Dr. Roger pielke confirms a point made in comments in my earlier post on BEST about all data coming from a single source, which is the National Climatic Data Center. (NCDC)
By Dr. Roger Pielke Senior
Comment On The Article in the Economist On Rich Muller’s Data Analysis
On Climate Etc, Judy Curry posted
Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released
which refers the Economist article
A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming
The Economist article includes the text
There are three compilations of mean global temperatures, each one based on readings from thousands of thermometers, kept in weather stations and aboard ships, going back over 150 years. Two are American, provided by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one is a collaboration between Britain’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (known as Hadley CRU). And all suggest a similar pattern of warming: amounting to about 0.9°C over land in the past half century.
The nearly identical trends is no surprise as they draw from mostly the same raw data!
I discussed this most recently in my post
The new Muller et al study, therefore, has a very major unanswered question. I have asked it on Judy’s weblog since she is a co-author of these studies [and Muller never replied to my request to answer this question].
Hi Judy – I encourage you to document how much overlap there is in Muller’s analysis with the locations used by GISS, NCDC and CRU. In our paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
we reported that
“The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95% of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003).”
Unless, Muller pulls from a significanty different set of raw data, it is no surprise that his trends are the same.
s Lord Beaverbrook mentions above, Keenan’s response at Bishop Hill’s place is worth a read: Keenan’s response to the BEST paper
Read the whole exchange.
Philip Bradley said
BioBob and Pamela Gray had the same complaint, and I’ll add to it.
If you had a signal that had upper and lower bounds, such as an analog pusle-width modulated signal (commonly used to control servos in robots and model airplanes, where the ratio of how much 1 to how much 0 is what matters), the max is ALWAYS 1 and the min is always 0. By their method, the average is always 0.5 no matter what’s being sent, which means they can’t even detect that the signal carries information.
Yet if you had a constant-energy noise spike on a DC ground wire in an electrical cable (sometimes a sharp narrow peak and sometimes smaller and fatter, based on random things like the capacitance coupling to your hand) instead of 0 volts with an occassional constant energy spike, they’d be claiming the AVERAGE voltage in the ground wire was running from 50 to 200 with dramatic and intereting trends.
So already, they get a FAIL is signal processing and analysis.
Nick Stokes – This is an excellent resource. One of the key questions is the extent that the Muller et al analysis added sites in order to expand the geographic coverage. If the data is from mostly the same geographic regions, the added data would not be expected to add much beyond GHCN. Roger
This is a complete furfy…. the BEST data only goes to 2007! Am I correct? That’s what the graph above shows. No wonder its a joke. PLease add in 2007 to current its gone way down! Current anomaly for Oct 2011 is about +0.18C see UAH satellite data. If the above graph is true the BEST data should be completely discarded as it does not reflect the past 6 years trend which is crucial for the AGW premise.
Tim Minchin
Have a look at AMSU satellite temperatures for the last 10 years (600mb) you might learn something NO the earth has not been warming for the past years …so you are 100% wrong. While your at it, you might as well look at sea temps and you will find that SST’s (sea surface temperatures) are now COLDEST on record.
Izen,
“The point is not that three groups find the same trend in the same data, its that NONE of the studies show any significance difference in trend between urban and rural sites. The meme that the warming is exaggerated by the UHI effect is refuted.”
Is that really what the data shows? I thought they applied “corrections” for UHI, and that is what is used in the published temperature datasets.
“I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong….”
looks like anthony can finally turn off the website, he’s been proven wrong by his own rules…
The earth is warming. We already knew that, but thanks for at least making the effort in getting the station data correct now, which is at least in part due to the efforts of this blog and the surfacestations.org project. Congratulations on putting the pressure on and advancing science, guys.
Either way, this result does not negate the null hypothesis of this warming being caused by natural variation or other non-CO2 causes such as land use as we continue to develop. This is particularly apparent in light of no additional warming for the past 13 years and accelerating CO2 accumulation. This shows dissonance with the CO2 = warming link.
And no, aerosols aren’t the cause of the no variation. Nor is deep ocean heat accumulation likely either.
I don’t understand that virtually every other scientist of any reputation can admit when they don’t know and put forth the best arguments as to why their theories could be incorrect – then make a case why their conclusion is more likely – and AGW scientists just tow the doctrine line and express undue certainty.
Maybe this will be the next domino to fall and quality will finally permeate this field.
YEY!! Now I can throw away my snow blower!
Alarming that:
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2011/10/21/2-shallow-earthquakes-strike-near-berkeley-san-fransisco/
it’s all man’s “fault”
/sarc
@- Vince Causey says: Re:-[The meme that the warming is exaggerated by the UHI effect is refuted.]-
“Is that really what the data shows? I thought they applied “corrections” for UHI, and that is what is used in the published temperature datasets.”
GISS and HADCRU have used small adjustments to compensate for any UHI effect. The ‘skeptic’ claim has been that these “corrections” are insufficient to allow for the UHI effect which has resulted in an artifactual overestimation of the degree of global warming.
The BEST group examined this issue explicitly using the raw data. This is what Mr Muller states –
“To study urban-heating bias in temperature records, we used satellite determinations that subdivided the world into urban and rural areas. We then conducted a temperature analysis based solely on “very rural” locations, distant from urban ones. The result showed a temperature increase similar to that found by other groups. Only 0.5% of the globe is urbanized, so it makes sense that even a 2ºC rise in urban regions would contribute negligibly to the global average.
…. 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. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.
It is much easier to follow just two stations, not subject to UHI
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/amundsen-scott.ann.trend.pdf
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/vostok.ann.trend.pdf
They are remarkably flat which confirms hypothesis that nothing really changed in the climate.
Thanks Pamela Gray,
I sometimes feel like a lone voice, when I point out the problem is the Tmin/Tmax datasets combined with the false assumption they accurately represent the daily average temperature.
Use the same methodology as BEST has done, and you will reach the same erroneous conclusion.
@- S Basinger says: October 21, 2011 at 9:32 am
“Either way, this result does not negate the null hypothesis of this warming being caused by natural variation or other non-CO2 causes such as land use as we continue to develop. This is particularly apparent in light of no additional warming for the past 13 years and accelerating CO2 accumulation. This shows dissonance with the CO2 = warming link.”
‘Natural variation is a description, NOT a cause. The only alternative you suggest is land use?
Would this match the pattern of warming seen in the data?
How dissonant is the “no additional warming for the past 13 years” and the rising CO2? How much do you think it should have warmed in the last 13 years from CO2 if AGW theory is correct? I think BEST comes up with around 0.09/decade, perhaps double that for the recent decades. So around 0.2degC might be coming from CO2 rises. But ENSO variations can equal that through a single cycle so it is not improbable the smaller signal could be swamped over 13 years. Perhaps make it a few years longer, 15 maybe…
-“And no, aerosols aren’t the cause of the no variation. Nor is deep ocean heat accumulation likely either.”-
I admire the certainty with which you make these claims and would welcome some supporting argument. especially in the light of –
-“…– and AGW scientists just tow the doctrine line and express undue certainty.”
@-tegirinenashi says: October 21, 2011 at 10:15 am
“It is much easier to follow just two stations, not subject to UHI
-[link to Antarctic data]-
They are remarkably flat which confirms hypothesis that nothing really changed in the climate.”
So Antarctic stations are representative of the global climate?
Perfectly Obvious Exactly. -grin-
@izen Sure antarctic stations are best sited, properly maintained, and exhibit little noise (due to low day/night time temperature variations?) This is again reduces to whom you trust.
Why ten year average and why end at 2006? I smell a rat. Completely obscures the fact that there has been no warming since 1997 (15 years). Anything to keep the gravy train rolling, I guess.
Bill Illis,
You are quite right. Look at Figure 1. BEST temp in 2010 is the same as in 1968!!! No warming for 42 years.
Izen,
No warming for 15 years (1997-2011). At 3-4C per century rise (IPCC estimate), then temp increase should be 0.45 – 0.6 C. This is not even close to the satellite data record. Finally, how many years of non-warming disproves CAGW? 18 yrs? 20 yrs?
One hundred years ago, our ancestors in northern California cut many huge blocks of ice to store them for use throughout the year. We can’t do that today. We know that the climate here is warmer – no argument there. Just don’t blame the warming on homo sapiens.
rpielke says: October 21, 2011 at 6:22 am
“What I would like to see is a map with the GHCN sites and with the added sites from Muller et al. The years of record for his added sites should be given.”
I’ve now added a more comprehensive KMZ file that shows BEST and GHCN, and also GSOD and CRUTEM3. To reduce clutter the sites are foldered by source and by start year of data. The years are available on the pop-up balloons.
izen said @ur momisugly October 21, 2011 at 1:21 pm
“@ur momisugly-tegirinenashi says: October 21, 2011 at 10:15 am
“It is much easier to follow just two stations, not subject to UHI
-[link to Antarctic data]-
They are remarkably flat which confirms hypothesis that nothing really changed in the climate.”
So Antarctic stations are representative of the global climate?
Perfectly Obvious Exactly. -grin-”
Vostock & Law Dome ice cores are claimed to represent global temperatures (not to mention GISP1 & GISP2). If the ice core records are representative of global temperatures what specifically negates the use of Antarctic station temperature records for the same purpose?
Henry@Philip,Bob,Pam,George, Dr.Pielke
Great to see some support for my idea.
Understand that it is alleged that due to increased green house gases in the atmosphere, heat is trapped that cannot escape from earth. So if an increase in green house gases is to blame for the warming, it should be minimum temperatures (that occur during the night) that must show the increase (of modern warming). In that case, the observed trend should be that minimum temperatures should be rising faster than maxima and mean temperatures. That is what would prove a causal link.
What I have discovered so far from my (silly?) carefully chosen sample of 15 weather stations is that the overall increase of maxima, means and minima was 0.036, 0.012 and 0.004 degrees C respectively per annum over the past 35 years. So the ratio is 9:3:1. Assuming that my sample is representative of all those stations listed, I have to conclude that it was the maximum temps (that occur during the day) that pushed up the average temps. and the minima. So either the sun shone more brightly or there were less clouds. Or, even, perhaps the air just simply became cleaner (less dust? Are there records on that?).
I also noted that the warming on the NH is totally different to that of the SH. There is virtually no warming in the SH as seen by the means and minima whereas in the NH, the ratio of the increase in maxima, means and minima is about 1:1:1, amazingly.
Again, if it were an increase in CO2 or GHG’s that is doing the warming, you would expect to see the exactly the same results for NH and SH because these gases should be distributed evenly in the whole of the NH and SH hemisphere. So, even here, we again must conclude that it never was the increase in CO2 that is doing it. The only logical explanation I can think of is the difference in the rate by which the earth is greening. In South America we still had massive de-forestation over this period whereas Australia and Southern Africa have large deserts. Obviously, the NH has most of the landmass and here everyone seems to be planting trees and gardens. A recent investigation by the Helsinki university found that 45 countries were more green then previously out of a sample of 70.
Paradoxically, the increase in greenery is partly due to human intervention, partly due to more heat coming available (increase in maxima!) and partly due to the extra CO2 that we put in the air which appears to be acting as a fertilizer/ accelerator for growth.
For my data, see:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
(make a copy for yourself of the tables)
Now, if we could have the 3 plots for the Best figures? That would help.
@-Chris Nelli says: October 21, 2011 at 5:04 pm
“No warming for 15 years (1997-2011).”
I am unable to find a zero trend in any global dataset of temperature for the last 15 years. most indicate around 0.1degC, but with ENSO cycles five times as large overlying that. This appears to be the record with the least warming trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2011/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2011
Perhaps you have an alternative dataset that you think more credible with no warming trend ?
tegirinenashi says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/pielke-sr-no-surprise-about-best/#comment-774013
henry@ur momisugly\tegirinenashi
You can only make that statement for the SH. Not for the NH.
And it confirms my findings. See my previous comment.
The reason why I did not use the antarctic data is because I could not find them (the actual data) and I also could not get maxima and minima.
But even the means will perhaps help me,
if you could direct me to the original data that make up those 2 plots?
izen;
The H0 does not have to specify specific alternate causality. It merely asserts that the H1-proposed cause does not have significant support. “Natural variation” is as specific as it needs to be.