……………………..Limits are for governments.

John Christy, Anthony Watts, et al. Release Analysis of Thermometer Siting and NOAA Temperature Adjustments

Link to paper here:  http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

Comment:  This paper introduces a finer method of classifying sites where temperatures are recorded. Many sites are affected by the presence of asphalt (either from roofs, tarmacs, or parking lots), buildings, and even exhaust from cars and AC units. These sites receive a lower compliance rating. Yet climate scientists still insisted that the overall trend remained the same for good or bad surface stations. In this paper, a better classification of sites is used. This classification is applied to historic data sets. The signal for good sites give a very slight warming over 3 decades. The poor sites give a greater warming trend. The adjustments made to the data later all conform to, and even exceed, the trends from the poor sites. See figure above, and the paper – in particular lines 189-211 and 284-298 – for more detail.

Advertisements

4 responses

  1. zefal says:

    July 29, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    I bet us deniers will use this to claim that our denying isn’t in denial.

    July 29, 2012 at 6:16 pm

  2. “The gridded average of all compliant Class 1&2 stations in the CONUS is only slightly above zero at 0.032C/decade, while Class 3,4,5 non-compliant stations have a trend value of 0.212C/decade, a value nearly seven times larger. NOAA adjusted data, for all classes of rural non-airport stations have a value of 0.300C/decade, nearly ten times larger than raw data from the compliant stations.” (464-468)

    July 29, 2012 at 8:17 pm

  3. As far as I can see the main novelty is that the weather station classification scheme of Leroy (2010) is better than Leroy (1999).

    It would have been more elegant if Watts had stated in his press release that the differences between stations of various qualities he found in the temperature trends are only visible in the raw data. In the homogenized (adjusted) data the trends are about the same for all quality classes. No more sign of errors due to the urban heat island.

    That the trend is stronger in the homogenized data is no surprise, the transition to automatic weather stations during the study period has caused an artificial cooling in the raw data.

    For a bit more detailed “review”, please visit my blog.
    http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html

    July 30, 2012 at 5:28 am

  4. Nice post Zeke ;)

    February 21, 2013 at 8:13 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s