Bishop Hill BEST paper out
Oct 20, 2011 Climate: Surface There appears to be quite a lot of interest in the publication of the BEST team's reworking of the global temperature index, which, as expected, come to pretty much the same conclusion as the other series.
The Economist's coverage is here, the Guardian here.
I liked the quote the Guardian got from Peter Cox, a climatologist at Exeter.
These studies seem to confirm the global warming estimated from the existing datasets, which is pleasing but not exactly a surprise to those of us who know how carefully the existing datasets are put together.
Wasn't it CRU who had lost their raw data?
Bishop Hill
Oops. The paper is not out at all - this is just pre-peerreview-publicity (a new concept to me!).
Bishop Hill
To mark the occasion the BBC has dusted off some of its old hockey stick pictures for its front page. It really is an amazing graph - like a drug to some people.
Reader Comments (42)
Andrew, Anthony Watts has already pretty much demolished this paper in its present state - see his blog.
Mike
In climatology the standard progression is:
1) Policy changes
2) Publicity
3) Scientific publication
...
And possibly at a later date, if the computer is large enough, proof (though this step is optional)
This is a study of land based stations which represents 29% of the surface area of the planet. The 71% that it does not address is also the all important thermal driver of the planet.
At the bottom the BEST FAQ page: - http://www.berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php
"What is next for Berkeley Earth?"
"As a next step, Berkeley Earth plans to address the total warming of the oceans, with a view to obtaining a more accurate figure for the total amount of global warming observable."
Last I heard they had no funding for this "next". Maybe this has changed because what is happening to the oceans is far more important than just 71%.
howevere thier method should allow us to put error bars on the records/mismanaged crud from the existing 3 surface station sources...pity about the oceans
"To mark the occasion the BBC has dusted off some of its old hockey stick pictures for its front page. It really is an amazing graph - like a drug to some people."
Could be seen as a cheap shot from somebody who has the same picture on the front of his book?:-)
Have fun Bish, the BeeB is the BeeB, they really do not know about anything more than "pictures".
question to BBD recalling his reactions to the way that the S&B paper was portrayed in the media (without any consideration mof what the paper actually said)....is this an appropriate way to do science?
"My hope is that this will win over those people who are properly sceptical," Richard Muller, a physicist and head of the Berkeley Earth project, told the Guardian.
"Some people lump the properly sceptical in with the deniers and that makes it easy to dismiss them, because the deniers pay no attention to science. But there have been people out there who have raised legitimate issues," he said.
This is just so bad. What is it about scientists who seem intent on harming the reputation of science every time they open their mouths?
diogenes
"pity about the oceans"
Yes, it is not just because of the obvious significance of the oceans, but also it has been said by many that there could be far more issues and uncertanties with the historic SST numbers than the land based stations.
Maybe BEST should have started there? But then again they would have been under constant criticism for not addressing the known surface station issues in the USA.
So we wait, at present the SST and OHC have shown no warming for a significant period. Some claim because of improved measuring techniques, Argo etc. But we can only assess any present day data against historic and just how good is the historic?
I posted the following at WUWT:
The BEST paper is one grand example of a Red Herring fallacy. Richard Muller had agreed with Anthony that the main topic of the paper would be criticisms of the surface temperature record with special emphasis on Anthony’s station siting research. By changing the period used from 30 years to 60 years, they changed the topic of the paper. They substituted a similar seeming but incomparable topic for the original. This is good old academic chicanery at its most flagrant. Shame on them.
As regards publishing in the Economist before the actual work is peer reviewed, BEST offers clear proof that they are not motivated by science but by a desire to contribute to the Warmista propaganda mill.
The BEST people show that their instincts are not for science but for propaganda. Genuine scientists are more interested in the scientific explanations that they produce than in a record of temperature. Genuine scientists would publicize their statistical techniques and their accounts of errors in the record. These people triumphantly announce that their record shows that Earth is warming. Their goal is propaganda.
Finally, there is the matter of the huge knife stuck in Anthony’s back. That knife is the symbol of Muller’s personal betrayal of Anthony’s trust. Shameless.
BTW -- it's been said that the bad news about the US sites is that 89% fail basic scientific standards, but the good news is that the US sites are far better than most of the rest of the world. I believe that BEST tried to look at the best of what Watts' volunteers identified.
Has any effort been made to look at the impact of the shoddy siting around the rest of the world?
Thanks, Bish, for the graph from the BBC. These people are reckless. Anyone who would publish the Hockey Stick today is doing nothing else but flying a flag triumphantly.
Here's Prof. Muller's op-ed, "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism" (11-21-2011), at the WSJ Europe:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html
It's a pretty straightforward account, though one might question the title and tone of Muller's piece. It will be interesting to read the four papers BEST has submitted, and put online for comment.
I don't think there's anything reprehensible about making the drafts public. BEST is trying to be transparent and accountable. I have no problem with taking their work at face value, and with assuming good faith. The Berkeley group is emphatically NOT the "Hockey Team."
Anthony Watts has a legitimate objection to how his work was used, but I think he's over-reacting to BEST's pre-publication release of their papers. This is a standard practice in much of science, and allows criticism by anyone who's interested enough to work through the papers. Surely this is a desirable step towards transparency.
Quite frankly, any statement or claim about whether this planet has warmed, is warming, is not warming, solely on the basis of land based sensors is incomplete and misleading.
I have total respect for Anthony Watts on the veracity of land based station temperature records, through his analyses and dedication over the years. He is one of a personal handful of other climate 'celebrities' who I have met face to face and come to trust. What he concludes, from this and elsewhere, will be my personal baseline.
It is tough, when trust is so elusive.
Why are they trumpeting that this confirms that the Earth is warmer now than 50 or 60 years ago?
There is no one who seriously doubts that!
People *do* seriously doubt that the rate of warming is accelerating.
People *do* seriously doubt that there has been warming in the past ten or a dozen years.
People *do* seriously doubt that the warming observed is due to human activity, as opposed to simply recovering from the Little Ice Age.
Those are the questions that the media should be reporting on, not the simple fact that the Earth has warmed, which all sceptics agree with anyway.
Peter D Tillman
Well said.
Where's Mac?
:-)
The Economist, the Graun? Lo!.......... and has Kruger published too [can't be bothered to look].
Smacks of pre-Dopenhagen [Durban on the horizon] press blitz, so no surprises to this scurrilous tactic, dirty illegitimate sons of ladies of debauchery.
World's been warming since the LIA so what? That has never been the question.
Be prepared post Durban, when the dust has settled for a BEST damp squib, this is another 'play' is all.
As Watts alludes to, the data comparisons are incompatible and the process is not as yet transparent, how can any real conclusions have been reached yet? But this is what the IPCC [and by extension BEST] is all about, 'putting the cart before the horse'. Let us see the results and code and let the world make up its mind in seclusion - we await with a world wearied and deflated anticipation, what a set of snakes they all are.
Get ready for more disaster tales and hype climate BS pre COP17.
I am not sure if Anthony Watts' objections justify the anger and bitterness palpable in his BEST blog-post. Couldn't he have raised the same objections cordially?
Now that Anthony has set the tone of the debate, I dread the entry of WUWT head-kicker, Willis Eschenbach, to the fray.
"My hope is that this will win over those people who are properly sceptical," Richard Muller, a physicist and head of the Berkeley Earth project, told the Guardian.
Yeah... science isn't about "win over". "Win over" is a political goal.
So, the band keeps playing, even though Elvis left the building a while ago.
Andrew
sHx writes:
"Now that Anthony has set the tone of the debate, I dread the entry of WUWT head-kicker, Willis Eschenbach, to the fray."
Would you like to try to explain this comment? I dare say that it is the weirdest comment I have encountered in decades. If Willis wants to shred Muller then Muller will suffer a shredding that he requested.
Peter D. Tillman writes:
'I don't think there's anything reprehensible about making the drafts public. BEST is trying to be transparent and accountable. I have no problem with taking their work at face value, and with assuming good faith. The Berkeley group is emphatically NOT the "Hockey Team."'
BEST knows that what they publish will make headlines. BEST knows that some of what they publish might not pass peer review. Therefore, Best chose to make headlines with material that might not pass peer review. These facts demonstrate that BEST's desire to make headlines exceeded BEST's desire to act as scientists. Any questions?
"Would you like to try to explain this comment?
Sure, I can try.
I meant to say when Anthony gets bad, Eschenbach gets badder.
"I dare say that it is the weirdest comment I have encountered in decades."
Don't you dare to break my heart now!
The comment about the addiction of the Beeb to the Hockey Stick drug led me to recall the debunking of Piltdown Man in the 50s (I'm that old!).
Following publication of the fluorine data that showed the jaw and skull could not have coexisted at the quarry in which they were found, the BM(NH), as it was, removed the display from their public exhibit. The subsequent public outcry led to its being reinstated.
Anyone tell me if it is still on public display?
I find this publicity-seeking exercise on the part of BEST somewhat distasteful.
It's almost as if they've taken a page out ot the IPCC playbook: Science fiat by Press Release. I find the timing of this particular Press Release (in relation to the release of Donna's book) to be a little too coincidental for my comfort level - particularly in light of the way they appear to have abused Anthony's trust along the way.
It was the very same day that both Bish and Anthony announced publication of Donna's book, that Anthony was approached by (what turns out to be) The Economist requesting comment on (what turns out to be) one of the 4 BEST papers - of which Anthony had received a confidential courtesy copy a week earlier.
Why the full-court press on (at least one) paper that had not yet been peer reviewed? If the supposed purpose of going public was to permit review by the wider community prior to submission, why would they not have done so via WUWT, CA or Climate Etc?
Or at the very least they might have notified those who had signed up on their site to receive E-mail notifications of their progress and developments. I know I signed up several months ago - and nothing has hit my Inbox from BEST!
I also was not too thrilled to just discover (while trying to Google BEST site):
Sorry, I should have added the one "bright" spot to that excerpt ... the final paragraph:
Can someone explain a basic premise of AGW for me please. Is the warming only possible by first heating the oceans first?? (to store the excess energy) which could then heat the atmosphere or is the theory still possible in an ocean free world. Seeing how we change 10-20 degrees of temperature every day and similar changes between summer and winter typically I assume the only persistent store of excess energy is the ocean?
If so why isn't everyone pouring over the Argo data (and cloud data such as Earthshine, seeing how clouds are so vital at controlling radiant energy into the oceans) as it really is the only thing that matters in testing the theory.
Also looking at the graph of decadal averages in the main BBC article - I'm assuming that must be a moving 10 year average but plotted on a yearly timescale - therefore showing that 1998 is nowhere near the hottest year!! Also I'm surprised that 1940 is nearly a degree cooler than 2004 on that graph.
hro001
Sorry, I should have added the one "bright" spot to that excerpt ... the final paragraph:
Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.
=========================================================================
Er no actually.
Here from Richard Kak's column:-
But they emphasise that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) driven by greenhouse gas emissions is very much in their picture.
"Had we found no global warming, then that would have ruled out AGW," said Professor Muller.
"Had we found half as much, it would have suggested that prior estimates [of AGW] were too large; if we had found more warming, it would have raised the question of whether prior estimates were too low.
"But we didn't; we found that the prior rise was confirmed. That means that we do not directly affect prior estimates."
jazznick. I agree. Richard Black commenting on the BBC Today programme certainly said that the study found greenhouse gases to be the major cause of the warming.
Key conclusion, "the global temperature correlates more closely with the state of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index - a measure of sea surface temperature in the north Atlantic."
Now that is a natural event.
Things have not changed.
GW - is real
AGW - is virtual
CAGW - is nonsense
Today's new is tomorrows chip warping is an old saying but is still true , BEST knows what its doing pushing this out now gets it the headlines it wanted and it if fails in peer review latter than who will cover that in the press for by then its will be a old story fit only for warping chips in?
Like the IPCC , BEST shown that selling the message is THE most important element not the quality of the message . What a shame they throw away a chance to actual improve the way science is done in an area that badly needs improvement .
Things have not changed;
We have a prior estimate of AGW but yet no indentifiable AGW signature.
GCMs still show more warming than is being measured.
We still don't have a completely independent set of of land based records - still just one source.
If you discount natural cycles (60-70 years) then we have a residual increase in global temps pre-AGW and post-AGW that have yet to be properly explained.
GW - is real
AGW - is virtual
CAGW - is nonsense
I recall when Prof. Muller announced his intention to scrutinise and create a new land surface temperature records, one or two questioned whether his team would use adjusted or raw data. I don't recall this question ever being answered. John Daly's analysis of the surface record suggests that the reason for BEST's result correlates so closely to GISS, Hadcru and NOAA is because they use the same (or much the same) fundamentally flawed data. Removing 10 or 25% of the worst stations and modifying the statistical method will not make much difference if 90% of the original data is still questionable.
If the late 20th Century warming so clearly shown on the new BEST graph is genuine and accurate, I still wonder why it does not manifest itself in so many of the stations listed in Daly'sappendix. I would like to see a global land surface dataset created using far fewer stations; i.e. one or two stations from each geographic region - e.g. key locations like Tiree, Thorshavn, Jan Mayen, Franz Josef Land, Goose Bay, Denmarkshavn, Adelaide, Macqaurie Island, Amundsen Scott, etc. I bet the result would be much less alarming.
Shame on the BBC for using the Hockey Stick graph on the front page and Richard Black for saying that Muller's study found greenhouse gases to be the major cause of the warming.
sorry - link to John Daly's list of stations - appendix
The response by the BBC and Richard Black is understandable, they have to keep the faith, but the comments by Richard Muller are telling.
"That is the way I practised science for decades; it was the way everyone practised it until some magazines - particularly Science and Nature - forbade it,"
"I was deeply concerned that the group [at UEA] had concealed discordant data. Science is best done when the problems with the analysis are candidly shared."
So journal gate-keeping, climate science and peer review as now practised is still being criticised.
People like Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Steig, Schmidt, Hansen can run but they can't hide or delete the data.
Well that's taken the wind well and truly out of my sails! Prof Muller has "proved" beyond doubt that it's been warming during the 20th century using the data sets that recorded the er... warming. He then concludes that as its been warming, using a graph that shows warming since 1800 that this proves beyond doubt that the earth has warmed, and that it is most probably caused by humans, or not, as the case may be. Therefore all possible doubts should have been removed for those sceptical of global warming.
Is Prof Muller visiting us from another universe? Has he somehow gotten the impression that there are people out there who believed the world hasn't warmed over the 20th century? Or that there are people who believe that human, and for pachydermian, or any other creatures inhabiting the planet for that matter, activities don't have any effect on the world around them?
Or does he, like Sir Paul Nurse before him, really believe that deniers are a bunch of thickos who can be fooled by childrens' party tricks?
What I find interesting about the two BBC temperature graphs is that the BEST graph (early half of 19th century going back to 1800) clearly shows decreasing temps, a definite downward trend - the LIA(?) - whilst the Hockeystick graph does not.
Also note the divergence between BEST and HadCRU for this period. Could this be evidence of another CRU trick to maintain the Hockey Stick arguement?
Continuing, this part of the BEST Graph is similar to Loehle E&E 2007
Also there appears to be a much longer background sinusoidal signal (of possibly hundreds years in period) in the BEST graph, which is again similar to Loehle E&E 2007.
BEST, by accident and not design, in calculating global land temps going back to 1800 may have helped debunk the Hockey Stick.
It would appear that the LIA was indeed a global event, and from that it raises the possibility that MWP was too.
If BEST is the new global temp standard then the arguement of "unprecedented temperatures" takes another hit.
Muller's piece in the Wall Street Journal today is disgraceful.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html
He only throws the attribution issue in at the end, where he hopes the reader won't notice. His last, and most important, paragraph states
"Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."
So, in summary, Muller is stating what we all know: that the earth has warmed since the last ice age, and more particularly since the Little Ice Age (when the thermometer was invented). This is not a 'portion' of the climate debate at all, and to suggest that it is is totally disingenuous.
The debate is about attribution, feedbacks, natural variation, clouds, forcings, the sun, atmospheric and solar physics etc. It is not about whether the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age.
Muller's statement
"How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."
shows that he has nothing whatsoever to say about anthropogenic global warming, which is the focus of all the hype and scaremongering and all the disastrous policy.
So this is all about setting up a 'sceptical' straw man and knocking it down, while studiously avoiding the real issue. It is regrettable when physicists involve themselves in cheap rhetoric with the aim (or the knowledge that it is likely) to misdirect and deceive as it is brings the discipline of physics into disrepute.
SFT
I agree nothing has changed with regard attribution. BEST was/is an exercise in the bleeding obvious - according to our thermometers, the same thermometers as before, the planet has warmed over the past 200 years or so.
The only part of interest to me at this juncture is in the first half of the 19th century, where BEST has highlighted a decreasing trend in 'global' temps going back to 1800. Now that runs contrary to both HadCRU and the Hockey Stick which shows graphically that the trend in temps plateau then very slowly start to increase.
Now that needs explaining because HC/HS in eliminating the LIA and also the MWP allowed warmists to argue that modern temps are unprecedented. i.e. only AGW could explain such warming - de facto attribution without the requirement of a definitive AGW signature.
I also agree that Muller has not helped himself on this matter, because by adding such a qualifier on attribution at the end after all the media hype he generated he allowed the "What else could it be?" arguement to remain in the forefront. He damaged his own science.
Nothing has changed in the science;
GW - is real
AGW - is virtual
CAGW - is nonsense
................. but everyone, including Muller, already knew that.
Richard Black is gushing as he jumps on the bandwagon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15400748
Not sure why he thinks greenhouse gasses effect the AMO from the Best paper though...
"although the whole issue is made more complex by the fact that greenhouse warming can perturb natural cycles such as the AMO."
David Whitehousetakes a look at the predictable spectrum of media reportage on this story, which to the more discerning, reveals the various shade of anti-sceptic prejudice prevalent in our press:
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4161-sceptical-berkeley-scientists-say-human-component-of-global-warming-may-be-somewhat-overstated.html
A Swedish scientist observed that the tragedy of climate science was that meteorology began during the coldest decades of the last 30,000 years. That implicit "normal" has biased everything.
Global warming? I should bleedin' hope so, and thank all the gods for it. It's been a huge boon and relief from the horrors of the LIA.