Skip to comments.New study seeks to shut up climate skeptics
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 isnt 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 ...
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!!!!!
No one said temperatures aren’t warmer, the question is, is man to blame.
More background info about this here:
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review
If your interested go to WUWT And read about another bad study.
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.
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.
“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.”
“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.
They first expect us to believe a Berkly Professor was a critic of AGW ... False Flag FAIL!
This was the exact point at which I quit reading.
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.
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. Lets leave aside whether these analyses were complete, rigorous, or recommended. Assume that they were. The findings?
We discovered that about one-third of the worlds 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.
“How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”
They also employed very poor statistical methods.
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.
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.
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 earths history are now chiseled in stone because man has appeared on the scene?
This is Yellow Journalism supporting Yellow Science.
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.
two words -
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.
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.
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.
Only Berkeley could ignore the sun in the sky and its cycles.
Study probably paid for via a taxpayer’s grant.
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.
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.
Green is the new Red.
Exactly and this areticle never mentions “man made” GW.
“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.
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...:^)
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.
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.
I stopped reading at “Berkley Earth Project”.
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.
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.
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.
“Berkley Earth Project”
Berkley????? LMAO... now there is some credibility if even I’ve seen it.
Say this is true, it does not show causality. There have been 1C temperature increases (and decreases) over half century periods before.
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.
Not. A. Chance.
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.
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.