As seen at WUWT, finally a BEST paper got published! I don’t know how many times they were rejected before someone invented a journal for them to publish in. But, here it is in all of its glory! A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011
There’s plenty of fun stuff to criticize this work about. The level of rationalization and sophistry is a bit overwhelming. But, this is something that has continually irked me since BEST first came out with their time series. It’s something BEST should have taken out if they were desiring to be taken seriously.
The early part of the record infers, as best as is possible, the
fluctuations in global land-only temperature from a sparse network
of primarily European and North American observations. This is possible, albeit with the relatively large uncertainties, because
the European and North American annual average anomalies are
observed to remain within ± 0.5°C of the global land average 95%
of the time during the 20th century. The Berkeley Average procedure
allows us to use the sparse network of observations from the very
longest monitoring stations (10, 25, 46, 101, and 186 sites in the years
1755, 1775, 1800, 1825, and 1850 respectfully) to place limited bounds
on the yearly average. These limits imply an Earth that was colder
than today during nearly all of the period since 1755. page 3.
On page two, they write this. And it is this that invalidates their own work.
Spatial sampling uncertainties were estimated by simulating poorly sampled periods (e.g. 1800 to 1850) with modern data (1960 to 2010) for which the Earth coverage was better than 97% complete, and measuring the departure from the full site average when using only the limited spatial regions available at early times. This empirical approach implicitly assumes that the spatial relationships between different climate regions remain largely unchanged, and it underestimates the uncertainties if that assumption is false. This could happen, for example, in the period 1750 to 1850 when our evidence shows a strong influence from large volcanic eruptions, a phenomenon for which there are only weak analogs in the 20th century. Thus, although we report “global” land surface results, it should not be forgotten that in the earliest periods
that we cover (especially prior to 1850) that sampling is poor, and
our results are accurate only to the extent that the spatial structure of temperature does not change significantly with time.
Did you catch that? They estimated the temps with poor spatial sampling by using modern data and assume that the spatial structure didn’t change with time. But, then, they point to that same period of time stating that things were different back then (attributing the difference to volcanoes). They assume things were the same but state that they were different.
10 whole thermometers in 1755 and they publish an estimate of our global temps. It’s absurd. Maybe if they colored even larger uncertainty estimates.