New independent climate study confirms global warming is real

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
So you probably thinking this is going to be me just spamming you with more evidence for climate change. In a way you are right, but thats not the real story here. This is a study sponsored by the ultra-conservative billionaire Koch Brothers. They are known for having astroturfed libertarian Tea Party. They are well known for being dodgy.

I am presenting this as evidence that theres hope for even ultra-conservatives :D

The following is a copy and paste of the blog article at Discovery Magazine.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...limate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/

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:

BEST_globalwarming.gif


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.
 
Yup the sun heat cycle is keeping us lekka toasty :D

A bit idiotic though, we know the climate is changing, it has been for many many years. We just don't know if it us or the very thing giving us warmth.
 
Could very well be the reason and i am not ruling it out, is there a chart for the heat the sun gives out for the last say 50 years? Can we accurately measure how much of the sun we are taking in compared to say 12 years ago i wonder? Without guessing ghoti are you 100% certain the sun is not the cause, is nasa 100% certain? Do they know without a shadow of a doubt the sun cycles cannot warm or cool the earth?
 
Was a device that measures co2 levels invented before the wheel?

The ice of the northern Arctic oceans, basically when ice freeze it entraps the co2 level in its region. Now they normally take the northern ice sea's ice of the Atlantic simply because man kind was never there. It gives you a good indication of the overall rise world wide.
 
6 Billion cockroaches (humans) polluting for centuries and you are telling me we have no impact on global warming? Sorry I Dont buy that. I am convinced we are killing this planet
 
Could very well be the reason and i am not ruling it out, is there a chart for the heat the sun gives out for the last say 50 years? Can we accurately measure how much of the sun we are taking in compared to say 12 years ago i wonder?
Could you tell me why the rise in CO2 levels would not be increasing the heat?

Without guessing ghoti are you 100% certain the sun is not the cause, is nasa 100% certain? Do they know without a shadow of a doubt the sun cycles cannot warm or cool the earth?

Well if you can tell me how increased levels of CO2 are not causing increase heat, and if you can explain the technical mechanism which the sun is heating our planet. As we can see by this graph there is actually a drop in solar activity and is showing a cooling trend:

Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif


Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

So over to you. Explain how CO2 is not heating the atmosphere, and explain how the lower solar activity and the sun cooling down is heating our planet.
 
Last edited:
The ice of the northern Arctic oceans, basically when ice freeze it entraps the co2 level in its region. Now they normally take the northern ice sea's ice of the Atlantic simply because man kind was never there. It gives you a good indication of the overall rise world wide.

Good indication as in they know without a shadow of doubt?

http://viewzone.com/chatur.html

I know it's more prophecy nonsense but the maya seemed to understand the universe way more than we do, not only that they seem to know things that nasa know, which amazes because nasa are not sitting around fires looking up they are way more advanced.

The maya seem to indicate a period of warming from 2001 to 2012, backed up by nasa oddly enough. We know we are currently in a heat cycle which will peak early next yea so surely logically speaking the hotter the sun the hotter the earth.

Unless everyone thinks the sun has no effect on our planet at all, whether it's cool or 100x hotter means stuff all? I dunno we will see but the hotter it gets the more blame is placed on co2 regardless of the fact that the sun is sending out much more heat right now than normal.

I realize ghoti they can go back 100000+ years ago but is everything a constant? So the sun never changes, it's always the same?

Ghoti the sun is not cooling down bud, it is going into it's peak of hotness :D for the next year or so, it will only cool in 2013

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_TzIUlaQok

It is a nasa fact that we are moving into the solar maximum that has been building since 2001, interestingly the 10 hottest years on record happen to be 2001-2010

The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 10 years (2001–2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
 
Last edited:
Glad this research has been done to put the final nail into the skeptics coffins :D
Another attributing factor to the climate change phenomena is global dimming which has been entirely overlooked here is the BBC doc

[video=youtube;bLfBXRPoHRc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLfBXRPoHRc[/video]
 
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1/

There is a lot of talk on the dinosaurs and how they died but nobody really mentions the possible solar storms or extreme heat caused by the sun as a factor, it's always an asteroid that did it.

It's fascinating once you take the blinkers off and see perhaps there is more than co2 emissions involved with how our planet warms and cools.

Ghoti you have not called anyone an idiot yet :D, damn proud of ya :p
 
Good indication as in they know without a shadow of doubt?

http://viewzone.com/chatur.html

I know it's more prophecy nonsense but the maya seemed to understand the universe way more than we do, not only that they seem to know things that nasa know, which amazes because nasa are not sitting around fires looking up they are way more advanced.

The maya seem to indicate a period of warming from 2001 to 2012, backed up by nasa oddly enough. We know we are currently in a heat cycle which will peak early next yea so surely logically speaking the hotter the sun the hotter the earth.

Unless everyone thinks the sun has no effect on our planet at all, whether it's cool or 100x hotter means stuff all? I dunno we will see but the hotter it gets the more blame is placed on co2 regardless of the fact that the sun is sending out much more heat right now than normal.

I realize ghoti they can go back 100000+ years ago but is everything a constant? So the sun never changes, it's always the same?

Ghoti the sun is not cooling down bud, it is going into it's peak of hotness :D for the next year or so, it will only cool in 2013

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_TzIUlaQok

It is a nasa fact that we are moving into the solar maximum that has been building since 2001, interestingly the 10 hottest years on record happen to be 2001-2010

The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 10 years (2001–2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record




So explain, how a cooling sun is leading to a dramatic increase in heat?

"If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere."
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

"Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases."

Next argument please. If the Sun is heating the atmosphere, why is the outer layer cooling and the inner layer heating?
 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/

What ya think?

Seems to confirm but i gotta drop off an urgent t-shirt order in pta so i will check out some more stuff later or tomorrow.

So do all climate changes cause opposing trends in stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures? No, it depends on the physics of each case. A good counter-example is that of solar forcing. An increase in the sun’s irradiance such as occurs over the 11-year sunspot cycle (or potentially longer time scales) warms the stratosphere (due to increased absorbtion by ozone) but it also warms the troposphere.

Now the sunspot cycle has been a bit odd this time

This is interesting ghoti
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpr...pot-involvement-in-climate-change-compelling/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/27/nasas-sunspot-prediction-roller-coaster/

Low sun spots are bad for us earthlings it seems and the sun cycle has had very low activity this time around. read those links, very interesting. This could go either way for sure :D

Low sun spot activity weaker shield, more cosmic rays enter our beloved planet.

Are you totally writing this theory off as rubbish though ghoti? For all i know it is rubbish and the co2 is the right one but surely things are far more complex than that. There are many many forces we do not even understand. We have no way to measures cosmic rays do we? Where is the cosmic ray chart for the last 30 years?
 
Last edited:
I don't think people truly understand how statistical data is collected. Scientists take a big sample size and work with confidence intervals to eliminate the probability of defects.
 
I don't think people truly understand how statistical data is collected. Scientists take a big sample size and work with confidence intervals to eliminate the probability of defects.

Yup, it is done in order to "smooth" the data to find a trend. Kinda like modern economics, panelbeat the models into shape.

I have no idea what Ghoti's problem. CO2 and more heat = a warmer climate and for the most part, warmer periods have been associated with higher economic growth and increase in standards of living, far better crop yields etc.

Pollution, solving the worlds hunger problem, one factory at a time.

PS: I don't really consider the Koch bro's libertarians, but anyways.
 
Yup, it is done in order to "smooth" the data to find a trend. Kinda like modern economics, panelbeat the models into shape.

I have no idea what Ghoti's problem. CO2 and more heat = a warmer climate and for the most part, warmer periods have been associated with higher economic growth and increase in standards of living, far better crop yields etc.

Pollution, solving the worlds hunger problem, one factory at a time.

PS: I don't really consider the Koch bro's libertarians, but anyways.

The fact of the matter is that the market have proven itself better to provide solutions for all mankind's problems than government have ever. Toyota was reducing carbon emissions long before the global warming campaign. Nuclear power is cleaner than coal power, we no longer use lead in petrol. I don't buy this hypothesis that we are moving backwards, the only time we actually moved backwards was when government intervened to find solutions, usually because politicians aren't really you're clever folks.
 
The fact of the matter is that the market have proven itself better to provide solutions for all mankind's problems than government have ever. Toyota was reducing carbon emissions long before the global warming campaign. Nuclear power is cleaner than coal power, we no longer use lead in petrol. I don't buy this hypothesis that we are moving backwards, the only time we actually moved backwards was when government intervened to find solutions, usually because politicians aren't really you're clever folks.

Good luck telling that to the statists round here.

Problem: Global Warming
Solution: Let the market solve it. (Don't do anything.)

They don't understand how spontaneous order comes from chaos. (Ghoti, for an atheist, still believes a devine hand needs to guide everything, of not devine, then democrat)
 
So explain, how a cooling sun is leading to a dramatic increase in heat?

"If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere."
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

"Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases."

Next argument please. If the Sun is heating the atmosphere, why is the outer layer cooling and the inner layer heating?

Simple.
1. Hard vacuum (i.e Empty Space) is an effective insulator allowing ONLY heat transfer via radiation and not conduction or convection.
2. The earth is NOT an ideal black-body heat source but it does radiate some heat BUT mostly it reflects the majority of the energy it receives from the sun off the surface of the water we call "The Oceans"
3. The earth has an atmosphere which absorbs some of the energy light photons from sun passing through it on the way in and most of it reflected as heat (IR band photons) off the oceans simply because: (1) where is the heat supposed to go? The atmosphere cannot emit the heat as light the wavelength changes...
4. Water Vapour and Carbon Dioxide combine to make the atmosphere even more of an less effective emitter of Infrared photons.

Remember this simple principle when thinking about this: The majority of the energy from the sun does not arrive as infrared heat but as higher frequency "visible light" and ultra-violet radiation. When this energy hits the earth it is converted to infrared wavelength photons through absorption and re-emission or by reflection or by conversion to water vapour / steam (basically very excited water molecules)

Global warming happens because the atmosphere is "transparent" to the high frequencies energy from the sub but NOT transparent to the lower frequency IR and heat energy coming back up from the earth. So the energy goes in but cannot as easily escape.

Oh I DID forget to mention: Thermal mass and Thermal inertia.
We may be able to tell that the sun is or isn't "flaring" or cooling via satellites and other instruments outside our atmosphere BUT the atmosphere has a thermal mass owing to it's nature and situation. i.e. the heat energy and water vapour heated mass can't go anywhere so it's not really correct to think of the entire atmosphere as a fast acting / fast responding thing. It cannot shed the heat to anything and must slowly radiate it out.
The actual link between CO2 and Atmospheric heat is: Specific Heat differences. The more CO2, the lower the overall Specific Heat factor of air is. Air is a composite of gasses with and average specific heat of around 1.026kJ/kg.K and CO2 is 0.735kJ/kg.K both at 200K.
Now the lower the specific heat then the LESS heat energy it would take to make the substance's temperature rise by a given amount.
i.e. CO2 gets hotter faster than the average so the net effect is higher air temperature for the same amount of heat energy given to a mixture of gasses (we call air) that has more CO2 in it than before.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X