Oil industry-funded "BEST" study finds global warming is real, manmade

By: Angela Fritz , 7:35 PM GMT on July 30, 2012

Share this Blog
8
+

I originally posted this in Jeff Masters' blog, which you can see here.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) group is in the news again, surprising climate change skeptics with results from a new study that shows the earth has warmed 2.5 °F over the past 250 years, and 1.5 °F over the past fifty years, and that "essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases." Dr. Richard Muller, who heads the BEST team, now considers himself a "converted skeptic," which he wrote about in a New York Times op-ed on Saturday:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

Not only is the lead scientist of the project a former climate change skeptic, BEST itself is funded by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, an organization that is rooted deep in the oil industry and the manufactured doubt industry. Two years ago a report found that the Koch brothers outspent Exxon Mobile in science disinformation at a whopping $48.5 million since 1997. Despite the special interest of their funders, BEST has made it clear, both on their website and in the results they've come to, that funding sources will not play a role in the results of their research, and that they "will be presented with full transparency."

Figure 1. The BEST surface temperature reconstruction (black) with a 95% confidence interval (grey). The overlying curve (red) is a curve fit to the temperature reconstruction based on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and volcanic activity.

Muller's research comes to essentially the same conclusion as similar well-known studies on the topic of global temperature rise. It attempts to address the question of attribution—how much has the globe warmed, and what is to blame? They found that solar activity relates very little to the fluctuations in temperature over the past 250 years, and that the warming is "almost entirely" due to greenhouse gas emissions, combined with some variability from volcanic eruptions. It's important to note that while Muller and his team found warming of 2.5 °F over the past 250 years, and 1.5 °F over the past fifty years, the IPCC did not find quite that much warming in their AR4 assessment.

BEST was in the news in October when they released results from their first independent study of surface temperature, which set out to address some common skeptic concerns about previous temperature reconstructions (e.g. NASA, NOAA, and HadCRU), including the urban heat island effect and the potential "cherry picking" of data. Both of these concerns were found to be non-issues. BEST concluded that the urban heat island effect does not contribute significantly to the land temperature rise. In fact, in their new study, they were able to reproduce the warming trend using nothing but rural stations.

BEST Part II doesn't necessarily bring anything new to the science as it currently exists; we've known for decades that the planet is warming and the cause is manmade. But in this case the scientific process played out the way it should: a skeptic of a certain scientific result took on the project, and was open and willing to accept whatever result the science gave him. We now have another batch of results in the group of well-known temperature reconstructions, funded by big-oil-interests, that tells us the planet is warming and that the cause is fossil fuel emissions.

Angela

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 34 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

34. Bigwater1
7:58 PM GMT on August 28, 2012
SRI double entry
Member Since: August 28, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
33. Bigwater1
7:52 PM GMT on August 28, 2012
With the caveat that the integrity and validity of a lot of the alleged increase in world temperature is suspect I can accept that there may be strong evidence of an increase in average temperatures. What I have a problem with is those who think they are so smart that they have the only possible cause and the exclusive answer. Let me get this straight, some of you posting on here seem to be strongly implying that global warming has been going on for 250 years and there is significant EVIDENCE it is primarily caused by fossil fuel burning! Just how stupid do you think we are? For those who obviously failed 2nd grade math that would be since 1762. There were sure a lot more cows and horses then outgassing methane gas into the atmosphere, but my education in history does not reveal much use of fossil fuels back then. In fact, widespread use of fossil fuels did not occur until well into the 20th century. How do you explain this discrepancy? How about previous significant climate changes such as the major intrusion of desert conditions into formerly fertile parts of the world like the Sahara thousands of years ago before there was ANY significant man made causation. Ever hear of volcanic eruptions or changing wind, sea current and weather patterns? Apparently you went to a different school than me which taught you not to be confused by the facts. I also guess you draw the same conclusions from the facts that when the CNN news show comes on the sun rises the next day. Give me a break!
Member Since: August 28, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
32. msglfcst
12:23 AM GMT on August 26, 2012
Finally....a GIRL reporting the info r/t Isaac! Now we're getting somewhere! I'll be following your reports and posts closely as I live on the MS coast.
Member Since: August 17, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
31. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:46 PM GMT on August 04, 2012
Quoting angelafritz:


Yes, it will need to be approved for methodology as well, and also if it adds anything to the existing science. Right now it seems like the general consensus of "online" climate scientists is that no, it doesn't add anything we don't already know. And methodology problems are what kept his October papers from being published. But the general public doesn't understand that nuance... once it's in the media is "out there."


Thank you, Angela. I was not certain of what the proper scientific protocol would be. I agree that the Best report did not add anything new to the previous studies. That is why I considered it to be nothing more than a further verification of previous similar studies. I guess that is why Anthony Watts considers a "peer review" to be a review of his studies by other bloggers? ;-) Rush Limbaugh asking Sean Hannity his opinion of Rush's opinion is a peer review? I think I am beginning to see a pattern here. LOL
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
30. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
4:52 PM GMT on August 04, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie


Yes, it will need to be approved for methodology as well, and also if it adds anything to the existing science. Right now it seems like the general consensus of "online" climate scientists is that no, it doesn't add anything we don't already know. And methodology problems are what kept his October papers from being published. But the general public doesn't understand that nuance... once it's in the media is "out there."
29. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:13 AM GMT on August 04, 2012
Angela, I have a question for you. I have been thinking about the BEST report. Muller was acting as another peer reviewer of previous studies that had already been peer reviewed. He was examining the data and methods used to reach the conclusions of these other studies. Since the BEST report came to the same basic conclusions as the other reports, would Muller's BEST report need to be reviewed beyond editing for typos and the use of proper grammar before being released? In other words, would the BEST report need a full peer reviewing before being published?

Thanks.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
28. Daisyworld
6:53 PM GMT on August 02, 2012
It's really amazing just how subtle and far-reaching the effects of climate change can be. Here's an interesting article on NPR.org about how rapidly rising dissolved CO2 levels in the ocean are affecting something as simple and quaint as oyster farming:

How Climate Change Is Changing The Oyster Business
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 786
27. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
12:06 PM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting spbloom:


FYI, Gavin Schmidt says that of late JGR Atmospheres has taken to rejecting papers and asking for a resubmission rather than going through a revision process. Apparently the motivation is to reduce the appearance of a lengthy gap between initial submission and acceptance.


Interesting.
26. spbloom
9:15 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting hcubed:
I do hope that people took the time to look through the Watts et al (2012) paper and data, rather than fall into the "Mueller:good / Watts:bad" trap.

No matter whose paper you look at, the fact is, they all show warming. Including Watts.

Where Watts et al. differs, is that he's taking a newly established WMO-ISO standard for station siting (based on Leroy 2010), and data gathered by the volunteers of the SurfaceStations project (which was started because NOAA had NO metadata for their stations), and showing that while there is warming, it's about a third of the warming shown by NOAA after their adjustments.

"...Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.

Leroy 2010 adds one simple but effective physical metric; surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.

Using the new Leroy 2010 classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al. (2011), Menne et al. (2010), and Muller et al. (2012), yields dramatically different results..."

From his slide show: "...It is inescapably demonstrated that stations with poor microsite (Class 3, 4, 5) have significantly higher warming trends than well sited stations (Class 1, 2): This is true for, in all nine geographical areas of all five data samples. The odds of this result having occurred randomly are vanishingly minuscule..."

Since Mueller's BEST paper hasn't been accepted for publishing yet, there's still time for them to re-evaluate their use of the older Leroy 99 standard.

They'll still show warming, just not as much.


Well, I can see that your understanding of this material is roughly equal to that of Watts.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 299
25. spbloom
6:17 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Yes we will,and it is not about what you think it is.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/ summary-of-two-game-changing-papers-watts-et-al-20 12-and-mcnider-et-al-2012/

Have any of you actually read any papers besides the blog owner?

I have.


Sadly, now RP Sr. has sold poor Tony down the river:

"UPDATE #2: To make sure everyone clearly recognizes my involvement with both papers, I provided Anthony suggested text and references for his article [I am not a co-author of the Watts et al paper], and am a co-author on the McNider et al paper.

"UPDATE: There has been discussion as to whether the Time of Observation Bias (TOB) could affect the conclusions reached in Watts et al (2012). This is a valid concern. Thus the “Game Changing” finding of whether the trends are actually different for well- and poorly-sited locations is tenative until it is shown whether or not TOB alters the conclusions. The issue, however, is not easy to resolve."

Re the papers, perhaps you've looked at them, but understood them? Nah.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 299
24. spbloom
6:06 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting hcubed:


Please explain exactly what you see as funny: NOAA's trends being two or three times greater than the worst stations (using the WMO's new standards), or Some1Has2BtheRookie's attempt to use GISS as an example of an accurate database.


Your lack of understanding of what you're arguing for is hilarious, hcubed, although rather sad as well.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 299
23. spbloom
6:04 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting angelafritz:
Some posts below from outside WU that speak to the issue of "publicize first, peer review later." This is an important issue in the science community. The BEST and Watts papers are both nontraditional in that they're publishing them online for the general public before they've been reviewed by their peers in the science community. BEST actually had a tough go of it with October's papers, which were not published (see Ross McKitrick's website for more details on that).

Two climate papers get hyped first, reviewed later. Isn%u2019t that a bad idea?

A Closer Look at Climate Studies Promoted Before Publication

The Dot Earth blog from Andy Revkin includes a response from NOAA/NCDC re: the Watts paper.


FYI, Gavin Schmidt says that of late JGR Atmospheres has taken to rejecting papers and asking for a resubmission rather than going through a revision process. Apparently the motivation is to reduce the appearance of a lengthy gap between initial submission and acceptance.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 299
22. spbloom
5:57 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting JohnLonergan:



Watts garbage, it doesn't deserve to be called a paper has been thoroughly destroyed, here are a few sites:

1. Variable Variability

Link

2. Open Mind

Link

3. Stoat

Link

4. Eli Rabett

Link

and
Gregor VertacnikJuly 30, 2012

I've just read the Watt's paper. As a climatologist experienced in monitoring, data quality control and also homogenisation I must say this is one of the worst papers about climate change I've ever read.


Link

That should be a good start.


It's also almost content-free aside from the fanciful claim about USHCN doubling the trend.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 299
21. JohnLonergan
4:38 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
The urban heat island effect has long been known. This heating effect is also human induced and therefore qualifies as a part of AGW. Although the urban heat island effect is regional, it adds to the overall effect.

I stand by the rest of what I said in post #10, if you care to address any of it.

Post #10

"1. Explain how any present warming over the past 250 years can be just a natural variation of the climate. They will need to bring with them the peer reviewed evidence that backs their claims.

2. Invalidate the AGWT.
A. Prove to the scientific community that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
B. Prove that there are other processes at work that eliminate the effects of CO2 as greenhouse gas.

3. Should neither of these gentlemen be able to disprove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then they need to bring forth the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 releases do not behave in the same manner that natural releases of CO2 behave and thereby eliminates anthropogenic CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

4. Explain, using valid scientific methods, the numerous other types of observations that point to a warming climate and how they cannot be evidence that the AGWT is a correct and valid theory."




Watts garbage, it doesn't deserve to be called a paper has been thoroughly destroyed, here are a few sites:

1. Variable Variability

Link

2. Open Mind

Link

3. Stoat

Link

4. Eli Rabett

Link

and
Gregor VertacnikJuly 30, 2012

I've just read the Watt's paper. As a climatologist experienced in monitoring, data quality control and also homogenisation I must say this is one of the worst papers about climate change I've ever read.


Link

That should be a good start.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2748
20. Ossqss
4:25 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting angelafritz:
We'll see what comes out of the other end of the review process, for both papers.


Yes we will,and it is not about what you think it is.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/ summary-of-two-game-changing-papers-watts-et-al-20 12-and-mcnider-et-al-2012/

Have any of you actually read any papers besides the blog owner?

I have.
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
19. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:10 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
The urban heat island effect has long been known. This heating effect is also human induced and therefore qualifies as a part of AGW. Although the urban heat island effect is regional, it adds to the overall effect.

I stand by the rest of what I said in post #10, if you care to address any of it.

Post #10

"1. Explain how any present warming over the past 250 years can be just a natural variation of the climate. They will need to bring with them the peer reviewed evidence that backs their claims.

2. Invalidate the AGWT.
A. Prove to the scientific community that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
B. Prove that there are other processes at work that eliminate the effects of CO2 as greenhouse gas.

3. Should neither of these gentlemen be able to disprove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then they need to bring forth the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 releases do not behave in the same manner that natural releases of CO2 behave and thereby eliminates anthropogenic CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

4. Explain, using valid scientific methods, the numerous other types of observations that point to a warming climate and how they cannot be evidence that the AGWT is a correct and valid theory."

Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
18. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:30 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
hcubed -

My mistake. Here is the link - New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

The title is where I got that half of the warming being wrong due to questionable, urban thermometer readings. However, it was a comment that Rogelio Diaz made that claimed no AGW based on Watt's just released study. ... My apologies to Anthony Watts, for my mistake. Unless he does conclude there is no AGW. Has he not, many times, claimed that AGW is a hoax?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
17. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:08 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting hcubed:
"...I have read the Watts paper. Yes, Watts does show warming, but only so far as a natural warming process..."

Wow. We are talking about this paper, right?

Link

Since it was in PDF, I could do a word search, thinking I'd missed something.

The words "natural warming process" don't appear anywhere in the paper. Neither does CO2 for that matter.

This paper doesn't try to explain the cause of the warming, we all know that. He tries to explain the MEASUREMENT of the warming.


I read Watt's announcement that he posted on his website last Sunday. He said that temperature readings were over stated by a doubling and that this accounted for half of the warming and that natural causes would account for the other half of the warming. He was basically saying that AGW did not exist. ... I did not bookmark it, but I will see if I posted a link on another website.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
16. hcubed
2:43 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting guygee:
Wow hcubed, that is a great comedy routine you are working up, you need to take it out on the road!


Please explain exactly what you see as funny: NOAA's trends being two or three times greater than the worst stations (using the WMO's new standards), or Some1Has2BtheRookie's attempt to use GISS as an example of an accurate database.
Member Since: May 18, 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
15. hcubed
2:33 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
Quoting Daisyworld:
Has the Watts paper actually been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed climate journal? Forgive me if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but I'm not a follower of Watts' work, and I'm not current on his research publications.


No, Watts et al. 2012 hasn't been submitted for publishing.

And the Muller research isn't published either.
Member Since: May 18, 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
14. hcubed
2:30 AM GMT on August 02, 2012
"...I have read the Watts paper. Yes, Watts does show warming, but only so far as a natural warming process..."

Wow. We are talking about this paper, right?

Link

Since it was in PDF, I could do a word search, thinking I'd missed something.

The words "natural warming process" don't appear anywhere in the paper. Neither does CO2 for that matter.

This paper doesn't try to explain the cause of the warming, we all know that. He tries to explain the MEASUREMENT of the warming.
Member Since: May 18, 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
13. Daisyworld
10:28 PM GMT on August 01, 2012
Quoting angelafritz:
We'll see what comes out of the other end of the review process, for both papers.
Has the Watts paper actually been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed climate journal? Forgive me if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but I'm not a follower of Watts' work, and I'm not current on his research publications.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 786
12. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
8:52 PM GMT on August 01, 2012
We'll see what comes out of the other end of the review process, for both papers.
11. guygee
1:24 PM GMT on August 01, 2012
Wow hcubed, that is a great comedy routine you are working up, you need to take it out on the road!
Member Since: September 16, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 3059
10. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:33 PM GMT on July 31, 2012
Quoting hcubed:
I do hope that people took the time to look through the Watts et al (2012) paper and data, rather than fall into the "Mueller:good / Watts:bad" trap.

No matter whose paper you look at, the fact is, they all show warming. Including Watts.

Where Watts et al. differs, is that he's taking a newly established WMO-ISO standard for station siting (based on Leroy 2010), and data gathered by the volunteers of the SurfaceStations project (which was started because NOAA had NO metadata for their stations), and showing that while there is warming, it's about a third of the warming shown by NOAA after their adjustments.

"...Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.

Leroy 2010 adds one simple but effective physical metric; surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.

Using the new Leroy 2010 classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al. (2011), Menne et al. (2010), and Muller et al. (2012), yields dramatically different results..."

From his slide show: "...It is inescapably demonstrated that stations with poor microsite (Class 3, 4, 5) have significantly higher warming trends than well sited stations (Class 1, 2): This is true for, in all nine geographical areas of all five data samples. The odds of this result having occurred randomly are vanishingly minuscule..."

Since Mueller's BEST paper hasn't been accepted for publishing yet, there's still time for them to re-evaluate their use of the older Leroy 99 standard.

They'll still show warming, just not as much.


As far as Muller/good, Watts/bad goes, a poor representation of the science conducted is always bad. Period. Watts is not even a scientist! He is a blogger by profession, as near as I can tell. Watts is the Matt Drudge of the scientific community.

I have read the Watts paper. Yes, Watts does show warming, but only so far as a natural warming process. What Watts has done is to cherry pick his stations and then plug in an arbitrary number as an adjustment to the readings of these stations. The number he plugs in effectively shows half of the acknowledged warming of the climatologists and their findings. He accredits the other half of the warming to natural processes. He neglects to name these natural processes other than in general terms. Science? NO!!!!

Temperature data is a measurement that will show the degree of global warming/cooling. Muller is trying to state that the cooler readings offset the warmer readings and therefore any warming is regional and not global. That is not what the temperatures anomalies over the past 50 years tell us. Globally, there are far more warmer anomalies than there are cooler anomalies. The warming vs cooling anomalies ratio is trending higher towards the warming anomalies.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Muller and Watts both have their analysis of what is causing any warming. Neither have explained any warming being driven by natural forces alone. Should Muller and Watts want to make any scientific contributions, here is what they need to do:

1. Explain how any present warming over the past 250 years can be just a natural variation of the climate. They will need to bring with them the peer reviewed evidence that backs their claims.

2. Invalidate the AGWT.
A. Prove to the scientific community that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
B. Prove that there are other processes at work that eliminate the effects of CO2 as greenhouse gas.

3. Should neither of these gentlemen be able to disprove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then they need to bring forth the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 releases do not behave in the same manner that natural releases of CO2 behave and thereby eliminates anthropogenic CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

4. Explain, using valid scientific methods, the numerous other types of observations that point to a warming climate and how they cannot be evidence that the AGWT is a correct and valid theory.

Until Muller and Watts are able to do this then they are merely pimping themselves out to who will ever pay them for their non scientific approaches to the discussion of the AGWT.

I have always respected Muller as a true skeptic of the science. Now I am skeptical as to if he can even perform as a scientist. Watts has never had my respect and has never proven that he deserves any scientific respect. What is so ironic is that the Watts' followers and financial contributors have paid for Watts new solar panels on his home. At least Watts has decided to make a difference, even if his reason for doing so is skewed.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
9. MariettaMoon
3:21 PM GMT on July 31, 2012
nm
Member Since: June 11, 2011 Posts: 36 Comments: 677
8. hcubed
3:13 PM GMT on July 31, 2012
I do hope that people took the time to look through the Watts et al (2012) paper and data, rather than fall into the "Mueller:good / Watts:bad" trap.

No matter whose paper you look at, the fact is, they all show warming. Including Watts.

Where Watts et al. differs, is that he's taking a newly established WMO-ISO standard for station siting (based on Leroy 2010), and data gathered by the volunteers of the SurfaceStations project (which was started because NOAA had NO metadata for their stations), and showing that while there is warming, it's about a third of the warming shown by NOAA after their adjustments.

"...Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.

Leroy 2010 adds one simple but effective physical metric; surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.

Using the new Leroy 2010 classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al. (2011), Menne et al. (2010), and Muller et al. (2012), yields dramatically different results..."

From his slide show: "...It is inescapably demonstrated that stations with poor microsite (Class 3, 4, 5) have significantly higher warming trends than well sited stations (Class 1, 2): This is true for, in all nine geographical areas of all five data samples. The odds of this result having occurred randomly are vanishingly minuscule..."

Since Mueller's BEST paper hasn't been accepted for publishing yet, there's still time for them to re-evaluate their use of the older Leroy 99 standard.

They'll still show warming, just not as much.
Member Since: May 18, 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
7. Daisyworld
2:45 PM GMT on July 31, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


... Carl Sagan is probably turning over in his grave. ... What a shame that the candle in the darkness seems to have been extinguished by those that do not adhere to the standard scientific practices.


Good book. I think the Baloney Detection Kit should be a required checklist for any work that claims "science" as its milieu.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 786
6. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:34 AM GMT on July 31, 2012
Quoting angelafritz:
Some posts below from outside WU that speak to the issue of "publicize first, peer review later." This is an important issue in the science community. The BEST and Watts papers are both nontraditional in that they're publishing them online for the general public before they've been reviewed by their peers in the science community. BEST actually had a tough go of it with October's papers, which were not published (see Ross McKitrick's website for more details on that).

Two climate papers get hyped first, reviewed later. Isn%u2019t that a bad idea?

A Closer Look at Climate Studies Promoted Before Publication

The Dot Earth blog from Andy Revkin includes a response from NOAA/NCDC re: the Watts paper.


Yes, the announcement that neutrinos can actually travel faster than the speed of light was a tad premature. Why waste your time on peer reviews when you can find someone to publish you now? .... Carl Sagan is probably turning over in his grave. ... What a shame that the candle in the darkness seems to have been extinguished by those that do not adhere to the standard scientific practices.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
5. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
3:43 AM GMT on July 31, 2012
Some posts below from outside WU that speak to the issue of "publicize first, peer review later." This is an important issue in the science community. The BEST and Watts papers are both nontraditional in that they're publishing them online for the general public before they've been reviewed by their peers in the science community. BEST actually had a tough go of it with October's papers, which were not published (see Ross McKitrick's website for more details on that).

Two climate papers get hyped first, reviewed later. Isn%u2019t that a bad idea?

A Closer Look at Climate Studies Promoted Before Publication

The Dot Earth blog from Andy Revkin includes a response from NOAA/NCDC re: the Watts paper.
4. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:08 AM GMT on July 31, 2012
Muller has always been a skeptic of the AGWT. He is correct when he states that science needs its skeptics. However, skepticism should end when the evidence exists and is shown that the theory is a valid theory. He may question the reading of thermometers and the placement of the stations, but how do you continually dismiss the other physical observations? How do you dismiss the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that mankind's activities releases tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Muller, even with his personal review of the data, seems to remain a skeptic at heart. One has to wonder as to what evidence would be needed to convince him completely that the AGWT is a valid, scientific theory. Perhaps Mr. Muller can explain how CO2 does not behave as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Should he not be able to do this, then perhaps he can explain how the CO2 we release does not apply to the same laws of Physics that natural releases of CO2 have. How can he explain this? .... He cannot and neither can Anthony Watts.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
3. Daisyworld
11:18 PM GMT on July 30, 2012
Quoting angelafritz:
I agree, I had similar feelings about that paragraph. There's a lot of sweeping generalization without the science to support it. And we plainly know that sea ice is diminishing at break-neck speed, so to say that "polar bears aren't dying from receding ice" is irritating.

When you boil it down, science says that our extremes will become more extreme as a result of warming. Heat extremes are an obvious direct correlation. Shift the curve.

Some more information about global warming and extreme weather at Skeptical Science.


Thank you for the link.

My sentiments exactly, especially on the polar bear comment. Dr. Charles Monnett is already dealing with an overly-zealous BOEMRE investigation unrelated to his polar bear study. To outright dismiss his findings on the ecological connection between retreating arctic sea ice and the declining population of an indigenous apex predator is, at the very least, irresponsible.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 786
2. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
10:13 PM GMT on July 30, 2012
I agree, I had similar feelings about that paragraph. There's a lot of sweeping generalization without the science to support it. And we plainly know that sea ice is diminishing at break-neck speed, so to say that "polar bears aren't dying from receding ice" is irritating.

When you boil it down, science says that our extremes will become more extreme as a result of warming. Heat extremes are an obvious direct correlation. Shift the curve.

Some more information about global warming and extreme weather at Skeptical Science.
1. Daisyworld
9:11 PM GMT on July 30, 2012
While I can appreciate Dr. Muller's position, I'm still concerned about this portion of his NYT article:

"It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed. [...] Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous."

He still takes a somewhat dismissive stance on serious subjects that merit further scientific investigation.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 786

Viewing: 34 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About angelafritz

Atmospheric Scientist here at Weather Underground, with serious nerd love for tropical cyclones and climate change. Twitter: @WunderAngela

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
63 °F
Partly Cloudy