DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study

Quote:

---

The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.

The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.

"Climategate", in 2009, involved claims global warming had been exaggerated.

Emails of University of East Anglia (UEA) climate scientists were hacked, posted online and used by critics to allege manipulation of climate change data.

The Berkeley group says it has also found evidence that changing sea temperatures in the north Atlantic may be a major reason why the Earth's average temperature varies globally from year to year.

The group includes physicist Saul Perlmutter, a Nobel Prize winner this year
The project was established by University of California physics professor Richard Muller, who was concerned by claims that established teams of climate researchers had not been entirely open with their data.

He gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including such luminaries as Saul Perlmutter, winner of this year's Nobel Physics Prize for research showing the Universe's expansion is accelerating.

Funding came from a number of sources, including charitable foundations maintained by the Koch brothers, the billionaire US industrialists, who have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming.

Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously”

"I was deeply concerned that the group [at UEA] had concealed discordant data," Prof Muller told BBC News.

"Science is best done when the problems with the analysis are candidly shared."

The group's work also examined claims from "sceptical" bloggers that temperature data from weather stations did not show a true global warming trend.

The claim was that many stations have registered warming because they are located in or near cities, and those cities have been growing - the urban heat island effect.

The Berkeley group found about 40,000 weather stations around the world whose output has been recorded and stored in digital form.

It developed a new way of analysing the data to plot the global temperature trend over land since 1800.

What came out was a graph remarkably similar to those produced by the world's three most important and established groups, whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate sceptic circles.

The Berkeley group's record of global land temperature mirrors existing ones closely
Two of those three records are maintained in the US, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa).

The third is a collaboration between the UK Met Office and UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), from which the e-mails that formed the basis of the "Climategate" furore were hacked two years ago.

"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Prof Muller.

"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

Since the 1950s, the average temperature over land has increased by 1C, the group found.

They also report that although the urban heat island effect is real - which is well-established - it is not behind the warming registered by the majority of weather stations around the world.

They also showed that in the US, weather stations rated as "high quality" by Noaa showed the same warming trend as those rated as "low quality".


"I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published," he said.


The findings so far provide validation for Phil Jones, targeted during the "Climategate" affair
"These initial findings are very encouraging, and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal."

The Berkeley team has chosen to release the findings initially on its own website.

They are asking for comments and feedback before preparing the manuscripts for formal scientific publication.

In part, this counters the accusation made during "Climategate" that climate scientists formed a tight clique who peer-reviewed each other's papers and made sure their own global warming narrative was the only one making it into print.

But for Richard Muller, this free circulation also marks a return to how science should be done.

"That is the way I practised science for decades; it was the way everyone practised it until some magazines - particularly Science and Nature - forbade it," he said.

"That was not a good change, and still many fields such as string theory practice the traditional method wholeheartedly."

This open "wiki" method of review is regularly employed in physics, the home field for seven of the 10 Berkeley team.

Bob Ward, policy and communications director for the Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the Environment in London, said the warming of the Earth's surface was unequivocal.

"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," he said.

"More broadly, this study also proves once again how false it was for 'sceptics' to allege that the e-mails hacked from UEA proved that the CRU land temperature record had been doctored.

"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."

Ocean currents
The Berkeley group does depart from the "orthodox" picture of climate science in its depiction of short-term variability in the global temperature.

The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is generally thought to be the main reason for inter-annual warming or cooling.

But by the Berkeley team's analysis, the global temperature correlates more closely with the state of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index - a measure of sea surface temperature in the north Atlantic.

There are theories suggesting that the AMO index is in turn driven by fluctuations in the north Atlantic current commonly called the Gulf Stream.

The team suggests it is worth investigating whether the long-term AMO cycles, which are thought to last 65-70 years, may play a part in the temperature rise, fall and rise again seen during the 20th Century.

But they emphasise that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) driven by greenhouse gas emissions is very much in their picture.

"Had we found no global warming, then that would have ruled out AGW," said Prof Muller.

"Had we found half as much, it would have suggested that prior estimates [of AGW] were too large; if we had found more warming, it would have raised the question of whether prior estimates were too low.

"But we didn't; we found that the prior rise was confirmed. That means that we do not directly affect prior estimates."

The team next plans to look at ocean temperatures, in order to construct a truly global dataset.

---

Quote:

---

Does this change anyone's opinion?

---

Quote:

---

I believe in climate change. I believe it's been changing since the earth was created. I believe there have been more severe warming trends than what these scientists are claiming for our recent history and near future. What I don't believe is that man is responsible for the changes.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Does this change anyone's opinion?

---

Nope, never disputed the Global Warming aspect only the "Man Made" part.

---

Quote:

---

I don't know that anyone has doubted global warming as a fact. The doubts come when we're told it's man made global warming.

Serious question: Today, we can chart global temps - everywhere. Digitally, as mentioned in the article. What, exactly, are today's temps compared to in regards to temps from 50 years ago? 100 years ago.

In other words, this 1 degree C increase over the last 61 years (I believe that's what the article said) - what was the basis point from 61 years ago? How was it measured - where was it measured.

Also, it says something about the north atlantic being responsible......the AMO, the gulf stream, etc.

In short, as to your question: "Does this change anyone's opinion?" Well, you don't ask if it changes opinion as to global warming. So, I agree, there is global warming. Always have.

The real debate is, is it man made global warming.

And the answer, according to science is: The earth was warmed and cooled since it's existence.

So, it's warming now. 30 some years ago science told us it was cooling. 30.....maybe 50..........maybe 10 years from now? It may cool again.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know that anyone has doubted global warming as a fact. The doubts come when we're told it's man made global warming.

Serious question: Today, we can chart global temps - everywhere. Digitally, as mentioned in the article. What, exactly, are today's temps compared to in regards to temps from 50 years ago? 100 years ago.

In other words, this 1 degree C increase over the last 61 years (I believe that's what the article said) - what was the basis point from 61 years ago? How was it measured - where was it measured.

Also, it says something about the north atlantic being responsible......the AMO, the gulf stream, etc.

In short, as to your question: "Does this change anyone's opinion?" Well, you don't ask if it changes opinion as to global warming. So, I agree, there is global warming. Always have.

The real debate is, is it man made global warming.

And the answer, according to science is: The earth was warmed and cooled since it's existence.

So, it's warming now. 30 some years ago science told us it was cooling. 30.....maybe 50..........maybe 10 years from now? It may cool again.

---

http://www.kent.gov.uk/environment_and_p...ate_change.aspx

Look at the chart. Also, geologists can figure out carbon levels etc. using various techniques such as checking certain levels of certain elements that were frozen in ice during the ice age and still remain there.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Does this change anyone's opinion?

---

Nope, never disputed the Global Warming aspect only the "Man Made" part.

---

Do yourself a favor and take a college course in Earth Sciences, I'd be shocked if you came out of that class not thinking that the human race has had a huge impact as far as global warming is concerned.

---

Quote:

---

Do yourself a favor and take a college course in Earth Sciences, I'd be shocked if you came out of that class not thinking that the human race has had a huge impact as far as global warming is concerned.

---

I took those classes but was 20 years ago, back when we weren't having an impact on the earth.

I also took a bunch of econ courses and low and behold what I found was that if my professor was a believer in Keynesian economics, then that was promoted as a better system, if my professor believed in marginalism, then that was promoted, supply side guys were not allowed on college campus so I never heard anything good about that... So if I take an earth science class I would imagine I'm likely to hear some facts steered in the direction of the belief of the professor..

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Does this change anyone's opinion?

---

Nope, never disputed the Global Warming aspect only the "Man Made" part.

---

Do yourself a favor and take a college course in Earth Sciences, I'd be shocked if you came out of that class not thinking that the human race has had a huge impact as far as global warming is concerned.

---

You mean your college classes taught by guys like Draftdayz? Right.

As other people have said, we are all well aware that climate change takes place over time on this vast planet. We are at odds over what the cause is, so why would this change our minds, Draft?

Quote:

---

Do yourself a favor and take a college course in Earth Sciences, I'd be shocked if you came out of that class not thinking that the human race has had a huge impact as far as global warming is concerned.

---

Right....that's like telling us to take a college politics class so we can be brainwashed that a given President is or is not doing a good job.

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter if global warming is man made or not. I would like to be able breath clean air and drink clean water. Clean, cheap energy woo hoo that is just a bonus. For now burn coal and plant trees.

---

Quote:

---

Tap water in the US is better than most countries, but it is still polluted with pharmaceuticals, man-made and natural toxins, radioactive particles, pesticides, herbicides and other industrial chemicals.

Not to mention the added chlorine which is a deadly poison and alum which has been linked to Alzheimer's disease... MMMMMMMMM Good Stuff!

---

Quote:

---

You mean your college classes taught by guys like Draftdayz? Right.

---

Quote:

---

Now that this warming trend has been "confirmed" we are calling it global warming again? Damn it, I was just getting used to "climate change".. wish they would make up their mind...

---

• The project was established by University of California physics professor Richard Muller, who was concerned by claims that established teams of climate researchers had not been entirely open with their data.
  
• The group's work also examined claims from "sceptical" bloggers that temperature data from weather stations did not show a true global warming trend.
  
• They also showed that in the US, weather stations rated as "high quality" by Noaa showed the same warming trend as those rated as "low quality".
  
• What came out was a graph remarkably similar to those produced by the world's three most important and established groups, whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate sceptic circles.

Quote:

---

Keep drinking tap water, sooner or later you won't realize how bad it is...

---

Quote:

---

Keep drinking tap water, sooner or later you won't realize how bad it is...

---

Quote:

---

The science would point to it NOT being man made. Look back over the last 1000 years - or 2000. or more. The earth warms, it cools.

---

Quote:

---

j/c

Here is an interesting question for all of you;

How old do you think the earth is?

---

4 billion years, but trust me, the data over the last 50 years is conclusive that man is destroying and scorching the earth.

Doesn't matter that the same scientists who claim we are causing this catastrophe agree that at one time Canada was a warm tropical climate.

Quote:

---

j/c

Here is an interesting question for all of you;

How old do you think the earth is?

---

Quote:

---

4 billion years

---

Quote:

---

You also stated it hasn't been peer reviewed, or published.

---

Quote:

---

And, you conveniently leave out that everyone agrees that global warming is happening. The discussion is: is it man made or not.

---

Quote:

---

The science would point to it NOT being man made. Look back over the last 1000 years - or 2000. or more. The earth warms, it cools.

---