DOE- And Koch-Funded Non-Peer-Reviewed Climate Group Finds . . . Planet Warmed 0.7C Since 1957

[hatrack]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The scientist heading up a controversial review of land-surface temperature records has a simple goal. "What I really hope to do is calm the debate" over climate change, said Richard Muller, a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST).

But that appears to be a tall order, judging by reaction yesterday to the group's preliminary findings, which drew suspicion from climate skeptics and mainstream climate scientists alike. BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre. "The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends," Muller told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

That contradicts arguments made by climate skeptics -- including blogger Anthony Watts of "Watts Up With That?" -- who allege that many of the weather stations are located in areas that would bias their observations. A station might be placed in a rural area that is eventually enveloped by development, creating a situation where the urban heat island effect could influence the observations it collects, for example.

A study published last year by researchers at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center found evidence that some weather station temperature data are of poor quality -- but it concluded the problematic data would add a slight bias toward cooling in climate analyses. Watts -- who Muller called "a hero" for his weather station work -- isn't convinced. And he's not happy about the preliminary analysis by Muller's BEST team, judging by comments he posted on his blog. They include a letter rebutting Muller's testimony, which Watts submitted yesterday to the House Science panel before its hearing had concluded.

EDIT

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/04/01/01climatewire-experts-heat-up-over-berkeley-lab-scientists-q-490.html?amp=&pagewanted=all

[Viking12]

1. While I'm not a big fan of Joe Romm's hyperintensity, he's covered this fairly well

Over at Climate Progress.