New Analysis Concludes that Half of U.S. Warming is Artificial

Climatology - the contentious science. Today, physicist Richard Muller publishes online the results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temeperature (BEST) re-analysis and finds that the globe has warmed by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the 18th century and about 1.5 degrees since the 1950s. He blames rising CO2.

Near simultaneously, Anthony Watts and his colleagues have published online their new study of U.S. surface temperature trends which concludes:

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

Watts tells me that his new results with regard to adjustments made in U.S. temperature datasets are relevant to the BEST analysis because temperature datasets from around the globe likely suffer from the same problems that lead to spurious trends that suggest strong global warming. In his view, the BEST study's new statistical techniques do not remedy the problem of flawed data.

Watts adds: 

I don’t believe the errors associated with NOAA adjustments are deliberate, but simply a case of confirmation bias. They expect to find global warming because a popular theory says they should.

In other news, statistician Ross McKitrick, who debunked Pennsylvania State University* climatologist Michael Mann's notorious "hockeystick" analysis which somehow got rid of the Medieval Warming period, reveals that he was a peer reviewer for the new BEST papers at the Journal of Geophysical Research. His review found serious flaws in those papers and they were turned down by the journal. McKitrick strongly objects to the BEST "publicity blitz" and has released his peer review comments which can be downloaded here.

Note: None of the BEST studies have yet been published in peer reviewed journals.

More to come.

*fixed from wrong attritution to U. Penn.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Anybody else have an issue with that awfully convenient "BEST" acronym? Something about it pisses me off.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I have a problem with two things--the spelling of "Temperature" and with the acronym, which should be based on Berkeley Earth Aggregate Surface Temperature (BEAST). I'd be swayed by a cool acronym like BEAST.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    I'd prefer Berkeley Atmospheric and Surface Temperature Effect (BASTE) as that is what is happening every summer here in the south.

  • R C Dean||

    Howsabout Berkeley Rectified Earth Aggregate Surface Temperature?

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Eh, get back to me when they've completed their second study.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Well, you knew they weren't going to go with Southern University of California Climate Survey.

    But yeah, I know what you mean.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I mean it bothers me for the same reason people refuse to try Bratwurst or Sauerkraut simply because of how they sound. Words and sounds have implications, and I'm sure if they could have cobbled together enough buzz words to have the acronym be SETTLED-SCIENCE, they would have done it in a heartbeat.

  • ||

    The cult is never going to stop, is it. It gets exposed, but keeps on chugging. I guess that's what cults do.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Man it's hot. It's like Africa hot. Tarzan couldn't take this kind of hot.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Hot and Wet...thats nice if you're with a lady, but ain't no good if you're in the jungle.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Its too hot, tell your story walkin'

  • o3||

    Bailey writes - "His (Ross McKitrick) review found serious flaws in those papers and they were turned down by the journal."
    -
    "None of the reviews have indicated any mistakes in the papers; they have instead been primarily suggestions for additions, further citations of the literature. One review had no complaints about the content of the paper, but suggested delaying the publication until the long background paper, describing our methods in detail, was actually published."
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes......t-warming/
    _
    one can see how no mistakes is a serious flaw to a [DENIER]

    in other news, tilting at windmills competition is now a wingnut metal sport

  • Ron Bailey||

    o3: With due respect, the characterization of "no serious flaws" comes from Rlizabeth Muller (daughter of Richard Muller) not the peer reviewers. Not exactly an objective observer.

    May I suggest that you take a look at the new McKitrick reviews before you make up your mind with regard to the seriousness of the flaws?

  • Ron Bailey||

    that would be Elizabeth, not Rlizabeth.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Orin knows that she is a biased source but hopes that you won't notice her comment is in reference to her own work.

  • robc||

    Ron,

    Dont feed the trolls.

    There is a reason for his name, in the prereg days he had to keep changing it due to INCIF.

  • fish||

    YOUR SCIENTIFIC REVISIONISM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

    Oops sorry wrong venue.

  • ||

    With due respect, the characterization of "no serious flaws" comes from Rlizabeth Muller (daughter of Richard Muller) not the peer reviewers. Not exactly an objective observer.

    How shocking. o3 used someone else's biased opinion to substantiate his already biased stance. Color me surprised.

  • Mensan||

    "o3: With due respect, the characterization of ..."

    Oh, come on, Ron! He isn't due any respect.

  • Russell Seitz ||

    Ron, let us not forget the old McKitrick Reviews

  • WTF||

    Does it not occur to you that since McKitrick's review did find flaws in the papers, that your second paragraph can't be true?

  • SugarFree||

    Rest assured that nothing occurs to him.

  • o3||

    im not the author einstein

  • WTF||

    No, you certainly are not the author Einstein; nor the physicist Einstein, nor any other genius, that is painfully obvious.

  • Sevo||

    o3|7.30.12 @ 12:41PM|#
    "im not the author einstein"

    Yes, we understand that.
    But are you claiming the statement is true (in which case you're defending it)?
    Or are you simply posting what the daughter wrote to show she's not being truthful?
    One of the other.

  • WTF||

    Too much logic; it won't understand.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Kind of like Kirk and that one robot he got to "sterilize" itself due to its own error?

  • kinnath||

    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....3607/posts

    Back when people actually read dead-tree magazines:

    TIME MAGAZINE | June 24, 1974

    The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

  • wareagle||

    Warns Hare:

    that's part of the problem; had it been Tortoise doing the warning, you might have something.

  • ||

    Note: None of the BEST studies have yet been published in peer reviewed journals.

    To be fair, neither is the Watts study.

  • Ron Bailey||

    CMS: Correct, but it has been submitted I believe.

  • Mensan||

    The BEST studies were submitted too, but they were rejected.

  • Sevo||

    Seriously? Which journals rejected them?

  • Brett L||

    I'm not sure "rejected" is true yet. They definitely failed two rounds of peer review from JCR.

  • ||

    I would not read too much into that.

    Muller is a physicist who stepped on every alarmist climate scientist's foot in the world.

    And we know from the climate gate emails that alarmists are very good at sinking papers that disagree with their consensus.

    I am looking forward to Muller and Watts having their respective papers reviewed outside of the journals.

    Fuck the gate keepers, especially when we already know they are corrupt.

  • tarran||

    The thing is, Steve McIntyre did much of the statistical analysis,....

    which pretty much guarantees that the raw data and R code is going to be posted on a web server somewhere in short order.

    The flaws and mistakes (and inevitably even the best numbercrunchers make 'em) will probably be identified and corrected pretty quickly under the crowd-sourced review that will follow.

  • Brett L||

    That is why Watts et. al. have published the full pre-print including data and code. (According to them.)

  • ||

    It should be pointed out that Muller's work and the data he used is available online as well.

    His conclusions may be wrong he graph might not be right but unlike every other instrumental global temperature study in the world Muller's can be replicated.

    This by itself is a huge achievement and should be applauded.

  • t-man||

    Mann was not with the University of Pennsylvania, but rather Penn State. Common mistake, but should be corrected.

  • Ron Bailey||

    t: Grrr. I knew that. Damn. Fixed now. Thanks much.

  • kinnath||

    Penn State: It's for the children! (tm)

  • Mike M.||

    Speaking of Penn State, it looks as though their former president, the pedophile-enabler and likely perjurer Graham Spanier, has now been hired for some ultra top secret government job.

    I can't help but wonder if his assistance in covering up for Mann's scientific malfeasance and fraud has something to with it. Because disgusting doesn't even begin to describe my feelings towards the fact that the government would actually hire a creep like this.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    They should put Spanier in charge of the TSA, so he can make use of his years of experience looking the other way while his subordinates grope people.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "According to my model, I AM A GENIUS."

  • LTC(ret) John||

    May I borrow said model, in time for my mid-year review at work?

  • Pi Guy||

    As with any good modeler, I believe that the model is correct and that reality has it all wrong.

  • Mensan||

    Interesting. According to Stanford-Binet and WAIS, I am a genius; but I'm not quite convinced.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Has this model been published, say in Vogue, or given public reports on runways?

  • Canman||

    The big point of contention between BEST and Watt's group, is how much surface temps have risen. They both claim to have made their data and methods completely transparent. I hope this can all be sorted out!

  • Muad'Dib||

    Some time ago this guy name Lord Kelvin estimated that the Earth was 20 x 40 million years old. Problem was, he didn't know diddly shit about radioactive decay which accounts for the great majority of the earth's warmth. He also thought x-rays were a hoax amongst many other gaffs made by all types. Point being, I don't think these people see the forest through all the trees.

  • Brett L||

    Listen, when Michael Mann is taunting you, its all over but the crying.

  • ||

    Ah, so the scientific consensus is manufactured on FaceBook? No wonder the brand is tanking...

  • Cytotoxic||

    Wow what an immature asshole. How can Mann even show his face?

  • ||

    I heard Mann on NPR not too long ago. He seems to have no problem whatsoever in front of audiences or finding those willing to put him there.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Maybe the Kochs funded Muller because they knew he would be such a douche as to set back climate alarmism?

  • ||

    Muller is not a douche.

    Mann is one of the biggest douches to ever walk the planet.

    Lets focus on the real douche please.

  • Russell Seitz ||

    Indeed, nothing gives MIT alumns more joy than sticking it to the professors that gave them hell in their undrgraduate days .

    That would be Koch and Lindzen in this case.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I don't fully trust Watts and the rejection of McIntyre's criticisms is disturbing (could we have a summary of them?). The next few days should be interesting.

  • Dave C||

    Where did you read that Watts rejected anything said by McIntyre? Nothing at ClimateAudit about that.

  • libertard||

    he probably meant to type McKitrick

  • ||

    Yeah but McKitrick criticized Muller not Watts.

    I think Cytotoxic is messing with us

  • Cytotoxic||

    Sorry I wasn't very clear. I was referring to the rejection of McIntyre's criticisms of BEST by that journal.

  • Dave C||

    I think you still mean McKitrick.

    Still posting at the National Post these days? The trolls there make Tony and Shrike look like geniuses.

  • ||

    I was referring to the rejection of McIntyre's criticisms of BEST by that journal.

    This never happened. You are insane.

    McKitrick as a reviewer for a journal reviewing the BEST study made criticisms. They were not rejected by the journal.

    McIntyre has never made criticisms of the BEST study and those nonexistent criticisms were never rejected by a journal.

  • Brett L||

    Watts' explanation. Take it as you will.

    8.In his post Friday, Steve McIntyre truly didn’t know what this was about. He was out of the loop.

    9.Steve McIntyre, being the classic gentleman he is, emailed me and said “anything I can do to help, I’m here”. I took him up on the offer and he did all the stats tests from Friday afternoon to Saturday night, then polished last bit of text/graphs early Sunday morning. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude. He is a true gentleman and a scholar.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    Gosh, it almost sounds as if there's room for legitimate dispute and debate here. Nah, that can't be. Our understanding of climate is near-perfect and the science was long ago settled by a majority vote of the scientists.

  • johnl||

    While it's true that "Note: None of the BEST studies have yet been published in peer reviewed journals.", the papers are available at http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/ so there is no need to wait. Similarly the Watts paper is available in links at the end of PR.

  • Mensan||

    It's also true that the BEST papers were submitted to peer reviewed journals, and were rejected.

  • Sevo||

    By which ones? Did they publish a reason?

  • Brett L||

    See the link in Bailey's article. Ross McKitrick was asked to referee (ie review) for JCR and twice recommended that the papers be revised before publishing. Note that this is not necessarily a rejection. However, McKitrick thinks that he has no need to follow the traditional rule that referees keep their recommendations confidential if the BEST team is going to write op-eds in the NYT pushing papers that aren't passing peer review yet.

  • Sevo||

    Thanks, BL.

  • johnl||

    While it's true that "Note: None of the BEST studies have yet been published in peer reviewed journals.", the papers are available at http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/ so there is no need to wait. Similarly the Watts paper is available in links at the end of PR.

  • CE||

    Which half?

  • Canman||

    Will this be the big climate showdown? Watts and company says half the surface temp increases are spurious. Satellite readings show less warming. BEST says they have accounted for everything, but they haven't passed peer review yet. Both are touting their transparency.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    the raw data only goes back 40 years (and gets sketchier the farther back you go), the rest of the trendline is extrapolated in models. depending on your assumptions and corrections, you can create a hell of alot of variation. The only way to narrow the difference is more time and more measurements. Notice how the more science is done, the shallower the climate change slope becomes. If it was close to the original worst case, we'd be cooked by now. Of course if our planet didn't have a ton of built in moderation mechanisms, humanity probably wouldn't exist because climate would have swung too violently to allow our evolution. I think 100 years from now, Houston will still be hot (maybe averaging 2-3 degrees warmer), some sandbars and atolls will be unlivable and abandoned and we'll be complaining/mocking how the Chicago Cubs still haven't won a world series.

  • ||

    Will this be the big climate showdown?

    No. I think Muller and Watts can work this stuff out.

    You only have to worry when lying fucks like Mann get involved.

  • Russell Seitz ||

    JGR lets an economist with no climate science background, who does not believe the Earth has an average temperature veto a paper corroborating the instrumentally verified record of the average temperature of the Earth

    Said Economist then violates " an undertaking to JGR to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process."

    In a better world this would be called "Climategate "

  • Cytotoxic||

    What was vetoed? What was violated? WTF are you talking about? Are you one of those assholes that still acts as if the CRUleak contents were 'no big deal'? If so please go fuck yourself.

  • Russell Seitz ||

    if McK is to be believed, he vetoed publication of the BEST paper - and- read what Ron wrote - he has just elected to violate " " an undertaking to JGR to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process."

    Are you saying that now that he's impeached himself, we shouldn't believe him ? the JGR editors have serious reason for indignation.

  • Greg F||

    read what Ron wrote - he has just elected to violate " " an undertaking to JGR to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process."

    From "Guidelines to Publication of Geophysical Research" in AGU:

    3. A scientist should not proclaim a discovery to the public unless the support for it is of strength sufficient to warrant publication in the scientific literature.


    The BEST paper failed the review process yet Muller engaged in science by press release anyway. I guess that is okay by you.
  • Russell Seitz ||

    Failed ? not even McK claimed that- he Surely you have Watt's said :

    " “I submitted my review just before the end of September 2011, outlining what I saw were serious shortcomings in their methods and arguing that their analysis does not establish valid grounds for the conclusions they assert. I suggested the authors be asked to undertake a major revision…"

    BEST's problem in the battle for JGR space is that it so largely reconfirms the existing scientific literature

  • Greg F||

    Failed ?

    Yes, failed to pass peer review. What part of that don't you understand?

  • ||

    read what Ron wrote - he has just elected to violate " " an undertaking to JGR to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process."

    Is confidentiality for the processes to protect the reviewed or the reviewer?

    I think the point is to prevent the reviewed from contacting or influencing the reviewer not the other way round.

    anyway i am not sure.

  • Greg F||

    JGR lets an economist with no climate science background ...

    What an incredibly ignorant statement. McKitrick has numerous climate related publications.

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckit.....apers.html

    Failure to find fault with McKitrick's review makes your argument nothing more than an Ad Hominem attack.

  • Russell Seitz ||

    Can nothing enlarge your curiosity as to why programmatic objections to progress in understanding the atmospheric sciences has been so excessively delegated to mining economists in Alberta and petroleum engineeers in Tulsa ?

    Running interference is not the same as doing science.

  • Greg F||

    Hey Russel if ad homine is all you got you ain't got nuttin. Pathetic.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So in the end all you have is Adhom. Pathetic.

  • Greg F||

    JGR lets a economist physicist with no climate science plant physiology background publish a paper pretending to extract temperature from tree rings.

    Or.

    JGR lets a economist physicist with no climate science statistical background publish a paper pretending to extract temperature from tree rings.
  • ||

    who does not believe the Earth has an average temperature

    It really doesn't. Or at least it has very little meaning in the context of global warming.

    All the graphs you see represent surface temperature which have almost no correlation with ocean temperature ground temperature or core temperature...and if you compare satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature are only loosely correlated.

  • TingRooo||

    Dude seems to be talking a LOT of smack man!

    www.Anon-Go.tk

  • Sam Grove||

    How do recent climate trends compare with the long term?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ture=share

  • Mike G||

    "They expect to find global warming because a popular theory says they should."

    Much like Ronald Bailey.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement