Global Warming Debate

[Insidious Rex]

The scientific finding that settles the climate-change debate
By Eugene Robinson, Published: October 24

For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it’s getting awfully cold out there.

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

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

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

“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote. “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.”

In other words, the deniers’ claims about the alleged sloppiness or fraudulence of climate science are wrong. Muller’s team, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, rigorously explored the specific objections raised by skeptics — and found them groundless.

Muller and his fellow researchers examined an enormous data set of observed temperatures from monitoring stations around the world and concluded that the average land temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius — or about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — since the mid-1950s.

This agrees with the increase estimated by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Muller’s figures also conform with the estimates of those British and American researchers whose catty e-mails were the basis for the alleged “Climategate” scandal, which was never a scandal in the first place.

The Berkeley group’s research even confirms the infamous “hockey stick” graph — showing a sharp recent temperature rise — that Muller once snarkily called “the poster child of the global warming community.” Muller’s new graph isn’t just similar, it’s identical.

Muller found that skeptics are wrong when they claim that a “heat island” effect from urbanization is skewing average temperature readings; monitoring instruments in rural areas show rapid warming, too. He found that skeptics are wrong to base their arguments on the fact that records from some sites seem to indicate a cooling trend, since records from at least twice as many sites clearly indicate warming. And he found that skeptics are wrong to accuse climate scientists of cherry-picking the data, since the readings that are often omitted — because they are judged unreliable — show the same warming trend.

Muller and his colleagues examined five times as many temperature readings as did other researchers — a total of 1.6 billion records — and now have put that merged database online. The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.

Not so, I predict, with the blowhards such as Perry, Cain and Bachmann, who, out of ignorance or perceived self-interest, are willing to play politics with the Earth’s future. They may concede that warming is taking place, but they call it a natural phenomenon and deny that human activity is the cause.

It is true that Muller made no attempt to ascertain “how much of the warming is due to humans.” Still, the Berkeley group’s work should help lead all but the dimmest policymakers to the overwhelmingly probable answer.

We know that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades is abrupt and very large. We know it is consistent with models developed by other climate researchers that posit greenhouse gas emissions — the burning of fossil fuels by humans — as the cause. And now we know, thanks to Muller, that those other scientists have been both careful and honorable in their work.

Nobody’s fudging the numbers. Nobody’s manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a “naturally occurring” warm-up, as Bachmann alleges. Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real.

It is the know-nothing politicians — not scientists — who are committing an unforgivable fraud.

[GrayMouser]

One of the great things about that was that because he was a respectable scientist who was a skeptic, his study was prtly funded by the Koch Bros., right-wing oil company billionaires who fund much of whatever of the denialist support that doesn't come from ExxonMobil.

Needless to say, the denialists have immediately reversed course and started denouncing their erstwhile darling.

[inked]

More data, more arguments:

30,000 data points

sun activity

frozen Thames?

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1kwqyTqiB


Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

,,,According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

...Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1kwri0Oqo

[Draken]

For a report that starts off with "30,000 data points", some actual data would have been nice. A report with no name? And with no web presence to link to? It would seem so.

No phrase is more oxymoronic than "Daily Mail Science Correspondent". Let's find better sources to further the debate (from either standpoint) other than this rag, please.

[GrayMouser]

"Daily Mail Lies About Global Warning"
"Sun Rises in East"
"Andy Murray Loses Grand Slam Tournament"

None of these are exceptional, and only one may have a more than infinitesmal chance of turning out to be false in the future.

Here is the the original story released by the Met Office that the Daily Mail article is based on:

Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming.

23 January 2012 - New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.
......
It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/rel...utput-research

The Met calls the Mail on its lying:

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about�.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
.........
Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.

It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...-january-2012/

A couple of other postings showing how dishonest this story is:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...nt=channellink

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/...mate-nonsense/

This does get a bit monotonous, doesn't it?

[The Gaffer]

GM, how can we hold these people to account for their lies / professional incompetence?

If a doctor was as cavalier and unprofessional, s/he would be struck off and probably thrown in jail.

[inked]

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

Seek the data points............http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/data.htm & http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/climgen/

Seek the model(s)...

"This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions)." op cit

lotsa models ... http://science.nasa.gov/search/?q=climate+change

[brownjenkins]

It reminds me of my boys. They always come up with creative reasons not to clean up after themselves!

[inked]

And it's from Europe, so it must be true!

http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/19/s..._campaign=link

Why? Why? Why?! won't those nasty data points yield to the theory?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[Insidious Rex]

Sorry, its hard to concentrate on reading that when its 70 degrees outside in January in the Mid Atlantic region of the eastern US... Im sure its just full of real facts though...

[Midge]

Hey, that was GREAT. That was A-M-A-Z-I-N-G.

But then, today, a mere two days later, it's 30, feels like 18 with freezing flurries coming down. So I'm not sure how the WARMING part works.

[Insidious Rex]

It works in Georgia where super rare winter tornados kill people driving on a highway or a Category 4 Hurricane strikes the northern Atlantic in January! All because energy has been added to the global weather system allowing for more of these kinds of events to happen.

[Insidious Rex]

although to your point, I saw this cartoon today and it made me chuckle:

[inked]

Now climate change is inspiring murder!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/30/ce..._campaign=link

Quick, do a survey of temperature and killings in Europe and see if this "scientific" claim has validity across the
Atlantic!

Do note, however, that NYC had the same temperatures and a much lower murder rate.

PS I do believe in climate change because there were glaciers here in the last ice age. There are not glaciers here now. QED, the climate changed. It's the allegations of anthropogenic climate change that need proof. Do not category errors make, Skywalker Luke.

[Coffeehouse]

What I find the most amusing is the interchangeable use of two mutually exclusive statements amongst 'denialists'. One, that there is no warming. Two, that there is no man-made warming. So which is it?

[inked]

Perhaps you should ask this CNN Journalist/reporter/nutter?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-b...global-warming

CNN anchor Deb Feyerick asked Saturday afternoon if an approaching asteroid, which will pass by Earth on February 15, “is an example of, perhaps, global warming?”


She never got to that question in the subsequent interview at about 3:25 PM EST during CNN Newsoom, instead transitioning from a snowfall update: “Talk about something else that’s falling from the sky and that is an asteroid. What’s coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, of global warming or is this just some meteoric occasion?”

Who knew the universal effects of CO2 - manmade, 'natch, or you couldn't claim to affect it - interfered with asteroids! A new standard for global climate change which used to be global warming still it stopped warming and is now just climate change (apparently everywhere).


AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: The Polar Bears and NOT Co-operating with the Hypothesis, Either!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...style_newsreel

[GrayMouser]

Yep, TV newscasters sometimes say really stupid things:

Fox News Claims Solar Won't Work in America Because It's Not Sunny Like Germany.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te..._do_video.html

[Earniel]

I think if there is one thing the many, many links Inked has posted over the years clearly show, it's that not all journalists are to be trusted when it comes to science reporting.

[inked]

Well, these are Brit scientists with an alternative explanation for some widely decried changes that have been used to support the hypothesis of Global Warming/Anthropogenic Climate Warming/Climate Change/whatever:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01..._campaign=link

And how about those chaps getting stuck in all that ice that wasn't melting but caught them instead?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Gaia is no doubt quite entertained.

[Earniel]

It'd be nice if you'd actually read what scientists said about climate change, rather than what the media makes of it. You'd notice some differences. But then you wouldn't have half as much sarcastic fun as you're obviously having with it now, I bet. Ah well, to each their own.

La Niña, 'nuf said.

Oh by the way? Sunniest december here in forty years. Anecdotal, I know. But since you appear to prefer them to actual data...