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…
Meh, looks like Mr. Watts pending paper has hit a tender nerve. Haven’t seen this many unarmed warmist show up in ages. The format in which the paper was written explains the core issue that even a total layman like myself can understand. Science does not have to be wrapped in BS or presented in a way that you have to have a masters to be able to follow the dotted line. The classic line ” Trust me I’m with the Government ” just keeps popping in my head. Hell even Micky D’s figured out how to explain it! Hot side hot / Cold side cold 🙂
Back later off to get some more popcorn…
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 1, 2012 at 8:53 pm
CliffyJ says:
the number quoted in the text is +0.309,
not 0.308, so looking for 308 obviously will not find anything.
Jan P Perlwitz;
Propaganda doesn’t consist only of lies. But the Fox News article contains falsehoods about the content of the manuscript by Watts et al
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you’re complaining here about what Fox News did? If you are so certain they have misrepresented the facts, would it not make more sense to complain to them?
But you don’t have an “agenda”, so I’m sure in your outrage over “propoganda” you’ll take issue with Hansen’s tactics of scheduling a hearing on a very hot day, shutting off the air conditioning in the room to make it unbearably warm, and then bragging about the effectiveness of his psychological tactics? This is OK with you?
Jan — the Zen monk of science, who has removed all conceivable bias.
(Can you spell “self-delusion”?)
A. Scott: To me this seems the proper way
Then feel free to do it your way.
I want to confirm the Watts’ classifications themselves. It is the use of Leroy 2010 that is the novel component of the draft. The TOBS issue is nothing new – the application of Leroy 2010 to USCHNv2 is new. It might be the only part of the paper to make it to publication. I’m quite capable of developing an independent classification per Leroy 2010 drawing on sources other than (or in addition to) Google imagery. But at the end of the day, I will want to compare my classification to Watts. He is fully within his rights to keep that data hidden from us (putting aside the issue of his privatization of a volunteer community project). Just stop trying to pretend that he has made all his data and methods public. He has not. The public review will not be complete unless he does so.
REPLY: Ron, whining won’t help get it all done faster. – Anthony
While I am at it Jan P Perlwitz, have you similarly protested Hansen’s call for people who disagree with him to be jailed? Do you support his position that people should be jailed for disagreeing with him? Is that not sensationalism and propoganda and outright threats? Shall we discuss also his “trains of death” quote and you can explain how that’s not sensationalism too? And of course we trust his science implicitly which, if it had been even close to accurate, would have his own office under water by now. But no, predicting that his office would be under water by now wasn’t sensationalism either, it was just wrong? Did he retract that prediction? He’ll protest to the point that he gets arrested to promote his science, and that’s not propoganda?
If you’re trying to present yourself as some paragon of virtue intent on promoting actual science, you’ve picked a lousy team mate to speak in support of.
I don’t have time to read all the messages, but since I still see problems in the later messages, I will try presenting an explanation of why the TOBS is a real problem. I’d known this before, but when it came up again, I couldn’t for the life of me remember what the reason was. Finally while taking a shower, it came back to me. If you switch from a time near the coolest part of the day to one near the warmest part of the day, two things happen.
First consider the new warm time of day. consider four days Z, A, B &C. Assume that the temp on days before Z and after C are 70 F At the boundry between Z and A is 70 F, A-B 80 F and B-C 70F. Presumably this new warm time of the day will mean that the high on Day Z will be 70F, A = 80 F B = 80 F and C = 70 F while in the old system the results would have been Z = 70 F. A = 80 F, B = 70 F and C = 70 F Thus the maximum readings will be biased high. Likewise, if you switched from measuring temperatures in the hot part of the day to the cold part of the day, low temperatures will be biased low. Of course, when you switch from a cold measurement time to a warm one, existing low bias in Tmin will disappear and this will augment the high bias being newly created in the Tmax. Now, ideally this adjustment would ideally occur when the change of TOBS occurred, but what has actually been done is to spread out the bias change over the time period over which the change occurred. This makes it look rather artificial, but unless a good source of TOBS dates can be developed, it is probably the best way to do things. But I think it is necessary to have an open and transparent document which explains all the assumptions and calculations which were used to develop the adjustment. Does such a document(s) exist? We should be examining it to see if has been done properly. If not then heads should be knocked together to make sure the methods are made available. I have no idea at this point whether the current TOBS adjustments are ok or too high or even too low. I hope the current work for the Watts 12 paper will create a true concensus on this topic.
@Maus (and others:)
Still fail. The question was who my actual employer is, not where my publication list can be found, or whether I’m a climate scientist who works at GISS. Little subtletees. You still have got it wrong. This is what you get with superficial research, although the correct answer could have been found there too.
And something else:
What are you talking about? Do you refer to anything actually said by me, or anything published where I’m an author?
Christoph Dollis,
You hit the nail on the head. With Perlwitz it’s either self-delusion or rank hypocrisy.
His repeated response to my comments [which I always try to make reasonable, and to back up with links and citations] is to dismiss them as “colored pictures”. That is a meaningless response.
I suspect that is his response because he cannot refute the argument that the long term rising temperature trend shows conclusively that the ≈40% rise in CO2 has not caused any acceleration in the trend. Therefore, CO2 cannot have more than a minuscule effect; QED. Otherwise, recent global temperatures would have broken out above their long term parameters, thus falsifying the Null Hypothesis.
[I look forward to meeting Mr. Perlwitz at Bob Phelan’s picnic. I’ll report back any new info.☺]
*subtleties.
I need more tee.
Jan P Perlwitz: “When someone who is in the business of spreading “news” and information follows a political agenda, and the spread “news” and information is selected and shaped so that it fits the political agenda, and if this even includes the spreading of falsehoods regarding facts how is such an activity called again?”
Then let us take your statement at face:
http://dea.org.au/news/article/james_hansen_of_nasa_says_a_carbon_tax_must_be_universal_edinburgh_medal_or
“James Hansen of NASA says a carbon tax must be universal – Edinburgh Medal Oration”
http://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/index.cfm
“It is not NASA’s role to develop solutions or public policies related to global climate change.”
So you demand that Watts cite a notorious propagandist and you are employed by an agency that deals in propaganda. Now you’ll object to both of these to be sure. But when climate scientists can’t sort out the difference, over the last 37 years, between a ‘mean’ and ‘midpoint of range’ then we know that either NASA is staffed by utter tits, or that it is spreading falsehoods that have political implications, and ergo an agenda. More can be seen by perusing the current paper from Watts on the lack of validation in the most basic notions of experimental setup validation.
“But the Fox News article contains falsehoods about the content of the manuscript by Watts et al. ”
You keep asserting this but not demonstrating it. It seems you simply have an ideological or political axe to grind with this particular news company. The only cite so far is one cherry-picked outlier of improper use of the term ‘planetary warming’ by a layman in an article that numerously and correctly states that it is about the US station network. This is wholly insufficient to give support to your notions. As well it should be noted that the journalist in question noted that both the paper from Watts and Muller are not published as yet. I encourage you to take on a more scientific approach to the matter and provide evidence of your claims.
“Besides that the manuscript hasn’t even published yet, not even peer reviewed, or even submitted to a specialist journal on climate,”
And yet here you are, a peer, and more than capable of reviewing it. Everything else is meaningless until such a peer review has been completed. And being of a scientific mind I know you are interested in ensuring that quality papers are published in your field.
“My views about the science aren’t motivated by any non-scientific motives, like personal economic, political or ideological motives.”
I’m inclined to think that you do actually take your shoes off when you go home. But certainly if you are motivated not by personal, economic, political, or ideological notions then you can address the questions raised about the relevancy of Hansen (2010) in context to Leroy (2010) and the paper from Watts. Simple task and easy proof of the pudding of your claim here.
Smokey —
The Karl link was provided because it speaks to the very issues that are at the heart of the strongest current criticism of the Watts’ study. You must never have been in the military. If you had been, you’d know how critical it is to know what the ‘enemy’ regards as your vulnerabilities and weaknesses.
I suspect Anthony better appreciates the value of having early criticism on hand. He’s no doubt well aware that any weaknesses in the final paper will come under vicious assault.
REPLY: Bingo. I knew people like Bunny Boi would sharpen their knives and mount all sorts of attacks. It is the best help possible and we are working through the TOBS issue. We may actually get a second paper out of just what we learned today about TOBS
As one person said to me in email today: When you have extraordinary results, they require more vetting, so this is a demonstration of why Internet publication is a superior peer review option in some cases.
– Anthony
Whoa!!! – lets calm down everybody and maybe watch this short 1 minute video (again) about science.
It might relate to the Watts Paper or some of the other pronouncements being espoused on this thread:
Phil says:
August 1, 2012 at 9:40 pm
“Smokey —
You must never have been in the military.”
Four years, including one year in Tuy Hoa, Viet Nam <—[old timey spelling.] 1967-68.
Smokey —
Then watch where you aim that M-16 of yours. You’re keeping our medic unnecessarily busy over here;).
Jan,
Interesting comments, but many of the responses to them simply demonstrate that attempting to solve scientific problems using political ideology, as is the tendency with certain commentators here, will never get you anywhere near the facts! I suspect that in some cases you could lose the polar icecaps, break every heatwave record in the books and see agriculture collapse across half the world and some people would still be yelling “it ain’t happening! Leftist hoax!”
Meanwhile I for one look forward to seeing what McIntyre comes up with WRT the TOB adjustments and yes, there are some useful results WRT siting of weather-stations that have come from this series of studies.
I would never have assumed someone with the nickname “Smokey” was definitely not a vet — I’d have asked.
Thanks for your service, Smokey. I’m not an American, but I know the campaign you fought there — despite mixed results — was in opposition to the then-growing expansion of totalitarian communism, which your service helped stop.
Nobody knows what the total TOBs adjustment is for June 2012.
Nobody knows what the other homogeneity and other adjustments are for June 2012.
Some of you are perfectly happy letting Tom Karl just change your temperature records.
Why would you be okay with just letting him/them do that when you don’t even know what they are doing.
It is ridiculous that the full impact of this is not widely available right now in the Internet/Ipad era.
To adjust for TOBs, you need to know what occurred in station X12456 every day from 1800 to 2012. Then you need to know the same thing for station X12457, etc. etc. 4000 times.
Instead, we have some gentle slope rising from 1934 to 2007 for the TOBs adjustment. It is just made up. How much more obvious can it get. Fake made-up adjustments that have a some type of rationale behind them but is designed to make warming happen out of flat temperature trends.
Maybe, Bill. All the more reasons TOBs must be addressed, don’t you think? (If only to explain that.)
Christoph Dollis —
Smokey intended no offense (and neither did I). He was attempting to shield Anthony from what he believed was ‘enemy’ fire. That’s what good soldiers do. I was just letting him know that I was a “friendly.”
Thanks for explaining, Phil.
We have a rescued-from-outdoors young gray tomcat that my mother wants to name Smokey.
I am strenuously rejecting this, called it “unidentified gray cat” today, as it is timid, easily bullied by the other cats, and due to get fixed, thus will have nothing in common with the other Smokey that I know. (I’m not in any hurry to explain those reasons to her BTW.)
Any suggestions? It tends to run away quickly to a hidey-hole when challenged so I was considering Rabbit (spelled Rabett?), but other recommendations are welcome.
You’re welcome Christoph. Time to hit the rack here.
@ur momisugly A. Scott. RE: USGS National Map Viewer link.
http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
MANY THANKS for the link!
Some day they might include the geologic maps.
Hi Anthony
I think, I identified a SIGNIFICANT error in NOAA’s adjustment procedures.
It has significant impact on TOBS and should reduce the TOBS adjustment significantly.
I already posted this at climateaudit, but probably because of my NZ local time, the comment does not appear at the end and may have been overlooked (nobody replied).
———————————–
Can anybody verify this – I think there is an error in the NOAA adjustment procedure.
The first 2 steps in the NOAA adjustment procedure are described as follows:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
“1.A quality control procedure is performed that uses trimmed means and standard deviations in comparison with surrounding stations to identify suspects (> 3.5 standard deviations away from the mean) and outliers (> 5.0 standard deviations). Until recently these suspects and outliers were hand-verified with the original records. However, with the development at the NCDC of more sophisticated QC procedures this has been found to be unnecessary.
2.Next, the temperature data are adjusted for the time-of-observation bias (Karl, et al. 1986) which occurs when observing times are changed from midnight to some time earlier in the day…”
——————————-
My critics:
The first step should already remove some of the TOBS errors due to double counting tmin or tmax measured at critical times such as 7 am rning or 2 pm . It particularly tends to remove those cases with the largest contribution to the TOBS adjustment – double counts with a large difference to the true value, when the temperature changes significantly on the next day. If such significant cases are already removed in the first step, only part of the TOBS adjustment is justifiable. I don’t see any reduction of the TOBS adjustment by NOAA for those TOBS errors already removed in step 1.