Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated

Hanksville_looking_north

Image: NOAA USHCN COOP station at Hanksville, UT, sited over a grave. Click for larger image. Photo by surfacestations volunteer Juan Slayton

by Anthony Watts

There has been a lot of buzz about the Menne et al 2010 paper “On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record” which is NCDC’s response to the surfacestations.org project. One paid blogger even erroneously trumpeted the “death of UHI” which is humorous, because the project was a study about station siting issues, not UHI. Anybody who owns a car with a dashboard thermometer who commutes from country to city can tell you about UHI.

There’s also claims of this paper being a “death blow” to the surfacestations project. I’m sure in some circles, they believe that to be true. However, it is very important to point out that the Menne et al 2010 paper was based on an early version of the surfacestations.org data, at 43% of the network surveyed. The dataset that Dr. Menne used was not quality controlled, and contained errors both in station identification and rating, and was never intended for analysis. I had posted it to direct volunteers to so they could keep track of what stations had been surveyed to eliminate repetitive efforts. When I discovered people were doing ad hoc analysis with it, I stopped updating it.

Our current dataset at 87% of the USHCN surveyed has been quality controlled.

There’s quite a backstory to all this.

In the summer, Dr. Menne had been inviting me to co-author with him, and our team reciprocated with an offer to join us also, and we had an agreement in principle for participation, but I asked for a formal letter of invitation, and they refused, which seems very odd to me. The only thing they would provide was a receipt for my new data (at 80%) and an offer to “look into” archiving my station photographs with their existing database.  They made it pretty clear that I’d have no significant role other than that of data provider. We also invited Dr. Menne to participate in our paper, but he declined.

The appearance of the Menne et al 2010 paper was a bit of a surprise, since I had been offered collaboration by NCDC’s director in the fall. In typed letter on  9/22/09 Tom Karl wrote to me:

“We at NOAA/NCDC seek a way forward to cooperate with you, and are interested in joint scientific inquiry. When more or better information is available, we will reanalyze and compare and contrast the results.”

“If working together cooperatively is of interest to you, please let us know.”

I discussed it with Dr. Pielke Sr. and the rest of the team, which took some time since not all were available due to travel and other obligations. It was decided to reply to NCDC on a collaboration offer.

On November 10th, 2009, I sent a reply letter via Federal Express to Mr. Karl, advising him that we would like to collaborate, and offered to include NCDC in our paper.. In that letter I also reiterated my concerns about use of the preliminary surfacestation data (43% surveyed) that they had, and spelled out very specific reasons why I didn’t think the results would be representative nor useful.

We all waited, but there was no reply from NCDC to our reply to offer of collaboration by Mr. Karl from his last letter. Not even a “thank you, but no”.

Then we discovered that Dr. Menne’s group had submitted a paper to JGR Atmospheres using my preliminary data and it was in press. This was a shock to me since I was told it was normal procedure for the person who gathered the primary data the paper was based on to have some input in the review process by the journal.

NCDC uses data from one of the largest volunteer organization in the world, the NOAA Cooperative Observer Network. Yet NCDC director Karl, by not bothering to reply to our letter about an offer he initiated, and by the journal not giving me any review process opportunity, extends what Dr. Roger Pielke Senior calls “professional discourtesy” to my own volunteers and my team’s work. See his weblog on the subject:

Professional Discourtesy By The National Climate Data Center On The Menne Et Al 2010 paper

I will point out that Dr. Menne provided thanks to me and the surfacestations volunteers in the Menne et al 2010 paper, and I hear through word of mouth, also in a  recent verbal presentation. For that I thank him. He has been gracious in his communications with me, but I think he’s also having to answer to the organization for which he works and that limited his ability to meet some of my requests, like a simple letter of invitation.

Political issues aside, the appearance of the Menne et al 2010 paper does not stop the surfacestations project nor the work I’m doing with the Pielke research group to produce a peer reviewed paper of our own. It does illustrate though that some people have been in a rush to get results. Texas state Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon suggested way back at 33% of the network surveyed that we had a statistically large enough sample to produce an analysis. I begged to differ then, at 43%, and yes even at 70% when I wrote my booklet “Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?, which contained no temperature analysis, only a census of stations by rating.

The problem is known as the “low hanging fruit problem”. You see this project was done on an ad hoc basis, with no specific roadmap on which stations to acquire. This was necessitated by the social networking (blogging) Dr. Pielke and I employed early in the project to get volunteers. What we ended up getting was a lumpy and poorly spatially distributed dataset because early volunteers would get the stations closest to them, often near or within cities.

The urban stations were well represented in the early dataset, but the rural ones, where we believed the best siting existed, were poorly represented. So naturally, any sort of study early on even with a “significant sample size” would be biased towards urban stations. We also had a distribution problem within CONUS, with much of the great plains and upper midwest not being well represented.

This is why I’ve been continuing to collect what some might consider an unusually large sample size, now at 87%. We’ve learned that there are so few well sited stations, the ones that meet the CRN1/CRN2 criteria (or NOAA’s 100 foot rule for COOPS) are just 10% of the whole network. See our current census:

When you have such a small percentage of well sited stations, it is obviously important to get a large sample size, which is exactly what I’ve done. Preliminary temperature analysis done by the Pielke group of the the data at 87% surveyed looks quite a bit different now than when at 43%.

It has been said by NCDC in Menne et al “On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record” (in press) and in the June 2009 “Talking Points: related to “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” that station siting errors do not matter. However, I believe the way NCDC conducted the analysis gives a false impression because of the homogenization process used. As many readers know, the FILNET algorithm blends a lot of the data together to infill missing data. This means temperature data from both well sited and poorly sited stations gets combined to infill missing data. The theory is that it all averages out, but when you see that 90% of the USHCN network doesn’t meet even the old NOAA 100 foot rule for COOPS, you realize this may not be the case.

Here’s a way to visualize the homogenization/FILNET process. Think of it like measuring water pollution. Here’s a simple visual table of CRN station quality ratings and what they might look like as water pollution turbidity levels, rated as 1 to 5 from best to worst turbidity:

CRN1-bowlCRN2-bowlCRN3-bowl

CRN4-bowlCRN5-bowl

In homogenization the data is weighted against the nearby neighbors within a radius. And so a station might start out as a “1” data wise, might end up getting polluted with the data of nearby stations and end up as a new value, say weighted at “2.5”. Even single stations can affect many other stations in the GISS and NOAA data homogenization methods carried out on US surface temperature data here and here.

bowls-USmap

In the map above, applying a homogenization smoothing, weighting stations by distance nearby the stations with question marks, what would you imagine the values (of turbidity) of them would be? And, how close would these two values be for the east coast station in question and the west coast station in question? Each would be closer to a smoothed center average value based on the neighboring stations.

Essentially, in my opinion, NCDC is comparing homogenized data to homogenized data, and thus there would not likely be any large difference between “good” and “bad” stations in that data. All the differences have been smoothed out by homogenization (pollution) from neighboring stations!

The best way to compare the effect of siting between groups of stations is to use the “raw” data, before it has passed through the multitude of adjustments that NCDC performs. However NCDC is apparently using homogenized data. So instead of comparing apples and oranges (poor sited -vs- well sited stations) they essentially just compare apples (Granny Smith -vs- Golden delicious) of which there is little visual difference beyond a slight color change.

We saw this demonstrated in the ghost authored Talking Points Memo issued by NCDC in June 09 in this graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/ncdc-surfacestations-rebuttal-graph.png

Referencing the above graph, Steve McIntyre suggested in his essay on the subject:

The red graphic for the “full data set” had, using the preferred terminology of climate science, a “remarkable similarity” to the NOAA 48 data set that I’d previously compared to the corresponding GISS data set here (which showed a strong trend of NOAA relative to GISS). Here’s a replot of that data – there are some key telltales evidencing that this has a common provenance to the red series in the Talking Points graphic.

When I looked at SHAP and FILNET adjustments a couple of years ago, one of my principal objections to these methods was that they adjusted “good” stations. After FILNET adjustment, stations looked a lot more similar than they did before. I’ll bet that the new USHCN adjustments have a similar effect and that the Talking Points memo compares adjusted versions of “good” stations to the overall average.

There’s references in the new Menne et al 2010 paper to the new USHCN2 algorithm and we’ve been told how it is supposed to be better. While it does catch undocumented station moves that USHCN 1 did not, it still adjusts data at USHCN stations in odd ways, such as this station in rural Wisconsin, and that is the crux of the problem.

Hancock_473405_South_44

USHCN station at Hancock Experiment Farm, WI

Or this one in Lincoln, IL at the local NWS office where they took great effort to have it well sited.

Lincoln_Looking_West

Lincoln, IL USHCN station, NWS office in background. Click to enlarge

Thanks to Mike McMillan for the graphs comparing USHCN1 and USHCN2 data

Notice the clear tendency in the graphs comparing USHCN1 to USHCN2 to cool off the early record and leave the current levels near recently reported levels or to increase them. The net result is either reduced cooling or enhanced warming not found in the raw data.

As for the Menne et all 2010 paper itself, I’m rather disturbed by their use of preliminary data at 43%, especially since I warned them that the dataset they had lifted from my website (placed for volunteers to track what had been surveyed, never intended for analysis) had not been quality controlled at the time. Plus there are really not enough good stations with enough spatial distribution at that sample size. They used it anyway, and amazingly, conducted their own secondary survey of those stations, comparing it to my non-quality controlled data, implying that my 43% data wasn’t up to par. Well of course it wasn’t! I told them about it and why it wasn’t. We had to resurvey and re-rate a number of stations from early in the project.

This came about only because it took many volunteers some time to learn how to properly ID them. Even some small towns have 2-3 COOP stations nearby, and only one of them is “USHCN”. There’s no flag in the NCDC metadatabase that says “USHCN”, in fact many volunteers were not even aware of their own station status. Nobody ever bothered to tell them. You’d think if their stations were part of a special subset, somebody at NOAA/NCDC would notify the COOP volunteer so they would have a higher diligence level?

If doing an independent stations survey was important enough for NCDC to do to compare to my 43% data now for their paper, why didn’t they just do it in the first place?

I have one final note of interest on the station data, specifically the issue of MMTS thermometers and their tendency to be sited closer to building due to cabling issues.

Menne et al 2010 mentioned a “counterintuitive” cooling trend in some portions of the data. Interestingly enough, former California State Climatologist James Goodridge did an independent analysis ( I wasn’t involved in data crunchng, it was a sole effort on his part) of COOP stations in California that had gone through modernization, switching from Stevenson Screens with mercury LIG thermometers to MMTS electronic thermometers. He sifted through about 500 COOPs in California and chose stations that had at least 60 years of uninterrupted data, because as we know, a station move can cause all sorts of issues. He used the “raw” data from these stations as opposed to adjusted data.

He writes:

Hi Anthony,

I found 58 temperature station in California with data for 1949 to 2008 and where the thermometers had been changed to MMTS and the earlier parts were liquid in glass. The average for the earlier part was 59.17°F and the MMTS fraction averaged 60.07°F.

Jim

A 0.9F (0.5C) warmer offset due to modernization is significant, yet NCDC insists that the MMTS units are tested at about 0.05C cooler. I believe they add this adjustment into the final data. Our experience shows the exact opposite should be done and with a greater magnitude.

I hope to have this California study published here on WUWT with Jim soon.

I realize all of this isn’t a complete rebuttal to Menne et al 2010, but I want to save that option for more detail for the possibility of placing a comment in The Journal of Geophysical Research.

When our paper with the most current data is completed (and hopefully accepted in a journal), we’ll let peer reviewed science do the comparison on data and methods, and we’ll see how it works out. Could I be wrong? I’m prepared for that possibility. But everything I’ve seen so far tells me I’m on the right track.

If doing a stations survey was important enough for NCDC to do to compare to my data now for their paper, why didn’t they just do it in the first place?

We currently have 87% of the network surveyed (1067 stations out of 1221), and it is quality controlled and checked. I feel that we have enough of the better and urban stations to solve the “low hanging fruit” problem of the earlier portion of the project. Data at 87% looks a lot different than data at 43%.

The paper I’m writing with Dr. Pielke and others will make use of this better data, and we also use a different procedure for analysis than what NCDC used.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Alan S

I am from the UK, after a while you start to recognise the “Spin, spin, spin” that is put on facts. It seems to me, and doubtless most readers and contributors here, that they haven’t got a leg to stand on.
The BBC article about CO2 not having much of an effect on temperatures, I note it is not open to comment, is a prime example of the same.
All power to your elbow people.

Pearland Aggie

Thanks, Anthony. The effort is much appreciated!

AlexB

The thing that sets alarm bells ringing for me in all this is that when 1228 stations are compared to just 70 stations which my calculator tells me is about 6% of all stations then the results are almost exactly the same. That, while it may be correct seems highly unlikely to me and makes me think that the homogenisation process could have more influence on the trend than the raw data.

Steve Goddard

It is not uncommon for downtown Denver to be 10-20 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside in the winter. This is because of snow removal, pavement, buildings, generated heat, pollution, etc. Weather Underground in conjunction with Google Maps provides a great way to visualize this real time for Denver or most other cities in the world. UHI is very much alive and it is astonishing that any serious scientist could be so deluded as to not recognize it.
http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/?zip=80002&magic=3&wmo=99999

RuhRoh

Wow, Anthony, you remind me of a childhood game called the ‘Rock-em, Sock-em’ robots. You just keep taking the jabs and keep on looking good…
One other note; those NCDC authors seem to have .GOV as their email address.
So, no need for them to bother with a day job, while they defend their orthodoxy from the army of part-time davids….
Your Tax Dollars At Work…
You are an inspirational guy.
Thanks,
RR

Nice Job Anthony,
Dilligence in the face of everything the advocaticians can throw. There is absolutely no reason for them to act this way except fear of an unwelcome result. This is the second pre-emptive attack on surfacestations project, I’m becoming certain they know something is afoot.
Bad math, bad results, more warming and the ridiculous claim that urban warming doesn’t exist or isn’t significant. It takes guts to make that claim and sign your name on the paper.
Thanks to everyone who’s put time and effort in to this very important project. Open the data and the corrections, and let the truth fall where it may.
The team is very nervous.

Agreed that NOAA using its homogenized data is not a valid test of these stations.
Great work on all of this and I’m looking forward to your rebuttal.

George M

Anthony:
This climate business has taken so many twists and turns lately that I have lost track of the status of your Stevenson Screen experiments. Have you ever had time to collate that data and publish it anywhere? And congrats on the SPPI compendium. Good reading for these winter nights.
REPLY: I’ll save that story for another day. -A

Good job Anthony … keep punching, the bag about to split wide open. Just make sure to get out of the way when it does.
I wonder what would happen if we just used rural temp stations … out in the country everywhere.

R Shearer

Must have been a sinner; the temperature really jumped when he died.

I have a feeling that a FOI request at NOAA/NCDC would reveal a great deal of juicy e-mail activity about “surfacestations”, demonstrating that the Jones&Mann climate leadership has been even more pervasive than previously thought.

Tim

Yet more emails (OT). This just gets better and better.
“The Competitive Enterprise Institute today charged that a senior official of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency actively suppressed a scientific analysis of climate change because of political pressure to support the Administration’s policy agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.
As part of a just-ended public comment period, CEI submitted a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of the agency’s global warming position was put under wraps and concealed. “

Shouldn’t the US flag at the Lincoln, IL, station be on the other side of the second flag?

Robinson

In other news, The times (Murdoch) has really turned on this issue. They’ve got a headline piece on the CRU hack and the information commissioner. I’m amazed!

PaulH

That pic of the Hanksville station deserves to be highlighted on thereifixedit.com! ;->

D MacKenzie

As a statistician it really puzzles me why they do this ‘homogenization’ process when looking for temporal trends, especially the stations haven’t been moved at all over a suitably long timeframe. It sort of makes sense (if done correctly) to predict what the temperature might have been like at places between stations, but surely if looking for changes over time then it would be best to use the raw temperature data from the actual stations?!
Nice post Anthony, good luck with your comment. It’s (yet another) story that needs told.

JMANON

The one in the shade of a tree is, it says, in Rural Wisconsin (at first I thought the text below was referring to this picture as being of a “well sited” station in Ilinois – and being ironic)
What would be interesting would be to know of those stations surveyed, which of them, sorted by category, are still contributing data in our vanishing surface stations.
It would be a pity of it proved that some of the better sited were no longer being used.

Richard Sharpe

Just waiting for the RealClimate trolls to show up.

Antonio San

Awaiting your paper with anticipation.

Robert of Ottawa

Clearly, these NCDC guys made nice to you, Anthony, just to better be able to stab you. [snip]

Anthony: Thanks for the background and update. There’s been misinformation and misdirection about the Surface Stations Project at AGW proponent sites recently, as you noted. And as you’re aware, the trolls have even thrown in a few off-topic comments on other threads here at WUWT, with the intent of inciting replies and carrying misinformation back to the blogs that serve as their home bases. Let’s see if the trolls appear in a thread that actually addresses this.
Regards

ML

The hole of AGW is already big enough, but they are still digging, and this is a good thing.

alf

Anthony: Thanks for the update. The blog Skeptical Science [http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html] was taking some rather cheap shots at you.

Frank K.

Two questions for Dr. Menne:
(1) Did you ever visit any of the USHCN sites? Even one?
(2) If the answer to (1) is a “yes,” did you offer to help with the Surface Stations project in any way. Provided data? Anything?
This episode says a lot about the professional ethics (or lack thereof) of the NCDC…

TGWatkins

How will the politicos extract themselves from this mess?
It is sad for me that my heroes are now younger than me.
I joined facebook today with the sole purpose of passing the message on.
Thank you Anthony,Steve M, Ross M, Joe, Steve M, Cheifio,Jeff, and Australians, etc.
UK readers must keep “hitting” the BBC, MSM and S and T MPs.
Every little helps! (ref. to TESCO ad)

pyromancer76

A playful lead photo for a serious subject, Anthony. I am delighted that you leave no stone unturned in describing the disgusting process of public servants lying to save their hides — and their superiors ideological driven pseudo-science. More power to you and I hope the “subscriptions” (tips, donations) keep pouring in. This is our real investigative journalism.

John Phillips

“The problem is known as the “low hanging fruit problem”. You see this project was done on an ad hoc basis, with no specific roadmap on which stations to acquire.”
Since the Menne study had a sample less than 100%, a method for random selection of stations should have been used. Since the population is known to not be homogeneous, (rural vs urban, etc.) the sampling method would be complicated. As you point out, the station selection was ad hoc. Another climate science paper with implementation of inappropriate statistical methods.

Mike Davis

I appears to be time to put 20 and out into effect at NOAA and NASA. Also an independent review of their work output should be required before any publication in the future. Maybe it is time to outsource the weather service and climate research with funding based on reliability and accuracy.
The Menne paper appears to be GIGO! and not worth the E space it consumes.

PhilJourdan

Will you let us know when your complete study is presented for peer review? And how long after the review will it be available for the public to review?
Thanks for all your work and insight.

Bulldust

Apologies for being OT Anthony, but Monckton’s tour down under is starting to generate a fair bit of press. Here is a 20 minute video interview with him (just wait a few seconds to get through the gratuitous commercial):
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/climategate-gives-lord-of-the-sceptics-plenty-of-ammunition-20100127-mywc.html?autostart=1
And I see Bjorn Lomborg has published an opinion piece in The Australian bagging the ETS approach the current Premier (Rudd) is pushing:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/axe-the-tax-if-you-want-to-go-green/comments-e6frg6zo-1225824114850
I expect a lot of coverage will be coming throughout the 2 week Monckton tour 🙂
Once again sorry for being OT, but there was no suitable thread on the main page.

Anthony why don’t you list your report under the CRU Tape Letters book on the right side bar? It is a great reference, especially for new visitors.
Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
(PDF) (Anthony Watts)

Dave N

Perhaps they think the final destination of the grave resident in Hanksville will provide a warming bias for the weather station?

Richard Tyndall

Just a quick heads up.
The ICO decision on the UEA breach of UK data law is now the front page lead item in Thursday’s London Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
They do still refer to the emails as ‘stolen’ rather than leaked but it is notable that this story appears in such a prominent position in one of the UK’s leading newspapers.

Thank you for the posting Anthony.

Konrad

I have seen much discussion of the Menne et al 2010 paper doing the rounds, and I am unconvinced by the arguments. I feel the claim that measuring anomalies can counter the problems of poor siting and UHI effects is false. Measuring anomalies could only be a valid method if conditions at the station site (regardless of rating) and any UHI influence within the nearby area remained constant over the entire period that a temperature trend is to be measured for.
It is clear that many of the stations identified in the Surfacestations project have degenerated over time. Measuring anomalies can not correct for this.
UHI influence is a gradually increasing influence over time. Measuring anomalies can not correct for this.
Homogenization is not a solution. Homogenization just soils good data.
Any honest attempt to measure temperature trends over time should only be using well sited truly rural stations with long records and comparing actual temperature averages. Studies using homogenization, anomalies instead of averages and frantic hand waving belong in the wicker filling cabinet.

[quote Frank K. (17:04:35) :]
This episode says a lot about the professional ethics (or lack thereof) of the NCDC…[/quote]
Agreed about the ethics, but I’d say it’s also about bad data.
The fact that NOAA put out a story using their homogenized data tells me Anthony is on to something here.
NOAA’s manipulation of temperatures is really at the heart of all this. If they’re manipulating temperatures to give the appearance of global warming then defending themselves with the data they’ve already manipulated is meaningless. The average person may not know that using homogenized data makes for a meaningless reply, but NOAA knows it’s meaningless.
At the very least, I think Anthony’s work will help turn the discussion to NOAA’s raw data vs. their homogenized data. And that’s where the discussion needs to be to get at the truth to what’s going on.

xyzlatin

Perhaps the “Briffa” trees were right after all? Perhaps there has been no warming at all, but cooling? “I Talk to the Trees” song seems a suitable theme.

Stephan

Poor ol Menee et al I said there would be reply eventually and its gonna hurt bad. LOL Just joking

P.S. Just to clear up any possible confusion, the NCDC, which is discussed in the article, is part of NOAA, which I was talking about.

jorgekafkazar

John Phillips (17:09:31) : “…As you point out, the station selection was ad hoc. Another climate science paper with implementation of inappropriate statistical methods….”
Given that “climate science” is really religion and politics, there are no “inappropriate statistical methods.” The objective is propaganda, not science. Any lie will do.

Excuse me, but the word “jerks” comes to mind. Is that too vociferous for polite blogs? How exceedingly unprofessional. I suggest you sue NCDC blue. Or FOIA them blue. I would like to read all their emails. Menne, Karl, et al. are public employees. I pay their salaries and I am sick and tired of doing that.
NCDC is incompetency personified. They cannot or will not survey their own stations, they cannot do their jobs, but they still collect their paychecks every week. Then when unpaid volunteers do their jobs for them, they cheat, lie, fold, spindle, and mutilate the data and the analysis.
And what’s up with JGR Atmospheres? Are they j***ks, too? And how. What has happened to their integrity? Or has it been non-existent from Day One?
I appreciate your courtesy in this, Anthony, but it was NOT reciprocated. NCDC is pathetic. Fire the whole pack of them. If they are going to leach off the taxpayers, they can do it in an unemployment line. Outrageous!

MattN

“Anybody who owns a car with a dashboard thermometer who commutes from country to city can tell you about UHI.”
I regularly see 4-5F difference in my commute through Charlotte NC out to the country where my work is.
Every. Day.

Pat Frank

Anthony, the offense against you is worse than discourtesy. Unless you provided your results to Drs. Menne and Karl with the explicit understanding that they could freely use those data in a publication, with no more than an acknowledgment of thanks to you, then their use of the data in a publication amounts to scientific theft. The journal would potentially be an accessory after the fact; depending on whether the editor knew the lack of permission granted. If nothing else, the editor of JGR Atmospheres is likely guilty of professional negligence.
The fact that you had published your data on line in surfacestations.org might mitigate the legal ramifications, in that a judge could decide that you had no expectation of privacy after posting your results and allowing free access.
However, that does not remove the serious ethical lapse of Dr. Menne, Dr. Karl, or JGR Atmospheres. They absconded the scientific and publication priority of your data without your explicit permission. There is no excuse for that, whatever.
It’s more than a professional discourtesy. It’s professional theft of data. In science, value rests in results. Note how jealously proxy data are held by climatologists. It’s inconceivable that Drs. Menne and Karl did not consciously know they were violating a very basic ethical principle of science.

REPLY:
I made the same arguments with them that you cite, they dismissed them – Anthony

Michael D Smith

How about a new post showing a numbered list of the last stations to be reviewed, with city, GPS coords, etc? I know it’s on surfacestations.org, but maybe with a more prominent post, volunteers would find it easier to tackle one or two close to them. Maybe you could do a final push to close the gap to 100%.

David Alan Evans

Bulldust (17:26:12) :
Thanks for the video of Christopher, Lord Monckton of Brenchley.
Does that boy, (who hasn’t seen even half of one of the known cycles), give the AGW crowd a similar hard time?
I would think not.
DaveE.

ShaneOfMelbourne

Hi Bulldust,
eager to get both sides of the debate, I started to watch Monckton, but have had to stop after a couple of minutes. The part about Haitians living on and now, no longer being able to afford Mud Pies, was too much for me.
I finished up on the floor crippled by hysterical laughter.
But I was impressed by his “Faux Sincerity” and his ability to keep a straight face.
I’ll get ’round to watching the rest when I think I can cope.
I’ll get back to you in due course.

RuhRoh

BTW, regarding the analysis of glass vs. electronic temperatures, it is good that you have long records, but the longterm averages of old glass vs new electronic does not seem to deconvolve a change in the weather over that timeframe.
RR

DR

Well Anthony, if and when you submit for publication, if all goes well you should be hearing back from them in about……18 months.

John Blake

Since when is reading a thermometer equivalent to doing relativistic astrophysics? The sheer mendacity of these inputs boggles the mind. AGW has always been an indefensible excuse for clubbing capitalist seals, but surely a bit more subtlety would be in order?

theduke

Dave N (17:30:26) : | Reply w/ Link
Perhaps they think the final destination of the grave resident in Hanksville will provide a warming bias for the weather station?
——————————————————————
LOL I was thinking that If it’s classified a CRN5, it’s evidence he’s been condemned to the sulfurous place. If it’s a CRN4, he’s still in Purgatory.