"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
As IEA chef economist Fatih Birol said in an interview released today (Wednesday), we had better leave oil before it leaves us.
Sometimes trying to hold an adult conversation with you is like trying to staple Jell-o to the wall.
I made a comment about storm-vulnerable oil storage facilities along the Alaska coast; you responded repeatedly that there were none. I tried to help you avoid looking foolish by ignoring those responses, but when you wouldn't let it go, I finally showed that there are indeed multiple oil storage facilities in that fragile environment--and your response was to claim that the quart of oil in a lawnmower engine is the same as, say, a 10,000-gallon fuel tank. (Of course, there aren't many lawns north of the Arctic Circle, but that's beside the point.)
Incredible. Simply incredible.
You then go on to tell us repeatedly that your life in Minnesota has somehow magically endowed you with great knowledge of Alaska's climate (though I don't make any such claims about my years in Minnesota. Or Montana. Or Wyoming). In response, I direct you to a page full of on-the-spot testimonials from Alaskan native people whose entire genealogies can be traced to that same area, testimonials that detail how things are changing around them and how they're being affected, and you respond by implying that they are simply stupid and ignorant.
Even more incredible.
Between statements like those, your immature name calling, your thorough and demonstrated lack of scientific knowledge, your strict adherence to a fossil-fuel-addicted ideology, and--perhaps worst of all--your repeated accusations of lying and misinformation directed at the site's owner (and anyone else more educated than you), I'm left to conclude that you're incapable of understanding or changing, and are thus an unworthy opponent. So, as I've had to do before, I'll leave you be for a while until you mature just a bit.
Very well said Nea!
Guardian Article...
(I expect that about now a particular person will pop in to tell us that he worked as a pump attendant at a Texaco for six months back in 1985, so he's more qualified to speak on energy matters than a bunch of silly old PhDs, but I plan to simply ignore him--as should you.)
…the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) explains that villages like Kivalina used to have a natural protection against erosion because “colder climates can reduce beach retreat during the winter when sea ice forms along beaches and acts as a buffer. The beach itself can also freeze providing additional protection from wave action. Along much of the coast of Alaska, the sea used to be covered by ice more than half of the year, reducing the annual rates of shoreline retreat. . . Significantly increased global temperatures extend the season of ice-free ocean, thus providing greater opportunity for storm influence and possibly greater land loss.
Impacts and Effects
Kivalina is dealing with these impacts first-hand. “We’ve been noticing changes to the environment over the past several years. The way we live depends on the environment and what it provides for us in terms of food and sustenance. Because we harvest seasonally, we’ve noticed that some harvesting seasons were starting earlier than normal. It wasn’t something that caused a whole lot of concern at first; we just had to adapt or miss the season. With the erosion problem, changes have happened rather suddenly. We battle Mother Nature, and we lose each time. And now, our people have lost their peace of mind. We’re afraid now when we get our fall sea storms. In the past the sea would freeze without fail (beginning in October) and provide a natural buffer to the coastline, protecting it from the vicious fall and winter storms that affect this area naturally. Now, due to the changing climate, the seas are sometimes not completely frozen even in the middle of December”…
Aye! Difference between symbiotic relationship and a virus. C02 and other pollution make us a virus. Mother Nature will take care of herself.
You claimed damage and oil spilled from ships being rammed ashore, pipelines being broken and large waves and chunks of ice being pushed ashore damaging oil facilities (post 183) I said some ship could be sunk but there are no pipelines or oil facilities close to where the storm would be (post 185)
You said it takes someone in deep denial to say there are no oil facilities there (post 188) I said there are no oil facilities there unless your idea of an oil facility is a diesel tank (post 189) What do you show as evidence a photo of a diesel tank farm. That was an easy call for me because I already knew your fall back position since you can not ever admit being wrong.
You claim I said I was an expert on Alaskan winters. Everyone here is welcome to read my posts. I never have made that claim and even went as far as to say I was no expert on the Bering Sea.
I did claim and still do that I know more about winter than you and stand by that.
While some here may not like my take on your article about the Alaskan village. That is fine with me. You claim AGWT is responsible for everything including the events described above, No lightning in history there not even the person writing the article claims that and a quick check with Nasa about lightning in the far north confirms my side (article in 2001). They live on a sandbar, sandbars move, I sorry for them but that is as far as it goes.
BTW you claimed ice could cause a lot of damage from this storm in the Bering Sea. There is no ice in the Bering Sea this time of year and the sea ice in the Chukchi Sea is below normal. Also the town of Kivalina is not even on the Bering Sea.
FWIW morons don't get put in charge of building some of the largest facilities in the world. Example Bridgestone Firestone largest building they have in the world at the time maybe still is. Person me
Largest vinyl floor manufacturing line in the world for IVC. Person me
Largest Distribution Centers that Family Dollar has in the world (three times). Person me
I have built many more but these are some highlights do to size and complexity
Ah! I see. I thought PurpleDrank was talking about how our core and its inter-workings allowed us to even have a climate/atmosphere. I did not make the connection as to how the unknown dynamics of the Earth's core could cause climate change. I thought along these lines since we already have a good grasp of what the core vents into the atmosphere and the dynamics involved with these processes. The confusion arose from my misunderstanding of what PurpleDrank was stating. (Note to self - pay closer attention next time)
Energy Costs Will Rise Viciously - Faith Birol
@1911maker, Interesting stuff! Look how far man's achievements have come in 100 years! It would be safe to say that in the next 100 years,the use of fossil fuels will be a thing we seen in museums!
ShenValleyFlyFish, not sure what you are getting at, or if your comment was meant for me. Follows the info that overwash12 was referencing I think.
E-Cat World
Andrea Rossi's Cold Fusion Reactor
Link
Polywell h fusion per Dr. Bussard
Link
Nope. :)
I agree, of course. However, the way deep time climate is being used by some here is to attempt to confuse the issue of the current warming, imo.
What happened fifty million years ago simply has no real effect on what is happening now. Though, as you point out it is instructive.
True but not informative. As I described and as Xandra's source confirms, Arctic coastlines have an added problem.
Just to add, studying deep-time climate tells us what the climate is capable of, but says little about the timing. For the latter, we need recent/current observations and modeling.
You are capable of adding a lot to the discussions. Do you plan to hang around awhile? There are several people that bring a lot to the table but, there are place settings for a few more.
Strongly seconded.
Uh-huh.
Link
Nuff said?
Not really. It should be "portion", singular.
Of course, the study was just published. It remains to be seen if it will stand up to scrutiny.
And from the paper: "Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100."
"I did not really think it was ossqss."
If you don't mean something, don't say it.
I'm too old to play around with vague rhetoric.
I have never claimed there is no Climate Change going on.
I have however claimed that there are Agencies and Scientist who will behave less than honorably to further their agendas.
Does that make me a denier, as the term is so freely wielded by those on my ignore list?
Of course it does...in their mind.
Following the link, deranged ex-TV weatherman Tony says:
"Kobashi et al 2011 was just published in GRL, and it looks like it will be upsetting the paleoclimate apple cart. The conclusions of Kaufman et al 2009 look to be minimized in comparison to this much more complete study. Questions over the split methodology for the last 60 years of data might be an issue, due to the change in methods of temperature reconstruction before and after the 1950 breakpoint. The amount of recent instrumental data is pretty low, and using it to calibrate the forward model might be a bit dodgy."
The passage I bolded is the intended take-home. But does the paper support it? Let's see:
"[W]e conclude that the current decadal mean snow temperature in central Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability of the past 4000 years.
"This conclusion differs somewhat from the result of a recent reconstruction of Arctic summer air temperature over the past 2000 years, which indicates that a long cooling trend over the last 2000 years ended with a pronounced warming during the twentieth century [Kaufman et al., 2009]. Possible reasons for the differences are numerous, and include at a minimum 1) our record is a mean%u2010annual temperature, not a summer temperature, and variability is minimal in summer but highest in winter [Box, 2002]; 2) differences between air and snow temperature may be influenced by changes in cloud cover and wind speed, which affect the strength of the near%u2010surface inversion; and 3) our site is not necessarily representative of the whole Arctic, and may respond in opposite ways to annular mode fluctuations."
So the authors disagree with Tony. Imagine that! It is interesting how he can characterize a paper based on a single site as "much more complete" than one covering data from many sites (although including at least one on the Greenland summit -- not sure if it was the same ice core or not) spread across the Arctic. The authors' third point is especially pertinent, since it almost goes without saying that a single site will show much more variabilty than an average of sites across a large region. They also say (the first point) that both papers could be correct even regarding just the Greenland summit since the studies measured different seasons and that should lead to a more variable result.
But all of this is intended to be a distraction from the fact that the Greenland ice sheet is melting at an accelerating pace. Wait you say, shouldn't this study have found such melting in the past if the summit core location was in fact warmer? No, as it happens, for the simple reason that the summit is at a quite high altitude and won't experience significant melting until things have warmed up much more (current average annual temperature there is ~-30C). Unfortunately, that isn't stopping the extensive lower-altitude bits from melting at a quickening pace.
One other thing: Calculating historical temperature at the Greenland summit has been a scientific project for a long time. This graph shows results for a 2000 paper that are broadly similar results to the new one. Note that it doesn't show the last 60 years of warming, but even with that added the current peak would still be below several of the past points shown. So apparently Tony's "paleoclimate apple cart" has been upset for at least 11 years, and now... OK, somebody must have reloaded the cart so it could be upset again. Yeah, that's it.
(Hmm, JBastardi takes less than a minute to post a link to an article he probably didn't even read beyond the headline, and putting this together took me well over an hour. Go figure. I did learn a few new things, so there's that.)
A quick search found comment 150 in this thread, which I would say makes you a denier. You said (my responses interpolated in italics):
"I'll chime in on this only once.
"As with coral bleaching, Climate Scientists are the last people on earth one should consult on marine biology.
Many climate scientists are marine biologists. Here's a good site with some.
"ftp://ftp.afsc.noaa.gov/afsc/public/crab/UnmateO c t08.pdf
Link doesn't work.
"King Crab eggs don't 'drift' anywhere, they would die from the warm waters of the equator and be eaten and the adults certainly didn't walk across the equator and the globe to get to Antarctica. Uh??? ***Who sent them a memo about Antarctica???***
King crabs are endemic to the Southern Ocean (around Tierra Del Fuego e.g.). Eggs don't drift, but larvae sure do.
"My guess is a transplanted 'hopefully undetected and unprotected' new fishery. But then, that cat is now out of the bag.
Sorry, Antarctics = protected, although at some point harvesting to protect the existing ecology might become necessary when the continental shelf waters get warm enough for the crabs to move up.
"Their breeding temperature range is far more broad than reported and the depths at which they do their thing are far more shallow. They don't do anything in deep water but get caught in nets or eaten by fish."
Er, source for those claims?
So yeah, the making stuff up, the speculation, the denial of a obvious connection to climate change, the attack on climate scientists... it all sounds pretty denial-y to me.
For anyone who doesn't recall this news (it came out a couple of months ago), here's an article.
Trees On Tundra's Border Are Growing Faster in a Hotter Climate
Trees farther south, not so much, plus it's more evidence that the tundra itself is going.
Thanks to both of you! The sentiment is very appreciated.
Well, I've come and gone from here once before, and most of my blog activity tends to be focused on (hint to Ricky) science blogs where the scientists interact a bit with the commentors and don't allow the pure distractions that the likes of nymore, theshepherd and jbastardi like to post. I like Angela's blog and the way she handles it, but her specialty is tropical met (which I'm not interested in at the detail level) and it seems that the bulk of her other posts are about things I'm already well-informed on. As I said above, I do like the occasional bout of correcting the deniers, but I tend to not stick with that for an extended period since they're unpersuadable and I tend not to learn much in the process.
I've been thinking about doing a climate blog with weekly posts (and BTW is it considered acceptable to link to relevant personal blog posts on this blog or Angela's?); for example the king crab comment I just posted was probably about the same amount of effort, and since I write such things with some frequency putting them in blog form wouldn't be too big of a step. Very tentatively I was thinking about titling it "What Could Possibly Go Wrong" (and unfortunately it's all too easy to find bloggable items that fit under that heading) and cross-posting it to DailyKos (which is a big-traffic site with an active environmental/climate community where I've been participating off and on for some years).
The idea would be to cover important topics (mainly new science results) that for some reason don't get much of a profile on the usual blogs. In particular I've noticed that many new papers on observed circulation changes and even some key paleoclimate results get little or no attention. A little climate politics and energy policy stuff will go in the mix too, I expect.
But we'll see.
I should not have used ossqss as an example, I agree. I would have preferred to have used a generic handle but, that would have not worked. I just pulled a name out the hat. My apologies to both you and ossqss.
"I have however claimed that there are Agencies and Scientist who will behave less than honorably to further their agendas." - Would you expound on this some, please?
"Does that make me a denier, as the term is so freely wielded by those on my ignore list?" - I will be the first to agree with you that placing tags on our fellow bloggers does not win the debate for the ones that choose to do so. We have recently made some great strides towards staying focused on the content of the post and less concentrated on "pigeon holing" the poster. Have we fully converted to just civil discussion yet? No, but, we have moved much further in that direction. I know I have made real efforts towards this goal and others have as well. We have many sharp and knowledgeable posters here and this should control the mood of the conversations. ... I am a weak link when it comes to the knowledge but, I am capable of learning. I believe that we all are. I believe that is why we are here.
It was not.
If you look carefully, I have been around longer than most.
I have no need or time for an alter posting ego.
Thank you for your kind words Rookie, and thank you for the "got my back thing" Shep!
Now, since I only spend a few minutes here a week (I do still peek in and check out most posts), I figured I should not disappoint.
Watch the global average Temp for this month. I believe we will see it below average (a full 2 months) before last year. UAH, not GISS.
Just some random items for thought from a few years ago.
From here
Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core
or
Ancient DNA Reveals Greenland Had Rich Forest Life within Past Million Years
And some from now that apply.
High variability of Greenland surface temperature
over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air
in an ice core. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L21501, 6 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011GL049444
Hummm, ice coverage changes ?
Why not a video for fun ? :)
Maybe we talk about cloud formation in climate modeling code next time. L8R
By the way, posting (again) an image that shows that in the past ice retreated at the oh-so-rapid rate of a few hundred miles over thousands and thousands of years doesn't really bolster the argument that the planet isn't currently warming very rapidly. Just saying...
Sorry I was so obtuse. I was trying to say that if you are making 1911 automatics (perhaps a misinterpretation of your handle) you should appreciate that technical breakthroughs can be spectacular but unpredictable. If you had told folks that the 1911 would still be in production 100 years later they would have called you a fool and said there where sure to be ideas to render it obsolete and that no doubt Browning would have one in the next 10 years.
You and others seem to be of the opinion that there is some technological break-through that will get us out of the hole we have made and continue digging and pay off our ecological deficit spending.
I say, don't count on it. I think Nature is even more conservative than the markets.
"Watch the global average Temp for this month. I believe we will see it below average (a full 2 months) before last year. UAH, not GISS."
Your basis for saying this? And what would it mean if so?
"Ancient DNA Reveals Greenland Had Rich Forest Life within Past Million Years"
Sure, the Greenland ice sheet mostly melted at least a couple of times during late Pleistocene interglacials. What do you think it means?
"High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core"
What does it mean? See my analysis in 327 above.
"Hummm, ice coverage changes?"
Did you have a point to make regarding that graphic? Interestingly the melting of the ice sheets is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for climate sensitivity to CO2.
"Why not a video for fun? :)"
Ah, Willie Soon, in a video from a climate conference funded by the fossil fuel industry. He's an interesting guy, albeit not a climate scientist.
"Willie Soon has received over $1 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a report from Greenpeace based on FOIA requests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, he has has received at least $175,000 from Koch Family Foundations."
Just to note also that Willie is also not a "geoscientist" (neither employment nor training), contrary to the statement in the introduction. For that matter, other solar physicists seem to consider him more of a crackpot than a leader. I suspect they don't even consider him to be a solar physicist, given the reception his papers have gotten.
This episode was a mess, as was this one when he decided he was an expert on polar bears too.
"Maybe we talk about cloud formation next time."
Sure, as long as we can also talk about how some ideas don't do too well with the 2nd Law of Thermodynmics.
Here's a recent paper by a respected atmosphere physicist refuting in detail the latest round of "clouds cause climate change" papers (which note have only been publishable in some pretty obscure journals). In fact, the poor editor of the remote (satellite) sensing journal Roy Spencer managed to find to publish his latest paper resigned in embarrassment when he realized how he'd been tricked.
Sadly, the editors of climate-related journals have had to learn that other scientists can't all be trusted.
I don't easily label people deniers, but some of these folks are extreme cases.
Finally crossed the line.
I agree with you. I appreciate how some people on both sides work to maintain civility and really search crap posts for worthwhile content. However, I lost interest in that a while ago.. too much blatant chaff on the denialist side.
Also, more importantly, Happy Veteran's Day to all of those, living and fallen, that have served with honor.
Now that is how it is done with some style!
Seems real, BB. Probably the storm did it.
Pauses and surges in ice growth in the fall aren't significant in themselves. I just thought it was interesting.
I miss IJIS data.
Sorry I was so obtuse.
Hell Shen...all fly fisherman are guilty of a little obtusery' at one time or the other.
I think it's from way too much fly head cement and way too little ventilation.
BTW...been meaning to talk with ya about that sloppy back cast ya got going on...
:)))
roflmao
Viewing: 301 - 351
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 — Blog Index