SurfaceStations.org paper Accepted

[BethesdaWX]

I'm pleased with the Large amount of Skeptical Papers Accepted thru peer-review in the past few months! This one will feature the Full Press Release this week, and targets issues with Surface Weather Stations... refuting some nonsense claims from NOAA... the "contaminated stations show less warming" applies to the cherrypicked few not in the Subgroup of "rural", and what qualifies as "contaminated"

http://surfacestations.org/

Another Plus....

1) The full datacode will be presented, and open in the paper, instead of conealed behind closed doors.

2) They Project was done privately, so it does not cost the Taxpayer anything

So clearly a good hearted effort gone through the peer review process, look forward to reading it.

[LocoAko]

I'm confused as to the mission statement of that website. Doesn't NCDC have resources for every single station out there, including all the metadata (location, moves, station information, etc.)? They act like none of this is available.

[BethesdaWX]

Should be clear its the quality and Bias of the Data,not the data itself. There were some words from NOAA stating "the rural areas have shown more warming", but that sentiment has been completely shredded.

You can't site a station poorly, period. UHI can be adjusted for, but poor siting cannot in tandom.....but the question is how much does it need to be? In order to find that out, you need to compare the critisized stations to rural stations that are well cited. And don't cherrypick... find a wide range of stations with a good mean..........Otherwise any adjustement you make is completely superficial, and will not be correct.

This aspect is not even debatable, folks constantly say "it has been adjusted for"... yes it has, but it has been done so incorrectly. This study proves it essentially, so look for the press release sometime this week

[Clifford]

It sounds like they are only releasing a "press release", and not the full article next week.

The reality is that these stations are reasonably good at representing daily weather, annual weather, etc, accurate to a few degrees.

But, many things change that could have a slight impact on long-term temperature records, especially when related to increased population density and new technological innovations, many of which could cause a warm bias (such as AC units and parking lots near weather stations). And the accuracy required over decades, or an entire century for the global warming analysis is very high.

http://eclecticmeand...al-cooling.html

I'm just surprised that it required an independent analysis to find that 3/4 of the US weather stations were poorly located, especially when the USHCN has published standards, regularly collects the data, and has done recent updates to many of the sites (which is another issue).

And, of course, the government offices collecting the data are experts with "Red Tape".

[skierinvermont]

This should be interesting. As of yet Watts has had no good response to the Menne 2010 paper.

The 70 stations rated as "good" or "best" by surfacestations show MORE warming than the other 1000+ stations in both the RAW and ADJUSTED versions. Watts has had NO response to this fact so far except to publish more pictures of poorly cited stations. It seems he doesn't want to actually use the data set he has created and would prefer to just go on publishing anecdotes.

Menne 2010: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa....ne-etal2010.pdf

http://www.skeptical...ure-Record.html

[BethesdaWX]

Trix: Peer review is peer review, and as you told me, you don't know the reviewers, but I'm sure there were some from both sides who are qualified for that area of study, (as you tell me).

For every Anthony Watts, there is a Jim Hansen. I'm not a big fan of Watts, as he is a bit extreme for my liking, but knowing this data will fully available, code and all, for reproduction, I'm more confident that there is something to it, but we shall see.

Andrew: This Paper should put many of those vague interpretations to rest I Would Hope...... it will Include the Full Datacode to the naked eye, and open to re-creation of the final result, and was privately funded.

What one station (or 70 of them) shows doesn't mean much against the others bad citing....the review you speak of was purposely Vague of the fact that there clearly would be a warm bias in the poorly rated stations.

We shall see, I have my fingers crossed

I'm heading out y'all, I expect a slur of responses

[skierinvermont]

Trix: Peer review is peer review, and as you told me, you don't know the reviewers, but I'm sure there were some from both sides who are qualified for that area of study, (as you tell me).

For every Anthony Watts, there is a Jim Hansen. I'm not a big fan of Watts, as he is a bit extreme for my liking, but knowing this data will fully available, code and all, for reproduction, I'm more confident that there is something to it, but we shall see.

Andrew: This Paper should put many of those vague interpretations to rest I Would Hope...... it will Include the Full Datacode to the naked eye, and open to re-creation of the final result, and was privately funded.

What one station (or 70 of them) shows doesn't mean much against the others bad citing....the review you speak of was purposely Vague of the fact that there clearly would be a warm bias in the poorly rated stations.

We shall see, I have my fingers crossed

Menne showed that ALL the stations rated as "good" or "best" by surfacestations had the same trend as the rest of the stations. This is unequivocal proof that station siting does not lead to a bias. Of course, a few of the worst cited stations could have a bias, but overall there is no difference in trend between "good" sited and "bad" sited stations.

Watts has had two response to this so far, neither of which carry any merit:

1) The surfacestations project wasn't complete.

-This doesn't matter, 70 "good" or "best" stations is a large enough sample size. If station siting were causing a bias, then the 70 "good" or "best" sited stations would show less warming. They don't.

2) Menne used only "adjusted" data.

-This claim is false. Menne compared both the adjusted and RAW data from the "good" sited stations to the rest of the stations. There was no difference between the good and bad sited stations.

I hope you are aware that the GISS method, programming code and data has been available for a long time.

[tacoman25]

Menne showed that ALL the stations rated as "good" or "best" by surfacestations had the same trend as the rest of the stations. This is unequivocal proof that station siting does not lead to a bias. Of course, a few of the worst cited stations could have a bias, but overall there is no difference in trend between "good" sited and "bad" sited stations.

Watts has had two response to this so far, neither of which carry any merit:

1) The surfacestations project wasn't complete.

-This doesn't matter, 70 "good" or "best" stations is a large enough sample size. If station siting were causing a bias, then the 70 "good" or "best" sited stations would show less warming. They don't.

2) Menne used only "adjusted" data.

-This claim is false. Menne compared both the adjusted and RAW data from the "good" sited stations to the rest of the stations. There was no difference between the good and bad sited stations.

I hope you are aware that the GISS method, programming code and data has been available for a long time.

The best way to actually find out what influence, if any, poor siting has would be to see if the trend for the 70 worst sited stations was any different. The method Menne used is acceptable, but to really prove the point he should also compare the worst stations. Per theory, there should be no difference in that trend either.

[skierinvermont]

The best way to actually find out what influence, if any, poor siting has would be to see if the trend for the 70 worst sited stations was any different. The method Menne used is acceptable, but to really prove the point he should also compare the worst stations. Per theory, there should be no difference in that trend either.

That would be an interesting test, perhaps to only look at the CRN 5s, however we can still safely conclude from Menne that it makes very little difference overall because the 70 best sited have the same trend as the rest. It's possible the CRN 5s were slightly warm biased, but their effect must be fairly minimal on the 1000+ CRN 3s and 4s, otherwise we would see notice the trend of the 1s and 2s would be different than the 3s, 4s, and 5s, and it's not.

[ORH_wxman]

uh, the quality of the peer review is dependent upon the quality of the journal.

and Watts is 100% nutburger. I am guessing the final product is going to look a lot different than the teaser.

You could easily say that about a number of AGW alarmist freaks like James Hansen.

[BethesdaWX]

uh, the quality of the peer review is dependent upon the quality of the journal.

and Watts is 100% nutburger. I am guessing the final product is going to look a lot different than the teaser.

Trix:

If you don't know the reviewers, how can you say the review is botched? Assuming Anthony Watts is a Crazy Nutcase (Insert Proof Here) and He Set the whole thing up (Insert Proof Here), appointing a bunch of skeptical reviewers (Insert Proof Here), to pass a Flawed Study (Insert Proof Here)....... It'd do You better to give some supporting details, Physical examples, etc. And the basis for such deviations.

The Code Used will be presented and Re-Produced in the Final Result, so you'll get to see with your own eyes

Anthony Watts may get "hot-headed" at times, but he isn't a Jim Hansen, do we even need to go there? SURELY you don't don't suggest consipracy?

Andrew: Point being, they adjusted incorrectly, basically, a whole mess of mis-informed issues. I could get into it now, but do not feel like it.

I'll do it tomorrow.

[ORH_wxman]

a TV met with a blog vs. a student of James Van Allen and the head of NASA Goddard. yes, they're pretty equivalent.

You obviously haven't read much on Hansen have you.

[tacoman25]

a TV met with a blog vs. a student of James Van Allen and the head of NASA Goddard. yes, they're pretty equivalent.

Titles!!! Prestige!!! Important names!!!

How many times has Watts been arrested?

[BethesdaWX]

I"m suggesting that the final release is going to fall short of the expectations he is raising. the rest of that is your mania and your total lack of understanding of the peer review process which I'm not going to waste my time going through again.

What the hell are you drinking?

You're clearly suggesting the peer review will be low quality because.... why?.......he's a TV met with a Blog? Ok so what?........ Excuse me, Alarmist, Nutcase Hansen doesn't even apply here.

You can't give any examples of your position in any regard, as in, How is he a Nutcase? What did he deviate from? Deviating from the IPCC makes you a Nutcase? In that case, you're the Whackjob.

Is it the IPCC opposition that bothers you Ms. Liberal Azz? Its as simple as me saying "Hansen is a whackjob" and cutting it there, instead of re-hashing his numerous failures and his low resolution piece-of-Crap GISS that have deviated from every other reputable source. An Atmospheric Science Degree is an Atmospheric Science Degree, whether u work for NOAA, or a Private Firm.

And.....You have absolutely no idea that the peer review process is a fairly small element in the whole shin-dig! As if the 5000 non-peer reviewed articles in the IPCC report aren't enough for you?

[ORH_wxman]

Titles!!! Prestige!!! Important names!!!

How many times has Watts been arrested?

I've found the "credentials" and "prestige" argument to be very weak. It doesn't prove any science. I'm sure if I was arguing vehemently that Washington DC snowstorms had increased via global warming and you were saying that's a load of crap, that she would say something like like "why are you arguing with an Ivy League graduate in Atmospheric Science?". While being an Ivy League grad might make someone slightly more impressive in their educational achievements, its a minor factor in determining who is actually right. The science proves it. Not the individual achievement.

Weak argument. Hansen has already shown many times to be very biased and made some alarmist predictions that failed. We'll forgive him for saying that last year's warmth was impressive despite the developing La Nina...

But in all honesty, its in the science and that is where the debate lies. Not because someone is a fell funded PhD and works for NASA. God forbid that anyone question some of the claims and predictions they put out to the public.

[tacoman25]

I'm an acquisitions editor at a science press. I know about Hansen.

Then you should know that to accuse Watts of being more nutty than Hansen is simply not supportable by the facts. Just because Hansen works for NASA doesn't make him above reproach.

[LakeEffectKing]

I never said Hansen was above reproach--just that Watt is a total wingnut.

Watts studied electrical engineering and as far as anyone can tell, doesn't have a BA. furthermore the AMS seal he claims to have is a meaningless, and discontinued, award which requires no degree, let alone one in meteorology. he has no publication history, apart from self-publishing, and is basically a wingnut with a website.

Hansen has a PhD under James Van Allen at the University of Iowa and multiple peer-reviewed publications and a legitimate scientific career.

to act as if the 2 are even remotely comparable in terms of gravitas is ignorance.

An early Albert Einstein would have had a tough go via your method of screening for intellect.

Not to take away from the academic achievements, but evidence that politics and personal agendas have infested a mandate of scientific objectivity, certainly warrants inclusion to any "nutburger" or "wingnut" characterization flowchart....both Watts and Hansen have allow such intolerables to invade their objectivity, but to what degree for each, is left to the perceptions of varying individual ideologies.

[skierinvermont]

An early Albert Einstein would have had a tough go via your method of screening for intellect.

Not to take away from the academic achievements, but evidence that politics and personal agendas have infested a mandate of scientific objectivity, certainly warrants inclusion to any "nutburger" or "wingnut" characterization flowchart....both Watts and Hansen have allow such intolerables to invade their objectivity, but to what degree for each, is left to the perceptions of varying individual ideologies.

Einstein's works were published, read by his peers, and quickly accepted. Watt's "works" are self-published on the internet and read only by a small internet fan club, except when actual scientists bother to read and demonstrate the obvious flaws. Watts is no Albert Einstein.

[tacoman25]

I never said Hansen was above reproach--just that Watt is a total wingnut.

Watts studied electrical engineering and as far as anyone can tell, doesn't have a BA. furthermore the AMS seal he claims to have is a meaningless, and discontinued, award which requires no degree, let alone one in meteorology. he has no publication history, apart from self-publishing, and is basically a wingnut with a website.

Hansen has a PhD under James Van Allen at the University of Iowa and multiple peer-reviewed publications and a legitimate scientific career.

to act as if the 2 are even remotely comparable in terms of gravitas is ignorance.

You're basing everything on academics and prestige. That's not what determines how nutty someone is or is not.

[tacoman25]

Einstein's works were published, read by his peers, and quickly accepted. Watt's "works" are self-published on the internet and read only by a small internet fan club, except when actual scientists bother to read and demonstrate the obvious flaws. Watts is no Albert Einstein.

Totally missed the point.

[tacoman25]

I'm basing it on evaluation by peers. Hansen may be controversial, and even wrong at times, but he certainly has the respect of his peers, even those who disagree with him. Watts is a blogger who has managed to hook a bunch of people because he says what they want to hear.

I don't think Watts would claim to have the same peers as Hansen. Obviously, they run in different circles. But just because one represents the more "mainstream" viewpoint (while at the same time taking it to the extreme from time to time) doesn't make him less nutty.

Again, how many times has Watts been arrested? Those are the results of activist actions that many would deem a bit nutty for a prominent government scientist.

[skierinvermont]

Totally missed the point.

No I didn't... there was an analogy being made between Einstein and Watts where there is none to be made. Watts is not accepted by his peers and posts on the internet. Einstein was published and rapidly accepted by his peers (actually he is flat out rejected by the vast majority in the field).

[nzucker]

No I didn't... there was an analogy being made between Einstein and Watts where there is none to be made. Watts is not accepted by his peers and posts on the internet. Einstein was published and rapidly accepted by his peers (actually he is flat out rejected by the vast majority in the field).

No one is saying Watts has the same intellect as Einstein. We're just talking about individuals advancing ideas that are outside the mainstream, ahead of their time, etc. Watts has certainly presented some very interesting research on solar activity and ocean cycles that isn't commonly part of the climate-change dialogue today, but might be at some point in the future when natural influences are discussed along with human-caused warming. I believe Watts is a blogger who brings much new information to the forefront, which is great for the science. I find him extreme/biased at times, but I admire his contributions to the field, which are much more open-minded than Hansen's..

[skierinvermont]

No one is saying Watts has the same intellect as Einstein.

Yeah. I got that.

There is still no comparison to be made in terms of their acceptance. Einstein was published and rapidly accepted by his peers. Watts posts on the internet and is flat out rejected by his peers.

[Clifford]

Yeah. I got that.

There is still no comparison to be made in terms of their acceptance. Einstein was published and rapidly accepted by his peers. Watts posts on the internet and is flat out rejected by his peers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#General_principles_postulated_by_Einstein

In his paper on mass–energy equivalence Einstein produced E = mc² from his special relativity equations. ^[61] Einstein's 1905 work on relativity remained controversial for many years, but was accepted by leading physicists, starting with Max Planck.^[62][63]

[...]

In 1921, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Because relativity was still considered somewhat controversial, it was officially bestowed for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. He also received the Copley Medal from the Royal Society in 1925.

[tacoman25]

uh, not really. civil disobedience has a long history in the US. it's hardly nutty. you're conflating your personal dislike of his positions with his activity as a private citizen.

And I believe you are giving him a pass because you agree with his positions. I highly doubt you would defend a skeptic scientist who committed the same actions. You would probably consider it a bit nutty.

In addition, his activism as a private citizen is directly related to his field of research, so it's not like we are talking about something completely separate and unrelatable to his public position. Hardly.

Civil disobedience does have a long history in the U.S...the civil rights movement, protesting wars, etc. But when a prominent scientist becomes an activist for his cause, which relates exactly to his field of research, that is a serious conflict of interest and is simply not the position he should be in - for the sake of scientific objectivity, if nothing else.

[skierinvermont]

http://en.wikipedia....ted_by_Einstein

Yes I know... but the difference is he was read by physicists many who agreed many who disputed and eventually they were persuaded. The same cannot be said for Watts, as the vast majority of scientists flat out reject his position.

[tacoman25]

Yes I know... but the difference is he was read by physicists many who agreed many who disputed and eventually they were persuaded. The same cannot be said for Watts, as the vast majority of scientists flat out reject his position.

Which is?

[skierinvermont]

Which is?

Denying that rising CO2 concentrations will significantly warm the planet and lead to serious consequences.

[tacoman25]

You are trying to draw a line between his public position as a scientist and his actions as a private citizen. But his arrests/activism have all been directly in connections with causes tied to climate change - his field of research. That line does not exist.