|
Mail
Magazine 24...
New
Study
Crushes Global Warming Data Claims
by Michael
Patrick Leahy
Global
warming skeptic and meteorologist Anthony Watts, whose
wattsupwiththat.com
website has been called the “world’s most viewed climate website,”
released a
scientific discussion paper yesterday that crushes the National Oceanic
and
Atmospheric Administration’s [NOAA’s] “global warming” data claims. The
study,
co-authored with Dr. John R. Christy of the University of Alabama at
Huntsville,
Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Evan Jones of New York,
concluded that
“reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled,
with 92% of
that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of
well-sited
stations upward.”
In an
exclusive interview with Breitbart News this morning, co-author Dr.
John R.
Christy, an internationally recognized climate change expert, explained
the
significance of the findings:
In 2010,
the World Meteorological Organization adopted a new standard for
temperature
collection stations. This discussion paper is the first to apply that
standard.
The finding is that when the new class scheme was applied to weather
stations,
the stations considered compliant had cooler trends than non-compliant
stations.
In a press
release issued from his offices in Chico, California yesterday, lead
researcher
Anthony Watts explained the significance of the new standards and the
resultant
findings of the study:
A
reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed
using the
recent WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by
METEO-France’s
Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately
characterizes the
quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially
representative
surface temperature trends...
Today, a
new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge
gleaned from
five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and
contributors to
the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.
This prepublication
draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the
impacts of
station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network
temperatures and
temperature trends...is to be submitted for publication [in an academic
journal]. . .
Using Leroy
2010 methods, [this paper] concludes that these factors, combined with
station
siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature
trends
in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979-2008.
(emphasis
added)
Co-author
Christy explained that the decision by lead researcher Anthony Watts to
release
the discussion paper for public review was an innovation in academic
research,
pioneered, ironically, by global warming “converted skeptic” Richard
Muller:
Releasing
this as a discussion paper is like a pre-vetting process. If legitimate
things
are found, corrections will be made prior to submission to a peer
reviewed
academic publication. Richard Muller is the only one who has done this
before.
For me it’s an experiment. So far, it’s a wild ride. If you look on the
blogs
you’ll see there are already hundreds of comments. We’re looking
through those
comments.
The bits of
responses I’ve gotten from academic types so far are mainly curiosity
because
this is a whole new world. Responses are all over the map. Some have
thought
it’s been strange. For me, it is a way you can find errors quickly.
Christy
added that when and where the study will be submitted for peer reviewed
academic journal publication will be determined by lead researcher
Anthony
Watts:
“That’s up
to Anthony Watts. He’s the lead researcher. I imagine he’ll look at
publications such as Science, the Journal of Geophysical Research, and
the
Journal of Climate. What you’re seeing here is the evolution of the
academic
publication process with this kind of [public release of a discussion
paper].”
In
yesterday’s press release Watts acknowledged that “the pre-release of
this
paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the
Berkeley
Earth Surface Temperature Project.” Watts quoted Muller’s 2011
Scientific
American interview, where he described the practice:
I know that
is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under
Nobel
Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of
papers prior
to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider
peer
review than we obtained from mere referees.
Look for
the mainstream media to give this new study by Watts and his colleagues
a very
cool reception.
Source:
Breitbart
Read this
and other articles at Mail Magazine 24
|
