Heartland’s International Conference on Climate Change is on again. I can’t help but be impressed by the number of Australian organizations co-sponsoring the conference. Sponsors don’t pay any money — instead they get free admission to all meals and sessions for up to 20 people. And with 58 sponsors and 800 people registered to attend, that means they are giving away more admissions than people registered to attend. It’s likely that almost everyone attending got free admission.

There are seven Australian organizations signed up as sponsors. As well as the obvious ones like Lavoisier and the IPA there are some unfamiliar ones, so let’s look at the whole list.

The Lavoisier Group. John Quiggin on Lavoisier:

This body is devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics, discovered by among others, the famous French scientist Antoine Lavoisier, cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry.

The Institute of Public Affairs. Australia’s leading anti-science think tank, with staff including Alan Moran, Sinclair Davidson, Jennifer Marohasy and Tom Switzer (opinion editor at The Australian for much of their war on science).

The Institute for Private Enterprise. This seems to be a one-man operation by Des Moore.

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation. Their postal address is at “Hayek House”, so you can probably guess where they are coming from. Their global warming denial page is a bunch of links to other people’s stuff — they don’t seem to produce much on those lines themselves.

Climate Sceptics Party. Only launched last month. According to their platform:

We are ordinary but proud Australians who are gravely concerned with the unfounded environmental alarmism infiltrating all forms of Australian Government (Federal, State & Local), threatening our way of life and hard fought freedoms

I believe proud and ordinary cohenite is a member.

The Carbon Sense Coalition

is a voluntary group of people concerned about the extent to which carbon is wrongly vilified in Western societies, particularly in government, the media, and in business circles.

they seem to be focused on opposition to policies that reduce net emissions from agriculture (in Australia that refers mainly to land clearing in Queensland).

Australian Libertarian Society. Basically this is John Humphreys, whose response to any disagreement is to accuse you of lying. He announced his sponsorship with whoppers like this

In 2008 we have seen the coldest year since 1994 and the current temperature is nearly exactly the same as the average over the 1970s.

i-80019a093fdc112d2a043fd6f1393550-06.13.08.globalairtemp.png

True to form, when I commented on his post, Humphreys accused me of lying, though this time he also deleted most of my comments as well.

Update: Kevin Grandia:

what really strikes me so far is that it’s the same people attending and talking about the same things they did last year.

Comments

  1. #1 Ezzthetic
    March 8, 2009

    The schedule of speakers and the panel topics are almost a carbon copy of last year.

    Well, at least they’re not releasing any new carbon. I thought that’s what you wanted.

    a one-man operation by Des Moore

    I always think Des should start a blog to parallel Anthony Watts’ “Watts Up with That”. He could call it “But Wait … Des Moore”.

    His links are good, though. He says that The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never asked government for a cent. Unfortunately, he doesn’t say which one.

    (Actually though, given the Institute’s ground-breaking research into the structure of water and the effects of elevated levels of carbon dioxide on the health and longevity of mice, I think it would be entirely justified in asking the Government for a cent.)

  2. #2 Grendel
    March 8, 2009

    If the schedule of speakers and topics is the same as last year this suggests a rather moribund research effort on the part of all attending – has their been no progress in their ideas?

    Oh wait. . .

  3. #3 Doomsayer Tony
    March 8, 2009

    Not that surprising since Australia cannot dig the country up and sell it quick enough.

    Are David Archibald (we need 1000ppm) and Bob Carter (the Ice Age commeth) attending this year?

  4. #4 humorix
    March 8, 2009

    And say that I became treated as “Spammeur” by a stupid bastard of a site of Al Gore in Quebec, because I had said the truth under its hundred of mensongés articles of “science” !!
    Congratulations on “Mannkal”. Finally they are going to be reimbursed for taxes !

    Et dire que je me suis fait traité de “spammeur” par un connard d’un site d’Al Gore au Quebec, parce que j’avais dit la vérité sous ses centaines d’articles mensongés de “science” !!
    Félicitations pour “Mannkal”. Enfin on va être remboursés pour les taxes

  5. #5 dhogaza
    March 8, 2009

    what really strikes me so far is that it’s the same people attending and talking about the same things they did last year.

    Just another way in which climate science denialism is like evolutionary biology denialism. Creationists have been making the same anti-evolution arguments for a century and a half …you expect climate science denialists to be different? :)

  6. #6 Joe
    March 8, 2009

    Skeptico has a post too and the comments are pretty funny.

  7. #7 John Mashey
    March 8, 2009

    Re: Carbon Sense Coalition

    I’d seen them before, but their site is worth reading. I especially liked:

    “Mr Viv Forbes Chairman
    Grandfather, Sheep and Cattle Grazier, Soil Scientist and
    Mining Consultant, Rosevale, Qld, Australia.”

  8. #8 Nick
    March 8, 2009

    My favourite ride at Disney Climate is the Groundhog. Viscount Munchhausen World is good,too.

  9. #9 Eat The Rich
    March 9, 2009
  10. #10 Ender
    March 9, 2009

    I think it was this time last year that I got into a spat on Jennifer Morohasy’s blog because I asked for the list of papers that were going to be presented at the conference. These are normally published ahead of time so I wanted to see the list for this “conference”.

    Needless to say that there was no list of papers however there was lot of ducking and weaving from the IPA about why this “conference” with such scientific luminaries attending does not present papers like normal scientific conferences.

  11. #11 bi -- IJI
    March 9, 2009

    Ender:

    You may have better luck getting the proceedings of this other conference. :)

    (thanks Steve Bloom)

  12. #12 Paul
    March 9, 2009

    >We are ordinary but proud Australians who are gravely concerned with the unfounded environmental alarmism infiltrating all forms of Australian Government (Federal, State & Local), threatening our way of life and hard fought freedoms.

    What about other peoples hard fought freedoms?
    What about the freedom to have a liveable and sustainable environment?

  13. #13 Paul
    March 9, 2009

    Eat the rich:

    >Meanwhile in Spain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/06/spain-wind-power

    You might be interested in this:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090223083344.htm

    eg. Increased wind turbine use would require a dip in power output from power stations and no storage would be required.

  14. #14 mitchell porter
    March 9, 2009

    “John Humphreys, whose response to any disagreement is to accuse you of lying.”

    You are thinking of Graeme Bird.

  15. #15 Steve Bloom
    March 9, 2009

    As far as I can tell, the only substantive difference between last year’s and this year’s is that Fred Singer is going to try getting all of the septics to start singing from the same pseudo-scientific hymnal. (See Andy Revkin’s NYT article.) Among other things, this will mean deprogramming sun-worshippers like Anthony Watts. Kevin Grandia of Desmogblog is attending and reporting, so hopefully we’ll be hearing more about this.

    Also note that the Onion has a very well-done parody of the conference.

  16. #16 bi -- IJI
    March 9, 2009

    Steve Bloom:

    > the only substantive difference between last year’s and this year’s is that Fred Singer is going to try getting all of the septics to start singing from the same pseudo-scientific hymnal.

    Maybe it’s also time for them to decide which one of the numerous climate conspiracy theories they’d like to propagate. :)

  17. #17 Brian D
    March 9, 2009

    Steve Bloom, Bi: Isn’t there a proper word for this? Something like “message discipline”?

    I note that Lindzen’s criticizing the denialists promoting solar causes. I’d love to see which solar proponents still tend to cite Lindzen’s skepticism and credentials as if it helps their cause.

    According to Revkin, Christy isn’t attending again this year. Revkin cites it as “wanting to avoid ‘guilt by association'” (latter Christy’s words). Hmmm.

  18. #18 Dano
    March 9, 2009

    Does anyone know if the Heartland catering is up to the standard of the Heritage Victory Tours of yore? One also wonders whether the “conference” “papers” are of similar quality stature timbre as the oldschool Heritage papers. Will Baliunas and Soon reveal another paleo “paper”?! Will we see some Sally cleavage on the red carpet? Will WaPo have a slideshow so we can see the latest fashions? My mind reels.

    Ah, well. At least the bogusphere and denialosphere will have few ululating posts the next few days, seeing as they are all gorging themselves.

    Best,

    D

  19. #19 DJ
    March 9, 2009

    Really funny thing about the conference is how warm its been in New York. It got to 17C on Sunday for start of the conference which is very hot for this time of year (just 3C shy of a record for the day). It would seem that we now have the anti-Gore effect ;-)

    If you think about it the best place and time to hold a “sceptic” conference is in a cold place at the end of winter. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know why they don’t hold it in Arizona in summer (noting that the Australian Climate Science Coalition, NZ Climate Science Coalition and International Climate Science Coalition websites are all hosted in that state).

  20. #20 bluegrue
    March 9, 2009

    I notice that Revkin mentions the report “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Planet”. All I have ever seen was that “Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the
    Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change”
    , just as it is downloadable from Heartland. It clearly says “SPM of the report”, I guess in an attempt to match the IPCC naming convention as closely as possible. Has ever anyone bothered to go into nitpicking mode and nail them down on this by asking to see the full report? It amazes me again and again, how uncritical the self-proclaimed skeptics are, when it comes to material supporting their own point of view.

  21. #21 Brian D
    March 9, 2009

    bluegrue, to my knowledge, the report itself doesn’t exist, though the summary does. IIRC, Eli Rabett had more on that.

    On an unrelated note, Tim, there’s a great foot-in-mouth moment stemming out of that conference. One of the things they’re promoting is a new anti-Gore film, “Not Evil, Just Wrong”. The filmmakers were recently interviewed and played the CEI’s “CO2 is life” card, which is nothing new, but also brought up the DDT myth, through a direct comparison: “CO2 is the new DDT.”

  22. #22 Bill O'Slatter
    March 9, 2009

    Here’s SnM on “why doesn’t Gavin attend ?”:
    “….. it’s my understanding that the Gavin Schmidts of the world have refused to attend such venues in the past. I don’t understand the purpose of such refusals. I don’t understand what harm could possibly be done by preaching to the heathen. Maybe some of them would be convinced by Gavin.”

  23. #23 James Haughton
    March 9, 2009

    Y’know, I’d almost be prepared to take up a collection to pay for Graeme Bird to attend as a guest speaker. Almost.

  24. #24 Paul Murray
    March 9, 2009

    As a Australian, please allow me to apologise about Queensland. There’s something about white people that means that whenever we settle in the tropics, we turn it into a fascist hole. Queensland is Australia’s Texas.

  25. #25 Tim Lambert
    March 10, 2009

    A blogger at the Australian Libertarian Society [has responded](http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/03/10/true-lies-and-tim-lambert/) to this part of my post:

    >John Humphreys, whose response to any disagreement is to accuse you of lying.

    Naturally, he accuses me of lying. He also claims that Humphreys deleted my comments because I was “unnecessarily abusive” and I’ve been banned from commenting there.

    Fortunately I saved a copy of my deleted comments. Judge for yourself if I was “unnecessarily abusive”.

    —–

    Your very [first comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/12/zombie_alert.php#comment-286285) on the post began with abuse: “Because you did lie Tim”. Some more examples of your civility from that thread: “intellectually dishonest” … “your group-think” … “you’re a fringe alarmist who makes up the embarassing part of the GW activists” … “peanut gallary” … “obnoxious Greenie trying to lecture me on economics” … “fear-mongering” … “Super Jeff” …

    You then put up a post of your own where you accused me of fear-mongering, equated me to LDP candidate Graeme Bird and falsely claimed that I called you a zombie. How very civil of you.

    —–

    Yes I criticised you, but my post was accurate, while you misrepresented Oreskes again and again and again.

    —–

    Nice trick John, linking to a post written months later. In the post you wrote the same day we find:

    “When people start on a campaign to raise fear about some impending doom and promising that the government will save you I automatically start asking questions and often I don’t get satisfactory answers. Proponents of government action don’t like that and today I’ve been called a zombie for my global warming skepticism (Tim Lambert) … I would like to set up our own similar project named after the two primary fear-mongers, Lambert & Bird — the LamBird Consensus.”

    Are you still going to deny that you called me a fear-monger? And what did I write in my post that was mongering of fear?

    —–

    John, as far as I can tell, you think that if you accuse someone of lying, you are being civil, but if they return the favour they are being uncivil and you will complain about this. Yes, some commenters were rude to you in that thread, but you started the incivility with the first words of the first comment in the thread: “Because you did lie Tim”. You think this is a civil response.

    And you did misrepresent Oreskes with out-of-context quotes. Other commenters in that discussion called you on this and provided the context. Here’s another quote from Oreskes (from her reply to a letter from Pielke about her Science piece):

    “Pielke suggests that I claimed that
    there are no papers in the climate literature
    that disagree with the consensus. Not so. I
    simply presented the research result that a
    sample based on the keywords “global climate
    change” did not reveal any, suggesting
    that the existing scientific dissent has
    been greatly exaggerated and confirming
    that the statements and reports of leading
    scientific organizations — including the
    U.S. National Academy of Sciences —
    accurately reflect the evidence presented in
    the scientific literature.”

  26. #26 Ken Miles
    March 10, 2009

    A blogger at the Australian Libertarian Society has responded to this part of my post

    JC’s post at ALS is stunningly stupid, given that he is one of the more abusive people in the Australian blogosphere and has spent more time than anybody else agreeing with Birdie, for him to not even notice the hypocrisy is just amusing.

  27. #27 alan
    March 10, 2009

    I notice that The Climate Sceptics Party lists former NSW Treasurer Michael Costa as one of their ‘Australian and NZ scientists against global warming’. A man of many hats…

  28. #28 barry
    March 10, 2009

    For an experiment, I posted this to a recent thread at John Humphreys’ blog (I left the typo as I blundered it).

    ————————————————————

    John Humphreys,

    I note that on the page you announced your co-sponsorship of the Heartland Institute’s Conference on Climate Change, you put it that the global temperature for 2008 is the coldest since 1994. This is incorrect.

    The web page where you oroginally made this claim:

    http://australianlibertarian.wordpress.com/history/activities/kyoto-campaign/

    On this page, the global temperature for 2008 is marked “(updated 26 November 2008)”, which means that you presented the temperature for the year before it was complete.

    It was a simple matter to follow the link from that page to the UAH temperature data page (monthly), and do some simple math.

    The temperature for 2008 (now with data for every month) is warmer than 1999 and 2000. Here is the link to the satellite data you provided if you wish to confirm.

    http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

    My methodology was very simple. I added up the months for 1999, 2000 and 2008 respectively and divided by 12 to get the average global temperature. This is the typical procedure done by the various temperature record institutes.

    I hope you will correct your statements accordingly on the pages where they appear.

    http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/11/26/2009-conference-on-climate-change/

    http://australianlibertarian.wordpress.com/history/activities/kyoto-campaign/

    And any others. Thank you in advance.

    ————————————————————

    The post is at #77 this thread:

    http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/02/04/final-reminder/#comment-62133

    We’ll see how that goes.

    Tim Lambert, I visit your site frequently. Thank you for the interesting, clear analyses.

  29. #29 bi -- IJI
    March 10, 2009

    Brian D:

    > > > the only substantive difference between last year’s and this year’s is that Fred Singer is going to try getting all of the septics to start singing from the same pseudo-scientific hymnal.

    > > Maybe it’s also time for them to decide which one of the numerous climate conspiracy theories they’d like to propagate. :)

    > Steve Bloom, Bi: Isn’t there a proper word for this? Something like “message discipline”?

    Dunno. Me, I’ll call it “harmonization”. Wikipedia (!) lists this as one of the definitions of the word:

    > The apocryphal act of removing discrepancies between different Gospels. This was done in the past in many ways (see, for example, Diatessaron), although finally Christianity accepted the Gospels with all their discrepancies.

  30. #30 bluegrue
    March 10, 2009

    Thanks for the hint, Brian D.

    I guess Anthony Watts had a narrow escape at this conference. He has announced at his blog that 75% of coverage in his surface stations project would be enough to look into evaluating the US temperature record. He’s slightly below that threshold, but above 70%. Let’s see, for what reason he will not replicate JohnV’s work next year.

    P.S.: The above comment #30 by raivo pommer looks like spam, it is reporting on devaluation of the Romanian currency; curiously it is in German.

  31. #31 Eli Rabett
    March 10, 2009

    Yes! Send Graeme!

  32. #32 Steve Bloom
    March 10, 2009

    Re #28: Barry, I think you need to weight for the varying month lengths; i.e. multiply each monthly figure by that month’s number of days, add them up and then divide by 365 or 366. I don’t think your basic result will be affected.

  33. #33 Steve Bloom
    March 10, 2009

    For those with the stomach for it, Bob Carter is doing fairly detailed daily posts at Quadrant. There are several inadvertently amusing passages.

  34. #34 Steve Bloom
    March 10, 2009

    Re #29: This is a long-standing Republican technique, developed decades ago to help a party with inherently minority views gain and hold power. It’ll be interesting to see if Fred gets any traction, as so many of the objects of his efforts are just plain cranks.

  35. #35 John Humphreys
    March 10, 2009

    Barry #28 — I have responded to your comment. My post of November 2008 used information available at November 2008. But I congratulate you on your expert knowledge of how to average.

    Tim — The comments you reproduce in these comments do not include my full responses (perhaps because you do not have them available as I removed them as well) and consequently do not provide the full story. As I explained (in patient detail) at the time, I removed the discussion because it was off-topic.

    The link attached to my surname is misleading.

    The “whopper” that you refer to was true at the time of writing, and the source data was available through the links. I don’t think it is reasonable or fair to expect me to include information that is not available at the time of writing. Consequently, I think it is inappropriate for you to accuse me of telling a “whopper” (which I believe is an accusation of lying).

    I very rarely accuse people of lying and I generally assume that most people (irrespective of their views) argue in good faith. It is misleading to say that my “form” is to accuse people of lying.

  36. #36 James Haughton
    March 10, 2009

    I note that sea level rise projections by 2100 have been revised upwards from 59 cm to include melting ice, and are now 1.2 m+. I seem to recall a fair bit of discussion as to why the melting ice wasn’t included in the original 59cm and would appreciate a recap & update.

  37. #37 Tim Lambert
    March 10, 2009

    John, you claim that you deleted my comments because they were off-topic. But you did not delete a host of off-topic comments abusing me and my blog. Care to tell us the real reason?

    In a post on your blog Joe Cambria claims that my deleted comments were “abusive”. You know this to be false. Why haven’t you corrected him?

    I don’t have a copy of your comments, but I think folks can work out what you were saying from my replies, but feel free to explain yourself — I won’t censor you.

    Your claim that “the current temperature is nearly exactly the same as the average over the 1970s.” wasn’t remotely close to being true when you wrote it. Study the graph, which shows what the situation was when you wrote your post.

  38. #38 Eli Rabett
    March 10, 2009

    James, basically no one had a clue about how to model the ice sheet dynamics. This motivated much recent work, but there is still not a definitive answer. The 59 cm was 59 cm from stuff we know about plus whatever from the ice sheets, iow a lower limit.

  39. #39 frankis
    March 10, 2009

    Dicky Lindzen was there sounding the alarm about climate alarmism, explaining to the audience in clear terms how simpleminded are his opponents and how unambiguous the evidence that climate is ruled by negative feedbacks all the time, no matter what – you can trust him on it.

    ” … This implies that nature is, as any reasonable person might suppose, dominated by stabilizing negative feedbacks rather than destabilizing positive feedbacks … those who are committed to warming alarm as the vehicle for a postmodern coup d’etat will obviously try to obfuscate matters … The satellite records of outgoing heat radiation show that the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks and that the response to doubled and even quadrupled CO2 would be minimal. In a field as primitive as climate science, most of the alleged climate scientists are not even aware of this basic relation. And these days, one can be confident that once they are, many will, in fact, try to alter the data.”

    Lindzen was the serious scientist at the show.

  40. #40 frankis
    March 10, 2009

    Quoted from here btw.

  41. #41 Brian D
    March 11, 2009

    Egads, is he still working the Iris Hypothesis? Zombies ahoy!

  42. #42 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 11, 2009

    bi quotes the Wikipedia:

    Dunno. Me, I’ll call it “harmonization”. Wikipedia (!) lists this as one of the definitions of the word:

    The apocryphal act of removing discrepancies between different Gospels. This was done in the past in many ways (see, for example, Diatessaron), although finally Christianity accepted the Gospels with all their discrepancies.

    Well, once in a while partisans of one issue or another get their hooks into Wikipedia, and stuff like the above can remain a long time before somebody notices.

  43. #43 John Humphreys
    March 11, 2009

    Tim — if there is an off-topic discussion that you think is de-railing a discussion on the ALS blog and it is worrying you, feel free to tell me and I’ll look at it when I have the time.

    It is not “my” blog. It is a group blog available for Australian libertarians. Generally, each author is responsible for moderating the discussion on their own posts.

    The 2008 temperature at the time of writing was +0.1 over the baseline. That is fairy close to the historical average, as determined in the 1970s. That’s not exactly what I wrote… but the typo is not important to the point. It certainly doesn’t justify an accusation of lying, nor the constant attacks.

  44. #44 Paul
    March 11, 2009

    Found this ‘review’ of the conference:

    http://www.rferl.org/Content/GlobalWarming_Skeptics_Raise_A_Storm_In_New_York/1507372.html

    Quote Bast (refering to The Inconvenient Truth):

    “There’s simply no peer-reviewed scientific literature that would justify predictions of a 20-foot [6-meter] rise in sea level, and yet that’s very prominent in his film.”

    My understanding is that the film doesn’t state when this would happen. Also although the science states it will rise a metre or two in the next century or two, no scientist has ever stated it’s going to suddenly stop after one or two metres and I doubt any sane person would think that.

    BTW i haven’t seen the movie.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    March 11, 2009

    “It is not ‘my’ blog. It is a group blog available for Australian libertarians”.

    Yikes, that’s enough to put anyone off.

  46. #46 sod
    March 11, 2009

    The 2008 temperature at the time of writing was +0.1 over the baseline. That is fairy close to the historical average, as determined in the 1970s. That’s not exactly what I wrote… but the typo is not important to the point. It certainly doesn’t justify an accusation of lying, nor the constant attacks.

    hm. only if you take the lowest point in the 2008 year and compare it to the highest spike from the 70s.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1979

  47. #47 bi -- IJI
    March 11, 2009

    BPL:

    > Well, once in a while partisans of one issue or another get their hooks into Wikipedia, and stuff like the above can remain a long time before somebody notices.

    Hmm… whatever. I still think “harmonization” is a good word to describe S. Fred Singer’s attempt at an Official Climate Skeptic Theory.

  48. #48 Tim Lambert
    March 11, 2009

    John, the host of off-topic comments abusing me and my blog were on the very thread that you deleted my comments from. Both before and after. Would you care to explain the real reason why you deleted my comments?

    Look at the graph on my post. The 2008 temperature *at the time you wrote your post* was 0.3 degrees above the base line, while the average for the 70s was 0.1 degrees below. these are not “nearly exactly the same”.

  49. #49 John P
    March 11, 2009

    Is George Will giving the plenary?

  50. #50 luminous beauty
    March 11, 2009

    The 2008 temperature at the time of writing was +0.1 over the baseline. That is fairy close to the historical average, as determined in the 1970s.

    A trend of one data point? While not technically false, it is utter bullshit. A misrepresentation of fact with the intent to deceive.

    You wouldn’t win this one in court, John. Even with cohenite as your lawyer.

  51. #51 luminous beauty
    March 11, 2009

    It’s basically the abusive cherry-picking that distinguishes denial and skepticism.

    Here we have a double whammy. Selecting the one data set out of all available data sets that supports a desired conclusion, and selecting a narrow subset of data points from the data stream that fortuitously, again, supports the desired result.

    I’m so not impressed.

  52. #52 John Humphreys
    March 11, 2009

    Tim — I deleted plenty of comments aimed at you from that thread. And I moderated others to remove some personal abuse (including some aimed at you). I left individual comments that are off-topic, but removed a series of posts (from you and others) when it became clear that were a major distraction from the topic.

    The average in 2008 at the time I was writing was +0.01 (not +0.1 which I wrote above, or +0.3 as you wrote) and that can be worked out from the underlying data that I linked to.

    sod — I wasn’t taking the lowest point in 2008. I was taking the average of the monthly temps, excluding the data not available at the time. And I wasn’t comparing to any one year, but the baseline — which is an historical average.

    LB — I didn’t suggest a trend of one data point. I simply pointed out that 2008 was cold relative to recent years. I didn’t say there was any trend. Elsewhere I have said that while the pause in warming over the past seven years is interesting, it’s too early to interpret what it means.

    I note that “misrepresent with intention to deceive” seems quite similar to “lie”.

  53. #53 luminous beauty
    March 11, 2009

    I didn’t suggest a trend of one data point. I simply pointed out that 2008 was cold relative to recent years.

    So, exactly what did you intend to suggest by pointing out this statistically meaningless factoid, John?

  54. #54 sod
    March 11, 2009

    sod — I wasn’t taking the lowest point in 2008. I was taking the average of the monthly temps, excluding the data not available at the time. And I wasn’t comparing to any one year, but the baseline — which is an historical average.

    you write:

    The debate about climate change is ongoing. In 2008 we have seen the coldest year since 1994 2000* and the current temperature is nearly exactly the same as the average over the 1970s baseline average taken in the 1970s.

    and you link to a [site](http://australianlibertarian.wordpress.com/history/activities/kyoto-campaign/), that is linking on to UAH satellite data.

    your own data shows that you are wrong (even with the multiple corrections that you already made)

    the UAH data does only start in 1979 (so obviously no “1970s baseline”), and the year 1979 isn t the baseline either, as can be seen from the data you linked to. (1979 has a NEGATIVE average. if it was the “baseline”, it would be zero).

    so to sum you up: you cherry picked a weird time period (first few months of 2008), you made multiple errors, while comparing that data, and you came to a completely meaningless conclusion.

  55. #55 Dave A
    March 11, 2009

    “Egads, is he still working the Iris Hypothesis? Zombies ahoy!”

    Er… isn’t Mann still working the hockey stick ploy?

  56. #56 luminous beauty
    March 11, 2009

    Er… isn’t Mann McIntyre still working the [broken] hockey stick ploy?

    Fixed!

  57. #57 jonno
    March 11, 2009

    “So, exactly what did you intend to suggest by pointing out this statistically meaningless factoid, John?”

    Cherry picking anyone?

  58. #58 Tim Lambert
    March 11, 2009

    John, I counted 14 off-topic attacks on my me or my blog. You had no problem with these, explicitly approving them when you deleted some of the abuse directed at me. How can you claim that my four comments were a greater distraction than those 14? Why won’t you admit to the real reason why you deleted my comments?

    The baseline for UAH is not the 70s, that is logically impossible since the first full year in the series is 1979. The UAH base line is 1979-1998. I do think it is interesting to compare 2008 with the average for the 70s. See the graph in my post (using Hadley data). Even a year that was unusually cold for the 2000s is way above the average for the 70s. A fact that you will never report.

  59. #59 Evan Jones
    March 11, 2009

    “He’s slightly below that threshold, but above 70%.”

    Anthony Watts’ record is at 75.5% of all USHCN stations (over 80% of active stations) as of March 8th. His claims are accurate. He hit the 70% mark a month ago.

    The last 200+ surveys are done with a deliberate “rural bias”. (I know, the great majority having been done by me, c. 198 in all.)

    Results are pending. It’s difficult to compare, as only 11% of stations are in compliance with NOAA’s own siting strictures, and only 3% of them rated “excellent”.

    To further complicate matters, a large percentage of the better sited stations are ASOS units in airports (a big problem in and of itself) and are subject to the severe HO-83 TMax bias.

    That leaves very few good stations for a sample. There are also distribution issues. CRN4 stations (58% of total, NOAA’s own estimates are a 2C or more warm bias) are disproportionately bunched in the southeast and Mississippi Valley, where there was considerable cooling over the 20th century. CRN 2 stations are mostly concentrated in the west, where there was considerable warming over that period of time. This has to be carefully quantified, and it is not easy to do.

    In the case of John V, no account was made for ASOS or regional distribution concerns, and a far smaller sample was available, though he did make a good effort and I completely respect his honesty and openness.

    As it is, the data is being assessed, and the chips will fall where the chips fall. And all data and methods will, of course, be open for independent review.

    Just a firsthand report from the trenches.

  60. #60 Dhogaza
    March 12, 2009

    So, Evan Jones, if your work in the trenches shows that the surface temp record is shit, how will you explain away the fact that the satellite record – Christy and Spencer are denialists, as you know – track it so closely?

    Not enough satellite photos?

  61. #61 dhogaza
    March 12, 2009

    And also, Evan Jones, how will you explain away all the ecological, biological, glacial melting, and sea level rise data we’re seeing?

    “global cooling causes everything to melt?”

    Is that it?

  62. #62 dhogaza
    March 12, 2009

    And, if you deny all of the above …

    How will you explain the basic physics? What implications will fall out from your overthrowing much of what we know of physics?

    Will nuke plants cease to function? Solar panels?

    Are you at the forefront of the debunking of the Newtonian/Einsteinian foundation of modern physics? What will you replace it with?

  63. #63 dhogaza
    March 12, 2009

    Results are pending. It’s difficult to compare, as only 11% of stations are in compliance with NOAA’s own siting strictures, and only 3% of them rated “excellent”.

    Of course, we know that this makes Evan Jones a liar, since NOAA’s siting standards have been for new stations, not old stations.

    This claim that somehow NOAA’s negligent or incompetent, siting stations that don’t meet it’s own standards, is one of the most vile examples of crap from Watts and his science illiterate cohorts.

    And, Evan Jones, before you became a Real Stud at WUWT, you proved yourself to be an incompetent in a variety of forums populated with people with technical backgrounds.

    Your embracement of Watts, and his embracement of you, sort of symbolize the “dipshits of a feather embrace one another”.

    After you overturn science, what will you do? Go naked and suck worms for your living?

  64. #64 sod
    March 12, 2009

    In the case of John V, no account was made for ASOS or regional distribution concerns, and a far smaller sample was available, though he did make a good effort and I completely respect his honesty and openness.

    your claim about regional distribution is false.

    John V did a [grid approach](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061.#comment-137943), it was Steve McIntyre who didn t weight them:.

    John V:Geographic Distribution:
    The first image below shows the geographic distribution of the stations with different site quality ratings. There is a clear western bias in the worst stations (CRN=5) and a clear southern bias in the best stations (CRN=1). Since SteveMc’s plots were generated using a simple arithmetic average of all station histories, they do not consider this geographic distribution. … I calculated the 1-year and 5-year average temperatures for the continental USA. The calculations were done by overlaying a 0.5 x 0.5deg grid over the entire area and calculating average temperatures at each grid point for every month from 1880. The grid temperatures were calculated from surrounding stations with readings available for that month (if no reading for the month then the station was excluded for the month).

    i hope that Anthony will be honest enough to publish the “real” results as well, and wont use those multiple problems as an excuse to manipulate the results.

    a good idea to avoid “sceptic bias” would be, to replicate the John V approach as close as possible.

    my real hope though is with John V, showing up again…

  65. #65 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    “So, Evan Jones, if your work in the trenches shows that the surface temp record is shit, how will you explain away the fact that the satellite record – Christy and Spencer are denialists, as you know – track it so closely”

    You seem to be putting words in my mouth. The siting is obviously very poor. The effect this has on the offset is established by Leroy and confirmed by Yilmaz (but I would argue more study needs to be done).

    What is really in question is the effect on the trend.

    Maybe it is a lot, maybe it is a little. I didn’t say what the result would be. I won’t know what the result will be until it is released and reviewed.

    As for satellites, one possible explanation is they measure lower troposphere by microwave proxy, not the surface. Lower trop is supposed to heat at 1.2 to 1.4 times the rate of the surface, depending on latitude. The data is given for lower troposphere and does not say it is converted to emulate surface measurements, so I am presuming it is not. I might well be wrong, but that is my understanding.

    It is also interesting how RSS and UAH seem to be diverging from GISS as of late.

    But my area of expertise, if you can call it that, centers on station siting itself, not satellite reconstructions.

    Only one thing is established: the stations do not conform with NOAA standards. That we know. What this means will be examined.

    One also needs to look at LaDochy et al (12/2007) and Yilmaz et al (2008). Those studies (particularly Yilmaz) certainly raises the question.

    “And also, Evan Jones, how will you explain away all the ecological, biological, glacial melting, and sea level rise data we’re seeing?”

    Well, glaciers, on the whole, have been receding for centuries. NASA also reports dirty snow is a serious issue, accounting for 30% of Arctic melt (some estimates put it at over 90%). Coal soot acts like salt on a driveway and reduces albedo as well. This is anthropogenic, but not a direct result of CO2, and can be controlled by particulate reduction.

    “And, if you deny all of the above …”

    I don’t deny all of the above. I question extent and cause. I look for correlations (which may or may not turn out to be causation). I also fully accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and caused warming–but I do question the positive feedback estimates, which are essential to CO2 AGW theory.

    “Of course, we know that this makes Evan Jones a liar, since NOAA’s siting standards have been for new stations, not old stations.” And other ad hominem remarks. Considering the source, to be expected.

    You do realize how much worse you make yourself look than you make me look with such comments? Besides, judging by what I have read by you and of you, I wouldn’t trade my rep for yours for a million bucks.

    “your claim about regional distribution is false.”

    Hello, sod. You are right, and I stand corrected.

    He makes no mention of the heavy CRN2 western bias. Perhaps that did not exist ant that much earlier time. CRN1 bias may have been southeastern earlier, but so far as I can see this is no longer so (and CRN1 stations are much cooler than the others and are adjusted much warmer). There aren’t a whole lot of them, of course. CRN5 stations do still seem to have a westward bias, but CRN4 stations (far more numerous)appear to be concentrated in cooling areas.

    None of the work is final, however, and it is being done by others. I don’t know what gridding methods will be used (I’d be interested to know, actually).

    “i hope that Anthony will be honest enough to publish the “real” results as well, and wont use those multiple problems as an excuse to manipulate the results.”

    Yes, there are a lot of problems. It is not as easy as might seem. There are also station moves involved, and it is very difficult if not impossible to determine the effects (other than by step changes in data). From what i can tell, MMS usually does not document local station moves earlier than the late 1950s. Take Chama, NM , for example. There is a whopping upward step change (in the late 1920s, IIRC), follwed by a downward step change. No records exist for that period. There is another downward step change in 1964, but that does not coincide with a station move. There is an upward step change, however, after 1998, when the station was moved from the surrounding woods to the grounds of the ranger station.

    Poor records make it difficult to track back too far and in any case, the coordinates are only sufficient for mesoenvironment. Even today, given coordinates are very rarely sufficient to determine microenvironment. Photos or curator interviews are necessary for that. (Occasionally a curator knows the precise previous location of a station. More often not.)

    Whatever methods or data Mr. Watts or his colleagues use will, of course, be open for purposes of independent review. And I assume there will be plenty of that.

  66. #66 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    sod — Also note Mosh’s followup on the John V thread:

    Yes Jon, That’s similar to what I’ve done in the past with sites like Marysville ( 5) and companion
    sites like willows ( well its a 3) and Orland ( a 1) and Colusa and on a site by site comparison
    I have never failed to see to a divergence betweens the 1s and the 5s.

    Now that would be an interesting study!

    This would appear to be a more directed method than gridding, assuming a uniform method is possible. CRN4 sites are common enough, though, for comparison in most areas.

    Stripping out the ASOS sites would seem to be advisable, though, for obvious reasons.

  67. #67 cce
    March 12, 2009

    All about temperature records:
    http://cce.890m.com/temperature-record/

    And I believe JohnV did with and without airports:
    http://www.opentemp.org/_results/20071011_CRN123R/crn123r_crn12r_5yr.png

    (CRN12R has 17 stations, CRN123R has >60)

  68. #68 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2009

    Evan Jones, you wrote, “I don’t deny all of the above. I question extent and cause”.

    Let me make it clear for you then. There is without any shadow of a doubt a link between the northward expsion of flora and fauna and climate change over the past 30 years in the northern hemipshere. This includes both plants and animals that are being forced to readjust their ranges in response to regional warming. Where species are not responding is perhaps due to such important factors as habitat loss in more northward ecosystems and the deleterious effects of agricultural intensification and urban expansion which act as physical barriers. Habitat generalists are tracking the warming more effectively than specialsits. Another important barrier to species adaptation is the fact that species do not exist indepenent of other environmental constraints and, most importantly, usually depend on interactions with other species (primary producers or consumers; mutualists or antagonists). Warming is unraveling trophic webs, that is for sure, and the result is that systems will be simplified, with consequences for a wide range of services that emerge from them.

    So on this point you are not only out on a limb, you are totally incorrect to suggest that the biological evidence is limited or fragmentary. It is not: there is a wealth of data in a range of scientific journals supporting my arguments. To reiterate, the biological evidence for warming is overwhelming. The evidence for a human fingerprint on the current warming is also overwhelming. The science on these issues should be closed by now. That it apparently isn’t shows how much influence powerful and well-funded vested interests have. The challenge is for the scientific community to determine what the effects of anthropogenic climate change will have on natural and managed systems, not to determine if it is happening or not and what the primary underlying causes are.

    It is hardly surprising that very, very few of the sceptics are environmental scientists. If they were, they’d know how incorrect they are (perhaps those that are scientists in one form or another do, but then again some of these people are already bought-and-paid for). This is also a view from ‘the trenches’ – speaking as a senior population ecologist.

  69. #69 John Humphreys
    March 12, 2009

    LB — the factoid is fair to point out. It goes to the general point that we’ve had a pause in the warming over the past seven years. Given I was introducing a conference hosting heterodox climate change speakers, this unexpected deviation from trend is an appropirate enough hook to the conversation.

    I think your original accusations against me were OTT.

  70. #70 sod
    March 12, 2009

    This would appear to be a more directed method than gridding, assuming a uniform method is possible. CRN4 sites are common enough, though, for comparison in most areas.

    i am pretty surprised to here this, from a person who claims:

    But my area of expertise, if you can call it that, centers on station siting itself, not satellite reconstructions.

    why would a person, who believes that micro sites issues will strongly effect the trend of a station, think that a comparison with another station, at “nearby” location” makes any sense?

    Station A is a type 1 station, very close to the sea. station B is a type 5 station a couple of km away from the sea, sheltered by hills.

    you think that a road has a serious (and long term) impact, but that a station at a completely different location will give a good comparison?

  71. #71 sod
    March 12, 2009

    [Monckton](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/10/iccc-conference-day-3/#comments) is using misleading claims:

    “Arctic sea ice is disappearing” – in fact, there is no discernable trend in winter sea ice area over the last 30 years.

    to come to wrong conclusions:

    Lord Monckton concluded with some comments that will serve well as an epitaph for the entire Heartland-2 climate conference. “There was no climate crisis, there is no climate crisis and there will be no climate crisis”, he said. “The correct solution to global warming is to have the courage to do nothing”.

  72. #72 Ken Miles
    March 12, 2009

    this unexpected deviation from trend is an appropirate enough hook to the conversation.

    Any half decent analysis should have told you that you are probably mistaking noise for an “unexpected deviation from trend”.

    Seriously, stick to the economics, you’re just embarrassing yourself whenever you blog on climate science.

  73. #73 Paul
    March 12, 2009

    Jeff harvey

    >There is without any shadow of a doubt a link between the northward expsion of flora and fauna and climate change over the past 30 years in the northern hemipshere. This includes both plants and animals that are being forced to readjust their ranges in response to regional warming. Where species are not responding is perhaps due to such important factors as habitat loss in more northward ecosystems and the deleterious effects of agricultural intensification and urban expansion which act as physical barriers…

    Paul.

    I agree

    I wonder if there is going to be a clash. Since the Northern hemisphere is where most developed fossil fuel burning nations are and humans using that technology can stay put (defying nature and the necessity migrate).

    Whilst migration of ‘wild’ species heads North expecting to find sparsely populated landscapes, only to be confronted with humans determined to stay put.

    I can only see even more extinctions and a lot more trouble.

  74. #74 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2009

    Paul,

    Many thanks. You make a number of very valid points. There is worry amongst many scientists not that species cannot adjust their ranges, but that there will be little in the way of optimal habitat left when they do. Although the current changes at regional scales are quite rapid, I don’t doubt that many resident (less so migrant) species can adjust their ‘thermal behavior’ and move to higher latitudes (of course, plants are going to have a much harder time of it, as are soil biota). But over much of the northern hemisphere nature has already been simplified, and there is more to adaptation than being just able to migrate and relocate. I have written about this at more length on another thread.

    As for Monkton, anyone who writes such blatant nonsense as *”The correct solution to global warming is to have the courage to do nothing”* should not be taken seriously. I am sure he would probably say the same thing about many other symptoms of the current predicament, as well: habitat loss, extinction, other forms of pollution etc. I believe that the Heartland ‘ICCC’ was a joke and nothing less.

  75. #75 luminous beauty
    March 12, 2009

    John,

    Supporting one statistically meaningless factoid with another statistically meaningless factoid as a rhetorical device to bind yourself to an audience that is prone to believe that meaningless factoid does in fact have some meaning somehow makes the assertion plausible? This appears on its face to be an ongoing exercise in prevarication, don’t you think? You might even be fooling yourself, I suppose.

    …this unexpected deviation from trend…

    Unexpected by whom, exactly? This so-called deviation is well within the expected deviation of historical annual to multi-decadal variability.

    John, you claim some expertise in economics, yet seem rather naive about trend analysis of stochastic time series, a subject of primary interest in economic analysis. It is hard to imagine you are repeating these falsehoods out of mere stupidity.

  76. #76 Tim Lambert
    March 12, 2009

    John, I counted 14 off-topic attacks on my me or my blog. You had no problem with these, explicitly approving them when you deleted some of the abuse directed at me. How can you claim that my four comments were a greater distraction than those 14? Why won’t you admit to the real reason why you deleted my comments?

    The baseline for UAH is not the 70s, that is logically impossible since the first full year in the series is 1979. The UAH base line is 1979-1998. I do think it is interesting to compare 2008 with the average for the 70s. See the graph in my post (using Hadley data). Even a year that was unusually cold for the 2000s is way above the average for the 70s. A fact that you will never report.

  77. #77 luminous beauty
    March 12, 2009

    Tim corrects John H:

    The baseline for UAH is not the 70s, that is logically impossible since the first full year in the series is 1979. The UAH base line is 1979-1998.

    John H corrects his blog:

    …the current temperature is nearly exactly the same as the average over the 1970s baseline average taken in the 1970s.

    Maybe John H is that stupid.

  78. #78 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    “Let me make it clear for you then. There is without any shadow of a doubt a link between the northward expsion of flora and fauna and climate change over the past 30 years in the northern hemipshere. This includes both plants and animals that are being forced to readjust their ranges in response to regional warming.”

    That was never unclear to me. There was been a global warming trend from 1979 to 1998 and a continued warming in the Northern Hemisphere since then until the PDO flipped to cool phase in January 2007. Where it goes from here, quien sabe?

    “So on this point you are not only out on a limb, you are totally incorrect to suggest that the biological evidence is limited or fragmentary.”

    I do not recall suggesting that the biological evidence was limited or fragmentary.

    “The evidence for a human fingerprint on the current warming is also overwhelming.”

    I also agree with this. But I question the primary source of the anthropogenic cause. Besides, stipulating that the NOAA is correct (though they keep readjusting, so by definition one can’t assume this), climate has warmed about 0.72C over the 20th century. The IPCC estimates much more warming the 21st century based on positive feedback loops. That is what I think is highly questionable.

    The evidence for modest, direct CO2 warming is strong. But I suspect the positive feedback calculation is wrong, and it has also failed on the first cut: Instead of increase of ambient vapor in the middle & upper trop and strat, and high-level clouds, we see increasing low level cloud cover, which has increased albedo. That is a negative feedback, not a positive, at least at this stage of the game.

  79. #79 luminous beauty
    March 12, 2009

    I simply pointed out that 2008 was cold relative to recent years. I didn’t say there was any trend.

    Posted by: John Humphreys | March 11, 2009 3:57 PM

    …the factoid…goes to the general point that we’ve had…this unexpected deviation from trend…

    Posted by: John Humphreys | March 12, 2009 9:41 AM

    O, what a wicked web we weave…

  80. #80 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    why would a person, who believes that micro sites issues will strongly effect the trend of a station, think that a comparison with another station, at “nearby” location” makes any sense?

    I said I do not know how strong the effect is. Neither did I say it was the only effect.

    Three things definitely affect offset and — may — affect trends: Urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural, regional issues (warming in west, cooling in southeast, etc.) and microsite issues.

    When you choose a nearby site, you control the last variable, at least. And it is fairly easy to discriminate on the second variable. That leaves one (relatively) free for direct comparison on the third.

    For all we know, unadjusted station moves have an effect, too.

    All we do know for sure is that the stations are not well sited and the effects (or lack thereof) need to be examined.

    It is also important to note that after discounting the offset, a heat sink may well exaggerate a cooling trend as well, as the heat sink effect “undoes” itself on the way down. It is quite possible that the cooling over the last two years is exaggerated.

  81. #81 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    BTW, sod, I appreciate your civil discourse on this contentious issue.

  82. #82 dhogaza
    March 12, 2009

    All we do know for sure is that the stations are not well sited and the effects (or lack thereof) need to be examined.

    They have been. By real scientists doing real science for a real long time now.

  83. #83 sod
    March 12, 2009

    BTW, sod, I appreciate your civil discourse on this contentious issue.

    hm, now that you say it, i notice as well. i am following the events in Winnenden (Germany) on TV, and mostly post during repetition. it isn t that far away..

  84. #84 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    They have been. By real scientists doing real science for a real long time now.

    Mmmm. No.

    The NOAA COOP system has a 100’/no suth shading rule. The NOAA/CRN parameters are more strict, but CRN 1 & 2 ratings conform well with the above.

    The sites clearly do not conform with this. I recently observed a station in East Stroudburg, PA, that was converted to NOAA/Nimbus last year.

    It was sited less than 4m from the residence, and was on a step slope, placing it above the heat rise of the house. The (non-standard) backup, less than 2 feet away, was actually mounted on the upper deck railing.

    According to the curators, the original CRS was located further away from the house.

    As I said, 89% of observed stations are within 30 m. of a heat source or sink and 69% are within 10 m. (or located directly atop or adjacent). The modern MMTS systems are more likely to be in worse violation than the old CRS units, which do not require cabling.

    You need to check the actual data before making such bland assertions.

  85. #85 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    If you mean that they have been “examined”, you are also wrong. No comprehensive microsite survey has ever been made before, by anyone, “real” scientists or no.

    The closest we come to that is Yilmaz, et al (2008), not a warming study, but one looking into how to create more comfortable urban environments. Comparisons of sensors sited 2 m. off the ground showed around an 8C difference in offset between stations well away from asphalt sited over grass and stations sited over concrete or asphalt.

    As the temperature rose, graphs clearly show that the sensors located over asphalt showed a higher heating trend than those over grass or dirt.

    Obviously this is not conformed to NOAA siting standards and more experimentation clearly needs to be done to establish both offset and trend effects.

  86. #86 dhogaza
    March 12, 2009

    If you mean that they have been “examined”, you are also wrong. No comprehensive microsite survey has ever been made before, by anyone, “real” scientists or no.

    The data – which is what counts – has been. JohnV’s work supports the notion that these real scientists doing real science for a real long time now have actually done a real good job.

    My point stands.

  87. #87 dhogaza
    March 12, 2009

    You need to check the actual data before making such bland assertions.

    Yes. The *actual* data. The temperature data, which is exactly what the real scientists doing real science have been doing for a real long time now.

    And doing a real good job at it.

    Really.

  88. #88 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    Hmmm. Then why the switch from USHCN-1 to USHCN-2? A rather radical departure in approach.

    The stations are poorly sited. This has a very strong effect on offset and an unknown effect on trend. Station moves (poorly documented at least until recently) create step-changes in data that are not considered. Historical metadata is often readjusted. Therefore, by definition, its “realness” is at least somewhat limited.

    This tells us, prima facie, that the climate is a difficult thing to measure and an even more difficult thing to track, regardless of how “good” the “real” scientists are. Appeal to authority will take one only so far.

    Surely you do not object to further and closer study?

  89. #89 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    JohnV’s work supports the notion that these real scientists doing real science for a real long time now have actually done a real good job.

    John V is open and honest. But his work is based on far less complete data than is currently available. He also does not do a full side-by-side comparison (like what Jon and Mosh suggest and what Yilmaz actually does), which seems to me the logical way to proceed.

    LaDochy (studying not on micro- but mesoenvironment) concludes that urban stations exaggerate the same warming trend compared with nearby rural and coastal stations. The percentage of surface stations in urban environments far exceeds the percentage of urban environment vs. rural.

    John V’s work is a very preliminary result based on an insufficient number of stations. Further work needs to be done. And is being done, for that matter. Why would you object?

  90. #90 dhogaza
    March 12, 2009

    Surely you do not object to further and closer study?

    It’s useful when done by competent people. Neither you nor Watts fall into that category.

    I don’t object to you wasting your time. I only object to your claims that it’s worth a rat’s ass.

  91. #91 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    I am not a researcher. I am merely an assistant who collects data. And as long as the methods and data is open, I don’t see what the problem is. And Watts has 25 years’ experience as a TV weatherman and his business is weather measuring equipment and software, which means he has a very specific specific knowledge of that which he is measuring.

    His findings are that the USHCN network is poorly sited. He does not go further than that in his conclusions. As this is documented by photographs (and to a lesser extent, virtual surveys and interviews with curators), this is clearly valuable research. For that matter, the NOAA invited Watts to their HQ for a conference and told him so.

    So I would argue that you are incorrect in your assessment of its value.

    I also find it counterintuitive, to say the least, that the NOAA adjusts the trend (sic) 0.3C warmer (closer to 0.42C with USHCN-2), though, I particularly question the fact that SHAP is a positive rather than negative adjustment: From what I have seen, it is typical that a CRS replaced by an MMTS that is sited worse than the original.

  92. #92 dhogaza
    March 12, 2009

    And Watts has 25 years’ experience as a TV weatherman

    Yes, I know. His experience reading the weather is of a great help in overturning the work of a very large number of well-educated scientists.

    Do you ever *listen* to yourself?

  93. #93 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    As to competency, how incompetent is a camera?

    That’s why he does this way: to dismiss claims of incompetence before they are even made. So unless you are claiming he is doctoring the photos, you have to admit the evidence is there. And the data is what the cameras say it is.

  94. #94 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    Do you ever listen to yourself?

    I would suggest that people listen to you and listen to me and come to their own conclusions.

    A well educated scientist who is working with questionable data might possibly be coming to the wrong or a skewed conclusion. We are actually quite surprised that the NOAA/NCDC has not done routine due diligence on their own — critically important — USHCN (or GHCN) network.

  95. #95 sod
    March 12, 2009

    That’s why he does this way: to dismiss claims of incompetence before they are even made. So unless you are claiming he is doctoring the photos, you have to admit the evidence is there. And the data is what the cameras say it is.

    hm. the problem isn t just with the photos. http://www.surfacestations.org/ still claims, that a class 5 station has an “error>=5°C”.

    this is complete bogus, of course. as ladochy, whom you cited above shows, the error is closer to 0.5°C

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/119064.pdf

    oh, and looking for him, i found this nice [poster](http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/meetings/agu/pdf2007/kelly_goulden_poster_agu2007.pdf):

    was it microsite issues or UHI, that moved that vegetation up that hill?

  96. #96 dhogaza
    March 12, 2009

    As to competency, how incompetent is a camera?

    I own several, and none of them are worth a damn for taking temperature data.

  97. #97 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    hm. the problem isn t just with the photos. http://www.surfacestations.org/ still claims, that a class 5 station has an “error>=5°C”.

    Well, that is what the NOAA itself claims (in the CRN handbook personally signed off on by Dr. Karl, himself), which is basically an English translation of the LeRoy (1999) study.

    The idea is to use the same standards that the NOAA already acknowledges. Which seems only fair.

    FWIW, Yilmaz (2008) shows that a sensor sited 2 m. over asphalt or concrete shows an 8C warm bias. This is autumn, but it is at relatively high altitude. Also, an NOAA sensor is 5′ +/- 1′, much closer to the ground, and that would increase the difference.

    So is the >=5C number correct? I can’t say that I know. But it is the official position of the NOAA/CRN and it has been more or less confirmed by the Yilmaz study.

    But yes, I think a full year-round study at COOP sensor height is needed. It certainly would not cost very much to do such an experiment.

    As for the photos, I see no problem with them.

    I own several, and none of them are worth a damn for taking temperature data.

    Hmm. Maybe you aiming them at the wrong places? #B^1

  98. #98 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    this is complete bogus, of course. as ladochy, whom you cited above shows, the error is closer to 0.5°C

    As best as I can recall, LaDochy (in his December 2007 paper, not the earlier one) was not considering microsite, but mesosite issues. His comparisons were between urban/suburban/rural locations, not CRN1 vs. CRN5. And isn’t the 0.5°C a 1980 – 2001 trend figure and not an offset figure (I don’t quite recall)? No one is suggesting that the trend difference is anywhere near >=5°C. Just the offset.

    It is possible that there is more error in UHI assessment than in the effects of microsite violations.

  99. #99 Evan Jones
    March 12, 2009

    Ah. Your link is to the earlier paper (also interesting–and shorter).

    The problem with the “park-like” setting site is that the mesoenvironment is green–but the microsite environment is depressingly gray! The equipment appears to be sited directly under either concrete or crushed rock. That would make it at best a CRN4 station, and possibly a 5.

  100. #100 Barton Paul Levenson
    March 13, 2009

    Evan Jones posts:

    The stations are poorly sited. This has a very strong effect on offset and an unknown effect on trend.

    It’s not “unknown,” it’s “nonexistent.” Here are some of the analyses that have been done:

    Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Imhoff, M., Lawrence, W., Easterling, D., Peterson, T., and Karl, T. 2001. “A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change.” J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23947–23963.

    Peterson, Thomas C. 2003. “Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found.” J. Clim. 16(18), 2941-2959.

    Peterson T., Gallo K., Lawrimore J., Owen T., Huang A., McKittrick D. 1999. “Global rural temperature trends.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 26(3), 329.

    And remember Anthony Watts and surfacestations.org? They finally compiled a huge sample of “good” stations and “bad” stations, and… guess what? No significant difference in the trend. Gee, I guess the scientists knew what they were doing after all. Quelle surprise.