Many Commenters Were Right!…… Sort of

It turns out it was a release of a publication……  or a release of a pre-publication.  For those unfamiliar, some of this was a poke in the eye for some past actions of others.

The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American’s Michael Lemonick in “Science Talk”, said:

“I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.”

I don’t wish to detract, (as if I could) from WUWT’s discussion thread.  But, we’ve all been anticipating this announcement and so now we can move beyond speculation and actually discuss what was stated in the paper/press release.


What I really like about all of this is the diversity of expertise this group brings to the table.  Most of us are familiar with these people…..  Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville.  There are additional co-authors who will be named later.

This is a multi-disciplined group, which adds to the legitimacy of their work.  Before commenting on the specifics of the information, please read the material provided by Anthony.

The paper in draft form: Watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease (PDF)

The Figures for the paper: Watts et al 2012 Figures and Tables (PDF)

It should also be noted that he’s going to provide more information later today.

Well sited stations, using a localized Class 4 (the most common class) baseline show a trend that is 0.09°C per decade lower than poorly sited stations for raw mean temperature trends.

As to commenting on the generalities, implications, and events….. feel free.

This entry was posted in Climate, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Many Commenters Were Right!…… Sort of

  1. kim2ooo says:

    It was worth the wait – for me.

  2. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:

  3. jimash1 says:

    Not even a mention of the Ipcc plan to nuke Greenland.
    That proves I was right !
    If they had eliminated that possibility, it would be there in black and white .

    Seriously though, is this a real bombshell that will shake loose some dead wood ?

    • suyts says:

      Well, it should be, but I’m not sure it will be.

      • jimash1 says:

        It just seems very technical and dry and 10ths of a degree and all. ( even though its doubled )
        I understand that it is a scientific endeavor, but since I read S. Goddard I am not surprised that the temperature data is fudged.
        Will the lemmings finally get that it is fudged from this ?
        I don’t think so.
        It is my experience that those who say they “believe the scientists” are the ones who cannot name any of the scientists they believe.
        It is going to take some MASS recantations of famous Kookoos ( LoL)
        to turn the titanic around.

      • suyts says:

        Yes, it’s exceptionally long for a typical climate submission. But, I expect that it would be parred down in some areas and expanded in others before all is said and done.

        I think it will break through eventually, but we’ll hear some wailing an gnashing of the teeth for a while.

        And, you’re right, this confirms what Steve has been demonstrating all along. The use of a homogenized temp data set is where much of the difficulties lie.

  4. miked1947 says:

    They are saying, basically that SAT is FUBAR. GISS even admits that in their Q and A.
    Just to show what a sport I am I will down load and read the paper

  5. kim2ooo says:

    [“So, in the spirit of magnanimity in total crushing victory I would urge readers of this blog not to crow too much about the devastating blow Watts’s findings will have on the Guardian’s battalion of environment correspondents, on the New York Times, on NOAA, on Al Gore, on the Prince of Wales, on the Royal Society, on Professor Muller, or on any of the other rent-seekers, grant-grubbers, eco-loons, crony capitalists, junk scientists, UN apparatchiks, EU technocrats, hideous porcine blobsters, demented squawking parrots, life-free loser trolls, paid CACC-amites and True Believers in the Great Global Warming Religion.

    That would be plain wrong.’]]

  6. kim2ooo says:

    [ “Other findings by Mr. Watts et al include, but are not limited to:

    · Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.

    · Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.

    · Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

    · Urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites.

    · The raw data T-mean trend for well sited stations is 0.15°C per decade lower than adjusted T-mean trend for poorly sited stations.

    · Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.”]

  7. kim2ooo says:

    [” Anthony Watts delivers devastating scientific blow to Muller’s claims: ‘New analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temp trends are spuriously doubled’

  8. kim2ooo says:

    JoSH…. ha ha ha ha

  9. kim2ooo says:

    “And thereby potentially invalidates possibly thousands of papers in many other fields that relied on those data sets. Yes, tectonic.”

  10. HankH says:

    Well, I guess I was wrong. Anthony would cancel a vacation to deliver a paper. Now, that’s dedication.

  11. Oh, this won’t have as big effect as we would wish.

    Right now, as we speak, ruminations, brainstorm-alations, cogitations, percolations, deliberations, and, of course, exchange of emails, are being had right now in global warming circles. They’ll knit-pick, downplay, ride off, deemphasize, and even whitewash and demonize this work. By time they get through with it they’ll say “Nothing to see here folks” and shout cock-a-doodle-doo!

    • kim2ooo says:

      I’m sure they will try………. BUT I don;t think they will be able to dismiss

    • suyts says:

      This will be harder for them to ignore for a couple of reasons. One, skepticism continues to reach more and more people. And, two, the paper contains a couple of direct challenges which must be answered. Most notably their findings about how NOAA is handling the temps

      • kim2ooo says:


        “And thereby potentially invalidates possibly thousands of papers in many other fields that relied on those data sets. Yes, tectonic.”

      • suyts says:

        Well, there’s a lot of “ifs” and “buts” along the way. Initially, it will be ignored. …. but then…. we’ll see.

        • Don’t underestimate the abilities of Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, et al to turn t-bone steak into elementary school paste.

          If you think I’m wrong have a look at Gavin Schmidt in action:

        • suyts says:

          Oh, no doubt. This won’t be a slam dunk by any means. These guys will unleash every trick in the book and make more up as they go along.

        • kim2ooo says:

          Hmmmm I’ve actually debated Mr Schmidt . When he found out his answers were copy pasted [Not by me ] to a blog that showed-up on search engines…………….. He disappeared….and stopped answering at RC

          What RC – AGW’ERS have to contend with is the WMO and it’s recommendations used by team WUWT

        • How were you able to debate at RC without being censored? Usually debates never take place there because “skeptic” comments don’t get past moderation.

        • kim2ooo says:

          I was debating someone at CAF – Who was a semi /member of RC.
          Actually, she was seen as no threat to RC.

          She copied my debate to her… and posted at RC – then pasted Mr Schmidts answers – and back and forth.

          The debate was on CO2 atmospheric residual time.

        • kim2ooo says:

          I have no doubt that that part of the debate that showed-up on RC – is now deleted……

          BUT CAF isn’t controlled by RC and the debate showed – up in search engines 🙂

          Sneakie huh.

        • kim2ooo says:

          Catholic Answers Forum

        • Speaking of Catholic……

          I’m not Catholic but I like the show on EWTN, The World Over with Raymond Arroyo. I stop on that show when I’m surfing. Every once in a while it’s interesting.

  12. jimash1 says:

    IS that what this was about ?
    Cutting off Muller ?

    So I am following you guys around, a bit, and I see this graph.
    Now I don’t know what Dr. Curry is trying to prove with the graph. ( not a regular there)
    But to me it just shows the clear 1.5 degree adjustment being applied to everything recent.
    That is why the entire curve is so smoothly redistributed.
    And if supposedly smart and wise people do not question this sharply, in detail, and with some determination they ( Them, you know) will just trash the actual records leaving nothing but the fiction. v3.

    Keep at ’em Suyts !
    And Watts.
    And Goddard.

  13. kim2ooo says:

    I believe this is what Dana1981 etc will have to charge

    World Meteorological Organization Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation, Fifteenth session, (CIMO-XV, 2010) WMO publication Number 1064, available online at:

  14. kim2ooo says:

    THAT is the first thing Gavin, Mann, Dana, Hansen,Jones will have to defeat – NOT TEAM WUWT

  15. miked1947 says:

    After reading I concluded the surface temperature records are still SNAFU! This just scratches the surface of the surface temperature problems.

  16. suyts says:

    We should also note, as Steve Goddard does, the start time , 1979, was a particularly cold year.

    Using other start times, it is likely no warming would be detected, as Steve demonstrates.

  17. kim2ooo says:

    Junk Science
    [“Not Muller’s BEST day: U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments”]

  18. kim2ooo says:

    Personally, I think it serves him fine 🙂

    Yeah, big Muller got his hat
    Find out where it’s at
    And it’s not hustlin’ people strange to you
    Even if you do got a two-piece custom-made pool cue

    Yeah you don’t tug on Superman’s cape
    You don’t spit into the wind
    You don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
    And you don’t mess around with Slim

  19. kelly liddle says:

    Until all the politicians of the world that support the hypothesis of dangerous climate change are not around any more then nothing will change. How many politicians have you ever heard saying they got such a big issue wrong? I have never heard of that happening. It would be the equivalent of Obama right now saying the stimulas was a bad idea. Even if Obama did realise his mistakes he would never admit it. The next crop of politicians are not likely to completely abandon their predeccessors beliefs either just slowly moderate them. I do believe though that the move is in the right direction now but will take years and years for it to be forgotten about.

    • suyts says:

      I view it as an issue like the ozone layer. It’s a slow and torturous death of the issue, but, almost no one talks about it anymore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s