NOTE: An update to the compendium has been posted. Now has bookmarks. Please download again.
I have a new paper out with Joe D’Aleo.
First I want to say that without E.M. Smith, aka “Chiefio” and his astounding work with GISS process analysis, this paper would be far less interesting and insightful. We owe him a huge debt of gratitude. I ask WUWT readers to visit his blog “Musings from the Chiefio” and click the widget in the right sidebar that says “buy me a beer”. Trust me when I say he can really use a few hits in the tip jar more than he needs beer.
The report is over 100 pages, so if you are on a slow connection, it may take awhile.
For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here or the image above.
As many readers know, there have been a number of interesting analysis posts on surface data that have been on various blogs in the past couple of months. But, they’ve been widely scattered. This document was created to pull that collective body of work together.
Of course there will be those who say “but it is not peer reviewed” as some scientific papers are. But the sections in it have been reviewed by thousands before being combined into this new document. We welcome constructive feedback on this compendium.
Oh and I should mention, the word “robust” only appears once, on page 89, and it’s use is somewhat in jest.
The short read: The surface record is a mess.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
MJK, you reject the Yale analysis because of the funding sources. Do you know who is funding the Heartland Institute and SPPI, the organizations who published AW’s recent publications? (Hint: Think of things that make smoke when they are burned.) I would rather stick to the science and the facts about the number of stations, and how the data from the stations is gathered and analyzed.
I have been reading quite a few blogs where knowledgeable scientists discuss this issue. The posters have been discussing D’ Aleo’s conclusions, and there are problems with how he thinks the process of collecting temperature data occurs, and the conclusions in this report.
D’Aleo & Smith are widely publicized as making the claim that there are only 35 Canadian stations and only 1 above 65°N for 2009 in the GHCN data set. I’ve tried looking at Smith’s webpage, but between the hand-waving assertions and computer glibberish, I have no idea where he is getting this information. According to Deutscher Wetterdeinst, part of the GHCN, there are more than 80 Canadian stations ) (#s 71017 – 71990) reporting monthlies and 20 or more above 65°N for 2009.
Most of 10 stations in Bolivia are there, too.
WUWT?
Paddy Barrett (09:03:12) :
Is it only me getting an error message from Acrobat? “The file is damaged and could not be repaired.” If anyone else got this message but figured out a fix or workaround, please share!
That is the “normal” message when a pdf download terminates as “finished” before the entire file is really downloaded. You go to view the file and get the message since it’s not a complete file.
Do you have a separate “Downloads” window with your browser that monitors such? Some progress indicator showing xx of xx downloaded? See what the total files size is supposed to be, compare it to what actually came through to see if it quit early.
It may take a few times to get a full and successful download. Just keep trying, see what happens.
I look forward to reading it, when I come up for breath
Paul K2 (11:41:10),
That wasn’t MJK. I made that comment.
You misunderstand the difference between scientific skeptics, and advocates of the AGW hypothesis.
Skeptics simply say, prove it. Or at least provide solid, measurable, empirical [ie: real world] evidence that human emissions of CO2 cause global warming – because those at the Yale blog are simply trying to sell AGW. Their continued funding depends on it.
You need to keep in mind that skeptics have nothing to prove. Skeptics simply question the AGW hypothesis, which must either withstand scrutiny, or go down in flames.
AGW is going down in flames because it cannot withstand scrutiny. Proponents of the AGW hypothesis refuse to show their data and methodologies. Why? Because if they did their hypothesis would be quickly falsified. There is no other reason; there are only hastily made up excuses for stonewalling requests for information.
I pointed out that the Yale blog is funded by a group with a heavy pro-AGW agenda, compared with unpaid volunteers. In order to try and salvage your argument, you re-framed the debate into Yale vs SPPI, Heartland, etc.
If you feel inclined to respond, try to keep your response to the original point: a heavily subsidized blog with an agenda, vs volunteers who are only interested in seeing where the facts lead.
I’m assuming you did a terrific job. I didn’t read it. As a rule, I only read publications that are greater than just “one robust” ;~P
Hmmm, I see a larger than usual number of trolls.
Nice job, guys. I found another typo:
p 33, you say: “The Climate reference network was capped at 114 stations but will not provide meaningful trend assessment for about 10 years.” It should be The Climate Reference Network […]”
>> Tom Graney (10:44:23) :
But, the heat effects are not cumulative; a parking lot, once constructed, is not going to continue to influence the trend so over time the impact of these heat affected sites is going to peter out. <<
There will be a discrete change in the average temperature level before and after the construction. All subsequent measurements will show a false warming when compared to pre-constuction temperatures. As time goes on the false warming will decrease since it is the constant temperature difference divided by the total time of the analysis, but it will never go away.
p 41: “In a conversation during Anthony Watts invited presentation about the surfacestations projects to NCDC, on 4/24/2008, he was briefed on USHCN2’s algorithms and how they operated by Matt Menne, lead author of the USHCN2 project.”
Huh?
How about:
On April 24, 2008, at a presentation about the surfacestations projects to NCDC, Matt Menne, lead author of the USHCN2 project, briefed Anthony Watts on USHCN2’s algorithms and how they operated.
Or: On April 24, 2008, Matt Menne, lead author of the USHCN2 project, briefed Anthony Watts on USHCN2’s algorithms and how they operated.
I think you guys did a wonderful job, but you really need a proofreader!
Keep up the good work!
Tom Graney (10:44:23) : “But, the heat effects are not cumulative; a parking lot, once constructed, is not going to continue to influence the trend so over time the impact of these heat affected sites is going to peter out.”
I have been wanting to ask a question, this seems like a good place:
The article about the Menne paper and the statement above all say that it doesn’t matter what the actual temperature is, it is the anomaly that counts. But this is based on only permanent changes as stated above. However when it comes to air conditioners, that is a different story. No one knows what the inside thermostat setting was at any given time (day, month or year), no one knows when the A/C unit kicked on or off, no one knows how efficient the A/C unit is over time, no one knows anything about the daily use of the A/C unit at all. Therefore, can any temperature sensor near an A/C unit report data that is consistant? If it cannot, then the data from all those stations must be questioned.
I urge you and Joe to read Dr. Neil Gammon’s review of your work.
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3a1602a720-b2a5-47de-bf2d-3b62afcf88a6&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Dr Neils Gammon ng attacks the basic concept of your work and says it is flawed, not showing what you claim at all.
Since he is the climatologist who was responsible for driving home the IPCC glacier scam, I think he is worth reading and responding to.
Additionally, Eric Berger the science reporter for the Houston Chronicle moderated a debate today between Dr. North of A&M, and Dr Lindzen of MIT in Houston.
There will be reporting on this later.
When I find a link to that, I will post it.
Eh, ok, I still have one minor question, that completely eludes me.
If the temperature sensors have an +/-1C resolution, how in the world are they saying that it is a measured 0.2C change? I apologize if that’s a dumb question, but if it’s never asked…
Paul K2, regardless of funding, the Yale report you reference has 2 obvious problems
1) a misunderstanding of d’aleo/Smith. They have not said that stations with a lower warming trend have been dropped. They are saying that the percentage of cooler stations (regardless of the trend) in the average has dropped, causing the average to warm.
2)The fact that adjustments up or down are about equal fails to take time into account. When down adjustments are in older data than up adjustments the adjustments also introduce a warm bias, regardless of how many of each there are, and this is what has happened.
Point 2 has been dealt with extensively on the blogs. The Yale report authors are either thick, out of touch, or intentionally misleading readers like yourself.
Dang Anthony, that’s a great read. I couldnt not put everything down and get right to it.
Grats to the authors. You all did an amazing job of pulling all this together. The time and effort is greatly appreciated by so many out in the world who don’t have the time or skills to investigate in depth, but knew instictually that there was something fishy going on.
Looks like you even made it into a newspaper, although Anthony was not credited here
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html
Do I have a post that failed to post?
Just for the fun and for the MJK understanding I made also this 2001-2010 chart:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:2001/scale:0.0015/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/scale:0.0015/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:2001/scale:0.0015/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/scale:0.0015
There is the GISTEMP+CO2 slightly ascending trend, the UAH+RSS descending trend and of course the sunspot number descending trend.
I didn’t made it up – its the woodfortrees engine which makes such funny charts… 😉
BTW if you add HADCUT3 it has the same trend as the satelites…
Tom Graney (10:44:23) :
@Smokey;
[…]
But, the heat effects are not cumulative; a parking lot, once constructed, is not going to continue to influence the trend so over time the impact of these heat affected sites is going to peter out.
If my understanding is correct, that’s an unwarranted assumption. Changing the environment of the siting changes the dynamics uniquely. Each station sits in a unique microclimate; Its report on each occasion is a instantaneous net of the current microclimate.
The anomaly purports to measure the trend in the delta occurring at that site (or fleet of sites…). But, the population of microclimates is neither randomly nor uniformiy distributed or perturbed, being chaotic instead. Hence, the anomaly is based on a chaotic reference that we can’t characterise. Further, surfacestation.org demonstrates that the sitings themselves suffer from an intrinsic competency bias that hasn’t been accounted for. The margin of error that is implicit in all of this is not nulled by the process of determining the anomaly,
The follow up article is slightly humorous, especially Gavin’s contribution.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Incomplete+data+mean+warming+worse/2475762/story.html
Anthony,
The flow chart is a must. WRT the submission to the UK. I’m thinking the 3rd question ( indepence of the 3 records) may require 3k words on its own.
Anyways, I good read. I love all the copy editors here. They are such a pleasant and diligent lot. Everybody can play a role. I love it.
Nick Stokes (23:21:59) :
Correct WRT the anomaly approach. I think I made this same mistake a while back on CA and Dr. Hu corrected me. Looking at the GISS code and seeing exactly how they did it made it perfectly clear. It would be interesting to look at the distribution of trends before and after culling.
An update from the Linzen v North debate in Hosuton:
Lindzen apparently did very well.
The big issue will be that all researchers that linked their research and publications to IPCC or CRU or GISS data sets can now and should be removed from peer-literatures. If they found any relationship to forged temperature data, the relationship is not invalidated.
Paul,
If my understanding is correct…
Your understanding is not correct. If I place a hot object next to a temperature instrument it will cause a step change in the measured temperature. This effect will occur once and will not affect the long term temperature trend. It does not affect or alter the local climate. If more hot objects are added over time then it could have the appearance of contributing to a trend, but how many hot objects can you place in the proximity of one temperature instrument? I believe this growth in the UHI effect has been studied extensively. The people responsible for all of this may be dishonest, but they are not stupid.