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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
1.1K Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Oak
July 29, 2012 12:05 pm

Well done!

July 29, 2012 12:05 pm

Kudos! I can hear the stuttering and sputtering from the Usual Suspects already.
It’s popcorn time!

July 29, 2012 12:06 pm

Shades (so to speak) of Steirou and Koutsoyiannis.

Ron
July 29, 2012 12:06 pm

Seems legit

ancientmariner
July 29, 2012 12:06 pm

the overstated increase is just an honest mistake??
[REPLY: Read the paper first. Please. -REP]

conradg
July 29, 2012 12:06 pm

Good work!

Rujholla
July 29, 2012 12:06 pm

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

BSM
July 29, 2012 12:06 pm

Bravo!

Rogelio Diaz
July 29, 2012 12:07 pm

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

Philip Peake
July 29, 2012 12:07 pm

Final nail in the coffin?
[REPLY: Read the paper first, please.]

July 29, 2012 12:07 pm

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.

Mark A
July 29, 2012 12:07 pm

SNIP -REP

pyromancer76
July 29, 2012 12:07 pm

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

AnonyMoose
July 29, 2012 12:07 pm

” and endorsed was endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization”

John in NZ
July 29, 2012 12:08 pm

The word “Vindication” springs to mind.

Scott
July 29, 2012 12:08 pm

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

James
July 29, 2012 12:08 pm

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.

Edim
July 29, 2012 12:08 pm

good!

FactHunter
July 29, 2012 12:08 pm

Great work Anthony et al.
Thank you

mpaul
July 29, 2012 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.

Aquix
July 29, 2012 12:08 pm

I picture a rug, being pulled hard..
[REPLY: Please read the paper. -REP]

lurker passing through, laughing
July 29, 2012 12:08 pm

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

JonasM
July 29, 2012 12:08 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:09 pm

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

pouncer
July 29, 2012 12:09 pm

So which paper is best and which is second-best?
[REPLY: Please read the paper and judge for yourself. -REP]

Harriet Harridan
July 29, 2012 12:09 pm

Congratulations Anthony.

Steve S
July 29, 2012 12:09 pm

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’.

Tim Crome
July 29, 2012 12:09 pm

Great work, any plans on a global analysis ?

Evan Jones
Editor
July 29, 2012 12:10 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 12:10 pm

Worthy of the weekend of silence. Well Played.

Andy
July 29, 2012 12:10 pm

Well done.

AnonyMoose
July 29, 2012 12:10 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:10 pm

Three cheers for Anthony, et.al. !

Joanie
July 29, 2012 12:10 pm

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

climatereason
Editor
July 29, 2012 12:11 pm

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]

Brendan
July 29, 2012 12:11 pm

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

Otter
July 29, 2012 12:11 pm

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

johnbuk
July 29, 2012 12:11 pm

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.

Jimmy Haigh
July 29, 2012 12:11 pm

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

Evan Jones
Editor
July 29, 2012 12:11 pm

P.S.,
NOBODY!
NOBODY!
NOBODY BEATS THE REV!

July 29, 2012 12:11 pm

Typo in the colour chart 1.0 ==> 0.1

Caleb
July 29, 2012 12:11 pm

At long last!

Mike Ozanne
July 29, 2012 12:12 pm

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

Manfred
July 29, 2012 12:12 pm

That reconciles land data with ocean data and satellite data.

Bill
July 29, 2012 12:12 pm

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]

Dan in Nevada
July 29, 2012 12:12 pm

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]

theduke
July 29, 2012 12:12 pm

quoting Muller– nice touch.

July 29, 2012 12:12 pm

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

Robert of Ottawa
July 29, 2012 12:12 pm

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!

JJ
July 29, 2012 12:13 pm

Heh. Heh. Heh.
Good on ya.

Editor
July 29, 2012 12:13 pm

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

MarkS
July 29, 2012 12:13 pm

Hi Antony, great work!
You’ve got a typo: “and endorsed was endorsed” should be “and was endorsed”, I presume.
Cheers,
Mark

July 29, 2012 12:13 pm

Congratulations, some reading to be done by us all.

DonS
July 29, 2012 12:13 pm

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

David, UK
July 29, 2012 12:13 pm

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.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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!

Stephen Singer
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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

TGSG
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

Interesting. Why are the figures always higher after adjustments?

July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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.

Steven Hales
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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

Gilbert
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

Wow! Just wow.
Great work Anthony.

Scott
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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

Greg, San Diego, CA
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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!

July 29, 2012 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!

David, UK
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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

therealviffer
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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

Anoneumouse
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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

Dave
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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.

John Norris
July 29, 2012 12:14 pm

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

Scott
July 29, 2012 12:15 pm

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

Alan Clark
July 29, 2012 12:15 pm

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.

Stephen Wilde
July 29, 2012 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.

James
July 29, 2012 12:15 pm

Important – the figures are missing from the draft pdf.
REPLY – There’s a separate chart section to download. ~ Evan

July 29, 2012 12:15 pm

Wonderful stuff – congrats, Anthony…

Skiphil
July 29, 2012 12:15 pm

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 ….”

erik sloneker
July 29, 2012 12:15 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:16 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 12:17 pm

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

Laws of Nature
July 29, 2012 12:17 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:17 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:17 pm

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

Telboy
July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

Well done Anthony!

Strike
July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

Was waiting whole weekend, wondering what watts will warm.
Cool, it’s Cooling. Congratulations!

Crawford
July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

· 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?

Philip G.
July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

Where is the paper being submitted to?

Thomas H
July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

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

Craig Loehle
July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

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

Thomas
July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

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

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

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)…

July 29, 2012 12:18 pm

Someone blew Muller’s BEST away.

July 29, 2012 12:19 pm

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.

Beesaman
July 29, 2012 12:19 pm

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

Guy Fardell
July 29, 2012 12:20 pm

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

Tucker
July 29, 2012 12:20 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:20 pm

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.

Steven Hales
July 29, 2012 12:21 pm

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.

Peter Miller
July 29, 2012 12:21 pm

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.

Toby
July 29, 2012 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.

DirkH
July 29, 2012 12:22 pm

Thanks for your persistence, Anthony.

July 29, 2012 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.

Mindbuilder
July 29, 2012 12:22 pm

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.

Bill Davis
July 29, 2012 12:23 pm

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.

David Oliver Smith
July 29, 2012 12:23 pm

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.

Mike Bryant
July 29, 2012 12:23 pm

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

David Ross
July 29, 2012 12:25 pm

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

Scarface
July 29, 2012 12:25 pm

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.

George A
July 29, 2012 12:25 pm

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

Richards in Vancouver
July 29, 2012 12:25 pm

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!

Bill
July 29, 2012 12:26 pm

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.

Iane
July 29, 2012 12:26 pm

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.

Eric Twelker
July 29, 2012 12:26 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:27 pm

Much more interesting news than Muller pretending he used to be skeptic,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

July 29, 2012 12:27 pm

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

RobertInAz
July 29, 2012 12:27 pm

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?

July 29, 2012 12:27 pm

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

Mike G
July 29, 2012 12:28 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:28 pm

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?

July 29, 2012 12:29 pm

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.

Gil R.
July 29, 2012 12:29 pm

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.

anne
July 29, 2012 12:29 pm

Anthony just brilliant, and such hard work, well done

Max Hugoson
July 29, 2012 12:29 pm

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

Jimbo
July 29, 2012 12:29 pm

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

RobertInAz
July 29, 2012 12:31 pm

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

Rogelio Diaz
July 29, 2012 12:31 pm

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

Niklas
July 29, 2012 12:31 pm

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

Erik
July 29, 2012 12:31 pm

Congrats!
“The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller…”
no, “You Didn’t Build That” practice he he…

Jeef
July 29, 2012 12:32 pm

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

Robert of Ottawa
July 29, 2012 12:32 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:32 pm

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.”

John Doe
July 29, 2012 12:33 pm

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]

JohninOregon
July 29, 2012 12:33 pm

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

Larry Logan
July 29, 2012 12:33 pm

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.

Nozza
July 29, 2012 12:34 pm

Bravo! Anthony – well done!

Mike McMillan
July 29, 2012 12:35 pm

Worth the wait. 🙂

July 29, 2012 12:35 pm

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.

RobertInAz
July 29, 2012 12:35 pm

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.

Tom in Worc.(usa)
July 29, 2012 12:35 pm

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

SanityP
July 29, 2012 12:35 pm

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

Stu
July 29, 2012 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’.

Mac the Knife
July 29, 2012 12:35 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:36 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:36 pm

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.

Robert of Ottawa
July 29, 2012 12:37 pm

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!

Niklas
July 29, 2012 12:37 pm

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

Robert of Ottawa
July 29, 2012 12:38 pm

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

Darrin
July 29, 2012 12:38 pm

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.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
July 29, 2012 12:39 pm

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

Juraj V
July 29, 2012 12:39 pm

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?

pokerguy
July 29, 2012 12:40 pm

“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.

Randy
July 29, 2012 12:40 pm

“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.

July 29, 2012 12:41 pm

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.

DJ
July 29, 2012 12:43 pm

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.

Stephane
July 29, 2012 12:43 pm

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.)

Robert of Ottawa
July 29, 2012 12:43 pm

“After NOAA Adjustments” …. always upwards.

kim2ooo
July 29, 2012 12:44 pm

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

Hari Seldon
July 29, 2012 12:45 pm

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?

H.R.
July 29, 2012 12:45 pm

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!

JR
July 29, 2012 12:45 pm

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

Editor
July 29, 2012 12:45 pm

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’.

July 29, 2012 12:46 pm

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.

John
July 29, 2012 12:46 pm

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.

Rogelio Diaz
July 29, 2012 12:48 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 12:48 pm

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.

Bill Illis
July 29, 2012 12:49 pm

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.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
July 29, 2012 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.

Gunga Din
July 29, 2012 12:50 pm

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.

James
July 29, 2012 12:51 pm

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 ?
.

Randy
July 29, 2012 12:52 pm

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

John Blake
July 29, 2012 12:52 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 12:53 pm

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

Robert Austin
July 29, 2012 12:54 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 12:54 pm

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

July 29, 2012 12:54 pm

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.

James
July 29, 2012 12:54 pm

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

Scooper's Temporary Ghost Micro Bear
July 29, 2012 12:54 pm

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!).

Major Johnson
July 29, 2012 12:55 pm

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.

commieBob
July 29, 2012 12:55 pm

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

Gary Pearse
July 29, 2012 12:55 pm

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?

Gunga Din
July 29, 2012 12:56 pm

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”. 😎

Laws of Nature
July 29, 2012 12:59 pm

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

beng
July 29, 2012 1:00 pm

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

Jenn Oates
July 29, 2012 1:02 pm

Kudos from Yorkshire, Anthony,

Sean Peake
July 29, 2012 1:03 pm

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

July 29, 2012 1:03 pm

I just donated $50.00 Keep up the good work.
[REPLY: Thank you vry much. -REP]

son of mulder
July 29, 2012 1:03 pm

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.

Werner Brozek
July 29, 2012 1:03 pm

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.

Ian W
July 29, 2012 1:04 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 1:04 pm

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.

John Morrow
July 29, 2012 1:04 pm

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!

Steve Koch
July 29, 2012 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.

July 29, 2012 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.
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?

Dodgy Geezer
July 29, 2012 1:05 pm

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…?

Manfred
July 29, 2012 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.

July 29, 2012 1:06 pm

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

Sam Yates
July 29, 2012 1:06 pm

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

Roger Edmunds
July 29, 2012 1:07 pm

In line 498 should that be class 3 rather than class 2?
REPLY – Yes. ~ Evan

RCS
July 29, 2012 1:07 pm

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).

Die Zauberflotist
July 29, 2012 1:08 pm

Suggested NEW RULE #1 for my fellow CAGWers:
1) NEVER piss off a weatherman.

RobertInAz
July 29, 2012 1:08 pm

Lines 299-301 need an edit.
REPLY – My bad. Should read “do not consider”. ~ Evan

Rogelio Diaz
July 29, 2012 1:08 pm

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…..

July 29, 2012 1:08 pm

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.

Nic Lewis
July 29, 2012 1:09 pm

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

Luther Wu
July 29, 2012 1:09 pm

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.

Sam Yates
July 29, 2012 1:09 pm

Ah, okay. Thanks for the prompt response!

The iceman cometh
July 29, 2012 1:10 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 1:11 pm

Translation in french of the Press release
http://www.skyfall.fr/?p=1077
Thank’s for all the work done !

Tucci78
July 29, 2012 1:11 pm

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.

AnonyMoose
July 29, 2012 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.

loquesea
July 29, 2012 1:11 pm

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

Gordon Oehler
July 29, 2012 1:13 pm

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

Rogelio Diaz
July 29, 2012 1:13 pm

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

RobertInAz
July 29, 2012 1:13 pm

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

Mardler
July 29, 2012 1:14 pm

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.

richard
July 29, 2012 1:15 pm

none of this will hit the MSM.

björn
July 29, 2012 1:16 pm

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.

richard
July 29, 2012 1:16 pm

you should have gone on your holiday!

mondo
July 29, 2012 1:17 pm

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

Frank K.
July 29, 2012 1:17 pm

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)…

July 29, 2012 1:18 pm

We love you Mr. Watts!!

highflight56433
July 29, 2012 1:18 pm

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.

S. Geiger
July 29, 2012 1:19 pm

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

Sean Peake
July 29, 2012 1:20 pm

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

Lars P.
July 29, 2012 1:21 pm

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

Alan Douglas
July 29, 2012 1:21 pm

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

July 29, 2012 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

July 29, 2012 1:22 pm

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

pokerguy
July 29, 2012 1:23 pm

“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..

Hugh
July 29, 2012 1:23 pm

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.

David Ross
July 29, 2012 1:25 pm

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.

Ben U.
July 29, 2012 1:27 pm

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!

Iggy Slanter
July 29, 2012 1:27 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 1:28 pm

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

jcbmack
July 29, 2012 1:28 pm

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

bill
July 29, 2012 1:30 pm

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.

RobertInAz
July 29, 2012 1:31 pm

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.

Steve C
July 29, 2012 1:31 pm

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

Andrew B
July 29, 2012 1:31 pm

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

Editor
July 29, 2012 1:32 pm

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.

James
July 29, 2012 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.

July 29, 2012 1:32 pm
Stephen Richards
July 29, 2012 1:32 pm

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.

Harold Ambler
July 29, 2012 1:33 pm

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

dana1981
July 29, 2012 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.
[REPLY: Didn’t read the paper, did you Dana? Didn’t think so. -REP]

wsbriggs
July 29, 2012 1:34 pm

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.

michael hart
July 29, 2012 1:34 pm

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.

Keitho
Editor
July 29, 2012 1:35 pm

It’s a good read so far.

Evan Jones
Editor
July 29, 2012 1:35 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 1:35 pm

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

Gail COmbs
July 29, 2012 1:35 pm

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

James
July 29, 2012 1:36 pm

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

July 29, 2012 1:37 pm

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

Steve S
July 29, 2012 1:37 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 1:38 pm

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

July 29, 2012 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.
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.

Jack Cowper
July 29, 2012 1:39 pm

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.

MadJak
July 29, 2012 1:39 pm

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.

Steptoe Fan
July 29, 2012 1:39 pm

Yes, congrats to all that have worked so hard !

RobertInAz
July 29, 2012 1:40 pm

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

cui bono
July 29, 2012 1:40 pm

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

foo1
July 29, 2012 1:40 pm

Typos in the paper: line 300 and 757/758
By the way: which journal will publish?

akaCG
July 29, 2012 1:43 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 1:44 pm

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.

wayne
July 29, 2012 1:44 pm

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.

cba
July 29, 2012 1:45 pm

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.

Steve from Rockwood
July 29, 2012 1:45 pm

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!

Stephen Richards
July 29, 2012 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.

RobertInAz
July 29, 2012 1:45 pm

Line 534: “… indisputably higher….” ?

Scott
July 29, 2012 1:45 pm

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

James
July 29, 2012 1:46 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 1:48 pm

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 ????

Mindert Eiting
July 29, 2012 1:49 pm

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.

Editor
July 29, 2012 1:49 pm

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.

Ian W
July 29, 2012 1:51 pm

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.

jcbmack
July 29, 2012 1:52 pm

Great job!

Doubting Thomas
July 29, 2012 1:52 pm

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

July 29, 2012 1:53 pm

/slow clap
Donation forthcoming – my small part.

Jean Parisot
July 29, 2012 1:53 pm

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

July 29, 2012 1:54 pm

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 …
.

foo1
July 29, 2012 1:55 pm

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

Rogelio Diaz
July 29, 2012 1:55 pm

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

July 29, 2012 1:57 pm

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. 🙂

Hank McCard
July 29, 2012 1:58 pm

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.

JohnG
July 29, 2012 1:59 pm

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

July 29, 2012 1:59 pm

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

Brandon Shollenberger
July 29, 2012 1:59 pm

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

Editor
July 29, 2012 2:00 pm

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.

Tucci78
July 29, 2012 2:00 pm

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).”

Bob
July 29, 2012 2:01 pm

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?

Bob Ryan
July 29, 2012 2:01 pm

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.

Robbie
July 29, 2012 2:01 pm

“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!

James
July 29, 2012 2:02 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 2:02 pm

“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

RobertInAz
July 29, 2012 2:02 pm

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

Alvin
July 29, 2012 2:03 pm

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.

Skiphil
July 29, 2012 2:03 pm

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”

RobertInAz
July 29, 2012 2:03 pm

Ooops – Figure 16……

Bob
July 29, 2012 2:05 pm

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

Johna Till Johnson
July 29, 2012 2:07 pm

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.

Dr. Eickolt
July 29, 2012 2:09 pm

Very nice! Great work!!!! Well done

July 29, 2012 2:10 pm

Congratulations Anthony and team.Yours is a landmark achievement.

July 29, 2012 2:10 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 2:10 pm

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!

July 29, 2012 2:10 pm

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

John A
July 29, 2012 2:11 pm

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

johnbuk
July 29, 2012 2:12 pm

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.

S. Geiger
July 29, 2012 2:13 pm

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.

July 29, 2012 2:14 pm

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.