and congratulations to the four of you but it changes nothing because the alarmists won’t listen and the politics are settled. (Do those last four words sound familiar?)

    The other, junk science, camp won the war years ago; OTOH if this turns out to be a game changer after all, a big donation will wing its way to Anthony.

  217. richard says:

    none of this will hit the MSM.

  218. björn says:

    This will make the political controlfreaks…. freak out!
    You know, what they hate is normal citizens doing volontairy work to find out truth.
    That means they loose control.
    THEY as in “THEY LIVE”, evergreen classic movie, check it out.

  219. richard says:

    you should have gone on your holiday!

  220. mondo says:

    Tried to donate, but the system didn’t work. You might want to have a look at that!

  221. Frank K. says:

    Excellent work, Anthony and company. I’ll have to read through the paper.

    By the way, any tweets from “the Team”? I’m sure they are none too happy (heh)…

  222. Jhoffa_X says:

    We love you Mr. Watts!!

  223. highflight56433 says:

    The paper substantiates what I have spent several decades observing both driving and flying low level. Temperatures vary greatly in very short distances, thus one can not conclude that the temperature at location A will be equal to location B in short distances of feet, to surrounding general area of miles. It has NEVER been reality.
    We casually observe this, yet it has been used illegitimately by certain agenda driven circles.

  224. S. Geiger says:

    Was it stated as to which journal this is being submitted?

  225. Sean Peake says:

    It is clear that because of NOAA, the Earth has a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell

  226. Lars P. says:

    Bravo Anthony at al, well done, good to see science at work!
    Skeptics are vindicated, comments about data and adjustments are endorsed now with scientific papers asking for more quality data and work!

    This issue of station sitting quality was also my feeling that the majority of USHCN data is “UHI poluted”.
    It was also my understanding why BEST found decreasing trend in “most urban” against the whole database. “Most urban” are already big cities where the growth is no longer as significant as in smaller areas.
    In the 20th century there was worldwide urbanization process and an interesting demographic evolution. Many big cities have “grown up” and a big part of the world reached over 90% urbanization and also ceased to grow. We have seen this in almost all developed countries, with stagnation in Europe, Russia, Japan, South Korea limited growth in North America and Australia, now followed up by China and others.
    Interesting to note that the absolute population growth was 75 million in 1968 and also 75 million in 2010 at double the population. But the new 75 million do not add in the same locations.
    This phenomenon starts to happen in the 1950s and continues on a larger scale in the next years.
    As more and more cities grow and reach a level of what I would call “UHI saturation”, the slow growth of big cities and smaller in absolute values UHI increase for cities from a certain size explains a smaller delta UHI for an urban group that contains cities, in comparison with a UHI contaminated average containing many small locations growing – consistent with the results from the BEST study – divergence appearing in the 1950s – and with the logarithmic dependency of UHI growing trend based on population.
    The time period when this de-couplement happens and the increased difference is consistent with the global demography.

    Your paper addresses only the time frame from 1979-2008 in the US but it clearly points out at the flaws of not proper using the meta-data of the stations sitting and making statistical adjustments irrelevant to the meta-data and will hopefully serve to a correction of the race to the highest adjustments trend. (It is not only UHI but various stations sitting issues, I know).

    ————————————————————————-
    Toby says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    The US is how much? 2% of the earth’s surface.
    But it is warming at 0.155C/ decade, not far off the IPCC expectation of ~0.2C/decade.
    Seems like good and valuable contributory work, to add to the confirmatory analysis of the BEST group of Richard Muller.
    ————————————————————————-
    Toby, the world did not start to exist with your birth, even if it might appear so to you. If you go and see unadjusted temperature data for longer periods you’ll understand the 0.155C/decade
    in a different perspective:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/north-america/usa-part-1.php

  227. Alan Douglas says:

    So the dreaded global warming IS man-made – all that affecting concrete, those a/c units, buildings road and airports, yep, every one of them is man-made !

    Alan Douglas

    REPLY – Some of it, certainly. And some natural warming over the positive PDO period. But there’s still some room for anthropogeniety ~ Evan

  228. eqibno says:

    So, this means that AGW (or a good portion of it) is really man-made….just not by [CO2]…

    REPLY – Mmmm. A good portion, yes. ~ Evan

  229. _Jim says:

    Just curious … any document downloads from RC or NASA GISS domains yet? Again, just curious and good work …

  230. pokerguy says:

    “Be careful, not to be carried away by your enthusiasm. The difference between what you say in the paper and in the powerpoint presentation:”

    I’m going to take Leif’s word concerning how this probability should properly be characterized. And I agree with his larger point, that there’s no need to exaggerate (if that’s what you’re doing). Why give your critics ammunition when you don’t have to? Only weakens an otherwise apparently very strong paper..

  231. Hugh says:

    Just great!
    Query legend: Should the lowest be 0.0 ? And third lowest be 0.05 – 0.1?
    Apologies if someone’s already on to this.

  232. David Ross says:

    To paraphrase someone or other:

    I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide sound science for the people and reassurance to the scared-snipless; this was the moment when the rise of bullsnip began to slow and our political discourse began to heal; this was the moment when we ended the climate-war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

    Eh…I’m British, so that last bit doesn’t really work.

    Anyway, I can’t miss this opportunity. Hi, Mr. science historian from the future. Give my regards to my great-great-grandson, tell him to work hard at cyber-school and put down those augmented reality glasses once in a while.

    P.S. The rumours are true. People in the 2010’s didn’t have to get permission from Department of Political Corrections to express a new opinion. We really did inhale smoke from burning leaves wrapped in paper and drank liquids that killed our brain cells. You don’t know what you’re missing.

  233. Ben U. says:

    JohninOregon says July 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    So what? This is NATIONAL, not global data [....]

    But the methodological implications seem to go beyond the USA.

    Reminds me of back in 2007 when McIntyre had found Hansen’s Y2K error that misrepresented 2006 instead of 1934 as the US’s warmest year.

    Does Hansen’s Error “Matter”?
    Steve McIntyre, posted on Aug 11, 2007 at 1:44 PM
    http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/does-hansens-error-matter/

    One more story to conclude. Non-compliant surface stations were reported in the formal academic literature by Pielke and Davey (2005) who described a number of non-compliant sites in eastern Colorado. In NOAA’s official response to this criticism, Vose et al (2005) said in effect –

    it doesn’t matter. It’s only eastern Colorado. You haven’t proved that there are problems anywhere else in the United States.

    In most businesses, the identification of glaring problems, even in a restricted region like eastern Colorado, would prompt an immediate evaluation to ensure that problems did not actually exist. However, that does not appear to have taken place and matters rested until Anthony Watts and the volunteers at surfacestations.org launched a concerted effort to evaluate stations in other parts of the country and determined that the problems were not only just as bad as eastern Colorado, but in some cases were much worse.

    Now in response to problems with both station quality and adjustment software, Schmidt and Hansen say in effect, as NOAA did before them –

    it doesn’t matter. It’s only the United States. You haven’t proved that there are problems anywhere else in the world

    The song remains the same!

  234. Iggy Slanter says:

    It’s my birthday today. Thank you Anthony for a wonderful present. You put in a lot of hard work. And good science. A very many people are grateful. Thank you.

  235. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    Do don’t such things.
    REPLY – Depends on your definitions. For all nine areas to be cooler fro Class 1\2 is a 1/512 shot. For all nine to be significantly cooler is more like 1 in 20,000. Then on top of that, it holds for all 5 slices of data. That’s pretty darn vanishingly minuscule. ~ Evan

    That is not the point. There is quite a difference between ‘quite small’ and ‘vanishing minuscule’ or do you think the difference is vanishing minuscule?. Furthermore, the data are not independent so your calculation of probability is wrong. The point is: you should say the SAME in both presentations.

    REPLY – Point taken. ~ Evan

  236. jcbmack says:

    Excellent! I knew there had to be more research into these warming biases coming.

  237. bill says:

    A few scoffers have popped up to say “yes but USA is only 2% of world’s surface….” Yes but if the stats from the most advanced nation in the world are basically wrong/overstated, what credence should we give to data coming out of Africa, S America, for the sake of obvious examples, which together comprise a significant fraction of the worlds surface? If the USA is wrong, nothing (much) is right, therefore we have no reliable global temperature record, therefore global warming may/may not be happening, nobody really knows, in which case policy responses are a trifle premature. The ponzi politicos will have to think of a better wheeze to keep their show on the road.

  238. RobertInAz says:

    Line 464: I recommend
    “The gridded average of all compliant rural MMTS Class 1&2 stations…” to emphasize that we are still discussing figure 8 in the new paragraph.

  239. Steve C says:

    Nice work! Could use a few of those NOAA “adjustments” on payments into my bank account …

  240. Andrew B says:

    I bet the BBC does not report this article on the TV or the red button!!

  241. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Toby says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    The US is how much? 2% of the earth’s surface.

    But it is warming at 0.155C/ decade, not far off the IPCC expectation of ~0.2C/decade.

    Seems like good and valuable contributory work, to add to the confirmatory analysis of the BEST group of Richard Muller.

    Thanks, Toby. Several comments.

    First, although the US is only 2% of the earth’s surface, it has arguably the most dense network of stations, and in part because of this, figures regarding the US trends are quoted endlessly.

    Second, the same errors almost undoubtedly exist in the rest of the world. It would be foolish to assume they do not. Since this analysis establishes that the canonical estimate of the US trends is almost double the reality, the same is likely true of the rest of the world.

    Third, it does not “confirm” the work by Mueller, it directly contradicts and refutes Mueller’s claims. Read the paper.

    Fourth, the trends reported are for 1979-2008. The IPCC “expectation of ~0.2C/decade” has not been seen in the last decade of that period … where did it go? No one knows, but post about 1995 the planet definitely has not been warming as the IPCC expected.

    All the best,

    w.

  242. James says:

    A quick comment.
    None of you posting here have any idea if there is an error in Anthony et al.’s work.
    Caution and criticism are likely to be more helpful to him than simple cheering.

  243. Stephen Richards says:

    Stephen Wilde says:

    July 29, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    “surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.”

    Neat.

    Common sense at last.

    C’est nous !! The French are renowned for their common sense that’s why we find the English so difficult to understand.

  244. Harold Ambler says:

    And if anyone wants to send non-climate-blog-reading friends a slightly less technical take on this, it’s here:

    http://wp.me/pnsGM-i1

  245. dana1981 says:

    How do you explain the fact that the UAH and RSS CONUSA trend is 0.24°C/dec, Klotzbach (corrected) says the surface-TLT land-only amplification factor is 1.1, and yet you’re arguing for a surface trend of 0.155°C/dec? That’s more than a 1.5 amplification factor.

    Either UAH and RSS are biased high or your results are biased low, and frankly the former explanation is not very plausible.

    [REPLY: Didn't read the paper, did you Dana? Didn't think so. -REP]

  246. wsbriggs says:

    Congratulations to Anthony and the other authors for a well written, readable paper. This is real science applied with care. Having the data and algorithms available shows the level of class we’ve all experienced on this website.

    For those cheering that there’s no global warming (US warming), yes there is, it’s just not CAGW. Does mankind contribute, is there any AGW? Certainly, we contribute in land use changes, and in topographical changes. Is this really changing the temperature of the planet – yes, but on any given day you’d be hard pressed to feel it, with possible exceptions like the enthalpy of desert regions increasing with the increase in irrigation of yards, crops, etc.

    For those protesting this is “only” 2% of the planet, that’s a little off. If the oceans areas are deducted from the surface area, then >25% of North America is a significantly larger chunk of the puzzle. Getting the measurements right here, will go a long way to getting measurements right everywhere – with a Global standard!

    And for all those reveling in the feeling of having “our” website set things right, I’ll revel when we get to where this won’t even be a topic for discussion, when correct metrology is a given, not a 1/3 chance (metrology is the science of measurement). In my mind that will occur when we regularly measure the enthalpy of the environment and lead with that, not just the temperature. It was one of the significant points in the paper that this was brought up vis-a-vis the stations in the area of water treatment plants.

    Well done, simply well done.

  247. michael hart says:

    Sentence starting on line 299 seems to need attention on line 300
    “…proximity and area ratings from Leroy 2010 and are do consider ground-level vegetation…”

    the “and are do” bit.

  248. Keith AB says:

    It’s a good read so far.

  249. evanmjones says:

    it doesn’t matter. It’s only the United States. You haven’t proved that there are problems anywhere else in the world

    Well, you do gotta consider that the same boyz that adjust the USHCN also adjust the GHCN, though. So we’re talkin’ “anywhere else in the world”, by definition.

  250. Poptech says:

    Climate Depot has a nice headline,
    http://www.climatedepot.com/

  251. Gail COmbs says:

    Jonas says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Nice job everyone! But I think there is a tremendous uphill battle yet to come for this getting the attention, acceptance and appreciation it (hopefully) deserves!
    ___________________________
    After it has been thoroughly vetted by WUWT and any and all errors found, make a copy. Then add a one or two paragraph cover letter explaining why the EPA is way off base and trot down to your State and Federal Congress Critters offices. Rub their noses in it. If you can represent a “Group” (NGO) so much the better. (Group = you and your buddies with a fancy name)

    Then head down to the campaign offices of all the candidates and do the same.

    Showing up in person has a much greater impact, especially if a large number of irrate citizens do so. The goal is to get this issue on the table for the next election.

    ANthony et al, thank you for handing us a hammer just when we need it. Now it is up to the rest of us to use it.

    This is a nice chart to include: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/residential_electric_forecast.png

    As well as this bit of info

    …PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia) held its 2015 capacity auction. These are the first real, market prices that take Obama’s most recent anti-coal regulations into account, and they prove that he is keeping his 2008 campaign promise to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

    The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt.

    …These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.
    source

  252. James says:

    Delete “or work” and replace with “of work”. Well done Mr Watts you rock.

  253. Congratulations Antony, I never believed the work of Menne et al. If they would be right there would no reason to have any classification for the measurement conditions of any meteorological station.
    We at EIKE http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/ will take care for distribution in german speaking countries . Very well done Antony and all the other fellows.
    Michael

  254. Steve S says:

    I’m still reading through the paper…but good job guys. I love that you’re going to make all data, methodologies, and algorithms available with publication. You’re laying your hands on the third rail of ‘established’ climate science. Yes, that’s going to open the doors to criticism…and lots of it, but isn’t that what science is about? A few dour faces on the other side of the table could learn a lesson or two from your example.

    Again, congratulations to all four of you.

  255. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    The point is: you should say the SAME in both presentations.
    REPLY – Point taken. ~ Evan

    So I expect one of the two be revised to acknowledge the ‘Point taken’

    REPLY – Well, once St. Mac gives it the full and complete monty we’ll decide which one we like best. (As of so far, I vote for VM.) ~ Evan

  256. These findings prove again, that most of the US stations, considered before to be the very best maintained stations of the world (until Antony´s volunteer projects show the opposite) exaggerated the amount of warming there by far.
    This was the first conclusion if one looks into the real situation on site after the publication of Antonys report in 2009.
    But this is not true for the US only but for all major countries like germany also, as we proved several times too.
    What will our he local media do?
    It is to be expected that mainstream media will treat this message as a local event, that will not change the whole picture. But we from EIKE, like others, will not allow them to do so
    best regards
    Michael.

  257. Jack Cowper says:

    Well done Anthony et all

    Good luck with the peer review – I hope you don’t get the recent problems that Spencer and O’Donnell got hit with.

  258. MadJak says:

    Great work Anthony and everyone connected to this paper.

    Just a suggestion here in preparation for the droves of people who will try and lambast this excellent work, you might want to change the legend colors for the comparison chart above – maybe use Green instead of blue for the lower temperatures? I can see someone trying to criticise the paper because blue means colder or some such thing.

  259. Steptoe Fan says:

    Yes, congrats to all that have worked so hard !

  260. RobertInAz says:

    Lines 505&506 verses figure 10 might use some rephrasing.

  261. cui bono says:

    Sorry late to the party. Congrats on all the hard work to Anthony et al. Now off to digest the paper….

  262. foo1 says:

    Typos in the paper: line 300 and 757/758

    By the way: which journal will publish?

  263. akaCG says:

    Discussion paper, line 293:
    “In contradiction to Leroy (1999) and Leroy 293 (2010) publicly available review papers for Muller et al. (2012), showed they used grouping of Classes 1,2,3 as compliant sites, and Classes 4&5 as non-compliant sites. In addition to the lack of class binning using surface area by applying Leroy (2010) site classifications, this may also have contributed to Muller et al. (2012) finding no discernible trend differences between station classes.”

    Tsk tsk, Muller et al.

  264. Congratulations Anthony, Evan, Steve & John!!!
    Here is my suggestion for a short PR headline:

    NOAA Adjusts US Temps to support global warming!
    (Subhead: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has doubled U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.)

    (I learned in marketing that a headline should be 7 words or less – well this is 8)
    and
    The more photos of the actual sites, the better, I remember your original article
    had lots of photos of the sites. Many of them were from other countries too.

  265. wayne says:

    Anyone who has followed WUWT through the years knows the gargantuous effort that has been put forth by both yourself and all of the gatherers of the Surface Stations survey data and you all deserve a great gesture of appreciation for carrying this to a proper and detailed summary of what has occurred to the land surface temperature records and adjustments by NOAA, NCDC, USHCN and the implications carried into the GHCN dataset used by all major datasets.

    Just WOW! Well done Anthony et al.

  266. cba says:

    Well done! Anthony and co-authors. I wonder just how much such a study would have cost had it been done as funded academic research. I also wonder just how many of our favorite warmistas (and others) have taken in enough grant money to do such a project yet didn’t and I wonder just how much they profited personally from their grant money versus their income as celebrities.

  267. Steve from Rockwood says:

    It never made sense that temperature readings wouldn’t be affected by local heat sources.

    Congratulations Anthony on your hard work – and to your excellent team!

  268. Stephen Richards says:

    Steven Mosher says:

    July 29, 2012 at 12:22 pm
    Data Problems

    1. Uses GHCN Version 2.

    2. In our urban-rural comparisons we use the Urban, Semi-Urban, Rural classifications provided by NASA.

    Your cryptic messages do you no favours. This crap has no meaning. Say what you mean or go back to your classroom.

  269. RobertInAz says:

    Line 534: “… indisputably higher….” ?

  270. Scott says:

    James says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    None of you posting here have any idea if there is an error in Anthony et al.’s work.

    Considering that many comments here have already posted suggested corrections, you’re statement has already been demonstrated to be false.

    -Scott

  271. James says:

    Some (overlapping) questions to Anthony et al.

    What is the motivation behind using the new siting methodology ? Are there pros and cons to using it ?
    Could using the new methodology in some way create a (counter intuitive) bias such that trends would be *under*estimated ?
    Are there good reasons based on the laws of thermodynamics for assuming that one methodology is better than the other ?
    Why wasn’t it adopted widely in other studies ? Were reasons given or is it simply too new to have made an impact ?

    I realise that answers to the some of the above questions may be found in the reference list. However, like the journalists who read this, I don’t have a great deal of time and would prefer the authors to defend their work. I suggest that answers to the above questions (+ other relevant questions popping up here) be placed in a FAQ section. This work *will* be attacked and readily available well motivated responses are needed.

    On another note, its not enough that a method is simply “endorsed”. The CAGW methodology is endorsed by the community and accepted by governments worldwide. To claim the method is endorsed is a useful statement but the argument shouldn’t be overused.

  272. Axel says:

    The most affected appears to be the block
    of four states, in brown, labelled “.411″.
    But is this true? The four States included
    are Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah.

    From NOAA’s own data ……
    A random sample of towns…..
    Flagstaff Arizona 1970-2010 :
    -0.066 degrees Celsius difference per year

    Phoenix Arizona 1940-2010 :
    +0.034 degrees Celsius difference per year

    Albuquerque New Mexico 1940-2010 :
    +0.011 degrees Celsius difference per year

    Santa Fe New Mexico 1940-2010 :
    +0.01 degrees Celsius difference per year

    Boulder Colorado 1960-2010 :
    +0.082 degrees Celsius difference per year

    Denver Colorado 1940-1960 :
    +0.017 degrees Celsius difference per year

    Fillmore Utah 1940-2010 :
    +0.019 degrees Celsius difference per year

    Provo Utah 1940-2010 :
    -0.002 degrees Celsius difference per year

    Data from NOAA via Wolfram Alpha

    Somthing rather odd about that isn’t there ?

    None of these figures are anywhere near
    the .411 except for Boulder Colorado which
    is around Double that figure, but note that
    on some other places the temperature actuall
    fell over the piece.

    OK so the time periods are not the same,
    and I did choose some towns at random.
    This isn’t an extensive study like Anthony’s
    but however there does appear to be a large
    discrepancy between these latest “official”
    NOAA estimates, and long term measurements.

    see widget on index page at the Fraudulent Climate Site
    Check out some towns of your own to see whether the
    temperature has been rising as NOAA says in it’s
    press releases ????

  273. Mindert Eiting says:

    Well done, Anthony. A doubling of the trend. Suppose you were twice as large as you are. You would be Bigfoot. The science is in real troubles if your and your fellows article is accepted.

  274. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    Data Problems

    1. Uses GHCN Version 2.

    Thanks, Steven. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten us as to what difference this might make? It’s a serious question. Your cryptic posting style is betraying you again. I suspect you have a valid point, you’re a very smart guy … but what is it?

    Me, I suspect that they used USHCNv2 (which is related to GHCNv2, not GHCNv3) so that they could compare apples to apples regarding earlier studies of the US … and as far as I know, there is no USHCNv3 available yet. So it’s unclear what would be gained by using GHCNv3 to compare with previous studies that used USHCNv2. If they did that people would just say “you’re comparing apples to oranges” … and they’d be right.

    2. In our urban-rural comparisons we use the Urban, Semi-Urban, Rural classifications provided by NASA.

    So what? What difference does it make what you/Mueller used? Again, a serious question. It may make a difference, as may the use of GHCNv2, but until you let us in on the secret, I don’t have a clue what your point is regarding either #1 or #2 of your statement.

    w.

  275. Ian W says:

    Steve Koch says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    Congrats, great stuff. Wonderful to see the meteorological standard being used to standardize the methodology. Also great to see the wide distribution of the paper before submission, should make for a more honest and thorough review process and expedite feedback from all perspectives. Poor Muller, your paper takes the wind out of his sails (GIGO).

    Beyond the scope of your paper, why is the emphasis in climatology on average temps rather than total heat (why isn’t humidity factored in?). Also don’t understand how surface temps can be used to calculate global warming or cooling when the vast majority of climate heat is stored in the oceans. Last, it seems like the process of computing ocean heat content is not as open as it might be.

    Steve – I have stated multiple times that the climatologists are all gathered under the lamppost as its light there – using atmospheric temperature when they should be measuring atmospheric heat content in kilojoules per kilogram taking account of the enthalpy.

    Gail Combs has effectively tasked me to assess this ;-) . I hope to generate the integral of heat content for some weather stations using various humidity and enthalpy formulas. I have an idea that the daily heat content may not actually change as the humidity drops and the temperature rises and vice versa.

  276. jcbmack says:

    Great job!

  277. Doubting Thomas says:

    Very well done Anthony et al. It appears to be an excellent and very robust analysis and paper. Roy Spenser just updated his US temperature trend from the satellite record, http://www.drroyspenser.com, it seems to agree quite well with your results.

    Turns out the experts were right … Most of their warming really was man made!

    – dT

  278. /slow clap

    Donation forthcoming – my small part.

  279. Jean Parisot says:

    I enjoyed the initial read.

    Now we need a mechanism to evaluate the adjustments to the historic record, particulally the lowering pre-WW2.

  280. _Jim says:

    Gail COmbs says July 29, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    …PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia)

    MISO isn’t going to be very happy that they were left out of this ‘operating’ their own territory; please, we went through this once before.

    Notice the PJM vs MISO areas: http://www.miso-pjm.com/

    The text you copied from Fox has issues …
    .

  281. foo1 says:

    Typo line 789: missing the word “in”
    Line 790: “its” should be “their”

  282. Rogelio Diaz says:

    So in the end it was BEST versus WATTs et al hahaha. Mosher has been a great contributor but best at Gleick type investigations please leave meteorologists do their work no hard feelings

  283. evanmjones says:
    NOBODY!
    NOBODY!
    NOBODY BEATS THE REV!

    Music to my ears, Evan. Only yesterday I was remembering those words of yours, that I’ve not heard for a long time. I am very happy for all of you, for this time all four authors have integrity and the one who deserves to carry the name is carrying it. Anthony Watts.

    Very warm congratulations

    ps I look forward to audit from ALL sides, including “Funny Bunny” Rabett. And I look forward to reading the paper myself with a bit more care.

    pps I think I was right on all three of my prognostications at CA. :)

  284. Hank McCard says:

    Anthony, et al,
    Excellent paper. Lot’s of well-researched data, comprehensive analysis, good use of graphics, compelling conclusions. It will be interesting to see how others respond to you work.

  285. JohnG says:

    In case nobody has seen there’s a typo in the first word line 387 should read Many I think.

  286. Excellent work! Even the usual trolls daren’t touch this one until they have considered the implications for themselves.

  287. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    As a heads up, line 387 has a typo. It says, “May airports, due to….” Obviously, that should be, “Many.”

  288. Willis Eschenbach says:

    dana1981 says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    How do you explain the fact that the UAH and RSS CONUSA trend is 0.24°C/dec, Klotzbach (corrected) says the surface-TLT land-only amplification factor is 1.1, and yet you’re arguing for a surface trend of 0.155°C/dec? That’s more than a 1.5 amplification factor.

    Either UAH and RSS are biased high or your results are biased low, and frankly the former explanation is not very plausible.

    An interesting question, dana, but you haven’t thought it all the way through. Since the 95% confidence interval on the UAH trend is ± 0.13°C/decade, and the UAH value after the Klotzbach correction is 0.22°C/decade, I don’t see a problem …

    w.

  289. Tucci78 says:

    At 1:13 PM on 29 July, Rogelio Diaz had posted:

    My Dad who worked for the WMO 1963 to 1977 in South America told me in 1997 that the AGW was a tax grab! he did not even mention the science.

    Well, that was pretty obvious from the moment the United Nations began the process resulting in the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

    This preposterous bogosity was first brought to my attention in 1981 by Dr. Petr Beckmann, with whom I was regularly corresponding in the days before e-mail made exchanges and attachments so wonderfully swift and easy. By that date, Dr. Beckmann had been collating the results of AGW alarmists’ publishing efforts and commentary thereon, and he thought I’d be interested in it. He knew I was a fan of “hard” science fiction, with much amateur attention paid to the craft of “world building” in speculation about what conditions might be like on particular planets where SF stories were set. The late Hal Clement (a high school science teacher in his day job) had regularly provided presentations on constraints and potentialities as part of the “writing” track at science fiction conventions for many years.

    Though I’m just a family doctor, Beckmann claimed to be interested in my “take” on these allegations of detrimental CO2-induced global temperature increases.

    With the caveat that I’m better educated in physiology than atmospheric physics, I sent Dr. Beckmann my “horseback diagnosis:”

    “These guys have overstated the potential greenhouse gas effect by at least three orders of magnitude.”

    I mean, how could anybody competent to assess the results of an arterial blood gases analysis and regulate a patient’s supplemental oxygen administration not realize that?

    Dr. Beckmann had set up a dial-in computer bulletin board system (BBS) he called “Fort Freedom” to make available the materials he’d been aggregating on this and other subjects, and he kept compiling information there until his death in 1993.

    But Dr. Beckmann was the first to bring this hokum to my attention, and he had it tagged from the beginning as one of Mencken’s “endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary” being exploited by the politicians “to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety).”

  290. Bob says:

    Good job, guys. The paper is very informative, and surfaces issues that we should know about. Thanks for all your hard work, Anthony. Plus, your surface stations project has yielded definite dividends.

    Is there an addendum showing all the calculations?

  291. Bob Ryan says:

    Excellent paper on first reading and with some very important results. My congratulations.
    Line 387 ‘May’ should be ‘Many’. Line 582 I wouid not capitalise ‘Will….’ as it follows on, perhaps 1.) and 2.) should finish with a comma.

  292. Robbie says:

    “is to be submitted for publication” To which journal?

    I like the article and it should be published in a respected journal. Congratulations to everybody who worked on it!

  293. James says:

    Scott – quite right. I should have referred to the vast majority not having a clue. My mistake. The overall theme of my post i.e. be critical, and not just with respect to the presentation, is far from misplaced, however.

  294. NikFromNYC says:

    “Watts, McIntyre & Christy”

    T’was glad to know ‘em, dear gentle hearted men, they were, most o’ the time anyway.

    REPLY: Do not DARE to dismiss Mr. Evan Jones. I am in his perpetual debt. His work was critical to this study. – Anthony

  295. RobertInAz says:

    Fig. 17 top center one data point off the bottom of the graph. One off the top in bottom center.

  296. Alvin says:

    Certain UN plans, you know the one that has an “Agenda” direct people out of the rural areas into urban areas to limit human footprint on earth. But now we see that it’s the urban areas that are cause the ambient warming signal, if any. The rest seems to be minimal or background IMHO.

    Best reminds me of our typical big government cronies, who all revel in the ribbon cutting ceremony, but who are never around to deal with the fallout from their failed ideas.

  297. Skiphil says:

    WOW, Pielke, Sr. is quite confident that this paper is “seminal” and a “game changer”:

    Pielke, Sr. praises Watts et al (2012)

    “Anthony has led what is a critically important assessment of the issue of station quality. Indeed, this type of analysis should have been performed by Tom Karl and Tom Peterson at NCDC, Jim Hansen at GISS and Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia (and Richard Muller). However, they apparently liked their answers and did not want to test the robustness of their findings.”

    “In direct contradiction to Richard Muller’s BEST study, the new Watts et al 2012 paper has very effectively shown that a substantive warm bias exists even in the mean temperature trends….”

    He had time for careful advance review as noted in the paper’s acknowledgements:

    acknowledgement at end of paper:

    “Special thanks are given to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for inspiration, advice, and technical proofreading of this study”

  298. RobertInAz says:

    Ooops – Figure 16……

  299. Bob says:

    “Is there an addendum showing all the calculations?”
    OOPS! Got it.

  300. Johna Till Johnson says:

    Hi Anthony:

    Two things.

    First, thank you for putting in the considerable legwork to gather and analyze the actual data. I truly hope this important paper will receive the attention it deserves.

    Second, I have to agree with Larry, mpaul, Mr. Lynn and Major Johnson that I’m concerned that it won’t, because it’s not properly written.

    As others have noted, a press release needs a headline and lede.

    This is NOT because the MSM is lazy, stupid, Republican or Democrat, or innumerate. It’s because the purpose of a press release is, ahem, to release information to the press, and the expected and traditional format of “releasing information” requires a high-leve description of the event (headline) along with the canonical components of journalism (who, what, when, where, how, and why). That allows the journalist to quickly and easily decide whether this is an issue s/he wants to delve further into (if s/he’s a good journalist) or to reprint (if s/he’s lazy).

    What you have written is not a press release, and I say this as a scientist and engineer who has worked in the world of technology journalism–both creating releases and receiving them.

    If you want this to garner the attention it merits, you need something like:

    “US Temperatures Significantly Inflated from 1979-2011, Study Finds

    Your Town, California, July 29, 2012

    The most comprehensive study to date of US surface stations from 1979 through 2011 finds that virtually every analysis of the data significantly inflated the readings from a majority of stations, thus vastly overstating the degree of warming that has actually occurred in the US. Therefore, this study casts considerable doubt on all current global warming models, which rely on this data as validation.”

    Or something like that (and please note I have not read the paper, so my statements may be factually inaccurate—but I HAVE read the “press release”, which is more than most folks will do if you issue it as stands.)

    Again, I am saying this as someone who deeply appreciates your efforts and has no quibble with your findings. But there’s a standard format for press releases, which exists for a reason, and deviating from it will not help, and may hurt, your efforts to promote your findings.

  301. Dr. Eickolt says:

    Very nice! Great work!!!! Well done

  302. Ozboy says:

    Congratulations Anthony and team.Yours is a landmark achievement.

  303. James Sexton says:

    When looking at the Tmin USHCNv2 adjusted data for rural stations, we observe that it is adjusted higher in value, from 0.127°C/decade to 0.249°C/decade, effectively doubling the trend,

    I think we need to start asking for the rationale behind what these people have been doing.

  304. 1. Temperature rises across the USA mainland over time have been overstated by a significant factor virtually double.

    2. It is therefore likely the threat of Global Warming has been overstated.

    3. This raises serious questions about current CO2 modeling and the urgency to react.

    Leave 3 out. It sounds more like advocacy. “Significantly” is boring and leaves open, “What? You mean like 10 or 20%? Less?” Use “doubled”. It’s closest to the truth; the difference really is that stark.

    Other than those quibbles, I totally agree with your point!

  305. William McClenney says:

    I had the opportunity to camp at one of my favorite, secret campsites in the House range of western Utah last week. While stirring the small campfire looking over the nearly mile-high drop off Notch Peak I was dumbstruck thinking about the ignorance of something as mundane and consequential as station siting, over time, and the 1996 discovery of the PDO/AMDO could have possibly been misinterpreted by a supposedly scientific community as due to a trace gas which has merely paced normal abrupt climate change. I mean here I was, having 4-wheeled for a few hours to reach this special campsite, easily using a couple of gallons of fuel, and releasing stored carbon-based energy as CO2 as well as particulate, matter pondering just how much science has devolved in just my lifetime!

    In all that Homo sapiens has accomplished in just the last mere 200 years of the probable end-Holocene, this is as far as we have come? Attacking plant food as the agent provocateur of a climate catastrophe which wouldn’t even register on the low-end of end extreme interglacial noise?

    Galileo would surely be as disappointed as I was that wondrous evening by my campfire. In hip nomenclature, I would be a near perfect “flat-earther” in the blatant perfect pretzel logic that would make such an assignation applicable to one that comprehends the pacing of our climate by the 3 orbital variables of precession, obliquity and eccentricity. The weeklong conference I was returning from populated mostly by those who had not a clue about “when we live”.

    Sitting there, poking my fire, I contemplated the sagacity of those that knew not how badly we have managed just the last ~150 years of hominid generated data. The cognoscenti not merely ignorant of the precepts of quality assurance/quality control, at not just surface stations but the latter manipulation of clearly contaminated data, but arrogant in proclaiming the purity of the data and what that means.

    Is this as far as we have come as a species? I asked myself as I placed a little more deadfall on the coals. In another day I would be back in the land of where the “principle of establishing a cost to carbon pollution” would raise the price of gasoline another buck soon to admitted inconsequential climate effect. Again, I say is this as far as we have come as a species? Really? Really?

    Add Australia’s to California’s effort at ameliorating the “global warming” effect of CO2 and you net an effect we cannot even measure. As I sat there by that campfire it was just so absurd. Even MIS-11, the Holsteinian interglacial, the last one, like the Holocene, to occur at an eccentricity minimum, netted perhaps 1.5 to 2 precession cycles. And in-between those two optima it got very cold for thousands of years……

    You mean to tell me that on the basis of now obviously flawed data you want me to believe that scavenging what you obviously consider a GHG from the atmosphere (here I assume that prognostications of warming feedback, whatever the magnitude, are correct) is the true and proper course of action at a half-precession old intergacial?

    You have got to be kidding. Knowing that abrupt and frequent climate changes attend the end extreme interglacials, and accepting your premise that CO2 can either cause warming by whatever process you propose, or ameliorate the drop to the glacial state, applying the Precautionary Principle absolutely requires that we avoid any possibility of climate back-sliding over the next, at least, 4,000 years:

    “Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..

    “The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”

    Surely, surely, we have come farther than this intellectually! As I read Watts et al 2012, building on the results of the surfacestations.org releases, I feel both proud and ashamed of when we live. Extended interglacials are rather specious, and they are not ideal all of the time. We have glimpsed just two, one after the MPT (MIS-11) and perhaps another pre-MPT, so we sort of know what has happened during extended interglacials. The absolute best we could possibly hope for is to mitigate the millennium-length cold-spells in between the insolation maxima. Only so few of us even recognize that……..

    How many realize that messing with the orbital paced variables invariably yields peaks of ~100,000 years, ~41,000 years and ~19-23,000 years? Would even the wise wise one (Homo sapiens sapiens) stumble past the precession-minimum looming over the next 4,000 years? We have only been massively burning fossil fuels for about the last 200 years or so. KNOWING that CO2 gas is a GHG, and KNOWING that we might need to bridge the gap to the next, several thousands of years-away rise in N65 insolation, what would you do, hominid, if it was all left up to you?

    And would you base that decision on use, or dismissal, of Watts et al 2012?

    It’s a fair question

  306. John A says:

    Anthony,

    Figure 12 appears to have a mis-labeled y-axis

    Y-axis says “delta-T from a Class 3 in degrees C/per decade” but both the title and the actual plot show that it is Class1/2 that is the baseline (ie at zero) not Class 3

  307. johnbuk says:

    James says
    “On another note, its not enough that a method is simply “endorsed”. The CAGW methodology is endorsed by the community and accepted by governments worldwide. To claim the method is endorsed is a useful statement but the argument shouldn’t be overused.”

    Anthony has explained why this has been released “early” – to follow Dr Richard Muller’s excellent advice,
    “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.”

    ……and of course the IPCC would wish to be cognisant of this information, albeit in draft form, prior to their next report wouldn’t they? After all that’s why governments accept the CAGW arguments in the first place.

  308. S. Geiger says:

    They noted that USHCNv2 used was identical to Fall et all 2011. Perhaps this is part of the reason for more direct comparison. Or, possibly just having availability of the data set.

  309. Well done and congratulation seems to be the appropriate words here.
    It is good to see that when you know you’re right, polite stubbornness is winning through in the end.

  310. Dodgy Geezer says:

    I hope this paper will be submitted to Nature. They would try to find some way to refuse it, which will be even more damaging for them than if they were to accept it….

  311. Jeff D says:

    A great thanks to ” ALL ” the authors of this study. It is wonderful to see Real Science at work. I can only imagine the time and effort that went into this. Anthony it sucks you lost your vacation but the timing was, how would I put it? Perfect.

  312. Johna Till Johnson says:

    Hi Anthony,

    I don’t mean to keep flogging this pony, but a good description of a press release (and why each component actually matters) is here: http://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Press-Release

    Again, I really, REALLY want to see this get the broadest possible coverage—and the first step in ensuring that is to make sure the press release is in the proper format that journalists are expecting.

  313. Johna Till Johnson says:

    Hot damn, ya did it!

    PERFECT. NOW you have a press release!!

  314. jcbmack says:

    Johna, look at all the responses the pre-release of this paper has gotten just here on this blog, not to mention social media likes/shares, and the fact that RC, Tamino et al., will be forced to respond with some half baked defense…

  315. meemoe_uk says:

    bit dissapointed really. Another climate paper saying 0.1C rise here or there.
    I was hoping for a leaked video of Mann and Jones et all at a dinner party with international bankers laughing and joking about their big global warming scam.

    [REPLY: Watts et. al. 2012 invalidates all the major data sets and your're "dissapointed"? No pleasing some people... -REP]

  316. JamesD says:

    Interesting. Pulls the surface station data to be pretty close to the trend seen in satellite data.

  317. boballab says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:49 pm
    Steven Mosher says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    Me, I suspect that they used USHCNv2 (which is related to GHCNv2, not GHCNv3)

    Willis, the methods used in USHCN v2 is the methods used in GHCN v3 not GHCN v2. So USHCN v2 is related to GHCN v3 not v2.

    USHCN v2:

    The U.S. HCN version 2 “pairwise” homogenization algorithm addresses these and other issues according to the following steps, which are described in detail in Menne and Williams (2009).

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

    GHCN v3:

    In version 3 of the GHCN-Monthly temperature data, the apparent impacts of documented and undocumented inhomogeneities are detected and removed through automated pairwise comparisons of mean monthly temperature series as detailed in Menne and Williams [2009].

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php?show=homogeneity_adjustment

    This to me is important: If the procedure in Menne et al 2009 can not deal with the problems in the USHCN network due to siting bias, and the USHCN is considered top tier compared to the rest of the world, then it will not work in the worse off GHCN network and the results in GHCN v3 dataset. From there that bias will flow into other datasets like GISS because, unlike GHCN v2, there is nothing remotely like a “raw” dataset in GHCN v3.

  318. Perhaps this paper could be described as “Screening Whitewash since as was pointed out by Richards in Vancouver above, Anthony started this marathon with questions concerning Stevenson screens and whitewash.

  319. OssQss says:

    Thank you for sharing Anthony and for all the hard work your team put forth to deliver this very important data.

    First read through was enlightening and corroborates much of what many of us have felt for years.

    Attach this to the antics associated with homogenization, smoothing, and the infamous extrapolation, let alone the ongoing exposure of significant deficiencies of the governing climate models and the picture becomes very clear.

    Accidents rarely repeat themselves.

    I am certain the rapid response team has been called in for OT this fine Sunday :-)

    Cheers!

  320. John A says:

    Most telling picture is Figure 17.

    The rural siting shows that the worse the compliance of the instrument, the more the Tmin trends up and the greater the disparity between Tmin and Tmax trends (ie a systematic non-climatic warming)

    With suburban and urban, the spurious non-climatic trends are due to both location AND siting compliance with location making Class 3 as bad as Class 4 or 5.

  321. Since the Democrats took control of the budget/Congress (and therefor the economy) in the 2006 election, I have seen my retirement funds sink some 50%. (I had a lump sum payout.) Still, you and your associates are doing important work in “Defending the Ramparts of (Scientific) Freedom against the Forces of Darkness”. Literally. That’s worth another “Grant” in the tip jar.

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  322. elftone says:

    Excellent work, Anthony et al! Timing was everything with this, and doing it with no sneering, insults, or other such boorish behaviour is icing on the cake – congratulations! Now to read the paper :).

  323. Matt says:

    Meanwhile…

    or rather, a few hours ahead of this announcement, The Guardian informs that the BEST team has found there was a 1.5C temp increase during the past 250 years, laregly man made, and which turned Muller from a sceptic to a believer, or rather ‘knower’.

  324. London 247 says:

    Dear Mr Watts,
    sincerest congratulations to you and your volunteers

  325. Leo G says:

    Well anthony et al. congrats. If this paper holds, then what you will have done, is to give the world a breathing space to actually slow down and considerately approach the change in energy production. You may have just saved the worlds’ population trillions of dollars!

    If this paper is accepted and right, i will be expecting Ray Lanberry (sp) from RC to come over here and personally congratulate you.

    PS – you sure you were not helped in this by our Alien Masters? :)

  326. Richard deSousa says:

    On the same day Anthony Watts and his colleagues released their findings BEST also released their finding but came to the opposite conclusion! Whats Up With That?

  327. James says:

    Johnbuk
    I was referring to the endorsement by WMO of the siting method (as described in today’s blog post).

  328. jcbmack says:

    You know, Democrats are famous for using their agenda to promote the jink science of AGW, but really there are Conservatives too who peddle this crap.

  329. Michael Antoniewicz II says:

    Hmm, how best to put my reaction….

    “I once was a Hockey Stick, then I took a Reality Check to the knee.”

  330. Sparks says:

    It payed to be skeptical of the data, If only Muller had actually been and remained a skeptic then he wouldn’t have egg on his face.

  331. RobertInAz says:

    Second time through (slowly) was better than the first. Very nice work – clearly worth the hype.

  332. vukcevic says:

    James Delingpole from The Telegraph
    Global Warming? Yeah, right
    Is this a case of deliberate fraud by Warmist scientists hell bent on keeping their funding gravy train rolling? Well, after what we saw in Climategate anything is possible. (I mean it’s not like NOAA is run by hard-left eco activists, is it?) But I think more likely it is a case of confirmation bias. The Warmists who comprise the climate scientist establishment spend so much time communicating with other warmists and so little time paying attention to the views of dissenting scientists such as Henrik Svensmark – or Fred Singer or Richard Lindzen or indeed Anthony Watts – that it simply hasn’t occurred to them that their temperature records need adjusting downwards not upwards.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100173174/global-warming-yeah-right/

  333. Congratulations!
    Thanks to the authors we get to see the ugly effect of the Urban Heat Island (UHI).
    This is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).

  334. Detail. Change “Screening Whitewash” to “Screening The Whitewash” - there’s your press release title.

    Comment “NOAA’s adjustments need some exploratory surgery. The NOAA adjustment disease has metastasized into the great body of published work.”

    Well put.

  335. “WOW, Pielke, Sr. is quite confident that this paper is “seminal” and a “game changer”:”</blockquote?

    Ha. Me too.

    In fact, a couple hours ago I used that word, no pun intended, with my chick-friend while telling her about it.

  336. Robin says:

    I already had some very troubling info on NOAA’s activities involving Climate Change Education. Assuming that the incentive for this skewing was to keep the theory intact, I have been off researching. It’s been quite revealing. All safely downloaded and hard copied.

    One quick point and then a request for help please.

    The first is the repeated justification for all this planned reorganizing is premised on “Environmental observations are the foundation for understanding the climate system.” This paper makes it clear the problems are not just in the models. The foundational data is being skewed to obtain the desired social, economic, and political changes. I want to add that all these governmental agencies are determined to combine the natural and social sciences in their Climate Change work. That requires this kind of sloppy natural science and a lack of personal freedom as a result of making the social sciences deterministic.

    I need help vetting and refuting if so the following statement from a 2009 NOAA report:

    “The components and processes of the Earth’s climate system are subject to the same physical laws as the rest of the Universe. Therefore, the behavior of the climate system can be understood and predicted through careful, systematic study.”

    I think that is a false premise NOAA is asserting but I need help explaining why.

  337. Sean Peake says:

    The headline for the release: Man-made Global warming
    proven
    Subhead: The latest study shows Man-made changes to temperature record increase warming

  338. “WOW, Pielke, Sr. is quite confident that this paper is “seminal” and a “game changer”:”

    Ha. Me too.

    In fact, a couple hours ago I used that word (no pun intended) with my lady-friend while telling her about it.

  339. James says:

    Sparks – how do you know that Watts et al. won’t be the ones to have egg on their faces ? It pays for all of us to be sceptical, especially when faced with results which appear to confirm our prejudices.

  340. Stu says: July 29, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Even though the hype building stunt and revealing phrase- “The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller” feels like sour grapes and a bit of an ‘eye for an eye’, I congratulate you on your efforts to date Anthony. Let’s hope people focus on the science instead of ‘Anthony is a hypocrite’.

    Neither eye-for-eye nor sour grapes. It’s martial arts. Half the meaning of “turn the other cheek” is “learn from your opponent”.

  341. donkeygod says:

    Excellent, work, Anthony. Congratulations, and many, many thanks.

  342. Warren in New Zealand says:

    Line 382 May airports, due to the weather stations being placed on grassy areas in between

    Should be

    Many airports ………… ?

  343. HARRY READ ME has a twin?

  344. mfo says:

    The Telegraph’s James Delingpole is I believe the first newspaper off the blocks:

    “What Watts has conclusively demonstrated is that most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable. Around 90 per cent have had their temperature readings skewed by the Urban Heat Island effect. While he has suspected this for some time what he has been unable to do until his latest, landmark paper (co-authored with 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 put precise figures on the degree of distortion involved.”
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100173174/global-warming-yeah-right/

    Perhaps thermal imaging will be needed at weather stations. Concerning airports, the heat signature of concorde taking off:
    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAFFXjqKiwM

    Look forward to the NOAA response.

  345. Frederick Davies says:

    Good work!

    FD

    PS: I do not know the price of beer in California, but I hope $100 are enough to buy you and your team a round.

  346. dmacleo says:

    heh… this stick looks bigger than other…sticks :)
    I won’t pretend to understand it all but I get the gist and this is huge deal.

  347. S. Geiger says:

    James – yes, thanks, I agree. Everyone should be scouring the paper for holes, IMO. Particularly because most everyone on this board ‘likes the findings’.

  348. NeedleFactory says:

    “Larry” said:
    This was a study of US stations, not world stations, if I read correctly.
    Be hard to say much about the world from that.

    I disagree. For this to be a US-only phenomenon, the US temperature stations would need be of lower quality (siting, maintenance, etc) than RoW (Rest of World) stations. Given US wealth and technology over the past 50 years, I think the null hypothesis would be that US stations are no worse than RoW stations. Your alternative hypothesis is unsupported by your post, and requires supporting evidence to be plausible.

  349. katabasis1 says:

    You folks – all of you – are heroes who deserve to go down in the history books for defending the legacy of the scientific method in the face of the all out assault from the postnormalists. Well done all of you. *Standing ovation*.

    This vid was about Climategate 2 however it is entirely apropos now….

  350. pouncer says:

    What national dataset would be most comparable to the USHCN for use in a comparison? Given an “out of sample” dataset, if we find the same sort of systemic issue in the non-US samples as were found in the US, we can, I think, safely generalize to the globe.

    On the other hand, I suspect other national networks (China’s, for instance) are not as well provided with historic meta-data as the US. Finding an out-of-sample dataset seems to be a challenge.

    New Zealand leaps to my mind, but I’d like to hear other proposals.

  351. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Good effort Anthony and team.
    One wonders about the honesty of scientists that adjust their poor data upwards and then their good data upwards to match. As these people create the data base that all others are made up from, it is a small wonder that they all say the same thing.
    Global warming IS man made, Just who is this man or men?
    My crops have been telling me that the climate has been cooling for the last 30 years and they don’t lie. pg

  352. JonasM says:

    [REPLY: Watts et. al. 2012 invalidates all the major data sets and your're "dissapointed"? No pleasing some people... -REP]

    And thereby potentially invalidates possibly thousands of papers in many other fields that relied on those data sets. Yes, tectonic.

    [REPLY: Yes, I saw your comment at Bishop Hill. Glad someone gets it. -REP]

  353. foo1 says:

    I think the study needs a graph.

    Would it be possible to have a graph showing the curves of NOAA vs.siting 1+2 vs. siting 3+4+5 over the last 30 years? That would speak much more clearly, since this is the form in which one is used to have temperatures presented.

    It would make a much better attention grabber than the histograms.

  354. dmacleo says:

    seriously, well done to all.

  355. mildaykerr says:

    Watts’ breathless response to Muller’s NYT article is “Look! It’s a squirrel!”

    [REPLY: You didn't read the paper either, did you? -REP]

  356. Rob M says:

    Excellent work. I too look forward to reading in depth. I have always suspected dubious input… I love it! Thank you!!

  357. Ally E. says:

    I’ve just finished reading the paper. Anthony, yes, this is huge. This should rip the lid off alarmism, and I hope the MSM is ready to play it right. If they want bad news, this IS bad news – for alramists, for fear-mongering politicians, for the raise-your-taxes-and-control-the-population hype. I hope they are paying attention. A big THANK YOU to all involved.

  358. Gary says:

    I guess you *do* need a weatherman to know which way the heat is drifting.

  359. michael hart says:

    Line 518
    I assume the “dampening effect” mentioned is not related to moisture, but the term seems potentially misleading in this context [especially as I was thinking of asking a question about the effect of water/humidity on Tmin].

    Line 532
    This sentence appears to make no sense as a free-standing sentence. Should it be a continuation of the sentence that begins on line 528?

  360. As I said ad Joanne Nova’s, my takeaway points are:

    1. A generalized surface warming trend is real, although this trend appears to have begun to reverse around 1997.

    2. The surface warming this century was overstated by a factor of about two.

    3. Atmospheric warming still isn’t being recorded, the tropospheric hot-spot still hasn’t been found, etc.

    So this isn’t “no warming”. This is “sloppy science” and biased assumptions” from those with either a career or political axe or both to grind.

    I believe many of those mistakes will have been honest ones. And that’s the thing: it’s easy to fool yourself especially when self-interest is at stake.

    My favourite part is how Watts et al. used a new WMO-ISO standard in performing their analyses. Barring simple calculation or logic errors, this ground-breaking paper will be hard to debunk without going after Leroy (2010).

    But they adopted it for a reason, so I think that’s unlikely.

  361. Alec Y says:

    Excellent work Anthony, real facts that the other side never provide

  362. Area Man says:

    In the Overview of the Paper ppt, the figures on slides 11 and 12 are identical but the description differs. Likely just a cut/paste error but needs fixing.

  363. richard says:

    I look forward to seeing this in the MSM tomorrow.

  364. dave says:

    Congratulations on the announcement before August 1, along with the paper. Does this timing mean the pre-publication paper can be considered for IPCC AR5? Or is the urgent timing just to point out its conclusions were omitted in the eventual report?

  365. foo1 says:
    July 29, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    “I think the study needs a graph.

    Would it be possible to have a graph showing the curves of NOAA vs.siting 1+2 vs. siting 3+4+5 over the last 30 years? That would speak much more clearly, since this is the form in which one is used to have temperatures presented.

    It would make a much better attention grabber than the histograms”.

    Yes I too was looking for a line graph showing (2) temperature curves – maybe it’s in there, I haven’t seen all yet. Kind of like the hockey stick curve superimposed over the real temp curve.

    Wonderful job though. great presentation!

  366. Nearsited says:

    As luck would have it, the economic downturn has rendered many formerly greenish politicians more open to suasion than ever. This study will surely facilitate a soft landing for those seeking a way out.

  367. Well done Anthony, and well done for getting it out as a press release.

    In the UK we recently had a scandal where bankers were found to have been fixing an interest rate figure called Libor by a fraction of a percent. As one would expect for something worth billions, it made all the headlines and resulted in hot debate in parliament.

    You on the other hand have only found a few percent which undermines the whole basis of a market worth trillions. (wink)

  368. Ed Barbar says:

    Frankly, I think these individual efforts are what make America great. Knowing the temperature of the earth, or even the US today and in the past is a difficult job, and it takes work. I recognize Steve McIntyre’s name here, and am glad to see his name on the paper. Somehow, I don’t think there will be a retraction.

    Of course, I’m certain it is only a matter of time until someone tries to tear it down, not because it’s wrong, but because it isn’t the “right answer.”

  369. Gail Combs says:

    Ian W says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:51 pm
    ….Steve – I have stated multiple times that the climatologists are all gathered under the lamppost as its light there – using atmospheric temperature when they should be measuring atmospheric heat content in kilojoules per kilogram taking account of the enthalpy.

    Gail Combs has effectively tasked me to assess this ;-) . I hope to generate the integral of heat content for some weather stations using various humidity and enthalpy formulas. I have an idea that the daily heat content may not actually change as the humidity drops and the temperature rises and vice versa.
    _____________________________
    I was just thinking that earlier today.

    Relative Humidity has dropped since WWII. The albedo calculated from Earthshine observations show decreasing [albedo] from 1994/1995 (a time of minimal solar activity) to 1999/2001 (a time of maximal solar activity)… a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo… give 7.5 (+/-) 2.4 W/m2. Combine the effects with the adjustments to the temperature data set that Anthony et. al’s work suggests, we may have an actual net decrease in heat energy. Wouldn’t that be a real kicker!

  370. Barbee says:

    Anthony, et al-
    I hope to God that all your hard work bears fruit.
    Sadly, it has become apparent that ‘science’ can no longer tolerate annoying details such as: facts, quality, integrity, accuracy or truth.

    Congrats-but be prepared for all you work to be summarily dismissed; swept under the rug.
    It’s not about you, it’s the system. Remember that. Keep fighting, we appreciate it. Always.

  371. Gail Combs says:

    DARN, computer dropped the link again. Here it is for the Earthshine proget: http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2004_ASR.pdf

    (Net connection is flaky)

  372. bluegrue says:

    This is a driveby comment after skimming the manuscript.

    You are using “raw” for two different categorizations: on the one hand for “raw data” vs. “adjusted data” and on the other hand for “raw average” vs. “gridded average”. You drop the distinction in many figures.

    You never define “raw average”, I assume you mean just averaging all stations. This kind of average is prone to additional influences from station distribution. Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. We have two regions A and B, all stations across all classes in A have a trend of 0.4°C/decade, those in B have a trend of 0.1°C/decade. There are 2 stations class 1/2 in A, 8 stations class 1/2 in B, 40 stations class 3/4/5 are in A and another 10 in B. “raw average” as defined by me for class 1/2 is 0.16°C/decade, for class 3/4/5 it is 0.34°/decade. If I got your definition right, why use a measure that is so obviously vulnerable to distribution effects, when ostensibly discussing siting issues? If I did not get your definition for “raw average” correct, what is it supposed to be? How do the trends change when calculating the trends for the different classes from gridded data?

    In figure 8 you are comparing raw data for class 1/2 to adjusted data NOAA data. Am I correct, that in this case “raw” excludes corrections for time of observation bias, which the NOAA data includes? If I am correct, what is the reasoning for this kind of comparison, when the focus of the manuscript (according to the abstract) is siting issues?

    You report trends to 3 significant digits without discussing or indicating error ranges anywhere in the paper. Do you claim these trends to be statistically significant to the last digit? If not, what are the error ranges? Should they not be included?

    The paper would benefit from a plot of the actual temperature curves for different classes that you obtain for the CONUS. Length does not seem to be a consideration so far anyway.

    All of the above found during a cursory skimming.

    P.S.: You may or may not want to rethink your color coding. It is rather unusual to depict warming trends of 0 to 1.5°C/century with “cool” blue. Your mileage may vary.

  373. Paul Westhaver says:

    I read the paper. I read the PPT presentation and the methodology graphs PPT. I have not read all the comments.

    1) If the NOAA’s data is in error so too then are all works referencing the erroneous data.

    2) I think the press release requires a figure that summarizes the concept for the non-scientific public. It is very scientific paper-like, as it ought, but the “release” needs a good one page graph in my view. (I know you are busy)

    3) This data creates a greater gap between the Mann tree ring data and the atmospheric temps.
    I’d like for him to explain that.

  374. michaeljmcfadden says:

    Not my field of expertise, but overall looks quite impressive! Well done Anthony et al! :)

    Even MORE impressive is the amount of detailed commentary, helpful and well-informed discussion, and plain old proofreading that site readers have managed in UNDER THREE HOURS here! Amazing!

    :)
    MJM

  375. Joe Prins says:

    Well Done, Anthony and thank you all.
    Line 395: hygro-“what”?
    You may need Google translate to read this but in essence it talks about the temp differences between the old station siting in the Bilt, Netherlands and the moved station. And “Best” does not see a difference because he does not want to see one.
    http://www.weer.nl/weer-in-het-nieuws/weernieuws/archive/2009/september/ch/ce28e4a799/article/knmi_verplaatst_thermometer_stilletjes.html
    Recall the joke about “celebrate” and “celebate”? Nuff said.

  376. Zeke says:

    Complete abject gratitude is due to Mrs. Watts and Mrs. Christy as well! (-:

  377. Nick says:

    I look forward to hearing more after peer review and how others will interpret this work. Given how famous the hockey stick graph is, I wonder if there isn’t a need for a graph that is a visual that shows the various results in the same format. Even though it covers just the US, it would prove to be an excellent contrast in how the line differs from Mann’s chart.

  378. Hugh K says:

    So pleasant to observe in such a short period of time the evolution from blinded by science one day to blind-sided by science the next. Get the popcorn ready indeed.
    Kudos to all…

  379. GeoLurking says:

    Gail Combs says:
    July 29, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    (Net connection is flaky)

    I’ve been seeing that also. Some regions on the net are having a lot of dropped packets and time-outs. Most odd.

  380. Stu says:

    Lucy says: “Neither eye-for-eye nor sour grapes. It’s martial arts.”

    I can appreciate that. I can see it both ways actually. But when commenters were previously so against ‘science by press release’ and somehow now there’s resignation that that’s the game, it’s hard not to think in terms of retaliation for a wound. It feels personal. I’m not sure what Anthony actually thinks. Is it good to be so enthusiastic or so bold before others have had a chance to run the numbers? That was the old argument.

    Game changer… Could be.

  381. Varco says:

    Anthony and team, thank you for all the effort. With apologies to Churchill: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”. Kudos.

  382. timc says:

    Thanks Anthony and every one else involved, maybe science will out after all. Now I guess we don’t have to paint the streets white but our roofs will have to be.

  383. John Whitmn says:

    Anthony, Evan, John and Steve,

    Congratulations and kudos for your continuing hard work.  I am still reading the info you provided on your paper . . . I look forward to completing my homework.

    John

  384. Robin Kool says:

    Real science.
    Well researched, well documented. Carrefully studied.
    All the data published, so that everyone can study them.
    Wonderful.
    Thank you Anthony, you set a great example.

  385. ntesdorf says:

    Anthony, thank you you and your team for all the great work. I am tired of the politically inspired propaganda and manipulation of “Catastrophic Global Warming”. Perhaps this work will make it normal to publish all the data for people to see.

  386. Gunga Din says:

    1. bill says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    A few scoffers have popped up to say “yes but USA is only 2% of world’s surface….”
    ===========================================================================
    And Al Capone only cheated on his taxes …………

  387. davidmhoffer says:

    Robin;
    I need help vetting and refuting if so the following statement from a 2009 NOAA report:
    “The components and processes of the Earth’s climate system are subject to the same physical laws as the rest of the Universe. Therefore, the behavior of the climate system can be understood and predicted through careful, systematic study.”
    I think that is a false premise NOAA is asserting but I need help explaining why.
    >>>>>>>>>>

    This is one of those statements that is completely true and utterly meaningless. By analogy, the laws of supply and demand along with the workings of the stock market are extremely well understood. You could understand those things in excrutiating detail and still get every stock pick you made wrong.

    Most people understand how to drive a car. That doesn’t mean that any of them can design an engine.

  388. simple citoyen says:

    Thank you for such a momentous amount of work. Well done.

  389. Paul Murphy says:

    Nice work!

    Lots of little errors and/or questionable phrasing but that’s the nature of a draft – so very nice.

    However.. What you’ve really done here is shown, again, the folly of drawing climate records from weather data. Great! but now what?

  390. Excellent work, Antony et al.

    Now, is it worthwhile to change from straight measurements of temperature to measurements of the heat energy of a mass of gas? The heat energy (more properly, the enthalpy) of a gas at one temperature can actually be higher than the enthalpy of another gas at a higher temperature, depending on the water content of the gas. This looks important to me…..

    IanM

  391. Justthinkin says:

    Anthony…BRAVA. The common plebes of this planet cannot thank you enough. Don’t know if you or your Mods follow Small Dead Animals in Canada,but you have been followed for a long time(Kate is great,and no,I don’t know her from a hole in the ground.Surprising how much common horse sense a farm gal who hunts from Saskatchewan has,NOT)
    Anyhow,I pray this puts one more nail in the coffin of cAGW,and the UN’s Agenda 21.
    I shall now retire to my BBQ,which is under assault from an unprecedented thunderstorm in Edmonton,AB,Canada,on July 29th,2012,at this exact time.I won’t mention yesterdays t-storm.

  392. TimTheToolMan says:

    Minor nit on grammer in the paper : “number of recent studies have addressed the myriad of factors and biases associated 69 with temperature surface measurement in the United States.”

    Should read “…myriad factors…”

    Good work on the paper and congratulations Anthony et al.

  393. zefal says:

    I bet us deniers will use this to claim that our denying isn’t in denial.

  394. Phil Ford says:

    I’d like add my thanks to Anthony Watts and his team for this paper. I look forward to a robust and informed examination of this work from all sides, in the best traditions of genuine scientific inquiry and hope to see the final results in due course.

  395. French Bob says:

    Weak. Lots of bluster, lots of editorial showmanship and pizzazz, but underneath it all: Weak – you couldn’t find anything of substance so went after the only thing that showed any margin for scrutiny. It will be interesting to see if these temperature anomalies are within margin for their error function – I imagine they are.
    I like the congratulatory cheerleading by 99% of respondents who either/both: haven’t read more than a line or two, wouldn’t understand any of it anyway with all the deliberate obfuscation and bluster.

    But it strikes a chord with our confirmation bias, so; WOO! F**K YEAH! WOO HOO! YOU DA MAN!!

    Thanks for all your effort and all, but you didn’t really end up saying anything worthwhile – climate science still lacks a credible work to discredit it’s findings.

    [REPLY: I'm sorry, you obviously read the paper, but I'm not entirely sure just what your substantive criticisms are. Must be my poor reading comprehension. Thank you for your insightful analysis. -REP]

  396. Tom J says:

    Now it’s time for your well earned vacation. Thanks for all your work and effort. And thanks also to your collaborators and mods.

  397. arnoarrak says:

    I note that a single slope was assigned to the 1979 to 2007 segment of temperatures. This is invalid. Satellite data tell us that global temperature was flat from 1979 to 1997. From 1998 to 2002 we had the super El Nino and its aftermath that raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and stopped. From 2002 to 2007 the temperature curve was flat again. To subsume these three temperature segments into a single curve is to follow the erroneous technique of IPCC. They do it to wipe out the step warming of 1998 – 2002 and create a fictitious, upward sloping temperature curve in the eighties and nineties. They do that in order to cover up the fact that there was no warming in 1988 when Hansen testified that it had started. Satellite temperature measurements are more accurate than ground-based measurements and cover both hemispheres uniformly. They are the only temperatures that can be trusted, but neither IPCC nor the BEST project makes use of them. This is because they can’t be jiggled like the ground station data that this press release is about. The press release makes clear that station temperatures have been adjusted upwards to show more warming than there actually is. I personally consider this a criminal act of tampering with evidence for global warming. They know very well that there has been no actual warming for more than ten years now and are trying every which way to cover it up.

  398. Bob says:

    The paper and PowerPoint also needs a summary chart of the overall findings. I have taken a first stab at it together with some summary text in this post: http://nocosurroundsthem.blogspot.com/2012/07/air-temperature-measurement-today.html

    I’m sure something better can be done but it’s a pretty powerful start…

  399. AndyG55 says:

    Just woken up down here, haven’t read the paper yet. (having eye problems at the moment so could take quite a while, also try to ignoro typos)
    But from the descriptions , these new calculations seem to deal with the actual sites and at-site changes in heat absorbing surfaces. Good stuff :-)

    I problem I have is that some of the few sites still classed as “good” may also be affected by urban expansion in the general vicinity. For example, if a site is downwind (prevailing), but close to, an ever expanding urban area, how much does this affect temperature measurements? Is there any way of quantifying this?

  400. Paul Deacon says:

    Dear Anthony et al. – hearty congratulations, and my personal thanks for including a nice simple powerpoint presentation.

    May I suggest a more punchy title for the press release might be:

    “Applying UN standard shows half of US warming is spurious.”

    And somewhere near the top:

    “The US climate network has generally been considered one of the highest quality in the world.”

    I look forward to the next study covering 1998 to the present!

  401. James Sexton says:

    Is there a Klotzbach et al (2011). which refers to the amplification? Did I miss an update?

  402. Industrial Print says:

    Flew the pattern at Turner Field, north-northeast of Philadelphia 1963-4, when in high school. Early morning in some seasons, there would typically be crunchy, white frost on the ground in our countryside and every square foot north, and a thaw line running right around the built-up suburbs, looking toward the city, beyond which all was dark.

    Heat Island Effect is visible, mile after mile, decade after decade. Hundreds of thousands of pilot witnesses can’t all be greedy, hateful conservatives.

  403. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    AnonyMoose said on July 29, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    NOAA? We’re with the Humane Association, we know what you’ve been doing, and we’re here to take the pooch away.

    Leave him alone, he’s a physicist with papers.

    The pooch is a physicist, and a he-dog? Worse than we thought.

    How to Teach Physics to Your Dog
    How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog
    How to Teach Relativity to Your Dog

    Leading to this news item:
    Canine Physicists Close in on Elusive ‘Dog Particle’

    Shall we now guess the specialty of respected Union of Concerned Scientists’ member Kenji Watts?

    BTW, it would be interesting if Anthony would provide Kenji a copy of the NYT, or at least the relevant printout, so Kenji can provide a critical evaluation of Mueller’s opinion piece. Anthony can post a photo of the marked-up response. (Why not? No Friday Funny last week, certain ungrateful cretins feel we’re owed a humor piece.)

  404. jaypan says:

    This stuff is so solid, it may even force converted sceptics convert once more.

    However, there are good points Muller has made in NYT op-ed:
    “Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.”
    Nothing else has convinced me but that.

    Thanks Anthony et al. Great timing.

  405. AndyG55 says:

    PS: and it goes without saying.. GOOD WORK , all involved :-)))))

  406. Skiphil says:

    [cross post with Bishop Hill] I think that JonasM and Matthu are emphasizing an absolutely critical point.

    [first make all necessary caveats that Watts et al (2012) must go through extensive scrutiny, peer review etc.....IF it survives that relatively unscathed none of us here can assess all the implications for other papers.... BUT]

    IF the implications of Watts et al (2012) are roughly what Roger Pielke, Sr. has stated (and he was the technical proofreader so evidently has had some considerable opportunity to analyze this paper)…..

    THEN there must be large numbers of prior papers in a variety of areas which must be re-assessed, re-written, superseded by new papers with different data etc. One need not attribute any ill intent or ill behavior to anyone in the past to observe that a lot of papers are out there which rely upon data from the surface records which are now in doubt.

    Recall how Myles Allen expressed here awhile ago his concern (relating to “Climategate” matters) that *IF* there had been problems with the datasets of surface temps then a large number of his own papers might be in question.

    That is the potential “tectonic” implication of this Watts et al (2012) paper, I would think… again speaking hypothetically, since I can’t assess it, but taking Pielke Sr. as a point of discussion…. how many papers out there relied upon the surface temp data which has now been undermined???

  407. wayne says:

    So guess who crawled out of the BEST woodwork today in response (I guess)….

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/converted-skeptic-humans-driving-recent-warming/

  408. Steve O says:

    The scientific community will probably react with a collective sigh of relief, having averted the prospect of incorrect scientific results leading to misguided policy prescriptions.

    They’ll probably treat Watts like a hero, since I’m told that all they’re interested in is doing good scientific work. It will warm my heart when I (will soon) see the scientific community accept the conclusions driven by the data, no matter what those may be. I can’t wait!

  409. Wijnand says:

    Two thumbs high up in the air!
    Well done!

  410. AndyG55 says:

    @ Justthinkin says:

    “an unprecedented thunderstorm in Edmonton”

    Methinks you may have been reading too many alarmist newspaper reports ;-)

  411. Warm says:

    As attested by the authors itself, TOB change is a major bias in the recent US temperature data (L. 783):

    “We are investigating other factors such as Time-Of-Observation changes which for the adjusted USHCNv2 is the dominant adjustment factor during 1979-2008.”

    If the goal of the paper was to focus on sitting issues, why do you not use the TOB adjusted data ?

    IMHO, the results do not allow to differenciate “good” adjustments (TOB) from “bad” adjustments…

  412. michael hart says:

    Line 758/759
    “The odds of this result having occurred randomly are quite small.”
    How small?
    [some reviewers might also think “odds” are for horses, and that “probability” is a better word to use]

    Line 789
    “…which result making it difficult…”
    May read better as “…which result in making it difficult…”

    Line 806
    “..really warm conditions…”
    “Really warm…” sounds a bit too casual and imprecise.

    Line 807/808.
    What is the approximate fraction/number of sites near water treatment plants in USHCN?

    Line 812
    “It is difficult, however, to be certain of the true effect thanks to the relatively…”
    Suggest replace “thanks to” with “due to”.

    Line 814/815
    Suggest modification of the last sentence to specify more precisely which “U.S. Tmean trends from 1979 – 2008.” have been spuriously doubled. Is it the aggregated USHCNv2 [monthly station data] ?

  413. C Sea says:

    Congratulations to Anthony et al and the 650 vvolunteers.

  414. Manfred says:

    dana1981 says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    How do you explain the fact that the UAH and RSS CONUSA trend is 0.24°C/dec, Klotzbach (corrected) says the surface-TLT land-only amplification factor is 1.1, and yet you’re arguing for a surface trend of 0.155°C/dec? That’s more than a 1.5 amplification factor.

    Either UAH and RSS are biased high or your results are biased low, and frankly the former explanation is not very plausible.

    ——————————————————————————-

    The factor varies significantly for different models. Over ocean it is even 1.6. What would it be then iin coastal regions ? The consistency of this work in itself (beautifully) , with ocean data, satellite data and prior UHI and land use change work from Pielke, McKitrick and others may actually warrant to use these results for improvment of the amplification factor estimation

  415. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:38 pm
    REPLY – Well, once St. Mac gives it the full and complete monty we’ll decide which one we like best. (As of so far, I vote for VM.) ~ Evan
    There are standard ways of quantifying significance. If you state in the paper that the odds are ‘small’, you can probably get away with just that. Anything more, and especially VM, will require an explicit [and correct] calculation. Otherwise, the paper will not [should not!] pass serious peer-review. In the meantime you should use the phrase with the least amount of hype.

  416. ralph Selman says:

    Buy a round on me. Here’s $100.00

    [REPLY: Thank you very much. Your support is appreciated. -REP]

  417. Gunga Din says:
    July 29, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    1. bill says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    A few scoffers have popped up to say “yes but USA is only 2% of world’s surface….”
    ===========================================================================
    And Al Capone only cheated on his taxes …………

    My stats maths being so poor, at last this is a comment I can comment on.

    The same people pointing out that “the USA is only 2% of world’s surface….” (I always heard it was 3%…) are in likelihood the same that point to any US-only weather events as being “unprecedented” or “historical.”

    Ignore them then, ignore them now.

  418. 007 says:

    I can only wonder what the pre-1979 analysis would look like.

  419. dearieme says:

    Typo “387 May airports” should read “many”

  420. Robert of Ottawa says:

    GungaDin and Bill, the 2% argument will be the Warmistas first line of defence; an arguemnt from teh Denialists they have ignored forever. Now, they must resort to global temps; they will probably pretend to apply the same methodology as Anthony et. al. has employed here, to show how global temps are really as they say they are. Anthony et. al do not have the resources to challenge them; look how much work it took to do just the US.

    Of course, the Warmistas will not actually do the equivalent analysis, they will just make stuff up, as usual. Then, of course, there are those pesky satellites and Argo floats; they, too, after millions of dollars of “study” will be found wanting.

    I would hope a US Senator or two would want to investigate how NOAA, with public funds, can get it SO wrong; and an amateur bunch of ordinary guys can hold them up to ridicule so?

  421. Robin says:

    DavidMHoffer-all the redesigning of people’s behaviors, society, and the economy is based on 2 premises according to NASA, NOAA, and NSF Geosciences. The one I mentioned that this paper destroys and the one I quoted as not really being a helpful premise.

    This matters because these agencies believe they can use the social sciences, education, and communication to override the actual natural science. They just explained that and they have issued the USCCRP Strategic Plan for 2012-2021 detailing the plans for our servitude regardless of the facts.

    Or the accuracy of their temperature data.

  422. dana1981 says:

    REP – I’ve read more of the paper than most of the commenters here. If you don’t have the answer then just don’t answer. My question is directed at somebody who knows it. At least my comment didn’t get censored for once though. I guess that’s a step in the right direction.

    Willis – I suppose you can make the ‘within the uncertainty range’ argument, but that still suggests that one of the best values of either the UAH trend or the Watts et al. trend is pretty far off. If you’re going to make the case that the temperature record is biased, then arguing for large uncertainty bars isn’t going to help your case.

    Manfred – since this is land-only date (in fact CONUS only data), the ocean amplification factor is irrelevant.

    [REPLY: Dana, you get "censored" here when you violate site rules, which you manage to do with depressing regularity. And thank you for the admission that you had not actually read the paper before rushing to get in a comment. -REP]

  423. u.k.(us) says:

    James says:

    July 29, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    A quick comment.
    None of you posting here have any idea if there is an error in Anthony et al.’s work.
    Caution and criticism are likely to be more helpful to him than simple cheering.
    ============
    Don’t you worry, the “caution and criticism ” is coming.
    It just needs to work out a strategy.

  424. MangoChutney says:

    Let’s not get carried away here.

    I’m sure the paper will be published, but it hasn’t been submitted to any journal yet and hasn’t passed peer review. Until that time, climate scientologists will just ignore the paper as a way of burying it.

    Publishing in a quality journal (Nature or Science or is the paper too many pages for them? Or “just sends the wrong message” lol) will give the climate scientologists no excuse.

  425. James says: July 29, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Sparks – how do you know that Watts et al. won’t be the ones to have egg on their faces ? It pays for all of us to be sceptical, especially when faced with results which appear to confirm our prejudices.

    I wrote a page on UHI, having collected a great many studies, not least being those of John Daly. Watts et al 2012 is therefore not a confirmation of “prejudice” but of evidence. All Watts et al have done is the slog to turn results that were blindingly obvious to me, into a tight and fortified paper. Sure, there will, rightly and correctly, be criticisms. Judging by all past records including their generous attitude to BEST, I think all authors will cope with criticism as scientists should – by acknowledging it when it’s correct and germane to the conclusions.

  426. As far as I can see the main novelty is that the weather station classification scheme of Leroy (2010) is better than Leroy (1999). It would have been more elegant if the press release had stated that the differences between stations of various qualities can only be found in the temperature trends of the raw data and not in the homogenized (adjusted) data, which is used to compute trends.

    For a bit more detailed “review”, please visit my blog:
    http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html
    I hope I have been fair to the manuscript. I felt it was good to comment before the press started parroting the press release and the night is starting in Europe.

  427. “There are standard ways of quantifying significance. If you state in the paper that the odds are ‘small’, you can probably get away with just that. Anything more, and especially VM, will require an explicit [and correct] calculation. Otherwise, the paper will not [should not!] pass serious peer-review. In the meantime you should use the phrase with the least amount of hype.”

    I agree with that.

  428. MangoChutney says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    Publishing in a quality journal (Nature or Science or is the paper too many pages for them?
    It is much too long Nature or Science.The usual strategy is to publish the long paper somewhere else first [e.g. Journal of Geophysical Research]. Then when reviewed and accepted there ['paper in press' should be enough] submit a short ‘Letter’ to Nature or Science summarizing the main message and referring to the long paper for details. Trying anything else will fail.

  429. Anyone who’s ever lived near a weather station close enough to see it on a regular basis probably has been providing anecdotal evidence of this for decades, but having an actual study to back it up has taken WAY too long. I’ve stood by such an airport weather station, and felt the heat radiating from the tarmac on my face. I’ve personally seen another weather station within 2 meters of a central air heat exchanger, with the grass around the stations base moving every time the unit switched on.

    Strangely, with all the records set for “high” temperatures in the last 2 years, I remember vividly the temperatures being just as high or higher 20-30 years ago, for equally long times, in the area. Yet, now, it’s as if those heat waves never existed and the records I thought were set, aren’t in the books. Perhaps all the temperature readings I remember were solely TV-station-gathered readings not part of the official record, but I thought those were using input from the official weather stations just as they are now (just gathered by phone or dial-up internet instead of modern near-real-time monitoring). I would really like to see compilations printed in the 80s of daily highs & lows and compare them with what the official sources “say” the temperatures are now. More and more, I feel like the AGW crowd is telling us that “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia”….

  430. Hu McCulloch says:

    Larry says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    This was a study of US stations, not world stations, if I read correctly.
    Be hard to say much about the world from that.

    Good point, but USHCN, for all it faults, is one of the best station networks in the world. At least it generally avoids airports. GHCN, GISS, CRU, etc, depend heavily on airports, so that what Anthony has found goes double for them.

    In Ohio, for example, there are 26 USHCN stations, of which some (notably Urbana) are terrible, but only 0 are airports. But of 10 CRU stations in Ohio, 8 are airports (if you count “Cincinnati” as being in OH).

    The US may have only 2% of the earth’s surface, but it may have 50% of the earth’s valid weather stations! (Just a WAG) :-)

  431. basara549 says:

    Anyone who’s ever lived near a weather station close enough to see it on a regular basis probably has been providing anecdotal evidence of this for decades, but having an actual study to back it up has taken WAY too long. I’ve stood by such an airport weather station, and felt the heat radiating from the tarmac on my face. I’ve personally seen another weather station within 2 meters of a central air heat exchanger, with the grass around the stations base moving every time the unit switched on.

    Strangely, with all the records set for ”high” temperatures in the last 2 years, I remember vividly the temperatures being just as high or higher 20-30 years ago, for equally long times, in the area. Yet, now, it’s as if those heat waves never existed and the records I thought were set, aren’t in the books. Perhaps all the temperature readings I remember were solely TV-station-gathered readings not part of the official record, but I thought those were using input from the official weather stations just as they are now (just gathered by phone or dial-up internet instead of modern near-real-time monitoring). I would really like to see compilations printed in the 80s of daily highs & lows and compare them with what the official sources ”say” the temperatures are now. More and more, I feel like the AGW crowd is telling us that ”we’ve always been at war with Eastasia”….

  432. David A. Evans says:

    I can see how TOBs can affect the mean temp, unfortunately, I can’t remember whether Obs moved from morning to evening or vice versa.
    Early morning Obs can bias the temps down, Evening Obs can bias upwards.
    Then again, when did we stop using max/min thermometers?

    DaveE.

  433. A. Scott says:

    Anthony – excellent work.

    Having PR and media experience I agree – the press release needs a strong headline – you have to give the media one sentence that grabs their attention.

    Something like this:

    NEW TEMPERATURE REVIEW USING UPDATED WMO APPROVED STANDARD SHOWS NOAA WARMING DATA ERRONEOUSLY ADJUSTED – WARMING SIGNIFICANTLY OVERSTATED

  434. Joe Willmann says:

    Figures 10 – 19, I would have liked it better if the figures that were related all had the same vertical scale. By having the scale set automatically by the data in the figure I thought it was more difficult to spot trends across the graphs. By using the same scale the trends become more obvious.

  435. Christoph Dollis says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:05 pm
    “ Otherwise, the paper will not [should not!] pass serious peer-review. In the meantime you should use the phrase with the least amount of hype.”
    I agree with that.

    How can a reasonable person disagree?

  436. Rod Stuart says:

    Fantastic work by very dedicated people.

  437. A. Scott says:

    shoot – I should refresh browser once in a while – seems you’ve already addressed ;-)

  438. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Jaypan, Muller was never a skeptic. That he states he was a skeptic is a deliberate propaganda pose; he is on record for the past 15 years as saying he believes in AGW. He is a Warmista in pseudo-Denial clothing, a Judas Goat.

  439. MangoChutney says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: July 29, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    MangoChutney says: July 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    Publishing in a quality journal (Nature or Science or is the paper too many pages for them?

    It is much too long Nature or Science.

    Thanks Leif, that’s what I thought

  440. Sean says:

    “Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied”

    —————

    Why is properly collected data even being “adjusted” in the first place?

    And why is improperly collected data being adjusted data all? It should just be discarded.

    Each site has unique errors introduced by the combinations of different instrunmentation, different local siting problems etc. You can not just homogenize all the data across all the sites with the same algorithm. It is just too bad for climatologists that there is only a sparse amount of data available and that most of it is grossly contaminated by bad experimental technique.

    If a study was sequencing a neaderthal DNA sample that was contaminated during collection with human DNA, the results and researchers would be laughed out of their field if they retained this data and tried to “adjust” it and then make fallacious claims about how much it matched human DNA.

    If a chemist was measuring the mass of samples and realized that they had been placing their thumb on the scale for some samples, they would not keep those measurements and try to “adjust them” by guestimating how much pressure their thumb was applying to the scale on average and then applying a correction factor to all their measurements. They would start over and gather new data and avoid making the same experimental errors this time.

    As far as I am concerned every one of the official temperature record data bases is nothing more than junk science. They need to start from scratch and collect new data. Too bad for them that this means they will not be around when enough data exists to make insightful analysis.

    How about they try discarding all of the poorly sited stations and their half-baked data. I would like to see what trend that smaller data set would show, and without any adjustments please, just properly stated error.

  441. Izen says:

    How well do the compliant sites match with the USCRN ?

  442. Adrian says:

    I like the preprint, but there is zero chance of this getting past peer reivew
    e.g.
    758… The odds of this result having occurred randomly is very small.

    Peer Review: Is this an IPCC report? lol

  443. Rob says:

    I am a meteorologist and am not surprised by these results. With my car thermometer on a clear night I start in an outskirt part of town (Springdale road) and it’s 42 degrees, into the urbanized area (Oakley) and it’s 45, and then I drive south to a rural area (Union, KY) and its back around 42 again. Seems like UHI and land use could definitely be a factor here. This is for the Cincinnati area.

  444. jono1066 says:

    My father, a retired chartered engineer, who developed arming devices for the Ministry of Defence once told me.
    “Your enemy is always your best friend, especially when you hide nothing.”
    If the other (AGW) parties can find nothing wrong with your methodology and your results then they have just helped you secure your position,
    magna diem (?)

  445. boballab says:

    Hu McCulloch says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:06 pm
    Larry says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    This was a study of US stations, not world stations, if I read correctly.
    Be hard to say much about the world from that.

    Good point, but USHCN, for all it faults, is one of the best station networks in the world. At least it generally avoids airports. GHCN, GISS, CRU, etc, depend heavily on airports, so that what Anthony has found goes double for them.

    Besides that I don’t think people understand that the methodology for the USHCN v2 adjustments is the same ones used in GHCN v3. If the methodology doesn’t work in USHCN it also will not work in GHCN for the exact same reasons. Both CRUTem 4 and GISS rely on GHCN v3 and if GHCN v3 is flawed then it will then flaw the GISS and CRUtem datasets, GIGO fashion.

  446. How can a reasonable person disagree?

    1. Neither the world — nor even these comments! — are solely populated by reasonable people.
    2. I think the paper is great work, on balance — important work — and I want it to succeed in being widely considered and taken seriously. So I chimed in hoping the authors actually make the change.

    Now if I was writing sales copy, that’d be different. Then “reasonable” is a whole different ball of wax.

  447. boballab says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    How can a reasonable person disagree?

    Given Gavin and the Team 5 minutes and they will think of a way :)

  448. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Victor Venema @ July 29, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    It was the same author. He refined his analysis and it has been adopted as the Global Standard for rating weather station locations; this is not some shmuck sucking his finger. See my previous comments.

  449. Warm says:

    L 742-747

    You use an “amplification factor” to match surface and lower troposphere results. The value is from Klotzbach 2010 (not 2011). It seems not well adapted for CONUS, because this is for global temperature, not for extra-tropical land !

    Furthermore, Klotzbach states “the expected global surface/lower-troposphere amplification
    that is calculated from the lapse rate enhancement in the global models”, and then gives three references: two references are about TROPICS only : [Santer et al., 2005; Karl et al., 2006;
    Douglass et al., 2007].

    Santer, B. D., et al. (2005), Amplification of surface temperature trends and
    variability in the tropical atmosphere, Science, 309, 1551 – 1556,
    doi:10.1126/science.1114867.

    Douglass, D. H., J. R. Christy, B. D. Pearson, and S. F. Singer (2007), A
    comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, Int. J.
    Climatol., 28, 1693– 1701, doi:10.1002/joc.1651.

    IMHO, the “lapse reate enhancement” is mainly a tropical and oceanic phenomenom. You should provide other references to support your “amplification factor”. Other references seem to demonstrate a higher surface trend as compared to lower troposphere trend over extra-tropical land, especially in arctic, due to polar amplification.

  450. David G says:

    [SNIP: Sorry, no. -REP]

  451. Theo Goodwin says:

    Finally, someone is doing some real science on the data. Thank you, Anthony and friends.

    This is a wonderful shot across the bow of all Warmistas who, to a man, insist that any two temperatures from any two places on the globe are comparable. The scientific response to such nonsense is Hell No! Empirical work must be done to identify what counts as a valid temperature reading. And that empirical work must reveal the physical conditions underlying the recording of temperatures.

    Bravo! Anthony and friends.

  452. David A. Evans says:

    Ian W says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    Unfortunately Ian, I think we’re fighting a losing battle her & everywhere else. I’ve even suggested, (not seriously,) heating an oven to 200°C and then opening the door, feeling the nice warm 200°C air coming from the top of the door, then comparing that to putting their hand into a pan of 100°C boiling water. Disclaimer, do the first bit but if you dip your hand in boiling water, you’re an idiot.

    DaveE.

  453. UzUrBrain says:

    I can remember waiting at the local airport for my dad to come home from a business trip – in 1955! The parking area was less than 200 yards from the door to the airport terminal (they only had 4 or 5 flights a day). On the other side of the fence was the “weather station” equipment – like those you see in SurfaceStation.org pictures. But back then there was at least 30 yards (meters) of grass around the station. After joining the Navy I had not been back to this airport in over 60 years, however, on a recent trip back to my hometown I noted that this weather station has been encroached upon by the new terminal, air conditioners, the drop-off lane and even the aircraft blast shields. It looked similar to the recent picture of the Bartow, Fl station on WUWT site a few days ago. How can anyone possibly think that the temperature that this station provides is in any way related to the actual temperature? How can they use this data in any scientific analysis? How many other stations throughout the world are just like this? The AGW group has only provided us with proof that the airports are getting warmer and staying warmer!

  454. How can a reasonable person disagree?

    Given Gavin and the Team 5 minutes and they will think of a way :)

    Hush, you!

    He said reasonable.

  455. MrX says:

    Haven’t gone through the paper yet. Just looking at the ppt files right now. One thing that I find striking is the comparison between airport vs. non-airport COMPLIANT stations. Now, if they were compliant, should they not have a similar trend? Does this suggest a need to revisit what exactly a compliant station should be? Airport compliant stations show fully twice as much warming as non-airport compliant stations.

    Anyways, looking forward to reading the paper, but this seems like it puts into question not just the temperature datasets, but also the definition of compliant stations. Or at the very least, their consistency. And I haven’t even mentioned the adjustments that you go into on top of that. In any other field, I can’t see people letting it go this far.

    Am I misunderstanding? This consequences seem way bigger than I could have imagined.

  456. James Sexton says:

    dana1981 says:
    July 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    REP – I’ve read more of the paper than most of the commenters here. If you don’t have the answer then just don’t answer. My question is directed at somebody who knows it. At least my comment didn’t get censored for once though. I guess that’s a step in the right direction.
    ========================================================
    Take a moment and think about it. The amplification factor once agreed upon was based on the temps which had been homogenized. Clearly, the assumptions were based upon poor surface temp data handling. Thus, the agreed upon amplification factor can and should be raised, to about 1.5/1.6.

    But, you knew that. This is what the paper is about. As people above have noted, the CONUS is only about 2% of the globe. But, the way the data is handled, ……. well, that’s 100% of the globe.

  457. David Ross says:

    I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide sound science for the people and reassurance to the scared-snipless…etc

    Absolutely. This is a historical moment – as opposed to the hysterical movements we’ve seen.

    To borrow Churchill: Climategate was “not the end. It was not even the beginning of the end. But it was the end of the beginning” – exposure of bad science and bad practice.

    I think this paper is going to prove to be what Anthony cracked it up to be, and truly the “beginning of the end” – an unsuppressable paper concerned with the fundamental rebuilding of proper scientific standards, dealing with the most fundamental measure of CAGW: recent global temperature changes. Lack of jazzy title matters little because of its imperturbably fundamental nature and importance.

    If journals try to ignore this paper, their behaviour will be condemned from the rooftops.
    If warmists try illegitimately to debunk it, this too will be shouted from the rooftops.
    If IPCC try to ignore it, this too will be shouted from the rooftops.

    All the papers that have, as described above, metastasized from the original illness of the thermometer records etc, will have to be cut down to size. Syllabuses will have to change. Research descriptions. NAS and RS statements on AGW. And more. All of which will constitute the true “end” of the climate science wars…

    …oh wait, there is the small matter of CO2 queries, and Loschmidt’s challenge to 2LoT… but these can wait a bit longer…

  458. Bob K. says:

    Congratulation, Anthony et al. Excellent work.
    The IPCC’s deadline for inclusion in AR5 is 31-July-2012 (Gergis is aiming to resubmit their paper by then, see http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/AIMS%20Emails%20J.Gergis%20and%20J.Lough(1.1.10-19.6.12) .pdf ).
    Seems obvious that Muller, just like Gergis, were rushing for their papers to be published by that deadline. Now that your paper meets that – does it mean it is elligible for assessment by IPCC’s AR5?

  459. ” Now, if they were compliant, should they not have a similar trend? Does this suggest a need to revisit what exactly a compliant station should be?”

    I think what they’re getting at is the standards mainly look at permanent fixtures of the station … and that the effects of those, while significant, get dwarfed by big honking petrol-fuelled machines intermittently taxiing about.

  460. JJB MKI says:

    Congratulations Anthony, Evan, Steve and John. Your hard work is too important to be ignored, though the orthodoxy will likely pretend to. Very best of luck with it.

    J Burns

  461. Maybe “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.” would be better as “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 upward adjustments of well-sited stations.”?

  462. MrX says:

    Line 124: “it was it was”

  463. Joe Willmann says:

    Another question to ponder…..
    I wonder how many sites at the beginning of the time series had transitioned from rural, to urban and from class 1/2 to class 5 over time. For instance assume that a rural site with an average 0.1 per decade after 10 years slowly turns into a semi urban with a .2 per decade and then 10 years later is an urban with .3 per decade. Would the graph of that site’s temperature over time look just like a hockey stick?

    Isn’t it funny, the more you learn the more you want to know? Thanks Anthony for giving me more to learn.

  464. Nick Stokes says:

    “and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data”
    It’s not clear to me what that is the trend of? Is it the poorly sited stations according to this new criterion? If so, how did NOAA come to adjust that data?

    I calculated the 1979-2008 trend from NOAA’s ConUS figures. It came to 0.24 °C/decade. That compares well to the UAH trend of 0.23 °C/decade (for 1979-present).

    It’s ironic that both Spencer and Christy have published trends that differ, for different reasons, from the “NOAA trend”, but that equally differ from their own satellite trend, which agrees with NOAA.

  465. michael hart says:

    Figure 1 Legend
    “Figure 1 – USHCNv2 stations that with complete metadata ….”
    “..stations that with complete…” Typo ??

    Figure 20
    Present the data. Not “What the data says.”
    For example, replace “What the NOAA final adjusted data says” with just “NOAA final adjusted data” or some such.
    It would also be nice to have the regions [and in figure 2] labelled or numbered so that the reader can cross reference with data in figures 4 to 8. Not all readers/reviewers might be so familiar with the geographical divisions and abbreviations. Similarly figure 3 might be better with the regions shown, if possible.

    Figures 21 and 22
    The axis text seems too small and is difficult to read at 100% size in the .pdf viewer. Some color might improve the figures.

    Figure 21, First panel.
    The width of the bars is not significant, but having them wider than in panels 2,3, and 4 distracts the viewer’s attention from the data being presented.

    Figure 22 panels 1,2, and 4
    Is the data effectively zero in all three panels [as compared to panel 3]? The value of multiple panels to present zero data like this seems questionable.

    Figure 23
    The text at the top of each panel appears slightly deformed [and incongruous bold&font], as do the lines between data points, and the icons used for the data. Maybe it’s an artefact of the pdf. I don’t know, but it looks almost hand drawn.

  466. Bob K. says:

    PS: Where is your “tip jar” hiding? Can’t find it…

    [REPLY: Look on the right side of the page. Scroll down the page a bit. When you hit the Free World Climate Widget a very modest "donate" button is located just below it. Thank you for your support. -REP]

  467. Chris D. says:

    Congratulations, Anthony, et. al.! It’s nice to see a another, even more significant contribution resulting from all that work.

  468. B. Woo says:

    Hit that donate button, folks!

    Hit it like you mean it!

    This major effort is pure research-grade gold.

    Bravo, Anthony et al !!!!

  469. Latimer Alder says:

    Can anybody speculate on what this means for Jim Hansen’s predictions?

    It would seem to suggest that he has been a bit over-alarmist and that Thermageddon may have to be postponed at least until Thanksgiving…..

  470. Another question to ponder…..
    I wonder how many sites at the beginning of the time series had transitioned from rural, to urban and from class 1/2 to class 5 over time.

    Yeah, I thought about this too. In fact, it’s one of or even the major point — that’s where a lot of the change may have come from. Well, that NOAA didn’t pencil in!

  471. Ed Barbar says:

    Just a small note. I see in the graphs that 8 of 50 of the adjusted temperature readings are less than the raw measurements in the graph. If there were an equal chance of the “raw” measurements being higher or lower than the “adjusted” measurements, then that would yield about 1 chance in 1,000,000 that 8 or fewer “adjusted” measurements of 50 would be less than or equal to the “raw” measurements.

  472. meemoe_uk says:

    Watts et. al. 2012 invalidates all the major data sets and your’re “dissapointed”? No pleasing some people… -REP

    Well I was already convinced the global warming thing was a scam. When their temp sensors are next to AC vents and BBQs the data is invalidated already, to my mind anyway.

  473. TomRude says:

    Why is this not included in references? Thanks
    If Anthony Watts is the lead author of this study and Roger Pielke Sr. endorses it, then this is the kiss of death for this study. It could only be worse if Stephen McIntyre or John Christy had any involvement. I’d wait and see if it passes peer-review and anyone is willing to publish it.

    It looks very suspicious that Watt’s USHCN study is the odd one out. I imagine it will picked apart quickly when people who know what they are doing look at it. A study was just completed of the USHCN in February 2012. See its findings below.
    ______________________

    “An intercomparison of temperature trends in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network and recent atmospheric reanalyses”

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L10703, 6 PP., 2012
    doi:10.1029/2012GL051387

    Russell S. Vose
    Scott Applequist
    Matthew J. Menne
    Claude N. Williams Jr.
    Peter Thorne

    Key Points
    The trend in HCN is comparable to the ensemble mean of the reanalyses
    The HCN bias adjustments improve consistency with the reanalyses
    HCN and the reanalyses both depict widespread warming from 1979–2008

    Abstract: Temperature trends over 1979–2008 in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (HCN) are compared with those in six recent atmospheric reanalyses. For the conterminous United States, the trend in the adjusted HCN (0.327 °C dec−1) is generally comparable to the ensemble mean of the reanalyses (0.342 °C dec−1). It is also well within the range of the reanalysis trend estimates (0.280 to 0.437 °C dec−1). The bias adjustments play a critical role, as the raw HCN dataset displays substantially less warming than all of the reanalyses. HCN has slightly lower maximum and minimum temperature trends than those reanalyses with hourly temporal resolution, suggesting the HCN adjustments may not fully compensate for recent non-climatic artifacts at some stations. Spatially, both the adjusted HCN and all of the reanalyses indicate widespread warming across the nation during the study period. Overall, the adjusted HCN is in broad agreement with the suite of reanalyses.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/ 2012GL051387.shtml

  474. RobertInAz says:

    Another snip from Pielke, but go over and read the whole thing:
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/comments-on-the-game-changer-new-paper-an-area-and-distance-weighted-analysis-of-the-impacts-of-station-exposure-on-the-u-s-historical-climatology-network-temperatures-and-temperature-trends-by-w/

    “Anthony Watt’s new paper shows that a major correction is needed Muller’s BEST study. Anthony also has shown what dedicated scientists can do with even limited financial support. Despite the large quantities of funds spent on the BEST study, it is Anthony Watts and his team who have actually significantly advanced our understanding of this aspect of the climate system. Well done Anthony!”

  475. A. Scott says:

    James says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    On another note, its not enough that a method is simply “endorsed”. The CAGW methodology is endorsed by the community and accepted by governments worldwide. To claim the method is endorsed is a useful statement but the argument shouldn’t be overused.

    James says:
    July 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm
    Johnbuk
    I was referring to the endorsement by WMO of the siting method (as described in today’s blog post).

    James – had you read the paper you would have found this quote from WMO:

    “The Commission agreed that the publication of the siting classification as a common WMO-ISO standard would help in assessing and improving the quality of data originating from WMO-owned, cosponsored and non-WMO observing networks. The Commission agreed to further develop this classification as a common WMO-ISO standard.”

  476. George says:

    Seems obvious that Muller, just like Gergis, were rushing for their papers to be published by that deadline. Now that your paper meets that – does it mean it is elligible for assessment by IPCC’s AR5?

    IPCC apparently has no problems with accepting stuff that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Maybe Mr. Watts should submit it to a magazine for publication. IPCC should be perfectly happy with that based on their track record.

  477. TomRude says:

    The comment came from a Globe and Mail poster… named soundoff

  478. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    How do the conclusions of this study compare with the new study from the BEST people, entitled

    “Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years”
    http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

    and also released today?

  479. timetochooseagain says:

    I saw a couple of comments up thread asking for information on Klotzbach et al. as pertains to it’s use to estimate what the satellite temperature trends over the lower 48 US states imply about surface temperature trends: bearing in mind that amplification factors, or lack there of, are estimated from models:

    http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/klotzbachetal2010.pdf

    Found that in the GISS model, the global LT amplification over land is about 1.1. This is of course a global figure, and what the factor would be over the US specifically is hard to say. However, I personal must stress that there is no reason to assume that the models get the right amplification factor in individual locations, or even globally (although, if it is even slightly greater than 1, and I do think it is, globally, the Klotzbach et al conclusions would still stand).

    Personally, I’m a little skeptical of this paper’s conclusions, as I tend to think that the US data is good relative to that in the rest of the world and has relatively little bias. Still, I think it contributes to the discussion of problems with surface temperature trends.

  480. Graeme W says:

    I’m always interested in boundary conditions. In this case, it appears to be on classification of sites at the 2 vs 3 boundary. The paper indicates that for many sites, the classification was not done on-site, but via photos (especially aerial photographs). There would have been a number of sites where the classification calculation would have been close to the 2 vs 3 boundary. If an error bar was applied to that calculation, how many sites may have moved from the 3 to 2 classification, and would that have a significant impact on the results?

    I’m just looking at dotting i’s and crossing t’s type analysis. We all know that one way to discredit a dataset (in this case the Leroy (2010) site classifications) is to find data in that dataset that is clearly incorrect. It is therefore important to show that potentially incorrect classifications around the boundary points will not have a significant impact on the results. This is is something probably for an SI rather than the paper itself.

  481. Latimer Alder says:

    Unless there are really fundamental errors in this paper, it will be haunting and embarrassing the warmists for years to come.

    If this base data for just about everything else is wrong by a factor of two (whether by accident, incompetence or deliberately), then everything else that rests on these foundations needs to be redone. Those who have lost/mislaid/destroyed their original programs, data and notes will find this to be very hard to do. And all those models calibrated against it and their scary conclusions will be shown to be wrong.

    The ramifications are nearly endless. Expect a very strong fight from the climatology establishment. They have sinecures and careers and reputations to lose.

  482. Ed Barbar says:

    Nick,

    The 2007 trend from UAH, according to Wikipedia, is .143 degrees C per decade, which matches well with Watts, et. alia paper.

    One of the significant points of the Watts et. Alia paper, is that adjustments need to be reviewed carefully.

    Regards,

    Ed

  483. C. Moore says:

    Congratulations! I also had a problem with a paypal donation using the preset $100 button. I tried it using the “Choose Your Own $ Value” and it worked.

  484. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    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.

    ….I can already hear the gnashing of teeth!! Bringing in Stephe McIntyre was brilliant!!

    Well done, Anthony! You have put your money (and time away from family, and backbreaking work etc.) where your mouth is!

    Cheers, Charles The DrPH

  485. Graeme W says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:58 pm
    I’m always interested in boundary conditions. In this case, it appears to be on classification of sites at the 2 vs 3 boundary. The paper indicates that for many sites, the classification was not done on-site, but via photos (especially aerial photographs). There would have been a number of sites where the classification calculation would have been close to the 2 vs 3 boundary. If an error bar was applied to that calculation, how many sites may have moved from the 3 to 2 classification, and would that have a significant impact on the results?

    Extremely good question. And getting more and better data (in this case on the data-gathering instruments!) is a great idea.

    However, I think you’ll find the paper’s conclusions prove robust. It just makes sense that things would fall out the way they did.

  486. Ron says:

    How long will it take for the correct data to be input into data bases operated by such as Wood For Trees?

  487. TomRude says:

    To Moderator and readers: the post about Vose et al 2012 came from a comment in the Globe & Mail by a poster named “SoundOff”. I wanted only to ask about the reference not his original demeaning comment on Anthony and co-authors but I hit the “send” button too fast, sorry for the confusion.

  488. Green Sand says:

    Watts & Co, many thanks for making your hard work public, still reading whilst fielding nonesense in the UK.

    Looking forward to the true “public review” that will now commence.

    Thank you

  489. Beth Cooper says:


    ‘Charms strike the sight
    But merit wins the soul.’

    Says Pope and others here

    Good on yer, Anthony.

  490. Steve Reynolds says:

    Congratulations on what looks like (on a very quick reading) an excellent contribution to climate science.
    One question; you state in the paper:
    “Where such discrepancies could not be resolved, or it was determined from photographs, 271 metadata, or curator interviews that the station had been closed or moved after 2002, and 272 prior location could not be established, that station was excluded from consideration and 273 not included in this study.”
    How much do you know about how the quality of stations has changed with time (especially ones changed prior to 2002)? If the quality of individual stations has changed over the entire period from 1979 nearly randomly, then you might expect those going from good to bad to have an elevated trend, but also those going from bad to good having a reduced trend. Has this potential source of systematic error been considered? This could be significant if many of the currently good stations were previously bad.

  491. Hu McCulloch said (July 29, 2012 at 4:06 pm)

    in reply to Larry’s comment at 1:04 pm “…This was a study of US stations, not world stations, if I read correctly. Be hard to say much about the world from that…”

    “…Good point, but USHCN, for all it faults, is one of the best station networks in the world. At least it generally avoids airports. GHCN, GISS, CRU, etc, depend heavily on airports, so that what Anthony has found goes double for them…”

    Absolutely. First thing, though is if anyone wants to use GISS, HadCru, or GHCN’s data to refute the facts and conclusions of Watts et al (2012), they’ll have to get them to release their station lists.

    Then, they’ll need comprehensive metadata to see exactly how those stations they use would fall under the METEOFrance classifications (approved as the WMO-ISO standard).

    From there, they can use those lists and station data with the newer, 2-year old methods (listed as Leroy 2010), to see how the GLOBAL trends show up.

    At least, that’s what a REAL scientist would do. They’d want to see if the trends seen using the old methods (and standards) follows through using the new methods (and standards).

  492. Beth Cooper says:

    Er … not that you aren’t charming as well, Anthony.:-)

  493. [REPLY: I'm sorry, you obviously read the paper, but I'm not entirely sure just what your substantive criticisms are. Must be my poor reading comprehension. Thank you for your insightful analysis. -REP]
    JOSH
    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: July 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    hahahshahahaha spot on

    Tucci78 says: July 29, 2012 at 2:00 pm
    Zeke says: July 29, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    good points

    arnoarrak says: July 29, 2012 at 3:32 pm
    bluegrue says: July 29, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    good to pay attention to issues raised here

  494. Graeme W says:

    I’ve tried to find a definitive answer to this question, but I was unable to so I’m hoping someone else would know.

    I’ve been thinking about the TOB adjustment and whether it impacts on this analysis. I understand that Karl et al. 1986 describes how there can be a bias when the measurement 24-hour period does not start/end at midnight, and because temperature observation times changed over the historical period, an adjustment is needed.

    However, did the temperature observation time change over the 1979-2008 period? I’m under the impression that the historical change in observation time predates this period, in which case the observations in this period will be consistent in any bias, and hence the bias can be ignored as it won’t significantly impact the trend.

    Hopefully someone with more detailed knowledge will be able to comment on whether a TOB adjustment should have any significant impact on the 1979-2008 period, or if it is only relevant when trying to examine trends starting from earlier dates.

  495. Gail Combs says:

    Stu says:
    July 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Lucy says: “Neither eye-for-eye nor sour grapes. It’s martial arts.”

    I can appreciate that. I can see it both ways actually. But when commenters were previously so against ‘science by press release’ …
    ____________________________
    AHH, but Stu this is not science by Press Release this is a proof reading of the final draft by the over 650 citizen volunteers and their friends. Unlike others with a couple of exceptions, Anthony et al will read these comments and use them to tighten up the paper. Willis and I think Roy Spencer have also used WUWT as a final review for a paper before submitting.

    I think it is a great idea. It is very tough to read your own stuff and edit it. This comment by bluegrue @ July 29, 2012 at 3:06 pm is an excellent example of what I mean:

    This is a driveby comment after skimming the manuscript.

    You are using “raw” for two different categorizations: on the one hand for “raw data” vs. “adjusted data” and on the other hand for “raw average” vs. “gridded average”. You drop the distinction in many figures….

  496. RoyFOMR says:

    Suggestions for headline:-
    Settled science? Not any more!
    It may not be as bad as we thought it was!
    Recent studies throw doubt on Global Warming.
    Climate Science stunned. Two plus Two does equal 4!
    ‘Flip-Flop’ Muller admits that he used to be a Warmist!
    Sadly, however, we’re more likely to get this;
    The science is settled
    It’s worse than we thought
    New findings intensify pressure on western governments to act NOW on Global Warming
    Ante-Normal mathematics – a resurrected weapon of mass-destruction by climate conservatives?
    I’m so much happier now, says Muller, I’ve finally see the light and am enjoying the BEST years of my life. Yup, we are all going to fry!

  497. James Sexton says:

    jimmi_the_dalek says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    How do the conclusions of this study compare with the new study from the BEST people, entitled

    “Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years”
    http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

    and also released today?
    ======================================
    They are at odds with each other. Muller was told he wasn’t handling the adjustments properly, but has ignored the people correcting him.

    But, in trying to discern which is most believable, consider this. Muller claims his BEST data can tell us what the temps of the globe were 250 years ago. By my reckoning, there were about 10 thermometers we could use for analysis back than, all in Europe. In my view, he loses credibility from that point. I’ve got an image of the GHCN thermometers mapped in 1762…… http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/muller-never-was-a-skeptic/

  498. JWK says:

    “This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue…” May I suggest that you reword this to avoid using the word “issue” twice? It sounds a bit awkward.

  499. Ian H says:

    David A. Evans says:
    I can see how TOBs can affect the mean temp, unfortunately, I can’t remember whether Obs moved from morning to evening or vice versa.
    Early morning Obs can bias the temps down, Evening Obs can bias upwards.
    Then again, when did we stop using max/min thermometers?

    TOBS can matter even when using a max/min thermometer. I can show you why with a simple thought experiment.

    Suppose (for the sake of this thought experiment) that temperature fluctuated regularly with max temp always occurring at 2pm and min temp always occuring at 2am each day. If the observation time was 2pm then the thermometer would be being reset each day at the hottest time, so the reading on the thermometer would be the largest of todays temperature peak and yesterdays. This would bias the maximum up slightly but would have no effect on the minimum. Conversely if temperatures were taken at 2am the minimum recorded temperature would be the lowest of todays and yesterdays and would be biased slightly downwards but there would be no effect on the max.

    If you stay away from taking measurements near the hottest or coldest time of the day however, any TOBS effect when using a max/min thermometer is going to be tiny. So while the effect is real, one should take care not to overstate its effect or overadjust for it.

  500. Ally E. says:

    A. Scott says:

    July 29, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    …Having PR and media experience I agree – the press release needs a strong headline – you have to give the media one sentence that grabs their attention.

    Something like this:

    NEW TEMPERATURE REVIEW USING UPDATED WMO APPROVED STANDARD SHOWS NOAA WARMING DATA ERRONEOUSLY ADJUSTED – WARMING SIGNIFICANTLY OVERSTATED

    *

    How about something shorter, sharper and juicier: ERRONEOUS ADJUSTMENTS CONFIRMED TO DOUBLE WARMING.

    :)

  501. Goldie says:

    Good paper. I note that about 20% of sites are class 1 and 2 and therefore compliant. I think statistically this is sufficient. However, you don’t seem to mention anywhere how many of these are rural, suburban and urban so when you demonstrate the difference in trends for these locations I am left with that question. Also, you might like to demonstrate whether the distribution of data is “normal” and therefore suitable for ANOVA or whether it is non-normal (just so there is no question in that regards).

  502. Michael D Smith says:

    Congrats to you all. In a related note, have you seen what Steve Goddard has found lately? A 3°F difference in USA between USHCN and GHCN. GHCN is 3°F higher in trend since 1895. USA is almost dead flat in USHCN. It is an amazing difference (which Steve thinks is related to most sites being at Airports in GHCN(US)).

    Did you guys consider using USHCN instead of GHCN?

    Please have a look:
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/a-tale-of-two-countries-the-richard-muller-gigo-story

  503. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    Question. While waiting for the data to be released, could we get a simple station listing? A listing of the stations used (plus their new quality ranking) would allow a lot of checking/replication, and it wouldn’t take much effort to release.

  504. Tad says:

    I notice that Arizona has warmed at the fastest rate for all three of the data sets in the graphic. Arizona has had more urban sprawl and concrete and tarmac added to it than probably any other place in the US, so this is absolutely no surprise to me. It has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 or “global warming”.

  505. Not only have Anthony and co-authors outclassed BEST with both immaculate timing for BEST and AR5, as well as courteous acknowledgement and adoption of martial tactics.

    They’ve done the same re the Wahl & Amman Jesus paper tactics ie if it was OK for IPCC to accept a published paper dependent on being supported by an unpublished paper, then it’s OK for IPCC to reject published papers dependent on not being undermined by an unpublished paper.

    Brilliant.

    My favorite hero Alfred the Great also adopted the “tricks” of his opponents, in order to best them. This is why British history says that Alfred founded the British Navy. He did – thanks to adopting Viking “tricks”.

  506. pat says:

    kudos to all concerned.
    naturally, Muller is all over the MSM. plus:

    30 July: ABC: Ocean study reveals carbon not sinking
    Research co-author Richard Matear from the CSIRO says the deep currents which draw carbon into the ocean actually vent it upwards in some areas…
    The research has been published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-30/carbon-storage-trends-revealed/4163274?section=tas

    on BBC radio last nite, with Sulston saying climate deniers are now fewer, and getting more shrill:

    29 July: BBC World Service: The Forum: Inequality
    We present a special edition of The Forum hosted by former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson.
    Joining her in front of a lively audience at the RSA in London are Nobel prize-winning biologist John Sulston…
    John Sulston is a Nobel prize-winning biologist and chair of a recent report ‘People and the Planet’. He is particularly interested in the challenge of inter-generational inequality; the likelihood that our present overconsumption will make life worse for future generations. John argues that we have a duty to preserve resources for those who come after us…
    Mary Robinson: She now leads the Mary Robinson Foundation working for Climate Justice…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00vtkcs

  507. Wagathon says:

    Yes, yes Al Gore I am quite sure it is the same Kristen Byrnes.

  508. tango says:

    I hope it will apply to australia to well done

  509. Nick Stokes says:

    Ed Barbar says: July 29, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    “Nick,The 2007 trend from UAH, according to Wikipedia, is .143 degrees C per decade,…”

    Ed, is that the US48 trend? The 0.23°C/decade US trend comes from their own file, which gives 0.14 as the global trend.

  510. gnrnr says:

    Anthony,

    Line 279 does not seem to make sense within the context of the previous portion of the sentence.

    “a full distance and area measurement are; low resolution aerial photography that made it”

    I think the problem is with the “are;”.

    Regards

    Gnrnr

  511. geo says:

    Once again the value of basic data collection, and the dangers of jumping to conclusions about the earliest analysis of that data, is proven. Can’t say I’m surprised.

  512. gnrnr says:

    Line beginning 758

    “The odds of this result having occurred randomly are quite small.”

    Assertion. Though I do agree with it :D

  513. Doug Proctor at BH:

    Watts’ paper is a get-out-of-jail-free card for every warmist. Based on current knowledge, they have behaved responsibly. Everyone from Al Gore to Bill McKibben has been mislead by the wrong statistical techniques, but, most importantly, not about global warming per se, but the rate of global warming.

    Great point. Thanks Doug.

  514. Gail Combs says:

    Steve O says:
    July 29, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    The scientific community will probably react with a collective sigh of relief…
    _________________________
    You forgot the /sarc tag

    I only wish what you said was true, but I am not holding my breath.

  515. Wagathon says:

    With these findings in addition to NOAA-gate (NOAA’s doing a Number One on the scientific method by abandoning hundreds of measuring stations in cooler regions) we now have NOAA’s “Number Two-gate.”

  516. Axel says:

    Many people are saying that NOAA has posted erronious data, and temperature readings, in the past, but seemingly in many cases the NOAA data (as reported by Wolfram Alpha) appears to agree with Anthony’s numbers (roughly), but it has been MIS-REPORTED. Now who was it that did the mis-reporting? Because if this is really true, then those who knowingly and deliberately mis-reported that NOAA data would be guilty of a criminal fraud. Some blogger employed by NOAA perhaps?

    we should be told.

  517. Bob says:

    William McClenney says:
    July 29, 2012 at 2:10 pm
    “…
    How many realize that messing with the orbital paced variables invariably yields peaks of ~100,000 years, ~41,000 years and ~19-23,000 years? Would even the wise wise one (Homo sapiens sapiens) stumble past the precession-minimum looming over the next 4,000 years? We have only been massively burning fossil fuels for about the last 200 years or so. KNOWING that CO2 gas is a GHG, and KNOWING that we might need to bridge the gap to the next, several thousands of years-away rise in N65 insolation, what would you do, hominid, if it was all left up to you?

    And would you base that decision on use, or dismissal, of Watts et al 2012?

    It’s a fair question.

    I am not sure what you said, but I think you said it pretty well.

  518. Entropic man says:

    “The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites,”

    This is the global land-ocean temperature index compiled by NASA/Goddard.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

    It gives temperature anomalies of +0.1C for 1979 and and +0.43 for 2008, an increase of 0.33 for that 30 year period and 0.11C per decade.

    The data calculated by Watts et al for the US high quality sites even suggests that the US is warming faster than the global average.

    With NASA/Goddard and Watts et al both agreeing on the rate of warming, perhaps we can stop arguing over WHETHER warming is taking place, and concentrate on fighting over WHY!

    [You are misrepresenting what NASA/Goddard are claiming. - the mods]

  519. Konrad. says:

    Am I reading the graphs correctly? It would appear that more accurate MMTS sensors in rural locations excluding airports at class 1 & 2 sites are showing a warming trend of only 0.032C per decade for the period 1997 to 2008?

  520. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    ATTN: ANTHONY ET AL

    TEMPERATRES ARE MEASUSRED TO +/- 0.1 DEG. ROUND ALL COMPUTED VALUES TO THE ACCURACY OF THE THERMOMETER .

    THE MARK OF A PROFESSIONAL IS CLOSE ATTENTION TO DETAIL . BY FAILING TO FOLLOW THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF MEASURED DATA TREATMENT, YOU GUYS LOOK LIKE A BUNCH SLOPPY SCIENTISTS AND AMATUERS, AT LEAST TO THIS CHEMIST.

    REPLY:

    1. There is NO NEED TO SHOUT. Even though I have a hearing problem I can read you just fine.

    2. If we were dealing with absolute temperatures, you’d be correct. But this paper deals with calculated temperature trend comparisons.

    Thanks for your interest – Anthony

  521. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From TomRude on July 29, 2012 at 4:56 pm:
    (noting his later comment where he mentioned he had goofed up quoting someone else)

    It looks very suspicious that Watt’s USHCN study is the odd one out. I imagine it will picked apart quickly when people who know what they are doing look at it. A study was just completed of the USHCN in February 2012. See its findings below.
    ______________________

    “An intercomparison of temperature trends in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network and recent atmospheric reanalyses”

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L10703, 6 PP., 2012
    doi:10.1029/2012GL051387

    The link is bad. Should be:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051387.shtml

    Non-paywalled version is available here:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/
    “williams-menne-thorne-2012.pdf”

    As well as Menne2010 and other rubbish.

  522. Gdn says:

    If this is the best such land area surface temperature assessment system on the planet (covering, as well, a broad range of metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas), and the quality of the system is now proven to be demonstrably more prone to error than had been previously assumed – with the preponderance of error shown to produce the impression of warming in excess of real conditions prevailing – what may be reliably inferred about surface temperature monitoring systems data from even less reliable thermometers all over the rest of the world?

    There’s also the matter of the algorithms used for sites inside the U.S. and for sites outside the U.S. being different; the UHI non-detection being even more extreme outside of the U.S. (cities of a quarter million being marked rural); there being just a dearth of used stations in many areas of the world; as well as algorithms used showing more warming for an area than any measured sites circumscribing that area.

  523. Entropic man says:

    This is my own arithmetic, not NASA/ Goddard’s. I’ve only taken their annual averages as a starting point. I get 0.11C per decade warming from Goddard’s data. The press release gives 0.155C per decade from Watts et al 2012 for the continental US.
    I was rather surprised at the close agreement between warmist data and sceptical data, especially with Watts et al giving the higher figure!

  524. A. Scott says:

    Scott says:
    July 29, 2012 at 12:14 pm
    Anthony,
    Can you translate the implications of this for mere mortals like myself?
    ==========================================================

    To the several who have asked … here’s at least my attempt at a slightly more plain language synopsis … these are the actual words, condensed to what seem (at least to me) the key points, with minor changes to help readability:

    U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

    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”, 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.

    In the paper ‘Fall et al, 2011′, results from the ‘Surface Stations Project’, surveying the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) were presented, using a siting classification system developed by Michel Leroy for Meteofrance in 1999 – the same system employed by NOAA to develop the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) in 2002.

    In 2010, Leroy improved upon this system with a new area and distance weighted classification system. While the Leroy (1999) system performs well for new station siting evaluation, it does not take into account the surface area of heat sinks and sources that may encroach upon a temperature measurement station over its lifetime. Leroy (2010) adds inclusion of the surface area of heat sinks and heat sources within the viewshed of thermometer, and as a result, does a more complete job of siting assessment, particularly when applied retroactively to existing stations, than the original distance only weighted classification system described in Leroy (1999).

    The new Leroy (2010) siting classification system has been approved and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization. Similar to the Leroy (1999) system, it adds total surface area (of heat sources and heat sinks) to the distance measurement as an additional metric for determining station site rating.

    The use of Leroy (2010) resulted in a dramatic and statistically significant improvement in the stations quality ratings, as distance alone does not quantify the amount of heat emitted by a source or sink within the thermometer viewshed.

    The analysis of this paper demonstrates that siting quality matters. Well sited stations consistently show a significantly cooler trend than poorly sited stations, no matter which class of station is used for a baseline, and also when using no baseline at all.

    Further, our review shows, not only does the NOAA USCHNv2 adjustment process fail to adjust poorly sited stations downward to match the well sited stations, it actually adjusts the well sited stations upwards to match the poorly sited stations.

    Additionally, it is demonstrated that urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites. Since a disproportionate percentage of stations are urban (10%) and semi-urban (25%) when compared with the actual topography of the U.S., this further exaggerates Tmean trends.

    NOAA adjustments procedure fails to address these issues. Instead, again, poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward (not downward), and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations. Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

    There is also the issue of equipment inhomogeneity. Modern MMTS sensors show a significantly lower warming trend than the obsolete CRS shelters. Yet rather than lowering the trends of CRS stations, the trends of MMTS stations are, yet again, sharply adjusted upwards.

    These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.

  525. MrX says:

    In the entire paper, please use Search and Find on “figure” and please capitalize them all or don’t. Right now, it is a haphazard mix. Line 494, 495 and 538, there is a space missing between the word “figure” and the number. If you do capitalize, there are some places where it shouldn’t be capitalized. The difference is where you are referencing a specific figure with its number, then you can capitalize. But when talking about figures in general, then don’t capitalize.

    This same issue appears with “Class”. There is a haphazard mix of uppercase and lowercase. (And there is only one non-parenthesized reference to a table on line 685 which should follow whatever convention you pick, as well as two other references) There are cases where spaces are missing before the number. Sometimes there is “Class 1&2″ and sometimes “Class 1 & 2″. Same with 3 & 4. Also with 1\2 vs 1 & 2. There should always be a space after a comma no matter what. Fix line 602, 608, 609, 610, 616, 619, 756, 757, 764, so as to replace the last comma with “and”, spacing or other such issues. You have spacing consistency problems again with “0.265°C/decade”. Sometimes there is a space before °C, sometimes not. Sometime spaces around the slash, sometimes not. Line 623 doesn’t need a comma before “and Class 5″. Same thing on line 624 before “and Urban”. Line 624 is missing a period. Line 633 has a comma before “and”. This is sometimes ok, but it looks out of place here. Remove comma on line 652. Remove last comma on line 659, 797 and 828. There should be a comma after “(2011)” on line 798. First comma in line 803 is unnecessary. Consider breaking up lines 660 to 663 into three individual sentences. The last sentence should start with “Lastly,” or some alternative if starting a sentence with “And” is not acceptable in published papers. Fix line 813 to have spaces after commas and replace last comma with “and”.

    Consider using comma separated phrases instead of parenthesized phrases. Lines 724 to 730 are especially noteworthy, but this issue appears throughout the paper. If something is important enough to mention, it should be able to stand as part of the official sentence, otherwise much of your paper is considered incidental. Figures, tables and values, etc. are fine within parentheses.

    Lines 756 to 758 is strangely put together. It’s up to you, but might want to split it into two sentences and reword the last sentence so that it actually reads as a sentence.

    Sorry if this is nitpicking, but these things would not go unnoticed even in high school. It goes to show overall care in your presentation and can be an indicator of the care you would take with the data. I found it annoying to read overall because of these unnecessary distractions.

    Anyways, take or leave anything I’ve said. Just thought it wouldn’t hurt pointing these things out and you can decide for yourself. Overall, really liked the content. The quality of the station siting cannot be understated. I find it quite remarkable that there isn’t more emphasis on quality control of the measurements used to justify the AGW claim. Well, unless they knew, but we can’t go there. So they must not care.

  526. Gail Combs says:

    Robin says:
    July 29, 2012 at 3:57 pm
    ….They just explained that and they have issued the USCCRP Strategic Plan for 2012-2021 detailing the plans for our servitude regardless of the facts….
    _________________________
    I take it you are referring to this. I noticed it had a pull-down with all the US departments listed. It really does looks nasty.

    2012-2021 Strategic Plan

    Integrating federal research on global change and climate change….
    This Strategic Plan recognizes that effective response to global change requires a strong scientific foundation. The following four strategic goals frame the Program’s Strategic Plan:

    Goal 1. Advance Science: Advance scientific knowledge of the integrated natural and human components of the Earth system.

    Goal 2. Inform Decisions: Provide the scientific basis to inform and enable timely decisions on adaptation and mitigation.

    Goal 3. Conduct Sustained Assessments: Build sustained assessment capacity that improves the Nation’s ability to understand, anticipate, and respond to global change impacts and vulnerabilities.

    Goal 4. Communicate and Educate: Advance communications and education to broaden public understanding of global change and develop the scientific workforce of the future.

    (It has a link to a pdf of the full plan)

    Their Communication and Education sounds like straight out brainwashing 101. GEE, maybe this is what Mike Mann has been working on as part of his ‘communication skills’

    … There is a growing imperative for the actionable climate and environmental information that is needed to inform resource management, planning, and other decisions taking place across the Nation.

    Communications, education, and engagement is therefore a growing priority of the USGCRP….

    Well they want ‘engagement’ so I guess this is where we should be sending this paper and all the other papers and data showing CAGW is a hoax. ~ “If you have questions or suggestions about USGCRP communications efforts, please email the Communications Manager.”

  527. littlepeaks says:

    Curious who the press release was sent to. I surely hope that the American Chemical Society was on distribution (although I doubt they will ever mention it, because it doesn’t fit their agenda.)

  528. TomRude says:

    Thanks KD!

  529. Anthony/Mods, please start a new thread before this becomes too long!

    btw this has to be the fastest ever rate of posts??

    Shameless Donations flung.

  530. John Bills says:

    The paper needs graphs.
    They will show lots more interesting things.

  531. Wagathon says:

    @Tad re Arizona warming — it could be Arizona stations were well-sited. Weren’t the adustmentments off by a factor of 3 for those stations?

  532. Zeke says:

    It’s binning. Binning is the source of many bin averages which bin true signals and bin them into noise.

  533. ferdberple says:

    TomRude says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L10703, 6 PP., 2012
    doi:10.1029/2012GL051387
    ….
    The bias adjustments play a critical role, as the raw HCN dataset displays substantially less warming than all of the reanalyses.
    ========
    Which is in line with Anthony’s paper.

    “the raw HCN dataset displays substantially less warming than all of the reanalyses”

    That is what Anthony’s paper found. That the NOAA reanalysis doubled the warming shown by the class 1/2 station raw data. That NOAA adjusted the raw data to match the poor stations.

    “The bias adjustments play a critical role”

    Which is in line with what Anthony and others have been reporting. That climate scientists have had their thumbs on the scales for quite some time, in order to increase government funding. At the expenses of other programs that are likely to deliver real benefits today. Which explains the economic mess the US finds itself in.

  534. Ed Barbar says:

    Assuming there are no substantive objections made to this paper, and the inclusions of Steve McIntyre as an author make me suspect there cannot be (not to diminish the tremendous work surrounding getting an accurate thermometer!!!), I wonder whether there is an inkling as to how this will affect the ROW (rest of the world) temperature “anomalies”? My suspicion is the algorithms used are very similar (after all, it’s easy, right?)

    Assuming this is the most accurate analysis, would ROW temperature trends follow suit?

    R/Ed.

    P.S. I hate the word “anomaly” applied to temperatures, as if there is a perfect temperature and anything other is strange.

  535. intrepid_wanders says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    July 29, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    Ed Barbar says: July 29, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    “Nick,The 2007 trend from UAH, according to Wikipedia, is .143 degrees C per decade,…”

    Ed, is that the US48 trend? The 0.23°C/decade US trend comes from their own file, which gives 0.14 as the global trend.

    Hows that ACORN going? You have that all shored up in the land down under, so that you can now provide clarity for the USHCN. I bet you that the aussie audit group did not apply this WMO-ISO siting standard, considering you have only 954 Tmin records that are higher than your Tmax for th same day.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/boms-new-data-set-acorn-so-bad-it-should-be-withdrawn-954-min-temps-larger-than-the-max/

    But, yes, go ahead and poo-poo on this obvious issue as well…

  536. Ed Barbar says:

    Oh, and least I forget, the above is a multi TRILLION dollar question. Will money help? What would you use it for? Let me know. It seems to me you are doing fine without it, but if it would help, please let all of us know in what way.

  537. janef20 says:

    Paul R. Ehrlich sounded off on Twitter. “Considering Christy’s rep I’ll wait and see where/if it’s actually published and what the responses are.”

  538. Wagathon says:

    Someone should tell Ehrlich that when it comes to ‘rep’ it’s Christy +1, Penn State 0.

  539. DavidA says:

    Well done, it was worth the drama ;-)

  540. val majkus says:

    Well I’m not a scientist but an admirer of the scientific method. I’ve put this comment on Jo Nova’s blog but it really belongs here
    I’d like to add my congratulations to Anthony and his co authors on what is the culmination of a huge amount of work by them and the team of volunteers involved in the surface stations research
    As someone rightly said Watts et al ‘brings it home’. We weren’t disappointed by the wait

    There are some articles – Climate Depot of course, then The Examiner http://www.examiner.com/article/devasting-blow-to-temperature-records-u-s-temp-trends-spuriously-doubled;


    (Dr. Richard Muller et al used an older siting classification system. Muller also wrote a NYT op-ed piece stating the rise in temperatures was caused by greenhouse gas emissions. However, this new classification system shows that siting does have a major impact on the data.

    Then there’s the irrepresible Delingpole http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100173174/global-warming-yeah-right/


    Poor Professor Muller has been telling anyone who’ll listen – his amen corner in greeny-lefty MSM, mainly – that as a former “skeptic” he has now been forced by weight of evidence to conclude that global warming is definitely man-made and there has been lots of it (a whole 1.5 degrees C – Wow! that’s like almost as much as you’d get if you drove from London to Manchester!!!) since 1750. Tragically – as Watts has very reluctantly and by-no-means-experiencing-any-kind-of-Schadenfreude had to point out is that the data used by Muller to draw these conclusions was unreliable to the point of utter uselessness.

    So, in the spirit of magnanimity in total crushing victory I would urge readers of this blog not to crow too much about the devastating blow Watts’s findings will have on the Guardian’s battalion of environment correspondents, on the New York Times, on NOAA, on Al Gore, on the Prince of Wales, on the Royal Society, on Professor Muller, or on any of the other rent-seekers, grant-grubbers, eco-loons, crony capitalists, junk scientists, UN apparatchiks, EU technocrats, hideous porcine blobsters, demented squawking parrots, life-free loser trolls, paid CACC-amites and True Believers in the Great Global Warming Religion.

    That would be plain wrong.

    It’s a day for celebration that we still are lucky enough to have these tireless scientists who do research the old fashioned way – in the field (that includes Warwick Hughes, Jo and others who are my heroes)

    And of course Anthony and his co authors and his team

  541. Ric Werme says:

    I sure I’ve read the name “Michel Leroy” a few times before, but until today I don’t think anyone considered his classification scheme as important or how carefully designed it was. It seems to me one thing this paper does is provide very good confirmation that Leroy’s new scheme is a significant improvement.

    I managed to find a .pdf of the classification scheme, which appears to be the 1999 scheme with an annex describing the 2010 extensions.

    Interested folks who are up for more reading today can find it at http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/qmws_2010/CountryReport/CS202_Leroy.pdf .

  542. foo1 says:

    A few implications if the study holds up to scrutiny:
    – Similar analyses must be carried out globally.
    – Climate recordbooks will have to be rewritten.
    – Climate models will be more wrong than ever before.
    – Predictions for ice melt and ocean rise (esp. Rahmstorf) must be reduced.
    – For the first time, the IPCC report will be LESS alarmist than the previous one.
    Others?

  543. Another Gareth says:

    In the summary included in this post Anthony says : “Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.”

    Does this have anything to do with the Station History Adjustment Procedure? For details of the NOAA’s adjustments see here

    On the matter of SHAP they state: “Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980. During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half. ”

    To me that means sites were undergoing urbanisation which causes a trend. Those sites were then moved and the new temps are cooler, so the new temps are adjusted upwards to match the previous temps. This would have the effect of exporting the UHI effect from the old site to the new site wouldn’t it? This alone would be poor but if your adjustments to the new data also are to continue a previous trend (caused by uhi at the old site but transposed through adjustments to the new site) it’ll make matters even worse.

  544. A. Scott says:

    BEST and Muller being savaged by many – including warmists:

    David Appell:

    Attributing climate is more like figuring out the structure of DNA than it is like figuring out the laws of quantum mechanics — simple curve-fitting (“exponentials, polynomials”) doesn’t cut it. In fact, it makes you look kind of foolish.

    And former BEST author Judith Curry (by way of Revkin):

    Their latest paper on the 250-year record concludes that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions. Their analysis is way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion. There is broad agreement that greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the warming in the latter half of the 20th century; the big question is how much of this warming can we attribute to greenhouse gas emissions. I don’t think this question can be answered by the simple curve fitting used in this paper, and I don’t see that their paper adds anything to our understanding of the causes of the recent warming.

    Warmist William Connolley – Muller still Rubbish:

    ‘And what they say…appears absurdly naive’

    Michael Mann (h/t Tom Nelson):

    My view is that Muller’s efforts to promote himself by belittling the collective efforts of the entire atmospheric/climate research community over several decades, though, really does the scientific community a disservice …. It seems, in the end–quite sadly–that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement :(

  545. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    To true scientists

    Though Chicken Little ran amock
    And spread his squawkings far and wide
    The thunderbolt of Zeus has struck
    And Chicken Little is chicken fried

    Eugene WR Gallun

  546. Bohemond says:

    Johninoregon: “vast majority of expert scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers ”

    John, is that a mantra that they pound into your head at Greenie Boot Camp, like “This is my rifle, this is my gun?”

    “Vast majority:” false
    “Peer-reviewed:” false

  547. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Anthony/Mods,

    Question about something curious I found here:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/

    Along with the lists of stations, there are two groups of lists with “surfacestations-ratings” in the names, grouped “1-2″ and “3-4-5″, dated 2010. I can’t find anything there about what they are. Any relation to the surfacestations project?

    [REPLY: It doesn't look like anything nefarious. If you are writing a paper and separating the stations into categories, you would certainly want to be able to tell anyone who asked just which station went into which category. Whether these two files are anything like the similar files used by the surface station project, I can't say. One thing to keep in mind is that the Leroy 2010 classification system used by Anthony in this paper would have classified many of the stations differently than this list, which is why the trends appear differently. -REP]

  548. Who knows? Now with valid data, perhaps one of those models will be validated. Does this mean
    that the modelers are now scrambling to redo validation runs?

  549. Lets not go overboard. I have lost count of how many “devastating blows” there have been. Leif Svalgaard is urging caution on this.

  550. andy says:

    I am having a lot of trouble believing that you are unbiased. I sit on the fence (I have not seen compelling evidence for or against human induced climate change), thus I have no opinion as to who (or what) has caused what, if anything. I have seen many sites that slant their opinion on the same data, to the left or the right. Your site falls into this category. Your summaries are predisposed (it is quite apparent). I wish you would be the one to deliver the information without the desired result of those that fund you (the greenies fall into the same category). Do anyone know of a site that is unbiased? Or are you willing to report and not interpret? I wish someone was willing to.

    [REPLY: Gee, your first comment here and already raising red flags. No one funds WUWT and results and opinions are not dictated by non-existent "funders". Read the paper for yourself and decide if the purported results are supported by the purported facts. If you have a political problem, get lost. -REP]

  551. George Montgomery says:

    The data cannot be bent to suit one’s purposes. The future will reveal all and those who are guilty of confirmation bias in interpreting the data will be exposed. They will be reviled and condemned for their mendacity by current and future generations. Scientia primus erit.

  552. Mike says:

    592 word abstract with 7 citations – what journal has formatting that allows that? Maybe Fox News could start a Fair and Balanced Journal of Climate Science! Anyway, congrats, it must be so nice to know you were right all along. Please post the peer reviews when you get them, we love the open way you practice your science!

  553. Ian W says:

    David A. Evans says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:11 pm
    I can see how TOBs can affect the mean temp, unfortunately, I can’t remember whether Obs moved from morning to evening or vice versa.
    Early morning Obs can bias the temps down, Evening Obs can bias upwards.
    Then again, when did we stop using max/min thermometers?

    DaveE.

    Ian H says:
    July 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm
    TOBS can matter even when using a max/min thermometer.

    TOBS and all the rest of the games played with atmospheric temperature do not provide a measure of the amount of energy that was in the atmosphere that day. Temperature is not a measure of atmospheric energy content. Energy content is measured in joules.

    Averaging atmospheric temperature is mathematically easy and completely meaningless in physics from the perspective of assessing whether ‘green house gases’ cause the retention of energy in the atmosphere. As any heating engineer will tell you it is essential to know the enthalpy of the air and that varies considerably with humidity. Add liquid water droplets as in clouds or mist and fog and the enthalpy is hugely increased.

    It is really important to use the correct metrics rather than those that are easily available but incorrect.

  554. jonjayray says:

    “Urbane” temperature stations?
    You may have meant “urbanism” rather than “urbanity”

  555. Theo Goodwin says:

    A. Scott offers the ultimate self-aggrandizement expert:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    Michael Mann (h/t Tom Nelson):

    “It seems, in the end–quite sadly–that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement :(“

  556. intrepid_wanders says:

    janef20 says:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:27 pm
    Paul R. Ehrlich sounded off on Twitter. “Considering Christy’s rep I’ll wait and see where/if it’s actually published and what the responses are.”

    I think Paul confuses Christy with Spencer. But we all know that Paul is a little addled these days. I can not recall a rebutal square-off with Christy that won the day. Spencer got dinked in RSS by that guy in Colorado (or was it Arizona), but it was such a *horrible* argument, I forget his name ;)

    AMS would have to publish it. It is significant, pertinent and does not call any of the main players out. Just the group.

    They will though, allow rebuttals with all abandon of reasonable sense.

  557. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Ed Barbar, this will be the Warmistas first line of defence: The uUS is only 2%, the ROW is bulletproof (because it has never been shot at?)

  558. Ted Wagner says:

    After two days of pounding the refresh key followed by an afternoon of reading the paper and many of the comments I could not be more pleased, both personally and as a devotee of the scientific process, for Team Anthony.

    The C-AGW devotees are revealing the robustness and efficacy of the new paper in the volume and frequency of their shrieking.

  559. Barbee says:

    Thanks and Cudos to the Mods for their deft handling of this avalanche!
    Have a great week!!!

  560. Brian H says:

    HAH! ” rural MMTS stations not situated at airports may have
    the best representivity of all stations in the USHCNv2. ” I KNEW IT!

    Those stations report 0.034°/decade, or 0.34°/century! I’ve made myself a pariah damn near by insisting the “lukewarm skeptic consensus” of 1.2°C/century compromise baseline was almost certainly hogwash, and that the real number was in the 0 – 0.3° range.

    Gloat, gloat, double-gloat!

  561. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Gail Combs @ July 29, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    These four items are all political goals, not scientific ones

  562. John Coleman says:

    My preferred headline:
    NEW STUDY REVEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT MANIPULATED TEMPERATURE DATA TO INCREASE GLOBAL WARMING

    Tomorrow I will ask my boss if he wants me to produce a special report or program to explore this issue.

    [REPLY: John, John, John. You know that the study doesn't reveal that. It does, perhaps, suggest a question in desperate need of answering, but Anthony is not one to gild the lily, unlike some formerly-skeptical-physicists-turned-climate-scientists that could be mentioned.... but by all means, ask the boss... uhh... I thought you were your own boss....??? -REP]

  563. MikeH says:

    May I be the first to state that this deserves to be a sticky at the top of WWUT for several days.. I wonder how long it will take the pro-AGW blog sites to start tearing it apart without actually reading it.

    Great work,everyone involved….

  564. Harry Won A Bagel says:

    This may be a dumb question from someone who was up till 3:30am in Western Australia to read the headlines in the paper (it is now 10am and only a few horizontal hours and 500+ comments later) but when the first fellow drove a horse and buggy to install the first US weather station was it his plan that its readings were to be used to calculate “global [mean] temperature?” The scare quotes are because I am one of those recalcitrants who still cannot see how such a statistic has any real world meaning. The root cause of this problem in my opinion is using equipment (data) for a purpose for which it was never designed. It appears to me they were designed to help predict the weather, and for that purpose they do a fair to middling job. Wrong tool for the wrong job so something broke. Specifically when did this concept of “global [mean] temperature” come into existence or was it invented for AGW or the IPCC?

  565. Bohemond says:

    Yeah, like Ehrlich has such an illustrious reputation….

  566. Jon says:

    “What we all suspected UHI does have a tremendous effect on surface temps reading so we can conclude maybe 50% of the warming not significant well in the USA there is no AGW so ther is no global either AGW thank you Mr wats”

    This proves that half the warming since 1970’s is ALW/UHI/human adjusted. :-)

    And it will be much cheaper for us if we correct for this than rather change the world?

  567. philincalifornia says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:59 pm
    A. Scott offers the ultimate self-aggrandizement expert:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    Michael Mann (h/t Tom Nelson):

    “It seems, in the end–quite sadly–that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement :(“
    ==============================

    Embarrassing now, isn’t it? “My self-aggrandizement is bigger than yours.”

    Well, we’re going to see how they handle Anthony’s great work. Starting tomorrow, I assume.

  568. Brian H says:

    markx says:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    ….and what of Richard Muller? Converted?

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-results-convert-sceptic-let-the-evidence-change-our-minds-20120730-23769.html

    Muller is a mental super-lightweight, a wisp of fluff blowing about looking for the warmest breeze with the best-funded consensual vortices to keep him aloft. Nothing he says has an unexpired “best by” date.

  569. Herkinderkin says:

    Anthony

    Thank you, thank you!

  570. Ed Barbar says:

    Nick,

    Yes, the UHA numbers were global, not US numbers. However, given this paper, you have to consider how much bias there is in the UAH numbers. Now, I’m not talking about the people who read the measurements, report their algorithms, and the results, necessarily. I’m arguing that in a biased world it’s dangerous to do so. I’m thinking about the following.

    Imagine a world in which on one side, you have many biased scientists trying to prove a theory. The world MUST spend Trillions of dollars to stop C02 production. These scientists are smart, many, and well funded. That’s what the consensus means, right? Imagine now, a world in which the truth may be influenced by bias of scientists. Now, what kinds of errors in the algorithms is this group of people likely to find and report? Know that they are advocating their own numbers, which are much higher than UAH numbers. They will seek errors in algorithms that support their position, and thereby remedy the error in the satellite record. They will not seek errors in the algorithms that do not support their views. So only one kind of error is likely to be disclosed.

    I recommend you google the following words: nature science bias

    There have been a number of articles of late complaining about the inability to replicate scientific studies with drugs. Allergon recently tried to replicate a significant number of studies, and failed.

    Climate Science, in my view, has been demonstrated to be highly political, and emotionally driven. To expect no bias in this field, but to expect it in others is, in my view, absurd.

    As an example, please see this realclimate.org post:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/more-satellite-stuff/

  571. A. Scott says:

    Ric Werme says:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    I sure I’ve read the name “Michel Leroy” a few times before, but until today I don’t think anyone considered his classification scheme as important or how carefully designed it was. It seems to me one thing this paper does is provide very good confirmation that Leroy’s new scheme is a significant improvement.

    I managed to find a .pdf of the classification scheme, which appears to be the 1999 scheme with an annex describing the 2010 extensions.

    Interested folks who are up for more reading today can find it at http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/qmws_2010/CountryReport/CS202_Leroy.pdf .

    The Sept 2010 WMO CIMO adoption of Leroy 2010 is in this document - scoll to Annex IV

  572. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Konrad. @ July 29, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Am I reading the graphs correctly? It would appear that more accurate MMTS sensors in rural locations excluding airports at class 1 & 2 sites are showing a warming trend of only 0.032C per decade for the period 1997 to 2008?

    Yes, you can believe your eyes.

  573. michael hart says:

    The abstract seems over long. Also, I’ve seen some electronic databases guillotine an abstract after it exceeds a certain length. Yes, many people may only read the abstract. But they may not even do that if it tries to squeeze too much in, and becomes boring as a result.

    With some journals, references should not be used excessively, if at all, in the abstract.

  574. Ric Werme says:

    Oh – up at the top there’s a like to Leroy’s classification paper. Teaches me to look at the bibliography….

    I can find typos in anything. Without looking too hard, a few comments, some may be duplicates:

    242 There is a greater number of Class 1, 2, and 3 stations, and fewer Class 4
    243 stations. There are, however, a greater number of Class 5 stations, as well.

    Number is always singular, so 243 should “There is”. Or, you could say in fewer words “There are more Class…”. Like you did with fewer!

    300 proximity and area ratings from Leroy 2010 and are do consider ground-level vegetation

    Strike or replace, not sure what it should be.

    384 Conversely when only USHCNv2 stations sited at airports are
    385 considered these differences are not as strong as seen in Figure 6.

    On my first reading, I noted “strong as seen in” should be “strong, see” I haven’t checked the figure so I’m not certain how the ambiguity should be resolved.

    I see also that “considered” needs a following comma, it’s absence helps leads to confusion later.

    505 Class 4 compared with Class 4 (the baseline, so the result will be 0.), Class 5 compared
    506 with Class 4 and all lower classes.

    Drop the period in line 505.
    the sentence doesn’t mention that there is also a comparison of Class 3/4/5 compared with Class 4 or whatever it is.

    532 Will be either supported or disputed by the many various comparisons which follow.

    “Will” continues a sentence started in line 528, so it shouldn’t be capitalized.

    599 … Shown in Figure 16 is a six
    600 panel comparison showing comparisons for Urban, Semi-Urban, Rural stations with raw

    “showing comparisons” is redundant.
    On the panels – can you redo them so they all have the same Y axis? Please!

    Throughout, especially at:
    168 issues reported by Watts (2009)., Menne et al.,(2010), Fall et al.,(2011), and Muller et 168 al.,(2012).

    I don’t know the rules for refereneces, but the period in “Watts (2009).,” can’t be right.
    is the period in “Menne et al.,(2010),” required? Drop it if you can. The comma I hope should be replaced with a space, e.g. “Watts (2009), Menne et al (2010), …”. You use that form in line 697 to reference the other paper.

    Throughout:

    Class 1-2; Class 1, 2; Class 3,4,5; Class 3/4/5; Class 3\4\5:
    Pick a style, any style (except the execrable backslash form which if pressed will elict a ran tt from me about command options on TOPS-10, C/PM, MS-DOS, Unix, and it won’t be pretty). I.e. “What MrX said.” You might want to do a global replace of double spaces with single spaces, they annoy me, but I didn’t mark a few I saw – even I have limits on nit-picking.

    As for the content, umm, I think I have to read it again and focus on the content.

  575. jim2 says:

    “Wagathon says:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    Someone should tell Ehrlich that when it comes to ‘rep’ it’s Christy +1, Penn State 0.

    Yep, and Ehrlich, -87.

  576. Alexander K says:

    Congrats, Anthony Watts et al. This paper is calmly and clearly presented – I am smiling at the Guardian attempting to be something it is not in it’s haste to trumpet Muller’s mish-mash of findings.

  577. waclimate says:

    intrepid_wanders asks “How’s that ACORN going?”

    If you’re referring to the accuracy of rounded Fahrenheit temperatures in the ACORN source data (http://www.waclimate.net/round/australia-acorn.html and http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/acorn-sat-a-preliminary-assessment/), it’s still being utterly ignored.

  578. jim2 says:

    @Ed Barbar says:
    July 29, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Even the UAH numbers will include UHI bias. And, it omits the poles. It seems something should be done to correct for the lack of data at the poles.

    I was wondering if the UAH data can be parsed to reflect the temperatures in the well-sited area vs. not well-sited. That could be interesting.

  579. Chuck Nolan says:

    Way to go folks. And just ahead of the IPCC cutoff.
    I trust this exciting and informative paper will be included.
    Just wondering though, why do the Class 5s fair so well alone?
    Also, the last paragraph you say: “There is the further issue……. (It is difficult, however, to be certain of the true effect thanks to the relatively small number of Class 1,2, rural, non-airport stations.)”
    I’m not sure the term “thanks to” is really right. Maybe “due to” or “because of”.

    Great work!

    Congrats

    cn

  580. Mike McMillan says:

    Manfred says: July 29, 2012 at 1:06 pm
    Figure 23 is impressive as well, tmin tmax and tmean with identical (!) trends for 1/2 sations but heavily increased tmin trends for 3/4/5 stations.

    Shouldn’t Figure 23 be a bar chart instead of a curve? Connecting the points between Rural, Suburban, and Urban indicates there are intermediate values for intermediate designations.

  581. Tucci78 says:

    At 6:53 PM on 29 July, Mike observes:

    592 word abstract with 7 citations – what journal has formatting that allows that?

    …and at 7:24 PM on 29 July, michael hart writes:

    The abstract seems over long. Also, I’ve seen some electronic databases guillotine an abstract after it exceeds a certain length.

    I hadn’t thought it worthwhile to make this point myself, but reading it repeated, I think it potentially useful to join my expression of concern with those of earlier commenters.

    In all my training and experience, I’ve had it hammered home that a manuscript’s abstract – to be published in a periodical, as opposed to creation as a conference poster presentation – is generally not to contain citations, nor is it to exceed the recipient journal’s length limitations (usually 200 or 250 words).

    Anybody else have useful input on this issue to provide?

  582. beng says:

    ****
    MrX says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Haven’t gone through the paper yet. Just looking at the ppt files right now. One thing that I find striking is the comparison between airport vs. non-airport COMPLIANT stations. Now, if they were compliant, should they not have a similar trend? Does this suggest a need to revisit what exactly a compliant station should be? Airport compliant stations show fully twice as much warming as non-airport compliant stations.
    ****

    It just means the 1 & 2 compliance requirements don’t necessarily eliminate all airports. The site could be surrounded by ever-expanding square-miles of concrete/asphalt/buildings, but if it’s in a compliant “patch”, it could be a “2” category.

    But I don’t think any airport site (unless it hasn’t changed/expanded over its history) should be used for climate analysis.

  583. Stephen Singer says:

    In your current version of the Figures and Tables PDF you’ve corrected the trend scale and the >0.0 mistake on Figure 20. They still exist on Figure 2.

  584. Ed Barbar says:

    At a time like this, it’s good to pause and think
    What’s going on in the mind of the Climate Science Geek?

    “It can’t be right, it must be wrong
    After all, our theories are strong

    We took C02, and multiplied it by three
    That must be the temperature, don’t you see?

    This man who has the audacity to claim and say
    the location is important, must go away!

    We will find a doubt, or two or three,
    to continue our efforts, to save the planet!

    Or at least continue our research grants. . ..

  585. andy says:

    Thanks for the abrasive response editor.

    I was taught the scientific method by Keri Mullis (Nobel 1993) whom I worked with. He drilled into me, make sure it is 100% and golden before declaring anything. He was pretty controversial in doubting many things (I am sure you remember).

    I would like to see data, and not opinion is all. I have issues with heat islands at meteorological stations due to blacktop etc… I wish someone would post a list of all data, with (heat island / not heat island) indicated and such. I would like to see how something is determined, not just name dropping Michel Leroy, I don’t know him, I don’t know what he did or how. But I guess it is perfect per your doc above. Sorry, I want to know why his work is more precise can’t just blindly agree.

    Then we can start to get a real picture of wtf is the issue (media, reality, etc…).

    And in the future. Please don’t diminish yourself with the condescending replies. It reduces your effort, as it make you appear to be “voting” for one side of this discussion. And as scientific folks, you of course know that ambiguity and and agnostic view on the subject is utmost and foremost.

    Cheers.
    A.

    [REPLY: I happen to admire Kary Mullis but I don't know you and apparently you didn't know "Keri" all that well yourself (in all fairness, though, half my students get my name wrong, too.) Your comment was juvenile and your attempt to trade on the name of Dr. Mullis, while remaining anonymous, is despicable. So, devastate me. Who are YOU? -REP]

  586. M. Nichopolis says:

    A more juicy headline, addressing the deeper issue me thinks:

    “New climate study shows official NOAA temperature data falsely doubles actual temperature increases since 1979, potentially invalidating much Global Warming research, projects, and legislation”

    And of course, that’s where this story really leads to…. We’d all REALLY like to know how many studies have been done with the faulty data… What IPCC reports included it… How many taxpayer funded studies (or projects like Solyndra) were based on it… What government related actions might have been affected by it (such as EPA regulations, etc)

    How much money was wasted on all this madness? It would be helpful if we had a list of how far reaching this is, how much the (intentionally?) faulty data impacted taxpayers in wasted money…

    And let me add my kudos as well — Thanks Anthony et al!! Kudos!!

  587. JonasM says:

    I never did understand how anyone could possibly adjust for urbanization, siting changes, etc without boots on the ground examining each and every station, and adjustments being made one station at a time. It appears that Anthony et al have done just that. I can’t see how this could fail to be an improvement on the data sets.
    Well done!

  588. El Tuno says:

    Here is the “Like” link for folks looking for it:
    http://www.surfacestations.org/donate.htm

  589. Eli Rabett says:

    So how does a year 2009 photograph tell you anything about the rating of a station in 1980?

    [REPLY: Dr. Halpern, one would think you had never done any research in your life. Go back and read the paper again (if you read it a first time) and try really hard to wrap your mind around the methodology. My bet is you'll come back with the same inane question. -REP]

  590. Konrad. says:

    “We will continue to investigate other issues related to bias and adjustments such as TOBs in future studies.”

    So Tom Karl’s pet rat TOBy is next? But…, but he is so cute snug in his little Stephenson box, his warm furry body wrapped lovingly around the thermometer bulb…the roguish upward curve to his little whiskers! Not the Ratsak! Nooooo…

  591. Gunga Din says:

    Trenberth “et al” will be happy. The missing heat has been found! It’s been stored in all those papers that now need to be burned!
    (Just a little comic relief. Back to serious comments.)

  592. [SNIP: For a number of reasons. Nothing personal. Sorry. -REP]

  593. John Of Cloverdale WA Australia. says:

    Thanks for your dedicated work Tony.

  594. Reed Coray says:

    meemoe_uk says: July 29, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    bit dissapointed really. Another climate paper saying 0.1C rise here or there.
    I was hoping for a leaked video of Mann and Jones et all at a dinner party with international bankers laughing and joking about their big global warming scam.

    [REPLY: Watts et. al. 2012 invalidates all the major data sets and your're "dissapointed"? No pleasing some people... -REP]

    I agree with REP. I once saw a sign over the office door of a colleague. I don’t remember the exact wording or the author, but it went something like this.

    I don’t have a formula for success; but I have one for failure–try to please everyone.

    [REPLY: Thanks for the validation. Sometimes I'm like a parking voucher that way. Uhhh.... did I really spell it "your're"? I'm not sure I can handle that kind of humiliation... -REP]

  595. Remember. if you can not admit error, you can not grow into decent adults. IPCC science FAIL.

  596. This should be the title:

    “Watts et. al. 2012 Invalidates All Major Data Sets

  597. OssQss says:

    Well, I read everything again and checked the references and this is truly a game changer once the process completes.

    Anthony, as I have said prior, it is time for WUWT-TV.

    Live, interactive discussions on the Web. One way video streaming with filtered chat quesstions for the many willing professional guests. Hey, its gotta start somewhere for the MSN isn’t going to bring forth why some are actually skeptics…….

    I would be willing to fund the initial effort. You have my email by me just being here.

    Make it a great week!

    Sorry, but I just find ……. well it speaks for itself, after the paradigm shifter today/

    Look out for the “do do” that will occur :)

    .

  598. Reed Coray says:

    It was the BEST of times; it was the WATTS of times.

  599. OssQss says:

    Moderators, this was the vid that was to be linked/Embed in my prior post. Not sure it didn’t get there from here?

    [REPLY: Uhhh, it's not here either. -REP]

  600. James Sexton says:

    Eli Rabett says:
    July 29, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    So how does a year 2009 photograph tell you anything about the rating of a station in 1980?

    [REPLY: Dr. Halpern, one would think you had never done any research in your life. Go back and read the paper again (if you read it a first time) and try really hard to wrap your mind around the methodology. My bet is you'll come back with the same inane question. -REP]
    =================================================
    HAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Very nice!….. well, okay, maybe “nice” isn’t the proper word, but, you get my meaning. :D

  601. gnuburger says:

    Anthony, as a lurker and layman who appreciates the work you are doing in this long fight I have sent a donation to you. I hope others can do the same.
    Thank you.

    [REPLY: Gnuburger, thank you. WUWT is not sponsored by any organization and relies on the generosity of people like you. One of the few times Anthony has gone seeking a sponsorship, to create a website offering user-friendly access to official data, it was essentially torpedoed by Peter Gleick in the "Fakegate" affair. Thank you for your support. -REP]

  602. Jean Parisot says:

    Wouldn’t the best way to challange this methodbe to analyze the annotated rationale for the adjustments made to the raw data in the lab notes (as duly witnessed and dated) left by the archivers?

  603. Marcos says:

    How about taking this methodology and looking at other countries station data? Canada and Australia seem like good candidates…

    [REPLY: There are probably quite a few good candidates for this sort of analysis. It would be very good, however, if interested groups in those countries came forward and took on the job themselves. It is time-consuming and requires attention to detail, but Anthony has shown that you do not need a big, formal organization and a big, formal budget to accomplish great things. -REP]

  604. OssQss says:

    Darnit, seem CA assist if not helping me. How about a link or alternate attempt ? LOL!

    Gnite~~~~~

  605. REPLY – Raw, no TOBS. ~ Evan

    That is going to be a main line of attack on the paper. There is a sound basis for the TOBS adjustment, although the size of the adjustment is open to question (or questionable if you like).

    Its not widely appreciated that most of the 20th century warming in the official records is due to the adjustments. While there are justifications for the adjustments, the practical consequence of adjusting the data is rampant confirmation bias.

    A public debate over the adjustments is long over due and to the extent it reaches Joe Public will increase scepticism.

  606. Brian H says:

    The US is the most thoroughly and effectively monitored region or country in the world with weather and temperature stations. The Gold Standard. And here we have the chemical analysis: Fool’s Gold. A few flecks of the real thing (unadjusted rural MMTS data) which give, at last, a good signal when the NOAA paint jobs are scraped off.

    Negligible warming. About 1/3 of a degree Celsius per century (+/- ?? 0.5° ??). Global warming and climate disruption is and always was a deliberate artifact of manipulation of the record.

    RICO time.

  607. u.k.(us) says:

    Eli Rabett says:

    July 29, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    So how does a year 2009 photograph tell you anything about the rating of a station in 1980?==================
    What a stupid question.
    It is called data, the best we have.

  608. Cut the abstract to 250 words [otherwise the paper could not even to submitted]. The reason the journals demand a short abstract is to force you to communicate the essence of the paper, the take-away message, the elevator speech.

  609. Wow!!! -REP- I have to commend you. After 600+ posts you still on top of it. Are you one person? Are you Anthony?

    [REPLY: Thanks, but no, we... ahhh, I am not Anthony and I am not doing this alone. Senior Moderator dbs, evan, jove, and a bunch of others have been working to approve comments and keep out the riff-raff. I'm just the mouthiest of the bunch. -REP]

  610. Paul R says:

    Well done Anthony, and Al! (et.al.)

    You’ve made the Pajamas Media already! http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/29/new-excitement-in-the-climate-change-controversy/ Good initial review, with also skeptical comments about Mueller and a mention about DotEarth’s skepticism of Mueller. I also posted a link over at Brietbart.

    Paul R

  611. Willis Eschenbach says:

    dana1981 says:
    July 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Willis – I suppose you can make the ‘within the uncertainty range’ argument, but that still suggests that one of the best values of either the UAH trend or the Watts et al. trend is pretty far off.

    No, if both of them are out by only one standard deviation or so they are in agreement. That’s not “pretty far off” at all.

    If you’re going to make the case that the temperature record is biased, then arguing for large uncertainty bars isn’t going to help your case.

    I’m not “arguing for large uncertainty bars”. I’m simply pointing out what the uncertainty actually is. Not sure why you seem to want to twist that into something unscientific or incorrect …

    w.

  612. Tom Black says:

    Good work Anthony and thanks, money talks, so have donated to help out.

    [REPLY: Tom, Anthony may be taking a well-deserved rest at this point, but on his behalf I'd like to say "thank you" for your contribution. It will be put to good use. -REP]

  613. REP – You’re still on top of it! grammar…

  614. Gunga Din says:

    Reed Coray says:
    July 29, 2012 at 8:29 pm
    It was the BEST of times; it was the WATTS of times.

    ====================================================
    Classic.

  615. Peter Wilson says:

    I’m sure we will read many comments to the effect that the ConUS is only 2% of the globe etc. Which is true.

    The reason this analysis is possible is because of the metadata gathered by Anthony’s Surface Stations project. We don’t have this sort of data for the rest of the world, and its a travesty:)

    It sort of goes without saying that any organisation claiming to be serious about accuracy in climate science (like the IPCC – no, just joking – maybe BEST, or Hadley even) should now have as a top priority the collection of similar metadata for all stations globally. Most countries have climate or meteorological bodies who should be able to help – all you really need to do is visit each site with a camera and a tape measure. It shouldn’t be more than a few months before they can provide Anthony with the metadata to complete this exercise for the entire global surface network.

    How long do you think it will really take? Or will we (the sceptical blogosphere) have to organise it ourselves?

  616. Ed Barbar says:

    [REPLY: There are probably quite a few good candidates for this sort of analysis. It would be very good, however, if interested groups in those countries came forward and took on the job themselves. It is time-consuming and requires attention to detail, but Anthony has shown that you do not need a big, formal organization and a big, formal budget to accomplish great things. -REP]

    That’s right. As I mentioned earlier, this is what makes America great. Congratulations (and when I say that, I suspect these results and their conclusions will be very difficult to assail).

  617. Spotted Reptile says:

    May I suggest a thread on news reactions to the announcement? Here are 3 for starters that we know about, others will no doubt follow:

    Boston Examiner Devastating blow to temperature records

    Tucson Citizen US Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to noaa station siting problems

    and The Telegraph UK Global Warming, yeah right

  618. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Huh? In graphic it says “Class 1\2 (compliant)”. One backslash two?

    Downloaded latest version of “Figures and Tables”, that Figure 20 also has it.

    Any meaning to it, other than a missed typo?

    [REPLY: it means class 1 and class 2 bundled into one bin. -REP]

  619. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Adrian says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    I like the preprint, but there is zero chance of this getting past peer reivew
    e.g.
    758… The odds of this result having occurred randomly is very small.

    Peer Review: Is this an IPCC report? lol

    Instead of being all snarkish, how about you tell us just exactly how to calculate the odds of the result having occurred randomly? It is an interesting question, and it is far from a simple problem.

    w.

  620. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    My take on the whole thing is this:
    I
    AGW is supposed from the “thermometer warming” data. What has been exposed is that most of the “thermometer warming” data is man-made. Though mankind has the power to affect the readings of thermometers it has no abiltiy to turn up the earth’s thermostat.
    This thermometer warming seems to have been man-made in two senses. The first is that many thermometers are located in places where man is creating extra heat or causing natural heat to be trapped thus artifically raising thermometer temperatures. The second is that human beings have been deliberately altering thermometer readings to make them read higher. The first is stupidity. The second is fraud.
    Though the earth may be warming for a number of reasons after all this “false warming” is deleted
    almost all the warming “that is actually occuring” can be assigned to natural causes. (We are still coming out of the Little Ice Age for one.) Therefore there is next to zero actual man-made global warming. Thus CO2 is plant food and not a major player in any warming that is occuring.
    So if the false thermometer data they have piling on us is rooted in both stupidity and fraud then I am willing to make the extension and say that AGW in totem is rooted in stupidity and fraud — with fraud being primary.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  621. Lightrain says:

    I’m not clear on one thing. Is the average US surface temperature calculated by adding up all the readings and then divided by the number of stations used? If that’s the case an area with more stations would skew disproportionately the overall average toward that region’s average. Or, is there a method to weight the stations to prevent this?

    [REPLY: This is where it helps to carefully read the paper. We are talking about "gridded data" - the map is esentially divided into grids, the stations within the grid are averaged, then the grids themselves summed and averaged. It's not quite that simple, but that's the gist of it. -REP]

  622. Jeff Mitchell says:

    Lots of fun. Was this intended to be a sticky post?

  623. bones says:

    Anthony, Thanks for all that hard work. You are saving science from the zealots!

  624. RobertInAz says:

    I was really struck by the rural MMTS non airport trend. What would the error bars be if that set of Class 1/2 stations alone was used to define the continental US trend? Would they overlap the error bars around the USCHNv2 trend?

  625. Here is the Abstract I would have written (244 words). If it does not reflect that your finding is, you have failed to get the message across:

    “We use the siting classification system developed by Michel Leroy for Meteofrance in 1999 and improved in 2010 which quantifies the effect of heat sinks and sources within the thermometer viewshed by calculation of the area- weighted and distance-weighted impact of biasing elements to calculate both raw and gridded 30 year for each surveyed station, using temperature data from USHCNv2. Mean temperature trend is indisputably lower for well sited stations than for poorly sited stations. Minimum temperature trend shows the greatest differences between siting classification while maximum temperature trend shows the smallest. Well sited stations consistently show a significantly lower trend than poorly sited stations, no matter which class of station is used for a baseline for comparison, and also when using no baseline at all. Comparisons demonstrate that NOAA adjustment processes fail to adjust poorly sited stations downward to match the well sited stations, but actually adjusts the well sited stations upwards to match the poorly sited stations. Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after USHCNv2 adjustments are applied.4 It is also demonstrated that urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites. We document this large urban bias in station siting on the Global Historical Climate Network. These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.”

  626. calculate both raw and gridded 30 year for each surveyed station
    Err, 245 words: ” calculate both raw and gridded 30 year trends for each surveyed station”

  627. Is this what all the hype was about? A poorly written manuscript yet to be submitted? I am genuinely curious though, which journal does Anthony think this manuscript is going to be published in? The formatting is terrible.

    REPLY:
    We are all still waiting for you to produce something of value other than whining from behind the curtain of anonymity.

    Everyone should have a look at this on his blog to know the kind of person he is: Denier Comment of the Day July 30, 2012

    Step of or shut is always a good policy I think. Write your own paper, make a difference. leave a note when you have substances, because I don’t have to take the sort of juvenile abuse you write on the blog of yours. Note my “living room policy” on the policy page, I’m showing you the door. I’m also going to drop a note to Charles Sturt University to advise them of your abuse of their AUP. – Anthony

  628. David Ball says:

    Important work done by an excellent team.

  629. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Harold Pierce Jr says:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    ATTN: ANTHONY ET AL

    TEMPERATRES ARE MEASUSRED TO +/- 0.1 DEG. ROUND ALL COMPUTED VALUES TO THE ACCURACY OF THE THERMOMETER .

    THE MARK OF A PROFESSIONAL IS CLOSE ATTENTION TO DETAIL . BY FAILING TO FOLLOW THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF MEASURED DATA TREATMENT, YOU GUYS LOOK LIKE A BUNCH SLOPPY SCIENTISTS AND AMATUERS, AT LEAST TO THIS CHEMIST.

    I love a guy that can’t spell “temperatures”, can’t spell “measured”, puts a space in front of a period, claims people look like a “bunch sloppy scientists”, and can’t spell “amateurs”, who nonetheless claims that the mark of a professional is “close attention to detail”.

    By your own standard, you have just proven beyond doubt that you are the rankest of amateurs, Harold. Medice, cura te ipsum!.

    w.

    PS—In the expression “et al.”, the word “al.” is an abbreviation for “alia”, and as such also requires a period … in case you were wondering.

  630. I don’t know how Prof. Muller can have the nerve to go on another publicity spree when the draft manuscripts associated with his previous publicity drive last year still have not been approved. I know the BEST study was extremely complex, but such a long period from initial submission does not exactly inspire confidence in terms of quality of work and attention to detail, especially in terms of organisation and presentation of underlying data / metadata. Does he really think the public are that stupid? The posturing as to being a “reformed sceptic” is also particularly contemptible. We are not all blind unquestioning followers of NYT/Grauniad collectivism.

    Well done Anthony et al., as a rationalist though time will be required to absorb the work in full. It does appear though that Prof. Muller may now have further headaches in getting his draft manuscripts approved (now five of them in the queue). It will be v. interesting to see how the IPCC handles this all wrt. AR5.

    Again, in terms of a fundamental lack of attention to detail, Prof. Muller et al. have shown incompetence by overlooking WMO station siting standards, which as a UN organisation they can hardly criticise now even if they may wish to do so. The impact of Anthony’s work is indeed potentially tectonic, as so many research papers have been reliant on NOAA data. I think Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has put it best in terms of alluding a confirmation bias.

    The work performed by Anthony, with limited resources should have been performed by the “public servants” themselves, who are funded by vast taxpayer resources, and do not appear to have been performing anything resembling ‘normal’ science.

  631. Dieter says:

    Critical minds and citizen engagement at work!

    Congratulations and thanks, Anthony – for your dedication and years of hard work!

  632. Werner Brozek says:

    The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites

    Comments were made about factoring in relative humidity and the fact that it ends in 2008. Taking the sea surface data from 1979 to 2008 yields a slope of slope = 0.0135164 per year. However taking the slope from 1979 to date gives a slope of slope = 0.0124303 per year. So perhaps if the time were taken up to the present, it may also possibly be only +0.145C/decade. And taking sea surface temperatures of course eliminates the need to consider relative humidity. However one should also not ignore the fact that warming stopped over 15 years ago, at least globally. See:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2009/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend

  633. Paul, thanks for the kind words about my PJM post.

  634. hro001 says:

    Theo Goodwin says: July 29, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    A. Scott offers the ultimate self-aggrandizement expert:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    Michael Mann (h/t Tom Nelson):

    “It seems, in the end–quite sadly–that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement”

    Yes, this sent my irony-meter right off the scale as well! You’d think that Mann would welcome Muller as a long-time kindred spirit on the CO2–>(C)AGW front:

    Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.

    But, alas, it would seem that poor Michael “how dare you question my hockey-stick” Mann has never been able to get past the paragraph that immediately preceded the above December 2003 ‘article of faith’ from Muller:

    It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important.

    Source (of this and a number of other “Mullerisms”) at Will the real Richard Muller please stand up

    This apparent battle of the over-sized egos calls out for treatment by Josh, does it not?! But in the meantime …

    Congratulations to Anthony – who I hope is now taking a much-deserved rest – and his co-authors.

  635. Steve Keohane says:

    Congratulations, Anthony, Evan, Steve and John. Nice work gentlemen! The 700 comments in less than ten hours says a lot about the speed and breadth of dissemination.

  636. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Found in previous comment:

    [REPLY: it means class 1 and class 2 bundled into one bin. -REP]

    Thanks. In that case,

    Forward slash used instead of backward slash in “Figures and Tables”:
    1. Pg 3, “Class 1/2 Stations”, Figure 3 (caption on pg 2)
    2. Pg 21, Figure 23, “Class 1/2 Stations” and “Class 3/5 Stations” (should be 3\4\5)

    Shouldn’t Figure 20 pg 18 use “Class 3\4\5″ as that map represents all three binned together?

    Wow, just on the first day a ton of crowd-sourced proofreading got done. By tomorrow when people will have actually worked through the paper, maybe some usable peer review.

    Why are we still using dead slow dead tree journals for information propagation, when the internet is so much faster and efficient?

  637. chrisale says:

    Wait… so your big conclusion is that the NOAA doesn’t account enough for urban heat island effect. (Even though here very clearly they do)
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/img/fig2.png

    OK so if I’m reading this right you’re saying 0.09°C per decade of the stated increase is false. So instead of the USHCN adjusted values of +1.00C change between 1950 and 2010 (60 years) you’re saying it’s actually +0.54C….

    Even if you are correct (which honestly, I am skeptical that such a huge discrepancy could be made) the fact is the warming signal has not been magically whisked away. It’s simply been cut down a notch or two and CO2 remains the only factor that has changed enough to account for that rise in temperature. Nothing else fits the bill, which is what BEST confirms as well.

    [REPLY: Read the paper. -REP]

  638. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    July 29, 2012 at 5:43 pm
    Doug Proctor at BH:

    Watts’ paper is a get-out-of-jail-free card for every warmist. Based on current knowledge, they have behaved responsibly. Everyone from Al Gore to Bill McKibben has been mislead by the wrong statistical techniques, but, most importantly, not about global warming per se, but the rate of global warming.

    Great point. Thanks Doug.

    But why did none of them – none of them – check the data in the first place? Was it because the data told them what they all wanted to hear?

  639. Stephen says:

    Outstanding work!
    Thank you.

    Here’s are a couple quick questions which I would recommend answering in the full paper:
    Was the NOAA systematic upwards adjustment motivated by any known mechanics? Is there any reason to believe that the raw data understates the trend?

  640. Miss Grundy says:

    Shoulders shuddering with every sob, Bill McKibben is weeping deep into his feculent pillow tonight….

  641. Glacier says:

    It would be interesting to do a comparison on Canadian weather stations. Here are just two of the weather stations I’ve observed… http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=33069&p=1301028#p1059079

  642. HaroldW says:

    Nick Stokes (July 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm)
    I calculated the 1979-2008 trend from NOAA’s ConUS figures. [link] It came to 0.24 °C/decade.

    Nick-
    From the data at the link, I get a trend of 0.32 C/decade. With the slightly better (monthly) data from http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/dataproduct , I also get 0.32 C/dec, to 2 digits. So I’m not sure how you got 0.24. However, neither source would seem to be precisely the same as USHCN v2 (adjusted) average, for which Watts et al. report 0.309 C/dec. [This appears to be an ungridded average; figure 18 implies that the gridded average is 0.316 C/dec.]

    REPLY – We used two gridding methods: the 26-box method and the 9-region method. the latter produced slightly lower results for both raw and adjusted, but the “gap” between then was about equal. We’ll have to clarify that down the road. ~ Evan

  643. AndyG55 says:

    Let me put a scenario. A site, in 1970, is 2km from the ocean. It is a well maintained site, and has remained well maintained, with no concrete etc within 100m, probably still a class one site (if my understanding is correct) However, between then and now, a dense urban area, with factories, lots of vegetation loss, etc, has sprung up between the site and the coast.

    How will this affect the measurement of temperatures, particularly in the evening, when the breeze is almost always onshore.?
    Is this sort of possible change to temperature readings accounted for?
    Is it possible to account or it.?

  644. HaroldW says:

    Anthony et al. –
    A suggestion for figures containing multiple parallel plots, as your figure 16 (and others) — please use identical vertical scales on all plots as an aid to your readers. The eye naturally makes a visual comparison between charts, and will be misled if the scales don’t align.

  645. Michael Mullendore says:

    Typo on Page 20 line 387. Should read “Many” instead of “May”

  646. Frederick Michael says:

    In Figure 20, in the line:
    What the compliant thermometers (class 1&2) say: +0.155ºC/decade
    The “+0.155ºC/decade” should be in green to agree with the legend.

  647. James says:

    Lucy Skywalker
    I’m sure you have collected a lot of studies on your web page. I’m sure there are many studies in the literature which offer an alternative view. Things are rarely black and white in science. To think otherwise is likely to have missed something and to be following prejudice. We all have a prejudice. Its safer that we remember this.

  648. Mike says:

    [snip -policy violation]

  649. pochas says:

    Rewrite lines 757/758 to use “for” or “in”, not both.

  650. johanna says:

    Bravo, Anthony, co-authors and helpers.

    A lot of constructive suggestions on the thread – which validates your decision to put your draft out there for comment. With a bit of polishing and editing, it will be much better and more accessible to general, as well as specialist, readers than most of the gibberish that gets published in journals.

    I concur with suggestions about tightening up the abstract and perhaps getting a professional editor (volunteer) to go through it for punctuation, style and clarity. No reflection on you – it was obviously finished in a hurry and besides, professional editing is a specialist skill – although we seem to have a few in-house experts on the thread!

    Assuming no major flaws emerge, and it’s looking good so far, you have truly shaken the tree with this work. And don’t forget, you still owe yourself a holiday with your family.

  651. Richard Christie says:

    Do the results affect the Berkeley Earth study results?

  652. John F. Hultquist says:

    @ 8:46 pm, REP says
    [REPLY: Thanks, but no, we... ahhh, I am not Anthony and I am not doing this alone. Senior Moderator dbs, evan, jove, and a bunch of others have been working to approve comments and keep out the riff-raff. I'm just the mouthiest of the bunch. -REP]

    And much appreciated. Thank you, one and all.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Up stream there are comments about Dr. Richard Müller, and —-
    Jo Nova carried a response by Christopher Monckton regarding the recent Müller editorials in national papers. Her title is: “Müller lite: Why Every Scientist Needs a Classical Training”

  653. Brian H says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 29, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Adrian says:
    July 29, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    I like the preprint, but there is zero chance of this getting past peer reivew
    e.g.
    758… The odds of this result having occurred randomly is very small.

    Peer Review: Is this an IPCC report? lol

    Instead of being all snarkish, how about you tell us just exactly how to calculate the odds of the result having occurred randomly? It is an interesting question, and it is far from a simple problem.

    w.

    It’s a grammar thang, W. “The odds is … ” don’t scan so good.

    “The odds are” is far more correctamundo. For really sure!

    Y’could’a said “the probability is very small”, or “the likelihood is…” being as what those are singular, as opposed to plural or multiple-type nouns.

  654. Brian H says:

    Gunga Din says:
    July 29, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Reed Coray says:
    July 29, 2012 at 8:29 pm
    It was the BEST of times; it was the WATTS of times.

    ====================================================
    Classic.

    But I bet it confuses the Dickens out of many.

  655. Brian H says:

    hro001 says:
    July 29, 2012 at 9:34 pm


    Will the real Richard Muller please stand up

    I don’t think anyone’s there to answer that call …

  656. Brian H says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    C’est nous !! The French are renowned for their common sense that’s why we find the English so difficult to understand.

    Among the French, the French are renowned for many things the rest of the world finds severely contrary to observation. >:p

  657. Brian H says:

    eqibno says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    So, this means that AGW (or a good portion of it) is really man-made….just not by [CO2]…

    REPLY – Mmmm. A good portion, yes. ~ Evan

    Umm, by the very definition of the “A” part of AGW, 100% of AGW is man-made. What it is not is real, extant, measurable, non-nugatory, un-negligible.

  658. JJ says:

    The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project …

    NO IT DOES NOT!!

    To do that, Anthony’s press release would have opened: “Call me a converted warmist.”

    :)

  659. UK Sceptic says:

    How to put the cat firmly among the pigeons – with style!

    Is all Anthony’s work collating that instrument siting information finally paying off? Watch this space…

  660. Sean Foley says:

    Fantastic work. And well-needed.

  661. Martin says:

    Hi,
    I think I’ve found a small editing error in the “Overview of the paper”-ppt:
    On slide 43 the text says +0.251 (the same as in slide 24), but the figure shows +0.310.

    Great work!

    REPLY – My bad. Cut/paste error. It’s .310. Will correct. ~ Evan

  662. NeedleFactory says:

    Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after USHCNv2 adjustments are applied.

    I thank Lief for his proposed condensed abstract. I don’t care for the included sentence above, however, which comes from the original paper. I think a rewording such as below would be clearer, harder to misinterpret when reading quickly, further reduce the word count, and have more impact:

    The USHCNv2 adjustments increase the warming of well sited rural stations by a factor of three.

    I was tempted to put ‘adjustments’ in scare quotes, or insert the word ‘spuriously’ before the word ‘increase’, but resisted.

  663. Earl Wood says:

    I understand that the reason for posting this paper prior to review to is to get feedback from the the readers on mistakes etc… to be fixed. If thats the case, I’ve started proofreading and here are my suggestions for the abstract (I’m not trying to offend, just help):
    p2, ln19: “In Fall et al, 2011, …” et al. should have a period after al, not comma.
    p2. ln20: Perhaps spell out United States once before using abbreviations U.S. for rest of paper
    p2. ln23: “…(USCRN) in 2002. In 2010, Leroy improved…” There seems to be an extra space after the period here, and there is no need for the comma on an intro phrase of only 2 words.
    p2. ln24: “system to introduce a…” replace with “system by introducing a…”
    p2. ln29-31: Move the phrase, “particularly when applied retroactively to existing stations” to just after “Leroy (1999)” and end the sentence.
    p2. ln31: Replace “which performs well…” with “While the old classifications system performs well…” or something similar.
    p2. ln32: Change “siting evaluation, but does not take into account the surface….” to “siting evaluation, it does not consider the surface….”
    p2: ln35: “….station exposure affects USHCNv2 temperatures, in particular the minimum temperatures,…” to “…station exposure particularly affects USHCNv2 minimum temperatures,….”
    p2. ln37: “…both also which also used….” does not need also

    If this is helpful, let me know, I can scan my corrections and email them easier than typing them all out.

  664. NeedleFactory says:

    Well, perhaps I don’t count well late at night. Try this:
    The USHCNv2 adjustments multiply the warming of well sited rural stations by nearly three.

    Other tiny edits for the paper:
    Line 69: myriad factors, not myriad of factors
    Line 122: is, not is that there is [a minor sylistic point, some may disagree)
    Throughout: I suggest citations such as “… et.al.,(2010)” should have a space preceding the open parenthesis.

    Exciting times! Thanks to all concerned!

  665. bellerophon99 says:

    I understand that the reason for posting this paper prior to review to is to get feedback from the the readers on mistakes etc… to be fixed. If thats the case, I\’ve started proofreading and here are my suggestions for the abstract (I\’m not trying to offend, just help):
    p2, ln19: \”In Fall et al, 2011, …\” et al. should have a period after al, not comma.
    p2. ln20: Perhaps spell out United States once before using abbreviations U.S. for rest of paper
    p2. ln23: \”…(USCRN) in 2002. In 2010, Leroy improved…\” There seems to be an extra space after the period here, and there is no need for the comma on an intro phrase of only 2 words.
    p2. ln24: \”system to introduce a…\” replace with \”system by introducing a…\”
    p2. ln29-31: Move the phrase, \”particularly when applied retroactively to existing stations\” to just after \”Leroy (1999)\” and end the sentence.
    p2. ln31: Replace \”which performs well…\” with \”While the old classifications system performs well…\” or something similar.
    p2. ln32: Change \”siting evaluation, but does not take into account the surface….\” to \”siting evaluation, it does not consider the surface….\”
    p2: ln35: \”….station exposure affects USHCNv2 temperatures, in particular the minimum temperatures,…\” to \”…station exposure particularly affects USHCNv2 minimum temperatures,….\”
    p2. ln37: \”…both also which also used….\” does not need also

    If this is helpful, let me know, I can scan my corrections and email them easier than typing them all out.

  666. davidmhoffer says:

    It occurs to me that we are witnessing not just a brilliant paper, but a monumental change in the scientific process itself. For the first time (that I am aware at any rate) a major scientific paper is being reviewed, and improved, in a public forum. There’s no doubt that the guts of this paper would not have been possible without the dedicated work of the authors. But consider the additional history that is being made by crowd sourcing the final version.

    Every spelling error will have been found, every grammatical error fixed, confusing sentences and paragraphs rewritten for clarity, every axis on every graph properly labelled, scaled, and yes, colour coordinated too.

    Best of all though, is that the peer review will be impeccable. If there is a single problem with this paper, it will be found. The number of eyes on it from people who want it to succeed, but would nonetheless point out an error if they spotted it, is staggering. Not to mention of course that there will be legions of those who want this paper to fail and they will be even more agressive at trying to poke a hole in it to prevent it from reaching publication.

    As to those who worry that the journals will find some excuse to keep this paper out, I’d like to know how? By the time the final copy gets submitted to a journal, you’ll have a hard time finding an apostrophe out of place. If thousands upon thousands of reviewers, many of them desperate to find a flaw, are unable to, does anyone think that three qualified reviewers are going to find something significant that was missed?

    Best of all, by the time this does get submitted to a journal, what journal is going to want to reject it? It is already hitting the MSM. Unless that journal can actualy cite a credible reason for refusing the paper, they’d be the laughing stock of the scientific community and not even the MSM dullards could avoid writing a WTF article.

    We’re witnessing a giant nail being driven into the CAGW coffin, but we are also witnessing a permanent change in the way science progresses.

    Ivory tower, meet the blogosphere. Ignore it at your peril.

  667. davidmhoffer says:
    July 29, 2012 at 11:59 pm
    If thousands upon thousands of reviewers, many of them desperate to find a flaw, are unable to, does anyone think that three qualified reviewers are going to find something significant that was missed?
    Fixing a comma here and there does not constitute serious peer-review.

  668. Jimbo says:

    One small suggestion for the press release title:

    New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

    New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

  669. Jimbo says:

    Sorry, I meant title of the post.

  670. Fully agree with davidmhoffer contribution; this paper publishing proces is a watershed.
    Congratulations everybody

  671. “New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial”

    OK, I have to be a contrarian here. I hate that headline!

    It makes it sound as if you’ve proved that half the warming is anthropogenic. How about, “Study shows half of USA global warming due to faulty weather-station siting”

    ?

  672. You can even put “global warming” in scepticism quotes, as in:

    “Study shows half of USA “global warming” due to faulty weather-station siting

    That’s actually slightly more accurate with ‘global warming” in quotes, because your study shows global warming is in part a phantom result due to faulty measurement, not that faulty measurement has caused real global warming (per se).

  673. AB says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    July 29, 2012 at 11:59 pm
    Great comment, and well done Anthony!

  674. Shevva says:

    I promise when I win the lottery Anthony get’s a free holiday.

    Integrity, honesty and good old fashioned hard work if these quality’s don’t deserve a free holiday to say Rio then, oh wait free holidays to Rio are for the corrupted acolytes never mind.

  675. spen says:

    Well done.but I fear the paper will not receive the publicity it deserves. I suspect that, as usual, these important contrarian conclusions will be largely ignored by the media and the warmists. The orthodoxy is firmly embedded -. ‘The science is settled and the majority of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change’. Worst of all much of the public has lost interest and do not understand the catastrophic economic impact this orthodoxy are already imposing on the western economies.

  676. Jesse Farmer says:

    To Anthony in particular, and to all the back-patters on this blog in general saying how great this paper is, let me cast a word of warning: This paper, in present form, WILL NOT get published.

    And before that happens, when you all complain that there’s massive pro-global warming bias in the published literature and that the review process is corrupted, let me explain why: for scientific correspondence, this paper is very, very poorly written.

    Here’s a couple changes that would have to be made off the bat:
    1. The abstract should be no more than a paragraph, 150 words at maximum.
    2. No block quotes- paraphrase the conclusions of other authors’ work.
    3. Way too long- similar studies would be published in GRL, JGR-Atmospheres, or the like. Your manuscript text is 52 pages double spaced. JGR’s maximum is 25. GRL is 12. So you need to cut this at least in half or in a quarter.

    The finding of significant station biases within the historical temperature record would be an important result, certainly worthy of publication. But it won’t ever see the light of day outside of the skeptic blogs unless you tighten it up.

    Jesse Farmer

  677. Mac says:

    What journal(s) this being submitted to and when?

  678. Poptech says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:45 pm
    Steven Mosher says:

    July 29, 2012 at 12:22 pm
    Data Problems

    1. Uses GHCN Version 2.

    2. In our urban-rural comparisons we use the Urban, Semi-Urban, Rural classifications provided by NASA.

    Your cryptic messages do you no favours. This crap has no meaning. Say what you mean or go back to your classroom.

    Thank you and Willis for finally commenting on his incohorent posts. Mosher please don’t comment until you learn how to make posts that people without mind reading abilities can understand.

    Willis, if he was such a smart guy he would make coherent posts.

  679. Poptech says:

    Why would Mosher not post his comments here?

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/until-sunday-july-29th-around-noon-pst-wuwt/#comment-100282

    Long ago Willis criticized Muller for his first release of data with a pre print because it was not finalized. One will have to see if he holds folks to the same standard. Long ago People were critical of NASA’s classification of rural. we will see if they stand up today. I have my doubts.
    On trends. They find a bias of between .11 and .14 per decade for the subset of US stations they look at. That’s a bit higher than Zeke and I found ( .04) for the entire world and it lacks spatial completeness. We know for example that these effects are more pronounced in higher latitudes.

    He must feel left out Anthony did not ask him for his imagined “expert” opinion on these issues.

  680. Spotted Reptile says:

    OK I’ll have a try at the headline:

    “New study shows half of reported US ‘global warming’ temperature trend erroneous due to faulty siting of weather stations.

  681. AndyG55 says:

    @Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Fixing a comma here and there does not constitute serious peer-review.”

    So true, but over the next few days there will be many clever, educated (even both) people looking at this paper, yourself included. Many will be looking for any error that they can find, either to kill it or to make sure it can’t be killed.

    That’s the big difference, a real sceptic will criticise a paper even if it does appear to support their side of the arguement……….. A climate scientist.. not so often ;-)

  682. richard says:

    all this great work, did it get in the MSM,

    Hopefully Christopher Booker next Sunday,

  683. William Martin in NZ says:

    Hi from a sceptic in NZ.Thanks to the team for their magnificent work.Just one request,could you put our NIWA on the right track to monitor our temps please?They seem to be struggling at the moment.
    Good luck and good health to you all.

  684. StarCravingEngineer says:

    One last, lonely typo remains on the corrected file, named watts-et-al-2012-figures-and-tables-final1.pdf

    On the colored maps shown as Figures 2 and 20, the lowest delta-T per decade (the deep blue color on the scale) is labeled “>0.0″ which I read as “greater than zero”. Shouldn’t it be labeled “<0.0" i.e. "less than zero" to indicate cooling? The bar-charts starting with Fig.4 include negative delta-Ts on their vertical axes which clearly represent cooling.

    More praise than I can express, for all of your tenacious and principled work.

    Yeah. Also I said 1.0 instead of .10. I will correct. Other error as well with one of the maps; I’ll get that, too. ~ Evan

  685. Poptech says:

    See I get to waste time discovering how Mosher really feels by looking at other sites,

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/#comment-223472

    well when we first released our preprints we released the data. in fact we gave our stations to steve mcintyre and he wrote about that dataset. sadly the watts paper doesnt release the dataset or the raw data (photos) used in the classification. so its impossible to check duplicate or audit anything. that said they do use a proxy for rural that is based on data that is not suitable for use. ive discussed this before but it bears repeating. finally they have the amplification figures wrong as has been discussed at ca. the statistical analysis at the end doesnt take account of some vital details. it looks rushed. with the spatial distrubution they have they need to control for continentality or at least show some sort of control for that.

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/#comment-223546

    1. we identified stations that are very rural.
    2. we used a classification system that is more stringent than the classification system used by Watts
    3. we calculated the global land temperature using only rural stations.

    Poor Mosher does not have the balls to comment here how he really feels as he does not want to have to defend his points.

  686. Poptech says:

    See I get to waste time discovering how Mosher really feels by looking at other sites,

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/#comment-223472

    well when we first released our preprints we released the data. in fact we gave our stations to steve mcintyre and he wrote about that dataset. sadly the watts paper doesnt release the dataset or the raw data (photos) used in the classification. so its impossible to check duplicate or audit anything. that said they do use a proxy for rural that is based on data that is not suitable for use. ive discussed this before but it bears repeating. finally they have the amplification figures wrong as has been discussed at ca. the statistical analysis at the end doesnt take account of some vital details. it looks rushed. with the spatial distrubution they have they need to control for continentality or at least show some sort of control for that.

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/#comment-223546

    1. we identified stations that are very rural.
    2. we used a classification system that is more stringent than the classification system used by Watts
    3. we calculated the global land temperature using only rural stations.

    Poor Mosher does not have the balls to comment here how he really feels as he does not want to have to defend his points.

  687. Ally E. says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    July 29, 2012 at 11:59 pm

    It occurs to me that we are witnessing not just a brilliant paper, but a monumental change in the scientific process itself… (etc.)

    *

    I agree with you. This paper will be printed. For those who object to how it stands now, hey, it’s still in the editing phase. Point is, it’s solid data. It’s not based on “models” or on “predictions” or hype. This is not a paper that can be easily ignored or swept under the carpet.

    What I love is that those con-artists who hide behind a mask of “science” have to accept it or they show their true natures. Honest scientists will embrace the data, fraudulent ones will loathe it, but to keep up the pretence, they will have to accept it – no doubt with gritted teeth.

    This paper puts them firmly between a rock and a hard place, and that’s icing on the cake. Any shouting they do, any objecting, any squirming at all shows them in a true light. So they will accept it and try to dismantle it “scientifically” but it’s too thorough for that.

    Delicious stuff. :)

  688. mfo says:

    It seems that most of the MSM have yet to comprehend the significance of this paper. I’m probably repeating comments but the findings of this research not only affect all papers based on NOAA data but similar research on station siting has got to be carried out in all the continents in the world using the WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy.

    This will take a long time and will probably affect all ‘global warming’ research related to all the continents. Many thousands of research papers from all over the world could become redundant. All IPCC reports based on flawed temperature records would have to be set aside. Any research papers submitted for the next IPCC report using station data from NOAA will will have to be scrutinised and likely rejected. Papers using station data from the rest of the world will be unreliable until the stations have been checked.

    The work has really only just begun. If editors and journalists from the mainstream media don’t recognise the enormity of this they will be utterly failing the public and will lose out even more to the blogosphere.

  689. For those who criticise that USA is only 2% of global area, note that Australians have been working on related exercises. Before our 2% land area can be added to the USA, there are some format and calculation steps to make our findings easier to read beside the paper by Anthony Watts et al. 2102. There is important, systematic work reported for example on the Kenskingdom blog, at http://www.waclimate.net/ and on the Warwick Hughes blog http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/
    to name but 3. Often, the joint efforts of several come together on http://joannenova.com.au/

    One set of figures that I worked up looked for a baseline temperature trend in Australia in the period 1972-2006. (We went from deg F to deg C reporting in 1972). If there was positive UHI, then it would add itself to the baseline trend.

    From a start of about 800 met stations, I selected about 45 that were fairly considered to be essentially pristine. There was no systematic pattern in the trend of either Tmax or Tmin for these pristine stations. The highest trend was +4.7 deg C per century equivalent (projected from a linear fit, which is not optimum, but is easy to understand), the lowest was – 2.7 deg C per century equivalent. http://www.geoffstuff.com/Pristine_Summary_1972_to_2006.xls There was no obvious need to invoke CO2; indeed, it hardly explains negative trends.

    The micro environment around each sensor was not examined, measured or corrected in detail. That is perhaps the next step. However, when the variation in these 45 stations (culled from nearly 100 that could also be pristine – pristine is one step more pure than rural) is so large, it is obviously difficult to extract a signal due to another cause such as UHI. This is a weakness with BEST. Can’t show a baseline, can’t show an increase.

    So far as I have read, the Australian findings appear compatible with Anthony’s, but it is too early to be dogmatic. We have to compare Granny Smith apples with Granny Smith apples.

  690. Ally E. says:

    Christoph Dollis says:

    July 30, 2012 at 12:37 am

    “New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial”

    OK, I have to be a contrarian here. I hate that headline!

    It makes it sound as if you’ve proved that half the warming is anthropogenic. How about, “Study shows half of USA global warming due to faulty weather-station siting”

    *

    You have a point. What about “New study shows half of global warming in USA is artificially high.” Or “…is erroneous.” Or “…is exaggerated.”

  691. Steve Borodin says:

    Fantastic work!
    Now wait for the Ignore-Deny-Abuse cycle.

  692. Bill K says:

    Congratulations Anthony, Evan, Stephan, John and co-authors!

    Excellent paper! My interpretation is that Rural, Class 1 and 2 stations best represent temperature in the CONUS.

    I read many of the comments, but I’m sleepy now and wish to add a couple of editorial comments before I get distracted. Please excuse me if others have already made these comments, I am leaving out those that I saw others mention in their comments.

    Line 534. I do not understand the statement that the “Tmean trend is indisputably higher for well sited stations than for poorly sited stations.” It appears lower to me. If I am missing the point, perhaps others will miss it as well.

    Figure 16. I do not see a semi-urban entry for Tmin Raw in class 1/2, nor do I see an urban entry for Tmin Raw in class 4.

    Thanks for a wonderful paper. I look forward to when it is formally published (and I think it will be – it’s too important to ignore) and I hope this analysis is extended around the globe.

    Also thanks to Anthony and Stephan for your efforts in running two excellent blogs. I read many fine articles, but I rarely make comments.

    Bill Kojak

    REPLY – Yes, lower, not higher. I’ll check out the missing blips. Thanks! ~ Evan

  693. Andyj says:

    I’ve not read the paper as yet. It’s about time the “heat island effect” was definitively calculated for.

    However, one thing has hit me straight in the face.
    When numbers of under one are shown on the “cartoons” and temperature lists, I was taught as an engineer a leading zero before the decimal point kept everything clear, unmistakeable and correct.

    The inconsistency is made worse by the famous .40. The numbers with leading operands (+- = !) and so on before the decimal point. Never seen it before and it does not look right.
    A detractor would simply question its validity as simply “pencilled in”.

    All the best guys!

    REPLY – Thought about it, then decided that since every starting number there would be a zero, anyway, why bother? ~ Evan

  694. AlexS says:

    Another one that thinks that current measuring decimal, degrees of temperatures means anything , to not talk about how temperatures are measured…

  695. M Courtney says:

    chrisale says at July 29, 2012 at 9:52 pm
    “Even if you are correct (which honestly, I am skeptical that such a huge discrepancy could be made) the fact is the warming signal has not been magically whisked away. It’s simply been cut down a notch or two and CO2 remains the only factor that has changed enough to account for that rise in temperature. Nothing else fits the bill, which is what BEST confirms as well.”
    So in your interpretation, if this analysis of the raw data is correct, then the lack of natural variation on the global climate is confirmed?
    No, it just is not completely disproven.
    What it does show is that, with the best data judged to current standards, climate change is not as bad as we thought.
    This is good news.

  696. MieScatter says:

    Hi Anthony,
    I’ve only had time to skim through your paper and the methodology ppt so far. The way your manuscript reads, it suggests that your comparisons are for ‘raw’ data, with ‘raw’ implying no Tobs correction. Is this correct?

    REPLY – Raw. No TOBS. ~ Evan

  697. Entropic man says:

    Best not to jump too quickly into triumphalism or despair until this passes peer review.
    And before you get all excited, a reminder to the non-scientists here. Peer review is not a filter removing politically incorrect ideas, or a way of preventing someone presenting ideas outside the consensus. It is quality control, a system for checking that the design, execution and data analysis meet the minimum standard expected of a scientific paper.

  698. Sensorman says:

    Hey Anthony – it’s a bit of an understatement to say “good work”! Anywhere specific you want possible edits to be sent? Minor stuff, but e.g. line 560 suggest “majority” rather than “plurality”

  699. Stephen Wilde says:

    To all those who pick at details and suggest that the paper might not be taken seriously I would just say that the basic approach and the results are what matter.

    It is now in the public domain that there is a much better site assessment procedure which has not previously been methodically applied.

    Also, that when it is applied, the difference in trend between sites of differing qualities becomes apparent. The most important point of Muller’s work was that there were no significant trend differences between sites of differing qualities.

    The science has moved on such that the earlier assertions of Muller and the entire climate establishment are now out of date. They should graciously acknowledge that fact.

    Leroy 2010 has been a time bomb waiting to go off and this paper has lit the fuse.

    All else is chaff.

    That is not to deny that warming has occurred but it does reduce it substantially from what we have been led to believe.

    In the meantime natural variability is being shown to have a greater influence than previously recognised.

    Those two factors combine to squeeze AGW into insignificance for policy purposes.

  700. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Nick Stokes on July 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm:

    I calculated the 1979-2008 trend from NOAA’s ConUS figures. It came to 0.24 °C/decade. That compares well to the UAH trend of 0.23 °C/decade (for 1979-present).

    The full UAH record starts at 12/1978 and currently runs to 6/2012.

    The “USA48″ figure is the slope for the entire record. In a spreadsheet just do a quick conversion to decimal years, (month-1)/12 + year, then use the SLOPE function. OpenOffice gave me 0.23°C/decade, same as reported by UAH.

    At your NOAA data link, I retrieved all available data for individual months and assembled it all in a spreadsheet. Over the same period as the UAH record, after converting °F to °C, slope was 0.34°C/decade, clearly more than UAH, by about 48%.

    From 1979 to 2008 inclusive, UAH yields 0.25°C/decade. By that NOAA data I got 0.39°C/decade, clearly more than UAH, by about 56%.

    Your NOAA link as specified is the 12 month average for December, which was found to be the average temperature from January to December after comparison to 12-mo averages I figured from the monthly data. With those numbers, 1979 to 2008 inclusive had a slope of 0.32°C/decade, not the 0.24°C/decade you got.

    So when the periods are properly matched up, it is found the trends from NOAA data are considerably larger than those from UAH, more than half again as large by the average of these two periods.

    And when you properly calculate the trends, that from 1979-2008 NOAA ConUS 12-mo averages (annual figures) does not compare well to the UAH trend (actually from 12/1978 to present), being 39% higher.

    You’re wrong. Again. Twice just in that one part of one of your comments. At least twice. Try harder.

  701. Jessie says:

    Congratulations Anthony, Evan, Stephen and John on your work. Also congratulations to your merry band of field volunteers and the mods, all those comments!
    And now to read the papers………………

  702. evanmjones says:

    Music to my ears, Evan. Only yesterday I was remembering those words of yours, that I’ve not heard for a long time.

    Thanks, Lucy!

  703. Steve Richards says:

    Excellent job, well done to all.

    Does the word ‘May’ and this sentence need reviewing? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

    387 May airports, due to the weather stations being placed on grassy areas in between
    388 runways, are rated as “compliant” by both Leroy (1999) and Leroy (2010) rating
    389 systems.

  704. michaelozanne says:

    Still Nothing on the main page at RC. I think we may be taking the fingers in ears “Nyah Nyah, not peer reviewed” approach.

  705. David A. Evans says:

    Ian H says:
    July 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    I was asking when we stopped using max/min thermometers because the era of electronic measurement should have eliminated the necessity of TOBs adjustment. I did appreciate the problems associated with Obs being close to either the Max or Min.

    DaveE.

  706. Rafa says:

    EVAN says above he did not work that hard to have later the data condemned in some inaccesible file. He has my sympathy for that. Let me remind that in some cases mainstream researchers claimed the data file was lost, the dog ate the data, etc, or even more exotic excuses for something paid with tax payers money.

  707. Nick Stokes says:

    HaroldW says: July 29, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    Nick-From the data at the link, I get a trend of 0.32 C/decade.”

    Yes, you’re right. I slipped a line in reading in the data, and calculated 1980-2009 instead of 1979-2008. I’m surprised it made so much difference.

    But since it did, I thought I should calculate the exact years for UAH. Unless I got the years wrong there, it came to 0.25 °C/decade. The se was 0.05, and of the NOAA trend, 0.09. So the differences aren’t significant.

  708. Entropic man says:

    I refer you to lines 306 through 316, relating to shade and other factors causing a station to underread. Since stations in shade, or in frost hollows are going to have a reducing effect on any data of which they are a part. a peer reviewer may seek further confirmation that these effects have been properly taken into account.

  709. HK says:

    This is fascinating.

    As far as I can tell, Class 1 and 2 are always combined into one “bin”.

    I can see why you would not have separated them, because there are so few Class 1 stations, but is there any trend difference at all between Class 1 and Class 2?

  710. Peter S says:

    So – you DO need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!

    Well done Anthony an’ all.

  711. Andyj says:

    EVAN!
    leading zero before a decimal point:-

    “REPLY – Thought about it, then decided that since every starting number there would be a zero, anyway, why bother? ~ Evan”

    Please Wiki “decimal” & IEEE 754-2008
    It’s the standard.

    Sorry but we want this to work and be totally bullet proof.

  712. michaelozanne says:


    And before you get all excited, a reminder to the non-scientists here. Peer review is not a filter removing politically incorrect ideas, or a way of preventing someone presenting ideas outside the consensus. It is quality control, a system for checking that the design, execution and data analysis meet the minimum standard expected of a scientific paper.”

    Yet in the Gergis case failed to notice that the stated method had not been followed and that the maths had been done by a blind chimp wasted on crack…. A reminder to the scientists here. Quality control is not an optional extra applied post process. But an integral part of the work that should be initiated at the conceptual design stage of the paper and constantly referred to and audited against at every stage until the published output is produced. Perhaps if academic institutions were to insist on and enforce some basic industrial standards we would have less drivel being loaded into the policy making process. We would also have less risible rubbish to have a good snigger at which would be a regrettable side effect.

  713. pwl says:

    “757 … This is true for,
    758 in all nine geographical areas of all five data samples.”

    “This is true for, in all nine geographical areas of all five data samples.”

    The grammar structure of the wording in the above sentence needs clarification. Did you mean to say “This is true for all nine geographical areas of and all five data samples.” or some variation thereof?

  714. Chris says:

    Anticlimax. Rather than working on a real solution you promote yet another pile of goop. The swallowers swallow.

  715. tckev says:

    Excellent work!
    Will any Governments’ movers and shakers get behind this and force an abandonment of the useless carbon taxes? I doubt it!

  716. Peter Ellis says:

    Also, that when it is applied, the difference in trend between sites of differing qualities becomes apparent. The most important point of Muller’s work was that there were no significant trend differences between sites of differing qualities.

    Unfortunately, Anthony’s paper doesn’t show that. He shows that sites of differing qualities have a significantly different trend in the raw data, but not in the homogenised data. Thus, the homogenisation procedures remove the UHI effect, precisely as they are designed to do.

    The other observation is that the trend observed from homogenised data is higher than the trend you get from high quality raw data. This is already known, and is due to other necessary adjustments such as time-of-observation bias and the change from liquid-in-glass thermometers to MMTS. Since Anthony did not carry out these adjustments, or say anything whatsoever about the methodology for doing so, he has no grounds to claim that the homogenised temperatures are wrong. This I think will preclude publication: failure to correct for known biases is simply wrong, and comparing uncorrected data (Anthony’s) to corrected data (USHCN) is inappropriate.

    What Anthony can say is that +0.155 degrees C – i.e. the high station quality raw data without adjustment for time of observation or thermometer type – represents a lower bound for the temperature trend. This puts him fully in agreement with the published record. This again may be a barrier to publication, since it’s insufficiently novel. I may be wrong though.

    What would be really helpful is if Anthony simply releases the list of which stations fall into which categories, so that the USHCN and BEST teams can re-do their urban/rural comparisons using a better metric of station quality.

  717. Michael Schaefer says:

    That’s what I call FIFO-science: Facts In – Facts Out.

    Well done.

  718. Shouldn’t the headline be “New study shows that half of the warming in the USA is artifactual?” If it is in the USA then it is not global, and if it is artificial, that can be read as real, but anthropogenicaly driven, as opposed to natural warming.

  719. Lowell Bergey says:

    NBCNews.com skeptic….

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/29/13020337-ex-climate-change-skeptic-humans-cause-global-warming?lite

    Claims he was a AGW skeptic

    His interview with Grist in 2008 shows differently

    http://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/

  720. james@hotmail.com says:

    A. Scott
    I’m baffled. Nothing you wrote addresses or refutes my point about endorsement.

  721. SanityP says:

    Now we only need the FOIA release (fingers crossed for it to contain something juicy) and the coffin will be complete. Perhaps.

  722. Aussie Luke Warm says:

    Took a few minutes for the significance to sink in (sorry I’m slow). This is shattering to the CAGW argument.

    I just donated USD $10 to Surface Stations project / WUWT. I’m an average working joe with a wife & 3 kids. Call me “Big Oil” from now on :-)

  723. Ric Werme says:

    Andyj says:
    July 30, 2012 at 4:05 am

    EVAN!
    leading zero before a decimal point:-

    “REPLY – Thought about it, then decided that since every starting number there would be a zero, anyway, why bother? ~ Evan”

    I’m more minimalist than most, but have adopted the leading zero myself. At the very least, it proves that the smudge (or missing smudge) that follows is a decimal point.

    I don’t use it when entering numbers on my calculator, though. :-)

  724. Guam says:

    Excellent work as we would expect, one question that does occur to me, given that all the adjustments seem to be in one direction, one is minded to ask who made the call on on deciding that the MMTS stations were likely under reporting and and adjust their data upwards?
    Who makes these decisions and on what criteria?

  725. David Wright says:

    Anthony et al., please accept 50 bucks worth of support from an English admirer. No acknowledgement is necessary; just keep on doing what you do so well.

  726. Johna Till Johnson says:

    Sorry if this is a duplicate:

    First MSM non-opinion coverage in the Tucson Citizen: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/29/us-temperature-trends-show-a-spurious-doubling-due-to-noaa-station-siting-problems-and-post-measurement-adjustments-says-a-new-study/

    Will be interesting to see how many follow!

  727. Ceetee says:

    michaelozanne, champion post!!

  728. Keith W says:

    We should temper our enthusiasm with closer scrutiny if this important research is going to be published and recognized. Precision in research, methodology and language is as important as precision in the temperature record. As Dr Svalgaard stated, “Fixing a comma here and there does not constitute serious peer-review.” Dr Svalgaard, Jesse Farmer and several others have recommended tightening up the length of the article and abstract to meet publication requirements. Michaelozanne’s comments about quality control are also important. Lastly, critical comments by Mosher et al should not automatically be discounted here as their research has contributed to improved understanding of the temperature datasets. We can agree to disagree but we should listen.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/the-impact-of-urbanization-on-land-temperature-trends/
    is one among their many articles.

  729. Dennis Cooper says:

    It is a shame, no one points out small town average temperatures since 1940 to today are on a decline. If anyone is interested here is an example: Average temperature of Kenton, Ohio as compiled by Wolfram Alpha. Liner trend -0.031 deg. F per year +or – 0.017 deg. F per year. Even small towns have a heat growth over that many years, so guess what that does to the results.

  730. vigilantfish says:

    Late to the party, due to holiday transit. Well done, Anthony et al. I think from comments skimmed that there will be editing and format issues. It needs a more succinct abstract to encapsulate the problems being addressed and your findings, but it is great that the CAGW crowd will finally be presented with a peer-reviewed publication that encapsulates the glaring problems with USHCN surface station records.

    Thanks for your continuing dedication – am flinging funds to help in the only way I can (other than sharing this article with others).

  731. Ceetee says:

    To Chris at 4.34 am. Are you a real boy with a real life or do you have an Italian sounding surname. What are you afraid of? I’ve always thought that only the bravest most integral people are those with the capacity, given the evidence, to change their minds even if it means they have to contradict themselves.

  732. JamesS says:

    Chris says:
    July 30, 2012 at 4:34 am

    Anticlimax. Rather than working on a real solution you promote yet another pile of goop. The swallowers swallow.

    You seem to be missing the point. If the paper provides evidence the “problem” is non-existent, then there is no need for a “solution.”

    I’ve often used the USHCN webpage to look at rural sites that haven’t grown much in the past century (not as hard to find as you’d think in a state like West Virginia, for example) and noted that there is no real upward trend. Looking at the TMEANTOBS for Pickens 2 N WV shows no net gain at all since 1901. The graph starts at 49.8 F, drops to a low of 45.0 F in 1941-1943, then climbs to a peak of 52.5 F in 1999, and has since dropped back to 48.8 F — 1.0 F lower than in 1901.

    Similar results could always be found for similarly rural sites, which to me indicated some kind of problem in the released data set. This paper may just show exactly why that is.

  733. beesaman says:

    Obvious bias at the BBC in not reporting this but giving Muller web space today!

  734. michaelozanne says:

    “Anticlimax. Rather than working on a real solution you promote yet another pile of goop. The swallowers swallow.”

    Just what’s needed, more content free ad-hominen drivel…
    Some Questions:

    Who exactly decided that it was Anthony’s job to “solve” “climate change” I don’t remember that election?

    How can we “solve” something when we haven’t accurately or indeed correctly determined its extent?

    Have you actually obtained the data and confirmed that it is goop, or asked a grown-up to do ut for you?

    Did you bother changing the dressing on your lobotomy wound before approaching the keyboard?

    (moderators , you can drop that last one if you want, feeling irritable today…)

  735. John Doe says:

    David A. Evans says:
    July 30, 2012 at 3:33 am

    “I was asking when we stopped using max/min thermometers because the era of electronic measurement should have eliminated the necessity of TOBs adjustment. I did appreciate the problems associated with Obs being close to either the Max or Min.”

    Judging by this graph

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

    It appears the switchover mainly took place at a relatively constant rate between the early 1970’s and the early 1990’s.

    The warming TOBS produces from 1970 onward doesn’t look all that suspicious. It’s the cooling it introduces from 1900 to 1920 that looks suspicious. See, there are two ways to fudge the numbers to inflate warming. You can warm the later record or cool the earlier record. Warming the later record is the more difficult because the sensors and record keeping have improved over time. It’s harder to justify fudging the newer, higher quality data. Beginning in 1979 we have the satellite record which is really the only sensor system I feel is adequate in accuracy, precision, and especially spatial coverage to measure global average trend to a precision of hundredths of degrees per decade.

  736. Ken Harvey says:

    It is safe to make one prediction. The response of the warmistas will be overwhelmingly of the ad hominem variety.

    [unlike this? . . mods]

  737. Alexej Buergin says:

    I do not like “global warming in the USA”. If it concerns just the USA, it is not global.
    How about this:
    Study shows warming in the USA only half of what climatologists say.

  738. Ron says:

    I’ll be watching for an accurate report from the Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein. His stories are heavily regurgitated among the AP’s clients.

  739. Hu McCulloch says:

    Here is an important point of clarification, though one that doesn’t affect the results:

    The rating system used by Surface Stations in the past and presumably by all subsequent papers until this one is due to CRN, not to Leroy 1999. Although the CRN system is based on Leroy 1999, it greatly simplifies it by just looking at distance to nearest heat source, without compensating for the size of that source. The CRN simplification thus unnecessarily disqualifies many good stations that have nearby walkways, small buidings, etc.

    The new Leroy 2010 classification system is almost identical to Leroy 1999, but has not been available in an official English form until 2010. I did a translation of Leroy 1999 that I sent to Anthony back in 10/2007, but I never received permission from Leroy to post it on my website or circulate it widely.

    So the big difference in the methodology of the new study and previous ones is between CRN and Leroy, not between Leroy 1999 and Leroy 2010.

    The primary (but minor) difference I can find between Leroy and Leroy 2010 is that the latter has relaxed somewhat the angle of altitude below which the sun is allowed to cast shadows on the sensor. For Class 1 this was 3 degrees, but now is 5 degrees. For class 2 this was 5 degrees, but now is 7. For class 3 this was omitted, presumably by an oversight, but now is 7 degrees. For class 4 this was 5 degrees, but now is 20 degrees.

    The only other difference I can find is that formerly class 2 allowed vegetation up to 25 cm in the surrounding area, but that has now been reduced to 10 cm.

    The Leroy 1999 paper was presented as the position of Meteo-France. The new paper expresses the hope that the system will become the new WMO standard, perhaps at the CIMO XV conference in Sept. 2010. I don’t know how that came out.

  740. DR says:

    When Steve Mosher says his (or BEST?) rural stations are based on NASA classification, does that mean the ‘lights=0′ method? I fail to see how that can be considered an audit of station quality. It certainly wouldn’t be in my field. That would be akin to determining environmental conditions in a climate controlled inspection lab by measuring the temperature and humidity at the receptionist desk.

  741. Dave L says:

    Can someone help me clarify some details of the WMO-ISO standard please. I’ve had a look the WMO Commission publication referenced above and it indicates that the new classification was endorsed providing there were a couple of clarifications and guidance material was developed. Has this been done?
    Also, “The Commission agreed to further develop this classification as a common WMO-ISO standard.”. Does this mean the classification was not finalised? Is it now?
    Lastly, the recommendation was to “submit the guidelines to ISO, for approval as an ISO standards, in conjunction with SC5″. Has this happened and if so could someone provide the ISO reference details please.

  742. HaroldW says:

    Nick Stokes (July 30, 2012 at 3:44 am )
    “…calculated 1980-2009 instead of 1979-2008. I’m surprised it made so much difference.”

    1978-1979 happen to be unusually low compared to the adjacent values, as are 2008-2009. Dropping the low early year 1979 (so taking the trend 1980-2008) changes the trend from 0.32 C/dec to 0.28; adding the low late year 2009 (now back to a 30-year trend 1980-2009) gives your 0.24. Slipping a year the other way, i.e. taking the trend 1978-2007, yields a 0.40 C/decade slope!

    …and I concur with your 0.25 C/dec for UAH (over CONUS) for the same period 1979-2008.

  743. Chris says:

    @JamesS, nah I get the point. The US is warming. So is the rest of the world.

  744. patrioticduo says:

    Hello main stream media?

  745. beng says:

    ****
    Philip Bradley says:
    July 29, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    REPLY – Raw, no TOBS. ~ Evan

    That is going to be a main line of attack on the paper. There is a sound basis for the TOBS adjustment, although the size of the adjustment is open to question (or questionable if you like).
    ****

    For just the MMTS stations, I don’t think TOBS is applicable.

  746. Chandlerian says:

    May a stranger compliment you on this terrific work and offer the comment that beyond the biased “corrections” by NOAA, the data seem also to show that the further away from cities and airports the measurements occur, the less the measurement of increased temperature is. This suggests two important things — first, that the classes of sites are not sufficiently rigorous and second that unless siting practices in the US are unique in the world, the ground-based data from other countries is probably also biased high, even if un-“corrected” by official bodies.

  747. Hu McCulloch says:

    Two little typos —
    Line 300, “and are do” doesn’t make sense.
    Line 387, change May to Many.

  748. Lady in Red says:

    The data is where, when….Anthony? Photos? Time/date stamps?

    That wonderful little 3×5 inch large card file about everything that’s important….?

    The stuff that all the geeks and nerds want to see, to pick at everything — and to make the paper most perfect. Where, when will that get dumped? …..Lady in Red

  749. Martin Lack says:

    Anthony, if anthropogenic climate change is a hoax you – and your whole team – will without doubt deserve Nobel Prizes. However, I would recommend waiting for confirmation from Oslo before booking flights or accommodation. Nevertheless, I wish you good luck (your gonna need it).

  750. Slabadang says:

    Well Anthony….
    Ive read your article now and I just have to congratulate you. Youve given us all a real “Paul Potts moment” in front of the big climate audience. Its a beutiful job done checking the fundamental basics of climat science by genuine traditional relible fotwork as far from modelled and “homegenized” bullshit you can come.`Nobody is laughing at you now Anthony…nobody!!

    Togheter with Koutsoyiannis analyze for the hole GMT WMO has to have a new coulor introduced into the insides of their pantíes. We have all with special thanks to Mr Goddard and others whohave highlitet many different obious symptoms of the desease fudging the numbers. Now we have enough evidence to go after the sytematics in the fudging. Its proven with both many symtoms , by your sytematic check of sites and mathematicly by Koutsoyiannis.

    The game has changed and the question of professionalty has fallen into the right laps. NOOAA GISS BOM WMO they have answers to delivier ond responsability to take.

  751. I could only donate. Good luck!!

    [REPLY: George, all donations are greatly appreciated and are an important contribution to Anthony's efforts. There is still a lot to be done and their will be fees and costs incurred. Thank you for your support. -REP]

  752. Mac Lorry says:

    Assuming there was no intent to distort the data it would be important to understand how the NOAA adjustments came to exaggerate the temperature increase as much as they did. The same cause could be at play in processing of other data and understanding it may prevent it.

  753. shras789 says:

    Reblogged this on Sherry's Space and commented:
    It is definetly is a big change right. Maybe someday we will all wake up and realize what is going before it is to late

  754. Alberta Slim says:

    I never read all the comments, but I would suggest that the TIME of the release should be corrected.
    i.e. there is no such time as 12 PM. It is 12 Midnight or 12 Noon

  755. Allan MacRae says:

    Will the BEST study now be called 2ndBEST, or more accurately the WORST Study?

    This is a comment from Wm. Briggs site.

    If true, it suggests that Richard Muller has always been a warmist diehard (or blowhard).

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5946

    The Truth about Richard Muller
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

    “I was never a skeptic” – Richard Muller, 2011

    “If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008

    “There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2006

    “Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003″

  756. Allan MacRae says:

    “The Law of Warmist BS” strikes again.

    Headline: BEST study is no good.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/28/the-gleick-tragedy/#more-57881

    “The Law of Warmist BS”

    “You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.”

  757. HaroldW says:

    beng: “For just the MMTS stations, I don’t think TOBS is applicable.”

    The paper classifies any station which was MMTS for over half of the period as “MMTS”. (Cf. line 559 et seq.) Thus, even those stations can have experienced equipment/Tobs changes over the record. It doesn’t seem correct to compute a trend over disparate measurements. I find plausible the paper’s overall conclusion that homogenization has the undesirable effect of spreading the poorer stations’ influence. However, a calculation of “raw” trend which ignores recorded changes in measurement is equally inadequate.

  758. Chris Schoneveld says:

    The present “global” warming scare is based on satellite data rather than on spurious NOAA station data covering the US only. In the unlikely event that this — far too lengthy — paper gets accepted in a reputable scientific journal, its impact on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis or on the MSM’s biased opinion of this hypothesis will be negligible. I realize that the intention of this paper is to demonstrate that US surface data are unreliable and not to challenge the hypothesis, yet many commenters seem to think that this paper puts a nail in the coffin of AGW. It doesn’t of course, how much I wished it did.

  759. Allan MacRae says:

    “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”
    – Bertrand Russell

  760. Rob says:

    What bothers me the most is 100% of the time Hansen been proven to manipulate the data to look like Global Warming is happening. He is arrested over and over for protesting as a environmentalist, he is biased and needs to step down and work on the science to prove his side, not manipulate the data to his belief. I think it is time to start demanding congress to defund his salary, he is costing the American people billions and billions of dollars for his political beliefs.

  761. This is not news. We have known about the Urban Heat Island effect for years. The thing to remeber is the Urban Heat Island effect as far as earth’s climatic system goes is nill. What the UHI accomplishes is, it gives a bias toward higher temperatures, due to the placement of thermometers in relation to the UHI effects.

    The UHI efects on the climate ,just like CO2 are nil. That will be proven as this decade proceeds ,and the temperatures trend down.

    The state of the science of climate is dreadful, and when you have to correspond to someone as dumb and non informed as Muller,it just proves my point. The guy is clueless.

    We will soon be coming out with a comprehenive study as to why the climate changes and how it will be changing as this decade proceeds.

  762. Mike Jonas says:

    ‘Peer Review’ (as best I can with very limited time available):-

    All the essential contents of the paper appear to be logically sound. I have only minor comments:
    At line 88 “the USHCN has a significant portion of stations affected by such changes, with approximately 10% of the USHCN remaining classified as “well-sited” using the Leroy (1999) classification method”
    I had to read twice to see that the “ significant portion” wasn’t the “10%” cited, but the other 90% (I think).
    At line 174 “binning of stations quality ratings”. Binning? It presumably means classification or categorising. (‘Normal’ meaning is ‘putting in the rubbish bin’).
    At line 238 “A total of 1065 USHCNv2 stations were surveyed, comprising 87.4% of the 1218 station USHCNv2 network”.
    Is there an explanation for why some of the stations were not surveyed?
    At line 356 “The results of the analysis suggest that these differences may be due specifically to the station siting characteristics or be due to other characteristics that covary with station siting, such as instrument type. “.
    Given the nature and consistency of your findings (eg. At line 368 “Without exception, in each region, compliant stations have a lower decadal scale trend than non-compliant stations “), and the numbers of stations involved, I feel that this wording is too weak, and should use, eg., “indicates … are” instead of “suggests … may be”.
    At line 513 “Note also that while all classes of stations higher than Class 1&2 demonstrate higher trends than nearby Class 3&4 stations, “ – (1) “higher than Class 1&2” is curious wording since Classes 1&2 are the highest classes ie. the highest quality – (2) the sentence doesn’t make sense to me since ‘classes higher than class 1&2′ seems to mean classes 3-5 (higher class numbers), so they can’t generally have higher trends than ‘nearby class 3&4 stations’.
    At line 528 “[the observation that] Poorly sited stations show greater trend results than well sited stations […] Will be either supported or disputed by the many various comparisons which follow. “.
    I think you mean that the comparisons are made in order to test the proposition (“observation”). The way it reads is that some comparisons support the proposition and some dispute it, but as I understand the paper – at least wrt the first proposition – in fact the comparisons fully support it. Apart from clarifying the language, I suggest also that you use a word other than “observation” here. You appear to have used it to mean “something said here”, but if read as in “scientifically observed data” it would be difficult to make sense of the sentence.
    At line 575 “In order to demonstrate that these differences are a result of equipment bias “.
    I think “demonstrate” should be eg. “test whether”. Otherwise it reads like the actions were taken to prove something desirable rather than to find the actual situation.
    At line 617 “suggests” maybe should be eg. “indicates” as per my above comment at line 356.
    The strength and consistency of your findings would surely render any other explanation implausible.
    The line 617 comment also applies at line 655 and 664.
    [Lines 669 to 748 skipped – very short of time]
    At line 785 “Future investigations could test [...]“.
    Equipment housing deterioration (mentioned earlier in the paper) could perhaps be included here.

    Typos:
    At line 299 “only the heat source/sink proximity and area ratings from Leroy 2010 and are do consider ground-level vegetation or shade. “ – ?’and are do’.
    At line 338 “(CONUS)” – brackets () not needed.
    At line 387 “May airports“ should be “Many airports”.
    At line 757 “This is true for, in all nine geographical areas [...]“ – “for, in all” should be “for all” or “in all”.

    Side comment:
    At line 191 quote from Aseada et al. (1996) “most of the infrared radiation from the ground was absorbed within 200 m of the lower atmosphere, affecting air temperature near the ground“.
    Does this contradict the IPCC claim that most of the warming from AGW occurs in the troposphere over the tropics at an altitude of several km?

  763. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:

    Anthony great work!
    Congratulations to all participants on getting this released. I will dig through the paper in detail when I get the chance but initial impressions are that it is a valuable contribution to the debate and well worth all the effort and time invested.

    Larry

  764. David Longinotti says:

    Excellent work, but I think the new headline is misleading. “Artificial” generally means ‘man-made’ (a term which is typically used as the opposite of “natural”). So what the headline states is that half of the US warming is due to humans, and half is not. This does not reflect the important assertion of the study, which is that US warming has been significantly overestimated due to inappropriate measurement techniques and adjustments.

  765. SanityP says:

    It might be making some sort of impact in Europe: http://notrickszone.com/

  766. PaulID says:

    dana1981 says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:34 pm
    [REPLY: Didn't read the paper, did you Dana? Didn't think so. -REP]
    Well of course he didn’t read it anything that could destroy his faith in his religion is forbidden literature and this would shake the faith of the most ardent.

  767. Neil says:

    There was a young fellow named Watts,
    Who published some graphs with some dots.
    Those graphs, he said, proved
    Climate goalposts had moved,
    And always towards the hot-hots.

  768. Jeremy says:

    Anthony,

    I haven’t finished reading the paper, but when I read the following a thought came to my brain:

    Two physical processes are involved with heat sinks and sources within the thermometer viewshed; mass transfer and radiative transfer. Fourier (1822) described the process of mass transfer of heat, such as between a surface and a gas. This process has been observed where wind transport moves heat from nearby artificial surfaces such as asphalt, concrete…

    When I look at pictures of the CRS and the MMTS structures, I see blade-fins pointed down. Has any work been done to categorize any possible convection bias due to these designs? I would think that a thermometer with a clear bias towards convective accuracy would have unnaturally warmer early evening temperatures as cold air from above drops down, but I’m just speculating.

  769. I follow your information since years. May be the temperature in the US are false. But if you look to one on your link about Sea Ice you will discover these picture
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM1/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam1_20120730082348.jpg. First time I discover sea ice melting at the North Pole.
    Melting occur at temperature up 0°C or 32°F… No need of a themomether.

  770. Brian H says:

    In reality, the Press Release title is an egregious soft-pedalling. The actual gold standard measurements (isolated rural MMTS) found show that the total “warming” touted by NOAA etc. has been exaggerated by about 12X, not just “double”. (4°C/century vs 0.34°C).

  771. JonasM says:

    Well of course he didn’t read it anything that could destroy his faith in his religion is forbidden literature and this would shake the faith of the most ardent.

    I’m unable to understand how anyone who cares about the environment or the advancement of scientific knowledge could welcome this as anything but good news, subject only to proper verification as the scientific method requires. I just don’t get it. (Yes I know the usual reasons, I’m just unable to appreciate that kind of thinking).

  772. Brian H says:

    The peer-rejected unpublished BEST paper takes another massive torpedo below the water-line. Since its cargo is pretty much statistical styrofoam and balloons full of brain-flatus, though, it may take a while to sink from sight.

  773. John says:

    And yet the arctic keeps on melting. Maybe it doesn’t read your blog?

    [REPLY: You have noticed that it is the melt season right? Does that every year? -REP]

  774. Before I congratulate Anthony, Evan, John et al, I want to give a shout out to all the volunteers who spent the time and effort to gather the preliminary data, and especially photographic documentation, of the various stations sitings. Though I was one of those volunteers, I don’t include myself in the aforementioned group.

    Why?

    My station was in Yosemite National Park! It’s not as if getting those pictures were work! I hiked to Upper Yosemite falls that day…. Beautiful!!! Hell, if I would have had the resources to do so, I would have gone to Hawaii to photograph a station. This would have been the perfect excuse!!! :-)

    Anyway, congratulations on the completion of this work. It will be slow in coming, but this will generate some serious and long overdue discussions about proper station citing in the press. Remember, the climategate fallout took a few weeks before anyone in the regular press started talking about it.. I don’t expect anything more.

    Mike A. (formerly “sonicfrog”)

  775. Hu McCulloch says:

    I said above,

    The Leroy 1999 paper was presented as the position of Meteo-France. The new paper expresses the hope that the system will become the new WMO standard, perhaps at the CIMO XV conference in Sept. 2010. I don’t know how that came out.

    Indeed, the newly adopted WMO/CIMO criteria are identical to Leroy(2010):
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/CIMO/CIMO15-WMO1064/1064_en.pdf

    The distinction in the two methods of classification is therefore CRN (old) vs WMO (new), rather than Leroy(1999) vs Leroy (2010). As I mentioned above, although the inadequate CRN system, long used by Surface Stations, was based on Leroy (1999), it oversimplified it, thereby unnecessarily downgrading many good stations.

  776. theduke says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#comment-1047424
    David: your triumphalism is a bit premature. There could be very serious problems with the paper. I’m heartened to see that Steve Mc, John Christy and Roger Pielke Sr. are on board, but there could be serious flaws in the paper that have not yet been exposed.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#comment-1047430

    “Fixing a comma here and there does not constitute serious peer-review.”

    Leif: I think you nitpicked this post. He didn’t say that in toto. He went further: “Best of all though, is that the peer review will be impeccable. If there is a single problem with this paper, it will be found.”

    What you said is obviously true, but I think you are being a bit sensitive about the implications for the “ivory tower” that DavidMHoffer describes when he writes, “Ivory tower, meet the blogosphere. Ignore it at your peril.” I too think it’s over the top, but you could have dealt directly with that part of the post.

  777. John says:

    Speaking of “what’s up with that?” What’s up with this:

    http://www.theage.com.au/world/climate-change-sceptics-unwarmed-by-scientists-reassessment-of-cold-facts-20120730-23agk.html

    roh roh.

    [REPLY: Looks like the beginnings of sanity Down Under to me. Thanks for the link. -REP]

  778. Tucci78 says:

    At 9:09 PM on 29 July, Leif Svalgaard submitted a suggested recasting of the abstract for this manuscript, stating:

    Here is the Abstract I would have written (244 words). If it does not reflect that your finding is, you have failed to get the message across….

    For what my opinion is worth – not much, as I’m a physician, not a physicist – this version should be seriously considered by Mr. Watts and his fellow authors.

    At the very least, it shows that concision is possible while maintaining appropriate representation of the study’s purpose, results, and conclusion.

    Again, in my opinion (and again, for what that opinion is worth), Dr. Svalgaard’s experience with academic peer review qualifies him as a commenter whose suggestions should be received as having a high level of reliability.

  779. Chuck Nolan says:

    M. Nichopolis says:
    July 29, 2012 at 7:48 pm
    “……………How much money was wasted on all this madness?
    ———————-
    All of it.

    cn

  780. MangoChutney says:

    The BBC have an anonymous article on the Muller paper, but have neglected to mention Watts.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

    Suggest on line complaints are filed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

  781. MangoChutney says:

    @John

    And yet the arctic keeps on melting. Maybe it doesn’t read your blog?

    You do know ice melts due to things other than temperature, don’t you?

  782. DK says:

    Can you explain what this is supposed to mean? It seems to mix up a number of thermodynamics concepts and I couldn’t make any sense of it.

    As shown in Figure 11 in Pielke et al (2007), for example, the hottest time of the day in the dry bulb temperature is not the hottest in the physics unit of heat (i.e. Joules per kg of air). It could be that in the urban area the added water vapor from those sites could be resulting in really warm conditions in terms of Joules per kg, but the dry bulb temperature is suppressed

  783. MangoChutney says:

    Apologies, if this appears for the 2nd time:

    The BBC have an article reporting on Muller, but neglecting to mention Watts:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

    Suggest complaints are forwarded: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

  784. theduke says:
    July 30, 2012 at 8:24 am
    Leif: I think you nitpicked this post. He didn’t say that in toto.
    Peer-review is not about fixing typos or rewording sentences. It is [should be] concerned with the substance, if any, of a paper. Is the data reliable? are the method and stats valid? does the conclusion follow from the analysis? etc.

  785. wmsc says:

    Is there a particular reason that the desert southwest is always higher than the rest of the nation, or does Phoenix just emit a lot of hot air? Given the lack of high concentrations of people, and the high altitude of the desert areas makes one wonder…

  786. I know that Arctic is meting every year as I follow sea ice surface. And the site of Anthony is published the best collection of links on it. And I discover these foto of North Pole Melting via the site link’s.

  787. Tucci78 says:

    At 7:21 AM on 30 July, Chris Schoneveld had posted:

    The present “global” warming scare is based on satellite data rather than on spurious NOAA station data covering the US only. In the unlikely event that this — far too lengthy — paper gets accepted in a reputable scientific journal, its impact on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis or on the MSM’s biased opinion of this hypothesis will be negligible. I realize that the intention of this paper is to demonstrate that US surface data are unreliable and not to challenge the hypothesis, yet many commenters seem to think that this paper puts a nail in the coffin of AGW. It doesn’t of course, how much I wished it did.

    First, it’s incorrect to call this preposterous bogosity “the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis,” inasmuch as the term “hypothesis” has a specific technical meaning in scientific usage, which is summarized in physicist Jeff Glassman’s brief layman-accessible article “Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law. The Basis of Rational Argument” (December 2007). From that essay:

    A conjecture is an incomplete model, or an analogy to another domain.
    [...]
    A hypothesis is a model based on all data in its specified domain, with no counterexample and incorporating a novel prediction yet to be validated by facts.

    Dr. Glassman goes on to contend:

    Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. Does this sound familiar? Is the Consensus patterned after the Council of Trent? As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting.

    This isn’t a trivial terminological quibble. Neither then (2007) nor more recently was Dr. Glassman unaware of “satellite data” gathered from orbital platforms and employed by that “little clique of quacks” to buttress their presentation of what Dr. Glassman calls their “crippled conjecture.”

    Second, orbital instrumental observations provide only a recent record of land surface area temperature assessment, and the methods involved had to be calibrated against the prevailing standards of proximal thermometric determination, the widely-ranged system of meteorological thermometers in these United States providing (as others here have observed) a sort of “gold standard” in terms of technology, maintenance, and reliability as compared with similar broadly spaced systems of monitoring stations.

    To any extent that the records of “satellite data” have been used to create assessments of land surface temperatures by way of adjustment to calibrate those observations against the information harvested from the meteorological thermometers which are the subjects of the SurfaceStations.org study, the error has crept into the assessments of the satellite data.

    I’m not qualified as an expert on how the “satellite data” is used to develop determinations of land surface area temperatures, but the possibility of a “rubber tape measure” phenomenon certainly seems likely to me.

    Among the readers here, is there anyone who can address this consideration from a more informed perspective?

  788. Lady in Red says:

    Ok, Anthony. I kicked into your donation pot. You are worth a lot, lot more. sigh….

    Hope this keeps Kenji in some high end dog food for a bit. smile. …Lady in Red

    [REPLY: Your support is really appreciated. Kenji is important, but your donation is more likely to go for publishing fees and associated expenses. Thank you. -REP]

  789. [SNIP: Off topic. -REP]

  790. MattN says:

    Just got in from vacation. Well done Mr Watts. Can’t wait to hear the rationalizations from the other side. such as: “It doesn’t matter…”

  791. John F. Hultquist says:

    Alberta Slim says:
    July 30, 2012 at 7:06 am
    I never read all the comments, but I would suggest that the TIME of the release should be corrected.
    i.e. there is no such time as 12 PM. It is 12 Midnight or 12 Noon

    I’ve made such a comment several places on the web and even asked that folks quiz their friends and neighbors about what 12 PM means, and so on. The only place where they changed it to 12:01 PM or AM was on a financial site where they had been promising not to buy or sell in their own account until the time of “undefined.” I guess they realized they could be sued or something. Still, this seems to be a lost cause generally.

  792. Entropic man says:

    [SNIP: My mistake. This is off-topic and you don't get the opportunity to divert the discussion from Anthony's paper. If you are really interested in that topic, you can start with the WUWT sea ice reference page. There have also been numerous postings on the topic. Then you can wait for an appropriate post to air your views. Capice? -REP]

  793. Martin Lack says:

    Anthony, please accept my apologies for a genuinely unintended ‘Straw Man’…

    Given that the majority view here on WUWT appears to be that the scientific consensus is simply wrong (or non-existent) – as opposed to mendacious – I should have said “…if anthropogenic climate change is a false alarm you – and your whole team – will without doubt deserve Nobel Prizes”

  794. Twisters says:

    So in conclusion, global warming is happening, but not as much as some other studies have found. But it is happening.

  795. Babsy says:

    Alberta Slim says:
    July 30, 2012 at 7:06 am

    12 Noon = 12:00 PM

  796. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Chris Schoneveld on July 30, 2012 at 7:21 am:

    The present “global” warming scare is based on satellite data rather than on spurious NOAA station data covering the US only.

    This of course cannot possibly be true. I have been repeatedly told by the (C)AGW-convinced there was no valid “coming ice age” scare in the 1970’s, the serious climate scientists were predicting (C)AGW, the current temperature records confirming those predictions. The UAH satellite record starts on December 1978, RSS starts on January 1979. Thus the 1970’s predictions could not have been built on the satellite data as the global warming scare predates a suitable satellite record, the “present” scare being portrayed as continuing from the 1970’s predictions.

    Thus once again, the (C)AGW-pushers are undone by their own rhetoric.

  797. beng says:

    ****
    HaroldW says:
    July 30, 2012 at 7:20 am

    The paper classifies any station which was MMTS for over half of the period as “MMTS”. (Cf. line 559 et seq.) Thus, even those stations can have experienced equipment/Tobs changes over the record. It doesn’t seem correct to compute a trend over disparate measurements. I find plausible the paper’s overall conclusion that homogenization has the undesirable effect of spreading the poorer stations’ influence. However, a calculation of “raw” trend which ignores recorded changes in measurement is equally inadequate.
    ****

    That’s fine. Just pointing out that any TOBS adjustment should go to zero after the change to MMTS.

  798. elmer says:

    The Washington Post says that Anthony’s study was

    “an apparent attempt to diminish the impact of the Muller paper”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/so-called-blockbuster-climate-change-studies-prove-little/2012/07/30/gJQAZZNMKX_blog.html

  799. John F. Hultquist says:

    Wordsmithing and peer review are not the same thing. The back-and-forth in comments among (some will argue for between) Leif and others shows this. Many researchers are not great writers to begin with and after reading the same paragraphs over and over, with numerous changes, some things are just not seen. One way of handling this is to have someone read aloud to others not familiar with the material. The number problems are another matter (is it .001 or .0001 ?), as are spelling of names and citations (Vol. numbers, pages, table numbers, and so on). Absent using a “pro” for finding these errors, the multiple non-peer approach seems to be working. And that’s what it’s all about.

  800. pat says:

    I long suspected the temperature rise was real but exaggerated. Well within historically known variation. And I suspect many others, particularly meteorologists, think the same.

  801. xham says:

    Great work. Any theories as to what might cause the class 5 station to show lower temperature trends than class 4 (other than sample size issue)?

    [REPLY: The paper does discuss that. -REP]

  802. Robert of Ottawa says:

    People in their own countries should attempt a similar excercise – I bet New Zealand would fall in a week.

  803. Gail Combs says:

    Wagathon says:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    Someone should tell Ehrlich that when it comes to ‘rep’ it’s Christy +1, Penn State 0.
    ____________________________
    You forgot the -1 for Ehrlich.

  804. Tucci78 says:

    At 9:22 AM on 30 July, Twisters had posted:

    So in conclusion, global warming is happening, but not as much as some other studies have found. But it is happening.

    And in other news:

    (1) Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

    (2) I’m getting older.

    These phenomena are not due to anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide, either.

  805. Gail Combs says:

    foo1 says:
    July 29, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    A few implications if the study holds up to scrutiny:….

    Others?
    ____________________________
    See ROM over at Jo Nova’s for an excellent list.

  806. Resourceguy says:

    More evidence that global warming is the greatest science hoax in human history. The standard strategy of saying Who Could Have Known after pissing away mountains of monetary resources is an equally historic policy failure. Are you listening Edward Markey?

  807. Nick Milner says:

    The BBC have mentioned this study in an a paragraph added to their BEST article (right at the bottom).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

  808. rogerknights says:

    Fall, S., Watts, A., Nielsen‐Gammon, J. Jones, E. Niyogi, D. Christy, J. and Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2011,

    Huh? Is a comma out of place or an extra letter in place?

  809. MangoChutney says:

    Nick Milner says: July 30, 2012 at 10:14 am
    The BBC have mentioned this study in an a paragraph added to their BEST article (right at the bottom).
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

    You know, I’m sure that wasn’t there when I read the story. Maybe I missed it.

  810. w.w.wygart says:

    Congratulations! Well done Anthony et al. So, you were ONLY pulling together a whole new research paper in the last week, it could certainly have been much worse. Common sense, some improved science and plenty of hard work triumphant. I’m sure there will be caltrops aplenty scattered through the peer review, but you’ve got an excellent team.

    Good luck,

    W^3

  811. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:

    Martin Lack says:
    July 30, 2012 at 6:52 am

    Anthony, if anthropogenic climate change is a hoax you – and your whole team – will without doubt deserve Nobel Prizes. However, I would recommend waiting for confirmation from Oslo before booking flights or accommodation. Nevertheless, I wish you good luck (your gonna need it).

    Don’t hold your breath. Unfortunately, the Nobel committee in Oslo is assembled from former members of the Norwegian parliament and lead by a (very unsuccessful) former prime minister. CAGW-critical MP’s in Norway are uheard of, they don’t exist.

    Apart form that, a heartfelt thanks to Anthony et al. for the work being done. Not all of us are blind over here. A small donation to be coming your way soon.

    [REPLY: Thank you, Carsten. Your support and your commentary are always appreciated here. -REP]

  812. mike says:

    I need help with an issue. IF we are to belive the current satelite measurements, and this study shows a smaller upward temp trend, that should mean previous temps were higher than advertised, not that current ones are lower? The AGW crowd do adjust the past lower to get steeper trends. Is this all part of the same game?

  813. SanityP says:

    Amazing – BBC, at the end of the article …

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

    “Sceptical blogger Anthony Watts criticised elements of the team’s findings, releasing details of his own analysis which claims to show that US temperature trends in recent decades show “spurious doubling””.

  814. davidmhoffer says:

    Leif,
    I wasn’t limiting my rationale to just typos. The science itself will be vetted too. We’ve seen some discussion of how the comparitive trends were calculated, and multiple calls for the data to be released with response that it will be in due course.

    The only direct critisism of methodology that I’ve seen so far in this thread came from Mosher, who as usual, deigned only to throw in a drive by snark and then disaappear. The rest of the negative comments didn’t even achieve that much, they were clearly of the “I’ve made up my mind don’t confuse me with facts” variety.

    If there are fundamental flaws in this paper, I’m confident that they will be found, precisely because there are so many eyes on it, and those who want it to succeed are just as likely, perhaps more so, to speak up precisely because they want it to be perfect, unassailable. Your criticism of the abstract was valid… and you jumped in and made suggestions to improve it. I imagine that the same will happen throughout the paper as various people apply their personal expertise to various aspects of it.

    Not all science can be done in this fashion. But the domain of the journal as the only place where science “officially happens” is over.

  815. geo says:

    Having read the paper now, I think what I like best is that it powerfully validates Menne et al 2010. It never did make sense that the earliest analysis of the surfacestation data couldn’t detect clear differential in station siting from the data. The problem is now clearly revealed to be the grading standards, and detecting that differential using the new standards validates those new standards are a definite improvement, and all on raw data collected before the new standards were finalized, but not re-analyzed until after the new standards were in place. That makes it a blind study, and thus no danger of having cooked the books to get to the desired result.

  816. rogerknights says:

    In your graphic, under the text box headed “Average Trend 1979-2008″, the figures in the table should all have a leading 0 before the nearly invisible decimal point. It’s a semi-standard good practice.

  817. theduke says:

    Regardless of what the outcome is after stringent review, what I love about this is the burst of energy and creativity it’s inspired among skeptics. For example, Pointman’s latest

    Thank you, Anthony, Steve, John, Roger, Evan and all the rest.

  818. rogerknights says:

    In your graphic, you first say “1&2″ and then “1\2″. Is the latter an error?

  819. davidmhoffer says:
    July 30, 2012 at 10:30 am
    But the domain of the journal as the only place where science “officially happens” is over.
    We do not disagree about that. But the journals have not been the place for many years. Equally important are seminars, colloquia, and informal discussions at scientific meetings. Blogs can be important too, if stringently moderated. ‘Climate Audit’ is a good example. WUWT is not there yet.

  820. theduke says:

    Twisters: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#comment-1047796

    Well, yes. You will be hard-pressed to find someone who’s been paying attention who disagrees with that. The pertinent question is, “how much warming has there been?” The second pertinent question is “WHY?” And the third is, “does it matter?”

    I suppose I could keep going, but I’ll stop there.

  821. jono1066 says:

    Have we now asked NOAA under a freedom of information request to identify (for a chosen selection of sites) what date they adjusted the temperature and for the list of reasons why they adjusted upwards.
    Surely if they do not now have a list of the reasons why they changed a sites records then the following data record is junk bond stuff
    If they have dont have a list of the dates when they adjusted the temp series upwards then the following data record is also junk bond stuff
    If the can supply reasons why they upped a specific class 1.2 record then the reason must be valid and can be audited to check its veracity.
    From the data and graphs shown it would appear they have nothing but hot air.

  822. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Poptech says:
    July 30, 2012 at 1:04 am

    Thank you and Willis for finally commenting on [Steven Mosher's] incohorent posts. Mosher please don’t comment until you learn how to make posts that people without mind reading abilities can understand.

    Willis, if he was such a smart guy he would make coherent posts.

    Poptech, whether you like Mosh or not (I happen to like him), he is in fact a very smart guy, as I’ve found out more than once to my cost. His posting style drives me nuts, but that’s a separate question.

    w.

  823. theduke says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#comment-1047845

    In Mosh’s defense (as if he needs it) I’m thinking he’s lucubrating on the subject. He saw a potential flaw and rather than engage recklessly, he’s preparing a critique that he feels comfortable arguing about. Give him time. If he’s got something, he will engage when appropriate.

    He may also be hinting at a direction for those who have the ability to review and find flaws in the paper (I am not one). He’s a teacher, after all.

  824. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Nick Stokes said on July 30, 2012 at 3:44 am:

    HaroldW says: July 29, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    Nick-From the data at the link, I get a trend of 0.32 C/decade.”

    Yes, you’re right. I slipped a line in reading in the data, and calculated 1980-2009 instead of 1979-2008. I’m surprised it made so much difference.

    But since it did, I thought I should calculate the exact years for UAH. Unless I got the years wrong there, it came to 0.25 °C/decade. The se was 0.05, and of the NOAA trend, 0.09. So the differences aren’t significant.

    As I was previously calculating, the slope for UAH for January 1980 to December 2009 is 0.20°C/decade, not 0.25.

    Using the NOAA 12-mo averages you referenced, that slope is 0.24°C/decade, which is what you had previously erroneously reported as the 1979-2008 trend.

    But UAH reports monthly figures. Using the monthly NOAA figures I had gathered, that trend for January 1980 to December 2009 is 0.30°C/decade, 50% higher than the UAH figure.

    So once again, NOAA is running half again higher than UAH.

    How is that not significant?

  825. rogerknights says:

    Now in response to problems with both station quality and adjustment software, Schmidt and Hansen say in effect, as NOAA did before them –

    it doesn’t matter. It’s only the United States. You haven’t proved that there are problems anywhere else in the world

    The song remains the same!

    Second verse, same as the first
    A little louder, a little worse.

  826. son of mulder says:

    A point I’ve not seen mentioned anywhere yet is that if Anthony Watts’ paper is accepted then it blows a massive hole in the regional modelling of the US and hence the global modelling of climate, because the models have to hindcast as well as forcast. The whole of the CAGW fear machine is based on the results of climate models.

  827. noaaprogrammer says:

    Press release states: “…approximately 90% of USHCN stations were compromised by encroachment of urbanity in the form of heat sinks and sources…”

    Urbanity means possessing politeness/refinement/suaveness/etc. “Urbanization” is the word that is needed here.

  828. Todd Peterson says:

    Tumper says: Great Great and nice work too. I sent funds.

  829. Finally we have “scientific proof” that the IPCC, NOAA and every other agency that have sucked the life and money from the planet based on a huge LIE called AGW are now being exposed for what they are! …out and out “NON Scientific entities” even though they claim they are!
    True science is not an emotional “feel good/bad” state of mind…….it is basically the TRUTH…………………Well done Anthony…let the rabble eat each others tails over this one!

  830. rogerknights says:

    Michael Limburg says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    These findings prove again, that most of the US stations, considered before to be the very best maintained stations of the world (until Antony´s volunteer projects show the opposite) exaggerated the amount of warming there by far.
    This was the first conclusion if one looks into the real situation on site after the publication of Antonys report in 2009.

    Which the warmists fell over themselves to “deny.”

  831. SteveSadlov says:

    Regarding the other half of the warming, what fraction of that is due to regional to super regional scale surface / near surface waste heat, albedo / vegetation modification, and, disturbances to boundary layer laminar flows by human made structures and tree plantings?

  832. Ivan says:

    Check the figure 8! It is a major smoking gun! the trend at the well maintained, automatized rural stations is 0.032 C per decade in the period 1979-2009!!! No global warming at all in the continental USA!

  833. Nerd says:

    Climate Olympics: Two compete for grandstanding gold medal

    http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/07/climate-olympics-two-compete-for-grandstanding-gold-medal/

    Pretty lame…

  834. Entropic man says:

    Nick Stokes (July 30, 2012 at 3:44 am )
    “…calculated 1980-2009 instead of 1979-2008. I’m surprised it made so much difference.”

    Sounds like a good argument for using 5 year averages instead of individual years when investigating long term trends.

  835. MangoChutney says:

    @me

    Seems I was right, the BBC did add the final paragraph without indicating the text had been changed

  836. Ivan says:

    Manfred:
    “That reconciles land data with ocean data and satellite data.”

    No, it does not. It shows instead that both satellite and ocean data have a significant spurious warming trend. The UAH data for the USA 48 show 0.22 C per decade 1979-2009. The rural, category 1 and 2 MMTS trend fro the same period is 0.032!!! No trend at all!

  837. questingvole says:

    The BEST thing about the BBC coverage of the Muller story is the illustration… of a weather station array right next to a runway!!!

  838. Roger says:

    [SNIP: Off Topic. -REP]

  839. Gail Combs says:

    johanna says:
    July 29, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    ….I concur with suggestions about tightening up the abstract and perhaps getting a professional editor (volunteer) to go through it for punctuation, style and clarity….
    ___________________________-
    Lief wrote an abstract and I am prodding my husband, a technical writer with a degree in Physics, to look at the paper for Anthony et al.

    Hopefully there are others with good writing skills out there who will do the same.

  840. RogerN says:

    “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.”

    A fundamental message of the paper is thus that better quality sites have a lower temperature trend. What are the uncertainties on the values quoted above ? In general it is wholly meaningless to quote a measured quantity without an associated error. +0.155C +- X , +0.248 C+- Y , 0.309C +-Z . What is the complete list of contributing sources of uncertainty to X, Y and Z and how were the relevant uncertainties combined ? Are X, Y and Z correlated in any way ? Are the uncertainties to be regarded as normally distributed ? If so, why can than that judgement be made ?

  841. Andrew says:

    The sad thing is that no one is looking this way. All MSM have BEST’s story above Watts one, Its always the same. Steven Goddard has amassed massive amounts of graphs and data evidence of fraud with GISS, NOAA, BOM ect., No one actually cares or is even looking at this study, Hopefully it is because no one cares about global warming anymore except a few warmist fanatics and skeptics etc… Only serious legal action funded by a wealthy skeptic or the like will actually make anyone notice that is the sad fact I’m afraid.

  842. John Tillman says:

    That’s some pretty fancy data “adjusting” sleight of hand, to adjust for the urban heat island effect & end up with higher rather than lower temperatures. Reminds me of “adjusted”, pro forma cooked book accounting from the dot com bubble era.

    Does GISS still keep its adjustment algorithms secret, or are they subject to review now?

  843. Theo Goodwin says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 30, 2012 at 10:52 am

    “Blogs can be important too, if stringently moderated. ‘Climate Audit’ is a good example. WUWT is not there yet.”

    With all due respect to your vast knowledge and large contributions to WUWT, different blogs have different purposes. The benefits of WUWT go beyond the excellent analysis and tightly controlled comments found on CA. Anthony Watts has accomplished a heroic task that began with his weather stations website and culminated in yesterday’s brilliant reintroduction of empiricism into the science of weather station siting and the science of temperature reading comparisons. Though scientists and sceptics owe very much to McIntyre, he has not undertaken an effort that will change the course of the science. It is well and good that Anthony’s actions call forth more than excellent analysis and tightly controlled comments.

  844. phlogiston says:

    Excellent work Anthony and the team that matter!

    So much for the ghosts of stations past and ghosts of stations present.
    What about the ghosts of stations future?
    Who is talking about installing NEW STATIONS to make up for all the worthless ones (or just uprooting them and taking them out into the stix somewhere)?!? And the lack of good rural sited stations?
    Can we reverse the huge fall-off of station that happened when the cold war ended and interest turned from science to soap operas?
    OK President Hu (China) and King Abdullah (Saudi Arabia) – can we borrow just a little more money…

  845. markstoval says:

    Good and important work. Thanks to all involved for this mammoth undertaking.

    But how can we not think that the main data sets are not rigged? After all, I read years ago about people looking at some rural sites that had not been moved and they showed no warming. Now I find Mr. Watts team finds a 0.032 per decade warming trend when looking at only well sited rural stations. This was known by scientists whose job is to keep the data sets. I see fraud and conspiracy.

    Please tell me how “conformation bias” alone could account for the “keepers of the data” from not seeing it, and that they were not involved knowingly in scientific fraud.

    Note to mods: I am trying to be calm here and the question is a serious one to me.

  846. An Opinion says:

    If the paper holds up, what are the implications for the world temerature record? Can the reset of the world be any better at measuring temperature than the US? I’m reminded of some accusations when climategate broke that the New Zealand temperature record looked fudged, i.e. flat until the adjustments were made, at which point a warming trend appeared.

  847. rogerknights says:

    Headlines:

    Topless
    The Warm Has Turned

  848. Joel Shore says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    But consider the additional history that is being made by crowd sourcing the final version.

    Every spelling error will have been found, every grammatical error fixed, confusing sentences and paragraphs rewritten for clarity, every axis on every graph properly labelled, scaled, and yes, colour coordinated too.

    Best of all though, is that the peer review will be impeccable. If there is a single problem with this paper, it will be found. The number of eyes on it from people who want it to succeed, but would nonetheless point out an error if they spotted it, is staggering. Not to mention of course that there will be legions of those who want this paper to fail and they will be even more agressive at trying to poke a hole in it to prevent it from reaching publication.

    The history of such “crowd sourcing” here does not give one reason to be so optimistic. For example, consider this post on WUWT by Roy Spencer: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/ It turns out that the main result that “Significantly, note that the ratio of C13 variability to CO2 variability is EXACTLY THE SAME as that seen in the trends!” is not significant at all since it is rigorously mathematically equivalent to what was deemed not significant. However, nobody discovered this fact until about a year later when tamino looked into it.

    My guess is that, in this case, there may enough critical looks at Anthony’s paper to discover the flaws. (The issues around the surface temperature record is not something that I have followed closely, but I think that Peter Ellis’s comment may be the best so far here in that regard: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#comment-1047576 ) However, whether Anthony and the WUWT community at large will clearly acknowledge the flaws that are identified is another question.

    And, that speaks to the main problem with a place like WUWT: Lots of things here are shown to be incorrect by people (including myself) but since much of the readership is not capable of judging the actual scientific arguments, the incorrect science remains undebunked in the eyes of many here. This is what makes it somewhat different than what happens in the scientific community in the peer-reviewed journals where the good science does tend to win out in the end.

  849. Paul K2 says:

    I read the paper, and it has some obvious problems. The most obvious is the lack of comparison between the USCRN and the different classes of stations in this paper. The USCRN should be the “gold standard” for station temperature measurements. If there are siting issues, you don’t need decades of data to spot the problem. The siting issues should be detectable, even with only 4-5 years of daily data. Since almost all of the USCRN stations now have over five years of data, correlating the Tmax and Tmin against the data from the various classes of “selected” stations in this report should be the obvious first step in identifying siting issues.

    Menne et.al. (2010) did this with the homogenized data from different subsets of stations, and found very strong correlations with the entire USHCN dataset (r2 = 0.98 for Tmax, and r2 = 0.96 for Tmin). The failure of Watts et. al. (2012) to complete the same exercise, should be rectified prior to publication. If the findings regarding siting in this paper are accurate, then the Class 1 and Class 2 sites should correlate strongly with the USCRN station data, and Class 3, Class 4, and Class 5 stations should have significantly lower correlations with the USCRN stations.

    If the correlations for the different station Classes identified in this paper are not substantially different enough to explain the large differences in decadal trends, then some of the other adjustments are likely responsible for the differences. For example, changes in time of observation, adjustment for a move of a station that was previously sited next to a heat source to a better location (that now allows the station to be classed as Class 1 or 2), switch to a different temperature measurement device or system, etcetera, could explain why smaller classes of raw data don’t track well with the overall trend calculated from homogenized station trend data.

    Not addressing the USCRN data is a serious shortcoming for this paper.

  850. John Bills says:

    wmsc

    The Southwest has experienced very rapid growth in county population
    between 1970 and 2008.
    See: http://www.globalchange.gov/images/cir/pdf/southwest.pdf

  851. Berényi Péter says:

    I can see the necessity of doing science by press release these days, still, this method is deeply flawed and should be eradicated as soon as practicable.

    On the other hand, issuing pre-releases of a paper even before it is submitted to a journal for publication, is laudable, especially if it is done through a proper revision control system and all contributions are made readily visible (and are archived).

    I believe these two requirements could be made compatible by appending an appropriate & obligatory Intellectual Property Statement to such pre-releases, which would effectively prohibit references to it in the MSM until such time it is actually deemed “published” by the authors.

    I think this practice should be promoted by all means, and those who are slow to comply are to wear a dunce cap for life.

  852. grumpyoldmanuk says:

    In the military, time goes from 2359 to 0001hrs. Those 2 minutes are the only time you can call your arse your own.

  853. Max Phillis says:

    “New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial.”

    For a press release, I would call it artifactual, not artificial. Artificial could be interpreted as being “man made” by some lay people.

  854. Ally E. says:

    Woke up thinking about that title (it’s only 6:20 am here in NSW). If it’s not already suggested, how about:

    “WARMING IN THE USA ARTIFICIALLY DOUBLED.”

    Now, off to read from comment 680 onward and to catch up on everything else that’s happened since I went to bed last night… :)

  855. William Roberts says:

    This must be a joke right? There is not a single illustration of trend uncertainty incurred by altering the number of stations or their spatial locations, no bootstrapping, Monte Carlo analysis, nothing. My six grader could do a more robust analysis for a middle school science project. I mean, the term “uncertainty” is found once in the whole manuscript… as part of a reference title.

  856. Derek Tipp says:

    This is a very significant paper. The next step is to get it in the mainstream media and that will be tough, at least it will here in the UK. The last significant change to the data that made it was when Steve McIntyre calculated that the hottest year on record in the USA was in the 1930’s.

  857. Theo Goodwin says:
    July 30, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    Anthony Watts has accomplished a heroic task that began with his weather stations website and culminated in yesterday’s brilliant reintroduction of empiricism into the science of weather station siting and the science of temperature reading comparisons.
    This has nothing to do with his blog.

    It is well and good that Anthony’s actions call forth more than excellent analysis and tightly controlled comments.
    I did not advocate ‘tightly controlled comments’, just elimination of some of the chaff. But I guess we set the bar at different heights.

  858. Ally E. says:

    If you want to make clear the ramifications of this paper, how about a subtitle:

    “Climate databases skewed. Thousands of papers erroneous.”

  859. Ally E. says:

    Andyj says:

    July 30, 2012 at 4:05 am

    EVAN!
    leading zero before a decimal point:-

    “REPLY – Thought about it, then decided that since every starting number there would be a zero, anyway, why bother? ~ Evan”

    Please Wiki “decimal” & IEEE 754-2008
    It’s the standard.

    Sorry but we want this to work and be totally bullet proof.

    *

    YES! You need those leading zeros. PLEASE, do it right (don’t let this paper be thrown out on a technicality).

  860. rogerknights says: