Global Warming Real says King Skeptic Scientist

[Donkey®]

Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Originally Posted by article

By RICHARD A. MULLER

Are you a global warming skeptic? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be.

As many as 757 stations in the United States recorded net surface-temperature cooling over the past century. Many are concentrated in the southeast, where some people attribute tornadoes and hurricanes to warming.

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.

We know that cities show anomalous warming, caused by energy use and building materials; asphalt, for instance, absorbs more sunlight than do trees. Tokyo's temperature rose about 2ºC in the last 50 years. Could that rise, and increases in other urban areas, have been unreasonably included in the global estimates? That warming may be real, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect and can't be addressed by carbon dioxide reduction.

Moreover, the three major temperature analysis groups (the U.S.'s NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.K.'s Met Office and Climatic Research Unit) analyze only a small fraction of the available data, primarily from stations that have long records. There's a logic to that practice, but it could lead to selection bias. For instance, older stations were often built outside of cities but today are surrounded by buildings. These groups today use data from about 2,000 stations, down from roughly 6,000 in 1970, raising even more questions about their selections.


On top of that, stations have moved, instruments have changed and local environments have evolved. Analysis groups try to compensate for all this by homogenizing the data, though there are plenty of arguments to be had over how best to homogenize long-running data taken from around the world in varying conditions. These adjustments often result in corrections of several tenths of one degree Celsius, significant fractions of the warming attributed to humans.

And that's just the surface-temperature record. What about the rest? 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.

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.

Over the last two years, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has looked deeply at all the issues raised above. I chaired our group, which just submitted four detailed papers on our results to peer-reviewed journals. We have now posted these papers online at Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011) to solicit even more scrutiny.

Our work covers only land temperature—not the oceans—but that's where warming appears to be the greatest. Robert Rohde, our chief scientist, obtained more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world. Many of the records were short in duration, and to use them Mr. Rohde and a team of esteemed scientists and statisticians developed a new analytical approach that let us incorporate fragments of records. By using data from virtually all the available stations, we avoided data-selection bias. Rather than try to correct for the discontinuities in the records, we simply sliced the records where the data cut off, thereby creating two records from one.

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.

To study urban-heating bias in temperature records, we used satellite determinations that subdivided the world into urban and rural areas. We then conducted a temperature analysis based solely on "very rural" locations, distant from urban ones. The result showed a temperature increase similar to that found by other groups. Only 0.5% of the globe is urbanized, so it makes sense that even a 2ºC rise in urban regions would contribute negligibly to the global average.

What about poor station quality? Again, our statistical methods allowed us to analyze the U.S. temperature record separately for stations with good or acceptable rankings, and those with poor rankings (the U.S. is the only place in the world that ranks its temperature stations). Remarkably, the poorly ranked stations showed no greater temperature increases than the better ones. The mostly likely explanation is that while low-quality stations may give incorrect absolute temperatures, they still accurately track temperature changes.

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Mr. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of "Physics for Future Presidents" (W.W. Norton & Co., 2008).

I know it won't end the debate now that their most cited scientist has changed course...but one day the awakening will happen.


His study.


http://berkeleyearth.org/

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by article

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.

Another opinion piece in the WaPo that cites this article and study.

[Salty Dog]

I've always believed in climate change. I was just hesitant to state how much human influence actually had excellerated it. My stance from day 1 has always been it just takes a simple understanding of a high school science text book to understand how these things happen and how we are continually dooming ourselves.

The most important thing to remember is the opposition has a powerful microphone because it is heavily funded by the billions in the current energy sector. The scientific evidence is there though to dispute any opposition ten-fold. That's why I've always favored green energy (done right) and fail to understand the argument against it, especially now of all times when the US could be reinventing world energy capacities and jumpstarting our economy to last well into the century.

Only a moron thinks breathing in diesel fumes has no consequences on your lungs. And these same blowhards are the ones who do not have vision for our future nor care how we destroy ourselves in the present.

[WickedLou9]

Just to be fair, most "skeptics" don't dispute the fact that the earth is warming. many admit that it is in fact warming, because we can see the physical evidence of it all over the place. From the melting of ice sheets to the early blooming of the cherry trees in Washington DC. The disagreement is around what is causing the warming. The study you posted made no such assertions as far as cause.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Just to be fair, most "skeptics" don't dispute the fact that the earth is warming. many admit that it is in fact warming, because we can see the physical evidence of it all over the place. From the melting of ice sheets to the early blooming of the cherry trees in Washington DC. The disagreement is around what is causing the warming. The study you posted made no such assertions as far as cause.

That's because I too believe that there's no way to effectively tell if humans are adding to it. I think it's bad we shit up our environment...but I don't really see any conclusive proof we do anything to exacerbate the issue.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

That's because I too believe that there's no way to effectively tell if humans are adding to it. I think it's bad we shit up our environment...but I don't really see any conclusive proof we do anything to exacerbate the issue.

Maybe we do not have as much of an effect as some think we do, but I think we can all agree that since the atmosphere is finite and made of molecular elements, if we pump excess molecular crap elements into it, it will all interact (and probably not in a good way). I'm not informed enough to debate precise data, but that general premise makes logical sense - at least to me.

And like you said, it's bad to shit up the environment. I mean, does anyone look at power plant smoke stacks billowing filth into the air and say "Yeah, that's the stuff?" No one I know.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Maybe we do not have as much of an effect as some think we do, but I think we can all agree that since the atmosphere is finite and made of molecular elements, if we pump excess molecular crap elements into it, it will all interact (and probably not in a good way). I'm not informed enough to debate precise data, but that general premise makes logical sense - at least to me.

And like you said, it's bad to shit up the environment. I mean, does anyone look at power plant smoke stacks billowing filth into the air and say "Yeah, that's the stuff?" No one I know.

Then since everything is finite, instead of probably's and conjecture, someone should be able to show actual proof. It's not easy, I know, but until then, I have problem with people questioning that aspect of global warming.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Then since everything is finite, instead of probably's and conjecture, someone should be able to show actual proof. It's not easy, I know, but until then, I have problem with people questioning that aspect of global warming.

It's because the global climate system is infinately complex and impossible to test. You can test the impact of any single factor because there are 1000 other factors all changing and all acting at the same time.

[illavbill]

Originally Posted by leonardino

But the main reason behind global warming is use of C02 that emits and increases the hole in the atmosphere shield of earth. So emission of gases which helps in production of more and more CO2 is being banned by the government. One more gas that causes increases in hole of earth shielding is CFC2 gas, don't worry that is also being banned.

you don't know what you're talking about. The hole in the o-zone layer isn't caused by CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that doesn't break down for something like 10K years. It lets light in but also stops heat from getting out. Read up a little bit

[SonicBoom]

^^^WTF, did fucktard delete his post?