![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.
Lew/Mosh
Will the Editor now resign with a letter of apology to Kevin Trenberth?
“We thank David Brillinger for important guidance in statistical analysis,
Zeke Hausfather, Steven Mosher, and Judith Curry for helpful discussions and
suggestions. This work was done as part of the Berkeley Earth project, organized
under the auspices of the Novim Group (www.Novim.org). We thank many
organizations for their support, including the Lee and Juliet Folger Fund, the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the William K. Bowes Jr. Foundation,
the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates), the
Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation,
and three private individuals (M.D., N.G. and M.D.).(…)
So THEY are on the payroll of the Koch brothers? /sarc off
Oh and one has to love the name dropping (“created by Bill Gates” wink, wink, ya the Microsoft guy, a great guy, a wonderful individual… LOL)
A circa 0.9 degrees C global temperature increase over the past 60 years is the highest figure I have yet seen.
So presumably a new improved method of data ‘homogenisation’?
Lars P.: ‘in addition the huge variances seen in the 19th century which disappeared in the 20th’. This can be explained because the error variance part of the total variance decreases when the number of stations increases. Much more interesting is a further decrease of variance in the late twentieth century during the great dying of the thermometers. This is the result of carefully weeding out of stations whose time series correlated lowest with those in their environment. This does not result in a reduction of error variance (the station number decreased) but natural (local) variance, resulting in an artificial signal. After analyzing GHCN data for about two years, I stopped because the data set is in an hopeless state, apart from ongoing adjustments. I do not trust the BEST results for the same reasons.
Latimer Alder says:
January 20, 2013 at 6:12 am
“‘Idealised toy systems’ will be a lasting image, I think.”
Latimer, for an expansion of that image regarding climate models, see the free sceptical cli-fi / sci-fi story here: http://wearenarrative.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/truth.pdf , which features a short visual description of the ‘toy system’.
The story appeared in the WUWT post here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/15/wuwt-spawns-a-free-to-read-climate-sci-fi-novel/
Hope this image fulfills your expectations 🙂
Yes, I will analyze this paper by Muller et al.
For me though, the quintessential story is the review comments and the detailed background qualifications ( the CVs) of all reviewers and editors of any journals that did not accept the Muller et al paper as well as those who did accept it. That is a valuable scientific content, process and context that is hidden. I am fundamentally disappointed in the scientific structure and process we see in this supposedly modern era.
John
This “OMICS Group” have been *BUSY* beavers. You name it, there’s a “journal” or “conference” for it:
http://www.google.com/#q=%225716+Corsa+Ave.,+Suite+110+Westlake,+Los+Angeles%22&hl=en&tbo=d&ei=XDb8ULuTC6S8iwLzmIDwBw&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=94e32a4cea89f529&biw=1280&bih=879
I have taken a look at the publisher of the new journal, and it appears to be very much a lower tier academic publisher.
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/the-best-article-finally-published-sort-of/
It all looks very dubious.
“So presumably a new improved method of data ‘homogenisation’?”
nope. just a method proposed and endorsed by skeptics before they saw the result.
Dirk
“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.”
except Muller had nothing whatsoever to do with the selection of the journal. Zero. zip nada.
so much for your conspiracy theory.
Gail Coombs wrote: “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.”
I sympathise, being in the same position. Sadly it means old friends from both sides of the divide tend to alienate themselves as they cannot bear dissenting opinions – much like with the climate debate which is a greatly divisive topic.
As a matter of record regarding the usage “the Stonehenge”, and I’m speaking as a UK reader who has co-authored a book on the the place: it would be correct to write “the stone henge” referring to any henge comprised of eg monoliths etc. It is never however correct to refer to “the Stonehenge”, all one word, when referencing the specific site of Stonehenge in Wiltshire. The poster who queried this is correct – it’s just never done here.
So far as this journal is concerned, my antennae went up the moment I saw it was one of a raft of new journals based in India; and I wasn’t a bit surprised to read further down the thread, that it’s backed by the Indian govt and the UN. I wonder what the links are to the IPCC! (and a certain famous Indian)
“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.”
Its not an insult to everyone. Its a question. He can simply say that he believes we landed on the moon. The point is rather simple. With no evidence whatsoever the commenter speculated that Muller has something to do with the journal. Muller has nothing to do with the journal. Muller didn’t even know about the journal until it was presented as an option. The comenter had a theory, developed out of whole cloth. Much like Mann theory that McIntyre is an oil shill. This kind of thinking is shallow, predictable, and not the kind of speculation that should be encouraged on either side. I didnt like it when Mann accused Mcintyre of being an Oil shill and since I am consistent I don’t like it when other engage in speculation without any basis whatsoever.
I will say that if you guys read the reviews from JGR you’d be outraged about some of the tangential issues raised.
A bit disappointing that the paper mixes good efforts with that silly 2 variable regression, that cannot explain any warm climate prior to the little ice age. At least, they try to publish the outdated UHI results elsewhere. Of course, it would be better to try to verify Watt’s new classification first.
Steven Mosher says:
January 20, 2013 at 11:34 am
“So presumably a new improved method of data ‘homogenisation’?”
nope. just a method proposed and endorsed by skeptics before they saw the result.
That’s fine Steve, but aren’t you also jumping the gun? we haven’t seen the workings yet! We must await all the data and code to be released before proper assessment in due course then, eh?
I agree and accept that the conspiracy fanatics will jump on the publication issue perhaps unfairly – but you have to admit that it looks awfully odd for a paper, ‘lauded’ as the be all and end all – cannot get reviewed in ‘standard’ journals? but instead in a brand spanking new journal with dubious review criteria? FFS – we have waited this long for the paper, we could have waited longer for a proper peer review process!
“I will say that if you guys read the reviews from JGR you’d be outraged about some of the tangential issues raised.”
Go for it Mosher, let us see them…
The full entry for the Review process at Geoinformatics and Geostatistics is as follows:
“Review Process
The Review process for articles being published in SciTechnol Journals is carried out in an easy and quick manner. The submitted manuscript is assigned to one of the Editorial Board Members based on their area of interest. If the Editor agrees to accept the assignment, he can choose any of the three ways:
Review the manuscript himself without assigning it to reviewers; or
Assign atleast 3 potential reviewers for the review process; or
Ask the Associate Managing Editor of the Journal to assign reviewers on his behalf.
The Assigned Reviewers have to submit their review comments within a period of two weeks either to the Assigned Editor or submit it directly to the Editorial Office of the Journal.
The Reviewer has to submit his/her comments in the Electronic Review Form that is sent alongwith the Manuscript whereby he/she can:
Reject the manuscript; or
Re-review after a thorough revision; or
Accept the manuscript with Major Revisions; or
Accept the manuscript with Minor Revisions; or
Accept the manuscript without any changes.
The review comments are then submitted to the Editor who will make a final decision whether to accept, reject or revise a manuscript. The author is notified at the same time with the Editor’s decision and the manuscript is preceded further to publication (if accepted).
The submitted manuscript is published after 7 days from the date of acceptance. ”
There is no indication in the article itself (note: It is the ONLY article in Volume 1 Issue 1) that it has been peer-reviewed. No “Thanks to Reviewer #1…” no notation of peer-review, no nothing in the published piece.
There is no list of editors on the journal site. The associated “Science Blogs” section contains nothing but short throw-away (three or four paragraph) UNSIGNED boiler-plates.
The About Us page has no information about them. The Contact Us page has a web form but no email addresses or names.
So far, for all we are able to know, SciTechnol created this “journal” for the sole purpose of giving print to the BEST paper — which may have been reviewed by a single editor — the same one who agreed to set up the journal for it.
This does not feel right to me….
BEST had lots of important support — financial, social, and scientific — why is its primer paper being only brought to light in this way?
The paper is mostly [self-snip] in its conclusions but the data seems at least somewhat defendable. Basically, it says if I make the same assumptions as the IPCC crowd I get about the same results as the IPCC crowd. Big surprise there, I hope the Nobel nomination committee is paying attention.
From the paper:
”Our analysis does not rule out long-term trends due to natural causes; however, since all of the long-term (century scale) trend in temperature can be explained by a simple response to greenhouse gas changes, there is no need to assume other sources of long-term variation are present.”
Since combustion can be explained by phlogiston there’s no need to assume phlogiston doesn’t exist.
Since our analysis does not rule out natural causes, it must mean I can proclaim to the MSM there’s no reason to be skeptical anymore.
Perhaps I’m a little bitter, paint me naïve but when the “BEST” project was first announced I had anticipated them coming out with something like: After extensive analysis of available data we’ve determined there’s been “X” warming (+-)”Y” over “Z” period (here’s the graph). What I did not expect was another conclusion jumping, headline seeking, priori riddled, variable ignoring, unjustifiably assuming, Zohneristic, disturbingly inflated, overhyped, propaganda piece.
Ok, now that that’s out of the way, the section on Diurnal range could prove useful.
”The physics is that greenhouse gases have more impact at night when they absorb infrared and reduce the cooling, and that this effect is larger than the additional daytime warming. This predicted change is sometimes cited as one of the “fingerprints” that separates greenhouse warming from other effects such as solar variability. “
Agreed!
”The rise takes place during a period when, according to the IPCC report, the anthropogenic effect of global warming is evident above the background variations from natural causes.”
Oh? Now why could that be? Perhaps they’ve made some incorrect assumptions. Perhaps CO2 effect peaked in the late 80’s. Perhaps it has nothing to do with CO2 but solar activity, which also peaked in the late 80’s. Perhaps you’re all just blowing smoke.
”We are not aware of any global climate models that predicted the reversal of slope that we observe. “
But the models are produced from settled science, the observations must be wrong. /sarc
eGads! It has the same sort of stink the ‘diatoms from space’ paper had — written and published by a guy in his own personally controlled ‘journal’.
Steven Mosher wrote out of thin air about hundreds of peer reviewed studies showing high solar / climate correlation::
December 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm
“…Here you see a common error that get repeated over and over again in solar papers. There are an infinite number of climate variables and combinations thereof. They select ( who knows how) looking at temperatures in Norway, and Europe. They start to play with solar cycle length data. They canvas various ways others have looked for correlations and failed to find them. various ways of smoothing the data, not smoothing, all of these are bites at the statistical apple. Through a variety a decisions ( all untested ) then happen upon a relationship between one particular manipulation of a solar parameter (cycle length) and another selection of climate parameter. That is neither good faith or bad faith. That is hunting for a relationship until you find one. …”
lsvalgaard wrote at December 16, 2012 at 3:29 pm about the opposite:
“And there are not that many proxies of solar activity. Everybody uses the same ones or obsolete [and perhaps carefully picked] versions of same.”
——————————–
Steven Mosher, do You think we landed on the moon ?
“Muller didn’t even know about the journal until it was presented as an option.”
That is believable. Virtually nobody had heard of it, until yesterday. Were there any other options, Steven?
‘Then along comes BEST to set the record straight but no reputable journal would touch it… so create one…”
so have we landed on the moon?
“Much like Mann theory that McIntyre is an oil shill.”
So not so much like No Moon Landing?
Dear Mosher –> You seem to have inside information, as in :
” Muller has nothing to do with the journal. Muller didn’t even know about the journal until it was presented as an option. “
So tell us all please — Why was this paper published in this shockingly obscure, brand-new journal? Was it actually Peer-Reviewed (notice the initial caps please) — was it really send out in its entirety to at least three world-class respected experts in the necessary fields, let’s say climate and statistics and computer modelling for instance, and thoroughly vetted, revised, etc before publication?
Please only reply with what you known for certain for yourself from your actual personal experience. If you are going to related “what you’ve been told” — please tell us what you have been told and by whom….supply quotes, please.
“Muller didn’t even know about the journal until it was presented as an option”.
Demonstrating Muller has the better spam filter?
Or that he didn’t know of this opportunity until he saw the spam?
John West says:
January 20, 2013 at 5:52 am (Edit)
@ur momisugly oldfossil
When “Best” first started we (at least I) thought they were setting out to better quantify the warming since the LIA, instead they jump to the conclusion that it’s anthropogenic with much ado, fireworks, and fanfare.
Let’s say we have 3 equations with 4 unknowns, we can try different combinations of the variables and find one that works (“a” answer), in fact we could find several that work. The problem I have is they are presenting “a” answer as if it is “the” answer. This is so far from acceptable it is unfathomable that anyone with the credentials of the “Best” crew would present it as scientific.
###############
it is not presented as THE answer. The argument is entirely different. It goes like this. It starts with givens or assumptions.
1. Given: C02 causes warming
2. Given: Volcanos cause cooling
If you take those two givens you can explain the temperature rise with a residual that looks like AMO.
pretty simple. Now, you can object to #1 or object to #2 or both.
It doesnt “prove” global warming. It says to believe who believe in AGW– yup, this data is consistent with the theory. Nothing more.
It says to people who dont believe..
“Our analysis does not rule
out long-term trends due to natural causes; however, since all of the
long-term (century scale) trend in temperature can be explained by
a simple response to greenhouse gas changes, there is no need to
assume other sources of long-term variation are present. If all of the
residual evolution during the last 150 years is assumed to be natural,
then it places an upper 95% confidence bound on the scale of decadal
natural variability at ± 0.17°C. Though non-trivial, this number is
small compared to what our correlation analysis suggests may be
anthropogenic changes that occurred during the last century.”
with natural variability at .17C per decade, you of course expect to see periods of “pause” or retreat in an otherwise increasing trend.