RELATED ARTICLES, highly suggested:
Clarification on BEST submitted to the House
Pielke Sr. on the Muller testimony
Independent company station siting analysis demonstrates the problem
Quote of the Week – other scientists weigh in
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, I had hoped for the best from BEST, the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project looking at the global temperature record. I was disheartened, however, by the Congressional testimony of Dr. Richard Muller of BEST.
Photo Source He said (emphasis mine):
Global Warming
Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree rise is what we call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to build on it.
Human caused global warming is somewhat smaller. According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it
amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then. Let’s assume the human-caused warming is 0.6 degrees.
The magnitude of this temperature rise is a key scientific and public policy concern. A 0.2 degree uncertainty puts the human component between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees – a factor of two uncertainty. Policy depends on this number. It needs to be improved.
Why do I think his testimony doesn’t help in the slightest? Well, to start with, I’ve never heard anyone make the claim that the land surface air temperature (excluding oceans) of the earth has warmed 1.2°C since 1900.
He cites three land temperature datasets, NOAA , NASA (GISTEMP), and HadCRU (he presumably means CRUTEM, not HadCRU).
Here’s the problem. The actual land surface air temperature warming since 1900 according to the existing datasets is:
NASA GISTEMP: 0.72°C
NOAA NCDC: 0.86°C
CRUTEM: 0.92°C
So Dr. Muller, in his first and most public appearance on the subject, has made some of the more unusual claims about the existing temperature datasets I’ve heard to date.
1. Since the largest temperature rise in the three datasets is 30% greater than the smallest rise, their work is not “excellent” in any sense of the word. Nor should the BEST team “strive to build on it.” Instead, they should strive to understand why the three vary so widely. What decisions make the difference? Which decisions make little difference?
2. Not one of the three datasets shows a temperature rise anywhere near the 1.2°C rise Muller is claiming since 1900. The largest one shows only about 3/4 of his claimed rise.
3. He claims a “0.2 degree uncertainty”. But the difference between the largest and smallest calculated warming from the three datasets is 0.2°C, so the uncertainty has to be a lot more than that …
4. He says that the land warming since 1957 is 0.7°C. The records beg to differ. Here’s the land warming since 1957:
NASA GISTEMP: 0.83°C
NOAA NCDC: 1.10°C
CRUTEM: 0.93°C
Note that none of them are anywhere near 0.7°C. Note also the huge difference in the trends in these “excellent” datasets, a difference of half a degree per century.
5. He fails to distinguish CRUTEM (the land-only temperature record produced by the Climategate folks) from HadCRU (a land-ocean record produced jointly by the Hadley folks and the Climategate folks). A minor point to be sure, but one indicating his unfamiliarity with the underlying datasets he is discussing.
It can’t be a Celsius versus Fahrenheit error, because it goes both ways. He claims a larger rise 1900-present than the datasets show, and a smaller rise 1958-present than the datasets.
I must confess, I’m mystified by all of this. With his testimony, Dr. Muller has totally destroyed any credibility he might have had with me. He might be able to rebuild it by explaining his strange numbers. But to give that kind of erroneous testimony, not in a random paper he might written quickly, but to Congress itself, marks him to me as a man driven by a very serious agenda, a man who doesn’t check his work and who pays insufficient attention to facts in testimony. I had hoped we wouldn’t have another temperature record hag-ridden by people with an axe to grind … foolish me.
Perhaps someone who knows Dr. Muller could ask him to explain his cheerleading before Congress. I call it cheerleading because it certainly wasn’t scientific testimony of any kind I’m familiar with. I hear Dr. Muller is a good guy, and very popular with the students, but still … color me very disappointed.
w.
PS – Muller also said:
Let me now address the problem of
Poor Temperature Station Quality
Many temperature stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to heat sources. Anthony Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations in the US Historical Climatology Network would be ranked “poor” by NOAA’s own standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C.
Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.
The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.
Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.
Dr. Muller, I’m going to call foul on this one. For you to announce your pre-publication results on this issue is way, way out of line. You get to have your claim entered into the Congressional Record and you don’t even have to produce a single citation or publish a paper or show a scrap of data or code? That is scientific back-stabbing via Congressional testimony, and on my planet it is absolutely unacceptable.
That is taking unfair advantage of your fifteen minutes of fame. Show your work and numbers like anyone else and we’ll evaluate them. Then you may be able to crow, or not, before Congress.
But to stand up before Congress as an expert witness and refer solely to your own unpublished, uncited, and un-verifiable claims? Sorry, but if you want to make that most public scientific claim, that bad siting doesn’t affect temperature trends, you have to show your work just like anyone else. If you want to make that claim before Congress, then PUBLISH YOUR DATA AND CODE like the rest of us mortals. Put your results where your mouth is, or if not, leave it out of your Congressional testimony. Why is that not obvious?
Anthony’s unpublished and unverifiable claims are as strong as your similar claims. That is to say, neither have any strength or validity at all at this point … so how would you feel if Anthony trotted out his unverifiable claims before Congress to show that Dr. Richard Muller was wrong, and didn’t show his work?
Like I said … color me very disappointed, both scientifically and personally. Dr. Muller, I invite you to explain your Congressional testimony, because I certainly don’t understand it. I am totally confident that Anthony will be happy to publish your reply.
I also urge you to either a) publish the data and code that you think shows no difference in trends between good and poor stations, or b) publicly retract your premature and unverifiable claims. You don’t get to do one without the other, that’s not scientific in any sense of the word.
PPS – Does any of this mean that the BEST analysis is wrong or their numbers or data are wrong or that the BEST folks are fudging the results? ABSOLUTELY NOT. I am disappointed in Dr. Muller’s claims and his actions. The math and the data analysis is an entirely different question. Theirs may be flawless, we simply don’t know yet (nor would I expect to, it’s early days). I look forward to their results and their data and code, this kind of initiative is long overdue.
I want to be very clear than the validity of their actual methods depends only on the validity of their actual methods. The problem is, we don’t even know exactly what those methods are yet. We have rough descriptions, but not even any pseudocode, much less code. Which in part is why I find Dr. Muller’s testimony unsettling …
RELATED: See the rebuttal letter to congress:
Clarification on BEST submitted to the House
Pielke Sr. on the Muller testimony
=========================================================
UPDATE: in apparent response to Willis Eschenbach, BEST has added this below to their FAQs page. For fairness, I reproduce it here. – Anthony
NEW (4/1) – It appears that in Dr. Muller’s testimony he shows a temperature rise greater rise than others had previously published. Is this so? Can you explain?
The Berkeley Earth plot is for the land data only, since we have not yet begun analysis of ocean temperatures. Because we only analyze land, that was the fair comparison to make. The ocean temperature rise is less, and when included in, it reduces the value of the total temperature rise.
We started with the land data for several reasons:
- It is the data that is affected most by the most contentious issues: data selection bias, urban heat island, and station integrity issues. These are big concerns and we wanted to address them.
- The temperature rise on land is greater than on the oceans, mostly because the ocean distribute the heat over the mixed layer and thereby reduces the temperature rise. Land keeps the heat mostly on the surface. So the land temperature is actually more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is the world temperature.
- The land issue, with 1.6 billion measurements, was a huge one to tackle. It made sense to divide the effort into two stages.
The land only data for the other three groups are available on their websites, and agree with the plot provided in Dr. Richard Muller’s testimony.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m surprised you didn’t just drop me in the memory hole. Give you credit for that at least, if nothing else. Though it does leave me wondering what excuse would you have used to snip me if I hadn’t used the, as you so quaintly refer to it, “f-word.”
My opinion remains the same. You’re not looking for evidence, Mr. Watts; you’re looking for confirmation. They’re not the same thing. Scientific? Perhaps not. But neither is denial.
REPLY: Any post using the f-word gets automatically snipped. And why is your IP address showing you to be from the New York Times? Is using the f-word what we are to expect from the NYT when an employee of NYT dons an anonymous fake persona and proceeds to act like an angry teenager? BEST made promises of scientific publications and full transparency that were completely unfulfilled in this congressional testimony. That and only that are the issue here. If those things were present, neither Willis or I could raise any issue. If they have a paper, and provide a way to replicate it, and passes peer review, then they have fulfilled the contract they made with the public and with me. – Anthony
Ed Barbar says:
April 1, 2011 at 2:12 pm
The reason I’m upset is contained in your next paragraph.
See, that’s the problem. Muller has done such a good job that you were totally taken in. Steven Mosher says that’s your fault if you got suckered. You’ll have to take that up with Steven. I say it’s Muller’s doing.
The truth is that right now there is zero publicly open data from BEST. There are no open datasets. There is zero publicly available code. We have nothing from Muller but generalities about the method, and erroneous claims about the temperature rise. There are glaring errors in his claims, errors instantly apparent to me and I presume to anyone familiar with the data. Land temperature rise over the century of 1.2°C … say what?
Given that he has not made public either his code or his data used for the analysis, it was highly improper to use his fifteen minutes of fame to attack Anthony’s work. It was shabby and mean-spirited. It was the act of a conniving bureaucrat, not a scientist, and certainly not a polite man.
His Congressional testimony was also colossally stupid public theater. Whoever he consulted regarding his testimony should be fired from the yardarm at sunrise. This was the public introduction of the project. There was no need for him to wade into the fray. He had a chance to be a hero, a neutral arbiter, someone whose word could be trusted. Instead, the first numbers out of his mouth are wrong, and he picks a totally un-necessary fight with Anthony without showing either his data or his code. How dumb is that?
Anyhow, Ed, that’s why I’m upset. Can’t say for the rest of the folks. I just hope Muller’s math is better than his opening moves.
w.
Bill Illis,
TOBs is only really applied to the U.S. at the moment (metadata is too poor in other places to know !), so globally it has little impact. Using raw GHCN data produces a curve very similar to NCDC’s record, so its no huge surprise that the BEST folks using GHCN + additional stations found something similar: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Screen-shot-2011-03-31-at-2.56.34-PM.png
Willis,
I imagine that Mosh isn’t too concerned about the BEST folks announcing preliminary results because he has talked with them enough to get to know the team and their methodologies, and is confident that the results they announced are based on a rigorous and defendable approach. Of course, an evaluation of this will have to wait until the results (and code) are published. If I were Muller, I wouldn’t have announced the surface stations results (I have less issue with the 2% sample), but I find it hard to be too critical as Anthony (and others) have announced that station siting issue do bias temperature trends (e.g. in the SPPI paper).
I do think Muller needs to be a lot more careful in his public pronouncements, something I think will probably happen as a result if this little imbroglio.
I’m also somewhat puzzled by the 1.2 C number, as I mentioned over at the Blackboard, though I’m sure Muller and the BEST folks will clarify where it came from in the near future.
Stephen Rasey says:
April 1, 2011 at 2:15 pm
@Theo Goodwin April 1, 2011 at 8:22 am
“I agree with you. The Scalpel can be a huge source of bias. Consider my March 31, 7:27 pm.
…
Put another way, isn’t the BEST project to come up with better estimates of the low frequence content of the timeseries data? Weather is high-frequency, Climate is low frequecy. Yet, isn’t the scalpel a LOW-CUT filter?”
Very well said. And the scalpel removes all the temperature readings that begin plateaus and replaces them with gaps. In effect, the scalpel removes all the readings that are associated with UHI, site change, bad siting, and all similar matters. It leaves nothing but trends that have been gerrymandered to fit Warmista preconceptions. I cannot believe that Mosher could not see this. It is elementary graphing technique, elementary statistics, elementary math.
Zeke Hausfather says:
April 1, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Willis,
“I imagine that Mosh isn’t too concerned about the BEST folks announcing preliminary results because he has talked with them enough to get to know the team and their methodologies, and is confident that the results they announced are based on a rigorous and defendable approach.”
Well, if you read Mosher’s comments carefully, you will find that he has declared UHI unimportant. Excuse me, but that is a policy preference and there is no science to justify it. You might use “the scalpel” to partially justify it, but that is because “the scalpel” is designed to filter out the UHI transition points. That is cheating.
Did someone mention theater?
Kabuki?
Here is what I expected back in February – how’d I do?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/11/new-independent-surface-temperature-record-in-the-works/#comment-596522
Theo Goodwin says:
April 1, 2011 at 3:50 pm
“In effect, the scalpel removes all the readings that are associated with UHI, site change, bad siting, and all similar matters. It leaves nothing but trends that have been gerrymandered to fit Warmista preconceptions. ”
In combination with Roman M’s algorithm, the scalpel indeed gerrymanders the datum level, but in a way that defies analytic description as a low-cut filter. That’s why I refer to this approach as data sausage manufacture. The crucial low-frequency content is minced beyond redemption. The numbers produced are not the temperature of any particular parcel of air.
Is the “scalpel” a previously published peer-reviewed statistical procedure validated in the statistic literature? If so, I would like to read some of the references that show that this “operation” (forgive the pun) is valid and under what assumptions it has been tested. The use of ad-hoc statistical methodologies that don’t appear in the statistical literature permeates climate science. I had hoped that “BEST” would stick to statistical procedures that had been well tested in the statistical literature, econometrics, or similar disciplines and I will reserve judgment about the “scalpel” until I have read and studied the basis that justifies its use.
Zeke Hausfather says:
April 1, 2011 at 3:30 pm
——————
So you know what adjustments are applied to the adjusted GHCN/NCDC data versus the Raw data and it is just a minimal amount?
I ask because the rest of us do not know that.
I also think someone needs to look into what GHCN/NCDC holds as raw data. My initial impression of what BEST was doing is that they were getting the raw data through independent sources. If they were just using the GHCN database then someone else needs to start this “better temperature series” project all over again.
I emailed Dr. Muller with some specific questions and it seems that what he says to Congress and what he says to an individual are completely different. I specifically asked about bad station data and here was his response:
“Bob,
All the data I have ever used had systematic effects. The role of the scientist is to eliminate them when possible, and to estimate the error they introduce when they can’t be eliminated. That’s what we are doing.
We will be careful. I don’t know what we will find.
Richard Muller”
I don’t trust him.
Zeke, thanks as always for your thoughts. For those who do not know him, Zeke has done some very interesting work with the climate datasets.
Zeke Hausfather says:
April 1, 2011 at 3:30 pm
I, like you, have less issue with the 2% solution. But announcing the Surfacestation results, in front of Congress, without producing data or code? Sorry, but on my planet that’s a deliberate, ugly and very un-necessary slap in Anthony’s face. He had no reason to say a word about Surfacestations, he went out of his way to be a jerk. Maybe you find that acceptable. I think it sucks bigtime.
I also think that if you reconsidered your statement you would realize that it doesn’t work to equate a claim in an SPPI paper on the one hand, with expert testimony given publicly before Congress and immediately reported around the world on the other hand. They are not equal in any way. Nor was Anthony’s SPPI paper a direct attack on Muller’s work, while Muller took the offered Congressional microphone and used it to do a Kanye West attack on Anthony. Muller did it without offering us a scrap of code, a shred of data, or a hint of how he conducted his analysis … am I the only one who finds this behavior offensive and reprehensible?
Yeah, that’s a polite way to put it. I’d say he needs to learn when to keep his mouth shut, and stop hiding behind Congress’s skirts to attack people … but then I’m a reformed cowboy, so that’s likely too strong. He’s blown it bad with me, and from the sound of it he’s blown it with many others as well, so his lesson may be too little, too late. Right now, if he told me it was going to be sunny tomorrow, I’d take my umbrella.
I came into this fray on the side of BEST, and have stood up for them, and said that people should wait and see. I’ve said I thought it was a good thing that they were collating reanalyzing the data. I’ve discussed my theoretical difficulties with “homogenization”, but I made it clear that we hadn’t seen any results from BEST at that time. I’ve stated my support of Muller and the BEST process openly and publicly … stupid me, I guess.
Zeke, you seem to know these folks … I know nothing but what they’ve done to date. Maybe they’ll clarify the number, maybe not. But will Muller have the stones to apologize to Anthony? And is he as clueless about climate science as he appears to be? I know that when you read that 1.2°C number and the 0.7°C since 1957 number, your urban legend detector starting going off immediately, right? Because like me, you’re very familiar with and cognizant of the various temperature dataset numbers and their sizes. You knew immediately that 1.2°C was too large.
So where was the climate science knowledge of Muller and those around him? How good are they, if they prop him up in front of Congress with a paper full of those kinds of errors? Zeke, if you were invited to testify before Congress, would you a) be as impartial as possible and have your facts quintuple-checked by everyone you could enlist, or b) just grab some numbers and go pick a totally un-necessary fight?
I, like you, don’t expect the BEST results to be hugely different from one of the three datasets. But I had expected some vague pretense of neutrality. I thought at least Muller would try to fake some sincerity about the impartial scientific quest for knowledge.
Instead, he took the data Anthony and the volunteers had gathered, did his own top-secret analysis of which he has revealed nothing, and then crowed to Congress about how his results showed Anthony was wrong …
But I’m happy to be surprised. I’m waiting for Muller to speak out on this one. His continued silence does not improve things. I’ve invited him to at least post the code, so we can see how he is doing the Surfacestations analysis. If both he and his people can’t see a huge error, I certainly don’t trust their math for that type of analysis.
I can see that this might be just some huge dumb mistake on his part. It’s possible he didn’t realize that the media and the politicians have a hearing defect for the word “preliminary”, they just hear “results”. I don’t know why he did it. The true mystery to me is, why would anyone do such a foolish thing as pick an un-necessary public fight? That’s all downside, with no upside.
It’s just depressing that after all this time, what appear to be well-meaning but ineffectual and bumbling zealots are still using the results of their top-secret, can’t-be-shared-with-the-masses computer code to affect the political course of the US.
And true believers wonder why the public goes “Feh!”?
I don’t know, Zeke, I don’t. If you know him, could you ask him why he hasn’t posted the code for the Surfacestations analysis, and report back? I invited him to post at WUWT, I think he’d be mad not to take up the offer. At least he should explain to the volunteers who collected the data, just why he did what he did.
w.
IMO,
Mr. Muller may have underestimated his audience.
My guess, is that it won’t happen again.
Zeke
” I’m also somewhat puzzled by the 1.2 C number, as I mentioned over at the Blackboard, though I’m sure Muller and the BEST folks will clarify where it came from in the near future.”
Puzzled, you should be shocked. Even a kid knows that this is utter bollocks. How can he throw that number in a congressorial hearing without showing his work and methods? That is a serious error and completely unacceptable. If this is the level of due diligence shown by a scientist, he’s no scientist. No one cares abut BEST folks clarifying it at the near future as and when they feel like it. They had no business to throw that unverified and possibly false number in a congress hearing. That was a deliberate and calculated statement with intent to deceive.
I run a business and if tried any such tricks with any government department, especially the tax department, I’d be behind bars in a jiffy. That is the real world.
I’m surprised that such a behaviour is being defended.
Re: 1.2 degrees. Aren’t people seeing the cluster of lines around -0.5 to -0.6 in the early 1900’s and the one around +0.6 to +0.7 in the current day on Muller’s graph? Am I the only one that understands this Muller comment based on the graph he showed while making it? Did the congressmen question it at the time? I doubt it, or they would have looked mathematically challenged.
Will writes: “Whoever he consulted regarding his testimony should be fired from the yardarm at sunrise.”
And: “your urban legend detector”
You got style, Will. I continue to hang on the publication of your autobiography.
Richard Carr & Willis, I thought the phrase containing “yardarm”, referred to one being hung from same.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 1, 2011 at 8:36 pm
What Willis said. In addition, if Mosher is correct in his description of “the scalpel” technique (a name worthy of Stone Cold Steve Austin) then Muller and crew are not serious by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that Muller has imploded totally and, given “the scalpel,” it appears that his entire team was dead on arrival. The people who suggest that BEST was designed just for the purpose of a media splash for misdirection are not paranoid by any means.
The Achilles Heel of the Warmista is that they do not respect the data, have a record of not respecting the data, and have a record of actively corrupting the data. This Heel is magnified by the fact that their cavalier attitude toward the data has produced less that one tenth of one degree of warming per decade over the last century, using thermometer data that was never intended to be accurate to one tenth of one degree. This Heel is again magnified by the fact that they fear to approach the data without a huge mesh of novel statistical technique to protect them.
The American public is aware of all this and has accepted the argument that Warmista data standards have shown a lack of professionalism, some mischief, and probably some noble-cause corruption. Muller’s behavior in the congressional hearing simply adds more of the same.
It is absolutely necessary that those who are in a position to give evidence regarding data integrity, people such as McIntyre through his own experience at IPCC and Watts through his analyses of surface stations, remain independent of Muller and other magical statisticians. Sooner or later, Anthony must pass judgement on Muller, on what he has done to this time, and I cannot see how a most harsh judgement can be avoided.
Thank you very much Willis!
Very good article, in my opinion.
But lets not forget that even if the north of the Earth shows more elevated land surface temperatures lately, we still don’t know that this increase is “anthropogenic”, nor that it has anything to do with CO2.
I am more interested in learning whether CO2 produces, or not, a “greenhouse effect”.
On this, I reading http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
(Joseph E. Postma, M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy. March 2011, .pdf)
[a work in progress]
How many chances will you give these guys? Don’t be tempted by Lucy anymore. Just walk away.
http://img641.imageshack.us/i/lucycharliefootball.gif/
maybe in your mind, but not in mind. let me be clear. Until I have the code and the data all results are rumours or advertisements of rumours. taken with a huge grain of salt.
Except that the people testifying don’t give a damn about your opinion of their research. They’re attempting to influence congress with inadequate data and analysis. The PURPOSE of entering the testimony into the congressional record is so that congress can use it as a basis for future votes. These congressmen are not going to be reading blogs that may eventually disprove anything. This testimony is much more damaging than a blog post.
Regarding the congressional hearing in which Muller made highly questionable remarks, McIntyre observed that another person invited to testify, Prof. Emmanuel from MIT, made assertions that are untrue and very important. McIntyre calls upon his personal experience to offer overwhelming evidence that the statements are untrue. Check out McIntyre’s website climateaudit.org. I believe that the fact that more than one Warmista was invited to speak and made outrageous claims should be widely communicated to the public as yet another Warmista debacle.
Roger Carr says:
April 2, 2011 at 2:51 am
Well, thanks to the urging of the good folks here, I’m writing my autobiography now. I’ve got about 65,000 words written.
And yes, I was quite proud of “fired from the yardarm at sunrise”, I thought it a wonderful mashup, and I did wonder if anyone would notice. Many thanks for the comment.
w.
Time to stop playing their game (making stupid concessions like ” maybe Co2 warms the atmosphere a little?”) and back Dr. Tim Ball in his fight against Weaver and Mann. Co2 follows temperature. Show me anything that refutes this. How many times do these guys have to try and pull this crap before we wake up?