PDA

View Full Version : Study rebukes skeptics: Global Warming is real.


Livewire
October 21st, 2011, 09:46 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44996377/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/#.TqJThbK9Z2I


A new climate study shows that since the mid-1950s, global average temperatures over land have risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit), confirming previous studies that have found a climate that has been warming – in fits and starts – since around 1900.
Most climate scientists attribute warming since the mid-1950, at least to some degree, to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities – burning coal, oil, and to a lesser extent gas, and from land-use changes.



The latest results mirror those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
These previous efforts, however, came under fire from some climate-change skeptics who said they had detected serious flaws in the analytical methods and temperature records the three groups used.


The new research, which has yet to be formally published but which appears in four papers posted on BerkeleyEarth.org, uses new analytical techniques and a much larger set of records than the previous studies did.




Indeed, the new approach to analyzing temperatures records allowed the team to make use of partial and older records previous studies had rejected as unusable, explains Richard Muller, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who coordinated the effort.
In the end, the team's result shows that the earlier studies "were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate-change skeptics did not seriously affect" the conclusions these studies reached, said Dr. Muller, who some climate activists have labeled a global-warming skeptic.









The approach embodied in the main work "is very valuable, but may also need some refinement," says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.



Besides confirming the temperature trend, the Berkeley group says it was able to rule out the urban heat-island effect as a significant contributor to global warming.
And it was able to show that even with a large number of critical US recording stations operating inaccurately, those stations still showed long-term trends that were consistent with more reliable stations.



In essence, any given measuring station may be off compared with surrounding stations. But if it's off by a consistent amount, long-term trends will still show up.
The study also highlighted the regional differences in temperature trends that can lead people to say: What global warming?



Over the past 70 years, the team found that about one-third of the measuring stations in its global sample indicated cooling trends. Two-thirds showed warming trends, with warm regions more than offsetting cool regions in developing a global average.
Money for the new study, dubbed the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, came from five foundations, including one established by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and another from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, widely seen as a source of money for conservative organizations and initiatives that have fought efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.



The work makes no attempt to attribute the rising temperatures to any particular cause. Nor does it include ocean temperatures, the subject of a future study.
Still, this confirmation could help move the discussion toward solutions, suggests Caspar Ammann, another climate scientist at NCAR.



With minor differences, trends in all four independent study group's temperature records match up well from about 1900 on, with the Brekeley and NOAA analyses showing a slightly higher level for the mid 2000s than the NASA and Hadley analyses.
"The rather irrational doubt and claims of a hoax simply don't make sense, and this work might help restart the discussion about what is next," Dr. Ammann says.
The team Muller assembled is not built from the usual cast of climate-science suspects, although Judith Curry, who head's Georgia Tech's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44996377/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/#) department of earth and atmospheric sciences, is a member of the team.
[/URL][URL="http://g.msn.com/AIPRIV/en-us"]
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31066137/media-kit/)







Instead, Muller says he drew heavily on scientists from astrophysics and particle physics with expertise in teasing convincing, reproducable evidence from enormous masses of hard-to-analyze data.



Among them: Saul Perlmutter, who earlier this month shared a Nobel Prize in Physics with two other scientists for discovering that the universe is expanding at an increasing pace. The data Dr. Perlmutter and his colleagues used to stun the world of cosmology – results that others later confirmed – were far less abundant and far harder to analyze than temperature records, Muller says.



The team's independence and its willingness to devise its own analytical methods to provide a reality check on the three other groups' results sold the Koch foundation on the project, Muller adds.



Beyond the immediate results, the group is trying to make such work more transparent to other scientists than critics say has been the case in recent climate science.
How we'll eat the same with climate change (http://futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8209940-how-well-eat-the-same-with-climate-change)

The team posted the four papers on the BerkeleyEarth.org web site in advance of their publication, or even acceptance for publication, in peer-reviewed journals. In addition, the team posted the data and the computer programs used to process and analyze them.
That move has drawn criticism from some climate skeptics who intially supported the group's efforts, arguing that the team was more interested in publicity than in following proper scientific protocol of submitting to a journal and awaiting the verdict of anonymous reviewers.



But for more than a decade, researchers in physics, astrophysics, astronomy, and other disciplines have routinely posted papers-in-progress on public websites for review by colleagues. It's a way of getting an initial reality check on research before engaging the formal publication process.



Some researchers say they doubt this approach will work well for climate science, despite criticisms surrounding what some see as the difficulty of getting other researchers' data or access to the programs they used.



Although the approach can lead to overloaded email inboxes, "I'm quite in favor of these new ways of getting work out and allow a broader set of eyes to provide feedback," says Ammann at NCAR.





This is straight from the Christian Science Monitor, so don't even try to pull the "BIASED NEWS SOURCE" card. This is real.

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 10:38 PM
I find this "evidence" to be shaky. It doesn't even address the cause of such warming, if it even exists.

Livewire
October 21st, 2011, 10:44 PM
I find this "evidence" to be shaky. It doesn't even address the cause of such warming, if it even exists.

It's right there mentioned in the article. The trend was observed since 1900. What started around 60 years beforehand and peaked in the 1870's/1880's? The Industrial Revolution.

Try to refute their findings, as you didn't supply any sort of argument other than "I don't believe it".

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 10:46 PM
It's right there mentioned in the article. The trend was observed since 1900. What started around 60 years beforehand and peaked in the 1870's/1880's? The Industrial Revolution.

Try to refute their findings, as you didn't supply any sort of argument other than "I don't believe it".

It says since the 1870's, but it doesn't say that the Industrial Revolution caused global warming. Also, it fails to address why we've seen global cooling since 1998.

Livewire
October 21st, 2011, 10:57 PM
It says since the 1870's, but it doesn't say that the Industrial Revolution caused global warming. Also, it fails to address why we've seen global cooling since 1998.

There was no irregular solar activity, no irregularities in the earth's atmosphere or magnetic field, and no environmental reason for it, meaning it has an anthropogenic origin.

Cooling from the peak of the warm up, meaning the temps would be falling back to normal levels, which only indicated the initial warm up. And then 2005 happened.

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/t/statisticians-reject-global-cooling/#.TqJpkbK9Z2I)

Mario The World Champion
October 21st, 2011, 11:05 PM
You know, I find the sparring between you two entertaining to say the least.

However, with all this global warming affecting weather patterns, I'm wondering if my area will have a major snowstorm like the one that hit New England back in 1978. That and are we going to see more Katrinas in the future?

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 11:05 PM
There was no irregular solar activity, no irregularities in the earth's atmosphere or magnetic field, and no environmental reason for it, meaning it has an anthropogenic origin.

Cooling from the peak of the warm up, meaning the temps would be falling back to normal levels, which only indicated the initial warm up. And then 2005 happened.

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/t/statisticians-reject-global-cooling/#.TqJpkbK9Z2I)


How do we explain the fact that carbon dioxide is only such a small part of our atmosphere, even today, that it is only measure in parts per million? Also, that fact that 93% of all carbon dioxide emissions happen naturally? The greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide is so minute that it is almost a non-factor. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. In fact, more carbon dioxide is a good thing. As CO2 level rise, crop yields flourish. More CO2 would help end world hunger.

Global cooling and warming does exist as a part of nature, not by the hands of mankind.

Kura
October 21st, 2011, 11:10 PM
I think it'd be more useful if there was actually action taken against global warning.. instead of just studies.
For one thing, recycling should be implimented in many more areas *coughWestVirginiacough* so that manufacturing materials are cut and less fumes etc etc etc blah.. I could go on forever but there needs to seriously be a better plan or we're just sorta sitting here saying "Global Warning, prepare for chaos!"

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 11:16 PM
I think it'd be more useful if there was actually action taken against global warning.. instead of just studies.
For one thing, recycling should be implimented in many more areas *coughWestVirginiacough* so that manufacturing materials are cut and less fumes etc etc etc blah.. I could go on forever but there needs to seriously be a better plan or we're just sorta sitting here saying "Global Warning, prepare for chaos!"

I don't have a problem with a business practicing recycling. That's because it's fiscally responsible and reduces littering, not because of global warming.

Alice
October 22nd, 2011, 12:02 AM
Am I the only one who thinks global warming's existance doesn't matter in the slightest?

If we're polluting the air and water we breathe, then we're directly hurting ourselves, and should stop. Who cares what it does to the planet?

(=Nemesis=)
October 22nd, 2011, 12:52 AM
Am I the only one who thinks global warming's existance doesn't matter in the slightest?

If we're polluting the air and water we breathe, then we're directly hurting ourselves, and should stop. Who cares what it does to the planet?


Cooooorrect. The planet will be just fine with a layer of oil on top of it. The planet doesn't care. Species were going extinct before humans made it big, and they'll go extinct whether we're polluting the atmosphere or not. As a comedian said, maybe humans were only there because "the planet" felt like having some oil splashed about on top of it.

Global warming matters to people because it is a potential threat to people. But to be honest, that's a fair reason.

It's our responsibility to look after the planet, whether it's for ourselves and future generations, or whether it really is for the pangolins or pandas or penguins or panthers.

Arguing about whether or not global warming is real, largely on a political basis, is just a waste of time. Just act responsibly and try to minimise pollution in general.

donavannj
October 22nd, 2011, 01:05 AM
Cooooorrect. The planet will be just fine with a layer of oil on top of it. The planet doesn't care. Species were going extinct before humans made it big, and they'll go extinct whether we're polluting the atmosphere or not. As a comedian said, maybe humans were only there because "the planet" felt like having some oil splashed about on top of it.

Global warming matters to people because it is a potential threat to people. But to be honest, that's a fair reason.

It's our responsibility to look after the planet, whether it's for ourselves and future generations, or whether it really is for the pangolins or pandas or penguins or panthers.

Arguing about whether or not global warming is real, largely on a political basis, is just a waste of time. Just act responsibly and try to minimise pollution in general.

No disrespect or anything, but you completely missed Quilava King's point, which is "if we're polluting the air and water we breathe, then we're directly hurting ourselves and should stop."

As you can see with Freaky's posts, the many doubters are going to take years to be convinced of man-made global warming. For those who still doubt, I have this to say: weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels before we get close to running out of them and are forced into a global war over even just one of the fossil fuels and end up being flung into an age of chaos and a loss of knowledge at the end of this war because every fossil fuel was essentially exhausted in this war and billions more people than presently suffer from starvation will start to suffer from starvation.

Zet
October 22nd, 2011, 01:24 AM
How do we explain the fact that carbon dioxide is only such a small part of our atmosphere, even today, that it is only measure in parts per million? Also, that fact that 93% of all carbon dioxide emissions happen naturally? The greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide is so minute that it is almost a non-factor. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. In fact, more carbon dioxide is a good thing. As CO2 level rise, crop yields flourish. More CO2 would help end world hunger.

Global cooling and warming does exist as a part of nature, not by the hands of mankind.
But CO2 is very deadly to humans.
v/2taViFH_6_Y

FreakyLocz14
October 22nd, 2011, 01:31 AM
But CO2 is very deadly to humans.

CO2 is in the air you and I breathe. Is the air deadly? Obviously, extremely high levels of CO2 are deadly, but the concentration of CO2 in the air would have to multiply by the thousands to be deadly to humans.

Also, someone of you are now making a straw man argument. You are trying to use the point that fossil fuels are a finite resource to make the case that global warming exists. They are not the same topic.

Zet
October 22nd, 2011, 01:43 AM
CO2 is in the air you and I breathe. Is the air deadly? Obviously, extremely high levels of CO2 are deadly, but the concentration of CO2 in the air would have to multiply by the thousands to be deadly to humans.

Also, someone of you are now making a straw man argument. You are trying to use the point that fossil fuels are a finite resource to make the case that global warming exists. They are not the same topic.
Of course the air is deadly, if it's filled with too carbon dioxide. We need to breath in a certain amount of oxygen per breath, but if there's too much carbon dioxide we'd all suffocate because there's not enough oxygen per breath. Which would lead to everyone suffocating and then promptly dying from suffocation. And since carbon dioxide is a big player contributer to global warming, having it on a large scale will be incredibly dangerous to anything that requires oxygen to live. Not to mention that we would be nice and toasty as well.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
October 22nd, 2011, 07:38 AM
Meh. We've always been able to say Global Warming is real. The real question has been, for quite a while, whether we should care. That is to say, is it something we should worry about.

Mr. X
October 22nd, 2011, 09:08 AM
Global warming and cooling are parts of nature. They will happen either way.

The real question is, can humans speed up or slow down this naturally occuring process?

(=Nemesis=)
October 22nd, 2011, 09:35 AM
"No disrespect or anything, but you completely missed Quilava King's point"

OK... if you say so...

Huh... if I don't add something unique to an agreement, it's spam. And if I do, it means I didn't read whatever I'm agreeing to. I guess I could just stop agreeing with people in the future?


All I'm saying for now is, whether or not global warming exists, how about trying not to dump lots of pollutants everywhere, regardless? It can't do any great harm to act as if this supposed fantasy of global warming was actually something that people had to be careful of.

The only people making it political are the huge multinational companies that would be damaged by accountability for ecological damage. And any political party they lobby.

Mr. X
October 22nd, 2011, 01:49 PM
For those who still doubt, I have this to say: weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels before we get close to running out of them and are forced into a global war over even just one of the fossil fuels and end up being flung into an age of chaos and a loss of knowledge at the end of this war because every fossil fuel was essentially exhausted in this war and billions more people than presently suffer from starvation will start to suffer from starvation.

inb4fallout

As for fuels in general, we have around 150+ years supply left. We should, like we do with most of our other problems, do whatever we can to ensure that our decedents are the ones who have to take care of it.

Melody
October 22nd, 2011, 02:31 PM
1. Biased news source. Oh yes I did. We all know the Christian Science Monitor tends to have it's own agendas.
2. It doesn't matter, if the number of inaccurate reporting stations exceeds 10% of the total, then the entire dataset is RUINED. it's not reliable enough.
3. If you really want to prove global warming, show me a warming trend that can't be attributed to normal planetary changes. What is really needed is either a control area where no humans have resided in the last century or a control planet, which is unlikely. Because there seems to be no clear control, it defies the scientific method.
4. I see strawman arguments all the time in this topic.
5. I see insufficient evidence. You automatically blame humans for global warming without proof of such. Now this might be the case if every country on the planet were in industrial revolution or post-industrial revolution. But that's not the case, there are many, many countries that may NEVER make it past industrial revolution. We may be able to pollute our own countries and the ones surrounding them, and perhaps affect the weather a bit but, there really ISN'T enough proof to back the theory that human innovation has hurt the environment.

Livewire
October 23rd, 2011, 09:15 AM
1. Biased news source. Oh yes I did. We all know the Christian Science Monitor tends to have it's own agendas.
2. It doesn't matter, if the number of inaccurate reporting stations exceeds 10% of the total, then the entire dataset is RUINED. it's not reliable enough.
3. If you really want to prove global warming, show me a warming trend that can't be attributed to normal planetary changes. What is really needed is either a control area where no humans have resided in the last century or a control planet, which is unlikely. Because there seems to be no clear control, it defies the scientific method.
4. I see strawman arguments all the time in this topic.
5. I see insufficient evidence. You automatically blame humans for global warming without proof of such. Now this might be the case if every country on the planet were in industrial revolution or post-industrial revolution. But that's not the case, there are many, many countries that may NEVER make it past industrial revolution. We may be able to pollute our own countries and the ones surrounding them, and perhaps affect the weather a bit but, there really ISN'T enough proof to back the theory that human innovation has hurt the environment.

Do you honestly believe the Christian Science Monitor, of all the things, would willingly agree to and publish a study that vindicates what people consider a liberal agenda? Really?

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 04:45 PM
You know, the strange thing about Global Warming... Global warming, as in the name for this process, is a lie.

Global warming isn't really warming. Its actually greater extremes of weather conditions. Basically, hotter in summer and colder in winter.

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 04:49 PM
You know, the strange thing about Global Warming... Global warming, as in the name for this process, is a lie.

Global warming isn't really warming. Its actually greater extremes of weather conditions. Basically, hotter in summer and colder in winter.

This.

Let's not forget that global warming and global cooling are natural processes. The Earth has experienced several episodes of warming and cooling, and yes, those did lead to extinctions. By trying to prevent the natural process of global warming, even if it is taking place, we are trying to play God.

Alice
October 23rd, 2011, 04:57 PM
Cooooorrect. The planet will be just fine with a layer of oil on top of it. The planet doesn't care. Species were going extinct before humans made it big, and they'll go extinct whether we're polluting the atmosphere or not. As a comedian said, maybe humans were only there because "the planet" felt like having some oil splashed about on top of it.
That's the exact opposite of what I said.

What I'm saying is that, because most people don't care about the planet, but do care about people, why are people trying to convince them that pollution hurts the planet, when it's completely indisputable that it does hurt people? Isn't that what the focus should be?

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 05:07 PM
The whole oil splashed on earth thing? Thats good ole George Carlin right there. (If I remember right.)

As for playing god, we possess the technology to allow a person who would have died to instead continue on with his/her life. Is this playing god?

wcdaily
October 23rd, 2011, 05:18 PM
As for playing god, we possess the technology to allow a person who would have died to instead continue on with his/her life. Is this playing god?
Actually we have the ability to do a lot of things technologically, but it's been said by many people religion might of held us back from attempting to do said things. I won't go too far into that though.

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 05:28 PM
I know. I'd have used something else, but that was the first thing that came to me.

But still, the playing god excuse can go both ways. We can be playing god when trying to save the planet, but we can also be playing god when we are destroying it.

As for god in general, while I don't put much belief in religion I do remember from church something about treating all of god's creations with respect. If Genesis is truthful, then the planet it also his creation. Somehow, intentionally causing harm to the planet doesn't seem to to be very respectful.

And just so you know, I'm Agnostic. Not Atheist.