Reader Jim asked:

1) If human beings were extinct and not affecting climate change, would the
climate still change?

2) What should the global temperature be? What is the ideal temperature?
Should it ever change?

The response to question number 1, Jim, is absolutely! The entire history of the globe is a history of climate change. Ice ages, periods of near tropical conditions in the mid-latitudes. It's all happened before, for a variety of reasons. Many, but not all, climate scientists believe that much of the warming over the past few decades has been caused by human activity, both through emission of greenhouse gases and because of land-use changes.

As for your second question, I would think we're fairly close to that now, as far as humans are concerned. The warming of the past few decades has mostly been seen in a decrease in the diurnal (day to night) temperature range. That is, nights have not been as cool, which has resulted in a lengthened growing season in some areas. I think this is mostly the case in the mid-latitudes and people in other parts of the world may disagree.

The Roger Pielke Sr. Research group has been trying without much success to obtain official photos of the U.S. Historical Climate Network (HCN) recording sites from NOAA since 2002. The HCN sites are used to diagnose the monthly and yearly surface temperature anomalies across the United States. The U.S. data is also included in the global temperature anomalies that we are constantly seeing in the media. The story, which appears in Climate Science states that several scientists have independently obtained photos of the HCN sites. According to Pielke, their photos clearly show significant siting problems with a large number of the recording stations, which could very well be leading to widespread temperature inaccuracies.

Make sure you check out some of the links included in the Climate Science story. Brett.

"Hannity & Colmes" from Fox News just did an interview with author Bjorn Lomborg, who says we need to have middle of the road approach to global warming. I noticed the headline on the video picture of Lomborg saying he is a global warming scientist. Lomborg is not a trained scientist. Lomborg holds political science degrees and is currently an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School focusing on statistics. Lomborg authored "The Skeptical Environmentalist" back in 2001, which was controversial, and his latest book from 2007 is titled "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming."

I like how Lomborg is just about to answer why Al Gore will not debate him and is suddenly cut off. I guess that is TV for you!

Anyway, here is a link to the transcript of the interview.

As many of you are already aware, Dr. James Hansen has released the source code for the NASA gistemps. A portion of the U.S. temperature data was correctly called into question a while back by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, resulting in an adjustment of the U.S. temperature data. The most notable correction resulted in 1934 taking back the top honors as the warmest year in the U.S. on record, no longer 1998.

On his website (part 2 of the pdf), a clearly angry and frustrated Hansen says that due to a "flood" of demands for the source code he decided to release it last week, but the simplified version, "for people interested in science," according to Hansen, may not be available for a week or two, meaning most of us will have no idea what to make of the initial release.

Hansen also talks about the "bad" data out of parts of Africa and South America. He says that if they omit South America and Africa there is only a tiny effect on global temperature change, actually a 0.01 celsius increase. McIntyre fires back, saying that now in addition to South America and Africa, Hansen is also implying that the lack of material change since the 1930s with the U.S. data and lack of Antarctica data does not matter as well. That is indeed a lot of land, especially in the southern hemisphere, and if you are strictly looking at land masses where people live, I would have to agree with McIntyre that it does indeed matter. But, when you combine ocean and land, which Hansen and his collegues do, then it is not nearly as significant globally, based on the maps and graph display included in Hansen's response, since the oceans make up a clear majority of the earth. I am sure many of us look forward to the release of the simplified version. To be continued no doubt.

Steven Milloy of JunkScience.com just put out a follow up to the study I discussed yesterday about the strengthening link being established by a study between climate change and greenhouse gases using fossilized sea shells. In the second part of his post, below the Japanese office workers story, he was able to interview Jan Veizer, who is one of the supposed co-authors of the new study. Though, I was not able to find how much of a role he actually had in the study, as there can be many co-authors. Anyway, according to Milloy, Veizer said that the quoted conclusion of the study represented a "compromise" between the study's disagreeing authors. He also quotes Veizer as saying the basic pattern of reconstructed sea surface temperatures in both his original study and the new study remain inconsistent with the notion that atmospheric CO2 drives global temperatures. It would be nice to get reaction from one of the two authors that were highlighted in the original study. You can read more on this here

Just to note: Milloy is a paid advocate for certain oil and tobacco companies.

I caught this story today from The Australian titled "El Nino shaped by Global Warming."
This is not the first time we have heard of this, but anyway, researchers from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CISRO have determined that since 1977, key El Nino indicators have been recorded at unprecedented levels. Now keep in mind, we are talking 30 years of data here, not hundreds or thousands.

What is El Nino? El Nino is the unusual warming of the surface water in the equatorial eastern and central Pacific, which has been found to have widespread impact on global weather patterns. Currently, we are in a strengthening La Nina phase across this region, which is the opposite of El Nino (cooler than normal surface water over the eastern and central equatorial Pacific).

The most commonly accepted indicator of El Nino is the Southern Oscillation Index or SOI, which is an index number determined by using sea level pressure anomalies at Tahiti and Darwin. The research team suspects that the Walker Circulation may play the bigger role, as the circulation tends to weaken during El Nino and strengthen during La Nina.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

Dr. Scott Power, a Bureau researcher, said the trade winds were the weakest they have ever been in the 30-year record. Power believes that it is possible that global warming has put the circulation into a permanently weaker state. He cites that since 1977 there have been 7 El Nino events versus 4 La Nina's, including the current one going on. Southeastern Australia is currently in its 11th straight dry year, and some believe that the weaker Walker Circulation is to blame. Power admits that he cannot quantify this link, but he believes that it is part natural and part human induced.

Certainly not a convincing study, but I thought it was interesting. Thoughts?

UPDATE............

Dr. Scott Power, the lead researcher in this study makes a welcome response to this story in our comment section. Here it is.........

Hi Brett,
thank you for showing an interest in this work. Just thought i would clarify the situation a little bit.

For the SOI we had data extending back to 1876. We examined running 30 year averages - one value for each 30 year block. The lowest value occurred during the most recent 30 year period i.e. in 1977-2006. We also examined the degree to which the difference in the mean before and after 1977 is unusual but shall refer your readers to the paper if they are interested in such technical details. Its a short note so I'd encourage people to read it!

We also examined Darwin MSLP separately. As you know Darwin MSLP is sometimes used as an index for ENSO in its own right. Darwin MSLP exhibited its highest 30-year value on record during 1977-2006.

This strongly suggests that Walker Circulation weakened to record levels in 1977-2006. To test this hypothesis we examined changes in zonal (east-west) windstress averaged across the Pacific. We used ERA40 and NCEP reanalyses to do this. We recognise that the reanalyses have inaccuracies but they are best available as far as i am aware. This data is also much shorter than SOI. Nevertheless it exhibited its lowest 30 year magnitude (corresponding to weakest trade winds) during - you guessed it - the period 1977-2006.

We also used the SOI to define El Nino and La Nina events: if June-Dec SOI>5 we called it a La Nina year, if the June-Dec SOI<-5 we called it an El Nino year. We then found that the number of El Nino events was greater during 1977-2006 than in any other 30 year period and the number of La Nina events was the (equal) lowest on record. Thus 1977-2006 appeared to be more heavily influenced by El Ninos than any other 30 year period on record.

We then went on to discuss these findings in light of previous work (e.g. Vecchi et al. and other studies discussed in recent IPCC report) pointing out that some climate models exhibit a weakened Walker Circulation in response to global warming.

Finally, note that some of the media stories written about the article have different conclusions to the paper itself!

Thanks again.

Regards,
Scott Power

In a debate before an Institute of Medicine Panel on Global Health, top climate change scientists argued Tuesday whether or not there is concrete evidence linking global warming to the spread of infectious disease.

In the Boston Globe article written by John Donnelly, Mr. Donald S. Burke, dean of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, noted that a 2001 study found that weather fluctuation and seasonal variability may influence the spread of infectious disease. But he believes that such conclusions should be interpreted with caution. "There are no apocalyptic pronouncements," Burke said. "There's an awful lot we don't know." Burke said he is not convinced that climate change can be proven to cause the spread of many diseases, specifically naming dengue fever, influenza, and West Nile virus.

On the other hand, you have Paul R. Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, who said clusters of disease outbreaks spread by water, mosquitoes, and rats could clearly be traced to global warming. Epstein said those who "just look at specific diseases can miss the broader picture. If you look at ecological systems, water systems, the extreme weather, the range of wildlife . . . or more profoundly everything that supports a health system, then you can see the linkages. Scope is really important when you look at this."

An example of a documented link of disease to a chnaging weather pattern was exhibited by an earlier outbreak of chikungunya fever along Kenya's coast. Weather patterns caused by La Nina led to drought in east Africa during 2004. Because there was a shortage of fresh water, people rarely emptied buckets around their homes, giving mosquitoes an ideal breeding ground of standing water.

"An outbreak like that is from a convergence of factors, and climate is one of them," said Jean-Paul Chretien, who is the Defense Department's coordinator of overseas laboratories.

Paul Yeager, who is our western weather expert here at Accuweather.com has an interesting post which is titled "Global Warming Debate". Paul takes a look at the people who enter the global warming debate, such as the ones who contribute to the comment section of this blog. Paul believes there are four groups within this debate, and they are listed below.....

1. The Apathetic group

2. The Deniers

3. AGW Proponents (Anthropogenic or Man-made Global warming)

4. The Skeptic

I encourage you to read Paul's blog so you can see how he defines each group. If you wish, let us know which group you think you fall into. Maybe I will take a vote if we get enough responses. If you respond please do so in the global warming blog comment section. You can also email Paul with any comments in regards to his post right here at yeager@accuweather.com

According to official accounts, the new solar cycle 24 supposedly began this past January, but since then there has not been a peep of activity from #24, instead we continue to see a few spots every now and then from the outgoing cycle #23. Now, it looks like the real start for solar cycle 24 is further delayed.

The sun's sunspot activity remains ultra quiet (April 8th image)

Anthony Watts has a nice post in his blog on the situation in regards to the waiting game on solar cycle 24. Watts has a link to Jan Janssen's Solar Activity and Earth Monitor web page. On his web page, Janssens does not expect solar cycle 24 anytime before July of 2008, and perhaps not till early 2009, which would make solar cycle #23 one of the longest in over 100 years. Keep in mind, his forecast is not the "official" prediction.

Here is the graph (below) of the latest sunspot prediction from NASA.

It appears that the sharp, beautiful colors of autumn are slowly being blurred out across parts of Europe and the Northeast United States and some scientists are blaming global warming.

According to the Telegraph article, the Italian Meteorological Society has observed less gold, red and copper colored foliage across the nation's woodlands. Similar developments have been noted elsewhere in Europe and in the northern Hemisphere.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has just started funding a study into claims that the northern states fall colors are also fading away with climate change.

"Something is clearly happening to make the colours less vivid. The wood is a living organism that tries to adapt to the climate, and change in climate is the cause. We really need to study and understand what's happening, said Dr. Giustino Mezzalira, an Italian forest expert. "But I think that, as in the United States, the colours are fading because the temperature difference between night and day is getting smaller and smaller."

Botanists believe that brilliant leaf colours associated with autumn are promoted by cold nights followed by warm, sunny days; in the absence of such conditions, the trees probably continue to produce the green pigment chlorophyll as if it were still summertime.

How would you rate the fall foliage over the past few seasons compared to normal? Assuming you live in an area where there is annual color change.

Blog posted by Mark Paquette

As Brett had mentioned in a recent article, sunspot activity continues to be nearly non-existent, actually, it is non-existent as can be seen from the picture below. That got me wondering... Is this completely unusual? Is something strange going on here?

According to this article, what is occurring is completely natural, as Dr. Sean Oughton, an associate professor of Mathematics at New Zealand's Waikato University (what is he doing commenting on sunspots?) says ""What we are experiencing is a very deep solar minimum, but it is still completely within the bounds of what is normal."

I, a novice about the subject of sunspots and how its affects our climate, am intrigued by how "quiet" the sun has been. How much longer does the sun need to be "quiet" before we start to wonder if something is going on here that is not "normal?" I am just beginning to understand how the lack of solar activity affects our climate, and I wonder if and when will see any climate changes due to how the lack of sunspots and solar activity?

Note: I meant to get this up a couple days ago, but I had to make a long distance trip to attend a funeral over the weekend. Brett

--------

Several days ago the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA to you and me) announced that through a thorough scientific review, greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The review was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court back in 2007.

A total of six, specific gases were mentioned in the report.....

--CO2
--Methane
--Nitrous Oxide
--Hydrofluorocarbons
--Perfluorocarbons
--Sulfur hexafluoride

The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate, according to the report.

Their analysis also states that climate change has serious national security implications. According to the EPA, escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources - including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.

Friday's finding does not include any proposed regulations and is just one of many steps in the process to create the framework for a clean energy economy.

We would love to hear your opinion about this announcement.

-----------

Happy 16th Birthday Scott! Time to head to the DMV. Ugh!

Blog posted by AccuWeather.com Meteorologist Mark Paquette

To those of us who do not live in a cave or under a rock somewhere, the scary swine flu pandemic is big news. Everywhere in the media, the twists, turns and updates on the goings on of this disease are a top story. This got me thinking, could this outbreak, or any future disease outbreaks, be anyway influenced by climate change?

According to this article , this threat is definitely a possibility. Will insects expand their territories where they live and spread diseases to parts of the world where the diseases where not previously found? Will tropical diseases be able to expand their areas of influence? Will strains of bacteria be able to thrive in a climate that is warmer? Will pandemics like the swine flu be more common, widespread and/or devastating? Were medieval outbreaks of the bubonic plague influenced by the slightly cooler climate?

Obviously, these questions assume that global warming is happening. We can debate that until we are blue in the face, I am just posing some questions relevant to what is going on in the world today.

Thanks to google for providing the map below of current reported cases of the swine flu as of May 2, 2009

Blog posted by AccuWeather.com Meteorologist Mark Paquette

Under the guise of looking for interesting stories to blog about, I surf the web, alot. This week I came up with a doozie of a story, one that combines global warming...... and spiders!!!

According to this article a species of spiders in northeastern Greenland known as the wolf spider (scientific name Pardosa Glacialis) is getting bigger, and these researchers are wondering if it is at least partly due to global warming. Their reasoning? Basically warmer temperatures lead to a longer and earlier start to the summer and growing seasons, thus making more food available leading to bigger spiders.

As mentioned before, I am a animal lover (though not a huge fan of insects or spiders, but I guess a pretty small percentage of the population is!!) and articles like this spark my curiosity about what changes in species' populations and distributions may result due to climate change.

We hear all the time about the possible plight of the polar bear due to climate change. What other species of animal or even plant may be particularly susceptible to changes in the climate? Is there any species that are particularly well-adapted to a changing environment or a warmer, drier or even moister environment (depending, of course, where the animal or plant lives)? If anyone knows any species in particular peril or species being able to use global warming to their advantage, please comment on them.

Thanks to the National Geographic for the image below

Sixty years of data collection by forest ecologists indicates that climate change could very well be causing the disappearance of the oldest and largest trees in Yosemite National Park, which is located in California.

Yosemite in the winter. Both images found in the Accuweather.com photo gallery.

Yosemite in the summer.

The key finding through this research is that the density of large diameter trees has fallen by 24% between the 1930s and 1990s, within all types of forest inside the park, according to the BBC Earth News article.

The famous Wawona Tree, Mariposa Grove, Yosemite National Park. It Looks like this picture was taken in the 1940s.

Excerpts from the BBC article below......

"These large, old trees have lived centuries and experienced many dry and wet periods," says James Lutz of the University of Washington. "So it is quite a surprise that recent conditions are such that these long-term survivors have been affected."

The cause is difficult to pin down, but "we certainly think that climate is an important driver," says Lutz.

Higher temperatures decrease the amount of water available to the trees. The suppression of natural wildfires in the park also allows younger trees and shrubs to grow, increasing the competition for the water that is around.

I saw these two stories about wind studies related to global warming. Both were actually posted on the same day (yesterday).

The first one from the Guardian states........The great gusting winds of the American Midwest - and possibly the hopes for the most promising clean energy source - may be dying, in part because of climate change, according to a new report.

The second one from ScienceDaily starts out like this.......As a result of stronger winds caused by global warming, seeds and pollen are being carried over longer distances.

Well, which one is it. Granted, the first study is focusing on the wind in the American Midwest, while the second one is talking about the winds in the Boreal forest. Is one of these studies coming up with the wrong conclusion? Based on what I read from the Guardian article, it appears that there are some scientists that feel that the Midwest wind conclusion is way too premature.

Or, is it true that wind speeds due to global warming are increasing in some areas and weakening in others?

Discover Magazine has an interesting and informative piece on the state of climate science and the meaning of climate change from their June issue. This full interview was made available online just yesterday.

In the interview, Discover Magazine poses a number of questions to four notable experts in the field of climate science............

Robin Bell is an expert on ice sheets from the Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution of Washington is an expert on the carbon cycle and energy.

Bill Easterling from the Pennsylvania State University is an expert on global warming and its impact on the world's food supply. Bill was previously interviewed by our own Katie Fehlinger, in her Headline Earth series on AccuWeather.com.

Stephen Schneider is a senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, Schneider assesses ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change to identify potential political and technological solutions.

Again, you can check out the interviews, along with video segments right here.

I saw this article from the Boston Globe yesterday, which tries to explain the clear disconnect that exists between the scientific community and the general American public.

According to the article, scientists themselves must shoulder a significant portion of the responsibility for this problem.

Some excerpts from the article..........

Decrying ignorance and scientific illiteracy, many scientists treat their fellow citizens as empty vessels waiting for an infusion of knowledge. That is exactly wrong, and exactly why so many people, in turn, see science and scientists as distant, inscrutable, aloof, arrogant.

To that end, Americans should be far more engaged with scientists and what they're doing. They should know the names of leading researchers (most Americans do not) and the nation's top scientific agencies (again, most Americans do not).

........reaching out to the public isn't much rewarded in the scientific community. There's little incentive for it. Advancement in science doesn't happen, for the most part, due to one's public engagement or media skills. Rather, it's all about your published research: How many papers have you placed into leading journals, and how much are they being cited by other scientists?

----------------

There is a lot more in the article by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum.......you can read it right here.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) released a graph showing the different projections for the Arctic sea ice minimum that will occur sometime in September. The researchers make projections using a variety of techniques, ranging from sophisticated sea ice models to simpler statistical analyses.

As you can see, a majority of the predictors project this year's minimum extent will fall somewhere between the record low sea ice extent of 2007 and the second lowest extent of 2008. If that is correct, then 2009 would take over second place.

No matter what the projections, atmospheric conditions over the Arctic the rest of this summer will determine where the 2009 sea ice extent ends up in the record books.

Here is a plot of the latest Arctic sea ice extent from the NSIDC compared to the average and the record low season of 2007.

The sun

Decreasing solar irradiance between 2002 and 2008 has countered most of the anthropogenic (man-made) warming of the earth's surface, according to new research that was published in the Geophysical Research Letters.

Two researchers, Judith Lean (NRL) and David Rind (NASA/GISS) looked at four drivers of climate change and showed graphs of how much each has contributed to the changing temperature of the earth's surface since 1980.

The four drivers.........

1. Volcanic aerosols- cooling influence
2. El Nino- warming influence
3. Greenhouse gases- warming influence
4. Solar cycle- variable influence.

You can check out the graphs right here, courtesy of Spaceweather.com. The article is about halfway down the page.

Lean and Rind also offered a future prediction of temperatures in the abstract.......

From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15 +/- 0.03 C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC. But as a result of declining solar activity in the subsequent five years, average temperature in 2019 is only 0.03 +/- 0.01 C warmer than in 2014. This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming.

------------

Update......Here is a link to the full study. Thanks to Oakden Wolf.

A high greenhouse gas emissions scenario

What would happen (in terms of global temperature and precipitation change) if the rise in greenhouse gas emissions goes unchecked through this century?

According to UK Met Office Scientists working on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), temperatures would rise by more than 4 degrees celsius (7.2 F) averaged over the globe by the end of this century.

"Four degrees of warming, averaged over the globe, translates into even greater warming in many regions, along with major changes in rainfall. If greenhouse gas emissions are not cut soon, we could see major climate changes within our own lifetimes," according to Dr Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre.

I wonder if they considered the impact of recessions and depressions on emissions?

Anyway, the greatest warming (no surprise here) would take place in the Arctic with warming up to 15.2 C (27 F) for a high-emissions scenario, enhanced by melting of snow and ice causing more of the Sun’s radiation to be absorbed (positive feedback).

Large parts of Africa could warm by as much as 10 C (18 F) by the end of the century along with a significant decrease in rainfall.

Based on their map below, it looks like most of the continental U.S. would see a temperature increase anywhere between 6 and 9 C ( 11 to 16 F) by the end of the century under this worst case scenario.

You can read more about the climate models used by the UKMET Office right here. The information is at the bottom the linked page.

Should we invest in green companies?

A Deutsche Bank report says that the answer in most cases is yes.

Companies specializing in energy efficiency and renewable energy such as wind and solar power outperformed peers across the global economy in 2009 and that similar results can be expected this year as governments only ramp up steps to curb carbon emissions and favor clean technologies, despite what happened in Copenhagen last month, according to the Deutsche Bank study.

Since the 2009 low in global stocks, indices showed that energy efficiency stocks had risen 126% and clean energy and technology by 88 percent compared with wider global stocks' 70%, Thursday's report showed, via Moneycontrol.com.

Excerpts from the Moneycontrol.com article......

Their report instead pointed to proliferating national green policies, regardless of a multilateral deal to fight climate change. Copenhagen failed to agree a mandate to agree a legally binding successor to the existing Kyoto Protocol.

"They are already pushing ahead with their own policies that will do far more than international regulation in the short to medium term to stimulate private investment."

The climate change investment sector has and continues to deliver, "That is why we believe institutional investors should be shifting their asset allocation towards climate change," said Kevin Parker.

I have been meaning to blog about Matthew Menne's latest revision to his study that was posted in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The title of his study is 'On the Reliability of the U.S. Temperature Record' Here is the link.

In the study, Menne evaluated and compared temperature trends of poor vs. well suited U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) sites in response to photo evidence by surfacestations.org of widespread poor siting conditions of these sites across the country.

Anthony Watts (Watt's Up with That), in particular, has speculated that U.S. surface temperature records from the USHCN from the past 30 years or so are likely biased high due to poor siting near buildings, asphalt, A/C, etc....., which is artificially enhancing the magnitude of observed temperature trends.

Excerpts from the study.......

Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (cool) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (warm bias) in minimum temperatures.

Adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. We find no evidence that the Continental U.S. temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.

The average continental U.S. trend since 1980 is nearly the same when calculated using adjusted (homogenized) data from good or poor exposure sites. In contrast, when calculated from unadjusted values, the continental U.S. average maximum trend is significantly smaller from the poor exposure sites relative to the trend from good exposure sites. The biggest difference in the trend shows up during the mid and late 1980's, when about 60% of the USHCN sites converted from the liquid in glass models to the electronic max/min temperature system.

By the way, poor exposure sites are predominantly electronic max/min sites.

The reason why station exposure does not play an obvious role in temperature trends probably warrants further investigation, according to the researchers.

---------------

To be fair, Anthony Watts wrote a response to this in his blog back on January 27th. Here is the link.