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 ...
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.
Global Warming on Free Republic
“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.
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.
