"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: 308 - 258

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

    We battle Mother Nature, and we lose each time.




    Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
    Coastal Erosion and the Threat to Kivalina, Alaska

    …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”

    Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
    Talk about a dismaying article. (Now, before anyone accuses me again of being an "alarmist", let me go on record as admitting that, yes, I am indeed one--just like the guy who calls 911 when the building catches fire, then runs from room to room telling everyone to get out.)
    World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns

    The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

    - - - - - - - - - -

    "The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

    If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that "carbon budget", according to the IEA's analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

    If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available "carbon budget" will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA's calculations.

    - - - - - - - - - -

    Yet, despite intensifying warnings from scientists over the past two decades, the new infrastructure even now being built is constructed along the same lines as the old, which means that there is a "lock-in" effect – high-carbon infrastructure built today or in the next five years will contribute as much to the stock of emissions in the atmosphere as previous generations.

    The "lock-in" effect is the single most important factor increasing the danger of runaway climate change, according to the IEA in its annual World Energy Outlook, published on Wednesday.

    Climate scientists estimate that global warming of 2C above pre-industrial levels marks the limit of safety, beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible. Though such estimates are necessarily imprecise, warming of as little as 1.5C could cause dangerous rises in sea levels and a higher risk of extreme weather – the limit of 2C is now inscribed in international accords, including the partial agreement signed at Copenhagen in 2009, by which the biggest developed and developing countries for the first time agreed to curb their greenhouse gas output.

    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.)
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13625
    Quoting Neapolitan:

    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!
    Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
    Quoting nymore:
    We all or I should say most have oil facilities we call them such things as cars, trucks, gas cans, lawnmowers ah you get the idea. I have seen large oil facilities going down the road at better than 70 MPH to fill up an oil facility outlet (gas station). You always make me laugh at some of the goofy things you say.

    No lighting in the history of the village or the person writing the blog. My kids have never seen Thundersnow but I have. It even says the persons lifetime not history. The insect must have been from outer space if you can't kill it with a hammer. The lightning hit 8 feet away and they had no idea well than that was not lightning. Some frost boils and sink holes well is it a frozen bog they live near? I don't know. I feel bad for these ppl but when you live on a tiny sand bar and erosion has been happening for millions of years perhaps it is not a matter if but when it will be gone.

    BTW I have never said anything about this Alaskan town, I even said I was no expert on the Bering Sea (post 189). What I said was I know more about winter than some goof in Florida. I will stand by the comment until companies quit doing cold weather testing in my area.

    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.
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13625
    Quoting overwash12:
    @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!
    If you truly are a 1911 maker then you should know that man's innovations aren't that rapid that we can count on them to get us out of this fix.
    Member Since: September 9, 2007 Posts: 36 Comments: 4687
    Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


    Good evening, iceageisacoming.

    I believe that a conference with all of the world's major political parties is in order. I, however, am not the one that would be able to sanction this. Nor would I make a good speaker for this event.

    Let us take a look some factors:

    Argentina just made a huge oil discovery. "Huge", in terms of an Argentinian find, I would guess.

    Huge Oil Find in Argentina

    "The announced discovery includes 927 million barrels of recoverable resources, 741 million of which is oil, on the world market."

    "Experts called the find very promising, but also said it's unclear how much time and investment may be needed to capitalize on the shale oil."

    Even if this estimate of how much oil is there is correct and even if the shale oil is added in, this only comes to an additional 9.27 X 10^8 barrels of oil.

    The U.S. alone uses, on average, 2 X 10^6 barrels of oil per day.

    Barrels of oil consumed by the U.S. daily

    When you do the math, the U.S. alone would consume all of this new find in about 464 days. Since the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil then the total world oil consumption would use this new find in about 118 days. In other words, this "huge" find added very little to the extension of the world's oil supply. This would be taking into consideration that the reserve is as large as suspected and that it is all recoverable.

    I really do not trust these numbers since the above link claims that the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil. This link claims that the world's daily oil usage is actually 237,938,945 per day and more than double this on holidays - Link - Should this link be correct, then the world would consume this "huge" new reserve in about 3.9 days. - Recheck these numbers for there appears to be a conflict from one source to the other.

    When you add that peak oil production is expected before 2020, then we would have to find much more oil to sustain us for very long into the future. Once we reach peak oil production you can expect the price of the barrel to increase dramatically.

    NASDAQ

    Houston!, um, World!, we have a problem.


    As IEA chef economist Fatih Birol said in an interview released today (Wednesday), we had better leave oil before it leaves us.
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    It seemed like you still thought there was something to the core-climate change business. If not, don't worry about it.
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting spbloom:


    FYI the message itself sounded like Amy to me.

    It would sharpen your wits to actually address the scientific points raised in the core discussion above. Dodging it, not so much.




    OK, I am tired. What did I dodge?
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
    Quoting nymore:
    I never said him I said just because someone has Dr. in the title does not make them truthful or honest. How many Dr. do alarmists say are not truthful or honest about climate. BTW if you wanna go run to mommy and daddy and report me go ahead it won't be the first time or the last


    I can't imagine it would be. Done.
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting iceagecoming:


    You should have a conference with Democrats, here is the plan according to Obama.

    Offshore drilling plan targets gulf, Arctic

    Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Hearst Washington Bureau

    Wednesday, November 9, 2011


    Washington -- The Obama administration on Tuesday unveiled an offshore drilling plan that expands exploration in the Gulf of Mexico while allowing some development in the Arctic and ruling out access to unexplored areas along the Atlantic Coast.

    The Interior Department's proposal for the next five years paves the way for 15 sales of offshore drilling leases, including a dozen auctions for tracts in the Gulf of Mexico. For the first time since 2008, oil and gas companies also would have the chance to bid on drilling rights for Arctic waters near Alaska, including the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, as well as the Cook Inlet.

    But the administration is ruling out drilling along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts - including an area near Virginia that had been set for exploration under the Bush administration.

    Interior Secretary Ken Salazar described the plan as an expansion of "safe and responsible oil and gas production from the outer continental shelf" that would "help us continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

    He stressed that the program - which could go into effect next summer after public comments have been reviewed - would open up more than 75 percent of the oil and gas resources that the government estimates are lurking under the outer continental shelf and that are viewed as technically recoverable.

    But the Obama administration's proposal alienated both energy industry leaders and environmentalists - a reminder of the political challenges in charting a path for offshore drilling less than two years after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 011/11/09/MN321LS68R.DTL#ixzz1dGpLS3jO


    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 011/11/09/MN321LS68R.DTL#ixzz1dGoEBIsa





    Good evening, iceageisacoming.

    I believe that a conference with all of the world's major political parties is in order. I, however, am not the one that would be able to sanction this. Nor would I make a good speaker for this event.

    Let us take a look some factors:

    Argentina just made a huge oil discovery. "Huge", in terms of an Argentinian find, I would guess.

    Huge Oil Find in Argentina

    "The announced discovery includes 927 million barrels of recoverable resources, 741 million of which is oil, on the world market."

    "Experts called the find very promising, but also said it's unclear how much time and investment may be needed to capitalize on the shale oil."

    Even if this estimate of how much oil is there is correct and even if the shale oil is added in, this only comes to an additional 9.27 X 10^8 barrels of oil.

    The U.S. alone uses, on average, 2 X 10^6 barrels of oil per day.

    Barrels of oil consumed by the U.S. daily

    When you do the math, the U.S. alone would consume all of this new find in about 464 days. Since the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil then the total world oil consumption would use this new find in about 118 days. In other words, this "huge" find added very little to the extension of the world's oil supply. This would be taking into consideration that the reserve is as large as suspected and that it is all recoverable.

    I really do not trust these numbers since the above link claims that the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil. This link claims that the world's daily oil usage is actually 237,938,945 per day and more than double this on holidays - Link - Should this link be correct, then the world would consume this "huge" new reserve in about 3.9 days. - Recheck these numbers for there appears to be a conflict from one source to the other.

    When you add that peak oil production is expected before 2020, then we would have to find much more oil to sustain us for very long into the future. Once we reach peak oil production you can expect the price of the barrel to increase dramatically.

    NASDAQ

    Houston!, um, World!, we have a problem.
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
    Quoting Birthmark:

    I "picked" twenty-five or thirty for the same reason I "pick" c as the speed of light. It is what the science indicates.

    In the case of c, that is based on careful measurement and testing.

    In the case of climate, it is because that is how long it takes to make sure that what you are measuring is climate and not weather with high confidence. That is not determined at random, but again by careful observation and testing.

    Since it only takes twenty-five to thirty years to measure climate, obviously a century is more than enough time. Now, perhaps you are interested in bringing the entire history of the Earth into play. If that's the case, why? What the temperature was in the Ordovician, Permian, Jurassic, etc. is utterly irrelevant to the effects of a warming climate on humanity.

    What you believe we are in for is based on nothing scientific. It too is utterly irrelevant, though. It is warming and will continue to warm. Physics tells us this.


    Deep-time warming spikes are extremely relevant to understanding the future course of climate. Angela's previous post discussing the PETM of ~53 mya is very much worth a read, although frankly I think she softsells the problem somewhat.

    Of course all of deep time climate is worth studying; the warming spikes are the scary part since they inform us that enough CO2 will have the same consequence.
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting spbloom:


    That's not the problem at all. Accusing him of an error would have been fine. An accusation of dishonesty is a whole other matter.
    I never said him I said just because someone has Dr. in the title does not make them truthful or honest. How many Dr. do alarmists say are not truthful or honest about climate. BTW if you wanna go run to mommy and daddy and report me go ahead it won't be the first time or the last
    Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
    Quoting nymore:
    He changed it because of my comment so go ahead and report me. Dr. Masters blog post 242


    That's not the problem at all. Accusing him of an error would have been fine. An accusation of dishonesty is a whole other matter.
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting iceagecoming:


    You should have a conference with Democrats, here is the plan according to Obama.

    Offshore drilling plan targets gulf, Arctic

    Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Hearst Washington Bureau

    Wednesday, November 9, 2011


    Washington -- The Obama administration on Tuesday unveiled an offshore drilling plan that expands exploration in the Gulf of Mexico while allowing some development in the Arctic and ruling out access to unexplored areas along the Atlantic Coast.

    The Interior Department's proposal for the next five years paves the way for 15 sales of offshore drilling leases, including a dozen auctions for tracts in the Gulf of Mexico. For the first time since 2008, oil and gas companies also would have the chance to bid on drilling rights for Arctic waters near Alaska, including the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, as well as the Cook Inlet.

    But the administration is ruling out drilling along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts - including an area near Virginia that had been set for exploration under the Bush administration.

    Interior Secretary Ken Salazar described the plan as an expansion of "safe and responsible oil and gas production from the outer continental shelf" that would "help us continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

    He stressed that the program - which could go into effect next summer after public comments have been reviewed - would open up more than 75 percent of the oil and gas resources that the government estimates are lurking under the outer continental shelf and that are viewed as technically recoverable.

    But the Obama administration's proposal alienated both energy industry leaders and environmentalists - a reminder of the political challenges in charting a path for offshore drilling less than two years after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 011/11/09/MN321LS68R.DTL#ixzz1dGpLS3jO


    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 011/11/09/MN321LS68R.DTL#ixzz1dGoEBIsa





    See the bolded passage; this could have confused Jeff.

    Thanks for posting both of these, iceagecoming (man, I never thought those words would pass my keyboard). This and the other post add to my reasons for being a Green, not a Democrat.
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting spbloom:


    Apparently Jeff has edited that to say the Chukchi Sea (but in so doing introduced another error, discussed below). Time for you to retract that comment about Jeff's honesty, or do I need to report you? Funny how stuff like that slips out.

    First of all, freezing begins at the coast, so the initial stages of sea ice formation would afford some protection even if it had no meaningful area. Second, related to that, the more summer ice retreats the more the permafrost that also stabilizes the coast (even in midsummer) melts (the internet is littered with photos of this effect), leading to both direct deterioration and increased vulnerability to storm action of the sort we're just now seeing. So Jeff was right the first time, although he should have been more clear about the details.

    How do I know this? Because I've spent years studying the science, albeit as an amateur, and rather less time arguing on blogs with the unpersuadable, although I do feel the need to scratch that itch from time to time.
    He changed it because of my comment so go ahead and report me. Dr. Masters blog post 242
    Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
    Quoting Neapolitan:

    Apparently you're unaware that the term "oil facility" doesn't necessarily imply "oil refinery". Apparently, you're also unaware that many coastal towns in Alaska, remote as they are, maintain their own fuel storage tanks. Here you go, Sparky; below is the image of Kivalina from Dr. Masters' blog entry. Those large horizontal cylindrical tanks in the foreground hold fuel oil for an AVEC electrical-generation plant; between them, they hold tens of thousands of gallons (FWIW, those large white cylinders in the middle of town are for water).

    Now, you like to speak of how your time in Minnesota gives you expertise where cold climate are concerned, but I think I'm gonna believe people who actually live in Kivalina. Read these interesting newspaper accounts of the many climate changes taking place: the first lightning in village history; early melting; late freezing; growing sinkholes; changing animal habits.

    Oops
    We all or I should say most have oil facilities we call them such things as cars, trucks, gas cans, lawnmowers ah you get the idea. I have seen large oil facilities going down the road at better than 70 MPH to fill up an oil facility outlet (gas station). You always make me laugh at some of the goofy things you say.

    No lighting in the history of the village or the person writing the blog. My kids have never seen Thundersnow but I have. It even says the persons lifetime not history. The insect must have been from outer space if you can't kill it with a hammer. The lightning hit 8 feet away and they had no idea well than that was not lightning. Some frost boils and sink holes well is it a frozen bog they live near? I don't know. I feel bad for these ppl but when you live on a tiny sand bar and erosion has been happening for millions of years perhaps it is not a matter if but when it will be gone.

    BTW I have never said anything about this Alaskan town, I even said I was no expert on the Bering Sea (post 189). What I said was I know more about winter than some goof in Florida. I will stand by the comment until companies quit doing cold weather testing in my area.
    Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
    Hey Angela, there's a big train wreck over at Judy's blog. She has riled the Kraken, no it must have been Mothra, no, um, the IRS, oh no excuse me it's Richard Tol. Apparently he disagrees that the incorrect should receive equal scientific consideration with the correct.

    (Hmm, rich text preview shows strikeouts but deletes them in the post itself.)
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting nymore:
    Why is 30 years or 100 years relevant? I thought you guys say the longer the record the more relevant. Well 50 million years should be very relevant.


    And of course it is, in a different but very much complementary way. Maybe you'd like to explain that to us?
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting nymore:
    You got this from the other blog and it is false. According to the Cryosphere Today and NSIDC there is not supposed to be any ice in the Bering Sea this time of year. Just because it has Dr. in the title does not mean the things said are honest or true. BTW I posted it over at his blog to about a couple of less than truthful things. Scott Berg from the NWS in Alaska said large powerful storm hit Alaska often the only thing different about this one is the track. He also said there is generally no ice till December


    Apparently Jeff has edited that to say the Chukchi Sea (but in so doing introduced another error, discussed below). Time for you to retract that comment about Jeff's honesty, or do I need to report you? Funny how stuff like that slips out.

    First of all, freezing begins at the coast, so the initial stages of sea ice formation would afford some protection even if it had no meaningful area. Second, related to that, the more summer ice retreats the more the permafrost that also stabilizes the coast (even in midsummer) melts (the internet is littered with photos of this effect), leading to both direct deterioration and increased vulnerability to storm action of the sort we're just now seeing. So Jeff was right the first time, although he should have been more clear about the details.

    How do I know this? Because I've spent years studying the science, albeit as an amateur, and rather less time arguing on blogs with the unpersuadable, although I do feel the need to scratch that itch from time to time.
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting Birthmark:

    Assuming that that is true, why do you believe it is relevant?
    Why is 30 years or 100 years relevant? I thought you guys say the longer the record the more relevant. Well 50 million years should be very relevant.
    Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
    Quoting Neapolitan:
    Yeah, I've heard some say that PurpleDrank is Amy, but in my experience, PurpleDrank hasn't been anywhere near as vile and despicable as Amy was before (and after) she got the boot.

    I've never heard anyone else speculate that the earth's core could play a part in climate change, though I suppose it's possible. The thing is, though, the observed warming over the last several decades can be almost completely accounted for by an increase in CO2 known to be from anthropogenic sources, and only such an increase. There's simply no other mechanism that has been shown capable of accounting for that heat.


    But what about the big increase in volcanoes... er, oh... yeah that would have been the upper mantle in action, and besides there hasn't been any such increase. Another inconvenient truth, drat it.

    And so the idea that the Earth's core affected recent climate change, which barely had a chance to inhale, exhales a final CO2-laden breath and is tossed out forthwith onto the space junk heap of history. We hardly knew ye, preposterous disingenuous fantasy... *sniffle*
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


    I did not really think it was ossqss. I was trying to get spbloom to understand that it is not the tone of the message that counts, it is the message itself that counts.

    As you, I like ossqss as well. We, including yourself, have had some fun, interesting and informative discussions. I wish that you and ossqss frequented here more often now. I do miss all of our conversations. We kept each others wits sharp. ... I really liked that, theshepherd. I hope to see you and ossqss more often on here. ... Ossqss puts up some great videos as well!


    FYI the message itself sounded like Amy to me.

    It would sharpen your wits to actually address the scientific points raised in the core discussion above. Dodging it, not so much.


    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


    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.


    You should have a conference with Democrats, here is the plan according to Obama.

    Offshore drilling plan targets gulf, Arctic

    Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Hearst Washington Bureau

    Wednesday, November 9, 2011


    Washington -- The Obama administration on Tuesday unveiled an offshore drilling plan that expands exploration in the Gulf of Mexico while allowing some development in the Arctic and ruling out access to unexplored areas along the Atlantic Coast.

    The Interior Department's proposal for the next five years paves the way for 15 sales of offshore drilling leases, including a dozen auctions for tracts in the Gulf of Mexico. For the first time since 2008, oil and gas companies also would have the chance to bid on drilling rights for Arctic waters near Alaska, including the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, as well as the Cook Inlet.

    But the administration is ruling out drilling along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts - including an area near Virginia that had been set for exploration under the Bush administration.

    Interior Secretary Ken Salazar described the plan as an expansion of "safe and responsible oil and gas production from the outer continental shelf" that would "help us continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

    He stressed that the program - which could go into effect next summer after public comments have been reviewed - would open up more than 75 percent of the oil and gas resources that the government estimates are lurking under the outer continental shelf and that are viewed as technically recoverable.

    But the Obama administration's proposal alienated both energy industry leaders and environmentalists - a reminder of the political challenges in charting a path for offshore drilling less than two years after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 011/11/09/MN321LS68R.DTL#ixzz1dGpLS3jO


    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 011/11/09/MN321LS68R.DTL#ixzz1dGoEBIsa



    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Obama donor discussed solar loan with White House
    By MATTHEW DALY - Associated Press | AP – 1 hr 56 mins ago




    WASHINGTON (AP) — A major donor to President Barack Obama discussed with White House officials a solar energy company that received a half-billion dollar federal loan and later went bankrupt, newly released emails show.

    The emails released by a House committee appear to contradict repeated assurances by the Obama administration that the donor, George Kaiser, never talked about Solyndra Inc. with the White House.

    Solyndra's name came up at a White House meeting with Kaiser last year at a time when the California company was seeking a second federal loan, after it had already received a $528 million loan in 2009, the emails show.

    The second loan was not approved. Instead, an investment venture controlled by Kaiser made a private loan that resulted in the firm and other investors moving ahead of taxpayers in line for repayment in case of a default by Solyndra.

    Solyndra, the first renewable energy company to receive a federal loan under the 2009 stimulus law, declared bankruptcy in September and laid off its 1,100 workers, leaving taxpayers on the hook for more than a half-billion dollars.

    The company's implosion and revelations that administration officials rushed to complete the loan in time for a September 2009 groundbreaking have become an embarrassment for Obama and a rallying cry for GOP critics of his green energy program.

    Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire, was a "bundler" for Obama's 2008 campaign, raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the president, records show. He also was a frequent White House visitor in 2009 and 2010. White House officials for months have denied that Kaiser talked about Solyndra during those visits. One the nation's richest men, Kaiser owns an oil company and other energy interests and is chief donor to the George Kaiser Family Foundation, which invests in early childhood education and community health.

    In one email released Wednesday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Kaiser said that when he and a foundation official visited the White House last year, officials showed "thorough knowledge of the Solyndra story, suggesting it was one their prime poster children" for renewable energy.

    In another email, a Kaiser associate appears confident that Energy Secretary Steven Chu would approve a second loan for Solyndra.

    "It appears things are headed in the right direction and Chu is apparently staying involved in Solyndra's application and continues to talk up the company as a success story," Steve Mitchell, managing director of Kaiser's venture-capital firm, Argonaut Private Equity, wrote in a March 5, 2010, e-mail. Mitchell also served on Solyndra's board of directors.

    The emails and other released Wednesday were obtained through a request to major investors for Solyndra-related documents, said Sean Bonyun, a spokesman for the Energy Committee.

    The emails were released as the White House faces a Thursday deadline to respond to a committee subpoena for White House documents related to Solyndra.

    Hmmm!
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting theshepherd:
    BTW, am I responding to spbloom or is this ossqss?

    ************************************************* ****************************************
    Ossqss is also a friend of mine rookie.

    He doesn't hide behind alternate handles and neither do I.

    If we have something to say, we say it via our true identities.

    Know that.

    :)


    I did not really think it was ossqss. I was trying to get spbloom to understand that it is not the tone of the message that counts, it is the message itself that counts.

    As you, I like ossqss as well. We, including yourself, have had some fun, interesting and informative discussions. I wish that you and ossqss frequented here more often now. I do miss all of our conversations. We kept each others wits sharp. ... I really liked that, theshepherd. I hope to see you and ossqss more often on here. ... Ossqss puts up some great videos as well!
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
    Quoting nymore:
    I wonder if anyone has found the oil facilities and pipelines on the western Alaska coast yet? At least Dr. Masters thanked me for pointing out his misinformation and changed it.

    Apparently you're unaware that the term "oil facility" doesn't necessarily imply "oil refinery". Apparently, you're also unaware that many coastal towns in Alaska, remote as they are, maintain their own fuel storage tanks. Here you go, Sparky; below is the image of Kivalina from Dr. Masters' blog entry. Those large horizontal cylindrical tanks in the foreground hold fuel oil for an AVEC electrical-generation plant; between them, they hold tens of thousands of gallons (FWIW, those large white cylinders in the middle of town are for water).

    Now, you like to speak of how your time in Minnesota gives you expertise where cold climate are concerned, but I think I'm gonna believe people who actually live in Kivalina. Read these interesting newspaper accounts of the many climate changes taking place: the first lightning in village history; early melting; late freezing; growing sinkholes; changing animal habits.

    Oops
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13625
    Quoting JBastardi:


    Did you pick 20 or thirty because that is the extent of the Arctic ice record? I agree with you that a decade isn't much of a record in the history of the earth. That's exactly why a century doesn't mean a thing in the grand scheme of things. Don't you agree? We've seen the earth much warmer in the past and much colder. It was warmer before the current level of CO2. I believe we are in for a much cooler period.

    I "picked" twenty-five or thirty for the same reason I "pick" c as the speed of light. It is what the science indicates.

    In the case of c, that is based on careful measurement and testing.

    In the case of climate, it is because that is how long it takes to make sure that what you are measuring is climate and not weather with high confidence. That is not determined at random, but again by careful observation and testing.

    Since it only takes twenty-five to thirty years to measure climate, obviously a century is more than enough time. Now, perhaps you are interested in bringing the entire history of the Earth into play. If that's the case, why? What the temperature was in the Ordovician, Permian, Jurassic, etc. is utterly irrelevant to the effects of a warming climate on humanity.

    What you believe we are in for is based on nothing scientific. It too is utterly irrelevant, though. It is warming and will continue to warm. Physics tells us this.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting nymore:
    No actually it has been cooling for at least 50 million years.

    Assuming that that is true, why do you believe it is relevant?
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Off to play in a little cash game back later maybe
    Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
    I wonder if anyone has found the oil facilities and pipelines on the western Alaska coast yet? At least Dr. Masters thanked me for pointing out his misinformation and changed it. I am glad I am not a rube or a brown noser
    Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
    Quoting JBastardi:


    Did you pick 20 or thirty because that is the extent of the Arctic ice record? I agree with you that a decade isn't much of a record in the history of the earth. That's exactly why a century doesn't mean a thing in the grand scheme of things. Don't you agree? We've seen the earth much warmer in the past and much colder. It was warmer before the current level of CO2.

    It doesn't matter that it's been much warmer nor that it's been much cooler; what matters is how fast it's warming now. In all the fossil record, it's never warmed as fast as it is doing so now...
    Quoting JBastardi:
    I believe we are in for a much cooler period.

    Based on...?
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13625
    Quoting Birthmark:

    Nope. It's continuing. The "problem" is that fifteen years simply isn't long enough to allow the warming signal to be separated from the noise of weather. When that fifteen years becomes twenty-five or thirty, don't hesitate to rub my nose in it.


    Did you pick 20 or thirty because that is the extent of the Arctic ice record? I agree with you that a decade isn't much of a record in the history of the earth. That's exactly why a century doesn't mean a thing in the grand scheme of things. Don't you agree? We've seen the earth much warmer in the past and much colder. It was warmer before the current level of CO2. I believe we are in for a much cooler period.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting Birthmark:

    Why is that? AGW had been occurring for roughly three-fourths of a century by 1988. Eyeballing the GISS data for 1988 show about 0.3C increase in global temperature. There was no reason to wait, particularly given the potential stakes involved. Failing to bring this to the attention of lawmakers would be irresponsible.
    No actually it has been cooling for at least 50 million years.
    Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
    Quoting nymore:
    If this is true than why did James Hansen go to congress in 1988 he and all others here should have waited till at least 2000 or 2005 to claim AGWT.

    Why is that? AGW had been occurring for roughly three-fourths of a century by 1988. Eyeballing the GISS data for 1988 show about 0.3C increase in global temperature. There was no reason to wait, particularly given the potential stakes involved. Failing to bring this to the attention of lawmakers would be irresponsible.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    Quoting Birthmark:

    Nope. It's continuing. The "problem" is that fifteen years simply isn't long enough to allow the warming signal to be separated from the noise of weather. When that fifteen years becomes twenty-five or thirty, don't hesitate to rub my nose in it.
    If this is true than why did James Hansen go to congress in 1988 he and all others here should have waited till at least 2000 or 2005 to claim warming
    Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
    Quoting spbloom:
    I thought I'd fact check nymore on "I just said it is extremely cold (well below normal) for this time of year in Nunavut."

    As of ~1:30 AM local time, it was 20F in Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut. That's about 4F above the average November *high*. Toasty!

    But Nunavut's a big place, so perhaps it's cold somewhere else there.

    Oh, Alert was mentioned. The station's off-line just now, but tomorrow is predicted to have a high of -13F, a big, big 6F less than the November average. The predicted wind chill does look nasty, though, and right at this moment they have 99% humidity, which sounds like one of those unpleasant Arctic fogs. But "well below normal"? The data would seem not to support that.

    But again, it's a big place, so there must be somewhere to fill the bill, right?

    While I'm at it, a word about the current rate of Arctic sea ice recovery:

    The ice is declining in all seasons, but much more in summer than in winter. As that trend continues, the autumn recovery rate has to get steeper.
    I was talking about northern Nunavut for the past few days before the post. Places such as Eureka, Resolute, Alert, Grise Fiord. I should have been more clear given Nunavut is more than 3 times the size of Texas. I like though that you did fact check it as it is always welcome and proper to do so
    Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
    Yeah, I've heard some say that PurpleDrank is Amy, but in my experience, PurpleDrank hasn't been anywhere near as vile and despicable as Amy was before (and after) she got the boot.

    I've never heard anyone else speculate that the earth's core could play a part in climate change, though I suppose it's possible. The thing is, though, the observed warming over the last several decades can be almost completely accounted for by an increase in CO2 known to be from anthropogenic sources, and only such an increase. There's simply no other mechanism that has been shown capable of accounting for that heat.
    Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13625
    Quoting JBastardi:


    You're welcome. "Global warming" must be taking a hiatus:

    Link

    Nope. It's continuing. The "problem" is that fifteen years simply isn't long enough to allow the warming signal to be separated from the noise of weather. When that fifteen years becomes twenty-five or thirty, don't hesitate to rub my nose in it.
    Member Since: Posts: Comments:
    And hmm, Mr. True Identity "the shepherd" doesn't have a bio on his blog. ROFL.
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting theshepherd:


    The only reason you can't "re-sign in" is because you were "banned permanently".
    All you had to do was ask the admin your info.

    And yes, she is a friend of mine.

    You just crossed "my threshold."

    ...adios


    Sorry, sweet pea, I never did anything remotely banworthy. My problem was that I couldn't remember the exact password I'd used and since it had been so long (and I'd switched computers, forgetting to copy it over) it just seemed easier to sign up again. IIRC I had tried emailing admin but got no response.

    And oh, hey, here's my old (empty) blog, still there as proof of my not being banned. You do like making stuff up, don't you?
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    BTW, am I responding to spbloom or is this ossqss?

    ************************************************* ****************************************
    Ossqss is also a friend of mine rookie.

    He doesn't hide behind alternate handles and neither do I.

    If we have something to say, we say it via our true identities.

    Know that.

    :)
    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
    Quoting spbloom:
    FYI I was around under a different handle for some years, left the site for awhile, then couldn't re-sign in and just ended up getting a new handle. So yeah, I'm all too familiar with Amy's style. Friend of yours?

    You have a low threshhold for jumping, BTW.


    The only reason you can't "re-sign in" is because you were "banned permanently".
    All you had to do was ask the admin your info.

    And yes, she is a friend of mine.

    You just crossed "my threshold."

    ...adios
    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
    FYI I was around under a different handle for some years, left the site for awhile, then couldn't re-sign in and just ended up getting a new handle. So yeah, I'm all too familiar with Amy's style. Friend of yours?

    You have a low threshhold for jumping, BTW.
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting spbloom:
    Also, out of curiosity, why do you think PurpleDrank is anything more than just a troll?
    Who are you?

    You wouldn't know Amy from the man in the moon.
    I do.
    Purple ain't her.

    And now you try to jump on rookie????

    You're in for a treat.
    Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
    Also, out of curiosity, why do you think PurpleDrank is anything more than just a troll?
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Some1Has2BtheRookie, it's this summary statement that you seemed to be disagreeing with:

    "But just because we can't, doesn't mean it is a non-factor in the climate debate." (Note *climate debate*, not *climate*.)

    But OK then, if you weren't disagreeing, how is it a factor (as distinct from the mantle and the crust)? Note that we know enough about the magnetic field to know it isn't going anywhere (and the continued presence of an atmosphere over 4 by would be a strong hint regardless). More broadly, we know a great deal about the core and it's behavior, since variations in field strength are easily measured at the surface and since seismic waves passing through the core tell us much about its structure and behavior over time. What are the gaps in our knowledge as they affect the *climate debate*??

    Re what's known about the core, this is a good place to start, and note the linked references at the bottom. There've been a couple of important discoveries in recent years (crystalline nature of inner core and core rotation faster than mantle/crust) but these are things that don't change and in any case have bupkis to do with climate *change*.




    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
    Quoting spbloom:


    Er, then in substance you don't agree 100%, or even much at all. Then why say so? Someone reading the thread might make the mistake of believing you.

    In this instance, Purple Drank seems to have taken Journey to the Center of the Earth a little too literally. Or perhaps she's just a troll throwing out ridiculous assertions to see what response she can get.

    Just to note, anyone with a moderate grasp of teh google and high school math could have established the triviality of the human exhalation and space junk albedo claims in a matter of minutes, and would have even learned some things along the way. Instead, PurpleDrank is on to the next bit of content-free trolling. Very, very Amy-like IMHO.


    I do not agree with PurpleDrank's statement at all? Contrary to what you say, yes, I DO agree with what PurpleDrank said. We do know very little about Earth's core but, we do know that the magnetic field is responsible for the Earth to even hold an atmosphere at all. Should the Earth lack its magnetosphere then the solar winds would have long ago stripped away most of our atmosphere and the global climate would be much different than it is today. (Note to Earth, look at Mars.)

    Our lack of knowledge, concerning Earth's core, has little to do with what we do know about greenhouse gases. ... So just what part of PurpleDrank's comment was I in disagreement with, as you believe?

    BTW, am I responding to spbloom or is this ossqss?
    Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
    Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


    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.


    Er, then in substance you don't agree 100%, or even much at all. Then why say so? Someone reading the thread might make the mistake of believing you.

    In this instance, Purple Drank seems to have taken Journey to the Center of the Earth a little too literally. Or perhaps she's just a troll throwing out ridiculous assertions to see what response she can get.

    Just to note, anyone with a moderate grasp of teh google and high school math could have established the triviality of the human exhalation and space junk albedo claims in a matter of minutes, and would have even learned some things along the way. Instead, PurpleDrank is on to the next bit of content-free trolling. Very, very Amy-like IMHO.
    Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429

    Viewing: 308 - 258

    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.