Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Optimistography - Josh 159 | Main | The redundant rear-admiral »
Monday
Apr022012

Muller on Watts

Richard Muller is interviewed in the current issue of Physics World (H/T Jonathan Jones). The article is not online as far as I can tell, but there are some interesting comments that I will reproduce here.

Asked by he started the BEST project, Muller replies:

"I lost my trust," Muller says, referring to the alleged actions of the scientists at the centre of the "Climategate" scandal, which broke in 2009. The controversy centred on a series of e-mails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK that led to accusations about the conduct of these scientists, including the way that data were selected in their studies. Although all the CRU scientists involved have been exonerated by four independent inquiries, Muller, having read the leaked e-mails, is still scathing of these scientistsand he isconvinced that, while they did nothing illegal, they are still guilty of scientific malpractice and that big question marks remain over their scientific methods. "What bothers me is the way that they hid the data, and the way that they used the peer-review system to make sure that the sceptics' arguments - some of which I felt were valid-wouid not be published".

And he also has high praise for Anthony Watts:

Muller also had four specific concerns with the scientific consensus on global warming, which the BEST project was designed to address. The first - and most serious, he says - is the "stations issue", referring to a problem highlighted by controversial US blogger and former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts. In 2007 Watts initiated the Sur/acestatiQns.org project, which reported that 70% of temperature recording stations in the US were inaccurate to a level of 2--5°C. MulIer says that the BEST team has now cleared up this  issue by showing that when it comes to specifically measuring change in temperature, the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations. "lf Watts hadn't done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he's a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize."

The other concerns are as follows:

The second concern Muller refers to i. the "data selection" employed by the three major groups collecting global temperature data: NASA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US; and the Met Office's Hadley Centre in the UK. Muller says that the number of stations being used between 1980 and the present day has dropped from 6000 to less than 2000, with no explanation to be found anywhere in the literature. The third issue is that rapid urbanization in the regions surrounding temperature stations might have led to localized temperature increases, or what is known as the "urban heat island" effect. The fourth concern, which Muller calls "data correction", refers to the small adjustments that the climate groups make to temperature readings as a result of changes in instruments and locations. Muller says the records describing why individual corrections have been made are very poor.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (59)

Thanks Jonathan, thanks Richard Muller. Science will only get back on track through the likes of you.

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake


But while Muller has maintained his concern for the potential impacts of global warming, he always had doubts about some of the accepted scientific claims. He believes that too many of his colleagues have put their names to petitions calling for action on climate change without considering the legitimate scientific questions that are still outstanding. "I have a sense that many of my friends look at global warming and say 'this is so scary that we have to abandon the objectivity of science'," he says.

Muller is worried that these colleagues are abandoning their scientific minds and becoming politicians. This, he fears, is discrediting science in the eyes of the American public, resulting in a form of politics less informed by science.


Spot on in my opinion.

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM | Registered CommenterJonathan Jones

It's interesting that Muller thinks CRU didn't break any laws. I don't think anyone can reasonably doubt that they did now we have seen the CG2 emails.

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

The fourth concern, which Muller calls "data correction", refers to the small adjustments that the climate groups make to temperature readings as a result of changes in instruments and locations. Muller says the records describing why individual corrections have been made are very poor.

And, if I understood correctly, the UEA guardians of the data deleted the original data on the grounds that storage capacity was in short supply.

[although I can't imagine it would have filled all that many 1600 bpi magtapes, which were standard in university computing centres from the 1970's]

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

"with no explanation to be found anywhere in the literature"

what rot:

Petersen + Vose (1997) (and more recently Jones et al (2012), Lawrimore et al (2011)...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v2.php

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank

I have a ruling from the Information Commissioner that CRU broke the Data Protection Act in their handling of my FOI request. A small point but a significant one.

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM | Registered CommenterJonathan Jones

Frank, you think that Muller should have referred to Jones et al (2012) when he started this project two years ago?

Time travel?

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered Commentersteveta

What's rot Frank? Are you suggesting they haven't reduced the number of stations? Or rather the number of stations haven't been reduced because, say, of the break up of the USSR?

Have the BEST results been peer reviewed yet? They were supposed to provide data, code and method. Have they done that yet?

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Frank - the articles you cite appear to describe the methods used in developing the temperature dataset possibly without justifying adequately the particular reasons why these methods have been proposed for selecting stations.

I am particularly intrigued to find out what promoted the idea of including additional stations into the HADCRUT4 dataset seemingly with the specific intent of reflecting increased warming in the Arctic - provoking the question whether it would have been necessary to include these stations had it not been suspected that the Arctic was subject to higher than average warming?

So it seems it may have been possible that there has been a little too much subjectivity in deciding whether or not to include a greater or lesser number of stations.

What was the objective reason for including more stations into HADCRUT4?

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Well, he "thinks" he cleared it up. My latest data says otherwise.

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnthony Watts

In 2007 Watts initiated the Sur/acestatiQns.org project, which reported that 70% of temperature recording stations in the US were inaccurate to a level of 2--5°C. MulIer says that the BEST team has now cleared up this issue by showing that when it comes to specifically measuring change in temperature, the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations.

So because the 30% good stations were as inaccurate as the 70% bad its all ok ?

Not in my book.

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:40 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

Has your latest data been submitted to any journal or otherwise brought to Richard Muller's attention, Andrew?

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:42 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Sur/acestatiQns.org project

Great name for a project questioning data accuracy!

Apr 2, 2012 at 5:43 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

This is a good summary of some of the main issues from Richard Muller.
Of course, he has criticised hide-the-decline and praised Anthony previously.

Bish, Muller is a scientist, so like me he's probably more interested in the science and in scientific integrity than precisely whether some law has been breached.

Here's what Lawrimore et al say about the decline in the number of stations -
"The decline in the number of GHCN‐M stations since the 1970s is due in part to station closures. For example in Russia, the number of reporting stations has decreased by at least 20% since 1990 (P. Groisman, personal communication, 2009). However, the decline primarily reflects the need to strengthen international data exchange efforts to capitalize to the greatest extent possible on the full set of observations ..."
As Muller says, this is no explanation, it's waffle.

And here is the "explanation" from Jones et al 2012:
"Numbers of stations reduce from a peak in the 1960s, occurring in a series of steps at the end of each decade indicative of the cause being changes in station availability in the WWR volumes."
There are fewer stations available because there are fewer stations available.

Apr 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

"the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations."

Maybe he should mention that the cooling stations stations tend to be in regions with low or negative growth in population.

"Warming counties had a mean population increase of 174,361"

"Cooling counties had a mean population increase of 39,060."

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/county-population-statistics-and-coolingwarming-stations-since-1900/

And, stations are lower in Elevation causing warming,

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/climate-data-and-elevation/

Apr 2, 2012 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Interesting, as Physics World has been drifiting into Claimate pseudo science for a while (after being blissfully apolitical).

Apr 2, 2012 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterac1

Meanwhile the Met Office Hadley have been working with the Guardian again to assert that all the adjustments they make to station data are necessary and for good reason:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/02/temperature-record-climate-change-warming?intcmp=122

I like to see them defend what their colleagues in NOAA and GISS have been doing with the raw data for various stations in North America, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Ireland, Shetland and Siberia. Here are just some links I have noted recently on this disturbing trend to adjust historic temperatures -

GISS - North America - http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif (is it really true that Mueller thought that GISS was a good dataset?)

analysis at the Air Vent - The New Science of Climate Change, by Pat Frank, 6 May 2011: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/delta-t/

GISS Arctic - http://www.real-science.com/new-giss-data-set-heating-arctic

Iceland, Arctic, Hansen, GISS adjustments to make 1930s and 40s cooler -
http://www.real-science.com/new-giss-data-set-heating-arctic

Paul Homewood on GISS and GCHNv3 verses GCHNv2 -
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/the-icelandic-saga-continues/
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/how-giss-has-totally-corrupted-reykjaviks-temperatures/
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/giss-making-up-fictitious-temperatures-in-iceland/
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/ghcn-temperature-adjustments-affect-40-of-the-arctic/

Peter O'Neill's Blog on GCHNv3 - Reykjavik and Dublin Airport -
http://oneillp.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/gistemp-and-ghcn-v3-two-stations-illustrated/

And these adjustments are not peculiar to us the northern hemisphere, e.g:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/an-adjustment-like-alice/

Okay, I am sure that sometimes it may be necessary to adjust data, but why is it that the result always seems to create or increase a warming trend, and never seems to do the opposite?

Apr 2, 2012 at 6:56 PM | Registered Commenterlapogus

"...the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations. "lf Watts hadn't done his work, we would not have reliable data today."

Anthony Watts must be fainting with damn praise!

Apr 2, 2012 at 6:59 PM | Registered CommenterHarry Passfield

It's interesting that Muller thinks CRU didn't break any laws. I don't think anyone can reasonably doubt that they did now we have seen the CG2 emails.

Hi Bish,
I cannot find any info on the breaking of laws shown in CG2. I would be very interested in reading about it. Could you please point me to some links or articles about it?
Many thanks in advance!

(and also hi and a big thumbs up to you Anthony! You guys' two blogs are my first and favorite every day. (multiple times per day.)
Keep up the good work. Thank you!!

Wijnand

Apr 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterWijnand

IIRC the Information Commissioner ruled after CG1 that he could not imagine a more obvious prima facie case of breaking the FOI laws, but that a time limitation prevented prosecution.

Doesn't sound the same as being cleared of any illegal activity to me.

Apr 2, 2012 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteveW

Search for the Palutikoff email.

Apr 2, 2012 at 7:52 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

More rat's scrambling for the middle ground after the deed has been found out! very amusing!

Apr 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterSparks

Thanks for the link to the Palutikoff email.
What a bunch of sneaky weasels, avoiding perjury this way!
It is mindbogling that nobody seems interested!

Apr 2, 2012 at 9:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterWijnand

Search for the Palutikoff email.

Indirectly, this lead me to an eco website displaying concern about what the emails (and files) displayed.

Until now, I've only seen such sites saying things like "everyone talks like that informally" "the emails were taken out of context" etc.

But here, the blogger says...

"I've noticed some people have been commenting on other blogs (thanks for the links and keep them coming) that it is strange for such an article to appear on an Eco focused website. The actual real strangeness to me perhaps is that no other Eco focused websites seem to be doing the same."

Apr 2, 2012 at 9:24 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Despite Muller's gushing praise of Anthony Watts, I can understand Watts' ambivalence toward Muller, after Muller rushed to give half-baked 'evidence' on behalf of the 'Best' project to the US Senate after promising Watts, as a condition for using Watts' data from his Climatestations project that the Best project would be staying silent until the science was done.
Being aware of the fudging and fiddling that was done in NZ and in Australia by NIWA and the BOM to the official records, I have complete confidence that none of the 'official' climactic datasets approved by the UNIPCC are free of artificially-induced historical cooling to produce the current nonsensical warming trend.

Apr 2, 2012 at 9:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

Eco-who looks more like a branded version of Climate Depot to me
It has an FOIA grepper and an interesting set of links

Apr 2, 2012 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndy Scrase

The golden rule when working historic data is to go right back to square one, call up those archive storage boxes and pull those original analog records and handwritten notes and QC them first. It is all too easy to skip that vital stage and go straight to some workstation with those huge digital data sets and play about with their fancy interpretation software creating pretty displays. I once found a whole correlation stratigraphy of thin-bedded coal seams in a deltaic sequence visible only on old faded and yellowed optically recorded paper-folded well logs when the digital computerised versions of the logs disappeared the tell tale coal log spikes completely, because the digital sampling interval was too coarse. Worse still, they had also flipped some of the curves, got some scales wrong and introduced depth errors due to careless transcription work.

It seems to me that the Muller approach is a tad too fast and slick, the Watts approach painstaking and methodical.

I presently trust Watts and Watts alone on this, because he is suspicious like most of us of the potential skullduggery, and over the years I have seen him time after time go right back like a forensic detective to investigate the scene of the 'crime'.

Apr 2, 2012 at 11:46 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

It pains me to credit the Grainiad, but they get high marks for prognostication on this post and its comments, having quoted Muller thus last fall :

Apr 3, 2012 at 1:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Climate sceptics have criticised official global warming figures on the grounds that many temperature stations are poor quality and that data are tweaked by hand.

Here's the missing Grauniad quote from above :

However, the Berkeley study found that the so-called urban heat island effect, which makes cities warmer than surrounding rural areas, is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to average land temperature rises. This is because urban regions make up less than 1% of the Earth's land area. And while stations considered "poor" might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.

"We have looked at these issues in a straightforward, transparent way, and based on that, I would expect legitimate sceptics to feel their issues have been addressed," Muller said.

Apr 3, 2012 at 1:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Pharos@11:46 pm.

Absolutely spot-on right. Your last paragraph is golden.

Apr 3, 2012 at 3:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichards in Vancouver

@ pharos - your last two paragraphs, in my view, are exactly right! Similar forensic work to that of Watts has been carried out in Australia and in NZ and the results so far have shown definite and deliberate chicanery to lower historic temperature records that keep the 'hottest evah!' current years deception in front of the public.

Apr 3, 2012 at 4:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

"Russell" quotes Muller to effect that "... legitimate skeptics (will) feel their issues have been addressed."

My "legitimacy" is not for some pusillanimous poseur like Muller to approve. How about, "Legitimate climate researchers --those of common decency, integrity, devoted to their scientific enterprise-- will understand that vetting unwarranted presuppositions at length and in detail is the sole means of exposing the Green Gang's egregiously fraudulent pursuit of grant monies to the exclusion of all else."

Over a full generation from 1988, Muller et al. have been complicit in a gigantic partisan con-game, sabotaging global energy economies on behalf of a totalitarian State religion. Unless and until such creatures well-and-truly "legitimize" themselves, we owe them no respect or even professional courtesy whatever.

Apr 3, 2012 at 4:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn blake

Paul Mathews said:

"Bish, Muller is a scientist, so like me he's probably more interested in the science and in scientific integrity than precisely whether some law has been breached."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, well, that's all right then. Nothing to see here - scientific integrity and adherence to FOI for publicly funded research are apparently incompatible. So, who cares about the law?

In fact, what happened was contrary to both scientific integrity and the law. That it doesn't seem to disturb you perhaps illustrates the ethical void that some scientists now operate in.

Apr 3, 2012 at 4:36 AM | Unregistered Commenterjohanna

Johanna to Paul Mathews:

That it doesn't seem to disturb you perhaps illustrates the ethical void that some scientists now operate in.

Oh come on. We know Paul better than that. But sorry - perhaps you don't Johanna. This blog after all exists for those like you that are so important on their own eyes that they can drive by, make such an attack on a named person and continue on their way protected by their own pseudonymity. I forgot all about that. Deeply, deeply sorry - and to everyone so brave as you who will doubtless will deeply offended by these words of mine.

Apr 3, 2012 at 5:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

On the reservations people have about Muller's words (and I accept the details raised by Montford, Jones and Watts) I return to my current favourite Churchill quote:

The duty of government is first and foremost to be practical. I am for makeshifts and expediency. I would like to make the people who live on this world at the same time as I do better fed and happier generally. If incidentally I benefit posterity - so much the better - but I would not sacrifice my own generation to a principle however high or a truth however great.

This by the way is why I accept the need for pseudonymity on blogs. Nothing should be taken as an attack on that expediency but on the use some people make of it. Same with carrying a gun in the states in which that's legal. Do it but don't be afraid of criticism (and a bit more) if you do it carelessly and kill a few people. (Thanks to Keith Braithwaite for that analogy over ten years ago now.)

The Bish's reference back to David Holland's work seems to me to be the most important, because it implicates an officer of the IPCC in the illegality. Muller hasn't talk about the evils of the IPCC as far as I know. But he is bringing Physics World back to something much truer to science here. I have no problem applauding that and his named critics here. Makeshifts and expediency. But not killing people.

Apr 3, 2012 at 5:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Johanna to Paul Mathews:

That it doesn't seem to disturb you perhaps illustrates the ethical void that some scientists now operate in.

Oh come on. We know Paul better than that. But sorry - perhaps you don't Johanna. This blog after all exists for those like you that are so important on their own eyes that they can drive by, make such an attack on a named person and continue on their way protected by their own pseudonymity. I forgot all about that. Deeply, deeply sorry - and to everyone so brave as you who will doubtless will deeply offended by these words of mine.
Apr 3, 2012 at 5:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am bemused by the notion that because you apparently know Paul Mathews, anyone who doesn't know him (i.e. 6.9999999 billion people on the planet) cannot call him on what he has said. Only his friends and acquaintances should have the temerity to do that.

But Richard, you don't know me - so why do you think you have the right to comment on what I have said in a public forum? I can assure you that my friends would vouch for me, too.

As for anonymity, I would much prefer to use my name. But as doing this would be committing economic suicide in the environment I work in, you'll just have to accept or not my bona fides. Just as I do those of Paul Mathews, who I have never met, but who has publicly said that adhering to FOI laws is neither here nor there in his moral universe.

Apr 3, 2012 at 6:47 AM | Unregistered Commenterjohanna

Oh yes, I remember, those independent investigations that UEA hand-picked, and set up and paid for. The UEA investigated itself, and exonerated itself. Job done.

Apr 3, 2012 at 7:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

Pharos,
What does QC mean? (I bet I'm not the only ignorant bugger here on that point)

Apr 3, 2012 at 8:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn in France

Quality control?
Otherwise totally agree with Richards in Vancouver on your comment.

Apr 3, 2012 at 8:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn in France

John from France

Quality Control, something lacking in climate science.

Apr 3, 2012 at 8:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterShevva

As you see, I did twig it in the end. British blogs are by no means as bad as the American ones for overloading us with initials and acronyms (the French are pretty good at that as well), but as in this case they can send us off on ridiculous wild goose chases if we don't immediately latch on.

Apr 3, 2012 at 9:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn in France

Russell

"the so-called urban heat island effect, which makes cities warmer than surrounding rural areas, is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to average land temperature rises"

Isn't that a straw man? I'm not sure anyone is blaming urbanisation for the overall warming (if such there be) but in its reporting, where artificially raised temperatures are logged as if they were normal.

Even BBC weather forecasters now occasionally mention that the temperatures shown on their maps are urban and that the rural temperatures may be several degrees lower. This is quite a recent departure and probably comes as a surprise to most viewers.

Apr 3, 2012 at 10:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Oh that they would take away Gore's Nobel Prize and award it to Anthony Watts.

Muller's piece that should be thrust before the eyes of the policy makers. And they should be made to read it.

Apr 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Stroud

"[...] leaked emails [...]". *SO* nice to see the correct description in place of the pejorative "hacked".

Apr 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterHASurvivor

Peter
Since they awarded the Nobel Prize to the whole of the IPCC machine, why not award it to the Noble band of skeptics (aka Scientists) including Anthony, M&M, His Grace and everyone else who feels they have played a part.

The Nobel Award should be withdrawn from Big Al & the IPCC and replaced with the Ig Nobel Prize. This should not be taken as a negative step as great works of science have been recognised by the Ig Nobel Prizes. One important and up-to-date (2nd April 2012) example is the reassessment of the role of penguin emissions - a subject I'm sure of great concern to us all:
http://www.improbable.com/2012/04/02/reassessment-of-the-role-of-penguin-emissions/

Apr 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Bates

The issue of the drop in temperature stations used from c6000 to less than 2000 (actually it was as low as c1200) was raised with the Muir Russell enquiry in evidence put to it. This decline in numbers was not evident from the first submission of evidence by the CRU, (another case of hide the decline?) though they admitted that it occurred in further evidence.

The Muir Russell panel did not press them, however, on the quality implications of this change. It was pointed out, in evidence, that a change of such significance should have been accompanied by a parallel run over a period of time to validate such a significant change in the dataset. Otherwise how could anyone judge if the comparison of post 1990 data with the pre 1990 data was valid and not subject to error? My recollection is that CRU said that it would be impossible to do this - indeed there were doubts about some of their own earlier stations data.

All the pioneering work to expose this lamentable state of affairs was undertaken by EM Smith, aka chiefio.

Apr 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered Commenteroldtimer

johanna: Sorry to cause such offence but how would you expect me to know you? I would have thought that the whole point of your pseudonymity is that you would know and everyone else would know that we don't know your true identity. But maybe I are missing something pretty important here. Feel free to enlighten me.

Paul Matthews (not a speling eror) is for me a bit of a hero. Having seen other people I admire attacked recently by the gorgeous pseudonymous on here recently - Barry Woods, Richard Betts, Andrew Montford and Richard Muller, to give four rather different examples - I continue to dislike the self-righteous tone adopted by those quite happy to try and reduce the reputation of such genuinely brave people while bearing absolutely no price themselves. Sorry to have to lelt you know that your angry reaction didn't increase my respect for whoever it is that is hiding behind your own pseudonym.

Apr 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Thank you, Dr. Jones for bringing Dr. Muller's statements to the fore. Thank you, also, for weighing in on what you have described as "pathological science."

Apr 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

Some day this silly station drop-out issue will die... Probably not until they add all the GHCN-D stations to GHCN-M, no matter how many times we show that records with increasing numbers of stations over the last 30 years (GHCN-D, GSOD, etc.) show the same trend as GHCN-M.

Its worth pointing out that Berkeley's results demonstrated that:

1) Global temperature trends using ~40k stations are the same as those of NCDC/GISS/Hadley (who use only GHCN-M).
2) Station siting in the U.S. results in little to no mean trend bias.
3) UHI appears not to be a significant contributing factor to modern warming.

Apr 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterZeke Hausfather

Zeke - but adding temperature records seems to increase the trend in the new Hadcrut series, so is it a question of how selectively the stations were culled?

Apr 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>