2
   

Prominent global warming skeptic reverses course in new study; there is global warning

 
 
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2011 11:01 am
Prominent global warming skeptic reverses course in new study
October 30, 2011
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.
RELATED COVERAGE:

• Global warming splits the Christie administration

• Hurricane another sign of global warming's impact

• N.J. scientist who coined 'global warming' term tries to avoid the limelight 35 years later

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

On Monday, Muller was taking his results — four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says — to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.

"Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things."

Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."

And that started on Sunday, when a British newspaper said one of Muller's co-authors, Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, accused Muller of another Climategate-like scandal and trying to "hide the decline" of recent global temperatures.

The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues "are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice."

The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller's public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.

Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too.

Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.

"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."

Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said.

Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer — frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email.

In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 700 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2011 10:19 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Scientist: Global Warming ‘Is Real’
By Phil Parker / Journal North Reporter
Nov 2, 2011

If you want to be misinterpreted, said Richard Muller, “nothing beats being mentioned on ‘The Daily Show.’ ”

Muller, a physics professor at University of California-Berkeley, has completed a study that confirmed what many scientists say we already knew: Global warming is real. By analyzing worldwide temperature change over the last 200-plus years (the earliest data came only from the U.S. and Europe) he has concluded the earth’s temperature has increased by 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Muller presented his study Tuesday at the Global and Regional Climate Change seminar, held this week at La Fonda.

“He said I showed Climategate never did anything wrong,” Muller said of Daily Show host John Stewart. “That was funny.”

And it wasn’t what his results were intended to demonstrate, Muller said.

Climategate refers to a 2009 incident, when emails among scientists with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, in the United Kingdom, were hacked and leaked online. Those emails, skeptics said, demonstrated that researchers were manipulating statistics (one email boasted of “adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years … and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”).

CRU said the emails were out of context, and their results had not been juked.

On the Oct. 26 episode, Stewart noted, “Since Climategate, it’s no surprise that the number of Americans who believe in global warming has been dropping, from 79 percent in 2006 to only 59 percent now.”

“If only an impartial arbiter could come in,” Stewart said, “remove the debate’s political implications and just examine the science.”

Cue Muller.

As Stewart noted, Muller began studying data showing the climate was warming, funded in large part by Charles and David Koch – billionaire energy tycoons tied closely to the Tea Party. Muller saw numerous areas where the data seemed flimsy – the use of unreliable weather stations, for instance, or their location in cities where variables like asphalt could skew temperatures higher.

But …

“The study, funded by the Koch brothers, confirms that the original research is actually correct,” Stewart said. “The earth is getting warmer. … Climategate was a huge news story. I bet debunking Climategate is gonna be huger.”

Since that segment aired on “The Daily Show,” Muller said, “my life is hectic.”

He has appeared on the BBC and Al Jazeera, and after a 20-minute presentation at the conference Tuesday morning, Muller was whisked by private driver to the Roundhouse, where he filmed a pair of interviews with MSNBC and “NBC Nightly News.”

Each time, he reiterated his findings, which the Koch brothers, he said, never once tried to influence.

And though the science seems settled on warming, “there is still plenty of room for skepticism.”

Muller said the “outstanding question” is how much of that warming is attributable to human activity.

“Global warming is real,” he said. “Whether it’s human-caused has to be resolved with greater accuracy.”

In an interview with the Journal, Muller said, “High-level scientists tell me exaggerating for the public is good policy.”

“Only when Al Gore grossly exaggerated global warming did the public start paying attention,” he said, referring to the former vice president’s 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which included images such as a flooded Manhattan.

Muller said blaming droughts, hurricanes, flooding or wildfires on global warming is “cherry-picking.”

“What about the Dust Bowl?” he said. “Wasn’t it drier then?”

Los Alamos National Laboratory senior scientist Manvendra Dubey expressed similar sentiments Tuesday.

“The uncertainties are big enough that I don’t think we should be talking catastrophe,” said Dubey, a co-chairman of this week’s conference. “There was a Dust Bowl, and we don’t know how much of the Arctic melting comes from humans.”

The notion that human beings are causing climate change comes from a corollary between carbon dioxide being released into the air from our actions on the ground, trapping infrared radiation in the atmosphere, and warming the climate.

“That is proven,” Dubey said.

The degree of warming caused by greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide – as opposed to other natural variables, such as sun activity – needs further study, Muller said.

People concerned with carbon dioxide emissions heating the planet should turn their attentions to China, India and the developing world, he said.

“China is growing so rapidly that, if we cut our emissions by 15 percent, it would be undone by China’s growth,” he said, adding that China builds a new power plant every week.

If one believes projections that the earth’s temperature could increase by five to seven degrees in our lifetimes, Muller said, a completely carbon-neutral U.S. would delay the heating by only two or three years.

“Setting an example is the best we can do,” he said. “But in a way that makes sense.”

Why would that make sense?

“I’m not completely convinced,” Muller said. “But I’m worried.”
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2011 07:35 pm
The real story:

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over

Global warming stopped something like ten years ago.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2011 05:15 am
William Connolley, the man with the poor-man's time machine:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/


Quote:
....We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2011 05:17 am
Everybody is entitled to his own opinion; NOBODY is entitled to their own ******* facts, and that includes you libtards out there. You can vote these posts down, but you cannot vote a separate but equal version of reality into existence for yourselves.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prominent global warming skeptic reverses course in new study; there is global warning
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 02:08:58