Alternate title: Something wonky this way comes
I try to get away to work on my paper and the climate world explodes, pulling me back in. Strange things are happening related to the BEST data and co-authors Richard Muller and Judith Curry. Implosion might be a good word.
Popcorn futures are soaring. BEST Co-author Judith Curry drops a bombshell:
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.
Here’s the short timeline.
1. The GWPF plots a flat 10 year graph using BEST data:
2. The Mail on Sunday runs a scathing article comparing BEST’s data plotted by GWPF and the data presented in papers. They print this comparison graph:
Note: timescales don’t match on graphs above, 200 years/10 years. A bit naughty on the part of the Sunday Mail to put them together as many readers won’t notice.
3. Dr. Judith Curry, BEST co-author, turns on Muller, in the Mail on Sunday article citing “hide the decline”:
In Prof Curry’s view, two of the papers were not ready to be published, in part because they did not properly address the arguments of climate sceptics.
As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.
‘To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.’
Prof Muller said she was ‘out of the loop’. He added: ‘I wasn’t even sent the press release before it was issued.’
…
But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.
He also briefed selected journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.
‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.
4. Ross McKittrick unloads:
Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.
‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’
5. According to BEST’s own data, Los Angeles is cooling, fast:
JJ: “If it takes a long time to determine a trend in global temperature data, it is because that trend is small in comparison to the annual variability.”
Wahey, kid, you’re getting it! Why not explain it to those who are still struggling? I’m not sure you necessarily appreciate the consequences of what you just said, but let’s not be churlish, it’s a very good start.
John B;
Smokey, enough with the cherries. What do you make of these charts that show good correlation between T and CO2? >>>
If they correlated, it would STILL be meaningless!
Yet everyone tries, and it is a mathematical error, a complete and total absurdity, to try and correlate CO2, forcing from CO2, and temperature, in particular, this ridiculous notion of “average” global temperature. Follow the math.
The “accepted science” as articulated by the IPCC is that doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration will result in a global average temperature increase of about 1 degree C. But they skipped a step.
The effects of increasing levels of CO2 are not an increase in temperature, because CO2 doesn’t produce “degrees”. CO2 produces watts. Follow the math.
The chain of events is actually that doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases the amount of downward LW (Long Wave) radiance by 3.7 watts per square meter (3.7 w/m2). To understand how that translates to temperature, we have to turn to SB Law (Stefan-Boltzmann Law) which is the mathematical equation describing the relationship between Power (P in w/m2) and temperature in degrees Kelvin (K) for any given “black body” at equilibrium temperature. The exact formula is:
P=5.67*10^-8*K^4
For the average temperature of the earth, the IPCC uses the “effective black body” temperature of earth which (for easy figuring) is about -20 C, or 253 K. This is the temperature we would “measure” if we could measure it from space. It isn’t the “surface” temperature, nor is it the TOA (Top of Atmosphere) temperature, it is some point in between. Putting that aside for a moment, let’s do the SB Law calculations for -20 C (253 K).
P=5.67*10^-8*253^4
P=232.3 w/m2
Lets assume the “average” temperature went up one degree to 254K. How many w/m2 would be required to make that happen?
P=5.67*10^-8*254^4
P=236.0 w/m2
236.0 – 232.3 = 3.7 w/m2
So, the math works out, just like the IPCC claims. If CO2 doubling increases the amount of downward LW by 3.7 w/m2, we would expect the average temperature of the earth to increase by one degree.
Or would we?
Let’s instead look at it from the “average” temperature of the earth at the surface, which is about 15 C, or 288 K:
P=5.67*10^-8*288^4
P=390.1 w/m2
390.1 + 3.7 = 393.8 w/m2
393.8(P)=5.67*10^-8*K^4
K=288.7
So, instead of getting an extra one degree at the surface, we actually only get 0.7 degrees. Now, how much of the earth is at 15 C? Not much. To drive the point home, let’s look at the extremes, say +40C and -40C:
For +40 C or 313 K we would get:
P=5.67*10^-8*313^4
P=544.2 w/m2
544.2 + 3.7 = 547.9 w/m2
547.9(P)=5.67*10^-8*K^4
K=313.53
313.53 – 313 = 0.53 degrees increase.
What about the depths of winter in the high temperate zones where night time lows frequently hit -40 C or 233K?
P=5.67*10-8*233^4
P=167.1 w/m2
167.1 + 3.7 = 170.8 w/m2
170.8=5.67*10^-8*K^4
K=234.3
234.3 – 233 = 1.3 degrees increase.
What happened to our mythical one degree increase per CO2 doubling? It doesn’t exist!
But here is the worst part about trying to calculate a global “average” temperature and then trying to correlate it to CO2 and/or forcing from CO2. To demonstrate that it is mathematically impossible to do so, let’s consider a pretend earth with two equal zones, each of the same exact area, but one being cold and one being warm. Let;s say that in Year 1, one of the zones is -35 C and the other is +30 C. Let’s assume that in Year 2, the cold zone warms by 2 degrees, and the warm zone cools by 1 degree. Let’s look at the average temperatures that result, and then we will TRY and correlate them to watts/m2…with some interesting results.
Year 1 (-35)+(30) = -5
Average temperature in Year 1 is (-5)/2 = -2.5 C.
Year 2 (-33)+(29) = -4
Average temperature in Year 2 is (-4)/2 = -2.0 C.
Our two zone pretend earth has experienced, “on average” an increase in temperature of 0.5 degrees. But what about the energy balance? Is our two zone pretend earth getting MORE energy? Or Less. SURPRISE!
P (-35 C) =5.67*10^-8*238^4
P (-35 C) = 181.9 w/m2
P (-33 C) =5.67*10^-8*240^4
P (-33 C) = 188.1 w/m2
Change +6.2 watts/m2
P (+30 C) =5.67*10^-8*303^4
P (+30 C) = 477.9 w/m2
P (+29 C) =5.66*10^-8*304^4
P (+29 C) = 471.6 w/m2
Change -6.3 watts/m2
While the earth “warmed” by 0.5 degrees “on average”, the amount of energy it is getting at equilibrium is NEGATIVE 0.05 watts/m2.
Exactly what value is there in trying to correlate CO2 in ppm, or “forcing” from CO2 in w/m2 with temperature when it is possible to have a decline in w/m2 coupled with an INCREASE in temperature?
Answer: there is no value.
In order to determine if the additional energy flux from CO2 increases is actually being retained by the earth, it is simply nonsensical to track forcing from CO2 in watts/m2 and compare to the “average” temperature. The only way to know if the earth is retaining more energy, or less, is to first convert ALL the temperature data, at EVERY point on earth, to watts/m2, and THEN average it.
“Average” temperature is simply meaningless.
As is attempting to correlate CO2 in ppm or forcing from CO2 with temperature.
Mosher: “The rural sites have an average population density of less than 10 people, the urban sites
have hundreds.
The rural sites are not co located with airports, while the urban one are.
The rural sites are predominantly grassland, crop land, and sparse vegetation.”
No, Mosher, you keep repeating the same lies. Go ahead, prove to me that the 16,000 sites – more than one third – that BEST used as their rural data set have less than 10 people per square mile. Don’t quote your silly results. I don’t think you can find your backside with both hands. So what you assert that you found doesn’t mean squat. What you claim is irrelevant – I want proof. A picture of an actual rural area is not proof of anything. Prove your claim completely.
By the way, did you read McIntyre’s article about UHI? A 5.5C UHI effect for Lynchburg VA – a town with a population of only 7,000. What does that do to your idiotic assertion that you have to have skyscrapers to have UHI. Lynchburg may not even qualify as urban.
Go back and read it!
http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/15/new-light-on-uhi/
Then look at this NASA site:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html
And I quote:
“Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.”
And yet you want to claim that a BEST result of negative UHI effect is meaningful and real. And you follow me around like a stray dog, nagging me with your absurd opinion.
For those of you pointing out the rather obvious media blitz on this farce, you got it in one. If you go to the Yahoo! News blurb on this you’ll find all the usual folks chortling about how this “proves” the Greenhouse Effect and AGW is now “proven”. Of course none of them have read Dr. Curry’s response to this abuse of science… or the 450,000 year ice core data… or the missing Mid Tropospherice Hot Spot… or much of anything else not found on Kos or Huff N Puff.
Oh yeah… twice busted! There is now a published thread showing how this faker was NEVER a skeptic as the LSM are advertising. Folks went to his Bezerkly emails and writings and clearly demonstrated that he’s been a warmist from the git-go.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/#comment-783092
Last time I checked, Earth was not a perfect black body.
Therefore, all your paint-by-numbers are truly meaningless.
EFS_Junior says:
October 30, 2011 at 7:09 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/#comment-783092
Last time I checked, Earth was not a perfect black body.
Therefore, all your paint-by-numbers are truly meaningless>>>
What is your point? That I haven’t shown the correlating T with CO2 because I’ve used perfect black body numbers? Well hello genius! If the math doesn’t hold for a perfect black body, how could it POSSIBLE hold for anything else? The fact that earth is NOT a perfect black body makes attempting to correlate T with CO2 even MORE ridiculous!
stevo says:
October 30, 2011 at 6:20 pm
“Don’t be that fool.”
=======
You are of course referring to the real estate bubble.
No greater fools have ever been exposed.
Nothing a windmill can’t fix ??
Donald says:
October 30, 2011 at 8:52 am
David Falkner – Listen mate, please don’t treat me like a moron, You know damned well I wasn’t alive in 1750 or 1800 or even 1900 and therefore I wasn’t there to take the measurements; so how about stopping this self importance stuff you keep trying to show.
I came on the site to ask if you guys could offer me a link to the global average temperature for 1750 to 1880 or thereabouts; if you have no wish to share it then don’t; just go and annoy someone else with your own self aggrandizing comments.
**************************
Just yesterday or the day before, someone on this site (?) linked to a year-by-year depiction of land temperature station sites established from the 1700’s onwards, mapped around the globe. Can someone please find and display that link? I think anyone seeing the site mapping year-by-year will agree that using land temperatures gathered primarily in Europe and America up to 1900 is in no way a valid method of determining a “global average temperature”, whatever that is. And, of course, all the stations were on land, so what about the other 70% of the earth’s surface?
Solution to this mess is simple: all climate modeling is done against satellite data. It won’t be long before we have 40 years of data. That is long enough to do a parameter fit (since that is what’s done). Of course, we need to wait for 60 years of satellite data to get a really good fit. Of course, the climate crazies have to wait 25+ years before they actionable conclusions. 🙂
Anna Lemma,
Maybe this is the chart you’re asking for:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
Paul Clark,
Which datasets are you using for GISTemp and HadCRUT land temps? The officially published ones aren’t directly comparable to NCDC or BEST, as they use zonal weightings. See this discussion for more detail: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/the-great-gistemp-mystery/
I would like to thank all of you for your assistance in helping me find the links I need for global average temperature data.
I’ve noticed that some of you say that such records cannot be available because of one reason or another ,,, mostly thermometers and such.
Such cannot be the case. (I would think)
One does not need to use thermometers only, there are various other methods that may be used by science to measure past temperatures; including fossil methods and tree ring methods which although not very accurate for individual periods are in fact accurate enough to gain an insight into “average” yearly temperatures.
Regardless, as one commenter above said …
In the past the data appeared to be kept by some and released only to a few; which we all know is wrong.
My aim in all of this therefore is to find such data, put it into a readable form and then release it to one and all so that everybody can do their own studies instead of relying on stuff such as charts, graphs and other methods put out by other people which only a few who might be educated in such things might understand.
Of course, I have my own needs for the data, but that is besides the point.
I would rather everybody was shown only numbers, then they can do what they want with them and after a year of looking around, checking and double checking here (once again) are all the CO2 numbers for each year from 1750 to 2010 plus population growth and so on.
http://wisdomblogsdotcom1.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/coal-consumption.jpg
If you wish to peer-review them then do so just remember that as an engineer I will provide you with nothing more than the numbers, I am no into this back and forward game of laying blame on someone else’s figures, I do my own work if possible; accept the figures or not … your problem..
what do they show?
From 1750 to 1950 we pumped 536 Billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and the temperature went from 13.73 Degrees average to 13.98
From 1951 to 2000 we pumped 1.323 Trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere yet the temperature climb ratio remained steady …. what gives?
A pity I don’t have all the temperature records.
We have not only “doubled” our CO2 output since then 1950; we have in fact “tripled” it.
One would have thought the ratio of temperature change due to an astronomical three fold increase in CO2 would have been “HUGE”
And this is using only Coal figures; adding Oil, gas and animal gasses only makes the CO2 claims look foolish.
If we were to add Oil and Gas Combustion PLUS “Animal Gasses” to the Carbon figures then (conservatively speaking) the figures more than triples the gas output “again” from 1.860 Trillion Tonnes of CO2 to 5.580 Trillion Tonnes of CO2 with the temperature climb ratio not registering any increase whatsoever.
And still we have not reached the Global Average of 15 Degrees. (although I agree temperatures are climbing …. very slowly)
Seems to me that science has forgotten the first rule of science … Observation followed by common sense backed up by the science of “Mathematics” which explains the truth of all things. Something engineers can never forget or nothing we ever build would work for more than a few minutes.
The figures don’t lie, the CO2 claims are not only ridiculous, they are a showpiece of misunderstanding by many who have placed horse-blinds over their faces.
Still, without the global average temperatures all this work is as useless as teats on a bull, who would accept it? . Once I have the temperatures I can then add the rest of the stuff, solar radiation per year, UV, IR and so on; maybe then ……..
Thanks for your help, fellows 🙂
.
Donald;
I came on the site to ask if you guys could offer me a link to the global average temperature for 1750 to 1880 or thereabouts;
Putting aside for the moment that the concept of an “average” global temperature is meaningless, I don’t think what you are looking for exists. The two major “global” temperature databases are HadCrut and NASA/GISS. GISS only starts in 1880 and Hadcrut a few decades before that. Anything older than that you are stuck with either reconstructions from proxy data or temperature records that are specific to a given local such as the CET (central england).
Perhaps if you could explain what it is that you are trying to understand about the 1750 to 1880 time period, someone may be able to point you at a data source that is of use to you.
Tonight I heard a news segment on a radio station about Prof. Muller as a skeptic who now believes in global warming and was supported by the Koch brothers immediately after reporting that the most snow ever recorded in Central Park in October.
I am sure this did not convince the millions in the east that have lost power. The Koch brothers are probably enjoying this. From there they went to a piece on attacking Herman Cain on previous supposed sexual inappropriate sexual advances. Herman with a degree in mathematics, is now challenging Mitt Romney who has recently starting to spin a different story on global warming as he realizes that his base does not believe it. As Charlie Crist lost to Marc Rubio in Florida, Romney will lose to Herman Cain.
As a geophysicist with a degree from Penn State, I consider the Prof Muller scam as likely the denouement of science hoaxes of our time. The prof will lose this debate and go down in history as one of the greatest charlatans of our time.
It boils down….really….to trust. And of course, as well, the truth.
Trusting Curry vs. Muller??
I wouldn’t trust Muller as far as I could throw him. But Dr. Curry has shown consistent dedication to the scientific method…regardless of the smears.
Let me say it. The woman has a set. And they are brass. But in a womanly way, of course.
Most people listen to smarts…and not pedagogy.
She’s got the smarts needed. God bless her.
If Judith Curry concludes scientifically that CAGW is real and something to be addressed, then I will LISTEN. But if she doesn’t…then I will listen to what she says anyway.
She has proved herself beyond a shadow of a doubt….devotion to the truth…however damaging that may be.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
‘Bill Illis says: October 30, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Just a chart showing Berkeley compared to the NOAA/NCDC. It is pretty clear that a misplaced negative sign got in somehow for April 2010. ‘
It’s not a negative sign. The huge down-spike in April, taken by GWPF as part of proof of stagnation, in fact happens because in April/May 2010 BEST has just 47 stations, all Antarctic.
Donald;
Once I have the temperatures I can then add the rest of the stuff, solar radiation per year, UV, IR and so on; maybe then ……..>>>
Your last comment appeared while I was typing mine, so is now redundant… sorta.
KNMI has most of the major data sets on line for everything from temps to precipitation to TSI and much more.
But if what you are looking for is “the” average temperature by any means possible, you’ll not find it…anywhere. Scientists can’t even agree on what the CURRENT average temperature is, lest alone what it was in 1750. Tree rings? Search this site for stories on tree rings and read a couple. Lucy Skywalker wrote a stunner about Michael Mann’s tree rings way back that should tell you all you need to know about why the data is useless to you (or anyone else). Research what “hide the decline” was referring to, and you’ll discover that the proxy data like tree rings is so bad that even the people who say it works has to throw half of theirs out because it refused to match the temperature records that overlapped with them. Ice core data? Putting the various conrtroversies aside, it has a 30 year resolution which makes it useless for determining temps for a given year, and ice core data is “local” not global.
I just don’t think what you are looking for exists, and if someone says it does…check how they calculated it VERY carefully.
Anna Lemma says: October 30, 2011 at 7:38 pm
“Just yesterday or the day before, someone on this site (?) linked to a year-by-year depiction of land temperature station sites established from the 1700’s onwards, mapped around the globe. Can someone please find and display that link?”
I think I linked a while ago to this KMZ file which shows that information in decades. A KMZ file is one you can click on and it brings up the information in Google Earth. This one is organized in folders that you can open and close to show stations that began data in the various decades. It has info for 4 databases (GHCN, BEST, GSOD and CRUTEM3) but those are foldered too, and you can limit it to just BEST.
An excellent summary of Muller’s scam from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/10/26/the-death-of-global-warming-skepticism-or-the-birth-of-straw-men/
DavidMHoffer – I am an engineer whose field is one of HEAT; but I am also a Computer Scientist, a proper programmer. I’ve also spent many years doing economic models for many large companies … Lehman’s being one of them (yeah, ok, you can blame the economy problems on me) I’m also a mad inventor with many patents and copyrights in my name 🙂
I build machines but numbers are also my game, only numbers show the truth of things, charts, graphs are so on only represent what numbers prove, but one can do nothing without having the numbers first.
Wouldn’t it be good if we could provide everybody with such data? think of what all of you here could do with it.
Since the entire argument of Global Warming is one of Heat, then without heat (temperature) measurements there can be no argument; the whole thing become not only a fallacy, but a waste of time and money.
As an engineer I stick to the theory of energy transfer, something that has been proven over and over again for the last two centuries by hundreds of people ….. and heat is energy and heat ‘must” flow from hotter areas to cooler areas .. an unstoppable principle of physics.
Without the temperature data I cannot do the formulas for energy transfer between the different layers of the atmosphere … the top one alone sitting at some 2000 degrees and which through the agency of molecular collisions, creating all sorts of wave frequencies, transfers “some” of its heat to the layers below.
Mars did this already; there are many engineers at MIT; JET labs and so on that believe we are going through it ourselves but they have all had no choice but to separate themselves from the debate on AGW that has become nothing but a fiasco of argumentative crap.
Everybody argues a point or another … who looks for solutions? .
There are many reasons for Global Warming, but without the temperature measurements none of us has a leg to stand on.
Stokes: “The huge down-spike in April, taken by GWPF as part of proof of stagnation, in fact happens because in April/May 2010 BEST has just 47 stations, all Antarctic.”
After a year and a half, why only 47 Arctic stations when the rest of the world has the rest of the data. And why does the data for May look more or less correct?
Donald says:
October 30, 2011 at 9:02 pm
There are many reasons for Global Warming, but without the temperature measurements none of us has a leg to stand on.
_________________________
Brother you are preaching to the choir here. The best guess anyone has is that CO2 has gone up, from what source is debatable and it would appear that for the last decade the temperature has remained constant or declined. The data we all have to rely on has been in the hands of people who to ” help ” us have adjusted the data over the years. The adjustments have almost always been up. Go figure. The data sets that are available to us are suspect. I am not even sure if the old raw data is available. Is it?
To complicate all this then we have UHI question which alone can explain a substantial amount of the increase in heat.
@NickStokes: “I think I linked a while ago to this KMZ file which shows that information in decades.”
Yes, and there was one file (in your same comment, IIRC) that automatically displayed the stations as they were added year by year. That’s the one that shows how few sources of temperature measurement there were for the first 150+ years.
Dr. Curry’s tiara seems a bit wobbly today and Team Berkeley is about to spike the ball with her blessing. Hopefully she will take the high road from Santa Fe back home.
Mann’s “Hide the Decline” was good, but Muller’s is possibly the BEST.