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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is almost as exciting as reading the first Climategate thread here. (I was the first commenter on it.)
Fortunately, the warmists won’t be able to whitewash this one away. AW has put a spoke in the wheels of the bandwagon.
And to think that AW had to pass the hat to pay for his way down–and had to drive to cut costs. While money was no object for the 40,000 attendees in Paris.
They ought to hold the next COP in Chico.
Congratulations Anthony !! Great work by you and your team.
The results of this work should be included in the up coming Congressional hearings which will address NOAA’s political manipulation of the temperature data which used less accurate data to adjust temperatures upward to comply with Obama’s global campaign of climate alarmism.
Typo. Under “Some Side Notes,” 2nd para., last line, correct “nthe”
Maybe you’ll be called to testify by Lamar Smith! (Or one of your team.)
They should just shut NOAA down if they’re going to thumb their noses at the law.
You don’t want to comply with Congressional oversight? Fine. No more taxpayer dollars for you.
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, sockpuppet. -mod]
Right. The point being that the land temperature trend gets diluted severely by the unchanging over-ocean trend. (As was stated upthread.)
PS: I’m getting a funny appearance of this site on my screen today. It’s probably just me–but has anyone else had this glitch?
But they do. However all warming trends are, most emphatically, not created equal. And this paper warrants further study. Leroy 1999 and 2010 were created to site new stations as much as to evaluate existing ones, and some of its aspects are meataxe. As we used to say in the old Fall et al. days, some class 3 stations are more equal than others.
We may refine this and create a new and improved rating classification system of our own. This is a continuing endeavor.
This ought to make the satellite data sets the gold standard, and relegate the land-based records to the lumber room.
Of course we would want both to be reliable. This is our attempt to do so for the USHCN.
I just want to say. All who take interest in this subject, be they friend or foe, they are my family. And anyone who has surveyed a station, no matter where he has been or what he has done, he is my brother.
+1
life is short
and best enjoyed as described
Evan, I love your attitude towards observerational data. As Carl Sagan would say, “that is the heart of science”.
I’ll also beg for some kudos to the coop observers, who are mostly volunteers who love recording the weather and are willing to commit to decades of doing so. I’ve been doing this myself for 30+ years, which means over 10,000 days of max, min, precip, snow, fog, thunderstorms, and other observations. I’ve got a good site – up in the mountains of Colorado, next to a ranch, no runways or air conditoners (but those damn hills blot out the sun well above 3 degrees high). But those in less ideal locations are just as diligent. The folks at the weather service would love it if all their coop observers were out in the boonies, but for them finding a careful, consistent, and persistent observer is just as important as finding an ideal micro site.
Oh my, observational data. And air conditioners. And likely a few more someone else can find after I go to bed. G’night.
I’ll also beg for some kudos to the coop observers, who are mostly volunteers who love recording the weather and are willing to commit to decades of doing so. I’ve been doing this myself for 30+ years
Kudos, my brother, and to all the civic-minded patriots who man the lonely front lines of observational science. We appreciate your efforts. We value them. We salute you.
(Besides, observers do not site their own stations, in any case. That is up to the regional directors.)
This looks like a very important work by Anthony. My admiration and thanks for a job well done. I find this quote particularly interesting:
“We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations.”
It makes me think back to Karl et al. Hmmm.
!!!!!!
Ev’ry valley shall be exalted,
and ev’ry mountain and hill made low;
the crooked straight
and the rough places plain.
!!!!!!
(Isaiah 40:4)
Well, that’s the hypothesis.
THEY could have done this study. THEY could have told their grad students that this would make a great dissertation. THEY should have wanted to ensure they had a firm foundation.
But they didn’t look. Because they didn’t want to see.
For example, NOAA could have told its stations to send in photos of their sites. But NOAA didn’t. In fact it refused to ask them, when the suggestion was made to it.
(Sigh.) Instead, they saw fit to remove the curators’ names from their metadata. This made the project substantially more difficult to complete.
What fun they’ll have ‘splaining that one to Congress!
They will say (have said) that we were harassing their observers. in spite of all that, having managed to locate and interview a few dozen, I admit I take some affront at this allegation.
They thought they had accounted for it. No crime in that. Besides, if they had done it correctly, we wouldn’t have had the privilege. It’s a privilege I value.
That had actually told the OIG back in 2010 that it was part of their review process and that they were doing it. An ouchie moment.
Evan,
I just wanted to thank you for spending the better part of this evening responding to questions and comments while this paper is being published. Your patience and diplomacy here are truly heartwarming and I wish you all the best in this and future endeavors. Hey! Lookie there…anthropogenic cardio warming!
🙂
+10
Thanks for your kind words (and also to others I have not directly addressed). Bear in mind that our opposition comprises good scientists, too, and everything we have done we have bounced off their hard work.
They thought they had accounted for it. No crime in that. Besides, if they had done it correctly, we wouldn’t have had the privilege. It’s a privilege I value.
C’mon, Evan. They refused to even look at it. Dismissed it out of hand,…
I had the same reaction to Evan’s comment. What evidence is there to prove that “they thought they had accounted for it”. My understanding is that they were told at least once, maybe more, that their calculations DID NOT account for it, and nothing changed following their enlightenment. Now, either they didn’t BOTHER to check to see for sure whether they had adjusted for it or not, or they knew prior/found out after being informed and CHOSE NOT TO adjust for it for some reason. THAT at the very least can be called a crime of negligence. Whether or not we can call it something else in the end, remains to be seen.
I agree, Aphan, et. al. — their own actions leave one with no other rational conclusion but that NOAA (as an organization) was/is either:
1. Incompetent (to the point misfeasance)
or
2. Lying (malfeasance)
Given the scientific credentials of NOAA’s scientists, I think it is choice #2.
One can distinguish the individuals of integrity who work at NOAA and have chosen for whatever reason (hope of reform-from-within or merely economic, or whatever) not to quit their jobs
from
the corrupt organization (proven over and over) called “NOAA.”
**************************
Dear Good natured Evan,
“There is a time for everything…,” including a time to firmly denounce wrongdoers.
Moral equivalency between you and Anthony and John Christy on the one hand and NOAA on the other is not accurate.
Still rooting for you!
Janice
C’mon, Evan. They refused to even look at it. Dismissed it out of hand …
They looked at Fall et al. and looked no further. Yet, with both Anthony and me as co-authors of Fall et al., who am I to blame them for that?
So the ball was in our court. That’s the way I like it, anyway.
This looks like a very important work by Anthony. My admiration and thanks for a job well done.
I find this quote particularly interesting:
“We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations.”
It makes me think back to Karl et al. Hmmm.
Well, we’ll let the SST boyz figger that one out. For us it’s LST.
One if by land, two if by sea. (The old one-two?)
This necessary (by inference) revision of the global temperature record puts it below the lower bound of the models’ projections. So now we can say, “The consensus is 97% wrong.” How pleasant to turn the tables! And how deserved!
We all feel rather pleasant about now, I think.
Congratulations Anthony and colleagues.
I had to smile when I read your point 5 below. May one hope that those who make the “adjustments” will mend their ways and change the “adjustments” to co-ordinate with the well sited stations?
Probably not, they’re already working feverishly to find plausible reasons to exclude the well-sited stations instead. Highly motivated reasoning.
Judge Judy has started a thread on this paper at http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/watts-et-al-temperature-station-siting-matters/
Yeah, Mosher is kicking up quite the fuss over there about the data not being released. If only he were as vociferous in his criticism of Mann and Jone,,,, Jones… ho, now I get it, he probably just wants it so that he can find something wrong with it 😉
I’m looking forward to seeing the paper actually published, and am betting that there will be major political pressure to prevent that. Double edged sword since it is already getting press and suppressing the paper would just result in a Streisand effect.
I’ll wait for the data when authors are ready to release it. I don’t mind waiting, seeing Mosher in fits amuses me.
Mosher is neither intellectually honest nor is he qualified to review anything scientific (B.A. English). Why skeptics put any trust in this alarmist shill is beyond me. All he does is waste everyone’s time where ever he posts. He is the one who orchestrated the Muller is a recovering skeptic meme and thus tried to tank all skeptic criticisms of AGW. Now he is trying to pretend he is a scientist.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/06/who-is-steven-mosher.html
Here’s what I just posted on Climate Etc.
Mosher is neither intellectually honest nor is he qualified to review anything scientific (B.A. English).
They say the same about me. And my M.A. is in US History. (CONUS.)
“We are much alike,” Mosh and I. “Both proud of our ships.” We just sail different seas.
He will get it. But he will have to wait a little.
Thank you all, AW et al. Brett
Also are have you calculated the error bars/ uncertainty for the trends you show for the two groups of “unperturbed” stations?
Yes. Error bars for well sited stations are larger than for poorly sited stations because there are so many more poorly sited stations.
Homogenized data shows the smallest deviation of all — that’s what happens when you essentially make undifferentiated pap out of your data. And unless you had the raw stuff available, you’d never even see it — unless you knew where to look. Anthony is the one who found the needle in the haystack.
He sure found something in the haystack that ain’t hay.
Averaging only reduces random error. Sitting is a systematic error.
Yes. Especially considering where the upwards of four out of five are sitting.
What can one say?
Wow, THIS is science.
Well done to Anthony and team and all who contributed in any way, no matter how small.
God bless you Anthony…thank you et al…
Congratulations Anthony, Evan, John and John! Great job.
There are so many posts to read, so I’m gonna shortcut the process and just ask: How did the presentation go? Was it well-attended? Was there heckling? Rude questions? Or did Anthony talk to the empty chairs?
What now is the process that would allow this study to qualify as “peer reviewed,” which seems to be a gold standard for the warmists who cite scientific literature?
Evan:
Did you take the arithmetic mean for the summary statistics, or did you take a geographically-normalized mean such as NOAA, BEST etc do?
Because that could be a large source of the difference as well.
thanks. And thanks for replying to a pile of posts here, this has been one of the more fascinating threads in a while
Peter
We simply used a gridded, regional area-weighted average. This only becomes an issue when the subsets become so small/skewed (e.g. urban Class 1/2 data or CRS-only data) that there is not at least one station per region. Why bother with essentially circular logic, anyway?
There seems to be a typo in the poster.
“The overall warming effect of a heat sink on a nearby sensor is greater at the end of a warming phase than at the start of it.”
“Conversely, the effect of a heat sink is less at the end than at the beginning of an overall cooling phase.”
I think the first sentence should say heat source.
Also, these statements will need careful justification in the full paper.
Sink.
So… this is just science by press release? Look, there was a reason skeptics criticized climate scientists for rushing off to publish press releases about their results before their papers had even come out. The reason is: Because it’s wrong.
Publishing a press release and encouraging people to tell everyone about your results while telling them they don’t get to see any paper, data or analysis supporting those results until some unspecified and unknowable future date is wrong. Doing so just ensures one’s results get to be discussed and repeated long before anyone can possibly examine them to judge their credibility. That’s not how science should work, whether it comes from a mainstream climate scientist or a skeptic.
If people have nothing to actually look at then there shouldn’t be a press release.
Here’s what I just posted at Climate Etc.:
The statement “Journals won’t accept papers whose contents have all been pre-released, right?” is not true.
There may be some journals like that, but there are many (the majority of?) journals that will accept on that basis. Also, it is very common for poster or oral presentations at major scientific society conferences to go on to be published in that society’s journals. Sometimes the journal editors go around spotting good papers exactly for that reason. Your comment appears to be trolling and is largely fact free.
My claim (actually a guess, as indicated by my question mark) wasn’t “fact free,” because it is true of some journals, as you concede. It was only an exaggeration–if your claim is true. So AW & Co. are wise not to take the risk of excluding themselves from acceptance anywhere.
Here’s another point that occurs to me. Journals might use AW & Co.’s publication of data as an excuse to reject their paper. AW has reason, or justifiably thinks he has reason, to suspect that some of them might be looking for an excuse.
PS. Here’s something of tangential relevance:
i see your point
Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos),
Do you complain about everything?
Anthony presented the paper and findings at a convention. It has not been published yet. When it is published, all of the relevant data and methods will be published with it. AGU made the press release. Take it up with them.
So… this is just science by press release?
We prefer to think of it as just press release by science.
Look, there was a reason skeptics criticized climate scientists for rushing off to publish press releases about their results before their papers had even come out. The reason is: Because it’s wrong.
Not by us. We encourage it. We did it. The reason is: because it’s right. And if more papers did it, fewer papers would be falling headlong and flat upon their faces within a month of publication.
Underneath the heading ’embargoed until’ you spell San Francisco incorrectly as San Franciso. I have noticed the incorrect spelling on the version on Bishop Hill and Paul Homewood too.