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 especially liked the refutations of the ‘scalpel’ – since none of the commenters actually know the implementing code their criticisms are really the most trenchant. Yeah, that’s sarcasm. //
You got me there. The scalpel and suture processes are not yet in the transparent window. So we can only take little snipets of information and splice them together in a way that makes sense to us, to conjecture to a bigger picture and review its worth. It’s not the best way, but it is what we have today. Ironically, that seems to be what BEST is doing; taking little snipets of temperature streams, splicing them together in a way that makes sense to them. Is that the best way? I guess peer-review will answer that.
Assuming we all want to see the best science done, which approach would be the better path toward acceptance of the result?
A. Release the code for the scalpel and suture at the same time the analysis is final and we can see the result and the tool(s) used to achieve it.
B. Release the code for the scalpel and suture at the time they are being tested, BEFORE being used on the body of temperature data so that we can evaluate the tool before knowing the result.
@Michael Irwin: Bullshit. What I want is for Muller to act like a scientist, and publish his work before he stands up in public and attacks someone with it.
I didn’t get the feeling there were any attacks in the paper whatsoever.
It also seems to me Muller is dealing with something that should be, but is no longer entirely science. The whole AGW thing has become highly politicized, and the rules are different. What Muller promised was a return to science. It is probably a tortuous path to get there. It needs some time.
I continue to think the primary reason for the preliminary results is that a lot of money was poured into the BEST program, and there was a political requirement to publish some results, to ensure the continuation of the research.
If Muller doesn’t live up to his promises, then its simply more of the same, and it will be easy to show the deception.
Regarding use of Anthony’s data, let’s hear from him.
Ed Barbar,
BEST is infested with the same cast of characters we find in the Climategate emails. If Muller wants credibility, he needs to begin publicly archiving everything BEST is doing right now. That’s science. Falsification is crucial, and there can be no falsification without complete transparency. Anything left standing after all attempts at falsification can be accepted for the time being. By still not publicly archiving BEST’s methods, data, code, metadata, etc., it is deliberately ignoring the scientific method, and showing that it has a preconceived agenda.
BEST also needs to put at least half a dozen prominent CAGW skeptic scientists on staff, with a voice and equal input to Phil Jones and his pals. Otherwise, BEST is just the newest propaganda incarnation, created to give its holy imprimatur to the pseudo-scientific “carbon” agenda.
For GISS at least I come up with the following:
1904 – 2010: 1.2C — .83 – (-.37)
1957 – 2010: .73C — .83 – .1
So for GISS at least the numbers are accurate. Some might ask why I chose 1904 as the starting point. Muller did not specify 1900 as the starting point in his testimony he said “early 1900’s” so I took the coolest year of the 1st decade of the 20th century to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Oops, I misread the table and crossed 57 and 58 anomalies. The correct anomaly for 1957 is .08 so the number should be .75.
From Willis: “Bullshit. What I want is for Muller to act like a scientist, and publish his work before he stands up in public and attacks someone with it.”
LOL. What did Watts do with his surfacestation data? Don’t I remember a publication attacking NASA and NOAA etc with no publication of his data? This whole attack is based on the bad feelings that you shared the surfacestation data with Dr. Muller and then he went and made statements that don’t agree with your prejudice.
This whole comment thread is full of laughs… “Berkley”, “socialists”, the idea that Muller has to toe the “Beserkly” party line or he won’t be invited to dinner. The people claiming to be statistics experts claiming that “fourier analysis” proves the scalpel destroys low-frequency data. The list goes on.
Dr. Muller is a genius. He set up a personal business, with the project led by his daughter. Staffed the project with people with no previous climate science experience. Got money from the Koch brothers! Got all of you denialistas on his side. Here is finally a scientist clearly in it for the money, and all of you line up with him at first. Then you act all sad and hurt and fling insults like a jilted lover. Sorry your man isn’t what you first thought.
Kevin O’Neill says:
April 3, 2011 at 1:41 am
“And then dozens and dozens of criticisms of his methodology and data. Rather pointless conjecturing since BEST hasn’t yet released their dataset and code. I especially liked the refutations of the ‘scalpel’ – since none of the commenters actually know the implementing code their criticisms are really the most trenchant. Yeah, that’s sarcasm.”
The GHCN data base is publicly available. The code for Roman M’s algorithm, which BEST apparently used to synthesize the GST from a small preliminary sample of their expanded data base, was published by him on-line. Though it may do a good job of estimating the local mean temperature from noisy data and in spotting step discontinuities in a homogenous spatial field, it is incapable in principle of eliminating gradual time varying systematic biases (e.g., growing UHI ) in a field that is intrinsically heterogeneous. Not all of us are as naive as would-be climate scientists about what well-founded signal extraction techniques can and cannot do with variously corrupted station records. No statistical “scalpel” can substitute for lack of reliable measurement. The superficiality of your supercilious, sarcastic judgement is breathtaking. It’s truly in the entrenched tradition of “climate science.”
No matter. The “anomaly” and that upon which it is based is pretty meaningless.
@Smokey: If Muller wants credibility, he needs to begin publicly archiving everything BEST is doing right now. That’s science.
I tend to agree, with the caveat that Muller ought to be given the opportunity to state WHY he does not want to publish the data/algorithms/code at this instant, and given the opportunity state WHEN he will. If WHEN isn’t too far away, no harm, no foul, provided there is a good WHY.
If WHY isn’t very good, then the data should be published immediately.
John T says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Now that you have had your say about us, do you have anything to say about science? I didn’t think so.
Kevin O’Neill says:
April 3, 2011 at 1:41 am
“The more substantial cries were over Muller’s lack of EVIDENCE! Where’s the data? Where’s the code? You sniveling, backstabbing librul! And then dozens and dozens of criticisms of his methodology and data. Rather pointless conjecturing since BEST hasn’t yet released their dataset and code.”
Kevin, Muller signed on to BEST with the promise to the public and the private promise to Anthony that he would release the data, code, and everything along with the results. He lied. He broke his promises. Now you are the sort of person who does not care about those matters. Just hope and pray that someone enters your life who does not share your beliefs and attitudes. Otherwise, you can look forward to a life of lies and broken promises.
This, as if there were ever any doubts, is how these “preliminary” results are being interpreted.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/03/climate_change&fsrc=nwl
I know The Economist ain’t what it used to be, but it is still influential enough…. ugh.
After thinking about this Muller business for a bit it has occurred to me that his testimony is going to make it very difficult for Anthony to find a publisher for any planned book that presents the mess he’s discovered in the temperature stations. This is now second hand and pre-refuted before the congress of the USA kind of information. That alone is reason enough for exploring a lawsuit. If Muller released privileged information that was under NDA with Anthony then somebody needs a good ass kicking, too.
@DP. I was thinking the same thing last night. If the journal that Anthony has submitted his paper now rejects it, Anthony could and should sue under “Tortuous Interference”
Muller has harmed Anthony in more was than one. Muller called Anthony in front of Congress an “amateur scientist.” AMATEUR! How about “freelance”, “private sector”, or even “skeptical”. Anthony may or may not have a government or university grant, but this work is a significant part of his present and future livelihood. It was a “backhanded” compliment delivered with force.
Muller’s preemption was in effect, “Thanks, son, for pointing out our mistakes. Now run along and let us do some real science. Your intellectual property and rights of first publication be damned.”
Muller, you are not allowed to do this in science.
Stephen Rasey says:
April 4, 2011 at 7:36 am
Spot on. Muller’s behavior toward Anthony falls in the range of reckless to malicious. He should be sued. (Of course, if you view yourself as a climate scientist, or even as a retired Berkeley physicist, you view yourself as God. This behavior is pervasive in the pro-AGW community.)
[Reply: Contribute something worthwhile to the conversation or leave. Gratuitously insulting the internet’s Best Science site is not appreciated by this moderator. ~dbs, mod.]
the internet’s Best Science site
Ah hubris! Ah humour!
[Reply: It is based on reader preference. There is always the alternative of realclimate. ~dbs, mod.]
It is based on reader preference. There is always the alternative of realclimate. ~dbs, mod.
Ah, so along the lines of “8 out of 10 readers prefer our Science to our nearest commercial rival”.
There was me thinking that some accreditation was involved…
Eamon,
If you’re looking for accreditation rather than popularity, look at the Alexa rankings. By any measure, realclimate trails far behind WUWT. People want to read both sides of an issue and make up their own minds, and they know that RC heavily censors scientific skeptics’ comments. RC is a propaganda blog, not a science site, and people know it. That’s why it follows up the rear.
Any questions?
Muller took money from the Koch’s right? And we all know you get what you pay for. So what’s with these Koch’s that they’re interfering in science by funding blatantly warmist
studiespropaganda? Al Gore must have gotten to them.One Anonymous Bloke,
Another likely possibility is that the Koch’s were deceived by Muller.
Integrating the preceding responses one must conclude that , apart from delegating its fact checking to The Onion, WUWT offers the gibberings of amateur statisticians and the grotesqueries of K-Street shills modulated with hypocrisy of an amperage Al Gore might envy.
It has the SNL original beat by a country mile.
REPLY: Ah, yes… let’s see which one of you is this from Harvard University that has used this IP address in the past? Russell or Dacron? Yes, it appears you can always tell a Harvard man (even if he is too much of a wimp to use his real name to take cheap potshots from the comfort on anonymity). – Anthony
REPLY: The beauty of these kind of guys is that they studied in the Institute of Global Warming, and as a result, none of their statements are falsifiable … just like the statements made by the real mainstream AGW climate scientists. – w.