Bishop Hill Surfacestations: the punchline
Dec 17, 2015 Climate: Surface 
And what a punchline it is. Anthony has finally published the results of his epic Surfacestations project, and it seems that the surface temperature record is as flawed as we thought. Here's some excerpts from the press release.
SAN FRANCISO, CA – A new study about the surface temperature record presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union suggests that the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are about two thirds as strong as officially NOAA temperature trends.
Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric Leroy (2010)1 for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement...
A 410-station subset of U.S. Historical Climatology Network (version 2.5) stations is identified that experienced no changes in time of observation or station moves during the 1979-2008 period. These stations are classified based on proximity to artificial surfaces, buildings, and other such objects with unnatural thermal mass using guidelines established by Leroy (2010)1 . The United States temperature trends estimated from the relatively few stations in the classes with minimal artificial impact are found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as US trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact. The trend differences are largest for minimum temperatures and are statistically significant even at the regional scale and across different types of instrumentation and degrees of urbanization. The homogeneity adjustments applied by the National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center) greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact. Trend differences are not found during the 1999- 2008 sub-period of relatively stable temperatures, suggesting that the observed differences are caused by a physical mechanism that is directly or indirectly caused by changing temperatures...
Lead author Anthony Watts said of the study: “The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts. This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” He added: “We also see evidence of this same sort of siting problem around the world at many other official weather stations, suggesting that the same upward bias on trend also manifests itself in the global temperature record”.
The full AGU presentation can be downloaded here: https://goo.gl/7NcvT2
Much more at Anthony's.
Reader Comments (114)
Brandon, have some patience, this is how science works nowadays, people publish papers and thereafter release their data. The paper has not yet been published so why do you feel that they have to release their data at this time? How many scientists release data before their paper has been published?
However, I do agree with you that people should wait for the paper to be published and data to be released and examined by others before drawing any conclusions.
"I would be interested to see how the algorithms of the land-based temperature groups perform when the start point of their land-based data was 1979 only, and also how it performs on the satellite data."
In their presentation at the annual AGU meeting, Watts et al. show that US temperature stations with a classification of 1 or 2 (compliant with siting criteria) had a temperature trend since 1979 that was 33% lower than non-compliant class 3, 4 and 5 stations -- 0.20 versus 0.32°C/decade.
It is worth noting that the UAH trend over the same period for the continental US is less than 0.23°C/decade.
@Brandon Shollenberger
You will doubtless say that you are solely focused on Anthony Watts' methodology and conclusions.
However your dog-in-the-manger post would actually seem to imply that his (Watts') motives are questionable.
Is that your intention?
@JerryM
I read the BS post as a parody on Climastrology
Russell, you clearly need help in articulating your concerns. Try this.
The much-hyped "study" by the fossil-fuel-funded denialist, Watts, is a clear example of data cherry-picking and manipulation that no reputable Climate Scientist would ever consider.
There, feel better?
TinyCO2:
Are you kidding? I hope so, because if not, this is a ridiculous comment for you to make. I didn't criticize Anthony Watts for announcing his results. If he wanted to show people what he presented at the AGU conference, that's fine. He could have written a blog post like normal.
But that's not what he did. He issues a press release, one he called very important. You don't issue press releases to inform your readers of things. You issue press releases to inform the press of things. Anthony was clearing trying to make headlines with this. That has nothing to do with the updating/informing of his readers like you refer to.
M Courtney:
Input required...
Discussion topic: Climate Change Christmas Cracker Jokes
I'm very much with Brandon. Think of your reactions if this was done by the "other side"...
Pethefin:
I don't expect people to publish data before they publish their papers, as a general rule. What I do expect is for people to wait to publish press releases until they've published their results with sufficient detail and data to allow people to examine them. Running to the media to try to get headlines for results you haven't even gotten accepted into a journal is wrong if you're going to refuse to release the material to allow people to check your work until after you've gotten the paper published.
It's simple. You should publish your papers with the supporting material for them, and if you want, a press release. What you shouldn't do is publish a press release months before you publish anything else.
JerryM:
I don't know why you think I would "doubtless say" I am "solely focused on Anthony Watts' methology and conclusions." There is nothing published for his methodology, so it'd seem a waste of my time to focus on that. As for his conclusions, when somebody starts shouting about results they refuse to show any work for, I tend to think those results are worthless and try not to spend much time or effort on them.
The truth is I'm solely focused on Anthony's motives. Everybody engaging in science by press release realizes what they're doing. There is no good or legitimate reason to do it. Anthony did it because he wanted headlines, and he didn't want to have to do what he should have to do to deserve those headlines. That was wrong of him. I think he should be criticized for it, and I think everyone should acknowledge that as long as Anthony doesn't publish anything to support the results he's announced, nobody should blindly assume they are correct.
And I would say the exact same thing for anyone else who engaged in this sort of science by press release. When it comes to science by press release, I wouldn't focus on methodologies or conclusions because science by press release isn't science as it leaves us no true knowledge of the methologies or conclusions. It's purely a matter of behavior, so that's what I'd focus on.
seem to imply that his (Watts') motives are questionable.
"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."
Anthony Watts, Pittsbugh Tribune., 2007.
Confirmation bias, anyone?
http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html#axzz3ug62yy2e
Phil Clarke
Predictable, anyone?
Or a back projected anecdote?
@ Brandon
>> as long as Anthony doesn't publish anything to support the results he's announced, nobody should blindly assume they are correct. <<
Fair enough. Hopefully his results - once published - will be both interesting and useful, and worthy of the work & time invested by Anthony's group of helpers.
If so that won't make a blind bit of difference to Phil C, but as his only interest seems to be in cheap point scoring his opinions can probably be written off as those of an old-school 'outlier'.
As others have said - mebbe we can wait and see what the data looks like and if conclusions are supported by that data in a robust + independently verifiable fashion.
If only... the opaque adjustments made by the "official record keepers" were subjected to the same amount of scrutiny eh?
tomo, I expect the evidence of data tampering has been cleaned up scrupulously.
"The intelligent response from us should be to await the detail, analyse it as sceptically as we would analyse information we doubt from "the other side" (and sadly there are sides in what should be a scientific debate). Having done that, we should form a more definite conclusion."
Definite conclusions are better predicated on papers that survive skeptical review than unreviewd poster papers.
There are thousands of journnals to submit them to before throwing in the towel and sticking results on a sandwich board.. The AGU meeting is the Speakers Corner of science .
Brandon "But that's not what he did. He issues a press release, one he called very important. You don't issue press releases to inform your readers of things. You issue press releases to inform the press of things. "
Like when Julia Slingo announced that their latest research was indicating rainfall had increased with CO2? Where as the final conclusions found very little link? Funnily enough the press release made the headlines but the paper's conclusions didn't.
Again, you're demanding higher standards from unpaid members of the public than you get from professional, government funded scientists. His money, his time, his call. Given that the Surface Station Project was poached from early in the process, I'm quite sympathetic to him keeping it under wraps for now.
In response to Russell's attempt at a drive by shooting by trying to make snidey comments about the difference between a poster at a major scientific conference and a paper published in a peer reviewed journal, and for the benefit of readers here who are not familiar with such conferences, perhaps a few comments giving context might be appropriate.
Firstly I will state that I am a professional geophysicist, that I have published both in peer reviewed journals and oral and poster papers at top level conferences in the course of my career to date. I also act as an occasional peer reviewer for journals, where a paper is in my area of expertise. So I know my way around the process.
It is fair to say that the hurdle for publishing at a major conference is usually a little lower than publishing in a peer reviewed journal, but nonetheless publishing either an oral or poster paper at a conference still "counts". Also, all scientific conferences I attend/present at stress that they do not distinguish in quality terms between posters and oral presentations.
Depending on the conference, poster presenters will need to be in the conference poster hall at the appropriate time and will need to make an oral presentation, in front of the poster, to whoever may be interested in attending. Usually they will make this presentation several times during the scheduled session and often provide handouts. The audience will be able to interrogate, ask questions and interact. In some ways its actually more difficult than a traditional oral presentation because people can go back to the text, figures, graphs and cross-examine - little of that takes places in oral sessions because the question time is typically limited to 1 or 2 Q's due to keeping the session on schedule for the next speaker. Poster sessions tend to be more relaxed on timings.
Like a conference that I recently assisted in peer reviewing abstracts for, all significant conferences, and I doubt AGU is any exception, will peer review the abstracts (in a blind format) via at least 2 reviewers before deciding whether the material is (a) relevant and (b) of sufficient standard for inclusion in the conference. You don't get accepted automatically.
It is very common for a first announcement of proper science to be made through a conference presentation (poster or oral) and then for the paper to be subsequently submitted to a peer reviewed journal. I know many, excellent and highly capable scientists who publish a lot of their work this way. I know I have. Its a good interactive discussion forum where you meet and properly discuss your data and results with interested researchers. I also read a lot of research material published only as conference extended abstracts to use in my professional work: there is a lot of genuine, high quality research that is published only in this form and never makes it to a peer review journal. Not because of quality, but because the time spent submitting to a peer reviewed journal is much higher and professionals often don't have the time (unlike academics). Sometimes they publish in the half-way house of professional society monthly "magazines", where the peer review takes place but is less formal and the articles more approachable. I can think of at least 3 major geophysical techniques used now almost universally and professionally in the field of seismic inversion, that were only published in the last 15 years. None of them were published in what Russell would call "a peer reviewed journal". 2 of them were conference presentations like Anthony's. No professional in the seismic processing industry has any doubt about the validity of those methods because they are completely competent both to recreate the work and to check its validity.
Returning to Russell's comment, dissing poster presentations at a major geophysical conference is a massive and disrespectful slur on a huge number of scientists and researchers who choose to first publish in this way. As for the suggestion that "peer review" somehow guarantees quality, well this is just laughable. If you know your stuff, peer review is not necessary when deciding for yourself if the material makes sense or has validity. When people like Russell sneer like this they are really trying a different form of appeal to authority. Mann, or Steig, or Lewandowsky anyone?
To this bear of little brain, the conclusion that the high quality sites show only 2/3 of the warming shown by the whole ensemble has a further implication.
The HQ sites are about 1/3 of the total so, to get the overall trend, the other 2/3 of stations must have averaged about 1/6 above the ensemble result - given equal weighting.
So the difference between the HQ sites and the rest is even greater than the discrepancy to the overall average.
thinkingscientist@2:32
well said
G-C
That depends on the definition of tampering ;-/ Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by cock-ups - however in the case of weather records - the accumulation of evidence for systematic mendacity over at Paul Homewood's site is getting quite overwhelming - if it's coming from fruitloop NGO liars that's one thing - from official record keepers that's quite another and a far more serious matter.....
Oh this is priceless - Phil Clarke who just a few days ago was complaining that the 97% coverage of the earth was insufficient, now comes along and makes broad-brush statements based on the trend extracted from 1.5% of the earth, cherry picked to be a period of unusually high trends, and extrapolating this to be the centennial trend.
You could at least try to be consistent Phil.
FWIW, this paper, even if right (and we haven't seen it to judge yet) won't change my views on climate very much at all; anyone relying on one single data set for temperatures is kidding themselves; I prefer to look for consistency between data sets (e.g. between surface and satellites) to provide independent corroboration which gives a better indication of what the actual uncertainty is. This is part of a very normal approach to scientific analysis.
The surface data sets don't exhibit significant warming now (https://water.usgs.gov/osw/pubs/Naturally_Trendy-Cohn-Lins_GRL_2005.pdf) so this won't change anything, and my methods for determining natural variability go across multiple datasets (and I don't think the autocorrelation function of global temperature will be affected at all by Anthony's work). So my views are unlikely to change based on Anthony's work.
Of course, that doesn't prevent me from being pleased that Anthony has made progress towards publishing on his surfacestatons project, which I know will mean a lot to him. I make no apology for wishing him well on it.
Spence_UK stated "(and I don't think the autocorrelation function of global temperature will be affected at all by Anthony's work). So my views are unlikely to change based on Anthony's work."
Paul Homewood is quoted above and we also have Tony Heller who has consistently shown that NOAA and GISS are adjusting historical temperature records down and current ones up to create man made global warming. A Watts may add some credibility to these views and Senators Cruz and Lamar Smith are trying to "smoke out" NOAA. In addition to that the GWPF have their own project to analyze temperature data. There would appear to be a build-up here and A Watts is only a part of this picture. Personally I am not equipped to pass a judgment on the veracity of these efforts, but I welcome the attempts to verify the records made (and remade) by CRU/NOAA and GISS in particular. I am disturbed by the gap between satellites and ground measurements. The attempts to cool the past to make the present warmer and also that satellites and balloons seem to correlate and extend the "pause", with ground measurements moving upwards. It looks to me as if attempts are being made to "lift" ground temperatures up towards model outputs rather than looking at why models increasingly show warming not verified by measurements. Just the views of an interested layman.
Here is one for Brandon Shollenberger straight off WUWT "I’ve been reading the comments about my press release at WUWT, Bishop Hill, and at Dr. Judith Curry’s place and most have been positive. There is the usual sniping, but these aren’t getting much traction as one would expect, mainly due to the fact that there’s really not much to snipe about other than Steve Mosher’s usual whining that he wants the data, and he wants it now.
Sorry Mosh, no can do until publication. After trusting people with our data prior to publication and being usurped, not once but twice, I’m just not going to make that mistake a third time." So no third time lucky to use the data to "usurp" Tony Watts a third time. I wonder if BS will accept that argument as being valid. I am certain that BS would not want the data now in order to try and thwart A Watts third time but perhaps, in view of the circumstances, a bit of patience might be in place.
I note that CERN have made a big splash of press releases about their recent observations at the LHC. There are no peer reviewed papers yet
http://home.cern/about/updates/2015/12/atlas-and-cms-present-their-2015-lhc-results
They did do a couple of presentations, and offer material on the internet (which was of course invented there).
Presumably Mr Shollenberger, Alia et al. will now criticise them.
Nearly 10 hours since I posted and Russell is silent.
Interesting...
Do we ascribe motive, or does the bot sometimes sleep?
tomo, having had to do 'trouble shooting' and 'defects diagnosis' in various different employment roles, the most normal conspiracy in my experience is to cover up the dumb cock-up. Very few conspiracies start as outright conspiracy, they just start with a little deceit, and grow from there.
So I certainly agree with the cock-up v. conspiracy summary.
In this instance, my totally unscientific gut instinct is that people were so convinced about global warming being due to CO2, that they thought they were not looking in the right places, but the evidence would show up. To keep everything on track, a little tweak, here and there, wouldn't be noticed, until the overwhelming evidence emerged to match the overwhelming consensus.
As each year of pause was noted by the likes of Phil Jones, the little tweaks were required, rather more, and the search for circumstantial evidence evolved into what could happen if global warming happens.
Then cooling the past became the fashionable thing, but none of it was conspiracy in the minds of the operatives, it was simply assisting the evidence, whilst waiting for the overwhelming proof.
And so it continued. Each new paper offering another straw to cling to, became important news, and the authors rewarded accordingly.
So in this instance, it started with some major cock-ups, and has continued with lots of little white lies, career preservation, gullibility, political bias, tribalism, greater good confirmation bias, peer group pressure etc. One mega conspiracy? No.
A dozen (?) wealthy major players tweaking a lot of strings? Yes.
Many innocent people have got involved, and have never done anything wrong.
Major miscarriages of criminal justice have started with the Police being convinced they had the right person, and then adjusting the evidence to fit. Witnesses have been persuaded to adjust their evidence, and have done so, believing it was for the common good of nailing the person everyone 'knew' was guilty.
I am NOT ex Police!
Phil Clarke:
That is so far from reasonable comment, its pretty much libel. What EVIDENCE do you have for such an outrageous statement?
Phil Clarke, would those be the same stations that were not interfered with and corrupted by climate scientists, to satisfy their selfish desires?
Should have said at 12:18 conspiracy v. cock up
Mann's Hockey Stick is a classic case of data manipulation to get the right result.
The 97% consensus garbage, is pure conspiracy, involving prejudging, preselection etc
The Roman historian Livy observed that "where there is less fear,there is generally less danger." Until those who have put activism before
objectivity come to apprehend this,
nuclearclimate illusions, some spontaneous andsome carefully fostered, will continue to haunt the myth-loving animal that
is man.
"where there is less fear,
there is generally less danger."
Umm, no shit Sherlock.
Brandon Shollenberger ,
Spend a few hours reading here ( preferable with your brain in gear ) and then get back to us.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
"As for his conclusions, when somebody starts shouting about results they refuse to show any work for, I tend to think those results are worthless and try not to spend much time or effort on them."
You could have fooled me, in fact B you seem to spend all your time and effort in a faux rage about nit-picking details. Like many on here I listen to press releases galore about forthcoming papers but wait until they've been tried and tested before making a judgement. If you paid as careful attention as you pretend to you will have noticed that most people on here are pleased because Anthony has finished the paper, few, if any, are glorying in the results. But you, Mr. "Attention to detail" seem to have missed this.
Mark Steyn described you as the "most self-unaware man on the planet", or words to that effect. I didn't understand what he meant when I read it. I do now.
'The Roman historian Livy observed that "where there is less fear, there is generally less danger."'
He said it in Latin, from my days of learning Latin in school, any translation was a good translation.
I remember well: "Latin is a language as dead as dead can be. It killed the ancient Romans, and now it's killing me."
I think AW is showing some skill in the game of climate change politics. He gets a very respected co-author and then with bravado calls for a press release and refuses to release data until publication. If the warmist tribe blocks publication then they never get the data to de-bunk his claims and the most powerful skeptic on the www gets the volume turned up for his cause. All he needs to do is insist that he has a viable study and quote climate-gate with a Spencer-Brasswell-Dessler-Trenberth inference and he scores a political hit. For the warmist tribe they better hope that they can find something like 2012 TOBS issue or this paper could have "pause" like legs.
Yeah, I'm not going to get dragged into the ridiculous sort of nonsense you guys are posting. One user posts:
WIthout actually showing a single press releae. What he links to is a post on a website updating people with the state of things, something I explicitly would have been fine and appropriate for Anthony Watts to do. Another user says:
Presumably thinking that in some way addresses what I said, or is at least anything other than an idiotic response, but it obviously isn't.
So forth and so on. All I've done here is point out Anthony Watts was wrong to engage in science by press release because, as skeptics have said for years and yeras, science by press release is wrong. The reactions I've gotten show a lot of people are actually perfectly fine with science by press release as long as they like the person/results involved. Because really, that's what most people here are reacting to. They like the person/results, so they attack me for daring to point out the obvious wrongness of what happened here.
Feel free to carry on, especially with the personal attacks. I'm sure that'll convince absolutely nobody I am wrong.
@Eric H / @BS
As noted above... CERN seem to have no problem with the PR then publish approach.
There are no doubt plenty more examples out there - some (most?) of which are actually attempts to mislead, emanating from well funded activist (public funds / dead + near dead aphilanthropists) compromised outfits seeking to dominate the public space, drown out dissenting positions and monopolise the discussion. Climate is not the only area where this is a problem - it's particularly noisome/shouty in the area of Public 'Elf.
The proof of the pudding ....
@GC @12:18
I'd agree with that. The cover up and associated antics post cock-up regularly surpass the original deed. When the perpetrators are part of a government bureaucracy anybody seeking to rectify the misdeeds has their work cut out - pushing through barricades of resistance and indefensible but still entrenched defenders..... In a sense ... daft ex-SWP "Science under Siege" Nursey glimpsed a truth but completely misunderstands.....
@Brandon and tomo....I can't say if AW was right, wrong, or indifferent and by all means Brandon has the right to his opinion about the press release. I just think it was a wise move politically, and this is a political battle. I just hope the paper lives up to it's hype.
Climate Science, an attempt to thrust disbelief into the simple and the obvious. Thanks AW for the hard work. Ignore the gormless cavelers lest it rub off on you.
Cheers!
Is this a proper presentation or just a poster on a wall?
Someone report Brandon to the RSPCA because he's flogging that dead horse once again!!!
Mailman
That is so far from reasonable comment, its pretty much libel. What EVIDENCE do you have for such an outrageous statement?
Oh, get over yourself, it would be hard to find a thread on this site in which scientists were not accused of data mining and worse, without any evidence.
In 2007, Watts announced what he thought the data would show before it was even collected - bit of a scientific no-no, huh?
His first glossy 'report' for the Heartland Institute in 2009, based on the surfacestation data was little more than a collection of pictures of carefully chosen stations and their trends. Of course the selected badly sited stations had warming trends, while those on good microsites showed cooling or a flat trend. How odd. No data comparisons were included.
The NOAA then calculated that there was no significant trend difference between Watt's well and poorly sited stations, in fact the good stations showed a slight cooling bias.
There was no retraction or apology from Watts, the report is still available on the Heartland website.
In 2010, along with Joe D'Aleo, Watts put out another report which opened with 'Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century."
Which made it a little disingenous for him to state less than a year later, post-BEST, that
The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention – it is a straw man argument. The magnitude and causes are what skeptics question.
Several independent parties then calculated that the main issue Watts and D'Aleo based their accusation on - a dropout of stations, made no difference to the trend.
There was no retraction or apology from Watts, the report is still available on the Heartland website.
Three and a half years ago, Watts put out a claim that 'half of the global warming in the USA is artificial', based on Watts et al <s>2012 2013 2014 2015</s> 2016?
This time round, maybe the involvement of John N-G and the rigours of peer-review may help to keep him honest, however I note that the trigger for study is Leroy 2010, which has a rating scheme for weather stations, and it seems our heroes are only applying one of Leroy's 5 criteria (Heat sinks) and classifying stations differently - Leroy classes 1-3 out of 5 as 'good', retaining about 90% in France for example - while Watts et al only like classes 1-2, meaning they are trying to estimate US temperature trends using just 92 stations.
So, when (or is that if?) Watts 20?? Is accepted for publication, thinking scientists everywhere can check it for data mining.
Meanwhile - Paris. :-)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/best-what-i-agree-with-and-what-i-disagree-with-plus-a-call-for-additional-transparency-to-preven-pal-review/
https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/us-surface-temperature-record-reliable
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
Well, we shall see shan't we when the full report is released.
- And that ties us back to the point Brandon clumsily tried to make :
You can neither :
* 100% accept and call for immediate action
Nor
* Dismiss a new study
.. until the full report is published
We know in the past Climate Alarmists have tried that trick of going straight to the media, thus hyping up calls for action, only for the report to turn out not so robust when it was published.
That's why - Scientists going straight to the media BEFORE publishing in a journal is normally a red flag.
...It was OK of Brandon to give skeptics a gentle reminder to wait for the full process
...but almost all skeptics know the score and were not calling for immediate action anyway.
We'll leave the dramaqueening to the other side ..eh Phil ?
Here is an interesting tale of the death of science from W M Briggs
The #COP21 Deal, December 12, 2015: The Day Science Died
"I’ve been reading the comments about my press release at WUWT, Bishop Hill, and at Dr. Judith Curry’s place and most have been positive. There is the usual sniping, but these aren’t getting much traction as one would expect, mainly due to the fact that there’s really not much to snipe about other than Steve Mosher’s usual whining that he wants the data, and he wants it now.
Sorry Mosh, no can do until publication. After trusting people with our data prior to publication and being usurped, not once but twice, I’m just not going to make that mistake a third time." So no third time lucky to use the data to "usurp" Tony Watts a third time. I wonder if BS will accept that argument as being valid. I am certain that BS would not want the data now in order to try and thwart A Watts third time but perhaps,......"
Cue loud sound of ball bearings clacking in palm, and louder giggles from the Graun.
Heh, I stood in line to pay for the ticket to go see Karl.
========
I am surprised these unadulterated stations were not adjusted upwards, simply to homogenise them with all the ones that were.
That is exactly what happened. Raw data (+MMTS adjustment only) for the 92 Class 1\2 stations: 0.204C/Decade. Same subset, NOAA-adjusted: 0.336C/d.
Cling on Evan, cling on.
Meanwhile: Paris.
Phil Clarke, was there a significant scientific breakthrough in Paris, or just another consensus of mutual back slapping?
We've had a scientific consensus for ages, now we have a political one.
Unanimous consent by all parties! Can you imagine that!
It's rather easy to commit to reducing the temperature rise to 2 degrees when you know business as usual will achieve it. Committing to CO2 reduction is not so easy if it requires economic suicide.