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:
Stevo posted a WFT plot of 1975-2000 -vs- 1975-2011 trend to show that the trend increases with the larger time scale.
I just wanted to interject with an interesting observation of my own:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2011/trend
There is something very wrong with the knowledge that the entirety of the trend increase in the WFT data comes from data manipulation.
richard verney says:
October 31, 2011 at 1:52 am
“How this temperature set in itself can be said to prove manmade global warming beggars belief, such assertion is beyond rediculous.”
BEST people, like the vast majority of climate scientists, are statisticians. They live, eat, and breath statistics. If their statistical work leads them to a new belief then, for them, the world must be in accordance with their statistics. Someday someone will show them that good statistical work follows closely empirical reality and not the other way around.
Bill Illis, JCH over on Curry’s site also appears to have discovered the problem with Jan 2007.
It appears to be ignoring the southern hemisphere.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vsh/from:2006/to:2008/plot/best/from:2006/to:2008/plot/crutem3vnh/from:2006/to:2008
Paul Clark,
To quote the relevant discussion in the last IPCC report of comparing different land temp calculations:
“Most of the differences arise from the diversity of spatial averaging techniques. The global average for CRUTEM3 is a land-area weighted sum (0.68 × NH + 0.32 × SH). For NCDC it is an area-weighted average of the grid-box anomalies where available worldwide. For GISS it is the average of the anomalies for the zones 90°N to 23.6°N, 23.6°N to 23.6°S and 23.6°S to 90°S with weightings 0.3, 0.4 and 0.3, respectively, proportional to their total areas. For Lugina et al. (2005) it is (NH + 0.866 × SH) / 1.866 because they excluded latitudes south of 60°S. As a result, the recent global trends are largest in CRUTEM3 and NCDC, which give more weight to the NH where recent trends have been greatest.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html
curryja | October 30, 2011 at 10:24 am
but anyone looking at that wouldn’t want to mess with me.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/category/josh?
You’ve been warned !
Disclaimer – I am not a scientist and have not stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently. I am analyst, however, and read articles from all sides of this discussion with interest. I am convinced that the IPCC reports and subsequent AGW theories are off-base and consider myself a skeptic. That said, here’s my question I’m hoping you can help me with.
If the past 10 years have seen temperatures flatline, and not increase as IPCC predicted in response to the increase in CO2, could this be due to lower solar output during this period literally offsetting what would otherwise have resulted in a significant increase in temps during this time?
Thank you for yout time and thoughtful responses.
Someone remind me again. I swear I remember the topic of “how long of zero trend is enough to falsify the models?” over on ClimateAudit about 4-5 years ago. And I swear I remember Gavin saying “10 years”….
“An example is Tokyo: its surface temp rose by ca. 3 degC from 1880-2000, but remains nearly flat thereafter”
Japan’s economy has stunk for most of the last 10 years. That might be the reason why the UHI has flattened for Tokyo.
orkneygal,
“New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory”
If you look at the publication, “On the Benefit of GOSAT Observations to the Estimation of Regional CO2 Fluxes” (http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/7/0/161/_pdf) it’s clear that it focusses on how the satellite scientists have improved their estimates of the CO2 fluxes, not what the fluxes are themselves. Whoever wrote the headline did not understand the actual GOSAT results.
Temperatures have been increasing in my neck of the woods since the mid 1990’s. Out of interest I took the raw weather data for 2 stations in Newfoundland and one in England and applied a 10 year running average to see if there were any trends. Here is the result: http://i39.tinypic.com/14bp30p.jpg
Please note that I added 4°c to all the Newfoundland data in order to fit it on the chart … it ain’t that warm here 🙂
It would appear that the Newfoundland temps have now plateaued and that the Oxford temps are now on the decline.
Zeke, it appears BEST is just CRUTEM3 Nothern Hemisphere only.
Southern Hemisphere is not counted.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vsh/from:2001/to:2011/plot/best/from:2001/to:2011/plot/crutem3vnh/from:2001/to:2011
jamadan says: at 7:53 am
. . . literally offsetting what would otherwise have resulted in a significant increase in temps during this time?
—-
It’s been shown several times over the past 100 years that there is a physical limit to the properties of CO2 regarding its ability to “trap” heat in the atmosphere. It was this physical fact that shot down Arrhenius’s theory century before last. Atmospheric CO2 can double and provide only a very small increase in trapped warmth. CH4 (methane) is better at trapping warmth in the atmosphere, but it too has physical limits.
These physical limits are not incorporated in the projections from the anthropogenic warming crowd while they largely ignore the solar irradience component altogether. Why? Their goal is not truth, but a political agenda. If the facts don’t support the argument, they are ignored.
Richard S Courtney says:
October 31, 2011 at 7:33 am
“And it can now be hoped that this is the start of ‘leak in the dyke’ which will result in a flood of factual reporting of AGW, climate change and climate science. ”
Yes, I think so. Climate Science has been run by IPCC just like communism.
You cannot combine communism with openess and perestroika.
I wonder if Gorbatsjev knew that before he started down that road?
One small opening, and there you go. The warmistas will start running for cover. Ten years from now noone will admit they were a warmista.
orkneygal says:
October 31, 2011 at 5:22 am
“New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory”
http://www.suite101.com/news/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon-dioxide-climate-theory-a394975
This is the most interesting post here so far….. All CO2 fantasts; Go home and have a soda-pop!
Judith Curry’s graph shows the temperature has been flat for a decade.
Paul Clark’s graph shows the last decade shooting up like the end of a hockey stick.
They both say they are using BEST’s numbers.
– Confused in Minnesota.
New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory
http://www.suite101.com/news/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon-dioxide-climate-theory-a394975
CO2 density map created using satellite data
http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html
On the Benefit of GOSAT Observations to the Estimation of Regional CO2 Fluxes
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/7/0/161/_pdf
[NOTE: Site policy requires a valid e-mail address. Please rectify this or the next post may not make it through. -REP]
jamadan,
10 years is insufficient to determine a climate trend, which is what IPCC are projecting. Various mid-range IPCC scenarios display 10 and even 20-year flat or negative trends, even while those particular runs end up warming in the long term. These short-term trends are the result of natural variability, and are a combination of many factors, including solar. Solar variation is unlikely the dominant factor in climate change, as the sun has been steady since the 1950s, but global temperatures have clearly increased. There are a number of theories on attribution for the low trend for the last 10 years or so, but this is a question of weather variability rather than climate.
If it’s only a few years, you’re talking about weather variation. 20 years is a fair minimum period to be able to talk about climate (specifically regarding the global surface temperature records). The World Meteorological Organization lists a climate period as 30 years.
(BTW, has anyone derived a statistically reasonable minimum period to establish trends for satellite global temps, which are noisier? I assume that would mean in general you need more data to get statistically significant trends than the surface records. I’m thinking like the way Robert Grumbine did for the surface records. It’s beyond my ken to do it)
elmer says:
October 31, 2011 at 9:39 am
Judith Curry’s graph shows the temperature has been flat for a decade.
Paul Clark’s graph shows the last decade shooting up like the end of a hockey stick.
They both say they are using BEST’s numbers.
– Confused in Minnesota.
================================================
Elmer, I’m confused also, but in a different manner. I’ve visited Dr. Curry’s blog and can find no graph that she’s presented. As far as Paul’s, he’s presented a few. Could you direct me to the graphs of which you speak? For a slightly deeper look, I just posted some more info….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/more-funnies-from-the-bests-apologists/
For those that don’t see a change in the trends, using one period and then another covering the same going to the present. I think it is important you understand the weighting of data from one end to another. Shorten the data by ten years and you see this…..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1991/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:1991/trend
It is never a good idea to embarrass your boss. It is not a good idea to embarrass yourself either but we all do it all time not usually intentionally. Muller has embarrassed his institution, his coauthors and I would assume his grant providers. He just want early retirement anyway, right.
If it’s only a few years, you’re talking about weather variation. 20 years is a fair minimum period to be able to talk about climate (specifically regarding the global surface temperature records). The World Meteorological Organization lists a climate period as 30 years. Is the climate period of 30y related to the grid size being measured, and is there an accepted minimum grid size for a climatic region?
Looks like more of the same garbage produced by the corrupted climate science community. The lowest work ethic of all sciences is once again being kicked around; right there with politicians,
Those of you trying to do your climate science “right” are appreciated, yet there are still those who just can’t seem to be truthful.
suyts says:
October 31, 2011 at 10:22 am
“Could you direct me to the graphs of which you speak?”
The bottom graph shows the last decade as flat
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/article-2055191-0e974b4300000578-216_468x4731.jpg
This graph doesn’t seems shows a warming last decade
ahttp://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.60/mean:60/plot/gistemp-land/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.44/mean:60/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.40/mean:60/plot/rss-land/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.14/mean:60/plot/uah-land/from:1981/to:2011/mean:60/plot/best/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.60/trend/plot/gistemp-land/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.44/trend/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.40/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.14/trend/plot/uah-land/from:1981/to:2011/trend
suyts says:
October 31, 2011 at 10:22 am
“Could you direct me to the graphs of which you speak?”
The bottom graph shows the last decade as flat
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/article-2055191-0e974b4300000578-216_468x4731.jpg
This graph seems to show a warming last decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.60/mean:60/plot/gistemp-land/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.44/mean:60/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.40/mean:60/plot/rss-land/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.14/mean:60/plot/uah-land/from:1981/to:2011/mean:60/plot/best/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.60/trend/plot/gistemp-land/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.44/trend/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.40/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1981/to:2011/offset:-0.14/trend/plot/uah-land/from:1981/to:2011/trend
Over at IceCap they have the following about yet another Temperature set problem.
Oct 31, 2011
Arctic and Antarctic measurements show significant warm biases.
http://www.icecap.us/