ERRATA: I made a mistake regarding the 2% figure, I misheard what was being presented during my visit with the BEST team at Berkeley. As many of you may know I’m about 80% hearing impaired and the presentation made to me was entirely verbal with some printed graphs. Based on the confidentiality I agreed to, I did not get to come back with any of those graphs, notes, or data so I had to rely on what I heard. I simply misheard and thought the 2% were the Japan station analysis graphs that they showed me.
I was in touch with Dr. Richard Muller on 3/28/2011 who graciously pointed out my misinterpretation. I regret the error, and thus issue this correction about the 2% figure being truly a random sample, and not just stations in the Japan test presentation shown to me.
I am told of another correction, and that is that Dr. Caldeira was shown a paper they are working on related paper on oceans, and that contained the preliminary 2% graph from the surface analysis, but was not the full surface analysis paper, which hasn’t yet been written.
According to Dr. Muller, that 2% test run does not contain all the bias corrections they plan to apply for station moves, discontinuous records, UHI and other station effects. I look forward to seeing the data when those are applied to the full dataset.
This episode where Mr. Romm gets an email from Dr. Caldeira and creates a “finding” illustrates the danger in rushing to judgment on snippets of preliminary results, and as BEST says: “The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis.”
I still believe that BEST represents a very good effort, and that all parties on both sides of the debate should look at it carefully when it is finally released, and avail themselves to the data and code that is promised to allow for replication.
– Anthony Watts
Last week Willis told you about how Joe Romm at Climate Progress botched a blog post so bad, Joe had not only to fix his own post by removing false claims about population trends, so did the paper’s authors. Then, rather than simply admit a mistake and move on, he spun it into some sort of twirling victory dance, bizarrely claiming that because Willis put up a chart of CO2 rates, “he” got us to admit that CO2 rates were increasing because Willis chose it as a reference. Heh, well if that floats your boat, you go Joe. WUWT has quite a history in discussing CO2 with graphs, rates, and guest essays, no news there.
This week, it’s the old pea and thimble trick combined with desperation and some silly claim of “exclusive”, like some cheap MSM news labeling graphic where they’ve caught some sex poodle on tape. After earlier writing a piece condemning the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) he’s now put up his interpretation of an email from scientist Ken Caldiera who said:
I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.
Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.
The only problem is this: there’s no “draft paper” yet, there’s nothing that is “submission ready”, not even close. It hasn’t been written. In fact, BEST hasn’t even done a full global analysis yet. How do I know this? It’s simple; I’ve visited the team and asked them directly, something Romm has not done.
Caldeira was simply looking at the same set of data (some preliminary charts and graphs that Richard Muller carries around with him in a file folder), that BEST has been showing to several people, including me. The only difference is that people like myself, Steven Mosher, and his friend Zeke Hausfather who visited BEST with him, haven’t run off the rails to make early and unsubstantiated claims about it “confirming” anything yet. And now, Romm’s adding to his original blogpost, is backpedaling, while at the same time picking a fight with Steven Mosher for notifying him on the issue in comments. It is sad, comical, and oh-so-typical of the sort of thing we’ve come to expect at Climate Progress. Romm simply got excited and jumped the shark. He’s not doing himself any favors with this sort of thing.
Here’s the Initial Findings statement from BEST, written by lead scientist Robert Rhode (of globalwarmingart.com) which pretty much mirrors what Caldeira is saying:
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has not yet done the analysis of the full data set with the corrections to produce a global surface temperature trend. We are first analyzing a small subset of data (2%) to check our programs and statistical methods and make sure that they are functioning effectively. We are correcting our programs and methods while still “blind” to the results so that there is less chance of inadvertently introducing a bias.
A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc.
The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis.
That 2% subset they refer to is some weather stations in Japan. They chose Japan because it made for a compact insular test case for the code, combining rural, urban, and airport stations under one organization’s output to keep it simple. Like Ken Caldeira, I’ve seen that preliminary 2% output. I’ve also seen a lot of other things, some things Caldieira hasn’t seen that the BEST team has shared with me. So has Zeke and Mosher, but neither they nor I are screaming “exclusive” and jumping to conclusions like Romm is doing over Caldeira’s general statement on that 2% sample run to test the code.
What’s even funnier is that whenever we mention USHCN trends for USA stations, AGW proponents are quick to point out that the USA has only about 6% of the land surface area of the Earth (USA: 9,629,091 km2, Earth: 148,940,000 km2 source), but they are now willing to go with the weather station data from 377,930 square kilometers of Japan’s land area which is 0.25% of the Earth’s surface area, as enough for “confirmation” of a global trend.
In response to this latest yapping from Romm, BEST has also now updated their FAQs page here, and says this:
NEW – What do your results show?
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has not yet done the analysis of the full data set with the corrections to produce a global surface temperature trend. We are first analyzing a small subset of data (2%) to check our programs and statistical methods and make sure that they are functioning effectively. We are correcting our programs and methods while still “blind” to the results so that there is less chance of inadvertently introducing a bias.
A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc. The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis.
Compare Romm’s “exclusive” to Zeke’s writeup over at Lucia’s last week which preceded Romm’s. Zeke’s essay has firsthand accounts, is a lot easier to read, and doesn’t need gratuitous exclamation points. For those who don’t know him, Zeke Hausfather is very much in the warming camp, but he’s also a reasonable person. Zeke wrote about a technique that I agreed to keep in confidence until they had a paper accepted for publication or chose to announce it on their own, but it may have been just a slip or communications misunderstanding:
Their major innovation, in addition to those that overlap the work of other bloggers, is to treat inhomogenities as the start of separate records. The least squares method of record combination has the major benefit of allowing relatively short records to be combined together without introducing biases. This means that instead of trying to artificially correct inhomogenities detected by comparing individual stations to their neighbors, they can simply treat these as break points, where subsequent measurements from the same site are treated as a separate record and are optimally fit to the larger series using the LSM approach.
The issue hasn’t been the slight warming over the past century, we’ve always conceded that there is some. The issue has always been magnitude, uncertainties, and cause. With the BEST project, we’ll get closer to the ground truth of magnitude and uncertainties, but it will say nothing about the cause, except perhaps to help define the contributions of UHI and station siting.
I’ll repeat what I said earlier about BEST:
And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step [providing my surfacestations data to them] because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team…
…
My gut feeling? The possibility that we may get the elusive “grand unified temperature” for the planet is higher than ever before. Let’s give it a chance.
More science, less barking.
I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.
Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It seems to me that what is interesting about the BEST project is not the numbers that they might put up but their explanations of what they are doing with the data. I take it that they are offering some account of UHI. That is new. Warmista simply deny UHI. I take it that will offer several interesting explanations of how they depart from Warmista orthodoxy. Then the focus becomes not the numbers but the alternative approaches to how the numbers are handled. Though promising, this will not be fully satisfying because we know that the raw data contains more error than the alleged rise of one degree per century.
Muller’s video on Youtube is promising because he is willing to speak candidly. He condemns “hide the decline.” He compares Hansen’s numbers to NOAA and flatly rejects Hansen’s numbers, and so on. So, there is promise. If successful, BEST’s work should raise far more questions than it settles. It is science, after all. That is an important step in wresting control of climate science from Warmista. Warmista are anything but candid and refuse to offer or discuss explanations of their methods. Forcing them to engage in discussion of scientific method would be a great victory in itself.
The only thing Joe has that’s exclusive to alarmists is his check from George Soros. The guy’s a paid shill for Big Green, his site is nothing more than an advertisement. The only difference between it and RealClimate is that RC is taxpayer funded advocacy.
Once again, it just goes to show there is climate science and there is “climate science” – the latter, of course, being expounded by Romm, Mann and other members of the Team, Gore, Patchi and goofy politicians almost everywhere.
Jeff B. says:
“What is the percentage of the earth’s surface area covered by these data sets? Is there really near enough to get a grand unified temperature? Over land? Possibly with satellites? Seems like a qualified unification.”
Jeff, all of the answers to your questions can be found by reading the following:
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary.pdf
It seems that urban sites in the BEST data base will be identified as residuals and then effectively recalibrated. This approach seems simpler than the tortuous, potentially judgment laden approach adopted by Hansen, Jones, etc.
Good luck to the BEST team in the field of work they’ve chosen to do.
Averaging temperature data from a bunch of places around the land mass will tell us what exactly about the effects of CO2 emissions?
I never understood the practice of coming up with a single temperature figure for the globe. It makes no sense to me.
If however, data was collected from about a dozen locations on each continent covering all climate types, i.e. desert, alpine, polar, altitude, forest, grassland etc etc and it could be shown that well mixed GHGs have individually and seperately caused these places to warm, I may not be so sceptical.
I can have a guess at what results we might get. Some places will have warmed a lot, some a little. some not and some may have even cooled. If my suspicion is correct, then AGW has got nothing, it’s a failed hypothesis.
Romm is an abject embarrassment to the scientific community. He’s not objective, he’s not immune to politics, he’s not truthful, and he’s not stable. He’s sorta like Al Gore with a degree.
Ron Manley, 3/22/11, 2:47 am:
“My concern with BEST is not the methodology but the data behind it. Anthony’s study of US stations has shown how poor a lot of the data from an advanced country can be. I have worked with Met data in over 40 countries and all continents except Antarctic. I can assure you that in many countries the situation is worse than the US.”
Anthony, I share Ron Manley’s concern. How can we get accurate science if the data is in (serious) question — adjusted, moved from high altitude to low, stations dropped out, airports selected — from your work and E.M. Smith’s among others? Perhaps you have shown them your surface stations project and they are selecting accurately? Have they done this in Japan? Some of Japan meteorology folks were going along with the AGW scam, too. Money speaks globally. I like that they are conferring with you among others about methods and data, but your assurance that this will be “science” seems to me a belief until we can see “all”.
I get even more worried, living in Kalifornia, knowing this is coming out of Berkeley.
I also have similar concerns as The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley, 2:39 am: “But am I alone in thinking that you shouldn’t give Mr Romm any publicity? I’ve read his blog, and I was concerned for his mind, to be honest.” I have not read his blog for a long time. If he is an important voice for AGW — that means read by many — then, yes, it is good to keep the record straight. But if his readership has declined so as to make him inconsequential, then it seems to me that his name gets mentioned so often that he is either being used as a fool for specific purposes or is getting free advertising. My request: can you give some of the stats re Joe Romm so we know how many people are reading him? My thought for what it’s worth: IF his readership has significantly declined, it might be better to give your valuable press-time to more reasonable AGWers.
By the way, I am fine with Willis setting his record straight. And I probably don’t get the importance of this within the scientific community.
I agree with Ron Manley about the basic quality of the data. Also that most of these measurement sites are in urban areas and not in rural areas, forests or places away from humans. Urban areas make up only about 2.4 % of all the earth’s land area. Forests make up about 32%, pastures 26%, arable land 10.6% (of which about half is used), and the rest is “other” types of land at 29% (deserts, snow and ice covered land, mountains etc.).
Manmade global warming as it is determined from surface temperature data is probably more an artifact of using temperature measuring sites that were intended for other purposes so that we end up trying to correlate CO2 rise with Urban Heat Island effects. And personally I don’t think CO2 has anything to do with it anyway.
Bernie
@Anthony
You don’t seem to understand how the cottage industry that grew up around global generating global warming papers works. The conclusions are written first which includes a gratuitous appeal for more funding for additional research. Then the research is done that supports the conclusions.
Many of us who understand how the industry works knew what the conclusions would be before the research began and told you that the results would fall in line with previous analyses. It will of course be just enough different so that more papers can be published that are analyses of this paper which serves to keep the industry alive and well.
So…who is this “Joe Romm” and why is he important???
Barry Woods says:
March 22, 2011 at 3:29 am
Hi Barry. I figured you must have forgotten to add a hyperlink to the “influential website” so readers here could see who you were talking about. Fixed that for ya!
Maybe I should have said that CO2 doesn’t have MUCH to do with it anyway.
Bernie
Anthony,
Science has still yet to understand that the planet is NOT a cylinder but a globe and the biggest area of mass is at the equator. Highly complex to understand the physical movements and speeds, distances in atmosphere heights, etc.
Strictly following temperatures fails to look at the highly complex mechanical processes and highly complex interaction in these processes.
A simple understanding of a circle is a joke to the highly complex process it is in motion. Then add on a global shape of smaller and smaller rings, Just on the planet surface, not to mention the inside of the planet. Compression and speeds in motion are not too hard to understand.
BUT it takes a highly complex way of thinking than the current individual line of understanding.
“REPLY:WUWT will have coverage, no matter what the result. We are watching science being done – Anthony”
Perhaps in the same manner that watching a superbowl commercial is seeing football being done…
After they do their initial, it’d be nice if they also moved on to seeing if they can determine the *least* number of high-quality long-lived sites it would take to come up with a global average of respectable length. . . and then compare the two results as a way, perhaps, of quantifying UHI on a global scale.
High quality being remote, unpolluted, and with long detailed records that would identify when any equipment changes happened.
Never been to Romm’s place before. The article biting back against the corrections Willis made reads like someone on coke babbling to a roomful of people who aren’t really listening.
He calls WUWT the “anti-science” brigade – a monicker he refutes in the same article by admitting that the corrections were valid. (Getting to the truth being the essence of science).
But I found the comments more disturbing still. They think we say what we say for political reasons. We are all “of the right” and therefore think instinctively that whatever governments try to make us do is wrong. We select only the evidence that agrees with us.
Personally I have no axe to grind politically. I am interested in the facts. Just the facts. Contrary to the belief of contributors at CP, it is obvious to skeptics that CO2 is rising. Maybe the temperature is rising a smidgeon, too.
The problem I have always had is with the justification for predictions of “catastrophe.” I have seen no evidence of catastrophe to justify squandering gazillions of beer tokens on preventing it.
Recent evidence shows the effects of climate change will be mixed. Of course! Problem is, in today’s world, we can’t accept there will ever be losers and gainers. We are expected to “freeze” climate where it is right now, for ever.
Don’t let these numpties switch off the lights over the entire world.
‘BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”’
Personally I’d like to know the whole context of that last statement by Prof Richard Muller there Joe, but rest assured Prof Muller firmly believes, that even in the absence of increased cloud cover offsetting any CO2 induced warming (and he stresses that’s one big hypothetical absence to be sure), then certainly none of the policies raised by Team Science pinpointing CO2 are going to have any more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming. That’s after he is generally scathing about all the tricks the Team has played on us all here-
Anyway Joe, what’s all the fuss about after the latest definitive study showing only half a degree of global warming over 160 years here-
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/global-temperatures-on-the-rise/story-e6freuyi-1226026172858
(yes the Oz Govt is out and about spruiking for a carbon tax and so the usual sheltered workshops are turning out the advertising)
It’s about time to get real. Paid propaganda is evil. No, make that Evil.
====================
I really think you should stop fencing with Romm, Anthony. I mean, fer chrissakes, the guy’s clearly unarmed in the wit department.
Dave Springer says:
March 22, 2011 at 6:15 am
Totally bogus comment, Dave. Totally.
But to be fair, Dave Springer… are you a scientist? Do you delve with the method, the process, the results in any professional way whatsoever? Do you have any basis for your comments about science? Please enlighten us. Thanks.
I am on a slow connection. I tried to post the following to “Tips and Notes” but my browser kept crashing.
******************************
All this during the 2 ‘hottest’ decades on the record ie 2000–2009 and 2000 – 2009. Note that 2010 was the second ‘hottest’ year on the record.
Repeat after me co2 is not plant food but a toxin. Warmer is much worse than colder.
I question the whole Malthusian population premise from top to bottom. What I find astonishing about Romm’s et als population/CO2 correlation is that if they are correct, the opposite will happen. The data is right before our eyes, yet they consistently preach that our populations will continue to increase “exponentially”. There is not one G20 nation outside of India that has positive TFR trends. Quite the opposite. The world is getting older, much older. Longevity alone is masking our population problem. But, older populations consume less, as well as produce less. If anything, we are a t a peak of the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas concentrations. Unless TFRs do a 180 degree flip, global population will peak much earlier than 2050. And if that’s the case, the entire AGW debate is truly finished.
Correction:
Should have said hottest decade on the record.