My sincere thanks to everyone who has provided widespread review of our draft paper. There have been hundreds of suggestions and corrections submitted in comments and in email, and for that I am very grateful. That sort of input is exactly what we hoped for, and such input can only make the paper better, and so far it has.
Edits are being made based on many of those suggestions. My sincere thanks go to WUWT moderator Bob Phelan for help in collating the online comments to remove duplicates and group comments and corrections by category. Using that, I’m hoping to post up a revised draft, addressing many of those comments and corrections in the next day or two. I had hoped to have an update ready today, but the editing is taking more time than I thought initially. I will likely create a separate dedicated page for Watts et al 2012 so that it gets separated from the press release, and can be managed better.
An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in Watts et al. 2012 that was placed online for review. We thank critics, including Zeke Hausfather and Steve Mosher for bringing that to attention. Particular thanks go to Zeke who has been helpful with emailed suggestions. Thanks also go to Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who has emailed helpful suggestions.
The authors are performing detailed reanalysis of the data for the Watts et al. 2012 paper and will submit a revised paper to a journal as soon as possible, and barring any new issues discovered, that will likely happen before the end of September.
The idea of online pre-peer review, and likely peer review itself, is in my opinion where the future of science publishing lies. I think we’ll all learn useful lessons for that future from this experiment. As the saying goes, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
My sincerest thanks to everyone for their input and consideration.
Look for future updates, along with some technical discussions as we proceed.
UPDATE: A work page has been established for Watts et al 2012 for the purpose of managing updates. You can view it here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
BarryW says … “Here is my hypothesis based on that. I’ve been thinking about this after reading your paper that, for both the 1/2 and 3/4/5 sites, the NE region is showing the largest trend. If you think about mesoscale siting (city size) as opposed to microsite issue, where might you find a signal of man made warming (not CO2 related)? The industrialized NE would be a prime candidate. ”
Exactly Barry. We know this. The industrialized NE should show a warming trend. But the rub comes in when dihonest political lackys … errrr … scientist, pass off the warmer temps in the NE to being the result of CO2. Even worse, .. when those temps get figured into a global metric, thus creating a false trend regarding the globe. In realtiy, the data show that the urban areas around the globe have warmed … not the globe itself.
IMO .. there is no such thing as “Global Climate”. The Climate in the Tropics is NEVER like the Climate in Antarctica. Heat Waves, Cold Spells … only affect the region in which they occurr.
On that topic … Watts et al., is showing this effect, not only on a UHI level, but on the level of the stations themselves. THIS is real science. … challenging the existing dogma, and comming up with new possibilities.
Following up on Lucy Skywalker, I would love to see a random sample of monthly data for stations with accurate metadata for the TOBS change. I still don’t know if there is a problem, so some examples (obviously not cherry-picked) would help. As for the solution, I can say with certainty that homogenizing good stations with bad ones is not the solution.
Online, open access, crowd sourced peer review isn’t as new as you might think in the atmospheric sciences. It has been happening for more than ten years at the journal “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics”.
tonyb says: August 2, 2012 at 12:31 pm
“I believe you are right to say that one day all drafts of papers will be put online for criticism. Following this crowd review by some extremely knowledgeable people- and those who may not be ‘experts’ but bring a valuable and different perspective to the party- the paper can then be amended rapidly.”
I think commenters here overrate the availability of crowds. Millions of scientific papers are published every year.
I think Hugh has the best idea for dealing with TOBS
http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/#comment-345423
“Personally, I think it would be better to just treat this as a new station with a new offset, rather than to try to use the Karl algorithm to “adjust” it away.”
This makes the most sense to me.
I’m sure this has cropped up elsewhere, but just in case – sounds like a quarter of the world (outside the USA) has fraudulent temperature readings. They’re awfully shy to disclose anything in New Zealand. Anthony, this points to your paper being more globally accurate than you might realize. 🙂
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10030&linkbox=true&position=1
Anthony,
Well done. That said and as an Australian farmer with the input costs of a $23.00 (A) per tonne carbon tax to deal with, it looks like that you are going to have to deal with the entrenched versions of real_climate_scientists acclimatization of mathematics which involves the persecution of normal numbers by severely depressed manufacturers of climatic algorithms.
As a layman, I find it hard to get my head around the TOB adjustment argument. If at midnight tonight the Min. Temp. ends up being 60F, we record that and we reset the thermometer.
At 12:01 AM the temperature is 60F and that ends up being the Min. Temp for tomorrow — then that’s Min. Temp for tomorrow. That’s not “double counting”, that’s a fact. Each day is a unique, discrete 24 hour day; the temperature at 11:59 PM yesterday is irrelevant to today’s temperature.
As long as the temperature is recorded and reset at the same time everyday, it matters little what time the reading and reset are done. In the long term, 24 hours is 24 hours.
To arbitrarily adjust for TOB using some algorithm (model) seems far fetched.
AWESOME!!!!
I have been waiting for a real confirmation of the actual warming that is going on. Your critical work showing that the warming per decade of only .155C shows that we are experiencing surface temperature warming that will create a catastrophic climate change within the next 50 years.
To whit: the most recent month of July had midwest average temperatures of 5-10 degrees fahrenheit but it was abnormally cool in alaska so the average warming of north america was only about 1.25 degrees Celsius, on average.
tell that to a farmer in Oklahoma City today. . .
Congrats!!!
Anthony, Evan, Stephen, and John: congratulations, great work, and best of luck on your paper. The following paper published in 1991 in Northwest Science might provide some historical background before the thermometer was politicized and monetized: “The Effect of Observation Time and Sampling Frequency on Mean Daily Maximum, Minimum and Average Temperature”, C. L. Hanson, USDA.
Paper here:
http://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/1631/v65%20p101%20Hanson.PDF?sequence=1
Other links:
https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/handle/2376/1631?show=full
http://openagricola.nal.usda.gov/Record/IND92032369
Re the many comments about Gutenberg’s invention, one of the early applications was printing indulgences. That would be the historic precedent for carbon credits.
Nick Stokes;
I think commenters here overrate the availability of crowds. Millions of scientific papers are published every year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
C’mon Nick. It ought to be blindingly obvious that even highly specialized papers with little or no broad public interest would still be exposed to more and better review by a larger number of people than the paltry 3 that is the standard in journals.
In fact, the time will come went “pre-review” in the fashion we’re seeing here will become the standard as only the shoddiest of work would benefit from the traditional peer review process. Good work would seek out and benefit from pre-review by a widespread and multi-disciplinary audience.
Can one imagine what would have happened at the infamous “hide the decline” papers been subject to this kind of scrutiny? Mann and Jones would have been outed in hours, perhaps minutes, and no journal, not even Nature, would have published them because to do so would have been completely embarrasing.
Cling to the past Nick, cling tight.
Exactly this process is behind the rise of linux. The source code is available on the internet for all to see and point out errors and suggest patches. And yes, maybe a snotty-nosed-14-year-old-kid will spot an error that some guy with a string of CS degrees made. It’s not about egos, it’s about making the code the best it can. The same principle applies here. It’s about making the paper the best it can be.
David Hoffer:
Quite. I’ve often thought how IPCC-dominated climate science is one of the big hangouts against the vast social changes Tim Berners-Lee released with the world wide web from March 1989 onwards.
Note that timing too. 88: IPCC born to bring total control of the elite. 89: God’s response.
Sorry Tim – you know the respect I have for you – but that’s how I see it.
“Paul Matthews says:
August 2, 2012 at 10:03 am
Was the paper submitted to a journal in time for the IPCC deadline, July 31?
If not, why the rush and holiday-cancelling last week?”
If I was faced with the prospect of watching the little golden Muller Fly buzzing its wings atop a fresh pile of horse puckey for the next 6 months, I’d have rushed too….
Let’s see to what degree the revised version will have taken into consideration the criticism by others of the major flaws in the analysis presented in the manuscript by Watts et al.
I particularly look forward to see whether the circular reasoning what I see in the main line of the argument where basically it is assumed beforehand what is presented as the main conclusion at the end, is still going to be present in the revised version.
@Jan P Perlwitz you might be surprised at what we found already. This is something you folks who never bother to get your hands dirty by leaving the office and looking around would never have caught. We wouldn’t either if it weren’t for the criticisms we have received and looked at.
Remember this moment the next time you, Gavin, and Jim (turn off the a/c cuz the science ain’t convincing enough) Hansen dismiss such investigations with the papal wave of the hand. Have a nice weekend. – Anthony
Well, Mr. Watts. I guess it is your privilege here, since you own this site, to apply ad hominem or to make libelous accusations against working scientists who write comments here or who don’t, as much as you want, when you don’t like what they have to say, w/o you being in danger to be snipped away by one of the moderators.
I look forward to finding out, anyhow, whether the circular reasoning from the first draft is going to be eliminated in the revised version, and whether the criticism of the major flaws in the analysis is going to be taken into account then.
REPLY: Heh, not libelous, Jim Hansen and his sponsor actually did turn the thermostat up in June 1988:
This transcript excerpt is from PBS series Frontline which aired a special in April 2007. Here he admits his stagecraft in his own words:
TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.
DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]
Cheap stage tricks from Jim Hansen and his sponsor. You should be proud. If the science was strong enough, they wouldn’t need to pull this crap.
The only circular reasoning is yours, courtesy of the taxpayers of the USA. The surface network is a mess, and by extension so is GISTEMP.
As for your snipping concerns, one only needs to read RealClimate. Did you know I’ve been banned from there? I’ve tried to submit comments, they disappear. So quit your whining, you get to commment here.
– Anthony
Mr. Watts:
Please could you point me to the time stamp in the video clip, where it is said that Jim Hansen was involved in the logistical preparation of the hearing, like deliberately opening the windows the night before to make the room hotter? I can’t find it. I only see the senator speaking what he did and probably whoever was working with him. So, how is your assertion about Hansen not libelous, if this video clip is all you have for your assertion?
What you try to do here is dismissing the published science by applying a non-scientific argument against it. This is a logical fallacy. If you were able to refute the results from Hansen’s scientific papers with scientific arguments you wouldn’t need to rely on this crap.
Where have I applied circular reasoning, using taxpayer money? Your statement is an assertion by you, which is backed up with nothing.
Where is your scientific evidence that GISS-TEMP is significantly flawed? Again, just an assertion w/o evidence. Even if your conclusions about the temperature trend in the adjusted USHCNv2 data were correct as stated in your manuscript, it would barely affect the global temperature anomaly in the GISS analyses. For the GISS analyses, the non-adjusted data from the GHCN are used, except for a small subset of adjusted USHCNv2 data. Hansen et al. apply their own adjustment algorithm based on satellite derived night lights. But you know that, since you mention their method at one point, although the reference to the paper where the algorithm is introduced is missing in your manuscript.
As for the circular reasoning in your manuscript:
In line 360 to 362, you write:
In what follows, to the extent that significant differences are found among classes, the well sited stations will be assumed to have more accurate measurements of temperature and temperature trends than poorly sited stations.
And from this you conclude that the estimated temperature trend is artificially increased (doubled!) in the adjusted USHCNv2 data set due to non-climatic factors since all adjustments that don’t adjust the trend back to the assumed most accurate trend at the “well sited” stations must be wrong. The conclusion just states what has already been pre-determined in the assumption.
Someone hand Perlwitz a hanky.☺
Well if Jan P Perlwitz, someone whose views about science are completely without non-scientific motives and who is also incapable of propaganda says it, then that’s good enough for me.
And, Anthony, per our previous discussion the other day ….
/SARC
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm
If you were able to refute the results from Hansen’s scientific papers with scientific arguments you wouldn’t need to rely on this crap.
=============================================================================
And just how hot did his scientific papers say we were supposed to be by now?
Anthony doesn’t need to refute Hansen. Nature did.
PS How much $$ has he made outside of his salary? Who paid him and why?
(I only brought that up since “CAGWer’s” are constantly saying that skeptics’ arguments should be dismissed because of where they imply their money is coming from. Where is Hansen’s money actually coming from?)
TYPO: Should be “papers” not “paepers” … But go ahead and leave it. English is my first language. I still screw it up sometimes. Maybe Jan will feel less “piled on” for her/his typoes.
God’s response was to bring rampant porn, child porn web sites, identity theft, and all the rest of the worst of humanity into the fore? Why don’t we stay within the realm of reality.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Let’s see to what degree the revised version will have taken into consideration the criticism by others of the major flaws in the analysis presented in the manuscript by Watts et al.
I particularly look forward to see whether the circular reasoning what I see in the main line of the argument where basically it is assumed beforehand what is presented as the main conclusion at the end, is still going to be present in the revised version.
_______________________________________________________________
Hmm, I see a major flaw in your reasoning Mr P. The #1 and #2 sites were identified on the basis of the rating system, not on the basis of their temperature records. You must know that, so I think your arguement is troll like behaviour. Bad form imo from a scientist whos salary is paid by the public.
Ed_B, you wrote:
I didn’t say that the class 1 and 2 sites were identified on the basis of their temperature records. I say that Watts et al. just assume that the temperature anomaly trends at the class 1 and 2 sites are the most accurate ones, compared to the class 3, 4, and 5 sites, and that the trends estimated using latter sites were wrong. At the end, Watts et al. conclude what they have assumed: the trends at the class 3, 4, 5 classes were overestimated compared to the real world warming signal, and that the CONUS overall trend is also artificially doubled, since, according to Watts et al.’s assumption, there shouldn’t have been any significant adjustment due to biases at the class 1 and 2 sites, and the adjustment at the class 3, 4, 5 sites should have been downward to match the trends at the class 1 and 2 sites, accordingly. Watts et al. conclude what they have postulated in their assumption. Circular reasoning.
The siting of the stations alone, whether they belong to the class 1 and 2, or to the other classes does not imply by itself that the temperature anomaly trend estimated from the class 1 and 2 stations is more accurate than then trend estimated from the class 3, 4, and 5 stations. If it was implied Watts et al., didn’t need to just postulate that this was the case. It is not implied, because the siting of the stations isn’t the only source of inhomogeneities in the temperature anomaly trends. Watts et al. must show, based on scientific evidence, that the temperature trends in the raw data estimated from the class 1 and 2 stations are more accurate than the trends estimated from the other stations. And if they want to quantify an artificial trend (they assert a doubling), they also must quantify the accuracy of the trends from the raw data at the stations of the different classes. They haven’t done this, and they have not provided the evidence that the trends from the class 1 and 2 stations don’t need any adjustment due to biases. They only have shown in their analysis that the trends in the raw data before homogenization of the data are different between the classes.
Now, what is the flaw in my reasoning?
My salary comes from government money. Correct. I just don’t see the link between my salary coming from the public and my freedom to express my personal views in public. Do you think the freedom of scientists to express their personal views in public should be more restricted, compared to the freedom of other people, if the scientists are paid with money coming from the public? Is this what I would have to expect, if the likes of you controlled the government? What if I give a damn about what you think about what I should say and what I shouldn’t?
Dr Perlwitz, there is no ‘circular reasoning’. Watts et al are to be commended on clearly stating their assumptions, a practise not always followed in climate science. The assumption that the well sited stations provide a more accurate measure of temperature trends than the poorly sited ones seems entirely reasonable. In fact it is implicit in the Leroy paper (“Obviously the objective was to select class 1 sites”, “A class 1 site can be considered as a reference site”).
The main conclusion of the work is that the poor sites have a much higher trend than than the good ones. This does not, as you seem to be claiming, follow from the assumption.
I can appreciate that you are annoyed by this, but please calm down and try to have a sensible discussion.