Massive study concludes: 'Global warming is real' A massively thorough study – funded in part by a pair of US oil billionaires who are opponents of climate-disruption remediation – has come to the conclusion that the earth is, indeed, warming. In fact, it's warming just as much as more-limited studies conducted by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, …
Not the old "CO2 is plant food" drivel. The changed weather patterns due to climate change are likely to make many current farmlands unviable, due to lack of water, sea level rise, and increased peak summer temperatures. That's the best science available at the moment. If you have better information then show a reference, or publish your information. Anything else is just propagating the old PR spin and media releases from vested interests (the "CO2 is plant food" spin was invented by the coal industry in the USA).
The changes to plants which are subjected to high levels of CO2 been shown to REDUCE the amount of protein in the plant (ie you get more plant but it is less nutritious). And for some species of plant the amount of cyanide in the plant increases at the same time. Search for "Associate Professor Roslyn Gleadow CO2 Poison", you will see the results of some actual science, not the industry propaganda/spin that "CO2 is plant food".
so how did all the sea life survive when the atmosphere contained over 1000ppm ?
the sea is alkaline. the sea also contains many orders of magnitude MORE CO2 desolved in it than the atmosphere contains. Yup; many ORDERS OG MAGNITUDE. Even if all the CO2 was to instantly dissolve into the sea; it would hardly be measurable in its effect on the CO2 concentration or alkalinity of sea. There's another problem to this scenario - the warmer water is; the less CO2 it can hold. Yup thats right; as the sea warms up it outgases CO2.
So we don't need to worry about fud about an acid sea (even if all the CO2 currently still locked up in limestone was to be released the sea would STILL be alkaline) any more than we need to worry about CO2 in the air until it approaches some 1000ppm (at which point most plants are growing like crazy and need less water [pop along to your nearest commercial green house grower to see this] and a few humans will start showing some minor symptoms of excess CO2. Plants would appear to like around 5000 ppm CO2; however most animals would be in really serious trouble by then.
And to get a feeling for this; non-Climate Scientist scientists seem to estimate human contribution to CO2 content of the atmosphere at <<3%.
Why would this deal any kind of 'blow' to AGW sceptics? The idea that those sceptical of claims of a 'catastrophic' 4-6 degree potential increase of global average temperature over the coming century as a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions would hold that global temperatures have remained static since the 'little ice age', or that they have not increased, is a fiction designed to smear their credibility. Whenever sceptics have pointed this out, they have been tediously and meaninglessly accused of 'moving the goalposts' (as if this whole issue was some kind of football match).
Sceptics would raise as a concern the lack of correlation between satellite measurements of tropospheric temperature and the land-based temperature datasets, shared by the Hadley Centre, NOAA, NASA GISS and indeed BEST (who have at least tried to factor measurement uncertainty into their statistical models). The urban heat island effect may not have been dealt with properly in any of these datasets (due to vague classification and oversimplification of definitions of 'urban' and 'rural'), which could account for the discrepancy. Or perhaps satellite sensors are inadequate for measuring surface temperature? As a common or garden sceptic with no axe to grind, I would like to know without being shouted down by some imbecile for exercising my scepticism, or treated like I was engaged in some sort of competition for righteousness.
Sceptics would generally argue that there is no observational evidence of a meaningful correlation between PPM fluctuations in CO2 levels and global average temperatures in the industrial era. They would argue that global average temperature is an irrelevant metric in any case (especially as around one third of the raw data used to compile the global average shows no trend, or a decreasing trend in temperature in different regions). They would argue that averaging the output of computer models pre-loaded with assumed temperature 'forcing' parameters for factors such as CO2, ozone, solar activity, soot and so on that are based on a combination of dubious paleo-climate reconstructions, curve fitting to known temperature trends, or output of other computer models is an absurd exercise in circular reasoning, and has no predictive value whatsoever. They would point to the failure of all climate models used by the IPCC to date to reflect reality as confirmation of this view.
They would argue many other things, none of which are remotely addressed, or dealt a 'blow' by the BEST study. I continue to be sceptical and interested - not in 'denial' of anything (including the possibility of AGW), just suspicious and vigilant when it comes to arguments launched from a platform of mindless cheerleading, alarmism, unquestioning acceptance of authority, refusal to address legitimate questions, bizarre lumping together of scientific and political belief and the kind of mischaracterisation of critics seen in the headline of this article.
I dont think anyone serious has said that the climate isnt changing, the real question, and one that not a soul has answered is why and what level we have an effect on it
The second part to this is the flip side to the coin
Lets assume for a second that we are effecting climate, the effects of this will produce positive and negative effects for different people all over the planet.
What right do people in different areas have to tell people in the other areas that perhaps would benifit from a warmer climate that, no, actually we like our climate better so you sh*t out of luck.
Lets perhaps take the other side of that argument in that if this is indeed a natural event, is it right to try and change it, what problems could arrise by forcing the climate to our needs? and once again what about the needs of other people who may be better off.
I really think instead of knee jerk reactions we need to consider this a lot more. Just because we all built out citys on flood plains and on the coast doesnt mean that someone in dryer or colder climates wouldnt love for a change of climate
I mean come on, how many of us brits moan about how crap the weather is, and would rather better weather? well it sure as hell isnt as bad as some places, some folk would kill for our weather.
I just think we are all being rather selfish, we need to understand this rather than ramp up fuel prices and "Green" taxes to pay for something that might not make any different or may make things worse for us or someone else!
This post has been deleted by its author
Has anyone else noticed that the sharp increase in temperature starting in 1970 coincides with the introduction of clean air legislation in Canada in 1970, New Zealand in 1972, UK in 1968 and America in 1970?
Maybe a coincidence, or maybe evidence that human polution actually causes the "global dimming" effectwhich reduces global temperatures.
The data shows that the global average temperature has risen "dramatically" over the last 130years.
What it doesn't show is how cold it got during the "mini-iceage" in the middle ages. If you take the ancient records of temperatures recorded by the monks, you'll find that we're not back to where we were then. They didn't have cars, factories, or other "spawn of economic & global evil devices" to ruin the planet then.
There were things grown in the UK that would not flourish well in todays climate, well perhaps they might in a few years... only if it stops getting colder here as it is again....
I am not a sceptic regarding global climate change, what I am in no doubt of is that the CO2 protagonists need to start looking at all of the data available - solar, ice cores, etc.. and you can see that mother earth's climate changes on a regular basis, going from hot to cold to hot to cold. In ancient times we would have just migrated, but in modern civilised societies we don't do that, we bitch and moan and have to blame someone/something for it, stay put, and starve.
Many deniers still ridicule the hockey stick graph, claim that the CRU falsified data to fake a warming trend, or claim the earth is actually cooling in the last decade... So yes, this is definitely a big blow to those deniers, especially since the study was done by a sceptic.
I suppose these hard facts doesn't means we won't see those claims ever again, but it should at least put this part of the debate to rest once and for all. Also this confirms again there was no "Climate Gate" scandal - not only have the individuals accused of wrongdoing been cleared, their data is now proven to be correct and not falsified as well.
the hockey stick graph was taken apart and trashed in a later peer revued paper
as was the attempt to ridicule the trashing.
but then of course it was all about how appaling their statistics were
and there still remains the other 'little' problem with the hockey stick nonsense :
Where are
1) The global middle ages warm period
2) The Little ice age
3) the other variants and changes that occurred in the early 20th century ?
The hockey stick graph is so bad it should not be mentioned in the same sentence as science.
If the CRU didn't falsify the data why are there no published examples of how their code works on the (now magically found) original data ? Where is the code that is used to get their results ?
It ain't science unless the data and the methodology are available for testing.
Here's a hard fact for you :
The computer models (GCM) used ALL predict troposphere warming; if CO2 is a contributor to climate change.
The tropo hotspot predicted can NOT be measured.
The hot spot is a necessary signal IF CO2 is involved in driving the climate warmer (caused by its increase in ppm). Since a necessary result from the GCM has NOT been observed there is something seriously wrong with the GCM. Or don't you believe that real world measurements always trump climate model estimations ?
Eh, did you not notice the hockey stick graph in the article?
Sure there have been attempts by deniers to discredit the hockey stick graph, but all their attempts have been proven to be incorrect (or fraudulent - one example I've seen rotated the graph to show a cooling trend...). The graph has been now reproduced many times using various methods in many different studies. Oh and your "middle ages warm period" and "little ice age" were local changes, not global. In fact the earth was slighly cooler overall during the "middle ages warm period" so they do show up on the graph but just not in the way you want it.
Do you denialists ever get bored with repeating the same old debunked lies?
no - the middle ages warm period can be observed (and has been) in S America; N America NW Europe; NE Europe; the Stepps; China; and other countries in Asia. The signal for the event is observable across all land masses. Ok so the land only covers 1/3 of the surface - does that make 'local to land' only
And where is the Little Ice Age - you know that 'local; event that froze the Thames and is recorded all across Europe; Russia and the East ?
Do not ever get bored with trying to find reasons your GCM disagree with reality ? Prior to the publishing of the Hockey Stick the MWP and LIA were so well known they were taught in schools around the world (now there was consensus science for you; and they are not MY MWP or LIA; they are the planets). The only person documented to have inverted a graph - and to continue using said graph after that had been pointed out was that great showman AL Gore.
What about the tropo hot spot ?
All the GCM predict it. It is not there.
So the hockey stick is a bust (because it's stats are so appalling bad before we even get to the data) and the predictive models that are used to give scary figures like 50000 climate refugees by 2010 and some main road in New York NY will be 20' under water; and 'our kids won't know what snow' is ; and the temperatures rising (well of course it is; were coming out of a little Ice age) and all the other fud.
There is no proof that the hypothesis that CO2 is a primary driver of climate dynamics has any congruency with reality. Without that there are NO reasons for reducing CO2 levels; on the contrary; given the known behaviour of CO2 as a fertilizer; there are plenty of reasons to encourage MORE CO2 output
Again, the LIA and MWP are not as widespread as you claim - in both cases there were warmer and colder periods, as you expect from regional weather variations. This is what the experts say:
"Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... Viewed hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels."
If you disagree with this, then please go ahead and publish your own peer reviewed research proving them wrong. That's how science works.
And what do you think about the sceptics who just reproduced the hockey stick and now accepts it as a fact that the earth is indeed warming like people have been saying for 30+ years?
CO2 is not a fertilizer at all (using that word means you have no idea of the role of CO2 in plant growth). It is a myth that more CO2 will lead to more plant growth and more food production - for example most plants are constrained by the soil, irrigation and climate they grow in, so increasing CO2 will not help at all. It is well known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas since Tyndall, so yes it is the primary driver of climate. Wanting more CO2 is suicidally stupid, we're already on the verge of collapsing major eco systems, and you're suggesting to burn down what little is left of our forests? Sorry but I'm not going to let people like you destroy our way of life with your little CO2 experiment.
"is the first study to address the issue of data selection bias, by using nearly all of the available data"
Other than that quite hillarious bit, what was the point of this "meta-study" again? They took the same data as already used by other studies, applied the same analysis methods, and reached the same conclusion. Huzzah. At least they do their part to save Gaya; they should make it clear, it's a major sale argument these days: "made at 100% from post-consumer recycled material".
There's so much hot and utter bollocks being spoken. I'm cynical and want the evidence before I believe in anything hence being an atheist, not believing in the tooth fairy, WMD's and Brian is the messiah.
BUT the vitriol poured on anyone who suggests there may be a link between human activity and global warming is just ludditic, unreasoned crap. The sort of shite that was peddled in the 70's by the Tobacco industry "there's no link between smoking and cancer", other nonsense such as the earth is flat and you'll fall off the edge.
Having a foundation in Geology I fully understand that the earth goes in cycles and there's plenty of desert sandstone and evidence of glaciers in the UK. A 1000 years ago, the climate was like the south of France and we had vineyards here (not the lame ones of today). So it's not a simple cause and effect or balanced equation.
However there is a bloody big co-incidence that there seems to be a large rise in temperature in the records since the industrial revolution. At the same time burning fossil fuels that have trapped carbon for millennia that's now releasing its carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.
Admittedly you'd need more than that to convict in a court (unless you're Troy Davis and reside in Geogia) but it's certainly a suspect.
The revisionism evident in their diatribe such as "no one said the earth wasn't warming.." is the same position as the bloody creationists and intelligent (laughable) designers, having to move their position in the cold light of day. However still full of shit and bedwetting nutters but too stupid and dogmatic to even consider the alternatives.
I can cope with the likes of the Koch brothers (even though I think they're c****) at least their position is driven by greed.
You're the sort of people that gave us the Inquisition, stagnation of western society after the Romans, McCarthyism, bloodletting and shitting out of windows (no link to cholera of course, blah blah)
If there is a slightest chance of a link, then it would make sense to err on the side of caution. This does include developing other technologies such a Fusion with the obvious geo-political advantages of not relying on fossil fuels from dodgy countries that associate and hold us to ransom on prices.
To flat deny is just as bad as accepting the premise without question, don't believe all the hype whether it's from the hippies or the Judas mouthpieces of those that would lose financially from not flogging oil, deforestation or pumping shit into the environment.
If I read the charts correctly, the data reviewed covered only surface data from stations on land masses. That accounts for 30% of the planet. What about the 70% covered by water? What about the heat energy in the air blanket above the earth?
Frankly, I am more likely to trust satellite observations than I am to trust all the data from the land stations. For one thing, more money is spent on each satellite instrument than is spent on a land station - many times more money and that usually means better accuracy. If we take the raw data - not "corrected" to meet someone's pet theory of AGW, the data should be much more in step with reality.
I have noticed that when "deniers" or "skeptics" post on this and other pertinent articles, the posts are full of data and references to sources of the data. In other words, they are watching the science and the results of analysis. When the members of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming (Al Gore, Pope) post, they are using ad fontem arguments, adding nothing in the way of information for consideration. So one group adds information, the opposing group adds noise. Guess which group is the most correctly scientific?
The many skeptical arguments above recount my own doubts better than I could have stated them - congratulations to those posters. As someone stated, "Follow the Money". Taxes, Cap and Trade, Indulgences (or should we say Carbon Credits), other ways of taking money from producers and giving it to non-producers. Why does the IPCC exist - power grab maybe?
Ahh- the retreat into the gaps, just like creationism.
"I am more likely to trust satellite observations"- well it is not up to you, Mr/Mrs armchair expert. In fact, satellite observations of temperature are fraught with problems due to the aging of instruments in space, and as Roy Spencer at UAH found out (their early analysis said the earth was not warming due to poor data analysis, and not correcting for satellite drift). The process of getting from radiance data in various bands to actual temperature uses (shock horror) computer models.
Try Wikipedia, it will point you to actual data and references. Satellite_temperature_measurements should get you there.
You will also see that Spencer, Christy et al were dragged kicking and screaming over the course of many years to finally admit that their "earth is cooling" hypothesis was wrong both due to errors in analysis as well as missing the effect of satellite drift (which changes how big an area the sensor can "see" hence how much energy it thinks is there, making a drop in altitude lead to false assumptions of cooling).
"NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend"
So the facts are that the correctly analysed satellite observations closely match ground based observations:
# RSS v3.3 finds a trend of +0.148 °C/decade
# UAH v5.4 finds a trend of +0.140°C/decade
"The UAH TLT dataset was a source of controversy in the 1990's as, at that time, it showed little increase in global mean temperature, at odds with surface measurements. Since then a number of errors in the way the atmospheric temperatures were derived from the raw radiance data have been discovered and corrections made by Christy et al. at UAH."
How's that for actual references and data? Which group is the most scientific? The ones quoting discredited and out of date data? Or the one using the latest and best data.
If you are too lazy to read Wikipedia and follow the references, or too lazy to read the IPCC report and read up on the science referenced there, then you can fall always back on conspiracy theories about "follow the money" etc. The mark of a true un-scientist.
"read Wikipedia" -- the font of all wisdom?
The decadal trends you cite have ceased. They are ex-trends. The are six year old calculations (made in 2005) based on ten year old data.
The earth is not showing statistically significant warming. You can be a religious bigot, and throw away the evidence that doesn't suit your dogma, or you can be a real scientist, and start to ask "why?".
The really, really, really big limited data problem (even though they keep trying to paper over it) is the complete lack of a substantive data baseline against the cyclical period: call it a generous 200 years vs a 200 million year interval period. Even if you were to claim we were in a current warm age and take the last 60 million years as the interval, you don't have anywhere near enough data to have an inkling of being able to hazard a wild-assed guess about the stadium in which the next major event will occur.
1) Climate change is always happening. The question that needs to be answered is what are
the sources of that change.
2) Assuming the data is accurate, and depending on what the sources are, to what extent will the change continue. Is the sample of data taken done along a long enough time span to be meaningful? If you measure the water table right after a rain you would be foolish to think that it was always at that level. Likewise if you measured after a long drought.
3) Given it has been hotter before, they are finding remnants of farming sites under some areas of Greenland previously covered in ice, when will it actually be harmful to those being asked to change their activity? If a group is being asked to do something how are they going
to be compensated for what they give up? If the danger point in time is centuries away, why
would they give a damn considering we know that they can't even get the weather right for
the next year.
4) What changes can be made that will actually impact the changes? If Western society changes but the rest of the world does not, will it make any difference? What do you do if they say they will change but do not?
5) How much of the changes proposed do anything more than line certain peoples pockets?
6) I've been told that the temperatures on other planets in our solar system have risen.
I'd like to see that data and find out what it means relative to the other data collected so
far.
Would the huge 1 degree deviation be due to the better quality sensors we are now using? I mean, surely the digital probes are a lot more accurate than the old mercury bulbs. And who's to say the the bulb didn't slip down the scale for a few years skewing the data :)
I'm not denying that we should be more aware of our interaction with the environment, but comparing temperatures from the 1800's is about as useful as comparing TV screen resolutions from the same eras.
let's see - nothing like a fact based argument to uphold your beliefs ?
There is an unproven hypothesis that CO2 emitted by man is causing climate disruption/change/global warming.
The models used to make this prediction are models of a chaotic system and are built on the assumption that CO2 is one of the main drivers for climate change.
Let me make the key part clear
*** are built on the assumption that CO2 is one of the main drivers****
so; like all models; what you build is what you get. Let's see - if my model assumes that CO2 is a main driver and then my model SHOWS CO2 to be the main driver what have I proved ?
Interestingly the models all make one very clear and unambiguous prediction and that is :
If CO2 is a major driver of climate change it will cause a 'hot spot' in the troposphere. This is the tropo hot spot that gives the models so many problems. Why ? because we have been unable to measure anything like the predicted temperature rise - one short term series satellite data appears to show a marginally measurable rise - but no where near that predicted. No other tropo temperature records show even a suggestion of a rise.
If you really want to put you children at risk continue to try and destroy our cheap energy culture that has raised everyone's standard of living and everyone's life expectancy around the world. If you take away cheap energy how are you going to farm and feed the billions ? Indeed think of the children; think of how your grandchildren are going to feel if they know that our generation were so stupid that we broke the machine that keeps us alive and keeps us out of dawn to dusk peasantry and saves us from a brutalized 30 year life expectancy. Your children are far more at risk from if we break modern society than they would be if the climate warmed by 5 degrees (the earth; after all has been there; done that before). Mankind has always done well during the cyclic warm periods of this interglacial; and badly during its cold periods.
At least one association is clear: 100% of 'climate skeptics' also profess hard-core right-wing political views. This isn't a coincidence. I'd also like to see a study of the statistical linkage between denial of climate science and denial of evolution. I suspect that correlation is also extremely high.
This argument isn't about science.
The study produced nothing of any remotely serious note - aside from generating a whole new firestorm on statistical methodology. No scientific sceptic (no claims for the wingnut fringe) has ever expressed any doubt that world is warmer than it was 200 years ago. Doubts have been expressed that the human contribution has had any important effect. Sceptics have also pointed out that empirical evidence fails to indicate any significant difference between the present behaviour of the climate and any time in the last 10,000 years, except that is cooler than it about 7,000 years ago, and no warmer than it was during the Medieval Warm episode when England was last truly habitable.
This study is not "massive" nor is it anything new. It is simply a re-plotting of the same data everyone else has already plotted. If I have a set of numbers and you plot them on a graph and someone else plots them on a graph and both plots look similar, well, it means both know how to plot numbers on a graph.
This study has not even started the peer review process and there are several major errors with it. It is too bad this information was released before the study was even reviewed because it's conclusions may radically change between now and then.
One thing to note, though, is that there is a significant cooling shown in the BEST data after about 2000 that is not shown in the HADCRUT or GISS graphs.
It will be interesting to revisit this study AFTER it passes peer review.
"This study is not "massive" nor is it anything new. It is simply a re-plotting of the same data everyone else has already plotted. If I have a set of numbers and you plot them on a graph and someone else plots them on a graph and both plots look similar, well, it means both know how to plot numbers on a graph."
It isn't new to anyone else. But it sure as hell should be new to climate skeptics.
Climate skeptics have been claiming for years that scientists have mishandled the surface record data, even going so far as to accuse them of fraudulently "cooking the books". Now that those records are independently verified you claim it's nothing new.
Ha! nice try
umm - this was in part triggered by Anthony Watts (WUWT blog) carrying out a site standards survey. The data he provided to BEST only went back 30 (THIRTY) years.
Where did the siting data for the preceding 30 years come from ?
If it didn't exist when Watts went looking for it; from where did BEST magic it ?
The sceptics have bought the big lie and can never adnit they are wrong. They are not worth arguing with, they will always find some out of context rubbish to try and deny reality. Still congrats to El Reg for actually giving an unbiased analysis on this issue. Was that a pig I saw fly past my window, was it AO?
Of course the climate is changing. Its always changing.
The question that is in doubt is whether its man made, or if there is a damned thing man can do about it.
Now remove that fucking unfounded climate skeptics dealt a blow line, cause that is total bullshit.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
