Happy Second Birthday to Watts’ paper!

WUWT is too busy analysing the latest NOAA NCDC report?

PS I liked the troll cartoon.

[I almost linked to it, but ATTP has done that -W]

Paging Evan Jones.... Paging Evan Jones....please pick up the white phone.

Never did receive a reply. Apparently the numbers are still crunching Anthony.

They are busy reprocessing the draft now that they have changed their LaTeX version.
...
and the worst part is, I'm not trolling them but LaTeX and every word processor. Help me.

Happy birthday Watts and colleagues!! I guess that when you get older birthdays do not mean that much any more.

Maybe the term "manuscript" would also be more precise as "paper". The latter suggests that it will at least be published once. They could try Richard Muller's favorite publishing house.

One the positive side, they are working on the manuscript. Had a long discussion with Evan Jones some time ago.

By astonishing coincidence, this is also the Nth anniversary of my wold-shattering announcement that I intent to produce a paper/essay/blog post which demonstrates incontrovertibly that there are reasonable grounds to be skeptical about (insert your obsession here). Go figure!

OT alert: Wold upon wold, the world turns. I stole this:
http://hellopoetry.com/words/35549/wold/poems/?page=2

god's riddle (Aya Baker)

i wish
there were ways
you could let yourself out;
slip little bits of your soul
back into the wold
free it from your vessel,
your prison,
let it no longer anchor you.
the cracks in my skin:
be the gateway to
my end.

you will be buffeted by the winds
you will sail far over the seas,
skimming its surfaces;
the hot winds in the desert might parch you.
and you will have lived
as long as you think you did.

PS I liked the troll cartoon.
Yes, me too. Still trying to decide if I should put it on my office door or not :-)

I've somewhat missed most of the action with regards to Anthony's seminal paper. Looks like I may have to wait even longer to discover if it's actually worth considering - or, maybe not.

"Apparently the numbers are still crunching Anthony." +1! Poor, poor dyscalculic Tony. :)

From last year's anniversary thread here on Stoat:

Evan Jones: 'And if you think we have “forgotten”, please allow me to disabuse y’all of that notion. If you think I intend to let over half a man-year’s effort slide off the table edge, you need to think again.'

Hmmm.

[I have some sympathy for EJ, who (a) has been quite reasonable in the comments, and (b) I think has got the short (or perhaps, the shitty) end of this particular stick. Though anyone who works with AW needs to consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:If_you_lie_down_with_dogs,_you_… -W]

[And in support of that, I can offer you http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/william-connolley-demonstrates-on… -W]

Early on, EJ expressed more than enough denialist triumphalism (perhaps not here) for me to feel no sympathy whatsoever for him.

Is n-g still working with them? If so, you'd think they'd have been able to cobble together some sort of paper by now, although maybe the problem is that what n-g might consider a publishable result is too contrary to what AW and EJ would prefer.

[I have some sympathy for EJ, who (a) has been quite reasonable in the comments...-W]
He has been rather nasty at WUWT and elsewhere.

His comments here and on other science-based blogs tend to be somewhat politer. But a lot of them boil down to "you'll see I'm right about this when the paper is published".

If there is no paper, then that particular argument-from-authority looks rather different.

My favorite line from the comments on AW's original post about the "paper":

davidmhoffer: It occurs to me that we are witnessing not just a brilliant paper, but a monumental change in the scientific process itself.

Please cut Tony some slack- he can only hear 3 of every 20 words the reviewers have to say .

Russell, please don't do that again. There are many things for which Watts should be held accountable, but mocking his disability just isn't on.

Raymond:
reviewers provide written reviews.

The point is that Watts' Morton's Demon is Sauron-class, and filters out anything he doesn't like.

Raymond, it's a claimed disability. Do you have some reason to think it's true and accurately described rather than just a play for sympathy?

What Raymond said. Plus the same on the followups - valid point or not- realdisability or otherwise, it's still not on.

There are many things for which Watts should be held accountable, but mocking his disability just isn’t on.

Please speak up when you tell him to get a hearing aid.

Russell said:
"Please speak up when you tell him to get a hearing aid."
Do you think such statements add to the conversation? Mocking people for things they have no control over is childish. My sister is wheelchair bound. If Watts was too, would you call him "Wheels"? Grow up. You're doing us no favors.

Russell,

Best to steer clear of anything personal not just because it isn't good manners but also because it gives Watts a chance to get on his high moral horse and amplify it as a bone fornthebattack dogs who populate his comments. Best to stick to the fact that some academics can put out multiple papers a year and a bunch of deniers can't manage to complete this one two years down the line.

If you need more than three years to analyze the data and prove the existence of "strong signal that we knew must be there" ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/backstory-on-the-new-surfacestati… ) then maybe the signal isn't that strong.
By the way, Steve McIntyre also promised to "carry out the TOBS analysis" (
http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/ ) but sadly he's never reported his results. One can only wonder why.

Russell's # 14 & 19, above

A contrarian thought, here, but I'd just like to say that I like Russell's "geek-ball with an attitude" act.

Sure Russell's comments lack wit, good humor, and, even, common decency, but they succeed, nevertheless, through their brute-force, vicious, brazen, [yeah yeah, we get the idea -W] --and that sets them apart from the otherwise unrelieved, group-think tedium of Stoat's typical, [and again -W] commentary and makes them worth a read.

FYI: From the comments at WUWT:

"evanmjones says:
August 23, 2014 at 11:36 am
He asks to be pointed to a temperature record data set used for research purposes that is valid and reliable.

Well, Pamela, when we publish, we’ll have a set of 80 “clean” U.S. stations (out of over 1200) that contain what I refer to as the “true signal” from well sited USHCN station raw data (the other raw data has poor siting, moves, and TOBS trend changes, etc.). A slight (and perhaps legitimate) upward trend bump for MMTS conversion and there’s your story. (Perhaps one day it will actually be used “for research purposes”.)"

So Evan Jones is still hoping to publish. (and given that I've had papers that have sat around for a couple years before finally appearing in journals, it isn't that weird to have such a delay... though certainly, I never hyped my paper on-line 2 years before its final published date...

-MMM

ps. Russell probably lost his sense of tact during an accident several years ago.

Lost between Dull and Boring.

80 stations out of 1200 ? There are several possibilities to this dropout ratio, each one including a bad work from someone.
I can quite predict with a fair certainty who will put the blame on who :]

Huh. There's really no need for Watts to take this long to cherry-pick 80 stations and compute an average trend. All he has to do is:

(1) Go to Nick Stokes' page here:
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/cherrypickers-guide-to-station…

(2) Set the magnification to 4X and click "Show Stations".

(3) Click on a station in a dark blue patch. Note its trend, which should be near-zero or negative.

(4) Repeat step 3 as many times as desired. Use Excel to calculate fancy stats, like the "average" trend across all your cherry-picked stations.

(5) Submit results to E&E.

The main point is to define "good stations" as the 6.6% of stations that have low trends. Then, by definition, the good stations prove that there is no warming, and the bad stations inherently are those that show an "erroneous" warming trend.

Ned:

"The main point is to define “good stations” as the 6.6% of stations that have low trends. Then, by definition, the good stations prove that there is no warming"

That's essentially what they did when they first floated the paper, tossing out airport stations because the trend was "too high" even though they supposedly were going to pick stations according to siting criteria in the paper they were piggy-backing on.

When that didn't work, they started tossing out the "well-sited" stations that don't show what they want.

So now they're down to 80 stations, and in addition ...

'the “true signal” from well sited USHCN station raw data'

they're cherry picking stations with the "best" raw data for the "true signal" which is, of course, the "signal" they want to see.

well, he cites his own draft now:
http://archive.today/nk4VN

and the other guy's working along the same lines, apparently:
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=17376#comment-582716

Theoretically, they always claim to follow "Leroy et al. (YEAR WHICH GIVES BEST RESULTS)"... I'll be curious to see if they compare against the US Climate Reference Network, which is the acknowledged gold standard since 2005...

> when we publish, we’ll have a set of 80 “clean” U.S. stations (out of
> over 1200) that contain what I refer to as the “true signal” ....

How do you know you've thrown out all but the true signal?
Because it gives you the true answer, which you already knew.

I also noticed that the SurfaceStations.org site hasn't been updated since July 30, 2012 and the database has been offline for months.

You have become a mere orbiter blog, dedicated to a cultist bubble society of misfits. Tony's paper was just another influence helping to create a reference network of thermometer stations. Hating on it is just spiteful and bizarre grandstanding. It didn't have a huge cultural or scientific influence, no, because it's too obscure to be culturally relevant and nearly all climate "scientists" are already in the habit of utterly ignoring climate alarm diffusing results. I mean, really, Watts your point?

[Your desc of Watts's "paper" doesn't match AW's hype, EJ's ideas, or the "paper" itself. In short, you're forced to become disconnected from reality in order to defend it -W]

Paging Evan Jones…. Paging Evan Jones….please pick up the white phone.

Yeah, alright.

I think has got the short (or perhaps, the shitty) end of this particular stick.

Not at all. --I-- am the reason for the delay. I have been doing a huge amount of work, analysis, and QC. We are also converting to USHCN2.5, which takes time.

Best to stick to the fact that some academics can put out multiple papers a year and a bunch of deniers can’t manage to complete this one two years down the line.

Most academic papers do not have thousands of hours invested in the analysis alone, to say nothing of the initial project.

Is n-g still working with them?

Yes.

If so, you’d think they’d have been able to cobble together some sort of paper by now,

although maybe the problem is that what n-g might consider a publishable result is too contrary to what AW and EJ would prefer.

Oh, I don't think that's a problem, not since he ran the Monte Carlos on our preliminary USHCN2.0 figures. #B^)

By the way, Steve McIntyre also promised to “carry out the TOBS analysis” (http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/ ) but sadly he’s never reported his results. One can only wonder why.

We decided to avoid that entirely by dropping all stations with TOBS flips.

The following deserves a separate reply:

“The main point is to define “good stations” as the 6.6% of stations that have low trends. Then, by definition, the good stations prove that there is no warming”

That’s essentially what they did when they first floated the paper, tossing out airport stations because the trend was “too high” even though they supposedly were going to pick stations according to siting criteria in the paper they were piggy-backing on.

That statement is simply incorrect. We did not cherrypick anything. Besides, there are a number of strongly warming Class 1\2 stations as well as much "cooler"-trend Class 3\4\5 stations.

When that didn’t work, they started tossing out the “well-sited” stations that don’t show what they want.

That is completely inaccurate. The well sited stations we dropped show even less warming than the ones we retained.

So now they’re down to 80 stations, and in addition …

they’re cherry picking stations with the “best” raw data for the “true signal” which is, of course, the “signal” they want to see.

That is a very serious charge, and is simply incorrect. You really mustn't say such things.

Do you not think I am aware my ratings will be checked? Do you not think I am aware that my "dropped" list will be checked against the metadata?

And, finally, we do not use raw data, we adjust for MMTS conversion.

Theoretically, they always claim to follow “Leroy et al. (YEAR WHICH GIVES BEST RESULTS)”…

Leroy (1999) measures distance only. Leroy (2010) considers not only distance, but also area. But I will run our current 400-station list using Leroy (1999) ratings. We were criticized for our station sample in 2012. Well, we accepted those criticisms. I'll run Leroy (1999) ratings on our current sample. And if the results are the same as Leroy (2010), I will have one big Scientific Horse-Laugh at you-all's expense.

I’ll be curious to see if they compare against the US Climate Reference Network, which is the acknowledged gold standard since 2005…

The USHCN shows virtually no variation from USHCN over the 9-years since launch. And we heartily endorse those findings:

The heat sink effect does not create a trend. It merely exaggerates</b? a trend that exists already. it exaggerated warming from 1979 - 1998. It exaggerated cooling from 1998 - 2008. In, in the current flat trend, there is no atmospheric trend to exaggerate, so there is no divergence with CRN.

The Heat Sink effect is a classic example of one of them thar "positive feedbacks" you keep reading about:

1979 - 1998: Warming Exaggerated
1998-2008: Cooling Exaggerated
2005-date: Flat trend, therefore no exaggeration either way.

"And if the results are the same as Leroy (2010), I will have one big Scientific Horse-Laugh at you-all’s expense."

There's a special,personal reason for that, BTW:

For Fall (2011) we did not support our hypothesis. Yes, we found an effect in Tmin, but not Tmean. But we did not withhold our findings because that is not the way of the scientist.

But the reviewers liked those results, just fine. They did not tell us the study was invalid because we failed to account for moves (beyond a few years), TOBS-bias (at all), or MMTS conversion (at all).

Those very reasons were held to invalidate our 2012 results.

So I skinned out all the offending stations -- just as our critics here and elsewhere said we must -- the same critics who now call "cherrypicking", without investigation or even having asked the one who made the selection -- namely me.

So if the current dataset with USHCN2.5 data using Leroy (1999) turns out to show similar results as Leroy (2010), I will be highly amused.

Incidentally, J-NG spot checked me out on the ratings to make sure I was on the up and up. So did Anthony. They were both skeptical after Fall et al., and I had to prove the new results to everyone involved.

How do you know you’ve thrown out all but the true signal?

From the larger set of USHCN stations, they are the only ones that are well sited, have no recorded moves, no TOBS-flips (TOBS data will be included, of course).

Those stations are then adjusted for MMTS conversion.

Because it gives you the true answer, which you already knew.

That is a presumption. It is also incorrect. We went ahead with Fall (2011) even though it disputed our hypothesis. You should consider that as evidence that we are playing it straight.

In fact, we had no idea what would emerge when I plugged in Leroy (2010). But the results hold firm no matter how we bin and rebin the subsets, by either area or mesosite: The stations with good microsite always average lower trends.

That’s essentially what they did when they first floated the paper, tossing out airport stations because the trend was “too high” even though they supposedly were going to pick stations according to siting criteria in the paper they were piggy-backing on.

Simply incorrect. We showed subsets of All Stations, Airports-only, Urban-only, Without Airports, Rural only, MMTS-only, CRS-only, and more. All of those subsets showed faster warming for poorly sited stations.

We "tossed out" nothing. It is a travesty, manifestly incorrect, to suggest we did. (If anything, the original criticism was that we did not toss out enough.)

I also noticed that the SurfaceStations.org site hasn’t been updated since July 30, 2012 and the database has been offline for months.

Oh, it's been updated, alright. Extensively. (By me.)

You don't have to assume these things, you know. You can always ask me.

Evan, why would I bother to ask you when I can visit the site? If you have a private DB, great. The SurfaceStations.org site is down and has been for months. The home page hasn't been updated in years.

From the SurfaceStaions Main Page - first line
NEWS Updated 07/30/2012

From The SurfaceStations DB
Maintenance
Site is temporarily down for maintenance.
Admin Login

Yes, the home page is quite out of date. He is always going to update it, but hasn't yet. Maybe I can convince him to redo it for when we release.

For one thing, the Orlando example actually turns out to be a Class 3. In the very early stages (back when he made the page), Anthony was counting structures and parking lots, but not pavement, per se.

Also, it can get a little edgy when you are rating for distance only (as per Leroy, 1999). Does a small shed "count"? But with Leroy (2010), you just drop in your circles and add it all up. It takes more time but provides a much cleaner result.

As for surfacestations, that will remain shut until we are through. We want to take the time we need. I am putting a lot of stuff up there which is currently confidential. Not to mention the fact that we have had our research misused twice by folks who promised they would not do so.

It is a critical part of out source material and is necessary for purposes of verification or falsification. So it will be made fully available when we release. Methods will be explained, so the work can be replicated, and I will assist in any reasonable way I can.