PDA

View Full Version : Climate Gate U-Turn?



Deeman3
02-16-2010, 08:49 AM
Here are a couple things that should really stick in Al Gore’s craw (where did that expression come from anyway?).

<span style="color: #FF0000">I can help here. Birds have a craw in their throat that helps grind up food, seeds, etc. They colect small stones that stay in the craw and help the grinding process. On occasion, they can't find small enogh stones and a relatively large stone gets stuck in their craw and, therefore, won't pass through their digestive system. Arkansas bird hunting knowledge. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

This story out of the UK’s Daily Mail indicates that the academic at the center of the “Climategate” affair has now conceded the possibility that global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon and that for the past 15 years, there has been no “statistically significant” warming.

To quote the article:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organizational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be.’

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statstistically significant’ warming.

And then there’s this story from The Times, which suggests the world may not be warming at all.

Here’s an excerpt:

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7°C and that there could be 5°C-6°C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic…

… Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.

Why do we so often hit on this topic in this missive? Because it’s important for you and for your investments that you know the truth. Anthropogenic global warming is by no means a done deal in the science world as President Obama and the power elite in Washington so often claim. And any legislation that comes about (in the U.S. or elsewhere) touting that it’s being done to “save the planet” needs to be recognized for what it is – just another attempt by the powers-that-be to benefit certain special interests at the expense of everybody else.

wolfdancer
02-16-2010, 01:54 PM
are you implying that amongst the vast, worldwide, collection of respected scientists....the "global warming" scare was dreamed up by one "mad" forgetful Professor, who mislaid his notes on the subject?....and the rest of academia, replied solely on his "say so", and didn't bother to authentic his "findings"????
He didn't also author GWB's economic plan to balance the budget .."rob from the poor, and give to..."...did he?

Deeman3
02-16-2010, 02:12 PM
Jack,

Of course, I don't know. This is the UK's Daily Mail take on it.

I do agree with brother Bill Oreilly that wheather or not you agree with the global warming theories, clean air, clean water and not further destroying the planet is a good thing.

I do think most people will support an intellegent bill or legislation that helps as long as it does not punish only the western economies and is not just to raise taxes on targeted groups.

None of us, short of the roving bands of people here cutting the valve stems off cars with Obama stickers on them, want to die of smog, diseased water or even to have to death of dozens of fluffy polar bears on our conscience.

Now, as far as the coastal regions flooding in the major cities and driving those die hard liberals inland, you know I want no part of that! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

You gotta admit, that one forgetful professor, my apoligies to Jerry Lewis, is making it pretty hard to take the data he based his finding on seriously after making many of the basic claims that his side has based it's major arguments on. They need to get a more compentent guy to head up their main research body.

BY the way, the Harvard educated professor that shot it up n Alabama is now claiming she does not remember the incident, that, "It did not happen! That they are not dead!" That forgetful professor thing is going around. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

wolfdancer
02-16-2010, 03:00 PM
Re: the shooter....reading about her past history, she should have already been locked up, and the key thrown away.
I guess they do things differently in Alabama.. "they do things they don't do on Broadway, say..."....in many of the other states, it's the crazed student,... with a gun, that shoots up the place.
Or, maybe that prior unconfirmed kill...moved her ahead of others vying for that teaching job?

Deeman3
02-16-2010, 04:57 PM
LOL,

We do have a certain level of "acceptance" of teachers doing evil and that's only usually in sex related incidents but we don't even start to rival Florida, a few miles South, in the latter category.

My surprise is that she did not have permit. Hell, everyone here has a permit, even gang members. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Qtec
02-16-2010, 07:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. </div></div>

No he didn't. Check it out for yourself. Don't believe the Fox News echo chamber.

Q link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/16/trump-gore-coldest-winter/)

sack316
02-16-2010, 10:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My surprise is that she did not have permit. Hell, everyone here has a permit, even gang members. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

She's from the north anyway... probably just used to having to smuggle it /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

cushioncrawler
02-17-2010, 04:03 AM
Correcting myths from McIntyre and McKitrick
"So the facts deal a death blow to yet another false claim by McIntyre and McKitrick. Despite the plain facts, as layed out here, however, their false claims have nonetheless been parotted in op-ed pieces of dubious origin and other non-peer-reviewed venues."
Michael Mann ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have become famous (or infamous) for claiming to have found major problems with a recent reconstruction of the past climate (called the Hockey Stick because of the shape). Even though major and glaring errors have been found in their writings, they continue to be favorites with the global warming "skeptics."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Realclimate
Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition II,
What If … the “Hockey Stick” Were Wrong?
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
Are Temperature Trends affected by Economic Activity?
On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
In Trying to create mountains... James Annan takes a look at what is wrong with Steve McIntyre's view of science.
Williams page about MBH and M&M
From Tim Lambert (scroll down, there are sveral items)
NOTE ON PAPER BY MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK IN "ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT" (pdf)
COMMENTS ON McIntyre and McKitrick Paper
REPLY TO "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcings over the past six centuries: A comment." By S.McIntyre and R. McKitrick (pdf)
McIntyre and McKitrick's site~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Written by Jim Norton
Visit my anti-environmental myths home page.
Visit my practical skepticism page

cushioncrawler
02-17-2010, 04:06 AM
Status and views (wiki)
Christy was a lead author for the 2001 report by the IPCC[4] and the US CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences.[5] Christy helped draft and signed the American Geophysical Union statement on climate change.[6]

In an interview with National Public Radio about the new American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[6]

In October 2007 Christy gave a lecture at Auburn University in which he reviewed areas of the global warming debate that he deems most significant and offered his evaluation of them.[7]

While he supports the AGU declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured, Christy is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."[6]

cushioncrawler
02-17-2010, 04:15 AM
wiki
SurfaceStations.org
In 2007 Watts launched the "SurfaceStations.org" project, whose mission is to create a publicly available database of photographs of weather stations, along with their metadata, in response to what he described as "a massive failure of bureaucracy to perform something so simple as taking some photographs and making some measurements and notes of a few to a few dozen weather stations in each state". The project relies on volunteers to gather the data.[7] The method used is to attract volunteers of varying levels of expertise who undertake to estimate the siting, usage and other conditions of weather stations in NOAA's Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and grade them for their compliance with the standards published in the organization's Climate Reference Network Site Handbook.[8]

Soon after launching the project, when 40 or so of the 1221 USHCN climatological surface temperature monitoring stations had been surveyed, Watts stated that his preliminary findings raised doubts about NOAA's temperature reporting. "I believe," he said, "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."[9] By 2009, the project had documented over 860 stations using over 650 volunteers.[10] In a report entitled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?, published by the Heartland Institute,[10] Watts concludes that "the errors in the [U.S. temperature] record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature...during the twentieth century."[10]

Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has said that he was aware of Watts' work and invites anyone with expertise to contribute to the scientific process.[11] Elsewhere, he has stated that the evidence for human-driven warming remains robust, however.[12]

On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."[13] Watts issued a rebuttal in which he asserted that the preliminary analysis excluded new data on quality of surface stations, and criticized the use of homogenized data from the stations, which in his view accounts for the creation of two nearly identical graphs.[14][15] Since then NOAA has released a detailed peer reviewed study confirming both reliability of the surface stations reviewed. The results show that poor stations produce a slight cooling bias, in stark contrast to Watts claim, but also that after corrections both poor and highly rated stations align very well.[16] [17]

cushioncrawler
02-17-2010, 04:27 AM
Morano sends lies from UK Times and Daily Mail around the world
February 16, 2010 · 11 Comments
Get ready. Lies originating in the U.K. over the weekend in newspaper stories by Jonathan Leake of the Times and Jonathan Petre of the Mail on Sunday, are about to hit the contrarian echo chamber. As usual, Marc Morano is on the case, with his Climate Depot science fabrication clearinghouse claiming that “World may not be warming, say scientists” and “Phil Jones admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″.

But a cursory examination of the actual articles shows that not only are both claims false, but the articles themselves are chock full of other misleading statements. And reborn skeptic evangelist Jonathan Leake of the Times has not only selected highly dubious research, but has glossed over the fossil fuel industry ties of the researchers, especially those of economist Ross McKitrick. So, for the benefit of Leake and other journalists, I’ll also go over a few unsavoury facts about McKitrick that I didn’t get to last time.

Not that any of that matters to the contrarian blogosphere and the right-wing U.S. press who will no doubt embrace these latest supposedly fatal blows to climate science in the days to come.

Taking the more obvious fabrication first, the Daily Mail’s Jonathan Petre has rendered a highly slanted summary of an interview given by Phil Jones to the BBC. The Mail ran the false quote as the headline “No global warming since 1995″ and repeated it in a subhead for good measure.

In the article, Petre clarified that Jones actually said that “for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming”. That’s technically correct, but highly misleading when you consider the full response:

B. Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Jones also said that the period from 1975 to 2009 had a “very similar trend to the period 1975-1998″, implying of course that the long-term trend has not budged over the last 10 years. Climate contrarians are concentrating on meaningless shorter-term trends once again, as has been observed countless times here and elsewhere.

In a real howler, Petre also claimed:

[Jones] also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

In fact, Jones said the exact opposite and was at great pains to explain that if only volcanic and solar natural influences were in play in 1975-1998,” we might have expected some cooling over this period”. Probably, Petre meant to refer to two earler periods and not 1975-1998. But it’s revealing that no one at the Mail caught that outrageous howler either.
On the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Petre was also dead wrong:
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
But Jones said nothing of the sort, and explicitly rejected the idea that debate about the MWP could shake the case for anthropogenic global warming:
H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.

Petre noted reaction from unnamed “skeptics”:

Skeptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Well at least now we know that Petre is an avid weekend reader of WattsUpWithThat. With his colleague David Rose’s adoration for Steve McIntyre’s ClimateAudit, the Mail clearly has the denialosphere well covered.

Turning to Jonathan Leake’s abominable piece in the Times, we see that the Times headline (“World may not be warming, say scientists”) does accord with the text:

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

But it turns out the researchers cited include only one scientist, John Christy, along with economists Ross McKitrick and Terry Mills, and meteorologists (of the non-PhD variety) Joseph d’Aleo and Anthony Watts. Perhaps a rewrite is in order, although more honest references to ideologically driven economists and ignorant TV weathermen-turned-climate-bloggers would perhaps blunt the point Leake is trying so hard to make.

It would be somewhat tedious to whack all the moles Leake brings up here, so I’ll direct readers to Tim Lambert’s Deltoid piece for quick refutations of the cited research.

I will note, though, that not only did McKitrick’s earlier research purporting to show “contamination” of temperature data by economic factors contain an egregious error (a most unforunate mixup of degrees and radians), but his subsequent paper along the same lines was roundly refuted by climate modeler Gavin Schmidt in his 2009 International Journal of Climate paper, “Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity”.

But Leake’s most grievous offence is omitting or glossing over the dubious history and ties of his sources, particulaly in the case of McKitrick.

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

This is, to put it politely, utter nonsense. As I showed recently, Ross McKitrick has been tied to skeptic think tanks, astroturf groups and PR firms for years, going back to 2002, just after the previous IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001. The list is long and includes APCO Worldwide, Friends of Science, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Marshall Institute, and the Fraser Institute. All of these, of course, have enjoyed significant funding from fossil fuel companies and other interests opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gases.

In fact, during the review of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, McKitrick was also co-ordinating the so-called Independent Summary for Policymakers for the Fraser Institute, which was released just afterward. You can get some idea of McKitrick’s woeful climate science credentials by reviewing the ISPM’s impressive catalogue of errors and misleading statements. (You can also be sure I’ll be returning to this another time – it’s a story that deserves its own post).

McKitrick has also managed to parlay his association with Tom Harris (ex-APCO Worldwide) and the Fraser Institute into frequent appearances on the National Post opinion pages.

And on both the scientific and journalistic fronts, McKitrick recently hit new lows. His bogus estimate of tropospheric trend amplification (relative to surface) was used by Klotzbach et al to demonstrate “warm bias” in the surface temperature record on land. But when corrected amplification factors are used, a similar differential between observed and expected satellite trends are seen over both land and ocean.

McKitrick’s screed in the National Post on the Keith Briffa’s Yamal tree-ring temperature reconstruction was a shameful piece of yellow journalism, containing a litany of misleading half-truths, and at least two outright falsehoods. McKitrick wrote about Briffa and dendroclimatologist Fritz Schweingruber :

Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society …

[Steve McIntyre] quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself …

Why did he [Briffa] not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor?
That sounds like a damning indictment. Problem is – it’s a fabrication, as Schweingruber was not in fact a co-author on the 2008 paper. It has been several years since the pair collaborated on tree-ring research; their most recent article was in 2004 (a review article at that).
So it should surprise no one that McKitrick also let loose this whopper:
Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world.
Excuse me? Did McKitrick just say the Wegman panel “involved the U.S. National Academy of Sciences”? Perhaps he had in mind Wegman’s three-year term as chairman of the Committee of Applied and Theoretical Statistics (CATS). But that committee is constituted under the National Research Council, a separate body. Not that it matters anyway – the Wegman panel had absolutely nothing to do with the National Academy (or CATS); in fact, as I showed recently, the Academy was resolutely opposed to the Barton-Whitfield investigation.
So any science journalist who wants to trash his own reputation in a hurry, should look no further than Ross McKitrick. If there’s any justice, that’s a lesson Jonathan Leake is learning right now.

Meanwhile, North American media looking for new angles on the old, tired contrarian talking points have a couple to choose from this week.

So let’s see who will be first off the mark in repeating each of the two fabrications described here. And this is where you, dear readers, come in. I’ve got two polls, one for each falsehood – let’s see if we can guess which media outlet will be first to play these particular games of transatlantic telephone. And be sure to let me know about any sightings of these pernicious falsehoods in the mainstream media.

cushioncrawler
02-17-2010, 04:30 AM
Leakegate scandal gets bigger
Category: Global Warming • Leakegate
Posted on: February 14, 2010 11:11 AM, by Tim Lambert

The Leakegate scandal keeps getting worse. Jonathan Leake, already in trouble for his habit of deliberately concealing facts that contradicted the story he wanted to spin is back with a story that reads like it was ghost written by Mark Morano. Leake wants to spin a tale that the world isn't really warming, so he trots out the usual collection of discredited papers.

Leake first cites John Christy:

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

For which, see Bonfils, Duffy and Lobell in the Journal of Climate:

the interpretation that irrigation explains the rise in nighttime temperature does not seem supportable. Neither the results from gridded or meteorological station datasets nor the seasonality of the trends can support this hypothesis. According to the observational datasets used here, the rise in minimum temperatures has occurred across the entire state (although it is not significant everywhere), affected all elevations (Fig. 1 ), and accelerated during the second half of the twentieth century, which suggests a large-scale influence on California climate.

Second, Leake cites Ross McKitrick:

"We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias," he said.

If only McKitrick hadn't confused degrees with radians, his results might be worth something.

Third, Leake cites Anthony Watts:

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Leake, of course, doesn't mention Menne et al which was peer-reviewed. Menne analyzed Watt's data and found that poorly sited stations produced a cooling bias.

Fourth:

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases.

Looks like Leake ran out of people he could present as saying that it wasn't warming. Even if Mills is correct he is not saying that it isn't warming.

cushioncrawler
02-17-2010, 04:36 AM
On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
The website surfacestations.org enlisted an army of volunteers, travelling across the U.S. photographing weather stations. The point of this effort was to document cases of microsite influence - weather stations located near car parks, air conditioners and airport tarmacs and anything else that might impose a warming bias. While photos can be compelling, the only way to quantify any microsite influence is through analysis of the data. This has been done in On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record (Menne 2010), published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The trends from poorly sited weather stations are compared to well-sited stations. The results indicate that yes, there is a bias associated with poor exposure sites. However, the bias is not what you expect.

Weather stations are split into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). Each day, the minimum and maximum temperature are recorded. All temperature data goes through a process of homogenisation, removing non-climatic influences such as relocation of the weather station or change in the Time of Observation. In this analysis, both the raw, unadjusted data and homogenised, adjusted data are compared. Figure 1 shows the comparison of unadjusted temperature from the good and bad sites. The top figure (c) is the maximum temperature, the bottom figure (d) is the minimum temperature. The black line represents well sited weather stations with the red line representing poorly sited stations.


Figure 1. Annual average maximum and minimum unadjusted temperature change calculated using (c) maximum and (d) minimum temperatures from good and poor exposure sites (Menne 2010).

Poor sites show a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites are slightly warmer. The net effect is a cool bias in poorly sited stations. Considering all the air-conditioners, BBQs, car parks and tarmacs, this result is somewhat a surprise. Why are poor sites showing a cooler trend than good sites?

The cool bias occurs primarily during the mid and late 1980s. Over this period, about 60% of USHCN sites converted from Cotton Region Shelters (CRS otherwise known as Stevenson Screens) to electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature Systems (MMTS). MMTS sensors are attached by cable to an indoor readout device. Consequently, limited by cable length, they're often located closer to heated buildings, paved surfaces and other artificial sources of heat.

Investigations into the impact of the MMTS on temperature data have found that on average, MMTS sensors record lower daily maximums than their CRS counterparts, and, conversely, slightly higher daily minimums (Menne 2009). Only about 30% of the good sites currently have the newer MMTS-type sensors compared to about 75% of the poor exposure locations. Thus it's MMTS sensors that are responsible for the cool bias imposed on poor sites.

When the change from CRS to MMTS are taken into account, as well as other biases such as station relocation and Time of Observation, the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites.


Figure 2: Comparison of U.S. average annual (a) maximum and (b) minimum temperatures calculated using USHCN version 2 adjusted temperatures. Good and poor site ratings are based on surfacestations.org.

Does this latest analysis mean all the work at surfacestations.org has been a waste of time? On the contrary, the laborious task of rating each individual weather station enabled Menne 2010 to identify a cool bias in poor sites and isolate the cause. The role of surfacestations.org is recognised in the paper's acknowledgements in which they "wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations." A net cooling bias was perhaps not the result the surfacestations.org volunteers were hoping for but improving the quality of the surface temperature record is surely a result we should all appreciate.

UPDATE 24/1/2010: There seems to be some confusion in the comments mistaking Urban Heat Island and microsite influences which are two separate phenomenon. Urban Heat Island is the phenomenon where a metropolitan area in general is warmer than surrounding rural areas. This is a real phenomenon (see here for a discussion of how UHI affects warming trends). Microsite influences refer to the configuration of a specific weather station - whether there are any surrounding features that might impose a non-climatic bias.

UPDATE 24/1/2010: There has been no direct response from Anthony Watts re Menne 2010. However, there was one post yesterday featuring a photo of a weather station positioned near an air-conditioner along with the data series from that particular station showing a jump in temperature. The conclusion: "Who says pictures don’t matter?"

So the sequence of events is this. Surfacestations.org publishes photos and anecdotal evidence that microsite influences inflate the warming trend but no data analysis to determine whether there's any actual effect on the overall temperature record. Menne 2010 performs data analysis to determine whether there is a warming bias in poorly position weather stations and finds overall, there is actually a cooling bias. Watts responds with another photo and single piece of anecdotal evidence.

UPDATE 28/1/2010: Anthony Watts has posted a more direct response to Menne 2010 although he admits it's not complete, presumably keeping his powder dry for a more comprehensive peer reviewed response which we all eagerly anticipate. What does this response contain?

More photos, for starters. You can never have enough photos of dodgy weather stations. He then rehashes an old critique of a previous NOAA analysis criticising the use of homogenisation of data. This is curious considering Menne 2010 makes a point of using unadjusted, raw data and in fact, it is this data that reveals the cooling bias. I'm guessing he was so enamoured with the water pollution graphics, he couldn't resist reusing them (the man does recognise the persuasive power of a strong graphic).

cushioncrawler
02-17-2010, 05:04 AM
Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

Holy shit -- a cheap science rag from india -- one of the editors iz involved in at least 16 other "science" type journals -- what a guy -- must be real smart.
Google "international journal of *********" and u will see what i am talking about.
Aktually -- the journal iz probly cheaper than toilet paper -- so we shoodnt complain.
madMac.

Deeman3
02-17-2010, 09:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. </div></div>

No he didn't. Check it out for yourself. Don't believe the Fox News echo chamber.

Q link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/16/trump-gore-coldest-winter/) </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Q, I got this off the MSNBC homepage. If you guys can't control the left wing media and stories it re-prints, don't blame Fox news. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

llotter
02-17-2010, 10:22 AM
Are you still clinging to that entirely discredited AGW hysteria, mad? I am left wondering what other field that settled science has corrupted....maybe the idea that you came from a monkey.

cushioncrawler
02-17-2010, 02:35 PM
llotter -- That "international journal of" series reminds me of the "golden book of" series. Yeah -- we kood hav (allready hav).....
The Golden Book of Climatology.
The Golden Book of Evilootion.
The Golden Book of Spookology.
The Golden Book of Krappynomix.
madMac.

llotter
02-17-2010, 03:29 PM
As a group, academics and scientists are the most gullible and lack common sense. The second in line as most gullible are those who accept their gospel as being reasonable.

These elite folks do not live in the real world and are taught from an early age to be open minded and to always be wary of accepted dogma. This cloistered existence within the theoretical leads to a very focused and narrow understanding of reality and as a consequence, an all too easy acceptance of what other academics and scientists postulate.

They have 'faith' in the scientific method because they tend to lack much experience in the real world and are seldom cognizant of how money can corrupt that fabled scientific process. When virtually all funding sources come from unaccountable government institutions, corruption should be a prime concern but the Method essentially discounts that possibility and therefore, the most brilliant among us end up following those most despoiled by the big buck.

wolfdancer
02-17-2010, 03:58 PM
I guess then, what you are implying is that non academics, dummies like yerself...who may have been out in the cold a little too long, are the real experts?
What a total crock of crap, your posts reads like..
"He can't be trusted, because he is an expert on the topic"

JohnnyD
02-17-2010, 04:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess then, what you are implying is that non academics, dummies like yerself...who may have been out in the cold a little too long, are the real experts?
What a total crock of crap, your posts reads like..
"He can't be trusted, because he is an expert on the topic"
</div></div>There is no reason to berate other members here.Keep it civil.Jesus loves you.

llotter
02-17-2010, 05:25 PM
As usual, you have it quite wrong. I was merely proposing a theory as to why so many 'scientists' could fall for a proposition that is so wrong. And additionally that so many of the general public accept their conclusions as proven fact only adds to the problems. What I was hoping to convey was that scientific consensus should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially when significant public policy is involved.

It is not that unusual the scientists fall for a hoax or that the general population follows right along. This climategate hoax has got to be the largest ever and we should take the opportunity to learn what we can.

wolfdancer
02-17-2010, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I was merely proposing a theory as to why so many 'scientists' could fall for a proposition that is so wrong </div></div>
evidently, your own advanced research has led you to publish that conclusive finding

Qtec
02-18-2010, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I was merely proposing a theory as to why so many 'scientists' could fall for a proposition that is so wrong </div></div>
evidently, your own advanced research has led you to publish that conclusive finding </div></div>

As usual, we have masses of data V uninformed opinion.

Q

pooltchr
02-18-2010, 11:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It is not that unusual the scientists fall for a hoax or that the general population follows right along. This climategate hoax has got to be the largest ever and we should take the opportunity to learn what we can. </div></div>

As with most things, there is a simple reason scientests and our scholars go along with the hoax. Just follow the money!
How much do you think AlGore has made with the story? How many researchers have gotten federal funding to study the "GW Crisis"? How much tax money has been given to support "green" technology?

If there is no "GW crisis", the funding dries up!!!!!

IT'S THE MONEY!!!!!!!

If we don't have a "GW crisis", we have no justifiable reason to impose the new crap and trade energy tax!

Steve