Well, if the data isn’t forthcoming after a few years, or if it is lost, hidden, etc., then you can really have something to complain about.
Meanwhile, I’m wondering if any public funds were used to compile the data. If not, it’s really up to the owner (presumably Anthony) to do as he wants with it.
And they are not looking at the trend only for these 92 stations. They are using them, presumably via gridding (and interpolation?), to calculate the temperature anomaly for the entire CONUS each month.
Anthony Watts stated that data compilation was done with private funds, not public funds. Main benefit from releasing data is to establish credibility.
Why are yout talking about 2012, Steven? It’s almost 2016. Evan is answering quewtions over on WUWT. You seriousluy think they aren’t going to release the data?
evanmjones
December 17, 2015 at 4:45 pm
It’s not perfect, but it’s as good as it can reasonably be. We define our terms and what we think is going on in the paper, itself.
We will also be archiving the data and formulas in Excel, which will put it in a format that anyone can dicker with it or change the parameters — add or drop stations, change ratings, add categories (i.e., subsets), add whatever other version of MMTS adjustment you like, that sort of thing. (And I have some iconoclastic notions of how MMTS should really be addressed.)
But the thing is, we welcome review. Some station ratings are obvious at a glance, but there are a few close calls. So it will all be open for review, complete with tools to test and vary. This paper is not intended as an inalterable doctrine. It is just part of a process of knowledge in a format it is easy to alter and expand.
If anyone has any questions, I’ll be glad to answer.
There were ‘scientists’ from the same bunch as these, who claimed that nicotine wasn’t addictive and smoking did not cause lung disease. Industry funded spin.
Anthony Watts is on the record with this:
‘When the journal article publishes, we’ll make all
of the data, code, and methods available so that
the study is entirely replicable.’
If we can embrace Karl, Cowtan, Way and the others taking a new look at the data sets then why not Watt?
Well, sigh… this again.
Until they deploy a network of sensors in pristine only areas with sensors designed, tested, and calibrated to an exact engineering standard this whole land temperature thing is a joke. There is no reason to put global climate sensors anywhere there is any UHI. “Rural areas” isn’t good enough. I lived in a rural area – it went from dirt to blacktop in 30 years.
The moment they start “adjusting” and “homogenizing” it becomes subjective. It comes down to which cherry picker is better at picking cherries.
As a side note, it was pointed out by a link from SM the “length of day” change indicates a 20th century (pre 1990) sea level rise of 1.2 mm/Y. The rotation change this century is about 1/3 what it was last century. It is hard to argue that there is much current warming. If there was significant ocean warming or ice melting the planet would be slowing down like someone put the brakes on. That isn’t happening.
The rate of warming this century is about 1/3 what it was last century going by the rotational change – and that is the only measurement that is known to be very accurate. So either it isn’t warming much or Antarctica is gaining a lot of ice. The rotation rate indicates the pause is real and attempts to “kill the pause” are misguided.
Denizens may appreciate a thoughtful review
http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/anthony-watts-agu2015-surface-stations.html
It was not clear from Judith’s post which journal had published the paper. It appears from Victor’s review it is in fact a poster and has not yet been submitted for review.
Wagathon,
My interest is the pursuit of knowledge (truth), whatever it is.
One example from the program, part of a series, was the sometimes bad outcome when such types are leaders, in the political or business spheres. We are interested in a political/scientific controversy where, if I am correct, there could be such an outcome.
Note that “pre-publication sniping” has provided valid criticism that is indispensable to our work. And we are both appreciative and grateful for it. That is why Anthony (most wisely) pre-released in 2012.
92 out of the 410 are well sited. The 318 remaining are poorly sited.
There is a statistically significant difference. In spades.
They gave you a hint and wrote “we believe”. They present no evidence for this claim. After homogenization the trend Watts et al. (2015) computed are nearly the same for all siting five siting categories, just like it was for Watts et al. (2012) and the published study Fall et al. Just like before, they did not study homogenization algorithms and thus cannot draw this conclusion.
That the trend after homogenization is larger in the USA was known (and is frequently shown as evidence that climatology has an agenda, ignoring that the net adjustment for the global temperature make the warming smaller). This US increase is due to the time of observation bias and the transition to the MMTS. Watts et al. (2015) replicate this and also find that “aw” series with a “perturbation” show a smaller trend than the series where Watts et al. did not find evidence of a perturbation. Thus the perturbations cause a cooling bias.
In this light, it is normal that the raw data from the category with the largest trend shows a trend that is nearer to the one of the homogenized data. Also the current version of the manuscript does not check whether there were really no perturbations in the stations put in the category “no perturbation” by comparing the series with the observations at neighboring stations. Thus there are likely still perturbations in this subset.
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com2015/12/anthony-watts-agu2015-surface-stations.html
evan
In hindsight it would be useful if climate science generally had many more ‘pre releases’ so constructive criticism can take place. Otherwise material that might be highly contentious is presented as fact.
Judith’s ‘uncertainty’ monster; is a small creature compared to his very big brother the ‘speculative’ monster.
tonyb
Victor Venema,
I believe the Earth’s surface has cooled from its initial molten state, to that of the present. Just a belief – or an assumption, if you prefer. I have no personal knowledge of the situation four and a half billion years ago. Pontificating about anything else in between demonstrates a reliance on faith, rather than fact
Maybe the Earth was created a millisecond ago, as it is. You have no proof to the contrary.
Your opinions are worth precisely as much as mine. Would you not agree?
Cheers,
Here’s what Watts says on his thread:
We are submitting this to publication in a well respected journal. No, I won’t say which one because we don’t need any attempts at journal gate-keeping like we saw in the Climategate emails. i.e “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” and “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”.
When the journal article publishes, we’ll make all of the data, code, and methods available so that the study is entirely replicable. We feel this is very important, even if it allows unscrupulous types to launch “creative” attacks via journal publications, blog posts, and comments. When the data and paper is available, we’ll welcome real and well-founded criticism.
Also on the Watts thread, there’s this
evanmjones says:
December 17, 2015 at 8:50 pm
You’ll have to wait until publication. Twice already we’ve had reason to regret releasing preliminary data. So we must tread with caution. But you shall have it. All of it. That’s a cross-my-heart promise.
Here is the real travesty.
Why is it that the a basic inventory of siting quality of US temperature locations has been done by an outsider in a crowd sourcing project that includes volunteers?
Keep in mind that the global surface temperature record is just about the single most important time series in climate research, so making sure that it meets the highest data quality standards, which includes constructing an inventory of siting quality, should be top priority of the funding agencies and governing bodies, and is of interest to everybody.
Not so much, it has turned out.
The scientific community rather leaves that task to a few good-willing men and women. Instead, funding agencies and governing bodies rather spend billions of dollars on other topics like computer modelling than spending a few million on data quality.
And that is just plain stupid, I have no other words for it.
