Climate Change Gets Real For Americans

[Dubya]

how is this paper not peer reviewed and published?

I don't know, were the rest of the peers idiots like Anthony Watts?

is that some sort of sad joke? like the pal reviewers that let Gergis et al through review only to get demolished once it was released?

the one thing about skeptical papers is that you know they have been picked over with a fine tooth comb before they get published.

Where is the link for the report? Their kind would just make up names and numbers.

 

[IanC]

I don't know, were the rest of the peers idiots like Anthony Watts?

is that some sort of sad joke? like the pal reviewers that let Gergis et al through review only to get demolished once it was released?

the one thing about skeptical papers is that you know they have been picked over with a fine tooth comb before they get published.

Where is the link for the report? Their kind would just make up names and numbers.

I think the names of the authors, name of the paper, the journal in which it was published and the date it was published should be sufficient for you to be able to find it Dubya.

 

[Old Rocks]

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions

Given project leader Muller's well-publicised concerns regarding of the quality of climate change research, other critics anticipated that the BEST study would be a vindication of their stance. For example when the study team was announced, blogger Anthony Watts, who popularized several of the issues addressed by the Berkeley Earth group study, stated[15]


"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

When the initial results were released, and found to support the existing consensus, the study was widely decried. Watts spoke to the New York Times, which wrote: "Mr. Watts ... contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness."[16] Steven Mosher, a co-author of a book critical of climate scientists, also disapproved saying that the study still lacked transparency. He said: "I'm not happy until the code is released and released in a language that people can use freely."[16] (The code and dataset are available from the BEST Dataset web page.) Stephen McIntyre, editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data, said that "the team deserves credit for going back to the primary data and doing the work" and even though he had not had an opportunity to read the papers in detail, he questioned the analyses of urban heating and weather station quality.[14][17]

By constrast, the study was well-received by Muller's peers in climate science research. James Hansen, a leading climate scientist and head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies commented that he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue. He said "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming."[10] Phil Jones the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), said: "I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published. These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal."[10] Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, commented that "...they get the same result that everyone else has gotten," and "that said, I think it's at least useful to see that even a critic like Muller, when he takes an honest look, finds that climate science is robust."[17] Peter Thorne, from the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites in North Carolina and chair of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, said: "This takes a very distinct approach to the problem and comes up with the same answer, and that builds confidence that pre-existing estimates are in the right ballpark. There is very substantial value in having multiple groups looking at the same problem in different ways." [10] A scientist writing at RealClimate.org noted that it was unsurprising that BEST's results matched previous results so well. "Any of various simple statistical analyses of the freely available data ...show... that it was very very unlikely that the results would change," they wrote.[18]

 

[Old Rocks]

More technical results, meant primarily for scientists, are presented below.

Home|Berkeley Earth

Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years

Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.

 

[Dubya]

is that some sort of sad joke? like the pal reviewers that let Gergis et al through review only to get demolished once it was released?

the one thing about skeptical papers is that you know they have been picked over with a fine tooth comb before they get published.

Where is the link for the report? Their kind would just make up names and numbers.

I think the names of the authors, name of the paper, the journal in which it was published and the date it was published should be sufficient for you to be able to find it Dubya.

Do you see the name Watts on there? I've seen people take pictures that NOAA took about problem stations from his site where they acted like they discovered these station problems.

Watts is not an honest man and I've posted on his site. They are just a bunch of mindless hacks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know, were the rest of the peers idiots like Anthony Watts?

is that some sort of sad joke? like the pal reviewers that let Gergis et al through review only to get demolished once it was released?

the one thing about skeptical papers is that you know they have been picked over with a fine tooth comb before they get published.

Where is the link for the report? Their kind would just make up names and numbers.

"Their kind" would just make up names and numbers? You mean like the infamous list of "scientists" who supported catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change that was supposed to silence everyone with its "proof" of a consensus, which turned out to contain people whose degrees were in landscape architecture? THAT sort of "making up names"?

 

[SSDD]

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

Not to speak for anyone else, but I believe the paper indicated is:

"Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends"

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

Which has passed peer review and will be published in JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH and provides damning evidence as to the accuracy of the surface record.

 

[SSDD]

Where is the link for the report? Their kind would just make up names and numbers.

Here dubya:

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

This paper has been subjected to scrutiny far beyond any of the pal reviewed papers you guys like to tout.

 

[IanC]

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions

Given project leader Muller's well-publicised concerns regarding of the quality of climate change research, other critics anticipated that the BEST study would be a vindication of their stance. For example when the study team was announced, blogger Anthony Watts, who popularized several of the issues addressed by the Berkeley Earth group study, stated[15]


"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

When the initial results were released, and found to support the existing consensus, the study was widely decried. Watts spoke to the New York Times, which wrote: "Mr. Watts ... contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness."[16] Steven Mosher, a co-author of a book critical of climate scientists, also disapproved saying that the study still lacked transparency. He said: "I'm not happy until the code is released and released in a language that people can use freely."[16] (The code and dataset are available from the BEST Dataset web page.) Stephen McIntyre, editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data, said that "the team deserves credit for going back to the primary data and doing the work" and even though he had not had an opportunity to read the papers in detail, he questioned the analyses of urban heating and weather station quality.[14][17]

By constrast, the study was well-received by Muller's peers in climate science research. James Hansen, a leading climate scientist and head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies commented that he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue. He said "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming."[10] Phil Jones the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), said: "I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published. These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal."[10] Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, commented that "...they get the same result that everyone else has gotten," and "that said, I think it's at least useful to see that even a critic like Muller, when he takes an honest look, finds that climate science is robust."[17] Peter Thorne, from the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites in North Carolina and chair of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, said: "This takes a very distinct approach to the problem and comes up with the same answer, and that builds confidence that pre-existing estimates are in the right ballpark. There is very substantial value in having multiple groups looking at the same problem in different ways." [10] A scientist writing at RealClimate.org noted that it was unsurprising that BEST's results matched previous results so well. "Any of various simple statistical analyses of the freely available data ...show... that it was very very unlikely that the results would change," they wrote.[18]

I hate to be picky, Old Rocks, but it has been about a year and a half since those papers were submitted for peer review. still no word on any of the four, no publication dates, not even any leaked info. I said I would wait for something other than 'preliminary and unadjusted data', and while I am waiting somewhat impatiently I can't give my opinion until they are out. the lengthy delay would imply that substantial changes remain to be made.

 

[IanC]

Where is the link for the report? Their kind would just make up names and numbers.

Here dubya:

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

This paper has been subjected to scrutiny far beyond any of the pal reviewed papers you guys like to tout.

notice that it is not paywalled like the substantial majority of climate change papers.

 

[westwall]

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

As soon as you can present compelling evidence for all that you assert that is not computer model based you will have a deal.

The majority of the references I have already provided over the last week do not utilize or rely upon the data from computer models. (But Watts' paper and analyses rely almost exclusively upon computer models and the data filtered through such models - so you only approve of models when they are used by people you approve of?)

Bull, they are all almost entirely derived from computer models.

 

[westwall]

Presumably you are speaking of this paper - "An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," which has not been published nor passed journal (yet alone the more rigourous field review post-publication) the peer-review process as of yet. I suspect that it will not pass the editorial peer-review for the journal (and certainly not wider field review) in its current form. Nor has NOAA acknowledged any aspect of this paper. Of course, as always I am open to learning that which I do not know. If you can provide compelling evidence to support your assertions I will certainly look at them revise my understandings as required.

More importantly, what does this have to do with your assertions regarding Chris and his statements?

As soon as you can present compelling evidence for all that you assert that is not computer model based you will have a deal.

Computer model is just a word right-wing, WUWT idiots toss around. There is no computer model involved in collecting weather station data.

That part is true, however, as a fraudster and his computer are never apart, Hansen and Co. are running all the historical data sets through a computer algorithm that magically makes the temps of the past colder than they actually were.

So in a way they are running them through a model now....one that falsifys past temps to make current temps seem warmer to the ignorant followers of their religion.

 

[westwall]

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions

Given project leader Muller's well-publicised concerns regarding of the quality of climate change research, other critics anticipated that the BEST study would be a vindication of their stance. For example when the study team was announced, blogger Anthony Watts, who popularized several of the issues addressed by the Berkeley Earth group study, stated[15]


"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

When the initial results were released, and found to support the existing consensus, the study was widely decried. Watts spoke to the New York Times, which wrote: "Mr. Watts ... contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness."[16] Steven Mosher, a co-author of a book critical of climate scientists, also disapproved saying that the study still lacked transparency. He said: "I'm not happy until the code is released and released in a language that people can use freely."[16] (The code and dataset are available from the BEST Dataset web page.) Stephen McIntyre, editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data, said that "the team deserves credit for going back to the primary data and doing the work" and even though he had not had an opportunity to read the papers in detail, he questioned the analyses of urban heating and weather station quality.[14][17]

By constrast, the study was well-received by Muller's peers in climate science research. James Hansen, a leading climate scientist and head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies commented that he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue. He said "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming."[10] Phil Jones the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), said: "I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published. These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal."[10] Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, commented that "...they get the same result that everyone else has gotten," and "that said, I think it's at least useful to see that even a critic like Muller, when he takes an honest look, finds that climate science is robust."[17] Peter Thorne, from the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites in North Carolina and chair of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, said: "This takes a very distinct approach to the problem and comes up with the same answer, and that builds confidence that pre-existing estimates are in the right ballpark. There is very substantial value in having multiple groups looking at the same problem in different ways." [10] A scientist writing at RealClimate.org noted that it was unsurprising that BEST's results matched previous results so well. "Any of various simple statistical analyses of the freely available data ...show... that it was very very unlikely that the results would change," they wrote.[18]

Yep, almost TWO years have passed and STILL no peer reviewed papers have been released. Makes one wonder what they did find that they don't want released. Hmmmm olfraud?

 

[westwall]

Where is the link for the report? Their kind would just make up names and numbers.

I think the names of the authors, name of the paper, the journal in which it was published and the date it was published should be sufficient for you to be able to find it Dubya.

Do you see the name Watts on there? I've seen people take pictures that NOAA took about problem stations from his site where they acted like they discovered these station problems.

Watts is not an honest man and I've posted on his site. They are just a bunch of mindless hacks.

Pot, meet kettle...

 

[Trakar]

As soon as you can present compelling evidence for all that you assert that is not computer model based you will have a deal.

The majority of the references I have already provided over the last week do not utilize or rely upon the data from computer models. (But Watts' paper and analyses rely almost exclusively upon computer models and the data filtered through such models - so you only approve of models when they are used by people you approve of?)

Bull, they are all almost entirely derived from computer models.

You are simply, but typically, wrong.

 

[Trakar]

Yep, almost TWO years have passed and STILL no peer reviewed papers have been released. Makes one wonder what they did find that they don't want released. Hmmmm olfraud?

It is not uncommon for editorial peer review to take anywhere from 6 months to several years. I believe the paper that Watts was gifted a name on was originally written in 2009 and it has had to undergo at least three re-writes so far and still hasn't actually made it into print yet.

From the BEST site:

The most recent (July 2012) paper written by the Berkeley Earth team:

• A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 (The Berkeley Earth team commonly refers to this as the “Results” paper)

This paper, in addition to three of the papers posted online in October 2011, have been revised based on input received through the peer review process. The three other papers are:

• Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process (commonly referred to as the “Methods” paper) and its appendix
• Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average
• Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States

The final paper has been provisionally accepted (pending the acceptance of the paper on the Averaging process) by JGR Atmospheres, and has not changed significantly since October 2011. It is posted again here for convenience:

• Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures

 

[daveman]

Computer model is just a word right-wing, WUWT idiots toss around. There is no computer model involved in collecting weather station data.

No, that relies on cherry-picking which stations to use.

IEA: Hadley Center ?probably tampered with Russian climate data? « Climate Audit

NASA and NOAA cherry-picking Canadian weather stations (but it could have been much worse!)

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year

It doesn't really on computer models, like one idiot said and it requires picking stations with dependable data. In order to calculate a 5 by 5 degree grid, you also have to have data from the base period.

Grow a brain!

You don't want me to think for myself. You want me to join you in blindly accepting whatever horseshit your AGW cult leaders dictate.

Meanwhile, temp stations are cherry-picked to provide warm temperatures.

This is inarguable.

 

[Trakar]

No, that relies on cherry-picking which stations to use.

IEA: Hadley Center ?probably tampered with Russian climate data? « Climate Audit

NASA and NOAA cherry-picking Canadian weather stations (but it could have been much worse!)

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year

It doesn't really on computer models, like one idiot said and it requires picking stations with dependable data. In order to calculate a 5 by 5 degree grid, you also have to have data from the base period.

Grow a brain!

You don't want me to think for myself. You want me to join you in blindly accepting whatever horseshit your AGW cult leaders dictate.

Meanwhile, temp stations are cherry-picked to provide warm temperatures.

This is inarguable.

inarguably incorrect

 

[westwall]

Yep, almost TWO years have passed and STILL no peer reviewed papers have been released. Makes one wonder what they did find that they don't want released. Hmmmm olfraud?

It is not uncommon for editorial peer review to take anywhere from 6 months to several years. I believe the paper that Watts was gifted a name on was originally written in 2009 and it has had to undergo at least three re-writes so far and still hasn't actually made it into print yet.

From the BEST site:

The most recent (July 2012) paper written by the Berkeley Earth team:

• A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 (The Berkeley Earth team commonly refers to this as the “Results” paper)

This paper, in addition to three of the papers posted online in October 2011, have been revised based on input received through the peer review process. The three other papers are:

• Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process (commonly referred to as the “Methods” paper) and its appendix
• Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average
• Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States

The final paper has been provisionally accepted (pending the acceptance of the paper on the Averaging process) by JGR Atmospheres, and has not changed significantly since October 2011. It is posted again here for convenience:

• Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures

Ummmm, possibly. From the time you submit your paper for review there can be a wait of several months while the papers in front of you are reviewed. Then, once they are in the review process it can take a few months to get the comments back, then it can take a few months for you to revise and address the comments and then resubmit etc.

However, if the paper is important (which the BEST papers would be), or the submitter is particularly respected (which Dr. Muller is) it can be pushed to the front of the queue, and in that case the review process will take four to eight months.

The longest any of my submissions took (after I was known) was 16 months. Granted, ours was a fairly small crowd back then, but that is a more realistic time frame, given the importance of the studies, and the reputation of the author.

 

[westwall]

It doesn't really on computer models, like one idiot said and it requires picking stations with dependable data. In order to calculate a 5 by 5 degree grid, you also have to have data from the base period.

Grow a brain!

You don't want me to think for myself. You want me to join you in blindly accepting whatever horseshit your AGW cult leaders dictate.

Meanwhile, temp stations are cherry-picked to provide warm temperatures.

This is inarguable.

inarguably incorrect

Reall? Then why the inquisition heaped on all who question the "consensus"? Why are sceptics labelled "deniers"? Why are sceptics deemed "insane"? And worthy of being executed for merely having an opinion different from the high priests?

No, it is arguably correct.