BerkeleyEarth: release July 30

'Ex climate sceptic' Muller's latest BEST stuff is the worst so far • The Register

More bizarre actions this time I presume from Mullers daughter .
Who appears to lie about last years papers being rejected for publication.Mojo

"The BEST team stated that the paper had not been rejected by peer review and no major flaws had been discovered. This does not appear to be true: the Journal of Geophysical Research ended up rejecting the BEST paper on UHI (Urban Heat Island) effects."

"McKitrick comments, rather acidly:
I suspect that any reasonable reader, upon completing the paper, would be startled to learn that the authors did not intend to assert that surface temperature data are unaffected by urbanization. I think the above sentence was meant to say something like: “We are not claiming there are no contaminating influences in individual locations, only that they are too small and isolated to affect the global average.”

Unfortunately the whole issue is whether their methodology reliably supports this conclusion, and in this draft they have done nothing to deal with the evidence that it does not, instead they simply assumed the problems away."​

​

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/referee_report.pdf​

​

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/2nd_review.pdf​

​

 

Particularly well written story about the Watts study.

Forget 'climate convert' Muller: Here's the real warming blockbuster • The Register

"If new techniques endorsed by the World Meteorological Organisation are applied to official figures, over half of the global warming reported by US land-based thermometers between 1979 and 2008 simply disappears, researchers have found."

 

Do that and its enough to heat a small part of the earth Knocking down trees and paving the earth definitely makes it hotter. That is especially true when all those cars and planes are stuck blowing exhaust down. I don't think anyone is saying the uhi isn't real. The question is how do you adjust.

On an old city like london, the heat was probably there when they put the thermometers in, but maybe increased a little. For an airport, lets hope they are adjusting them right to add spacially together.

 

Yet in that blurb they said they lost 1/3 not 1/2 when they excluded the thermometers. Mullers press release seemed misleading and so does this one.

.155 is still 67% of .231, even if you don't do anything to spatially adjust for the missing temperatures. If we paved all of nebraska, it still would be hotter, than it is now. I would think we would not simply throw away the reading.

To me all this seems to be navel contemplation when deciding between those two numbers. I believe GISS uses the satellites to referee, but I'm unsure. It will be interesting to see what happens to the .155 when review asks for adjustments. I'm sure that is where christy's work comes in to play.

 

A "study" "headed" by a TV weatherman (Anthony Watts)?

Let's stick with NOAA, NASA and, most importantly since it represents 20 years of climate science by the best and the brightest, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

You havent been keeping up with info on the IPCC.
Seems very many of their reports were written by grad students with no credentials.
The actual "experts" the IPCC recruited jumped ship and became very critical.
MUST READ: John O'Sullivan: Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Washington Post Global Warming Lies | Climate Realists
Much of the data used to support findings was never peer reviewed.
Large portion of their contributors ,including lead authors were WWF Greenpeace shills.
Not that Greenpeace and WWF are bad,but they are extremely jaded.
No wonder the IPCC used Greenpeace information to conclude the Himalayas would soon melt.
The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert: Donna Laframboise: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

 

These are all IPCC experts."climate science by the best and the brightest"

"1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

7. Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers."

8. Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."

11. Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."

15. Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

17. Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."

18. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."

19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

20. Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

21. Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."

22. Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"

23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."

24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."

25. Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."

26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."

27. Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

28. Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."

29. Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

30. Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."

31. Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."

32. Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."

33. Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."

34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."

35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."

36. Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."

37. Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to uncertainties."

38. Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."

39. Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."

40. Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."

41. Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?"

42. Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."

43. Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal."

44. Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."

45. Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."

46. Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."

47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."

48. Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."

50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.""

 

You are confusing "credentials" with qualifications. Grad students are trained scientists working on or completed PhD's. Your comment also shows lack of knowledge on how research is done. All scientific work is completed by grad students working with the lead scientist.

In the case of Mr. Anthony Watt, he has no scientific qualifications. His credentials are those of TV talking head reading a teleprompter in front of a blue screen.

As for your "list", we've been down that Fox News 80% wrong way road before when they were waving their "list of 100 scientists who claim global warming is a hoax", turned out most were not scientists, none in climatology and out of the 10,000 scientists who have proven man made global warming over the last 20 years, represented a very small minority.

 

It is fraud having grad students as lead authors of IPCC reports.
The EPA endangerment policy is based on these studies,as well as Europe Australia and Californias Cap and Trade systems.
The USA and the worlds economy will be affected by this pseudo "science" .
At least consider that those who I quoted are PHDs with a wealth of both credentials and qualifications as well as being selected because they are considered as being the top in their fields by the IPCC.
The true experts are saying the IPCC is a fraud.
But grad students know better.
You dont have the ability to comprehend the fraud or its implications.

 

They are all selected by the IPCC ,your dream team.
Almost entirely PHDs.Except for one whos more brilliant than an average PHD.
You think a few grad students know better than experienced PHDs.
You are defending an asinine position.

 

The Earth has been warmer for the past 10,000 years.While CO2 was lower.
There was no correlation between CO2 and Temp.
But there is a correlation between CO2 and Temps after the Little Ice Age where Muller begins his study.
Muller knows damn well hes cherry picking a short period where it appears there is correlation.
He is bizarre and plays loosely with the truth.

 

Who are these 10,000 scientists you are referring to?
Ive never heard of them.

 

Meteorology is a science.His involvement in this study is dealing with faulty weather data as the main component,which is his area of expertise.
Theres no discipline more qualified to critique faulty thermometer sites than meteorology.
I might add that Climatologists are too stupid to bother to check whether or not thermometers are giving accurate readings.

.

 

You do realize that the first BEST papers have been rejected from publication.
If not then reread this thread.

 

Interesting off the wall comment that doesn't refer to anything anyone said or to how research is done in academic setting. Kind of typical of the climate change deniers. Next we'll see elaborate graphs, other non-scientist comments like our professional TV personality, Mr. Anthony Watt and 25 people who agree with him quotes.

Sorry but 20 years of rigorous climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has long ago trumped the Fox News TV personalities.

Read their summaries for the latest facts on Climate Change.

 

The studies published on local heating effects are perhaps just as interesting as airport daily fuel burn. Airports are generally put in places where wind advection is remarkably effective at 'diluting away' local heat sources. The coastline airports are really good for that.

I think it is clear that the continental scale temperature trend measurements should work to exclude sites where paving reduces evaporation and urban planting increases it. They have opposite effects.

Absent cities, there still strong local heat redistributions; Bob, wx and I have each mentioned. Handling cities is not enough.

One area where the (positive) urban heat is not to be ignored is in heat waves, where health risks and air-conditioning costs increase.

 

Anyway, I really like thermometers buried in soils. First the thermal inertia is really helpful with smoothing. Second, Some very significant carbon-cycle processes (like microbial respiration) really don't 'know' what the air T is. Scientists are beginning to do this better.

Photosynthesizing leaves do know, but I bet you'd be amazed the degree to which they thermoregulate themselves.

Yeah I know that 'who said what about whom' can seem more important, but it's not true. Science prevails. Doubt merchants come and go. Trust me