tacoman25 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 No it is not based on a previous assumption. It is based on the fact that GISS and HadCRUT are already rock solid proof of .7-.9C of warming. That's not an assumption. That is evidence. If somebody said the sky is green I would reject that and predict that it would fail to pass peer-review not because I assume the sky is blue but because I have ample proof that the sky is blue. Likewise, if somebody said the earth is not warming I would reject that and predict that it fails to pass peer-review not because I assume the earth is warming, but because I have ample proof the earth is warming. The fact that the earth has warmed is a basic unshakable observation at this point, no different than the observation that the sky is blue. The only reason anybody would ever find something much less than this is that they had made a mistake. From a scientific perspective, this study is completely redundant. It's only high impact from a PR standpoint. Then why is this study important at all? Again, if it's just to prove to a small minority that the world really has been warming (who probably will never be convinced regardless), it doesn't mean much for most of us. Your answer doesn't seem to consider the possiblity that the study could have concluded that the world has been warming indeed, but a different amount than what GISS or HadCRU show. It isn't as black/white as the sky being blue/green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Then why is this study important at all? Again, if it's just to prove to a small minority that the world really has been warming (who probably will never be convinced regardless), it doesn't mean much for most of us. Your answer doesn't seem to consider the possiblity that the study could have concluded that the world has been warming indeed, but a different amount than what GISS or HadCRU show. It isn't as black/white as the sky being blue/green. It's not. As I said, the study is completely redundant. It's not high impact from a scientific perspective. It's only high impact from a PR standpoint. There is no possibility that the surface has warmed a substantially different amount than that concluded by GISS and HadCRUT. GISS and HadCRUT have published error bars. Any conclusion substantially outside of this range would almost certainly contain erroneous data manipulation. It's quite simple. The thermometers show X amount of warming with some small uncertainty due to exactly which thermometers are used and how it is spatially averaged. All this error is quantifiable. Anybody that found anything other than ~X amount of warming is wrong. As complicated as some have tried to make this issue, it's really not that complicated. It's a straightforward observation. If you understand the methods used, you understand that the essential conclusion of ~.8C of warming is not alterable in any significant way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 It's not. As I said, the study is completely redundant. It's not high impact from a scientific perspective. It's only high impact from a PR standpoint. There is no possibility that the surface has warmed a substantially different amount than that concluded by GISS and HadCRUT. GISS and HadCRUT have published error bars. Any conclusion substantially outside of this range would almost certainly contain erroneous data manipulation. It's quite simple. The thermometers show X amount of warming with some small uncertainty due to exactly which thermometers are used and how it is spatially averaged. All this error is quantifiable. Anybody that found anything other than ~X amount of warming is wrong. As complicated as some have tried to make this issue, it's really not that complicated. It's a straightforward observation. If you understand the methods used, you understand that the essential conclusion of ~.8C of warming is not alterable in any significant way. I mostly agree with you, but it is the cause of the .6 to .9C of warming which most find of interest. It is more complicated than just taking thermometer readings when you consider the possibility that land use changes (deforestation, etc) and increased UHI have played a role in that warming the past 100+ years, and it is not necessarily just warming from natural causes or CO2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I mostly agree with you, but it is the cause of the .6 to .9C of warming which most find of interest. It is more complicated than just taking thermometer readings when you consider the possibility that land use changes (deforestation, etc) and increased UHI have played a role in that warming the past 100+ years, and it is not necessarily just warming from natural causes or CO2. Studies have shown repeatedly, including the one this thread is about, that the UHI effect is properly accounted for in the temperature data sets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Why is this such a shock? BEST found that the Earth has been warming. Any informed person I have met agrees that there has been a long term warming trend dating back at least 100 years. Those who don't are simply uninformed, not evil men. What I do not appreciate is the phrase "truly independent" when referring to this study. Also "resounding yes". Absolutist statements have no place in science. This was not meant for debate. I am pretty sure this was meant to try to dispel doubters of AGW being the predominant cause for warming. Did anyone here take the time to analyze the backgrounds of the scientists who contributed to this study? Do we know if there were any "skeptic" scientists who were co-chairs for the overall study? Do we even have a comprehensive understanding of all the methods used? Also, find out how the results were first leaked. Would anyone here be surprised to know these findings went to the media before they had the chance to be fully peer-reviewed. Not saying the findings are incorrect, just that the method used to get this study public were not standard and borderline unethical. I doubt anyone On this forum has taken that time to fully research these findings yet... One edit: To call this "truly independent" shows that the person who started this thread did not care to do his homework. Richard Muller, the lead of the BEST study has other commitments that directly profit off of climate change legislation and alternative energy. In other words, a QUICK google search of the term "Geoengineering" should educate those who care to find out exactly how independent Richard Muller is: http://www.mullerand...s.com/index.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Why is this such a shock? BEST found that the Earth has been warming. Any informed person I have met agrees that there has been a long term warming trend dating back at least 100 years. Those who don't are simply uninformed, not evil men. What I do not appreciate is the phrase "truly independent" when referring to this study. Also "resounding yes". Absolutist statements have no place in science. This was not meant for debate. I am pretty sure this was meant to try to dispel doubters of AGW being the predominant cause for warming. Did anyone here take the time to analyze the backgrounds of the scientists who contributed to this study? Do we know if there were any "skeptic" scientists who were co-chairs for the overall study? Do we even have a comprehensive understanding of all the methods used? Also, find out how the results were first leaked. Would anyone here be surprised to know these findings went to the media before they had the chance to be fully peer-reviewed. Not saying the findings are incorrect, just that the method used to get this study public were not standard and borderline unethical. I doubt anyone On this forum has taken that time to fully research these findings yet... One edit: To call this "truly independent" shows that the person who started this thread did not care to do his homework. Richard Muller, the lead of the BEST study has other commitments that directly profit off of climate change legislation and alternative energy. In other words, a QUICK google search of the term "Geoengineering" should educate those who care to find out exactly how independent Richard Muller is: http://www.mullerand...s.com/index.php Here's the link so you can analyze the backgrounds of the research team: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/aboutus.php Richard Muller is a skeptic, and he is the scientific director of the group. I'd suggest you'd do your homework, skeptics and deniers cheered this study at its inception because they fully expected it to show that the warming was a product of sampling bias. Muller himself believed this. So to suggest this is some inside job from an alarmist is quite foolish on your part. Anyways there is no reason to get bent out of shape, the study doesn't address why the warming is occurring, they just show that the surface observations which show significant warming is a good dataset, and the warming is not a product of sampling bias. All 4 papers they plan to publish can be viewed and scrutinized by anyone in the community at the following link: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/resources.php The results weren't "leaked", the group decided to provide copies of the 4 draft manuscripts as they prepare for peer review. The goal of this study was to provide complete transparency to the scientific process, all the data they used can be downloaded. Should they have waited to for peer review, I believe so, but I also feel its rather bold for a group to open up ongoing research to the community, research that will be heavily reviewed by people outside of the 3 reviewers on each manuscript in the peer review process. Many scientists, on both sides of the debate, release preliminary findings that are not peer reviewed, most research you see presented at major scientific conferences is research that is not peer reviewed or is currently in peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Richard Muller is a skeptic, and he is the scientific director of the group. I'd suggest you'd do your homework, skeptics and deniers cheered this study at its inception because they fully expected it to show that the warming was a product of sampling bias. Muller himself believed this. So to suggest this is some inside job from an alarmist is quite foolish on your part. Anyways there is no reason to get bent out of shape, the study doesn't address why the warming is occurring, they just show that the surface observations which show significant warming is a good dataset, and the warming is not a product of sampling bias. Calling Richard Muller a skeptic, because he has gone against Mann's hockey stick, is not the same as calling Richard Lindzen a skeptic. One man still believes in Geoengineering to combat climate change, while the other does not see climate change as a threat to the future of this planet. Do your homework and find out who is who. I hope you read the website I provided you, describing Muller's business life. All I want to do is show you that it is of no value to describe this study as completely independent, and premature (and biased) to describe the findings as proving warming to be a "resounding yes". These are biased statements, in the same way that no one person can escape bias unless he or she is dead. I am not telling you to just doubt and toss away everything you read, but suggest you use more scrutiny in the future considering the small period of time this study has been publicized. Just like skeptics will jump too quickly on a study that confirms their beliefs, the same can be said for the original poster to post this as fact without giving it a chance to survive on it's own merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 http://www.novim.org/ read. educate yourself. it's all listed here: http://berkeleyearth.org/aboutus.php why are asking others to do research you could easily do yourself? I don't think you bothered to go to the link embedded in the story, otherwise you wouldn't be going on about this "independent" stuff. it's all explained. You have really just reposted what is already a part of this thread. Those bios are a small sample of everyone's overall work. Just like how Muller's bio did not cover his work in Geoengineering, which to me is of Major significance when discussing 'independent". A word used in the title of this thread, which is why I repeated it. You sure it wasn't you who should read more? Having said that, you are not someone I am interested in carrying on with on this thread. We can continue a personal debate over PM, but I will not take part in what happened elsewhere. One last quick edit, go to novim.org and research the backgrounds of the board. Look up quotes from each and their past works. Not a single one of them is a skeptic, and each has made statements about the immediacy required for us to act on global warming. Can we please stop dancing around and using words like "independent" or "nonpartisan"? They are fantasies and only the most delusional think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 ? it IS being peer reviewed. they are simply adding transparency by letting the scientific community comment prior to acceptance/rejection. this is a non-issue. You are missing the point. It hasn't passed peer review yet, but some of the biggest sticklers here for peer review have already proclaimed its virtues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Studies have shown repeatedly, including the one this thread is about, that the UHI effect is properly accounted for in the temperature data sets. I find this odd, because before UHI was known to be the effect it is, temperature trends were virtually the same as they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I am confused by all of this. Richard Muller has an OP-ED today in the WSJ, using the term "denier" when referring to skeptics and proclaiming that skepticism should die out after these findings. I love it how the media, and certain members of the scientific community trumpeted this man as a skeptic. It is borderline laughable how delusional they appear to anyone who is paying attention. Muller was never a skeptic, his methods for releasing this study were unethical and wrong, and he is now blasting away today at skeptics. There was no independence in this study. And another, Muller himself admits this in his op-ed, even as he proceeds to attack skeptics and label them as deniers: How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I am confused by all of this. Richard Muller has an OP-ED today in the WSJ, using the term "denier" when referring to skeptics and proclaiming that skepticism should die out after these findings. I love it how the media, and certain members of the scientific community trumpeted this man as a skeptic. It is borderline laughable how delusional they appear to anyone who is paying attention. Muller was never a skeptic, his methods for releasing this study were unethical and wrong, and he is now blasting away today at skeptics. There was no independence in this study. And another, Muller himself admits this in his op-ed, even as he proceeds to attack skeptics and label them as deniers: Source Judith Curry, another climate change skeptic is also on the scientific "team" conducting this investigation. Is she also a closet "alarmist"? A great many skeptics/deniers doubt the veracity of the instrumental temperature record. This is just another accounting of that record, and it verifies the accuracy of the other surface methodologies like NOAA, NASA GISS and Hadley Ctr.. The whole point behind "climategate" was to discredit the instrumental temp. record. That record has again been verified to accurately indicate the surface temperature trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Judith Curry, another climate change skeptic is also on the scientific "team" conducting this investigation. Is she also a closet "alarmist"? A great many skeptics/deniers doubt the veracity of the instrumental temperature record. This is just another accounting of that record, and it verifies the accuracy of the other surface methodologies like NOAA, NASA GISS and Hadley Ctr.. The whole point behind "climategate" was to discredit the instrumental temp. record. That record has again been verified to accurately indicate the surface temperature trend. I look forward to reading Ms. Curry's words when they come out after peer-review is complete. It should be noted that Ms. Curry is not a full-blown skeptic, but currently a disillusioned AGW scientist, who has lost faith in the IPCC and much of the peer-review process. This does NOT make her a skeptic of AGW, just skeptical of many of her fellow consensus scientists who have lost the public's trust with their utter disregard for the scientific process. Labeling her as such is a waste of time until otherwise noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I find this odd, because before UHI was known to be the effect it is, temperature trends were virtually the same as they are now. What percentage of the total land surface is represented by urban areas? I would suggest it is actually quite small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I look forward to reading Ms. Curry's words when they come out after peer-review is complete. It should be noted that Ms. Curry is not a full-blown skeptic, but currently a disillusioned AGW scientist, who has lost faith in the IPCC and much of the peer-review process. This does NOT make her a skeptic of AGW, just skeptical of many of her fellow consensus scientists who have lost the public's trust with their utter disregard for the scientific process. Labeling her as such is a waste of time until otherwise noted. Maybe so, but the process is about establishing the credibility of the surface temperature record. It is not a statement on AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Maybe so, but the process is about establishing the credibility of the surface temperature record. It is not a statement on AGW. Yes, everything I have read so far from the team itself seems to confirm what you said. I was really just responding to the title of the thread, and also just bugged by stories I have read in The Guardian, Washington Post, and NYT who have gone on today to trumpet the affects of AGW as a forgone conclusion with these results that were not intended to prove AGW. Anyhow, it will be interesting to see when all is said and done what kind of influence this has on the science moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Yes, everything I have read so far from the team itself seems to confirm what you said. I was really just responding to the title of the thread, and also just bugged by stories I have read in The Guardian, Washington Post, and NYT who have gone on today to trumpet the affects of AGW as a forgone conclusion with these results that were not intended to prove AGW. Anyhow, it will be interesting to see when all is said and done what kind of influence this has on the science moving forward. There is a real need to reestablish public trust in the science surrounding AGW. That trust has been eroded in recent years by valid and not so valid concerns. The reliability of the temperature record is but one of those concerns. If the scientific community can not be trusted, then the output from that community will not be trusted. If scientists are perceived to have an agenda, they will not be trusted. If the data can speak for itself independent of the trust factor, then one hurdle will have been overcome. As for the media, both sides have little good to say about the way they portray the science. The trend in reporting most all science in the MSM is to summarize a subject by writers not well versed in the sciences they cover as a consequence of these media engaging in cost cutting, job elimination practices. They do a rather poor job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 What percentage of the total land surface is represented by urban areas? I would suggest it is actually quite small. Therein lies the rub...because the vast majority of land surface area is not represented by thermometers. By and large, there are more thermometers in cities and towns than true rural areas. The thermometers are where the people are, and the population of the earth has increased by 600% over the past 100 years. Urbanization and sprawl have encompassed much larger areas across the globe. Add in land use changes like deforestation, increased pavement/concrete in populated areas, blacktop in urban areas, etc, and the average thermometer is representing a different landscape than it would have been in the same location 50 or 100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Is there anyway to get raw numbers? these maps always seem very warm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Is there anyway to get raw numbers? these maps always seem very warm. I don't know, but the GFS is showing much colder weather the next few days for the North American side of the Arctic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I am confused by all of this. Richard Muller has an OP-ED today in the WSJ, using the term "denier" when referring to skeptics and proclaiming that skepticism should die out after these findings. I love it how the media, and certain members of the scientific community trumpeted this man as a skeptic. It is borderline laughable how delusional they appear to anyone who is paying attention. Muller was never a skeptic, his methods for releasing this study were unethical and wrong, and he is now blasting away today at skeptics. There was no independence in this study. And another, Muller himself admits this in his op-ed, even as he proceeds to attack skeptics and label them as deniers: Source You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, I don't even see the word denier anywhere. Second of all, some skeptics (like Anthony Watts) ARE deniers and deserve zero respect. Muller IS a skeptic and he does not appear to fully understand the evidence that humans are causing the warming. Nevertheless, his conclusions about the magnitude of warming are correct. He's not 'admitting' that they didn't assess the causes of the warming. He's saying that because he apparently has doubts that the warming is caused by humans. He's a skeptic and he's wrong. But his temperature analysis is sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I find this odd, because before UHI was known to be the effect it is, temperature trends were virtually the same as they are now. First of all the UHI effect has been known for a long long time and GISS wasn't developed until the 1980s and HadCRUT even later. Second of all, the vast majority of stations used are rural. And third, 70% of the world is ocean. That's why the difference is very very small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHSnow Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Of course, the planet is warming. Did anybody really expect this study to disprove that? I don't even need a thermometer to tell me that it's warmer than 100 years. The data is available for anyone to see. They even used to keep stats on tree bloomings and things of that nature back in the 1800's and early 1900's that show an unmistakeable warming signal. But LOL at those here pretending that there aren't people, including high-profile people, who deny that's even warmed. The "skeptic" crowd is not a homogeneous crowd... in fact, the only thing some of that crowd shares is a common belief that science is fraud and regulation is bad. There are skeptical arguments that aren't even consistent with other skeptical arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roardog Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I don't even need a thermometer to tell me that it's warmer than 100 years. The data is available for anyone to see. They even used to keep stats on tree bloomings and things of that nature back in the 1800's and early 1900's that show an unmistakeable warming signal. Seriously? Blooming trees change on a year to year basis. Let's stick to the real science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Seriously? Blooming trees change on a year to year basis. Let's stick to the real science. That is real science and is well documented. The AVERAGE bloom date has advanced earlier because of warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 First of all the UHI effect has been known for a long long time and GISS wasn't developed until the 1980s and HadCRUT even later. Second of all, the vast majority of stations used are rural. And third, 70% of the world is ocean. That's why the difference is very very small. Proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Of course, the planet is warming. Did anybody really expect this study to disprove that? I don't even need a thermometer to tell me that it's warmer than 100 years. The data is available for anyone to see. They even used to keep stats on tree bloomings and things of that nature back in the 1800's and early 1900's that show an unmistakeable warming signal. But LOL at those here pretending that there aren't people, including high-profile people, who deny that's even warmed. The "skeptic" crowd is not a homogeneous crowd... in fact, the only thing some of that crowd shares is a common belief that science is fraud and regulation is bad. There are skeptical arguments that aren't even consistent with other skeptical arguments. No one is pretending that. But those people only represent a fraction of those that consider themselves skeptics. Of course there are conflicting arguments, because not everyone who is a skeptic shares the same beliefs...just like any other "grouping" of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 like who? and the point of releasing this draft of the paper prior to publication is to open the data and methodology to the greater community for input prior to publication. I cannot understand why you think is this is a terrible thing. more and more scientists are moving back to this model in order to increase transparency and to get the widest possible input into their published papers. Who? Have you read the thread? They admitted themselves. I don't think this is a terrible thing. Not at all. But to pass judgement on a paper before it has been peer-reviewed goes directly against what some on here have argued in the past. It diminishes the value of peer review, does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Proof? Seriously? How long have you been around here posting your unfounded opinion of GISS? And yet you have developed almost no basic familiarity with the methodology or data used? 20% of the stations used were classified as urban in the 1999 analysis (>50,000 pop). http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf The reason that when the UHI adjustment is made there is almost no effect is that 1) Urban stations are only 20% of the total. 2) 70% of the world is ocean not land. 3) The urban stations were only used for a very small area because they are surrounded by other rural stations which are also used. Rural stations tend to 'occupy' or be extrapolated over a much larger area. Of course now the urban stations are not used at all really b/c their long-term trend is adjusted to = that of nearby rural stations. The only purpose they serve now is to reduce the year to year sampling error but make no contribution to the long-term trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 This also helps skeptics like Anthony Watts completely hang themselves. By letting everyone who may object or reject some of the sound science they start to look completely absurd to even some of there supporters and any influence they had on some media reports lessens. This Also as already stated allows complete transparency. Good timing with the arctic turmoil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.