Arguments
The BEST Kind of Skepticism
Posted on 22 October 2011 by dana1981
As Andy recently discussed, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) results are in. For those true skeptics among us, the BEST results are not the least bit surprising. It's not a coincidence that the NASA GISS, HadCRU, and NOAA surface temperature datasets show approximately the same amount of warming. Either they all effectively filter out extraneous effects such as from urban heat islands (UHI), or they all don't. However, numerous studies have concluded that these groups do effectively remove the UHI effect, and we have known for a long time that the surface temperature record is reliable.
Thus it's not the least bit surprising that the BEST results have confirmed their accuracy (Figure 1). BEST also confirmed that HadCRUT is biased low, which we already knew. Ironically, although we have known that HadCRUT has a cool bias, and "skeptics" attacked the record in the wake of Climategate, HadCRUT has become the surface temperature record of choice for the so-called "skeptics."
Figure 1: The decadal land-surface average temperature using a 10-year moving average of surface temperatures over land. Anomalies are relative to the Jan 1950 – December 1979 mean. The grey band indicates 95% statistical and spatial uncertainty interval.
As Andy discussed, BEST also demonstrated that rural temperature stations show essentially the same, and in fact even a slightly larger warming trend as urban and more poorly-sited stations (Figure 2). This is consistent with the findings of Menne et al. (2010).
Figure 2: The Berkeley Earth global temperature averages, normalized to zero mean for the period 1950 to 1980.
So for those who consider all the evidence - the true skeptics - the findings of Muller et al. are entirely expected and unsurprising. Then there are those who call themselves 'skeptics', but really are not. In March of 2011, Anthony Watts said (emphasis his):
"I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong....the method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU....That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet. Dr. Fred Singer also gives a tentative endorsement of the methods....Climate related website owners, I give you carte blanche to repost this."
Not surprisingly, Watts has not adhered to his promise to accept the BEST result. Quite the contrary, in fact:
"Both [Fall et al. 2011 and Menne et al. 2010] (and cited by Muller et al) do an analysis over a thirty year time period while the Muller et al paper uses data for comparison from 1950 – 2010....I see this as a basic failure in understanding the limitations of the siting survey we conducted on the USHCN, rendering the Muller et al paper conclusions highly uncertain, if not erroneous....I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked....it appears they have circumvented the scientific process in favor of PR."
In short, Watts' complaints are that the BEST papers have been made public prior to undergoing the peer review process, and that their analysis extended 60 years into the past, rather than limiting themselves to the 30-year period during which Watts considers the surfacestation ratings reliable.
There is no validity to these criticisms. Scientific papers are often made available prior to publication (i.e. see arXiv, and by Watts himself), and there's no reason to believe that limiting their analysis to the past 30 years will change the BEST results (though Watts is welcome to try and demonstrate otherwise); obviously the 60-year period includes the 30-year window. To be blunt, Watts is clearly fishing for excuses to dispute the BEST conclusions and continue denying the accuracy of the surface temperature record. Ironically, Watts is attacking a paper which is consistent the results of Fall et al. (2011), on which Watts was a co-author:
"None of our conclusions disagree with those of Fall et al. [2011] or those of Menne et al. [2010]."
Dr. Pielke has also weighed in with his comments on the unsurprising BEST results:
"Unless, Muller pulls from a significanty different set of raw data, it is no surprise that his trends are the same."
Dr. Pielke has long disputed the accuracy of the surface temperature record (including with some unflattering caricatures). His explanation for the various datasets being so similar is that they use the same raw data. However, it is not the accuracy of the thermometers that is in question; rather, the question is whether the thermometer readings are influenced by effects other than global warming, like UHI. Each dataset (including BEST) utilizes different methods to filter out those effects (see Glenn's excellent Of Averages and Anomalies series for details on how they do this), and in that sense they are independent. It's also worth noting that if the surface temperature datasets aren't considered independent, then the satellite datasets (UAH and RSS) that Pielke favors aren't either.
But as it so happens, BEST does utilize raw data which are not included in the analyses of the other groups, as Pielke would have learned had he actually read the papers (or articles about them) rather than automatically seeking a reason to criticize them.
The surface warming is also consistent with the many physical indicators, and the observed amount of warming is consistent with the expected range of climate sensitivity, which itself is based upon many different lines of evidence.
In short, all the evidence has consistently indicated that the surface temperature record is accurate. To continue scrambling for reasons to believe otherwise is not skepticism; refusal to accept overwhelming evidence is denial. Of their paper, Muller said:
"My hope is that this will win over those people who are properly sceptical"
Unfortunately, proper skepticism appears to be in short supply amongst the self-proclaimed climate "skeptics."
"Of course, presuming that he basically confirms what we have been reporting, the deniers will then decide that he is a crook or has some ulterior motive.
"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."
Source: “Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns,” The Guardian (UK), Oct 20, 2011
To access the article, click here.
Muller didn't come to the predetermined conclusion so he has sold out. 'They' got to him. He changed the rules. Blah blah blah.
"They have all contacted me regarding the release of papers from BEST today.
There’s only one problem: Not one of the BEST papers have completed peer review.
Nor has one has been published in a journal to my knowledge, nor is the one paper I’ve been asked to comment on in press at JGR, (where I was told it was submitted) yet BEST is making a “pre-peer review” media blitz."
"Apparently, PR trumps the scientific process now, no need to do that pesky peer review, no need to address the errors with those you ask for comments prior to publication, just get it to press."
Surely Watts adheres to the strict standard of waiting until his work is complete, peer-reviewed, and published before talking to the media...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/archaic-weather-network-run-with-volunteers/
I do agree that focusing on accurately covering published peer-reviewed work is a good idea. Where would that leave Watts?
Yes!
What is most important about this is not actually the confirmation of temperature rises (that was a shocker... hmph).
What is most important is that skeptics now look foolish, and their reactions to events are making them look even more foolish. Their faux-credibility crumbles with every whine and sneer.
I also find the skeptic reliance on HadCRU to prove the earth is not warming while simultaneously insisting that Climategate proved Hadley cooked the books to be delicious irony.
It's fascinating, though not unexpected, that they got nearly identical results. And not just identical results with the temperature series but identical results with regards to the UHI effect.
Is this going to quell the debate at WUWT? Unlikely. But now they clearly are placing themselves in the arena of what can properly be termed "denial."
While Watts continues to live down to my expectations, I'm a little surprised and disappointed at RPSr.'s response. Surely he can do better than that.
There would be no significant difference if Muller used 30 years. If Watts thinks so, the data is right there to verify. Considering he took him years to even attempt the first data analysis to support his main premise, I'm not holding my breath.
The paper will certainly pass peer-review because it is solid but will continue being attacked in the usual fashion. Hansen is most accurate describing these people as acting like lawyers, that's exactly what they do. There is hardly a minute spent on Watts' site that is not a complete waste of time.
http://www.elsevierdirect.com/ISBN/9780123859563/EvidenceBased-Climate-Science
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123859563
As it turns out, Christopher Monckton is one of the contributors.
Shades of Pandas and People.
I have full online access to the textbook through my university subscription, and I've got to tell you this thing has left me speechless. It is literally a repackaging of various WUWT posts.
In it I like best the GWPF description of the BEST coverage by Forbes - Breaking news the earth still goes around the sun and its still warming up.
"This prejudiced, intolerant and inaccurate, (Forbes) 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."
"How To Fit Every Silly Denial Misdirection Into A Single Preface" by Don Easterbrook.
It's embarrassing.
Perhaps McIntyre has found that the UHI effect is even more negative....
Have you considered the fact that the data sample BEST used was too large?
Don't you realize that if they used a smaller database, Anthony's opinion that the UHI effect is significant might have more likely to be validated?
They should have been more selective in choosing their sample. After all, any legitimate researcher knows that it's easier to prove your hypothesis the more you limit your sample.
It is both entertaining and pathetic to watch those in denial about AGW implode.
And, if compared with satellite data of a nearly equal coverage, we have quite fine correlations:
RSSMSU vs. HadCRUT for nearly 80% and
UAH vs. GISS for 100% coverage.
If someone means that a record is "biased", the one forgets the fact of different coverages.
The BEST study supports the data of 100% coverage, but it cannot approve the HadCRUT record to be biased, because they show their coverage values in the record.
Greetings from Germany.
This is the kind of stuff that gets you put on academic probation as an undergraduate student.
denierskeptics. I wonder how the BEST results will be received?debacletextbook soon!I'm tempted to drive up to Santa Fe to catch the proceedings. The Tuesday morning Observations session could be interesting: Muller gives his presentation from 10:55-11:15 followed by Rohde from 11:15-11:35, followed by a certain F. Singer presenting "Is the reported global surface warming of 1979 to 1997 real?" I'm not sure how these conferences are, but the ones I've been to something like that would spark some interesting, uh, discussions.
But many of those who were sceptical about the warming will shift their scepticism to the causes of warming. Maybe the BEST team can tackle that next? ;-)
Hey, maybe in a decade of two, when they've reproduced & confirmed the last few decades of climate science as a whole, we might start to see some real public acceptance? Naaaaaaah! That'll only happen when the oil & coal actually runs out, and the denialist organisations run out of funding.
Oil & coal will run out in ~300y at current rat, so your will is actually pessimistic. Had that happen (300y of BAU) we would certainly head for PETM scenario (56mya) when arctic ocean temp was 74F...
Hopefully it won't come to that. Back to our times: denialist are disturbed and hopefully their influence dies much sooner than the fosils are burned. If it happens in decade or two, it won't be bad, perhaps not too late.
"Although the results of the analysis aren’t particularly surprising relative to previous analyses, I think the BEST project is very important given the importance of the surface temperature data set and the problems that have been associated with the CRU and NASA data sets, not to mention their disagreement. The BEST group is comprised of some extremely distinguished scientists (including Nobel Prize awardee Saul Perlmutter), and this topic has benefitted greatly from the examination of this problem by physicists and statisticians who were prepared to take a fresh look at this problem.
I am honored to have been invited to participate in this study, which I think was conducted very well".
Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released
BEST do take a stab at the cause of global warming. In the multidecadal oscillation paper they say the cycle fits AMO very well, and that human involvement is most probably over estimated.
[DB] "human involvement is most probably over estimated"
I must have missed that part; my pardon. My copy says:
And then in the conclusion:
[Emphasis added where bolded]
No, they don't.
If you believe that paper says anything of the kind you have been misinformed or misunderstood something.
What it says is that observed temperature fluctuations fit the AMO better than other commonly cited cycles (particularly ENSO). They also say that the ~0.55 C warming observed over the AMO cycle could be due to greenhouse gases or some unidentified other factor... and if it is some theoretical other factor then that could also play a part in the observed land temperature increase. They provide no evidence for another factor or against greenhouse gases.
Basically, they identify a correlation in trends and then speculate on possible common causes without any analysis of those speculations or reference to other research on the matter.
From Wiki: "The AMO signal is usually defined from the patterns of SST variability in the North Atlantic once any linear trend has been removed. This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis." [my highlighting]
Kinda tricky to see how the AMO will drive warming, when the warming trend has been removed from the AMO...
What a surprise, eh ? (Not)
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/amo/
However, others share a different opinion and this matter is not yet considered consensus.
1) identifying a cycle in a timeseries so short that few 'cycles' are present - add some aerosol cooling here, a little enhanced solar activity there, et voila we have the appearance of a 'cycle' within the warming trend.
2) the Atlantic (while large) represents a relatively small fraction of the Earth's surface. How does that drive global temperatures?
3) We have the issue of the direction of cause. The AMO correlates with global temperature. Without a mechanism, who is to say that global temperature drivers also drive AMO temperatures?
That's a pretty big if. Where's the evidence? Where is the logic? Where is there anything except for a desperate hope that it is true, simply because you don't want to believe otherwise, in the face of all evidence?
What about this paper makes you personally believe that their inference is true? And why do you put so much weight into a single statement in a paper which as far as I knwo contains no data which would support such an assertion. A statement which is a mere "may," and if true only implies that AGW may be "overestimated" (they don't say by how much)?
What sort of skeptic clings to a single, unsupported sentence in a single paper whose focus is not anything in the arena of that statement?
And the Tamino post I linked in 37 above is well worth reading.
Edit: Please also see Tamino's response to this comment over at Open Mind.
The leader of the BEST project, Richard Muller said this at a speech a few weeks ago:
"Global warming in my evaluation is real and much of it, if not most of it, is caused by humans,"
--Richard Muller, Sept. 28, 2011
http://wsutoday.wsu.edu/pages/Publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=27853&PageID=21
Have the denier goal posts been moved SO far, that now they are clinging to some speculative sentence in an article that the human component of "global warming MIGHT be SOMEWHAT overestimated"?
Game over. Humans are contributing to global warming. And probably to a significant extent. I doubt arguing over whether its 30% or 70%, is going to comport with two decades of previous denialsim.
You're kidding right? The sceptic goalpost for most of us is, and always has been, "sure, the world has warmed...... but WHY?"
Everything else is basically just noise to the central question. And quite simply a lot of people whilst they believe the whole GHG situation, disagree with how some scientists claim it works. For instance, logarithmic returns on CO2 cannot cause runaway warming (used as an example, not to begin an argument).
This applies to the BEST research. Sceptics don't care that they show global warming. We know that. What's interesting is they didn't automatically finger CO2 as the culprit.
IMO, some sceptics have made too much about that one sentence regarding the AMO. But AGW people have also made a big deal out of the global warming confirmation. The MSM going on about scepticism being dead now since BEST confirms global warming? Reminds me how the other side of the MSM reacted to CERN's initial CLOUD announcements. Over-hyped.
[DB] "The sceptic goalpost for most of us is, and always has been, "sure, the world has warmed...... but WHY?""
Umm, no. You forget that the skeptic "It's not happening" meme is one of the foundational cornerstones responsible for the creation of this website. See the relevant portions listed under the Taxonomy listing.
"And quite simply a lot of people whilst they believe the whole GHG situation, disagree with how some scientists claim it works."
By some you mean the vast majority of climate scientists?
"What's interesting is they didn't automatically finger CO2 as the culprit."
Straw man. No one is saying that CO2 is the sole "culprit" in the warming.
"But AGW people have also made a big deal out of the global warming confirmation."
Actually this is just another audit. The temperature records showing the global warming signals inherent in the data were confirmed years ago. But the "skeptic" need to minimize the results of BEST is understandable given that the skeptic self-identity is tied up in the many years of denial they have maintained.
As for AMO, like ENSO it's an oceanic cycle that doesn't create heat and thus cannot cause a long-term warming trend. I wouldn't be surprised if the sentence in question is revised or removed during the peer-review process, because frankly it seems obviously incorrect IMO.
The "skeptics" and those who are in denial about AGW need to catch up with the science, the fact that internal climate variability can modulate the long-term warming trend has long been known by climate scientists. As the "skeptics" like to point out concerning CO2 and global warming, correlation is not causation (yet the fingerprints of anthropogenic warming are everywhere). Also, the way the AMO is defined introduces its own issues that complicates matters.
Dale, I hope that you will join us in condemning Watts parroting misrepresentations concerning the correlation between the AMO and the global land temperatures the BEST papers on his web site.
Either way the claim that "skeptics" do not question that the planet is warming is demonstrably false. Arguments "challenging" the warming currently rank 5, 7 and 9 on the most used climate myths. Those myths exist because "skeptics" and those in denial insist on repeating them. Also a recent survey in the USA shows that over 50% of Republicans believe that the global temperatures are not increasing [H/T ThingsBreak].
[Source]
Another demonstrably false statement that "skeptics" are now making in their state of desperation is that the amount of warming caused by humans is unknown and that it is largely attributable to natural causes. First off, climate scientists are not attributing 100% of the observed warming to CO2, so "skeptics" claiming that are not being honest. Second, we have very good estimates that know that "a net anthropogenic warming of 0.49 to 1.12°C with a central estimate of 0.65°C warming of average global surface temperature." See here. Also see here and here and here.
In reality, the people making a big deal about BEST are the "skeptics". They are besides themselves with panic, and even turning on each other. Seeing them trying to spin this and at the same time attack the BEST group is rather bizarre; but I must admit it is rather entertaining. Why are "skeptics" making such an effort to discredit, undermine and dismiss the BEST results if they agree that the planet is warming and that the global temperature records are reliable? No, they are in deep, deep denial of course, and that includes Mr. Anthony Watts and his apologists such Pielke, McIntyre and Monckton and Delingpole. etc. Now Dale, are you a real skeptic or a fake one?
The survey results you presented are interesting, but what was the actual question asked? That's not clearly noted on the results. The results mean completely different things if the question was "Has the world warmed in the last 150 years?" or "Is the world still warming?" If the question is the later, then technically it hasn't according to HadCRUT, CRUTEM, NCDC, and the RSS, UAH satellite feeds since 2000 (GISS shows a slight warming). Or if it has, the trend is minuscule. And please save me the usual "2010 was the hottest on record" comments. Yes the decade is the hottest, but it's flat when compared to the rising trends of the 3 previous decades. I think of it as "the top of the curve". Whether it goes up or down is yet to be seen. In 3 years of talking climate change with people I know and people on the internet, I've come across no one who doesn't believe we've warmed at all.
As for your final question, it's my experience that is a pretty loaded question at this site. I've been asked that question before and the context was always "do you believe what's written at SkS or not?" I am my own sceptic. I consider all articles (from both sides) sceptically till I've found confirming evidence from science. That is why I read information from both sides. I appreciate that if I only read information from one side my opinion will tend to lean that direction. So I read from SkS, RC and others, as well as WUWT, JoNova (more for an Aussie home flavor), CA and others. If that makes me a "denier" I'd rather be that, than 'persuaded' by limiting my information inflow to one side.
And no, I will not join you in condemning Watts. I consider that poor form and bad manners, no matter who it is.
As to your suggestion of reading 'both sides', it would be OK if the other side was actually doing science...