Prominent global warming skeptic releases new study

[IGotWorms 4,060]

WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

 

The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of “Climategate,” a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

 

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

 

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

 

What’s different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to “The Daily Show” is paying attention is who is behind the study.

 

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Muller’s research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

 

“The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,” Muller said in a telephone interview. “And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.”

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/skeptics-own-study-finds-climate-change-real-but-says-scientists-should-be-more-critical/2011/10/30/gIQAphNkVM_story.html

 

[Giants Fan 85]

[Strike 5,748]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/skeptics-own-study-finds-climate-change-real-but-says-scientists-should-be-more-critical/2011/10/30/gIQAphNkVM_story.html

 

 

Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

 

[Voltaire 5,363]

It won't change the minds of the 'tards. They'll just continue to believe whatever they want anyways. See my sig.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

What’s different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to “The Daily Show” is paying attention is who is behind the study.

[phillybear 366]

Scientists and citizens who believe in the Global Warming myth make more money in funding and ownership in green companies than the people who tell us the truth.

 

Follow the money. Science is corrupt.

 

FACE.

[Phurfur 70]

Scientists and citizens who believe in the Global Warming myth make more money in funding and ownership in green companies than the people who tell us the truth.

 

Follow the money. Science is corrupt.

 

FACE.

 

Al Gore has made well over $100 million on the green movement.

 

The earth has been in a warming cycle for over 10,000 years. Chicago was under two miles of ice back then.

[DankNuggs 305]

Al Gore has made well over $100 million on the green movement.

 

The earth has been in a warming cycle for over 10,000 years. Chicago was under two miles of ice back then.

This is true, global warming has occured since the ice age...

[Phurfur 70]

This is true, global warming has occured since the ice age...

 

Yes and it is only a warming cycle.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Yes and it is only a warming cycle.

 

This ice age stuff is always a thread killer to these MMGW nutjobs.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Nice editing by Worms:

 

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world,” he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

 

Another thread fayle by Worms.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Sure global warming is naturally occurring but at this pace? I don't believe it. The Earth's temperature cycles play out of over tens of thousands of years.

[Gepetto 1,389]

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

[BudBro 183]

greenland used to green, now is white. will likely return to green at some point. some call it a cycle.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Sure global warming is naturally occurring but at this pace? I don't believe it. The Earth's temperature cycles play out of over tens of thousands of years.

What did Jimmy Kimmel"s research come up with?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Ruh-Roh.....looks like Worms' new MMGW Hero is cooking the books. He is leaving out the fact that global temps have actually stayed the same over the past 13 years, despite a huge increase in carbon dioxide emissions. This indicates CO2 isn't causing GW, which blows the whole MMGW argument out of the water.

 

 

Prof Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and Prof Curry, who chairs the Department Of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at America’s Georgia Institute of Technology, were part of the BEST project that carried out analysis of more than 1.6 billion temperature recordings collected from more than 39,000 weather stations around the world.

 

Prof Muller appeared on Radio 4’s Today Programme last Friday where he described how BEST’s findings showed that since the Fifties global temperatures had risen by about 1 degree Celsius, a figure which is in line with estimates from Nasa and the Met Office.

 

When asked whether the rate had stopped over the last 10 years he said they had not. “We see no evidence of it having slowed down,” he replied and a graph issued by the BEST project suggests a continuing and steep increase.

 

But this last point is one which Prof Curry has furiously rebuttted. In a serious clash of scientific experts Prof Curry has accused Prof Muller of trying to “hide the decline in rates of global warming”.

 

She says that BEST’s research actually shows that there has been no increase in world temperatures for 13 years.

She has called Prof Muller’s comments “a huge mistake” and has said that she now plans to discuss her future on the project with him. “There is no scientific basis for saying that global warming hasn’t stopped,” she says.

 

“To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.” New research also seems to back up Prof Curry rather than Prof Muller.

 

A report published by the Global Warming Foundation, which is based on BEST’s findings, includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past 10 years and it is absolutely flat, suggesting that temperatures have remained constant.

This issue is crucial because the levels of carbon dioxide in the air have continued to rise rapidly over the last decade and if temperatures have remained constant during that period it would suggest there is no direct link between carbon gas emissions and global warming.

 

Previously carbon dioxide emissions – from the burning of fossil fuels and from deforestation – have been considered one of the biggest causes of climate change, the most damaging effects of which are thought to be the melting of the polar ice caps and the rise in sea levels as well as an increase in extreme weather events such as floods and droughts.

 

“Whatever it is that is going on here it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by carbon dioxide,” says Prof Curry.

 

Prof Muller has made it clear that the BEST study was not conducted in order to gauge the causes of global warming, saying the study “made no assessment on how much of this is due to humans and how much is natural”.

 

He and his scientists – who also included this year’s physics Nobel winner Saul Perlmutter – set out purely to determine once and for all whether climate change had occurred.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over-

[Greedo 13]

 

Yes and it is only a warming cycle.

 

 

This ice age stuff is always a thread killer to these MMGW nutjobs.

 

Between the two of you there are exactly zero climatology degrees, so I'm not sure what makes you qualified to comment with such certainty. You might look at some peer reviewed journal articles addressing what's happening in the arctic vs. just a world-wide average temperature measurement. It doesn't matter much if Phoenix gets warmer - it sure matters if the arctic does.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Between the two of you there are exactly zero climatology degrees, so I'm not sure what makes you qualified to comment with such certainty. You might look at some peer reviewed journal articles addressing what's happening in the arctic vs. just a world-wide average temperature measurement. It doesn't matter much if Phoenix gets warmer - it sure matters if the arctic does.

What's your degree in?

[Voltaire 5,363]

What's your degree in?

It doesn't matter what his degree is in.

 

It only matters if you get your facts on the issue from the people with degrees in Climate Science or you get it from the people with degrees in Marketing.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It doesn't matter what his degree is in.

 

 

 

So why does it matter what my degree is in?

[penultimatestraw 473]

So why does it matter what my degree is in?

You cannot have an intelligent discussion about global warming without the degrees

 

Please post only about things in which you have expertise: chain emails, judgmentalism, 3rd grade zingers, etc.

[Voltaire 5,363]

So why does it matter what my degree is in?

It doesn't either. We can't all be climatologists.

 

But of the ones of us that are, 98% say this is the real deal and as in this case, the numbers are moving steadily towards 99% not going back down to 97%.

 

If you recall the global warming hearings in Congress earlier this year, of the two scientist witnesses that were brought up as experts in opposition to MMGW, one recanted his position in testimony. Presumably, this may be the other guy.

 

Since the oil industry is running a critical shortage of experts to testify, they may have to buy some more.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

But of the ones of us that are, 98% say this is the real deal and as in this case, the numbers are moving steadily towards 99% not going back down to 97%.

 

 

Where do those numbers come from?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You cannot have an intelligent discussion about global warming without the degrees

 

Please post only about things in which you have expertise: chain emails, judgmentalism, 3rd grade zingers, etc.

 

Gotcha.

 

I look forward to reading your threads about the most effective candy to lure unsuspecting 8 year old boys into your van down by the river.

[Reality 3,121]

 

 

But of the ones of us that are, 98% say this is the real deal and as in this case, the numbers are moving steadily towards 99% not going back down to 97%.

 

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

It doesn't either. We can't all be climatologists.

 

But of the ones of us that are, 98% say this is the real deal and as in this case, the numbers are moving steadily towards 99% not going back down to 97%.

 

If you recall the global warming hearings in Congress earlier this year, of the two scientist witnesses that were brought up as experts in opposition to MMGW, one recanted his position in testimony. Presumably, this may be the other guy.

 

Since the oil industry is running a critical shortage of experts to testify, they may have to buy some more.

Yep. Near consensus which is almost impossible in science, or any field. It is amazing how arrogant people some people can be.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Gotcha.

 

I look forward to reading your threads about the most effective candy to lure unsuspecting 8 year old boys into your van down by the river.

A zinger. Check.

 

Most of my posts do reflect my training BTW.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It is amazing how arrogant people some people can be.

 

No kidding. The "scientist" the OP cited was so arrogant he thought he could go public saying temps are still rising when his own data shows temps have stayed the same for the past 13 years, despite huge increases in co2.

[penultimatestraw 473]

No kidding. The "scientist" the OP cited was so arrogant he thought he could go public saying temps are still rising when his own data shows temps have stayed the same for the past 13 years, despite huge increases in co2.

I don't think his misstatement negates his expertise, and unless you have scrutinized the primary data and understand concepts like the the temporal relationship between carbon dioxide release and temperature change (it might not be immediate, or linear, and there may be some other mitigating factors not mentioned) I don't think you have enough information to refute the other 98% of scientists who devote their lives to climatology.

[Voltaire 5,363]

Where do those numbers come from?

 

I remember reading it a long time ago so I looked it up:

 

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

 

The actual numbers are 97-98% but they don't include the two prominent ones from the petroleum industry's payroll that defected this year.

[Strike 5,748]

I don't think his misstatement negates his expertise, and unless you have scrutinized the primary data and understand concepts like the the temporal relationship between carbon dioxide release and temperature change (it might not be immediate, or linear, and there may be some other mitigating factors not mentioned) I don't think you have enough information to refute the other 98% of scientists who devote their lives to climatology.

 

It's awesome when people make up numbers like 98% that can't possibly be known. It really adds to their credibility.

 

[Reality 3,121]

It's awesome when people make up numbers like 98% that can't possibly be known. It really adds to their credibility.

 

 

Exactly...

[Voltaire 5,363]

For all those morons with reading deficiency ...

 

again ...

 

98% scientific consensus on Climate change...

 

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

 

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/6/22/11117/3723

[Voltaire 5,363]

Putting another link out there for recalcitrant retards, maybe they'll see one by accident...

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

[Recliner Pilot 61]

For all those morons with reading deficiency ...

 

again ...

 

98% scientific consensus on Climate change...

 

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

 

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/6/22/11117/3723

 

The Boo Man Tribune blog.

 

 

Awesome!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Ice ages, fellas. Explain how Ice ages have come and gone for thousands of years..........

 

 

/threadkiller

[Voltaire 5,363]

Ice ages, fellas. Explain how Ice ages have come and gone for thousands of years..........

 

 

/threadkiller

They come and go in direct alignment with the amount of CO2 and methane that is in the atmosphere at the time. The amount of CO2 and methane in the air in any given geothermal era is measured by digging up millions of year old ice sheaths out of Greenland.

 

I learned that from Al Gore's movie which, unlike anything the deniers side puts out, can and is backed up by real science.

 

/threadkiller

[Recliner Pilot 61]

They come and go in direct alignment with the amount of CO2 and methane that is in the atmosphere at the time. The amount of CO2 and methane in the air in any given geothermal era is measured by digging up millions of year old ice sheaths out of Greenland.

 

I learned that from Al Gore's movie which, unlike anything the deniers side puts out, can and is backed up by real science.

 

/threadkiller

 

Yep, Owlgore is a genius when it comes to temps.

 

 

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

[penultimatestraw 473]

It's awesome when people make up numbers like 98% that can't possibly be known. It really adds to their credibility.

 

A true poll of all climatologists has not been taken (practically impossible); it's an estimate based on a representative sample. This is how science works, rarely can you measure every data point or test every variable. Here is a study which reaches this conclusion: My link

 

There was a nice pictorial showing this data, provided earlier by Giant's Fan (I know GFIAFP, he sucks at poker, has a diarrheal keyboard, etc.): His link While it oversimplifies things and is a blog, might be easier for those of you whose have difficulty with those darn numbers.

 

ETA I see the PNAS and a Science article have already been linked; why don't you refute the data from these well respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals rather than blasting the silly blog?

[Strike 5,748]

For all those morons with reading deficiency ...

 

again ...

 

98% scientific consensus on Climate change...

 

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

 

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/6/22/11117/3723

 

Duh. Of course man is affecting climate. So does Cow farts. EVERYTHING affects climate. How much is the question.