SurfaceStations.org paper Accepted

[tacoman25]

It doesn't matter whether the reconstruction is accurate. The point is that oscillations in the PDO produce infinite warming. If the PDO oscillates from -1 to +1 to -1 in his model, that produces net warming. If it does it again, it produces further warming. Etc. etc.

This is a pretty straightforward blatant error.

I believe his model was built to reflect the PDO oscillations in the 20th century. Since we don't know anything really about how the PDO operated before that, I don't see how starting in 993 A.D. is relevant.

[tacoman25]

That is simply indicative of the high level of positive feedbacks. These same positive feedbacks produced the rapid warming that ended the ice ages and produced the holocene thermal max with trees growing on the siberian coast. When you create warming via the energy imbalance caused by CO2 (NOBODY denies this) then the positive feedbacks will amplify this warming.

From what I understand, the climate descended into ice ages much quicker than it recovered to warm eras again. It was definitely a runaway, rapid transition with cooling feedbacks...but no evidence of the same with warming. We have plenty of evidence of catastrophic global cooling events, not so much catastrophic global warming events.

[skierinvermont]

I believe his model was built to reflect the PDO oscillations in the 20th century. Since we don't know anything really about how the PDO operated before that, I don't see how starting in 993 A.D. is relevant.

The point is that the PDO going from -1 to +1 to -1 produces net warming. A second oscillation produces more net warming. This obviously makes no physical sense and is a relic of the poor statistical methods. Running the model on a longer time period just provides a clear demonstration that oscillations of the PDO produce infinite warming. 6 trillion degrees worth.

[skierinvermont]

Andrew, you are so clueless sometimes, its sad and unfortunate in my view... Positive feedbacks... Noope.

You have no knowledge of the climate system, but I can help you here, this is my area of "specialty"... if you wanna call it that. You're a funny dude, but everything you assert is either assumtion or blatently false... unfortunately, and it is easy to demonstratre why.

Not even going to bother. Thank god you're 5ppd.

[skierinvermont]

From what I understand, the climate descended into ice ages much quicker than it recovered to warm eras again. It was definitely a runaway, rapid transition with cooling feedbacks...but no evidence of the same with warming. We have plenty of evidence of catastrophic global cooling events, not so much catastrophic global warming events.

I think you have this reversed. It's actually the warmings that tend to be more rapid than the coolings, although both provide strong evidence of positive feedbacks to initial forcing.

The graph is sort of confusing in that the chronological progression of time is from right to left, not left to right:

[LocoAko]

Wasn't Hansen arrested for his protests against mountaintop removal mining? The dangerous environmental impacts of that are much more serious and wide-ranging than just global warming, so I don't see why his "arrests" suddenly discredit his scientific research.

[tacoman25]

Wasn't Hansen arrested for his protests against mountaintop removal mining? The dangerous environmental impacts of that are much more serious and wide-ranging than just global warming, so I don't see why his "arrests" suddenly discredit his scientific research.

Nobody claimed that. That was just one of his arrests, by the way.

The issue was not whether or not his scientific research was valid. It was whether or not it's appropriate for a scientist in his position to be an extremist activist. And whether it's fair or not to dismiss a skeptic blogger as a "nutjob" based on nothing, but then give a prominent mainstream scientist like Hansen a free pass no matter what he does or says.

[tacoman25]

they don't--it's just a straw man.

Blah blah blah...dismissing everything as "straw men" is getting very tired and displays little actual critical thinking.

[tacoman25]

I don't know how anyone could look at the stuff Watts does and not think he's totally nuts or not understand that Hansen is a serious scientist.

and tacoman's assertion that Hansen's arrests for civil disobedience has some sort of direct effect on his scientific publishing is beyond absurd.

I have clearly outlined my arguments: Hansen is a serious scientist who goes too far. You have not. Where have you explained why you believe Watts is totally nuts? Where is your evidence? All you have displayed is a clear bias and an inability to open-mindedly examine complicated issues.

"Oh, that Watt's guy is whacko. He runs a skeptic blog and he's not even a real scientist."

"Hansen is a well-respected, peer-reviewed scientist. Who cares what he does outside of his scientific literature."

Really? That's your argument? Because that's all you have provided so far.

[BethesdaWX]

Not even going to bother. Thank god you're 5ppd.

Again, you obviously have no idea how feedbacks work within the Climate System, period. You can attempt to dismiss me all you want, but this is not going to Die.

To repeat myself

You should know, The only reason cloud cover is assumed to be a positive feedback in climate models is because we notice that there is less GCC in warm years.....thats it....we have no Mechanism for why GCC would decrease as a "result" of warming... but we have a mechanism to how GCC decrease would cause warming... and how that would drive the climate and the rising OHC. More water vapor would also coincide with more GCC, not less. But the real issue is is LLGCC (low Level), not upper level.

I hope you understand that Less GCC causing warming instead of amplified GHE would completely explain GISS/Surface data warming faster that the LT...

Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and exert a strong cooling effect on the surface. A 2% change in low clouds during a solar cycle will change the heat input to the Earth's surface by 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m²). This compares to the total warming of 1.4 W/m² the IPCC cites in the 20th century. (The IPCC does not recognize the effect of the Sun and Cosmic rays, and attributes the warming to CO2.)

Cosmic ray flux can be determined from radioactive isotopes such as beryllium-10, or the Sun’s open coronal magnetic field. The two independent cosmic ray proxies confirm that there has been a dramatic reduction in the cosmic ray flux during the 20th century as the Sun has gained intensity and the Sun's coronal magnetic field has doubled in strength.

The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m² to 288 W/m² (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m² being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m² (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m². So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite. This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).

Variations in solar irradiance are recognized as a fundamental forcing factor in the climate system and may directly or indirectly influence the amount of clouds. For instance it is generally believed that the main cause of the cold intervals during the Little Ice Age 1300-1900 was reduced solar irradiance (Lean and Rind 1998; Shindell et al. 2001).

The solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent over the approximate 11-year solar cycle, which would appear to be too small to have an impact on climate. Nevertheless, many observations suggest the presence of 11-year signals in various meteorological time series, e.g., sea surface temperature (White et al. 1997) and cloudiness over North America (Udelhofen and Cess 2001). The flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) varies inversely with the solar cycle. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) suggested that GCR enhance low cloud formation, explaining variations on the order of 3 percent global total cloud cover over a solar cycle.

A 3 percent cloud cover change corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.5 W/m^2, which may be compared with the IPCC 2007 estimate of 1.6 W/m² for the total effect of all recognized climatic drivers 1750-2006, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. Since clouds have a net cooling effect on climate, the above would imply (Svensmark 1998) that the estimated reduction of cosmic ray flux during the 20th century (Marsh and Svensmark 2000) might have been responsible for a significant part of the observed warming. Since 1983, the cooling cover of low clouds have decreased from 29% to about 25%, During the same period the net change of warming high clouds have been small.

The new hypothesis on cloud formation being influenced by the intensity of galactic cosmic rays has been exposed to critique (Kristjánsson et al. 2002; Kristjánsson et al. 2004). Later, however, new experiments demonstrated that cosmic rays may indeed produce cloud condensation nuclei (CCN's). By way of the SKY experiment in Copenhagen was demonstrated how electrons set free in the air by passing cosmic rays help to assemble building blocks for CCN's (Svensmark et al. 2006, Svensmark 2007).

As more experiments are carried out and longer and improved dataseries on cloud cover, cosmic rays, atmospheric water vapour, the amount of atmospheric aerosols, etc. are established, knowledge on cloud cover formation will improve. Until all processes controlling cloud formation are thoroughly understood, any attempt of modelling future climate change may well prove in vain.

The Sun

The spectral analysis shown here is from sediment cores obtained from Effingham Inlet, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The annually deposited laminations of the core are linked to the changing climate conditions. The analysis shows a strong correlation to the 11-year sunspot cycle.

N. Shaviv and J. Veiser using seashell thermometers shows a strong correlation between temperature and the cosmic ray flux over the last 520 million years.

Cosmic Ray Flux and Tropical Temperature Variation Over the Phanerozoic 520 million years

Sun and Cosmic Rays

During the 20th century the Sun has continued to warm and may have contributed directly to a third of the warming over the last hundred years. The change in solar output is too small to directly account for most of the observed warming. However, the Sun-Cosmic Ray connection provides an amplification mechanism by which a small change in solar irradiance will have a large effect on climate.

A paper by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen of the Center for Sun-Climate Research of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cosmic rays highly correlate to low cloud formation. Changes in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays alter the Earth’s cloudiness.

A recent experiment in 2005 shows the effect of cosmic rays in a reaction chamber containing air and trace chemicals found over the oceans. Electrons released in the air by cosmic rays act as a catalyst in making aerosols. They significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules, which are the building block for the cloud condensation nuclei.

[Clifford]

The "Paper" is out.

Isn't that what this discussion was supposed to be about?

http://pielkeclimate...1/05/r-3671.pdf

http://surfacestations.org/

It is long.

Their results were interesting.

The "Good" sites had cooler minimum temperatures.

The "Poor" sites had warmer minimum temperatures.

The "Good" sites had warmer maximum temperatures.

The "Poor" sites had cooler maximum temperatures (except the CRN 5 stations that tended warmer).

The diurnal temperature range was greater for the "Good" sites than for the "Poor" sites.

The temperature adjustments seemed to increase the temperature trend by about 30-50%.

[skierinvermont]

Exact same results as Menne, except they broke down CRN "all" into 3, 4, 5. But the "goods" had more warming in the unadjusted data than the CRN 3s, 4s, and 5s. Which is the exact opposite of what Watts has been suggesting for years.

Which means that if we used only "good" stations to calculate U.S. temperatures, we would find slightly more warming than NOAA and GISS have. If anything, therefore, NOAA and GISS are biased cold.

[skierinvermont]

It's also worth noting that the only reason CRN 1s and 2s have been warming faster than the 3s and 4s is the time of observation bias.

[skierinvermont]

I wonder if this means Watts will finally stop posting anecdotal pictures of poorly sited stations on his blog, since his own paper shows that the "good" sited stations are actually warming faster than the rest of the stations.

[Clifford]

I wonder if this means Watts will finally stop posting anecdotal pictures of poorly sited stations on his blog, since his own paper shows that the "good" sited stations are actually warming faster than the rest of the stations.

Except for the Worst 6.2% of the stations (CRN5)

[tacoman25]

Exact same results as Menne, except they broke down CRN "all" into 3, 4, 5. But the "goods" had more warming in the unadjusted data than the CRN 3s, 4s, and 5s. Which is the exact opposite of what Watts has been suggesting for years.

Which means that if we used only "good" stations to calculate U.S. temperatures, we would find slightly more warming than NOAA and GISS have. If anything, therefore, NOAA and GISS are biased cold.

Your last statement would apply only to the U.S. based on these results, of course.

[skierinvermont]

Except for the Worst 6.2% of the stations (CRN5)

After the adjustments the CRN 5s show the same trend as the rest so it could just be instrumentation issues rather than poor siting. For example, the time of observation adjustment removes 70% of the difference between the CRN 5s and the rest. So a lot of the difference between the CRN 5s and the the rest is that the CRN 5s have a warm bias due to changing time of observation, which is then removed by the time of observation adjustment. Not poor siting.

To get even more technical.. one might think that because the rest of adjustments remove the rest of the difference between the CRN 5s and the remainder, that none of the difference is due to siting issues. That might be the case or it might not. Because some of the adjustments use surrounding stations to correct, it's possible the differences are getting whitewashed. But the TOBS adjustment is station specific and dependent upon the observation schedule that has been kept and how it has changed over the years. Some of the other adjustments are stations specific and depending on instrumentation etc... others are not. So it would be interesting to see which adjustments are removing the difference between the CRN5s and the rest. Because in the adjusted data there is no difference between the CRN 5s and the others.

Regardless... most of the difference between the CRN 5s and the remainder is time of observation bias... NOT siting issues.

[OHSnow]

I wonder if this means Watts will finally stop posting anecdotal pictures of poorly sited stations on his blog, since his own paper shows that the "good" sited stations are actually warming faster than the rest of the stations.

Yeah, this doesn't seem very scientific to me. Showing a station is poorly cited doesn't suggest anything about the trend. We'd have to know what the station looked like in the past. And I'd be willing to bet things are a lot better today than they used to be -- a lot of stations were on roofs and such back in the day and they didn't have the automated sensors.

[BethesdaWX]

whew! Read through the paper, I enjoyed the read, very well reasoned. This is an example of objective science with a code fully presentable (will be released in a day or two due to embargo). There was also a "question/answer" feature on WUWT.

They find that the Warming trend in maximum temps has been under-estimated (which is very important), while the warming trend in Minimum temperatures has been over-estimated, essentially canceling out any difference, although the maximums are more important since the minimum trends are more locally influenced. Also, that poorer cited stations tend to be warmer overall, desite a slower warming trend since the 1970's than the best cited stations, which show more warming, but are overall cooler.

Things I was able to pull:

1) It is clear that the US Surface is Warming Faster than the LT by a long shot, which brings into question not only land use changes, but also changes in Low Level Cloud Cover, which would have the effect of warming the surface faster than the LT, thru increase in Visible light/SW into the bottom of the troposphere/surface before re-emission.

2) The fact that the Surface is warming faster than the LT makes me feel better about my position on AGW, since faster surface warming is what one would expect from Decreasing Low Level Cloud Cover, (LLGCC is located in the Base of the Troposphere), allowing more incoming SW/visible light into the Bottom of the Troposphere/Surface......rather than an amplified GHE, which by Laws of Physics, Must warm the LT faster than the surface, (based on our understandings of the GHE, at least).

Later on, I'll attempt to get into not only the effects of GCR's on GCC, which we do have a mechanism for, but the effect of GCR's on the Ozone layer, and UVA & UVB rays' effect on OHC, ultra SW radiation penetrates the Oceans deeper than any other form of energy.

As for the Question/answer feature on WUWT:

Q: So is the United States getting warmer?

A: Yes in terms of the surface air temperature record. We looked at 30-year and 115-year trends, and all groups of stations showed warming trends over those periods.

Q: Has the warming rate been overestimated?

A: The minimum temperature rise appears to have been overestimated, but the maximum temperature rise appears to have been underestimated.

Q: Do the differing trend errors in maximum and minimum temperature matter?

A: They matter quite a bit. Wintertime minimum temperatures help determine plant hardiness, for example, and summertime minimum temperatures are very important for heat wave mortality. Moreover, maximum temperature trends are the better indicator of temperature changes in the rest of the atmosphere, since minimum temperature trends are much more a function of height near the ground and are of less value in diagnosing heat changes higher in the atmosphere; e.g see .

Q: What about mean temperature trends?

A: In the United States the biases in maximum and minimum temperature trends are about the same size, so they cancel each other and the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class. This finding needs to be assessed globally to see if this also true more generally.

However, even the best-sited stations may not be accurately measuring trends in temperature or, more generally, in trends in heat content of the air which includes the effect of water vapor trends. Also, most are at airports, are subject to encroaching urbanization, and use a different set of automated equipment. The corrections for station moves or other inhomogeneities use data from poorly-sited stations for determining adjustments to better-sited stations.

Q: What’s next?

A: We also plan to look specifically at the effects of instrument changes and land use issues, among other things. The Surface Stations volunteers have provided us with a superb dataset, and we want to learn as much about station quality from it as we can.

[skierinvermont]

This is an example of objective science with a code fully presentable (will be released in a day or two due to embargo).

As is all peer-reviewed literature (the conclusions of which you willfully ignore). Almost all journals require code, supporting documents, methodology all to be made publicly available. For example, GISS programming code and methodology have been publicly available for a long time.

[skierinvermont]

It's hilariously ironic how the whole surfacestation project was started with the specific intent of proving station siting biases the results warm, and the result of the project is the exact opposite. Instead the project ended up conclusively proving that there is no bias and in fact the "good" stations are warming slightly faster. They recruited an army of volunteers all eager to prove how the U.S. temperature record is biased warm (just look at the comments on WUWT), they made countless blog posts full of anecdotal evidence claiming to prove the temperature record is biased warm. And yet the end result is proving that the "good" stations are warming even faster.

Watts totally trashed the Menne paper on his blog making up blatant lies in an effort to disprove it (the dripping tap image) and then 6 months later he publishes the EXACT same conclusion as Menne in JGR. I don't even see why this paper is necessary.. it's basically the exact same thing as the Menne paper.. which Watts totally trashed with blatant lies... all that was needed was an apology to Menne.

[Clifford]

Yeah, this doesn't seem very scientific to me. Showing a station is poorly cited doesn't suggest anything about the trend. We'd have to know what the station looked like in the past. And I'd be willing to bet things are a lot better today than they used to be -- a lot of stations were on roofs and such back in the day and they didn't have the automated sensors.

The USHCN standards are old standards.

But, unfortunately we are only seeing a snapshot in time. It would be nice to see a 100 yr history of construction/agriculture/forestry/groudskeeping/maintenance/relocations for all the weather stations. But, since they haven't even done a photo survey of all weatherstations, a complete history on each one would be too much to ask.

There is a lot to be said for the old mercury high/low thermometers, especially if they have kept the original century old equipment. However, accuracy to a fraction of a degree is only achieved through averaging.

Actually, here is an interesting Watts page on thermometers.

http://wattsupwithth...f-thermometers/

http://www.freerepub...0/posts?page=51

So, even glass thermometer readings can drift over time. Watts suggested a 0.7c error over a decade.

So, historical calibration records (and thermometer replacement records) should be inspected for all the old thermometers.

Automated sensors can give much more information than the old high/low thermometers. For example one could calculate a true average temperature integrated over the entire day & night. However, doing so would add another avenue for error when comparing to old records averaging the high/low temps.

[ORH_wxman]

The USHCN standards are old standards.

But, unfortunately we are only seeing a snapshot in time. It would be nice to see a 100 yr history of construction/agriculture/forestry/groudskeeping/maintenance/relocations for all the weather stations. But, since they haven't even done a photo survey of all weatherstations, a complete history on each one would be too much to ask.

There is a lot to be said for the old mercury high/low thermometers, especially if they have kept the original century old equipment. However, accuracy to a fraction of a degree is only achieved through averaging.

Actually, here is an interesting Watts page on thermometers.

http://wattsupwithth...f-thermometers/

http://www.freerepub...0/posts?page=51

So, even glass thermometer readings can drift over time. Watts suggested a 0.7c error over a decade.

So, historical calibration records (and thermometer replacement records) should be inspected for all the old thermometers.

Automated sensors can give much more information than the old high/low thermometers. For example one could calculate a true average temperature integrated over the entire day & night. However, doing so would add another avenue for error when comparing to old records averaging the high/low temps.

The homogenization is almost impossible for a lot of the older sites. Efforts are put in to try and get it as close as possible but it will never be perfect. The surface station project was looking at raw data for the different sites, so it didn't try to adjust for UHI or anything...only microscale factors around each site.

I think what it shows though is the error that is possible in these stations, whether they are good or bad.

[tacoman25]

whew! Read through the paper, I enjoyed the read, very well reasoned. This is an example of objective science with a code fully presentable (will be released in a day or two due to embargo). There was also a "question/answer" feature on WUWT.

They find that the Warming trend in maximum temps has been under-estimated (which is very important), while the warming trend in Minimum temperatures has been over-estimated, essentially canceling out any difference, although the maximums are more important since the minimum trends are more locally influenced. Also, that poorer cited stations tend to be warmer overall, desite a slower warming trend since the 1970's than the best cited stations, which show more warming, but are overall cooler.

Things I was able to pull:

1) It is clear that the US Surface is Warming Faster than the LT by a long shot, which brings into question not only land use changes, but also changes in Low Level Cloud Cover, which would have the effect of warming the surface faster than the LT, thru increase in Visible light/SW into the bottom of the troposphere/surface before re-emission.

However, it is important to note that since the -PDO phase change (2008-present), U.S. surface temps are running markedly cooler. So trends from the 1970s (the last time we saw a PDO phase flip, that time to +PDO) to the 2000s are now being reversed.

[tacoman25]

It's hilariously ironic how the whole surfacestation project was started with the specific intent of proving station siting biases the results warm, and the result of the project is the exact opposite. Instead the project ended up conclusively proving that there is no bias and in fact the "good" stations are warming slightly faster. They recruited an army of volunteers all eager to prove how the U.S. temperature record is biased warm (just look at the comments on WUWT), they made countless blog posts full of anecdotal evidence claiming to prove the temperature record is biased warm. And yet the end result is proving that the "good" stations are warming even faster.

Watts totally trashed the Menne paper on his blog making up blatant lies in an effort to disprove it (the dripping tap image) and then 6 months later he publishes the EXACT same conclusion as Menne in JGR. I don't even see why this paper is necessary.. it's basically the exact same thing as the Menne paper.. which Watts totally trashed with blatant lies... all that was needed was an apology to Menne.

What's really hilarious is how you can barely contain your gleefulness about the results. Yay for science?

[BethesdaWX]

What's really hilarious is how you can barely contain your gleefulness about the results. Yay for science?

What is your viewpoint on AGW? I assume you're a lukewarmer? I really enjoy your posts and contributions to the forum. And yes Def, US temps have crashed since the -PDO, especially during the recent winters.

I'm not sure why Andrew would be "happy" with Faster Surface warming.. the likely fact is, the surface warming faster than the LT gives the Solar idea more momentum, and its easy to explain why, in a broad sense. The Surface warming faster than the LT is exactly what you'd expect to see from decreasing Low Level Cloud Cover, (LLGCC is located in the Base of the Troposphere), allowing more incoming SW/visible light into the Bottom of the Troposphere/Surface Directly before re-emission as LW... from the surface "impact" directly, as there is no other possible way to re-emit it..........Amplified GHE cannot work here, by Laws of Physics, an amplified GHE Must warm the LT faster than the surface, (based on our understandings of the GHE, at least). UAH/RSS measuring the LT, decreasing LLGCC would cause more warming below the level where Low Level Clouds predominate, but not the entire troposphere, so you'd see less warming on UAH/RSS than on the surface, which is exactly what we're seeing.

Questions are..... Why would GCC be decreasing now? We still cannot accurately measure it. And how much can the Oceans really warm due to this? And when is equilibrium actually reached?

The GCR/GCC Theory Starts with Solar Magnetic Flux, measured by the AA index, and really has nothing to do with TSI. GCR's directly respond to Solar Magnetism, evidenced by 10BE concentration proxies. There is a clear Mechanism in which GCR's assist in the building blocks of CCN's, Molecular Aerosol clusters of Water Vapor and Acids were successfully re-produced in both the SKY & CLOUD physics experiments. GCR's also have a large impact on the ozone layer, a large role in ozone depletion, we see more UVA & UVB rays entering the atmosphere when the Ozone layer is weaker, as it is now, and UV rays penetrate deeper into the Oceans than any other form of energy we know of (measurable).

In this case, OHC equilibrium would not be reached until GCR counts begin to rise, and there is a Lag there... GCR's have been low, but flat-lining, since the late 1990's, (coincidence ) but have not yet increased, so Equilibrium would not yet be reached. When applying the warming seen from the PDO/AMO over the past 30 years until 2007, It really fits quite well.

You need the GCR's to increase, GCC to respond, the CLimate system to respond afterwards.. the lag is Absolute temperature would be longer.

One of many reasons I find the simplistic arguments to be a bunch of nonsense.

EDIT:

Andrew Posting Without Reading Yet again Sad.

[skierinvermont]

What's really hilarious is how you can barely contain your gleefulness about the results. Yay for science?

After the way he trounced the Menne paper with blatant lies about how Menne was using adjusted data (Menne used raw data), only to publish the exact same thing as Menne 6 months later, Watts deserves nothing less than to be mocked ruthlessly. And after his blatant attempts to use anecdotal picture evidence instead of real data to intentionally obfuscate the issue.

And yet Watts was still using this anecdotal picture evidence in his pre-press release last week and making it seem as if they were going to show a warm bias due to station siting. The implication of his press release last week is unrelated to the actual results of the paper. It was just more propaganda from the spin machine.

My guess is Pielke who has always seemed more honest and moderate than Watts, and some of the other co-authors, enabled the production of a sensible paper out of this data. I am glad to see that.

[skierinvermont]

EDIT:

Andrew Posting Without Reading Yet again Sad.

I wasn't responding to you.

It has been 22 minutes now, do I have permission to respond yet?

You're somehow trying to spin the affirmation of the surface warming trend as disproof of AGW. I guess that's a denier argument I hadn't heard before. "The surface is warming TOO FAST!" LOL

We don't even know how fast the LT is warming exactly. Multiple methodologies show the LT warming faster than the surface as expected. The rest are close enough as to be a non-issue. Even John Christy says that any differences between surface and satellite warming is most likely measurement error, not a problem with AGW theory.

[ORH_wxman]

After the way he trounced the Menne paper with blatant lies about how Menne was using adjusted data (Menne used raw data), only to publish the exact same thing as Menne 6 months later, Watts deserves nothing less than to be mocked ruthlessly. And after his blatant attempts to use anecdotal picture evidence instead of real data to intentionally obfuscate the issue.

And yet Watts was still using this anecdotal picture evidence in his pre-press release last week and making it seem as if they were going to show a warm bias due to station siting. The implication of his press release last week is unrelated to the actual results of the paper. It was just more propaganda from the spin machine.

My guess is Pielke who has always seemed more honest and moderate than Watts, and some of the other co-authors, enabled the production of a sensible paper out of this data. I am glad to see that.

If you are going to insist on mocking Watts because of propaganda, then you will look like an obscene hypocrite for defending Hansen when we call him out on all of his media spin...you can no longer use the "but his peer review work shows X"....Watts was an author in this paper and just like Hansen, we can point to the peer reviewed work if you want to insult him.

I personally think he has a cold bias, but not as bad as Hansen's warm bias and certainly not as exceptionally extremist in his activities. But the next time we call out Hansen for sensationalizing a period like the Little Ice Age as a climate utopia (which would be an epic disaster nowadays), you should remember your criticism of Watts because he posted pics of poorly sited weather stations.

[skierinvermont]

If you are going to insist on mocking Watts because of propaganda, then you will look like an obscene hypocrite for defending Hansen when we call him out on all of his media spin...you can no longer use the "but his peer review work shows X"....Watts was an author in this paper and just like Hansen, we can point to the peer reviewed work if you want to insult him.

I personally think he has a cold bias, but not as bad as Hansen's warm bias and certainly not as exceptionally extremist in his activities. But the next time we call out Hansen for sensationalizing a period like the Little Ice Age as a climate utopia (which would be an epic disaster nowadays), you should remember your criticism of Watts because he posted pics of poorly sited weather stations.

This is a strawman.

I don't defend Hansen when he makes sensationalized and/or incorrect statements to the media. I've criticized them over and over and over nearly once per month for 3+ years.

There are certain statements which have been taken out of context or manipulated and I have defended him in those instances, but not in others.

So again I ask, is there a statement of Hansen's which I have not criticized adequately to this point?