Saturday
Jul282012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill BEST guess is 1.5?
Jul 28, 2012 Climate: Surface This may be an indication of what is exercising Anthony Watts' mind: Ronald Bailey at Reason Magazine is reporting a rumour that the BEST project will next week report a 1.5°C temperature rise since 1750.
The rumors say that new BEST reanalysis will show that global average temperature has increased by 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times and will suggest that most of the warming since the 1950s is the result of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Reader Comments (119)
Hm..it can't possibly be the BEST results. First of all the main results are out already.
Secondly there is nothing new there - trend is as anticipated since the LIA, and the attribution follows the well worn - what else could it be - track.
It is not unprecedented, it is not controversial, and it is not one of AW's projects that would require days of intensive work.
There is a new comment on the WUWT website, on the tips page, claiming this will be "a tectonic event".
For such a word to be justified it would have to be something that could bring down the IPCC itself.
A UN/IPCC hack/leak/defector tells all?
Yes it is the BEST results as Muller is making really insane claims,
"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, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."
Steven Mosher - thanks for your clarification wrt the use of raw data. I trust that the raw data was real raw data and not USHCN2's version of raw data, which Steven Goddard reckons is adjusted: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/ushcn2-cheating-our-socks-off/.
Regardless, read my comment on page 1 (about 2/3 down) where I stated that 1.5C since 1750 is probably about right, fits in with glacier recession since the end of the LIA, and is nothing unusual or alarming, given the evidence for much greater warm periods and increases in the Holocene. I remain very doubtful that CO2 has been responsible for the long slow thaw since the end of the Little Ice Age, and fail to see why or how Muller (or anyone else) can attribute the recent late 20th Century warming (or rather run of mild winters in north-west Europe - our summers have been as indifferent/miserable as ever) to anything to do with CO2.
b2 - this will be "a tectonic event". Here is the full comment from Anthony's Mod:
. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-and-notes-2/ - July 28, 2012 at 5:14 pm]So not a devastating earthquake as such, more the ground shifting a wee bit?
lapogus - you're right, I was thinking more along the lines of a "seismic event".
Tectonic - that would be something that slowly but surely would change the landscape - of the climate debate.
Hmm..given AW's falling out with Muller - did he go and produce his own temp record, and is announcing its publication - along with controversial results :D
That would make for an interesting media battle over the next few weeks.
Steven Mosher says:
4. Folks objected to UHI. ok, use the 15K rural stations
-------------------------------------------------------
Would be interesting to see, if there is an improvement of the selection criteria from last time.
However, the main issue may still be messing up of UHI and dUHI. For trends, dUHI the change of UHI over time is important and it is well known that good stations are much more affected by small changes than already heavily spoiled stations. There appears to be no effort to select station with small dUHI.
CRUTEM3
1962 0.001
2012 0.380 (so far)
.379C
Bruce, thanks a lot for clarifying it all for us. So do you still think Muller is lying with his figures? And since when did the CRU become the paragon of scientific integrity anyway?
sHx until all of Muller's data and methods can be verified there is no reason to believe anything he claims. If this was his real goal he would have put this out for public review not release a dubious op-ed falsely claiming he was a recovering skeptic.
My money is on this:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
While I agree with Muller's latest finding that the 1.5C rise is about right (but not the attribution that it is due to CO2) I also very much agree with Poptech - Muller's use of the media rather than scientific channels and his (or his department's) considerable interests in geo-engineering, which will not be funded without CO2 fear-mongering, do give him an ulterior motive. As pointman and Skiphil have suggested, Muller's claims to have once been a sceptic are difficult to reconcile with some of his quotes in the past.
Poptech, it looks like the events have moved ahead of the plans. Muller's op-ed was leaked ahead of its planned publication in the NYT. The op-ed has a link to the BEST webpage but the page does not mention any new announcement. Nothing from Judith Curry either. The BEST team have been caught flat-footed in their own hour of glory.
It looks like they published the Op-ed early to beat Anthony but it is not getting much attention yet. There is no question the intent was to falsely spin this as a recovering skeptic. This proves that Muller does not have honest intentions.
sHx
Yes that does fit the facts pretty well. Anthony specifically mentions in his follow up comment that WUWT takes a lot of his time. Smart call if he got it right!
poptech - agree, he does not seem to have honest intentions and probably never had. He seems to have sought out some type of role for himself "reconciling" skeptics and warmists, bringing skeptics aboard his project before going totally cagw again.
The returning skeptic-meme is a pure, almost desperate publicity stunt - publicity he needs to sell the ideas and services of his geo-engineering business, presumably. Why else all the hype and overselling he is engaging in?
Antony was warned about trusting Muller when the UHI fiasco happened. I could not believe that people thought that Muller was ever a skeptic. Even in his attack on Mann's hide the decline video he said "we all agree/know that there is AGW due to human activities" or something very similar.
Anthony Watts shut down blogging this w/e ''because some important news is in the pipeline''.
Is this news of his defection to the dark side of Hansen et al.
"So do you still think Muller is lying with his figures?"
Yes.
And he is lying about once being a skeptic.
"And since when did the CRU become the paragon of scientific integrity anyway?"
I never said they were.
But I was quite sure their data was good enough for the global warming cult to use it to squander trillions of dollars.
Oh, those trillions were not squandered, Bruce. I'm quite sure a large number of elitists' bank accounts saw serious growth, as did thugocrats, dictators and arms merchants all across the globe.
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...