BEST Project Press Email Announcement:
Berkeley Earth has just released new results, showing that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by 1.5 °C over the past 250 years. The good match between the new temperature record and historical carbon dioxide records suggests that the most straightforward explanation for this warming is human greenhouse gas emissions.
The new analysis from Berkeley Earth goes all the way back to 1753, about 100 years earlier than previous groups’ analysis. The limited land coverage prior to 1850 results in larger uncertainties in the behavior of the record; despite these, the behavior is significant. Sudden drops in the early temperature record (1750 to 1850) correspond to known volcanic events.
In its 2007 report the IPCC concluded only that “most” of the warming of the past 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the IPCC, that increased solar activity could have contributed to warming prior to 1956. Berkeley Earth analyzed about 5 times more station records than were used in previous analyses, and this expanded data base along with its new statistical approach allowed Berkeley Earth to go about 100 years farther back in time than previous studies. By doing so, the Berkeley Earth team was able to conclude that over 250 years, the contribution of solar activity to global warming is negligible.
You can access the results here: http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/.
A two-page summary for the media is available here: http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-press-release-july-29.pdf
Berkeley Earth’s data can be accessed here: www.BerkeleyEarth.org/data. We hope to add daily data soon.
We have also added a feature to look up data by location (continent, country, state, or city), available here: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/country-list/.
In making these results and data accessible to professional and amateur exploration we hope to encourage further analysis. If you have questions or reflections on this work, please contact, info@berkeleyearth.org. We will attempt to address as many inquiries as possible, and look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Muller
Founder and Executive Director
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
So now we can all just get behind finding solutions instead of debating if it’s happening and/or human caused?
No wonder Watts is desperate. He’s putting up a “study” today considering himself as a scientist…
We will all wait for the peer review 🙂
Lord Monckton is a peer, so he’ll probably review Willard A Watts paper.
I hear tell that he’s also a poo’r.
I see it as a lame PR attempt to negate BEST. From what it sounds he hasn’t even found a journal yet.
The old pal review trick. It’s only disreputable when it’s warmistas that are doing it, right, TonyBoy?
Watts decried Muller for not waiting for peer review. Glad to see Watts can be flexible on this peer review stuff. 🙂 He’s only going to have to become more flexible over time. It is a long walk back from stupid.
Mind you in his “Squirrel!” PR fluff for his paper he does at least admit to increasing temperatures. Many of his acolytes still don’t.
Doesn’t it just tickle you to read the lukewarmer comments declaring “Nobody ever said that the planet isn’t warming,and that human emitted Co2 is not partly to blame,we just question how much, and is it really that bad”. Yeah,that’s right,no one ever said it’s cooling,ice age imminent,it’s the sun,human’s are arrogant if they think we could possibly alter our climate etc etc…yeah,NO ONE EVER said any of those things…right?
its like trying to find somebody who vote for George Dubya.
The whole point of AGW denialism is to extend the debate for as long as possible. This is about protecting 1) profits, 2) philosophies of governance and economics, and 3) egos more than the science. I don’t see how one more paper confirming AGW will have any more effect than the thousands before it. It’s not “real science” to these guys unless it confirms their biases. There’s always a reason found to discard any of the multitude of studies and supporting data for AGW.
They’ll drop the “it’s not warming” and “it’s not us” stuff when we have a year significantly hotter than 1998 with no other blameable cause like El Nino or solar activity (the fact that 1998 was a major El Nino year won’t matter to them). Then they’ll casually move the goal posts to a mild acceptance of AGW theory (saying “we understood that it was real all along”) and they’ll ride the notion that the warming won’t be a net negative for as long as they can.
It ain’t over until the fat lady doesn’t eat for several weeks. In other words, the AGW “debate” won’t end until the effects of climate change provide such overwhelming evidence that the public simply won’t buy the denial any more. I think there’s a pretty high bar for that, so I don’t see it happening any time soon.
Global warming is like a black hole with it’s inexorable pull,and the deniers are in the process of being ‘spaghettified’.
“fat lady doesn’t eat for several weeks” not sure if she is fat yet
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/climate-sceptics-unmoved-by-scientists-aboutface-20120730-23a6s.html
Australian climate change sceptics were largely unmoved.
”I’m not convinced that [Professor Muller] was ever a sceptic although, of people I respect, there is a couple who do have a decent opinion of him,” said blogger Jo Nova in Perth, the author of The Skeptic’s Handbook.
Ms Nova said she did not expect climate change sceptics to change their minds because there were still potential flaws in Professor Muller’s work.
”If [Professor Muller’s study] removed stations that are near concrete, car parks, airports and airconditioners, and used only the best data we have, I’d be open to accept their warming trend calculations,” she said. ”But even so, it’s another leap entirely to say that just because the world has warmed that it’s man-made.”
The ”urban heat island effect” is real – it has been documented by meteorologists for decades – but the Bureau of Meteorology removes suspect thermometer sites from its climate change measurements. The two groups of data – one for weather forecasting and one for climate – are available for scrutiny on its website.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/climate-sceptics-unmoved-by-scientists-aboutface-20120730-23a6s.html#ixzz228He4327
Peter,
Remembering the fun we had a while back with the “We’ll adapt.” tagline, here’s notice of a booming new industry of the future, lawn painting:
http://tinyurl.com/cga7u8u
Truly, one of the green industries. [wink]
Pielke Sr gushes over both Watts and his new paper while roundly dismissing Mueller and his.
What’s up with Pielke Sr? For a long time I’ve looked to him for some moderating balance, but I’m getting the sense that he’s deteriorating. What’s up with that?
Professor Richard Muller was on The Rachael Maddow Show last evening:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#48409332
If that isn’t the correct link, it is the July 30th show, next to last segment.
Neil
Hmmm…a cynical person might deduce from that segment that the Koch’s are betting heavily on natural gas investments in the third world.
The BEST study has twice failed peer review, and is not likely to be reconsidered. As usual, the Muellers are spouting off junk science catered to the gullible. For knowledgable discussion see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/why-the-best-papers-failed-to-pass-peer-review/
–AGF
“For knowledgable discussion see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/why-the-best-papers-failed-to-pass-peer-review/”
Ross McKitrick an Economist specializing in environmental economics is a reviewer for JGR on science! Wouldn’t JGR not user some like a peer on the subject.
Only on Watts-iz World where reality is surreal.
You just made my week. I am still LOL
That should be “use someone like a peer on the subject.” My voice recognition doesn’t work that well when I laughing