30 year trends of temperature are shown to be lower, using well-sited high quality NOAA weather stations that do not require adjustments to the data.
This was in AGU’s press release news feed today. At about the time this story publishes, I am presenting it at the AGU 2015 Fall meeting in San Francisco. Here are the details.
NEW STUDY OF NOAA’S U.S. CLIMATE NETWORK SHOWS A LOWER 30-YEAR TEMPERATURE TREND WHEN HIGH QUALITY TEMPERATURE STATIONS UNPERTURBED BY URBANIZATION ARE CONSIDERED
Figure 4 – Comparisons of 30 year trend for compliant Class 1,2 USHCN stations to non-compliant, Class 3,4,5 USHCN stations to NOAA final adjusted V2.5 USHCN data in the Continental United States
EMBARGOED UNTIL 13:30 PST (16:30 EST) December 17th, 2015
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – A new study about the surface temperature record presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union suggests that the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are about two thirds as strong as officially NOAA temperature trends.
Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric Leroy (2010)1 for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement. An example is shown in Figure 2 below, showing the NOAA USHCN temperature sensor for Ardmore, OK.
Following up on a paper published by the authors in 2010, Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends2 which concluded:
Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends
…this new study is presented at AGU session A43G-0396 on Thursday Dec. 17th at 13:40PST and is titled Comparison of Temperature Trends Using an Unperturbed Subset of The U.S. Historical Climatology Network
A 410-station subset of U.S. Historical Climatology Network (version 2.5) stations is identified that experienced no changes in time of observation or station moves during the 1979-2008 period. These stations are classified based on proximity to artificial surfaces, buildings, and other such objects with unnatural thermal mass using guidelines established by Leroy (2010)1 . The United States temperature trends estimated from the relatively few stations in the classes with minimal artificial impact are found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as US trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact. The trend differences are largest for minimum temperatures and are statistically significant even at the regional scale and across different types of instrumentation and degrees of urbanization. The homogeneity adjustments applied by the National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center) greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact. Trend differences are not found during the 1999- 2008 sub-period of relatively stable temperatures, suggesting that the observed differences are caused by a physical mechanism that is directly or indirectly caused by changing temperatures.
Key findings:
1. Comprehensive and detailed evaluation of station metadata, on-site station photography, satellite and aerial imaging, street level Google Earth imagery, and curator interviews have yielded a well-distributed 410 station subset of the 1218 station USHCN network that is unperturbed by Time of Observation changes, station moves, or rating changes, and a complete or mostly complete 30-year dataset. It must be emphasized that the perturbed stations dropped from the USHCN set show significantly lower trends than those retained in the sample, both for well and poorly sited station sets.
2. Bias at the microsite level (the immediate environment of the sensor) in the unperturbed subset of USHCN stations has a significant effect on the mean temperature (Tmean) trend. Well sited stations show significantly less warming from 1979 – 2008. These differences are significant in Tmean, and most pronounced in the minimum temperature data (Tmin). (Figure 3 and Table 1)
3. Equipment bias (CRS v. MMTS stations) in the unperturbed subset of USHCN stations has a significant effect on the mean temperature (Tmean) trend when CRS stations are compared with MMTS stations. MMTS stations show significantly less warming than CRS stations from 1979 – 2008. (Table 1) These differences are significant in Tmean (even after upward adjustment for MMTS conversion) and most pronounced in the maximum temperature data (Tmax).
4. The 30-year Tmean temperature trend of unperturbed, well sited stations is significantly lower than the Tmean temperature trend of NOAA/NCDC official adjusted homogenized surface temperature record for all 1218 USHCN stations.
5. We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations.
6. The data suggests that the divergence between well and poorly sited stations is gradual, not a result of spurious step change due to poor metadata.
The study is authored by Anthony Watts and Evan Jones of surfacestations.org , John Nielsen-Gammon of Texas A&M , John R. Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville and represents years of work in studying the quality of the temperature measurement system of the United States.
Lead author Anthony Watts said of the study: “The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts. This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” He added: “We also see evidence of this same sort of siting problem around the world at many other official weather stations, suggesting that the same upward bias on trend also manifests itself in the global temperature record”.
The full AGU presentation can be downloaded here: https://goo.gl/7NcvT2
[1] 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
[2] Fall et al. (2010) Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf
Abstract ID and Title: 76932: Comparison of Temperature Trends Using an Unperturbed Subset of The U.S. Historical Climatology Network
Final Paper Number: A43G-0396
Presentation Type: Poster
Session Date and Time: Thursday, 17 December 2015; 13:40 – 18:00 PST
Session Number and Title: A43G: Tropospheric Chemistry-Climate-Biosphere Interactions III Posters
Location: Moscone South; Poster Hall
Full presentation here: https://goo.gl/7NcvT2
Some side notes.
This work is a continuation of the surface stations project started in 2007, our first publication, Fall et al. in 2010, and our early draft paper in 2012. Putting out that draft paper in 2012 provided us with valuable feedback from critics, and we’ve incorporated that into the effort. Even input from openly hostile professional people, such as Victor Venema, have been highly useful, and I thank him for it.
Many of the valid criticisms of our 2012 draft paper centered around the Time of Observation (TOBs) adjustments that have to be applied to the hodge-podge of stations with issues in the USHCN. Our viewpoint is that trying to retain stations with dodgy records and adjusting the data is a pointless exercise. We chose simply to locate all the stations that DON”T need any adjustments and use those, therefor sidestepping that highly argumentative problem completely. Fortunately, there was enough in nthe USHCN, 410 out of 1218.
It should be noted that the Class1/2 station subset (the best stations we have located in the CONUS) can be considered an analog to the Climate Reference Network in that these stations are reasonably well distributed in the CONUS, and like the CRN, require no adjustments to their records. The CRN consists of 114 commissioned stations in the contiguous United States, our numbers of stations are similar in size and distribution. This should be noted about the CRN:
One of the principal conclusions of the 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme was that the global capacity to observe the Earth’s climate system is inadequate and deteriorating worldwide and “without action to reverse this decline and develop the GCOS [Global Climate Observing System], the ability to characterize climate change and variations over the next 25 years will be even less than during the past quarter century” (National Research Council [NRC] 1999). In spite of the United States being a leader in climate research, long term U.S. climate stations have faced challenges with instrument and site changes that impact the continuity of observations over time. Even small biases can alter the interpretation of decadal climate variability and change, so a substantial effort is required to identify non-climate discontinuities and correct the station records (a process calledhomogenization). Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/why.html
The CRN has a decade of data, and it shows a pause in the CONUS. Our subset of adjustment free unperturbed stations spans over 30 years, We think it is well worth looking at that data and ignoring the data that requires loads of statistical spackle to patch it up before it is deemed usable. After all, that’s what they say is the reason the CRN was created.
We do allow for one and only one adjustment in the data, and this is only because it is based on physical observations and it is a truly needed adjustment. We use the MMTS adjustment noted in Menne et al. 2009 and 2010 for the MMTS exposure housing versus the old wooden box Cotton Region Shelter (CRS) which has a warm bias mainly due to [paint] and maintenance issues. The MMTS gill shield is a superior exposure system that prevents bias from daytime short-wave and nighttime long-wave thermal radiation. The CRS requires yearly painting, and that often gets neglected, resulting in exposure systems that look like this:
See below for a comparison of the two:
Some might wonder why we have a 1979-2008 comparison when this is 2015. The reason is so that this speaks to Menne et al. 2009 and 2010, papers launched by NOAA/NCDC to defend their adjustment methods for the USCHN from criticisms I had launched about the quality of the surface temperature record, such as this book in 2009: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? This sent NOAA/NCDC into a tizzy, and they responded with a hasty and ghost written flyer they circulated. In our paper, we extend the comparisons to the current USHCN dataset as well as the 1979-2008 comparison.
We are submitting this to publication in a well respected journal. No, I won’t say which one because we don’t need any attempts at journal gate-keeping like we saw in the Climategate emails. i.e “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” and “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”.
When the journal article publishes, we’ll make all of the data, code, and methods available so that the study is entirely replicable. We feel this is very important, even if it allows unscrupulous types to launch “creative” attacks via journal publications, blog posts, and comments. When the data and paper is available, we’ll welcome real and well-founded criticism.
It should be noted that many of the USHCN stations we excluded that had station moves, equipment changes, TOBs changes, etc that were not suitable had lower trends that would have bolstered our conclusions.
The “gallery” server from that 2007 surfacestations project that shows individual weather stations and siting notes is currently offline, mainly due to it being attacked regularly and that affects my office network. I’m looking to move it to cloud hosting to solve that problem. I may ask for some help from readers with that.
We think this study will hold up well. We have been very careful, very slow and meticulous. I admit that the draft paper published in July 2012 was rushed, mainly because I believed that Dr. Richard Muller of BEST was going before congress again the next week using data I provided which he agreed to use only for publications, as a political tool. Fortunately, he didn’t appear on that panel. But, the feedback we got from that effort was invaluable. We hope this pre-release today will also provide valuable criticism.
People might wonder if this project was funded by any government, entity, organization, or individual; it was not. This was all done on free time without any pay by all involved. That is another reason we took our time, there was no “must produce by” funding requirement.
Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, the state climatologist of Texas, has done all the statistical significance analysis and his opinion is reflected in this statement from the introduction
Dr. Nielsen-Gammon has been our worst critic from the get-go, he’s independently reproduced the station ratings with the help of his students, and created his own series of tests on the data and methods. It is worth noting that this is his statement:
The trend differences are largest for minimum temperatures and are statistically significant even at the regional scale and across different types of instrumentation and degrees of urbanization.
The p-values from Dr. Nielsen-Gammon’s statistical significance analysis are well below 0.05 (the 95% confidence level), and many comparisons are below 0.01 (the 99% confidence level). He’s on-board with the findings after satisfying himself that we indeed have found a ground truth. If anyone doubts his input to this study, you should view his publication record.
COMMENT POLICY:
At the time this post goes live, I’ll be presenting at AGU until 18:00PST , so I won’t be able to respond to queries until after then. Evan Jones “may” be able to after about 330PM PST.
This is a technical thread, so those who simply want to scream vitriol about deniers, Koch Brothers, and Exxon aren’t welcome here. Same for people that just want to hurl accusations without backing them up (especially those using fake names/emails, we have a few). Moderators should use pro-active discretion to weed out such detritus. Genuine comments and/or questions are welcome.
Thanks to everyone who helped make this study and presentation possible.
Bravo and Congratulations Anthony et al!!!!! Well done!
Thank you!!
Joe
Well done Anthony etal. Well worth the money I donated to get you to the meeting. Be careful though, since I worked for big oil many years ago you may be tainted.
Go Anthony 🙂
“30 year trends of temperature are shown to be lower, using well-sited high quality NOAA weather stations that do not require adjustments to the data.”
Stop right there!
If those stations show lower trends, then they most certainly do require adjustments to the data.
If the data doesn’t fit the model, it’s wrong.
All these years of blogging about it, and you still haven’t learnt the basics of Climate Science (™).
To resolve ambiguity:
If the data doesn’t fit the model, the data is wrong.
If the data don’t fit you must resubmit.
At the risk of being contrary, may I suggest that the congratulatory nature of many of these comments is premature. This is, after all, a press release. Once the paper itself is published, along with its data, methods and other supplemental information, it can be discussed on an informed basis, analyzed and / or replicated, and its ramifications (if any) quantified. Such a stance is no different than what should be expected of all “science by press release” regardless of its source.
I would be surprised if Anthony himself would disagree.
He is presenting the paper live and I believe he has a poster session on the paper.
That deserves congratulations. Period.
It is no guarantee he and his co-authors are right. But they are being heard.
In the Oil and Gas business, particularly at AAPG, sometimes the oral paper is all you get to show given the confidentiality of the data. Attendees get to see the seismic; we don’t get to take it home.
Hi Stephen;
To the extent that the presentation of a paper at a conference is worthy of congratulations (which of course it is), I agree with you.
The point I was trying to make is that many comments here are apparently accepting the study’s conclusions at face value, prior to the release of the supplementary information necessary to closely scrutinize it. Such a practice is rightly criticized here when employed by people on the other side of the debate, and it should not be embraced now just because Anthony is one of the authors or because the study’s conclusions are more palatable to the readers of this blog.
Note that I am not questioning the results, just saying that a full analysis of the paper cannot be completed until all data and methods are made available.
Best regards,
Ken
But bigshot warmist Dr. N-G is a co-author, so we’re entitled to assume that if it’s already passed HIS review, . . .
I would be surprised if Anthony himself would disagree.
Whereas I would be surprised if any one of our team would not enthusiastically endorse it.
Evan;
I’m not in any way denigrating the obvious effort that went into the paper, nor am I contesting the conclusions that are being presented here. All I’m saying is that in the past, science by press release has been vigorously, and correctly, criticized on this site. The study’s supplemental information is not yet available for review, and until it is one should hesitate to make conclusions as to its validity.
As an author, naturally you’re informed as to the methods that went into it. The rest of us are not. But I see many people here simply accepting the results at face value, based apparently on their faith in Anthony and the rest of the authors. I’m not saying that such faith is misplaced; I have no reason to believe that any of you are anything but honorable and competent. By the same token, “faith” has little place in dispassionate analysis. We’ve all seen studies which, though plausible on their face, cannot withstand close scrutiny for one reason or another. I believe that true skeptics apply the same standard of evidence to all studies regardless of their source, or how much we want the conclusions to be correct.
In short, once we’ve seen the data and the methods and the paper is exposed to critical review and commentary, then congratulations may be in order.
But I will go so far as to commend Anthony, you and your co-authors for the remarkable effort and persistence you have displayed in bringing this paper to its current state. I look forward to its formal publication and the release of its supplemental information.
Kind regards,
Ken
I know. But the bottom line is that they get to challenge it and we get to defend it. Suits me.
@Ken Robinson: 12/15 9:01
All I’m saying is that in the past, science by press release has been vigorously, and correctly, criticized on this site.
All press releases are not created equal.
Vigorous and correct criticism is well earned by poorly constructed press releases.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/29/eurekalerts-lack-of-press-release-standards-a-systemic-problem-with-science-and-the-media/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/24/science-by-press-release-where-i-find-myself-in-agreement-with-dr-gavin-schmidt-over-pr-entropy/
Incredible work and well deserved accolades, Mr. Watts and team. Might I add here in the very midst of Paris COP21 real science is still appreciated, admired, and is still possible especially in a time of corruption of science itself. Indeed needed now more then ever before.
This is great! I will be curious as to how the attendees react to this great presentation based on real data.
You are the man Anthony, and what a great place/meeting to present this “paper” – AGU15.
Wot no Mosh?
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh LB….they’re still trying to agree on the exact slogan they want to use, and then there’s the mass email to the flying monkeys, and getting Sou to the emerald city for a wash and wax, and…. 😀
I burned through a forum and a half on Sou’s blog, going back and forth with the Father of Climate Data homogenization, mostly on a forum she set up specifically for me to discuss it. They learned we are for real. I learned how homogenization can turn from Kindly Uncle H to the H-bomb. It was a fair bargain. Both sides got what they came for.
I also engaged on dedicated posts on SkS and, especially Stoat. They had a lot of snappy questions. And if I can’t supply the snappy answers, how are we going to get through peer review? Much less independent review. Anthony was wise, so very wise to pre-release in 2012. I don’t think we’d have made it without it.
He’ll be around. And he’ll be welcome, too.
Sent a heads up to Marc, and see other blogs picking up on the news. Won’t hold my breath, but we can hope big media picks this up. Another canon ball in the broadside of the rowboat AGW…
“Won’t hold my breath, but we can hope big media picks this up. ”
————-
i.e., you’re hopin’ they’re changin’.
And vice-versa, no doubt.
Just saw this on Drudge:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/
That’s not Drudge, it’s Daily Caller.
He saw it on Drudge. That is, he saw the link to the article. (That’s pretty much what Drudge is: links.) It’s still there. Right now, it’s the third link in the left column. On Drudge, not the Daily Caller. 🙂
Drudge is an aggregator, and indeed links to the Daily Caller post.
http://drudgereport.com/
Anthony, don’t know if it matters, but figure 2 has an error…the picture shows 372^ without the little 2…just saying..
I’ll fix it for the archive.
Aesthetics are important..Why give the ” enemy ” ammunition !! LOL
Ah, if they shoot at stuff like that, they will just appear foolish.
Congrats Anthony! I do hope NOAA starts to do something about their previous methods of gathering temperature data.
From my experience in debating the hard-core climate alarmist though, they will look at your study and claim the data you used was cherry-picked, and then simply dismiss it. No, you can not use logic with these people.
As for NOAA, if it does decide to do something about it, this gives it opportunity to do even more adjustments all the way back to 1880. It should love this opportunity, you know.
Presuming our results stand up, either they will or they will be bypassed.
1880? Adjustments for microsite would have to be inferred. Very, very mushy. But as for those CRS stations carrying heat sinks around on their shoulders — heh, heh …
I can handle any allegations of cherrypicking just fine. let ’em bring it on.
They will not let go of the current models easily.
Then they will go down with them.
Great idea for a check on errors in adjustments applied to weather stations, just read the ones that should not need adjustments! Simple
I love it.
Nice work All!
Macusn
It occurred to me (and I think JC) that sometimes the best way to get through a problem is to go around it. Hit me like a rock one night when I was fast asleep. So, for our first cut, rather than adjust, we drop.
(BEST does not have that luxury. Mosh has the GHCN to deal with. We do. We have the data-metadata rich USHCN to play with. They did the best they could with what they had. Maybe we’ll wind up barking up that tree, ourselves — time will tell.)
That decision, to drop the sites whose metadata shows no microsite changes, was to me the brilliant moment. As a guy with a couple patents, I’ve had those moments, for me they come in the middle of the night also, and either wake me up, or I wake up and there the idea is, like a little gift box. Great idea!!!!
It gives us the luxury of not having to address every little adjustment they make.
Excellent.
My father would have approved too.
He spent several years on weatherships for the UK Met Office in the 1950s.
He was unhappy with the SST methods, (bucket on a rope and a thermometer) which could be subject to either evaporative cooling or radiative heating (warm ship) depending the season and the weather.
He tried to persuade the authorities to improve the methods, but was ignored, so he left the marine division, and I grew up on various RAF bases.
Glad to see my donation going to good use.
You guys ended up with completely different numbers than you had two years ago…..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
Evan, you got some “splaining to do… 🙂
If this is accepted the biggest problem will be to show the warming in scary red and maroon for small temperature changes.
Back to display/ graphics department to get the right colour range.
L, you missed a key point. The new data is a more ‘pristine’ subset of the old CRN 1/2. AW explained this, and said that if some of the now excluded CRN 1/2 stations were back, themresult would be more ‘extreme’. Me, I prefer warmunist ‘bullet proofing’ to a max skeptic result. Regards.
Rud, slow down…..you’re in hyper defence mode…LOL
….I’m teasing Evan and missed nothing
BTW…I’m getting really bad at remembering to say thanks in my old age……Thanks!
L, point taken. AW paper is a big deal. And I learned long ago (Nam) to shoot first and ask questions later. Thanks.
Dear Rud Istvan,
Thank you. Thank you for putting yourself in harm’s way for the cause of freedom.
A grateful American,
Janice
In all the three maps, it is clear that there is no uniformity in temperature rise. Unless these are explained, it has little meaning. What are the changes in loca/regional conditions for such local/regional variations. This gives, thus insight to real global warming, if any.
I read a report today’s The Times of India, satellite data showing globally lake temperatures growing up. Even with such wide regional variations in surface temperature.
IPCC must sit down and look in to this aspect instead of wasting public fund and harping on global warming and carbon dioxide.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
The point here is that for all nine regions, Warming is greater (by at least a little) for the poorly sited stations than the well sited stations. Quite apart from our robust statistical significance writ large, that is very unlikely to occur by random chance.
You note correctly that this is not the same as our current map. That is the result of addressing the criticisms adduced after our 2012 pre-release. That is why pre-pub independent review is so darn valuable. More papers should do it.
The CRS issue may swing it back the other way, perhaps, but that is a subject for followup. this is a continuing process.
You know I can’t wait on the followup… 😉
makes me laugh every time….CRS….can’t remember shit
And how much of the warming at the good sites was caused by clean air acts being introduced?
Well done.
Or bad? No idea.
Evan since the bad sites are not credible there is no need to worry any more about them We need to focus on the good sites to identify what the real CO2 fingerprint is vs other anthropogenic signals.
For our immediate purposes, yes. For the longer term, what we do now gives us the ability to apply a little adjustment of our own to those stations. In the pursuit of “fuller coverage”, naturally, which will be one of the medium-term criticisms.
First we demonstrate that what they are doing is incorrect. And then we show them how to do it right.
We are armed, we are dangerous, and we are not going away.
OK, you have my undivided attention.
“A 410-station subset of U.S. Historical Climatology Network” which was used for the “Class 1/2 compliant” data set in the figure at top.
Is/will that data set be available in monthly, and bonus points for the set updated to the current month?
I would love to do a quick comparison to UAH and see what happens.
It is restricted in the current study to 1979 to 2008. Carrying it forward would reduce the trend and thus the divergence, making it more difficult to distinguish. The post 2005 CRN/COOP non-divergence comparison supports the heat sink hypothesis, but, by itself, does not test it.
Stand by for an “adjustment” of past records due to massive building works at the agricultural reach station on Burwood Hwy Scoresby in outer east Melbourne. The ideally situated station appears to have been moved.
The BOM have already relocated the nearby Dunnes Hill station to Ferny Creek.
Station Details ID: 086104
Name: SCORESBY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Lat: -37.87 Lon: 145.26 Height: 80.0 m
Fear not. We’ll be making some adjustments of our own. With mustard.
Mr. Layman here.
To this Layman and from what he’s learned over the years, the ever-changing names for what started as “CAGW” has it’s foundation built on surface station numbers. Those numbers connection to the reality of what was going on around them are suspect due to siting issues and record keeping issues…if you’re trying to get a global or even regional picture rather than just telling your passengers whether or not they should put on a sweater before they get off the plane.
(Of course, political objecitves and the money it can supply enters in here somewhere. I’m not sure where.)
An attempt was made to take those designed-for-local numbers and glean Global numbers from them.
Once the “CAGW” meme was established, GISS numbers have been changed to support it.
An honest examination of the individual sites is taking an axe to the root of “GAGW” and it’s many offsprings.
We need economical and practical energy. We don’t need to give any politician the power to shut it off to prevent “AGW”. If we do, that’s where the “C” comes in.
>which has a warm bias mainly due to pain and maintenance issues.
I know climate scientists like to enforce a consensus, but do they really resort to hurting reporting units if they don’t give the right results?
They send round a couple of big guys with baseball bats.
Out of common courtesy, they will need to be informed that those can be heat sinks at Tmax.
I saw that. And I decided to let it stand.
YES! wonderful report!
I discovered WATTS UP right after stumbling upon the Watts Temp Station site, and issue. Bravo!
bloke down the pub has asked before.
If the raw temperatures exist and you are only interested in the difference then you should be able to use all the data not saying temperature but if it was getting hotter or colder.
Unfortunately, data without metadata is entirely useless for our current purposes.
The temperature globally (based on raw surface station data as mentioned) is not increasing.
As detailed here https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
Very nice!
change “pain” to paint I think.
“..mainly due to pain and maintenance issues.” should read “due to paint and…”
As much as the data has been tortured…
“I feel your paint”.
Goodbye Old Pain, I’m a-leavin’ USHCN . . .
Thanks Anthony et al.: the FACTS! I wish we would have them world wide.
What we need is a new world wide standard for measuring surface temperatures. Yours I suggest! We can forget the rest of the surface measurements.
Part of presenting data should standard (!) be the information whether someone has been “adjusting” the data or that the presented data are only consisting of ‘raw’ official data. If ‘adjusted’: I will forget them anyway.
And If not collected in your way: I will look at those data as being unreliable. That is what they probably are.
And for the rest: let’s have a look at the satellite and weather balloon data. Satellite data are world wide and like balloon data they are measuring more of the lower troposphere. As far as I can see: the most reliable data.
Ardy says ” Am I missing something. IF the gold standard sites are warming at 0.204 per decade. If that continues we get to 2c per century”
Anthony is not attempting a climate forecast merely projecting past trends ahead in a straight line .
The establishment forecasters make an egregious schoolboy error by ignoring the natural temperature cycles – especially the millennial cycle which peaked in about 2003.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zZLVnsvgYTw/Vj0GEDv2q7I/AAAAAAAAAag/eumhxpS9ciE/s1600/trend11615.png
This is the sort of projection the establishment uses to support the COP21 CAGW nonsense.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/–pAcyHk9Mcg/VdzO4SEtHBI/AAAAAAAAAZw/EvF2J1bt5T0/s1600/straightlineproj.jpg
A new forecasting method needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
(Section 1 has a complete discussion of the uselessness of the climate models.)
“In the Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge) Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. The fourth of these were described as :
“Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.”
Climate science has fallen victim to this fourth type of idol.
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/4idols.htm )
I want to be clear. We are not attempting to project US Tmean using 1979 to 2008 data. We are only using that strong warming interval in order to demonstrate the effect of significant proximate heat sink on trend. This interval is not useful for projection and would be a cherrypick for that purpose.