Berkelely group, preliminary results

[Old Rocks]

Looks like Muller has confirmed Hansen, Mann, and everybody else.

April 4, 2011
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

hipinion.com • View topic - "scientists were right about global warming" say critics

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

...............................................................................


Over the years, Muller has praised Watts' efforts to show that weather station data in official studies are untrustworthy because of the urban heat island effect, which boosts temperature readings in areas that have been encroached on by cities and suburbs.

But leading climatologists said the previous studies accounted for the effect, and the Berkeley analysis is confirming that, Muller acknowledged. "Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming?" he asked in his written testimony. "We've studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no."

 

[Oddball]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Big surprise huh?

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udNMqRmqV8&feature=related]YouTube - TEDxPentagon - Rear Admiral David Titley, USN - Climate Change and National Security[/ame]

Every conservative in America needs to see this video. A conservative admiral lays it out for everyone to see. Unfortunately, there is a massive shift to the right, especially the religious right who are science deniers, going on right now in the US. Over the last 20 years the craziest people have hijacked the conservative party and we are in serious trouble

 

[Old Rocks]

Big surprise huh?

Ask Ian.

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2yvky_xmwk&feature=related]YouTube - What does climate change mean for the US Navy?[/ame]

AGU and the US Navy

 

[ScienceRocks]

YouTube - What does climate change mean for the US Navy?

AGU and the US Navy

this is the coldest fucking march and april iv ever seen. I'm not kidding...i pray to god it warms up soon.

 

[skookerasbil]

YouTube - TEDxPentagon - Rear Admiral David Titley, USN - Climate Change and National Security

Every conservative in America needs to see this video. A conservative admiral lays it out for everyone to see. Unfortunately, there is a massive shift to the right, especially the religious right who are science deniers, going on right now in the US. Over the last 20 years the craziest people have hijacked the conservative party and we are in serious trouble

Thats right.......hijacked by less then 3% of the population!!! Of course...........

Common sense always prevails when people finally take a close look at lefty public policy efforts, brilliantly designed to flog the middle class with taxes thus ultimately increasing the rolls of the lower class who then need government subsistence to survive. Its fcukking brilliant.

Look whats happening now!!!!!!!!! Erskine Bowles, a liberal and who is on the deficit commission stated that the debt crisis is a ticking timb bomb that will suddenly collapse our whole economy overnight. Lefty guys like Old Rocks dont even acknowledge there is a problem..........says the debt crisis is fake, manufactured by "the right". They want alternative energy policies that are not affordable by any reasonable standard. Too..........to pursue them would cost the coal industry approximately 2.3 million jobs = fact. Politically over the next several years if not beyond, such "green" measures will be IMPOSSIBLE!!! ( Oh.....not to mention the House will continue to be in the hands of the GOP for a minimum of the next 9 years.....due to state redistricting happening right now)


Indeed..............for the left, what we have here is.................

Ultimately.........the Berkely research, no matter what it finds, will only heat up temperature glacier melt/sea ice debate on the internet. Nothing else. We are a couple of decades......... at least......... away from alternative energy technology that is sensible, efficient and affordable. And even then, these efforts will be stalled for decades more UNLESS the government gets the fcukk out of the way = not likely.

 

[skookerasbil]

Rocks s0n........debating this shit with you. Trying to think of a good analogy here..........

Whats it like?

Its like..........its like that new Geico commercial where the tough guy Ninja come swooping in with his gay sword, does all his pre-fight tricks and then faces off against his opponent................who proceeds to take a small laser cannon out of a box, aims it at the ninja and blows him into the next world!!! For guys like Ian, Westwall, Polar, Wire, Matthew and me, when we happen upon this forum, were NOT the ninja guy!!!!



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcZd-ql7t1I"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcZd-ql7t1I[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

One should look at Muller's actual testimony, not what the LA Times interprets that testimony to be. So, in Muller's own words from the start

....

We are developing statistical methods to address the other potential biases.

I suggest that Congress consider the creation of a Climate-ARPA to facilitate the study of
climate issues.

Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are
the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The
world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature
trends.

....

[Emphasis added]

From Muller's own testimony, he makes a conclusion based on biased data.

But, leave it to Congress, an LA Times reporter, and those playing at science to miss that.

 

[skookerasbil]

One should look at Mueller's actual testimony, not what the LA Times interprets that testimony to be. So, in Mueller's own words from the start

....

We are developing statistical methods to address the other potential biases.

I suggest that Congress consider the creation of a Climate-ARPA to facilitate the study of
climate issues.

Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are
the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The
world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature
trends.

....

[Emphasis added]

From Mueller's own testimony, he makes a conclusion based on biased data.

But, leave it to Congress, an LA Times reporter, and those playing at science to miss that.

Modo pwns the k00ks!!!

 

[Oddball]

“Thorne said scientists who contributed to the three main studies — by NOAA, NASA and Britain’s Met Office — welcome new peer-reviewed research. But he said the Berkeley team had been “seriously compromised” by publicizing its work before publishing any vetted papers.”

<snip>

Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium, said he was &#8220;highly skeptical of the hype and claims&#8221; surrounding the Berkeley effort. &#8220;The team has some good people,&#8221; he said, &#8220;but not the expertise required in certain areas, and purely statistical approaches are naive.&#8221;

<snip>


The project team includes UC Berkeley statistician David Brillinger and UC Berkeley physicists Don Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld and Jonathan Wurtele. The group's atmospheric scientist is Judith Curry, chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, who has suggested that temperature data were "airbrushed" by other scientists.

Global warming: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on climate change - latimes.com

 

[Si modo]

&#8220;Thorne said scientists who contributed to the three main studies &#8212; by NOAA, NASA and Britain&#8217;s Met Office &#8212; welcome new peer-reviewed research. But he said the Berkeley team had been &#8220;seriously compromised&#8221; by publicizing its work before publishing any vetted papers.&#8221;

<snip>

Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium, said he was &#8220;highly skeptical of the hype and claims&#8221; surrounding the Berkeley effort. &#8220;The team has some good people,&#8221; he said, &#8220;but not the expertise required in certain areas, and purely statistical approaches are naive.&#8221;

<snip>


The project team includes UC Berkeley statistician David Brillinger and UC Berkeley physicists Don Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld and Jonathan Wurtele. The group's atmospheric scientist is Judith Curry, chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, who has suggested that temperature data were "airbrushed" by other scientists.

Global warming: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on climate change - latimes.com

I don't know if I would go as far to say that Muller et al have been seriously compromised with their publicizing their work (their testimony to Congress). Muller clearly stated that he made his conclusions on biased data. As the group has yet to address the remaining biases, he really is in no position to present much of anything for peer review.

However, those who allow their beliefs in this area to cloud rational thought (politicians, journalists, dilettante 'scientists', etc.) haven't the capacity to see the testimony for what it is - preliminary conclusions based on incomplete work and biased data.

The testimony was purely political, as it often is, because of that.

I'll wait to make a conclusion about Muller's actual science when he does some. But, there is little doubt that he has a political agenda, and that's OK, but rather distasteful (IMO), as long as he keeps his actual science clean.

I will say, however, that because of his testimony, his science will receive much scrutiny to ensure that it is clean.

 

[IanC]

Big surprise huh?

Ask Ian.

I am willing to wait for the results to be published before I make any comments. I think Muller got trapped into making foolish remarks by being asked to testify at a hearing before he had finished his work. if BEST algorithms deal with the problems known to be inherent in the global temperature data sets and still produce similar numbers I have no problem with that. but if they dont deal with UHI and poor splicing and bizarre adjustments then it will be apparent to all when their methodologies are made public.

 

[wirebender]

Big surprise huh?

Ask Ian.

I am willing to wait for the results to be published before I make any comments. I think Muller got trapped into making foolish remarks by being asked to testify at a hearing before he had finished his work. if BEST algorithms deal with the problems known to be inherent in the global temperature data sets and still produce similar numbers I have no problem with that. but if they dont deal with UHI and poor splicing and bizarre adjustments then it will be apparent to all when their methodologies are made public.

I am betting that in the end that neither their data nor their methodologies will be made public. They are, after all, from Berkley.

 

[IanC]

Ask Ian.

I am willing to wait for the results to be published before I make any comments. I think Muller got trapped into making foolish remarks by being asked to testify at a hearing before he had finished his work. if BEST algorithms deal with the problems known to be inherent in the global temperature data sets and still produce similar numbers I have no problem with that. but if they dont deal with UHI and poor splicing and bizarre adjustments then it will be apparent to all when their methodologies are made public.

I am betting that in the end that neither their data nor their methodologies will be made public. They are, after all, from Berkley.

their supposed mission statement was to make the data set transparent and accessable so I dont see how they will be able to go back on that. but strange things happen in climate science.

did anyone notice that Old Rocks thinks Mann was vindicated by Muller? hahaha. Muller said Mann was a disgrace to science last fall and I didnt see any reference to Mann in the testimony.

 

[Old Rocks]

One should look at Muller's actual testimony, not what the LA Times interprets that testimony to be. So, in Muller's own words from the start

....

We are developing statistical methods to address the other potential biases.

I suggest that Congress consider the creation of a Climate-ARPA to facilitate the study of
climate issues.

Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are
the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The
world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature
trends.

....

[Emphasis added]

From Muller's own testimony, he makes a conclusion based on biased data.

But, leave it to Congress, an LA Times reporter, and those playing at science to miss that.

Just cannot handle the truth, can you, Si.

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

We have done an initial study of the station selection issue. Rather than pick stations
with long records (as done by the prior groups) we picked stations randomly from the
complete set. This approach eliminates station selection bias. Our results are shown in
the Figure; we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported
by the other groups.
We have also studied station quality. Many US stations have low quality rankings
according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in
the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations.

 

[Old Rocks]

is is t

I am willing to wait for the results to be published before I make any comments. I think Muller got trapped into making foolish remarks by being asked to testify at a hearing before he had finished his work. if BEST algorithms deal with the problems known to be inherent in the global temperature data sets and still produce similar numbers I have no problem with that. but if they dont deal with UHI and poor splicing and bizarre adjustments then it will be apparent to all when their methodologies are made public.

I am betting that in the end that neither their data nor their methodologies will be made public. They are, after all, from Berkley.

their supposed mission statement was to make the data set transparent and accessable so I dont see how they will be able to go back on that. but strange things happen in climate science.

did anyone notice that Old Rocks thinks Mann was vindicated by Muller? hahaha. Muller said Mann was a disgrace to science last fall and I didnt see any reference to Mann in the testimony.

But Muller's analysis of the data showed the same thing as did Mann's and everybody else's.
The report that you were ballyhooing as the end of the AGW theory. Seems that, by the graph in the report, that Muller has confirmed the proir work in detail.


http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are
the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The
world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature

.............................................................................................................

Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C
land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree rise is what we
call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to
build on it.

........................................................................................................

The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary
results don’t yet address many of the known biases. When they do, it is possible that the
corrections could bring our current agreement into disagreement.

.......................................................................................................

Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects
well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity
is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most
worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.

 

[Trajan]

One should look at Muller's actual testimony, not what the LA Times interprets that testimony to be. So, in Muller's own words from the start

....

We are developing statistical methods to address the other potential biases.

I suggest that Congress consider the creation of a Climate-ARPA to facilitate the study of
climate issues.

Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are
the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The
world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature
trends.

....

[Emphasis added]

From Muller's own testimony, he makes a conclusion based on biased data.

But, leave it to Congress, an LA Times reporter, and those playing at science to miss that.

Just cannot handle the truth, can you, Si.

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

We have done an initial study of the station selection issue. Rather than pick stations
with long records (as done by the prior groups) we picked stations randomly from the
complete set. This approach eliminates station selection bias. Our results are shown in
the Figure; we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported
by the other groups.
We have also studied station quality. Many US stations have low quality rankings
according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in
the &#8220;poor&#8221; stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the &#8220;good&#8221; stations.

you've basically re-posted the same data eval. and apparently have not READ or better yet in my best Dennis Miller imperfection NOT COMPREHENDED Modo's post.....and ignored Oddballs, so yes you apparently are a GW advocate, the proof is in....

 

[Oddball]

Good grief, Charlie Brown...

Even super-hoaxer Kevin Trenberth doesn't buy this mess of a "study".