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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
1.1K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
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

1 4 5 6 7 8 43