More funnies from the BEST’s apologists

Well, it seems some people are taking exception to the fact that we’ve used BEST’s data to show that the BEST claims of no warming abatement was false.  It seems BEST isn’t confident about the last two plots of their data.  (March and April)  Okay, well being the generous soul that I am, let’s take out the last two data points.  Again, we don’t have to do anything really fancy, all we have to do is pop over to the WFT site and end our plot 2 months prior.  This renders this graph…..

image

Lol, now, we have a graph that Tamino reproduced.  His start period is earlier than mine.  I went to 10 years prior using a start time of 2001.75.  But, here we can see a barely perceptible incline in the graph.  Now, there are a number of things to recall.  First, the original graph was posted in a response to the claim by Muller that there is no evidence that the globe has abated in its warming.  Clearly, this was a false statement.  This graph, even without the last two plots still shows basically a flat line.  Also, recall that this isn’t current data.  BEST’s data ends in April 2010.  We cut off the last two months, so this ends in Feb. 2010.  So, what will a completion of the data look like according to the rest of the data sets?  To finish the decadal view, here are the land data sets, (WFT has taken GIS off of the land data set, so this is Crutem, RSS, and UAH, land coverage only.)

image

But, now, also recall that this is land only data.  As we showed in an earlier post, the land only data is is significantly warmer than global temps.  So, if and when BEST comes up to date, it will show a negative decadal trend for their land only data which suggests an even more negative trend when considering global coverage.  Can we now dispense with the idea that BEST brought any new data or thoughts to the table?  Surely, even though the time frame is shorter than what the alarmist want, we can all recognize that the temp increases seen in the 1990s has abated.  Some of the world’s most famous alarmists acknowledge this abatement. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to More funnies from the BEST’s apologists

  1. Pingback: More funnies from the BEST’s apologists | suyts space « Divine Anarchy

  2. A. C. Osborn says:

    James Sexton, I have asked this question on a few sites now.
    Have looked at the Actual data?
    I am not much of Stats person but I am good at seeing patterns.
    The dataset that best posted is full of errors, like minus signs that shouldn’t be there etc.
    But they have done something to the data that makes some years have higher average values in Northern hemisphere Winter months than the averages in the Summer months.
    Can this possibly be correct?

    • suyts says:

      A.C. I’m not sure what you mean…..the data I’m using… (the same as Paul’s from WoodForTrees) is the monthly interpretation of the global data. This comes to us in an anomaly (deviant from the average) value. Such as 2008.17 1.562 This means the anomaly value for Feb 2008 was 1.562, while later that year, 2008.58 0.655, so June has an anomalous value of 0.655. In this manner, yes, it is entirely possible, because it is how much it is deviating from the norm, as opposed to an actual temp. But, I don’t have the breakdown of NH vs SH data. I’m having difficulties downloading the larger data set.

      Mosh has advised me to use a different OS, but all of my analysis tools are on my windows machines…..sigh.

    • suyts says:

      A.C. I’m sorry, I’m a bit distracted, but if you can provide me with an example of what you’re stating or a link that shows what you’re seeing, I’ll be able to give you a more intelligible response.

      • A. C. Osborn says:

        Unfortunately I don’t know if it is possible to add attachments with replies so I am having to copy and paste data from the Big file which are actual values not anomalies.
        Here is an example of inconsistent data where minus signs are appearing.
        The site is 149255 CHEROKEE 36.7700 -98.3500 359.000.
        149254 1 1951.042 16.347 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.125 14.961 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.208 14.591 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.292 13.872 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.375 13.942 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.458 14.875 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.542 14.744 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.625 14.887 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.708 14.673 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.792 15.438 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.875 11.579 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.958 15.907 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.042 18.530 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.125 16.237 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.208 14.355 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.292 14.419 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.542 15.415 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.625 14.617 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.708 13.291 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.792 11.116 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.875 13.356 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.958 14.947 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.042 17.721 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.125 -8.317 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.208 15.834 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.292 -17.464 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.458 -26.508 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.542 13.725 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.625 13.980 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.708 14.021 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.792 14.833 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.875 12.704 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.958 13.329 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.042 14.826 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.125 17.131 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.208 13.716 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.292 17.248 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.375 11.336 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.458 14.981 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.542 15.514 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.625 15.268 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.792 14.669 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.875 12.250 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.958 13.138 0.0000 -99 -99
        and this is site 148987 GREENWICH/MARITIME MUK 51.5000 0.0000 7.000
        showing winter months higher than summer months.
        149254 1 1951.042 16.347 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.125 14.961 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.208 14.591 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.292 13.872 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.375 13.942 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.458 14.875 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.542 14.744 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.625 14.887 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.708 14.673 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.792 15.438 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.875 11.579 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1951.958 15.907 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.042 18.530 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.125 16.237 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.208 14.355 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.292 14.419 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.542 15.415 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.625 14.617 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.708 13.291 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.792 11.116 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.875 13.356 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1952.958 14.947 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.042 17.721 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.125 -8.317 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.208 15.834 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.292 -17.464 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.458 -26.508 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.542 13.725 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.625 13.980 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.708 14.021 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.792 14.833 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.875 12.704 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1953.958 13.329 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.042 14.826 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.125 17.131 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.208 13.716 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.292 17.248 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.375 11.336 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.458 14.981 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.542 15.514 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.625 15.268 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.792 14.669 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.875 12.250 0.0000 -99 -99
        149254 1 1954.958 13.138 0.0000 -99 -99

        The data is riddled with these errors.

        • suyts says:

          Oh my! Well, we see that BEST has done no better job than the rest of the temp collecting agencies. Yes, I really doubt it was -26.508 C in Greenwich in May/June. It should be some sort of record.

          While I don’t recognize Wikipedia as authoritative, their temp records for Greenwich seem well sourced. We see that BEST’s data is entirely incorrect.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich

      • Mike Davis says:

        A.C.:
        Using the proper Al-Gore-Rhythm the errors are canceled out and the researchers will claim they do not matter. Those running the models do not care about any errors, they only care if the results look about right.
        From NASA GISS:
        Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
        A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.
        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
        BEST claims to replicate GISS, They also appear to be doing what GISS claim to do!
        Hopefully their results represent something people will believe, being correct is not important in climatology!

      • A. C. Osborn says:

        The first set of data that I posted with the really low minuses was for Cherokee Oklahoma USA.
        The second one with the Winter temps higher than the summer temps was Greenwich.
        I don’t think Oklahoma has the odd year where summer temperatures are 30 to 40 degrees lower than normal.

      • suyts says:

        No, they don’t. I live 3 hrs away from there. While there are freak occurrences where the temps will suddenly drop in the summer or suddenly and significantly rise in the winter, it doesn’t stay that way. It will be interesting to see if BEST cleans this mess up or just goes with the errant data.

  3. James, small point: you’re plotting global rss for the data, rss-land for the trend. But 20-month trends should probably be banned under the Geneva convention anyway 🙂

    Interesting point about GISS dTs – I am informed from on high it is intended to be a global dataset extrapolated from land-only data, hence the renaming and re-classification today. But it strikes me that since it is using only land input, comparing it to the other land-only datasets is fair game.

    I still haven’t got my head round what the large divergence of land-based and whole-globe trends means either…

    Cheers

    Paul

    • suyts says:

      Ahh….. lol, too many RSS’s ..:-)… but the point was to show that the other data sets showed a decline in temp since the end of BEST’s data.

      I’ve got to move from one computer to another, but if you pop back by, I’ll give you some reasoning about why the land would be warmer than the oceans….. or maybe some other enlightened readers here could offer an explanation that we could chew on for a while.

    • suyts says:

      So any way, at this point, I only have conjecture, and when I have time I’ll try to verify or falsify my posit.

      I believe the reason why the land data is running higher than the ocean data is primarily because of UHI, for the uninitiated, this stands for Urban Heat Island. This is where additional heat is recorded, not because of CO2 emissions, but rather the proximity to human activity. As Dr. Spencer has shown, this is a misnomer, because the largest variance in the temps occur moving from zero. In other words, this effect is logarithmic. So, using this as a given, how many thermometers have had the population in that area remain static? That’s for surface temps. When regarding the satellites, it would be similar, but a bit different, in that the satellites would be measuring the heat columns from the urban areas. Again, this is only conjecture. I think it’ll take me a day or two to show this or disprove it, and then only God knows how long after to refine it to an palatable posit.

      Then there is another seemingly simpler posit, but in reality much more complex. Color! As we know, various colors produce various albedo effects (reflect light). Colors can be put in a numerical value based on their reflective properties with black and white being on the opposite ends of the color spectrum. But the problem would be to answer this question. What is the average numerical value of the color of the seas and oceans vs. the average numerical value of our land?

      There are some other considerations such as types of thermometers used, and their immediate environment. Obviously, this wouldn’t come into play with satellites.

      These are my thoughts on this, does anyone have any other thoughts?

  4. Latitude says:

    James, the land data is continuing to climb up…at about the same rate.
    If it’s UHI, that would mean that new buildings, roads, etc would have to be added.
    Otherwise UHI would be the same, it would just show hotter land…..

    ….follow me??

    Something else is making the land get gradually warmer…..
    …and I think you hit on it with color….but the color is dark green

    If summers have been coming earlier, winters later, trees, grass etc has been staying greener longer.
    Also, I do a lot of plankton cultures. In order to get high density cultures I have to inject CO2…otherwise they are pale green/yellowish green/to yellow…..

    CO2 also makes plants darker green……….;-)

    Then again, I might just be on a sugar high……but something is making land temps climb at the same rate..and that’s not necessarily UHI

    • suyts says:

      I see what you mean, but we are, globally, still in the urban sprawl mode. So, I think UHI has to play a part. The difference in temps isn’t so great that it will easily be discernible as to causation. But, I think I’ve got a method that can show something. I’m still running it through my mind.

      But, yes. The biosphere has taken off with the CO2 increases. But, now that you’ve mentioned the plankton and plant-life of the oceans, I’m wondering if the hue of the oceans have changed?

      Sigh, that’s the damnedest thing about linear thought. It isn’t reality. And, that’s one of the many reasons why the CAGW posit is wrong. Things simply don’t work this way.

      (For other people’s benefit) This is why my trend lines are typically for short periods of time. I don’t use them for predictive analysis. I use them to show what is happening now, and what has recently happened. Drawing a straight line through 1945 to 1996 seems a bit silly to me know that most people acknowledge that the effects of atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic. There is a process in which a person can use the “least squares trends” to show a curve, but I’ve never seen it used in cli-sci. Maybe I’ll dust it off one day and sit back to listen to the screams.

      • Latitude says:

        This is what I’m talking about……keep in mind, we went from a mild anemic state….yes, below 300ppm is anemic to C3’s….makes them lighter yellow green

        Be nice….I reviewed this and helped write it

        http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/2/311.short

        • suyts says:

          Yes, this is why it would be difficult to determine the effects of the changing of the hue. There’s just so much stuff that our “scientists” don’t take into consideration when discussing our climate.

          It really pisses me off. We know it has an effect. How much we don’t know. But, when someone tries to address a subject such as this, people dismiss it out of hand. Just like when our solar friends were stating that the sun’s output isn’t constant. It’s gaining traction now, but that was just happenstance.

      • Latitude says:

        crap….my post is in moderation hell

      • suyts says:

        lol, it was calling you spam…… else it would have just gone on through!!! IDK why.

      • Latitude says:

        It might do that with pdf’s….dunno

        We know darker is warmer, and stays warmer longer…..who knows, it might just be the plants. We do know they are growing faster…………
        That would also ‘splain why there’s very little difference between UHI and rural…..

      • Latitude says:

        I think I need to change emails……it thinks I’m spam now
        There’s another one in there now

      • Latitude says:

        nope….nevermind…..there it is

      • suyts says:

        It might explain that….. there are just so many factors…..

  5. Mike Davis says:

    I agree on the so called UHI, but I think of it as a technology factor, such as building materials and waste energy that are trapped near civilized regions. By civilized I am referring to any where a group of people live or work. Even advances in farming practices contributes to changes in micro climates. The other thing is that most temperature measurements are taken where people live and work. In Death Valley California the monitoring site is where the golf course is at Furnace Creek and that is used to determine the temperature for hundreds of miles each way.
    Sea surface temperature is a completely different problem because they NEVER measured “Sea Surface Temperature” unless they were using a buoy. Sea surface temperatures are as reliable as tree rings. They have measured temperatures at various depths in various turbulent conditions and claim the measured “Surface temperatures”. How deep is the engine intake on any given ship, at what time during the voyage. How much mixing has happened before the water reaches the thermometer. Relate that to a bucket thrown from a moving ship and measuring the temperature in the ships wake.
    When I do have some thoughts I will share them! 😉

    • suyts says:

      Yes, the old bucket method is problematic. I’m not sure if or when they stopped using that. I assume they have stopped. But, this is one of the many problems with the divergence Paul has underlined. He pointed out earlier that HadCrut and RSS follow each other while GIS and UAH likewise follow each other. This is troubling.

      Another troubling thing is what Gavin related to Paul. GIS is extrapolating ocean temps using land temps? 30% of the earth to 70%? GAHHH!!! What!!??!! Make NASA proud, boys! Make NASA proud.

  6. Latitude says:

    We’re only looking at 10th of a degree……but I don’t think it’s acting like UHI.
    UHI should show distinct ups and downs….and not that constant linear trend line they like so much

    I still think something else has changed with land temps. For one thing, it is constant with CO2, and it’s slowed down a little.
    Below 300ppm is limiting to C3’s. Jump it up just a little, you see a growth spurt. Then it slows, because you have to go a lot higher after that to see the same rate of growth.

  7. Pingback: The top 10 posts for the year (by views) | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s