Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New study seeks to shut up climate skeptics
EurActiv ^ | 21 October 2011

Posted on 10/22/2011 9:30:48 PM PDT by Olog-hai

Global warming is 'real' and temperatures have climbed steadily over the past decades, a long-awaited, independent study has found, refuting skeptics’ claims that there isn’t enough evidence to assert that the world climate is changing.

According to a study published yesterday (20 October) by the Berkley Earth Project, which included U.S. physicists, climatologists and statisticians, the average world land temperatures climbed approximately 1 degree Celsius since the mid-1950s.

The Berkley project, funded among others by the Koch Foundation, linked to the company which Greenpeace called a ‘kingpin of climate science denial,’ has analysed data from 15 different sources, in some cases going back as far the 1800. That makes it the most complete historical record of land temperature ever compiled, said physicist and head of the project, Richard Muller.

"My hope is that the findings will cool the debate over global warming by addressing many of the valid concerns of the skeptics in a clear and rigorous way,” said Elisabeth Muller, co-founder and Executive director of the Berkley Earth project. …

(Excerpt) Read more at euractiv.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: eruptions; globalwarming; minimum; solar; volcano
Wait until this one is also debunked . . .
1 posted on 10/22/2011 9:30:49 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai



2 posted on 10/22/2011 9:36:45 PM PDT by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Another in a long line of fraudulent, cooked, made to order global warming studies . . . [yawn..] ppppppttthhh

THEY HAVE PI$$ED AWAY ALL OF THEIR CREDIBILITY!!!!!


3 posted on 10/22/2011 9:39:19 PM PDT by RatRipper (I'll ride a turtle to work every day before I buy anything from Government Motors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

No one said temperatures aren’t warmer, the question is, is man to blame.


4 posted on 10/22/2011 9:41:35 PM PDT by LukeL (Barack Obama: Jimmy Carter 2 Electric Boogaloo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

More background info about this here:

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/


5 posted on 10/22/2011 9:41:48 PM PDT by Chesterbelloc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

If your interested go to WUWT And read about another bad study.


6 posted on 10/22/2011 9:42:28 PM PDT by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
to the Berkley’s project leading scientist, Robert Rhode, urban heat does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise, because urban regions amount to less than 1% of the global land area. Still, two-thirds of the weather stations reported warming of land temperatures over the last 70 years, while only one-third of sites, the bulk of them in Europe and the United States, reported cooling temperatures. “The large number of sites reporting cooling might help explain some of the skepticism of global warming,” Rhode said, adding that it is very hard to measure weather consistently over decades and the presence of sites reporting cooling temperatures can false data. This is why it takes hundreds of stations to detect and measure an average warming, work that was done by the California University scientists

But urban temperature readings do contribute when more rural sites are closed down. It isn't a question of land area, but a question of data gathering. If I measure the temperature of a Birthday cake at the lit ends of the candles the average temperature will be significantly higher than if I had measured the temperature at the level of the frosting.

7 posted on 10/22/2011 9:45:40 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It’s sounds to me as though the objective of this so called study was to provide some sort of ammuniton to the wacked out enviroloonies to use against their critics. This is really weird.


8 posted on 10/22/2011 9:49:14 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Stop Government Greed Now!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quantim

“Global warming is a serious problem,” Muller said in a lecture at UC Berkeley last week. “But people simply don’t believe the story anymore because the story was exaggerated.... Not a single polar bear has died because of receding ice.”

“I am highly skeptical of the hype and claims,” said Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium. “The team has some good people but not the expertise required in certain areas, and purely statistical approaches are naive. I suspect they have an agenda.”

http://tinyurl.com/3gy49jr


9 posted on 10/22/2011 9:50:14 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“New study seeks to shut up climate skeptics”
_______________________________________________
Skeptics of what?

Well, there can be little debate on temps going up or down.
The debate is about cause.
Is it just natural variations, or is AGW a global reality.
If one stikes a match, he contributes to warming, and if I pee in the sea, I am causing a rise in sea levels.

As for myself, I have always been with those that say
temperature/climate variations are beyond any meaningful influence of man, and look to the sun for answers.


10 posted on 10/22/2011 9:50:41 PM PDT by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

They first expect us to believe a Berkly Professor was a critic of AGW ... False Flag FAIL!


11 posted on 10/22/2011 9:51:21 PM PDT by Mechanicos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Berkley Earth Project

This was the exact point at which I quit reading.

12 posted on 10/22/2011 9:54:39 PM PDT by ElectronVolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

If I remember right, this Berkley group is discussed at www.wattsupwiththat.com.

This is a big PR push using mostly non-peer reviewed material.


13 posted on 10/22/2011 9:55:06 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Nevertheless, the Berkeley project he led - which brought together physicists and (finally!) statisticians - were able to perform a complete re-analysis of all the temperature data, this time taking the main statistical statistical criticisms into account. Let’s leave aside whether these analyses were complete, rigorous, or recommended. Assume that they were. The findings?

We discovered that about one-third of the world’s temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2C, much greater than the IPCC average of 0.64C.

http://icecap.us/

“How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”


14 posted on 10/22/2011 9:58:30 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Apparently the Berzerkly study thinks rural is about 6 to 7 miles away from a big city. Therefore, most airport temperature stations were probably included. That might explain why the 1950-1970 time period showed up as flat or neutral in this latest garbage analysis. Just about everyone thought that was a cooling period. In fact that was during the last temperature is gonna kill us scare. Only they were warning about an Ice Age back then.

They also employed very poor statistical methods.

A mathematician’s response to BEST

We would get better accuracy asking a fortune teller to tell us what climate has done and may do. We are decades away from coming up with any reliable data. We need millions of sensors under water, millions of sensors on land (biased to air density) and millions of sensors in the atmosphere (biased to air density). And we need to capture those data points in real time for over 100 years. Then we might be able to discern a trend in the biospheres energy density. Sunlight (the actual source of green house energy) is absorbed by oceans, land and atmosphere.

15 posted on 10/22/2011 10:04:00 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

Actually, temps have been getting cooler since 1998, despite what the idiotic climate change fanatics say. It is a proven fact, one that global warmists tend to ignore. While the earth has warmed for centuries while coming out of an ice age, it is cooling now. Neither change can be attributed to man.


16 posted on 10/22/2011 10:13:03 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
While scientists try to reassert clear evidence that temperatures are rising, a British government study released yesterday (20 October) has underscored that millions of people will move from areas where they will feel vulnerable to global environmental change, affecting greatly migration trends in the next 50-60 years.

They make statements like this in an alarmist fashion as though this was somehow new to human history.

Great cities have risen and fallen due to changes in the local climate throughout human history.

Is there some reason to expect that weather patterns that have changed continuously over the billions of earth’s history are now chiseled in stone because man has appeared on the scene?

This is Yellow Journalism supporting Yellow Science.

17 posted on 10/22/2011 10:18:23 PM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59
Yes, atmospheric temps peaked in 1998 due to the El Nino and have not exceeded that temperature, unless of course you massage the limited number of inaccurate data sets we have available. Atmospheric temperature is a very limited metric anyway. Heat content is the correct metric. And we need to know the heat content of the oceans at all depths and the atmosphere at all altitudes. Otherwise we might as well be reading tea leaves at the bottom of a cup being swirled by demagogues.

And it actually gets much more complex then that if you want very accurate metrics, but we are dealing with apes who are universally known to have knee jerk reactions to any increased complexity.

18 posted on 10/22/2011 10:36:29 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

two words -

HEAT ISLAND

These people have lost so much credibility it is boring ot even refute them. As in the littel wuote you produced - no mention of heat island. No mention of cause. No mention of start and end dates. etc.


19 posted on 10/22/2011 10:38:45 PM PDT by Eldon Tyrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

From friggin Berkeley!! This study will be eviscerated faster than those guys take off their Birkenstocks, decide their tie-dyed shirts will make it through another day and take the rubber band off their ponytails.


20 posted on 10/22/2011 10:54:13 PM PDT by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
No one said temperatures aren’t warmer, the question is, is man to blame

Many people take issue with the contention that the earth has been getting warmer over the past decade, including at least one global warming acolyte at CRU who acknowledged privately (in an email that was subsequently leaked) that there has been no measurable warming since the late 1990s.

21 posted on 10/22/2011 10:54:41 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Only Berkeley could ignore the sun in the sky and its cycles.

Study probably paid for via a taxpayer’s grant.


22 posted on 10/22/2011 11:51:25 PM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

23 posted on 10/23/2011 12:05:40 AM PDT by onyx (You're here on FR, so support it! Compiling New Sarah Ping List. Let me know if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It was as warm or warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period that ended in 1000 AD.

When these leftists explain how the only heavy industry of the time (Cathedral building!) caused that century-long temperature spike then I’ll pay attention to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.


24 posted on 10/23/2011 12:55:35 AM PDT by agere_contra ("Debt is the foundation of destruction" : Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chesterbelloc
Thanks for the link.

Wasn't it nice when Bill Gates was CEO of Microsoft and not playing god?

Note: they are using the same surface temperature stations as they did last time they have not corrected their errors.

25 posted on 10/23/2011 1:15:36 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; Nervous Tick; SteamShovel; Tunehead54; golux; tubebender; Fractal Trader; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

26 posted on 10/23/2011 1:47:06 AM PDT by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Green is the new Red.


27 posted on 10/23/2011 1:49:58 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

Exactly and this areticle never mentions “man made” GW.


28 posted on 10/23/2011 2:39:53 AM PDT by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: calex59

“It is always darkest just before the dawn.”

I think the same applies to climate change. And the global cooling to come will have far worse effects than the “forecasted” warming will have.


29 posted on 10/23/2011 2:54:24 AM PDT by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
While scientists try to reassert clear evidence that temperatures are rising, a British government study released yesterday (20 October) has underscored that millions of people will move from areas where they will feel vulnerable to global environmental change, affecting greatly migration trends in the next 50-60 years.


Since most of the UK now goes abroad on vacation to warmer locations, I think that UK residents would appreciate a little global warming on that island...:^)

30 posted on 10/23/2011 3:05:44 AM PDT by az_gila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
But urban temperature readings do contribute when more rural sites are closed down.

Bump! It is the same old scam. Figures do not lie, but liars figure. All Commies lie, it is the only way they can gain power and stay in power. Berkley?? Full of Lefties of all flavors, absolutely no credibility. NONE.

31 posted on 10/23/2011 3:24:51 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
No one said temperatures aren’t warmer, the question is, is man to blame.

True. And the second question is, how severe may be the results; moderate warming is still well within historical bounds and would likely be a good thing.

But the big enchilada, if we become convinced that we need to massively reduce carbon emissions, is whether we are actually prepared to take realistic action, which would mean going nuclear. Clearly the doomsday crowd still remains overwhelmingly anti-nuclear. They demand comprehensive government control over economic activity with cripplingly high energy costs thrown in, all for vanishingly small environmental gains, while awaiting a silver bullet solution that may or may not ever emerge from the labs.

This leads, of course, to the suspicion that the comprehensive government control is what they are really after, since their proposed remedies are simply not responsive to the problem with which they claim to be concerned.

If we want to get off carbon in a big way, we have to go nuclear for baseload electrical generation. Wind and solar aren't there. Transportation fuels are easier: advanced biofuels are closer to commercialization, and a nuclear based energy system could accommodate electric vehicles.

32 posted on 10/23/2011 6:08:11 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I stopped reading at “Berkley Earth Project”.


33 posted on 10/23/2011 6:46:34 AM PDT by left that other site (Psalm 122:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I have a huge issue with compiling data from “15 different sources, in some cases going back as far as the 1800.”

The method of temperature measurement is an important consideration that is completely ignored here. Temperatures measured using sophisticated digital thermometers calibrated to within 0.01 degrees simply cannot be compared to temperatures measured using uncalibrated blown-glass thermometers marked (by hand) at 0.5 or 0.1 degree intervals.

That’s just one criticism of the methodology; there are many others.

A small < 1 degree difference in average global temperature simply is not measureable—I highly doubt an average global temperature can be determined.


34 posted on 10/23/2011 6:49:47 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
“We discovered that about one-third of the world’s temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming.”

This statement contains an obvious logical fallacy and is completely meaningless. Even in the United States the vast majority of the weather reporting stations have been poorly sited; temperature sensors have been placed in the middle of blacktopped parking areas, next to exhaust vents and a myriad of other factors which invalidate their readings. Less than 1% of the world's surface is urbanized yet “two-thirds” of the recording stations are located in urban areas.

The assumption that a “two thirds” majority of poorly sited temperature stations has any meaning at all is laughable at best. This “complete reanalysis of temperature data” is a joke based upon the foundation upon which it is based. Bad data is bad data. Garbage in garbage out! Nothing meaningful can come from a “reanalysis” of bad data.

We know from the historical record that a few hundred years ago major rivers in both North America and Europe routinely froze over in winter. No one is arguing that the world has not been in a general warming trend for the past several hundred years. The question has been whether or not this warming is unprecedented and how much man has contributed to this warming. The only thing obvious from studies such as this one is that government funded “scientists” have become more and more willing to skew the data in a way that will preserve their funding.

Satellite data which in most cases at least has the advantage of being able to measure large areas of the earth using the same collection method shows that there has been no statistically significant warming in the atmosphere for the past decade. What we are attempting to look at however is much less than the blink of an eye in geologic terms. Man's ability to predict the future of the climate of the earth is questionable at best. “Scientists” wasting tax payer dollars reanalyzing questionable data to predict future climate is downright embarrassing.

35 posted on 10/23/2011 10:29:35 AM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
It becomes a question of sampling (I won't call it "error", because they are taking the data they have, but what weight is given what reading? Disproportionate representation of urban thermal anomalies will yield anomalous results.

In addition, other factors can affect data like tree rings, such as injury to the tree. While the tree is recovering from the injury, the annual growth rings tend to be narrower than ususal.

36 posted on 10/23/2011 11:11:29 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

37 posted on 10/23/2011 1:12:58 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“Berkley Earth Project”

Berkley????? LMAO... now there is some credibility if even I’ve seen it.


38 posted on 10/23/2011 1:33:26 PM PDT by Gator113 (~ Just livin' life~........ leaning heavy for Newt 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
According to a study published yesterday (20 October) by the Berkley Earth Project, which included U.S. physicists, climatologists and statisticians, the average world land temperatures climbed approximately 1 degree Celsius since the mid-1950s.

Say this is true, it does not show causality. There have been 1C temperature increases (and decreases) over half century periods before.

39 posted on 10/23/2011 2:15:51 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (999er for Cain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
New study seeks to shut up climate skeptics

Not. A. Chance.

40 posted on 10/23/2011 4:55:52 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Barack suffers from ADD -- "Additional Deficit Disorder".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Not. A. Chance.
This one's guaranteed to make the "skeptics" louder. And it really sounds like they're looking for an excuse to get violent with them as if they were "heretics" instead.
41 posted on 10/23/2011 5:07:21 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
No one said temperatures aren’t warmer, the question is, is man to blame.

No, even the temperature increase itself has been in question due to the chicanery employed in data selection and processing. I've no idea if this new study does in fact remove the cause for doubt or if it's just more of the same old agenda-driven thing.

42 posted on 10/24/2011 7:47:57 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson