Sunday, October 30, 2011

BEST Data - No Warming Over Last Decade

Quoting David Rose
at The Mail on Sunday (emphasis mine):
“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…

[Click here for a paper demonstrating a warming rate of 0.7C per CENTURY from 1958 to 1998.

Click here to examine the NATURAL DRIVERS of that warming.

Click here & here to put that warming into proper perspective.]

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

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.”
Click the image & read the rest:
Click the image & read the rest
Click here to enlarge the image.
Click here for the cited post at the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Click here for commentary.
Click here for a critique of the BEST data processing algorithms.

Click here to examine a BEST rewriting of temperature history.
Do we have yet ANOTHER ClimateGate brewing here?

Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.


Anonymous said...

Here are my replies from Bbickmores...

Nice job avoiding the question and trying to shift the goalposts. So I’ll ask again, will you admit you were wrong about the BEST trend for the decade prior to end of data? I’ll give you 9.5 no trend, because I’m generous, but will you not admit your error?

Next post:

Even though I will await your admission of error for my first question, I will address your UAH data as well.

Hmm…looks like according to UAH in the last 5 years of this most recent decade, we’ve accelerated to 0.4C /decade, worse than IPCC predicted!

So if you want to use a warming trend of 4.0C/century to sell some “it’s not warming” snake oil be my guest.

Or you might try to learn about statistical significance, trends and noise. I’d suggest Tamino as a good teacher (you can buy his book on his website, it’s very short, easy to read, and informative).

p.s. (It’s even worse in the last 4 years of the decade, we’re really accelerating now at 10 C/century!! We’ll be underwater in Utah!)

Utahn (google account didnt work for me)

Anonymous said...

Forgot to mention, going trick or treating and will check in tomorrow, Happy Halloween!


SBVOR said...

Utahn (Oct 31, 2011 4:43:00 PM),

1) Nowhere in this post did I assert anything. If you expect a retraction, take it up with David Rose, Richard Muller or Judith Curry. Those are the people who made assertions. I merely quoted them.

2) You are (quite deliberately) obfuscating the point. The question is:

Has the warming trend which began around the mid 1970s stalled out for some significant period of time?

The answer, undeniably, is YES! Muller admits it, Curry admits it, Phil Jones admits it and NOAA admits it. Furthermore, I can -- on request -- give you several examples from several datasets of a decade or more of no warming (ending with the most recent data available).

My question to you is:
How badly do you want to embarrass yourself? If you really want to press it, I will happily prove each of the above assertions.

3) But, even more salient than the previous question is this one:
Have the CAGW hysteria mongers knowingly (or otherwise) exploited an AMO warming cycle in order to sell a big boatload of (extremely costly) snake oil?

The emerging answer is a very clear YES!

Click here for some very compelling evidence. Be sure to follow every sub-link as deep as it goes.

Click here for a more general overview of the same evidence.

SBVOR said...

Utahn (Oct 31, 2011 4:43:00 PM),

Are you seriously going to argue that temperature trends have not been (essentially) flat to down over the last 9 to 13 years (depending upon which dataset you examine)?

Check out this RSS data:

Side note: The RSS data currently end at 2011.67. I selected that end point just to be sure the link does not change over time due to the addition of more data.

Again, Muller admits it, Curry admits it, Phil Jones admits it and NOAA admits it (just to name a few). Do you really want to “deny” this?

Do you really think this shift has nothing to do with the downturn in the AMO index?

Click here and take a look at the extent to which the AMO influences global surface temperatures over a 60 to 70 year cycle.

Anonymous said...

"Nowhere in this post did I assert anything". Well then I'd suggest you put the title in quotes, otherwise it looks like your assertion :)

But over at Bickmore's you did clearly assert BEST showed no warming in the last decade. Is it obfuscating the point to say that you're not answering my question? My point has consistetly been that BEST showed no warming in the last 9.5 years of data, but clear warming in the last 10.0 years of data. Instead of putting quotes, how about for your title, "BEST Data - No Warming Over last 9.5 years, Warming Over last 10 years."

I will also await your reply to my plots showing accelerated warming over the last 4-5 years of UAH data (your favorite dataset). 10 C per century, what do you think about that? Do you have any problem with that statement?


SBVOR said...


If you want to split hairs over 9.5 years vs. 10 years, have at it. I have better things to do.

SBVOR said...

Utahn says:

"I will also await your reply to my plots showing accelerated warming over the last 4-5 years of UAH data (your favorite dataset). 10 C per century, what do you think about that?"

I think that you consistently, cynically and knowingly exploit the warm phase of various ocean oscillations in order to sell a boat load of outrageously expensive snake oil.

In your UAH example, you cherry pick a time frame dishonestly designed to maximize the impact of the 2010 el Nino event.

An honest broker would use ENSO-adjusted data instead (as NOAA did):

“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the ‘ENSO-adjusted’ trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”

So, not knowing the means whereby NOAA ENSO-adjusted their data, the next best thing I can do is select start and stop dates in the UAH data which reflect similar phases in the ENSO cycles.

Click here for a 12+ year UAH time frame which starts at the peak of the 1998 el Nino and stops at the peak of the 2010 el Nino. What you find is a warming trend of 0.2C per CENTURY! It does not get much flatter than that.

Just like your UAH example, the entire CAGW cabal has -- knowingly or otherwise -- exploited a multidecadal AMO warming phase in order to sell a boat load of outrageously expensive snake oil.

Click here and here to examine that fraud. Click here to examine the impact of AMO cycles on USA data.

Anonymous said...

"If you want to split hairs over 9.5 years vs. 10 years, have at it. I have better things to do." But don't you think the fact that 6 months makes a huge difference in trend tells us something about trend versus noise?

"In your UAH example, you cherry pick a time frame dishonestly designed to maximize the impact of the 2010 el Nino event."

All I did was move the start date for your UAH plot 5 or 6 years forward, you picked the end date for me! I'm not really predicting that 10C warming is going to happen in 100 years, in fact I don't think it will. But how is this any less valid than your headlining a flat trend for 9.5 years? The best data isn't ENSO adjusted, but you still headlined "no warming over the last decade." I don't blame you for discussing interesting data, just asking for some consistency, and an acknowledgement that short trends like 5 or 10 years don't amount to much at all when trying to look at overall climate/temperature trends.


SBVOR said...


1) Again, split hairs over 9.5 vs 10 all day long. It only makes you look silly, desperate and petty.

2) As for your “trend vs. noise” meme…

A) Any trend which contradicts the dogma of the CAGW cult will -- inevitably -- be characterized as “noise”. But, the fact is, the data indicate a strong correlation between a 9 to 13 year long (or longer) flat temperature trend and, beginning in 1998, a downward trend in the AMO cycle.

B) The longer the time frame, the less impact noise has - right?

Fine, let’s examine the 10,000 year trend in both the Arctic and the Antarctic.

Click here and here for more details and direct links to the peer reviewed data.

Clearly, we have an ongoing, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend wherein we clearly see that there is nothing even remotely unusual about current temps or current trends. Even your pal Barry Bickmore has admitted this.

Combine that with the AMO cycle trending downward since 1998 and peer reviewed science describing the flat global temperature trend that will produce and it’s curtains for the CAGW cult.

So, is it time to dust of the old Global Cooling scare yet? After all, the CAGW scam ain’t selling much snake oil these days.

Or, is it time to admit that both the Global Cooling scare and the CAGW scare were driven by little more than cool and warm phases of the AMO (accompanied by a very steady and perfectly natural 0.5C/century underlying warming trend ever since the planet began to recover from the Little Ice Age)?

Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

Anonymous said...

"1) Again, split hairs over 9.5 vs 10 all day long. It only makes you look silly, desperate and petty."

Well, making it seem like a 9.5 year trend is at all important, which promptly disappears if you extend it to 10 years, seems pretty desperate and petty from my angle. Still waiting for your retraction on the misleading title....

"The longer the time frame, the less impact noise has - right?"

Right, which is why you attempting to use such short time scales seems like grasping at straws. I'll see your "10 years is better than 5" and raise you 20 years pardner!


SBVOR said...


You want to raise the stakes to 20 years?

Oh, I see…
Despite my having explicitly called you out for cynically exploiting the most recent AMO warming phase (which began in 1976 & topped out in 1998), you’re STILL trying to run that con? Geez! You’re SHAMELESS (your sort always is)!

See my previous comment.

Anonymous said...

"An honest broker would use ENSO-adjusted data instead."

Why just ENSO? Why not ENSO, volcanic forcing, and solar forcing? Someone did do that, don't see much cooling going on there...

As for your "blog science" theory about AMO driving global temperatures, I'm not so sure. For one, you have to ignore the basic physics that greenhouse gases do trap heat. For two, you have to ignore the fact that increased back radiation from C02 has been observed. What negated all of this heating that should have, by physics occurred?

I find it interesting that you state that the current "AMO cycle" topped out in 1998 (with the large ENSO). If so, why is it continuing to warm since then? If you plot UAH at WFT, why is it that every year from 1998 on shows a warming trend? Why were the 2000's the hottest decade in over a century if the AMO is "trending down", as you say?

Furthermore, if it topped out in 1998, does ENSO drive AMO? If ENSO (which does drive short term global temp fluctation) drives AMO, does anything that changes global temperatures drive AMO?

Probably, according to a blog scientist I trust, who's views, unlike yours are actually in accord with real scientists:

I'm sorry I'm not buying your magical AMO theory, or that somehow no climatologist was smart enough to seize upon and publish AMO as the big driver of global climate change, while proving some other large negative forcing counteracts the basic physics of C02 radiative forcing. A complete overturning of 50 years of research with one new finding, fame and fortune await that person!

As this is your blog, I will leave you with the last word of course, so have at it and take care (I promise I'll read your reply as I am interested in your blog science, even though wrong it is interesting!)...


Anonymous said...

SorRy, before you reply, one last point, your blog science theory of AMO strikes me as one of many ABC theories out there(anything but carbon dioxide). Have you ever wondered why so many blog scientists are desperately searching for ABC explanations of global warming?


SBVOR said...


1) The science does not support your CAGW theory.

Quoting Dr. Judith Curry (Muller's co-author on four BEST papers):

"Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2"

2) Among ocean oscillations:

A) The data clearly show ENSO has the greatest impact on a decadal scale (with rare exceptions such as the Mt. Pinatubo eruption).

B) The data clearly show that the AMO has the greatest impact on a century scale.

Nowhere did I allege the ENSO and the AMO were the sole drivers of climate change (even among ocean oscillations). When the impact of various other ocean oscillations are factored in, Dr. Richard Lindzen (from M.I.T.) concludes:

“The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”

C) You tell me your favorite propagandist (Tamino) has allegedly adjusted for “ENSO, volcanic forcing, and solar forcing”:

But, what Tamino really did (as usual) was to cherry pick a PERFECT time frame (1975 to 2010) to MAXIMIZE the NATURAL warming induced by the AMO warming phase (1976 to 1998).

And, you expect me to take you seriously? REALLY?

Again, click here and see what happens when we select start and stop dates at similar points in the AMO cycle.

3) Nowhere have I ever denied the heat trapping properties of CO2 (properties which follow a logarithmic function as they approach saturation).

If you're interested in my views on the role of CO2 and the imaginary positive water vapor feedback (which is the SOLE foundation of your bogus CAGW theory), click here and here for a primer.

Increasingly, the data indicate that what tiny little bit role anthropogenic CO2 might play is largely counteracted by a NEGATIVE water vapor feedback. Meaning -- the entire CAGW theory CRUMBLES! But, we could have easily guessed the theory had no merit just by examining the past history of atmospheric CO2.

4) You're doing nothing but repeatedly spewing the same tired old talking points which have caused your CAGW cult to utterly lose any and all credibility it ever dreamed it might have. I suggest you do much less talking and much more reading.

Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

Hot Topics:

BEST Data - No Warming Over Last Decade
The AMO as a Driver of Climate Change
Fact check - The wealthy already pay more taxes
Rare Earth Elements Spell Doom for Green Fantasies
Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor
ClimateGate - The latest updates
Dr. Tim Ball on ClimateGate - The end of AGW hysteria?
ClimateGate: The Musical - Hide The Decline!
Lindzen and Choi SHATTER the IPCC Computer models!
It’s OFFICIAL! We HAVE elected our own Hugo Chavez!
Health Care “Reform”
Cap & Trade - It’s just a giant tax (on EVERYBODY)
The Radicals in the White House
ACORN - The truth
Transparency - Obama promised it. So, where is it?
The Cause of the Housing Debacle
Fiscal Responsibility - In Obama’s Fantasy World
Atlas Shrugged: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
Iraq War Media Deceptions 101 - Why the Iraq invasion was justified and necessary
Climate Change 101 - Learn what the SCIENCE says about the biggest hoax EVER!
Obama - on Climate Change
Obama’s Climate Czar - The most dangerous politician in the United States
Obama’s Climate Czar - Her Socialist revolution has begun
Compare the current recession to previous recessions
Obama - Historic & Catastrophic!
Is Obama a Socialist? You BETCHA!
Makers & Takers - Spread the wealth
Obama = International Crisis
The economic case against Obama
The comprehensive case against Obama
The deficit case against the Dems
A Liberal Supermajority? Watch Out!
Examine the series you should have read before voting!
Maggie’s Totalitarian Political Religion
“Kill him!” - Just another media lie?
Journalistic Integrity? - WHERE?
The post about the TED Spread
Save the nation from the Entitlement binge!
Market Reaction to $700 Billion Bailout Vote
Drill Here, Drill Now - Quantitative Facts
ANWR - Drill There, Drill Now
ANWR Matters - Here’s why
Coal Liquefaction (Liquid Fuels From Coal)
The Ethanol Debacle
Pickens Plan - Don’t Fall For it!
Energy Tomorrow Radio - GOOD Stuff!
Economic Forecast


Blog Archive