Gavin Schmidt has told Anthony Watts that the problematic station data are not used in climate models and any suggestion to the contrary is, in realclimate terminology, “just plain wrong”. If station data is not used to validate climate models, then what is?
His point seems to be that the climate models use gridded data.
But isn’t the gridded data calculated from station data? Well, yes. (And it wasn’t very hard to watch the pea under the thimble here.) So Gavin then argues that the adjustments made in calculating the gridded products have “removed the artefacts” from these poor stations:
If you are of the opinion that this station is contaminated, then you have to admit that the process designed to remove artefacts in the GISS or CRU products has in fact done so -
At this point, all we know is that the process has smoothed out the artefacts. Whether the artefacts have biased the record is a different question entirely and one that is not answered by Gavin’s rhetoric here. At this point, while we have a list of GISS stations there still is no list of CRU stations or CRU station data. How could one tell right now whether CRU has “removed the artefacts or not”? So on the present record Anthony doesn’t have to admit anything of the sort. OF course, if the data and code is made available and it becomes possible to confirm the truth of Gavin’s claim, this situation may change. But right now, no one can say for sure.
Gavin then asserts than any removal of contaminated stations would improve model fit. I’m amazed that he can make this claim without even knowing the impact of such removal.
Personally I’m still of the view that modern temperatures are warmer than the 1930s notwithstanding the USHCN shenanigans. But supposing that weren’t the case and all the stations in the USHCN with very big differentials turned out to be problematic and the good stations showed little change. Surely this wouldn’t improve the fit of the models. I’m not saying that this will be the impact of the verification. I think that the verification is interesting and long overdue, but I’d be surprised if it resulted in big changes.
But you don’t know that in advance and for Gavin to make such a statement seems like a “foolish and incorrect” thing to do. :twisted:
He urges Anthony not to ascribe “consequences to your project that clearly do not follow” but obviously feels no compunction in making such ascriptions himself. Check it out.