-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
B.E.S.T., Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, is the organization, formed by Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, to analyze temperature data. B.E.S.T. has received a total of $623,087 in financial support, with the largest contribution, $150,000, coming from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. B.E.S.T. directly addressed concerns including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and data selection bias.
Their results: “Global warming is real.” Before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Muller testified that “we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” That similarity can be seen in the graphs below.
The issue of temperature stations in the U.S. located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to other heat sources has been raised by climate change skeptics such as Anthony Watts. Muller testified:
Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.
The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.
Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.
Regarding the urban heat island effect, the study concludes that:
The urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise. That’s because the urban region of the Earth amount to less than 1% of the land area.
Anthony Watts is a weather-caster turned global warming skeptic who stated, “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” That was in March. Now, Watts “consider[s] the paper fatally flawed.” Watts’ reaction moves him from the category of global warming skeptic to global warming denier. Watts has gained a certain amount of fame by claiming that the temperature data was flawed. If he had accepted the B.E.S.T. results as promised, his celebrity status would be lost.
H/T: Zingularity, LA Times, Brad Plumer, Ron Chusid.
Dude I know plenty of chicks that would dig you. Might cost you a little bit of money but hey, you know what they say ? Can’t take it with ya
Aw Kevin it’s because your nose is stuck to the screen. You got to get out there man and make yourself available.
GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER, SAYS EXPERT
IT’S one of the hottest feuds in science – climate chance zealots insist that we’re still destroying the planet but now another scientist has warned the cast-iron evidence just isn’t there.
FOR a minute there it seemed the global warming debate had finally been resolved.
http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over-
Bdaman,
Those kind of girls would never even talk to me…
You have no idea what you are talking about and you don’t understand the least thing about how the modeling process works.
I do. You put on sum fancy clothes and walk real nice down a wooded runway all the while a voice in your head says,
and turn, and turn, now smile and walk. Now strut, the but, to make the cut.
what do you think modeling is useful for?
Getn you a date wit a rich man or being one of the contestants on the next Bachelor.
Saying that I ever suggested central planning or using models to control the economy is just two more in a long line of straw men. Since you’ve obviously never bothered to consider it, let me ask you: what do you think modeling is useful for? (or why do you think modeling isn’t useful?)
Bron,
You have no idea what you are talking about and you don’t understand the least thing about how the modeling process works. I’m not going to try and explain to you why and how your naive objections are easily addressed by what I’ve learned in two decades of post-graduate and professional experience in modeling, but does what you are saying even make sense to you?
What did Volterra’s model tell us? In what sense is it valid? What else can the math be usefully applied to? Do you know the answer to these questions? No, you don’t — I can tell from what you say just like I can tell when a calculus student is trying to bullshit on a test (this is completely obvious to any teacher, by the way).
You say, “there were other variables in play, the number of fishermen.”
What does that even mean? Where is the objection? How does that invalidate the model or its results? You don’t know, because you don’t know what was learned from the model nor do you understand how the model can be correctly used.
So please, prove me wrong — you read the model and think you understand it — answer my questions, explain why this is (or isn’t) a big deal, demonstrate how your understanding is deeper and more nuanced than mine. Do you think you can do that?
Everyone else,
If you would like to learn about this fascinating study by Volterra, check out section 4 in the following:
http://david-roscoe.staff.shef.ac.uk/Home_page_files/Teaching/AMA329_pdf/L3.pdf
After we have some light word salad from Bron about the significance and applicability of the mathematics, I’ll give my opinion on the matter so everyone can see how far out of my depth I am in comparison to Bron…
Slarti:
well yes there were other variables in play, the number of fishermen.
As smart as you may be you cannot know everything and a model is only as good as what is input into it.
Which is why I dont think you can model an economy well enough to engage in central planning.
Slarti:
You have stated previously you can model the economy to use that model to control all or some aspects. I am saying and have said you cannot because of the number of variables involved and the number of interactions between those variables is to large to have an adequate model.
I dont doubt that the scientific method works [talk about straw men].
As far as fishing? Was that in the Mediterranean Sea? Do you think maybe there might have been some other variables in play? Maybe the noise level of the war caused fish to leave the Med? Or the TNT from exploded ordinance caused problems or the bombs exploding caused fish kills. [now I will find the study and read it]
“Why has warming been muted for the last ten years?
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
”
1) Warming has continued, just to be clear, but it has been down a small amount.
2) Evidently the reason is :
a) more cloud cover, due to 4% more H2O in the atmosphere, which is why storms have been, and will continue to be, so devastating of late
b) China went through a huge upsurge in industrial development and burned a very large amount of sulpher-containing fuel in this past decade, which increased world-wide atmospheric particulate levels (and pollution). However, they have now switched to clean fuels, not to mention leading the world in solar power installations and development (a whole other topic!), so that particulate level will soon drop, and greenhouse warming will begin to climb again. This is probably why 2011 was just below 2010 heat levels, not above it.
Woosty, The TVPigs are very, very funny. I’ve watched several of the episodes and they are all bent. Thank you. 🙂
So you think that predictive economic modeling can’t be done because the system is complicated compared to, say, the human proteome? Are you really that thick?
A two-species predator-prey system has 4 parameters, 6 if you include harvesting (interesting variant — Volterra did a study of the Italian fishing industry before and after World War I and found that the lack of harvesting during the war actually reduced the size of the harvests for several years afterwards — which was counter-intuitive and what was seen empirically). Part of the modeling process is to determine which variables are critically important, which variable you’d like to have, and which variables you can do without (because they wont affect your model in any way you care about). You’ve got no idea what you are talking about and you’re shooting your mouth off to someone that does — do you think that’s wise?
Also, why do you keep making straw men with comments like,
“I just wouldnt put any stock in it to give cart blanche to government to use it to control a 14 trillion dollar economy.”
This is idiotic — no one is suggesting such a thing. Part of the modeling process (right after you build the model) is validation. A model must be validated by using it to make a prediction (preferably many predictions) and verifying those predictions experimentally. If a prediction fails, the model must be corrected to obtain the correct behavior and then put to the test again. If a prediction succeeds, you use your new biological insight to create new simulations which result in new testable hypotheses — and so on, and so on…
When a model that has been built this way has been right repeatedly you build up confidence in what it tells you — should you not?
There’s a reason that the scientific method has been around for a while — it works. I’m a theoretical scientist — meaning that I use mathematics for scientific inquiry — deal with it.
sLARTI:
that was interesting, thank you for posting. And yes I understand that you can write equations to model just about anything.
What I am saying is that you do not have enough computing power to accurately predict a market system to the point where you can control it.
I know the example in the video was simplistic but there are probably a thousand variables which determine a predator prey relationship.
I still say anything you or anyone else could come up with would be too simplistic to use to control an economy. There are just too many variables.
Now you might end up with a good indicator as to when to buy and sell stocks and commodities and you might be able to predict winners and losers. I used to evaluate stock performance of companies which went on to be successful in contrast with other companies which went out of business or were just so so to see if I could spot trends in emerging companies to pick future winners. So I am not saying modeling doesn’t have its place.
I just wouldnt put any stock in it to give cart blanche to government to use it to control a 14 trillion dollar economy.
Bron,
Your comments once again betray your ignorance — remember, it is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak and prove it. If you want to learn something, watch the video on the linked page and remember that compared to what I’m doing, the problem this guy is looking at is trivial* (although his solution is extremely elegant), and that my expertise lies in modeling (i.e. differential equations), not biology. Do you really think that there are any quantitative fields where my knowledge and skills are not applicable?
http://flowingdata.com/2011/10/05/kill-math-makes-math-more-meaningful/
* I’m developing a software tool and database structure to manage the complexity in problems which are at least 3 orders of magnitude bigger, by the way…
Everyone else,
Check this out — I think this is really cool. I strongly believe in everything he says about his interface vs. how “80s scientists” did it. His GUI would be great for teaching — I’d love to get the chance to play with it…
To Oro Lee: Why do you think 10 years is a long enough time to make such an assumption and why aren’t you taking into account ocean temperatures over this 10 year time period?
PS Where did you get the idea that global warming happens in a nice straight line?
Why has warming been muted for the last ten years?
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
Woosty:
companies which use capital inefficiently.
Slarti:
“OS,
I don’t know how Bron passed his differential equations class without learning that positive feedback leads systems to oscillate out of control — he seems comfortable with a level of cognitive dissonance that is unsettling in an engineer…”
First of all economies do not “oscillate” out of control because of all kinds of feedback mechanisms, like the law of supply and demand. Interest rates rise and fall in a free market based on market conditions and should not be based on man made controls, i.e. the Fed. And the ultimate control mechanism is recession.
If you dont understand that, maybe you should stick to math.
Now please tell me supply and demand is not a feedback mechanism.
Your problem is that your expertise is in math and biological systems. Where feedback mechanisms are necessary for the continuation of life. If the body goes into a “recession” that is death. A diabetic cannot survive without help if he goes into a diabetic coma (recession). If a heart goes into an unnatural beat the end is a stopped heart (recession) unless acted on by a defibrillator or something else. The same is not true for an economy, the stasis is the restorative element.
You need to modify your biological model.
In re DQ you might know the professor I had, Paul Erlich. He was brilliant. Best professor I ever had. I used to pick my professors by the level of clutter in their office, the more clutter the better and I was never disappointed. Needless to say Dr. Erlich’s office was the most cluttered.
Woosty,
Hilarious video!