The Malthusian insult (via Krugman's blog)

[phantom power]

I’ve received a fair bit of correspondence denouncing me for saying that we have to do something about climate change. Among the various insults is the claim that I’m just another Malthus — which is interesting.

Leave aside the climate science issues. What very few people realize is that Malthus was right about most of human history — indeed, he was right about roughly 58 out of 60 centuries of civilization: living standards basically did not improve from the era of the first Pharaohs to the age of Louis XIV, because any technological gains were swallowed up by population pressure. We only think Malthus got it wrong because the two centuries he was wrong about were the two centuries that followed the publication of his work.

Here’s a chart from Brad DeLong, showing population versus real wages in Britain. It was only in the late 17th century that Britain began to diverge from a simple population-wages curve; other parts of the world stayed Malthusian much longer.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/the-malthusian-insult/

[The Croquist]

1. So let me get this straight

He wasn't really wrong even though his prediction was wrong because he looked back in time and saw that it happened back then but even though he predicted that it would happen in the future and it didn't, he wasn't really wrong because it happened in the past and therefor he was right even if what he said wasn't right.

Sounds like a plan for the Global Warming community. Temperatures aren't going up but that's OK because Global warming predicts that temperatures will either go up, go down or stay the same.

Now I get it!

[phantom power]

2. I'll supply my take on that point....

As you say, Malthus made some predictions based on past behaviors, and sadly for him, certain conditions changed dramatically just as he was writing about it. Mostly, what changed was that humans discovered fossil fuels.

Now, depending on who you believe, either we're not going to find an economical replacement for fossil fuels, in which case the last 200 years will indeed be a temporary exception, or we will find a way to continue moving forward with some other affordable energy sources, in which case maybe the "exception" will continue.

Complex systems periodically overshoot their carrying capacity, and corrections result that are proportional to the overcorrection. Equilibrium will re-establish, with or without us, and the system will continue its evolution from there.

[Viking12]

3. Temperatures aren't going up?

Pull your head out of your ass.

[The Croquist]

4. Temperatures

Temperatures peaked in 1998 and have since dropped and stabilized. It depends on the start date. From 1979 they are higher (+0.12 C). From 1998 they are lower (-0.46)

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

1979 -0.073
1980 0.088
1981 0.053
1982 -0.153
1983 0.036
1984 -0.258
1985 -0.213
1986 -0.147
1987 0.110
1988 0.109
1989 -0.110
1990 0.074
1991 0.118
1992 -0.191
1993 -0.149
1994 -0.012
1995 0.111
1996 0.022
1997 0.047
1998 0.514
1999 0.041
2000 0.035
2001 0.198
2002 0.312
2003 0.275
2004 0.196
2005 0.339
2006 0.261
2007 0.282
2008 0.049

Data. It's important...

[bhikkhu]

5. "it depends on the start date"

yes, in a fluctuating system you can pick data points that make the trend look any way you want it to if you are selective enough, proving what?

Data is important enough that you should look at a bit more of it before stating a position.

[The Croquist]

6. Actually that is my point as well.

Temperatures haven't moved much for 10 years but they are higher then 30 years ago. The question is how long a period of time is long enough?

[GliderGuider]

7. Re: "how long a period of time is long enough?"

For me the last 130 years is convincing:




The correlation of anthropogenic CO2 production and the 5-year smoothed average of temperature change is obvious. That renders all further dispute moot.

[The Croquist]

8. I've looked at the records going back to 1880

and I find them less then trustworthy.

January 1880 for example has two temperature records for Africa and none for either South America or Antarctica but they claim that they know the earths temperature to with a tenth of a degree for that month.

Here is their map *:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=05&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=01&year1=1880&year2=1880&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

The only continents with decent coverage are Europe and North America and even that is a stretch. Not much of Canada and hardly any of Mexico or Greenland is covered.
The claim that the earth was 0.50 C above normal. Funny thing is back in February they claimed it was 0.47 C above normal. Why did it change? It changes about every other month.

* Disclaimer. They have an option for a smoothing radius of either 250 km or 1,200 km. I choose 250. Using 1,200 is equivalent to claiming that you know the temperature in New York because you have a thermometer in Chicago.

[Viking12]

9. Yes, data are important. You just have no fucking clue what they say.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/breaking-records/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/

[The Croquist]

10. Thanks for the links

I agree with much of the first link:
Breaking Records
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/breaking-records/

I am disappointed however that he didn't include the Satellite data. It is out there and available. 1998 was a weird year. If more then one source hadn't confirmed it, it would be considered questionable but that is not what happened. Every source that I am aware of confirmed it.

I have tried to explain here many times why I question the surface record but nobody seems interested. I won't bother to try again (for the second time today).

Looking at the satellite data shows a different picture and it is the satellite data that I posted.

Regardless it is foolish to claim that because the 1998 record still stands, that is "proof" that there is no global warming man made or otherwise and I have never said that but the fact that temperatures have more or less stabilized it the last 10 years is interesting. I don't even dispute that they ARE higher today then they were 30 years ago. The current decade will be the warmest in the history of the 3 decade record but 3 decades isn't very long. What I said was:

"Temperatures peaked in 1998 and have since dropped and stabilized. It depends on the start date. From 1979 they are higher (+0.12 C). From 1998 they are lower (-0.46)."

The second link is just a hit piece.

He says that 2005 was the hottest year on record without mentioning that other records including one he cited in the first link disagrees with that statement. He goes on to say that the decade also had the lowest summer arctic ice extent ever observed (2007), and the highest sea level in recorded history (2008...). All of that is true but he doesn't mention that we've only got 30 years nor does he mention that sea level has been rising for the last 20,000 years and at double the current rate.

He then proceeds to insult anyone that disagrees with him.

[Viking12]

11. You're completely clueless.

Temperatures have not "stabilized" -- they continue their upward trend. That you have no idea what a trend means statistically does not mean it is not occurring. Moreover, you act as if satellite temperatures are some of raw data -- news flash: the satellite data is extremely manipulated, spatially limited and, thus, has it's own flaws. Nevertheless, various records of surface temps, satellite temps and multiple proxy datasets all point to the unquestionable conclusion that temps continue to rise.

Face it, you're a scientifically & statistically illiterate clown that repeats every stupid denial talking point whether or not their consistent with your other goofy claims.

[The Croquist]

12. I am well aware of the RSS and UAH satellite data and the basic process.

I am well aware of the RSS and UAH satellite data and the basic process. Where did I say that it was "raw data"?

I am also aware of the GISS data and the basic process (Hadley not so much).

All systems have their strengths and weaknesses. I also noticed that you didn't address my concerns but instead threw insults.

Why didn't Tamino include the satellite data in his analysis? Why did he cherry pick data in your second link to support his opinion while accusing others of doing the exact same thing? Why does he feel the need to throw insults?

I try to avoid throwing insults but nobody's perfect.

[Viking12]

13. I addressed your so-called concerns and then called you an idiot

Your "concerns" are strawmen. Typical denier. Repeat bullshit over and over, then when called out for stupidly repeating long debunked bullshit, cry persecution

[The Croquist]

14. So where did you address my concerns?

You posted:
You're completely clueless. Temperatures have not "stabilized" -- they continue their upward trend. That you have no idea what a trend means statistically does not mean it is not occurring. Moreover, you act as if satellite temperatures are some of raw data -- news flash: the satellite data is extremely manipulated, spatially limited and, thus, has it's own flaws. Nevertheless, various records of surface temps, satellite temps and multiple proxy datasets all point to the unquestionable conclusion that temps continue to rise.

Face it, you're a scientifically & statistically illiterate clown that repeats every stupid denial talking point whether or not their consistent with your other goofy claims.
Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

Then you claim that I addressed your so-called concerns and then called you an idiot

Your "concerns" are strawmen. Typical denier. Repeat bullshit over and over, then when called out for stupidly repeating long debunked bullshit, cry persecution

Exactly where did you address my concern regarding Tamino ignoring the satellite record?

Exactly where did you address my concern that Tamino in your first link posted multiple sources (but not the satellite record) and in the second post choose the one that best fit his agenda?

Exactly where do you address my observation that sea level has been rising for the last 20,000 years at twice the current rate but Tamino neglected to include that in his statement about the highest sea level in recorded history

Come on. If I'm such an idiot it should be easy to address my concerns

[Viking12]

15. You don't create a trend line by picking two points out of the data, subtracting one from the other

I assumed that was clear to anyone with an elementary understanding of the maths. If I really have to spell out that very simple axiom from freshman stats you're even fucking dumber then you appear to be. The data show clear warming trends no matter which dataset you use. There. Your "concerns" are specifically addressed. It makes no difference that tamino used GISS rather than Hadley or UAH or RSS (interesting, though, how you fail to justify your choice while demanding that tamino do so -- btw, the reason is quite obvious if you read his post)

Add to that, your completely contradictory acceptance of seas level rise data from 20,000 years ago and failure to accept surface temp data from 130 years ago. As I said, your concerns are whackadoodle denier bullshit. You don't even recognize the inconsistency in your bullshit. I don't need to treat people who deny reality with any respect, they simply don't deserve any.

[The Croquist]

16. a 400 feet of sea level rise over 20,000 years

is a lot easier to identify then temperature within a tenth of a degree a year when 2 of the 7 continents don't even have a temperature record.

If you are looking at 20,000 years and 400 feet it doesn't make much difference if the start date is off by a thousand years or the initial sea level is off by 20 feet. It's still about 2 feet per century which is double the current rate.

If you are determining the temperature of all of Africa for a specific month by one thermometer in Sao Tome and another in Algeria it makes a hell of a difference if:
1. The thermometers are accurate.
2. The people who recorded the data did it accurately.
3. You have the gaul to claim that you can do it within a tenth of a degree.

Since you asked I'll be happy to justify the use of satellite data. I use satellite data because the surface data is crap. It's crap today, it will be crap tomorrow and it was probably crap 50 years ago. The reason it is crap today is that the people responsible for the integrity of the system don't give a rats ass about quality control. Yes I know "I'm an idiot". It doesn't matter to you that 90% of the USHCN stations are out of compliance with their own requirements because "deniers" identified them as such. The fact that they documented their findings is unimportant to you. 58% are inaccurate by 2 degrees or more and another 11% are inaccurate by at least 5 degrees. None of that matters to you because you can type insults.

Joe Romm dismisses it as "propaganda". Notice how he doesn't dispute it. He just dismisses it. I've seen it explained that the problems can be "adjusted" away but they didn't even know which stations had biases. How do you adjust something that you haven't even identified? Speaking of identifying, did you know that it got down to -27 degrees in Key West last Saturday. It's a little joke in the "denier" community. We're waiting to see how long it will take the high quality NOAA people to notice. Some how a idiotic "denier" who doesn't get paid spotted it but the highly trained scientists didn't. Maybe they should write a line of code saying that if a temperature is off by more then 20 degrees C. (36 F.) from expected it should be checked out. Key West was off by about 107 degrees.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KEYW.html

GISS shows the temperature of Kazakhstan centered around 46 degrees East and 57 degrees North as 19.4967 C (35 F)above normal in January of 2002. Since it was the only record in the area they assigned this temperature to about 64,000 sq kilometers. I live in Stone Mountain Georgia where the average July temperatures are 88F (high) and 67F (low). Let's add 35 to that. That would mean that the average high would be 125 and the average low would be 102 for a whole month! The all time record high for Stone Mountain is 102 (according to weather.com, that sounds low to me). You don't question numbers like that? Why should you, GISS doesn't? And you call me an idiot. It's been 7 years and they still are showing this crap.

Now the USHCN is just US data. Maybe Haiti's data is better. How about that fine Soviet data or the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians or the Somalian data? Its bound to be accurate, right?

The reason I say the data was probably crap 50 years ago was that nobody really knows what it looked like 50 years ago. It was not designed to measure temperatures to within a tenth of a degree. These records were kept by postmasters, fireman, town clerks and newspapermen. To them within a couple of degrees was just fine. They would measure the temperature when they got around to it. It wasn't a job.

I'll tell you another bunch of old data I trust more then temperature. Sunspots. To measure temperature 100 years ago you need accurate measurements taken by thousands of individuals scattered around the planet all of which were willing to be as accurate as possible even though they weren't too worried about it and thats just on land. The oceans still wouldn't be covered. Who do you think took these temperatures? Sao Tome was a Portuguese colony in 1880 and Algeria was a French colony. Do you think that Sao Tome had a climatologist on staff? It was probably some rich plantation owner who did it for a hobby or the harbor master. At least we know it wasn't a slave. They had abolished slavery 4 years before! Most of the non-European and non-North American temperatures were taken in colonies. India has a few as does Australia and New Zealand. China zip. South America zip. Central America zip. Japan zip. Alaska 1 and Antarctica zip.

To measure sunspots 200 years ago you needed about a half a dozen astronomers around the world. One of them will have a clear sky every day and they kept detailed records. That doesn't mean the record is flawless just that it's better then the surface record. That's not much of a threshold to meet.

[kristopher]

17. You really don't know anything about working with data sets, do you?

So let me get this straight: with 6 anomalous readings over the course of 9 hours you actually think you've found the smoking gun that disproves the data behind our understanding of anthropogenic climate change?

That is 6 entries out of a total data set that included from this one station 8760 entries in that year. I'd guess that within 200 miles of this monitoring station there are another 2 dozen stations recording data at the same rate. And if you place it in the context of the entire pool of information being analyzed, it becomes clear that the sheer bulk of the data is a protection against this type of instrumentation malfunction. Rather than accept that demonstrable fact, however, you will probably rush your politically motivated mind to the conclusion that since this type of error even occurs, we can't trust any of the data that is collected by this system.

That's false. When the information is used for analysis of a given, specific problem, issues like this are evaluated and the entire set is subject to scrutiny as to its validity. When and if it is used, the reliability of the data is a part of what goes into establishing the level of confidence in the results. It isn't hidden, it is a part of any properly prepared academic or scientific paper.

The "finding" that you've shared with us isn't high on anyone but a denier's radar because it is an irrelevant anomalous burp that has virtually no impact on the overall validity of the data set.

[The Croquist]

18. There is no smoking gun.

The point I was trying to make is that quality control sucks. No doubt they will fix it. By the way it could be a lot more then just 6 entries. There was either an equipment failure or somebody covered it with dry ice. I'm betting that it was equipment failure. Just because other numbers look reasonable doesn't mean they can be trusted. They were taken at Key west International airport. No doubt the traffic control tower or whoever gives weather conditions to flights ignored that. Hopefully they also reported the problem up stream. As I said it is a little joke in the "denier" community.

Being on Key West there won't be another 2 dozen stations recording data but that's immaterial.

If the "entire set is subject to scrutiny as to its validity" how do you explain the issue I provided regarding Kazakhstan? It's been 7 years and counting. Do you really believe that it was 35 F. above normal there for an entire month? 7 years is a long time to not catch something if the "entire set is subject to scrutiny as to its validity".

90% of the USCHN's stations are out of compliance. That doesn't mean the planet hasn't warmed (I think it has). What it means is that we don't really have a good idea as to what the temperature of the US was at any given time (unless you trust the satellite data) or that we can say that relatively minor temperature changes are out of the norm of natural fluctuation. Do you think that 35 degrees above average shouldn't be "high on anyone but a denier's radar because it is an irrelevant anomalous burp that has virtually no impact on the overall validity of the data set."?

You also ignored my comment about if the US data is so bad what about the rest of the world. You can argue that there are better systems in a few countries but to think that the rest of the world is accurate while we suck defies logic.

[Viking12]

19. You've provided no evidence that the US data is "so bad"

You provide no evidence that surface data is "crap". You looked at a few pictures on a deniers website and drew that conclusion with no corroborating evidence, no statistical analysis. As kristopher rightly points out, you are statistically and scientifically illiterate.

[Iterate]

20. This was peer reviewed and published recently

From Geophysical Research Letters. It was highlighted by the editors.

"Decade-long cooling trends can occur within long-term global warming

Some Web sites, blogs, and media articles have pointed to the fact that average global temperature has not risen since 1998 as evidence against anthropogenic global warming. Although most climate scientists recognize the statistical insignificance of such short-term trends, Easterling and Wehner (2009) noted that some segments of the public do pay attention to them. To quell such objections, they argued that such short periods are not meaningful in the context of long-term climate change. The authors analyzed the observed globally averaged surface air temperatures for the period 1901—2008 as well as several climate model simulations for the twentieth and 21st centuries, including anthropogenically forced models. They plotted the probability distribution functions for decadal temperature trends and found that in the observed record and all models, decade-long periods of cooling can occur even within a strong overall warming trend. The authors expect that due to the natural variability of the real climate, in the 21st century there will probably be some multiyear periods of cooling or constant temperature within longer-term anthropogenic global warming."

Published: 25 April 2009
Citation: Easterling, D. R., and M. F. Wehner (2009), Is the climate warming or cooling?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L08706, doi:10.1029/2009GL037810.
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/highlights/highlights.cgi?action=show&doi=10.1029/2009GL037810&jc=gl

The first author is Dr. David R. Easterling, Principal Scientist at the National Climatic Data Center, and is responsible for the collection of GDCN data. The second author, Michael F. Wehner, is a member of the Scientific Computing Group at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. He designs global climate models and is responsible for the analysis of their output.

[The Croquist]

24. Real Climate is talking about this as well but I think it's a different study.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/#more-686

They say that temperature increases may not resume until about 2020. That would be about a 20 year pause depending on the data you use. What I don't understand is why a 20 year temperature increase is proof but a 20 year pause is unimportant.

It also contradicts what Tamino said on 06/29:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/breaking-records/

"We see that the most likely single year in which to break the record is year 10 (2008), although there’s still considerable probability that the record will last longer than that. In fact, there’s a 6.9% chance the record will last 14 years — until 2012 — even assuming, as we have done, that global temperature is a steady increase plus random noise. Hence the “95% confidence limit” (the standard in scientific research) is 14 years; only if the record lasts beyond 2012 do we have statistically significant evidence of any change in the global warming pattern."

[Viking12]

30. It does nothing to contradict tamino

They're talking about two different statistical concepts. One is discussing trends while another explores the probability of "peaks" within that trend. Again, you're ignorance shows.

[kristopher]

21. Just as predicted...

I said your politically motivated mind would rush to this false conclusion and you did not fail to disappoint...
"Just because other numbers look reasonable doesn't mean they can be trusted. "

You didn't understand a word I wrote. Suggest you try reading for comprehension (if that is possible). I'll not trouble your political mind further with explanations that are in the realm of science. Instead let's take the discussion into the arena where you are actually functioning - politics.

Do you know what was the biggest political problem facing the Republicans in 1992 and what they did to address it?

[The Croquist]

22. Statistical analysis; 31 pages

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Page 10:
According to Section 2.2. of the Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook, “the most desirable local surrounding landscape is a relatively large and flat open area with low local vegetation in order that the sky view is unobstructed in all directions except at the lower angles of altitude above the horizon.” Five classes of sites – ranging from most reliable to least – are defined:

Class 1: Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (less than 19º). Grass/low vegetation ground cover less than 10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading for a sun elevation greater than 3 degrees.

Class 2: Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding vegetation less than 25 centimeters. Artificial heating sources within 30 meters. No shading for a sun elevation greater than 5º.

Class 3: (error 1ºC) Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4: (error greater than 2ºC) Artificial heating sources less than 10 meters.

Class 5: (error greater than 5ºC) Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such as a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.

Page 15:
Volunteers for the Surface Stations Project have surveyed 865 stations, more than 70 percent of the USHCN’s 1,221-station network, as of this writing.

Page 18:
3% are CRN 1 with a margin of error of less then 1 C.
8% are CRN 2 with a margin of error of less then 1 C.
20% are CRN 3 with a margin of error of 1 to 2 C.
58% are CRN 4 with a margin of error greater then 2 C.
11% are CRN 5 with a margin of error greater then 5 C.

Yes it is a "denier" site but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. It's also has more then a few pictures. At a guess I'd say it's between 8,000 and 10,000 pictures.

None of this means that the earth hasn't warmed. It just means that the data is crap. You can look at individual stations here:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=20

Why don't you pick the one closest to you and have a look.

This one is mine, Covington, GA:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1914
It rates as a 4 because it is 15 feet from a building and has an air conditioner 20 feet away.

"Just because other numbers look reasonable doesn't mean they can be trusted."

When "reasonable" numbers are bracketed by unreasonable numbers, there is every reason to question the "reasonable" numbers. I'm not talking about numbers a week earlier or a year earlier. I'm talking about the numbers from 07/11 onward at least until it's inspected.

1992 Politics:
"It's the economy stupid".

[Viking12]

23. I knew it. A "Watts" troll.

Find me an analysis that is published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication and not the fucking Heartland Institute. I'm done w/ you. You clearly have no idea what science is.

[The Croquist]

25. You already new it was a Watts study.

Who else has audited the USHCN?

[Nederland]

27. You need to address the issue though

I disagree with The Croquist on global warming, but our side is not served by denying the facts. It is a fact that the USCHN's stations are not in complience with their own standards. Thousands of pictures prove that point. The impact that the lack of compliance has can be argued, but to deny that the US surface temperature data records have serious quality problems is to be, well, a denier.

[Viking12]

28. I never said they were perfect. No dataset is.

To say that they have "serious" quality problems is unsubstantiated. Moreover, the construction of the surface temp takes into account the occasional poor data and makes necessary adjustments. BTW, building a surface temp compilation using only stations in the top 2 tiers demonstrates MORE warming than does a a compilation using data from all 5 tiers.

Watts' long track record of very stupid "analysis" dismisses him from being taken seriously. Show me an honest, peer-reviewed analysis and then we'll talk.

[Nederland]

29. Question

If you were to create a surface temp compilation using only stations in the top 2 tiers, what percentage of stations would be left? Would the result be what you would call a comprehensive dataset?

[Viking12]

31. It's not the percentage of stations left that matter.

It's the spatial coverage of those stations. More likely than not, it will still be sufficient to be "comprehensive".

[The Croquist]

32. I started a post on that on 06/25

Here is my post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x199920

Here was NOAA's reply:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

This specific section comes close to answering your question.

Q. What can we say about poor siting’s impact on national temperature trends?
A. We are limited in what we can say due to limited information about station siting. Surfacestations.org has examined about 70% of the 1221 stations in NOAA’s Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). According to their web site of early June 2009, they classified 70 USHCN version 2 stations as good or best (class 1 or 2). The criteria used to make that classification is based on NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook so the criteria are clear. But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown.
However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis.
Two national time series were made using the same gridding and area averaging technique. One analysis was for the full data set. The other used only the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yet the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication for this analysis that poor current siting is imparting a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.

Naturally Watts disagrees:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/ncdc-writes-ghost-talking-points-rebuttal-to-surfacestations-project/#more-8837

The only response I got to my post was this:
jpak (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-25-09 07:44 PM

1. Anthony Watts is a stupid fuck
there, I said it

[Viking12]

33. jpak is a wise man

[Nederland]

35. jpak is not a wise man

A wise man would not be so dismissive of a person that has brought to light some serious scientific criticisms of the way data is being gathered. Watts may be wrong, but he is not a stupid fuck.

That being said, I found Anthony Watts rebuttal lacking. He nit picks the NOAA response with completely irrelevant points such as "they got the title of my report wrong" and points that may or may not be irrelevant such as "they used an old dataset". A substantial response would consist of Watts running an analysis of the class 1&2 sites on the most recent data and offering up the results. He doesn't do that, so I see no real reason to disagree with the NOAA assertion that eliminating the underperforming stations has no effect on the trends.

[Viking12]

36. yawn

A) Watts did not bring to light any limitations of the dataset that were not already known by those doing the work. Examine Watts "science" and, yes, it's clear he's a stupid fuck where science is concerned. A hell of a propagandist, yes.

B) Again, you use the word "serious" where there is no evidence that the so-called 'issues' are serious. Are you Croquist's sockpuppet?

[The Croquist]

38. Welcome to my world Nederland N/T

[Viking12]

39. Misery loves company

[Nederland]

40. No, I'm not The Croquist's sockpuppet.

A quick look at my profile would have told you that I have over 7000 posts and have been a member of DU since 2001.

But I suppose actually taking the time to review the facts of a supposition is too much to ask for in this forum.

[The Croquist]

37. Here is the problem with an analysis of different classes

What Watts has been doing is a snapshot. He is attempting to determine the quality of the stations "today". "Today has taken a couple of years to accomplish and I'm sure that the quality of some of the stations has changed. Nobody knows what they were like 5, 10, 50, 100 years ago. That information simply doesn't exist. That's not Watt's fault or NOAA's fault (until recently). That's simply a fact of life. Before Watts nobody cared. 5, 10, 50, 100 years from now we will have a better handle on it because of his work. We would have an even better idea if NOAA cleaned up their act but it doesn't appear that they are willing to do that.

Some stations that are class 1 today may have been much worse decades ago and vice versa. These stations move around as old volunteers die or quit, move, buildings are torn down or enlarged, equipment changes or Stevenson screens age. To focus on the current class 1's and 2's without knowing what they were like in the past is mixing apples and oranges.

Is it convenient for the "deniers", perhaps, but most "deniers" don't deny that the earth has warmed. What we "deny is that we know by how much or that we know why it has happened.

That's why I like the satellite data. It has problems too but at least it is easier to control.

The worst thing is that Watts is only dealing with the lower '48 states of the US. Who knows what is happening in the rest of the world.

[kristopher]

26. In 1992 the Republicans were foundering because

The collapse of the Soviet Union had left them without their ace-in-the-hole bogeyman that fueled the fear at the core of their party's unity.

Their answer?

To use the 1992 Rio Earth Summit as an opening to begin a campaign of misinformation that transformed the environmental movement into a replacement enemy around which their party could coalesce.

You are part of the political movement of "environmental skepticism" which flowed directly from that decision to demonize (ala the tobacco disinformation campaign) the science behind public policy that threatened the elites in the Republican power base.

I'm sure you think you are engaged in legitimate discourse, but what you fail to recognize is that this discourse isn't in the scientific realm as you think it is. Nor is it using the rules of evidence that apply to the scientific realm. You are using political tactics and strategies in argumentation and trying to engage people on matters of science.

That is why you experience so much ridicule and rejection. You see such reaction as confirmation of the validity of your positions, but it isn't; it is frustration that you are talking about things you clearly don't understand.

Let me repeat that:
You are making and *hearing* political style discourse.

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW REAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE IS CONDUCTED NOR WHAT THE RULES OF SUCH DISCOURSE ARE.

You have been GIVEN, by people with nefarious intent, a set of tools to encourage you to engage in this behavior.

You are, therefore, a tool of the right wing elite no matter what your intentions are.

[The Croquist]

34. I am not a tool of the right wing.

I read both sides of the issue and try to understand it. I try to present "facts". "Facts" can be disputed and can certainly be wrong but I have found that my "facts", rather then be disputed are simple ignored or ridiculed because they don't fit a preconceived notion of what the "facts" are. That is not science. Feel free to question my "facts" but don't just toss them out.

I question the surface record and instead of hearing a defense of it I am insulted. No amount of insults can erase the "fact" that GISS claims to know accurately what the temperature of the planet was 130 years ago with maybe half a dozen temperature records on the southern half of the planet.

Maybe I don't know how "REAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE IS CONDUCTED NOR WHAT THE RULES OF SUCH DISCOURSE ARE." but I'm learning. They are conducted by insulting those who disagree with you. Is that the right answer?

Take a look at NOAA's map. It's not my map:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=05&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=01&year1=1880&year2=1880&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

Those are their "facts". Explain to me how you think that is ample coverage to figure out the temperature of the planet with any degree of accuracy.

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit is an interesting take but I'm sticking with "It's the economy, stupid".

The country was in a recession and a recession will beat ecology any day among the voters.