Oh no. Climate sceptics in error (again). [Updated]

7

Those in the know will have been following Mr Anthony Watts personal crusade against the NOAA/NCDC, the GHCN and, generally, the entire US temperature data gathering system. He's set up a website http://www.surfacestations.org that monitors the US temperature measuring sites, and put together an army of volunteers to examine and report back on each and every one. Here's a report

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Well, NOAA/NCDC has replied. This publication in Geophysical Research Letters

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

looks at the temperature data from the sites listed in the surfacestations.org report as "bad" sites, and compares the data to the "good" sites. John Cook explains

The trends from poorly sited weather stations are compared to well-sited stations. The results indicate that yes, there is a bias associated with poor exposure sites. However, the bias is not what you expect.
---
Weather stations are split into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). Each day, the minimum and maximum temperature are recorded. All temperature data goes through a process of homogenisation, removing non-climatic influences such as relocation of the weather station or change in the Time of Observation. In this analysis, both the raw, unadjusted data and homogenised, adjusted data are compared. Figure 1 shows the comparison of unadjusted temperature from the good and bad sites. The top figure (c) is the maximum temperature, the bottom figure (d) is the minimum temperature. The black line represents well sited weather stations with the red line representing poorly sited stations.
---
Poor sites show a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites are slightly warmer. The net effect is a cool bias in poorly sited stations. Considering all the air-conditioners, BBQs, car parks and tarmacs, this result is somewhat a surprise.

I love the understated irony.

Does this latest analysis mean all the work at surfacestations.org has been a waste of time? On the contrary, the laborious task of rating each individual weather station enabled Menne 2010 to identify a cool bias in poor sites and isolate the cause. The role of surfacestations.org is recognised in the paper's acknowledgements in which they "wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations." A net cooling bias was perhaps not the result the surfacestations.org volunteers were hoping for but improving the quality of the surface temperature record is surely a result we should all appreciate.

Incidentally, the cause for the cooling bias?

The cause of this cooling bias appears to have been a change in instruments. In the late 1980s, many sites converted from Cotton Region Shelters (CRS, otherwise known as Stevenson Screens) to electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature Systems (MMTS). This had two effects. Firstly, MMTS sensors record lower daily maximums compared to their CRS counterparts. So the switch from CRS to MMTS sensors caused a cooling bias in certain stations.

Secondly, the MMTS sensors were attached by cable to an indoor readout device. Limited by cable length, the MMTS weather stations were often located closer to buildings and other artificial sources of heat. This meant most of the stations with the newer MMTS sensors also happened to fall under poorly sited categories. The net result is that poor stations show an overall cooler trend compared with good stations. However, when the change from CRS to MMTS is taken into account in data adjustments, the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites.

Update 1: Discussion on this issue at dotearth.

Update 2: It always seems curious to me - the degree of distrust that Americans have for their scientists. The NCDC/NOAA has developed this highly respected dataset from a series of observational stations, called the US Climate Reference Network.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) consists of 114 stations developed, deployed, managed, and maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the nation changed over the past 50 years? These stations were designed with climate science in mind. (more...) Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades. Stations are monitored and maintained to high standards, and are calibrated on an annual basis.
This is certainly an enviable standard, one that we are very far from reaching, here, anyway.

The interesting detail in Menne's paper is that the USCRN data for the past 10 years pretty much follows the trend supplied by the older stations.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Oh no. The IPCC BSes us on glaciers melting. Again.

(#205367)

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change. In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

* * *

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

"Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."

"Why did they do this?" Gee, I wonder . . . Any thoughts, TtWD?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

Heh, good one. Wasn't the Iraq war justification

(#205472)

taken from someone's thesis, too?

????

(#205534)

What an ascientific answer. Unusual for you. Do you really not see that the IPCC's credibility is melting faster than the Himalayan glaciers supposedly were?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

Certainly not. The IPCC document is based on good quality

(#205605)

observational and statistical science and is a good compilation of the observational state of the art.

I'm ready to be sceptical about the current concepts of climate change if observational data collected by scientists shows this to be the case.

As of now - there is no observational data to justify scepticism - especially not from the global conspiracists.

The mitigation component is speculation and is described as such.

You cannot make general statements about thousands of

(#205660)

pages of a report that is a mixture of measurements, projections from modeling, and anecdotes.

It turns out that the anecdotal "evidence" is extremely weak in three very important areas: Himalayan glacier melt, Glacier melt in other areas, and projected rain forest devastation due to global warming. These are at the crux of IPCC '07's projections of the effects of the failure to mitigate carbon emissions; without them the argument for mitigation is significantly weakened. You can't just shine on these revelations by referencing temp charts and global conspiracy theories - won't work.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

My understanding...

(#205694)
Desidiosus's picture

...is that ocean acidification is 90% of that argument.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

It's very important, but far from 90% or the argument

(#205696)

in fact, imo it's been grossly overlooked because it is much more dramatic to talk about melting glaciers, burning rain forests, drought, hurricanes and so forth rather than the very gradual decimation of reefs and aquatic habitats.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

Well, yeah.

(#205712)
Desidiosus's picture

You have to be as aware as I of the tremendous difficulty of making scientific arguments to the incurious.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

Incidentally, the news about the IPCC's so-called unscientific

(#205614)

referrals is also somewhat silly.

The table referred to is

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-3-1-1.html

where the discussion is about the observed effects of global warming. One of the (several) effects described is problems faced by climbers because of loss of ice climbs. Well, where would you expect to find this except in observations made by climbers, in their magazines? Do you expect the problems faced by climbers to appear in Nature, or Geophysical Letters?

You could, of course, argue that this is much less hard science than the instrumental temperature record. But this hasn't stopped sceptics from criticising the methodology of the instrumental temperature record.

And while WWF reports are not what I would have chosen for a scientific report, the WWF data is derived from better papers.

WWF "data"? I completely disagree.

(#205657)

First, the WWF is an advocacy group, not a scientific organization. Would you accept "data" from ExxonMobil disproving the effects of global warming?

Second, what you call data I call anecdotes. And as my link states, where is the basis for a guy who climbed K2 ten years ago to state what the ice was like a hundred years ago?

The IPCC is supposedly a scientific organization that does not rely on anecdotes from advocacy groups - it says as much in the preface to IPCC '07. Even Pachauri admits that the Himalayan glacial melt claims were complete BS - he's just refusing to take responsibility for inclusion of them into the report. You seem to be the only onoe defending this nonsense.

Are you following the Phil Jones/missing Chinese weather station data story yet? More grist for the anti-consensus mill. The "science is in" people who laughed at skeptics are looking more foolish by the day.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

I do Himalayan trekking.

(#205743)

And the (unlettered) guides know a good deal about ice and snow cover on the mountains every year, where to expect the ice and snow at different seasons of the year and so on. I would expect a technically experienced Western climber - K2 is right up there with the most difficult ice climbs to know ice conditions pretty well - well, at least the state of the art.

There is plenty of data in the IPCC report for sceptics to read. Yes there are some anecdotes too, but, as I said above, there are some impacts which don't get published in scientific papers.

The IPCC is supposed to have created a consensus document from the best available evidence. The scientific data is out there. So is data derived from other, less hard sources. In any case all the statements are referenced, so that you can see which is which.

As for the 2035 claim on the Himalayan melt issue, I posted about it on here many weeks ago, including the original New Scientist link. The point was identified and pointed out by the glaciological community btw, not by "sceptics". Also, it was not complete BS, as you seem to think. What was actually said by Hasnain was that if AGW continued to proceed at the upper estimates of the IPCC predictions then the Eastern Himalayan glaciers would melt by that period. That's a pretty straightforward extrapolation. The AR4 report takes this out of context, does not discuss the issues fully and has been criticised, rightly, for it.

But to regard this criticism as overturning the observational science behind climate change is just silly.

Your last sentence is cut from whole cloth.

(#206066)

It does not remotely resemble anything I've said. The fact is that the Himalayan glacial melt prediction in IPCC 4 was BS presented as fact. And that is not the only instance of same, which raises the issue of how many of the dire predictions in IPCC 4 are pipedreams drawn from the worst case scenarios of agenda-driven advocacy groups. Using "data" from advocacy groups like the WWF directly contravenes the IPCC's own statement of principles, as well it should.

The IPCC has taken several blows to its credibility recently as a result of snafus like this. Debate that point if you like; no need to fabricate points that I have never remotely attempted to make, and don't even believe.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

So you get that response a lot.

(#206189)
Desidiosus's picture

I kinda think you should adopt an "Atrios" style policy, where when he talks about urban planning and density, he has a disclaimer at the bottom of every post that he isn't saying that your neighborhood is bad for you, just that his is good for him, and it's legal to build yours and illegal to build his and that's weird.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

The Related Shame

(#205686)

is that the WWF actually does do worthwhile science.

Maybe, but the problem with being an advocay group

(#205697)

is that your science is always subject to question. For all I know, ExxonMobil, GE and Monsanto do good science, too - they certainly have far more resources than any all of the environmentalist groups combined. But would you take anything they issued at face value?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

Monsanto is the world leader in genetic science.

(#205745)

The research coming out of their labs is very well regarded. While making public policy their input is necessary.

EXXON research is essential for geological studies. Thats partly how Steve McIntyre got interested.

On your first point, I would trust nothing from Monsanto on GMOs

(#206067)

any more than I would trust Gore's opinion on cap and trade, and for the same reason: they have much to gain and everything to lose depending on the outcome of the debate. Same with the WWF and GCC.

I don't know why you and Desi are so obviously missing the point here; it's clear I meant ExxonMobil's data on GCC-related issues would not be consideered trustworthy by the consensus gang any more than the WWF's would be by skeptics. Why change the subject?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

Because the stockholders are different.

(#206196)
Desidiosus's picture

WWF (and Gore, to a lesser extent) live and die on their credibility. Their members demand that they be represented well, and that requires credibility. The same isn't true for Exxon; their stockholders demand money, and that doesn't demand credibility at all. It demands FUD.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

About the tensile qualities of a given plastic?

(#205713)
Desidiosus's picture

Yes, pretty much.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

I Don't Take Anything I Issue

(#205700)

at face value. Skepticism is healthy.

Reputation is valuable, especially for an advocacy group with limited resources.

Lag

(#205473)
brutusettu's picture

The justification for the 2003 invasion goes back to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Iran-Iraq War from 1980-1988, Saddam acting like a dictator that he was to his people, and Saddam remaining fearful of Iran. i.e. nation building and fear of the 1st Muslim that popped into most westerners heads when they thought of Muslim threats.
It may not have been Blood for Oil, but Iraq would have been out of sight, out of mind if it didn't have oil over there.
I think it's safe to say if it was either a historic moment in barely related to reality paranoia induced fear of others secret plots, or nation building, then the invasion was using Iraq blood and soil to keep "terrorist" from going to America. And I hope and don't think that Blair and Bush43 & Co. were seriously considering using Iraq as a proxy battlefield as a substantial positive reason to go ahead.
Then again, the elements of the US gov't sold weapons to fuel a war between two Islamic countries, to fund "Capitalist-Christian" death squads on non-believers.

Gordon Brown's predecessor is more or less saying nation building was a good enough reason in and of itself to invade.

Just for you, T.

(#205396)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Rajendra Pachauri is just in it for the $$$

(#205415)

UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri ‘got grants through bogus claims’

The Sunday Times Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor The chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion’s share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.

(Unfortunately I get a 404 when trying to access the rest of the Times story.)

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

This work?

(#205691)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece?print=yes&randnum=1265224959548

Edit: Hey, the Guardian gets in on the act. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

Must be the recession's effect on UK manufacturing.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Heh. Phil Jones will be getting his very own diary shortly.

(#205698)

What a surprise that a liberal rag like The Guardian is out front on Climategate. All the heavy lifting on the UEA scandals is being done in the English papers.

Wait, stop press - just checked and found that my backyard weather station was made in the PRC. Now we know where one of the missing 42 went. %^>

PS your first link is a 404.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

tomsyl, you Marxist, you. -nt-

(#205447)

Obviously you know more about Pachauri than any of us.

(#205536)

I have heard he does a great deal of lucrative consulting work for companies that stand to benefit from "green" initiatives, which makes him no different from Inhofe in my book. How about connecting the dots for me?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

I am genuinely astonished.

(#205409)
Desidiosus's picture

The entire purpose of an IPCC as such was to avoid this sort of thing. What in the world were the organizers thinking?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

Actually, I do wonder.

(#205378)
Desidiosus's picture

What's your theory? Because to me, the decision is inexplicable.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

The IPCC is a mix of scientists, politicians, journalists,

(#205414)

technocrats and who knows what else. (I remember seeing somewhere that less than half of the panel are accredited climate scientists, but can't find that link at the moment.)

So I think the sad fact is that good science got mixed in with bad policy-making, and now it will be hard to separate the two. I say sad because I've read enough of the IPCC's reports to know that they are loaded with solid science that should not be tainted by this kind of nonsense. There is enough going on here that exaggeration is unnecessary.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

Ok, I'll keep that frame in mind moving forward. -nt-

(#205417)
Desidiosus's picture

.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

Meh

(#205061)

I hope this doesn't become a trend. I really don't look forward to all the diaries about how the scientists screwed this and that up, and the skeptics screwed this and that up. And yes, there are many of both.

What Desi said. And tomsyl.

(#205076)

You can't have too much data and too much scrutiny. Unfortunately, the sceptical side has little in the way of hard data. Seeing as nothing is going to be done about AGW, in all probability, one clings on to the hope that Mr Watts' intuition is right and the scientists observations are wrong. I'm not buying into conspiracy theories, or false equivalence..

The skeptics didn't screw anything up.

(#205062)
Desidiosus's picture

Their good amateur work will improve our understanding of the climate going forward. That's the point of science -- you publish you data, so even if your hypothesis is complete lunacy, you can still contribute.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

The surfacestations issues were identified in Climate Audit

(#205214)

as long ago as 2007 (when I read Climate Audit regularly) by poster John V.

http://climateaudit.org/2007/09/12/ushcn-survey-results-based-on-33-of-the-network/#comment-105745

That was good amateur work (which has its place in climatology, astronomy and other observational sciences). Since the work was not followed up either at Climate Audit, or WUWT, my interest in both sites has declined.

Has there in fact been a reduction in sites NOAA takes readings

(#205011)

from? That seems to be widely accepted, and if so, what is the reason? Seems to me more data = better findings and conclusions. If some sites are better than others, weighting of the data could surely conpensate. And if newfangled technology suddenly rendered thousands of sites obsolete, then how can we rely on earlier data from those stations to prove the hockey stick or anything else?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

More data = better findings

(#205028)
Desidiosus's picture

Like the vaccination debate? Teach the controversy!

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

You're right - these people aren't packing full sea chests.

(#205077)

LINK. I know it's Prison Planet, but there are plenty of similar surveys out there. What a bunch of ignorant yahoos, huh?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

They're not scared it will cause autism.

(#205081)
Desidiosus's picture

I'm assuming that was an attempt to change the subject or something.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

Aren't they part of the "vaccination debate"?

(#205084)

I don't know what they are concerned about, b ut they know more than you or I do about the risks and benefits of the vaccine, don't they?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

No, they aren't what I was referring to.

(#205164)
Desidiosus's picture

Dude, you don't have to disagree with me just because I'm a DFH. I was fairly transparently referring to the long-discredited belief that vaccines cause autism.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

Wrong - I have to reflexively disagree with you.

(#205274)

As Harley says, Full Stop.

See you on the 14th, man.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

?????

(#205386)
Bernard Guerrero's picture

Or do I not want to know....

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

I'm going to Honolulu on the 14th

(#205395)

to collect on all the bottles of liquor that tomsyl owes me from being on the wrong end of various bets. We'll be hanging out with Desidiosus when I'm there.

I'm working towards the fulfillment of my dream, which is the ability to travel anywhere and drink for free.

I blame it all on the Internet

I'm working towards the fulfillment of my dream,

(#205410)
Desidiosus's picture

which is to eat at Sushi Sasabune despite my food allergies.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

tomsyl, your country's scientists provide the best data

(#205032)

you are a smart guy - why do you subscribe to the climate conspiracy view?

From the FAQs on the NCDC site

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html

Q1: What raw data are available for global temperature monitoring?

A1: The number of land surface weather stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) drops off in recent years. This fact is an indication of our success in adding historical data. Every month data from over 1,200 stations from around the world are added to GHCN as a result of monthly reports transmitted over the Global Telecommunication System. This number is up from what it was a decade ago due to systematic efforts by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and others to encourage countries to send in CLIMAT reports. If NCDC relied solely on such data that would be the maximum number of stations available. But we have systematically sought to increase the data holdings in the past through international projects such as the once a decade creation of World Weather Records as well as NCDC's own digitization of select Colonial Era archive data. The creation of the GCOS Surface Network is one example of a specific attempt to both enhance data exchange around the world and to identify and select the 'best' stations for long-term climate change purposes. The weighting scheme used to rate stations for the initial selection in the GSN clearly indicates the biases climatologists have in favor of stations that have been in operation for a long time, that are rural, are agricultural research sites, and are distributed throughout the world with increasing density the farther they are away from the tropics. The result of all these efforts is that GHCN has data for many thousands of stations in the period from the 1950s to the 1990s that cannot be routinely updated, thus the number of stations drops considerably in recent years.

Because 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, NCDC also has a strong focus on collection of observations over the world's oceans. The global ocean temperature analysis is primarily based on buoy and ship observations from the International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Dataset (ICOADS), while monthly data updates come from the Global Telecommunications System (GTS). NCDC is active in a continuing multi-decadal effort to digitize historical ocean observations that contribute to ICOADS. The number of sea surface temperature observations in ICOADS has increased due to recent digitization by NCDC. Other parts of NOAA are involved in ocean buoy deployments that also contribute to ICOADS and the GTS data streams. NOAA continues to seek to increase the amount of data available for global analyses.

Q2: What data are used for U.S. land surface temperature monitoring?

A2: NOAA maintains a network of thousands of stations, many of which have volunteer observers. A subset of 1,219 of these stations in the contiguous 48 states make up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). This dataset has undergone extensive quality control and corrections to remove biases. One of the differences between USHCN and GHCN is that for U.S. data, we have access to detailed station history information which is used to guide part of the bias removal process. Additionally, the new, high quality U.S. Climate Reference Network data are used to verify recent years of the USHCN analysis.

Plus there's a bunch of newer techniques, satellite sensing of the tropospheric temperatures and so on, which are adding many more datapoints.

I don't have to disbelieve GCC to believe there's been data

(#205075)

manipulation in some quarters. It is not as uncommon as you may think in the science community (e.g. cold fusion, sleep apnea/SIDS, the Acta Crystallographica papers, cloning and so forth), particularly where grants, jobs, and even careers and reputations, are at stake if a particular meme is compromised. Do you truly believe that the fact that a scientist supports GCC automatically means he/she is scrupulously honest?

I know about the satellite data; my question related to, say, pre-Cold War data and that going back to the late 1800s. I appreciate NOAA's general comments about testing for data integrity etc. (though it's impossible without more to guess what they mean) but I'm still not getting why stations that were considered historically reliable have been taken down. Is it because they like the satellite measurements better?

(BTW, I maintain one of those "thousands of volunteer NOAA observer stations" - it's one of these and has wireless telemetry so I was able to mount it far enough from my house that temp readings should be valid, even if wind speed might be affected by foliage.)

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

Does the Piltdown fakery cast doubt on evolution theory?

(#205096)

Btw, to answer your point, it seems temperature measuring sites were biased in the past - from the NOAA link above

The weighting scheme used to rate stations for the initial selection in the GSN clearly indicates the biases climatologists have in favor of stations that have been in operation for a long time, that are rural, are agricultural research sites, and are distributed throughout the world with increasing density the farther they are away from the tropics.

To return to data manipulation and fraud, certainly there have been cases, as you point out. But I'm using Piltdown as an analogy for a discipline. Here, you also have an entire discipline, with thousands of independent observers and billions of data points. While there are egregious claims and errors in climatology - such as glaciergate (and I'm willing to consider Mike Mann, too, although I'm more sympathetic to his problems as I can begin to see what he was getting at), its pretty hard to credit a global conspiracy hypothesis.

I'm somewhat surprised that you're not more annoyed with Mr Watts, or Lord Monckton, for example, who have been certainly and demonstrably shown to have both misled the public. Both do the anti-AGW side no favours. Richard Lindzen, for example, has more listenable arguments IMO.

You are adressing point I did not raise, Manish.

(#205277)

Monkton is an interesting individual because of his rather extreme greeness, but my vocal focus here on an idiot anti-GCC rabble-rouser has always been James Imhofe. He iscredibility destroyer for anyone who questions the status quo. Watt I don't know, but his name resonates unplesantly with the former secretary of the interior, who was a complete idiot.

Mann is an ideologue, which doesn't necessarily mean that he is wrong, just that he is smug. We in this country have a great deal of love for seeing the supposedly great brought down, which imo is why Gore is hiding his sorry fat ass through all of this.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

Data manipulation, as in what was the warmest year on record

(#205086)

it seems to have been ping ponged about.

I think the other factor is the number of stations, the related mix and urban sprawl. The Front Range of the Rockies is an excellent example. That is, what once was rural is now suburban.

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H

Warmest Year == Junk Science.

(#205098)

Warmest year where, precisely? Greenland? New Zealand? And what does it matter if the whole year is warmer? What does that prove? That the error factor rises with the number of data points? This much we're learning about AGW, Europe will get colder, not warmer as a result. It's the Arctic and Antarctic where AGW shows up first.

Scrolling through the channel lineups last night, I saw Larry the Cable Guy on Fox News, sitting there denying AGW saying it might be the sun responsible for all this. Let's get this straight, Larry the Cable Guy?

What these Luddites, well, we shouldn't call the AGW deniers Luddites for they wanted to destroy machinery which made their skills irrelevant, these unscientific types want to make a point about Doubt, as if scientists are idiots and can always be made to knuckle under by the principle of doubt. They don't doubt, but insist the scientists doubt.

exactly, you wonder why the acolytes of global warming

(#205101)

would have mentioned it so often.

Over the last fifty or so years the universe of collection points has gotten smaller which may very well have materially affected the analysis. This combined with changing demographics, the population becoming more urban, manipulation of data, grant money being allocated to the "true believers" and science really wasn't a part of the equation.

As soon as the phrase the "science is settled" entered the lexicon, you knew the supporters of AGW had either become "Larry the Cable Guy" wanabes or acolytes of a new religion. As their faith resided in models, which excluded a good portion of the globe and its relationship with a changing climate.

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H

Umm, no.

(#205109)

the universe of collection points has gotten smaller

It hasn't, it has gotten larger. Temperature is measured in a variety of ways.

changing demographics, the population becoming more urban

this affects the temperature anomaly?

manipulation of data

cite?

grant money being allocated to the "true believers"

cite?

I'll just run with someone generally viewed as being on the left

(#205113)

who provides a nice summary.

The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. It became one of the climate-modeling grant mills supplying tainted data from which the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concocted its reports.

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H

Oh dear. Where does he grow his tomatoes?

(#205144)

From your link

"greenhouse" theory violates the second law of thermodynamics

This person should get a greenhouse.

Are you ridiculing the scientific views of the left? You've succeeded.

Ha

(#205179)

after all these years, that one makes me laugh every time. I guess it's impossible for insulation to work either.

I blame it all on the Internet

That's an idiotic assertion. We have terabytes of data.

(#205104)

We have satellites which do nothing but look through the atmosphere tangentially, observing starlight passing through the billions of tons of crap we're heaving up into the troposphere. We map the ocean to the millimeter, observing coastlines and glaciers. To say the universe of collection points has grown smaller is ridiculous.

Further debate with you is pointless. It's an article of faith with you that scientists are idiots and the people who believe we're wrecking our planet are just Bolsheviks intent on ruining your life.

We map the ocean to the millimeter...

(#205107)

We do? NOAA's take on the subject doesn't concur.

"The ocean remains as one of Earth’s last unexplored frontiers. It has stirred our imaginations over the millenia and has led to the discovery of new of new lands, immense deposits and reservoirs of resources, and startling scientific findings. The presence of the human eye and the human ability to sample and to conduct experiments from the coastal regions to the deep ocean abyss has provided answers to questions on critical issues as global change, waste disposal, mineral deposits, and the creation of life itself. In spite of the development of new technologies, comparatively little of the ocean has been studied.

Given what has happened recently on glaciers, I'll just skip over your comment.

As for the balance, modeling a complex system is difficult and models which rely on a simple correlation to fsct a complex simple system, well I will let you do the math. But in response to your comment, I've put up a new diary. Enjoy!

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H

TOPEX/Poseidon

(#205108)

And Jason-1. Google it up for yourself. Ignorance is bliss.

Thanks for the affirmation

(#205114)

as well as making my point.

I'll end with this question, if we have all the answers, then why is the Obama Admin redirecting the resources of NASA inward rather than into the heavens? I won't address, the repositioning of spy satellites.

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H

Stuff and nonsense. You were handed your hat.

(#205118)

We do know what's happening to ocean levels. They're rising at 3mm a year. Why is that? Perhaps the angels are pee-peeing in the South Atlantic. Or maybe global warming is melting the glaciers. Hmmmm.....

Facts are always a difficult thing when you are on

(#205120)

the wrong side of the arguement.

Since you can't answer the question why, thanks again for making my point.

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H

Arrrrrgggghhh

(#205121)

No one can be on the wrong side of an 'arguement.' Except perhaps a recalcitrant grade school speller who refuses to learn how to spell. That kid could be on the wrong side of an 'arguement.'

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

thanks for the affirmation on my point nt

(#205131)

.

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H

I sorta wonder what an fsct is, myself.

(#205125)

I think it's Microsoft's version of ZFS.

Doesn't affect the trend.

(#205095)

And the warmest year controversy is really irrelevant to the AGW point.

Its curious that you think that the process of identifying signal within noise is data "manipulation". Or the possibility that different researchers might, legitimately, have different approaches to analysis.

Are you uncomfortable with the fact that temperature data is statistically analysed? How else would you do it?

If it was different researchers, you would certainly have

(#205102)

a point but it was the "hub" of those who collect data.

Further, if you were so concerned about researches legitimately having different approaches to analysis, then you would point it out to the folks like BlaiseP; dissent, rather than being disparaged, would be welcome in the realms of science.

Speaking of dissent, this is the response.

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H

Have you actually read the "dissent"?

(#205111)

You should really be unhappy with Mr Watts, if so.

His points are rather unfortunate for his own position.

No genuinely scientific effort is wasted.

(#205000)
Desidiosus's picture

And that, of course, was their error -- doing real science instead of stupid person advocacy.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits"  -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

 

True. The recent Monckton-Plimer debates in Australia

(#205034)

showed that, clearly.

Monckton kicked off the debate, warming up with a few disarming jokes. The man sure does know how to work a crowd. He then informed us that he was to focus on the most important aspect of climate discussion which is climate sensitivity. Unfortunately, he immediately veered off-topic, spending most of his allotted time taking potshots at the IPCC. The discussion of climate sensitivity came in a hurried blur at the end of his presentation, including a curious graph that showed solar activity increasing over the last few decades. As direct measurements of solar activity show solar output decreasing since 1980, I was interested to see where his data came from but the graph was gone before I could locate the reference.
---
Ian Plimer jumped out of the gates with the (correct) assertion that climate has changed in the past and has experienced quite dramatic changes in temperature. Indeed this is Plimer's chief refrain in his book, in every interview I've heard and at today's debate.
---
I must tip my hat to Plimer and Monckton. Both utilised their formidable public speaking skills and rhetorical flourishes to persuasively explain why humans can't be causing global warming. Plimer's argument was that climate has changed in the past. E.g. - climate has a high sensitivity. Monckton's argument was that climate has a low sensitivity. I think the irony that the two were arguing contradictory positions was lost on most of the audience.
---
In a sense, their combined approach perfectly encapsulates the way skeptic arguments are used to mislead. Layering argument upon argument, regardless of whether they display any internal consistency, isn't about furthering scientific understanding but proving the preconceived notion that humans can't be causing global warming. Two skeptic arguments can contradict each other, even on the same debating stage, so long as the common enemy of man-made global warming is refuted.