The first press release announcement thread is getting big and unwieldy, and some commenters can’t finish loading the thread, so I’m providing this one with some updates.
1. Thanks to everyone who has provided widespread review of our draft paper. There have been hundreds of suggestions and corrections, and for that I am very grateful. That’s exactly what we hoped for, and can only make the paper better.
Edits are being made based on many of those suggestions. I’ll post up a revised draft in the next day.
2. Some valid criticisms have been made related to the issue of the TOBS data. This is a preliminary set of data, with corrections added for the “Time of Observation” which can in some cases result in double max-min readings being counted if not corrected for. It makes up a significant portion of adjustments prior to homogenization adjustments as seen below in this older USHCN1 graphic. TOBS is the black dotted line.
TOBS is a controversial adjustment. Proponents of the TOBS adjustment (Created by NCDC director Tom Karl) say that it is a necessary adjustment that fixes a known problem, others suggest that it is an overkill adjustment, that solves small problems but creates an even larger one. For example, from a recent post on Lucia’s by Zeke Hausfather, you can see how much adjustments go into the final product.
The question is: are these valid adjustments? Zeke seems to think so, but others do not. Personally I think TOBS is a sledgehammer used to pound in a tack. This looks like a good time to settle the question once and for all.
Steve McIntyre is working through the TOBS entanglement with the station siting issue, saying “There is a confounding interaction with TOBS that needs to be allowed for…”, which is what Judith Curry might describe as a “wicked problem”. Steve has an older post on it here which can be a primer for learning about it.
The TOBS issue is one that may or may not make a difference in the final outcome of the Watts et al 2012 draft paper and it’s conclusions, but we asked for input, and that was one of the issues that stood out as a valid concern. We have to work through it to find out for sure. Dr. John Christy dealt with TOBS issues in his paper covered on WUWT: Christy on irrigation and regional temperature effects
Irrigation most likely to blame for Central California warming
A two-year study of San Joaquin Valley nights found that summer nighttime low temperatures in six counties of California’s Central Valley climbed about 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit (approximately 3.0 C) between 1910 and 2003. The study’s results will be published in the “Journal of Climate.”
Most interestingly, John Christy tells me that he had quite a time with having to “de-bias” data for his study, requiring looking at original observer reports and hand keying in data.
We have some other ideas. And of course new ideas on the TOBS issue are welcome too.
In other news, Dr. John Christy will be presenting at the Senate EPW hearing tomorrow, for which we hope to provide a live feed. Word is that Dr. Richard Muller will not be presenting.
Again, my thanks to everyone for all the ideas, help, and support!
=============================================================
UPDATE: elevated from a comment I made on the thread – Anthony
Why I don’t think much of TOBS adjustments
Nick Stoke’s explanation follows the official explanation, but from my travels to COOP stations, I met a lot of volunteers who mentioned that with the advent of MMTS, which has a memory, they tended not to worry much about the reading time as being at the station at a specific time every day was often inconvenient.. With the advent of the successor display to the MMTS unit, the LCD display based Nimbus, which has memory for up to 35 days (see spec sheet here http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/dad/coop/nimbus-spec.pdf) they stopped worrying about daily readings and simply filled them in at the end of the month by stepping through the display.
From the manual http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/dad/coop/nimbusmanual.pdf
Daily maximum and minimum temperatures:
· Memory switch and [Max/Min Recall] button give daily
highs and lows and their times
The Nimbus thermometer remembers the highs and lows for
the last 35 days and also records the times they occurred. This
information is retrieved sequentially day by day. The reading
of the 35 daily max/min values and the times of occurrence (as
opposed to the “global” max/min) are initiated by moving the
[Memory] switch to the left [On].
So, people being people, rather than being tied to the device, they tend to do it at their leisure if given the opportunity. One fellow told me (who had a Winneabago parked in is driveway) when I asked if he traveled much, he said he “travels a lot more now”. He had both the CRS and MMTS/Nimbus in his back yard. He said he traveled more now thanks to the memory on the Nimbus unit. I asked what he did before that, when all he had was the CRS and he said that “I’d get the temperatures out of the newspaper for each day”.
Granted, not all COOP volunteers were like this, and some were pretty tight lipped. Many were dedicated to the job. But human nature being what it is, what would you rather do? Stay at home and wait for temperature readings or take the car/Winnebago and visit the grand-kids? Who needs the MMTS ball and chain now that it has a memory?
I also noticed many observers now with consumer grade weather stations, with indoor readouts. A few of them put the weather station sensors on the CRS or very near it. Why go out in the rain/cold/snow to read the mercury thermometer when the memory of the weather station can do it for you.
My point is that actual times of observation may very well be all over the map. There’s no incentive for the COOP observer to do it at exactly the same time every day when they can just as easily do it however they want. They aren’t paid, and often don’t get any support from the local NWS office for months or years at a time. One woman begged me to talk to the local NWS office to see about getting a new thermometer mount for her max/min thermometer, since it wouldn’t lock into position properly and often would screw up the daily readings when it spun loose and reset the little iron pegs in the capillary tube.
Some local NWS personnel I talked to called the MMTS the “Mickey Mouse Temperature System” obviously a term of derision. Wonder why?
So my point in all this is that NWS/NOAA/NCDC is getting exactly what they paid for. And my view of the network is that it is filled with such randomness.
Nick Stokes and people like him who preach to us from on high, never leaving their government office to actually get out and talk to people doing the measurements, seem to think the algorithms devised and implemented from behind a desk overcome human urges to sleep in, visit the grand-kids, go out to dinner and get the reading later, or take a trip.
Reality is far different. I didn’t record these things on my survey forms when I did many of the surveys in 2007/2008/2009 because I didn’t want to embarrass observers. We already had NOAA going behind me and closing stations that were obscenely sited that appeared on WUWT, and the NCDC had already shut down the MMS database once citing “privacy concerns” which I ripped them a new one on when I pointed out they published pictures of observers at their homes standing in front of their stations, with their names on it. For example: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/newsletters/07may-coop.pdf
So I think the USHCN network is a mess, and TOBS adjustments are a big hammer that misses the mark based on human behavior for filling out forms and times they can’t predict. There’s no “enforcer” that will show up from NOAA/NWS if you fudge the form. None of these people at NCDC get out in the field, but prefer to create algorithms from behind the desk. My view is that you can’t model reality if you don’t experience it, and they have no hands on experience nor clue in my view.
More to come…
Sure. There will be local variations. Latitude is important. Etc.
But the difficulty of the math doesn’t mean it should be ignored. If Anthony’s right and the data collection was often so bad (fudged records as to what time the measurements were taken), then maybe it’s appropriate to ignore TOBs for that reason.
In that case, it would be appropriate for him to make a strong argument to that effect in the paper. Peer reviewers and scientists and the lay public reading the paper for themselves could assess the validity of the argument.
But just, “I think it will all average out,” isn’t as good as doing the calculations. If McIntyre shows they do, in fact, nearly average out, then bully.
There are two separate issues here.
1. Can TOB effect the accuracy of recorded temperatures, and is it valid to adjust for it.
2. Is the method of adjustment used in USHCN valid.
For (1) I believe Yes is a reasonable answer, but it may not be necessary for climate observation.
For (2) I believe No is the only reasonable answer. The TOB adjustment represents around half of the warming adjustment to USHCN data. The adjustment is not made on an individual station basis with direct reference to individual station records.
The approach of making adjustments to groups of stations can only be valid for time zone TOB. To make adjustments to station data for min/max thermometer recording times on anything other than an individual station basis using the actual station records of recording times and equipment changes is a totally invalid and unjustified procedure. “But, but we validated it against a cherry picked subset, blah, blah, blah”. It’s wrong and no amount of hand waving will make it right.
It is interesting to note that Anthony has shown that you can not adjust for station site issues from behind a desk without obtaining metadata about individual station site conditions. Ridiculously, those trying to challenge this work are claiming that an adjustment from behind a desk for TOB that does not adjust on an individual station basis using individual station records should have been applied.
interestingly, at today’s EPW Committee, chaired by Sen. Boxer, when Dr. Christie quoted from this latest Study about the USA temperature record, he was accused by Boxer of submitting a “paper” which had never been published in ANY Journal, and nor was it “Peer Reviewed”.
Is it not the case that this blog IS A JOURNAL, and a multi-award winning Journal at that.
It has hundreds of times as many readers as the dead tree press journals.
It does not charge people to view the information beyond synopses.
And as pointed out in the preamble above, there IS A PEER REVIEW PROCESS
going on here in the comments. Not only that but ANYONE is free to make any
comment (within reason and propriety), whether helpful or admonitory, whereas
in the dead tree journals, only the invited few ever get to review such early work.
As in the case of Charles Monnet whose work was “peer reviewed” by a colleague
in the same office, and his own wife, before being published in a “journal”.
According to Sen. Boxer’s rules, Monnet’s paper would be acceptable as
evidence, yet Anthony Watts work is not. Charles Monnet was discredited
when it was discovered that his Polar Bear data seemed a bit haphazard,
and he was interviewed for hours by Special Agent Eric May, from the
US Government who was sent to investigate the Bowhead Whale project
that he was supposed to be researching. On the other hand The FBI have
yet to visit Watts to ask him about the surface stations record.
There is an audio transcript of that Monnet “grilling”, which when heard,
makes it abudantly clear just how haphazard Monnet’s methodology really
is, when compared to the meticulous detail and thoroughness of Watts.
That transcript, read by an actor may be heard on Video Wall #12,
at the Fraudulent Climate website.
at time of posting FC website is down, please try again later !
I could see an issue possibly being created if the Time of OBservation were the time at which the temperature was recorded.
But the time at which the daily min/max temperatures are taken off the machine should generate as many upward as downward biases, and small ones at that, since those min and max temperatures occur at their own times, independent of the time they are recorded and the instrument reset.
There should not be any net shift of min/max temperatures, much less the strongly positive one shown in the adjustments made to the record.
No. Not at all.
“Is it not the case that this blog IS A JOURNAL, and a multi-award winning Journal at that.”
The difference is that a climate journal has an agenda, and rarely allows a paper that doesn’t fit its alarmist narrative. OTOH, WUWT allows all points of view, it reaches a much, much larger audience, and it has a much greater impact than either Science or Nature.
And WUWT doesn’t charge $200 a year for a basic subscription.
[More to the point, it suggests that you should start your own blog rather than commenting critically at another person’s home on the internet. And Skeptical Science is the sole blog listed here as “Unreliable”. Search the archives to understand why. ~dbs, mod.]
I am here to debate the science of climate change with sceptics, on a site where they are abundant. I see no point in blogging from a pro-cAGW viewpoint when I know most sceptics are unlikely to read it.
“It suggests that Mr Watts can better make his point by joining the game, rather than blogging from the stands.”
[More to the point, it suggests that you should start your own blog rather than commenting critically at another person’s home on the internet. And Skeptical Science is the sole blog listed here as “Unreliable”. Search the archives to understand why. ~dbs, mod.]
If this site is intended as a forum for debate, then opponents of the site’s stance should be welcome as grit in your oyster. As another of your moderators said, there are people here who are quite capable of refuting any dubious statements I might make.
On the other hand, this site may be intended as a private reserve where sceptics can agree with each other in peaceful isolation, being told only what they want to hear. If so, then I can understand that the presence of outside views would be unwelcome.
As for “Unreliable”, which sites are reliable or unreliable is very much a matter of viewpoint.
Human nature being what it is, any site which promotes a different view from one’s own is automatically suspect.
Regarding Mr Watts’ paper, I agree with Skepticalscience that it has useful things to say, but will
not be properly considered outside the sceptic community until it has passed peer review, which still needs work. I have attempted to provide constructive criticism to that end.
Moderator REP wrote:
So why not clearly stating so, instead of creating a context that gives the impression it was about “global warming”. Now, the meme that Anthony Watts had published a study, which alledgedly contradicts other analyses of global warming trends is already being spread, e.g. here
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/30/weather-station-temp-claims-are-overheated-report-claims/
In the context of his article, Watts is also quoted in this piece of Fox News desinformation:
““I believe global warming is real. No doubt about it. Not a bit of doubt,” Watts told FoxNews.com. “However, I don’t think it’s catastrophic, or as bad as it’s been portrayed.”
This looks like a variation of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Or is this a subtle try to intimidate me by bringing my employer into the argument? BTW: Who do you think is my employer anyway?
For the assessment of the magnitude of the global warming trend? No, I don’t recognize that. For the sake of the argument, even if there was an artificial trend in the US temperatures, using the adjusted USHCNv2 data set, as large in magnitude as initially claimed by Watts et al. in their manuscript, I rather expect that your expectation you formulate here will be disappointed. The adjustment procedure by Menne et al. (2009) is the issue here, which is applied to the USHCN data. These data are a subset of all data from an area that equals only ca. 1.6% of the area of the whole globe. So the effect on the global temperature anomaly trend would be rather small. Different groups use the unadjusted GHCN data and other data sets for the global analysis, and they apply their own adjustment procedures to those data to account for artificial trends. You would have to assume that the different adjustment procedures used by the different groups to eliminate artificial trends from the GHCN data are all equally flawed, e.g., the one presented in Hansen et al. (2010), doi:10.1029/2010RG000345 *, where the authors use satellite observed night lights to separate between urban and rural stations. However, the global temperature trend is not significantly different, even if the analysis is restricted to pitch black areas on the globe. Not likely that results from this analysis would suffer from the same flaws, regarding the global temperature anomaly trend. Why would it? The paper by Hansen et al. (2010) is not referenced in the manuscript by Watts et al.
(*) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf
Looked at another station in my area (211630). Change in TOBS adjustment with no metadata to back up time change. Metadata show 1700 LST until 12/1982. Then from 12/1982 until present its 1630 LST. TOBS adjust dates 1911/1912 – 1/1997, then 2/1997 to present.
What did occur was an update to the lat/long by GPS in 2/1997. Karl’s algorithm must be real sensitive to even the slightest changes to coordinates. Obs times are pm, so neg adjustments are made for the entire record. That change made them more negative. HMMM, wonder what I will find when I come across an a.m. station. They are hammering these p.m. ones pretty good, especially max temps.
Perlwitz says: [ “…” ]
Before being an apologist for the alarmist crowd, work on your 8th grade spelling skillz.☺
It seems like there a lot of comments to the effect of either: “TOBS should average out and have no impact on the data + or -” or “Too little is known about TOBS to make any adjustments” or “The TOBS adjustments that were made are invalid because [insert reason]”.
If you ask me, nobody commenting on this blog has the right to make those statements unless they study the scientific literature on this issue and really understand why the TOBS adjustments were made and how they were made. Saying you feel that you know more than the PhD climate scientists that have spent countless hours studying the surface temperature record and publishing peer reviewed journal studies on it got TOBS wrong because you took an engineering class in 1961 and you just know better than them – well, that is just not a good way to make your case, in my opinion.
And regarding trends, see the unchanging, non-accelerating, worldwide, long term temperature trend as the planet emerges from the LIA. Note that the same global warming pattern has occurred in the past, exactly the same as now – but at a time when CO2 was much lower. Thus, CO2 makes too little difference to even measure. It doesn’t matter, except as a beneficial plant food.
And Perlwitz is still quoting that discredited climate charlatan and serial lawbreaker, Mr. “Coal Trains of Death” James Hansen?? Here is an example of his shenanigans. [look close] No need to try and explain, we know deceptive ‘adjustments’ when we see them.
USHCN plays the same mendacious games. See here.
Conclusion: the truth is not in them. They lie for money, status, and endless paid vacations to places like Bali and Rio. Despicable, no?
Should have put the changes down in last comment.
46d 42′ 00″ to 46d 42′ 16″
92d 31′ 00″ to 92d 31′ 31″
That changed TOBS adjust.
Jan
Max = -2.1 to -2.6
Min = -1.7 to -1.8
Feb
Max = -1.5 to -2.3
Min = -1.5 to -1.5
Mar
Max = -1.1 to -1.8
Min = -1.0 to -1.0
Apr
Max = -1.2 to -2.0
Min = -0.9 to -0.9
May
Max = -2.0 to -2.7
Min = -1.0 to -1.0
That’s enough to get the point across. Is this working the same way in the positive direction? Might find out soon enough.
Perlwitz: “Now, the meme that Anthony Watts had published a study, which alledgedly contradicts other analyses of global warming trends is already being spread, e.g. here”
From your link — “Global warming believer-turned-skeptic Anthony Watts — a former TV meteorologist — posted a new report online questioning the reliability of weather stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network …”
So when you said ‘global warming trends’ you meant ‘US global warming’, right? And unforced error of this magnitude is the sort of thing you expect from NASA. That egghead agency that hasn’t been to the moon in ages and is so successful at their core mission that their now making Muslims get the warm-fuzzies and hitching rides with Russians.
“This looks like a variation of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.”
The porn test doesn’t work here; it is or it is not. And it is not. Nor is it any fallacy at all but color commentary. Perhaps rude, but hardly an attempt to establish his argument by any means.
“Or is this a subtle try to intimidate me by bringing my employer into the argument?”
Yes, of course it’s a threat.
“BTW: Who do you think is my employer anyway?”
Why are you threatening yourself in public? Is this Blazing Saddles? Ah… On second notice I see that Jan P Perlwitz works for NASA GISS. That’s both too obvious and too insulting given what I’ve already stated. So I’m going to go with Burger King. What do I win?
“For the assessment of the magnitude of the global warming trend?”
Assessment of siting issues. Paper is linked here if you wish to engage in peer review.
“These data are a subset of all data from an area that equals only ca. 1.6% of the area of the whole globe.”
Fair enough. What with NASA’s record we should expect that only Americans could cock up basic measurements so badly. But the Russians? They’re golden.
“Different groups use the unadjusted GHCN data and other data sets for the global analysis, and they apply their own adjustment procedures to those data to account for artificial trends.”
Good to know that someone working at Burger King can stumble on the obviousness that including TOBS in the paper is a meaningless exercise. You may have a future in a scientific profession, you know.
“The paper by Hansen et al. (2010) is not referenced in the manuscript by Watts et al.”
Neither were any of my excellent haikus about Leroy (2010). A pity you aren’t able to read any of them. Or Leroy.
Fall 2011: 1221 stations; 1032 rated CRN (SI/final_list; SI/ratings.csv)
Surface Stations: 1068 surveyed, 1007 rated (http://surfacestations.org; progress as of 07/30/2012)
Watts’ 2012 Draft Jul 29: 779 classified per Leroy (2010)
The 779 USHCNv2 stations in Watts 2012 that have been classified using Leroy 2010 is a subset of the current surfacestations.org rated with CRN which in turn is a superset of the stations used in Fall 2011. Oddly though, surfacestations.org currently reports fewer stations classified than Fall 2011 reports.
No one in the ‘public’ knows which 779 USHCN stations have been classified with Leroy 2010. No one knows if that classification has been rigorous. No one can double check Watts’ classification effort since they do not have his Leroy 2010 classification list with which to compare their own results.
Is verification of the Watts’ Leroy 2010 classification effort an important component of “public review” for this paper? In answer I quote Watts’ own draft:
Anthony Watts has chosen to withhold Table 1 from his draft, the very information which accounts for the majority of the difference between his “conclusions” and those of previously published works. And, regarding the list of 779 stations and their Leroy 2010 classification, he has chosen obscurity over transparency; privacy over public access.
@Smokey:
Well, thank you for your strong argument on the topic. And not everyone can speak and write all the languages he/she has learned in life in addition to his/her native language, w/o making any mistakes like you can.
This would seem to be a very good station to look at for a number of reasons… not the least of its data goes back to 1948, which its rural, its in the SurfaceStations.org database, and it has two nearby nearby stations (incl. an airport AWOS).
… here is the direct data link:
https://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/identityGrid.cfm?setCookie=1&fid=11336
… and the other two stations:
https://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/identityGrid.cfm?setCookie=1&fid=31259
https://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/identityGrid.cfm?setCookie=1&fid=33396
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KTWM/
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=47.049139,-91.745222&spn=0.0170,0.0170
This would seem a perfect grouping to compare siting and TOB issues, along with discrepancy between airport and not (although this one is very rural – I’ve flown in and out of it).
One site is in the City of Two Harbors – nother at the airport and the 3rd in the middle of the woods 7 miles NW of Two Harbors (I believe that may be a USFS fire tower location)
Mapping respources include http://www.terraserver.com and the new USGS National Map product is pretty cool as well:
http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
Unless he has changed jobs, Jan Perlwitz is Director Human Resources NASA, GISS and very knowledgeable, although biased.
“The paper by Hansen et al. (2010) is not referenced in the manuscript by Watts et al.”
Nor did he quote Darwin or Freud… each appropriate in their place.
Christoph Dollis, August 1, 2012 at 4:22 pm:
Only, that “minor point” is already used, e.g. by the Fox News propaganda outlet, to spread desinformation.
But it wasn’t my main point either. My main point was the obvious contradiction between the conclusions touted in the press release and what is said by Anthony Watts now above. Pielke Sr. has also already been backpedaling w/ respect to “game changer”.
There shouldn’t have been any claims about conclusions or any press release in the first hand, particularly based only on a half-backed analysis.
WillR, you wrote
Did Darwin or Freud publish a recent study about temperature analysis in the context of climate change, apply methodology to separate rural and urban stations to remove artificial trends, and discuss the USHCN temperature data set and did robustness test with it? Because Hansen et al. (2010) did.
Perlwitz said:
“There shouldn’t have been any claims about conclusions or any press release in the first hand, particularly based only on a half-backed [sic] analysis.”
Tell that to to the fake skeptic Richard Muller.
And the Anthony Watts et al. paper is unquestioningly a game changer. We see it happening already. There are ten times more reports in the mainstream media than ever before. People are beginning to see what many of them already suspected: that climate alarmism is a grant-driven hoax.
Thomas Karl — AMS lecture
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/climatebriefing/karl.html
“A Surprising Validation of USHCN Adjustments”
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/a-surprising-validation-of-ushcn-adjustments/
So can anyone help me with how the TOB issue has been handled with the CET dataset?
Does this make CET and other long term carefully measured data sets more relevant for trying to gauge any estimate of temperature trends for making statements about global climate trends?
So download the Fall(2011) stations and the Leroy(1999) site ratings, and run each station thru Leroy(2010) standards – determine your own classifications pursuant to Leroy(2010) for each. Then run follow the process and methids noted in the Watts paper and see what your results are, and compare to Watts.
To me this seems the proper way … it doesn’t matter which 779 stations Watts chose – those stations were a “data result” of his process – eliminating that step, the review of all the stations noted – is eliminating a step in the process.