Big global warming meeting in Canada

[BlasterBates]

But in spite of that gets a paper published on meterology...

Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends - Fall - 2011 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library

just saying like....

Could there just be a hint of prejudice in those comments because you disagree with him...

[pjclarke]

Could there just be a hint of prejudice in those comments because you disagree with him...

He disagrees with himself. That paper - Fall et all (2011) is a good example of the peer-review system acting as it should. On his blog Watts gives free rein to his bias, partiality and scientific illiteracy. Free speech, and all that. Part of his schtick is that the US surface temperature record is unreliable and biased warm, and by implication so is the rest of the world and therefore there is no GW; fhe's put out a few laughable 'reports' to that effect, including one which asserts:-

Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

and he launched the 'citizen science' surface stations project to gather evidence of poor station siting.

So far, so good. But to get past peer-review requires a little more rigour and the 2011 paper, while it found that station siting has an impact on trends in the max and min temperatures, concluded ...

Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications .

which confirmed the results of Menne et al (2010) that

'we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting'

Oh dear. Undeterred, Watts undertook yet another 'analysis' for publication and announced on his blog that 'New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial'. That was in 2012, and we still await submission of the paper to a journal, apparently it is being reworked after several reviewers pointed out that the analysis in the paper does not actually support the conclusion.

He's on a road to nowhere, amusing to watch. The surface record matches the satellite record so closely that it is inconceivable that the warming trend is an artefact.

[BlasterBates]

So you know better than the experts for that journal...


Why don't you publish a rebuttal?

...or could it be you've no idea what you're talking about. Just saying....

when people lose an argument they often resort to slagging

[pjclarke]

So you know better than the experts for that journal...

That's not what I said. The journal article seems sound. My point was that the analysis for the paper found that station siting has no impact on the surface trend record in the US, which flatly contradicts previous claims by Watts on his blog, and in his Heartland-funded 'reports', yet has he issued any corrections, retractions?

Business as usual. 'Blog science' tells one story, but when they have to meet the demands of peer review, the claims disappear like fairy dust.

[original PM]

Yeah but I was watching soemthing on the artic or antartic the other day and the geezer narrating said that the sea temperature under the ice had not chnaged from the -2 it was for about 25 million years

so does this mean sea temp around the poles is not going up?

[pjclarke]

Southern Ocean (Antarctica)

The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean
shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the
20th century.

Peer-reviewed journal article 1.

Arctic Ocean

We find that many areas cooled up to 0.5C per decade during
1930–1965 as the Arctic Oscillation (AO) index generally
fell, while these areas warmed during 1965–1995 as the AO
index generally rose. Warming is particularly pronounced
since 1995, and especially since 2000. Summer 2007 SST
anomalies are up to 5C.

Peer-reviewed journal article 2

(SST = Sea Surface Temperature)

[pjclarke]

Oh, and I hope you weren't driving the lorry while you were watching TV.

[EternalOptimist]

Yeah but I was watching soemthing on the artic or antartic the other day and the geezer narrating said that the sea temperature under the ice had not chnaged from the -2 it was for about 25 million years

so does this mean sea temp around the poles is not going up?

up till recently, sea temperature were measured by chucking a bucket over the side, hauling it up and sticking a thermometer in it.

now these climate geniuses claim that they have records accurate to one hundredth of a degree

charlatans one and all

[pjclarke]

Only if, by 'recently' you mean the 1960s, and in most cases, just after WWII. Since then we have engine room intake measurements and floating buoys.

RealClimate: Of buckets and blogs

[BlasterBates]

Hard to explain where all this ice is coming from when it's so warm.

This is the problem you have pj...

Your evidence doesn't add up.