Sceptical Berkeley Scientists Say, “Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overstated”

From Dr. Benny Peiser and the Global Warming Policy Foundation via email.

The Observatory, 21 October 2011

David Whitehouse

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has released its preliminary findings though not in a research journal but to the scientific community and the general public. Their trumpeted finding is not surprising – the world has gotten warmer in recent decades – or at least the land has. This is consistent with the other global temperature datasets.

A press release issued by the project said, “Global Warming is real,” adding that it can find no evidence of a heat island effect, and that even weather stations considered to be of doubtful quality still show relative warming over the 1950 – 2010 period in question.

Whilst the results are not that surprising, the findings of the research have been used by some to talk about the nature of climate skepticism bearing in mind that the impetus for the Berkeley initiative came from self-avowed skeptical scientists. But the results, and how they have been portrayed, also says something about the nature of today’s environmental reporting. In particular it reveals a narrow focus on trouncing sceptics at the expense of putting the science into its proper context.

The Guardian is notable not for what it says but for what it doesn’t say. The article has far too narrow an outlook, providing no overall context. It does not even mention that the Berkeley researchers themselves say they cannot determine why the world has warmed. It makes no mention that those sceptics who doubt that the earth is warming are few in number, and that there is a widespread and respectable group of scientists who, in peer reviewed journals, debate the relative mix of influencing factors concerning that warming.

The Guardian also allows Jim Hansen to misrepresent scepticism and go unchallenged. He says, “as I have discussed in the past, the deniers, or contrarians, if you will, do not act as scientists, but rather as lawyers….as soon as they see evidence against their client (the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business-as-usual), they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jury.” The number of sceptics included in the article is zero.

The Economist (not in my opinion noted for its deep thinking on climate science) article was clearly written by someone unfamiliar with the subject. Like the Guardian it failed to put this research into its proper perspective. Its sceptic count was also zero.

The report in Nature was much better, in my opinion because it actually included comments from the sceptics in that Steve McIntyre said he has found some problems with the Berkeley research. Given Steve’s track record this is something worth noting. The Berkeley team is posting their raw data on the web and no doubt many statistically adroit bloggers will get to work (for me one of the main things to come out of “Climategate” was that professors of climate science were not in the same league as some on the web when it came to statistical analysis.) Nature’s sceptic count is one.

New Scientist did a good job in that they did provide perspective for the research emphasising just how irrelevant was the Berkeley finding to many sceptical questions today. New Scientist sceptic count, three.

But, for me, the worst treatment came from Forbes. This spiteful article says that the scientific community been saying for decades that the earth is warming up? I don’t think so. It goes on;

“Indeed, even most remaining climate change skeptics and deniers have moved away from saying there is no warming. Now, their major talking points are that it isn’t caused by humans, or only a little bit, or it won’t be bad, or we can’t afford to fix it, or… Denial is a moving target.”

This prejudiced, intolerant and inaccurate, article completely misrepresents sceptical views, and is a good example of the problem facing the debate about climate science within and without of the scientific community. We must surely rise above such sour and divisive comments that have no place in scientific discourse. The author is in an old sterile paradigm that is inherently anti-science, and is more of the problem facing progress than some at the extreme end of climate scepticism.

Trivial Headlines

There are very few people who do not believe the world hasn’t warmed, in various episodes, since the instrumental record began about 150 years ago. We are today warmer than the Little Ice Age, warmer than the Victorian Era, indeed warmer than the 1970s. The proper question is, of course, why? The Berkeley team have no conclusions about this.

So all the headlines that basically say sceptics have been trounced because the world really is warming are trivial. The Berkeley team confirm what has been found in three other datasets and what “both sides” of the debate already agree on. I could say “so what,” and “is it news?” Well, news is what reporters print.

There are significant questions about the research however. Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre say they have found some serious issues that will no doubt come out in due course.

The 39,000 or so weather stations cover 29% of the planet and a third of them showed no warming over the 60-year period under consideration, indeed they showed cooling. How does the distribution of these two sub-sets of data compare? One would not expect global warming to be even across the globe (indeed most of it seems to take place in the Arctic) but if the cooling stations were well mixed in with the warming stations geographically then that would be interesting. The Berkeley researchers interpolate temperatures between stations and I wonder if the cooling stations fit into this interpolation? Indeed, perhaps one way to look at the data would be that only a third of weather stations (the difference between the warmers and the coolers) contribute to the final conclusion. To my mind that’s a very different stance from saying that two-thirds of temperature stations show warming.

Other things that emerge from the data is that it confirms that the Nasa Giss dataset is anomalously high with respect to the other datasets especially in the past decade. Thus we should be careful, as I have said previously, about claiming temperature records based on Nasa Giss data alone.

The data also confirm the post-2000 standstill, Nigel Calder has noted this. Looking at the data I do not agree with the study’s lead author that the recent standstill is not present in the data.

The British government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, stressed that the study needed to

be peer-reviewed before being factored in to the debate, but that if it was found to be correct, it would conform with US work at NASA and NOAA and that of Phil Jones and his colleagues at the UK Hadley Center-UEA Climatic Research Unit. “This work adds to the evidence about how climate change is happening,” he said.

Actually the researchers say they cannot say how global warming is happening just that it is, though one could be charitable and say that Sir John’s comments about how global warming is happening might refer to geospatial data, but refer to my previous comments about that.

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, director at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, said he hoped that if and when the study was peer reviewed and published, the focus could shift to “the implications for the future of this warming rather than wrangling over whether the warming is really there.”

I hope not. The implications for the future must be framed in the context of our understanding of what is actually going on. That should be the next focus.

But there is something really important in one of the four papers issued by the Berkeley team, and a considerable irony that it has been missed by all reporters and commentators.

If you do something that most of the reporters haven’t done, and usually never do, study the research paper itself (why bother when there is a press release) you will find something remarkable.

“Human Component Overstated”

The findings of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project are important because they emphasise the growing realisation that science has underplayed the unknowns and uncertainties in the attribution of the causes of recent climate change. Without doubt, the data compiled and the analysis undertaken, by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project is unambiguous evidence that the root causes of global warming are poorly understood.

The researchers find a strong correlation between North Atlantic temperature cycles lasting decades, and the global land surface temperature. They admit that the influence in recent decades of oceanic temperature cycles has been unappreciated and may explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place, stating the possibility that the “human component of global warming may be somewhat overstated.”

There is the headline missed by all: Scientists say human component of global warming may be overstated.

Why isn’t it there? It’s just as valid as the headlines used, scientifically more interesting and journalistically light-years better than what has been reported.

The BBC did mention the North Atlantic decadal oscillation aspect of the story saying, “The Berkeley group says it has also found evidence that changing sea temperatures in the north Atlantic may be a major reason why the Earth’s average temperature varies globally from year to year.” But it then fails to explain what this means and gets itself into a twist and doesn’t mention the conclusion reached by the Berkeley researchers.

Now, here’s the irony, the Berkeley team are actually sceptics about the matter where the real debate lies – the question of the mix of human and natural contributions to the recent warming. Now why didn’t any of these “reporters” pick up on that?

Why was this nugget missed or ignored? It is because environmental reporters are too obsessed with bashing sceptics, and reading press releases, than in reporting science.

Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org

0 0 votes
Article Rating
104 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 21, 2011 10:30 am

“adding that it can find no evidence of a heat island effect”
It could be me, but watching a small documentary on NHK-World about the huge stormdrains under Tokyo (http://www.michaeljohngrist.com/2009/04/g-cans-underground-temple-saitama/) that should be able to cope with the increased rainfall in the Kanto-area because of … wait for it … increased urban heat. A urban heat island as they call it at the NHK.

daveburton
October 21, 2011 10:44 am

The way the press has been reporting on the BEST reports reminds me of a song…
Spin, spin, spin (not to be confused with turn, turn turn)

Sun Spot
October 21, 2011 10:47 am

Did Berkeley prove CO2 based positive climate feedback that will cause runaway global warming ? If they didn’t than what’s all this hand waving about ??

Jeremy
October 21, 2011 10:48 am

Where do they say this, btw? I’ve searched their papers, I’ve searched their press release. I can’t find this statement from BEST.

October 21, 2011 10:52 am

“world has warmed in the last 150 years”
Actually, since 1860 world has warmed, cooled, warmed, cooled, warmed and now is cooling again. If you put a linear trend through y=sin/x/ starting at -p/2 to 21/2p, it will be also positive even the function itself is not.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 21, 2011 10:59 am

Cherry picking. Everyone accuses everyone else of the practice, and now is no exception. So again, perhaps we need not to use this generic term. Perhaps “incomplete analysis” suits. The slamming of sceptics as ‘deniers of global warming’ shows just how selective the reporters are, that they don’t even check their own premises. They never review what the sceptics are saying. This is not cherry picking, this is letting the fruit rot on the tree.

Editor
October 21, 2011 11:01 am
Bad Manners
October 21, 2011 11:04 am

Let’s see how the IPCC deal with the BEST findings in the next report.
No prize for guessing correctly.

Owen
October 21, 2011 11:13 am

The globe warms and cools in cycles. These cycles have very little to do with Co2. The fact that Co2 is touted to be the cause of the warming has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science. I think anyone who believed Berkley ‘scientists’ were going to be impartial and fair minded were very naive. These people are socialists – they’ll do or say anything to eliminate democracy, capitalism and free speech. The green movement are the Leninists of the 21st century. They don’t fight fair and they’ll do anything to win. Stop thinking you are dealing with rational people, they are anything but !

October 21, 2011 11:23 am

I am ignoring whole thing. After reading their paper twice, I realised they are not experts at all, at least not on the AMO, the principal component of the paper:
Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations

JJ
October 21, 2011 11:23 am

“Their trumpeted finding is not surprising – the world has gotten warmer in recent decades – or at least the land has.”
The PR campaign is not communicating that distinction. The message sent and received is ‘global warming is confirmed’, though the paper only deals with 25% of the global.
“This is consistent with the other global temperature datasets.”
Actally it is consistent with other very similar analyses of the same dataset.
“There is the headline missed by all: Scientists say human component of global warming may be overstated. Why isn’t it there?”
Because Richard Muller is out there explicitly stating that there is no longer any good reason to be a skeptic. Typical duplicitous warmist PR – make innoucuous statements in papers that cover your ass technically, while making unsupported and sensationalist claims to the press and suborning their exaggerated conclusions.
Same old same old, just from the B-Team.

Editor
October 21, 2011 11:25 am

Temperature trends over the last 100 years for USHCN stations in Kansas show a huge amount of variability from one station to the next.
Muller’s analysis seems to accept that you can average out the mistakes, in other words 2 wrongs make a right! But how many of the “good” stations are the victims of artificial warming?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/temperature-trends-in-kansas/

Rhys Jaggar
October 21, 2011 11:26 am

What I like most about what the scientists said is that they were doing widespread dissemination in order to ‘go back to the way science used to be done, but which was banned by Science and Nature’.
That is a fairly devastating critique of those two journals and it is saying: ‘the best way to find fault in a scientific paper is to ask the maximum number of people to read it’.
I respect and applaud them for doing that.

Laurie Bowen the Troll
October 21, 2011 11:28 am

How many hairs does it take to call it a beard????

Dave in Canmore
October 21, 2011 11:31 am

“No evidence of a heat island effect?”
It’s hard to take this seriously when a thermomenter and a car seem to prove this without question! Even GISS subtracts a little for UHI don’t they?

Mike
October 21, 2011 11:32 am

Its just a travesty! I woke up this morning and it was cold before dawn. As the day advanced a gentle warming took place. I wonder why? It reminds me of many of the past 23000 odd days of my life. I still occasionally look for a climate change near me, but I’ve never see one. What I really want to see is a sudden dumping of mega snow in the Sierra to equal or exceed the dumps in the late 1840s that trapped the Donner Party. I suppose its too much to wish for.

EFS_Junior
October 21, 2011 11:33 am

“Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overstated”
Really?
The “Sceptical Berkeley Scientists” actually said the above, that “Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overstated”?
Because I can not find that exact quote anywhere within the *.edu or the *.org domains, except at only one place, the GWPF!
🙁
This quote is nowhere to be found in the Berkeley PR statement dated 2011-10-20.
Who of the “Sceptical Berkeley Scientists” actually said this exact quote?
When was this quote actually stated by the “Sceptical Berkeley Scientists”?
Where was this qoute actually stated by the “Sceptical Berkeley Scientists”?
What did the “Sceptical Berkeley Scientists” actually say?
Why did the “Sceptical Berkeley Scientists” make this quote?
How did the “Sceptical Berkeley Scientists” make this quote?
Or is this just something that someone made up purely much out of thin air, you know by the GWPF.
Same goes for the “Sceptical” moniker, this may have once been true, but it is no longer a true statement, as BEST has confirmed all previous “official” surface temperature reconstructions.
A much more accurate headline for this post would be;
“Berkeley Scientists Confirm Human Component Of Global Warming”
REPLY: And despite your whiny objections, it stays, tough noogies junior. Complain to Whitehouse and GWPF, but please do shut up about my accurately reproducing the article as they requested.
http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4161-sceptical-berkeley-scientists-say-human-component-of-global-warming-may-be-somewhat-overstated.html
– Anthony

Laurie Bowen
October 21, 2011 11:33 am

M.A.Vukcevic: I really really really like your site . . .

Dave in Canmore
October 21, 2011 11:39 am

I just read their methodology for disproving UHI. Its hard to believe this research could be possible AT ALL without doing a single experiment in the real world, or without even leaving your desk!
Fail

RHS
October 21, 2011 11:39 am

I’m more surprised by the fact there is a Berkeley Scientist who is a skeptic than anything else!

Neo
October 21, 2011 11:40 am

If we assume that the BEST study holds up, there are lots of questions left unanswered.
First, the 39,000 or so weather stations cover 29% of the planet and a third of them showed no warming over the 60-year period under consideration, indeed they showed cooling. Why is Global Warming so uneven ?
Second, the study claimed there is no “Urban Heat Island.” To a certain degree this is a side topic, but frankly, we can’t have this UHI/noUHI discrepancy being used on all sides of the arguments. UHI has be used as “scientific fact” to force modifications to building codes. If it doesn’t exist, how is it scientific fact ?
Third, how much of this warming is man made ?
Which leads us to the most important question … what can we do ? Can we stop it ? .. or do we have to live with it ? .. or mix of both ?
In a recent Congressional hearing, an Administration EPA official indicated that the present plans for CO2 controls, expected to cost billions for the project 250,000+ enforcement employees, and trillions for industry and taxpayers, will have “no effect” on global temperatures.
We could prevent thousands, perhaps millions, of rapes and murders with that much money. Is it worth it if it has “no effect” ?

October 21, 2011 11:45 am

Jeremy, near the end of paper 4 they say
On the other hand, some of the long–‐term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.

Bruce
October 21, 2011 11:46 am

I have a TEST for BEST.
We know USA 1934 was manipulated downwards by Hansen GISS.
If USA 1934 is still the warmest year, then I might look at the rest of their data.
If it isn’t, it isn’t believable,

October 21, 2011 11:47 am

EFS_Junior says:
“Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overstated”
Really?
The “Sceptical Berkeley Scientists” actually said the above, that “Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overstated”?
Because I can not find that exact quote anywhere…”
It’s right in the very first link, doofus. Don’t you have anything better to do than nitpick?

Bruce
October 21, 2011 11:48 am

Another TEST for BEST.
NASA says 7-9C UHI in the USA Northeast. Does that show up in their results?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html

JeffC
October 21, 2011 11:51 am

the Berkely team is simply warmists in skeptic sheeps clothing … why would they release their un-reviewed paper to be blasted across the world otherwise ?

EFS_Junior
October 21, 2011 11:54 am

REPLY: And despite your whiny objections, it stays, tough noogies junior. Complain to Whitehouse and GWPF, but please do shut up about my accurately reproducing the article. – Anthony
_______________________________________________________________________________
We do have a quote though, don’t we?
With no attribution to anyone or any group of people whatsoever.
Generated from the GWPF and NOT the Berkeley scientists themselves.
In other words a ficticious quote, as in something that is patently false.
Those are the EXACT facts as I understand them to be until such time as I am proven wrong.
Just setting the record straight for those of us who just happen to be true skeptics.

Voice of Reason
October 21, 2011 11:55 am

Thanks Anthony Watts for highlighting an often overlooked point: Climate realists aren’t denying that the world has warmed, but the question of human involvement is still out there. I mean, just because hundreds of government institutions, corporations, scientific and professional organizations—not to mention non-profits—have all made statements affirming their stance that global warming is a man-made phenomenon (see list below), doesn’t mean anything. Note that even the likes of Chevron, American International Group, Alcoa, Xcel Energy and General Motors are all on board with the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Clearly all these different organizations with varying interests are conspiring to agree that climate change is real and human-caused.
National Religious Coalition on Creation Care
350.org
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências
Academié des Sciences, France
AccademiadeiLincei, Italy
Adidas
AirFrance
Alcoa
Alliance for Climate Education
Alstom
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Wildlife Veternarians
American Astronomical Society
American Baptist Churches USA
American Chemical Society
American Council on Science and Health
American Electric Power (AEP)
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American International Group
American Lung Association
American Meteorological Society
American Museum of Natural History
American Physical Society
American Psychological Association
American Public Health Association
American Quarterly Association
American Rivers
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Landscape Architects
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
American Statistical Association
American Water
American Water Works Association
Aspen Global Change Institute
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bayer
Ben & Jerry’s
Biofuelwatch
Boeing
Botanical Society of America
British Airways
Burlington Electric Department
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA)
Carbonfund.org
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for New American Security
Central Appalachian Network
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Chevron
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Church of the Brethren General Board
Citi
Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Citizens Climate Lobby
Clean Air Cool Planet
Climate and Health Council
Climate Communication
Climate Institute
Climate Literacy Network
Coalition for Clean Air
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life
Committee on Climate Change (UK)
ConAgra Foods
Conservation Law Foundation
Constellation Energy
Continental Airlines
Cool California
Copenhagen Accord (Representatives of 112 countries and the E.U, including the U.S)
Coral Reef Alliance
Covenant of Mayors
Crop Science Society of America
CUIPO
David Suzuki Foundation
Dell
Department for International Development (DFID)
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
Department of Ecology, State of Washington
Department of Energy and Climate Change (UK)
DeSmogBlog
Deutsche Akademie der NaturforscherLeopoldina, Germany
Directgov (Uk)
Dole
Dow Chemical
Dupont
Duracell
Earth Charter Initiative
Earthjustice
Eco-Justice Collaborative
EcoHealth Alliance
EcoLogic Development Fund
Ecological Society of America
Endangered Species International
Environment America
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Law Alliance World Wide
EPA (Ireland)
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Environment Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Exxon Mobil
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (Science and Technology Australia)
Food and Agriculture Organization
Ford Motor Company
Friends of the Earth
Fujitsu
General Electric
General Motors
Genworth Life Insurance
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
GlaxoSmithKline
Global Citizen Corps
Green America
Greenfacts
Greenpeace International
Health and Environment Alliance
Health Care Without Harm
Honda
HP
IBM Global Services
Ikea
Indian National Science Academy, India
Institute of Biology (UK) (Society of Biology)
InterAcademy Council
InterAction
International Council of Nurses
International Council on Mining and Metals (representing 19 member companies and 30 member associations)
International Crisis Group
International Doctors for the Environment
International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations
International Monetary Fund
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
International Union for Quaternary Research
Johnson Controls
Kimberly-Clark
KyotoUSA
League of Conservation Voters
Lego
Levi Strauss & Co.
LG
Light Blue Line
Madison Gas & Electric
Marine Bio
Merck
Motorola
Munich Re
NASA
National Academy of Sciences, U.S.
National Audubon Society
National Environmental Trust
National Park Service
National Resource Defense Council
National Science Foundation
National Snow and Ice Data Center
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Nature Canada
New Mexico Solar Energy Association
News Corporation Europe and Asia
Oceana
Ohio Environmental Council
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
Oil Change International
Open Source Systems, Science, Solutions (OSS)
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Oxfam International
Pacific Environment
Parliament of Australia
Pembina Institute (Canada)
PepsiCo
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Presidents’ Climate Commitment (670 colleges and universities)
Procter & Gamble
Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Public Citizen
Rainforest Action Network
RealClimate
Reformed Church of America
REI
RioTinto
Rolls-Royce
Root Capital
Royal Bank of Scotland
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society, U.K.
Russian Academy of Sciences
SAB Miller
Safe Climate Campaign
Samsung
Save Our Seas Foundation
Science Council of Japan
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
Shaklee
Sierra Club
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sony
Standing Committee of European Doctors
Stop Global Warming Virtual March
Suncor (Canada)
Surfrider
Syngenta
T-mobile (UK)
Target
Tennessee Valley Authority
Thames Water
The Aldo Leopold Foundation
The Climate Group
The Episcopal Church
The Evangelical Climate Initiative
The Humane Society
The Nature Conservancy
The Ocean Foundation
The United Kingdom Environmental Change Network
The White House
The Wildlife Society
Timberland (UK)
Time for Change
Time’s UP!
Toyota
U-Haul
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Unilever
Union of Concerned Scientists
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Methodist Church
United Nations, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
United States Global Change Research Program
United Utilities (UK)
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
UPS
US Agency for International Development
US Arctic Research Commission
US Department of Transportation
US Global Change Research Program
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
World Bank Group
World Council of Churches
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Medical Association
World Meteorological Organization
World Nuclear Association
Xcel Energy

October 21, 2011 11:57 am

Laurie Bowen says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:33 am
M.A.Vukcevic: I really really really like your site . .
Hmmm.., that is a bit of a surprise, half of the things are not there and for the rest, even I have difficulty in locating my own work, but thanks anyway…

Evil Denier
October 21, 2011 12:03 pm

Mr Watts
You may occasionally sound irascible (I don’t blame you!) but please understand that most of your denizens (and 97% – to coin a phrase) of lurkers appreciate what you do.
FWIW, I was subjected to a formal diagnosis – profoundly deaf (fortunately only above 1MHz). Doesn’t compare, but I do understand.

Farley X Wilbur
October 21, 2011 12:05 pm

[Snip. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

October 21, 2011 12:06 pm

“adding that it can find no evidence of a heat island effect”
I have a thermometer on my car. Almost EVERY time I drive into a city the temperature goes up between 1 to 5 degrees celsius. That happens at least 19 times of twenty. Denying UHI is, well, a travesty.

Bill Illis
October 21, 2011 12:08 pm

I agree with Muller’s comments regarding the AMO. The BEST team says that they were not trying to ascribe attribution to the temperature trend (such as human-caused global warming) but then one of their papers comes right out and says the cyclical AMO is strongly correlated. Is that not exactly what the Berkeley Earth Decadal Variations paper is all about, attribution to ocean cycles.
And then there is a big problem with their understanding regarding the ENSO. First, they did not take into account the 3 month lag (why not) and then they noted there were both positive and negative correlations between temperature and the ENSO.
But their correlation map (Figure 6) is exactly how the ENSO operates. It has different impacts in different regions and the correlation map is essentially dead-on what was previously known. Some place get more rain and some places get less rain when there is a La Nina (and opposite when there is an El Nino). Some places are warmer and some places are cooler when there is a La Nina (and opposite when there is an El Nino). The correlation map shows these previously known patterns exactly. So their dismissal or downplaying of the ENSO is off-base.

Berényi Péter
October 21, 2011 12:09 pm

“The urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise. That’s because the urban regions of the Earth amount to less than 1% of the land area.”
They should look harder than that. It is a well established fact that for high enough population densities each doubling of this density contributes 0.25-0.27 °C to local warming. That is, the relation is logarithmic.
The big (and unanswered) scientific question is what level of population density counts as high enough in this respect. That is, what is the population density below which this logarithmic dependence breaks down?
If it is significantly lower than the lowermost population density measured in the most densely populated 1% of land surface, their proposition simply does not make sense. But that question was not even asked.
We do know, that population of the entire Earth has doubled almost twice during the last century. Therefore, if logarithmic dependence of UHI on local population density extends to sparsely populated areas, effect of UHI alone should be ~0.5 °C in this particular time period, which is a rather significant portion of the entire warming observed.
Or it may be the case that in an area with low population density, doubling has no effect on local temperature, but if it is so, it should be still proven. What is more, the accurate form of the population density – temperature anomaly function should be determined and quantified. That’s the way science is done, not by hand-waving.

JJ
October 21, 2011 12:10 pm

The B-Team did not “release” their unreviewed paper, they advertised, publicised, hyped, and made exaggerated claims for their unreviewed paper.
The problem isn’t that they provided access to the paper and the data before review, the problem is that they have based a component of an obviously coordinated global warming PR campaign on their unreviewed paper.

Evil Denier
October 21, 2011 12:13 pm

Sorry – get my units right: 1kHz.
Depend heavily on lip-reading – esp. females. Too many cartridges, too close. And the big guns.

October 21, 2011 12:15 pm

In my experience, the Guardian and the truth are only rarely on the same page – and they are complete strangers to reality!

sharper00
October 21, 2011 12:15 pm

For people wondering where the quote comes from, it’s
“Given that the 2-15 year variations in world temperature are so closely linked to the
AMO raises (or re-raises) an important ancillary issue: to what extent does the 65-70
year cycle in AMO contribute to the global average temperature change? (Enfield,
2006; Zhang et al., 2007; Kerr, 1984.) Since 1975, the AMO has shown a gradual but
steady rise from -0.35 C to +0.2 C (see Figure 2), a change of 0.55 C. During this same
time, the land-average temperature has increased about 0.8 C. Such changes may be
independent responses to a common forcing (e.g. greenhouse gases); however, it is
also possible that some of the land warming is a direct response to changes in the
AMO region. If the long-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases
then the AMO region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of
greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the long-term change in
the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline
flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat
overestimated

I note that the gwpf is slicing up the quote mid-sentence to make it seem like a conclusion when they’re simply raising a possibility. Another possibility they raise is that the AMO is acting as an amplification of the greenhouse effect.
I also find no support whatsoever for this statement
“They admit that the influence in recent decades of oceanic temperature cycles has been unappreciated and may explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place”
They simply note that a part of the AMO change may be driven by natural variability and that in turn may contribute to a portion of the warming can in no way be represented as “explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place”.

Bruce
October 21, 2011 12:20 pm

A visual guide to UHI in Paris. (From the NASA page I referenced earlier)
5C nighttime UHI.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/505100main_Fig3.JPG

Pete Olson
October 21, 2011 12:23 pm

Somebody tell them to go back and look hard at this sentence: “There are very few people who do not believe the world hasn’t warmed…”

Ken
October 21, 2011 12:28 pm

Could it be because you leave home in the morning and arrive in the city for work after the sun has been shining for an extra hour?

October 21, 2011 12:29 pm

Voice of Reason [snicker!],
So you found some talking points. If you subtracted every organization that stands to financially benefit from the CAGW scare, your list would start and stop at zero.
Contrast those corporate and eco rent-seekers with the 30,000+ professionals with degrees in the hard sciences [including over 9,000 PhD’s] who signed the following statement:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

So who are you gonna believe? Greedy rent-seekers, or independent scientists? Only a dope would believe the former are legit. [Also glad to see you get your authority from U-Haul.☺]

Jeremy
October 21, 2011 12:30 pm

John Page says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:45 am
Jeremy, near the end of paper 4 they say
…In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.

Now I know why I didn’t find it. I was searching for “overstated”

Steven Kopits
October 21, 2011 12:33 pm

Why is more heat bad? In our household in New Jersey, I have noticed that the family members complain about the cold, not the heat. I suspect we’d be very pleased if average temps were 2-4 degrees higher.

More Soylent Green!
October 21, 2011 12:34 pm

Voice of Reason says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:55 am

I’m going to create some boilerplate text to reply to your post (where do you keep your boilerplate) and any other post that repeats that meaningless twaddle.
I’ll just summarize:
1) Science is not determined by consensus or committee! Science is determined by fact.
2) “It’s true because so-and-so [insert your favorite authority here] says so” isn’t science, either.

freds
October 21, 2011 12:41 pm

Jeremy, and others.
The quote from the Berkeley scientists is:
“On the other hand, some of the long-­‐term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”
and it can be found here:
http://www.berkeleyEarth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations
Dr Whitehouse is accurate.

Jeremy
October 21, 2011 12:44 pm

EFS_Junior says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:54 am
We do have a quote though, don’t we?
With no attribution to anyone or any group of people whatsoever.
Generated from the GWPF and NOT the Berkeley scientists themselves.
In other words a ficticious quote, as in something that is patently false.
Those are the EXACT facts as I understand them to be until such time as I am proven wrong.
You’re wrong:

“On the other hand, some of the long-term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”
Page 12, 2nd paragraph, last sentence of:
Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures
Richard A. Muller, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Robert Rohde, Arthur Rosenfeld, Charlotte Wickham, Jonathan Wurtele
Not Yet Published

October 21, 2011 12:46 pm

@EFS_Junior
The “human component” quote originated with the Berkeley Earth team. It comes from page 12 of “Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures”, available as a PDF download here.

Rhys Jaggar
October 21, 2011 12:58 pm

The key issue the paper raises are the possible reasons for AMO variations in the past decades.
They offer the following possibilities:
1. Greenhouse gases independently cause AMO alterations and land-based warming.
2. Greenhouse gases alter AMO and this drives land-based warming.
3.Alterations in the thermohaline circulatory flow drive AMO alterations,thereby driving land-based warming.
They do not state which is correct, hence what they are saying is that if the AMO changes are driven by circulatory flow patterns of the worlds’ oceans, then human-based warming may have been overstated.
So they’re saying it MAY have been overstated, not definitely HAS been.
Typical cautious scientists not wishing to ascribe mechanisms when their research has not addressed it.
The way I read the paper is that they have extended the sorts of analyses done by Joe D’Aleo in the past. With the exception that they have not correlated temperature measurements with carbon dioxide, which he did, finding it to have far less correlation to temperatures than the oceanic parameters he studied (PDO and AMO).

Vince Causey
October 21, 2011 1:24 pm

Voice of reason:
“Academia Brasiliera de Ciências. . . Xcel Energy.”
So what? There are millions upon millions of individuals who believe in some form of CAGW, inhabiting all walks of life. I would further suspect that those with these views are skewed towards positions of bureaucratic power. That after all is what makes a good bureaucrat – uncritical assimilation of current cultural memes. So all you have shown is the obvious – bureaucrats are great at toeing the line.

More Soylent Green!
October 21, 2011 1:27 pm

Berényi Péter says:
October 21, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“The urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise. That’s because the urban regions of the Earth amount to less than 1% of the land area.”

This misses the point entirely. It’s not how much of the land area is affected, but whether the stations used to calculate the average land temperature are being disproportionally affected by the UHI effect. Are more than 1% of the stations subject to UHIE? If we only use those stations where UHIE is not a factor, are the results the same?
When I read statements like those above, it makes me wonder about the people making the statement. Do they not understand, or are they throwing out strawman arguements in order to misdirect.

Gareth
October 21, 2011 2:18 pm

I’m an engineer and like to do a quick bit of verification of important stuff (like before I spout off about it down the pub). So I too did a search for “human component of global warming may be somewhat overstated” (as quoted above) and didn’t find it anywhere in the papers. Turns out that the actual quote is “… may be somewhat **overestimated*** ” so you wouldnt find it by a word search. Not an earth shattering difference, but a difference and inaccurate in a minor way. But not “nit picking”, and even if it were, pointing out the discrepancy should not result in ad homonym attacks and name calling as seen a couple of times above. You don’t advance the cause of truth by the sort of tactics that have been seen coming out of the AGW camp.

Steve McIntyre
October 21, 2011 2:22 pm

I told the Nature reporter that I have never had any doubt that it is warmer now than in the 19th century.
I commented on one replication issue – the BEST assertion that, using the Anthony Watts classification, the trends at “good” USHCN stations was higher than the trends at “bad” USHCN stations. I attempted to replicate this aspect of the analysis and got an opposite result.
I have not had time to examine their procedures for combining temperatures.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
October 21, 2011 2:24 pm

There should not be any interpolating of data from multiple sources. It creates virtual data that often does not correspond to reality, ie. cooling rural areas between two warming urban stations.

Dave Bob
October 21, 2011 2:29 pm

More Soylent Green has nailed it, re the confusion and disagreement about UHI.

Tim Clark
October 21, 2011 2:36 pm

“Voice of Reason says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:55 am”
You are blowing smoke out your arse. I’m a member in good standing with two of those organizations, read each journal faithfully, and have NEVER seen a survey, seen results of a survey, or seen any documentation whatsoever of ANY involvement of my professional organizations in the greatest farce of all time.
Prove each of those on your list or they are just a useless list; like toilet paper, kleenex, handsoap, hairbrush, facecloth, bathtub, etc and the list needs flushed in the room wherein the articles on my list reside.

Jeremy
October 21, 2011 2:39 pm

No Mea Culpa Junior?
poor form.

Steve Jones
October 21, 2011 2:42 pm

Voice of Reason’s list of organisations that believe man has caused climate change is very impressive. If Lego says climate change is man made then climate change is man made – end of…

Latitude
October 21, 2011 2:50 pm

Voice of Reason says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:55 am
Clearly all these different organizations with varying interests are conspiring to agree that climate change is real and human-caused.
========================================
LEGO???
Surfrider???
…..You left out Victoria’s Secret and Hustler

JJ
October 21, 2011 3:03 pm

EFS_Junior:
“Really?
The “Sceptical Berkeley Scientists” actually said the above, that “Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overstated”?
Because I can not find that exact quote anywhere within the *.edu or the *.org domains, except at only one place, the GWPF!”

Help us out. Is your point thart you are lazy and inattentive, or that you are a pedantic nit-picker?
I dont think you’ll get much disagreement either way, but it is always nice to be specific.

Stephen Wilde
October 21, 2011 3:08 pm

“3.Alterations in the thermohaline circulatory flow drive AMO alterations,thereby driving land-based warming.”
Just raising that possibilty opens up a whole can of worms.
The length of the THC is estimated between 1000 and 1500 years presumably with multiple exit and entry points to skew the outcomes in different regions over time.
It has also been proposed by AGW supporters that some of the so called ‘missing heat’ has gone to the depths.
So combining the Berkeley comment and the warmist excuse for missing heat (one of several) we have a probability that current ocean SSTs are at least partially affected by retrurning warmth (and reduced CO2 absorption capability) from the MWP.
The whole CO2 based climate diagnosis is getting messier and less settled by the day.

October 21, 2011 3:50 pm

Regardless of CO2 the study proves and proves well that the world is getting abnormally warm. The real question is the “why” and personally I am disappointed in our legislators trying to hide the answers to this question. If republicans/conservatives are so certain that it is not CO2 emissions and that everyone saying otherwise is lying then why doesn’t our party take the next step and scientifically prove that it is not the increase of CO2 emissions that corresponds with the increase in abnormal global temperature patterns? The attack on “climate science” from the Right is honestly absurd… the Right should be embracing the science. Yet for some reason bills and legislation to collect more data and come to an educated conclusion are being shot down by our representitives right and left. For example, why have we not launched the DSCOVR satellite mission? The Deep Space Climate Observatory was designed to determine exactly what effect carbon might or might not have on the global climate however the satellite has been sitting in storage for the past decade because the GOP have blocked any attempts to launch it. Just this year the house Department of Commerce appropriations bill declined to provide the mere 47million needed to launch the observatory, no explanation was provided as to why. Back in 2004 the Ukraine offered to launch the satellite for US, free of charge, then they offered to BUY the satellite. Bush said “no thanks.”
Seriously, the satellite has already been built, taxpayer dollars have already been spent and the observatory can only provide the data that our current systems lack. If the GOP knows the truth why do the fear testing it so much?

stevo
October 21, 2011 4:18 pm

“The number of sceptics included in the article is zero.”
And why should it be any higher? The views of those who call themselves sceptics on this issue are fringe and do not merit widespread exposure.

Bruce
October 21, 2011 4:45 pm

Wow.
Steve McIntyre: “I commented on one replication issue – the BEST assertion that, using the Anthony Watts classification, the trends at “good” USHCN stations was higher than the trends at “bad” USHCN stations. I attempted to replicate this aspect of the analysis and got an opposite result.

Mycroft
October 21, 2011 4:50 pm

Could some please enlighten me has to how a trace gas in the atmosphere at 390ppmv distributed
unevenly across the globe, could alter the AMO??

Archonix
October 21, 2011 4:56 pm

james31415 says:
James, your initial premise is flawed. The world is not “abnormally warm” and has been much warmer in both the recent and distant past. Much colder too. Following from that false premise, everything else you say is also mistaken.
Yes, temperatures appear to be rising. They also now appear to be static. They may rise, they may fall. This proves nothing, except that temperatures may rise and fall.

George Daddis
October 21, 2011 5:02 pm

James; the study verifies that the global temperatures have increased. Can you cite where it says the increase is “abnormal”? What skeptic/realist contends that temperatures have not increased in the last 150 years? Did you read Steve McIntyre’s comment above?
Have you plotted the recent increase in CO2 vs temperature? Where is the correlation (never mind causation).
The burden of empirical proof is on those claiming CO2 is the culprit. (A somewhat facetious parallel is that I would object to my tax dollars being spent to disprove astrological predictions.)
The claim that the US government is suppressing the impact of CO2 on temperatures is absurd (see Hansen, Jackson, Erlich, Chu et al).

stevo
October 21, 2011 5:25 pm

“Could some please enlighten me has to how a trace gas in the atmosphere at 390ppmv distributed unevenly across the globe, could alter the AMO??”
By altering the thermal balance of the atmosphere and oceans. It’s not hard to understand if you read up about it. The concentration of a substance rarely if ever tells you anything about the potency of the substance, and CO2 is distributed very evenly, with concentrations varying by less than 2% worldwide.
I hope you feel enlightened now.

October 21, 2011 5:44 pm

Bruce,
Perhaps you could enlighten us with a link to the McIntyre quote. A google search for it with and w/o quotes pulled up a blank.
[Reply: Read the comments before commenting. It will save you embarrassment. ~dbs, mod.]

Jimmy Haigh
October 21, 2011 6:14 pm

stevo says:
October 21, 2011 at 4:18 pm
[SNIP: We’re just not using the term. Sorry. -REP]

Editor
October 21, 2011 6:15 pm

Evil Denier says:
October 21, 2011 at 12:13 pm
> Sorry – get my units right: 1kHz.
That’s better, well, significant. I was wondering what you paid to be told you couldn’t hear above 1 Mhz!

StuartMcL
October 21, 2011 6:28 pm

Rattus Norvegicus says:
October 21, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Bruce
Perhaps you could enlighten us with a link to the McIntyre quote. A google search for it with and w/o quotes pulled up a blank.
==================================================================
This thread. Look at Steve’s post about 12 before Bruce’s

Roger Knights
October 21, 2011 6:43 pm

“The urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise. That’s because the urban regions of the Earth amount to less than 1% of the land area.”

And airports account for only .001% of the land area. But 10% (per my SWAG) of climatologists’ thermometers.
Surely I shouldn’t have to point this out to them. Surely they’ve read enough contrarian comments to realize that “Urban” encompasses airports.
Or maybe they’ve read only the published literature, or believers’ sophistical dismissals, and figured there’s no need to delve deeper.

Bill Illis
October 21, 2011 6:55 pm

The AMO is a detrended index (the raw data has a upward trend and to separate its cyclical component from what might be a global warming signal, the trend is removed – I fully agree with this process).
Let’s then compare the detrended AMO to the detrended Hadcrut3 (removing the slight 0.045C per decade trend which both have). And then let’s not smooth the ____ of out both series the way BEST did and just use the monthly anomalies for both so that valuable climate variability information is not lost.
They are the same line (from 1871 – when the AMO values becomes a reliable measure – to May 2011 when I did this chart). So, either, global temperatures follow the cyclical AMO trend to the T, or the AMO merely reflects what global temperatures are really doing (as in it is the best indicator of global temperatures). I cannot answer the question of which one is true, but, darn, they are almost exactly the same line by month.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/9449/hacrut3detrendedandthea.png

Stephen Wilde
October 21, 2011 7:30 pm

They admit that “the influence in recent decades of oceanic temperature cycles has been unappreciated and may explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place” stating the possibility that the “human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”
You heard it here first, back in May 2008:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1302&linkbox=true&position=9
“The Real Link Between Solar Energy Ocean Cycles and Global Temperature”.

JJ
October 21, 2011 8:16 pm

james31415 says:
October 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Regardless of CO2 the study proves and proves well that the world is getting abnormally warm.

Nonsense. This study says nothing about the world, nor about anything abnormal. It is only about land surface temperatures (<25% of the world) and provides no assertion that anything "abnormal" has occurred, let alone any proof of that.
It is fascinating watching warmists' rorschachs.

gbaikie
October 21, 2011 8:18 pm

“I mean, just because hundreds of government institutions, corporations, scientific and professional organizations—not to mention non-profits—have all made statements affirming their stance that global warming is a man-made phenomenon (see list below), doesn’t mean anything. ”
Of course it mean something. It means there are a lot idiots out there.
It’s also additional evidence of a shoddy educational system.

gbaikie
October 21, 2011 8:22 pm

““adding that it can find no evidence of a heat island effect”
I have a thermometer on my car. Almost EVERY time I drive into a city the temperature goes up between 1 to 5 degrees celsius. That happens at least 19 times of twenty. Denying UHI is, well, a travesty.”
Interesting, where do you live?
I bet it’s not in northern region and has low rainfall, and not normally very cloudy.

October 21, 2011 10:13 pm

Voice of Reason
Thanks for the long gravy train list. Money does talk and cause a long line to form with hands open for cash.

October 21, 2011 10:17 pm

May be somewhat overstated, or grossly overstated?
Freeman Dyson says grossly:

kim;)
October 21, 2011 11:00 pm

Whoa Ponys – http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations
Do a word search for “overestimate”
Junior you’ve been schooled

EFS_Junior
October 21, 2011 11:37 pm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/sceptical-berkeley-scientists-say-human-component-of-global-warming-may-be-somewhat-overstated/#comment-774133
Agreed.
Taking an out-of-context speculation and turning it into an established scientific fact, that is what I really like about WUWT?
Really.

John B
October 22, 2011 6:24 am

I think EFS_Junior is due an apology. Anthony’s headline said “overstated”, whereas the quote actually says “overestimated”. That’s why he or she didn’t find it. If not an apology, then at least an admission that the headline was wrong.

John B
October 22, 2011 6:40 am

vindsavfuktare says:
October 21, 2011 at 12:06 pm
“adding that it can find no evidence of a heat island effect”
I have a thermometer on my car. Almost EVERY time I drive into a city the temperature goes up between 1 to 5 degrees celsius. That happens at least 19 times of twenty. Denying UHI is, well, a travesty.
———————
Look, they are not denying UHI, they are saying they did not see evidence of a heat island effect. i.e. an effect deriving from UHI on reported global temperature trends. How can that be? A combination of urban environments being so small (~1%), sites which have been consistently urban being warmer but not showing an anomalous trend, and statistical methods that weed out problem sites, e.g. where urbanisation has taken place during the timescales being reported.
And on the point about there being disproportionately many urban temperature stations (made elsewhere in this thread), it is a red herring. The contribution of each site to the average depends on the spacing. If there are many closely spaced sites, each will contribute a very small amount. It doesn’t matter how many sites there might be in a particular city, those sites only end up contributing an average temperature for the area of that city. And so on.

October 22, 2011 6:46 am

james31415 says:
“Regardless of CO2 the study proves and proves well that the world is getting abnormally warm.”
james31415, go sit in the corner. Don’t forget to put on the dunce cap.
John B says:
“I think EFS_Junior is due an apology.”
John B, go sit with james.
Jeremy says:
“No Mea Culpa Junior?
poor form.”
Exactly right. Junior was proved wrong, and owes an apology.

Jeremy
October 22, 2011 6:59 am

james31415 says:
October 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Regardless of CO2 the study proves and proves well that the world is getting abnormally warm.

Absolute nonsense right there. These papers prove no such thing. First you would need to define normal 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order global temperature in order to be able to say anything about that. No one alive has that information. Second, you would need to be able to measure 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order temperature on a global scale to a reasonable noise level. That capability does not exist.
Define “normal” temperature value/change/acceleration before you declare anything abnormal sir.

John B
October 22, 2011 7:15 am

If EFS_Junior needs to apologise for anything, it is assuming that David Whitehouse, or whowever wrote the OP here was accurate. The OP says “overstated”, four times. The article at GWPF accurately quotes BEST as saying “overestimated”. If you search for “overstated”, you will not turn up the BEST papers, or even the GWPF article.
Why the change of wording?
And, in any case, this is a case of egregious quote mining. GWPF quote, “human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.” Here is the quote in context:
“If the long­-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases then the AMO region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the long-­term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”
It is a speculation, not a conclusion. Very different!

October 22, 2011 7:42 am

Repeated for effect: Archonix says:
“james31415 says:
“James, your initial premise is flawed. The world is not “abnormally warm” and has been much warmer in both the recent and distant past. Much colder too. Following from that false premise, everything else you say is also mistaken.
“Yes, temperatures appear to be rising. They also now appear to be static. They may rise, they may fall. This proves nothing, except that temperatures may rise and fall.”
james31415 says:
“Back in 2004 the Ukraine offered to launch the satellite for US, free of charge, then they offered to BUY the satellite. Bush said ‘no thanks.’ ”
Specific citations, please. Particularly concerning your “no, thanks” comment. There’s a little more to this than your alarmist prtopaganda asserts.

EFS_Junior
October 22, 2011 8:08 am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/sceptical-berkeley-scientists-say-human-component-of-global-warming-may-be-somewhat-overstated/#comment-774767
Anthony has the correct quotes from the ORIGINAL GWPF press release.
The GWPF ORIGINALLY misquoted the paper themselves, and GWPF have now edited the ORIGINAL press release, and have even edited the ORIGINAL quote with the correct out-of-context speculative-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-paper-itself (e. g. quote mining) word and GPWF now has it hyperlinked, which wasn’t the case with the ORIGINAL GWPF press release.
So in essence, you should be thanking me for making the GWPF rework their original misquote (although the quote, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the technical subject matter contained within said scientific paper, they’re just being speculative, in a manner typical of real scientists).

REPLY:
Thank you? Wow that’s some ego junior. Show us evidence that 1) You mailed GWPF 2) They responded specifically to your email to correct the error.
I said nothing to them. The fault of this is BEST itself, because they made these paper and press release PDF’s is some screwball way (note they don’t even have .pdf extensions in the URL) and anytime you copy/paste word out of them you get junk. Try cut/paste yourself from the paper:
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations
This is why I had to resort to screencaps to be accurate. Many other outlets will have to resort to transcribing like GWPF and with transcription, they make errors. It is juts another sloppy thing from BEST, like the spelling/citation errors I pointed out to them over a week before release they still have not fixed.
-Anthony Watts

Ed Scott
October 22, 2011 8:20 am

Robert says:
October 21, 2011 at 10:30 am
“adding that it can find no evidence of a heat island effect”
Also there is no factual evidence of an anthropogenic effect.
This whole debate began with the pronouncement, by the IPCC, that anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide was causing, or was projected to cause, harmful change in “global” temperature and/or “global” climate change, two processes controlled globally by Nature.
Along the way, the AGW advocates, unable to show a causal relationship between anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and their theory of AGW, changed the language – the name of the game – to equate normal and natural processes of Nature to be related to anthropogenic activity.
I have said repeatedly: Computer models are not reality, Nature is reality. This axiom originated several years ago in a monograph written by a French journalist after his survey of the available climate literature.
The debate should be about Carbon Dioxide, not about what Nature will do or not do or is doing.
The Big Island has been experiencing a series of earthquakes recently, with a 4+ reported this past week. If Mauna Loa blows its top, that will put a kink in CO2 measurements.

Jeremy
October 22, 2011 8:36 am

EFS_Junior says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:54 am
We do have a quote though, don’t we?
With no attribution to anyone or any group of people whatsoever.
Generated from the GWPF and NOT the Berkeley scientists themselves.
In other words a ficticious quote, as in something that is patently false.
Those are the EXACT facts as I understand them to be until such time as I am proven wrong.

You were proven wrong. The change of that single word does not change the meaning of the sentence one bit. You should own up to being proven wrong.

John B says:
October 22, 2011 at 7:15 am
If EFS_Junior needs to apologise for anything, it is assuming that David Whitehouse, or whowever wrote the OP here was accurate. The OP says “overstated”, four times. The article at GWPF accurately quotes BEST as saying “overestimated”. If you search for “overstated”, you will not turn up the BEST papers, or even the GWPF article.

Trumpeting facts and then being proven wrong is reason to apologize for trumpeting “facts”. On this board, skeptic or AGW, we own up to mistakes, even minor ones. It’s a simple thing, confess that you searched for the wrong word (as I did) and then acknowledge that a sentence with the exact same meaning exists in the BEST papers. It’s a simple thing, and it lets people move on. Drawing lines in the sand over wording on the ether of the internet serves no purpose other than to make you look like an ignorant troll.

EFS_Junior says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:33 am
A much more accurate headline for this post would be;
“Berkeley Scientists Confirm Human Component Of Global Warming”

EFS_Junior should actually apologize to the patrons of this board for having to deal with nonsense like this. None of those papers addressed anything close to the “human component” of global warming. Of course, I forget myself, and it only matters when skeptics display raw bias, not CAGW believers. Mea Culpa Junior, I did not mean to make you face your own foolishness, how dare I.

Jeremy
October 22, 2011 8:42 am

EFS_Junior says:
October 22, 2011 at 8:08 am
So in essence, you should be thanking me for making the GWPF rework their original misquote (although the quote, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the technical subject matter contained within said scientific paper, they’re just being speculative, in a manner typical of real scientists).

I posted about the lack of this quote FIRST on this thread, EFS_Junior. You should be thanking ME.
Oh I expect to much of the trolls, I really do.

otter17
October 22, 2011 10:14 am

Voice of Reason says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:55 am
Hey Voice of Reason, where did you get that list? Pretty good.
Also, is Dr. Whitehouse going to publish something in a peer reviewed journal to show that the human component of global warming is somewhat overstated? I guess wait until the BEST paper comes out of peer review to see if they end up saying that. Somehow I doubt they will say that with certainty considering the preliminary results.

Mycroft
October 22, 2011 4:44 pm

steve o
i thank you
my understanding was that CO2 was unevenly distributed globally.and that oceans heated the atmosphere not vice versa?
thanks

otter17
October 22, 2011 5:27 pm

Tim Clark says:
October 21, 2011 at 2:36 pm
“You are blowing smoke out your arse. I’m a member in good standing with two of those organizations, read each journal faithfully, and have NEVER seen a survey, seen results of a survey, or seen any documentation whatsoever of ANY involvement of my professional organizations in the greatest farce of all time.”
__________________________
Which two organizations?

October 22, 2011 6:18 pm

otter17 says:
“Hey Voice of Reason, where did you get that list? Pretty good.”
Extremely authoritative, isn’t it? I especially liked seeing U-Haul listed as one of the climate authorities.☺

Brian H
October 22, 2011 6:37 pm

Edit note:
“queue”, not “que”.
___
Some effort has been made to portray this release as “pre-publication” vetting by peers & public. Nonsense, of course. It was released with hoopla to create impressions, gather lots of supportive MSM coverage, and so on. If it is ever peer-reviewed and cleaned up, you can be sure that it will be done discretely, and do little to counter the “first impressions”. So this is actually just the cynical PR move that Anthony was fearing (not enough, at first) and was warned about.
Prof. Muller is one severely compromised academic dude.

gbaikie
October 22, 2011 6:39 pm

A combination of urban environments being so small (~1%)Look, they are not denying UHI, they are saying they did not see evidence of a heat island effect. i.e. an effect deriving from UHI on reported global temperature trends. How can that be? A combination of urban environments being so small (~1%), sites which have been consistently urban being warmer but not showing an anomalous trend, and statistical methods that weed out problem sites, e.g. where urbanisation has taken place during the timescales being reported.”
“A combination of urban environments being so small (~1%)”
About 1% means what?
Per year per decade or century?
What system of measuring temperature are you thinking of C, F, or K
20 C, 59 F, or 288.15 K which same temperature.
Since we vaguely interested in science one should use 288.15 K
1% 288 K is difference of 2.8 C.
But let’s suppose you don’t think of it scientifically,
And so what you mean by 1% is 1% of say somewhere around 20 C and so it’s .2 C increase.
If that is .2 C per year it’s 20 C per century.
Let’s suppose instead you mean per decade, a .2 C per decade is 1 C in fifty year.
Which is close to what BEST is claiming occurred during last 50 years.
But if UHI was .2 per decade it would 2 C over last Century which far more increase than what has been measure.
If instead what you meant was about 1% increase in Celsius per century or about .2 C per century
it would still be a significant factor which shouldn’t ignore by a Climate science which thinks .8 C per century is worthy of panic and trillions of dollars spent to reduce the increase by .001 C per century and could be considered sane.

peetee
October 23, 2011 2:26 pm

re: REPLY: And despite your whiny objections, it stays, tough noogies junior. Complain to Whitehouse and GWPF, but please do shut up about my accurately reproducing the article. – Anthony
Anthony, are you simply an interpreter of interpretations?

peter stone
October 23, 2011 3:43 pm

“Global warming in my evaluation is real and much of it, if not most of it, is caused by humans,” Professor Muller said in a recent speech.
http://wsutoday.wsu.edu/pages/Publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=27853&PageID=21
The BEST study wasn’t intended to look for an anthropogenic signal in climate. It was funded and mandated to look at temperature records and address the allegations of skeptics that urban heat island effects or other problems were distorting the record.
There is no urban heat island effect, and the BEST study – which was supported by prominent blog skeptics – confirmed that the NASA, HadCrut, and NOAA reconstructions are robust and scientifically credible.
Dr. Muller’s statement in his recent speech is an obvious acknowledgment that he now accepts that global warming is real and he accepts the scientific consensus that it is mostly due to humans. The “urban heat islands” myth has been ruled out, and there are no other plausible natural causes in body of peer reviewed research, such as solar activity or volcanoes that are able to explain the rapid recent warming trend.

Gail Combs
October 24, 2011 2:39 am

james31415 says:
October 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Regardless of CO2 the study proves and proves well that the world is getting abnormally warm….
Where the heck did you ever get “abnormally warm” ??
The data shows the Holocene has been rather constant and mild not warm. Take a look at the early part of the Holocene or the Eemain compared to today (right hand of graph) http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9484/lasticeageglant.png
If that is not enough evidence then consider a retreating icefield in the Swiss alps uncovered remains from the Stone Age, from Roman times and from the Middle Ages. http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article177591/Steinzeitliche_Handelswege.html and http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/16.11.2005/2178008.asp
Also see: http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm

More Soylent Green!
October 24, 2011 8:26 am

Voice of Reason says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:55 am
Thanks Anthony Watts for highlighting an often overlooked point: Climate realists aren’t denying that the world has warmed, but the question of human involvement is still out there. I mean, just because hundreds of government institutions, corporations, scientific and professional organizations—not to mention non-profits—have all made statements affirming their stance that global warming is a man-made phenomenon (see list below), doesn’t mean anything. Note that even the likes of Chevron, American International Group, Alcoa, Xcel Energy and General Motors are all on board with the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Clearly all these different organizations with varying interests are conspiring to agree that climate change is real and human-caused.

Careful, careful! I noticed some BIG OIL companies on that list.

October 24, 2011 11:53 pm

About that interesting “human component” remark. The doctrinaire Warmists are on the losing side of history, and on the losing side of the data. The older ones, like James Hansen, are nearing retirement age, and may be able to get away with continuing the old song-and-dance. But what about the younger ones?
The younger Climate Change ‘researchers’ are in a pickle. If they continue spouting the party line, some of them may end up going to jail. On the other hand, if they have a sudden epiphany about Glasnost, they’ll be ostracized by their peers. The young-uns need to steer a middle course of gradual and graceful retreat. And I take the “human component” remark as evidence of that.

%d bloggers like this: