Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Dangerous Ideas

Global Warming: The Way Science Works.

Advertisement

You may not realize it but we are getting a good lesson about the way science works, or at least should work. The lesson involves an independent study of planetary temperature data designed to examine some of the global warming skeptic's concerns about the nature of the data used in previous studies on climate change. The new study was conducted by a group of scientists involved in a project called BEST- the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study.

Some of the study's conclusions include the following:

  1. The heat island effect in urban areas is not biasing the estimates of land surface temperature.
  2. Poor quality weather stations are also not biasing the global estimates of land surface temperature.
  3. Adding more temperature data gives results that are consistent with those in previous studies.
  4. The best fit to to the data-(BEST did not use traditional climate models but a correlational approach) are a model that combines volcanic activity (the effect by the way is to cool climate) and carbon dioxide concentration. Variation in solar input is NOT an explanatory factor in current climate trends.

The BEST group has submitted their analysis and results for publication and what is really admirable have opened up their data sets and analytical methods to public scrutiny. The study by the way was funded in part by the Charles Koch foundation.

Now it easy to say well we knew a lot of this stuff from current work-but an important aspect of science is the confirmatory aspect of science- it's what should enable us to gain confidence in our ideas-while others fall by the way side as not tenable. I don't expect these results to convince every one and they may also be flawed in ways that aren't immediately obvious. But maybe they will nudge the scientific and political debate to where we can have a serious talk about how to deal with global warming.

The BEST Website is at http://berkeleyearth.org/

There is also an interesting commentary from the study's principle investigator who has changed his mind and global warming and it's causes based on the results of the study.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Comments

George Lippencott 1 year, 8 months ago

Standing up and demanding more of spmeone's standard of living without clear statements of what that investment buys may be too much to ask of our current crop of politicans. Remember theyhave the unfunded promises to acount for already.

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 8 months ago

It is way past time to argue that the planet is not warming. It is time to argue about what to do about it. The imposition of selective political solutions without some overarching plan that states goals and establishes how meeting those goals will reverse/stop warming will remain very difficult to achieve. Until some sorts of goals are set that tie to remediation we will never be able to determine if we understand the problem well enough to be able to manage it in a politically acceptable way.

Politically it is a reach to ask people who have already taken a living expectation hit (2008) and who are going to be hit again to pay for previous largess (large and unsustainable debt) to now take another - perhaps one even more odious. It is another reach to color any such proposal with all dimensions of blame to support the expectations to be disproportionally met. I like the term confidence builders where not only do we set a goal (we have) but we specify what that goal will achieve. I can think of little more defeating of successful human corrective action than reaching a preset goal only to determine that nothing measurable has happened – except a number of people have been significantly impacted.

0

Chris Golledge 1 year, 8 months ago

A short, technically oriented commentary on the recent activities of Muller and also Watts.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/much-ado-about-nothing/

0

bendover61 1 year, 8 months ago

The graph is land temps. You missed 2/3 of the planet.

0

Paul Decelles 1 year, 8 months ago

Liberty,

I'm with verity on this one, given enough time we might be able to adapt to climate change but adaptation is costly whether we are talking about moving people from areas suceptible to flooding or modifying agricultural practices, or adaptation in an evolutionary sense. Our social and agricultural systens developed during a time of relatively stable and moderate climate. My undertanding is that it is the rapid change in the carbon dioide concentration and rapid climate change which is the issue rather than a particular temperature.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 8 months ago

How was it determined where the zero is and therefore what is anomalous.

All this globalwarmingclimatechangewhatever... and where are the hurricanes... in August. You'd figure all those warming seas would be spitting out lots of hurricanes.

0

Agnostick 1 year, 8 months ago

What you're seeing here, folks, is a good example of how some of the more desperate members of the Extreme Right try to hoodwink people. When you ask for sources, you're told they're not necessary, or distracting... "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

These things get chopped up, pasted back together, slapped into an email, and then everyone forwards it to everyone on their mailing list, who then forwards it to everyone on their mailing list, who then forwards it to everyone on their mailing list, who then forwards it to everyone on their mailing list, who then forwards it to everyone on their mailing list, who then forwards it to everyone on their mailing list, who then forwards it to everyone on their mailing list, who then forwards it to everyone on their mailing list, who then forwards it to everyone on their mailing list, who then forwards it to everyone on their mailing list, who then ......

Then they'll wrap themselves in a flag, pick up a crucifix, and tell you you're a Communist bound for Hell.

2

Agnostick 1 year, 8 months ago

tbaker 4 hours, 24 minutes ago

"CO2 is likely not the major cause of the global warming trend over the last one hundred sixty years we have been able to take reasonably accurate measurements of so-called global average temperature. Even if carbon dioxide was the cause, there isn’t much we could do about it. Manmade CO2 accounts for a very tiny percentage of atmospheric CO2. (<.04%). There is a much stronger correlation between solar output and global temperatures.

"The Ocean is the single biggest source of CO2 on planet Earth, because it has the largest biomass. The Oceans outgas 200 times more CO2 per year than humans do.

"The Global Warming Scam artists say humans produce 6.5 billion tons of CO2 every year, but they never mention that the Earth's atmosphere weighs 6.9 Quadrillion tons. Do the Math, it takes one million billions to make one Quadrillion. Which mean's man's contribution to the 380ppm is less than 1ppm (Parts Per Million) in our atmosphere.

"Water Vapor makes up 40,000ppm (Parts per million) in our atmosphere, where CO2 only makes up 380ppm, which means water vapor is more than 100 times the concentration in our atmosphere. And if you factor in the fact that water vapor has 7 absorption bands in the Infrared spectrum, and CO2 only has 3, and 2.5 of those 3 are being over run by water vapor absorption bands, leaving CO2 with only 1/2 of one absorption band as its only contribution to warming. This makes water vapor 270 times the greenhouse gas of what CO2 is. How come there is no attempt to remove water vapor from the Earth's atmosphere?

"There is not a scientific consensus that man is the primary cause of global warming. A group of over 140 scientists and researchers recently gathered at the IPCC to sign a declaration stating that there is no convincing evidence to suggest that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity cause climate change and called upon world leaders to abandon all efforts to reduce emissions. Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gases activity is causing global warming.


A good portion of the above text also lifted from the link below... original poster, "edmund129." Claims as a source, "University of Copenhagen," but no link to a scientific paper, journal, etc.

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?s=9800bc1052c856447c19e133e723c354&p=749508#post749508

1

Paul Decelles 1 year, 8 months ago

Well you should read the article carefully. Lovelock is skeptical of his own previously made extreme predictions but note what he says:

Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”

He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.

“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.

From my perspective that is a perfectly legitimate stance-he is absolutely right we don't understand the role of the oceans very well. I'd say his perspective isn't that much different than mine.

This of course does not get at your sources for the claims you made in your post. I reiterate:

Sources please.

0

tbaker 1 year, 8 months ago

So when flawed "proof" is offered to a group, and that group sees it for what it is, they are to called "Deniers?" What does that make the other group of people? What do we call people who put forth bogus science that doesn't even pass the common sense test. What do we call them?

What do we call someone who is all in favor of doing things in a cleaner, more environmentally friendly way becuase everyone they care about has to drink the water, breathe the air, and eat the food that comes from our Earth, but is not going to fall for a baseless hoax cleverly designed toincrease government control of our lives.

One of the founders of the Global Warming alarmism [James Lovelock] recently said; “Who knows? Everybody might be wrong. I may be wrong." He continued...”The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising….”

All this came from an MSNBC article. Theres a citation for ya Doug County.

0

verity 1 year, 8 months ago

The deniers will keep denying no matter what proof is presented. Futile to argue.

We are fouling our earth with all sorts of pollution---can anyone deny that?

Even if there is doubt that global climate change is happening because of human input or we don't know what percentage is caused by humans, wouldn't it be better to try to clean things up now and live cleaner and more efficient lives, putting less stress on nonrenewable resources, than to wait until it might be too late?

3

Patrick Freeland 1 year, 8 months ago

Climate Change: That S*** is Real

0

tbaker 1 year, 8 months ago

CO2 is likely not the major cause of the global warming trend over the last one hundred sixty years we have been able to take reasonably accurate measurements of so-called global average temperature. Even if carbon dioxide was the cause, there isn’t much we could do about it. Manmade CO2 accounts for a very tiny percentage of atmospheric CO2. (<.04%). There is a much stronger correlation between solar output and global temperatures.

The Ocean is the single biggest source of CO2 on planet Earth, because it has the largest biomass. The Oceans outgas 200 times more CO2 per year than humans do.

The Global Warming Scam artists say humans produce 6.5 billion tons of CO2 every year, but they never mention that the Earth's atmosphere weighs 6.9 Quadrillion tons. Do the Math, it takes one million billions to make one Quadrillion. Which mean's man's contribution to the 380ppm is less than 1ppm (Parts Per Million) in our atmosphere.

Water Vapor makes up 40,000ppm (Parts per million) in our atmosphere, where CO2 only makes up 380ppm, which means water vapor is more than 100 times the concentration in our atmosphere. And if you factor in the fact that water vapor has 7 absorption bands in the Infrared spectrum, and CO2 only has 3, and 2.5 of those 3 are being over run by water vapor absorption bands, leaving CO2 with only 1/2 of one absorption band as its only contribution to warming. This makes water vapor 270 times the greenhouse gas of what CO2 is. How come there is no attempt to remove water vapor from the Earth's atmosphere?

There is not a scientific consensus that man is the primary cause of global warming. A group of over 140 scientists and researchers recently gathered at the IPCC to sign a declaration stating that there is no convincing evidence to suggest that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity cause climate change and called upon world leaders to abandon all efforts to reduce emissions. Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gases activity is causing global warming.

0

autie 1 year, 8 months ago

I don't know about all that but it is gawd dang hot out.

I saw a dog chasing a cat yesterday. They were both walking.

2

Richard Payton 1 year, 8 months ago

Let the hot bacon festival begin!

0

Mike Ford 1 year, 8 months ago

listen as the hayseeds attack science (yawn).......

0

melott 1 year, 8 months ago

No. There is no concensus. This is one view. Did you see the word "may"?

0

Liberty_One 1 year, 8 months ago

So, when the ice caps don't melt in three years, will you folks give up this stuff or just move the goalposts (yet again).

3

Ken Lassman 1 year, 8 months ago

Muller is one man, who, because he expressed doubts about human induced climate change, was a person denialists rallied around. The fact that he has come around to the consensus conclusion of the vast majority of climatologists is a mildly interesting historical footnote to the much, much larger issue of all of the changes that are occurring to our planet as a result of the release of those greenhouse gases: sea level rise, increased water vapor resulting in more flooding and extreme weather events, melting of glaciers and polar ice, ocean acidification and the concomitant stresses all of these things place on the planet's biodiversity, on human settlement patterns, on our economy, etc. It is time for us to expect more from our government officials in terms of both trying to limit the increases in emissions and in terms of preparing for the inevitable changes that are going to happen from the emissions already present in the atmosphere. The longer we wait, the higher price we pay.

This is the conversation that needs to be taking place.

3

Poptech 1 year, 8 months ago

Muller was never a skeptic,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

"I was never a skeptic" - Richard Muller, 2011

"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants." - Richard Muller, 2008

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.