Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Not the BEST | Main | The passing of the Climate Change Act? »


Rich Muller may have an op-ed out, but Anthony Watts has a publication of his own:

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

So now you know.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (147)

I hope this paper will be submitted to Nature. They would try to find some way to refuse it, which would be even more damaging for them than if they were to accept it....

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

This is very good news for the team. The post 1960 "hide the decline" suddenly becomes less dramatic.

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM | Registered CommenterGrantB

That's brilliant!

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterRCSaumarez

I think it takes a while for the significance of this result to sink in. Take for example Svensmark's 2007 paper and Lockwood and Frolich's rebuttal, which was based on surface station warming. Svensmark rebutted the rebuttal using tropospheric and ocean data!

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:37 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

We all thought their game really was up after CG1. But it wasn't. Whilst it went quiet for a bit, the MSM is still oblivious to the level of uncertainty in what the warmists peddle as 'settled science'. Don't get me started on the BBC activists who don't even want to know the truth, as it gets jn the way of wealth distribution ideals.

The establishment will manage to deflect this WUWT scoop too I suspect.

How would one measure that the warmists really have given up for good?
- Hansen, Mann and Jones get put out to pasture?
- The UK CCA gets repealed?
- The BBC, Guardian and other left wing media outlets admit they were duped and overreacted by allowing publication of nonsense that seemed right at the time?
- WUWT and BH close owing to lack of traffic?

I suspect this will cause a pause in warmist activty, but sadly they'll be back with more scare stories when the oppottunity arises.

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterFarleyR

BigYin, Simon Hopkinson, confused,
I’m usually the wet blanket here, whenever anyone starts chortling “we’ve won” but this really is a watershed.
The mainstream media cannot ignore it, since it’s instantly comprehensible to the man in the street. Muller supporters and Watts fans will be lined up face to face in the studios. It’s no longer climate scientists versus unknown bloggers, but peer reviewed experts with temperature graphs at ten paces. My mum can understand this, which, in a democracy, is an important factor.
Cheers to the Fab Four, and to Leroy of Meteo France. I’ll keep an eye on the French media to see how long they can keep this under wraps.

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:51 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Jul 29, 2012 at 9:11 PM | JonasM has picked up the most salient points here:

After thinking about it a bit, I think I see the potentially 'tectonic' import here - this paper shows that every previously published temp record is severely flawed (BEST included). Therefore, any paper (in any field) published using those temp records may need to be re-evaluated. That's a large number.

Since the methods used here (Leroy 2012) have been previously endorsed as the current gold standard by the WMO, this really does look like the current, best analysis that we have. It's not easily dismissed. Not that some won't try.

The statistical methods being relied upon here are so much more mainstream than the innovative medhods of adjustment being applied previously they will be much harder to discount.. And as JonasM points out, the methods of categorisation of the weather stations have already been endorsed as the current gold standard.

I will only add that so many different angles have already been considered that I fail to see how this paper will not in time herald a complete restatement of the extent of global warming.

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Those of you who think Anthony has over hyped it are overlooking a few details.

Firstly, vacations in the USA are much shorter than we are used to. With only 10 days leave aside from public holidays, the term 'vacation' is also used to cover what we would term 'a long weekend' or 'a few days away'.

Secondly, there is a heck of a lot of analysis here and no small amount of text to correct and proof. Whether or not Anthony knew about Muller's plans, the emerging results were probably significant enough (to him) to need to clear a weekend in a busy life to focus on completion, regardless of any external sense of urgency.

WUWT takes a lot of time and effort to run and the announcement created the necessary time and space. Only comments on the announcement thread were closed, other threads carried on as usual, just quieter (so contrary to some people's misunderstanding and inaccurate speculation, the moderators weren't pulled off to engage in reading released emails).

Some of you get how big a deal this is. It is huge. This is a 'we told you so' moment for quality, attention to detail and due diligence. And, yes is may be US data only, but this pulls the rug from under the claims of runaway warming in the last two decades.

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterVerity Jones

That the content of this paper will be taken far more seriously on all sides than 'professor' Muller's posturing antics seems telling. I doubt many thermogeddonists care about the smells in Mullers latest emission half as much as they do about Watts et al's.

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterJake Haye

Most of the graphs in Anthony's pdf release look like coded messages in a language incomprehensible to human mind.

Before I say anything I want to know for a fact there really is no alien spaceship in Anthony Watts' backyard.

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:56 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

This can only mean that the WMO is being funded by Big Oil ;-)

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveS

Its what everybody suspected anyway its so bloody obvious, cement retains heat at night and day. If you put a Stevenson screen in a city it will heat more than pure rural. Thats why only purely rural station data should have be used to estimate an approximation to global temps. Of course the Wartmist camp will avoid this until they lose their jobs.

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterFitzcarraldo

@ Simon Hopkinson

"So it's a USHCN siting quality issue. Not exactly world-stopping, far and away over-hyped, not in and of itself anything so revelatory. It's not like siting issues and inappropriate NOAA adjustments are unknown to us. At least, not those of us who keep an eye on Steve Goddard's RealScience site. I'm not happy. My opportunity to get wasted is wasted. I could have gone out."

Simon, firstly, the paper is important in its own right and they use quality certified methodology. It can't be dismissed as easily as "just another blog post by Steven Goddard".

and secondly, the last time Muller sent out a PR balloon it went "viral" in the world's media. Anthony Watts knows the media and how to play them, so when this new balloon was launched, he had the needle ready.

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterBebben

Seems to me this is pretty huge, if it stands up.

Though, not as exciting as an email release. Is that why everyone's got their panties in a bunch? We were all hoping for some thrills and spills?

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans

I think that JonasM and Matthu are emphasizing an absolutely critical point.

[first make all necessary caveats that Watts et al (2012) must go through extensive scrutiny, peer review etc.....IF it survives that relatively unscathed none of us here can assess all the implications for other papers.... BUT]

IF the implications of Watts et al (2012) are roughly what Roger Pielke, Sr. has stated (and he was the technical proofreader so evidently has had some considerable opportunity to analyze this paper).....

THEN there are large numbers of prior papers in a variety of areas which must be re-assessed, re-written, superseded by new papers with different data etc. One need not attribute any ill intent or ill behavior to anyone in the past to observe that a lot of papers are out there which rely upon data from the surface records which are now in doubt.

Recall how Myles Allen expressed here awhile ago his concern (relating to "Climategate" matters) that *IF* there had been problems with the datasets of surface temps then a large number of his own papers might be in question.

That is the potential "tectonic" implication of this Watts et al (2012) paper, I would think... again speaking hypothetically, since I can't assess it, but taking Pielke Sr. as a point of discussion.... how many papers out there relied upon the surface temp data which has now been undermined???

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:34 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Extremely important paper. Data limited to well-sited rural stations is exactly what had been missing. A warming of 0.032 per decade over 30 years is unimpressive to say the least, even if limited to the US. It will take time before it becomes generally accepted, but I believe it will.

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrançois GM

I can't imagine a counter-attack to this study by the Warmostas. Oh, wait, yes I can. The US is only 2% of the planet's surface and then go on to mis-apply the micro-site analysis to all the other world land data and say "Hey, Presto! Using your methodology, we show that it's even worse than we thought". They will also find magic new adjustments to the satellite and ocean data to be in league with the new data.

The US data was simply an anomoly.

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert of Ottawa

How does this analysis compare with satellite trends?

And if it is contradicted by satelliute measurements, how is this explained? (Or were satellite measurements calibrated using thermometer readings?)

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:50 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Of course it's tectonic (assuming no major flaws are detected). The US is the home of AGW model-based 'research', much of it using what is shown to be a dataset which exaggerates warming to a significant extent. That means the output of those modelling exercises is now garbage - something many of us already believed for other reasons.

Then, there are the papers from all over the world based on the GIGO modelling papers, also now only useful to make confetti.

Finally, if validated, it establishes a methodology which can be picked up by others to apply to their national temperature statistics. I bet those who have been working on the dodgy siting and adjustments to weather station outputs here in Australia will find this tremendously useful as a blueprint for doing a similar exercise.

Those who are disappointed because the announcement wasn't some kind of political expose seem to have forgotten what real science is all about.

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered Commenterjohanna


I agree the paper is important in its own right, so it didn't require theatrics.

Also, I don't like having my chain pulled. We get precious few moments of joy in this game, being a CAGW skeptic is a long hard war of attrition and ridicule, and I don't like being promised a moment, then it not being delivered.

Sorry. I call them as I see them. I'll read the paper tomorrow when I've gotten over it.

Jul 29, 2012 at 9:07 PM

I have to empathise. One thing most people forget here is that I would be cock-a-hoop to see the whole thing debunked.

What is lacking is any evidence that the physics which underpin our understanding of CO2 forcing is wrong. First, we need that. Then we need an alternative forcing or forcings that account for the rest of the observations.

Why is OHC rising? Why is Arctic ice melting?

We need to know. Otherwise it's back to square one, currently occupied by the mainstream scientific view that CO2 is the main cause of modern warming.

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BEST has a new release. I'm not sure a .57C rise in temperature in the USA from the 1840s to now is much to worry about.

And Anthony Watt may have demolished even this small amount of warming found by BEST.

Jul 29, 2012 at 11:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

"So it's a USHCN siting quality issue."

Not really. While you certainly see a lower trend from the better-sited locations, the "adjusted" trend is higher than either the well-sited or the poorly-sited locations. Class 1,2 stations have a 0.155C/decade trend. Class3,4,5 stations have a 0.245C/decade trend. The "adjusted trend" is 0.309C/decade, higher than any of them. It appears that the trends from the absolute worst of them was used to adjust the rest resulting in an inflation of the tend by double.

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:06 AM | Unregistered Commentercrosspatch

matthu: "How does this analysis compare with satellite trends?"

SteveF at the Blackboard pointed me to line 739 of the paper, which says:

By way of comparison, the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) Lower Troposphere CONUS trend over this period is 0.25°C/decade and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) has 0.23°C/decade, the average being 0.24°C/decade. This provides an upper bound for the surface temperature since the upper air is supposed to have larger trends than the surface (e.g. see Klotzbach et al (2011). Therefore, the surface temperatures should display some fraction of that 0.24°C/decade trend. Depending on the amplification factor used, which for some models ranges from 1.1 to 1.4, the surface trend would calculate to be in the range of 0.17 to 0.22, which is close to the 0.155°C/decade trend seen in the compliant Class 1&2 stations.

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:18 AM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

No disrespect to Watts , but the trouble who has the press included the BBC in the shape of the Teams BBC bagboy Mr Black , on side . I am afraid its BEST .

What people still have not worked out is that is NOT A SCIENTIFIC argument, its a political one and is therefore played according to those rules. So a 'good lie ' bets the truth and its those that get to push their message first and loudest that get to decided what ground the fight is on.

The thing AGW sceptics have on their side in this fight is the public's fatigue with the whole thing , the fact that thanks to the economy people have other things on their minds , and the over playing of scare hand which has crated a 'chicken little ' effect.

Its not about who gets the science right or about what the science tells us , that is something the alarmists have worked out . And so get all the 'science' by press release, for after the story has broken who , outside the few that interested , goes back to find out the facts don't really support the scare that made the headlines .

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

BBD, if this paper is correct, then we can say with 95% :) certainty, that the doubling of CO2 will affect the warming within Spencer/Lindzen's predictions. So we don't have to panic, but can move to renewables in an orderly and less expensive fashion!

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterLeo G

When I started reading about "Global Warming" more than a decade ago, my first impression was how stupid and (perhaps) dishonest much of the data-juggling was. These new results on the "adjusted trend" tend to back that up. Then I learned from WUWT about all the dud sitings and instruments. So a rural non-airport 0.108 C/decade is (presumably) now the best available estimate of US surface temperature increase in the three decades to 2008.

But it's not finished yet. The draft paper mentions other potential problems: "we can be reasonably certain that excluding these factors [shade or ground cover] will not bias this study in ways that will exaggerate the differences between well and poorly sited stations". In other words, it's plausible that they have underestimated the discrepancy.

So untrusting have I become of the warmmongers, without critical scrutiny I'd even hesitate to accept " the standard quality-control screening for errors in recording and transcription", .. "intermediate (TOB) [adjustments]" and "[removal of] apparent inhomogeneities where
changes in the daily temperature record at a station differs significantly from neighbouring

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:37 AM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme


Then we need an alternative forcing or forcings that account for the rest of the observations.

Based on Watts' new paper, I think you have to give serious consideration to the idea that the main forcing may well be confirmation bias.

geoffchambers, Bedden: like TheBigYinJames, I don't like being played. Suspending WUWT for days was unnecessary. Heck, I don't even read WUWT and I got sucked in. Anthony caught wind of Muller's imminent grandstanding and opted for some pre-emptive grandstanding of his own. His haste to get in there with some hype even took Anthony's co-authors completely by surprise; Steve McIntyre was as baffled as the rest of us.

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:38 AM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

What Mr Watts has found is very crucial to the whole AGW story. Most of the recorded ground temps have come from Stevenson Boxes which are in cities, airports and have been contaminated by human activities and cement ect. The findings for USA data can most likely be extrapolated worlwide and mean that there is no significant warming anywhere as proven by the AMSU data recently

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterFitzcarraldo

BBD, are you sure you want to revisit all the things you've said about the UHI effect, and how insigificant it is, and how the BEST analysis had shown this, and supported your beliefs? And how certain you pretended to be, and how dismissive you wanted to appear about those who explained to you where your arguments where flawed?

And are you aware that these recent findings weren't even the main issue then, but that they (if they hold up) once more undermine not only your pretence of being well informed, but far more than that and only your posturing?

Well, personally I was aware of you almost non-existent understanding of the issues since I took things up with you the first time. Later confirmed many times over regarding other simple and trivial things. I am more astounded by Richard Muller, who really should know far better. But it seens he too has been caught with his pants at his ankles ...

Jul 30, 2012 at 12:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterJonas N

Jonas N

Yes, yes... but what about the physics that dictates that RF from CO2 will warm the troposphere? And what about OHC and Arctic melt?

So many questions, so few answers that don't involve CO2.

Jul 30, 2012 at 1:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD


"Yes, yes... but what about the physics that dictates that RF from CO2 will warm the troposphere? And what about OHC and Arctic melt?

So many questions, so few answers that don't involve CO2."

None of which have got anything to do with our ability to accurately measure the surface temperature in the good ole US of A

Jul 30, 2012 at 1:16 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Mr Watts has a draft paper that shows there is a significant increase in temperatures measured at many weather stations in the USA, and more or less proves that the increase is due to human activity.

Or at least that's how I would expect some folk to spin it if the world weren't so well connected.

Jul 30, 2012 at 1:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterReg. Blank

Good questions, as always, BBD. The physics, as currently understood, does back up much of what you've said (no disrespect to spartacus/nasally deficient pooch/ George Formby fan/ etc)
But it's a subset of our knowledge not the entirety or, at least, not yet.
What Anthony and crew have set out to do here is, I believe, to lay out a few more flagstones that may advance our knowledge or predictive abilities in this arena.
They may have come up with a dead-end and only time will tell but if, as they claim, the data and methods are laid out on the rug for all to see then this can hardly be construed as a negative.
If this generates a counter-claim from traditional climate science that honestly refutes and rebuts these findings then Mr Watts et al may get a bloody nose but we will all benefit.
To paraphrase a prominent Oz scientist; This is called research!
Take care mate and, BTW, thanks for the input

Jul 30, 2012 at 1:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

BBD - for the first and last time from me, a little educaton. Radiative energy transfer is miniscule in the atmosphere in comparison to convection and the evporation/condensation cycle.

Jul 30, 2012 at 2:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobert of Ottawa

BBD asks "what about the physics that dictates that RF from CO2 will warm the troposphere?"

That physics is solid, although there is a vigorous discussion of principles of physics among a small minority of scientists that is often exaggerated to be a mainstream controversy. That would explain the slight warming confirmed by Watts's study. The more relevant question is what about the water vapor amplification predicted by the models? That may be contradicted by the new study.

Jul 30, 2012 at 2:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterEric (skeptic)

Jul 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM | Verity Jones:

"Those of you who think Anthony has over hyped it are overlooking a few details. [ ... ]

Some of you get how big a deal this is. It is huge. This is a 'we told you so' moment for quality, attention to detail and due diligence. [ ... ] this pulls the rug from under the claims of runaway warming in the last two decades."

Well said, Verity ! IMHO, the hype was absolutely a necessary part of drawing the attention of the entire Climate Science community to this important information to gained rapid momentum.

Jul 30, 2012 at 2:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterStreetcred

For those that are critical of Anthony Watts' method of announcing this release I'd say that it is about time someone played the alarmists at there own game of promotion. But I think AW raised the bar to a new level with his clever use of the blogsphere. Also he obviously knew that Muller was going to release his paper so the timing was great.

Jul 30, 2012 at 2:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

Yeah, Jonas, I thought back to the UHI BBD thread too. All that nonsense about accelerated land warming, and CO2 warming being apparent over land first.

Watts concludes what MM found and what I said at the time too: UHI can produce a single point upward shift and it can produce an upward trend too.

Jul 30, 2012 at 2:55 AM | Registered Commentershub

BBD asks "what about the physics that dictates that RF from CO2 will warm the troposphere?"
Upon what bounds is this predicated?
Phase changes are complicated by factors beyond simple 'all-else-being-equal' considerations. Do you remember the Scientific American articles of the '80's about how warm water froze faster in the African Highlands than colder water?
I do.
Physics is a wonderful noun but needs adjectives to bring it alive and make it relevant!

Jul 30, 2012 at 3:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

BBD - at the risk of here we go again:

"Yes, yes... but what about the physics that dictates that RF from CO2 will warm the troposphere? And what about OHC and Arctic melt?

1. given the complexities of the ocean and atmosphere systems, and the dominance of H2O as the planet's refrigerant, the effect from a little extra CO2 is negligible. (Have you or anyone else found the hotspot yet?)

2. OHC has flattened in recent years - - despite continually rising atmospheric CO2.

3. We only have 30 years worth of satellite data, but the ice melt the Arctic in this period is not unprecedented - and is nothing unusual, or alarming. It has happened before when atmospheric CO2 was c. 250ppm. There is also the fact that only a fraction of the ice loss is due to 'melt' - in 2007 and summer 2012, significant quantities of sea ice have been transported by winds and ocean currents down the Fram Strait into the North Atlantic. In summer 2007 Arctic temperatures (above 80 degrees) were average, as they have been this summer.

Questions for you:

Given that CO2 thesis and all the models suggest that the poles will warm most, why haven't Antarctic temperatures increased? (aside from on the peninsula, which is a small fraction of the continent, and please don't cite Steig, whose paper had it been in any other field would have been withdrawn).

Given previous warm periods in the Holocene, how can you be certain that that the very slight increase in GAT in the late 20th Century is not due to changes in decadal ocean circulation patterns, and/or a small (2 or 3%) change in average cloud cover and thereby insolence in the tropics and mid latitudes? Do you really think solar-magnetic activity and cosmic rays have no bearing on our climate?

Jul 30, 2012 at 3:02 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

Ian W writes:

"OK, this suits the sceptics (me included), but I'm dubious that it moves the science forward much - and I'm certain that the warmists, to the extent that they notice the work at all, will find a different way to reanalyse the data!"

Jul 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM | Ian E

This work is qualitatively better than anything we have seen. In using Leroy's method, Watts and friends have introduced an empirically verifiable component to the description and assessment of each temperature station. They have taken a huge step forward in the scientific analysis of temperature data.

Surely all of us recognize that such empirical work is necessary if temperature readings are to be understood and trusted. Just as surely we recognize that scientists who are not activists would have done this kind of empirical work decades ago. To the lasting shame of contemporary institutional science, the work had to be done by three private citizens and one quite brave institutional scientist with no institutional support whatsoever.

Institutional climate scientists must explain why they did not do this work. They must explain why they have shown no interest in empirical matters but have relied instead on statisticians' simplifying assumptions.

Jul 30, 2012 at 3:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

I have been quite surprised at the number of BH posters on this thread who are miffed and are exhibiting less than mature behaviour. In my view, fwiw, Mr Watts has behaved impeccably as to both the science and as to the politics. As a Kiwi sceptic, I am interested to see what influence Watt et al's new paper will have on the current court case in my country's high court, wherein a sceptical group is suing NIWA (NZ's counterpart of the Met Office) to have dodgy historical temp adjustment methodology corrected to agree that warming in NZ over the past century falls within natural variations.
I also think that the acronym 'BEST' is supremely ironic and that Dr Mann's comment re Richard Muller is surprisingly accurate.

Jul 30, 2012 at 4:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

Theo Goodwin, well said. It took Anthony Watts and friends to shine more light upon these areas of empirical reliability. I still find it difficult to understand that such rigorous attention was not given to the validation of all temp measurements and site quality long ago. Anyone aware of the ways in which data can be tainted or distorted even in well confined (and defined) settings of one lab experiment or one manufacturing process, engineering application, etc. has to wonder how such large networks of data collection points could be used for so much important research without this. Pielke, Sr. also makes an important related point:

"Anthony has led what is a critically important assessment of the issue of station quality. Indeed, this type of analysis should have been performed by Tom Karl and Tom Peterson at NCDC, Jim Hansen at GISS and Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia (and Richard Muller). However, they apparently liked their answers and did not want to test the robustness of their findings."

Jul 30, 2012 at 4:18 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

There is a tussle and a pissing match between parties jostling for a high perch ever since the CRU lost its moral authority about the temperature curve.

From the tone of moderator comments at WUWT, one can gauge the emotions at play under the surface. A major goal for the sudden release for the Watts team appears to have been to undercut Muller and BEST. BEST/Muller on the other hand however seem to very much be capable of accomplishing this, on their own.

Where that leaves us therefore is what looks like a good paper.

I feel the graphs presented which show different US regions have a rather meteorological flavour to them. Contrasting anomaly graphs could be better. The present data presentation detracts from the potential global implications.

Jul 30, 2012 at 4:34 AM | Registered Commentershub

The Watts et al temp reassessment makes empirical sense to me in this way. My mother and I have between us 130 yr of continuous living in the same rural region of eastern Australia. We can recall extremes in weather both hot and cold, drought and flood, but we simply can't say that the climate has trended in any direction. It seems that the entire debate is conducted without anyone actually looking out the window. Although I think that the weatherman Anthony might have been prompted by this sort of reasonableness test to start his long project. I would not be at all surprised if the Australian data were similarly erroneous.

Jul 30, 2012 at 5:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterBiota

the Muller sceptic becomes believer meme is all over the MSM.
further, BBC radio last nite had:

29 July: BBC World Service: The Forum: Inequality
We present a special edition of The Forum hosted by former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson. Do we have a moral responsibility to reduce inequality for the next generation? Is there a danger that by striving for equality between the sexes we’re actually ignoring real differences between men and women? And is the idea of a world without extremes of inequality a utopian fantasy?
The first in a special series of Forum episodes where eminent thinkers lead discussions about the most pressing challenges of the age. This week former President of Ireland Mary Robinson chairs a discussion about a subject close to her heart: Inequality. Joining her in front of a lively audience at the RSA in London are Nobel prize-winning biologist John Sulston, Lawrence Goldman, Fellow in Modern History at the University of Oxford and Bangladeshi novelist Tahmima Anam.

in the prog, Sulston said there are far fewer climate change deniers these days and they are sounding shrill (he said this in a rather shrill voice i thought)! LOL.

kudos to anthony et al, but the fight is far from over.

Jul 30, 2012 at 5:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

I think Verity Jones has hit the nail on the head, as has Harry won a Bagel. There's a lot of sour grapes in this thread and we should just give Anthony Watts the benefit of the doubt as to his motives in going offline the way he did. He must be still seething from Muller's behaviour, rushing out a premature release of the initial BEST results. Not only were the methods dodgy, but the conclusions biased and loudly trumpeted in the media. And Muller was about to was about to take this further (repentant sceptic my arse).
This nonsense has to be stopped - it was an urgent situation and still is.

Jul 30, 2012 at 7:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn in France

Jul 30, 2012 at 3:27 AM | Theo Goodwin

Again, well said to Theo. To me it has always seemed blatantly obvious that just visually comparing what you would think were 'good' and 'bad' temperature records that you could see UHI type effects polluting the data record. My guesstimate was always something like about half the recorded increase was due to these effects. Why was it the modellers couldn't spend a little time to go back and check the data that they rely on. Surely the Climategate releases would have cast a huge amount of doubt over the data sources appearing from there that you would want to independently check it in some way. I would have had a go at an analysis if all the 'raw' data had been together in a single database somewhere.


Think of the atmosphere more like a boiling pan of water rather than this mythical static stratified radiating mass. As Robert of Ottawa says, just think of the convection going on. Turning your cooker up too max on your boiling pan probably doesn't help get your water above 100 degrees very well, it just convects and evaporates faster to compensate.

Jul 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

I may have over-reacted, and sorry if it added a sour tone to people's enjoyment of the release of this paper, but I still think the theatrics detracted from it. And no I don't agree that because 'they' do this sort of media circus that we should do it too. They are wrong, they have to do theatrics to hide their lousy science. We don't. If this paper stands on its own, then it will be for the power of its science.

Also, I resent being called immature because I was disappointed. Stick up for Watts all you like, I retain my right to think he mis-played this one, and if you don't agree... then I respect your right to that opinion. Grant me mine, please, without the name calling.

Jul 30, 2012 at 8:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

I know I sneered at the histrionics myself ('Something's happened'), but I think the paper is quite intriguing. Show this to morons who claim that trends over land are greater than those over water because CO2-caused warming manifests first over land.

Jul 29, 2012 at 8:59 PM | Registered Commentershub

Shrub imagine you lived in a nice comfortable suburb of Las Vagas and you worked for the US Weather service
You had to drive 4x4 everyday for a few hours out into the Nevada desert to a different weather station spend 5 minutes writing down the data .Get back in the 4 x 4 spend another few hours to get to another weather staion another 5 minutes Eventually you spend another couple of hours driving home Imagine doing that a living day in day out.

Now imagine doing that everyday on a Dog Sled or Snow Bike in the Antarctic.

So much easier when the weather stations are all in town 2 minutes from a main road and a service station with a Drive Through McDonnalds.

The Dinosaurs had Fred Flintstone .Cavemen had nice warm fires,The Pharohs had the Jews to build their Pyramids.The Romans had the idea to make their roads straight. The Viking had their boats and the Oars to run along. The Anglo Saxons had their swear words, Gengis Khan,had his hordes and his concubines Henry the 8th had his wifes and his Daughter Mary had a Medievil Warm Period and lots of Catholics to burn .Shakespear had someone else to write his plays for him George Washington had his slaves ,Abraham Lincoln had his Vampire hunting and a love of the Theatre. Queen Victoria had her values George Stephenson he had a rocket that was actually a steam train The Wright Brothers had there own private plane. Merceedes Benz had a carshare. Hannibal had a load of elephants. And finally The Queen of Sheba. Bonnie and Clyde ,Karl Marx ,Jesus. Flourence Nightingale,Robin Hood and Jeromino they just had really cool sexy names.

Rather unfortunatley at the time none of those people had orbiting Infrared Weather Satellittes.

( But the anceint Chinese Ming Dynasty did have Gunpowder and a rocket propelled chair )

Jul 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

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):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>