"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
I think you may have been unfairly disadvantaged by coming to the party late and responding to only that portion of the conversation that took place after you arrived. This entire portion of the discussion was prompted by a question posed by PurpleDrank where she asked how much CO2 we humans emit while breathing. The talk turned to hypotheticals: on an earth in which no fossil fuel carbon was ever released from long-term underground sequestration, the number of animals emitting CO2 would be balanced by the number of plants absorbing it, and vice-versa. And so long as those stayed in balance, there'd be no large net gain or loss of carbon to the system. Now obviously, as you stated, once fossil carbon from farming, transportation, cooking, and so on is added to the mix, that balance gets thrown wildly out of whack. And chopping down forests and replacing them with vegetable crops or grazing for cattle throws that balance off even more, as there's less ability to absorb what we animals emit. In short, then, rapid greenhouse warming is not happening because of the CO2 we animals constantly exhale; it's happening because of all the extra carbon we're adding to the system by digging it up, burning it, and freeing it into the atmosphere.
And you're correct in stating that "Mother Nature will most likely step in at some point and do it for us". She's done so in the past, and she'll do so in the future; we humans are no more special than any of the other millions of species that have come and gone before. Malthusian disasters await. People are free to deny it all they wish, but they may as well deny death itself.
There are many other drivers of climate. It is just that CO2 is the most important of these on Earth.
Now, *weather*...well, that's all kinds of complicated. And weather is what your link actually is discussing. The climate change signal is extremely unlikely to be statistically significant at such short time scales. It's almost as though that link is trying to mislead or confuse people. ;)
A decade is not long enough to separate the warming trend from the statistical noise of weather.
Thanks for playing.
And when that weather drives climate in one direction --up in this case-- then that trend must be explained. Physics demands it. The explanation is clear. Increasing concentration of CO2 is the cause. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
Further, when the climate changes it begins to drive the weather. More extreme events --in frequency, duration, severity, and area-- begin to be more likely. This is being observed. It will not be a steady increase in any of the particulars. Why should it?
Think of weather as a spinning top. Tops almost never spin perfectly in perpendicular fashion. There is almost always a little wobble. However, if spun with sufficient speed, that top will be more or less stable. As the top loses its stability, it begins to wobble more and more severely. Sometimes, they almost seem to recover briefly, but that never lasts long. The wobbling eventually becomes so pronounced and the top so unstable that it falls over.
That isn't a perfect analogy since the top is losing energy while the Earth is gaining (retaining, actually) energy. However, it is a useful analogy, imo, in that it conveys what happens to a system that becomes unstable.
I think that you are misguided as to the goal. The goal is to not be the cause of detrimental change.
Indeed.
You did not read and/or comprehend my comment very well, did you?
"I believe that our best energy source will come from nuclear fusion. We will ever obtain this? As yet, unknown."
Where did I suggest that nuclear fusion is available to us now or that it ever will be? Scientist, hence my "Science based" comment being based on logic, are working on the possibility of our using nuclear fusion. - Nuclear Fusion - As I have stated, we may not acquire the knowledge to use nuclear fusion. Scientists are trying to work through the problems of our being able to use nuclear fusion as a reliable and safe energy source. What Scientist have not been able to do, an even more difficult task, is to show how our releasing billions of tons of previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere and not have it contribute towards a rising atmospheric CO2 concentration in our atmosphere. Are you able to use science and logic to provide us with the answer to this? Should you be able to do so, the Nobel Peace Prize will be yours for the taking.
I have nothing to say about the money angle. I didn't put forth the argument and have no opinion on it as I've not done the necessary research. The money angle of this whole thing is the least interesting or important, imo.
No, the extreme weather events by themselves are not a positive indicator of a warming climate. I doubt any published scientific work is attributing them to cooling.) But the warming climate is a fact that is demonstrated by several lines of evidence. Further, increased atmospheric CO2 is primarily responsible, which is also strongly supported. Therefore, attributing the increasing extreme weather events to the warming climate is only logical.
Good morning, PurpleDrank.
Man is not trying to obtain his own desired climate settings. Man is trying to keep from having a desirable climate to being changed into a climate that is far less than desirable for man. Will this take sorcery to accomplish? No. All that it takes to begin the move towards this goal is for enough people to be able to understand the science behind greenhouse gases and how they impact an atmosphere AND to act accordingly. .... OK, THAT part may require some sorcery.
Good morning, sir!
I would not use The Huffington Post, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CNN or any other commentary source as a resource to learn the science. I would use the science journals to explore and understand the science of the scientific topic you wish to know more of.
All of the planets in the solar system experience orbital eccentricities around a common star, which give fluctuations to climate changes.
Um, no offense...but so what? How many technology bearing societies dependent on industrial farming for food existed at those times? If, as I believe the facts indicate, the answer is "zero" then those periods aren't really relevant.
No one believes that the Earth itself is in danger, or even life. However, humanity is probably in for some tough to horrific times if we don't get on this problem NOW.
And to answer your question on volcanoes, they do put out a lot of CO2...but on average it's minuscule compared to that put out by humans.
Interesting, true, and irrelevant.
Climate change likely to worsen erosion along the Alaska coast
Arctic sea ice was at its 2nd lowest extent on record during October 2011, according to the National Snow and Ice data Center. Much of the missing ice this fall is along the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, where today's massive storm is hitting. When sea ice disappears, coastlines become more susceptible to battering waves. This is particularly common during the fall season, not only because sea ice extent is usually at its minimum, but fall is when storms tend to be stronger with higher storm surges.
Recent coastal destruction has already forced residents of the Alaskan town of Shishmaref to vote to abandon their village. More than half the residents of the nearby village of Kivalina (population 400) were forced to evacuate in September 2007, when 25 - 40 mph winds drove a four foot storm surge into the town. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a $16 million sea wall and shore fortifications in 2009 to protect the town, and Kivalina is trusting these protections during today's storm; no evacuations occurred.
I know you were not being facetious. A problem for us all is in "information overload". We need to be careful to choose were we are willing to obtain our information.
Health care. Yes, this is another issue that needs to resolved. But, as you say, this is a separate issue.
Yes, I agree, but, this still does not negate CO2 being a greenhouse gas and that this fact, in itself, will cause a warming climate. We are not trying to right all that is "wrong" in the universe. We are just trying to get a better grip on our climate change and how we may impact it. This could be for the better or for the worse. To some degree, that is up to us.
In the past, or now? Volcanoes simply have had little effect on the current warming. Certainly, in the past there have been some severe effects. When something like Toba or Huckleberry Ridge or the mother of them all the Siberian Traps erupts, there is no doubt about the source of that climate change.
But there's nothing even vaguely like that happening now.
Unless there is a major volcanic eruption(s) then the "significance" of volcanic activity is minor. Let us say, for the sake of the debate, that volcanoes do play a major, long term part in our climate. This still does not negate the fact that we, mankind, through our own activities, also contribute towards long term impacts on our climate. We cannot cap the volcanoes but, we can begin to lessen our impact. ... When you see a fuel fire that you wish to contain, if not extinguish, then you do not introduce more fuel to the fire.
What does the longevity of the Earth's existence have to do with anything?
And the current warming trend goes back further than 25 years. It actually takes off in the early 20th century, takes a breather for about 30 years (most likely due to aerosols, primarily from human activity), and then the trend is steadily upward since about 1975.
And what does the LIA have to do with the current warming?
Frankly, such "context" means nothing since the central assertion of AGW Theory is that it is currently warming (and we are primarily responsible). AGW Theory does not assert that it hasn't been warmer in the past nor is it asserted that climate change cannot occur in the absence of human beings. Physics will serve us better in the current circumstances than history, though history can be useful somewhat.
Andrea Rossi's Cold Fusion Reacto
Link
No idea if this is a scam or what, but I see the topic of H-fusion came up so enjoy, or not.
Polywell
A polywell device is a type of fusion reactor that was originated by Robert Bussard under a U.S. Navy research contract
Link
I have been following this for a couple of years. This does not look to be a scam at all. Dr Bussard claimed that had they been funded at a decent rate, we would now have commercial H fusion devises for power generation. I have not found any indication that Dr. Bussard was a nut or not credible.
some other links on Polywell
Link
Link
.......
I think we only need to look to Africa right now to see how mother nature "takes care of the population problem"
Thank you, for the links! .... Let us hope that this really does become a viable energy source! This could prove to be our saving grace.
In all factuality, the core of the planet, its chemistry and mechanism, is directly responsible for Earth having the climate and atmosphere it possesses.
Currently, and most likely for the rest of our species' evolutionary lifetime, it is difficult to study something that is almost physically impossible to observe.
But just because we can't, doesn't mean it is a non-factor in the climate debate. To rule out such an important engine of the planet in favor of what we can easily observe, is, no pun intended, only scratching the surface of truth.
I believe that fossil fuels will be delegated to museums as an oddity as their being used as a primary energy source. This, I believe will happen for one of two reasons:
1.) We do develop the technology that takes us beyond using fossils fuels as a primary energy source.
2.) We simply run out of enough supplies of fossil fuels to be economically viable as a primary energy source.
Rookie, you forgot Rush Limbaugh, Ed Schultz and all the other sources of bad entertainment masquerading as serious news....
but you still did good. I think you deserve to make the font size bigger on the leotard due to good work. :)
I agree with you 100%, PurpleDrank. There is still much to learn concerning the full dynamics of our atmosphere and our global climate. We are, however, not limited to just guesswork. There are many things that we do know about our atmosphere and our global climate. We must proceed based on our current knowledge and factor in any new data that we may be able to acquire. We know, for instance, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that mankind's activities contributes billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. We also know that our activities are helping to destroy our planet's natural carbonsinks. We know that our continuing in this direction will have negative impacts towards Earth being able to maintain a balance of the CO2 released as opposed to what Earth's natural processes can absorb fast enough to maintain the balance.
I have a farm in western North Dakota in the middle of the Oil Boom out there. My Dad worked the first boom. I grew up in the Second boom. I have a relatives and friends working this boom. I have vested interest (I own mineral rights) in how much oil there is to be produced. Rookies comment #2 above is SOOOOO right.
I am old enough I think the oil will be here when I croak, but the kids will see it end.
When people are willing to adjust their thinking based on new, provable data then, yes, there is reason to be optimistic. We both have been skeptics and neither of us turned away from a willingness to see the evidence available. You have also shown an ability to apply your logic and arrive at a reasoned conclusion. I do not say this for any reason other than your demonstration of being able to keep an open mind. No matter which side of the debate you ultimately side with, I will always remember that you thought it through first. That, my friend, is all that anyone has a right to ask of you. I tip my hat to you.
I fully understand what you are saying about the personalities but, this was not consequential to me. Each of these personalities represent their own networks. My bringing focus to these networks, I hope, has shed enough light on what sources to not use, for knowledge on a topic. I did not have to mention specific personalities. ... They know who they are and so do most others.
My leotard is currently at the cleaners. I may suggest this to them. I am having it let out, again, and perhaps a larger font would be in order? LOL
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 — Blog Index