Anthony’s Announcement

As many of you are aware, Anthony has stopped WUWT for two days, pending an announcement, which he describes as important. I have no idea what it is. However, no one can say that he doesn’t have good instincts for how to attract attention to the announcement. It will have to be pretty good to live up to this hype; Anthony also knows this.

So I’m waiting with as much interest as everyone else.

Update: Anthony’s dialed back expectations. Nothing on FOIA.


315 Comments

  1. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Speculation has already begun at Bishop Hill and Lucia’s. Most common is something to do with Climategate 3 or RC-FOIA. Some suggestions of something to do with a lawsuit, but hard to see why that would warrant the suspense. Dunno.

    • philjourdan
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

      The timing is not conducive for a lawsuit (but anything is possible as I am as clueless as anyone).

      I have read elsewhere on the identity of FOIA, and CG3.

      Guess we all have to wait. If YOU do not know, Anthony is not telling ANYONE.

    • James
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

      You’re a coauthor of the paper. Did Anthony keep you in the dark regarding the nature of today’s announcement or were you being economical with the actualité ?

      • Skiphil
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Your question was answered:

        http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/27/anthonys-announcement/#comment-345075

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Anthony filled me on Friday afternoon. I suggested that he dial back expectations which were running amok (including me) – which he did. I also made some hints to this effect once I knew. I do not have a large contribution to the paper. I did some statistical analysis which Anthony wanted to include.

        • John
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 6:33 AM | Permalink

          The statistical analysis in any study is the most important part IMHO.

        • Anthony Watts
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

          Everyone see this post on the backstory. Steve is a gentleman and a scholar and I am in his debt. He didn’t know until Friday afternoon.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/backstory-on-the-new-surfacestations-paper/

        • theduke
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

          Anthony and Steve: anyone who thinks that you guys were less than forthcoming about this or thinks it’s important to find out if you were, is an idiot small-minded and inconsequential.

          Ignore them.

      • Salamano
        Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

        I suspect he’s not going to find a “serious” journal that will be willing to get it peer-reviewed, let alone published before the IPCC deadline (so that it won’t be included).

        After the Steig v. O’Donnell and Spencer v. Dressler sagas there are many scientists that have chosen to simply refuse reviewing of any publications from a growing list of authors, which effectively sidelines them from publication due to the lack of available expert reviewers necessary to get it done.

        There is another way to get into the IPCC reports despite the work not being published… but apparently that’s up to the lead authors (who are quick to protect their own work that clearly have no conflicts of interest with the advocacy groups with which they strive).

        • John
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 6:34 AM | Permalink

          It’s ok, IPCC pretty much said that it’s not wrong to use grey literature. Most of the last IPCC report used grey literature anyway.

  2. robert s.
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Did they crack the password on the full archive ? That would certainly be worthy of skipping vaction for..

  3. Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m tracking on this while in route
    The Watts Up site soon will bear fruit
    And Anthony Watts
    Is mentioned in spots
    That prove that the Team gives a hoot

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  4. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Maybe Peter Gleick hacked Mann’s emails and sent them to Anthony.

    • Just Tex
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Yup. That may be it!

      But, it’s also possible that Anthony has found and has been hiding an entire family of Himalayan Yeti, and now that he’s had time to learn their language, they’ve revealed that Mann is one of them. And that he shaves most of his body (including the top of his head) at least twice a day?!

  5. TheBigYinJames
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I for one doubt it’s CG3 and hope it’s not, because 1 and 2 did very little to change mainstream opinion, an a third one will just be dismissed as more of the same.

    I hope it’s something completely new.

  6. Tregonsee
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Actually, Anthony is going to retire from climate blogging, and raise oranges in Greenland.

  7. alex verlinden
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “never a dull moment” …

    one of the 1st lp’s I bought many a moon ago …
    :-)

  8. Ged
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, they did recently find that valley hidden in Antarctica. Maybe he’s been tipped off to something discovered in it and wants to break the story first (this speculation is for anyone who’s watched Stargate SG1).

    I know anything I speculate will be wrong in the end, so might as well be outlandish!

  9. Fred Bloggs
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My guess is that FOIA, disgusted at the comments made last week by the uk police when they announced the end of their inquiry, has decided to release the password to crack the CG3 emails.

    The person known as FOIA must have found some very juicy stuff in CG3 to justify password protecting it.

    Anthony needs 2 days to go through the thousands of emails to find the juicy ones. He knows that in CG1 the emails came out and the narrative was not clear. Phrases like “hide the decline” were widely misunderstood and had a diminished impact.

    I am sure that he is preparing a long and clear explanation contextualising and explaining all of the contentious emails. He wants to be the one who writes the narrative. He wants all the journalists to be looking at his blog so they get the message from one source. It’s communications 101.

  10. j ferguson
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Stopping WUWT for 2 days seems bizarre, unless it’s become involved in litigation and the stopping is pursuant to court order.

    If the FOIA password has been divulged, it would almost certainly mean that a lot of time would be required to sort through the emails to discover momentous things, but why shut down the site? Couldn’t the reading be done simultaneously? If it was the release of the FOIA password, Steve would be enlisted to help sift the now-readable emails.

    It could be that Muller et. al. are going to republish with radically different conclusions (seems unlikely) and Anthony wants to call attention to the significance in a more powerful way than just throwing it on top of the other things. In other words, the stoppage is an attention-getter and nothing more.

    Unprecedented could also mean that it is nothing any of us will think of.

    Maybe Michael Mann has apologized. Peter Gleick? Joe Romm?

    • Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Anthony has already been doing some work on something. He had an appeal out for guest posts on the 22nd if you recall.
      So at a guess whatever this turns out to be he was working on it then.

  11. Fred Bloggs
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I can imagine that Gavin and the RC crew are having a few worrying thoughts right now.

    • eyesonu
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I agree with you. I just checked the RC site and no post on this.

      They were probably very relieved with the WUWT update. Maybe they will have something else to worry about in a couple of days.

      A lot of funny comments at the Bish though. ;-)

  12. TheBigYinJames
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Maybe that’s the idea Fred :) Give them a couple of nights with leaky bum bum :)

  13. kadaka (KD Knoebel)
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It doesn’t sound like a family crisis, and that’s what’s important.

    Personally I’d go with Anthony’s “hint” last week:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/open-thread-weekend-12/

    About the new solar system on his new house:

    Details next week, along with instructions how how you can get one easily and put your own sweat equity into it and save a bundle…and have it paid off quickly and fully own it…unlike those lease programs that require 20 year payoffs…and by that time the company may be gone and the panels fading.

    If he’s starting a new business and promoting it on WUWT, offhand I think that’s incompatible with the free wordpress hosting which can’t be used for for-profit purposes.

    So a suspending of publishing during a hosting change sounds believable.

    • j ferguson
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Kadaka,
      The panel thing doesn’t seem to meet the “something happened” threshold.

  14. Jim S
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Doesn’t this coincide with the three year limitation on prosecution for releasing the Climategate emails? Maybe the individual who released them is coming forward?

  15. Skiphil
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It has to be something big beyond WUWT interest. I don’t “know” a thing about what’s happening, but the extraordinary announcement which Anthony posted means he KNOWS this is really big and not just “inside baseball” for WUWT devotees. Anthony has been in and around the news media his whole career — he would not create this level of expectation just for an anticlimax that would burn his bridges with many media and blogger types.

    Compare the following to everything that’s happened related to climate issues through the years, including all associated with CG1 and CG2, IPCC issues, public/political dimensions, etc., and I think this upcoming announcement on Sunday must be bigger than or at least different from what we’ve seen before:

    1) “controversial and unprecedented nature”
    2) “a major announcement that I’m sure will attract a broad global interest”
    3) “Media outlets be sure to check in to WUWT on Sunday around 12PM PST and check your emails.”
    4) suspending publishing on the site for two days (and AW’s post a week ago about working on a large and urgent project might be relevant?)
    5) cancelling vacation plans – why does he feel he needs to be the Captain “on the bridge” when the site can be monitored from anywhere? Suggests he expects to be totally focused on the aftermath of the announcement, responding to media, etc.?

    Whether or not it relates to Mr. FOIA or some other leaker/whistleblower, it’s got to be very newsworthy. If it’s not at least similar to CG1 in media impact Anthony risks a serious backlash.

    • Ged
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Great to see you here, Skiphil. Just want to add weight to what you said. Anthony is a newsman, why do newsmen stop the presses? He’s also made a call out to the media, and will be sending e-mails to places. So whatever it is, is huge, as he’s put the weight of his credibility and that of WUWT’s on the line.

  16. Peter Whale
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My guess the same as jim s. foia comes in from the cold.

  17. Skiphil
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    [cross post from Bishop Hill]

    ooh, we’re all missing the possible allusion of “Something’s happened” (not saying it’s the same or related source but still AW could be echoing this phrase):

    “At 7.24 am Eastern (5.24 blog time), a comment by “RC” was placed at Climate Audit saying that “A miracle has happened” with a hyperlink under RC….”

    It could be a different source or even a different type of material (or it could be FOIA/RC again), but I wonder if Anthony was alluding to “A miracle has happened”….

    • bernie1815
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

      The more I ponder Anthony’s post, the more I think that it is something with significant political ramifications and goes beyond the standard CRU nastiness: My best bet (or best wish) is for something coming out of the Fenton Communications’ cess pool. That would likely cover the team plus a large array of activist groups.

  18. Steven Mosher
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve and I just went through a process of giving our priors to what this will be about.
    Neither of us has an idea about what this is.

    1. A new paper Mosher 20%, McIntyre 20%
    2. FOIA emails Mosher 25% Mcintyre 25%
    3. A new batch of emails: mosher 30%, Mc 25%
    4. Gleick: mosher 10% mc 10%
    5. some new technology: mosher 10% mc 15%
    6. Related to other lawsuits: 5% mc 5%

    And we think that there is as much as a 25% chance that its outside these categories.

    • Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Steve and Steve
      You guys are spreading your bets *all over the place*! Floor-to-ceiling error bars. :)

      • Steven Mosher
        Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

        that a prior man, cut us some slack

    • Marc Blank
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Why “suspend” the website for any of these reasons; Anthony often goes away for the weekend and leaves an open thread? I’d have to think this has to do with Anthony and/or the site.

  19. Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just hope Anthony doesn’t think some temperature measurement gizmo has been invented which would revolutionize the world of meteorology and climate change, and that is the big news.

    • Follow the Money
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

      It arguably has the feel of a promotional pitch. Like how that one axle people mover thingy was held back for its big day some years back (what’s that thing’s name again…?).

  20. stephen adams
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Perhaps there is a defector among the IPCC ranks somewhere and he has a wikileaks style expose that will show deliberate corruption.

    • Follow the Money
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

      “The Spy Who Came In From The Warmth”

  21. eqibno
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 2:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Let’s see.
    Unusual enough to result in a cancelled vacation. Thus nothing that he was expecting anytime soon.
    Changing servers for a commercial venture? He already has a commercial site and has used WUWT to plug lots of his endeavors.
    If it is not CG3 then it is something that he needs to inspect, can be done on a weekend and that only takes a day or two to get through.

    A non-litigious item.
    Bigger than usual.
    Climate-related.

    Anyone seen where Willis, Mosher and the other denizens are at?

    Looking forward to something 2012-ish, if you get my drift.

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Willis is probably at burning man.

      My thinking:

      1. he has an exclusive of sorts and he wants to keep it that way. so dont tell mosher.
      2. he has already decided that it is trustworthy.
      3. its positive news.

      jump the shark or final nail in the coffin?

      damn Im all over the map. I hate this.

      • Ged
        Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Seems everyone is in the dark. This must be one big exclusive. Definitely sounds very positive, whatever it is. To call out to the media on this… that really gets me the most.

      • Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 9:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Thats not till the end of August. That said, I imagine Willis has a day job and is not commenting 24/7 :-p

  22. ChE
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anthony’s going to be Romney’s veep?

  23. jeff taylor
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Seems that “unprecedented”rules out CG3.

  24. MarkB
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This better be good. It doesn’t have to be video of aliens walking around Area 51 smoking cigarettes, but if it doesn’t reach beyond the skeptic echo chamber, he’ll have some serious egg on his face. CG3 would qualify, assuming the contents are juicy enough, but proof Gleick did the deed probably wouldn’t.

    • Ged
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Your points are right on. Anthony’s been around long enough to know that, so I have trust that is judgement is not anti-climactic.

      • robin
        Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

        It may not be anti-climactic, but it probably will be anti-climatic. Ziiinngg!

  25. Mpaul
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The fact that the announcement is comming on a Sunday likely means it is not related to official business of any kind (lawsuits, new papers, Muller stuff). I say this only because the “other party” in something official would want to coordinate press releases. And no one puts press releases out on Sunday afternoon ( that’s considered the dead zone of the news cycle).

    • Ged
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

      You only put scoops on a Sunday afternoon.

      • Steven Mosher
        Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

        he has to believe he has a scoop.

        which means whatever he has he has reason to believe that no body else has it.

        with climategate 1 he also thought he had an exclusive and we were all sworn to secrecy until
        he got back from Europe.

        Anthony does know my number 1 person of interest for FOIA..

        • Ged
          Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

          Hm, if you could verify with absolute certainty that your number 1 person was indeed FOIA; would you say that would be big enough news for such a mysterious announcement?

    • Skiphil
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

      The timing also may suggest that he has some control but not a lot over the release of the info, since he did not release it today yet considers it urgent enough to release before Monday. Must be extremely rare for any media-savvy person to choose to make a big announcement on a Sunday. Also the fact of postponing his vacation for it, not just an important paper or news item that could be release while he’s gone or when he gets back.

      A Sunday afternoon, which normally would be avoided by all people interested in affecting the news cycle, suggests to me that there might be a lot of information and details to be absorbed, so that he is confident it will be studied on Sunday and still written/talked about in Monday’s news?? All speculative, I know…..

      • Ged
        Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Hey, speculation is why we’re here :D

        • Skiphil
          Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

          hee… I’m thinking the part about postponing the vacation really suggests he expects to be right in the thick of a media storm in the coming week… there are lots of other big items or papers, announcements, etc. that could be released and he would be happy to be away somewhere quietly, letting others discuss. Plus, in the digital world it’s not exactly difficult to be engaged (well unless it was some camping or wilderness vacation). The fact that he thinks he needs to stay home may indicate expectations of a lot of interviews or minute-by-hour monitoring of emerging stories, new developments?? ha more speculation….

  26. John Archer
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I sent Anthony a copy of some correspondence a few years ago now, but I suspected there was a problem with the airmail as he never replied. I guess it must have just been delivered. Still, better late than never, I say.

    http://i49.tinypic.com/j8dvtv.jpg

    • Scarface
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

      No way! Linsey is back?

      • MarkB
        Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

        This is when I need a ‘like’ button.

  27. Tucci78
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Could it be that somebody has cracked (or the hacker has released the passphrase to) the all.7z portion of the FOIA2011.zip archive?

    Might could be something in there that could shake matters up anent las warmistas and their co-conspirators.

  28. Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

  29. Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Penn State buys UEA :)

    • Skiphil
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

      AW buys Penn State…. it may not be worth so much now.

  30. Ben
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    To me it’s obvious that the two Steve know what it’s all about but have agreed to let Anthony break the news.

    • charles the moderator
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Ben (Jul 27 15:37),

      No.

      • Die Zauberflotist
        Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

        “No.” If CTM knows that the Steves don’t know, it means CTM knows the scoop. Spill it Chuck!

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

      No. I know nothing.

  31. Tom C
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m going way out on the limb: Briffa reveals that he is FOIA.

  32. Mailman
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Athony has an update on his website…its got nothing to do with FOIA.

    Or does it????? :)

    Regards

    Mailman

    • Scarface
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

      “It does however have something to do with one of my many projects, and it has important implications that I’m sure everyone will want to know about.”

      He has succesfully managed to make cold fusion work in his basement? The solar panels were only a distraction!

      • eyesonu
        Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

        The solar panels must be involved in this.

        Maybe he has discovered a way to use the solar panels to condense moonbeams into moonshine. ;-) Would that still be a discovery or a still discovery?

  33. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Maybe a real big time insider Phil Jjones or Briffa or similar have simply given up and decided to spill the beans or its FOIA3. Another possibility:Penn State may have decided to actually boot Mann NOW before they are sued to oblivion by the Sandusky affair and “associated” scandals. Maybe some lawyers have advised the AGW, newspapers governments or one at least that the game is about over and to move on? The evidence for @@@@@ is overwhelming at Steven Goddards site. He has kept REAL records of the manipulations taken together I think there is a real Court case available. For example if @@@@@ is definitely shown and case is won one, The Australian Goverment and Gillard Could be in real trouble? ALL speculation of course.

  34. Ben
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    What projects Anthony is currently working on ?

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

      1 surface stations 2.0 Heartland
      2. fall et al follow on.
      3, builda blade and other technology projects

      • Marcel Crok
        Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 1:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

        It’s number 2, follow on of Fall et al

        • pouncer
          Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

          This is shaping up as “The Monty Hall problem”

          Having embraced, then traded away, two doors behind which I expected a cache of Michael Mann emails, I’m considering what options are left.

          While I agree the Fall et al door is a likely “winner”, such a prize, after the build up, would be like expecting the car or the Hawaiian vacation, then winning the ten-year’s supply of Rice O’ Roni. A very valuable prize, to be sure. Not exactly envy-inducing, though.

          Supposing that AW and a respected, credentialed, team of allied demonstrate that a slew of poor data processed with poor techniques produced a poor conclusion. Is that in fact unprecedented?

  35. Martin A
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    NASA will announce:

    [1] The moon landings were an elaborately staged hoax.

    [2] James Hansen will retire immediately and Steve McIntyre has been invited to lead a team to audit all NASA climate science results to date, discarding any where there is remaining doubt.

  36. Skiphil
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anthony’s update says it’s nothing about FOIA or any political/social aspects. He does say “important implications” but it sounds like it grows from one of his own “projects” not from some incoming scoop:

    OK, let’s calm down, the party’s over until Sunday

    • Ged
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Well, or any political/social theories we’re passing around. Wish I knew a list of all his projects. Would the interactive website for temperature stations be worthy of this?

  37. Kip Hansen
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anyone else have anything on this rumor?

    Hot Rumor: BEST Analysis Next Week to Report – Globe’s Temperature Up 1.5 Degrees Celsius

    [[ http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/27/hot-rumor-best-analysis-next-week-to-rep ]]

    Anyone else think this might be what Anthony Watts is prepping for?

  38. ChE
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I know what it is. He managed to get his hands on a Raspberry Pi.

    • P. Solar
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

      No disrespect to Mr. Watts but is he does not have _that_ much influence.

      BTW they chose “Pi” because their delivery dates are always irrational numbers.

  39. Kip Hansen
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hmmmm… j ferguson said above : It could be that Muller et. al. are going to republish with radically different conclusions (seems unlikely) and Anthony wants to call attention to the significance in a more powerful way than just throwing it on top of the other things. In other words, the stoppage is an attention-getter and nothing more.

  40. Kip Hansen
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    A new major BEST Analysis release would qualify considering Anthony’s update.

  41. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There is still” broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature”. AW does not publish posts lightly, so it will be most likely as he says. It could be that the BEST project has found something but you would think Mosher would know about this speculation anyway…

  42. Jeff Norman
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The last time something like this happened, it ended up with the Segway. Regardless, I hope it is all good for Anthony and for those of us who dote upon his posts.

  43. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The “something’s happened” is a bit misleading as it makes one think of an event, discovery ect, not “one of my projects”

  44. rep49
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    So, it’s not CG-3. I dare say that it’s going to turn out to be an “Oh shit!” moment in some quarters…

  45. stan
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Guesses:

    — Something revealed via Discovery in a Mann defamation case

    — Steve Goddard’s posts re: phony adjustments to the temp databases are proven to be true

    — someone on the team spills the beans

    — a scientist involved with the IPCC shares an e-mail implicating the process

    — someone has received docs pursuant to a standard FOIA request that have turned out to be explosive

  46. Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I have it on good authority that he has cracked the genetic code for beetles and will be offering a free genetic upgrade to all forum participants…

    You heard it from me first.

    • Jeff Norman
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Which one? There are something like 400,000 species of beetles. Surely not all of them?

    • P. Solar
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

      How about offering the genetic upgrade to Oasis members? They seem to have got the genetic code Beatles a bit wrong. Only the hair-cut gene worked.

  47. Kip Hansen
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    IF IF IF the BEST Analysis release rumor is true …

    see

    Hot Rumor: BEST Analysis Next Week to Report – Globe’s Temperature Up 1.5 Degrees Celsius

    [[ http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/27/hot-rumor-best-analysis-next-week-to-rep ]]

    (… and, remember, the only source is Ronald Bailey at Reason.com )

    … especially if the 1.5° C figure is correct (and not a typo for 1.5°F, which detailed I have emailed Bailey to confirm) …

    then I’d say that is probably it … BEST and the whole surface temperature this one of Anthony’s projects.

    • Robert
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I can confirm hearing from a good source that they did extend back to the 18th century just like you reported…

    • Scarface
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 6:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Just as this ad that is running in Holland:

      “We keep it cool, you get the BEST”

  48. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Kip I doubt that its BEST. The update could be a distraction. Watch out for any resignations or firings in the climate business in the next few days could be a clue.. Again this is pure speculation on my part.

  49. X Anomaly
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    1) Watts retires.

    2) Watts sells WUWT to the Heartland foundation.

    3) Watts gets a paper accepted with RW Spencer

  50. macumazan
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    You walk into the room
    With your pencil in your hand
    You see somebody naked
    And you say, “Who is that man?”
    You try so hard
    But you don’t understand
    Just what you’ll say
    When you get home

    Because something is happening here
    But you don’t know what it is
    Do you, Mister Jones?

    You raise up your head
    And you ask, “Is this where it is?”
    And somebody points to you and says
    “It’s his”
    And you say, “What’s mine?”
    And somebody else says, “Where what is?”
    And you say, “Oh my God
    Am I here all alone?”

    Because something is happening here
    But you don’t know what it is
    Do you, Mister Jones?

    You hand in your ticket
    And you go watch the geek
    Who immediately walks up to you
    When he hears you speak
    And says, “How does it feel
    To be such a freak?”
    And you say, “Impossible”
    As he hands you a bone

    Because something is happening here
    But you don’t know what it is
    Do you, Mister Jones?

    You have many contacts
    Among the lumberjacks
    To get you facts
    When someone attacks your imagination
    But nobody has any respect
    Anyway they already expect you
    To just give a check
    To tax-deductible charity organizations

    You’ve been with the professors
    And they’ve all liked your looks
    With great lawyers you have
    Discussed lepers and crooks
    You’ve been through all of
    F. Scott Fitzgerald’s books
    You’re very well read
    It’s well known

    Because something is happening here
    But you don’t know what it is
    Do you, Mister Jones?

    Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you
    And then he kneels
    He crosses himself
    And then he clicks his high heels
    And without further notice
    He asks you how it feels
    And he says, “Here is your throat back
    Thanks for the loan”

    Because something is happening here
    But you don’t know what it is
    Do you, Mister Jones?

    Now you see this one-eyed midget
    Shouting the word “NOW”
    And you say, “For what reason?”
    And he says, “How?”
    And you say, “What does this mean?”
    And he screams back, “You’re a cow
    Give me some milk
    Or else go home”

    Because something is happening here
    But you don’t know what it is
    Do you, Mister Jones?

    Well, you walk into the room
    Like a camel and then you frown
    You put your eyes in your pocket
    And your nose on the ground
    There ought to be a law
    Against you comin’ around
    You should be made
    To wear earphones

    Because something is happening here
    But you don’t know what it is
    Do you, Mister Jones?
    Copyright © 1965 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1993 by Special Rider Music

  51. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “somethings happened” = something has been discovered, maybe with UHI or other very important official current climate data. The persons in charge have openly admitted it. WUWT is a skeptical site so it will not favor the AGW position. The data or information is beyond reproach hard evidence. That’s my bet.

  52. Lance Wallace
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anthony received his galley proofs Friday with the usual requirement to return them in 48 h (i.e., Sunday noon). The editor states the paper has been accepted for publication. It’s the follow-on to Fall et al. It shows an unequivocal falsification of a central tenet of AGW theory.

    He couldn’t plan for it because editors always return the galleys just before (sometimes just after) you leave for vacation. Check. He has to shut down the blog because he has to read every word himself. Check. It’s not FOIA but it is “one of my projects”. Check.

    • Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Very logical and convincing. Be sure to claim credit if your speculation turns out to be right.

    • Lucy Skywalker
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 9:04 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Plus, timing perfect for AR5 – no time for Jesus papers or whatever to paralyse it.

      Plus, closing WUWT for 48 hours, provokes publicity like nothing else… so there is no way this paper can be hidden by the IPCC – if this guess is correct.

      Perhaps Anthony’s learning to wield his opponents’ techniques – to undo them.

      • Lucy Skywalker
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

        yikes! triple hit.

        plus, stole the BEST thunder. plus, all co-authors of integrity. plus, Anthony’s name heading the paper.

        Very warm congratulations on nailing what we all knew.

      • AntonyIndia
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

        But not yet officially pal reviewed through the VIP channel as Muller’s will no doubt be in 3 days: Submitted for publication in JGR Atmospheres (4) and a Special Section of JGR (1, 2, 3, 5)
        IPCC cop out thus available. Non publication can not be used as it is public on Internet without restrictions – more people have seen it than most climate science publications.

        • AntonyIndia
          Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

          Checking JGR’s list of papers in press (accepted) I found on the bottom: Cornes, R. C., and P. D. Jones “An Examination of Storm Activity in the Northeast Atlantic Region over the 1851-2003 period using the EMULATE gridded MSLP data series.” J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2010JD014865, in press. [Abstract] [PDF] (accepted 7 December 2010)
          Waiting for Godot?

    • P. Solar
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

      … and if he does not return them before Tuesday he’d miss the AR5 inclusion deadline.

      Fits “something happened” ie something unexpected that can not wait till later.

      He was expecting to get stalled until after the deadline.

      Fits better than BEST (if you see what I mean). Hmm.

    • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Wile you have to look at the galleys yourself, it is also a good idea to have someone knowledgeable but not an author to go thru them for typos. BTW, FWIW, BEST is now gray lit.

    • Ged
      Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

      And you were right! Serious kudos to you!

  53. Kip Hansen
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    No telling if there will even BE an update … nothing on the BEST site (though they are not very informative over there at the best of times – no pun intended).

  54. James
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Something happened can imply something unexpected. The fact that the announcement won’t wait can imply that he must share the news now otherwise it will anyway come out.
    The fact that it concerns one of his projects and will be of wide media interest pretty much implies BEST in my humble opinion. If I recall correctly he was mighty annoyed with Mueller for showing early results without his permission. Perhaps Mueller’s team has found some interesting results and have decided to let Anthony release it first ahead of a formal submission to peer review. Perhaps he wishes to discredit the BEST results in some way.

    Perhaps all of the above is wrong.

  55. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    One fact clearly distinguishes skeptics from alarmist: skeptics have one hell of a sense of humour, that’s from all the comments here, Lucia’s etc… haha Even SM quipped above re Gleick. I wonder if Gleick would do the same in this situation re favouring their point of view…

  56. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Lance: AW only does temperature measurements (UHI etc., He is a meteorologist). I doubt if its an attack on one of the central theories of AGW which is more a domain of atmospheric physicists. My two cents worth.

    • Lance Wallace
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Adrianos–

      Yeah, I don’t know any more than anyone else what AW has up his sleeve.

      On the other hand,I thought he proved that poor siting leads to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends.

      So if CAGW makes some predictions about minimum temps rising and uses the flawed temperature data to support them, this may be a serious weakness.

  57. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 6:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Could be this Steve reynolds at Bishop Hills blog posted “New BEST results with proper UHI correction show only 1/2 previous warming” and Muller has concede he is correct aka there is no significant global warming even with NOAA GISSS ect data due to UHI . Speculation but stronger.

    • Robert
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Nope its not that – Mosher knows the UHI stuff

    • S. Geiger
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 6:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

      If its just reporting information from someone else, then there has to be a compelling reason for them to use (or allow) Anthony to be the ‘media outlet’. also, as others have mentioned, it probably needs to be something that has come up rather unexpectedly…..less no need for cancellation of the vacation.

    • Steve Reynolds
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 7:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

      That was total speculation on my part; no knowledge.

  58. John Norris
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 6:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    He’s coming out of the closet. The whole Chico Weatherman thing was a sham. His website is a ruse, he really works for big warming. He’s been funded all along by RC.

  59. DG
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 7:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    hmm

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/27/hot-rumor-best-analysis-next-week-to-rep

  60. Skiphil
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 7:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve got it! Michael Mann has written an effusive “open letter” of apology to the world, to be published first on WUWT (I know, it should have come to Steve and Climate Audit, but bear with me). He admits that he has been an insufferable boor even to his colleagues, that he fooled everyone, that the hockey stick blade really goes down (see photo at link), and that politicians never should have been told to promote his work (see 2nd photo). Mann announces he will retire to a remote Buddhist monastery to contemplate the sinful nature of humanity, the need for inner peace, and the unreality of suffering.

    Mann’s upside-down hockey stick

    [ok so we can call this a skeptic's fantasy, the alarmists have plenty of fantasies of their own]

  61. Athelstan.
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    An ecstasy of anticipation, knives whetted, fangs gleaming, eyes glint red, its the sun yer know.

  62. TerryMN
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Just me, but I think the bark will end up being bigger than the eventual bytes.

  63. Kip Hansen
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 7:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Regarding the BEST Analysis rumor:

    Hot Rumor: BEST Analysis Next Week to Report – Globe’s Temperature Up 1.5 Degrees Celsius

    [[ http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/27/hot-rumor-best-analysis-next-week-to-rep ]]

    Ron Bailey confirms:

    “To be clear – as I understand it the increase is 1.5 degrees Celsius from about 1750. I again stress that it is a rumor – so my information may be garbled in its transmission to me.”

    So, I stress — THIS IS A RUMOR.

    • michael hart
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t think that would be taken seriously by many people, least of all Anthony Watts.

      My money is on a ‘significant’ publisher making him an offer for his website.

      My other guess was that he was going to lighting a carbon-neutral flame at the Olympics ceremony, but that didn’t happen.

    • BarryW
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

      So about a half a deg per century?

  64. Harold Ambler
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 9:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My own gut feeling:

    Anthony’s getting props from someone/someplace big for the surface stations work and for advancing knowledge of UHI more generally.

    BEST makes sense in terms of the timing, but my gut does not think it’s BEST, so to speak. My gut is saying GISS or CRU, as improbable as that sounds.

    This concludes the news from my gut. We now return to our regular program, in progress.

  65. Jeremy
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 9:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It may be that BEST is coming out with something that again directly challenges AW’s Surface station project conclusions. It may be that he cancelled his vacation and shut down his blog so that he could generate an appropriate response.

    This seems most likely to me, given the update.

  66. Mike Roddy
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Here’s why Anthony is in seclusion:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/07/rumor-has-it-that-climate-change-is-real.html

    Maybe it’s time for you and he to raise the white flag, Steve.

    • rep49
      Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Bwwwaaaahhhaaaahaaaaaa!

    • Kip Hansen
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Rabett has simply re-posted Bailey’s from Reason.com mentioned above. BTW, I have confirmed by email with Bailey that he has not misstated the rumor – he means 1.5 C and NOT 1.5F — well , his rumor was, he admits, a but garbled, but he’s pretty sure about that part. Bailey has asked all concerned to stress that THIS IS A RUMOR.

    • P. Solar
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

      ” Tuesday is the last day to have papers considered in the next IPCC report. ”

      This could be the most significant speculation I’ve read so far.

      This means that Muller, who pulled a somewhat premature PR stunt with the original pre-release of his team’s papers, will certainly be published in the coming days.

      In timing this so closely he will avoid any possibility of a critical or rebuttal paper or even a comment being published, that could be taken into account for use in AR5.

      AFAIK, the software and data was never published in a format that could be run on a PC (Steve’s initial criticism) and has thus avoided the possibility of broader peer review.

      Hopefully he will have realised that Bangkok airport is not really a rural site and the UHI paper will no longer be demonstrating a rather improbable UHI cooling in some areas.

      Reason.com reminds us of Mullers original comments:
      >>
      The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don’t yet address many of the known biases. When they do, it is possible that the corrections could bring our current agreement into disagreement.
      >>

      Should be interesting but I don’t see major indicators of pure science in their gaming the release dates and preventing citizen scientist review of their work.

      Looks more like PR games than science to me.

      • Steven Mosher
        Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

        from day one the data has fit on pc.
        the code is matlab.

        my objection and steves concern was a lack of r code. thats free software

        • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 12:52 AM | Permalink

          Yep, fundamental point. No barriers at all to entry into the code. BEST has done better than the last lot. But you show it’s a misnomer.

  67. Gunga Din
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Lots of speculation. I think people have picked words out of his original announcement and read into them what they hoped he had to say. (ie “Global”) I was also tempted to do so. His update, I don’t think, was to “scale back” anything but rather to reign in the rampant speculation. I’ve never seen anything he’s said that would make me doubt his integrity. I’ve seen him publicly admit when he made a mistake. (Unlike some we know.)
    I’ll wait to see what he says.
    But I am glad, from what I gather from his update, that it doesn’t look to be a personal or family problem.
    (PS You should all check out Stacy’s anular eclipse photos.)

  68. robert s.
    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anthony updated his page tonight and it looks like a big Nothing Burger… I’m sure Anthony think his pet projects are newsworthy and possibly appeal to a larger national audience but thats vanity. Good luck to whatever new project news he’s announcing tomorrow.

    • Scarface
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 4:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

      It doesn’t explain the no posting at all at WUWT. So I think this has nothing to do with vanity. And since ‘something happened’, it is a sudden event that needs all time and effort of the WUWT crew. Meanwhile, I think it’s a publication on something important, which also does not explain the ‘something happened’ announcement. So I have no clue either, but to let down Anthony the way you do now? It doesn’t show any respect for him and his efforts. You owe him an apology upfront.

  69. Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    (the above is CG 2.0, #1017)

  70. Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, I hate to risk being wrong, but I do want to offer a theory I haven’t seen suggested yet:

    Anthony is involved in the creation of a new print publication of some kind. It will probably be a collaborative effort (with who I’m not sure) that will become a new outlet for news and work that questions climate orthodoxy.

    I’d like something vaguely like that to be what the project turns out to be. However I am kind of expecting to be disappointed and feel that Anthony is taking a big risk in making such an announcement. If this isn’t a very big deal at this point, WUWT’s reputation may be irrepairably damaged.

  71. dp
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    My theory:

    Anthony has created a new product and has generated affiliation(s) with other interested parties to promote the product. This product will be interesting to people who follow climate alarmism and what the climate actually does.

    What has thrown me of is I don’t know why that would be unprecedented. But it is important to Anthony and that is good enough for me. I like to see people innovate and reap the rewards of that innovation. Then again I could be FOS.

    • Marc
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 1:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

      “Something happened.” Sorry, but that means “something unexpected happened”. So a new publication seems very unlikely.

  72. geo
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 2:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

    There’s got to be a third party involved that is going to break this news wide on Monday whether Anthony does anything or not before-hand.

    That’s the only thing that makes sense. What is interesting is that apparently Anthony feels he needs to drop everything for a 100% effort between now and Sunday at noon to provide the context he feels is necessary to put whatever it is in the best light possible from his perspective.

    There’s no other reasonable explanation for what he’s said.

    And yet it is about one of his ongoing projects. So. What makes sense to me is he is about to go into business in a big high-profile way with someone controversial (in some way) about something controversial (in some way).

    But “controversial” could be main-stream controversial, *or* it could be “controversial” to his traditional base, the skeptics.

    He’s got a paper in press with Mike Mann?

    The mainstream establishment is about to give him a big grant to do something?

    The Koch Brothers just bought WUWT?

    He’s going to be the next head of IPCC?

    Something along those lines. . .

    • Marc
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 2:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Still doesn’t work with “something happened”.

      • Geoff Sherrington
        Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 3:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

        AW has predicted the day-by-day weather for the Olympic Games but is announcing it 3 days after it happens to avoid accusations of rushing to print with unverified data and speculation.

  73. batheswithwhales
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 2:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Pet theory:

    – WUWT bought up for a nice sum, AW continues as editor
    – New website set up on new platform
    – Expanding into wider popular science

    This would be both controversial, unprecedented and have a somewhat global interest.
    It would also justify the phrase by Anthony: ” I look forward to being able to share all my work on Sunday”.

    In addition it would explain why most regular helpers would be occupied, doing the finishing touches to new posts, testing functions, etc.

    It would also explain the news campaign that seems to be planned.

    As well as the mystery suspension of WUWT, since it gets everyone’s attention and would facilitate an orderly transport of readers over to the new platform.

    • X Anomaly
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 4:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

      yep.
      its not Google, or Facebook. but it does rank 20080, and while I don’t expect to see WUWT listed on Wall St, I wouldn’t be surprised if it been bought.

      • P. Solar
        Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

        A similar thought did cross my mind, but it did not stop for tea and biscuits.

  74. SanityP
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 3:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I so turned up my own expectations on this one. My first thought was “FOIA” and I downloaded the password protected FOIA-package, prepairing for the event …. ah, well :).

    Maybe later.

  75. DaveA
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 4:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I hope he’s introducing a Preview function.

  76. mondo
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 5:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “You tell people that rising sea levels will wipe out coastal areas, but you then go and buy beachfront property.”

    Here in Oz, Tim Flannery did exactly that too!

  77. Chip
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 5:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    So much for anthropogenic global warming:

    London Olympics Drops Carbon-Offset Plan

    Organizers of the London 2012 Olympic Games dropped a plan to cut carbon emissions during the sporting showcase, abandoning a pledge made when it defeated eight other cities to host the event.

    Games administrators will “no longer pursue formal offsetting procedures” to mitigate Olympics-related emissions, documents posted on the London Olympics website said.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/olympics-drops-carbon-offset-plan-to-focus-on-u-k-benefits.html

  78. Harold Ambler
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 5:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Further speculation:

    Anthony has been made an IPCC reviewer and/or author

  79. Tony Mach
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 6:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I hope it does not involve “free energy” or somesuch.

  80. willow
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 7:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Already been done. Google “Thomas Beatie”.

  81. Stephen Richards
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Jeremy

    Posted Jul 27, 2012 at 9:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It may be that BEST is coming out with something that again directly challenges AW’s Surface station project conclusions. It may be that he cancelled his vacation and shut down his blog so that he could generate an appropriate response.

    This seems most likely to me, given the update

    You get the cigar !!!

  82. Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    My guess, Anthony is releasing his own temperature reconstruction he has been working on to preempt BEST. The latest BEST release rumor triggered him to do it sooner than he initially planned.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/27/hot-rumor-best-analysis-next-week-to-rep

    BTW where is Bailey’s source that Muller was, “once skeptical of the temperature records that showed considerable global warming in recent decades”?

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

    • alex verlinden
      Posted Jul 31, 2012 at 5:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

      you’re a winner, Poptech ! … kudos

  83. Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 9:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    That was funny.

    • jup
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 6:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

      What was funny?

      • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 7:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

        The star wars related comment I originally replied to that was deleted.

  84. Ben
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve McIntyre, as you apparently know what is going on (cf your post on bishop hill), is it really worth the wait ?

    Thx

    • TerryMN
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Ben – link? Didn’t see anything on the last 2 threads).

      • Ben
        Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 1:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

        http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/7/27/cryptic.html?currentPage=5#comments


        Anthony’s filled me on what’s happening. Nothing to do with FOIA, Some commenters have correctly guessed (but not saying which ones.)

        Jul 28, 2012 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve McIntyre

        • TerryMN
          Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

          Thanks! I’m still not thinking it will be that big of a deal, but we’ll see I guess…

        • eqibno
          Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

          So, amongst the offerings, we can go with the rebuttal to BEST that must come out before the deadline so that it qualifies for AR5?

  85. Adam Gallon
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s obvious! Oliver K. Manuel’s proved right & the Sun is, indeed, mostly Iron, plus Chemtrails are shown to a) exist & b) to be a Government ploy to alter climate! ;-)

    • MarkB
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I ‘Like’ this. ;-)

  86. P. Solar
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “First, I am well. This isn’t a health issue for me or my family.”

    Good news.

    “Second, my announcement has nothing to do with FOIA issues or other sorts of political or social theories being bandied about on other blogs.”

    Awww !!

    Then it must be : Kenji has been awarded an honorary PhD by the Union of Concerned Non-scientists, right?

  87. Jeff Norman
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anthony was called away to investigate the Beatle infestation at the
    London olympic opening ceremonies.

  88. Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Sounds like a hastily written statement.

    He does have several moderators around the world, who he publicized a while ago on the occasion of a dinner for many of them, and I think some trusted authors.

    So supending publishing is odd.

  89. Jim Strom
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s worth remembering that Anthony has a crew of assistants who are capable of keeping the site running when he is busy. Why has he pulled them off the job too?

  90. Mike Mangan
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Looks like Muller has gone all in with the AGW narrative…

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/28/new-global-temperature-data-reanlysis-co

    Must be what the Guardian plans to talk about this week…

    • theduke
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

      In the Guardian piece Muller is quoted as saying:

      How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect – extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide. …

      Same old correlation equals causation argument. And the last sentence is simply untrue. Natural fluctuations and variability caused the MWP and the LIA didn’t they? Why couldn’t they be at work now?

      • Leo G
        Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 2:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

        You notice though that Muller does not invoke the water vapour theory? He is showing a Lukewarmer attitude.

      • ChE
        Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 4:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Even that’s kind of misleading. It’s not a binary choice between anthropogenic and not. Lukewarmers generally believe that the warming is a combination of greenhouse and “natural variation”. This means that you can’t simply ask the question as if it is or isn’t. There are an infinite number of combinations possible. And most of them probably “fit” reasonably well. This is why trying to make the GHG correlation “fit” is pointless.

  91. Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    People should keep in mind that high answers to the question of how much the temperature has been warming recently would not prove humans are to blame.

    There are more fundamental questions extant of CAGW proponents, including failure of models to predict reality, a fundamental limit to the effect CO2 can have because of physics of emission and absorption, and the proxy analyses that Mr McIntyre critiques.

  92. theduke
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anthony did mention what I assume is the same project last Sunday, July 22nd:

    Light posting over the next few days – call for guest authors
    Posted on July 22, 2012 by Anthony Watts

    I’m going to be exceptionally busy with a very important project that is due very soon, plus I have an upcoming trip, so my posting over the next 7-10 days is likely to be light.

  93. Wade
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 2:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My theory:

    “It does however have something to do with one of my many projects.”
    “There will be a major announcement that I’m sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature.”

    Nobody has said this yet, but maybe NOAA has noted Anthony’s surface station project and decided to have him fix the official reporting stations. It relates to one of his many projects. It is controversial because the CAGW community doesn’t take seriously the urbanization on temperature records. It is unprecedented because how often does a government agency willingly admit they are wrong. And by so doing, this may make official weather bureaus in other countries fix their weather stations.

  94. mrmethane
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    He’s been asked to replace James Hansen.

  95. Manfred
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/28/new-global-temperature-data-reanlysis-co

    The “converted sceptic” meme still doesn’t sound convincing in the context of his climate business background and prior quotes.

    Let’s see if his work improves anything from the last piece, which includes the implausible UHI result, and the total neglect to explain deviation of land temperatures from ocean temoperatures and satellite data.

    Most important is probably the last point, “I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about 1.5 degree F over land in the next 50 years”.

    That would just be about 2 degrees Celsius in a 100 years over land and much less over land and oceans combined, without doing anything and comes pretty close to sceptics estimations and is far off the IPCC estimate.

    I wonder why he is talking in Fahrenheit, looks bigger that way…

    • Steve
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

      “Our results show that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, and one and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase is due to the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

      Say what now? How did he come to this new conclusion?!?

    • Antony India
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 4:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Andrew Montford of Bishop Hill about the Muller’s ‘conversion': “Interestingly, I learn from Anthony that this is not what has caused him to postpone his vacation. There’s more news coming later today.”

  96. Yancey Ward
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I like Watts, but this seems really, really stupid on his part, especially if this doesn’t rise to, at least, the level of CGI or CGII. I have a feeling Watts is going to be trying to explain even to his fans the point of shutting down the site this way.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Readers and commenters are being unappreciative and un-understanding of how much work it takes to manage a blog.

      I know what Anthony’s doing. He’s trying very hard to finish something and finally decided that it was impossible to do so while the blog was live. I sympathize with this 100%. People, including me, read this the wrong way.

      • Skiphil
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 12:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

        So true, I know from friends who have given up on doing far more modestly visited blogs (nothing like on the scale of CA or WUWT) that it becomes major work and hard to find any real down time. I completely sympathize with why AW needed to be offline to work on a big project. He should feel free to do it more often with maximum understanding and support from readers. All most of us do is drop in as we feel like it to see what’s new or pop off now and then.

      • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 12:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

        I know what Anthony’s doing. He’s trying very hard to finish something and finally decided that it was impossible to do so while the blog was live. I sympathize with this 100%. People, including me, read this the wrong way.

        All it makes me want to do is to thank Anthony for that effort – on Watts Up With That, for many long months, and now on this project. Who are any of us to feel ‘let down’ by Anthony Watts? Some people.

        I’ve had dinner at Muller’s house and we’re on very friendly terms. I wish people wouldn’t get so wound up.

        I haven’t. This is good enough for me.

        What’s the opposite to ‘the wisdom of crowds’?

        • None
          Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

          Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds ?

      • MarkB
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

        If the issue was ‘managing a blog,’ surely he didn’t have to make the grand ‘wait for it’ announcement. He has assistants who help him occasionally – he could have just disappeared for a couple of days without the drama.

  97. PhilH
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anthony has discovered the whereabouts of Bender. He is living as a basket monk, hanging off a cliff on an obscure Greek island.

  98. Ally E.
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    STEVE! Not asking for details, just tell us are you smiling? :)

  99. DGH
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    WUWT is acquired by FOX or another media player with a similar view on the world…

    If Huffington was valued for so many $ then Anthony certainly deserves a payday. And in all regards this fits the narrative of the announcement.

  100. Hank McCard
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    After re-reading the Fall(2009) paper and the ‘pre-release’ of Muller’s NYT op-ed for Monday,I suspect that Anthony, et al(?), hope to refute Muller’s claim that station siting, etc., doesn’t affect BEST’s trend analysis.

  101. JoaoMiranda
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Statistics of the blog suggest it’s something reated t moving the blog to another hosting service. Notice sitemeter was offline for 2 days (26 and 27).

  102. Skiphil
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    If this is spurred by the reports of a forthcoming Richard Muller BEST study and op-ed summarizing that work, it is well worth reminding climate alarmists that we should have been to this point in the discussions a lot sooner, had there not been so much obstruction and malice from “the Team”. Steve and Ross and others have been working for a decade to improve the science, rigor, and transparency in the face of so much foot-dragging and worse. Muller himself strongly criticized Mann et al in the past:

    [cross post with BH] As alarmists jump on the Muller bandwagon to shout “see we’re right” it’s important to remind them that 0.8C in the next 50 years is nothing like the extreme scenarios CAGW projects based upon various claimed positive feedbacks.

    Also, Muller does have a bunch of statements through the years expressing the extent of his concern about CO2 and human impacts upon the environment, so he was never some severe skeptic about all AGW who has suddenly changed his tune. What he objected to repeatedly was sloppy science from “The Team” that was muddying the waters for science as well as for public debate. I’ve not seen anything to indicate he takes back his contemptuous words toward Mann et al’s work in MBH98/99.

    Two pop articles from Muller in 2003/4 show his disdain for Mann et all in MBH98/99 and his acceptance of the McIntyre/McKittrick criticisms thereof. So one thing that needs to be said to the alarmists, repeatedly, if/when they celebrate Muller, is that he showed almost a decade ago why Mann et al were holding back the science. The Fact that so much time and energy of so many people has been squandered over a decade and more by the Manniacs is a disgrace. Had “science” including journal editors, colleagues, and vaunted peer review been able to clean up the Mann messes a decade ago, everyone would have been spared much nonsense.

    It is no defense of Mann’s PCA and “hockey stick” to say anything similar is reached by other studies, other routes. It does not serve science or intellectual integrity to approach even the “right” conclusion by incorrect methods and bad work.

    Muller on Mann, a clear dismissal of MBH98/99:

    Muller Dec. 2003 critizing Mann et al

    Muller Oct. 2004 criticizing Mann et al

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I’ve had dinner at Muller’s house and we’re on very friendly terms. I wish people wouldn’t get so wound up.

      • Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Then why is he claiming he was a skeptic? The NYT op-ed is clearly implying he was a skeptic who has now been “converted” – this is clearly not true. Are we not supposed to believe his unskeptical position he was quoted on repeatedly?

      • Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

        NYT Op-Ed Title: “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic”

        “CALL me a converted skeptic.” – Richard Muller, 2012

        Muller’s previous quotes,

        “I was never a skeptic” – Richard Muller, 2011

        “If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.”
        – Richard Muller, 2008

        “There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2006

        “Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003

        My apologies – Muller is clearly a very upfront guy about his position and his op-ed is not misleading in any way. There is obviously nothing misleading about this at all.

      • Skiphil
        Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

        sorry, I didn’t mean to sound wound up “at” Muller so much as at how this will be spun in the media and public discussions (already on ThinkProgress etc.), as in “oh Muller was a leading skeptic and now the debates are over.”

        I only meant that once Muller has announced he is fairly well satisfied on surface temp issues it does not mean either that there never were issues with Mann et al (which he described emphatically) or that current and future “extreme event” attributions are all plausible. Muller discusses the latter in his NY Time op-ed and seems rather dismissive of a lot of attribution claims. So I only meant to point to some common ground between Muller and a lot of readers here and at BH, WUWT, etc.

      • theduke
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Steve: have you considered doing an audit on these new findings?

  103. DGH
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    On second thought…

    BEST relied on AW’s resources for their last paper and then surprised him with their publication and conclusions. He (and Doc Curry) complained loudly.

    My bet is that on Sunday JGR will announce a BEST update with extreme (from AW;s perspective) claims. This time Dr. Muller was kind enough to give AW reasonable notice. He’s moral compass being well pointed prevents him from making an announcement in advance of publication.

    In the meantime the regular posters for WUWT have been preparing rebuttals, etc, and are too busy to write and/or moderate. Hence the temporary shutdown of that site.

    My best and final guess.

  104. JCM
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    He has been appointed to the Michael Mann Chair in Remedial Statistics at Penn State effective August 1 2012.

  105. Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Lance Wallace and Lucy Skywalker have guesses that seem to have teeth to them. But I have doubts that this paper will deal that hard a blow to manmde global warming theory as we would wish it too. There’s been other blows to it that we thought should have done greater damage than they did.

  106. Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 9:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Adding my fuel to the speculation fire …

    A somewhat “back to the future” NYT Op Ed by BEST’s Richard Muller (piece is dated “July 28″ but URL shows publication on July 30:

    The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

    To my mind, there are some elements of this Op Ed that are reminiscent of the Norfolk Constabulary’s “approach” in reaching their conclusion (announced in their News Release – but modified in their subsequent “Media Briefing Q & A)that no one at UEA is implicated in the “sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack”.

    A rather telling – and (considering the IPCC’s July 31 deadline for inclusion in AR5) conveniently timely – excerpt from Muller’s Op Ed:

    These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.

    There are lots of caveats, of course. And who knows, perhaps this latest “finding” is “in press”. But colour me very unimpressed by BEST’s best!

    Perhaps Muller would do well to read Matt Ridley’s recent essay on “The perils of confirmation bias

    As for me, well, I’m still waiting for the real Richard Muller to stand up.

  107. Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    WUWT has not completly ceased publishing. Comments to existing articles and the Tips page are still being moderated. Here is a small bit from one of the moderators:

    [REPLY: Donations don't come to Anthony's attention immediately... it's kinda automated... and Anthony is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY busy and distracted at the moment. Your support is truly appreciated and I think you will find the wait quite worthwhile. What Anthony is going to publish tomorrow is not of the flashy fire-works variety, rather it is a tectonic sort of event. Lots of people are going to be, shall we say, non-plussed? Could even get bloody. Stay tuned, and thank you for your support. -REP]

    WUWT Tips 7/28/12 17:14

  108. Antony India
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 10:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Richard Muller:

    “Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified scientific issues that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Now, after organizing an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I’ve concluded that global warming is real, that the prior estimates of the rate were correct, and that cause is human.”
    “Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophistical statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist Robert Rohde, and which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), data selection (prior groups selected less than 20% of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100%), poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones), and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions. …”

    • Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Pretending he was ever a skeptic and is now “converted” is – snip- pure propaganda,

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

      “If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.”
      – Richard Muller, 2008

      “There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2006

      “Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003

      • Manfred
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 1:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

        The converted sceptic narrative is, of course, disturbing, not only because it is obviously not quite true and highly disputable, but also because low level non expert not really interested in facts media will trumpet this “message” in the first place. Mueller should know that and sadly, he delivers for those agendas.

        • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 1:28 AM | Permalink

          Exactly, that is the real problem with this story. All that it going to be touted is a “skeptic” has been converted, which is completely false and an intentional distortion by Muller. This shows to me his agenda is political propaganda.

      • Paul Matthews
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 5:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Poptech, those quotes completely destroy the ‘converted skeptic’ claim.
        But check the dates. The one you label 2006 is in fact 2008.

  109. Miguel
    Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 10:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My prediction: This will be much ado about nothing. It was “unexpected” because Watts got a phone call offering him a position. Accepting this position would require him to suspend or modify his blog. For instance, he might be invited by Mitt Romney’s campaign to head a climate task force, or been offered a position at NOAA to lead a surface station project. In either case, he would no longer be able to blog freely.

  110. Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Thinkprogress is running the story now,

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

  111. Posted Jul 28, 2012 at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Here is my prediction. Muller has another op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, another PR piece in conjuctions with a paper for AR5. WSJ this time offered Anthony Watts the opportunity to write a rejoinder to be published along side. The timing of the embargo means that this is the time it goes online for the WSJ-Europe edition.

    Urgent? – The presses don’t wait.
    Controvercial? – By design.
    Unprecidented? – Certainly unusual, unprecidented would depepend upon the scope of analogs.
    It isn’t a health issue (although it might cause Anthony one)
    Not FOIA related.
    Global? – WSJ – European Edition. About Global Warming.

    Won’t be long now, in any case.

  112. Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 12:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Al Gore TV running the story,

    http://current.com/technology/93856508_the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.htm

  113. Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Bunny Rabbit disorder guy claims Muller does a reverse Lomborg,

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-incidence-of-solipsism-among.html

  114. Scarface
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:18 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From Bishop Hill: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/7/29/muller-in-the-nyt.html

    “Richard Muller’s op-ed in the New York Times is now published.
    Interestingly, I learn from Anthony that this is not what has caused him to postpone his vacation. There’s more news coming later today.”

    ???

    The mystery deepens…

  115. Ben
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 4:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

    AW news is not related to Muller
    Bishop hill : “Interestingly, I learn from Anthony that this is not what has caused him to postpone his vacation. There’s more news coming later today.”

  116. Alexander Harvey
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 4:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It could be that a opportunity has openned up rather than some scoop or other. Maybe he has found an option to do something quite new to his website.

    I could see that splitting it between a debating, campaigning blog and something more akin to an online journal might suit him and potentially others, but there are hurdles to doing that.

    If some group with the required academic credentials is coming together and would agree to form a board, create a publiehing policy with good open credentials, data, peer-review, right to reply etc., there might be something in that for Anthony and such a group.

    Alex

  117. Miguel
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 4:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Lubos Motl has the best idea. See this link he found:
    http://www.sys-con.com/node/2314120
    (It has nothing to do with climate.)

    • jup
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 7:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Wow. Kudos to Mr Watts. Didn’t realize he was a business pioneer and inventor. Maybe some big corporation is investing heavily in Watts ITworks? Or could it be Watts is releasing a solar-powered version of the blade servers, thus driving power costs down to a fraction of the current cost? Yessir, living up to his name.

    • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

      I meant to check itworks.com to see if there were hints there. While it does refer to the blade stuff as new, it’s been in the works for a while. The link goes to buildablade.com which Anthony registered in November 2010.

      If it’s related, it needs a controversial aspect, so perhaps something like big oil buying a substantial percentage of the business. Using the racks for on-site seismic analysis could qualify.

      However, unless was was big enough to rock Wall St, there’s no reason for the announcement to be on Sunday. Perhaps it’s to announce that there will be a demonstration on Monday, and Anthony & co have been working all weekend to set that up.

      One with the recent changes at weather.com and wunderground, that could fit into something like regional weather servers providing online media and needing low power servers to handle it all. Or perhaps weather.com is going global (there’s a global aspect to fulfill).

  118. Phineas
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 7:54 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ll thinking this announcement is related to the surfacestation paper by Watts (Fall et al., 2011). Could it be that NOAA wants to fully fund the Surface Stations Project, and has asked Watts to take charge and overhaul the USHCN set of weather stations?

    Hope that if this is the case, Watts won’t succumb to all that government climate money that is going to start raining down on him.

  119. Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 8:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Guardian story is up,

    “Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

    • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Forgot the best part,

      “Earth’s land shown to have warmed by 1.5C over past 250 years, with humans being almost entirely responsible”

      They quoted Anthony too.

    • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Forces? I don’t think so.

      Sceptical? Muller never was a sceptic.

      Scientists? Just 1. No need for the final s.

      My favorite part: ” including an increase of 1.5 degrees over the most recent 50 years”

      Hmmm.

      1961 to 2011. NOAA = .39F / decade

      1931 to 2011. NOAA = .10F / decade

      BEST = cherry picking

  120. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 8:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I doubt its IT related. WUWT is a “AGW climate skeptic” site. Lubos idea would be a real distraction or let down, put it that way.

  121. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This copied from Plazaame at Lucias re Muller
    “plazaeme (Comment #100288)
    July 29th, 2012 at 12:42 am
    Richard Muller 2012:
    “CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.”
    Richard Muller 2003:
    Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.”
    Thank you Plazaeme A link to the original quote would be greatly appreciated

  122. RB
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I think its likely that a third party has come to Anthony Watts with a deal of information or documents that will reveal something important that has hitherto been concealed or kept from us all.

  123. Mike Roddy
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    After BEST, word on the street is that Anthony is in bed with a pile of tranquilizers on the nightstand, planning his escape and quiet exile in Sri Lanka.

  124. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    non·plussed/nänˈpləst/
    Adjective:
    (of a person) Surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react.
    (of a person) Unperturbed.
    So shocking so as to confuse(my addition)

    This suggests a turn coat a really big one maybe Mann is FOIA? (Joke) Could be BRiffa, Jones or someone who has decided its time to get out before lawsuits start. My guess is that The Muller thing is a last grasp at giving some respectability for some of these guys to fall back on in case of the legal questions which will arise

    • ChE
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Either that, or Anthony got blindsided by the BEST project that he was supposed to have a role in, and got backstabbed. Judging from the NYT interview, the rather unremarkable results reported so far are being spun furiously as absolute proof that the team was completely right about everything. Don’t be surprised if a coordinated media blitz comes out of this.

  125. Skiphil
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    update on Bishop Hill indicates it’s not something specific to Muller’s op-ed but “not unrelated” either….. so somewhere in the ballpark of surface temp records and analysis thereof??

    update on WUWT confirms there will be an announcement today (in less than 5 hours from now):

    [WUWT]: UPDATE: 7/29/2012 A press release will be issued at ~12PM Noon, PDT today.

  126. Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Yep, this is blowing up how I expected,

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/richard-muller-climate-change-humans-koch_n_1715887.html

    “Humans are almost entirely the cause” of climate change, according to a scientist who once doubted that global warming even existed. <———???!!!!

    Really? Muller once doubted global warming even existed?

  127. Harriet Harridan
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 9:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “Non-Plussed”

    Play on words? I.e. the Best results re-analysed by Watts & team, shows the temperature has not increased at all. There is no “plus”.

  128. Jeremy
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    A staged press release campaign to again try to convince people that we’re somehow certain that mankind is responsible for all the warming….

    *yawn*

    Why is Anthony even bothering to respond to all this? (I’m under the presumption he was working on one this past week) It’s more of the same, from the same cabal. Muller was never a skeptic.

  129. Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This looks to be “minor” only going on 1200+ comments at the Huffington Post,

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/richard-muller-climate-change-humans-koch_n_1715887.html

  130. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Think RB is spot on or close. BTW someone should warn AW that his site maybe prone to a DOS or similar to prevent the “happening” so he should cover by sending the info to other sites?

    • chrismorph
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

      The “happening” – I like that description. I suspect this will be less dramatic, I hope it is as a member of the congregation…

  131. Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Just FTR, while I noted that Anthony Watts has several moderators and trusted authors, his update to the announcement does say “As many of you know, running WUWT is a monumental task which I could not do without the help of many people. Even so, it still requires my constant attention.”

    Meanwhile there is an article on WUWT about problems with surface temp monitoring stations.

  132. Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

    While everyone is hot on their seats with the curiosity building, I can’t help but think we will be in for the same sort of Harold Camping “the world is going to end ” type of prediction.

    After all, virtually everything Anthony puts up on his blog is wrong, misleading, irrelevant, or otherwise scientifically unimportant. Why would anyone expect this round to be different, except that he asked you to wait a few days to hear about it.

    • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

      *prediction letdown,…

      • TerryMN
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

        You’re not the first to say that. That said, shouldn’t you be doing homework, studying for a test, or building a new beer bong for the frat house?

      • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Mr. Colose is a very quick reader. Or perhaps prefers to let prejudice push his comments in advance of actual knowledge…

        • ChE
          Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM | Permalink

          In the vernacular, I think that’s “d’oh”.

    • mrmethane
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

      How’re them polyps, Chris, as you seem to be able to examine them real up close and personal like?

    • Jeff Alberts
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

      And how are those predictions of climate doom going? NYC still not underwater? Tuvalu still bleating?

    • Scarface
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Have you always been such a nice person? Or was it after the AGW-meme got you?

    • Manfred
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Chris, how about starting with lessons in basic statistics before commenting with grown ups ?

  133. xxx
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    so boring, so uninteresting, just another paper that will soon be killed.

  134. HR
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    announcement out. I didn’t feel the earth shake.

  135. Leo G
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Congrats Steve on hopefully another publication to your name! So does this mean that this paper will be regarded the Same as muller’s, Grey?

  136. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Ok so WUWT has published what we all knew along there is of course a very very significant warming effect form encroachment/building/population effect from most of the Stevenson boxes everywhere its double so basically when you come down to it there is no AGW

    • Don McIlvin
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Well, they do find .15+ per decade. What is interesting is I have read papers by some solar guys who said 35% of the increase in the period could be explained by the intensity of the last few solar maximums (among the most intense in centuries). So if half of what they compared their 35% to was spurious siting issues, then 70% of the per decade increase to the new actual would be from the solar effects. Doing the math that would leave .05+ for the net on other causes.

      Granted the above is a swag-ish broad brush and simplistic, but it points to the significance of the finding in the new paper. A resulting rate that is .5+ per century (after you remove the solar effect) is not one that supports impending doom in the next couple decades or even a century.

      • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

        For the US, compliant stations, regional changes go from -.020C/decade in the SouthEast to .335 in the Arizona region.

        And I don’t think this takes into account UHI.

  137. Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m not seeing how this required a cessation of publishing on WUWT. It appears that it has been released specifically to counter the Muller announcement today.

  138. Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Delingpole posted the story,

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100173174/global-warming-yeah-right/

  139. Brian B
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    So how did Steve have no idea what Anthony’s announcement was if he was listed as a coauthor?

  140. Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “I have no idea what it is.”

    Erm, that was a porky pie wasn’t it.

    • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

      What did the speaker have to gain by lying? And what is our experience of the speaker?

      These two tell us it wasn’t a lie.

      But a speedy addition to the co-authors I think he has to have been.

      • Brian B
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

        I assume that was directed at blackwhitewash.com, not me.
        I didn’t mean to imply anything dishonest, but figured Anthony would have informed his co authors; an incorrect assumption as it turned out.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Not at all. I had no idea at the time of the post that Anthony planned to announce this weekend or with such fanfare. Mosher and I talked about it and both assigned about a 20% to Anthony’s announcement being something to do with the surface stations project.

      I helped with the statistics at the finish line, which Anthony was grateful for.

      • Don McIlvin
        Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

        I understand the full paper is not yet peer reviewed and published in a Scientific Journal. Any idea on where and when it will be submitted for this.

        • Duke C.
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 12:42 PM | Permalink

          Was curious about that too. Could we see one or more journal editor resignations in the near future? Could get bloody.

        • PaulM
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM | Permalink

          I bet it will be submitted on Tuesday (deadline for consideration in next IPCC report). No idea where. Hope they have more sense than to try Nature.

      • Fred Bloggs
        Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 2:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

        OK this is a good result Anthony but I am stunned that he did not tell you, a co-author, in advance. How bizarre.

        • geo
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

          It’s not clear to me that Steve was a co-author until Saturday.

      • Ed Barbar
        Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Steve,

        Sorry to hear you weren’t more involved on the statistics end. I’m taking it as you are listed as a co-author you have no issues with the filtering methods? Are they statistically sound in your view?

      • Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Steve McIntyre (Jul 29 15:27), I suggest you cover this point in an update at the top. It will clear up the confusion more quickly.

  141. Dodgy Geezer
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The Watts announcement is now out.

    It shows that the US weather station temperature trend data has been ‘spuriously doubled’.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286 refers…

  142. Edmond
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    So now we know :)
    Congratulations to the authors.
    Hopefully Steve will start a new thread and give us his thoughts on the papers.

  143. S. Geiger
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Was it mentioned anywhere to what journal this new paper was submitted?

    • Dodgy Geezer
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I hope it was submitted to Nature. They would try to find some way to refuse it, which would be even more damaging for them than if they were to accept it….

  144. Adrianos Kosmina
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 3:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well we can conclude from the UHI effect reported by Watts et al., that there is no significant AGW. Something I and my father (Atmospheric Physicist working for the WMO for 12 years) suspected a long time ago.

  145. Skiphil
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 3:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    don’t miss:

    Pielke, Sr. praises Watts et al (2012) as “seminal” and a “game changer”

  146. Barclay MacDonald
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This appears to be quite an achievement by the usual suspects!
    Congratulations to all who worked on and supported Anthony’s Surface Stations project and what has followed. Recall in the beginning how it was criticized by some as an exercise in futility by the ignorant. At the very least I think it is fair to say that the Project and it’s progeny will move Climate Science forward. Further, this is a an interesting instance of how the Internet can work positively in engaging the public, indeed the World, with evolving science in a positive manner.

    • Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 5:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Further, this is a an interesting instance of how the Internet can work positively in engaging the public, indeed the World, with evolving science in a positive manner.

      Crucial point. Open science gurus in the UK like Cameron Neylon, Peter Murray-Rust and Glyn Moody should love and embrace Anthony Watts and the Surface Stations project for this. One day the ideological blinkers need to come off the rest of the Open Knowledge crowd as well and Watts seen as heroic pioneer he is. I await that moment with some delight.

      • Steven Mosher
        Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 5:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Well.

        Anthony has put his paper out for review following Muller’s practice. When Muller first
        released his papers he also released the data. If you search you can find Willis complaining
        about the status of that data ( preliminary ). Here at climate audit, Steve requested
        and audited the Rural station dataset. Folks here seem to agree that letting reviewers have access to the data is a good thing. You cant review without it. We also know from the gergis affair
        that people often say that they performed one calculation in the paper and actually forgot
        to do the calculation. So A good reviewer wants to see the code as run.

        Now, Does anybody want to wager whether the data and code will be released for this paper
        right now? How about the raw data? that is the photographs and the google earth work?
        Let me anticipate an objection. Some folks may suggest that there is a concern that
        people will take anthonys data and publish their own paper. That is easily handled with
        a confidentiality agreement. No reviewer can use the work he reviews to write his own paper and submit it for publication.

        Anybody want to give odds.

        • Eddy
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

          No wager – I wouldn’t have a clue – but certainly hope the data and code will be released soon. Obviously this should be scrutinized as closely as any other big claim.

        • TerryMN
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 6:46 PM | Permalink

          Not going to wager, but I think they should make all of the data and methods used available – I’d be fine with anyone interested having to sign a non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement in order to get access to it if they feel there’s IP involved ahead of a possible publishing. And – if there’s an open source or cheap version of our IRM software that would eliminate anyone’s ability to make copies,send to others, etc. that’d be fine too.

        • Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

          From what I could see, the paper was released in something of a hurry in response to Muller’s paper. There were a number of grammatical problems in the paper which seem to support that point of view.

          So assuming it was just the writeup that was rushed and not the analysis itself, I wouldn’t mind betting they simply aren’t yet in a position to package the data and code all up and make it available without running the risk of making an error in doing so.

        • geochemist
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

          Mosher – STFU.I am sure everything will be released in due time. Unlike BEST, this work will never be considered by IPCC or the team to to fuel the effort to destroy the USA. Therefore, the two papers do not need to play by the same rules.

        • TerryMN
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 8:39 PM | Permalink

          Please try to be civil, geochemist.

        • Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 9:39 PM | Permalink

          I’ll wager you will never get a paper published.

        • Steven Mosher
          Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 10:35 PM | Permalink

          Pop.

          I don’t write papers and have no intention of writing papers. I will prepare data for other people writing papers, or help manage the data they make public, but writing papers is not something I want to do. A blog post, yes, a poster, that was fun. But mostly it’s the data I am concerned about and open tools to make research more open. pretty simple. I might write a paper on a database or a tool, but not anything where I did actual climate science.A man has to know his limitations. If my name appears in anything but the acknowledgements its because someone decided that working on the data was some kind of authorship. In my mind, the person who writes the words is the author. quaint idea, but it keeps me from having to defend analysis that I disagree with.

        • Posted Jul 31, 2012 at 2:59 AM | Permalink

          Mosh was replying to me but I’ve only just seen his reply, having been poring over completely different data and source code. I think what he says is completely fair comment. Surface Stations is a remarkable example of mobilising citizen science through the internet. But of course they have to match BEST or better them on openness. I’m foursquare with Steve on that.

  147. vvenema
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    As far as I can see the main novelty is that the weather station classification scheme of Leroy (2010) is better than Leroy (1999).

    It would have been more elegant if Watts had stated in his press release that the differences between stations of various qualities he found in the temperature trends are only visible in the raw data. In the homogenized (adjusted) data the trends are about the same for all quality classes. No more sign of errors due to the urban heat island.

    That the trend is stronger in the homogenized data is no surprise, the transition to automatic weather stations during the study period has caused an artificial cooling in the raw data.

    For a bit more detailed “review”, please visit my blog.
    http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html

    I hope I have been fair to the manuscript. I had only little time and night is falling in Europe.

    • Steve Reynolds
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

      “…the transition to automatic weather stations during the study period has caused an artificial cooling in the raw data.”

      Then why is the trend in MMTS only stations low? Those should have had no transition.

    • AntonyIndia
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

      The new Leroy siting classification for land weather stations reg. temperatures deals better with UHI effects.
      Example: class 1 · Flat, horizontal land, surrounded by an open space, slope less than 1/3 (19°).
      · Ground covered with natural and low vegetation (< 10 cm) representative of the region.
      · Measurement point situated:
      o at more than 100 m from heat sources or reflective surfaces (buildings, concrete surfaces, car parks etc.)
      o at more than 100 m from an expanse of water (unless significant of the region)
      o away from all projected shade when the Sun is higher than 5°. A source of heat (or expanse of water) is considered to have an impact if it occupies more
      than 10 % of the surface within a circular area of 100 m surrounding the screen, makes up 5% of an annulus of 10m-30m, or covers 1% of a 10 m circle.

    • AntonyIndia
      Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Another crucial point from Watts et al. 2012 discussion paper’s abstract:
      “Comparisons demonstrate that NOAA adjustment processes fail to adjust poorly sited 54 stations downward to match the well sited stations, but actually adjusts the well sited 55 stations upwards to match the poorly sited stations. Well sited rural stations show a 56 warming nearly three times greater after USHCNv2 adjustments are applied.”

  148. RoyFOMR
    Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 8:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Some commentators have speculated that SMc and Moshpit knew more about Anthony’s ‘scoop’ than they had admitted to. Call me old-fashioned but my gut-instinct is an equivocal ‘no way’
    Evidence, minimal; certainty, certainly!
    Steven MKc exudes integrity, where I’m concerned. Mosphit also and even when he annoys me with his cryptic clues. I never doubt him either. Dammit but he is so infuriating at times!
    Love them or loath them, don’t matter, they just seem so trustable.
    Sceptics/Lukewarmers may share similar viewpoints but conspiratists they aint!
    They are their own men and unless we get AuditGate that’s my twopence worth.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jul 29, 2012 at 10:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Mosher didnt know either. We were talking about it that afternoon on Skype and trying to guess.

  149. viejecita
    Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 2:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Just read the Thank You to you from Anthony Watts at the WUWT blog.
    My hat goes off in admiration.
    They should make people like you, by the dozen.
    ¡Enhorabuena!
    ( And thanks for being such a great guy )

  150. John
    Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 5:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Beautiful smokescreen by all. McIntyre and Motl playing their parts perfectly, sending the alarmists off on a wild goose chase. Result: Muller’s pseudo-scientific claims killed off within a day of publication. I would hate to play chess with Anthony Watts.

  151. Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 8:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I just posted the following as comment #734 over at WUWT, but fear it may get lost in the uproar. Here it is only #284!

    Here is an important point of clarification, though one that doesn’t affect the results:

    The rating system used by Surface Stations in the past and presumably by all subsequent papers until this one is due to CRN, not to Leroy 1999. Although the CRN system is based on Leroy 1999, it greatly simplifies it by just looking at distance to nearest heat source, without compensating for the size of that source. The CRN simplification thus unnecessarily disqualifies many good stations that have nearby walkways, small buidings, etc.

    The new Leroy 2010 classification system is almost identical to Leroy 1999, but has not been available in an official English form until 2010. I did a translation of Leroy 1999 that I sent to Anthony back in 10/2007, but I never received permission from Leroy to post it on my website or circulate it widely.

    So the big difference in the methodology of the new study and previous ones is between CRN and Leroy, not between Leroy 1999 and Leroy 2010.

    The primary (but minor) difference I can find between Leroy 1999 and Leroy 2010 is that the latter has relaxed somewhat the angle of altitude below which the sun is allowed to cast shadows on the sensor. For Class 1 this was 3 degrees, but now is 5 degrees. For class 2 this was 5 degrees, but now is 7. For class 3 this was omitted, presumably by an oversight, but now is 7 degrees. For class 4 this was 5 degrees, but now is 20 degrees.

    The only other difference I can find is that formerly class 2 allowed vegetation up to 25 cm in the surrounding area, but that has now been reduced to 10 cm.

    The Leroy 1999 paper was presented as the position of Meteo-France. The new paper expresses the hope that the system will become the new WMO standard, perhaps at the CIMO XV conference in Sept. 2010. I don’t know how that came out.

    • S. Geiger
      Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 9:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

      “The only other difference I can find is that formerly class 2 allowed vegetation up to 25 cm in the surrounding area, but that has now been reduced to 10 cm.”

      – so this criterion is obviously transient (or could be) throughout the study period. Would exceeding the 10 cm threshold turn a 1 into a 2? That was one aspect of the study I’m still pondering….they use a 2010(ish) snapshot to classify an instrument location but then it seems to assume that throughout the entire period that the situation was static (or was metadata/site knowledge used to ensure that conditions had not changed throughout the period?)

    • Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Reply

      I see now that the recommendations of Leroy 2010 were indeed adopted as the WMO-CIMO in Sept. 2010:
      , pp. 8, 47-50.

      The correct reference for the CRN system formerly used by Surface Stations, is U.S. Climate Reference Network Site Information Handbook, NOAA/NCDC, 1/15/03.

    • Steve Reynolds
      Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 8:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I posted this comment at WUWT yesterday, but no reply that I’ve seen. Anyone have an opinion?

      Congratulations on what looks like (on a very quick reading) an excellent contribution to climate science.
      One question; you state in the paper:
      “Where such discrepancies could not be resolved, or it was determined from photographs, 271 metadata, or curator interviews that the station had been closed or moved after 2002, and 272 prior location could not be established, that station was excluded from consideration and 273 not included in this study.”
      How much do you know about how the quality of stations has changed with time (especially ones changed prior to 2002)? If the quality of individual stations has changed over the entire period from 1979 nearly randomly, then you might expect those going from good to bad to have an elevated trend, but also those going from bad to good having a reduced trend. Has this potential source of systematic error been considered? This could be significant if many of the currently good stations were previously bad.

  152. Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well one could truly say that Watt’s et al 2012 simply responds to a Second BEST report.

    …and be perfectly accurate and well meaning.

  153. rup
    Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 7:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anthony. Thanks for being involved.

    And for all your work at Climate Audit.

    But.

    What are your thoughts on Leroy 2010?

    Systematical subjectivity?

  154. geochemist
    Posted Jul 30, 2012 at 8:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry TerryMN but I am sick of his snark and arrogance. I don’t know why Steve and Anthony put up with it.

    • Lucy Skywalker
      Posted Jul 31, 2012 at 7:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Steve Mosher’s posts (some of them) irritate a lot of people, myself included. But Steve does at times have extremely important insights that support the whole process of bringing light into this murky corner of Science. He did astounding difficult, brave and responsible work handling CG1, which nobody should forget. And he’s been around a long time, generally supporting work here and bringing up relevant challenges and issues.

    • Posted Jul 31, 2012 at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Steve Mac, I hope you will run a post (or even posts) here that allows people to “audit” Anthony’s paper thoroughly re the science, as Leif and many others know is essential for its safe passage through peer-review and publication.

      I too subscribe to the notion that this paper is “tectonic” in its potential importance for the reform of Climate Science, and therefore deserves to be opened to the hardest and keenest criticism here.

      • Posted Jul 31, 2012 at 7:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Sorry I thought I’d posted this on its own thread, it was not meant to be with my earlier reply to geochemist.

    • TerryMN
      Posted Jul 31, 2012 at 7:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Mosher (and a lot of other people who comment here) have been pushing authors to “release the data, release the code” for a long time. It would be disingenuous to not hold the Watts et al team to the same standard.

      The immediate cessation of snark and arrogance would be uncharacteristic too, IMO. :)

  155. Slabadang
    Posted Jul 31, 2012 at 4:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hi!

    To map out who is who and why in the CAGWpropaganda circus. Who made Muller a “Voice” in the debate? Who appointed him as a speaker of “scpticism” in the kongressional hearings who is orcestrating this deceptive fars? Any leads?

  156. Posted Jul 31, 2012 at 5:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Just to clarify my “telling porky pies” comment, it was said tongue in cheek, it was not an accusation of lying, rather a “ooh you naughty little boys for keeping a smokescreen” – if indeed it was one.

  157. Posted Jul 31, 2012 at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The statistical analysis in any study is the most important part IMHO

4 Trackbacks

  1. [...] http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/27/anthonys-announcement/ [...]

  2. [...] Anthony’s Announcement Jul 27, 2012 – 1:18 PM [...]

  3. [...] his post Friday, Steve McIntyre truly didn’t know what this was about. He was out of the [...]

  4. By Friday, July 27 | Denier Roundup on Jul 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM

    [...] McIntyre doesn’t know what the announcement is either, but here are his guesses: [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: