Thursday, September 20, 2012

Willard Tony and Dr. Who

Now some, not Eli of course, have had their fun with Willard Tony, but Eli has always been serious and respectful (oh yeah, well this one was early days).  OTOH there are, to be sure, problems with his approach, his papers and his all around understanding of what he is doing, many of which surfaced with what Roger Pielke the Elder called the major game changing paper in the history of the world, and NigelSteve called crap

Over at the Weasel's, Evan Jones is proclaiming that all is well and fixed.  Well, young Eli asks, what do you find, and Evan says

The City
September 2, 7:52 am
 4.) We find that Tmean trend for compliant (i.e., Class 1\2 stations using Leroy 2010 proximity ratings) stations is fully 0.11C lower than that of poorly sited stations (Class 3\4\5). This includes consideration for both TOBS and MMTS.
5.) Unless LeRoy 2010 is wrong in a manner which reflects on our use of it or unless our ratings are incorrect (or both), our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that stations with poor sitings not only have higher readings, per se, but significantly higher trends as well.
6.) Stations with both good microsite and mesosite warm at a rate of approximately half their NOAA-adjusted trends, which, in turn, coincide with the adjusted trends for poorly sited stations.
7.) Therefore US ground surface temperature is exaggerated by that amount of difference.
Far be it from your humble bunny to throw a spanner into the wheels of progress, but this is EXACTLY what you would expect from the Dr. Who Effect (TM E Rabett).  As Eli pointed out back in the year dot, taking pictures of surface stations today (or in 2009) tells you nothing about the condition of the stations in 1980 or 1950 or whatever, without a functioning time machine.

Watt and Jones classify stations based on recent condition.  If the condition were the same in 1980 or 1950 or whatever, this would yield (with TOBS correction, etc.) a valid trend.

What about stations that were, let us say worse, in 1980, 1950 or whatever, why assuming as they do that measured temperatures for class 3-5 stations are higher, then the trend will be lower.  The Dr. Who Effect which lowers any trend in the Class 1/2 today stations.


Jeffrey Davis said...

The UHI effect in space?

Anonymous said...

Eli makes a very important observation. One that will be lost on Tony and Evan, or at least ignored.


Russell said...

Willard now insists on station enclosures larger on the inside than the outside

Paul Klemencic said...

They still need to do the obvious; compare the well sited stations in grids with the nearest modern USCRN station anomalies, and show the well-sited stations match the USCRN anomalies, and the poorly sited station do not match. Menne did this, and showed no difference for matching USCRN between the two classes.

If they calculated their anomalies correctly for the two sets of stations, they still don't know which is correct. Matching the USCRN data from the last five years, will tell us that.

Possible problem: What if over the last five years both sets of stations selected by Watts match the USCRN stations? If so, then they have a big problem. For their "siting issue makes significant difference in anomaly", to be believable, then there had better be a significant difference between the poorly sited and the best sited stations compared to the gold standard USCRN stations over the the history of the USCRN. If not, it raises exactly the question and issue you talk about in this post.

My goodness, why all this pussyfooting around? If siting is an issue, just compare the poorly sited/good sited anomalies with the "gold standard" USCRN data, and show it. Its that simple.

Menne already did this, although with less USCRN data. He found no difference in the two sets of stations with USCRN station data.

The fact that Watts team is trying to ignore this, suggests something not quite right...

Russell said...

A rising tide lifts no Titanics.

Steve Bloom said...

Every bit of which I, and I hasten to add probably Eli too, pointed out at the time to both Tony and RP Sr. Enough CRN stations were in place with long enough records to do the exercise then.

It's as if the point of the exercise isn't to do science, but to twist things to make the record look bad to the gullible. Imagine that.

Sou said...

Can someone tell me who is Evan Jones (ie skills, background - apart from his ghost-writing role)?

Anonymous said...

Evan Jones, aka 'Jones the Steam', is an engine driver with The Merioneth and Llantisilly Rail Traction Company Limited

I think that's the right one anyway.

Anonymous said...

It used to be that if one didn't laugh, one would cry.

Recently, it's reversed such that if one wasn't crying, one would laugh.

I don't mind admitting that I've actually started shedding a tear or two over what we're doing to the planet. I'm finding it hard to laugh it off anymore...

Bernard J.

Aaron said...

Most of the Earth's surface is ocean, and I assert that even the fastest warming oceans have very few UHI -- even fewer than Antarctica.

Anonymous said...

No, Jones The Steam is a kind, thoughtful sort of fellow. Not sure how happy he'd be to have to electrify Ivor's line though...

Anonymous said...

Evan Jones, aka 'Jones the Steam', is an engine driver with The Merioneth and Llantisilly Rail Traction Company Limited

I think that's the right one anyway.

LOL. A little conflation there. Perhaps there was meant to be, Anon 20/9/12 11:58 PM. And even if it wasn't meant, it seems apposite.

It was Edwin Jones (Jones the Steam) that drove Ivor. There was an Evan Evans (Evans the Song), choirmaster of The Grumbley and District Choral Society, who was Edwin's wife's uncle. I have the DVD! :-)

You must have parsed the information through the TARDIS (Tony's Absurd Revisionism Dis-Information Service).

Cymraeg llygoden

J Bowers said...

1428 Jones, VC?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

meanwhile...a deep global cooling has set in over the Antarctic continent.

5th highest daily recorded measurement yesterday

and ho ho ho, Eli's most hated statistic:

“Antarctic ice is much more important than that of the Arctic. The area of its sea ice is a million square kilometres larger than the highest value ever recorded in the Arctic. Then, of course, the Antarctic is an entire continent, with more than 90% of the earth’s glacial ice” said Mr Brill."

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.


the fact is trusting these siting stations is too risky. The fact is, this is the 21st century, not the 20th century. These stations should have on board computers providing continuous real time updates. Here at my work I refuse to use the fax machine, email has replaced it. The current state of the surface stations are comparable to antiquated fax machines.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Ah, I can see that we can add the temperature record to the already long list of what Lumpus Spunkydrawers does not understand.

Allow me to acquaint you with some facts, dear Lumpus:
1)The effects of station siting have been examined by multiple authors--it has no effect on trends.
2)Since the relevant trend is the anomaly, it is robust to most siting issues.
3)We have 6 different temperature series--4 land based, 2 satellite based--and they all agree pretty well on the magnitude of the warming.
4)Glaciers and sea ice are melting. Spring is coming earlier each year. USDA had to shift its growing zones a full unit north.

Would you like more, or are you too busy helping Willard rearrange the deck chairs on his sinking ship?

Anonymous said...

Well, it appears that a certain dimwitted poster here does not realize that many of the stations in the GHCN network *are* fully computerized and do provide fully automated daily updates. (Daily updates providing far more temporal resolution than necessary for climatological studies).

In fact, there are far more of them than you actually need to confirm the long-term global temperature trends computed by NASA/etc.

Here is what you get when you take *raw* temperature data from fewer than 70 of those stations and run that data through a college-freshman-friendly gridding/averaging procedure:

If the critics (Watts, etc.) weren't so darned lazy, incompetent and dishonest, they would have figured this out (and acknowledged it) *years* ago.

--caerbannog the anonybunny

Lionel A said...

Oh lump you do go on.

'meanwhile...a deep global cooling has set in over the Antarctic continent.'

Can you not see the contradictions in that statement? Hint, if its global it ain't restricted to Antarctica.

Of course is a cooling trend there, it is at the end of the Earth that is now in Winter.

Increasing sea ice is not offsetting the loss of mass of Antarctic continental ice. Where do you think the source of the increased precipitation is which is increasing sea ice in some sectors. Note that in other sectors of the continental periphery that the sea ice has receded see here and play around with it. Oh and don't forget to set for Southern if needs be.

And then there is this Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas

Anonymous said...

a deep global cooling has set in over the Antarctic continent.

Wow! Antarctica now covers the whole of the Northern Hemisphere as well as all the Southern Hemisphere. When did that happen? Must have been whilst I was asleep last night!

And then you follow the chocolate teapot's link to find

“It is unfortunate that under-informed writers, albeit unwittingly, mislead their readers ...

which, if it wasn't for "unwittingly, mislead" would break the irony-meter.

And the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: who are they?

Ah, yes... "Inaugural 'Climate' Scientists" and advisers of the stature of Vincent Gray (coal chemist), Bob Carter (geologist), David Bellamy (yes, that DB), Warwick Hughes, Chris de Freitas, ...

“Antarctic ice is much more important than that of the Arctic..."

And what do the real cryosphere experts say about that? Try NSIDC, for example.

Now who to believe? Gosh, that's a hard one! Ooh, er, missus!

Time-waster extraordinaire! That CT scan of your head obviously found nothing, Lumpy Chockytooth.

Oh, yes... And when your carrier's/ISP's servers are down for maintenance or that DNS attack is in full swing, and you just have to get that information forwarded, what do you do? Wait 3 or 4 days for Blackberry or whoever to get their act together, or use that 19th/20th century technology called the facsimile machine?

Cymraeg llygoden

Anonymous said...

Hey Spunky, Tamino just demolished this imbecilic "look, a squirrel" Antarctic argument that you've cribbed from Steven "it snows CO2 in Antarctica" Goddard:

It's Arctic sea ice all-time record minimum day number 27, sweetie. And counting.

You're not just a fool, you're an unoriginal fool.

Russell said...

"Would you like more, or are you too busy helping Willard rearrange the deck chairs on his sinking ship?"

Cunard abandoned deck chairs after the Wattsatania was stalked, struck, stove in and sunk by a great white urban heat island on a clear night in 1912.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

There are a lot of opinions out there. Regarding arctic ice being more imporant than the Antarctic, go figure. You guys of course are going to say the north pole is more important. Sorry but that's an opinion, and I'm of the opinion that because Antarctica has so much more ice, it's more important.

Secondly, Tamino does not let me comment at his site so I cannot ask the blockbuster question of him.

If Tamino is asserting that the arctic melt is from global warming, he has to post the daily temperature changes. Failure to do so leaves his claim as nothing but an assertion.

My comment about the deep global cooling was a joke. Honestly, I won't assert that the ice has increased because the temperature has dropped...because I haven't looked at the daily temperatures. So its possible temperature went down or maybe it didn't change and the increase is NATURAL.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

Additionally, I do not trust NSIDC's opinions. It is shameful for them to trumpet the decrease in the north pole, while running a bogus story about penguins being affected by climate change in Antarctica. Unless the assertion is that more ice and cooler temperatures are bad for penguins.

Russell said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.:

"There are a lot of opinions out there"

A complete field guide to the opinion leaders of the lumpusproletariat is now avaialable !

Sou said...

Lumpus is good - a bit too good to be real IMO.

Anonymous said...

Yes, there is more than one sort of poe.

The dry, ironic poe is one thing, and I think that I might have posted a few comments in that vein in my time, but the ones who are just trying stir a reaction for the pervere fun of it are no better than the fools they pretend to be.

Lumpy Rottentooth isn't in the first category.

Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Anonymous said...


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Lionel A said...


'Unless the assertion is that more ice and cooler temperatures are bad for penguins.'

You clearly know nought about the life cycle of penguins just as you know nought about climate and its change because of global warming.

Maybe if soon you have to walk further so as to get food for your brood then you might, just might, get that big light on your head to illuminate. Make the light a a LED type though else your nuts will fall out.

J Bowers said...

A good piece by Jeff Masters on Arctic sea ice.

david lewis said...

A photo to go with the police box graphic you've used in your post. Mayhem at WUWT?

Lionel A said...

In that photo JBowers

that is not an ice axe but a pick axe. Probably the one used by mineralogist come mining company geologist McIntyre to attack and destroy the hockey stick.

An attack which failed due to the numerous other hockey sticks around. But then McIntyre had no intention of playing hockey finding hokey easier to engage in.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

@Lionel A

"Maybe if soon you have to walk further so as to get food for your brood then you might, just might, get that big light on your head to illuminate. Make the light a a LED type though else your nuts will fall out."

according to the Red Cross, obesity is more of an epidemic than starvation, so frankly I am concerned about a food surplus crisis.

Lionel A said...

Lumpus completely missing the point:

'...according to the Red Cross, obesity is more of an epidemic than starvation, so frankly I am concerned about a food surplus crisis.'

You were writing about penguins and that is to which I responded so how is this switch in topic justified?

The name shifting, shape shifting anymouse [not sic] atrikes again.

Anonymous said...

"Lumpus completely missing the point..."

There's also the small matter of the fact that obese Westerners are fed by the contemporary extravagant slurping of a one-off energy bonanza whilst they vigorously prime the climate to burp at the same time that the guzzling finishes.

It matters not whether they're fat today if there's a shortage of food tomorrow. Svelteville will only be a flicker whizzing past as the express heads on its way to the metropolis of post-oil/new-greenhouse synergy.

Something to which all of the Mariah Careys of the West can look forward.

Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.