Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
My theory is that the BEST folks must have eaten at a Hollywood Chinese restaurant. You can tell because when you eat there, an hour later you find you’re hungry for stardom.
Now that the BEST folks have demanded and received their fifteen minutes of fame before their results have gone through peer review, now that they have succeeded in deceiving many people into thinking that Muller is a skeptic and that somehow BEST has ‘proven the skeptics wrong’, now that they’ve returned to the wilds of their natural scientific habitat far from the reach of National Geographic photographers and people asking real questions, I thought I might take a look at the data itself. Media whores are always predictable and boring, but data always contains surprises. It can be downloaded from the bottom of this page, but please note that they do not show the actual results on that page, they show smoothed results. Here’s their actual un-smoothed monthly data:
Figure 1. BEST global surface temperature estimates. Gray bars show what BEST says are the 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for each datapoint.
I don’t know about you, but Figure 1 immediately made me think of the repeated claim by Michael Mann that the temperatures of the 1990s were the warmest in a thousand years.
WHAT I FIND IN THE BEST DATA
Uncertainty
I agree with William Briggs and Doug Keenan that “the uncertainty bands are too narrow”. Please read the two authors to see why.
I thought of Mann’s claim because, even with BEST’s narrow uncertainty figures, their results show we know very little about relative temperatures over the last two centuries. For example, we certainly cannot say that the current temperatures are greater than anything before about 1945. The uncertainty bands overlap, and so we simply don’t know if e.g. 2010 was warmer than 1910. Seems likely, to be sure … but we do not have the evidence to back that up.
And that, of course, means that Mann’s claims of ‘warmest in a mill-yun years’ or whatever he has ramped it up to by now are not sustainable. We can’t tell, using actual thermometer records, if we’re warmer than a mere century ago. How can a few trees and clamshells tell us more than dozens of thermometers?
Disagreement with satellite observations
The BEST folks say that there is no urban heat island (UHI) effect detectable in their analysis. Their actual claim is that “urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change”. Here’s a comment from NASA, which indicates that, well, there might be a bias. Emphasis mine.
The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside, while similarly-sized but spread-out Buffalo, N.Y., produces a heat island of only about 7.2 °C (12.9 °F), according to satellite data. SOURCE
A 22°F (12°C) UHI warming in Providence, and BEST says no UHI effect … and that’s just a couple cities.
If there were no UHI, then (per the generally accepted theories) the atmosphere should be warming more than the ground. If there is UHI, on the other hand, the ground station records would have an upwards bias and might even indicate more warming than the atmosphere.
After a number of adjustments, the two satellite records, from RSS and UAH, are pretty similar. Figure 2 shows their records for global land-only lower tropospheric temperatures:
Figure 2. UAH and RSS satellite temperature records. Anomaly period 1979-1984 = 0.
Since they are so close, I have averaged them together in Figure 3 to avoid disputes. You can substitute either one if you wish. Figure three shows a three-year centered Gaussian average of the data. The final 1.5 years are truncated to avoid end effects.
Remember what we would expect to find if all of the ground records were correct. They’d all lie on or near the same line, and the satellite temperatures would be rising faster than the ground temperatures. Here are the actual results, showing BEST, satellite, GISS, CRUTEM, and GHCN land temperatures:
Figure 3. BEST, average satellite, and other estimates of the global land temperature over the satellite era. Anomaly period 1979-1984 = 0.
In Figure 3, we find the opposite of what we expected. The land temperatures are rising faster than the atmospheric temperatures, contrary to theory. In addition, the BEST data is the worst of the lot in this regard.
Disagreement with other ground-based records.
The disagreement between the four ground-based results also begs for an explanation. Note that the records diverge at the rate of about 0.2°C in thirty years, which is 0.7° per century. Since this is the approximate amount of the last century’s warming, this is by no means a trivial difference.
My conclusion? We still have not resolved the UHI issue, in any of the land datasets. I’m happy to discuss other alternative explanations for what we find in Figure 3. I just can’t think of too many. With the ground records, nobody has looked at the other guys’ analysis and algorithms harshly, aggressively, and critically. They’ve all taken their own paths, and they haven’t disputed much with each other. The satellite data algorithms, on the other hand, has been examined minutely by two very competitive groups, UAH and RSS, in a strongly adversarial scientific manner. As is common in science, the two groups have each found errors in the other’s work, and when corrected the two records agree quite well. It’s possible they’re both wrong, but that doesn’t seem likely. If the ground-based folks did that, we might get better agreement. But as with the climate models and modelers, they’re all far too well-mannered to critically examine each other’s work in any serious fashion. Because heck, if they did that to the other guy, he might return the favor and point out flaws in their work, don’t want that kind of ugliness to intrude on their genteel, collegiate relationship, can’t we just be friends and not look too deeply? …
w.
PS—I remind folks again that the hype about BEST showing skeptics are wrong is just that. Most folks knew already that the world has been generally warming for hundreds of years, and BEST’s results in that regard were no surprise. BEST showed nothing about whether humans are affecting the climate, nor could it have done so. There are still large unresolved issues in the land temperature record which BEST has not clarified or solved. The jury is out on the BEST results, and it is only in part because they haven’t even gone through peer review.
PPS—
Oh, yeah, one more thing. At the top of the BEST dataset there’s a note that says:
Estimated 1950-1980 absolute temperature: 7.11 +/- 0.50
Seven degrees C? The GISS folks don’t even give an average, they just say it’s globally about 14°C.
The HadCRUT data gives a global temperature about the same, 13.9°C, using a gridded absolute temperature dataset. Finally, the Kiehl/Trenberth global budget gives a black-body radiation value of 390 W/m2, which converts to 14.8°. So I figured that was kind of settled, that the earth’s average temperature (an elusive concept to be sure) was around fourteen or fifteen degrees C.
Now, without a single word of comment that I can find, BEST says it’s only 7.1 degrees … say what? Anyone have an explanation for that? I know that the BEST figure is just the land. But if the globe is at say 14° to make it easy, and the land is at 7°, that means that on average the ocean is at 17°.
And I’m just not buying that on a global average the ocean is ten degrees C, or 18 degrees F, warmer than the land. It sets off my bad number detector.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Um, specific heat? Currents? Evaporation? Energy temperature.
From steven mosher on October 25, 2011 at 8:18 pm:
But the land is cooler than SST, see the NCDC baselines, thus that’s not an issue.
The rest of your post reads like “Let’s assume the sky went green, then you’d think too many things looked like plants, and then if the sky went dark red you’d think too many buildings were made of brick.” Someone’s looking for which walnut shell the pea is hiding under, you ask if it’d make a difference if they were pecan shells, you even question if the person is certain they’re looking at walnut shells as they might be pecan shells. Anything possible to keep them from finding the pea…
Folks,
Just to note that WoodForTrees now supports the preliminary monthly BEST data (thanks to Steve M for a link here a couple of days ago) – e.g.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:60/plot/best/trend
This is hot off the keyboard so caveat lector!
Paul
Combined graph showing all five datasets:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/plot/gistemp/mean:120/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:120/plot/uah/mean:120/plot/rss/mean:120
Note these are without baseline offset corrections – I haven’t done the calculation to work out the shift yet, but it’s clear visually that BEST has a lower baseline.
Here are the 30 year trends for all five as well… BEST is quite a lot higher (~ 2.7K/cent) than the other four (all around 1.6-1.7K/cent) – I’m sure that will be an interesting item for discussion!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/last:360/mean:12/plot/gistemp/last:360/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/mean:12/plot/uah/last:360/mean:12/plot/rss/last:360/mean:12/plot/best/last:360/trend/plot/gistemp/last:360/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend/plot/uah/last:360/trend/plot/rss/last:360/trend
Enjoy!
Paul
kramer says:
October 24, 2011 at 5:01 pm
“I emailed the BEST team a while ago asking if they could just plot the rural, unadjusted data. I got an email a few days ago saying it’s done.
My question is, if the rural data unadjusted data agrees with the adjusted and unadjusted data, why bother to adjust the data at all?”
There is the RUTI project that works only on rural data
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/ruti-global-land-temperatures-1880-2010-part-1-244.php
What do I have to do to get all on this Blog not to mention the BEST mob to grasp that one should not compare the apples (do best in cooler climes) of the 1800-2010 data set with the oranges (do best in warmer climes) of the 1950-2010 data that BEST seamlessly merges together, oblivious of the absence of the orange growing areas from ALL of BEST, CRU, GISS, NCDC et al before 1950.
Evidently not even Willis can see it is wrong to compare apples with oranges. I give up!
Now, BEST categorizes stations into rural and non rural. 16K rural and 23K not rural. do you think that percentage of rural is high? or is it low? Lets suppose you thought there were NO rural stations. none at all. what does .4C now represent?
So there are 39K stations in the BEST data…
So are there 39K stations contributing to the data for 1800?
So have these 39K stations stayed constant for over 150 years?
what does .4C now represent?
A number that triggers my BS detector…
do you think that percentage of rural is high?
Who knows…
Lets see some station analysis…
Lets see if we have the great culling of stations…
Lets see if we have the move to airports and the beach…
Lets see if we have the descent from the mountains…
Lets see if we have the retreat from high latitudes…
Lets see how the rural mix changes with time…
Until such time I am assuming BEST is an anagram of ET and BS.
Brian D says:
October 24, 2011 at 6:17 pm
And this is how it is being reported in NZ:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1110/S00058/experts-respond-analysis-confirms-global-warming-data.htm
Interesting to see the potential reviewers comments in advance. And whom they choose to ask for a view.
____________________________________________________
So now we know Watts Up With That.
The “Skeptics” Muller and Anthony Watts, have now all agreed that there is no problem/contribution with the station quality and the Urban Heat Island Effect. Also the skeptics/deniers all now agree there was warming during industrialization during the last century. Now we can head to Durban and get on with applying a stranglehold to the economies of the industrialized countries and confiscating the land of the third world natives.
And if anyone like Senator Inhofe objects that there has been no warming in the last decade there is always Trenberth’s missing heat hiding at the ocean bottom.
As a propaganda campaign the BEST paper without review goes hand in glove with The National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) recently posted a new Ocean Heat Content (OHC) anomaly dataset on its website.. (Again without peer reviewed papers)
That is all this ever was, a propaganda campaign. The absolutely brilliant move of the BEST team was to rope Anthony Watts into agreeing to participate AND agree before hand to the results!!!! Having Judith Curry on the “Team” did not hurt either.
Now the team can go to Durban and say with a straight face that Anthony Watts, the leader of the “Deniers” agrees with their study so “Consensus” has been achieved for the big go ahead.
WE HAVE BEEN HAD!
Based on mean of the 1979-1999 baseline that RSS uses, here’s my best attempt at aligning baselines:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/last:360/mean:12/offset:-0.42/plot/gistemp/last:360/mean:12/offset:-0.23/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/mean:12/offset:-0.15/plot/uah/last:360/mean:12/offset:0.1/plot/rss/last:360/mean:12/plot/best/last:360/trend/offset:-0.42/plot/gistemp/last:360/trend/offset:-0.23/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend/offset:-0.15/plot/uah/last:360/trend/offset:0.1/plot/rss/last:360/trend
Something is radically different about BEST to the other 4 datasets. This is based on the data they published to create their analysis charts at: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php. I’d be very grateful if people could check my logic here!
Paul
WE HAVE BEEN HAD!
And you couldnt see it coming… roll eyes…
Please speak for yourself… unless you are using the royal we…
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 24, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Excellent post, Willis. It is getting some play around the blogosphere. Keep up the good work.
Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:
October 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm
oMan says:
October 24, 2011 at 4:53 pm
“What was the magic of their being able to issue press releases now?”
Literally, the $64 million question?
______________________________________
I think it is more like $2,000 billion dollar question.
“The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020” – World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007 http://www.carbonplanet.com/navigating_the_carbon_economy
I agree with Willis, this a direct funnel of wealth from the poor into the pockets of the incredibly wealthy using crocodile tears from the likes of the United Nations, WWF and Greenpeace, and cries of its for the children. GRRRrrrrrr
I am not as nice as Willis. I hope the “Scientists” who sacrificed their scientific objectivity and honor on the altar of fame and fortune are still alive to face trials of crimes against humanity. Unfortunately I doubt that will happen. They have too much power and money backing them.
NOTE: 85% of todays starvation deaths occur in children 5 years of age or younger. There are over 30,000 deaths by starvation everyday. What is Al Gore and the World Bank doing? CONFISCATING THEIR LAND! (only 10% of Africans have actual deeds to the property their families own.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767559
Something is radically different about BEST
Correct…. it is about a change in tactics…
We have moved away from a simple hide the decline…
And evolved to a more subtle explain away the recent decline phase:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/last:240/mean:12/plot/gistemp/last:240/mean:12
Notice the upward ratcheting temperature spikes since 1990…
Notice that is each spike is followed by a decline….
Notice how the following spikes are always worst than we thought…
Notice how we are currently in a decline….
So the next spike is going to be even worst than we thought…
QUEL SUPRISE!
Louis says:
October 24, 2011 at 9:45 pm
The BEST press release makes the following claim about UHI:
“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 is the logical fallacy of Equivocation
They say 1% of the land mass is cities – true
HOWEVER they do not say how many climate stations are not in completely rural, no possible urban heat island effect areas. That is the I gottcha!
As anyone who has followed WUWT for any length of time knows an actual rural station not sited next to a building/barbeque/Ac unit/road/airport/town/city…. is few and far between.
It would be interesting to map the dropped thermometers to this satellite map of urban lights http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Lights/
The NASA blurb accompanying it is very amusing given the BEST pronouncement above.
Suburban sprawl….
“…Watching the familiar, rural landscapes of our youth give way to suburban sameness has become as much a part of modern American life as portable electronics, instant food, and wasted time in front of the television. Nearly all of us have had the disappointing experience of returning to what used to be the woods near our childhood homes and finding a new subdivision. Or we have been shocked to see that some corporate entity has erected aluminum-sided duplexes and an outlet mall in the middle of our favorite vacation spot.
Like it or not, throughout this century, the United States has undergone a steady process of urbanization as a larger and larger percentage of the population has moved towards the cities. While increasing urbanization may have some positive impacts on our environment, such as the lower birth rates that come with a city lifestyle, scientists are becoming more concerned about the negative long-term effects. Unlike rural communities, urban sprawl completely transforms the landscape and the soil and alters the surrounding ecosystem and the climate…”
Here are John Daly’s
“…set of historical temperature graphs from a large selection of mostly non-urban weather stations in both hemispheres. This data originated with the NASA Goddard Institute (GISS) in the USA and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England. (The graphs have been generated from that data using the Microsoft Works spreadsheet module). With a few exceptions, large cities have been excluded because of Urban Heat Island Effect distortions to long-term data. Stations with data up to 2000 or beyond are indicated in red (e.g. `Data to 2001′)….” http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
Tim Curtin says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:31 pm
. Interestingly the BEST data show only a very small acceleration in the GMT trend from 1991 to 2000, and an actual deceleration from 2001 to 2009, which belies their claim “the world is warming fast”, which should have read “the world is warming more slowly” (according to BEST) – but then they don’t do calculus at Berkeley anymore do they?
_______________________________________________-
Oh my gosh, now I have to clean the tea off my monitor again. ROTFLMAO.
They certainly haven’t learned geometry very well either. All they seem to have in their “Tool Box of Tricks” is an infinite straight line.
If I recall correctly from my long ago school days, in general nature hates straight lines. Archaeologists find this useful in finding man made artifacts.
This straight line crap is another one of the great CAGW fallacies. Nature prefers curves and cycles.
michael hammer says:
October 24, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Something I dont quite understand. In the early 1970′s the National Academy of Science published a climate reconstruction showing that temperatures fell by 0.7C ( about 1.3F) between 1940 and 1970. This was the basis for many articles in both science and environmental journals suggesting we were heading for dangerous global cooling (anthropogenic of course). The modern reconstructions now show no cooling over this period. Did the historical data change with time and if so, how does long documented historical data change with time?…..
________________________
Check out the graphs
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/gw-us-1999-2011-hansen.gif
(NOAA adjustment chart) http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
Discussions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/16/the-past-is-not-what-it-used-to-be-gw-tiger-tale/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/controversial-nasa-temperature-graphic-morphs-into-garbled-mess/
David says:
October 25, 2011 at 4:47 am
I also would love to see an oceans only graph layered into the five data sets chart to see which data set follows the ocean air temp chart the most accurately.
______________________
You might like to take a look at Frank Lancer’s work at Joanne Nova’s site. He does the ocean land temp analysis and gets something interesting.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/messages-from-the-global-raw-rural-data-warnings-gotchas-and-tree-ring-divergence-explained/#comment-625436
#
#
Chris Hanson says:
October 25, 2011 at 9:16 am
Willis, When considering Muller’s false persona it worth a review of “Operation Trust” used by the Soviets in the early days;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_Operation
Fake and straw moderates are nothing new.
_________________________________
It is a lot older than that. Remember the Trojan Horse?
Muller has been a very effective Trojan Horse. Judith Curry too????
steven mosher says:
October 25, 2011 at 4:24 pm
“remember. if we had 1000000 rural stations and only 1 urban with a huge 12C bias.. that one
cities effect would be smothered. When we look at all stations good and bad, rural and not..
the effect, the overall bias, is somewhere between 0 and .3C, lower if we consider SST and how close it is to the land.
Then look at the 2 sigma width..
and think about “power” in a statistical sense”
Two comments. The first is that you are great at imagining fantastic scenarios which you can use to defend the fact that you are absolutely unwilling to discuss the facts on the ground, such as the quality of weather stations.
The second comment could change your professional life. The second lesson that a good analyst learns is “Never make inferences from the characteristics of your system of representation to the characteristics of the world (what your system represents).
Your thought “think about “power” in a statistical sense” is a clear recommendation that we should make inferences from our characteristics of our system of representation to the world.
For example, before Riemann everyone thought geometry was intuitively clear and restricted to Euclid’s three dimensions; after Riemann, geometry became a branch of abstract algebra. Riemann put an end to a whole bunch of inferences from the characteristics of Euclidean geometry to characteristics of the world.
At this time, Warmista are frozen in a statistical box of their own making that will not allow even to consider discussing empirical matters, except as those empirical matters are embodied in the box “already.”. There is no investigation outside the box.
viejecita says:
October 26, 2011 at 12:47 am
Ay, mí favorita, Maria la jovencita … mil gracias pa’ ti tambien, y sus palabras de miel …
Your kind words are much appreciated.
w.
Muller has been a very effective Trojan Horse. Judith Curry too????
Now you are beginning the smell the coffee…
Tim Curtin says:
October 26, 2011 at 5:17 am
Tim, that was totally incomprehensible. If you want us to see something, you have to be much clearer than that. My advice would be to take a deep breath, figure out exactly what you are trying to say, leave out the apples and oranges and anything extraneous, and start over.
Or not …
w.
Willis: I was referring to the complete absence of instrumental temperatures in the Tropics and sub-Tropics from the BEST data before 1910, and incomplete until 1940-1950, which must bias the trend in their graph. It is a similar issue with respect to UHI – any series of GMT based only on urban data since 1800 is bound to show a stronger upward trend than is warranted.
I am glad that at least one here (Gail) has noticed my point about the absolute decline in the rate of change of the BEST anomalies in 2001-09, which gives the lie to the Muller inference that not only is the globe warming it is doing so more rapidly, as stated by The Economist in its report of BEST. Here is my letter submitted to The Economist:
Your article “The heat is on” (October 22 nd) provides a mostly well-balanced account of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) group’s review of global temperature sets. However, it does not fully address the difference between levels of globally averaged temperature and trends therein. For example, the global temperature levels shown in your diagram purport to show the global levels from 1800 to 1910 when the instrumental coverage of temperatures in the tropics was exiguous, thereby imparting a spurious upward trend over the period to 1950 as the tropics came on board, prior to much increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. Interestingly the BEST data show only a very small acceleration in the trend from 1991 to 2000, and an actual deceleration from 2001 to 2009, which belies your article’s final sentence “the world is warming fast”, which should have read “the world is warming more slowly” (according to BEST).
kramer says:
“…..I don’t think they are going to sentence the poor to more expensive energy. What they want to do is redistribute some of the higher energy taxes to the poor to help pay for the higher energy costs as well as help their collective net worth move closer to the rich (as the collective net worth of the rich decreases).
They also want to do this on a global level so that at some point in the future, all nations have roughly the same per-capita wealth and standard of living.
What I see are technocrats using science to achieve socialistic goals.”
______________________________________________________
That cock and bull about socialism got smashed by reality I am afraid. “Socialism” is just the mask these greedy power hungry wolves hid behind. Do not forget that CAGW is backed by the likes of the World Bank.
The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement….hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank…
I suggest you read up on what the World Bank and IMF actually does to the poor
“The World Bank’s own figures indicate that the IMF extracted a net US$1 billion from Africa in 1997 and 1998 more than they loaned to the continent. http://www.whirledbank.org/development/debt.html
“Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans… SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk….the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result.” http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html
“…Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988…. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers….” http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Budhoo_IMF.html Also: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Budhoo_50YIE.html
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man… Interview: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man
After that background go and read the newest attrocities by Al Gore and the World Bank. This move to confiscate land in Africa will condemn more and more children to death by starvation .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767559
Global Land Grab: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/11784/global_land_grab/
“Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s one child every five seconds. There were 1.4 billion people in extreme poverty in 2005. The World Bank estimates that the spike in global food prices in 2008, followed by the global economic recession in 2009 and 2010 has pushed between 100-150 million people into poverty.” http://www.bread.org/hunger/global/
The spike in global food prices in 2008 was a coldly calculated move not chance. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767575
You can not separate Muller’s “timely” release from the current global politics of the World Bank, financiers and the multibillion dollar Carbon trading scam. A scam that will sentence millions of people to death by hypothermia or starvation.
woodfortrees (Paul Clark) says:
October 26, 2011 at 7:18 am
Hey, Paul, good to hear from you. Thanks for the woodfortrees site.
The problem you are having is that you are comparing best, which is land only, with gistemp (actually I think that one is GISS LOTI), hadcrut, uah, and rss. You need to get the land-only versions of those. See my links above for the locations of the land-only versions.
Keep up the good work,
w.
Lars P. says:
October 26, 2011 at 5:05 am
kramer says:
October 24, 2011 at 5:01 pm
“I emailed the BEST team a while ago asking if they could just plot the rural, unadjusted data. I got an email a few days ago saying it’s done.
My question is, if the rural data unadjusted data agrees with the adjusted and unadjusted data, why bother to adjust the data at all?”
There is the RUTI project that works only on rural data
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/ruti-global-land-temperatures-1880-2010-part-1-244.php
___________________________________
Eye balling your/BEST rural data graph It looks like a net increase in temp of 0.2 from the peak in the 1930’s to the current peak (even Jones agreed the temp is not increasing since 1995)
Given the error we can not even be sure that the 0.2 is even significant especially if we are still recovering from the LIA.
If you go valley to valley (1885 to 1975) you do not even get 0.2 and surely we have seen a greater increase in industrialization from 1885 to 1975 than from 1975 to present. (CO2 data is from 1958 only)
“…..The sum-of-energies model assumes that different energy sources dominate during different periods of history. For example, traditional renewables (wood, dung, etc.) were the world’s dominant sources of energy until almost 1900. Coal then was the dominant source of energy until the middle of the twentieth century, after which crude oil began to dominate. Oil remains the dominant source of energy to this day, but its share in the energy mix peaked in 1973 and has been declining since. The natural gas share of the energy mix has been steadily increasing and looks set to take over the number one position sometime early this century……”
http://www.mnforsustain.org/pop_population_and_energy_zable.g.htm
ERRRRrrrrrrrr if black carbon (soot) is also seen as a major contributor to global warming then how come the temperatures nose dived from 1935 to 1975 while the USA and EU were going full out building up and expanding industry after WWII???
I am more inclined to trust this data set to give a realistic picture because the influences from cities is removed without the use of “Fudge Factors”.