On the “march of the thermometers”

On the “march of the thermometers”. Missed this one. Anthony Watts pointing to “the hard work of E. M. Smith” on ‘dropped’ weather station records. The accusation is always that stations that are warming faster are being kept, those that are cooling are being maliciously discarded.

Funny, they never seem to mention two things about this:

  1. The ‘dropped’ stations are stations that aren’t automatically uploaded to the weather databases. They are in fact added intermittently by infrequent manual processes. This means that a station will be in the database, seem to be dropped, and then at a later date reappear with all the intervening years of data.
  2. The trends for the “dropped” stations and the “kept” stations are the same. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that “colder” stations are more likely to need intermittent manual incorporation into the data set because they are more likely to be remote.

For more on this foolishness, go over to the “Dropouts” post on Open Mind and give your head a shake.

4 thoughts on “On the “march of the thermometers”

  1. And here are the two posts I submitted that did not appear as comments in WUWT:

    So the claim in Watts/D’Aleo was that the change in the number of stations introduced a warming trend. Does that conclusion still stand in light of Tamino’s analysis (which preceded Lucia and Zeke’ analyses)? Are you going to own up to your mistake? Smith’s post rambles on so much, and I suppose there’s an answer there somewhere, but this is the statement that you made:

    Interestingly, the very same stations that have been deleted from the world climate network were retained for computing the average-temperature base periods, further increasing the bias towards overstatement of warming by NOAA.

    It would be useful to have an answer here.

    My earlier post didn’t seem to appear. I found Chiefio’s post really confusing. Can someone please summarize? Does the change in the number of stations introduced [sic] a warming trend or not? Is there a “…bias towards overstatement of warming by NOAA”? Thanks in advance.

    • Deech56,
      Not being a scientist, my posts typically do get posted over at WUWT — after Anthony has had a chance to include his reply. I usually lack the expertise to delve into the science the way you do here. Please keep posting here when you think WUWT won’t post. That will be a good way for all of us to see what Anthony is censoring.

  2. Herman L., not sure when I will try to post again at WUWT. I don’t even get the “post in moderation” response. I’m not a climate expert, but sometimes there is an issue that is lacking some kind of response, and I feel I can contribute. It’s at least useful to know in case anyone claims that WUWT allows for free discussion.

    The best example of censored comments happened with “Lee”, who was not only deleted, but had many of his posts removed.

    BTW, I was banned at America Thinker and my posts removed. Here’s the thread; what’s funny is that there are replies to my no-longer-in-existence posts. Oh well.

    Keep posting, but save copies of the posts on your local computer.

  3. All of us who try to ask direct questions that go to the heart of WUWT’s errors — and don’t get posted — need to post simultaneously here to keep Anthony honest. I have no formal training in natural sciences so I cannot ask many of the difficult questions. I hope others can.

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