As most of AFTIC readers will know by now, the Berkley Earth Surface Temprature project has pre-released its set of four studies that are still pending peer-review and publication. Bombshell news: the earth has warmed pretty much exactly as all the other analyses have indicated. UHI and micrositing issues do not explain away the measurements.
I don't have much to add to the dialogue, but here is a good place for locals to discuss and share links.
Watch the cllimate evolve here:
Update: here are a few relevant links:
- Primary sources are here
- The Economist gets there first
- Muller has an op-ed in the WSJ online
- Anthony Watts breaks the irony meter by complaining that we should all wait for peer reviewed publication before drawing any conclusions
- Andy Revkin comments
- Joe Romm gets into some detail
- The Guardian comments
- The New York Times
- Log in to post comments
I'll kick off with a meta-comment as other blogs seem to be covering the science quite well. It appears that the release of the BEST results seems to have coincided with a lack of contrarian comments on climate-concerned blogs (or at least those I visit regularly). Has Berkley precipitated a wave of self-examination or are they just waiting for the storm to blow over a bit before normal service resumes.
As it stands for climate comment laughs I'm having to resort to well-known septic websites instead. There's a couple of classy comments highlighted at The Idiot Tracker, this being my current favourite: http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2011/10/idiot-comment-of-day-circle…
Two gems in one hit.
I love that animation of the temperature record. Fantastic.
As for 'Henry's comment. Dumbfounded.
To paraphrase Paula Cole, Where have all the deniers gone?
Have they finally given up?
Is it over?
While many people are heralding BEST as significant, I am going to go the opposite way and say "so what?"
All BEST did was confirm what we knew all along. And why should evidence make any difference to the debate - it hasn't so far. Scientists and rational people will continue to accept the evidence, while deniers will continue to deny it. Nothing has changed. Some might say that BEST makes it harder to deny the evidence, but once again, there is nothing in the existing evidence that is difficult to deny. On the contrary, it takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to deny the obvious.
The only thing of substance (IMO) is it has highlighted once and for all the hypocrisy of people like Watts ("I will accept the findings....blah blah). Perhaps - just perhaps - this process might persuade some who are sitting on the fence of just how much like creationists deniers really are. But I won't hold my breath.
All BEST did was confirm what we knew all along . . . I won't hold my breath. -- mandas
But I would say don't be so cynical, mandas. If anything interacting on this forum (and being censored at Wattsup!) has taught me is that this fight--and I fully believe it is one worth making--is brutal. Christ, trying to interact with the Crakars, Snowmans, Richard Wakefields, Neil Craigs, and to a lesser extent the Vernons, Pauls, and Michaels of the D-sphere, has taught me that imposing reason on the recalcitrant is slow and arduous.
The BEST results, which of course shocked the D-sphere but were an eye roller for the rest us, are just another arrow in the quiver. The whole point of science is that the truth eventually matriculates to the top. Getting into the public mind is a tougher matter of course, but ironing out the scientific case is a crucial first step. Stay strong, brother.