http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
“A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.”
It’s a US issue, not terribly important to the rest of us.
I might comment later.
[update 31st] What I wrote above has produced an unintended reaction in comments. This was perplexing but I think I now realise my mistake, which was giving a quick one liner without a reason or context, perhaps treading on international feelings as well. This was not intended.
I omitted to say what I took as a given: the work presented by Watts et al is very welcome and very likely excellent. I support any actions to move towards reality and truth. If you see this as not gushing please take as a combination of an unknown new work and a personal tendency to deadpan.
I also omitted to say why I think it is a US issue and will change nothing over here, meaning UK and Europe. Explaining poses a problem of length and completeness, so this is very incomplete.
A primary difference between the USA and Europe is the concept of free. With information this is nicely illustrated by UK data only available from overseas, often from the USA.
The US has wide public access to their meteorological data. In Europe the public have little if any access other than what is pushed by government. In the UK a lot more data is available commercially from government, they want money for goods we paid to collect. There is also availability to government itself and formal academia, often notionally charged using notional accounting. The US authorities do change for some data, primarily it seems when there is a significant delivery cost (example, very high resolution tidal data)
As a consequence of the above the US public have a far more accessible met. system where it is practical to see and address problems.
Also keep in mind that Europe and the USA are roughly the same size and population. This is where the federal Europe idea appears, where at the moment there are many countries but without a common federal overgoverment, where the EU gets accused of trying to take overall control. The EU apparatchik is extremely inaccessible and secretive. Those in the US need to note the small size of the UK: “Area – comparative: slightly smaller than Oregon” (CIA worldbook)
Finally, I see the whole “climate” problem as political and nothing to do with climate but about power and control by a secretive core which is cloaked inside the visible politicians. There a huge difference between the US States and much of the rest of the world, perhaps the US viewed as more genuinely of the people. Contrast with where the central state considers it owns, it controls with the people an annoying resource to be milked.
If I have upset anyone, sorry.
[/update 31st]
Answers this
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/wuwt-does-a-crazy-flip-shuts-down/
Posted by co-mod
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
If you have asphalt in your country, and you have siting problems for temperature stations, give it some time. It will be pertinent.
Look at lines 189-211 in the paper.
It certainly is important to your country.
Yes, it is important to other countries. USHCN 1978 to present is just a first step. The SurfaceStation project was just for the US but the principles will apply to any future look at GHCN and for temperature records prior to 1978. If the US surface temperature record from 1978 is in doubt, so is the record for the remaining world. And so is BEST in doubt, the study touted by warmists as being the definitive smack-down for “deniers”.
Tim
Hey, we’re not all Brits on this here blog
If, as Watts claims, warming gradients are spuriously high at low-quality US stations then the global surface temperature record will overestimate warming if the same thing happens at low-quality stations outside the US, of which I’m sure there are many (some of the CET stations, perhaps?)
But as far as I can tell that’s the only new conclusion that the paper draws. The fact that the warming adjustments that NOAA applies to the US record are bogus is already known, and all that tells us is that NOAA (and GISS, and the Australian BoM, and NIWA) will do whatever it takes to make the records show warming whether they do or not, but we already knew that too.
And as far as the timing of Watt’s release in concerned, it’s unfortunate that Richard Muller just announced that his review of the surface temperature records has convinced him that global warming is real.
Koch-funded climate change skeptic reverses course
Trying the link a different way …
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climate-change-skeptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story
You’re joking, right?
Seems I’ve hit a slight nerve. Not intended.
There is wide readership on this blog, more international than WUWT.
Am I joking? No, that is my opinion.
Tim,
The reason it matters is that the US data is held up as “the highest quality data set”. If we can pick off this big an error in “the highest quality data set”, that doesn’t leave much credibility for any other data sets.
*poof* You have no data. Anything that relied on that data is also suspect. Models calibrated to that data are suspect. Historical trends (paleoclimate) calibrated to that data is suspect.
What’s left?
“It’s a US issue, not terribly important to the rest of us.”
Tch tch tch.
Watts based his work on a new classification system from Leroy:
Click to access 3(2)_Leroy_France.pdf
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/IOM-104_TECO-2010/5_1_Leroy_France.doc
http://www.knmi.nl/samenw/geoss/wmo/TECO2010/ppt/session_5/5(01)_leroy.ppt
These standards are being considered for acceptance by other groups and CAN make a difference!! The same work that Watts did in the US can also be done in each country to come up with similar outputs based on his standards!! All ya gotta do is copy what Watts did and use LeRoy’s standards!!
@Kuhnkat: In any case “they” (Global Warmers/Global Sustainability promoters,etc) will not stop their god-like plans. But, what for?, Are they immortal so to enjoy their power for all eternity?
It is the same with cancer cells: their “success” makes the body which sustains them die. Silly “cells”…
If you are interested in UK Met sites I might be able to put together a list of some I have managed to locate, not sure I have a comprehensive list or that it is practical. Few are international climatic.
Example, Warcop Range, http://maps.google.com/maps?q=+54.572421%C2%B0++-2.413217%C2%B0&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=53.345014,79.013672&t=m&z=15
Some are probably only recorded on a database elsewhere, didn’t list them here.
Here is one which took me many hours to find.
Glasgow Bishopton, 55.906834° -4.532598°
On rechecking it now has G. street view, which is nice confirmation. Also remember Microsoft have an alternative, if less comprehensive.
Well no, I’m not mad at you or anything. But I disagree with you.
As a non-American myself, who has spent the most time in my native Canada and to a degree Australia, I see this as pretty darn big. If that’s true of the US stations, it’s probably true of most stations anywhere. Besides — the US is the biggest economy in the world with the most stations, and these facts matter.
This work should be replicated in Britain and other countries to see if similar findings hold. I think they will.
Surprised you say this is a US issue. This is about inaccurate raw data AND no recognition of the problem AND refusal to see the GHCN adjustments overtime as revealing something important. What about NIWA, for instance?
We must persuade Tim of the importance of this study to a Brit.
How about this: the study finds that rural, compliant, Class 1,2 non-airport temperature stations show a warming trend of just .03C/decade.
Of this, perhaps about 1/3 of it is attributable to CO2 and CH4 from people going about their own business – such as life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
Now left with one hundredth of a degree of warming per decade, of that, how much is GB responsible for? So then, you may fire up Drax until it glows and tell them you have the queen’s pardon. (:
As an Australian, I assure you that it is very important. We have similar problems with systemic bodgification of temperatures and poorly sited weather stations – and this methodology, if validated, provides a roadmap for a systemic approach to dealing with that.
We have just been whacked with a new tax, plus skyrocketing power prices, because of the ‘irrefutable’ data from weather stations.
You bet it matters.
It is now in the public domain that there is a much better site assessment procedure which has not previously been methodically applied.
Also, that when it is applied, the difference in trend between sites of differing qualities becomes apparent. The most important point of Muller’s work was that there were no significant trend differences between sites of differing qualities.
The science has moved on such that the earlier assertions of Muller and the entire climate establishment are now out of date. They should graciously acknowledge that fact.
Leroy 2010 has been a time bomb waiting to go off and this paper has lit the fuse.
All else is chaff.
That is not to deny that warming has occurred but it does reduce it substantially from what we have been led to believe.
In the meantime natural variability is being shown to have a greater influence than previously recognised.
Those two factors combine to squeeze AGW into insignificance for policy purposes.
Not just an American issue. It’s been noted here in Australia as well…http://joannenova.com.au/?s=UHI
tim;
What a foolish comment. The US stations and record are better than any elsewhere, including the UK’s. If the US’ are bogus, so are yours.
Zeke got it right. The highest quality isolated rural stations are showing about 0.3°C warming per century. This is about 1/12 of the “official” rate.
Is there some covert envy of the U.S. in this downplaying of what Anthony Watts and the new classification system from Leroy (non-U.S.) can bring to “global temperature” records via accurate scientific methods? (Also see Gosselin’s and Motl’s downplaying the U.S. data.) I don’t get it. The data everywhere that one-worlder-taxmaggedon types conrol gives spurious warming. And they are destroying raw data. Time to set the records and the science straight. Watts’ study is a line in the sand.
Thank goodness Watts timed this study to coincide with the marxist BEST (Muller) study hype (to get Muller included in IPCC AR5?) Notice that the leftist controlled press hypes Muller as a “reformed skeptic” and implies that Big Oil-Koch funded study found the warming dangers of CO2. (Koch donated a small amount. Remember when Muller enticesdWatts to the study with affirmation that it would look at the siting data fairly — lies. But Muller (and those who pull the media strings) used “it” for the “perception” that Watts’ approved the methods of the study.
Skepticism is necessary, but those who want honest, accurate science and who demand that the scientific method be followed (or else you get fired) need to stick together. I didn’t “feel hopeful” when I read this post.
I’m relatively new to this topic so I ask this question in good faith. I want to understand how the “warmists” think. What rationale does NOAA use to justify adjusting compliant station upwards rather than adjusting non-compliant stations downward?
Expressing a personal opinion on the effect seems to have been counter productive.
Any work trying to discover reality is very welcome, what honest people should be doing.
My reservation is not about Leroy but the reality of human society where for too many “Facts must not be allowed to get in the way”.
Brian H:
“The US stations and records are better than any elsewhere …”
The tinypic below shows baseline-adjusted annual means for raw surface temperature records in three areas.
First are five records from the High Alps in Europe. They match very well. We can conclude from this that these records are high-quality.
Second are six of the much-maligned records from Siberia. They don’t match exactly but overall they aren’t too bad. We can conclude from this either that the records are basically OK or that the local Commissars who tweaked them to increase next year’s fuel allowance conspired to make sure that the records all showed the same warming gradients.
Third are six records from the Intermountain West in the US. They broadly agree as to when the hot and cold years occurred but that’s about it. (Not all the US records are quite this bad, but this example isn’t untypical.)
The fact of the matter is that the only good thing to be said about the US records is that there are a lot of them. In terms of individual record quality they’re among the worst in the world, not the best.
He showed a pattern, and the methodology of the changing of the records. With the same adjustments, with the reflected outcome is still the same. Someone changed the past records database, to create a problem where none existed. He proved what they did, and how they did it.
And showed the world what the results are of these changes. The only part was he didn’t prove who did the changes, and call them cheats, and ask for their research grants to be returned for real studies to be done.There is a problem out there, we know its not manmade, maybe Mann made?
But if I had done a study, and niot put it up for peer review, and was proved wrong, and it had the possibility and the probability of having costing people their lives and livelyhood’s, shouldnt i be called out as a fraud? They didn’t but raised the bar for the truth to come out from others.
I apologise for not being chatty, partly because I can’t do things and watch the blog, is where Rog could do much more.
In the context of what Anthony Watts et al have done I’m preparing a new article.
I’ve noticed what might be a good instance of a known (to me) suspect UK station record which is also an international climatic station. I have most of the information, writing decode at the moment.
Right now I have no idea of whether some novel image evidence is going to show in station data. or not. My guess is not but either way it is almost certainly new information and good for discussion.
Regarding the “adjustments” of historical records to produce greater than actual temperature increases. I recommend doing searches for “temperature adjustments” plus various country names such as US, UK, Australia, NZ etc. You will find claims from all of these places that the records have been fiddled. In NZ there has been a big court case over this.
All this to say that “It’s a US issue, not terribly important to the rest of us.” is not a correct assessment.
Roger Andrews:
An alternative to your assumptions:
i) The Alpine charts are all very similar because they are concentrated in a small geographical area with a very small latitudinal extent where climate changes resulting from shifting jets give a similar response across the whole region. The similarity of the trends therefore tells us nothing about site accuracy. Furthermore being a small area all of it would be affected similarly by surrounding development in the adjoining lowlands.
ii) The Russian charts show the largest rise but as I recall the larger fuel allowances were obtained by producing cooler figures not warmer figures so that wouldn’t be an explanation. More likely the development around the sites has been even more thoughtless than in the USA and being Siberia all the development is concentrated around the measuring sites because the temperatures in winter are so extreme that little or no development occurs away from the existing sites.
iii) The US sites cover a large latitudinal extent over a large and varied number and type of regions so there would be a mix of locations that warmed and locations that cooled as a result of their changed positions relative to the shifting jets and climate zones. The averaged out effect is therefore more static which more accurately shows that after the Earth system adjusts the circulation pattern the net thermal effect is at or near zero.
There is at least the possibility that the UHI effect combined with inaccurate warming adjustments has hidden a real, if small, decline in global temperatures that would have shown up if the raw numbers were truly accurate.
“What rationale does NOAA use to justify adjusting compliant station upwards rather than adjusting non-compliant stations downward?”
It fits the model expectations better.
Lazy science with a financial incentive as regards funding for further research.
A poorly designed aministrative system will always give skewed results in science because you get what you pay for.
@John Snow
“..I’m relatively new to this topic so I ask this question in good faith. I want to understand how the “warmists” think. What rationale does NOAA use to justify adjusting compliant station upwards rather than adjusting non-compliant stations downward?..”
You will have to ask them, of course. And there are going to be lots of different answers from different people. But my best guess is that:
1 – No correction was done initially. The data was taken as genuine, and Hansen et al made a big academic splash with their ‘Save the World, we’re going to fry!’ papers
2 – When the data started to be questioned they were too far down the road to say ‘Whoops, guys, we got it wrong…’
3 – So they looked at how they could ‘incorporate a correction’ but at the same time ‘keep their signal’ (which by then they firmly believed in).
4 – profit!
Almost all of the science being done on global warming is religious and shot through with conformation bias. In fact, I suspect that almost all science (if we did but know) that has actual profit implications has gone the same way. I greatly fear for the whole medical arena….
Dodgy Geezer,
I agree about the confirmation bias, or least the probability of it.
The interesting snippets of information that come to wider attention from the work of Watts [and others] are things like warming is not seen in the raw data from US surface temperature records: It is only the ‘adjustments’ the produce the warming trend.
There may, or may not, be valid reasons for some adjustments but if it makes self-identified ‘non-scientists’ think on the question “Just how difficult is it to read a thermometer?”, then Anthony Watts will have achieved something.
I’ll give an incomplete answer to that question I’ve just posed.
In pharmaceutical development/production processes people also read more-thermometers-than-you-can-shake-a-stick-at [often after calibrating them first]. After taking a reading they may then sign a document to say what the temperature was. Did I mention that they may often have another scientist/technician who also looked at the thermometer to read the temperature at the same time? That person will also sign the document. [I’ve done it. It’s tedious.] An internal quality control person may check that document later. An external regulator may want to check those records. People may get fired if procedures were not followed correctly. People may die if the drug is not made correctly. Companies may go bankrupt. People may go to prison.
This is the kind of rigour which appears to be almost entirely absent from the scientific processes that bring us the IPCC computer climate models. It’s no wonder that people like Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit can so easily drive a coach and horses through some of the “peer reviewed” science used to argue for cAGW at the IPCC. When examined carefully some of this ‘science’ holds up like a wet paper bag filled with stones.
Stephen Wilde
Local climatic variations can indeed cause differences in adjacent temperature records, but in the case of the US records the differences are dominantly man-made.
Two of the US records shown above – Corinne and Ogden – are a typical example. These stations are only 37km apart and at more or less the same elevation, but Ogden shows about 1.5C more warming than Corinne during the 20th century. Subtracting Corrine from Ogden indicates that most if not all of this was caused by station changes – most likely relocations – that progressively shifted Ogden upwards relative to Corinne. (Note the large upward shift in 1941 when the US entered World War II.)
Effectively all of the raw US records are subject to artificial upward and downward shifts of this type, and these shifts occur on average about once every 20 years, meaning that the the 1,000-plus US records used to construct the US surface air temperature record are distorted by over 5,000 artificial shifts during the 20th century. But because these shifts tend to be random in sense and magnitude we can get a reasonably good estimate of US temperatures simply by averaging all of the raw records together, and when we do this we of course see little or no warming.
All of which supports Anthony Watts’ claims that most of the US records are of low quality and that the “corrections” applied to them have generated spurious warming.
However, Watts’ findings don’t necessarily mean that low-quality stations elsewhere in the world are causing a major overestimation of “global” surface warming. The bogus warming adjustments applied to the Australian, New Zealand etc. records will have caused some, but the proportion of low-quality stations is generally lower outside the US, and a low-quality record can show spurious cooling as well as spurious warming.
And remember that Watts (and the BEST group) are looking only at the surface air temperature record. They don’t consider other important metrics, such as lower troposphere temperatures, sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content.
I have added an update to the post which I hope resolves the original contentious comment.
The update is helpful. As I understand it, you believe it won’t be helpful in Europe mainly due to structural differences in European politics and society.
That may well be so. However, I don’t know how much Watts’ work will impact even the US debate. Where I think this is helpful is in quantifying easily observable (although just as easily ignorable!) problems with temperature-measurement sites, including that mankind keeps building things in and around them for the most part, and climate scientists apply highly suspect homogenization to the data. Watts has shown how suspect this is in the US.
Similar efforts are needed elsewhere.
Whatever the truth of the matter in the global temperature measurements, Tim, the political aspects will certainly be important. Which is partly why the US land measurements are critical. [No offense taken. I was born in the US, but raised in the UK, so I get to choose my spellings!]
Every politician seeking re-election knows that you have to tell the electorate how good things are since you elected them. Conversely, those seeking the levers of power rely on telling people how bad things are at the moment, and how much better it will be when we all do as they say.
If temperature trends are not accelerating upwards where people live [and they haven’t anywhere I’ve lived], then the anti-carbon movement has a big and growing problem. Their views may have metastasized in various places, but the extreme enviromists are still rooted in the US as well as Europe and the Antipodes.
Selling global-warming doom in the volumes that they have become accustomed to, is getting harder. They need some bad news, now more than ever, but Watts’ result is the wrong sort of ‘bad news’ for them.