Massive study concludes: 'Global warming is real

[DarrinS]

I think the Earth has warmed an insignificant amount in the past 100 years and that this study confirms that.

[DarrinS]

I also recall pointing out the BEST project in your "pseudoscience" thread and that I thought it was a good idea.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its cute that they act coy but the energy industry think tanks that they parrot most certainly used that argumentation up until the last year or so. Thats when they switched to the sun is just hotter routine.

Darrin is a bit smarter than WC. At least WC has an excuse. Hes just dumb as .

[Wild Cobra]

Do I need to find the post where you claim that you are right and there is only a "one in a trillion" chance you are wrong, or something similar?

Please do. I don't recall saying that.

[scott]

You guys are overlooking the downside of this study... now where will we get our "What about Global Warming Now?" threads when it snows in winter?

[boutons_deux]

WashPost: “The Scientific Finding that Settles the Climate-Change Debate” and “Confirms” the Hockey Stick Graph



The latest icy blast of reality comes from an eminent scientist whom the climate-change skeptics once lauded as one of their own. Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being “polluted by political and activist frenzy.” Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight.

“Global warming is real,” Muller wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal.

Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the neo-Luddites who are turning the GOP into the anti-science party should pay attention.

The BEST, as it were, was from the L. A. Times, “Climate skeptic admits he was wrong to doubt global-warming data,” which opens:
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Remember when scientists who had cast doubt on global temperature studies boldly embarked on an effort to “reconsider” the evidence?

They have. And they conclude that their doubt was misplaced.

And don’t miss Nobelist Paul Krugman’s piece, “More People Who Can’t Handle The Truth.”


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...y-stick-graph/

[MannyIsGod]

No, you don't understand the varying changes through the depths of the atmosphere. It's not that simple. Did you read this?

You've got no clue. This is a comparison between the same measurement at different time periods. Its the same measurement of the same thing. Furthermore, all outgoing radiation must exit the earth's atmosphere the same way. Energy in the lower levels of the atmosphere does not just magically dissipate and find itself past the orbit of the satellites.

You cannot seem to understand that no one is trying to tell exactly how the energy moves within the atmosphere with this data just how it exits and how LESS is leaving the atmosphere due directly to green house gasses.

It doesn't surprise me because you somehow can't seem to understand that same principle When it comes to the oceans.

[RandomGuy]

Please do. I don't recall saying that [there was only one a trillion chance I am wrong about AGW].

You said it alright. It might take me a while, but I am pretty sure I can find it again.

I remember it fairly clearly.

[RandomGuy]

You guys are overlooking the downside of this study... now where will we get our "What about Global Warming Now?" threads when it snows in winter?

I am sure even this will not deter dogmatic liars like Yonivore from posting more of them.

[DarrinS]

Lol @ "confirms the Hockey Stick"

Did their research go back to 1000 AD using tree ring proxy data? What a blatant lie.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You've got no clue. This is a comparison between the same measurement at different time periods. Its the same measurement of the same thing. Furthermore, all outgoing radiation must exit the earth's atmosphere the same way. Energy in the lower levels of the atmosphere does not just magically dissipate and find itself past the orbit of the satellites.

You cannot seem to understand that no one is trying to tell exactly how the energy moves within the atmosphere with this data just how it exits and how LESS is leaving the atmosphere due directly to green house gasses.

It doesn't surprise me because you somehow can't seem to understand that same principle When it comes to the oceans.

He doesnt understand how optics work. Thats obvious from his comments about the satellites. Hes dumb and just parrots what other people say. He gives us sales material form gas boiler companies. He probably works for something akin to that and is just shilling. Hes just dumb to boot.

[Wild Cobra]

Lol @ "confirms the Hockey Stick"

Did their research go back to 1000 AD using tree ring proxy data? What a blatant lie.

Did you see their graphs? It still looks like a hockey stick, but at an angle and shows past temperatures were as warm in the past, unlike Mann's lie.

The shape at the end I say is still the relocation and land changes around the temperature stations, but I'll bet we never get that settled. To be accurate, we would have to have a sufficient number that have stayed in the same location for maybe as long as 100 years, and not had any urban growth nearby.

[xrayzebra]

Really not news to anyone except, well, all the GOP candidates for President...





The register


"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

Academician Prokhor Zakharov - Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Gee Dan, how much time left before we burn up?

Am I the only one who gets tired of this argument.

[RandomGuy]

The shape at the end I say is still the relocation and land changes around the temperature stations, but I'll bet we never get that settled.

That was one of the things that the study in the OP definitively debunked, had you bothered to read (grasp?) anything related to it.

Another objection that has been raised is that temperature observations over the decades have been influenced by sensors being encroached upon by human development – the "urban heat island" (UHI) effect. The BEST analysis, however, found this effect to be negligible at best.

Two of the Berkeley Earth papers address narrower concerns. One is the poor location of many weather stations. A crowd-sourcing campaign by a meteorologist and blogger, Anthony Watts, established that most of America’s stations are close enough to asphalt, buildings or other heat sources to give artificially high readings. The other is the additional warming seen in built-up areas, known as the “urban heat-island effect”. Many sceptics fear that, because roughly half of all weather stations are in built-up areas, this may have inflated estimates of a temperature rise.

The Berkeley Earth papers suggest their analysis is able to accommodate these biases. That is a notable, though not original, achievement. Previous peer-reviewed studies—including one on the location of weather stations co-authored by Mr Watts—have suggested the mean surface temperatures provided by NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are also not significantly affected by them.

Yet the Berkeley Earth study promises to be valuable. It is due to be published online with a vast trove of supporting data, merged from 15 separate sources, with duplications and other errors clearly signalled. At a time of exaggerated doubts about the instrumental temperature record, this should help promulgate its main conclusion: that the existing mean estimates are in the right ballpark. That means the world is warming fast.

http://www.economist.com/node/21533360


It was interesting the way the articles talked about the study's aim to talk to the concerns of "legitimate skeptics".

This implies that there is no shortage of politically motivated hacks driving the "skeptic" movement. What a novel/interesting idea.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry random, but there is no way to accurately compensate for changes around these monitoring stations. Maybe their confirmation bias collected the data and math to show their bias.

Look.

There is no way to know for sure. When you go from a surrounding that is all transpiration, to asphalt, gravel, cement, buildings, etc, not only does the surrounding emissivity change, but the varying moisture content from dusk to dawn.

Maybe you are confident that science can accurately project a temperature from the readings, and simulate that of without man's impact, but I'm not. I say there is more inaccuracy of conversions than there is change.

[RandomGuy]

Sorry random, but there is no way to accurately compensate for changes around these monitoring stations. Maybe their confirmation bias collected the data and math to show their bias.

Look.

There is no way to know for sure. When you go from a surrounding that is all transpiration, to asphalt, gravel, cement, buildings, etc, not only does the surrounding emissivity change, but the varying moisture content from dusk to dawn.

Maybe you are confident that science can accurately project a temperature from the readings, and simulate that of without man's impact, but I'm not. I say there is more inaccuracy of conversions than there is change.

With that, you move from the realm of "legitimate skeptic" into the realm of political hack.

You didn't read the articles, you haven't read the study to even know what their methodology is, nor have you attempted to recreate their calculations and methodology, even though they are going to great pains to make both the data and the method of calculation public, yet you just *know* there is "no way to accurately compensate".

Whatever pretense you might have had to claim you know better than the actual scientists who study this stuff for a living, ended right there with that blanket dismissal.

This is exactly the kind of bull dogmatic dismissals of actual science used by truthers and creationsists.

You are a ing idiot, period.

[MannyIsGod]

Lol

[DarrinS]

With that, you move from the realm of "legitimate skeptic" into the realm of political hack.

You didn't read the articles, you haven't read the study to even know what their methodology is, nor have you attempted to recreate their calculations and methodology, even though they are going to great pains to make both the data and the method of calculation public, yet you just *know* there is "no way to accurately compensate".

Whatever pretense you might have had to claim you know better than the actual scientists who study this stuff for a living, ended right there with that blanket dismissal.

This is exactly the kind of bull dogmatic dismissals of actual science used by truthers and creationsists.

You are a ing idiot, period.

64% of US surface stations have errors > 2 deg C and the total warming is 1 deg C.

[Th'Pusher]

Maybe their confirmation bias collected the data and math to show their bias.

Muller was a AGW skeptic. The Koch bothers funded the study. What the is wrong with you people?

[DarrinS]

Muller was a AGW skeptic. The Koch bothers funded the study. What the is wrong with you people?

There's nothing to suggest he's still not a skeptic. The study indicates there is some GW, which no one really disputes. Study did not look at CO2 at all.

[RandomGuy]

64% of US surface stations have errors > 2 deg C and the total warming is 1 deg C.

Sorry Darrin, the boat sailed on your credibility years ago. You might not be a ing idiot, but you are definitely a ing liar.

Any factual assertion you might make on this subject should be greeted by any objective observer with a few tons of skepticism and accepted only after verification by four or five neutral sources, and rechecked for good measure.

Another objection that has been raised is that temperature observations over the decades have been influenced by sensors being encroached upon by human development – the "urban heat island" (UHI) effect. The BEST analysis, however, found this effect to be negligible at best.

Two of the Berkeley Earth papers address narrower concerns. One is the poor location of many weather stations. A crowd-sourcing campaign by a meteorologist and blogger, Anthony Watts, established that most of America’s stations are close enough to asphalt, buildings or other heat sources to give artificially high readings. The other is the additional warming seen in built-up areas, known as the “urban heat-island effect”. Many sceptics fear that, because roughly half of all weather stations are in built-up areas, this may have inflated estimates of a temperature rise.

The Berkeley Earth papers suggest their analysis is able to accommodate these biases. That is a notable, though not original, achievement. Previous peer-reviewed studies—including one on the location of weather stations co-authored by Mr Watts—have suggested the mean surface temperatures provided by NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are also not significantly affected by them.

Yet the Berkeley Earth study promises to be valuable. It is due to be published online with a vast trove of supporting data, merged from 15 separate sources, with duplications and other errors clearly signalled. At a time of exaggerated doubts about the instrumental temperature record, this should help promulgate its main conclusion: that the existing mean estimates are in the right ballpark. That means the world is warming fast.

[Agloco]

Sorry random, but there is no way to accurately compensate for changes around these monitoring stations. Maybe their confirmation bias collected the data and math to show their bias.

Look.

There is no way to know for sure. When you go from a surrounding that is all transpiration, to asphalt, gravel, cement, buildings, etc, not only does the surrounding emissivity change, but the varying moisture content from dusk to dawn.

Maybe you are confident that science can accurately project a temperature from the readings, and simulate that of without man's impact, but I'm not. I say there is more inaccuracy of conversions than there is change.

I doubt very seriously that this is an answerable question, at least not to your satisfaction.

[RandomGuy]

The study indicates there is some GW, which no one really disputes.

Still going with that lie?

Do you want me to start linking all your threads about snow storms with les that go, roughly, "what global warming, look at this snow"?

or would you rather I just link all the posts within the threads where you imply that with studies about short regional cooling trends or similar? I have already given two.

[DarrinS]

Sorry Darrin, the boat sailed on your credibility years ago. You might not be a ing idiot, but you are definitely a ing liar.

Any factual assertion you might make on this subject should be greeted by any objective observer with a few tons of skepticism and accepted only after verification by four or five neutral sources, and rechecked for good measure.

How is this a lie? And why are you so angry?

64% of US surface stations have errors > 2 deg C and the total warming is 1 deg C.

[MannyIsGod]

64% of US surface stations have errors > 2 deg C and the total warming is 1 deg C.

I guess you don't need to be any good with statistics to post youtubes on a forum all day. Good thing for you!