New Berkeley Earth High Resolution Dataset


Berkeley Earth just released a new version of the GMST dataset, and it has 4 times the spatial resolution of the previous version of the data set at 0.25° x 0.25° (that's about 30 km at the equator). Visually, the difference is pretty striking when viewing temperature anomalies as a map. Here, for instance are 2022 global temperatures relative to a 1981-2010 mean.


The time series has also slightly different from the previous version. Comparing the new high resolution dataset to the previous version, global temperatures in the base period appear to be slightly higher, lowering the amount of current warming above the 1980-1900 mean slightly. However, current warming rates appear to be slightly higher, at about 0.22°C/decade instead of 0.21°C/decade for the last 30 years. Here's how 30-year trends have changed across the dataset.


To illustrate this, in a recent post, I calculated the warming above the 1850-1900 mean in the three datasets that go back to 1850, and the current anomaly for BEST in 2022 was 1.30°C. I redid the same thing with the updated, high resolution dataset and came up with a current anomaly of 1.28°C.
Here's my updated table of projections based on continuing linear trends for when we pass the major IPCC targets. The trends and anomaly in the high resolution dataset continue to expect that we will cross these targets more quickly than in the other two (that's 2032 for +1.5°C and 2054 for +2.0°C), and the average of all three is 2035 for +1.5°C and 2058 for +2.0°C. Projections from HadCRUT5 are basically indistinguishable from the average of the three, so likely I'll continue to use HadCRUT5 most often, but I love the high resolution maps in BEST.


According to their website, the high resolution of the data is made possible by machine learning, and it works analogously to technologies that add resolution to blurry images. In essence, the new dataset employs weather patterns from high resolution weather data and uses this information to improve the spatial resolution of their temperature maps, which makes it possible to more accurately resolve smaller scale climate changes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Marketing of Alt-Data at Temperature.Global

Image
Temperature.Global (12-month running average, sort of) A few years ago, I started seeing people post links to a new dataset for global temperatures at a website called temperature.global. There are at least four unique features of this dataset. First, the website claims to update global temperature in near real time. Second, every year in the dataset averages below "normal." Third, there is absolutely no transparency regarding their methodology (those who administer it are anonymous, most of the data is hidden, and much of their methodology is unclear). And fourth, what is disclosed about their methodology reveals that what they are calculating is not the Earth's surface temperature. Description of Temperature.Global If you go to the temperature.global website, it becomes almost immediately apparent that this website has little concern for transparency. The website is hosted by Parler (the alternative social network), which if nothing else is pretty odd. There are no name
Read more

Are Scientists and Journalists Conspiring to Retract Papers?

Image
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr has published two posts recently having to do with extreme weather and the IPCC. In the first post , he expresses frustration over an apparently inevitable retraction of a paper on extreme weather. The paper is Alimonti et al 2022 (A22) published in The European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP)[1]. I became aware of this paper about a year ago; it was not a good paper and was not particularly influential; it received almost no attention except for a brief period of time when the usual blogs promoted it, and then after SkyNews in Australia publicized this study as demonstrating there is no climate emergency. In the second post , Pielke summarized what he believes the IPCC's position is on extreme weather, and here he refers again to this previous paper. He declares that he believes that popular and scientific treatments of extreme weather have become far mor extreme than the position taken by the IPCC. According to him, "with the exception perhaps of only extr
Read more

Tropical Cyclone Trends

Image
In a previous post , I covered the distinction between detection and attribution. These are normally considered sequentially. First you detect a signal above natural variability, then you examine if some portion of that signal can be attributed to human activity. The previous post shows that the two are statistically independent from each other, so there is no need to limit attribution studies to signals that are detectable above natural variability. This distinction and clarification I think is important in discussions of tropical cyclone trends. While trends are clear since 1980, the longer term record (since ~1850-1900) is less clear due to selection biases arising from our increasing ability to detect tropical cyclones. This makes detection difficult long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean that scientists can't also examine ways in which human activity is affecting tropical cyclone trends. Detection in the Satellite Record (Since 1980) The satellite record provides us
Read more