A little bit more on BEST and Watts

I wrote a short post recently about the hot air surrounding the new surface temperature record being compiled at Berkeley.

One of the issues was the data sample that was used in preliminary BEST analysis that was being discussed.

UPDATE (31/3/2011 11:58am): Carbon Brief have some graphs to show how similar the 2% sample is to NOAA, GISS and HadCRU.

It seems that Watts was mistaken about the 2% sample of BEST data being from Japan. He updated his post in the last few days:

“ERRATA: I made a mistake regarding the 2% figure, I misheard what was being presented during my visit with the BEST team at Berkeley. As many of you may know I’m about 80% hearing impaired and the presentation made to me was entirely verbal with some printed graphs. Based on the confidentiality I agreed to, I did not get to come back with any of those graphs, notes, or data so I had to rely on what I heard. I simply misheard and thought the 2% were the Japan station analysis graphs that they showed me.

I was in touch with Dr. Richard Muller on 3/28/2011 who graciously pointed out my misinterpretation. I regret the error, and thus issue this correction about the 2% figure being truly a random sample, and not just stations in the Japan test presentation shown to me.”

It’s just a shame that he didn’t notice the contradiction between the BEST statement (“random”) and his own understanding (“Japan”) before writing his post and shouting down commenters asking for clarification (i.e. “Ah I see you are immediately back to wasting everyone’s time…“).


Tags: , , , ,

3 Responses to “A little bit more on BEST and Watts”

  1. diogenes Says:

    I find it hard not to think that this project is unravelling. It is very hard to backtrack once preliminary results are out there. However, we are talking about very small temperature ranges, so it is difficult to believe that they will be much out of line with other datasets. the real issue is about the 2/3 of the planet that is not landmass.

  2. diogenes Says:

    omg…I see that Muller’s testimony has created a rabid-dog reaction on WUWT. A balanced view on this seems impossibl;e to achieve. maybe you scientists need to wonder what is going on here? from both sides we have “scientists” yelling at each other and yet surely it should just be about interpreting data. OK that was naughty…where is the data here? It is about averages of averages of averages…where do the confidence limits lie once uncertain data is averaged so many times? I think my secondary school used to report temperatures and humidy to the Met Office…how reliable was that stuff – did it always happen at the same time of day? During school holidays?

  3. Did Watts’ surfacestations.org paper show that surface temperature trends are unreliable? No. « Our Clouded Hills Says:

    […] surface temperature increases actually exist. With Fall et al. not really turning much up and the BEST project looking like it’ll confirm the previous surface temperature analyses, there can’t much […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: