BBC: 'Very accurate' confirmation of global warming

[Skins24]

Warming...ice...hmmmmm
I don't know about you but my freezer doesn't get warmer before it gets colder.

Good! That would be weird.

Relevance to this thread?

So instead of acknowledging that they were wrong and global warming is a real phenomenon which is being contributed to if not caused by the massive amounts of pollution, they go full on stupid.

Global warming is not caused by pollution at all. The most harmful pollutants actually cause cooling.
Warming is caused by greenhouse gases. Main contributors are water vapor and CO2 (in that order.) Both are essential for survival...not pollutants. The problem, as with anything, is excess.
The question is whether we releasing more and more CO2 is enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The problem is the rates of warming have not been consistant with the amounts of CO2 being released. The rates of CO2 have steadily increased, warming has not. One side wants to ignore or dismiss the inconsistancies and blame humans for everything The other wants to find out why.

And another side simply doesn't care either way

[PeterMP]

The question is whether we releasing more and more CO2 is enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The problem is the rates of warming have not been consistant with the amounts of CO2 being released. The rates of CO2 have steadily increased, warming has not. One side wants to ignore or dismiss the inconsistancies and blame humans for everything The other wants to find out why.

And another side simply doesn't care either way

I just copied a post that I already made in this thread to reply to the above, rather than essentially retype the samething:

The models predict temps rising with co2 levels,if the temps have stopped rising or started declining the assumption (linkage) is bad or overstated

REAL climate models are complex things that take into acount a lot of different variables and often include multiple years of declining or not increasing temperatures.

Here is an example of model outputs. In all cases, the models are assuming constantly increasing CO2 concentration. Each line represents a different model. Notice how they aren't straight lines or curves that aren't ONLY increasing. The models predict "local" peaks and "valleys".

The latest "lull" in temperature increases is completely consistent with the models and with historical lulls in the context of the current warming period.

**EDIT**
Sorry, forgot the link to the models output:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=clima...2reyZDw&zoom=1

[Larry]

One side wants to ignore or dismiss the inconsistancies and blame humans for everything The other wants to find out why.

One side wants to lie about the other side, and to lie about their own objectives, too.

Claiming that the deniers "want to find out why" is about as honest as claiming that the Birthers "just wanted the truth".

[Skins24]

One side wants to lie about the other side, and to lie about their own objectives, too.

Claiming that the deniers "want to find out why" is about as honest as claiming that the Birthers "just wanted the truth".

A little more than slightly tongue in cheek, but they would be on the side that doesn't care. Don't chop my post man

[Thiebear]

I'm on the side that says global warming is obviously happening as it has for the entire length of earths history.
Has nothing to do with wanting to plant 50million trees or fields of switch grass, or go get a honda hybrid at 3pm tomorrow.
Making this world cleaner when you leave than when you arrived should be the same as when you get to the playground.

[Larry]

I'm on the side that says global warming is obviously happening as it has for the entire length of earths history.

Actually, I think the Earth has been cooling throughout it's history. At least, if you're talking a geologic time scale.

[Thiebear]

Larry, I know you love to pick 1 sentence from a 20 page report: I'll try again but doubt it will succeed:
The Patterns have been happening and seem easily viewable:
The Atmosphere has been going through the "Chaotic Glacial Periods" over the last 100k years of rapid rise and falls. I know some believe 1 boy and 1 girl created all of mankind, but i think we are here due to the perfect climate, of the last 4billion years this is it..though we need to hang out a bit longer to work towards #1.

Example:
A 10-foot-tall, 1,200-pound gorilla dwelled among early humans, says a new report by a Canadian researcher.
Jack Rink of Canada's McMaster University concludes that the largest primate that ever lived, Gigantopithecus blackii, lived in Asia for nearly 1 million years before dying out about 100,000 years ago.

[Predicto]

Larry, I know you love to pick 1 sentence from a 20 page report: I'll try again but doubt it will succeed:
The Patterns have been happening and seem easily viewable:
The Atmosphere has been going through the "Chaotic Glacial Periods" over the last 100k years of rapid rise and falls. I know some believe 1 boy and 1 girl created all of mankind, but i think we are here due to the perfect climate, of the last 4billion years this is it..though we need to hang out a bit longer to work towards #1.

Example:
A 10-foot-tall, 1,200-pound gorilla dwelled among early humans, says a new report by a Canadian researcher.
Jack Rink of Canada's McMaster University concludes that the largest primate that ever lived, Gigantopithecus blackii, lived in Asia for nearly 1 million years before dying out about 100,000 years ago.

Thiebear, I don't understand why you keep harping on this point.

A temperature change that happens over 80,000 years is not the same as a temperature change that happens over 80 years.

[twa]

why don't ya add in the temp change of each period? (80 vs 80,000)

[Renegade7]

The more we go back and forth on whether we're causing global warming or not, the powers that be will continue to do nothing while global pollution continues. We do need to change our ways and "global warming" should not be the main reason why. We can't really prove its us, so we're wasting our time trying to do so...

[Predicto]

why don't ya add in the temp change of each period? (80 vs 80,000)

Why? Unless it is one thousand times different, I don't see the relevance to my point.

[Koolblue13]

why don't we start by not ****ting on our only planet. The same planet we get our food, water and air from. Stop digging into the ground or pumping it full of toxic chemicals. Stop building mountains of garbage, that need more toxic chemicals poured on them, that run into our water sheds. Stop using giant fuel wasting machines to transport crap all over the place and make it closer. Let's start with this, simply because we should and maybe we won't have an air quality meter on the weather station and we can figure out if our kids might have a nice place to live tomorrow first.

Somebody will make money off no matter what we do and that's the most important thing, right?

[AsburySkinsFan]

why don't we start by not ****ting on our only planet.

Because they don't want to, if we actually started to do something that might help our planet (and in turn ourselves) then that would mean we would have to start rethinking the way we live, and we're too fricking lazy for that.

[btfoom]

Post-climategate Richard Muller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller) was disturbed by the behavior of trying to deny FOIA and went out and brought a group together to create a completely public set of data and methods for analyzing global LAND temperature. They are known as the Berkeley group, and they have officially released their findings today, which show results very similar (not statistically signficant) to what the existing groups had, including CRU, who were the people in the center of climategate.

The title of the thread is based on this audio link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9621049.stm

The press release from the actual people is here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/B...Summary_20_Oct

Here's the actual paper most directly related to global land temperatures:

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/B...dal_Variations

We now have 4 data sets showing warming since 1950, and 2 more satelite data sets showing warming since the early 1970s.

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

By David Rose

Last updated at 6:11 PM on 30th October 2011

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it....

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1cUNb8OYz

[PeterMP]

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

By David Rose

Last updated at 6:11 PM on 30th October 2011

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it....

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1cUNb8OYz

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/di...ler/#more-5540

"In David Rose’s article, the direct quotes attributed to me are correct.

To set the record straight, some of the other sentiments attributed to me are not quite right, I will discuss these here.

“Hiding the truth” in the title is definitely misleading, I made it pretty clear that there was uncertainty in the data itself, but the bigger issues are to analyze the data and interpret it. I made it clear that this was not a straightforward and simple thing to do.

I told Rose that I was puzzled my Muller’s statements, particularly about “end of skepticism” and also “We see no evidence of global warming slowing down.”

I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me. When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agreed that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.

Added note: I have dug into my memory. Rose brought up hide the decline in our first interview, in the context of the plot that ends in 2006. He called me back specifically to discuss this and teased the “hide the decline” out of me. The hide the decline discussion was in this particular context.

My most important statement IMO is this: ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures. To me, this should have been the big story: a new comprehensive data set, put together by a team of physicists and statisticians with private funds. Showing preliminary results is of course fine, but overselling them at this point was a mistake IMO."

I'll point out that most data sets have 2010 as one of the two warmest years on record. I haven't looked at the BEST data.

If Curry has an issue with the data or the way it is being presented in publication, she should pull her name from the authorship. Though that doesn't seem to be what she is saying.

**EDIT**
They don't appear to have generated complete results yet for 2010.