[olePigeon]

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, funded in part by well known global warming skeptics such Charles and David Koch, released its preliminary data today.

The project leader was Professor Richard Muller, who has been a particular favorite of many global warming skeptics. The study was conducted in a manor to address as many concerns of skeptics as possible using the latest data sources. Not only did it conclude that previous measurements from weather monitoring stations were not inaccurate (remember the whole tarmac made for higher temperatures argument?), but the data was also consistent with predictions made by current anthropomorphic global warming models.

[mduell]

1) The reports claim some warming is occurring, less than claimed by the latest IPCC. Also the reports show no link to anthropomorphic factors.

2) None of the four reports are ready for publication; this is a PR blitz before peer review. Where was the last time we saw that? Oh right, the now discredited FTL neutrino paper from a couple months ago.

3) Initial feedback from a mathematician is critical of the methods. I eagerly await peer review from the full community.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mduell 

1) The reports claim some warming is occurring, less than claimed by the latest IPCC. Also the reports show no link to anthropomorphic factors.

2) None of the four reports are ready for publication; this is a PR blitz before peer review. Where was the last time we saw that? Oh right, the now discredited FTL neutrino paper from a couple months ago.

3) Initial feedback from a mathematician is critical of the methods. I eagerly await peer review from the full community.

Yet another media campaign proclaiming; "Look, AGW is real!" while the report itself is something less dire indeed. Hardly a revelation given that this was supposedly already irrefutable fact. Watts was tapped specifically for peer review of this study, he provided some problems with the methodology, they ignored it, instead going right to the media. One of the "authors" (Judith Curry) has not had any "hands on" the data herself claiming one of the reasons being that she does not have funding to do any analysis.

Get back to the forum when it has had proper peer review and not the circle jerk of usual self-congratulatory mania.

[OldManMac]

Some time in the early 1800s, the world population was estimated to be around 1 billion people. There were no factories as we know them today, no automobiles, no airplanes, very few of the chemicals we use today, and any of a number of other substances and causes of pollution that we know today. Next year the world population is projected to hit 7 billion, with uncountable amounts of all the things mentioned in my second sentence. Anyone who thinks man, and his creations, hasn't had a deleterious effect on the planet, and who really believes that we can just continue to plunder to our hearts' content, is delusional at best, and a fool at worst. There are obviously many who live in their own microcosmic world, and choose to deny reality.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yet another media campaign proclaiming; "Look, AGW is real!" while the report itself is something less dire indeed. Hardly a revelation given that this was supposedly already irrefutable fact. Watts was tapped specifically for peer review of this study, he provided some problems with the methodology, they ignored it, instead going right to the media. One of the "authors" (Judith Curry) has not had any "hands on" the data herself claiming one of the reasons being that she does not have funding to do any analysis.

Get back to the forum when it has had proper peer review and not the circle jerk of usual self-congratulatory mania.

Except this time, the team making the proclamation used to make proclamations *against* the idea of global warming.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Some time in the early 1800s, the world population was estimated to be around 1 billion people. There were no factories as we know them today, no automobiles, no airplanes, very few of the chemicals we use today, and any of a number of other substances and causes of pollution that we know today. Next year the world population is projected to hit 7 billion, with uncountable amounts of all the things mentioned in my second sentence. Anyone who thinks man, and his creations, hasn't had a deleterious effect on the planet, and who really believes that we can just continue to plunder to our hearts' content, is delusional at best, and a fool at worst. There are obviously many who live in their own microcosmic world, and choose to deny reality.

Im not sure if people are foolish or delusional; I think it's a matter of needing to believe certain things in order to be part of club republican.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by mduell 

...
2) None of the four reports are ready for publication; this is a PR blitz before peer review. Where was the last time we saw that? Oh right, the now discredited FTL neutrino paper from a couple months ago.
...

How did you determine the OPERA neutrino anomaly has been discredited? Analysis of historical data from other labs is not due for several months, and only two other labs can independently duplicate the tests (MINOS out of Fermilab and T2K out of Japan). MINOS is being upgraded and won't be available this year, and T2K has been offline since the Japan earthquake.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell 

1) The reports claim some warming is occurring, less than claimed by the latest IPCC. Also the reports show no link to anthropomorphic factors.

The BEST collaboration did not investigate the question of the anthropomorphic contribution. They didn't find or refute the claim of an anthropomorphic contribution, because they weren't looking in the first place.

What is special about the BEST collaboration is that a climate warming sceptic won a grant from the climate-sceptic Koch foundation to investigate whether the temperatures increase or not and how reliable the predictions are.

The results are clear: despite initial skepticism of Muller (who led the group) towards the existence of global warming and money from climate skeptics, the BEST collaboration has confirmed the claims of what the vast, vast majority of climate scientists are saying. They have specifically tested the uncertainties introduced by hot spots and unreliable temperature measurements, two points that are usually used as arguments against the reliability of the scientific consensus.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Oh right, the now discredited FTL neutrino paper from a couple months ago.

As an aside note, that paper has not been discredited, no significant errors in the methods have been found up to now and there is no good explanation for the experimental results -- yet. The big test is whether the effect can be confirmed independently by other groups (which will take another 6 months), so we'll have to wait and see. But the OPERA collaboration was very careful to double and triple check everything before releasing this result.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

1) The reports claim some warming is occurring, less than claimed by the latest IPCC. Also the reports show no link to anthropomorphic factors.

The scientific community's attribution of the temperature changes Berkeley Earth has confirmed are primarily ascribed to anthropogenic influences.

However, you are correct regarding the validity of the preliminary data. I, too, am going to hold back any final judgments regarding the information. I personally don't trust Professor Richard Muller to do a fine job on the analysis of the data collected. We'll have to wait and see, and peer review will certainly be the deciding factor.

Originally Posted by mduell 

... Where was the last time we saw that? Oh right, the now discredited FTL neutrino paper from a couple months ago.

It was not discredited, nor did it claim the neutrinos were faster than light. The media latched onto it and ran with it. The measurements are being reviewed, and they are looking to be accurate. However, it still doesn't mean that it's going to turn physics on top of its head. Initial reviews are looking like it may have to do with time compression due to gravity, and that special relativity simply makes it appear the neutrinos are going faster than light (they aren't, the distance they traveled and the time it took was shorter due to space-time being warped.)

What these observations may lead to is yet another confirmation of Einstein's theory of special relativity, and that gravity distorts space-time. Just before this story came out, measurements of type 1A supernovae also confirmed this theory. So a second, independent discovery (even if it was by accident, which much of science is) is going to be welcome.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Except this time, the team making the proclamation used to make proclamations *against* the idea of global warming.

No, the "team" (BEST) making the as-yet established proclamation is comprised of 7 sponsors, two of which are AGW skeptics, the remaining 5 proponents of AGW. It should also be noted for the many who like to conflate the terms; Global Warming, Climate Change, and Anthropogenic Global Warming are three different notions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Some time in the early 1800s, the world population was estimated to be around 1 billion people. There were no factories as we know them today, no automobiles, no airplanes, very few of the chemicals we use today, and any of a number of other substances and causes of pollution that we know today. Next year the world population is projected to hit 7 billion, with uncountable amounts of all the things mentioned in my second sentence. Anyone who thinks man, and his creations, hasn't had a deleterious effect on the planet, and who really believes that we can just continue to plunder to our hearts' content, is delusional at best, and a fool at worst. There are obviously many who live in their own microcosmic world, and choose to deny reality.

Let me guess, you're the one in the 67 VW microbus with dancing bear window decals emitting blue plumes of smoke. Or... is it an 8-cylinder Chevy Biscaine convertible you like to sport on the weekends? Otherwise, no one is advocating that we continue to plunder to our heart's content.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let me guess, you're the one in the 67 VW microbus with dancing bear window decals emitting blue plumes of smoke. Or... is it an 8-cylinder Chevy Biscaine convertible you like to sport on the weekends? Otherwise, no one is advocating that we continue to plunder to our heart's content.

No one is advocating that? No one needs to suggest it; we do it of our own volition. You should do some research as to how much energy we consume per person, relative to the rest of the world, and how that affects the planet. All you can come up with is silly statements about VWs and Chevy Biscaines (sic) You're such a tool.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No one is advocating that? No one needs to suggest it; we do it of our own volition. You should do some research as to how much energy we consume per person, relative to the rest of the world, and how that affects the planet. All you can come up with is silly statements about VWs and Chevy Biscaines (sic) You're such a tool.

Likewise, marginalizing the influence of the giant light-bulb hanging over our planet or failing to acknowledge natural variability or natural contributions to climate change makes you the worst kind of tool, advocating what human behavior exactly? Less energy consumption? Okay, let's start with you then chicken little. What have you done to ensure you're using less energy?

And apologies, the Biscayne was a little before my time, but I'd be surprised if i hadn't nailed at least one of your favorites. Was I wrong? Do you not own a Biscayne or a VW microbus?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Was I wrong?

You usually are.

[Buckaroo]

Where o where is that Al Gore Convenient Liar thread?

[Doofy]

Might I suggest yet again that those who believe the AGW story sell their computers and go live in a cave. It's no good running around shouting that the sky is falling if you're not personally going to do anything about it. No good being all gob and no trousers. See, I don't believe the AGW poop, but I'm still more "carbon-friendly" than you are... ...what with being veggie, working from home and planting trees in my fields, etc.. Don't you feel ashamed that you're less planet-friendly than ye olde Doof? Off you go.

[Doofy]

You're selling that pleasure motorcycle and getting a bicycle instead, right Karl?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're selling that pleasure motorcycle and getting a bicycle instead, right Karl?

That "pleasure" motorcycle is my primary transportation for 7 months of the year, as it gets twice the mileage of my car.

[Shaddim]

Hell yeah, I've planted 12 new apple trees and 6 new pear trees just this year, to help with my "carbon footprint". Plus, there's the whole getting to enjoy the pears and apples thing in a few years. I'm more of an environmentalist than all those liberal mofos!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That "pleasure" motorcycle is my primary transportation for 7 months of the year, as it gets twice the mileage of my car.

Use public transport or be a hypocrite.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Someone needs to harness all the hot air spewed constantly by the MMGlowarmers. Talk about wasted energy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hell yeah, I've planted 12 new apple trees and 6 new pear trees just this year, to help with my "carbon footprint". Plus, there's the whole getting to enjoy the pears and apples thing in a few years. I'm more of an environmentalist than all those liberal mofos!

I try to ride my bicycle to work while weather permits, contracted out for new roof this spring, new windows all 'round in the next 4 weeks, and new siding in January which should allow me membership into the, I'm more environmentally conscious than you club.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That "pleasure" motorcycle is my primary transportation for 7 months of the year, as it gets twice the mileage of my car.

You might want to avoid one of the recent episodes of MythBusters.

[Wiskedjak]

It can hardly be denied any longer that the planet is warming. The question of whether or not the warming is caused by humans is moot at this point. The only question should be "what are we going to do about it"?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It can hardly be denied any longer that the planet is warming. The question of whether or not the warming is caused by humans is moot at this point. The only question should be "what are we going to do about it"?

I'm going to buy some garden furniture. Maybe a hammock.

What else do you need to do about it? Other than don't bother to buy a greenhouse?

That's one thing these commie freaks are missing, ain't it? We currently put our food into greenhouses which we then pump full of CO2 to make the plants more productive. If the outside air's warmer already, and there's more CO2, then there'll be more plants and more food. Not exactly a "sky-is-falling" scenario, eh? Well, except for the "more food" and "warmer climate" might result in more fat chicks in bikinis - that wouldn't be very good.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You might want to avoid one of the recent episodes of MythBusters.

Or any of the data produced by Global MRV and the Center for Environmental Research and Technology all showing that motorcycles produce more emissions than cars.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It can hardly be denied any longer that the planet is warming. The question of whether or not the warming is caused by humans is moot at this point. The only question should be "what are we going to do about it"?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm going to buy some garden furniture. Maybe a hammock.

What else do you need to do about it? Other than don't bother to buy a greenhouse?

Yes. Everyone will just start moving north. I should start buying rural land near to major cities.

When it gets hotter than normal in the summer, we stop using the oven in our house, so as to avoid making our hot house hotter.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's one thing these commie freaks are missing, ain't it? We currently put our food into greenhouses which we then pump full of CO2 to make the plants more productive. If the outside air's warmer already, and there's more CO2, then there'll be more plants and more food. Not exactly a "sky-is-falling" scenario, eh? Well, except for the "more food" and "warmer climate" might result in more fat chicks in bikinis - that wouldn't be very good.

I'm not convinced that we'll end up with "more food". I think productive regions will simply shift northward, with equatorial regions eventually becoming too hot to remain productive. Not a disaster for the planet; an economic disaster for those equatorial places that currently rely upon food production, and an economic boon for those areas that can't produce as much food right now.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

When it gets hotter than normal in the summer, we stop using the oven in our house, so as to avoid making our hot house hotter.

Salads in summer. What a bizarre concept!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by doofy 

salads in summer. What a bizarre concept!

BBQ

[mattyb]

Couldn't be arsed searching for the other global warming threads so ...

BBC News - CO 2 climate sensitivity 'overestimated'

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Couldn't be arsed searching for the other global warming threads so ...

BBC News - CO 2 climate sensitivity 'overestimated'

This would be perfect to add to the Al Gore Convenient Liar thread.

[Wiskedjak]

Did you actually read the article any further than the Headline?

The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.

...

The authors stress the results do not mean threat from human-induced climate change should be treated any less seriously, explained palaeoclimatologist Antoni Rosell-Mele from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who is a member of the team that came up with the new estimates.

...

But it does mean that to induce large-scale warming of the planet, leading to widespread catastrophic consequences, we would have to increase CO2 more than we are going to do in the near future, he said.

Just to be clear: if you agree with what this study is suggesting, you are agreeing with the idea that human-induced climate change *is* a concern, with the caveat that it's not as *much* of a concern as the global warming fear mongers want it to be. You are also saying that we should avoid increasing human-induced CO2 output.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Just to be clear: if you agree with what this study is suggesting, you are agreeing with the idea that human-induced climate change *is* a concern, with the caveat that it's not as *much* of a concern as the global warming fear mongers want it to be.

Annnnd that's the "please give us a grant next time" clause.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Annnnd that's the "please give us a grant next time" clause.

If you're suggesting that they'd compromise their integrity in order to get grant money, then that makes me wonder in what other ways they've modified their conclusions to appeal to funding.

No, I think it's more likely that you just want to cherry-pick the bits of the study that support what you want to believe.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If you're suggesting that they'd compromise their integrity in order to get grant money, then that makes me wonder in what other ways they've modified their conclusions to appeal to funding.

Good, because it should do.

And if it doesn't, you're not being scientific.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If you're suggesting that they'd compromise their integrity in order to get grant money,

Yes, they'd compromise their integrity for grant money. That's just common sense. People will sell anything, integrity is actually cheap. You think because these people have a degree in tree hugging that they're somehow above putting their hand out? Pfftt.

[Wiskedjak]

Alright, then we've just rendered mattyb's article pointless for the anti-AGW crowd:

- if the researchers are honest, then the study finds that there *is* human-induced global warming, but that human CO2 production would have to increase for human-induced global warming to be as severe as the AGW fear mongers wish to make it appear.

- if the researchers are selling out with the above statement in order to get grant money, then their scientific integrity is in question and we can't trust their statement that "CO2 climate sensitivity 'overestimated'".

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yes, they'd compromise their integrity for grant money. That's just common sense. People will sell anything, integrity is actually cheap. You think because these people have a degree in tree hugging that they're somehow above putting their hand out? Pfftt.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Good, because it should do.

And if it doesn't, you're not being scientific.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

As an aside note, that paper has not been discredited, no significant errors in the methods have been found up to now and there is no good explanation for the experimental results -- yet. The big test is whether the effect can be confirmed independently by other groups (which will take another 6 months), so we'll have to wait and see. But the OPERA collaboration was very careful to double and triple check everything before releasing this result.

Finally figured that one out: loose cable caused spurious data.

[reader50]

That story was published today, while your FTL-debunked claim was posted 4 months ago. Unless you are claiming foreknowledge via FTL means, your original statement was erroneous at the time. Waiting to reply for however long it takes for supporting evidence to turn up is quite annoying for everyone else.

Also, a loose cable is not case-closed, so your claim is once again premature. Further tests are being planned for May. It sounds doubtful since a loose connection normally causes intermittent failure, not a consistent delay over hundreds of tests. To get a consistent delay of the sort needed, I'd think a 50-foot-overlength cable would have to be substituted for the correct one.

I look forward to your reply in May if they prove an error then.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Finally figured that one out: loose cable caused spurious data.

Heh, figures, spend millions on an experiment and someone forgets to insert the plug!
Up to now, this is an »unconfirmed report« and we should wait for an official response. And note that the arstechnica story was updated: apparently, the OPERA collaboration has found two potential problems, one would shift the data towards higher speeds and the other does the opposite (the optical cabling). I'd just wait and see until new data comes in.

[Buckaroo]

Too bad we can't bring the "Al Gore - Convenient Liar - The Master of Hypocrisy" thread back to life.

[mattyb]

Amount of ice in Bering Sea reaches all-time record • The Register

[mattyb]

And there's more : BBC News - Some Asian glaciers 'putting on mass'

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

And there's more : BBC News - Some Asian glaciers 'putting on mass'

Does that article represent your opinion on the matter?

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

And there's more : BBC News - Some Asian glaciers 'putting on mass'

A French team used satellite data to show that glaciers in part of the Karakoram range, to the west of the Himalayan region, are putting on mass.

The reason is unclear, as glaciers in other parts of the Himalayas are losing mass - which also is the global trend.

What, exactly, are you trying to say with these articles?

If it is your position that growing glaciers in Karakoram or increased sea ice in the Arctic mean that climate change is not occurring, then man up, grow some balls, and come out and say that. Your posts violate the Rules of the Pol Lounge as well as the Rules of Not Being A Pussy On This Issue. Say what you mean, please.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

What, exactly, are you trying to say with these articles?

If it is your position that growing glaciers in Karakoram or increased sea ice in the Arctic mean that climate change is not occurring, then man up, grow some balls, and come out and say that. Your posts violate the Rules of the Pol Lounge as well as the Rules of Not Being A Pussy On This Issue. Say what you mean, please.

Waaa. He was just posting info, no harm in that. It's a freaky thing, we've not lost ice mass, it's just changing places. Maybe we're going to have a geomagnetic reversal, we're due. That would be an interesting Baktun gift.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

What, exactly, are you trying to say with these articles?

If it is your position that growing glaciers in Karakoram or increased sea ice in the Arctic mean that climate change is not occurring, then man up, grow some balls, and come out and say that. Your posts violate the Rules of the Pol Lounge as well as the Rules of Not Being A Pussy On This Issue. Say what you mean, please.

I don't need an article to tell me that starting about twenty years ago we where told that the "science" was irrefutable that if we didn't do something drastic, we'd be burning up in 20 years.

We didn't. It hasn't happened.

I also don't need an article or new data to remember being told back in the late 70's/ Early 80's that if we didn't do something drastic, we were all going to suffer due to a lack of warmth due to extreme cooling.

We didn't. It didn't happen.

Yes, "climate" changes. It always has, even without man's involvement. For the most part, it doesn't seem that we need to do or not do anything to keep the cycle going. At the very least, the "chicken little" predictions can be ignored, absent something better than "models" which pretty much give a very broad prediction that could include just about anything. We've been guessing that there was going to be a disaster for at least a half century. First one way, than another. I'm betting that the sky is not falling, and I think that most everyone else who doesn't have a political agenda is betting the same. If "science" wants to be taken seriously, those who practice it needs to keep it out of politics. That hasn't been the case in regards to "global warming" or "climate change" (as it's now being repositioned due to previous claims being proven false.)

The world will warm, and it will cool.

So, can these silly threads on imagined disasters just stop?

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Waaa. He was just posting info, no harm in that.

"Posting info": is that now the definition of "making an argument or supporting a position by simply posting articles on external websites with zero comment or commentary?" Oh...because that's, you know...not allowed here.

It's a freaky thing, we've not lost ice mass, it's just changing places. Maybe we're going to have a geomagnetic reversal, we're due. That would be an interesting Baktun gift.

Perhaps you did not even read my post which you quoted? Because you're entirely incorrect. We have lost ice mass.