"BEST" temperature record study surprises skeptics
Last month, a team of scientists from Berkeley called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) group released results from research they did on the Earth surface temperature record. Though there have been numerous studies and time series created on surface temperature, they wanted to take an independent look at the data and create a new temperature record. What they found was surprising to some in the "skeptic" community, though not surprising to most climate scientists.
Dr. Richard Muller is the founder and scientific director of the BEST group, which is made up of physicists, statisticians, and climatologists. Though Dr. Muller has been described as a climate change "skeptic" and "denialist," he has an impressive and extensive curriculum vitae in physics, including being a consultant for the U.S. Department of Defense, and a MacArther Foundation Fellow, and the recipient of the National Science Foundation Alan T. Altman Award. His skepticism is evidenced most frequently in the press by his funding from the Koch brothers, who have made billions of dollars in the oil industry. The BEST project also accepted funding from Koch, among many other organizations, though the funders had no influence over methodology or results, which is almost always the case in peer reviewed science. The BEST group also includes Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, who has recently been vocal about the need for a more transparent scientific process, and more eyes on the data, especially when it comes to research on man-made global warming and the temperature record.
The BEST team was open with their hypothesis: they expected to find that, when using temperature stations that other organizations failed to include, the warming trend wouldn't be present, or at least not as dramatic. Their objectives are listed on their website (which also includes access to data and submitted papers), which include:
-- Merging land surface data into a raw dataset that's in a common format and easy to use
-- Developing new and potentially better ways of processing, average, and merging the data
-- Creating a new global temperature record
-- To provide not only the raw data and the resulting record, but also the code and tools used to get there, making the process as transparent as possible
Figure 1. Locations of the the 39,028 temperature stations in the Berkeley Earth data set (blue). Stations classified as rural are plotted on top in black.
The BEST project collaborators combined data from 15 sources that, wherever possible, did not include the tried and true data that the "big three" (NASA, NOAA, or HadCRU) used in their analyses, mainly the GHCN Monthly dataset, which is widely used because of its requirements that the each station in the data set have plenty of observations, no gaps, and no erroneous data. However, the BEST project was born to create a new global surface temperature record, and to "see what you get" if you use observations that other institutions have weeded out. BEST looked at data from 39,028 different temperature measurement stations from around the globe (Figure 1), and developed an averaging process to merge the stations into one record, which you see below in comparison to previous records that have been constructed.
Figure 2. Temperature time series from the big three: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science (NASA GISS, blue), NOAA (green), and the Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit of East Anglia (HadCRU, red) along with the results from the BEST project (black).
The result was a new land surface temperature series to be added to the well-cited records of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, in addition to some truly independent, amateur compilations. The new temperature record agrees with the records from "the big three," and agrees with them on a warming of 1°C since 1950. BEST also addressed concerns raised by the skeptic community about station bias and urban heat island effect. They conclude that the urban heat island effect does not contribute significantly to the land temperature rise, given that urban area is only 1% of the land area in the record. Also, they looked at the stations that Anthony Watts has reported as "poor" quality, and have found that they also showed the same warming as the stations that were reported as "OK." This helps to show that temperature stations were not "cherry picked" in previous studies for warming trends, but for honest station quality.
The addition of another (eventually) peer-reviewed temperature series is good, and more eyes looking at the data is good, but the result is not surprising. However, it might have changed the minds of some skeptics who have been wanting to see an analysis from scientists that they find trustworthy. I think Dr. Muller sums their results up nicely in his Wall Street Journal opinion article:
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.
The BEST project has four papers out for review in various journals. Having released the results to the public eye before undergoing the scrutiny of peer review, they've also made some updates to the analysis since these papers were submitted, thanks to a peer review process of its own: the internet.
Links and references:
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
BEST FAQ
BEST Press Release
Angela
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 — Blog Index
3:46 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
I am not sure this will change the mind of the public, but at the very least it altered the mindsets of a few scientists along the way.
You know what forces people to edit their papers?
the internet
Skeptics are able to be convinced by the data, once thoroughly reviewed and tested for accuracy. Those that deny the data, for whatever be their reason(s), are not so easily convinced. Those that once praised Dr. Richard Muller's skepticism now consider him to be a traitor to their cause. Whatever their cause may be. Dr. Richard Muller has had a tough time of it all. Those that believe that the AGWT is essentially correct have long called Dr. Richard Muller another Koch brothers funded hack. Perhaps now Dr. Richard Muller will be seen for what he has been all along. A scientist that wanted to recheck all of the data and to see if it fits with what has being reported. He, as any true scientist, put aside personal beliefs and preconceived thoughts and looked at the data. He allowed for the data to determine the outcome of the study. While even I had questioned his motives as a skeptic, I have learned that he was doing what any good scientist should do. Question the data but, always allow the data to show the results of the study. ... Carl Sagan would offer him praise, I feel certain, for allowing the science to determine the outcome of the study.
We ALWAYS need true skeptics, in all endeavors of our life. We never need those that deny simply because they oppose that which will not bring them comfort to admit.
Not true, overwash12. Winters will still get cold and some will be colder than others. Regionally, at least, with almost certainty.
4:54 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Well said.
Yes, that's an issue I take with this situation. Scientists shouldn't be expected to have a "cause." Our cause is finding the truth in the data.
You have managed to stay away from 'gloating' about Muller's results, which must have been difficult to do! :):))
In any case, the pendulum is swinging to and fro and will continue to do so.
I wonder what evidence the dis-believers will ultimately take as The Truth?
Having said so, perhaps we will begin to see the equivalent of "occupy" protests demanding that Governments increase incentives in a meaningful way to encourage research and implementation of new Energy options. Private Industry and Capitalism (in it's best guise) will be the only chance for new dynamic thinking in this field.
After all, our Climate is as important as our Economy, to say the very least.
And we, the People, have a right to demand better ideas concerning our Climate, I think.
I will always wish for the weather that you wish to receive. Should you not get the weather that you wished for, then we did not wish hard enough. ;-)
I believe that, in many ways, climate dictates what our economy will be.
PUNTA ARENAS, CHILE – NASA's airborne expedition over Antarctica this October and November has measured the change in glaciers vital to sea level rise projections and mapped others rarely traversed by humans.
Operation IceBridge, nearing completion of its third year, is the largest airborne campaign ever flown over the world's polar regions. Bridging a gap between two ice elevation mapping satellites, and breaking new scientific ground on its own, IceBridge this fall has charted the continued rapid acceleration and mass loss of Pine Island Glacier.
IceBridge has now generated three years of laser altimetry data over certain locations to continue the record from NASA's Ice Climate and Elevation Satellite (ICESat), which stopped operating in 2009. IceBridge measurements show Pine Island following its rapid deterioration that began around 2006. Combined IceBridge and ICESat data show the glacier is losing more than six times as much mass per year -- mass loss was measured at 7 gigatons a year in 2005 and about 46 gigatons a year in 2010 – making it one of the most significant climate change response trends that scientists see worldwide. For comparison, the Chesapeake Bay holds about 70 gigatons of water.
Satellites still operating, such as NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), can provide a large-scale picture of this trend. But it takes a more focused mission such as Operation IceBridge to gather higher-resolution data near the surface to piece together the dynamic interactions of ice, bedrock and ocean currents behind specific changes, and to improve the models that scientists use to predict how much an unstable ice sheet like West Antarctica will contribute to sea level rise.
Two planes make up this year's Antarctica 2011 campaign – NASA's DC-8 flying laboratory, based at Dryden Flight Research Center, Palmdale, Cal., and a Gulfstream-V (G-V) owned by the National Science Foundation and operated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The campaign also spotted and flew over a large rift developing across the Pine Island ice shelf on Oct. 14. A natural process, the crack could calve a new iceberg of about 350 square miles of surface area in the coming weeks or months. Pine Island Glacier hasn't calved a major iceberg since 2001.
On a follow-up flight on Oct. 26 to gather data around Pine Island's grounding line, the DC-8 was able to fly along the crack for about 18 miles at an altitude of 3,000 feet, making what are believed to be the first detailed airborne measurements of an active calving rift.
In flights to Slessor and Recovery glaciers, which have only been traversed by humans once and twice respectively, IceBridge made a historic and scientifically important suite of measurements. Perhaps most significantly for these rarely studied regions of East Antarctica, an ice-penetrating radar instrument onboard the DC-8 was able to measure the topography of the bedrock underneath the ice sheet. Without a better understanding of the shape and contour of the bedrock, it is impossible to know how much ice sits on top of the continent in all. Topography also greatly influences the speed and direction of a glacier's ice flow.
"At a time when glaciers and ice sheets are showing rapid changes, we need consistent data that shows how and why that change is happening," IceBridge project scientist Michael Studinger said. "With three years of IceBridge data in hand, we have successfully continued the ice sheet elevation record in key areas and broken new ground in understanding the nature of the bedrock under ice sheets and the shape of the seafloor under ice shelves."
A gravimeter aboard the DC-8 senses changes in gravity fields to map the sea floor. This bathymetry controls ocean currents, which can inject warming waters under ice shelves and accelerate their thinning, as is happening at Pine Island and other glaciers.
The G-V was outfitted with one instrument for this campaign – a laser-ranging topographic mapper called the Land, Vegetation and Ice Sensor (LVIS). The instrument is suited for measuring large swaths of the surface at high altitudes. The G-V flew at around 45,000 feet for most of its 2011 missions.
Meanwhile, the DC-8 carries multiple instruments which are better suited for low-altitude flying. Once the plane reaches its science target, it flies at about 1,500 feet, allowing the radars, gravimeter, digital cameras and the Airborne Topographic Mapper (ATM), which captures higher resolution details of the ice surface than is possible from satellites. The DC-8's range and speed can also reach more remote, unstudied locations and cover more ground than smaller aircraft or ground traverses.
"This has been an excellent campaign for the science side of the mission, and it's our job to put the plane in positions to make that possible," said Mission Manager Walter Klein, based at Dryden.
One example of the flight side of the mission enabling science occurred during the second Pine Island Glacier flight, when the pilots flew the DC-8 by sight over the calving rift in the glacier's ice shelf at an altitude of 3,000 feet.
During the IceBridge Antarctica 2011 campaign, the DC-8 has flown 13 missions covering 51,600 miles, while the G-V has flown 11 science missions covering about 50,000 miles. As planned, the G-V left Punta Arenas to return to the United States on Weds., Nov. 2. The DC-8 is scheduled to remain in Punt Arenas up to mid-November, when it will return to its home base of Dryden Flight Research Center in Palmdale, Cal.
The next flight leg of IceBridge once the mission team wraps up in Punta Arenas will be based in Greenland in the Northern Hemisphere spring of 2012. IceBridge is scheduled to fly one Arctic and one Antarctic leg each year until ICESat-2 launches in 2016.
A close-up image of the crack spreading across the ice shelf of Pine Island Glacier shows the details of the boulder-like blocks of ice that fell into the rift when it split.
For most of the 18-mile stretch of the crack that NASA’s DC-8 flew over on Oct. 26, 2011, it stretched about 240 feet wide, as roughly seen here. The deepest points ranged from about 165 to 190 feet, roughly equal to the top of the ice shelf down to sea level. Scientists expect the crack to propagate and the ice shelf to calve an iceberg of more than 300 square miles in the coming months. This image was captured by the Digital Mapping System (DMS) aboard the DC-8. Credit: NASA/DMS
The National Science Foundations/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NSF/NCAR) Gulfstream-V flew high-attitude missions during IceBridge Antarctica 2011. Credit: NCAR
NASA's DC-8 handled the low-attitude missions and carried the bulk of the IceBridge science instruments. Credit: NASA/Tony Landis
In a perfect world, yes!
But the Economy is also subject to "interference" from people.
It is people who have the Economy in the state that it is in.
Spending more than you earn (individually or Nationally) is the same as spewing more co2 than the planet can deal with...
So, we affect the Climate. And we affect the Economy.
That is what I said. I was just more ambiguous in how I said it. ;-)
Good to agree with someone around here! LOL !
Disclaimer, I am a old guy, have pity on my writing.
I think a lot of people know this, but I think it still needs to be stated......
Even if we eliminated all use of Gasoline and Diesel fuel, the demand for oil would not change a lot. There are way to many things we "need" that are made from the 60% of a barrel oil that are not fuel.
the following list is one I just grabbed at random from the net
Link
A relevant summary of the biggies:
Plastic
Asphalt
Pharmaceuticals
Pesticides (cheap food)
We need research to find substitutes for the other %60 as well as for the %40 that is converted to CO2 in mostly transportation and manufacturing.
When ever some one rants about the Evil SUV, I wonder if they understand the other %60 of what oil "is".
Well, as one old guy to another, there is nothing wrong with your writing, or your thinking.
You bring to light some of the other interesting problems we will face removing ourselves from an oil based economy.
Plastics - I think this problem will be more easily conquered than imagined. The first thing we need to do is to remove ourselves from the throw away mentality we live with. Build for endurance. We consume less this way and plastics will not fit into that equation as easily. ... As an "old guy", you should remember when a refrigerator would last 12-20 years? Now, 4-6 years?
Pesticides - When oil based pesticides kill pests then you can easily imagine other things that they kill as well. We need to work better with nature and nature's way of dealing with pests. Birds will eat some of the grains but, they will eat the bugs too. Crops will still have a profitable yield. Pesticides kill birds too.
Asphalt - That one is a little tougher to deal with. Given a little more time, I think we can manage that one. The "up front" costs may be more but, the long term viability for this planet will outweigh the short term costs. Besides, we may find even more durable road surfaces than asphalt. Asphalt certainly is not a durable road surface.
Pharmaceuticals - Again, I think nature can offer better solutions than pharmaceuticals that are based on petroleum products.
We must first decide that the costs of not finding alternatives is far more expensive than it is to keep using the same practices we have been using. Oil will run out. Then what and at what cost?
I disagree with your statement. :)
Here is just one link:
Link
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The cover of the IPCC's fourth assessment report to the U.N., "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report," more frequently referred to as AR4.
A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change -- which sets the world's agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate -- claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements.
Grad students often co-author scientific papers to help with the laborious task of writing. Such papers are rarely the cornerstone for trillions of dollars worth of government climate funding, however -- nor do they win Nobel Peace prizes.
“We’ve been told for the past two decades that 'the Climate Bible' was written by the world’s foremost experts,” Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise “But the fact is, you are just not qualified without a doctorate. In academia you aren't even on the radar at that point.”
The IPCC insists that the lead authors of individual sections of its climate report are indeed the pre-eminent experts in their field.
"These authors are nominated by governments and selected based on expertise,” a spokesman told FoxNews.com. “Author teams on IPCC chapters are a mix of individuals who have excelled in their fields of specialism."
Released this month, Laframboise's book “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert” calls that into question. The book names nearly half a dozen lead authors involved in the IPCC’s reports over the years who were barely out of college when tapped to author the final word on the effects of climate change:
* One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master's degree while on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.
* Another lead author in 1994 earned his master's only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.
* An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 -- despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.
* Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old -- six years prior to completing his PhD.
Laframboise claims in the book that “neither [Klein's] youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts.”
Klein confirmed in an email that he had not yet turned 25 when he was selected to author a portion of the report that would shape the world's climate policy.
“I am happy to leave it to others to reflect on the fact that I was 24 when I was lead author of an IPCC chapter for the first time, and that it was two years after I did a three-month work placement at GREENPEACE,” Dr. Klein wrote.
Aaron Huertas, spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, age is irrelevant and shouldn't impact the conclusions of the major scientific work.
"Attacking scientists based on their age instead of their work is misleading and more than a little offensive to younger researchers," Huertas said. "The IPCC’s materials are thoroughly vetted by many scientists and are open to public comment, too."
At a top-level university, grad students are often employed to help with research guided by a lead researcher with a doctorate degree, Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and notable climate blogger.
“But when research is done in a college situation, the scientists work closely with the grad students and then the findings are sent to a peer review where it is checked for accuracy and revised. In the IPCC, that whole process is skipped, leading to possible flaws," he said.
Regardless, scientists agree about climate change, Huertas argued.
"What we can’t do is bury our heads in the sand or be distracted by attacks on scientists," he said.
Laframboise uncovered this information thanks to a team of citizen auditors her climate-blog
NoConsensus.org recruited last year to assess the U.N.’s most recent climate-change report, following revelations of sloppy syntax and factual errors, such as claims that Himalayan glaciers were on the verge of vanishing or the rain forest was endangered by global warming.
She hopes her book will bring about change in public attitudes.
“We’ve been told that [the IPCC] is a responsible business man in a three-piece suit, but it turns out it’s a sloppily dressed teenager -- a spoiled brat that can’t be trusted,” she said.
I just had a tooth pulled so I can blame everything on pain or the drugs for the pain................ :)
A further thought on oil......... IF we eliminate the need for gas and Diesel, the price of oil will:
stay the same, but every thing else will go up a lot because the %40 will not price subsidize the other %60
The price of oil will go up lot and every thing else will go up a lot because the %40 will not price subsidize the other %60
And last, no mater what, the refinery will have to figure out what to do with the toxic %40 that no one wants. Probably dump it in the river like they did in the early days of the petrol industrial age when Gas was not "needed". Look it up in the history books.
IF this is not a lot of BS/Scam, the game probably is changing shortly.
Link
This is the first time I have heard about this. While Googling it I found E-Cats web sight and they claim they have sold "working Plants" to "industry".
I am glad it was in English so that I could read it. LOL
I would sense that Norway is taking this much more seriously than what the U.S. has so far. I find even more interesting that Norway is also trying to help developing countries to lower their emissions as well. I heartily commend Norway for their efforts and I feel the best way to reward their efforts is for us to follow their lead.
Thanks, Grothar! .... are you one of the new kids on the block? ;-)
It looks like this article was written by a disgruntled teenager.
I translated it for you! It was the least I could do.
Cold fusion, Italian or otherwise ;-), truly is our best hope for our very long term energy needs. I hope we get there and I hope it is sooner than later. ... Can you imagine the opportunities that will open for us?
One of the reasons that oil is "cheap" now is because it is globally heavily subsidized. When these subsidies are removed the alternative energy sources become much more competitive. Now imagine, if you will, that instead of heavily subsidizing the oil industry we instead modestly subsidize alternative energy sources. How do you think the different price structures would break out then?
"the refinery will have to figure out what to do with the toxic 40% that no one wants." - No matter what happens, with energy sources, this will have to be faced regardless. Does it matter if it is in products being produced using this 40% or in the raw materials that are not being used to otherwise produce these products? The easiest and cheapest way to avoid the high costs of toxic clean up later is to use less of what creates the toxicity now.
I am glad to see you here. You raise some interesting and intelligent points. Your input helps me better see the challenges ahead of us. The challenges must be met and conquered. Failure, is not an option.
You da man! You are aware of how much I appreciate that! You know I am only capable of some English, fluent BS and basic babble. ;-) Anything else, not so much.
One should always attribute things they quote. The above piece is, of course, from Fox "News"--an organization that has made known that they will lie about climate change if that's what it takes to disinform and misinform.
Strike One.
It's not unusual for grad students intimately familiar with the material to do the grunt work behind a paper. In fact, any grad student who can't handle such a duty should ask for a refund on his or her tuition.
Strike Two.
Among the many facts Laframboise fails to mention is this: the youngest IPCC lead author is Richard Tol, an economist who is also a denialist.
Strike Three.
This is just another pathetic denialist attempt to poison the well. And while it may work with the Fox faithful, it won't succeed overall.
I don't see the past ten years as not warming as many here have claimed. Do YOU?
Perhaps it is the #1 in the USA.
That is NOT a recommendation for anything, really.
In fact, many people consider it rather embarrassing, and dont mention it....
That you, CAT5Hurricane?
ps So if a "Marxist" tells you the building is on fire you are not going to exit or at least check it out?
Peer Review???
"The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago."
Oh, that's alright. Fox News and Anthony Watts tell us CO2 has absolutely no effect on the climate, and besides, it's not getting hot anyway, and even if it is it'll be great because, hey, no more pesky icebergs.
I suppose it is interesting. But the article is nearly a decade old--the hottest nine-year period yet--with nary a sign of the "Overdue Cold Snap" of which he writes. Which naturally begs the question: how much longer do we have to wait?
I agree. That is an interesting article. The problem is, for this to happen, we would have to reverse everything we know about physics and thermodynamics. You cannot keep adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and expect the climate to cool. There would have to be another major player involved, for this happen. Lower energy output from the Sun? Our orbit begins to expand? The Earth's tilt becomes more directed towards the Sun? Without something else to counteract the amount of greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere, the climate will continue to warm from these gases.
"We're getting calls from veterans across the country who are extremely angry and appalled that someone who served two tours in Iraq got injured as a well-behaved protester,'' says Kimball, 27. "It's rallying vets across the country. We're just seeing the beginning of it."
A super volcano could cool the planet. Once the particulates filter out of the atmosphere, the warming would probably continue anew.
WU Rules of the Road
1. Please do not carry on personal disputes in the blogs.
2. Threats, intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with by extreme action.
3. Foul language is not allowed.
4. Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information about the weather.
5. Do not circumvent administrative action by creating new users, etc.
6. No spam.
Protests are never pretty are they? We saw the same with the Civil Rights protests and the Tea Party protests. I am extremely glad that we are allowed to protest here. Many countries would not allow such protests. I would say that you should thank a VET for allowing us to keep our freedoms. ... Aren't you a VET? Did you not fight for this country and its principles? The very principles that allow us to protest? I thank all VETS that have fought for this country and our right to be this nation and our way of life. As you being a VET, I thank you for your service to this country and all that it stands for.
LoL
Dat's the # 1 reason we have the "Link" prompt.
I'd be interested to see some predictions of what the average temperatures will be in the future and what the impact of that climate change will be.
Viewing: 1 - 51
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 — Blog Index