2011-10-21 04:18:30BEST Urban Heating Study
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188

This is an incomplete draft that needs more work.

I can't do anything to this for the next few hours, so please give me your comments and I'll incorporate them later.

I think it needs to be simplified and shortened and I haven't yet written the conclusions. If somone wants to have a stab at the conclusion, go for it.

2011-10-21 08:26:01comments
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

1) Your links didn't work.

2) Right before you talk about the large number of stations they use, I'd recommend quoting Pielke:

"Unless, Muller pulls from a significanty different set of raw data, it is no surprise that his trends are the same."

Alternatively, you could add a section on early criticisms of the paper (Watts and Pielke), or we could even do a separate post on the subject.

3) Link to the BEST urban heat island paper.

4) "The rural stations therefore show more median warming, about one tenth of a degree Celsius per century, than the complete data set. This result is counter-intuitive and is at odds with previous studies that showed a small but positive urban effect in the range of 0.o1 to 0.1°C per century."

Didn't Menne et al. arrive at basically the same conclusion ('bad' stations with slightly less warming than 'good' stations)?  A brief comparison with Menne would be good here.

2011-10-21 09:19:59
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188

Dana, thanks

1) Yes, the problem with the links arises from my hasty cutting and pasting from Word. I'll fix them.

2) Good idea about Pielke. Yes, Ill make a few remarks about the early criticisms. The criticisms are mostly meta, though, especially from Watts and I'd rather keep close to the science here. It's worth noting that this has not been peer-reviewed.

3) Yes, I will add that link, it wasn't available when I wrote this draft

4) Yes, that's (partly) true. But IIRC, the Menne paper saw different trends in maximum and minimum temps. I'll have to re-read it.  

It would be great if this could be a part of a series, with an article on each of the four BEST papers. Volunteers?

 

I have an idea that part of the reason for increased warming in the rural sites may be because cities are concentrated near coasts. Therefore, when you take out all the sites that are less than 11km from towns, you'll be overweighting the stations from continental interiors, where AGW has more effect. Does this make sense? Or would the BEST spatial weighting fully compensate for this?

2011-10-21 11:42:03Conclusion
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

I'd finish the post with a list of important take-home messages.  A few off the top of my head:

  • Once again the accuracy of the surface temperature record is confirmed
  • BEST used more data than GISTEMP or NOAA, but arrived at essentially the same answer
  • BEST confirmed that HadCRUT is biased low, as we knew from the ECWMF analysis
  • If anything, the 'bad' stations are biased on the cool side, consistent with the findings of Menne

I'm going to draft up a post on skepticism associated with BEST that will discuss Watts and Pielke's reactions, so no need to go into much detail there.

2011-10-21 12:07:11
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188

I've made some changes and fixed the links.

Dana, if you want to tweak the last section, to empasize the take-homes and to fit with your post, feel free. 

2011-10-21 14:24:50
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188

I've added three points to the conclusion, good suggestions. I modified the second  point and left out the third because they mainly refer to a different paper that merits a post to itself (but not by me).

Menne seemed to resist concluding that there was a discernable or significant cooling trend at the bad sites. His definition of bad and good sites was anyway a little different from BEST's.

 

Ready to go unlesss there are any other suggestions. (I wish it were shorter and simpler but I don't have the time).

2011-10-21 14:37:36
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

We should strike with this one while the iron is hot.  Get your comments in if you have any, folks.

2011-10-21 14:39:25I'm publishing this within an hour
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

If noone else chimes in, I'll publish this (unless Dana beats me to it) within the next hour. As it was, many blogs beat us to the punch but this is one of the more thorough treatments around, with Dana's follow-up also. So great work Andy.

2011-10-21 15:13:55
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55
Go for it John. You want me to publish the one you were planning on publishing tonight tomorrow instead?
2011-10-21 15:35:17Yes
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Defer that, BEST trumps my post, it's too topical to delay. Posting Andy's post now and perhaps you could post yours in the morning?

2011-10-21 15:35:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Nicely done Andy.

Possible typo?

"This result is counter-intuitive and is at odds with previous studies that showed a small but positive urban effect in the range of 0.00 to 0.1°C per century."

Should that perhaps be 0.01 C?

Maybe mention the almost 1 C of warming in the opening paragraph?  That fact should be highlighted up front IMHO.

2011-10-21 15:41:38
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55
Hmm yeah that's probably 0.01, not 0.00. Roger that John, will plan on posting mine tomorrow.
2011-10-21 15:43:53
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188
Yes. Please fix that typo somebody. I'm on an iPod touch and can't edit. By all means addthe one degree comment also. Thanks!