-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
B.E.S.T., Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, is the organization, formed by Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, to analyze temperature data. B.E.S.T. has received a total of $623,087 in financial support, with the largest contribution, $150,000, coming from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. B.E.S.T. directly addressed concerns including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and data selection bias.
Their results: “Global warming is real.” Before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Muller testified that “we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” That similarity can be seen in the graphs below.
The issue of temperature stations in the U.S. located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to other heat sources has been raised by climate change skeptics such as Anthony Watts. Muller testified:
Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.
The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.
Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.
Regarding the urban heat island effect, the study concludes that:
The urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise. That’s because the urban region of the Earth amount to less than 1% of the land area.
Anthony Watts is a weather-caster turned global warming skeptic who stated, “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” That was in March. Now, Watts “consider[s] the paper fatally flawed.” Watts’ reaction moves him from the category of global warming skeptic to global warming denier. Watts has gained a certain amount of fame by claiming that the temperature data was flawed. If he had accepted the B.E.S.T. results as promised, his celebrity status would be lost.
H/T: Zingularity, LA Times, Brad Plumer, Ron Chusid.
Roger,
You wont get anything but bad faith out of Bdaman. He hasn’t engaged in good faith in a single argument in all of the time I’ve been posting on this blog (at least that I’m aware of…). Your posts are appreciated by the rest of us who know that Bdaman is full of it, but have tired of demonstrating that fact.
Bron,
Your lack of understanding of complex dynamical systems would be funny if it weren’t so sad…
Elaine weather is climate
Climate is made up of daily weather observations over the years. A 30 year span is accepted as climatic period. BEST study is based on a 30 year period.
How do you think they come up with the daily, weekly, monthly and yearly averages of temperature. By noting the observation on a daily basis.
Are Fisheries Collapsing in the Gulf of Mexico? New Study Rocks Region’s Seafood Industry
http://www.stuarthsmith.com/are-fisheries-collapsing-in-the-gulf-of-mexico-new-study-rocks-regions-seafood-industry
Excerpt:
A new study that went viral this week is sending shudders through coastal communities on the Gulf of Mexico – the heart and soul of the region’s legendary seafood industry.
The research, funded by the National Science Foundation and the BP-backed Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, reveals that fish living in the hard-hit coastal marshes are exhibiting the same toxicity symptoms that appeared in Pacific herring in the aftermath of the 1989 Exxon-Valdez spill off the Alaskan coast. As you may recall, the herring population in Prince William Sound, once one of Alaska’s most profitable fisheries, crashed suddenly and completely three years after the spill – and it has yet to recover 20 years later.
The take-away from the study is that the Gulf’s minnow-like “killifish” are showing cellular damage from last year’s massive oil spill – damage that is diminishing the fish’s ability to reproduce and survive. From a Sept. 26 Washington Post report by Juliet Eilperin:
Fish living in Gulf of Mexico marshes exposed to last year’s oil spill have undergone cellular changes that could lead to developmental and reproductive problems…
… The team of researchers from Louisiana State, Texas State and Clemson universities focused on the killifish, a minnowlike fish that is abundant and a good indicator of the health of wetlands.
Killifish residing in areas affected by the spill showed cell abnormalities, including impaired gills, two months after the oil had disappeared, researchers found. Killifish embryos exposed in the lab to water from the same site, which had only trace amounts of chemicals in it, developed cellular abnormalities as well.
Gene H:
“Too bad you didn’t bother to read (let alone understand) some of the other posts, Bdaman.
Then you might realize how foolishly desperate your protestations look.”
Maybe you should read what Bdaman posted? He is posting people with differing positions.
There you again deflecting and changing it up, Dr. Red Herring.
Fish still suffering after BP oil spill
By Kate Spinner
Herald-Tribune
Oct. 2, 2011
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20111002/ARTICLE/111009951
Excerpt:
Signs of last year’s BP oil spill have nearly vanished from the marshes along Louisiana’s Gulf coast, but the fish there are still turning up with life-threatening deformities and reproductive problems.
According to a new study, fish living in marshes exposed to BP crude showed clear signs of oil-related toxicity, even when only trace amounts of oil could be detected in their tissues and the environment.
The fish showed damage to their gills, making it harder for them to get oxygen and adapt to natural changes in salinity and temperature.
The study also revealed that the marsh water was toxic to fish eggs, even when it tested clean by conventional sampling.
Scientists have found much higher amounts of oil chemicals lingering in the marsh sediments, which could make the marsh a chronically toxic environment for years.
Published last week, the study is among the first to document chronic illness in fish as a result of the three-month gusher that spewed 186 million to 227 million gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico last spring and summer. It runs counter to earlier assessments that the Gulf has returned to normal following the spill.
Months after the leaking well was capped in July, 2010, federal scientists declared Gulf seafood safe to eat. But earlier assessments did not look at the health of the fish themselves.
“Even though you’ve got a fish that is officially safe to eat, it does not mean that that fish is OK,” said Andrew Whitehead, lead author of the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Bdaman,
“It is so funny how a week after BEST produced this we end up with an historic snow storm dumping mass amounts of snow across the country.”
Here we go with weather vs. climate again. Maybe that historic snowstorm is a sign of climate change.
BTW, we had snow where I live last night/early this morning. It has been a strange autumn here. The leaves on most of the trees are still green and haven’t fallen from the trees yet. That definitely is not typical for this area.
Bron you take over I’m gonna watch a ball game a through some logs on the fire. It’s quite chilly here today. I had to put my winter jacket on to get the newspaper this morning.
Curry and Mueller are YOUR poster children, not ours, yet they still confirmed what the scientific community has known for a long time – that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
You need to strike Curry from your statement she is now distancing herself from BEST.
Slarti:
we already have laws limiting pollution.
Hey how is the Gulf of Mexico doing?
Bdaman lives down there and says the fishing is as good as it has ever been, in fact better. He is telling me the microbe bloom from the oil (you know energy into a system) has caused the food chain to go nuts.
Curry and Mueller are YOUR poster children, not ours, yet they still confirmed what the scientific community has known for a long time – that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
I believe the quote is
What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assessment of how much the observed warming is due to human action.
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct.pdf
What eva Slart
bdaman:
“This is what they said about Mueller before he became a switch hitter. Now he is your poster child.”
Once again, you make your delusions obvious. Mueller is a preening weatherman who writes controversial baloney to make money – by his own admission.
He is not our “poster child” – he is still a smarmy ethics-free débutante, who was, and likely will demonstrate again, that he is the denialist’s poster child. He still does not agree that AGW is caused by fossil fuels.
The only reason our side talks about him is glee over the fact that even his smarmy ass bit the Koch brothers where it hurt – in their wallets. All their money spent setting up a ridiculous panel consisting of denialists like Mueller and Curry was wasted.
The BEST trial was never viewed by the scientific community as a valid panel. Even so, it still blew up in their faces, because the data was too strong for people with any shred of intellectual ethics (that includes Curry and Mueller) to ignore.
Curry and Mueller are YOUR poster children, not ours, yet they still confirmed what the scientific community has known for a long time – that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
Bdaman,
Why are the most deadly hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. all in the past?
I know the answer and it makes the statistics you posted irrelevant as evidence for your argument.
If someone has been proven to be full of shit 7,000 times (a rough estimate of the number of times you’ve posted on this blog — it’s probably low — admittedly, some of those are chatty rather than inaccurate, misleading, and/or flat-out wrong…), why should anyone assume that the 7001st time will be different? How many posts have you made with factually correct information that you represented in an honest matter and defended in good faith? I’ve got a pretty good estimate on that, too: zero.
Gene did you even read this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1cG9AySjf
100% of climate scientists agree that the Earth is warming. 98% of them agree that the cause is man-made.
Bwahahahahaahh
where’s your proof Roger. Saying it so doesn’t make it so
“No your just dismissive of what I present. Mostly because I link to Briepart.”
That certainly doesn’t help your credibility that you have a penchant for quoting known propagandists. It also doesn’t help your case when you act like them in debate methodology either. The later has more to do with my I’m dismissive of your argument in this instance than the former.
“Irregardless
The world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
In the worlds history CO2 has been higher up to 20 times of what it is today but we are all still here.”
Irrelevant factoids that don’t disprove anthropogenic global warming.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own set of facts.
Here’s a fact for everyone
The world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
In the worlds history CO2 has been higher up to 20 times of what it is today but we are all still here.
bdaman:
“This is another made up lie. 95% do not believe nor support. We’ve already been through this exercise and it’s been completely debunked.”
You either have no ability to keep facts straight, or you are a bald-faced liar.
100% of climate scientists agree that the Earth is warming. 98% of them agree that the cause is man-made.
Seriously, I am getting to the point where I am done with you. You do not seem to have the capacity for rational thought or even basic honesty.
Bdaman,
Wow – that’s some hard core trolling this morning. Do you get paid extra for that?
What say you to the assertion that even if you are completely correct about global warming (and the odds are pretty strongly against you on that…), then controlling pollution is necessary (for the health of society as a whole) and if you are wrong then doing nothing will lead to an economic and humanitarian disaster. In other words, at best you are advocating the worst possible course of action for reasons which are correct and most likely you are doing the equivalent of sitting on the riverfront telling people not to worry about the 1000-year flood brewing…
Don’t try to give me any homework until you do your own — everything that you post should be assumed false, irrelevant, or extremely disingenuous based on your history (my opinion). Why should anyone believe that this time there is a really real honest to FSM wolf when for several years now you’ve been making it up every time?
Thanks Gene 😉