“More dirty pool by NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson“. Anthony’s still mad that “his data” has been used by scientists. Particularly because they studied his claim of fatal problems with the US surface temperature record and found that it was completely baseless. Sorry, Anthony, the actual data was theirs. You merely claimed loudly that particular weather stations were badly adjusted and they showed that from a climate study perspective the problems were irrelevant. A year later we’re still waiting for your thrilling expose.
Now they’ve used an amateur photo of a weather station on the cover of a presentation about how to respond to amateur criticisms of weather stations! My god, they’re also plotting things! Denialists do that too! What copycats, such infamy!
Sorry Anthony, your only contribution has been to trigger the recognition that there are tenacious and ignorant pests on the interwebs that need to be fended off. Nice to see the sudden awareness of copyright though. Did you ever get around to licensing that painting you use in your blog masthead? Like all of Anthony’s pretenses of taking the high road this rings a bit hollow.
Arctic isolated versus “urban” stations show differing trends. Anthony Watts has a serious man-crush on anyone who shares his obsession with weather station micro-analysis. Today’s candidate is mechanical engineer Pierre Gosselin, who loves the “gate” suffix and knows that “climate change” is a religion. He sets us all straight on how them dang climate scientists have it all wrong.
Correction: the analysis is by Pierre Gosselin’s “guest author” Ed Caryl, whose credentials seem limited to being a balding white male who likes to parrot that Antarctic ice is expanding. But that’s better than most of Anthony’s esteemed sources.
Apparently any collection of more than two people constitutes an urban setting and hence all that Arctic warming must be discounted as the product of the notorious Urban Heat Island effect! Except there isn’t an Urban Heat Island bias in the weather station records…
All the usual cherry-picking and statistical ignorance (“Looks like an awfully good fit”) are present. Arbitrary selection of “useful” weather stations, comparing carefully chosen “peak to peak” comparison points, reams of amateur photos and charts, uninformed mutterings about station histories, invoking long-duration natural cycles that we should wait out for better understanding.
Noise and dishonesty. Amusingly, Gosselin’s own website is called No Tricks Zone.
“NOAA/NCDC – USHCN is broken please send 100 million dollars“. Anthony Watts has gone on for years about how “awful” the US weather stations are at WUWT and his surfacestations.org websites, even though statistical analysis conclusively proves that for climate analysis purposes they’re just fine. You’d think that he would be pleased to hear about a proposal from NOAA to upgrade a core set of UHSCN stations ($100 million over ten years).
Nope. All Anthony has is a rant about gubmint spending and mockup of a “Dr. Evil” million dollar bill. But don’t get him wrong!
Hell, I’ll do it for 10K a piece and do a better job than NOAA ever could.
Anthony shows his keen understanding of the economy.
Anthony, I wouldn’t trust you with a ballpoint pen.
“A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II“. Denialist Jeff Id from “the Air Vent” tries to explain to the more enthusiastic followers of Anthony Watts’ blog why they shouldn’t make themselves look foolish defending Tom Vonk’s recent imaginative foray into radiative physics.
My statement is – CO2 does create a warming effect in the lower atmosphere.
Horrors! But the usual escape hatch is attached:
Before that makes you scream at the monitor, I’ve not said anything about the magnitude or danger or even measurability of the effect. I only assert that the effect is real, is provable, it’s basic physics and it does exist.
Lasers and canisters of CO2 explain it all. Source: WUWT figure 7.
After some simple-minded talk about lasers and canisters of gases Jeff declares that “NONE of this should create any alarm” and says that perhaps “CO2 then, can be considered nothing but plant food”. And of course we all must be reminded why the “true and high quality results from Anthony’s surfacestations project [is] so critically important.”
“Perfect place for a thermometer in Oz“. Australia’s local cranks are an intense bunch, which means a warm, if tiny, welcome for visitor Anthony Watts’ obsessive ignorance. What deep new knowledge has Anthony gained from his international travels?
Well Anthony can always find a weather station to complain about and there will always be reports of “cold weather” somewhere. Also the Australian government, for presumably contemptible bureaucratic reasons, hates deceased American photographer Ansel Adams (commercial photographers need permission and must pay a fee to photograph in Commonwealth reserves, aka national parks).
“Art Horn: a remarkable statement from NOAA“. Anthony Watts wants us to know that right-wing partisan website Pajamas Media’s meteorologist, Art Horn, shares his obsession, and outrage, over weather station trivia.
The following remarkable statement now appears on the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) site:
For detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature — whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station placed on grass — but how that temperature changes over time.
Welcome to 1950, Art! You too Anthony. This has always been true. That’s the difference between studying weather and studying climate.
Sigh. One day the penny will drop. And rattle around for hours.
P.S. Why do I keep looking at “Art Horn” and seeing “ad hom”?
“Satellite Temperatures and El Niño“. Steven Goddard has convinced himself that recent satellite temperature observations are “too warm”. He’s compared them the surface temperature records and decided that the satellite record is somehow incorrect because of unspecified El Niño effects. Maybe it’s because of aliens with investments in carbon-neutral technologies?
I thought that the surface temperature records were hopelessly contaminated by Urban Heat Island effect, human incompetence and malevolent selection and were to be ignored (because they showed a strongly significant warming trend) in favor of the purity of satellite measurements (a useful delaying tactic because they were too new to have good statistical meaning). I guess the surface temperature records are fine when they suit the denialist argument du jour.
Here’s what happens: The surface temperature record is only observed at the surface. Satellite measurements reflect a much ‘thicker’ selection of the atmosphere. The vertical transport of heat/moisture has a lag of several months and hence satellite measurements will normally trail surface measurements.