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.
Spread it far and wide, folks.
That was a dramatic pause, over there on WUWT.
Yeah, but deindustrialization of society is still required…for the good of the planet…regardless of the data.
That pretty much settles it.
Not the science, rather that the AGW lobby is engaging in fraudulent activity and is thoroughly discredited as a source of data upon which to make a scientific argument
Karmas a beyotch.
yup.All temps are not equal,same as all tribes are not equal.cAGW BS,ET’s BS.Same sh1t,same pile.
Quantification is a bitch…
The crucial part of the new Watts, et al., paper is that it strikes at the heart of the luke-warmist fallback position, which is that “we all acknowledge that the Earth has warmed.” This is only true if the temperature data underlying this statement are trustworthy, and the paper demonstrates that they are not – at least, not after they have been subjected to manual alteration by NOAA.
What Watts and his colleagues have in fact demonstrated is that the rate of warming in the Continental US over the past four decades does not differ significantly from the rate of warming experienced prior to the massive Post-WWII increase in human fossil fuel consumption, since the end of the Little Ice Age in the Eighteenth Century. This means that there is indeed no detectable anthropogenic signal in the general state of climate – which in turn begs the question, where is the correlation between increasing temperature and increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions that was the basis for the AGW hypothesis in the first place?
Yes, the math etc. needs to be confirmed (although given who his co-authors are I would be surprised if the paper was found to be arithmetically flawed). But if it is confirmed, then these findings – which, remember, are based not on model outputs but on observed data, which is the objective standard for good science – have significant implications not only for the substance of the AGW hypothesis, but for the argument that there is even a need an AGW hypothesis at all.
I hate to say it, but this will be ignored. It’s hard for the warmists to deny their religion.
Scientists warn it’s the ‘new norm’ after worst drought in 800 years:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/scientists-warn-its-the-new-norm-after-worst-drought-in-800-years/article4448166/
wake up people.. you can deny we are heading toward catastrophe. Global warming is a fact.
What a childish comment, justthinkin. Stick to facts and issues.
The AGW agenda is ‘sin-money’, a leftist socialist agenda to transfer wealth from the industrial nations to the non-industrial or developing nations. It’s not based on science but on a different type of authority – a subjective authority of assumed guilt. Very similar to Obama’s insistence that the wealthy assume guilt for their wealth and ‘share it with others’. Same mindset.
Posted by: Quebecois NDP separatiste at July 30, 2012 8:48 AM
1/10 for that troll, for getting me to respond.
dwright : are you defining troll as “someone who has a different opinion”?
I thought you people were obsessed with liberty of expression.
I bring diversity to the comment sections, otherwise it would be an echo chamber.
Quebecois – I know you are merely a collection of mechanical atomic particles; you have no choice about what you say or do, but, a normal human with the capacity of reason couldn’t read that article and come up with your conclusion of global warming and catastrophe.
And in particular, there is no evidence of AGW, since cyclic climate rather than stasis appears to be the norm on this planet.
Are you ever curious about who or what programmed your mind and why you don’t have the freedom to think and analyze?
I can’t stand it. When presented with real facts, it must be diverse and call something contrary to the facts a fact.
Something diverse to the facts is fantasy.
No, quebecois, you don’t bring diversity to the comments. That would only be possible if your comments were based on evidence and analysis.
But you yourself deny that you have the capacity for either gathering objective evidence or for analysis. You declare that you are merely a collection of physical particles operating, necessarily, according to the laws of physics. You thus have no capacity for thought. Your comments are thus, in physical language, pure noise. Without meaning. Nothing to do with diversity!
I think John is right, this will be ignored by the MSM, we will be getting more of this instead:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501
The fact that one of the “authors” refused to be included because this new paper is too simplistic was downplayed. Also they seem to be gloating that funding for the “study” came from the Koch brothers indirectly. The war ain’t over yet….
Being a bit of an applied science geek, this kind of analysis interests me. Having spent far too many years in water chemistry work testing for ultra low level contaminants at or near instrumentation detection limits, I can say…proper calibration is critical, not just important, but critical. So, interpreting Watt’s paper from an applied chemistry POV it seems the NOAA has compromised its calibration by doing the equivalent of reversing its high and low standards. Generally, this means that you throw away the results, curse under your breath and redo your work.
Why would you use your worst sites to adjust your best sites and make more adjustment to further increase the temperature trends of the most accurate sites? The NOAA fascination with obtaining a .30 result is very odd and its method to do so makes no sense.
I also liked the last ppt slide that briefly touches on another issue – the equipment. It is one thing to produce highly precise and accurate numbers in a lab setting but to do it in field equipment is incredible. Being able to tease out 1.5C of warming since the industrial revolution, near the end of the Little Ice Age, is really quite amazing.
Since the entire catastrophic AGW scenario rests on the credibility of the temperature record,I look forward to the coming debate between the the two opposing groups in regards to both the Watts and BEST papers. Science is supposed to be confrontational not consensus based.
John
You beat me to it.
This is now Dogma not real applied science.
These people want the world population down to a billion at most. Nothing short of genocide will appease these wing nuts.
No insanity is to great for their Earth worshiping mentality. Nor the Government grants for snake oil scientists.
This is Religion of post modernism allied with Pseudo-science. The politicians buy into it because it allows them to tax industry on lies. Control people with finally a good way to line pockets of bureaucrats.
The defining quality of a Canadian dipper is the ability to deny that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. The defining quality of a French-Canadian dipper is they will still argue when you drag them outside by the hair at 6:00AM with a compass and prove the sun rises in the East.
In medical terms this quality is known as abject stupidity, with a side order of willful ignorance.
I’m enchanted to see in print what we’ve known since Kate started posting those pictures of NASA thermometers next to AC outlet vents. Namely that Global Warming is scientific fraud several orders of magnitude greater than Piltdown Man. Not overstating the case to say it may also be the greatest act of sheer sabotage ever perpetrated upon Western civilization.
Think of it. Never mind all the politics and the carbon tax, the entire temperature record since 1970 is now in question. That’s serious money we’re talking about right there. That’s several billion dollars over the last 40 years that was basically stolen to pursue the political agenda of some climate nerds.
I wonder what other skeletons Big Government has hiding in the closet? How many trillions got siphoned off to buy sailboats and swimming pools for government mandarins?
Corruption hollowed out and finally collapsed the Soviet Union and brought down the Iron Curtain, there’s no reason it won’t do the same to us.
We have been bamboozled into thinking that the “war” is between those who promote the AGW theory and those who debunk it. It has been debunked over and over again–yet the theory, like the Titanic song, goes on and on. It lives because governments (including our own) and other groups see it as an opportunity for a giant cash grab. If you can make people uneasy and fearful about the climate, you can sell no end of supposed solutions to the problem including increased taxation.
The war is being waged behind the scenes by those who saw this as an opportunity to arrange the world to their liking–the UN becoming the voice for groups who want to re-distribute wealth and to govern everything that people do from the types of housing they have to the bulbs in their dwellings. There was no other issue big enough and universal enough to suffice. The PLANET!
People, mostly are not critical thinkers. They know little about science. But they are emotional beings, easily swayed by a picture of a sad-eyed polar bear and cub on an ice floe.
We will never win this so-called war by debunking the myths. They are ingrained in the social and economic fabric of the world and supported by ignorance.
Sadly, there are many issues that are worthy of attention and concern–environmental issues that need research and amelioration. But if the funding available now is all devoted to climate change, what are the bets that this is the issue which will prevail?
WUWT has done a heroic job and it will have an impact, but I doubt it will trickle down and convince the masses. There is no way to make such a study have the kind of emotional appeal that the other side is adept at using.
Somebody needs to tell the arctic. Oh, and all those glaciers, because clearly they’ve been melting due to having incorrect data. And while you’re at it, tell all of the species that have been migrating further north every year.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/climate-change-sceptics-unwarmed-by-scientists-reassessment-of-cold-facts-20120730-23agk.html
But whateves.
@John at July 30, 2012 11:22 AM:
No John, where the glaciers, ice-floes, etc. are melting, it is because of the natural cycles of the Earth’s heating and cooling. The cycles have been around long before man, and will continue long after we are done as a species. You see, they don’t require human-generated CO2, they are natural cycles.
BTW, most of the hysteria about glaciers and floes melting at an alarming rate, is out and out fraud and/or poor science.
This whole climate alarmism religion thing boils (no-pun) down to a matter of degree (no-pun).
Most religions, from the ‘praying in church’ kind to the ‘man is bad climate guilt’ kind, usually start off being somewhat reasonable – be kind to your neighbor, live by good morals, take care of the environment. However, both movements are often taken over by the radicals who see an opportunity to bilk the people, control them and make lots of money.
How “successful” a scam is depends on the percentage of the population that is easily duped by the latest scam-de jour.
Most climate realists do not deny that the climate has warmed recently – as the Watts paper says. But it is NOT !! warming unusually or because of that essential gas, CO2. There is no need for alarm. That!! is the difference between a reasonable person and the others – climate alarmisist and religious fanatics.
John, I would not suggest that the climate isn’t changing. It changes–has before and will again. Nor would I suggest that human activities have no effect on climate.
But without unbiased research we could be devoting countless billions of dollars to solving the wrong problems while ignoring some that desperately need solutions.
This is what is happening here. There’s a money grab going on based on faulty, misleading and falsified data.
If money was going to preserve habitat, maintain clean water supplies, fisheries, agriculture–all things we depend on, that would be one thing. But when huge sums are being pre-empted by special interest groups for their own enrichment, failed third world states looking to increase the wealth of their warlords and dictators to prey on their people some more–I ask questions. When climate-hucksters talk about setting up a world government to tell every country what to do with their resources and wealth, I begin to understand the magnitude of the forces lining up to fill their own pockets and establish their claims to power.
The weapons are the so-called research by dubious groups all sucking up to the UN which is meant to subdue the people and stifle debate. And the gullible are falling for it in vast numbers.
@John
The Earth is currently in an Ice Age. I has been for ~2.7 million years. What we are currently experiencing is called an ‘interglacial’ period, where the glaciers retreat to the poles. From the geological record, we can conclude that these periods last about 10,000-12,000 years, then the glaciers return for about 100,000 years. Based on the geological evidence, we are overdue for a return of another 100,000 year period of glaciation.
None of this is disputed by climate scientists who support the theory of AGW.
My question to you is this: If Earth is in the process of leaving its ice age, or if human activity is delaying the next onset of glaciation, is that a bad thing? If so, why?
@John at July 30, 2012 11:22 AM:
Have you ever heard of “global tilt”, John? Did you know that the earth spins like a top and it tilts from time to time? This was known decades ago – time for you to do some catch up studies, methinks.
You do realize that the compliant Class 1 & 2 stations are demonstrating a rising trend of 0.155’c per decade, right? And that Watt et al’s results are therefore actually still consistent with what other climate change researchers, including the IPCC and this guy, among others, have been saying all along, right?
Davenport, only in the warmists/statists frenzied minds do “deniers” actually deny warming. What they are skeptical about are things like the amount of warming by CO2, forcings, climate sensitivity, and, of course, the catastrophic part of global warming. That’s just the science. The politics of C-AGW are downright bizarre.
Thank goodness we are 1.5C away from the Little Ice Age. Personally, I’d like put a few more degrees of separation between us. 🙂
Davenport said: “You do realize that the compliant Class 1 & 2 stations are demonstrating a rising trend of 0.155’c per decade, right?”
Jeeze Davvy, you’re as bad as Quebec dipperboy. What part of “wide spread and pervasive scientific fraud” is failing to penetrate your solid-bone cranium? They perverted the whole surface station network, I should believe -any- of it?
Besides, even granting your number there was 100% true and accurate, doesn’t 0.15 degrees per decade fit the definition of “background noise”, particularly when it does not match the satellite data? Which is also pretty crappy because they don’t have dedicated instruments in orbit, which is not a coincidence given the fore mentioned pervasive fraud, right?
Say, would you like to invest in some swa- I mean some real estate in Florida? I can fix you up.
Posted by: ron in kelowna ∴ at July 30, 2012 12:15 PM
As is commonly accepted, religion without reason is defined as fanaticism.
A pair of example pop to mind — the AGW fanaticism and militant Islam.
{quote]No John, where the glaciers, ice-floes, etc. are melting, it is because of the natural cycles of the Earth’s heating and cooling. The cycles have been around long before man, and will continue long after we are done as a species. You see, they don’t require human-generated CO2, they are natural cycles.
BTW, most of the hysteria about glaciers and floes melting at an alarming rate, is out and out fraud and/or poor science.[/Quote] pilgrim
Well Said!
I would only add that the AGW “tipping point”, thermal runaway, must have a “Hockey Stick” response. Without proven thermal runaway; who gives a crap about the Carbon nonsense..
Yes, the CO2 that human activities produce contributes somewhat to the global warming effect, however the magnitude or significance of the human contribution to that effect can not be measured with any accuracy or precision.
Yes, human activities produce toxic pollution which causes significant and accurately measurable morbidity and death.
If the toxic pollution that humans irrefutably cause is significantly reduced, then CO2 production will be reduced as well.
Humans should focus on the problems they know they cause not the problems they think they might be causing.
CO2 is all about distracting people from toxic pollution. Toxic pollution is very profitable, capturing it is expensive, people don’t want to pay more for clean energy. It’s easier to keep them distracted so they don’t demand answers to inconvenient questions about toxic pollution, habitat destruction, species extinction, overpopulation…