![berkeley_earth_surface_temperature_logo[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/berkeley_earth_surface_temperature_logo1.jpg?quality=83){kind=logo}
After almost two years and some false starts, BEST now has one paper that has finally passed peer review. The text below is from the email release sent late Saturday. It was previously submitted to JGR Atmospheres according to their July 8th draft last year, but appears to have been rejected as they now indicate it has been published in Geoinformatics and Geostatistics, a journal I’ve not heard of until now.
(Added note: commenter Michael D. Smith points out is it Volume 1 issue 1, so this appears to be a brand new journal. Also troubling, on their GIGS journal home page , the link to the PDF of their Journal Flier gives only a single page, the cover art. Download Journal Flier. With such a lack of description in the front and center CV, one wonders how good this journal is.)
Also notable, Dr. Judith Curry’s name is not on this paper, though she gets a mention in the acknowledgements (along with Mosher and Zeke). I have not done any detailed analysis yet of this paper, as this is simply an announcement of its existence. – Anthony
===============================================================
Berkeley Earth has today released a new set of materials, including gridded and more recent data, new analysis in the form of a series of short “memos”, and new and updated video animations of global warming. We are also pleased that the Berkeley Earth Results paper, “A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011” has now been published by GIGS and is publicly available.
here: http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/.
The data update includes more recent data (through August 2012), gridded data, and data for States and Provinces. You can access the data here: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/.
The set of memos include:
- Two analyses of Hansen’s recent paper “Perception of Climate Change”
- A comparison of Berkeley Earth, NASA GISS, and Hadley CRU averaging techniques on ideal synthetic data
- Visualizing of Berkeley Earth, NASA GISS, and Hadley CRU averaging techniques
and are available here: http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/
==============================================================
A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011
Abstract
We report an estimate of the Earth’s average land surface
temperature for the period 1753 to 2011. To address issues
of potential station selection bias, we used a larger sampling of
stations than had prior studies. For the period post 1880, our
estimate is similar to those previously reported by other groups,
although we report smaller uncertainties. The land temperature rise
from the 1950s decade to the 2000s decade is 0.90 ± 0.05°C (95%
confidence). Both maximum and minimum daily temperatures have
increased during the last century. Diurnal variations decreased
from 1900 to 1987, and then increased; this increase is significant
but not understood. The period of 1753 to 1850 is marked by
sudden drops in land surface temperature that are coincident
with known volcanism; the response function is approximately
1.5 ± 0.5°C per 100 Tg of atmospheric sulfate. This volcanism,
combined with a simple proxy for anthropogenic effects (logarithm
of the CO2 concentration), reproduces much of the variation in
the land surface temperature record; the fit is not improved by the
addition of a solar forcing term. Thus, for this very simple model,
solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global
warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled
by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic proxy. The
residual variations include interannual and multi-decadal variability
very similar to that of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
Full paper here: http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-101.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tony Mach says: @ur momisugly January 20, 2013 at 4:41 am
……*And I want say: please stop lumping everybody together as “liberals” who disagrees with “the conservative” side. Liberalism is a political direction that is much more distinct than “everybody who is not conservative”. I am not an liberal, though I like some parts of liberalism. Same goes for the conservative side (or the libertarian, or any other political direction). It is simply not true that there are only two sets of political opinions, and you either have one or the other on any topic. It is like saying there are only two types of food: Hot and Cold. What utter BS….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now ain’t that the truth! The real divide is the politicians vs us and they want to keep us fighting each other so we do not realize it.
In the USA the ‘left’ gets the ‘blame’ for ‘growing’ the federal government but if you actually look it is BOTH parties that grow the government and reward their buddies from the public treasury.
I am somewhat a capitalist (Pro small business and limited government) but consider some socialism the mark of a civilized being. Drives people who want to ‘label me’ nuts.
Steven Mosher says:
January 19, 2013 at 10:22 pm
Do you think we landed on the moon?
———————————————————
Of course we did!
In fact, some of the AGW supporters still seem to be there – they’re certainly not on THIS planet 😉
Steven Mosher says:
“And of course the answer doesnt change.
facts. hard to deal with. but thems the facts.”
Hardly “hard to deal with” the answer that there’s been warming since the LIA. What’s “hard to deal with” is the continual insistence from people who should know better that warming = anthropogenic warming.
That’s what’s so [self-snip] disappointing about this whole “BEST” episode. I thought we’d finally get a reliable (or at least as reliable as possible) dataset to work with, instead we get another “attribution study” from ignorance that’s touted to be some sort of preeminent treatise from the masters of all knowledge and wisdom. [SPIT]
MangoChutney says:
January 20, 2013 at 4:45 am
http://www.jfdp.org/forum/forum_docs/1013jfdp1040_1_032912094346.pdf
“[…] Last year, for example, the company’s Journal of Earth
Science & Climatic Change published a paper that suggested a
causal link between Stonehenge and global climate change […]””
————————————————————————————
Still available from scribd.com:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74678923/The-Stonehenge
Publication of that does make you wonder quite how reliable OMIC’s peer review might be – do reviewers ever have a sense of humour and just let stuff through “for a laugh”?
“The period of 1753 to 1850 is marked by sudden drops in land surface temperature that are coincident with known volcanism;”
Ah, how convenient. So, how would they “explain” previous cool periods such as the Dark Ages, or indeed the warm period, the Medieval Warming (or Climate Optimum)?
Are volcanoes now to be the planets’ new natural thermostat? Funny how they seem to coincide with solar activity.
I’m going to be a voice of dissent here.
I’m glad there is a new Climate journal, especially since this one appears to be open for public viewing and not paywalled. Even if this specific paper doesn’t pass muster down the line (I have no idea about its validity and don’t have time to read it), lets wait and see what other papers get through the P Rev process before we pass judgement on this new journal.
Why didn’t they publish with some of the well known journal? Imagine if Anthony Watts publishes his new paper at this journal? There would be howls of protest and much gnashing of teeth.
I’m sure PBS will report on the difficulties BEST has has getting published, and
that the legions of outraged viewers will now agree it was proper to interview Anthony.
RE: Mosher thinks he is being clever there. But it is actually an insult to everyone here at WUWT. Wallowing in the sewer with leftist liberal psychopaths has harmed him greatly.
[1] I am clearly responding to one commenter’s own insult, which is obviously an insult to anyone that understands conspiracy theorists and being compared to them.
[2] It is obvious that saying ‘Wallowing in the sewer with leftist liberal psychopaths …’ does not mean all liberals are psychopaths or all psychopaths are liberals, the exact same way that saying “green Ferraris” does not mean all green things are Ferraris or all Ferraris are green ( and thank God for that ). Almost every statement someone makes has an exception, so the paradigm of ‘knowing liberals that are not psychopaths” as somehow invalidating someone else’s opinion can only lead to no opinions being expressed, because their will always be exceptions. Besides, I guarantee that from growing up in the swamp with them I know far more leftist liberals than most here, and the more of them you know the more like me you will ultimately become.
Joe says:
January 20, 2013 at 7:26 am
=========
Odd that they call it “the Stonehenge”. Proper names usually don’t use “the” in front of them, unless you’re trying to emphasize or differentiate, like “the Michael Jackson”.
REPLY: Or “the ‘former skeptic’ known as Muller” – Anthony
Just because a journal has bad published bad papers doesn’t seem to matter much. We’ve seen the dreck published in Nature and Science, splashed on the front cover, no less.
“REPLY: Or “the ‘former skeptic’ known as Muller” – Anthony”
Indeed 😉
LOL just in time for AR5… Worldwide media coverage to follow?
David Davidovics says:
January 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Anthony,
If the following link is true, it would certainly explain why you haven’t heard of this scientific journal before. It was launched in 2012:
http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/05/05/omics-publishing-launches-new-brand-with-53-journal-titles/
Quote from link:
“India-based OMICS Publishing Group has just launched a new brand of scholarly journals called “SciTechnol.” This new OMICS brand lists 53 new journals, though none has any content yet.
We learned of this new launch because the company is currently spamming tens of thousands of academics, hoping to recruit some of them for the new journals’ editorial boards.
“
=============================
OMICS Publishing is a government run propaganda group. Ties to the UN and IPCC with funding from the same and other shadowy folks… I hate it when you follow the money and it ends up in dark places..
I’m going to go out on a limb here but my guess is no one else will touch the BEST article and this was their ONLY avenue to some form of “relevancy” or “credibility”. Given they followed the IPCC meme to the letter and threw out OTHER possibilities for Global Warming or Climate Change its just a continuation of trying to control the message by controlling journals.. and if you can control them make your own..
Why are these people so predictable?
Bruce Cobb says:
January 20, 2013 at 7:49 am
“The period of 1753 to 1850 is marked by sudden drops in land surface temperature that are coincident with known volcanism;”
Ah, how convenient. So, how would they “explain” previous cool periods such as the Dark Ages, or indeed the warm period, the Medieval Warming (or Climate Optimum)?
Are volcanoes now to be the planets’ new natural thermostat? Funny how they seem to coincide with solar activity.
==============================================
Do you ever get the feeling that since the early release of AR5 and the fact the sun is identified as the primary driver that this just might be damage control via the IPCC and UN? This damaged their control agenda badly.. Then along comes BEST to set the record straight but no reputable journal would touch it… so create one…
Jeff Alberts says:
January 20, 2013 at 8:22 am
Joe says:
January 20, 2013 at 7:26 am
=========
Odd that they call it “the Stonehenge”. Proper names usually don’t use “the” in front of them, unless you’re trying to emphasize or differentiate, like “the Michael Jackson”.
REPLY: Or “the ‘former skeptic’ known as Muller” – Anthony
——————————————————————–
“the artist formerly known as…..”
“the Great Gonzo”
Correlation anyone?
Steven Mosher says:
January 19, 2013 at 10:22 pm
““You probably haven’t heard of it because it is volume 1 issue 1… Must be his own journal.”
Do you think we landed on the moon?”
As Muller is a front for the geo-engineering NOVIM Group and his daughter Elizabeth Muller peddles a “product” called “GreenGov” the assumption that Muller does more shady dealings is not at all absurd. He has already proven himself to be a rent seeker of the first degree; a worthy equivalent to Pachauri. I know, that’s all pretty standard in warmist circles. We know why they do it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/13/the-waxman-markey-circus-is-coming-to-town-dr-richard-muller-to-showcase-best-under-the-bigtop/#comment-796111
http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/2011/04/best-novim-and-other-solution.html
Andrew says:
January 20, 2013 at 1:10 am
“I’m sensing the beginnings of what will end in blind panic amongst the Eco-Taliban. By now, even that lot must accept that correlation does not prove causation.”
They are starting to devour their own.
Michael Mann attacks Nate Silver
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/nate-silver-climate-change_b_1909482.html
because Silver thinks Armstrong makes better predictions than the GCM’s
about Armstrong see also here.,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/so-far-al-gore-appears-to-be-losing-the-climate-bet/#comment-1203534
Something different but worth seeing
Interesting how they ignore the entire ‘Little Ice Age’, start the temp record from its lowest point, and give the impression it can all be explained by ‘volcanism’.
For once I would like to see a temp reconstruction from the beginning of the little ice age, some where about 1400, and lets see how they explain it.
And I’d like to direct attention again to this razor sharp demolition of the BEST “scalpel” method.
Stephen Rasey says:
December 13, 2012 at 11:00 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/circular-logic-not-worth-a-millikelvin/#comment-1172277
(As climate change or AGW is a low frequency component, “splicing” temperature series makes it impossible to find – splicing destroys exactly the low frequency signal and replaces it with an artificial one)
So to summarize the information about this very fine journal we have the following:
1) It was launched in May, 2012
2) It is currently on volume 1 issue 1
3) It has published 1 paper
4) The editor can “Review the manuscript himself without assigning it to reviewers; or”
5) Its parent group has been accused of “of tacitly saying it will publish anything”
This journal can now join other find journals like the Journal of Cryptozoology
References
http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/05/05/omics-publishing-launches-new-brand-with-53-journal-titles/
http://www.scitechnol.com/ArchiveJGSD/currentissueJGSD.php
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/open-access-interviews-omics-publishing.html
http://scitechnol.com/reviewer-guidelines.php
Gail Combs says:
January 20, 2013 at 6:30 am
Minor correction Gail. Brad Smith’s not the leader.
To be completely correct, ACS is a “non-profit” lobbying group/soapbox led by someone who has parlayed a BS in Chemistry and a series of member- and tax-funded writing and PR jobs into close to $1 Million dollars in annual compensation.
http://www.chemheritage.org/discover/collections/oral-histories/details/jacobs-madeleine.aspx
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/09/19/the_american_chemical_societys_lawsuit_problem.php#1084983
Looks like Brad is merely working on demonstrating his bona fides for being a logical successor.
He’ll have to work on builiding up his “Marie Antoinette” core competencies though.
http://chemjobber.blogspot.com/2012/07/ms-madeleine-jacobs-sympathetic-but.html
Meant to say
“This journal can now join other FINE journals like the Journal of Cryptozoology”
Lew/Mosh
sinking like a moonstone