by Judith Curry
The new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature product and the accompanying papers have generated considerable discussion. Lets focus on the technical criticisms.
I am swamped this week, barely able to keep up with what is going on in the blogosphere. Here are the more substantive criticisms that I’ve identified. Please let me know if you have spotted any others.
Doug Keenan was the first out with this critique. With regards to the AMO paper, Keenan objects to a 12 month moving filter and the use of AR(1). Tamino is not impressed with Keenan’s arguments [link]. Tamino has other concerns with the AMO paper [link], at the heart of his concern seems to be the additional autocorrelation introduced by the moving average filter. He does not buy the conclusion that the AMO signal is larger than ENSO.
Anthony Watts is critical of the surface station quality paper [here]. His particular concern is about the use of 60 year rather than 30 year trends. Tamino does not find Watt’s argument to have any merit [here].
William Briggs thinks that BEST has underestimated uncertainty [here].
Steve McIntyre has a generally favorable impression [here].
And finally, there is this one, which isn’t really technical, but gotta love the title: Deniers eat their own in BEST feeding frenzy
Moderation note: this is a technical thread, comments will be moderated for relevance.