Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is warming

[chuam]

Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer

Last week, a project called Berkeley Earth released drafts of its findings. The project was started by a physicist, Richard Muller, who had previously expressed doubts about the mathematical rigor of climate science; it received funding from a variety of sources, including the Department of Energy and foundations set up by Bill Gates and the Koch brothers. The Berkeley Earth team set out to analyze records of the Earth's surface temperatures to answer questions about the trajectory of the planet's recent warming that had been raised by skeptics and contrarians. To a very large degree, it discovered that climatologists had been doing a pretty good job after all.

Climatologists have generated a number of reconstructions of global temperature trends based on instruments that have been recording temperatures since the 1800s. However, one of those records was produced by members of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. That record became embroiled in controversy: the CRU was the target of e-mail thefts, was unable to release some of its records due to commercial agreements, and had destroyed some paper copies of original data decades earlier. NASA and NOAA, however, performed independent reconstructions based on publicly available data.

Even those, however, had become the targets of criticism. Recording stations were moved, their surroundings urbanized, and researchers performed adjustments or dropped some stations entirely in order to compensate. Various parties hostile to the findings of climate science have raised questions about this process. Have the scientists really compensated for urbanization? Was the trajectory of the modern warming really as extreme as the temperature records were showing?

And those were the moderate voices. At the more extreme end of the spectrum, some accused researchers of selectively dropping only stations that showed cooling trends, and raised questions about whether the planet had warmed at all. These questions weren't very realistic—melting ice, migrating species, and other factors made it pretty clear the planet was warming—but the climate debate has no shortage of unreasonable voices.

Rerunning the numbers
In any case, the Berkeley Earth project set out to answer all of those questions. It would use many more stations, perform an independent reconstruction of global temperatures, and examine the effect of urbanization. And it has now completed that analysis and posted drafts of the four papers it has submitted to peer reviewed journals (they're currently in the review process).

It's not clear that they will all be published, because a few of them largely duplicate information that's already out there, as even the project head admits. "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Richard Muller. "This confirms that these studies were done carefully and the potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

So, with a different set of temperature stations, Berkeley Earth has succeeded in producing a graph that looks nearly indistinguishable from those of the other research groups. Is it possible to produce a biased record? Absolutely—about a third of the stations in Berkeley Earth's dataset show a cooling trend over the past 70 years. But, given this analysis, there's no reason to give any credibility to accusations that climate scientists were cooking the books on temperatures.

But could the climate record be inadvertently biased? Critics have suggested that urbanization and the changing environment around many temperature stations have created a false warming signal; this is the premise behind the Surface Stations project, which went out and rated US instruments for likely problems. Both of these issues had been tackled by the scientific community. A paper from NOAA scientists looked at the best-rated US surface stations, and found they produced a temperature plot indistinguishable from that of the network as a whole. Berkeley Earth essentially duplicates this analysis.

Similarly, a group of NASA scientists (including James Hansen—yes, he still does science) used satellite images of nighttime lighting to determine which temperature stations are in urban areas, and found that these have a minimal impact on the temperature record. Berkeley Earth used a different source of urbanization information (daylight imagery that was processed by a machine learning algorithm), but come to the same conclusion: the urban heat island effect isn't skewing the temperature record.

Is there anything new here at all? The primary new contribution seems to be in a paper that focuses on short term variability in the climate. The Berkeley Earth record shows a good correlation between surface temperatures and variability in the North Atlantic. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation, which takes place in the Pacific, is generally regarded as the main driver of short-term variability, so this goes a bit against the grain. It's possible that this is a result of Berkeley Earth's focus on land-based readings, but we'll have to await their next analysis, which will include ocean readings, to see.

A sanity check for skepticism?
With the papers released, however, a publicity war has broken out. Richard Muller, one of the leaders of Berkeley Earth, penned an editorial in which he ignores the previous work by NASA, NOAA, and others, and claims there was good reason to be skeptical of the temperature record. Until now, that is. Berkeley Earth has largely recapitulated that previous work, so now it can all be trusted, and climate skeptics should simply move on to something else. Muller may have been one of the only people to have actually done what anyone skeptical of the climate scientists should do—perform an independent check of their work—but his public spin on his results is completely unrealistic.

Of course, like the NOAA study before it, Berkeley Earth undercuts the whole rationale behind the Surface Station project, and the people behind that are not happy. After posting nearly any trivia that came along on their blog (called Watts Up With That, after its lead, Anthony Watts), they have suddenly gotten very upset that the four papers were released before going through peer review—at which point they think they should be rejected for publication.

Stranger still, Watts and a number of others are now disowning their past, claiming to never have doubted that the Earth had been warming, and complaining that Muller's editorial caricatures their view up as a straw man. That's hard to reconcile with Watts' past statements. In a document he prepared for a think tank, Watts had written, "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant 'global warming' in the 20th century." Now, after Berkeley Earth's release, he claims to have never questioned that the Earth had warmed. Other prominent skeptics are saying similar things.

But Watts still doesn't trust Berkeley Earth's results. And, based on the comments on his blog, most of his readers don't either. That suggests that, contrary to Muller's expectations, this won't be the end of the skepticism of the temperature record.

What it may help do is drive those who keep questioning whether the Earth has warmed further to the fringes, where they can join those who question whether the greenhouse effect exists even after a century of work has confirmed that it does. That's a territory that doesn't merit the label skepticism anymore.

Actual skeptics might see this as an opportunity to focus on the scientific community's attribution of the temperature changes Berkeley Earth has confirmed, which is primarily ascribed to anthropogenic influences. There's an entire chapter of the IPCC report devoted to attribution, though, so any scientific skepticism should at least start by addressing the arguments outlined there.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...ing-warmer.ars

[Marcus]

....and? The earth is always changing. If it ain't gettin' warmer, itsa gettin' colder. What the BFD?

[riplipper]

Originally Posted by Marcus

....and? The earth is always changing. If it ain't gettin' warmer, itsa gettin' colder. What the BFD?

Because "good science" can make claims on a billion yr old planet with only 100 years of data

[Kirk Killebrew]

I still think all of the true believers should get together and actually do something. Instead of running around screaming "the sky is falling" or thereabouts, why not organize and make a difference. How about this, all the believers pick one day, yes, one day, and hold their breath. Potentially millions or even billions of people not emitting 98.6 into the atmosphere should have a dramatic effect. Instant cooling could be accomplished, and save the non-believers one extra day of lunacy.

[ocean_314]

Ya right lets see the hard data..something that those global warming errr grant getting experts never seem to publish.

[chuam]

Originally Posted by ocean_314

Ya right lets see the hard data..something that those global warming errr grant getting experts never seem to publish.

The skeptics do there own research and come to the same conclusions and you're saying they are grant getting experts? Are you truly that retarded?

[SpearMax]

Interesting article Marcus.

It brought to mind my personal climb of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa years ago - 3 days up and 2 days down.

I wondered how the ice cap there was fairing these days so I googled it and found this article:

Kilimanjaro regaining its snow cap

Posted on March 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/2...-its-snow-cap/

I am not disagreeing with the new research and certainly welcome more solid research by more skeptics so we get at the truth. Humans tend to invest so much in their initial opinions, it becomes harder and harder to accept they might be wrong on either side of this debate. Scientists can be the worst for that illogical polarization.


.

["Yard-Sale Josh"]

It was cold as balls today, bring on some more god damn warming already.

[jfjf]

Originally Posted by SpearMax

Interesting article Marcus.

It brought to mind my personal climb of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa years ago - 3 days up and 2 days down.

I wondered how the ice cap there was fairing these days so I googled it and found this article:

Kilimanjaro regaining its snow cap

Posted on March 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/2...-its-snow-cap/

I am not disagreeing with the new research and certainly welcome more solid research by more skeptics so we get at the truth. Humans tend to invest so much in their initial opinions, it becomes harder and harder to accept they might be wrong on either side of this debate. Scientists can be the worst for that illogical polarization.


.

Global warming” has nothing to do with this, it’s all about rainfall, deforestation, and evapotranspiration. I’m not ashamed to say: “We told you so”, several times:

[ocean_314]

Originally Posted by chuam

The skeptics do there own research and come to the same conclusions and you're saying they are grant getting experts? Are you truly that retarded?

I want science done, not bullshit but real honest science. Real honest science publishes all of their data that they used and the conclusions they came to and how they came to those conclusions for the entire world to review. THIS IS SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!

With the above, it’s just another form of religion....believe believe!!!!!!!! Trust me i am the messenger!!! Don’t bother with facts and numbers because i am special and know more then you.....

Anything for free money, just keep that free money flowing....you want me to say what???? publish what for the free money???? No problem!!! my bank account is.......

This is climate change "science".

[surf_dude]

Earth's present warming is blamed on humanity, but the fact that all the other planets in our solar system are warming too can easily be blamed on Bush II

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

[ocean_314]

Originally Posted by surf_dude

Earth's present warming is blamed on humanity, but the fact that all the other planets in our solar system are warming too can easily be blamed on Bush II

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Now dont confuse Chuam with science, he is fixed on the Global warming religon.

[mepps1]

Chuam,
Why didn't you post this article?

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

By David Rose

Last updated at 6:11 PM on 30th October 2011

• Comments (398)
• Add to My Stories
• Share

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.
Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

Hot topic: The plight of polar bears captures the hearts of many, but are the ice caps still shrinking?


It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.
The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.


More...

• Scientist whose climate change research on polar bears was cited by Al Gore will face lie detector test over 'integrity issues'
• MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Royal Mail has betrayed its glorious legacy

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
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.




Poles apart: Former sceptic Prof Richard Muller, left, says the latest findings settle the climate debate once and for all. But Prof Judith Curry says such a claim is 'a mistake'



Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.
‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.
A graph issued by the BEST project also suggests a continuing steep increase.



But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.
This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.
‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’
Prof Muller also wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal. It was here, under the headline ‘The case against global warming scepticism’, that he proclaimed ‘there were good reasons for doubt until now’.
Media storm: Prof Muller's claims received uncritical coverage in the media this week

This, too, went around the world, with The Economist, among many others, stating there was now ‘little room for doubt’.
Such claims left Prof Curry horrified.

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’
In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.
They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.
Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.
‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.
Prof Ross McKittrick, a climate statistics expert from Guelph University in Ontario, added: ‘You don’t look for statistically significant evidence of a standstill.
‘You look for statistically significant evidence of change.’
The BEST project, which has been lavishly funded, brings together experts from different fields from top American universities.
It was set up 18 months ago in an effort to devise a new and more accurate way of computing changes in world temperatures by using readings from some 39,000 weather stations on land, instead of adding sea temperatures as well.
Some scientists, Prof Muller included, believe that this should provide a more accurate indication of how the world is responding to carbon dioxide.
The oceans, they argue, warm more slowly and this is why earlier global measurements which also cover the sea – such as those from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University – have found no evidence of warming since the Nineties.
The usual way a high-profile project such as BEST would publish its results would be in a scientific journal, following a rigorous ‘peer review’ by other experts in the field.
The more eminent journals that publish climate research, such as Nature And Science, insist there must be no leaks to the media until this review is complete and if such leaks occur, they will automatically reject the research.
Earlier this year, the project completed four research papers.
As well as trends in world temperatures, they looked at the extent to which temperature readings can be distorted by urban ‘heat islands’ and the influence of long-term temperature cycles in the oceans. The papers were submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research.
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.
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.’
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.’
Prof Muller defended his behaviour yesterday, saying that all he was doing was ‘returning to traditional peer review’, issuing draft papers to give the whole ‘climate community’ a chance to comment.
As for the press release, he claimed he was ‘not seeking publicity’, adding: ‘This is simply a way of getting the media to report this more accurately.’
He said his decision to publish was completely unrelated to the forthcoming United Nations climate conference.
This, he said, was ‘irrelevant’, insisting that nothing could have been further from his mind than trying to influence it.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1cVC3wE3d

[SpearMax]

Something smells fishy here:

‘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.’

[josedesucre]

Something you could expect from the "Berserk-ley" team???