New independent climate study confirms global warming is real

By Phil Plait | October 21, 2011 6:00 am

Before I say anything else in this post, I will start off right away and say that the results I’ll be discussing here have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Because of that, the results need to be taken with a grain of salt. However, due to the nature of the study’s foundation and funders, which I will get to in a moment, the results are most definitely news-worthy.

The study is called the Berkeley Earth Project (BEP), and what they found was stated simply and beautifully in their own two-page summary:

Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1° C since the mid-1950s.

Wow. Of course, I would change one word in there. Can you guess what it is? The answer is below.


Big deal

Now, we’ve known this for a while. Study after study has shown that the Earth is warming, that the past decade has been the hottest on record, and that the rise in temperature has been about a degree. So what’s the big deal here?

The big deal is that this was an independent team of researchers who conducted the study (including, interestingly, Saul Perlmutter, who just won the Nobel Prize for co-discovering the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, and knows a thing or two about data analysis), and whose funding was overwhelmingly donated by the private sector and not from any government. The study was initiated by Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, who was concerned that government researchers weren’t being as open as possible with their methods. He gathered together a team of scientists, and they used data from 39,000 temperature stations around the world, far more than the previous studies. They have put all their data and methodology online for anyone to investigate.

And if you’re wondering who these private groups were, they’re listed on the BEP website. The largest single donor? Why, it’s the Koch brothers, über-conservatives who have pumped millions of dollars into climate change denial. I find that… interesting.

Anyone claiming that climate scientists are alarmists only trying to protect their grant money will have to think about that one for a while.


You’re getting warmer

So what did the scientists working on BEP find? Well, first, and perhaps most importantly, their results agree in large part with what has been found by other groups: temperatures over land are rising, and that rise took a sudden leap up a few decades ago:

This plot shows what’s called the temperature anomaly, the change in temperature from some average value. In this case, they took the values from 1950 to 1980 and used that as a baseline — this is pretty standard practice in climate studies. Four different studies are plotted, including the BEP results in black. As you can see, all of them show a big rise, and the BEP results agree closely with (or are even greater than) the results from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Scientists at NASA/GISS were attacked heavily during "climategate" for (at best) being misleading with their results. As you can see, that turned out to be wrong all along. As we knew all along, in fact.

There were other very interesting results as well. For example, a favorite target for attack were the temperature readings from many of the monitoring stations around the country; the claim was that they suffer from urban heat effect, that is, they are near cities and therefore would be anomalously warm. The new study shows this is not a factor in the average land temperature rise; while some stations do appear warmer from this, they represent a tiny fraction of the total number of monitoring stations.

Not only that, stations that were ranked as "poor" in a survey done by Anthony Watts wound up showing the same warming results as those he marked as "OK". What BEP found is that if you take enough data, the warming trends show up even if an individual result may be low quality.

The BEP reports are fascinating reading, and I whole-heartedly suggest you take a look. That’s why they’ve been made public. Again, I’ll note that these have not been peer-reviewed, so it’ll be interesting to see the reactions to the public data and methods. But given the scientists involved, and Muller’s own admission that he didn’t like the way the previous science had been done and so he wanted to go over all this himself, I suspect this report will withstand the scrutiny.


Facing the facts

In the report summary, BEP Executive Director Elizabeth Muller says she hopes the results "will help cool the debate over global warming by addressing many of the valid concerns of the skeptics in a clear and rigorous way."

I strongly suspect they won’t. I do like her use of the word "valid"; so many of the attacks we’ve seen have not been so. There have been legitimate doubts raised scientifically, of course, about various factors that go into the results we’ve seen over the years. It looks like BEP now has those covered.

Still, her thoughts are mirrored by Bob Ward, the policy and communications director for the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, who said:

So-called ‘sceptics’ should now drop their thoroughly discredited claims that the increase in global average temperature could be attributed to the impact of growing cities. […] It is now time for an apology from all those, including US presidential hopeful Rick Perry, who have made false claims that the evidence for global warming has been faked by climate scientists.

This, of course, will never happen.

That’s because of that one word I said I would change in the report’s summary paragraph. That word is "skeptic", and in far too many cases it should be changed to "denier".

That includes a lot of other government officials who seem to overwhelmingly have an "R" listed as their party affiliation.


Eternal vigilance

I know this new study won’t sway climate change deniers. It can’t, because nothing can. The reason for that is simple: This isn’t about the science. If it were, the conversation would have been over years ago. Instead, it goes on, because it’s about ideology, not facts.

It’s nice to see the previous scientific studies bolstered by this independent one, and there’s more good news in that the American public now seems to understand that global warming is indeed real. And it was nice to see BEP lead scientist Richard Muller saying, at the bottom of a BBC article on this, that these results support the idea that it’s humans causing the rise in temperatures.

But, as I have been saying all along, there will never be a "crossing the finish line" moment. Whether it’s the Moon Hoax, or vaccines causing autism, or psychics talking to the dead, or climate change denial, this will be a continuing fight. It’s tiring, I know. But we should remember the words of Andrew Jackson:

"… Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing."

Tip o’ the thermometer to Doug Troy, and the many others who alerted me to this, and Maurice Clark for the link to the survey about American attitudes toward global warming.


Related posts:

Wall Street Journal: neutrinos show climate change isn’t real (and the followup)
Case closed: “Climategate” was manufactured
New study clinches it: the Earth is warming up
Climate change: the evidence
The increasingly antiscience Republican candidates
Arctic ice at second-lowest extent since 1979
NASA talks global warming

Comments (222)

Links to this Post

  1. Climate change : Study finds no grounds for climate sceptics’ concerns « LEARN FROM NATURE | October 21, 2011
  2. Koch Brothers Study Confirms Global Warming (In Other News, Hell Froze Over) | The Mosquito Eater | October 21, 2011
  3. Toby Keith – Bullets In the Gun « A Conservative Shemale | October 21, 2011
  4. climate change reality confirmed by skeptical researches using Koch money. Can we move on yet? « The Relative Comment | October 21, 2011
  5. SCIENCE WIN: A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data | Doubtful Newsblog | October 21, 2011
  6. Former Climate Skeptic Now Agrees: - Tech Support Forums - TechIMO.com | October 21, 2011
  7. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review « Wott's Up With That? | October 21, 2011
  8. Science pierces the veil of ideology | The Large Idea Collider | October 21, 2011
  9. Global Warming Study of the Day - TDW Geeks | October 21, 2011
  10. Global Warming != Religion | liquidcable.org | October 22, 2011
  11. Duh! Independent Study Finally Declares Global Warming Real » Geeky Gadgets | October 22, 2011
  12. Prepare In Advance for Climate Debates at the Thanksgiving Table | Autodidactosaurus | October 23, 2011
  13. Climate denialism: ‘It’s about ideology, not facts’ « slacktivist | October 23, 2011
  14. Climate change is real, study says | SmartPlanet | October 24, 2011
  15. A Climate Skeptic Sees The Light | Cogniphilia | October 24, 2011
  16. I am a Scientist [Starts With A Bang] | Environmental, Health and Safety News | October 24, 2011
  17. I am a Scientist : Starts With A Bang | October 24, 2011
  18. No Illusions Podcast #39 – The Main Message Of #Occupy | TPN :: No Illusions with Cameron Reilly | October 24, 2011
  19. Estudios pagados | Las penas del Agente Smith | October 25, 2011
  20. Some Nerd Subjects in Brief | Renaissance Dork | October 25, 2011
  21. Koch Brothers Study Confirms Climate Change is Real! - Grasscity.com Forums | October 27, 2011
  22. Climategate 2.0? New leaked CRU emails released | Luke Scientiæ | November 22, 2011
  23. Inupiat Tribal Nation sued for greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 « larahentz | January 4, 2012
  24. Will fossil fuel companies face liability for climate change? | Conducive Chronicle | February 25, 2012
  25. Onde está o aquecimento global? « Brasil em Foco | May 13, 2012
  1. “Anyone claiming that climate scientists are alarmists only trying to protect their grant money will have to think about that one for a while.”

    The people making that claim make it a point NOT to think. They are driven by ideology, not facts.

  2. T. Ferguson

    “Saul Perlmutter, who just the Nobel Prize”

    He accidentally the WHOLE Nobel Prize? :)

  3. Daniel Snyder

    Richard was my Physics professor back at Berkeley. He’s a good scientist, and is very careful not to let his personal beliefs color his research–take a look at his comments (or rather lack thereof) in his textbook “Physics for Future Presidents”. I’ll withhold judgment until the final paper is peer-reviewed and published, but like yourself, I respect the authors and am excited to read it.

  4. Mike

    It comes down to a matter of who you trust. So, until such time as this subject is moved out of the political arena and strictly into the scientific, I will not be able to take any study, from either slant, seriously. This subject should have never been politicized to begin with. Now it will take time to remake it into something that the public will judge as being legit.

  5. Tom

    An op-ed about this (by Muller) is published by the Wall Street Journal. You’ve been pretty liberal (pun!) with the WSJ-bashing…maybe you owe them an apology?

  6. Ok this is interesting but there are many things here I’d like to point out:

    1) Global warming is REAL, everyone by now should be aware of that. The main skeptical issue is, are we to blame or something else?

    2) “and whose funding was overwhelmingly donated by the private sector and not from any government. ”

    I’m not entirely sure if this is good or bad. Many people from the democrat party want carbon tax and are pro-GW caused by human thesis (Al Gore for example). It’s too far fetched saying that a completely government free study is perfect, just because some people from the republican party are climate deniers. Private entities do have their own agenda as well. We come to the point where we cannot trust anyone for real, because when they do these studies, is essential to prove someone or something wrong, and they’re biased because of that at the very start.

    3) “What BEP found is that if you take enough data, the warming trends show up even if an individual result may be low quality. ”

    This reminds me of credit rating agencies during the housing bubble merging all crap and toxic mortgage credits into mortgage backed securities and then CDO’s to cover the risk of default, so they could give these financial products AAA ratings. Fusing and merging crap with good stuff, generally stashes the crap and exalts the good stuff, but the crap is still essentially there.

    ___________________________________________

    Conclusion: GW is real, but whether or not we’re to blame, is still not settled for many people (yet I’m inclined to confirm that it is). However, people will always see opportunities to make profit out of any situation. Carbon Tax is their weapon; climate change and global warming is their excuse.

  7. cass

    Please remove your Andrew Jackson quote. This is the President who signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which ordered the Trail of Tears, in which the Cherokee were unlawfully forced off their land on a forced march that killed almost a third of their people .

    I understand you may like the quote out of context, but it is insensitive and in poor taste to quote mass murderers or genocidists without the proper context. You are better than that.

  8. Phil Esteen

    cass Says,

    Thank you for reassuring my hope in the honesty of Americans by posting the truth about Andrew Jackson. Jackson was no “American Lion” unless the term is used to denote a murderous bastard who ordered the killing of pregnant Native American women during our Indian Wars. The notion that conservatives hold this vile, barroom-brawling barrister in such high regard indicates more about the conservative philosophy than it does about Jackson.

    Ole Hickory was a piece of …

  9. Maybe the Koch brothers actually believe the Conspiracy Theory they are mongering and were expecting a very different result?

    Would be ironic…

  10. DanVeteran

    6. Cass:

    The Andrew Jackson quote is from his farewell address given on March 4, 1837. In this part of the speech he is warning us to be watchful of both our State and Federal governments. His signing of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 does not taint everything he did or said in his life. His warning is as revelant today as it was in 1837.

    Dan

  11. There is an Onion-like quality to this.

    A group of physicists today announced that some climate ‘scientists’ have inexplicably got something right, despite not being physicists. A spokesman said “We would like to congratulate the climate group on getting a result so close to ours. This is all the more impressive considering they are basically amateurs with no methodology or understanding of statistics. We would like to point out, however, that this should in no way be taken to mean that climatology, or indeed chemistry, biology, astronomy, or other forms of stamp-collecting are in any way science. Thank you.”

  12. Pete Jackson

    What nobody has been pointing out is that the warming has stopped since about 2001, and the temperature has held more or less steady since then. Of course, the strong warming that happened in the 1980s and 1990s hasn’t been undone so the glaciers are still retreating so far.

    When they plot the running ten-year averages, it looks like the warming has continued through 2005, but it is flattening out at the very end as we run out of the warming years of the late 1990s. Phil presented a chart in this blog just a few weeks ago that showed that sea-level has stopped rising and has actually fallen a bit.

    We know that the CO2 concentration has been continuing its steady rise since 2001, so what has been happening? It could be just one of the natural fluctuations that last 10-20 years that you see all along the temperature record. But my theory is that models may not have been fully accounting for heat lost by the open Arctic Ocean in the fall and early winter and, in fact, all winter long as the ice is thinner now than it used to be.

    Although global warming has stalled globally since 2001, the ice melt in summer in the Arctic has still been increasing, causing a huge amount of open water that doesn’t completely freeze over again for several months after the solar peak in June-July. With little or no incoming solar in the months September-November, an enormous amount of heat will be radiated away. And even after the Arctic Ocean freezes over again, a lot of heat will continue to escape through ice that is much thinner than it was historically.

    Hopefully, this process will continue to keep operating to keep temperatures down as the amount of arctic melt increases in the summer, but it will max out eventually and
    global temperatures will start rising again if we can’t do anything about the CO2.

  13. Steve Metzler

    5.Gonçalo Aguiar:

    Conclusion: GW is real, but whether or not we’re to blame, is still not settled for many people (yet I’m inclined to confirm that it is).

    This is how science advances, step by step. First we prove beyond (reasonable) doubt that there has been an unprecedented increase (~1 deg C) in global average temperature over a short period of time (60 years). The fake skeptics were accusing scientists of cooking the books. Now that obstacle has been removed (well, I did say you had to be ‘reasonable’, which does unfortunately rule out the hard core deniers/ideologues).

    Next, we try determine the cause of this unprecedented warming. We can find no natural cause that could account for anything but a small fraction of this 1 deg C increase. Over a 60 year period, the cyclical stuff all cancels out (sun cycle is 22 years, ENSO has gone postive and negative many times over that period, etc.) Oh, but wait. We have known since before 1900 that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane can cause a significant amount of outgoing long wave radiation to be ‘trapped’ (actually, the explanation is more complicated than that. Perhaps in a later post I’ll link to a good article. But I don’t want this post to get held up in moderation, and I have a meeting to attend in 15 min).

    Sure enough, if you plot the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase vs. temperatures, the correlation is excellent. In fact, we would have seen even more warming to date if it were not for the fact that all that coal and such that we collectively burn throws gigatonnes of aerosols into the atmosphere as well as gigatonnes of CO2, and the aerosols have an offsetting cooling effect.

    However, people will always see opportunities to make profit out of any situation. Carbon Tax is their weapon; climate change and global warming is their excuse.

    Not so. A properly implemented carbon tax, like James Hansen’s proposed ‘fee and dividend’, puts money right back into the hands of the people, essentially cutting government and the Wall St. fat cats out of the equation. Plus, it creates funds that can be used to research alternate forms of energy production besides fossil fuels. Win!

  14. Messier Tidy Upper

    But, as I have been saying all along, there will never be a “crossing the finish line” moment. Whether it’s the Moon Hoax, or vaccines causing autism, or psychics talking to the dead, or climate change denial, this will be a continuing fight. It’s tiring, I know. But we should remember the words of Andrew Jackson: “… Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.”

    Well, yes, but I think that – like the Tea Party – Climate Contrarianism is fading away and in steep decline.

    I think reality is gradually – but with a growing momentum – winning out on Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating.

    The evidence for HIRGO keeps piling up often in calamitiously dramatic form (*cough, Texas drought and wildfires*, cough) whilst the “arguments” against it get more conclusively and frequently debunked and sound ever stupider every day.

    Sure there’s still the odd Flat Earther around but there gets to be a point where their numbers and evident wrongness make them more objects for mild laughter and pity than serious concern.

  15. TheBlackCat

    “We know that the CO2 concentration has been continuing its steady rise since 2001, so what has been happening?”

    Two words: sunspot cycle. The last decade or so was the deepest and longest solar minimum on record, yet there actually was a statistically significant warming over the last 11 years or so.

  16. TheBlackCat

    “Well, yes but I think like the Tea Party, Climate Contrarianism is fading away and in steep decline.”

    Of course, it isn’t like every plausible Republican presidential candidate is a climate change denialist. Oh wait…

  17. Messier Tidy Upper

    Memo for the contrarians who may be thinking of posting here. Please check :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    &

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#sense

    &

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=potholer54+climate+change&aq=5s&oq=Potholer+54

    Before making fools of yourselves by posting something silly that has been thoroughly debunked 100 times already. For your own sakes please.

  18. I have to agree with Goncalo (I dont know how you make that little squiggly C). I’m not sure how many skeptics say that the earth isnt warming (I know a few still do). The biggest claims are:

    1) its natural
    2) economic impact of doing something about it is worse than adapting to it

    Sadly, this report does nothing with regard to those two qualms.

    Maybe the Koch brothers will fund two more studies.

  19. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ techskeptic : “I dont know how you make that little squiggly C.”

    Cut’n’paste? Let’s see : Gonçalo Aguiar.

    Looks like that works. :-)

    @14. TheBlackCat :

    “Well, yes but I think like the Tea Party, Climate Contrarianism is fading away and in steep decline.”
    Of course, it isn’t like every plausible Republican presidential candidate is a climate change denialist. Oh wait…

    John Huntsman?

    Mitt Romney?

    Yeah, I know Romney apparently had to retract something he said that was halfway sane on the HIRGO issue to keep his political “base” and his campaign viable. But deep down (don’t say it too loud!) I think he knows better and will be a reasonable moderate Republican president.

    Obama, OTOH, may talk the talk but with a hostile Congress I understand he cannot walk the walk or do anything about his beliefs.

    A moderate Republican president probably has a better chance of acting as a metaphorical circuit breaker and getting the United States to accept the scientific consensus about HIRGO and actually act on it than a Democratic President does, ironic (correct word usage?) as that may seem.

    Blind partisanship has been one of the biggest wreckers & obstacles here.

    I think it’s already looking fairly clear that Romney will be the 2012 Republican Candidate against Obama. With Obama we ‘ll have the same situation now wont we? At least until and unless Congress changes. With a moderate Republican President *and* a Republican Congress I think – hope – things can actually really improve albiet maybe not as far and fast as would be ideal.

    Perhaps I’m mistaken about this, I know there’s still a long way to go, but I hope not. I really doubt Rick perry or Michelle Bachmann or even Herman Cain(e?) are likely winners of the GOP-2012-Nomination.

    @16. techskeptic :

    The biggest claims are:
    1) its natural
    2) economic impact of doing something about it is worse than adapting to it
    Sadly, this report does nothing with regard to those two qualms.

    But both those claims *have* been widely debunked elsewhere! ;-)

  20. This is awesome. As a former skeptic, this is the study I’ve been waiting for. Thorough, transparent and complete. Fives times anyone else’s sample, confirmed by random re-sampling. Excellent job.

    And its doesn’t surprise me that a Koch-funded study confirmed this. They are not as evil as their somewhat hysterical critics like to think.

  21. Dan,

    “His signing of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 does not taint everything he did or said in his life”

    unless you are an american indian or have indian ancestry, in which case it rightly does taint everything he did or said in his life. Osama bin laden built schools and roads in impoverished towns.

    (ah you see what I did there? I avoided a godwin)

  22. Daniel J. Andrews

    I feel somewhat less charitable toward Dr. Muller. He gave a series of lectures taking stolen emails and misquoting them/cherry-picking them, even though these misquotes had been comprehensively and thoroughly debunked many times before he (mis)used them. He also spread a few more denier-talking points (also long debunked). Why he did that is speculation.

    See
    climatecrocks.com/2011/04/28/unwinding-hide-the-decline/

    Dr. Muller and his project come in around 10 minutes (although you may want to watch the first 10 minutes to get context).

    On the other hand, his team did follow the evidence and willingly or unwillingly, he presented the results. There were deniers who stated they’d accept his results even if they contradicted their (the deniers’) beliefs. Of course, once his results did contradict their beliefs, they backpedaled simply because their beliefs are just that–beliefs, and therefore impervious to any contradictory evidence.

  23. Messier,

    I still would have liked to have learne dhow to make that C.

    Totally agree with you on the hunstman issue. Why oh Why oh Why cant they promote that guy. He is a fiscal conservative a la Ron Paul without all the kookoo bananas stuff. If he was against Obama, the GOP base would still vote for him as he would be the closest to their sterotypical values. Lots of independants would vote for him. And people who have voted democrat traditionally like me becuase republicans have been kookoo for almost as long as I have been voting, would vote for him. It would be an easy win for him.

    But no, we will have two bad choices again. Although our nobel peace prize winner, hope and change president does seem to be pretty good at getting violent dictators dethroned through the use of violence.

  24. SLC

    Re Daniel Snyder @ #3

    The first course in physics that I took as a freshman at UC Berkeley a million years ago was taught by one of the co-authors of the report, Prof. Arthur Rosenfeld.

  25. Theron

    @ Gonçalo Aguiar

    The name of the party is the DemocratIC party. At some point, Fox “News” decided it was un-American to call that party by its proper name. It’s a useful tell when people use the Fox terminology, as that lets me know whose opinion is likely to be based on nonsense.

  26. SLC

    Re Daniel J. Andrews @ #19

    Anthony Watts, I’m looking at you.

  27. Messier Tidy Upper

    @21. techskeptic :

    I still would have liked to have learned how to make that C.

    If I knew how myself I’d tell you. Maybe you need a special keyboard?

    Totally agree with you on the Hunstman issue. Why oh Why oh Why cant they promote that guy.

    Huntsman would be ideal, yeah. If only.

    I do think politics does by nature tend to correct itself and seek the middle ground eventually. Extremists always cheese too many people off eventually and I think people do want reasonable politicians rather than those at the distal ends of either Left or Right political spectrum. Although I must confess I find it hard to support this claim with a huge amount of evidence. Alas. :-(

    I dunno. Politics is just, well, a very depressing and frustrating field of discussion which really doesn’t hold many good answers. No ideology, no political party, no politician is perfect or the ideal answer for (almost) anything.

    But no, we will have two bad choices again.

    Is Mitt Romney really that bad?

    I’m no fan of any of them but he and Obama seem the lesser evils of the lot of them – Huntsman aside.

    Is there any possibilty if he looks politically doomed enough Obama will be challenged from within the Democratic party, say by Hilary Clinton?

  28. “(I dont know how you make that little squiggly C)”

    If you have Microsoft Word click the Insert Menu then Symbol…

    The Dialog Window that opens has ASCII codes for every printable character. Make sure you have ASCII (decimal) selected in the “From” drop down.

    Select the character you want to insert and the ASCII code will appear at the bottom of the window.

    If you know the codes you can turn on Num Lock, press and hold the ALT key and then type the code in 0000 format.

    In other words, ASCII 140 is Œ. So you hold ALT and type 0140.

    Here’s a list of ASCII codes: http://www.ascii-code.com/

    Of course you can always just insert the character in Word then copy and paste it to where ever you need it (web form or whatever). But if you use a certain special character a lot you’ll eventually have some of the codes memorized and it’s a lot faster to just type the four digit code.

  29. Nigel Depledge

    Independent of what?

    And why is its independence a big deal?

  30. QuietDesperation

    ah you see what I did there? I avoided a godwin

    By invoking Bin Laden.

    He avoided a Godwin.

    Not wanting the German.

    He went with a turban.

    Burma shave.

  31. QuietDesperation

    In other words, ASCII 140 is Œ. So you hold ALT and type 0140.

    •••• HTML symbol entities are better. ••••

    ♠♣ And don’t require a Microsoft product. ♥♦

    ∞⊗∑π∫∇ℜ

  32. Daniel J. Andrews

    Peter Jackson @10. You’re recycling a typical denier meme that global warming stopped in 2001 (also claims that it stopped in 1995, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2010*. In less than five years people will be saying it stopped in 2011). Ten year trends aren’t reliable enough to tell what is happening, although perhaps you could tell us what the trend is (positive, negative), what the significance level is, which of the data sets you used to calculate that warming has stopped in 2001, and why you chose 2001 as opposed to, say, 2000? And if you didn’t do the calculations yourself, where did you get your statement?

    *see skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

  33. Luis Dias

    Ok, let’s all be silly and quote a denier, shall we, mr. Plait?

    (Because it’s so funny to quote extremists, innit?)

    The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy’s Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.

    Using data from all these poor stations, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates an average global 0.64oC temperature rise in the past 50 years, “most” of which the IPCC says is due to humans. Yet the margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.

    (…)

    The number of named hurricanes has been on the rise for years, but that’s in part a result of better detection technologies (satellites and buoys) that find storms in remote regions. The number of hurricanes hitting the U.S., even more intense Category 4 and 5 storms, has been gradually decreasing since 1850. The number of detected tornadoes has been increasing, possibly because radar technology has improved, but the number that touch down and cause damage has been decreasing. Meanwhile, the short-term variability in U.S. surface temperatures has been decreasing since 1800, suggesting a more stable climate.

    (…)

    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 1-2oC, much greater than the IPCC’s average of 0.64oC.

    (…)

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

    This guy is really a denialist, ain’t he, mr Plait?

    Oh, wait, did I just quote dr. Richard frakking Muller, the head of BEST research study??!?

    Oh I did.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html#printMode

    Did you hear that sound over your head, mr Plait? It was the whole real discussion taking place about global warming.

  34. Nigel Depledge

    Mike (5) said:

    It comes down to a matter of who you trust. So, until such time as this subject is moved out of the political arena and strictly into the scientific, I will not be able to take any study, from either slant, seriously. This subject should have never been politicized to begin with. Now it will take time to remake it into something that the public will judge as being legit.

    What a truly cynical viewpoint.

    Most of the work done on AGW in the 1970s and early ’80s was done before there was any politicisation of the issue. After all, it was only after the case for AGW started to look pretty solid that the fossil fuel companies started to throw their money at anyone who would stand up and state a contrary view.

    So, why is it that you mistrust the entire climate science community (apart from the 2 – 3 % of climate scientists who disagree with the 97 – 98 %)?

    And, please, don’t trot out that old lie about skewing the figures to get grants coming in. If a scientist wanted to earn big bucks, they would never have gone int oscience in the first place. Any scientists who commit fraud in grant applications will generally ruin their own career in so doing.

  35. QuietDesperation. I know a Microsoft product isn’t needed. All you need is a list of codes such as at the link I provided. I just threw in MS Word because a ton of people have it so the codes are already easily available. How are HTML codes better if you want to put a special character in Notepad or whatever?

  36. Nigel Depledge

    Gonçalo Aguiar (7) said:

    Ok this is interesting but there are many things here I’d like to point out:

    1) Global warming is REAL, everyone by now should be aware of that. The main skeptical issue is, are we to blame or something else?

    Not really. This has been pretty much settled for most of the last 15 years.

    No natural source of CO2 or methane can account for the observed increases in atmospheric concentration of GHGs. Yet human activities can account for these gases.

  37. QuietDesperation

    How are HTML codes better

    Bèττer fõr ωêβ cömméntîng.

  38. Brian Inman

    Why is it that the focus is on the last 50 or even 80 years as if it is the benchmark of a Utopian climate?
    The earth’s climate has been changing forever with or without the influence of man.
    So ask yourself what is the best global average temperature?
    Michael Griffin may have been right when he said, “I guess I would ask which human beings – where and when – are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
    Most people are ready to jump on the being green band wagon, until it comes to their own sacrifices and comfort. I will bet everyone on here did absolutely ZERO today to make their own carbon footprint smaller than it was the day before.
    It’s odd, it’s like people that are for the death penalty that are against abortion. People that don’t like climate change and and don’t want humans messing with the climate but at the same time are for stem cell research. Does that make any sense to anyone.
    Hey I am just rambling here. My own two cents is “what have we got to lose by controlling some CO2″ If we are wrong and it is not man made global warming we are not any worse off than we were before. So green on,

  39. Jon S.

    Cool! Looks like temperatures have stabilized since 2000.

    Also, see this interesting perspective…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/

  40. DigitalAxis

    I’d say there are two particularly remarkable things about this study that might actually change people’s minds.

    First, the study was done by physicists, not climatologists. On the one hand, climatologists are FAR better equipped to actually study climate so I would tend to mistrust a physcist’s conclusions; on the other hand, I’ve had MANY arguments with anti-GW and anti-evolution people who hate chemists, biologists, climateologists, etc but attempt to make an exception for physicists. (because the science is ‘purer’? or ‘uncorrupted’?… though maybe it’s because I’ve got a physics degree and they don’t want to start that kind of fight)

    Second, the study was funded by the Koch brothers. I’m sure a lot of the denialists would count them as reliable sources, on their ideological side. Is this an “only Nixon could go to China” moment?

  41. Messier Tidy Upper

    @16. techskeptic :

    The biggest claims are:
    1) its natural

    See :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL4957F2ACA87CF1B1

    &

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

    for good examples that debunk that ‘un.

    2) economic impact of doing something about it is worse than adapting to it.

    Ah yes, the Bjorn Lomberg line. Regarding that I have to agree with & quote what George Monbiot said :

    “… is it really possible to place an economic price on human life? Or on an ecosystem, or on the climate? Could such costs, when rolled out around the world, really be deemed to amount to $ 4,820 billion [Lomberg’s suggested figure – ed], give or take the odd dollar? If you believe the answer is yes then I charge that you have spent too much time with your calculator and not enough with human beings. When economists have tried to cost such things, they have simply exposed the limitations of their science. [Which I consider a pseudo-science rather than an actual science – ed.] … their figures [& Lomberg’s] were not just wrong; they were meaningless.”

    -Page 50, ‘Heat’, George Monbiot, Penguin, 2006. [Brackets added.]

    Remember here too that climate change is open-ended and doesn’t stop at any conveniently calculated point – the consequences of HIRGO are irreversible (probably) and have a thermal inertial lag attached. Some of these consequences of HIRGO are going to be unforseen right now and will likely pop up and suprise us unpleasantly.

    IOW. It keeps getting worse esp., if certain feedbacks and tipping points are reached – and we can’t really calculate exactly when these will be or what the ultimate consequences may be.

    Is it a risk we should take – or should we take reasonable measures that we need to take anyhow to face the Peak Oil problem and that, in any case, often improve our quality of life?

    In addition see this link :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

    via Skeptical Science.

    I may add that my nation of Australia has just last week (or so) after a very long and politically damaging debate passed a carbon tax into law.

  42. nigel,

    No natural source of CO2 or methane can account for the observed increases in atmospheric concentration of GHGs. Yet human activities can account for these gases.

    I’m afraid it is more complicated than that. The reasons you can make a statement like that is because when you say “can account for” that means “our models says so”. The counter claim is that the models are not accurate either by bad data, fitting coefficients to short data sets, etc etc. If you dont beleive the models or that we can accurately model climate at all, then you would never agree wth your statement.

    I am not a denialist, but I do try very hard to understand and filter their substantive claims from their stupid ones (too bad the ratio is so low).

  43. TheBlackCat

    The reasons you can make a statement like that is because when you say “can account for” that means “our models says so”.

    No, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with models. We know the sources of atmospheric GHGs from direct measurements of carbon isotope ratios and basic principles of radioactive decay.

  44. KC

    The real question: Is it anthropogenic?

  45. Blargh

    Global warming is REAL, everyone by now should be aware of that. The main skeptical issue is, are we to blame or something else?

    Shifted goal posts.
    The denial started out as “climate change isn’t real”. When that started becoming indefensible, it shifted towards “climate change is real, but it’s not anthropogenic”. Currently, we’re seeing a shift towards “climate change is real, anthropogenic, but too expensive/difficult to do anything about”.

  46. @^ Blargh : Yes and I guess we can expect the next line to be the despair one of “..its too late now and we’re doomed so we might as well keep going anyhow.” :-(

    Which of course has the key flaw that when a crash is inevitable it is still better to slow the car down and hit at a reduced speed rather than not do so and suffer far worse damage and injuries.

    @45. KC. The real answer : Yes it is indeed anthropogenic. :roll:

    Click on my name here for a clip that clearly and briefly (about two & half minutes) shows why we know that presented by Sir David Attenborough.

    Plus please take a look at the links provided in comment #20 above.

    If you disagree with the evidence and expert climatologists given in those sources showing why the current Rapid Global Overheating *is* Human Induced then you are making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Can you offer any?

    @ 44. TheBlackCat :

    No, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with models. We know the sources of atmospheric GHGs from direct measurements of carbon isotope ratios and basic principles of radioactive decay.

    IOW, Spectroscopic evidence – the same way we classify star types correct? ;-)

  47. Eric

    I’ve read a fair bit about how the earth is warming up and this causing the ice caps to melt and so forth. What’s the big deal here? So the ocean rises a bit and we lost a bit of land mass. I don’t understand the real problem with the earth warming up. Does someone have a link to that answer?

    Another note, following up with techskeptic, how do we know humans are responsible? I’ve seen lots of graphs showing a correlation with the rise in temperature with the advent of the industrial revolution and CO2 emissions, but until someone can show me how it happened, I’m gonna call “post hoc ergo proptor hoc”. The problem, here’s the techskeptic part, how do we know the models are right?

  48. abadidea

    “… Eternal vigilance …”

    Huh, I always thought it was Mad-Eye Moody who said that.

  49. Steve Metzler

    44. KC Says:

    The real question: Is it anthropogenic?

    See 43. TheBlackCat. Yes, it is, and we can prove it is (the isotope ratio of C13/C12 in the atmospheric CO2 is consistent with that produced by burning fossil fuels).

    Before the industrial revolution there was a balance between the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by nature, and the amount removed be nature. Now we are pouring so much man-made CO2 into the atmosphere that nature can no longer remove all of it (less than half of it is removed, but that is leading to increased ocean acidification, another serious problem caused by mankind), so it is piling up. We have been accurately measuring the CO2 concentration since the 50’s, and the rate of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is accelerating.

    ETA: why do the fake skeptics here keep bringing up models? (that’s a rhetorical question, by the way. I know why they are :-)) We’re talking about direct measurements here, both of warming and CO2. The models, OTOH, are useful for predicting *how much* warming we can expect in the future if we continue our ‘business as usual’ practice of fossil fuel burning.

  50. Guy

    It’s hard for people to grasp the severity of the potential consequences of AGW. If we continue with business as usual, AGW is going to have a much more dramatic impact than installing a huge dam or carving out a canal. The effects will happen on a global scale and impact everyone.

    It is amazing to me that some popular media outlets are still pushing calls for more debate when what we need is a call to action. Global Warming is this generation’s WWII.

  51. tmac57

    Knock knock
    Who’s there?
    Koch brothers.
    Koch brothers who?
    Koch brothers say give us our damn money back Muller!!!

  52. 52. Eric :

    I’ve read a fair bit about how the earth is warming up and this causing the ice caps to melt and so forth. What’s the big deal here? So the ocean rises a bit and we lost a bit of land mass. I don’t understand the real problem with the earth warming up. Does someone have a link to that answer?

    You called? ;-)

    See :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=27

    &

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

    &

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVh7z-0oo6o&feature=related

    & for a more imaginative take on things that are nonetheless rather thought provoking click on my name. (I won’t vouch for the accuracy of all of the predictions made in that last/ first /only name-linked one but the starting comment is spot on.)

  53. Luis Dias (37): I don’t think I missed the discussion. But it’s clear you did. Or did you happen to accidentally leave off this statement by Muller in the very article you linked to:

    “Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.”

    … whereupon he then writes about all the reasons this study does in fact show that global warming is real.

    Or did you not read the entire article, so you missed the very last line of it, which says:

    “Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”

    Oh wait, you did read that last part, because you quoted it. Except somehow, you left those two sentences out of what you wrote. Those ellipses you put in just before the quote are, in this case, rather important. In that you edited out the basic and most important results of the study.

    If you want to keep denying the reality of global warming, you have that right. But I suggest you not cherry pick quotations from an article that shows that what you wrote is precisely wrong.

  54. EdF

    If this study was conducted by scientists (which it was), then it will not be “independent” to the crows you’re trying to convince. I fret you’re just preaching to the choir here. We need a combination of evangelical preachers and oil company executives to commission a study that reaches the same conclusion.

  55. Also, (#52) Eric, you may want to take a look at this one :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffsux-ifKk&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=45

    & this one :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI&feature=related

    Plus this one :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NJEouqefis&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=48

    Well you did ask! ;-)

    I would also strongly recommend reading Mark Lyna’s 2007 book ‘Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet’ on the consequences of HIRGO which I have now linked to my name for this post.

    But now will you actually watch and appreciate and understand what you’ve been shown? I wonder. I hope you do but I do find I’m doubting your good faith in asking your question somewhat.

  56. TheBlackCat

    So the ocean rises a bit and we lost a bit of land mass.

    “A bit of land mass” that happens to include most of the world’s major metropolitan areas (we have had the unfortunate habit of building major cities around ports, which are generally near the ocean). Some island countries will disappear completely.

    I don’t understand the real problem with the earth warming up. Does someone have a link to that answer?

    Some possible (or probably likely) examples include: increased desertification of major crop-groing areas, increased severe weather, increased wildfires, increased range of tropical diseases, crop failure, extinction of species, and displacement of large numbers of people due to one or more of these factors. Ever heard of the dust bowl?

  57. I strongly respect the hard sciences and the power of aggregate knowledge. Unfortunately, not too many of my fellow conservatives are going to be swayed by anything with Berkeley’s name on it.

  58. OtherRob

    53. @ abadidea, #53

    “… Eternal vigilance …”

    Huh, I always thought it was Mad-Eye Moody who said that.

    Mad-Eye says, “Constant vigilance!”

    And, yes, this is probably my biggest contribution to this thread…

  59. DanVeteran

    A question from a reformed denier. How much do we have to reduce our CO2 output to bring the climate back into “balance” and stop/reverse global warming?

  60. Keith Bowden

    I would love to see Andrew Jackson removed from our money. (I’ve been vainly hoping for that ever since I read Trail of Tears).

    I honestly think that the biggest reason some people fight so hard against accepting the realities of HIRGO (both those who deny and those who accept it) are that the brakes are off the wagon, we’re still heading downhill and we have to find another way to slow down before we crash. By that convoluted metaphor, I mean that even if we could magically stop adding to the problem world-wide at this instant, things are going to get worse before they get better because we have the momentum of the problem. Like the economy, it took a long time for the problem to build to it’s current state, so it’s gonna take a while to fix it.

    For my part, I’ve always tried to keep my consumption/waste to a minimum, for financial as well as “green” reasons. Until the rate hikes over the past couple of years, my average monthly electricity bill for my apartment was under $18 (it’s just me there). It averages $25 or so now. (I do not understand people who leave multiple televisions on all the time – all night long and when they’re away from home but complain about their bills.) My weekly trash usually fills only a single plastic grocery bag, which I use instead of buying large plastic garbage bags, but again, I’m a single man.

    I walk and take public transportation most of the time. I’m not a nut about “going green”, the things I do just make sense to me and are convenient. (I also read all the time, so the walks and public transportation add to my reading time. :) Ah-HA! It’s all about ME! Bwa-hahahaha!)

  61. Beelzebud

    What this should teach all rational people is that the deniers will perpetually move the goal posts.

    Hell, now they’re even distancing themselves from Muller, when just a few months ago, they supported him because they thought he’d end up agreeing with them.

    My favorite reaction has been from a certain former Harvard string theorist. Perhaps he should spend more efforts on the “science” of string theory, and leave climate science to the experts.

  62. Brian Inman

    It’s really fun to read this back and forth. But NO one, not one single person on here is really helping their cause.
    Showing links to videos of Richard Alley surely is not helping your cause.
    The argument of losing some ocean front property or the City of New York being flooded, Ever heard of Venice Italy?
    The world changes the continents move the shorelines change, you can’t stop that from happening. PANGEA……..The answers are not to argue about who is responsible, but really to question how can we live in a changing world.
    Dude the “Dust Bowl” really!!!!!

  63. Eric:

    Please tell me you are engaged in satire.

    If not, go read up on websites such as Skeptical Science. Their introductory pages outline the evidence showing why we know the Earth is warming, why it’s human-caused, and why it’s a very big deal.

    (If I may engage in some self-promotion, the link in my name goes to a blog, the most recent post of which summarizes the evidence for global warming as well.)

  64. Pete Jackson

    @36Daniel: My source for 2001 as the date that the global warming stopped (or, at least, paused) is the nice graph that Phil has posted at the beginning of this entry. Take a look at it.

  65. Re Jackson: He was also a liar, or… he made claims of being one of the Virginia militia assigned to Kentucky during the trial of Daniel Boone(’78)… clearly an impossibility. Unless he was lying about his birth. And as Allan Eckert explains in his book “Tecumseh: a sorrow in our heart”, Something doesn’t add up– either he was a liar, or he was ineligible for the presidency.

    Too, he also conducted genocidal actions against the tribes of Florida and Alabama.

    A true American scumbag criminal ( “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” ) that should be reviled, not celebrated.

  66. Messier,

    I still would have liked to have learne dhow to make that C.

    If you know the codes you can turn on Num Lock, press and hold the ALT key and then type the code in 0000 format.

    Alt-0231

    ç

  67. QuietDesperation

    or type &ccedil followed by a semicolon. Capitalize the first “c” for a capital.

    ç Ç

    Will work on any decent web message board without opening another program.

  68. ND

    Luis Dias gave us an excellent example of dishonest debating. It’s infuriating and yet puzzling on how they think they can get away with it. The article they’re quoting is right there for everyone to read!!! It’s either a mental disorder or they get paid to make such “arguments”. I can’t think of anything in between to explain it.

  69. ND

    “only Nixon could go to China”

    … and only Nixon could propose an environmental protection agency.

  70. I’m using Portuguese keyboard so it’s easy to type the ç Ç on my name. :P

    @40. Nigel Depledge

    “Not really. This has been pretty much settled for most of the last 15 years.

    No natural source of CO2 or methane can account for the observed increases in atmospheric concentration of GHGs. Yet human activities can account for these gases.”

    What I meant was:

    1) Global warming is REAL, everyone by now should be aware of that. The main DENIER issue is, are we to blame or something else?

    Replaced skeptical with denier. Deniers occasionally will also go back to the: “it can’t be warming, it’s freaking cold out here” argument, but the main thing is that we’re not to blame.

  71. Luis Dias

    … whereupon he then writes about all the reasons this study does in fact show that global warming is real.

    Of course he does! The point that you have been missing all over these years however is that you confuse one single statement of fact that is scientifically valid to take – i.e., that the globe has warmed up -+ 1 degree celcius the last century with all the other statements of either fact, or of speculation or of policy that go with the whole package that is now called “Anthropogenical Global Warming”.

    The result of this study is pretty much uncontroversial even in “radical denialist” places, perhaps with the sole exception of Anthony Watts who had an axe to grind here (curiously, this guy is given a lot more respect by the BEST team than by you or other bloggers fuming to get the “deniers” in their “rightful place” whatever that is), specially given the fact that the raw source of the data is exactly the same of GISS and others…

    So when bloggers, newspapers and many other places point to this study and just say “AHAH! now those deniers have to shut up about everything” is ridiculous.

    Mr Phil, you made a blog post recently about the issues of science communication. Pay attention to this point that you are missing entirely. When lay people like Rick Perry (and I won’t discuss his overall silliness, just this detail) talk about scientists “making up” evidence for global warming they aren’t speaking solely about the pure fact that the globe is warming. They are talking about the whole package that to their minds is stickied and glued together in flimsy and dishonest ways (if they are actually is another discussion entirely).

    This package includes the following notions / facts:

    – The globe is warming;
    – CO2 primarily didit;
    – Man is primarily contributing to this CO2 excess;
    – A warmer globe is “bad”;
    – A warmer globe is “killing lots of people”;
    – A warmer globe is making huge hurricanes (read: Katrina et al), huge snowfalls, etc;
    – Humans are the reason why the weather is bad;
    – Take down CO2 should be followed as a policy;
    – Energy revolution for a solution of CO2 free alternatives is preferable to cheap affordable energy by everyone;
    – etc.

    As you see, when a lay person states something about “Global Warming” they are thinking about this whole package (and also thinking about the huge corruption named “carbon cap and trade” and other policy cul de sacs, etc.). And so it goes that when you point to a simple temperature graph and say “SEEE ? It’s ALL True!”, you won’t be listened.

    And rightly so. You still have a lot of work still ahead of you.

  72. Luis Dias

    ND, chill out. You don’t know what I am talking about so if you don’t mind try not to boil up too soon.

  73. Greg

    Of course it’s real and it’s currently being caused by all the hot air being spewed forth from all the denialists!

  74. amphiox

    With Obama we ‘ll have the same situation now wont we? At least until and unless Congress changes.

    Don’t forget that the presidential election is not the only election in 2012. You can change Congress, too. Re-electing Obama and giving him a Democratic house and a Democratic, super-majority Congress (that’s the biggest key) is the best bet.

    A republican president, moderate or not, with a republican house and a republican senate super-majority would be a disaster.

    A republican president with anything else will likely be tit-for-tatted by a filibustering democrat progressive caucus in the Senate for his entire term. Because if Republican obstructionism succeeds in unseating Obama, the progressive wing of the Democratic party will certainly be pissed enough to return the favor, while the moderate wing of the Democratic party (whose only guiding light is basically crass political pragmatism), will see that such obstructionism works, politically, and will be falling all over themselves to adopt it. And the US will be stuck with obstructionism pretty much forever, until one party wins a combined majority so large they can act as pretty much a dictator for the next election cycle.

    If the American people are truly sick of the political obstructionism and want it stopped, they must not reward the party that engages in it.

    And Huntsman really needs to switch parties and run as a Democrat in 2016. It’s his only chance.

  75. amphiox

    1) Global warming is REAL, everyone by now should be aware of that. The main DENIER issue is, are we to blame or something else?

    The deniers have the standard moving goalpost conveyor belt going here that all deniers of anything use.

    First, it’s “it’s not really happening”.

    Then, if that becomes untenable, it’s “but we’re not really causing it”.

    Then, if that becomes untenable, it’s “but even we are causing it won’t be so bad after all”.

    Then, if that becomes untenable, it’s “but trying to fix it will cause more harm than just adapting, anyways”.

    It’s a blatantly intellectually dishonest exercise.

  76. Brian Inman

    It’s great when everyone can explain someone else’s thought process but can not articulate their own.
    Why focus on a 30 year average?
    Why not look at the whole picture?
    Al Gore sycophants keep changing the story, why?
    The only thing that is intellectually dishonest is to deny the debate. If you are right what have you got to lose.
    Argue your strengths not your weaknesses.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

  77. amphiox

    The globe is warming;

    True.

    CO2 primarily didit;

    True for any reasonable definition of “primarily”.

    Man is primarily contributing to this CO2 excess;

    True.

    A warmer globe is “bad”;

    Probably broadly true, for humans and the species we care most about.

    More specifically, the transition from a cooler to a warmer globe will most likely be “bad”.

    A warmer globe is “killing lots of people”;

    True.

    A warmer globe is making huge hurricanes (read: Katrina et al), huge snowfalls, etc;

    Complicated. But these days it is the deniers who try to bring this up, knowing that the complexity and confusing helps their rhetoric. In other words, it is raised with intellectually dishonest intentions.

    Humans are the reason why the weather is bad;

    An irrelevant caricature, but again, it was the deniers who introduced this caricature of the real science into the public awareness, deliberately to use it to discredit the science.

    Take down CO2 should be followed as a policy;

    Policy issues are political questions, not scientific ones.

    Energy revolution for a solution of CO2 free alternatives is preferable to cheap affordable energy by everyone;

    Firstly, we DON’T have cheap energy affordable by everyone right now, and we never did.

    Secondly, the above is inevitable. Either we do it deliberately in a planned manner, or it will be forced upon us by necessity and will occur in a haphazard manner, sooner rather than later.

    The political question is, which alternative do we prefer?

  78. boardin1

    I know that the Koch Brothers are “public enemy #1″ in a lot of areas but they do grant a lot of money to a lot of groups; PBS being a big one. So while I’m surprised that they would willing fund a study that has a high probability of countering one of their beliefs, I can’t say I’m surprised that some of their money made it into the grant that made this possible.

  79. Gary

    Uh, guess what. Skeptics who know the data agree there’s been overall warming of land stations since 1850. That hasn’t been in dispute for years. What hasn’t been settled is how much is natural and how much is human-caused. That’s where the debate is and where the evidence is much less sure than even this moth-eaten land surface record that was designed for estimating agricultural growing seasons and not federal endangerment policy. Since BEST finds that a third of the stations have COOLED, it’s clear there’s much more to be resolved than “global warming” – true or false.

  80. TheBlackCat

    Uh, guess what. Skeptics who know the data agree there’s been overall warming of land stations since 1850.

    So you accept that the land stations are warming, but you don’t accept the troposphere itself is warming? Or did you really think you wouldn’t notice that sort of blatant dodge?

    What hasn’t been settled is how much is natural and how much is human-caused. That’s where the debate is and where the evidence is much less sure

    “Much less” probably meaning 99.9% vs 99.999%. Unless you reject basic physics, which some denialists have taken to doing since the neutrino issue.

    than even this moth-eaten land surface record that was designed for estimating agricultural growing seasons and not federal endangerment policy. Since BEST finds that a third of the stations have COOLED, it’s clear there’s much more to be resolved than “global warming” – true or false.

    Uh huh. Sounds like you are really convinced. After all, the fact that you denigrate the evidence every time you mention just reeks of confidence, doesn’t it?

  81. Flash_NYC

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/#comment-431340

    How much do we have to reduce our CO2 output to bring the climate back into “balance” and stop/reverse global warming?

    It’s the same answer given by socialists and communists for generations.

    We need to reduce our CO2 consumption to a level only possible by having all citizens:

    1- Give up their private automobile.
    2- Give up their freedom to heat and cool their house to a temperature that YOU find tolerable either by making the oil/gas/electricity prohibitively expensive, or directly controlling it.
    3- Shutdown and close all factories in Europe and the USA. Yes, these are the least polluting and most efficient factories on the planet, but we can’t have too many middle class people using up so much precious oil/gas/electricity.
    4- Someone’s still got to make stuff, so we may as well open MORE factories in China and India where life is cheap and environmental regulations are non-existent.

    Of course, not everyone will have to abide by the above rules. Members of the Political Class, The Media, certain scientists and academics will still be able to own private automobiles, consume oil/gas/electricity like it’s in infinite supply, (Al Gore e.g.), etc. It will just be a “better planet” now that there are so many fewer people on the roads, and no one will be able to travel unless they have a ticket (trackable) in “the system”.

    What a wonderful world it will be for the privileged few.

  82. tmac57

    BlackCat said-

    …increased desertification of major crop-groing areas,

    Are we talking ‘Brazilian waxing’ or…?

  83. Cheyenne

    @Boardini1 – It’s not that surprising when you know they are libertarian – not “uber conservatives”. They support groups and publications (Reason magazine, CATO, etc) that openly and fairly strongly support drug decriminalization, gay marriage, law enforcement reform, repeal of the Patriot Act – and a host of other issues that the Obama administration doesn’t even support.

  84. Ronald Stepp

    Isn’t absolute certainty in your position also kind of anti-scientific? Just sayin’, some people might call you a climate change denier denier. It seems like I see more and more the climate change supporters doing the same thing to deniers that was being done to them by the deniers. Just sad that the pendulum is swinging so far in the other extreme.

  85. Brian D

    Gary #84:

    Uh, guess what. Skeptics who know the data agree there’s been overall warming of land stations since 1850. That hasn’t been in dispute for years.

    Anthony Watts’ own Surface Stations project has been going on for years, and its primary thesis is that the warming trend in the land stations is an artifact of siting issues (urban heat islands, being placed over tarmac, near air conditioners, etc). He’s been trumpeting this even though it was debunked, both in the literature (Menne et al) and in his own analysis.

    Let me translate: If the warming we see is due to station siting, then it is an illusion and isn’t due to something more natural, and the globe isn’t warming. This is Watts’ primary argument, even to this day. So I think you’re misrepresenting things by claiming everyone agrees the globe is warming.

    He’s not a total fringe nutcase – when, for instance, the Guardian did its first reporting on the BEST results, the first person they quoted was Anthony Watts.

    Speaking of Watts and BEST, when Muller first announced this, Watts was all over it, cheering the project and actually saying:

    I’m prepared to accept whatever result they [BEST] produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.”

    And as soon as the preliminary results appeared to support the consensus viewpoint, he had complaints. And now that the full results have been submitted, he’s backpedaling. He’s now calling it ‘unscientific’ to discuss results before review, despite the fact that Muller is a physicist and physics research is frequently submitted and released to the ArXiV pre-review. Likewise, Watts yelled, for years, about his station siting research before it was even finished, let alone published, and only grew slightly quieter about it when his analysis showed he was wrong! (Oh, and you’ll notice he’s still going on about station siting – i.e. “it’s not warming” – on his update, which he’s got at his top post.)

    Anthony Watts is a perfect example of a pseudoskeptic, a denialist, holding a predetermined conclusion and disputing evidence based upon that belief. Please show yourself to be better than that, and stop dismissing this result – and the vast wealth of independent analyses that support it – by saying “oh, no one believes the world isn’t warming” and moving the goalposts yet again.

  86. This talk of a “Global Average Temperature Anomaly” is, in itself anomalous.

    Painting some as so called “skeptics”, or even “deniers” is fatuous.

    The climate changes, as it always has done, for around 4.5 Billion Years. The “problem” is one of perception, and to do with the Human experience which rarely lasts longer than about 70 years. During the Human lifespan, any particular Human will perceive a “climate change”, this is inevitable.

    The longer a person lives, the more evident it becomes, that there are periods of both warming, and cooling. For younger persons it appears as though there has only been a shift, either upwards or downwards. This is why younger Humans cannot understand the apparent nonchalant attitude of older Humans. As it was, ever shall it be so. This is the tragedy of the Human condition, that it takes so very long to appreciate the reality, that Humans do not control everything in the Universe. This was the lesson of King Canute (Knut) of England.

    Notwithstanding all of the above, there has been a period of warming in the late 20th century, but that warming has now ceased and by all accounts, and empirical measurements a period of cooling seems evident. These warmings and coolings may vary considerably across the Globe, and are not necessarily homologous.

    It is a fact that there are vested interests on both sides whose desire is not to expound the truth, but instead for reasons of embarrassment or avarice actually make statements which are untrue. In many cases they delude even themselves, so as to justify their past and current actions.
    The herd mentality causes mortals of lesser intellect to “choose their champion” and to then follow them without question. No amount of reasoned debate will persuade those so affected, because for them their beliefs are a psuedo-religious experience.

    Much of the “science” related to these matters is both overcomplex and at the same time facile. This seeming paradox is at the root of the left/right paradigm which manifests itself as the “war on climate” vs “laissez-faire”.
    We know that in the past temperature has varied by much more than 1 or 2 degrees, yet with each fraction of a change either up or down, there are myriad scare stories of runaway greenhouse, or catastrophic icehouse.

    Each day at any point on the Planet the temperature varies by much more than the largest predicted so called “global anomaly”. The entire debate is actually in many ways meaningless and hokum, and hinges on a flawed proposition, that rises in CO2 concentrations cause corrsponding rises in the so called “global average temperature” which may be disasterous and , and that Humans are primarily responsible for these rises, neither of which hypotheses are proved. On the balance of the evidence it seems that the reverse is the case, but none of the above precludes the fact that the climate always changes. Get used to it.

    Visit the website linked to my name : watch the videos : don’t rant at me
    It’s only a suggestion, I am not responsible for these videos, but many are compellingly logical.

  87. Dutch Railroader

    @88

    What is it that you want? The BEP has completed an independent analysis of the temperature records, starting from a point of skepticism and concern, but in the end finding exactly what the earlier studies have found. Where is the “denier denier” part? At some point things get pretty damn clear. The deniers have no conflicting studies to offer, only polemics, nit picking and willful blindness… I guess the sin is that some of us get kind of impatient with this… We’ve offered all the proof that we can muster that your house is on fire, but it doesn’t look like you’ll accept it until the whole thing has burnt down around you…

  88. aelfheld

    The issue isn’t whether the planet has been warming – it’s been doing so for centuries – but whether the increase in temperature is the result of natural forces or the result of human activity.

    As there is no reliable evidence of the ‘human activity’ explanation (and what has been passed off as ‘evidence’ has been doctored and/or cherry-picked) it is not unreasonable to lean towards the ‘natural forces’ explanation.

    If that makes me a ‘skeptic’ or a ‘denier’ in your lexicon, so be it. I see no reason to surrender my judgment to those who manufacture evidence in support of their political agenda.

  89. Steve Metzler

    88. Ronald Stepp:

    Isn’t absolute certainty in your position also kind of anti-scientific? Just sayin’, some people might call you a climate change denier denier. It seems like I see more and more the climate change supporters doing the same thing to deniers that was being done to them by the deniers. Just sad that the pendulum is swinging so far in the other extreme.

    Your concern is noted. Frankly, people that can see the reality of the situation we find ourselves in are sick and tired of nearly two decades of inaction caused by deliberate disinformation and obstruction by parties that have vested interests in fossil fuels. The longer we delay taking serious action, the worse the eventual consequences of this inaction will be.

    Granted, the eventual certainty of catastrophic climate change due to our continued use of fossil fuels is not an obvious thing to the person on the street, and that’s what makes it especially dangerous. Big business is not going to willingly sacrifice short term gain for something that is going to hit us, big time, twenty or thirty years down the road (in fact, big business would never sacrifice short term gain for anything, unless it was against their financial interests to do so). Likewise, politicians don’t generally see beyond the next election.

    The looming climate change problems are preventable, but only if we collectively take action soon. Google ‘tragedy of the commons wiki’. We are all in this together. Continuing on our current path of abusing the ecology will cause future generations to curse us forever.

    By the way, most people perceive sea level rise to be the biggest threat posed by AGW, but that’s not the biggest problem by a long shot. What will hit us first is the climate change aspect: areas that we depend on for agriculture, the ‘bread baskets’ of the world, will either get too much rain, or not enough, for extended periods… just as the world population is cresting 9 billion. Not a pretty picture, and it’s already starting to happen: the Mississippi, Colombia, Pakistan, Australia, Russia, Thailand, China, Texas. It’s a wake-up call that we would do well to heed.

  90. Dutch Railroader

    @90 aelfheld

    Is your claim then that the C02 content of the atmosphere has been doctored or manufactured? It has risen from 310 to 390 ppm in the last 50 years, corresponding nicely with the rise in temperature shown above. This is not a surprise – it was predicted to happen decades ago.

    What evidence has been doctored and manufactured? How do you 1) claim that this rise is CO2 has no effect, but then 2) attribute the rise in temperature to an unknown natural mechanism?

  91. First, so I don’t get beat up too badly: Global warming is real, and we humans taking carbon out of the earth and putting it in the atmosphere is the main cause. There is no reasobale question about this. A huge amount of science supports this, as does common sense. How can changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere not have an effect?

    However, as a skeptic, as someone who is skeptical about everything, not just about religion and alternative medicine as so many skeptics seem to be, I have to question the value, and the integrity, of any and all scientific studies that start with a conclusion.

    This study was done to support the conclusion that global warming is real. From the beginning that is what they set out to do. That just isn’t the way it’s supposed to be done. The scientists had a bias, and looked at their data in a biased way. The fact that there bias happens to match reality doesn’t make things any better. Very little honest science is done in the field of environmental change.

    The fact that some conservatives were involved in the funding carries far less weight that the fact that Berkeley is the first word in the name of the group. Many rich people and corporations give money for science and have no condom over what is done. Berkeley, however has almost complete control and would never tollerate anything that didn’t match it’s polical views 100%. The fact that the study is correct is only a happy coincidence.

  92. @ 97. aelfheld

    The issue isn’t whether people get lung cancer – they have been doing so for centuries – but whether contracting lung cancer is the result of natural forces or the result of smoking cigarettes.

    As there is no reliable evidence of the ‘smoking cigarettes’ explanation (and what has been passed off as ‘evidence’ has been doctored and/or cherry-picked) it is not unreasonable to lean towards the ‘natural forces’ explanation.

    If that makes me a ‘skeptic’ or a ‘denier’ in your lexicon, so be it. I see no reason to surrender my judgment to those who manufacture evidence in support of their political agenda.

  93. Dutch Railroader

    @100 VinceRN

    1) The BEP presumed no such conclusion in advance – quite the opposite. Muller had a number of issues with how the earlier temperature analysis was done and was fully prepared to debunk it.

    2) Your statement about “Berkeley” is unsupported. How can you assert something like that? There is no University board that vetted and approved Muller’s work for political content before it was released.

  94. QuietDesperation

    Many rich people and corporations give money for science and have no condom over what is done.

    I know. People really should practice safe science.

  95. Brian D

    VinceRN @100:

    Please read the earliest writings on this project when it came to light that Muller, and especially Curry, were involved with the project. Both of them are, at best, not exactly well-known champions of “consensus”, and they did this project ostensibly because they didn’t trust the existing literature on the field. (Muller is on record attacking climate scientists, for instance, and claiming he left laser physics for climate because he thought it was “easier” (which in scientist parlance is a bit of condescending smack-talk).)

    In fact, Muller himself has been mis-representing the “hide the decline” line for as long as he’s been in the public eye about climate. (This seems to have overcome the “Berkeley Aversion”, since it got him featured repeatedly on Fox News with glowing reviews.) Here’s video evidence of that deception, along with a discussion about that remark. The second half concerns itself with Muller in particular.

  96. Steve Metzler

    97. aelfheld:

    As there is no reliable evidence of the ‘human activity’ explanation (and what has been passed off as ‘evidence’ has been doctored and/or cherry-picked)…

    *facepalm* The isotopic signature of all that extra CO2 that we put in the atmosphere is consistent with that of CO2 created by the burning of fossil fuels. It is not ‘natural’ CO2. Get it?

    If that makes me a ‘skeptic’ or a ‘denier’ in your lexicon, so be it. I see no reason to surrender my judgment to those who manufacture evidence in support of their political agenda.

    *there goes another irony meter*

    The more the evidence for AGW mounts, the more these threads become overwhelmed by the same denier canards that have been debunked ad nauseum. Dealing with the AGW deniers is like a tragi-comic combination of 50 First Dates and Groundhog Day. You can quote me on that.

  97. Grand Lunar

    I wonder if I’ll be seeing this in the mainstream media any time soon.

    Of course, the deniers will come up with any excuse they can.

    I wonder what spin Perry might put on this….

  98. TheBlackCat

    As there is no reliable evidence of the ‘human activity’ explanation

    Please at least glance at the discussion before posting, it just makes you look ignorant when you make a claim that has already been debunked at least a dozen times in the same discussion you are posting in.

  99. TheBlackCat

    Notwithstanding all of the above, there has been a period of warming in the late 20th century, but that warming has now ceased and by all accounts, and empirical measurements a period of cooling seems evident.

    This is a flat-out lie. Not only has the planet not cooled despite being in the deepest and longest solar minimum on record, there has still been significant warming in the last 11 years. Further, the 2000’s was the warmest decade on record, the 90’s were the second, and the 80’s the third. All evidence points to a continued warming.

  100. Beelzebud

    Just look at how far out those goal posts got moved in this thread alone. These people are reality deniers.

  101. Joseph G

    @88 Flash NYC: 1- Give up their private automobile.
    2- Give up their freedom to heat and cool their house to a temperature that YOU find tolerable either by making the oil/gas/electricity prohibitively expensive, or directly controlling it.
    3- Shutdown and close all factories in Europe and the USA. Yes, these are the least polluting and most efficient factories on the planet, but we can’t have too many middle class people using up so much precious oil/gas/electricity.
    4- Someone’s still got to make stuff, so we may as well open MORE factories in China and India where life is cheap and environmental regulations are non-existent.

    Of course, not everyone will have to abide by the above rules. Members of the Political Class, The Media, certain scientists and academics will still be able to own private automobiles, consume oil/gas/electricity like it’s in infinite supply, (Al Gore e.g.), etc. It will just be a “better planet” now that there are so many fewer people on the roads, and no one will be able to travel unless they have a ticket (trackable) in “the system”.

    What a wonderful world it will be for the privileged few.

    I’ve always wanted a chance to ask someone this: when you make your hats, is it preferable to have the shiny side facing out or in? Also, is Reynold’s Wrap the best brand, or can you get away with the generic foil?

  102. John Sandlin

    @Joseph #111…

    It’s funny how people like Flash are making Socialists and Communists look good by comparison.

    No one wants to make us all go back to the 1700’s. What is asked is that we use alternative energy that doesn’t increase warming. Right now most utilities want to control power not because of global climate change but because the infrastructure can’t handle the unmanaged consumption currently the norm.

    No one wants to shut down all the factories in the US and Europe. What is asked as that we make them as efficient and use as much alternative energy as possible.

    Certainly no one in the US is suggesting we export all manufacturing to China. But the sad fact is that US Businesses are doing so anyway, not for energy reasons, but for economic reasons. It’s cheaper to do business there. Most of the people pushing for global energy reforms especially want China and India to adopt clean energy.

    Talk about your strawmen! But Flash isn’t listening, none of the deniers are. We’ll keep running along as we are already and use up the resources until forced to change because the resources are no longer available. That’s how humans roll.

    jbs

  103. Ryan

    Why do they always average against only the past few decades? Why not average out over a much longer period of time?

  104. Theron

    Dear Deniers:

    When we have to spend trillions on sea walls around all our major coastal cities, you’ll be getting a bill.

    Cheers.

  105. Brian D

    @Ryan 113:

    That’s not actually an average. They’re computing “anomaly”, which is a fancy-schmancy way of saying “relative to some baseline”.

    Different temperature records use different baselines, which basically means they’re on slightly different (but easily converted-between) scales, sort of like between Celsius and Kelvin. Since all the baselines are the same length (30 years), all they do is set the 0-point. The choice for the baselines were somewhat arbitrary, with the important factor being that the baseline had to be at least 30 years long to make sure that any short-term natural cycles (seasons, El Nino / La Nina, the 11-year solar cycle, etc) are averaged out.

    If you average out over a shorter period, those cycles begin to dominate (i.e. if it’s a three-month averaging, you’ll see a pretty strong seasonal cycle in the graph, but since that’s perfectly well-explained, it would just serve to make the graph noisy). If you average out over a longer period, you lose sensitivity and don’t have the resolution to see certain effects (for instance, if you average over a century, you wouldn’t see any effect from much at all, even if it’s particularly strong but short-term such as the 1992 drop from Mt. Pinatubo). The window is also chosen to control for missing data, differences between different countries’ reporting standards, and all sorts of other variables that a long-term average can control for.

    So while smaller windows are more precise, they’re also more vulnerable to weather noise; bigger windows screen out most of the noise, but they run the risk of screening out the signal as well. It’s thus best practice to try to use as small a window as possible to make sure you’re looking at actual climate as accurately as you can. You don’t want the window to be TOO small, though, so you need some knowledge of the physical system you’re studying to be able to figure out what’s appropriate. And it turns out – from both weather and climate studies, which look at different things – that 30 years is long enough to tease out climate signal from weather noise.

    30 years is the international standard according to the World Meteorological Association – essentially the smallest window we can use that still screens out most of the weather – but *which* 30 years vary depending on the different records. Which one each one uses is freely available wherever their data can be found (i.e. googling “GISS Data” shows you that NASA GISS uses 1951-1980, while googling “CRU data” shows they use 1961-1990.)

    In the graph on this page, all it means is that the different temperature records were converted to the same scale – the one where 0 marks the difference between average between 1950 and 1980 (see the 30+ year range?). That’s all.

    (As an aside, there *are* some other differences between the analyses. For instance, GISS interpolates over areas in the arctic that we don’t have exact data for (using a documented method that estimates based on nearby stations), while CRU just omits the arctic altogether. What data we have for the arctic suggests its’ warming the fastest (a prediction first made in the 1979 Charney report, btw), so naturally CRU would be a little lower compared to GISS. But these are not differences in baseline, and they’re still documented and debated in the literature.)

  106. @109. TheBlackCat :

    [@ 95. Jacob Stewart – ed.] “Notwithstanding all of the above, there has been a period of warming in the late 20th century, but that warming has now ceased and by all accounts, and empirical measurements a period of cooling seems evident.”

    This is a flat-out lie. Not only has the planet not cooled despite being in the deepest and longest solar minimum on record, there has still been significant warming in the last 11 years. Further, the 2000′s was the warmest decade on record, the 90′s were the second, and the 80′s the third. All evidence points to a continued warming.

    Yes, indeed.

    I’ll add that 2010 was the hottest year on record equalling 2005.

    NASA says – source linked to my name here – the record hottest years were in order :

    (I.) 2010,
    2005

    (III.) 2009,
    2007,
    2006,
    2003,
    2002,
    and
    1998.

    With records here taken by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and dating back to 1880.

    This is convincing evidence the Earth is currently warming and NOT cooling.

    Despite, as has been pointed out by others the recent prolonged solar minimum.

    Climate contrarians who claim the planet is cooling are either totally ignorant & misinformed – or as TheBlackCat observed – just flat out lying.

  107. Another source extending the list of hottest years to a top ten (incl. 2004 & 2008) written up by water and climate scientist Peter H. Gleick (using data from the National Climate Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) can be found here :

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/the-graph-that-should-be-_b_808747.html

    With more information on this particular “cooling climate” falsehood here :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=47

    Our world is warming fastest in the Arctic region – and this has meant that sea ice there has been melting much faster than the models have predicted as a graph (@ the 2 min 20 secs – 3 min mark) on this link :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRc_9nNTZg0&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=1

    shows.

    This changes the surface from one that reflects 80% of light hitting it into one absorbing 80% of that light instead. This is one potential tipping point which may radically change our planetary climate for thousands of years. Thus far from being over-hyped or exaggerated Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating has almost certainly been under-estimated and under-rated.

  108. nomuse

    I got one thing to say to the deniers.

    I don’t freaking care! Is it “natural?” Is it “our fault?” Who the frack cares! The point should be; “Will what is happening to our climate kill people, displace populations, and cost a hell of a lot of money and maybe even, if things go really haywire, make it impossible to sustain anything resembling our current ways of feeding ourselves?”

    A perfectly natural, ordinary, not our fault asteroid could come swinging along and clout this world a good one. Does this mean we should let it? If it is possible via technological means to offset the current observed changes which are already impacting agriculture and other infrastructure, then why don’t we just figure out those means and come up with the funds and the will to apply them!

  109. Dee Niah

    This can’t be true! Ha! Its not been peer reviewed. When it is, and the scientists find that the results are true in their eventual peer review, then we’ll just point out that the peer review process is flawed. That’ll make it go away!

  110. Cory -

    I don’t think anything will ever convince the skeptics/deniers. They are afraid of the truth, although the sweat on their brow sings otherwise.
    It’s the same with evolution – “evolution is crock. BTW, how how come my antibiotics aren’t working anymore?”

  111. Sean McCorkle

    Gary @ 86

    Since BEST finds that a third of the stations have COOLED, it’s clear there’s much more to be resolved than “global warming” – true or false.

    That by itself is not so informative; for example, the average magnitude of cooling of those one third may be far less than the magnitude of increase in the remaining 2/3.

  112. QuietDesperation

    Oh wow. On the iPad you just hold down the C button and all the variants pop up.

    çćčĆÇČ

    Heh. Sorry.

    ł Ł Not even sure what those are.

  113. QuietDesperation

    Also, is Reynold’s Wrap the best brand, or can you get away with the generic foil?

    REAL conspiracy theorists use actual tin foil.

    The aluminum foil crap is for amateurs and posers.

  114. Daniel J. Andrews

    What hasn’t been settled is how much is natural and how much is human-caused. That’s where the debate is and where the evidence is much less sure than even this moth-eaten land surface record that was designed for estimating agricultural growing seasons and not federal endangerment policy.

    There’s debate over what is natural and what is manmade? I missed those papers*, but I suppose there’s room to debate “most” to “all” (not “”none” to “some”). What is being debated though is climate sensitivity: How much temps will rise with doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels, although most estimates fall around 3 degrees C–the likely range is 2 to 4.5 at 66% probability.

    Since the 70s (maybe 60s, I forget now) every decade has been hotter than the one previous. But anyone still not trusting temp records, including the ones by proxy using satellite measurements (which aren’t “moth-eaten”), can toss them all out–there is still a mountain of very solid evidence that the earth is warming. Temp records are now just a few bricks in the edifice and the building won’t come crashing down if a few bricks crumble.

    *Penner et al, 2010, Nature (commentary) is one that is often misquoted to say CO2 is only responsible for 35% of the warming (that is NOT what Penner et al says).
    nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/full/ngeo932.html (subscription needed although you may be able to find full copy online or maybe someone will have a pdf they can email…..)

  115. Daniel J. Andrews

    Just found this (h/t skepticalscience.com):

    pics.uvic.ca/insights/index.php

    The University of Victoria (BC, Canada) has put together some free online climate videos that go through the basics. Haven’t seen them yet myself, but the introduction looks interesting.

    If you want more of a challenge, Dr. Archer’s videos of his class presentation are online here.
    geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html

    It helps if you have the book Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, and you can do the exercises at the end of each chapter. Dr. Archer will send you the pdf of the answers (least he did last year). Be prepared to work if you want to understand things although just watching will be educating as well.

  116. Pappenheimer

    I used to work at one of the Air Force Weather hubs, so I can give you a jackleg meteorologist’s take on all this. Please note that meteorology is NOT climatology, and I for one don’t have a degree in either.
    1. Those most dismissive of global climate change were either the crusty old guys who used to plot skew-ts by hand and distrusted computer models OR the right-wing ideologists who got their entire viewpoint from Fox. Sometimes they were both.
    2. Most of the young airmen didn’t care. At least one argued that we shouldn’t be worrying about this with the Advent of Christ coming so soon.
    3. The only officer to have any interest in the controversy was the unit commander, a LTC with a PHD. He had friends who were climatologists, passed me some info from same, and supported most of the conclusions of anthropogenic climate change. Probably the smartest guy in the unit.
    4. I ran into a lot of distrust of educated (“elite”) opinion.

    My thoughts – yeah, it’s real. No, we’re not going to do anything about it until it’s too late. And yes, ideology and cynicism are the sticking points.

  117. Ryan

    @115. Brian D,

    Thank you for the thorough explanation!

  118. tmac57

    What you really have to admire about AGW (HIRGO) skeptics is their consistency. They bravely stand,unwavering,in the face of facts.Staunchly defending their right to believe in whomever provides them with the answers they agree with.This is the kind of thing that made our country (the USA) great:A rebellious sense that no matter what someone tells me,no matter how much more someone else knows about a subject than I,no matter how many scientists,research facilities,or scientific academies say that AGW is real,that my opinions is the only one that matters!

    Uncertainty?…Wishy washy!

    Nuance?…Sounds French!

    Change your mind?…flip flopper!

    Get a position and stick with it!Stay the course!Man the buckets!Fuel the coal plants my friends,and may God…bless…the U S A!!!

    (Is this mic off?…It is…Good.
    Whew! Is it wicked hot in here or is it just me?)

  119. Ken

    May I make just a few brief comments:

    1) About 10 years ago, I stood at the foot of Canada’s Athabasca Glacier and heard the Ranger say that, 5000 ago, the glacier did not exist. Climate too warm.

    2) My father-in-law, U of Maryland PhD Botany, used to describe plant experiments in growth chambers controling for various inputs. ALL other factors remaining exactly equal, those plants exposed to super-rich CO2 environments did by far the best.

    Questions:

    Are there any HIRGO boosters willing to admit that stories about the deaths of polar bears were a distraction the boosters could do without? I have not heard any.

    Are doomsday predictions any more likely to be right than shoulder-shrugging guesses?

    Can we all agree that the discussion would be immeasurably improved if we ignored the input and influence of that science hack and global hypocrite/pantload Al Gore? Or is he still necessary to HIRGO objectives?

    Thanks.

  120. Chris Winter

    Jacob Stewart wrote: “Visit the website linked to my name : watch the videos : don’t rant at me
    It’s only a suggestion, I am not responsible for these videos, but many are compellingly logical.”

    So compellingly logical that they have to be introduced by e.g. photoshopped pictures of Al Gore with a Hitler moustache and Gruppenfuhrer cap, or Scottish prime minister Stewart Stevenson as Nosferatu.

    I assume this is your Web site. So you should understand that you don’t have to present the videos with any particular picture, or with a picture at all — just a link with the title.

    Here’s some more advice: Split it into multiple pages. And learn about validation.

    Your page on http://validator.w3.org/ — 256 errors, 60 warnings.

    Just in case there’s any doubt, the whole gestalt of that site’s presentation tells me there’s nothing logical or even defensible about the information it provides.

  121. shunt1

    We did science the old fashion way, instead of using computer generated virtual reality.

    To us crusty old guys, we still want to see a valid analysis of the raw data.

    Sometimes, simply looking outside your own window is much more scientific than trusting computer models.

    And who the HECK ever said that the Earth has not been warming since the Little Ice Age?

    DUH!

    Please look at the chart at the top of this topic. If the majority of their raw data is from the exact same source, why have these organizations produced such different results?

    Using the same raw data, those lines should be almost identical unless their computer “corrections” were not the same. Why is there so much variance?

    That is why this crusty old guy has not placed much trust in their computer manipulations of the raw data.

  122. mark

    I find these two sentences incompatible:

    Muller’s own admission that he didn’t like the way the previous science had been done

    That word is “skeptic”, and in far too many cases it should be changed to “denier”.

    Now this information is out we might discuss it in terms of its constituent parts – for example the apparent temperature stabilisation in the NASA results. We might consider whether CO2 would be likely to produce the effects shown – a straight line graph (more or less) with exponential CO2 level increases (as I understand it). We might ask if CO2 can have the degree of insulating effect claimed for it. We might ask if the one degree increase over sixty years could be caused by other means. These are real and valid questions. I am not interested in the hyperbole.
    It’s called science. Investigation. Skepticism. These results are interesting, and suggest the need for further investigation based on a science that Muller does find acceptable.

  123. Daniel J. Andrews

    At least one argued that we shouldn’t be worrying about this with the Advent of Christ coming so soon.

    I heard the same argument. He first gave the usual denialist talking points which I politely refuted, then I gave him the evidence for why it is warming, I also had him follow his own points through to their logical conclusions (e.g. it is a global conspiracy), and just when I thought I had him persuaded, he said, “It doesn’t matter anyway as Jesus is coming back soon”. The ultimate cop-out. Don’t need to worry about world hunger, curing AIDs, malaria, childhood diseases, poverty because it all doesn’t matter anyway.

  124. Daniel J. Andrews

    We did science the old fashion way, instead of using computer generated virtual reality.
    To us crusty old guys, we still want to see a valid analysis of the raw data.

    Now, would you actually recognize a valid analysis of the raw data if you saw one? A valid analysis is not an analysis which confirms a preconceived opinion, you know. Anyway, the raw data is linked in the report. You can also get the raw data here, and all the other data your crusty heart desires.
    realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

    If you use a computer and you know what you’re doing, you can generate results in a couple of hours with Excel. Or you can do it the old fashion way with a slide rule and log tables. I’m sure you know what to do with this data since you hint that you know what a valid analysis is.

    Have at it. Let us know what you get tomorrow (if you use a computer). Or in March, if you plan on doing it the old fashion way.

    Sometimes, simply looking outside your own window is much more scientific than trusting computer models.

    Funny. That is what the Zeitists of the 1800s said and wrote when they insisted that the earth was flat and stationary, not round and hurtling through space at 1000s of km/hr–all you had to do was look out your window to confirm that.

    You weren’t kidding when you said you preferred your “science” the old-fashioned way. You certainly confirmed Pappeheimer’s 1st point.

  125. shunt1

    @131 Daniel J. Andrews:

    To me, the Berkeley Earth Project is the best raw data analysis that I have seen so far. There are a few problems that must be addressed before formal peer review publication, but I hope that those details can be worked out.

    As a scientist, it does trouble me that you would bring religion into the assement of the quality of data analysis. Politics, religion or popular vote has nothing to do with scientific facts.

    Insure that the raw data has been properly analyzed and then go wherever it leads…

    That is a true scientist!

  126. Randy

    “Sometimes, simply looking outside your own window is much more scientific than trusting computer models.”

    Looking out one’s window up here in Alaska you’d have to have ideological blinders not to see the effect of AGW. Glaciers are receding, permafrost is melting, and new insect species are coming from the south and attacking our vegetation. All at an accelerating rate.

    The reason denial is so strong against the science of climate change is that the implications of that science run counter to the rigid ideological view of many people and to the profit demands of many fossil fuel corporations. The science tells us that our emission of carbon dioxide will produce potentially damaging changes in the climate. In order to prevent those damaging changes, measures have to be taken that may require regulation of the free market process and international cooperation. This is unacceptable to many people, particularly those of a conservative bent, and therefore they have to reject the science. All the evidence in the world will not change their minds.

  127. shunt1

    @132. Daniel J. Andrews:

    Uh, what results were you desiring me to find?

    That the Earth was warmer during the Victorian age than the previous 100 years? That the Earth is warmer today than during the Victorian age?

    Nobody has denied that the Earth has not been warming since the Little Ice Age!

    Stop and think about exactly what scientific results you are asking me to locate in the raw data.

  128. shunt1

    Sometimes I feel like I am talking to little children. No personal offence intended, but it can be very frustrating.

    Little children think that CO2 is driving the temperature of the Earth. Perhaps it may contribute, but the shape of the raw data is very poorly correlated.

    I simply ask them to overlay the plots of CO2 and Temperature and see if their basic shapes actually match. Do not try to average until you have obtained some straight line, because that is not how our Earth works.

    That methodology is an absolute fraud!

    Look at those little squiggles, because that is the reality of our planet!

    When scientists can explain those little squiggles, then we are once again on the right track.

  129. @129. tmac57 : LOL .. well wry grin of agreement and unvoiced “yep, so true” anyhow. :-)

    For a lot of them.

    [Confession : former climate contrarian here. Changed my mind a few years ago & accepted the climatological consensus after much online argument & further research.]

  130. Joseph G

    @135 shunt: I guess we need to forget about those hundreds of exoplanets found by the Kepler mission, as all they are is little squiggles on a graph, and a noisy one at that.

    /”Tide goes in, tide goes out… you can’t explain that!”

    Also, for someone who claims to be an old hand at data analysis, you sure seem puzzled by things like seasons (one of the bigger causes of regular “squiggles” in the record.) Of course, if allllll the deviations WERE normalized and all the noise was directly accounted for, you’d probably then say that the result is over-processed and therefore useless.
    Be honest – do you simply enjoy arguing? I mean, I do, at times. Nothing wrong with that, if you know what your goal is. But for FSM’s sake, why not go to PunditKitchen?

    (For anyone who thinks I’m overreacting, you may not be aware of shunt’s extensive post history. Not his/her/its first rodeo.)

  131. shunt1

    @142. Joseph G Says:

    Joseph, those little squiggles are exactly what I was talking about. What you just stated was my scientific point and you expressed it better than I could have.

    The purpose of the Kepler space telescope was to monitor stars and look for very minor variations in their light outputs. If you averaged everything for 30 years in an effort to match a computer model, then you would miss the most important information contained in the raw data signal.

    I hope that everyone checks my posting history on this subject!

    Where the data leads is where I will follow, since that is what a true scientist will do.

    I have always demanded quality processing of the raw data and will never back down from that requirement.

    Once again, if we have had good quality data processing, why is there such variation in the chart at the top of this topic?

    My only concern is with the integrity of the manipulations of the raw data.

  132. Joseph G

    @shunt: Oh, ok. I guess I see. I’d say more but I need to leave work, will be back later though.

  133. shunt1

    Later Joseph and have a nice day. I rather enjoyed the debate and hope you understood my position about data quality.

  134. walker

    that’s cute how you refer to people skeptic about man-made global warming as “client change deniers”. wow the earth has cooled 1 degree over the last 60 years somebody needs to find manbearpig now!

  135. @140. shunt1 :

    Sometimes I feel like I am talking to little children. No personal offence intended, but it can be very frustrating.

    Sometimes I feel the same way. ;-)

    Do you think NASA climatologist James Hansen, Mike Mann and Vicky Pope (Head of the climate predictions programme at the Hadley Centre) to name just three of the qualified scientific experts in the field have a childish mis-understanding of the situation? Really? :roll:

    Little children think that CO2 is driving the temperature of the Earth. Perhaps it may contribute, but the shape of the raw data is very poorly correlated.

    Please watch the video linked to my name here. Listen to it closely. See it through a couple of times if you have to.

    Because you clearly aren’t comprehending what the climatologists are actually saying and are attacking a strawman of your own mis-understanding and gross over-simplification in its place.

    Carbon dioxide isn’t the only Greenhouse gas (GHG) and it isn’t the only factor at work in making our climate what it is. Milankovitch orbital cycles, volcanic eruptions, El Nino / La Nina and other ocean-atmospheric thermohaline circulation cycles all play roles too.

    However, Co2 *is* a key and cruicial factor and it is a heat-trapping gas. As climatological expert Richard Alley noted : “There’s no getting away from the basic physics.” Co2 traps heat. More co2 traps more heat. We’ve added lots more of it to the atmosphere changing it from 310 ppm circa 1960 to 390 ppm or so today – and ever rising – thus we are having an effect on the climate. That’s just basic physics. Now climate is more complicated than that – but that is a significant factor and there’s no “perhaps” about it.

    I simply ask them to overlay the plots of CO2 and Temperature and see if their basic shapes actually match. Do not try to average until you have obtained some straight line, because that is not how our Earth works.

    No it isn’t indeed. You don’t get neat straight lines in a complex system affected by multiple variables; you get squiggly curves, punctuated by an El Nino here, a La Nina there, a volcanic eruption briefly cooling things at this point, a sort of shallow plateuax in the overall rise caused by the long solar minima at that part, all superimposed over a consistent warming trend caused by the rising carbon dioxide and other Greenhouse gas emissions. The corelation is not exact because other things *also* affect it – but it is there and can be distinctly seen.

    That methodology is an absolute fraud!

    You know this how exactly? Your experience with their methodology and basis for making this extraordinary allegation is what precisely?

    What methodology exactly are you referring to there as fraudulent? Computer models? Ice core observations? Ecological data collections? Spectral analysis of carbon isotopes recovered from various fossil items? Direct measurements of Co2 and temperature? There are so many different lines of data gathered from so many sources consistently telling us HIRGO is real and something we are well advised to be concerned about.

    Are they all wrong? Are you really saying that *all* the thousands of dedicated experts and researchers in error here? Are you serious? :-o

    Look at those little squiggles, because that is the reality of our planet!

    No, that’s a graph, an intellectual abstraction that represents historical real world measurements into a symbolic useful frame of reference illustrating what is happening and allowing us to better understand what’s physically taking place in reality.

    The physical reality of our planet would be the melting glaciers and arctic sea ice, the more severe droughts heatwaves and fires, the increased floodingand extrem weather events, the shifting locations – and extiction of some species in predictable patterns.

    When scientists can explain those little squiggles, then we are once again on the right track.

    In that case we *are* on the right track because as the video linked to my name here explains the climatologists *can explain* those “little squiggles” pretty durn well. ;-)

    If you disagree, look around you and check for yourself – online and in books and magazines and peer-reviewed science papers and more. It’s not hard to find these explanations if you really wish to do so. Do you?

  136. shunt1

    146. Messier Tidy Upper:

    This will take me some time to wade through and I must admit, that video was very well done.

    Since my second love is geology, this debate will become rather fun…

    But not tonight.

  137. Infinite123Lifer

    (58) “If you want to keep denying the reality of global warming, you have that right.”
    ——-
    Fact

    @ 37 Whats not up for discussion is your home planet, you do not have the right to come from any other planet than Earth, of less of course you can help us solve our AGW.

  138. TheBlackCat

    About 10 years ago, I stood at the foot of Canada’s Athabasca Glacier and heard the Ranger say that, 5000 ago, the glacier did not exist. Climate too warm.

    Then your memory is faulty, you heard wrong, or your guide was wrong. The glacier dates back to the last ice age.

    My father-in-law, U of Maryland PhD Botany, used to describe plant experiments in growth chambers controling for various inputs. ALL other factors remaining exactly equal, those plants exposed to super-rich CO2 environments did by far the best.

    Yes, but:
    1. “ALL other factors” will not be “remaining exactly equal”
    2. Animals generally do not do well with elevated CO2 levels. Even small elevations in CO2 levels can have extremely detrimental effects on shell-using animals and corals.
    3. The CO2 elevation will not be that much in these sorts of biological terms. The level of CO2 needed to alter the climate and the level needed to have significant direct effects on respiration are different
    Questions:

    Are there any HIRGO boosters willing to admit that stories about the deaths of polar bears were a distraction the boosters could do without? I have not heard any.

    I don’t understand the question. Are you asking whether the extinction of polar bears is not going to happen (it is), or are you asking whether we should have focused our attention elsewhere (I don’t recall polar bears ever being a major thrust of AGW supporters, but some people think following the law is a good thing).

    Are doomsday predictions any more likely to be right than shoulder-shrugging guesses?

    Depends on what you mean my “doomsday”. Are the predictions of, say, the IPCC report “doomsday” in your eyes? If so, then yes, they are much better. Pretty much all of the measures we have since the IPCC report have either tracked at the upper end of the confidence intervals, or slightly above. This means 2 things: 1. the IPCC report predictions were emperically far better than guesses, and 2. things are worse than the IPCC report predicted.

    Can we all agree that the discussion would be immeasurably improved if we ignored the input and influence of that science hack and global hypocrite/pantload Al Gore? Or is he still necessary to HIRGO objectives?

    Frankly, I don’t think we would even be having this discussion right now, or it would be significantly delayed, if Al Gore hadn’t got it into the media and public’s eyes. People seemed content to ignore the problem prior to that. And as long as the public doesn’t care, neither will the politicians. So he isn’t important anymore, and he really hasn’t been doing much lately as far as I can see, but I do give him credit for at least getting people to notice the problem.

  139. TheBlackCat

    Now this information is out we might discuss it in terms of its constituent parts – for example the apparent temperature stabilisation in the NASA results.

    Already explained in this thread, probably about a dozen times.

    We might consider whether CO2 would be likely to produce the effects shown – a straight line graph (more or less) with exponential CO2 level increases (as I understand it).

    It is impossible to tell whether it is exponential or linear within the noise.

    We might ask if CO2 can have the degree of insulating effect claimed for it.

    Not unless you also ask whether basic atomic theory is wrong.

    We might ask if the one degree increase over sixty years could be caused by other means.

    That is the first thing people asked. People have been through every imaginable forcing over and over and over again. So far, nothing else works. If you have a specific idea feel free to give it, but make sure it is not something that has already been addressed repeatedly (the sun, climactic cycles, water vapor, cosmic rays, orbital fluctuations, little ice age, non-anthropogenic GHGs, etc).

    These are real and valid questions.

    Real, valid, and answered years ago (or even decades ago in some cases)

  140. TheBlackCat

    We did science the old fashion way, instead of using computer generated virtual reality.

    My advisor was over 70 years old and did his PhD on “computer generated virtual reality”.

    To us crusty old guys, we still want to see a valid analysis of the raw data.

    Good thing that computer models are only a small part of AGW, and are mostly related to predicting future results rather than understanding what is happening right now. It is also good that, when compared to the raw data since, the computer models match up very well with the raw data.

    Sometimes, simply looking outside your own window is much more scientific than trusting computer models.

    Not when dealing with global changes over decades, and not when the day-to-day fluctuations are larger than the signal you are looking for.

    And who the HECK ever said that the Earth has not been warming since the Little Ice Age?

    DUH!

    Ah, I see now. You have obviously only read the materials of AGW deniers and have never bothered to read anything at all from actual climatologists. If you had, you would know that the problem isn’t that the Earth is warming, it is that it has been an extremely large, extremely sudden warming in the last century (and particularly the last half-century or so).

    It would be a good idea to learn the absolute most basic details of the field before trying to claim you know more about it than every expert in the field. The stuff in the previous paragraph is the absolute most basic information about AGW. It is the first thing pretty much ever basic, non-denialist overview of AGW tells you. Since you don’t know this, there is simply know way you have bothered to look at anything said by anyone other than denialists.

    Since you obviously haven’t bothered to spend 10 minutes doing even the most basic research on the issue, what makes you think you are qualified to overturn and entire field of science?

    Please look at the chart at the top of this topic. If the majority of their raw data is from the exact same source, why have these organizations produced such different results?

    Using the same raw data, those lines should be almost identical unless their computer “corrections” were not the same. Why is there so much variance?

    Because it isn’t from the exact same source, each uses a different subset of the raw data. You claim to be a scientist, surely you know about noisy data, don’t you? Surely you know about confidence intervals? Surely you know the difference between statistical expectation and real values? Surely you know about averaging and monte carlo analysis?

  141. TheBlackCat

    Little children think that CO2 is driving the temperature of the Earth.

    Little children may. Everyone else (besides denialists) know that it is one of many contributing factors, but all data strongly indicates it it responsible for the overwhelming majority of the warming over the last 50 years or so. This is not just models, in fact it is not even primarily models, it is primarily from direct measurements of temperature data, CO2 levels, CO2 isotope ratios, measurements of stratospheric temperature, and measurements of atmospheric absorbance spectra (hint: those provide some key words you might want to look for, from actual experts in the field not denialists).

    Perhaps it may contribute, but the shape of the raw data is very poorly correlated.

    What, exactly, is the correlation coefficient you think we need, and how does it compare to the correlation coefficient they actually found?

    I simply ask them to overlay the plots of CO2 and Temperature and see if their basic shapes actually match.

    I don’t think you actually know what the word “correlation” means. Hint: it doesn’t mean “their basic shapes actually match”.

    Are you, by any chance, referring to changes in global temperatures prior to the last 100 years? Because no one besides denialists are claiming that CO2 predicts or should predict past warmings.

    The reason for that is simple: there was no point in the past we are aware of that an intelligent species was digging out massive amounts of ancient carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere. CO2 is usually a feedback, changes in temperature lead to changes in the land and ocean that cause a release or absorption of CO2. This amplifies the original warming or cooling, but it does not cause it. The current warming is the first, at least that we are aware of, that the CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere in this magnitude this fast without any climactic events triggering the release, therefore it is acting as a forcing (even the largest volcanic eruptions in history pale in comparison to the last 100 years of human activity in terms of CO2 release).

    Once again, this is AGW 101, probably the third or fourth thing they tell you in any basic overview of the science. Once again, the only way you could not know this is if you haven’t bothered to read what the scientists are actually saying and instead relied entirely on denialist strawmen.

    Do not try to average until you have obtained some straight line, because that is not how our Earth works.

    Good thing no one does this. I am actually confused, how did you even got the idea that this is what climatologists are doing?

    That methodology is an absolute fraud!

    You don’t even know what the methodology is! Every example of “methodology” that you have brought up bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual methodology used.

    Look at those little squiggles, because that is the reality of our planet!

    Now I know for a fact that you are not a scientist. No scientist would cause noise in a signal “little squiggles”.

    When scientists can explain those little squiggles, then we are once again on the right track.

    We explained them a long time ago. You apparently have never heard of “seasons”, not to mention the sun spot cycle, El Niño, or the several other decadal and multi-decadal oscillators.

  142. Joseph G

    @Shunt1: I apologize if I was a little condescending and glib earlier. I do TRY to observe the DBAD principle, usually. I’d also just ended a 12 hour shift with a 10 hour one to look forward to tomorrow, so I plead employment-related grumpiness ;)
    However, your position still strikes me as that of a stubborn contrarian (and it takes one to know one – I’ve been told by a number of people that I seem to stubbornly seek out arguments. They’re probably right).
    So yeah, backhanded apologies once again :)

    As far as comparing temperature plots to light curves, it seems to me that it’s apples and grapefruit. With the Kepler light curves, you’re specifically looking for repeating cycles. The long term trend is irrelevant, if there is a trend at all on timescales of years.
    In the case of temperature plots, though, you’re looking for long-term trends, and trying to see through temporary patterns. The only way short-term patterns are crucial is in identifying whether the long-term (recent, multi-decadal) warming trend is itself part of a longer cycle. As far as I’ve seen, this has been fairly conclusively ruled out.

  143. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ 149. TheBlackCat : “Are you asking whether the extinction of polar bears is not going to happen (it is)”

    I agree with most of what you’ve written on this thread BlackCat but I really hope you end up being wrong about this one single point.

    I hope we can save polar bears (& the other polar and alpine species at risk) from extinction via conservation and zoo efforts although they are clearly going to be in for some very awful times.

    @80. amphiox :

    Don’t forget that the presidential election is not the only election in 2012.

    Okay, thanks I didn’t know there was a congressional election too.

    You can change Congress, too. Re-electing Obama and giving him a Democratic house and a Democratic, super-majority Congress (that’s the biggest key) is the best bet.

    As an Aussie there’s nothing I personally can do but watch & discuss from the sidelines. What you said there is food for thought although I doubt the Democratic Party will take control of Congress if economic circumstances remain bleak. Something to consider though.

    @147. shunt1 : Fair enough. Glad you’ve watched & appreciated the video.

  144. @32. CafeenMan & #72. Fatboy :

    If you know the codes you can turn on Num Lock, press and hold the ALT key and then type the code in 0000 format. Alt-0231

    Thanks for that. :-)

    @131. Ken :

    1) About 10 years ago, I stood at the foot of Canada’s Athabasca Glacier and heard the Ranger say that, 5000 ago, the glacier did not exist. Climate too warm.

    Really? Okay – but even if that’s true there are other possible explanations and that hardly refutes the whole of HIRGO.

    2) My father-in-law, U of Maryland PhD Botany, used to describe plant experiments in growth chambers controling for various inputs. ALL other factors remaining exactly equal, those plants exposed to super-rich CO2 environments did by far the best. [Emphasis added.]

    Thing is all other factors will NOT remain equal. Pests, severe weather events like storms, heatwaves & floods are likely to cause crop issues plus pests & weeds do pretty well from elevated Co2 too. :-(

    (Please click on my name for a good youtube clip on this topic or see ‘The CO2 is Plant Food Crock’ by Greenman3610.)

    Questions: Are there any HIRGO boosters willing to admit that stories about the deaths of polar bears were a distraction the boosters could do without? I have not heard any.

    Not sure. The story there is what it is and is separate from the rest of the evidence. If polar bears aren’t (yet?) dying because of HIRGO then it still doesn’t invalidate the rest of the evidence. Of which there is plenty. I haven’t really looked into that much but it does stand to reason that polar bears will be in big trouble because of the disappearance or serious diminishment of the arctic sea ice which is their habitat.

    Are doomsday predictions any more likely to be right than shoulder-shrugging guesses?

    Hmm .. do I smell false dichotomies and strawmen here? ;-)

    What “doomsday predictions” and what “shoulder-shruging guesses” are you referring to exactly here? Who made them and on what basis?

    Can we all agree that the discussion would be immeasurably improved if we ignored the input and influence of that science hack and global hypocrite/pantload Al Gore? Or is he still necessary to HIRGO objectives?

    No, Al Gore was NEVER necessary and never had any input into the science behind HIRGO besides raising awareness. Gore is / was a politican. What he says is essentially irrelevant. Listen to what the actual qualified scientists have to say. Remember that the HIRGO problem was known long before Gore arrived on the scene. Many decades before originating over a century ago with Svante Arrhenius in 1896 and subsequently developing through a number of scientists and studies with many major contributers since then.

    What do you mean by “HIRGO objectives” btw? Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating is a well-established scientific theory NOT a political plan. HIRGO has no objectives it’s just a shorthand for our current understanding of what is going on.

    The climatologists are telling us what is happening and what the likely consequences of the current trends will be – what we choose to do or refuse to do in response to that is a separate and non-scientific matter. We can choose to ignore the evidence and do nothing in which case the consequences will likely be a lot worse than they would be otherwise. Or we can can choose to take actions that will likely slow and reduce the severity of HIRGO – and which will also benefit us all in other ways as well. Like reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and getting us more prepared for Peak Oil which is also a worrying problem on the horizon.

    Thanks.

    No worries. Hope this helps. ;-)

  145. Steve Metzler

    Once again, TheBlackCat bats clean-up on an AGW thread. It really is like a combination of 50 First Dates and Groundhog Day when Phil puts up an AGW-related post. Oh, and a bit of Whack-a-Mole too.

    Deniers who usually never posted here before, responding to the internet equivalent of dog whistles, not even bothering to read the whole thread before they post, posting the same old, tired canards that have been debunked ad nauseum, often in the very same thread.

    They never respond to any substantive explanations we give. Never an acknowledgement that their misunderstanding of some aspect of the science might just be wrong. Never. Willful, blissful ignorance. The enemy of democracy and progress.

  146. rtaylortitle

    I think the bottom line on all of this is the central character in our solar system…the sun. Climate has always changed up and down and always will.
    The hate exhibited here against the deniers is overwhelming.
    I remember reading many years ago how the Club of Rome was predicting that global freezing would soon be occurring and that all the oil would be depleted by now.
    I remember studying how ‘experts’ stated that Troy was a myth….yet the experts were proved wrong.
    I remember how the ‘experts’ were proferring nuclear energy as the savior of mankind..yet the experts were wrong.
    I’ve read that the other planets in our system have been getting warmer as well…that means to me that what we may be experiencing is due to solar unless we’ve secretly landed on these orbs and are producing factories that emit CO2 into limited or no atmospheres.

  147. @153. Joseph G : “I do TRY to observe the DBAD principle, usually.”

    What’s the DBAD principle? Don’t think I’ve heard that one before.

  148. Sadly much of what is written in here is Mindless Drivel.

    Especially the repetitious unsubstantiated ravings of TheBlackCat,
    and the failure to use logical discourse, resorting to hearsay and
    also appeals to authority & etc. Note that the video linked above
    is not such an appeal. Do check the references given by Dr. Soon.

    Rant and rave back at me if you wish, but it will not change the facts.
    Watch the video if you wish to learn some home truths. Ignore the video
    or skip through parts which you don’t like, and you will prove to yourself
    just how prejudiced and feeble-minded you really are.

  149. Gman

    I have two problems with this article:

    1. It emphasizes the change from skeptic to denier. The only denier I see here is the one attacking the skeptic.

    2. Any scientific finding of this kind should not conclude anything either way. If you compare the possible climate fluctuations from the last 4.5 billion years to the recent 50-60 years of “temerature data”, it’s laughable to think that anyone could draw any legitamit conclusions.

    The earth has never been climate steady, why should it be now?

  150. Steve Metzler

    160. Galileos Window View Says:

    Sadly much of what is written in here is Mindless Drivel.

    Especially the repetitious unsubstantiated ravings of TheBlackCat,
    and the failure to use logical discourse, resorting to hearsay and
    also appeals to authority & etc. Note that the video linked above
    is not such an appeal. Do check the references given by Dr. Soon.

    Project much? Only a denier could possibly call TheBlackCat’s posts, which are completely backed up by the scientific literature, ‘unsubstantiated ravings’. Take your own mindless drivel somewhere else.

    Dr. Soon BTW, has been largely discredited, having recently been found to be dipping deep into the pockets of Exxon, for years now.

  151. tmac57

    @Steve Metzler-“It really is like a combination of 50 First Dates and Groundhog Day when Phil puts up an AGW-related post. Oh, and a bit of Whack-a-Mole too.”
    I’d like to add ‘zombies’ to that list.Kill off as many as you want,but they just mindlessly keep on shuffling along, looking for brains.

  152. Steve Metzler

    Any scientific finding of this kind should not conclude anything either way.

    That’s just priceless. We have considerable meticulously gathered evidence from both multiple proxies (ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments, boreholes, etc.) and direct measurements over the past few decades that prove beyond a reasonable doubt (science doesn’t usually deal in 100% certainties. But 95% statistical significance means that in scientific terms, you can take it to the bank) that the globe is warming at an unprecedented rate, and mankind is the primary cause of that warming. And, what… you want the scientists to keep quiet about the fact that we’re wrecking the planet? Oh, wait. You say those facts are inconvenient. Is that what you really mean?

    The earth has never been climate steady, why should it be now?

    We get this one about a dozen times per thread. It doesn’t really matter what the climate was like 4.5 billion YA, or even 1 million YA. What matters is that we have had a nice average global temperature that has been holding steady ever since the start of civilisation, about 10000 YA. It allows us to grow crops in many regions that have a stable climate cycle. Now our continued use of fossil fuels has been shown to be a threat to that stability. If we continue on this path, some of our ‘breadbaskets’ will get too much rain, and some not enough. This is likely to happen only about 20 or 30 years from now, just when the world population is approaching 9 billion mouths to feed. Not a pretty picture.

    Another denier canard you often see that is related to ‘the-climate-has-always-changed’ claim is the ‘temperature-increase-proceeds-CO2-increase-by-800-years’. What they conveniently neglect to mention is the other half of that story. When the Earth is coming out of a glaciation period, it is due to increased insolation at the back end of a Milankovitch cycle. This begins the process of warming the Earth, and melting the glaciers. As the Earth starts to warm, the oceans begin to outgas the CO2 that was stored in them during the glaciation period (because colder water can sequester more CO2).

    This additional CO2 acts as a positive feedback, trapping more heat and further increasing the temperature which in turn releases more CO2, etc. In fact, it takes about 4000 more years for the CO2 concentration to reach its normal atmospheric concentration of about 280 ppm. So while temperature does proceed CO2 for the first 800 years or so coming out of a glaciation period, its the other way around for the next 4000 years as the temperature increases another 5 or 6 deg C to get back to ‘normal’. BTW, in this time CO2 concentration has increased from about 190 ppm to 280 ppm. So that’s 90 ppm over about 5000 years. Now… mankind has caused a similar increase in CO2 over about *60 years*. And this is supposed to have negligible effect, according to the deniers? You people need to get a grip on reality. Really.

  153. TheBlackCat

    think the bottom line on all of this is the central character in our solar system…the sun.

    Oh, how brilliant. You have solved the problem! The entire climatology community has failed to take into account the only significant source of energy input to the Earth for decades despite the fact that all of their equations require it.

    Have you ever considered that just maybe that the members of the climatology community have passed second grade? Here is a hint: we have direct measurements of solar output. It hasn’t gone up over the time period in question, in fact it probably went down slightly.

    Climate has always changed up and down and always will.

    It always goes up and down for a reason. It doesn’t just change randomly over these time scales, if a chance occurs something has to be driving. There either has to be more energy coming in (which we know there isn’t because we measure it), or less energy going out (which we know there is because we measure it).

    The hate exhibited here against the deniers is overwhelming.

    I would call it “annoyance”, but at least you admit they are deniers.

    I remember reading many years ago how the Club of Rome was predicting that global freezing would soon be occurring and that all the oil would be depleted by now.

    I assume “the Club of Rome” is the popular press, because the only thing the scientific community said about global cooling was a handful of very tentative papers. Even at the time the press was blowing these few papers out of proportion the scientific community thought that global warming was much more likely. The same is true with oil, the analyses all say we have decades, if not a century, left.

    I remember studying how ‘experts’ stated that Troy was a myth….yet the experts were proved wrong.

    Surely you can see the difference between not accepting something due to insufficient evidence and accepting something due to overwhelming evidence, right? Besides, it is far from certain that Troy from the Illiad actually existed, there was certainly various cities at various points of time in the general area, but they may or may not have had any connection to the events described in the epic.

    I remember how the ‘experts’ were proferring nuclear energy as the savior of mankind..yet the experts were wrong.

    Fission power was never more than a stop-gap measure, there simply isn’t enough fissile material to last long. Fusion power has proven more difficult due to practical issues rather than fundamental misunderstandings.

    I’ve read that the other planets in our system have been getting warmer as well…that means to me that what we may be experiencing is due to solar unless we’ve secretly landed on these orbs and are producing factories that emit CO2 into limited or no atmospheres.

    *sigh* Please search this blog, this has already been dealt with in some detail. Short version: almost all planets in our solar system besides Earth are definitely not warming, some appear to be having standard seasonal fluctuations, and some we can’t tell one way or the other.

  154. TheBlackCat

    Especially the repetitious unsubstantiated ravings of TheBlackCat,
    and the failure to use logical discourse, resorting to hearsay and
    also appeals to authority & etc.

    Perhaps we should add “vague generalizations” to the list. Please provide specifics. What have I said, specifically, that you object to?

  155. TheBlackCat

    Any scientific finding of this kind should not conclude anything either way. If you compare the possible climate fluctuations from the last 4.5 billion years to the recent 50-60 years of “temerature data”, it’s laughable to think that anyone could draw any legitamit conclusions.

    I can’t even begin to parse this sentence. Why would climate fluctations in the past, many of which we can explain quite well, make it impossible for use to understand the fluctuation in the present, which we can also explain quite well? If anything they should help, since the more data we have to work with the better we can understand the system.

    The earth has never been climate steady, why should it be now?

    Yes, lets just throw our hands up in the air and say “its all too hard to figure out, lets just ignore it”. No point actually trying to figure out why the climate changes. That is a great mind-set for making scientific progress.

  156. Chris Winter

    rtaylortitle wrote (#158): “The hate exhibited here against the deniers is overwhelming.”

    Are you feeling overwhelmed, rtaylortitle? I never would have guessed. You step right up with a set of denier talking points: 1) It’s the Sun. 2) The climate is always changing. 3) Other planets in our solar system are warming.

    All of these have long ago been debunked. But let me run through them again.

    1. Throughout prehistory, the sun has been the trigger of warming — both because it’s very slowly getting brighter, and because Earth’s motions put it closer to the sun, or tilt the northern hemisphere (which has most of the land) more toward the direct rays of sunlight, at certain times.

    However, warming due to the Sun has been aided and abetted by the increase of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is why the ice cores show CO2 increases lagging temperature increases.

    Today, it’s the reverse. We measure CO2 increasing along with temperature, while sunlight intensity has been constant or slightly down since 1978 when we started to measure it constantly with satellites.

    Also, we know we are producing the extra CO2 because carbon isotope ratios tell us it’s old CO2 from underground.

    2. Of course climate is always changing. The world has been warmer than it is now or will be later this century — but never when it held over 6 billion humans dependent on fragile infrastructure systems.

    I don’t know your situation, but it’s possible you live in a house that burned down and has been rebuilt. If that’s the case, do you forego fire insurance?

    3. Some other planets appear to be warming. On Mars, AIUI, the reason appears to be dust storms. Pluto, on the other hand, seems to be in the grip of greenhouse gases: methane released when it was closest to the Sun in 1989.


    As for the hatred you perceive, I suspect that’s really just annoyance at seeing the same tired and bogus objections trotted out again and again.

    You want to see deniers get some love? Tell them to come up with a disproof of AGW that holds together. Contrary to their popular belief, we would be delighted to stop worrying about global warming.

  157. katwagner

    Hey, Eric @52. Take a look at the illustration in the October issue of the National Geographic. Note how we lose most of the southeast US to the Pacific Ocean. The Mississippi River is also an ocean. Say bye bye to Florida and her friends.

  158. @158. rtaylortitle :

    I think the bottom line on all of this is the central character in our solar system…the sun.

    Click on my name for a link to a video explaining why the experts rule out our Sun as being responsible for causing Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating. Please watch it, think about it and learn from it.

    In a nutshell, solar irradiance has been stable or declining whilst the Earth’s average temperature has been steeply rising.

    Do you really and truly think that climate scientists are so stupid they wouldn’t take the Sun into account?

    Also seconding what (#168.) Chris Winter has written on that.

    Climate has always changed up and down and always will.

    See the video linked to my name at #147 here.

    There are reasons why climate changes – and the main one at the moment is the Human Greenhouse gas emissions.

    I remember reading many years ago how the Club of Rome was predicting that global freezing would soon be occurring and that all the oil would be depleted by now. I remember studying how ‘experts’ stated that Troy was a myth….yet the experts were proved wrong. I remember how the ‘experts’ were proferring nuclear energy as the savior of mankind..yet the experts were wrong.

    Yet the experts have been right about a lot of things too like evolution and gravity and the world being round. The climatological experts have studied this field for many decades, they have an abundance of evidence to support what they’re saying and why they think things are a sthey are.

    Why do you say the experts are wrong in this specific instance implying that you know better and what supporting evidence do you have to back up your claim there?

  159. Part II @ 158. rtaylortitle :

    I’ve read that the other planets in our system have been getting warmer as well…that means to me that what we may be experiencing is due to solar unless we’ve secretly landed on these orbs and are producing factories that emit CO2 into limited or no atmospheres.

    Click on my name this time for another video showing why that claim is incorrect or see ‘Mars Attacks’ by Greenman3610 on Youtube.

    The hate exhibited here against the deniers is overwhelming.

  160. Continued – final part @ 158. rtaylortitle :

    The hate exhibited here against the deniers is overwhelming.

    Not hatred, not from me anyhow. More frustration and exasperation that the same long debunked erroneous claims keep getting repeated time after time when they’ve been repeatedly shown to be erroneous. Even just in this one thread and the items linked to it.

    Of course we’re all individuals and some of us get angry quicker than others whilst others of us are more patient and understanding even sympathic. I once thought much like you do and after arguing and researching further changed my views. Please note the consequent lack of insults and name-calling from me.

    Also notice much the same patience and restraint from TheBlackCat and Chris Winter in most, if not all, their comments here and in other HRGO related threads. I second and support most of what they’ve said & congratulate them on their efforts in informing people online and debunking the constant stream of climate canards.

    In addition, understand that the consequences of Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) are very real and immensely devastating. Real people will suffer and die – are doing so already in fact – because of this issue. Those who are fighting to prevent the world taking actions that will reduce the severity of the HIRGO problem are causing – knowingly or not – a great deal of unneccesary human misery and damage. Anger at this and at the people who are spreading mistruths, misunderstandings and opposing action coming from people who are aware of this reality is therefore hardly surprising and quite understandable. (Albeit, arguably, unproductive and unhelpful.)

  161. Nigel Depledge

    Eric (52) said:

    I’ve read a fair bit about how the earth is warming up and this causing the ice caps to melt and so forth. What’s the big deal here? So the ocean rises a bit and we lost a bit of land mass. I don’t understand the real problem with the earth warming up. Does someone have a link to that answer?

    So, are you quite OK with large parts of Florida and Louisiana turning into salt marsh?

    Or about half of the arable land in Bangladesh disappearing into the sea?

    Or London becoming uninhabitable because it floods every high tide?

    And that’s only the impact of a metre or two’s rise in sea level. Some models predict a minimum of 5 metres increase in sea level.

    Add to this the impact that GW will have on rainfall patterns and you have widespread, global famine.

    Another note, following up with techskeptic, how do we know humans are responsible? I’ve seen lots of graphs showing a correlation with the rise in temperature with the advent of the industrial revolution and CO2 emissions, but until someone can show me how it happened, I’m gonna call “post hoc ergo proptor hoc”. The problem, here’s the techskeptic part, how do we know the models are right?

    As The Black Cat notes only a few comments earlier than your own, we can measure the isotope ratios in GHGs and know where they came from.

  162. Dee Niah

    If only you hate filled peer reviewed rational scientific folks that know stuff would shut up, and let us unterrrational pseudoscience lovin’ skeptics just have a say!
    Have you sciencey types actually checked to make sure that the world is warmin’ up? If so I bet that you scientifick folks have never even considered that the sun may be the cause of all this warming? And if you have, what about undersea volcanoes? Or an increase in the population of fire elementals? Thats it! Salamanders summoned by alchemists must be causing the warming trend.
    You see, you have all the training in scientific method, all the equipment and properly collected data, and yet you miss the plainly obvious! Its salamanders!
    Look, somebody has to stand up to the experts!

  163. Nigel Depledge

    Katwagner (170) said:

    Hey, Eric @52. Take a look at the illustration in the October issue of the National Geographic. Note how we lose most of the southeast US to the Pacific Ocean. The Mississippi River is also an ocean. Say bye bye to Florida and her friends.

    Er, wait. The Pacific Ocean? I thought it’d be the Atlantic that expands to consume most of that region?

  164. Nigel Depledge

    I fear I missed most of the party on this thread.

    Oh, well, the same “arguments” will come back next time Phil posts on AGW . . .

  165. Jeff

    I am lucky enough to know Heidi Cullen, the main scientist at the climate center in Princeton. I trust her implicitly personally and professionally. She says , admittedly, that all climate models have some uncertainity in them, and the given scientists are trying to minimize these uncertainties. But her position remains that we are beyond doubt at a point where global warming is “actionable”; we should beyond doubt take steps to reduce carbon emissions.

    But of course this is contra the corporate mindset, and barf bags like some of those senators from Oklahoma crash every significant congressional meeting and derail them for purpose of the oil and gas industries. I myself would contend those same industries are behind the pie chart of energy resources, I show my classes every semester: with 85% fossil fuels in the usa. This is by design, and big oil and big pharma will do everything to keep it that way until they run us back to the neolithic.

  166. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/23/watts-wrote-a-check-he-couldnt-cash/

    Hopefully Phil reads the comments or at least gets important ones caused to his attention because: for a couple of weeks now, the comments sometimes load VERY slowly, and it is not a problem at my end. It seems to be connected with ads.

  167. Infinite123Lifer

    @ Dee Niah in regards to 176

    Duh Nah.

  168. Joseph G

    @139 MTU: This video (indeed, just the title) explains the DBAD principle :)

  169. Terry

    I’m convinced of Global Warming.

    What I’m not convinced of is what can & should be done about it.

  170. Joseph G

    @185 Terry: And that’s perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, some people seem to see people like Al Gore and assume that it’s just all one big package deal – that if you accept that HIRGO is happening, you must also accept things like carbon credits or severe taxation of certain products. Of course, that doesn’t follow.

    Science handles the “what” and “how” questions, but not the “should”.

  171. June

    I too am convinced about global warming. And, strangely enough, I’m also not convinced about what we should do about it. I mean should we cut down on CO2 emissions and find ways of generating power that don’t also generate lots of carbon dioxide? Or should we just not be convinced about what to do until its far past the time to do anything to stop or curtail that warming? Perhaps we should wait until the GOPpers and Exxon tell us what to do?

  172. 1berto

    Why dont show the pre 50s changes? Would be funny to watch the ‘explanations’ of the bigger increments in temperature in a time we dont have 10% of today’s emissions.
    And yes there are data from that years…
    If the warning is caused by men im not certain… But im certain that if it is the governments couldnt save us…

  173. Ken

    The Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) results are “news” because????

    – This study is not “peer reviewed” — the use of non-peer-reviewed studies has been one of the “Believer’s” most emphatic argument’s of “refuting” sight-unseen studies by “Deniers.” So, in this case, why pounce on such a non-peer-reviewed study? Obviously becuase it gives the answer desired.

    – But what of that answer…they found the Earth is warming–or at least ony about 2/3’s of the land mass…conceding that about 1/3 the land mass is cooling!!! That’s actually a better answer for “Deniers” as they never doubted or debated the Earth has warmed. Further, the BEST study leave out the vast majority of the planet–a whopping 70 percent or so, the area covered by the oceans, was NOT addressed.

    – In case you missed it, “Deniers” do NOT deny that that Earth has warmed.

    – BEST did not address WHY only some 20 percent of the Earth’s surface warmed–they only noted what every knows & concedes is that it has warmed a bit (that “some 20 percent” is the roughly 2/3’s of the land mass observed to be warming AND actually studied out of the whole of the planet’s surface)

    – NOT ADDRESSED: WHY has about 2/3’s of the 3/3’s of the land mass warmed? CO2 & other human activity, something else, etc?????

    IN OTHER WORDS, NO NEW NEWS FROM THAT REPORT.

  174. Ken

    PHIL – DENIERS DO NOT DENY THAT THE EARTH HAS WARMED.

    Your remarks at #58 simplify the “debate” to a point of nonsense.

    The debate, to call it that, is why has the Earth warmed, and, is the warming really a problem?? Simpleminded simplificataions, and slanderous ones at that [for restating the issue fundamentally wrongly], only serve to keep the religious fervor alive (belief in warming vs. non-existent non-belief in warming [vs. CAUSES]).

  175. ND

    To those who say they’re not convinced human influence on global warming, how did you come to that conclusion? I see scientists who have been studying and putting out peer reviewed studies regarding global warming and it’s impact on the climate and then there are people who post saying they’re not convinced. Why should you be taken more seriously over climatologists?

    And as for denying the warming itself. Yes there have been deniers who accepted the warming, but there are also deniers who deny warming itself. That was the whole point of BEST! Watts is one prominent example. Watts has issues with this study even though it did not analyse the human factor in GW.

  176. Chris Winter

    Ken wrote (#193): “The Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) results are “news” because????

    – This study is not “peer reviewed” — the use of non-peer-reviewed studies has been one of the “Believer’s” most emphatic argument’s of “refuting” sight-unseen studies by “Deniers.” So, in this case, why pounce on such a non-peer-reviewed study? Obviously because it gives the answer desired.”

    You just can’t get past the idea that this global warming stuff is all made up out of whole cloth, can you?

    Sure, you nominally admit the Earth is warming. Still you try to minimize the amount of Earth affected (“some 20 percent”) and cling to the supposition that the principal cause of current warming is not human activity.

    Why is the BEST study newsworthy? Not because it gives the desired answer — because it gives the answer that’s true, and because it convinces a former skeptic.

    True, it’s not peer-reviewed — yet. But it will be. I suggest waiting until then before you insinuate something must be wrong with it, despite the fact that it agrees with all the previous peer-reviewed studies on global temperature trend.

  177. TheBlackCat

    Why dont show the pre 50s changes?

    You obviously didn’t bother to even glance at the paper, since they explain that they consider the data from that period to be unreliable. Of course they do show those figures, they just don’t put much weight on them because of this.

    Note that the research are long-standing critics of global warming who set out with the expectation that this study would refute it, so it would be grossly dishonest to claim that they are cherry-picking .

    Would be funny to watch the ‘explanations’ of the bigger increments in temperature in a time we dont have 10% of today’s emissions.

    If you had looked at their paper yo would see that they actually show a slower rate of temperature increase prior to 1950, although with larger uncertainties.

    If the warning is caused by men im not certain… But im certain that if it is the governments couldnt save us…

    I am sure you have detailed refutations for all the evidence we have provided that humans are primarily causing it. I won’t hold my breath waiting, though…

  178. TheBlackCat

    This study is not “peer reviewed”

    1. It is in review. That means it was submitted to a journal and is being reviewed. They released the initial findings upon submission, as is common in physics (the leader of the study has a physics background) in order to get wider critiques of the methodology. In other words, the whole point of discussing the study is to get additional peer review.

    2. The authors are long-standing criticis of climatology and the methodology they used to conclude global warming was happening. They started this study under the impression they would refute it or at least show significant problems with the methodology used before. They were quite surprised that they essentially validated earlier results (or in fact exceeded most of them). Note that denialists were thrilled when they first heard about the study because they thought these people, due to their biases, would refute global warming.

    the use of non-peer-reviewed studies has been one of the “Believer’s” most emphatic argument’s of “refuting” sight-unseen studies by “Deniers.”

    You obviously didn’t read the OP, since Phil states quite clearly that the study cannot be fully trusted because it has not been peer reviewed yet at least twice. This is opposed to denialists who take results that will never be submitted for peer review as the unquestionable gospel truth.

    This could hardly be considered a “sight-unseen” study, the full papers submitted to the journals (all 4 of them) and all of the raw data and code are readily available online for critique. If there is such a big flaw with the methodology than feel free to point it out to the researchers, I suspect they would be thrilled.

    So, in this case, why pounce on such a non-peer-reviewed study? Obviously becuase it gives the answer desired.

    As I explained, the important thing isn’t the answer so much as who was asking the question. These are not strong supporters of global warming, quite the contrary.

    But what of that answer…they found the Earth is warming–or at least ony about 2/3′s of the land mass…conceding that about 1/3 the land mass is cooling!!! That’s actually a better answer for “Deniers” as they never doubted or debated the Earth has warmed.

    Ah, I see. You obviously do not know what an “average” is. That explains a lot. Come back when you have passed 3rd-grade math, then we can talk.

    Further, the BEST study leave out the vast majority of the planet–a whopping 70 percent or so, the area covered by the oceans, was NOT addressed.

    You obviously didn’t bother to check the website either, or you would know they plan on doing the oceans next. They are working through various temperature records and validating them one at a time. This one was done first since the land surface record is the most informative (if you don’t know why, re-take 4th grade science and learn what “heat capacity” is).

    In case you missed it, “Deniers” do NOT deny that that Earth has warmed.

    You obviously haven’t read this discussion, since many people here have done exactly that. Also, if you don’t disagree with the results of the study, why are you so intent on refuting it? At worst it is a pointless waste of time.

    BEST did not address WHY only some 20 percent of the Earth’s surface warmed–they only noted what every knows & concedes is that it has warmed a bit (that “some 20 percent” is the roughly 2/3′s of the land mass observed to be warming AND actually studied out of the whole of the planet’s surface)

    They didn’t address why anything happened. In fact that specifically avoided analyze anything related to causes. The purpose of this study was to do one thing and one thing only: check whether the methodology used to develop the land temperature record was working.

    NOT ADDRESSED: WHY has about 2/3′s of the 3/3′s of the land mass warmed? CO2 & other human activity, something else, etc?????

    Yes, that was not the purpose of this study.

    IN OTHER WORDS, NO NEW NEWS FROM THAT REPORT.

    Uh, yeah, Phil said the exact same thing. You really didn’t read a word of the OP, did you?

  179. Brian137

    Ken,
    In post #193 you said

    The Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) results are “news” because????…- In case you missed it, “Deniers” do NOT deny that that Earth has warmed.

    Ah, but genuine skeptics are often more scrutinous than what are often referred to by the somewhat condescending term “deniers.” Dr. Muller and some others had sincere doubts about how the data in some previous studies were collected and/or processed. The result is interesting to many members of the scientific community although perhaps not to you. It is the Berkeley Group’s effort to provide a more rigorous analysis.

    On a completely different level, I am reminded of a line from the movie “Dirty Dancing” (OK, maybe it’s not exactly Shakespeare). Baby’s father, as part of an apology to another character, says, “When I’m wrong, I say I’m wrong.”

    Ok, now that I have reminded myself of Shakespeare, how about, “This above all else, to thine own self be true.”

  180. Brian137

    5. Mike Says:

    It comes down to a matter of who you trust. So, until such time as this subject is moved out of the political arena and strictly into the scientific, I will not be able to take any study, from either slant, seriously. This subject should have never been politicized to begin with. Now it will take time to remake it into something that the public will judge as being legit.

    Hi Mike,
    That really is what it comes down to for me, too: whom do I trust besides myself, my family, and my cat? On matters of climate science, I trust the climate scientists – not to be infallible, of course, but to do a competent and scrupulous job. I don’t really look to the media, the politicians, etc., for any kind of clarity on scientific issues. Half of those guys probably sat in the back of their science classes and hated them.

    But a lot of studies have been done on various aspects of climate change. For instance, the IPCC studies involved hundreds of scientists. The claim that the scientists involved were just trying to protect their grant money does not accord with my own introspection – I really enjoy doing the best job I can, and my experiences with other people indicate that many of them feel the same way.

  181. @ ^ Brian137 : What you said there abut trusting the climatologists. Seconded by me. :-)

    If you trust NASA’s rocket engineers to make rockets – and their medical staff to ensure the astronuats are medically fit to fly in them, why then wouldn’t you trust NASA’s climatologists to tell us what the climate is doing?

    Also seconds (once again) most of what TheBlackCat, Chris Winter & ND have said above here. :-)

    @192. 1berto Says:

    Why dont show the pre 50s changes? Would be funny to watch the ‘explanations’ of the bigger increments in temperature in a time we dont have 10% of today’s emissions. And yes there are data from that years…

    Which is very well known, pretty well understood and can be found recorded in things like the Hockey Stick(s) diagram(s) that climatologists have presented already. Yes, there’s lots of historical and pre-historical data
    and, yes, it says what we’re experiencing now is unprecedented and indicates HIRGO is real and of grave concern right now.

    If the warning is caused by men im not certain…

    Why not? If you’re doctor told you you were overweight because you were eating teh wrong unhelathy foods for example would you deny that too? Or if your dentists said you’d being eating too much sugar and that was causing you cavities? Sometimes it does pay to listen to the experts and take prevenative or corrective measures.

    But im certain that if it is the governments couldnt save us…

    Not alone no. It’ll take science and industry and *us* people acting together a lot more. Additionally, because of thermal inertia – the climate time lag effect – we’re going to be facing some pretty serious climate change problems whatever we do today or tomorrow.

    But its better to hit the brakes and crash into the wall at thirty miles an hour rather than NOT hit the brakes and slam into the wall at a hundred miles per hour instead. Isn’t it? Do you really not see the analogy here?

    @184. Joseph G : “This video (indeed, just the title) explains the DBAD principle.”

    Thanks. :-)

  182. Nigel Depledge

    Ken (193) said:

    - In case you missed it, “Deniers” do NOT deny that that Earth has warmed.

    In case you missed it, until very recently (the last year or two), a lot of them did. There are a few who still do (IIUC), although I don’t recall who and don’t have time to look it up just now.

  183. Nigel Depledge

    Ken (194) said:

    The debate, to call it that, is why has the Earth warmed, and, is the warming really a problem??

    Settled about 10 – 15 years ago.

    A) Caused mostly by human activity.
    B) Yes, it will most certainly be a problem*.

    * Unless we do something about it.

  184. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ Nigel Depledge : .. &, even then, unless that something we do about it is pretty serious, pretty quickly. Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating is already causing problems and already getting worse. Thermal (climate) inertia is already strongly working against us although hardly anyone seems to realise it. Sad to say it’s looking more & more like too little too late when it comes to taking action – which is, of course, NO excuse for not taking any now.

    As I noted before, we’re (metaphorically) in a car that’s off track and going to hit a wall. Apply the brakes (IOW, act to mitigate HIRGO now) and we hit that wall at thirty or forty miles per hour. We’re hurt but not too badly. Refuse to brake and we hit that wall at a hundred miles an hour and are probably killed or very seriously injured.

  185. Andrew

    It’s not all nature, it’s us we can still prevent it.
    Governments/secret organizations need to get a grip and stop believing in something they haven’t and will never tell us till they wipe us out for easier way to control us.

  186. Nigel Depledge

    @ MTU (205) –
    Yes, I agree that the time to act was 15 years ago.

    I’m not entirely sure I agree with your car crash analogy. While it is clear enough to make the point that action – even if that action is late in coming – is worthwhile, it implies that HIRGO is catastrophic for all of us if left unchecked. And I’m not yet convinced of this. Yes, the impact of HIRGO will be substantial, and it will be detrimental, and it seems likely today that there will be – sooner or later – widespread famine resulting from HIRGO-induced rainfall shifts, but I also think that there will be some regions that don’t suffer so very much.

  187. James

    Just discovered that Richard Muller is the originator of the “Nemesis hypothesis”

  188. Dee Niah

    Having backed this study in the hopes it would validate my bias against anthropogenic global warming if it doesn’t show that salamanders are the cause then I’m going to take my ball back from those nasty BEPpers! I’m not playing if it doesn’t validate my biases!

  189. benji

    Nicely written, Phil. I’d like to point out that I guess which word made you cringe :).

  190. Peter Bromberg

    Prof.Curry (co-author of the study):

    ‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’ …
    ‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’
    In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously. They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.

    Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

    However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

    ‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.

    AGW scientists have still failed to prove that CO2 is responsible for the moderate rise in temperatures, nor have they proven their hypothesis that the rise is irreversible, or even bad.

  191. flip

    I doubt anyone will see this since most have moved on to other discussions on other posts, but…

    It’s interesting in general that most people could understand and agree with an episode of CSI whereby they figure out the composition of some piece of tape and compare it with the roll it came from, and say, “they match”. And yet, can’t seem to figure out that we can do the same with isotopes in the atmosphere with ones from underground.

  192. Nigel Depledge

    Peter Bromberg (212) said:

    AGW scientists have still failed to prove that CO2 is responsible for the moderate rise in temperatures,

    No-one is claiming that CO2 is solely responsible, but it is a major factor. Earth’s IR emissions show this.

    What has been proven beyond reasonable doubt is that a collection of human activities that increase the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are the most likely causes – and the only plausible causes – of the recent rapid warming. Natural causes have been sought and none has been found that can account for the rapid warming that we observe.

    Therefore, the only plausible conclusion (based on the best data we have available) is that human activities are responsible for GW. Ergo, AGW is real.

    Your semantic argument is trivial and seems designed to waste people’s time.

    Stop arguing about it and get on with doing something about it.

    nor have they proven their hypothesis that the rise is irreversible,

    Whoever claimed this? Where and when?

    Of course the change is reversible – all we have to do is to stop burning fossil carbon, and to stop turning limestone into calcium oxide (the first step in the production of cement). Of course, the timescale over which the ensuing reversal may then happen could vary dramatically, depending on the significance of various positive feedbacks, and on whether or not we have reached a tipping point. For example, if deep ocean methane clathrates are thawing and releasing their methane into the atmosphere, then the warming will be substantially more and will last longer than would otherwise have been the case.

    or even bad.

    So, what part of the several metres’ rise in sea level is not “bad”? The best-case scenarios anticipate about a 2-metre rise in mean sea level, which will be a serious problem for low-lying nations such as Bangladesh, the Netherlands and the Maldives, and for coastal cities such as London and New Orleans. We should expect, by around 2100, the rise in sea level to have been more than 2 metres from the 1970 mean.

    Or, which part of the alterations of rainfall patterns is not “bad”?

  193. Nigel Depledge

    Flip (213) said:

    It’s interesting in general that most people could understand and agree with an episode of CSI whereby they figure out the composition of some piece of tape and compare it with the roll it came from, and say, “they match”. And yet, can’t seem to figure out that we can do the same with isotopes in the atmosphere with ones from underground.

    Easily explained:

    First, the CSI scientists are sexy TV scientists, so they are instantly more credible than real-life scientists.

    Second, the CSI scientists don’t require that people make any effort to save energy or to be less wasteful in general. So, accepting what they say requires no sacrifice (for instance, you don’t have to limit your use of aircon, or buy a refrigerator that is smaller than a house in England (honestly, what do you USAians keep in those monsters?), or drive a car with an engine smaller than 4 litres, and so on).

  194. flip

    Yep, I agree Nigel. Some of the stupidest customer anecdotes out there suggest also that people tend to think all those fancy-shmancy CSI photo-imaging can be done at your local printing shop. Never mind that it takes months of work by some graphic artist to come up with all that stuff, some people really think that you can just do all those tricks in five seconds without any computer equipment at all.

    Sigh… we need to educate more people about how technology works, not just that it does.

  195. mike

    Using a 60 year sample for a 6 billion year old planetshould yield God results. And yes there is a.d will be climae change the Earth is e solving up to the day the sun explodes and theEarth is destroyed. The climate change histeria is just a form of religious zealotry to controloir lives.

  196. Kat

    What i’d like to know is what happened in 1980. The industrial revolution started in the late 1800s. What’s the theory on the huge jump 100 years later? Did the population suddenly explode? Cumulative build-up? What?

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »