"BEST" temperature record study surprises skeptics

By: Angela Fritz , 3:38 PM GMT on November 03, 2011

Share this Blog
19
+

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

    Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

    Post Your Comments

    Please sign in to post comments.

    or Join

    Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

    Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

    Viewing: 458 - 408

    Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14Blog Index

    So what's your plan to place our climate back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution? I'd love to hear it.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting greentortuloni:


    I don't have any evidence that he is paid, how could? I have no idea who he really is and I really don't care.

    However, characterizing him by his comments:

    He comes on here with a cliche and a link and disappears.

    There is no debate except 'poo poo head' type GOP/Tea party name calling.

    He can't handle any debate that is actually content based.


    So the question is: what does he get out of it? The only answers I can think of are: trolling and as part of his job.

    The scenario I imagine is that he has contracted with one or more of the oil funded think tanks to spam any intelligent discussion. He doesn't need to have content because the oil boys know there isn't any. They are after the lowbrow votes and all they need is 'plausible deniability' [Reagan, right?]. The reason I make this difference is that others with similar opinions, while not having much more content, do at least seem to spend time debating. It is a subjective difference though, nothing to really point at as evidence.

    On this site, people like Nea and others rip his little links to pieces and all he replies with are pseudo concservative cliches. Hence why I think he is professional (in the limited sense of hte word meaning 'getting paid'). If he had the time, he should be honoring the spirit of his contract rather than the letter. However, he honors the letter which is to post a certain number of posts per week with a certain number of links. To me, it is the best explanation. I can't believe he is one of right wingnuts sitting in his underwear masterbating to Kock brothers picture and surfing the internet. I am sure with all the websites out there discussing global warming, he rarely has enough time to do more than just post and run.

    Someone with some time to waste and computer skills could go back through his posts and see if they fit a quota pattern. Personally I don't care. The evidence of global warming is so strong that already the denialsts have retreated into "global warming is real but it is not man's fault". Soon the problems will be so big the debate will be moot.

    I think JB and his ilk are traitors and scum, especially from a patriotic pro American point of view. What they will manage to do is damage America by slowing down our progress towards the new technologies of the next 20-30 years, that does make me angry.



    Sort of like can't teach an old dog new tricks.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting Ossqss:
    Wow, I knew I should not have peeked in here. You all need to attempt some constraint before you get a constraining/restraining order on you.

    Here is a distraction for you. Why does this not exist?

    Think about it!

    Conflict of interest guidelines for the IPCC


    Sounds like another "Legal Defense Fund" in the works.

    Any agency afraid of a FOI filing...speaks volumes.

    It's time for sworn testimony vs peer review to become a reality.

    Throw out the trash and the Science of Climate Change will gain it's well deserved credibility.

    "I say so" is for children.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting petewxwatcher:
    I think I should tell Joe Bastardi that someone is claiming to be him here on wunderground. Posting in his name. Posting some really nasty and crazy stuff. Strange how none of the deniers have had a problem with another denier stealing a real person's name to post here.

    Weatherbell.com right?
    One can also send him an e-mail at this site
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting spbloom:
    JB, you're a continual ad hominem attack on yourself; although strictly speaking no, since denialists who can't ever seem to understand the difference between ad hominem (a logical fallacy meaning to criticize the person as a way of defeating the idea they propose) and just plain criticism or insults just don't get it (or don't want to get it) that when someone has a track record composed of almost pure garbage, as does Watts, pointing that out upon the appearance of the latest bit of goo ceases to be ad hominem and becomes just, you know, the truth (although IMHO "nut" is too kind).

    OTOH you all feel free to foam at the mouth about climate, a subject about which you know next to nothing, so why should anyone expect you to understand the rules of logic?

    I see no particular evidence that JB is paid, although OTOH I see no particular evidence that he's graduated from high school.

    Seriously, I think it describes the situation more or less accurately to say that Koch et al. created to a great extent and continue to pay the wingnut think-tank network (Heartland, CEI, etc., etc., but extending to fake "experts" like McIntyre), play a similar role with the next level down (e.g. Watts and Morano), but probably have more than enough volunteers willing to sit in their parents' basement in their underwear all day (to pick a common scenario) spreading that garbage anywhere they're not banned from doing so. Which, as I've noted a couple of times now, wouldn't be a problem here at all if Ricky would exercise a whit of care as to the coments.

    I should add that if and when the fossil fuel industry sees a need for paid shills on blogs (distinguishing that from managing or producing material for denialist blogs, since Watts is certainly paid and is certainly a shill), they won't hesitate to pony up. That sort of thing has been done in other contexts and is very much part of the skill set of the media/advertising types that serve industry, but while I'm perfectly willing to believe it's happening here or at similar sites, I have yet to see any evidence.


    I don't have any evidence that he is paid, how could? I have no idea who he really is and I really don't care.

    However, characterizing him by his comments:

    He comes on here with a cliche and a link and disappears.

    There is no debate except 'poo poo head' type GOP/Tea party name calling.

    He can't handle any debate that is actually content based.


    So the question is: what does he get out of it? The only answers I can think of are: trolling and as part of his job.

    The scenario I imagine is that he has contracted with one or more of the oil funded think tanks to spam any intelligent discussion. He doesn't need to have content because the oil boys know there isn't any. They are after the lowbrow votes and all they need is 'plausible deniability' [Reagan, right?]. The reason I make this difference is that others with similar opinions, while not having much more content, do at least seem to spend time debating. It is a subjective difference though, nothing to really point at as evidence.

    On this site, people like Nea and others rip his little links to pieces and all he replies with are pseudo concservative cliches. Hence why I think he is professional (in the limited sense of hte word meaning 'getting paid'). If he had the time, he should be honoring the spirit of his contract rather than the letter. However, he honors the letter which is to post a certain number of posts per week with a certain number of links. To me, it is the best explanation. I can't believe he is one of right wingnuts sitting in his underwear masterbating to Kock brothers picture and surfing the internet. I am sure with all the websites out there discussing global warming, he rarely has enough time to do more than just post and run.

    Someone with some time to waste and computer skills could go back through his posts and see if they fit a quota pattern. Personally I don't care. The evidence of global warming is so strong that already the denialsts have retreated into "global warming is real but it is not man's fault". Soon the problems will be so big the debate will be moot.

    I think JB and his ilk are traitors and scum, especially from a patriotic pro American point of view. What they will manage to do is damage America by slowing down our progress towards the new technologies of the next 20-30 years, that does make me angry.

    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting JBastardi:


    Get a grip.

    That's a laugh coming from the guy who thinks global warming is a giant conspiracy to take away his lifetime supply of tinfoil.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting JBastardi:


    Keep attacking the messenger, not the message. That's all you ever do. Rugged individualism is what made America and all you liberals want to do is destroy it. If you hate what made this country great, why don't you go to Russia or China. You'll fit in well. On another note, Mikey Mann is still doing his best to cover his fraud:

    Link

    So now you accuse me of "attacking the messenger" after you've posted many comments today accusing Michael Mann (and James Hansen) of wrongdoing, though you've no truthful basis for doing so?

    Got it.
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13724
    Quoting Neapolitan:

    Speaking of laughingstocks, this from the bio of the author of the piece to which you linked:

    "His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for every high school student."

    Yeah, that's exactly what this country needs: more disciples of Ayn Rand. Bob Webster: Islamaphobe, birther, bigot, and--most importantly--denialist.

    Charming.


    Keep attacking the messenger, not the message. That's all you ever do. Rugged individualism is what made America and all you liberals want to do is destroy it. If you hate what made this country great, why don't you go to Russia or China. You'll fit in well. On another note, Mikey Mann is still doing his best to cover his fraud:

    Link
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting JBastardi:
    Another failed Hansen prediction. If he weren't the god of the Gaia worshipers or a government employee, he'd be a laughingstock.

    Link

    Speaking of laughingstocks, this from the bio of the author of the piece to which you linked:

    "His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for every high school student."

    Yeah, that's exactly what this country needs: more disciples of Ayn Rand. Bob Webster: Islamaphobe, birther, bigot, and--most importantly--denialist.

    Charming.
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13724
    Quoting Neapolitan:

    Yeah, what a hoot! It's almost as silly as someone trying to argue that a fuel storage facility isn't actually a fuel storage facility...
    See what I mean JB he just makes things up.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting nymore:
    Dude how do you still take Neo seriously. When he said a diesel tank was an oil facility. You know he just makes things up.

    Yeah, what a hoot! It's almost as silly as someone trying to argue that a fuel storage facility isn't actually a fuel storage facility...
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13724
    Quoting petewxwatcher:
    I think I should tell Joe Bastardi that someone is claiming to be him here on wunderground. Posting in his name. Posting some really nasty and crazy stuff. Strange how none of the deniers have had a problem with another denier stealing a real person's name to post here.

    Weatherbell.com right?


    Nasty? Since when did the truth become nasty? I suppose it's when it goes against your religion. Tell me what I said that wasn't truthful.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting JBastardi:


    You sound as if you're a closet pedophile. Are you registered? Did I ruffle your feathers? My interest is the truth, which Perp State obviously cares nothing about, as in the Mann and Sandusky cases. Maybe now that the light of day is shining on them, they will reopen the Mann investigation.
    Is it Perp State or Ped State? Dude how do you still take Neo seriously. When he said a diesel tank was an oil facility. You know he just makes things up.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    I think I should tell Joe Bastardi that someone is claiming to be him here on wunderground. Posting in his name. Posting some really nasty and crazy stuff. Strange how none of the deniers have had a problem with another denier stealing a real person's name to post here.

    Weatherbell.com right?
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Another failed Hansen prediction. If he weren't the god of the Gaia worshipers or a government employee, he'd be a laughingstock.

    Link
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting Neapolitan:

    So in your opinion, no past or present PSU grad has any credibility? Hmmm. The real Joe Bastardi is a Penn State grad (as is, for that matter, Rick "Please don't Google me" Santorum). So perhaps you really are onto something...


    You warmists sure twist words. I said that Penn State covered for Sandusky and Mann. It's as simple as that.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting JBastardi:
    After the latest Penn State fiasco of covering up child molesters for years, do you really give their investigation of Mikey Mann any credence? They would do anything for money as is evident in their current status:

    Link

    Link

    So in your opinion, no past or present PSU grad has any credibility? Hmmm. The real Joe Bastardi is a Penn State grad (as is, for that matter, Rick "Please don't Google me" Santorum). So perhaps you really are onto something...
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13724
    Quoting LowerCal:
    It's a refreshing and amusing change to see someone turn the tables on you, J Baastardi. That is who *you* really are right?


    I am who I am and I can't say no more. Turning the tables on whom? Penn State is guilty of protecting frauds and pedophiles. I simply pointed that out. Warmists can't see through their own lies and clouded judgment when it comes to the "green," as in money.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Wow, I knew I should not have peeked in here. You all need to attempt some constraint before you get a constraining/restraining order on you.

    Here is a distraction for you. Why does this not exist?

    Think about it!

    Conflict of interest guidelines for the IPCC
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting JBastardi:


    That Bloom person is out there. Wonder who he really is? Hmmm
    It's a refreshing and amusing change to see someone turn the tables on you, J Bastardi. That is who *you* really are right?
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting LowerCal:
    LOL! Trolling the troll.


    That Bloom person is out there. Wonder who he really is? Hmmm
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    LOL! Trolling the troll.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting spbloom:
    And what is it you're gripping, exactly? The imagination quails at the thought. No, JB, now this is all about your proven interest in child molestation.


    You sound as if you're a closet pedophile. Are you registered? Did I ruffle your feathers? My interest is the truth, which Perp State obviously cares nothing about, as in the Mann and Sandusky cases. Maybe now that the light of day is shining on them, they will reopen the Mann investigation.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    And let's have no more of that talk about butts being covered, regardless of what it costs. Pervert.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting spbloom:
    JB posted about child molesting! Child molesting right here on WU! JB, child molesting? Yes, a child molester! Now let's burn him. Burn the Witc..., er child molester!!!

    Well, OK, put JB the child molester in jail and throw away the key, or otherwise if in a state with the death penalty. (Anybody still using firing squads these days? The electric chair only adds to the icky smell. And drugs, well, drugs are clearly what got him where he is today, so he doesn't need more of those.) Maybe waterboard him a bit along the way. It's only fair.


    Get a grip. The post had nothing to do with child molesting, but the cover-up at Perp State. It demonstated that Perp State will cover its butt at all costs for the money. The admin there knew that Sandusky was fondling boys in the shower. Do you think their internal reviewers would find fault with Mikey Mann's fraud knowing it would stop the flow of government cash for non-science?
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting Xandra:


    Yes I know all about that but what makes it so unique about this year is that all stations in Sweden reported free from snow the 9th of November and it has never ever happened before since the records began in 1904.

    And there has never been so little snow in Sweden at this time since 1905 when they started to measure snow depth.


    Then it sounds like it should be analyzed to look for a climate fingerprint. Is there a blocking event behind this, BTW?
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting spbloom:


    Well, that may be just weather, and note that current snow levels hemisphere-wide are actually higher than a year ago (although IIRC those were record lows). More significant are the long-term Northern Hemisphere snow coverage trends.

    First is the chart for December. Nothing too blatant happening here, it seems, but we don't care very much anyway since albedo (reflectivity) from snow has the least potential effect on the climate when sunshine is low.

    But what about June, the month of highest insolation (and so the one where more bare ground means the most heating)? Oops.

    Take a quick look through the whole year and you'll that the larger picture is all too consistent, with the spring-summer months of highest insolation tending strongly toward less snow cover. Hmm, what could possibly be doing that?


    Yes I know all about that but what makes it so unique about this year is that all stations in Sweden reported free from snow the 9th of November and it has never ever happened before since the records began in 1904 (according to SMHI - Sweden's Meteorological and Hydrological Institute)

    And there has never been so little snow in Sweden at this time since 1905 when they started to measure snow depth (according to SMHI)
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    JB, you're a continual ad hominem attack on yourself; although strictly speaking no, since denialists who can't ever seem to understand the difference between ad hominem (a logical fallacy meaning to criticize the person as a way of defeating the idea they propose) and just plain criticism or insults just don't get it (or don't want to get it) that when someone has a track record composed of almost pure garbage, as does Watts, pointing that out upon the appearance of the latest bit of goo ceases to be ad hominem and becomes just, you know, the truth (although IMHO "nut" is too kind).

    OTOH you all feel free to foam at the mouth about climate, a subject about which you know next to nothing, so why should anyone expect you to understand the rules of logic?

    I see no particular evidence that JB is paid, although OTOH I see no particular evidence that he's graduated from high school.

    Seriously, I think it describes the situation more or less accurately to say that Koch et al. created to a great extent and continue to pay the wingnut think-tank network (Heartland, CEI, etc., etc., but extending to fake "experts" like McIntyre), play a similar role with the next level down (e.g. Watts and Morano), but probably have more than enough volunteers willing to sit in their parents' basement in their underwear all day (to pick a common scenario) spreading that garbage anywhere they're not banned from doing so. Which, as I've noted a couple of times now, wouldn't be a problem here at all if Ricky would exercise a whit of care as to the coments.

    I should add that if and when the fossil fuel industry sees a need for paid shills on blogs (distinguishing that from managing or producing material for denialist blogs, since Watts is certainly paid and is certainly a shill), they won't hesitate to pony up. That sort of thing has been done in other contexts and is very much part of the skill set of the media/advertising types that serve industry, but while I'm perfectly willing to believe it's happening here or at similar sites, I have yet to see any evidence.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting JBastardi:


    Typical of you. Ad-hominem attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with your nonsense. You must have a stake in the outcome, as in monetary. The report stated that there would be no definitive change in the climate for 20-30 years. How on earth would they know that? So what now? Continue these ridiculous, economy-destroying measures for something that may or may not happen? You people should be mentally examined.

    No, that's not at all what the "leaked" report states. Relying on only what one finds on WUWT is, as always, a mistake: you've got a heavy-duty denialist interpreting an article written by an avowed "skeptic" who's cherry-picked from a preliminary report, and who in the process has quoted other notable "skeptics". Hardly objective, one would think. But even then, the denier-slanted BBC report had to admit the following:

    "It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas...

    "It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st Century over many areas of the globe...

    "Mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase...

    "There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st Century in some seasons and areas...

    "Low-probability high-impact changes associated with the crossing of poorly understood thresholds cannot be excluded, given the transient and complex nature of the climate system."

    Bottom line: Watts long ago thoroughly discredited himself. To rely on anything he says, then, is purest folly.
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13724
    Quoting Xandra:
    Where is the snow? ;-)

    Sweden,

    Hover over a date to show the observed snow depth in cm.

    Normal first day with snow cover, mean

    Daily average temperature deviation from the normal, November 2011


    News, 9 november - Swedish snow in November no show


    Well, that may be just weather, and note that current snow levels hemisphere-wide are actually higher than a year ago (although IIRC those were record lows). More significant are the long-term Northern Hemisphere snow coverage trends.

    First is the chart for December. Nothing too blatant happening here, it seems, but we don't care very much anyway since albedo (reflectivity) from snow has the least potential effect on the climate when sunshine is low.

    But what about June, the month of highest insolation (and so the one where more bare ground means the most heating)? Oops.

    Take a quick look through the whole year and you'll that the larger picture is all too consistent, with the spring-summer months of highest insolation tending strongly toward less snow cover. Hmm, what could possibly be doing that?

    I forget the tricks to posting graphics here, but perhaps someone else could (so that the denialists who were so quick to hide my posts from themselves can see them too)?
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting Neapolitan:

    Ah, Watts, what a nut. Instead of reading his fantasy take on the actual article--spin on top of spin--read the actual article itself. Even thought the writer, a mid-level denialist--tries to twist the IPCC report into something it's not, you'll see some very alarming scenarios. And for a good reason, of course.


    Typical of you. Ad-hominem attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with your nonsense. You must have a stake in the outcome, as in monetary. The report stated that there would be no definitive change in the climate for 20-30 years. How on earth would they know that? So what now? Continue these ridiculous, economy-destroying measures for something that may or may not happen? You people should be mentally examined.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    I haven't posted on the Climate Change blog in quite some time, and I am thinking about starting to post more on this blog again.

    My reaction to the BEST data? It doesn't surprise me at all.

    BEST took in the same raw data as NCDC, GISS, and HadCrut. It's no surprise you get a very similar warming trend.

    However, one thing that the BEST team strenuates is that they have NOT evaluated the human contribution to Climate.

    The BEST team actually has said that the human component could be exaggerated.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Me tinks a lot of B.S. is being shoveled by "Muscle"..


    Ack!!!


    Go fig'ya.
    Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129400
    Quoting JBastardi:
    It appears even the IPCC is beginning to change their tune about so-called "global warming." Must be preparing the stage for a return of global cooling.

    Link

    Ah, Watts, what a nut. Instead of reading his fantasy take on the actual article--spin on top of spin--read the actual article itself. Even thought the writer, a mid-level denialist--tries to twist the IPCC report into something it's not, you'll see some very alarming scenarios. And for a good reason, of course.
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13724
    I thought I would highlight the link I provided gotlieb. It's Jim Hansen's latest article:

    Climate Variability and Climate Change: The New Climate Dice

    10 November 2011

    J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy

    Abstract. The "climate dice" describing the chance of an unusually warm or cool season, relative to the climatology of 1951-1980, have progressively become more "loaded"during the past 30 years, coincident with increased global warming. The most dramatic and important change of the climate dice is the appearance of a new category of extreme climate outliers. These extremes were practically absent in the period of climatology, covering much less than 1% of Earth's surface. Now summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (σ) warmer than climatology, typically cover about 10% of the land area. Thus there is no need to equivocate about the summer heat waves in Texas in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, which exceeded 3σ – it is nearly certain that they would not have occurred in the absence of global warming. If global warming is not slowed from its current pace, by midcentury 3σ events will be the new norm and 5σ events will be common.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    It appears even the IPCC is beginning to change their tune about so-called "global warming." Must be preparing the stage for a return of global cooling.

    Link
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting Neapolitan:
    Back in the summer when British mets predicted a warm fall for the UK, clowns like Watts and Bastardi fell all over themselves in a headlong rush to see who would be the first and loudest to shout that there's no way, no how that could possibly happen.

    As Rick Perry would say: Oops.

    Today, there's this headline from The Telegraph

    "November on course for being warmest since records began

    Britain is on course for the warmest November since records began 353 years ago, according to forecasters, after a balmy 65F (18C ) weekend with some of the highest temperatures ever recorded just six weeks from Christmas."


    I ventured over to WUWT and WB, and saw no retractions. Not that I was expecting to see one, but still...possibly the warmest since 1658?

    More coincidence...


    Oh, there'll be cold weather somewhere soon enough.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting greentortuloni:


    I'll give you credit for your contract writing skills. If that link counts towards your quota, the guy who signed your contract should be fired.

    If I had written a contract with you to post denialst views on weather sites, you would have to do better than the junk links you've been posting. Amazing, some of us work hard to succeed, others get paid by the useless post.


    But he actually *writes* very little, which is to say that it takes him very little time to produce that spam. He'd be banned in an instant if Ricky cared one whit about the state of this blog's comment section.

    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    You're right for once, J. Every claim in that link was made up.

    Anyway, this is pretty standard-issue older-physicist-near-or-after-end-of-career rants about competing (for research funding) field he knows little about. It just goes to show that having an advanced degree is not in and of itself a preventative for eccentricity. To the contrary, at an advanced stage of the syndrome it would seem to become an enhancement.

    What's amusing about the funding envy is that climate science would need to be a big funding priority even if the recent observed changes were wholly natural. The whole ocean-atmosphere system is on the move, and it would be much more alarming if we had no idea what was doing it.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Back in the summer when British mets predicted a warm fall for the UK, clowns like Watts and Bastardi fell all over themselves in a headlong rush to see who would be the first and loudest to shout that there's no way, no how that could possibly happen.

    As Rick Perry would say: Oops.

    Today, there's this headline from The Telegraph

    "November on course for being warmest since records began

    Britain is on course for the warmest November since records began 353 years ago, according to forecasters, after a balmy 65F (18C ) weekend with some of the highest temperatures ever recorded just six weeks from Christmas."


    I ventured over to WUWT and WB, and saw no retractions. Not that I was expecting to see one, but still...possibly the warmest since 1658?

    More coincidence...
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13724
    Quoting JBastardi:
    Wake up and smell the fabrication:

    Link


    I'll give you credit for your contract writing skills. If that link counts towards your quota, the guy who signed your contract should be fired.

    If I had written a contract with you to post denialst views on weather sites, you would have to do better than the junk links you've been posting. Amazing, some of us work hard to succeed, others get paid by the useless post.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    I smell toast and jam...
    Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129400
    Wake up and smell the fabrication:

    Link
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting Neapolitan:

    I've never said that, of course; only a fool would.

    Weather is short-term; climate is long-term. Simplified version: if it rains in my location today, that's weather; if it rains in my location every day of the year, that's climate.

    Now, it may seem to some that those who support AGWT claim that "anything that supports the AGW theory is climate". But the fact of the matter is, AGWT is bolstered by an increasingly wide range of long-term observations of temperature, pressure, wind, humidity, etc. It's simply not the fault of climate scientists that the vast majority of those observations indicate rapid warming.


    Rapid warming on a GLOBAL scale.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting iceagecoming:


    Anything that supports the AGW theory is climate, any cooling event is weather. I am sure Neap will explain.


    Actually this is a pretty accurate statement. Since the world is warming, and at an accelerating pace, the data that shows this warming is climate data. The occasional event that provides a temporary relief to the climb is weather.

    The exception is maybe some local climate shift that gets a cooler climate due to permanent weather pattern changes.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting iceagecoming:


    Anything that supports the AGW theory is climate, any cooling event is weather. I am sure Neap will explain.

    I've never said that, of course; only a fool would.

    Weather is short-term; climate is long-term. Simplified version: if it rains in my location today, that's weather; if it rains in my location every day of the year, that's climate.

    Now, it may seem to some that those who support AGWT claim that "anything that supports the AGW theory is climate". But the fact of the matter is, AGWT is bolstered by an increasingly wide range of long-term observations of temperature, pressure, wind, humidity, etc. It's simply not the fault of climate scientists that the vast majority of those observations indicate rapid warming.
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13724
    Quoting gotlieb:


    In reading my intro again, I suppose you are right. I did leave it at weather. What I should have said is "Weather is what brought me here, to the Weather Underground." I've been a member for longer than I can remember (maybe ten years or so). I do understand we are talking about climate change here in this blog. Although in reading several of the 394 previous posts in this thread, I see much debate using weather as talking points from both sides.

    We are currently experiencing an extreme drought here in Texas. Question for the channel, do you consider a drought to be weather or climate?


    Anything that supports the AGW theory is climate, any cooling event is weather. I am sure Neap will explain.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:

    Viewing: 458 - 408

    Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14Blog Index

    Top of Page

    About RickyRood

    I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.