Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

[Munger]

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...0,772697.story

[don]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

anyone in a position to act acts out of an agenda

cars and oil debunk science, Goldman steers cap & trade

we're screwed

[Master Shake]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

The issue is anthropogenic warming. One would expect planetary warming during an interglacial period.

[c1ue]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

Except for one little problem:

BEST is neither a skeptic (Muller openly endorses the AGW position) nor has it completed its analysis.

From BEST's own page:

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ

The Berkeley Earth plot is for the land data only, since we have not yet begun analysis of ocean temperatures. Because we only analyze land, that was the fair comparison to make. The ocean temperature rise is less, and when included in, it reduces the value of the total temperature rise.

Also note that for the land analysis, only 2% of the land stations have actually been analyzed:

(same page as above)

The Berkeley Earth team has been working very hard over the past two weeks, and has now taken an in-depth look at the issue of station quality. This analysis has been done on 100% of the stations that have been ranked by the Watts team – and is therefore distinct from the 2% results. All of the sites ranked by Watts are located in the United States.

So Richard Muller's seemingly decisive testimony was based on 2% analysis of land sites, 0% analysis of ocean sites, and 100% "Station quality review" of land sites.

Hardly a definitive base to state categorical conclusions from.

Hopefully Mr. Muller's work will continue, but so far all he's done is perform an admirable Judas Goat job.

[WDCRob]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

Don't worry Munger, they'll just keep moving the goalposts.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

99.999% of the people living today will be dead within a 100 years!

[c1ue]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

Yep, the goalposts keep moving. After all, the IPCC projections are still wrong, so must be 'adjusted'.

Actual temperatures:

[don]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

99.999% of the people living today will be dead within a 100 years!

Straight from the Greatest Generation playbook

Well done . . . and thanks

[don]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

My conclusion on the Great Environmental Warming debate:

It may be real.

It may be hokum.

It may be a cyclical change having nothing to do with human activity.

I don't know nor do I have a strong opinion.

What I have learned.

Our society is completely incapable of dealing with anything of this magnitude.

We are fully-vetted members of the Mayan/Easter Islander Club that can't see beyond the cage.

Battling for king of the roost is our be-all end-all.

Human nature hasn't changed. It's always been this way.

wait till you hear this one. they call it ethanol . . .

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

1. Inst the correct term global climate change? I thought the term global warming was put to rest.

2. Its from Berkeley.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

1.) The Sun was extremely active in the late 1990s, so active that the northern lights were seen at night, quite clearly, in central California. I thought I was in Canada! This active Sun increased the solar energy that the Earth received and biased the temperatures to the upside. So the graph compiler moved the goal posts, not the critical observer of the graph. A different selection of years might exhibit an opposite story; maybe graph the warm years of the 1940s on the left, with the colder years since the solar max of the late 1990s, and plot the recent colder years on the right.
2.) Might I suggest a critical review of the temperature stations: What was built around the temperature stations to obscure the sky, and when?
3.) My drunk at San Francisco International Airport has not stumbled very far for very long from his lamp-post. If your graph was meaningful, and the Earth was warming due to CO2 in the atmosphere emitted by industrial activity, then my drunk would be away from his lamp-post and moving farther away from it with each passing decade. But the old climate records are standing. We have seen the daily mins and maxes before. Everything in climatology is rather boring, at least at San Francisco Airport.
3a.) Pick your airport. So long as the temperature station hasn't been moved or major construction has not happened to obscure the sky around the temperature station, everything is downright boring. Everywhere one looks, we've seen the entire climate story before.
4.) Critics might unexpectedly support the scientific consensus on global warming, but I do not. My master's thesis went un-published. I had no job ops to speak of. And here on Vancouver Island, they have suspended my driver's license which makes it difficult for me to live in East Sooke...... All this has happened with a 100% perfect driving record both in California and in British Columbia. That is how this eco-bunch keeps critics silent....... And you don't even know half of the story!

[flintlock]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

My conclusion on the Great Environmental Warming debate:

It may be real.

It may be hokum.

It may be a cyclical change having nothing to do with human activity.

I don't know nor do I have a strong opinion.

What I have learned.

Our society is completely incapable of dealing with anything of this magnitude.

We are fully-vetted members of the Mayan/Easter Islander Club that can't see beyond the cage.

Battling for king of the roost is our be-all end-all.

Human nature hasn't changed. It's always been this way.

wait till you hear this one. they call it ethanol . . .

Don you see a lot of things the same way I do. Are you my long lost twin?( or triplet since I already have a twin)

[cmalbatros]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

Try looking through these - http://climaterealists.com/index.php , http://www.iceagenow.com/index.htm

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...st.html?ref=hp

I still don't understand how he can substantiate his findings when he really has only looked at 2% of the weather station data.

[unlucky]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

Don you see a lot of things the same way I do. Are you my long lost twin?( or triplet since I already have a twin)

I've gotta second that. Anthropogenic climate change, if real, is something we can't handle. The timescale is too long, the arguments and evidence are too obscure and technical.

If you ever find yourself in a debate where the "scientific evidence" and "expert testimony" seems to be against you, here's what you need to do. The scientific community is diverse, there is someone out there who will express doubt or even be prepared to back your side of the argument. Find that person. Give them a platform. Make sure their dissenting voice is heard. Hey presto, "the experts disagree" and it's back to politics as usual.

The art is long, life is short, judgment is difficult.

I'd feel more peace of mind though if I could find someone who can explain how increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere won't have any consequences. Arrhenius' theory of CO2 global warming was rejected for 5 decades by climatologists who believed the excess CO2 would be absorbed by the oceans. Then they realized it wouldn't be. Since then, no-one has come up with a plausible explanation for how it won't cause any problems. And by "plausible" I mean a standard of proof high enough to give me peace of mind, sorry to be subjective but that's the way I am!