I was rather surprised to see this interview in Physics World with Dr. Richard Muller (h/t to Bishop Hill) with this praise.
“If Watts hadn’t done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he’s a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize.”
Thanks for the kind words Dr. Muller, but I don’t think that will happen.
Here’s the full quote plus some other interesting things:
Muller also had four specific concerns with the scientific consensus on global warming, which the BEST project was designed to address. The first – and most serious, he says – is the “stations issue”, referring to a problem highlighted by controversial US blogger and former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts. In 2007 Watts initiated the Surfacestations.org project, which reported that 70% of temperature recording stations in the US were inaccurate to a level of 2–5°C. MulIer says that the BEST team has now cleared up this issue by showing that when it comes to specifically measuring change in temperature, the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations. “If Watts hadn’t done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he’s a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize.”
The other concerns are as follows:
The second concern Muller refers to i. the “data selection” employed by the three major groups collecting global temperature data: NASA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US; and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre in the UK. Muller says that the number of stations being used between 1980 and the present day has dropped from 6000 to less than 2000, with no explanation to be found anywhere in the literature. The third issue is that rapid urbanization in the regions surrounding temperature stations might have led to localized temperature increases, or what is known as the “urban heat island” effect. The fourth concern, which Muller calls “data correction”, refers to the small adjustments that the climate groups make to temperature readings as a result of changes in instruments and locations. Muller says the records describing why individual corrections have been made are very poor.
I emailed Professor Muller tonight, thanking him for the kind words. It was our first email exchange in months. He maintains that he has an open mind on the issues of surface data, and if new data is presented to him, he’ll re-evaluate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Robert Brown says (April 3, 2012 at 6:22 am)
——
Good comment!
But we must fear that in it’s current “cause du jour” the Nobel twerps are more likely eyeing up Hansen for a prize (Peace? Pray it’s not physics!) to add to his collection, just to make sure the proper pseudo-intellectual Guardianista circles are kept happy.
Fat Gore & pals won the 2007 Peace Prize beating Irena Sendlerowa (1910-2008). From Wiki: “She smuggled 2,500 Jewish children out of the Warsaw Ghetto and then provided them with false identity documents and with housing outside the Ghetto, thereby saving those children from being killed in the Holocaust. The Nazis eventually discovered her activities, tortured her, and sentenced her to death; but she managed to evade execution and survive the war.”
So, no contest, really. Sigh.
I smell a rat… and it could be that Muller is up to something.
Please watch your back Anthony.
It is way too early to begin patting each other on the back. Climate skeptics are still despised by the MSM and almost all scientific boards. Some think the battle is nearly over, and each vindication is trumpeted as the “last nail” in the AGW coffin. There must be an infinite number of last nails.
Gatekeeper blocking has not decreased, and the public still perceive CO2 as a problem pollutant, which ultimately requires drastic, remedial action. Any decrease in CO2 emissions are still regarded as desirable at ANY cost.
It only requires a dramatic warm anomaly, to send the human herd, cascading back to AGW alarm and draconian measures. Everyone seems to confuse battle victory with war victory. A dangerous tactical error. This is an ideological war and we are only winning the unreported scientific battles. The future is not set nor assured. GK
Corey S. says:
Funny…those are the exact concerns skeptics have been pointing out in the data for years.
Why do you say that?
Of course those are the exact concerns skeptics have been pointing out. The purpose of the BEST program is to deal with the skeptic movement. It should not surprise you that they addresss the things that you have been pointing out. Nor should it be any surprise when they announce that all skeptic concerns have been addressed, and it is worse than we thought.
It remains to be seen if they can accomplish their secondary objective: co-opt Anthony Watts. They about had him a few months into this effort. They even got him to buy off on the results, sight unseen. That made them cocky. They started taking him for granted a little bit too soon, and scared him off. Perhaps the “kind words” and other flatteries will yet get the deed done.
Rather than giving interviews, wouldn’t Dr. Muller do better trying to get his papers on BEST through peer review?
Hmmm…is this really a compliment, Anthony? Aren’t you perhaps being credited with what BEST wound up doing with this data – finding that the existing adusted records are really okay? You do indeed deserve a prize but for much more than the surface stations project.
“Muller says that the number of stations being used between 1980 and the present day has dropped from 6000 to less than 2000, with no explanation to be found anywhere in the literature ” No problem if the drop-out were random.
The Bloggies are more significant than the Nobel prizes. And, you don’t have to associate with undesirables like Arafat, Gore, Carter, et. al.. Or Muller, come to that.
Randomly distributed spatially? Or temporally? North more than south? Rural vs urban?
Can we know the reasons (cost, neglect, bureaucratic error, misplacement) as well as the distribution of reasons?
.
Aside re: Nobel prizes and the recent track record, the various Nobel prizes are awarded in separate committees and processes. So far as I am aware it is the “Peace” prize and also the Literature prize, not the real science prizes, which have been corrupted by highly “politically correct” committees. The IPCC/Gore prize was from the “Peace” prize committee. It will come to be seen as a permanent embarrassment to the name “Nobel” and there can be a parlor game to debate “which was the worst Nobel Prize selection ever?”
Anthony,
I agree that you deserve some form of “major award”, and I do not mean a lady’s leg lamp ala “A Christmas Story”. The problem is, as noted by some, most of these referenced awards have been discredited by virtue of to whom they have been previuosly awarded. So, a hearty “thank you” and keep in mind the millions of hits on your site! That is the real bottom line. Perhaps a bowling alley (deed) could be arranged to be sent to you? Hope you have seen ” A Christmas Story”. I also agree with those who have indicated some possibility of the potential for some of the “rats jumping from a sinking ship” phenomina potentially being at work in some of these turnarounds being seen lately. Another obvious “award” for all of your hard work.
Regards,
Jim G
Muller better be careful, questioning the data is like questioning the science, and everyone knows the science of GW is perfect.
I wonder where we would be if Anthony and all the other ‘climate deniers’ had just got on with something else. My guess is that we would have official graphs showing a relentless temperature rise over the last 15 years based on about 500 measuring sites (but they would not mention that), and lots of secret temperature adjustment algorithms. Successive hockey stick graphs would have shown ever more clearly how the climate had been constant to 0.05C for 5000 years, with a huge upturn in the last few decades, and Michael Mann would have a Nobel Prize!
Politicians around the world would be being whipped into a frenzy of activity to lower CO2 whatever the cost in money and living standards (including deaths).
Thanks Anthony!
Paging Dorothy Parker. There’s a telephone call waiting.
==============
Timeo danaos et dona ferentes…….
Timeo danaos et dona ferentes comes to mind
Timeo danaos et dona ferentes comes to mind reading the praise
Jim,
Here is the distribution of stations for GHCN-M and Berkeley (which includes GHCN-M, GHCN-D, GSOD, WWR, etc.): http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/ScreenShot2012-02-18at114537AM.png
Why is it that everybody and their brother seems to be able to find UHI, but the gatekeepers can’t? What about Spencer? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/mckitrick-michaels-were-right-more-evidence-of-spurious-warming-in-the-ipcc-surface-temperature-dataset/
Spencer said 50%, I said possibly over 100% using his same study:
http://naturalclimate.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/northern-hemisphere-uhi-crutem3-18/
That’s why i’ve often responded to those “coffin” claims by recommending a better metaphor: It’s another arrow in the elephant.
Rogerkni,
While I sympathise with what you have written, I think the point is that Anthony and other ‘deniers’ have helped to keep climate science a bit more honest than it otherwise would have been. They have denied tham the option to fiddle the temperatures and other data – forcing them to confront a temprature curve that isn’t rising. Indeed, perhaps that is why they are called ‘deniers’!
“Petrossa says:
April 3, 2012 at 10:18 am
Timeo danaos et dona ferentes comes to mind reading the praise”
Beware the Gleick and those bearing gifts? 😉
Anthony
You and your blog helped inform me from many different sources that UHI corrections lacking were of the order of 0.5 degrees last century. We had the young lad on video doing paired US stations comparisons. Your own incredible Surface Stations project. Your Reno transect. Warren Meyer similar. Warwick Hughes & Aussie comparisons. Comparisons ffrom South Africa. Roy Spencer. John Daly, John Daly and John Daly. Hans Erren. Andrei Ilarionov spectacular presentation at the conference. McKitrick and Michaels. Last but not least, was it Don Keiller on the tail of Wei-Chyung Wang?
All these got big UHI that tend to wipe out any significant temperature rise above natural fluctuations.
BEST hasn’t begun to touch these results. Nice words which I’m glad you thanked Muller for, but no science content AFAICT. And this matters, surely.
Right.
I speed read the last half of the comments appearing by 2100 GMT [?? 2 pm threadtime?? – (ish) ].
So, can we get Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and John Daly onto a short-list,ven, of Nobel prizewinners?
Can we? And do we want to?
If we do, not an entirely simple process. Let’s look at the Nobel Prize for Peace [Obama, B is an example of a recent winner]: – “Nomination and Selection of Peace Prize Laureates
Every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee sends out thousands of letters inviting qualified people to submit their nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later.”
Source – http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/ at 2101 Z 03 April 2012.
So. Not immdiately conducive to a media/internet campaign, I fear.
Physics, Chemistry, Physiology and medicine [not really relvant, I appreciate] and Economics are “by invitation only” – see http://search.nobelprize.org/search/nobel/?q=nominate&i=en
Literature [maybe not, but even they are of vague asociation] requires: – “The Nobel Committee sends invitation letters to persons who are qualified to nominate for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Other persons who are qualified to nominate but who have not received invitations may also submit nominations. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later.” – from
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/nomination/
A Nobel Prize – for readership, and well-merited Webbies aide – can we deliver?
No reflection on nthomy, Steve or John, but – ehaps – the system is not aligned to this sort of Real Science.
Have a great Easter wek-end.
Auto
so now with the 30% “good” sites they can just expand the grid cell sizes and extrapolate their “good” readings over hundreds of miles … thats just great !!!