Bishop Hill Counterblast
Jul 29, 2012 Climate: Surface 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.
Reader Comments (147)
BBD "the physics that dictates that RF from CO2 will warm the troposphere"
My answer to you here is essentially the same as in other instances. You have very little (if any at all) understanding of real physics, of science and of how a scientific hypothesis consistes, and how it is approached. You've demonstrated your lack of understanding of both (simple) physics and of science so many times, and not only that, I'd say you have behaved very poorly while blatantly demonstrating this.
As I've told you before: The one thing I can't figure out is why someone would pretend to know and understand these things (when the opposite is so obvious) and additionally trying to play the forum bully (or troll)?
You talk about the 'physics' of CO2 and what you believe it implies for the atmosphere, but you these 'physics' are merely the radiative properties of CO2 in a testube in a lab. They are not the functioning of the atmosphere or the climate.
Some others above have given you various relevant answers, pointed to detalis, explained and made good analogies. Here is another one:
You cant really predict (or dictate) the performance of a complicated device, say an engine, even if you you know all the relevant physics and properties of the various parts. And an engine is a far simpler device than our earth's atmospheric system, and the resulting climate ..
But I'm afraid this help will all be in vain.
My comment on Anthony's drama: it was justified, and kudos to him. He has been working on his Surface Station project for many years and his UHI paper was he finale, and is very significant.
My attempt to inject some humour into this discussion:
There was an effect called UHI
Which Jones and the Team did deny
But its role became clear
on stations that were too near
to airports and towns, and made temperatures appear artificially high.
TBYJ
I think this is potentially at least a game changer, and I don't think Anthony overplayed it. I expected something like this, but have to admit that me too was hoping for something 'juicier'. However, interpreting what the signs gave various clues.
I think the mistake those expecting something quite different are making is reading their own wishes and hopeful expectations into what Anthony actually said. He claimed he needed some extra time to finish something to be released on sunday. Motivated by 'something's happened'.
I would guess that Mullers media blitz and rumblings in NYT were what promted this need. And it was a good opportunity to snub Mullers superficial 'drive by science' and PR-stunts in the bud.
I don't think anything Anthony communicated was overstated. Your disappointment is the result of your own expectations ...
Anthony is passionate about instrument siting, so I'm not surprised about any of this. I can understand those who hoped for some different sort of announcement but, do not underestimate the importance of this work.
Climate science is driven by the global warming threat and it has now been shown that the fundamental measurements were bad. The science is based on duff results. Everyone knew about UHI and the poor siting, but it took AW and volunteers to actually investigate it.
The climate models now look a bit sick too. NOAA has some questions to answer, such as why they didn't do this work and why did they adjust the good results to match the bad ones?
So, when you start thinking about implications of this work, it is a huge story after all. Of course, it is early days and the MSM and the Team will do their best to bury it. (No pun intended!)
Skiphil said:
If the Watts et al paper holds water it would secure a prolonged seat on the gravy train for loads of climate scientists to redo their own work.
Gareth
And we shouldn't see that as a problem.
I'm sure that many of them trusted the datasets because .... well, as a scientist, why wouldn't you when the work was supposedly done on an honest, straightforward basis, as it almost certainly was by those who took the readings?
You at least have to assume that those who are providing you with the data have done their end of the job properly with the relevant checks and balances.
It's only when it becomes apparent that the checks and balances weren't there (as Watts pointed out years ago when he started this project) and the suspicion starts to arise that perhaps they weren't there because some of the keepers of the data were happy with things they way they were either because of confirmation bias or less honourable motives that we find ourselves in the situation we are in now.
And the fact that US is only a small percentage of the land mass of the earth is irrelevant. We know there are problems with the NZ data, and probably with the Aussie data, and with the Iceland data which appears to have been manipulated without any reference even to Iceland! There are almost certainly problems with most of the European data for the same reasons as Watts found and very likely with urban data elsewhere in the world as well. Whether there are or not the new standard needs to be applied and papers revised to be sure.
And I believe there are enough honest scientists out there who will do that work even in those cases where the results are likely to go against their instincts and their beliefs of the last 20 years.
As somebody said on WUWT (I think) this provides climate scientists with the most perfect get-out-of-jail-free card they could wish for.
For those of you who seem eager to play down the importance of this remember that little bit of the proper scientifc method about testing a hypothesis against accurate data. The CAGW movement has shored up its myth using fudged data. Adoption of rigorous data collection methodology, as in Watts' et al's paper, shows the warming is far less than claimed.
Predictably, the BBC has ignored it and given full coverage to Muller and even quoted Mann in the article.
BBD "the physics that dictates that RF from CO2 will warm the troposphere"
Umm... why hasn't it, then?
Mike Jackson @ 1:43PM
"this provides climate scientists with the most perfect get-out-of-jail-free card they could wish for."
Mike, I think that was Doug Proctor on this very thread.
A point I've not seen mentioned anywhere yet is that if Anthony Watts' paper is accepted then it blows a massive hole in the regional modelling of the US and hence the global modelling of climate, because the models have to hindcast as well as forcast. The whole of the CAGW fear machine is based on the results of climate models.
In the future, much peer review should be quick and simple and could go something like this:
Reviewer: "Do the conclusions in your paper rely on data from poorly sited temperature stations as detailed in Watts et al (2012)?"
Climate Scientist: "Er, yes."
Reviewer: "Paper rejected."
..heh...I cannot believe the guys on here whining about the way Watts played the release. Watts needed to make the biggest impact, as he had heard that Muller was about to launch. He knows he had to make a big splash to counter Muller, otherwise the MSM would ignore it. So he did his teaser thing...that got everyone looking at his site ready.
And if you want proof........is anyone talking about ANYTHING else on any of the other skeptic/lukewarmer sites? No......its all about Muller being skewered by Watts (basically Muller used garbage data so would obviously get a result that was garbage).
That is enough to get everone who has authored a paper based on this same garbage thinking OMG!
And if you guys still cannot see why Watts did it that way, then you are living in fairy dairy land indeed...
Been otherwise occupied, but followed this from a distance. I think Anthony has played a blinder here, and there should jolly well be trebles all round.
.....and the Watts paper gets a mention on Instapundit, as having shown the Best paper to be flawed being as it is based on bogus data.
But what is really making me smile is seeing the arrogance wiped of Mosher & Zekes faces...how many times have this pair been on Lucias stating that the data is used correctly. Sure it is, but that was never the question (which they always avoided imho). Even when EMSmith kept showing them examples of bad data, they kept on saying it was all trivial blah blah blah.
And I second that notion earlier posters made that today is a day when many may decide to jump off the bus with the "if only I had known earlier about the bad data' excuse.
The register have pcked up the story
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/30/watts_et_al_temperature_bombshell/
Jul 30, 2012 at 7:59 PM | mikef2,
Mosher holds the record for imperviousness to observable data. About a year ago, Watts had an article about a temperature station at some airport, San Francisco maybe, that read 4 degrees higher than all surrounding stations. In lengthy comments, Mosher set out the ABCs of how such a station is handled in the statistics. Mosher expressed no concern about the facts on the ground. His only interest was to show that such cases arise all the time and that the statistics has resources to handle them.
"Mosher holds the record for imperviousness to observable data."
I'm always impressed by the fact that virtually every posy by him doesn't make any sense to me at all, though I don't actually attempt to read any these days.
On an observed data note, the airport example you give, reminds me of an article (by Bob Tisdale I think) about the stations with high 20th century trends and Sao Paulo was right at the top. The actual conclusion was that removing highly urban areas didn't actually effect the trend. Possibly the site is perfect and has a completely reliable record but there is just no way you could ever trust a station like Sao Paulo to be reliable, especially with the fact that it appeared to be trending higher. You can't just try and do some stats and say a station like that is 'corrected'.
24 hours after the Watts press release, the only mainstream media articles I can find are these: Delingpole in the Telegraph and Orlowski in the Register (both on-line only) are enthusiastic and explain in layman’s terms what Watts is saying; Revkin in the NYT provides a lot of links, not about the science discussed by Watts, but about the merits of peer review versus pre-publication, plus a long quote from a scientist at NOAA written before Watts’ announcement and specifically not addressing the points raised by Watts; an article in the Australian about the woes of the Labor Government which quotes Delingpole; and a long but uninformative article in the Washington Post which advises ignoring both Watts and Muller until they have passed peer review.
Then there’s Hickman in the Guardian, whose article about “Watts et al” escaped my Google search because he managed to avoid mentioning either Anthony or his site by name, or giving the least idea of what was in his paper, in an article entirely devoted to its enthusiastic reception by sceptics.
Nobody in the western press wants to tell us what’s in the Watts paper. Not a single science or environmental journalist thinks its contents are important, though Revkin and Hickman think it’s important to tell us that they aren’t important.
Anthony might as well have nailed his paper to the door of a church in Wittenberg for all the effect it’s had.
geoffchambers ,
Give the MSM abit of time. I think if they are to pick it up then it will take sometime for the importance to sink in ( even some sceptic blogs did not pick up immediately the relevance to previous published papers now being based on doggy data sets ). I am sure Anthony Watts will be working on some "media strategy" to push the message but the full effort may not take place until full peer review is concluded. Also Christopher Monckton and his team are bound to be working on the best way to publicise the work.
I think all involved will be wise to take a little time to make sure they get it right because the "Team" will be doing their best to come up with a nit picking destruction of the work.
Jul 30, 2012 at 3:02 AM | lapogus
... 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 ...
I was in Waterstones bookshop today and noticed they were selling a poster of 'Stanfords General Map of the World (c 1920)'. Intriguingly, on looking at NW Greenland I was astounded to see a long blue valley on the map annotated 'Petermann Fjord' (my emphasis). The fjord is depicted much longer than Archer Fjord (Sound?) on Ellesmere Island opposite the mouth of Petermann Fjord so it would appear that in 1920 Petermann Fjord was pretty much free of ice. Recent maps refer to it as Petermann Glacier not Fjord and it is depicted as being much, much shorter than Archer Fjord.
geoffchambers
Revkin has picked it up as I link on the other thread, although his initial focus is mainly the issue of discussing pre-publication scientific claims. He does get an interesting back-and-forth between NOAA-NCDC and Anthony Watts, and I think it allows Watts to criticize NOAA rather well on some issues (although I suppose looking through Alarmist lenses other people will say the opposite, ha).
...oh, and the BBC has an anonymous article about Muller’s work with a mention in the final sentence that “Sceptical blogger Anthony Watts criticised elements of the team's findings, releasing details of his own analysis”. And that’s it.
You have to admire Revkin and Hickman, environmental journalists on the world’s two most influential centre left newspapers, for their dogged determination to ignore or suppress the science in order to defend authority. The whole purpose of journalism is to seek out the awkward fact that will challenge the official version. The meanest, most Neanderthal sports reporter will at least raise questions about the allocation of seats to demonstrate his independent mindedness. Revkin and Hickman will defend the sacred scepticism of science in one sentence, and then suppress all mention of alternative points of view in the next. The official story is everything. Facts and reasoning are nothing. Muller is the Sceptic who came in from the Cold, Watts is just the blogger who “has his own analysis”.
In order to fill the vacuum left by their refusal to discuss the science, Revkin dismisses Watts with a long quote from a scentist who refuses to even discuss Watts’ paper; and launches into an opaque justification of the official line designed to impress us by its unintelligibility. Hickman is unable to rise to this level of sixth form debate, and contents himself with the rhetorical question “why won’t the Watts fans give up and repent, like Muller?” Not a single scientific fact is allowed to sully his article, not a hint of what Watts has done.
But it’s not the absence of science that shocks, so much as the absence of journalism. Instead of speaking truth to power, they hide truth in order to protect power. They have the perfect story - two rival interpretations, both easy to explain in layman’s terms, of the most important scientific question facing mankind (they say). Their response is to link and link and link again, in order to hide the science and smear those who question the official line.
ee cummings defined a politician as “an arse upon which everything has sat except a man”. Revkin and Hickman are worms in the compost heap of climate science, busy recycling garbage into useful fecal matter.
Jul 31, 2012 at 5:58 AM | geoffchambers
Not so sure that "admire" is the word I would choose (although I can't think of a better one at the moment!) But that aside ...
I recently had a small victory with Revkin; on the heels of his "dutiful" reporting - based entirely on the News Release - of the Norfolk Constabulary's closure of their UEA "investigation". The highlights he chose were quite telling; one of which was one of the two paragraphs in which "sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack" was mentioned.
And he's so dedicated that he decided to use the second of these two paragraphs to update a post he'd written on ... wait for it ... July 6, 2010. Long story***, short ... whenever he did a post about Climategate, he always expressed somewhat mild displeasure that Gavin Schmidt had never reported the (alleged but never proven) "hack" at RealClimate; yet it was always quite clear that he never doubted it for a moment.
His most recent expression of certitude was during the course of his July 19 churnalizing of the plod's July 18 News Release, when he had written:
[*** All the gory details can be found in: Revkin screens out cops’ Climategate screening exercises and the sequel, so to speak, Of journalists, their sources and … evidence]
For some reason Revkin decided to honour my quiet little corner of the blogosphere with a comment! So I took advantage of his presence to ask him:
His July 24 response (not on my blog, but on his ... it's part of the long story!):
I almost began to develop some respect for him, and to think that perhaps he might be learning some lessons. But alas he has not (so far) seen fit to "update" his previous posts on this accordingly.
And he went further downhill today in his "A Closer Look at Climate Studies Promoted Before Publication" post. A few minutes before he posted the update with the excerpt from Anthony's response to Thorne (without even noting that he had actually invited Anthony's response), Revkin had posted the following comment
Why could he not have simply written "Ross McKitrick has posted his review comments ..." and "in a July 30 update to his post, McKitrick notes that the journal had told him: "This paper was rejected ..."?
Schmidt's word was, in effect, unchallenged gospel! But (in Revkin's books, it would seem) McKitrick's are to be (subtly) questioned.
Double standards? Lazy journalist-activist? Who knows, eh?!
Skiphil
Yes, Revkin adds part of Watts’ defence as an update, and links to the rest. So his article now consists of the announcement of two pre-publicised papers; an attack on Watts by one of the authorities Watts was criticising; a footnote in which Watts is allowed to defend himself against the journalist and the authority figure quoted by the journalist. So Watts’ argument finally makes it into print (well, not into print, but on to the NYT’s site) in the form of a defence against an attack by someone who refuses to discuss Watts’ paper. Why should a scientist presenting what is potentially a revolutionary paper be subject to such humiliation?
My hatred of Hickman is easy to explain. He came to Guardian Environment on the strength of a book he’d written to put the sh*ts up 9 year-olds. His tactic at Comment isFree has always been that of the frigid flirt, getting both sides excited in order to up the number of comments. A scientific paper overturning the official science on which the energy policy of the western world is based is less interesting than a sceptical message on a billboard on a midwestern highway . The former requires analysis and dscussion; the latter is guaranteed to provoke hits and comments from his rutting troglodyte fans. It’s not lying, but rather cultivating an atmosphere of calculated mendacity so all-pervading that lying becomes redundant.
Revkin is necessarily more complex. Turning the same tricks as Hickman while conforming to the sophisticated image demanded by the NYT requires a more subtle character. Seeing both sides of the question while sitting on the fence, or straddling the divide without falling between two stools is a NYT speciality. (Hickman would risk a serious Graun injury if he tried it)
Just look at Revkin’s by-line at DotEarth: “By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life”.
You can feel the desperate seesaw in his mind betwen reason and emotion; the dry statistics, then the faint whiff of the Yellow Peril; the return to basics and the appeal to science, then suddenly the raving hippy falls out of his tree:- “You’re f*cking with the WEB OF LIFE, Man!”
So no, I don’t expect any good to come out of the fact that the most prominent environmental jpournalists in the Western world have deigned to mention Watts.
Geoff
Interesting reaction in Germany. I know it is not MSM but every bit helps
http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/30/reaction-from-germany-on-wattss-press-release-shocking-development-could-have-global-relevance/
Jul 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM | Billy Liar
Thanks. Do you think the 1920 date on the map showing Petermann Glacier as an open Fjord relates to the survey work or the publishing date? (This will probably be one for an archivist in Denmark).
There's no doubt that many other glaciers have receded in the last 200 years, (and that this recession has nothing to do with CO2 - e.g. Jakobshaven and Glacier Bay, Alaska).
But maybe Petermann's tongue is particularly variable and susceptible to breaks caused by tidal forces rather than temperature changes. It is so far north and rarely visited so maybe we have no idea of it's long term average length.
I just found this 1747 map on wikipedia which shows a now long ice-covered fjord with the note "it is said these streights (sic) were formerly passable but now they are shut with ice" Old_Greenland_1747.jpg (Wiki). The fjord in question seems to be the Ollumlongri Fyrth, which I have not heard of but will try to locate on modern maps. Obviously the 1747 map scale is all to pot but interesting all the same.
BH - sorry for OT. But any excuse to look up old maps and Greenland gets me going.
I note that BBD has disappeared like snow off a dyke. I wonder if the full significance of Anthony's paper has now sunk in and he realises all his alarmist arguments based on upward trends in NOAA/GISS and CRU datasets are complete bollocks.
Geoff,
The Guardian itself has no influence...however, when the Guardian is parroting BBC mantra or vice versa then we can see that the Guardian, thanks to it being the print version of the BBC, has influence. So in effect, it is the BBC that is the influence, not the Guardian.
Mailman
lapogus
BBD was around on the 'Best evidence - the story so far' discussion thread until yesterday when matthu asked him to define "climatologically significant" with regard to cosmic rays (or GCRs, as BBD calls them).
There is quite a crowd waiting outside his door for when he comes out to play today!
Lapogus: "But any excuse to look up old maps and Greenland gets me going."
Greenland as shown on this map has always intrigued me. Composed from data gathered during the Cold War (!) to find places to hide submarines (also helped plate tectonics).
geoff
One can be sure that there is furious activity of some sort behind-the-scenes to find the cord to yank that takes Watts' work apart. I've spied indications already. If something like that happens, *that* will be reported and then along with it Watts' work.
What have you seen Shub?
While over at Judith's a saw the faithful banging on about data being available (rather ironic isn't it) ABD querying the method used (the new French method).
Given the anti-christs (Steve McIntyre) I doubt there will be anything wrong on the statistics side??
Regards
Mailman
I found this on skeptical science .com
It seems they have decided to give Watts an opportunity to correct his mistakes.
It would be nice to see Cook try to debunk LeRoy whose work has been accepted by the WMO as the new 'gold standard' for station siting. I'm not sure quite how you argue with that but it should be fun to watch Cook if he tries.
The problem with the majority of the cadre of environment journalists is that most of them have no qualifications in any scientific discipline. An objective assessment of any science issue is, therefore, totally beyond their abilities. Coupled with this, most must also be activists or of the unquestioning green persuasion as must be their editors. Given the obvious shortcomings in CAGW theory, this is the only explanation I can think of as to why the massive scoop that awaits a suitably inquisitive journalist hasn't been published.
They will eventually fall flat on their faces. Sadly, it might take a while yet.
@Mailman - it seems that Steve McIntyre is a rather reluctant co-author and is pedalling back somewhat.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/
Louise,
If an unadjusted network shows warming, a sub-sample of stations, provided it has enough numbers (n) shouldn't show a significantly different rate and magnitude of warming when compared to the whole network.
This is irrespective of the method used to extract such a sub-sample. Watts' isn't using any homegrown method to stratify stations. His results therefore deserve careful attention, rather than the blowhard Muller and Associates bunch.
That's good Geoff - and could be applied more widely to the whole climate debate.
As far as I can see, pretty well all journalists reporting on environmental and climate issues come from activist backgrounds, which really means they're not journalists at all in the classically accepted sense of the word.
It fascinates me that our national broadcaster strains every sinew to expunge the merest hint of patriotism or support of the national interest, in fields across the board from sport to foreign affairs - but has no problem at all in putting self-declared, single issue activists in charge of its environmental reporting.
@Shub - Watts isn't using any home grown method, he isn't using any method at all. Steve Mcintyre did the stats and he seems to be regretting being rushed and that the data was not adjusted to take into account Time of Observation bias. Sounds reasonable to me.
Not looking so good for the new Watts essay is it shub? I mean even Steve McIntyre has now said that he was involved literally at the very last minute and has now found errors in his own, hurried contribution. It's not very confidence inspiring in the effort as a whole, I have to say.
Aha, Anthony Watts paper must be causing quite a stir - seems to have brought out the trolls and reinforcements!
Jul 31, 2012 at 9:27 AM | lapogus
O/T so I'll be brief. A map for you - not Greenland but opposite the Petermann Fjord.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/ipy-1/images/G2V1-390.jpg
This was drawn in the International Polar Year of 1882. The image is from p5 of 12 pages of images here:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/ipy-1/US-LFB-P1.htm
Note the 'Farthest of Lt Archer RN 1875-6' in a wooden ship. Would not be possible unless temperatures were similar to today.
BBD --the paper is about siting of the surface stations, not TOB. The findings still stand alone as it is but they are going to address the TOB issue because they think this will make the findings and the paper alot better.
( But I agree that AW mismanaged things abit in his rush to get the news out)
Reading the latest McIntyre post I think Watts has put him in a pretty bad situation and McIntyre has essentially said he won't be putting his name as an author to an actual publication of this version.
Interestingly the Washington Post has an article that has picked up on McIntyre's reluctance.
More evidence attention-grabbing climate studies prematurely rushed and potentially flawed
Mosher seems to be unrelentingly hammering on McIntyre, as if he is an equal co-author, to release the data- I guess because of the history of data release criticism. I guess McIntyre must feel some loyalty to Watts because of his support in the past but this is turning into a car crash soap opera.
The thing is, the BEST report seems to have plenty enough problems that didn't need this farcical rushed response. For instance the shonky way volcanoes have been selected and left out for the dubious CO2/sulphate layman line matching is enough to see that - that criticism is well laid out on Watts site ironically, by Eschenbach.
The idea that peer review has problems is valid but the blog science here has just shown its worst side. A train wreck that needs reflection and reassessment I think.
Louise,
You are over playing your hand. After having read Steve Macs post it seems all he is saying is that he should have taken more time to review the paper. Even the TOBS issue senna to be I've already acknowledged by Anthony...and in that respect it seems publishing his paper online is achieving exactly the results he wanted.
It will be interesting to see what the clowns at skeptical science come up with, but wouldn't it be funny if their end of the world alarmism actually ended up making the paper even stronger? :)
Seems to me though that the catastrophiliacs are getting more desperate by the minute.
Regards
Mailman
What bothers me most about this whole episode is the cult of personality that has developed around prominent figures on both sides of this debate, the Team and hangers-on on one side and a few high profile skeptic bloggers and their starry-eyed fans on the other. The overexcited hero-worshipping tone of many of the comments on Watts' paper announcement thread was truly embarrassing. His paper may well prove valuable, but the way it was announced, and particularly the 'media-savvy' buildup, was appalling and cringeworthy imho.
I have had some reservations about the uneven quality of WUWT for quite some time and have never commented there. For what it's worth, here is my rating of some of the blogosphere identities.
I respect:
Bish (of course)
Steve McIntyre
Judith Curry
Roy Spencer
Roger Pielke Jr (& Sr)
Donna Laframboise
Jo Nova
Lubos Motl
Richard Betts
I am ambivalent towards:
Anthony Watts
I have little or no time for:
Steven Mosher
Willis Eschenbach
Nick Stokes
Alarmist bloggers and trolls too numerous to mention
Just my opinion, of course.
Just to be clear, it's not a 'publication' until it's published. Uploading to a blog may be 'publishing,' but in this case, it doesn't count. Pre-print would be more appropriate.
Does anyone have any idea what the main affect of time of observation is?
As I've seen pointed out elsewhere, surely if we have a reasonably long record of something like hourly data, it is a trivial calculation to find out what difference every possible time of observation would have on Min/Max daily temperatures and how this would affect the trend.