Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[Openmind]

BY JESS ZIMMERMAN
21 OCT 2011 9:04 AM

Remember when physicist Richard Muller was called to testify in the House by denialist Republicans who thought he'd debunk global warming, and he ended up supporting it instead? That was fun! And it just happened again on a grander scale. Muller's group at Berkeley, which was funded in part by the Charles G. Koch foundation, has reexamined (with a skeptical eye, of course) a metric crapload of climate information -- including data from the University of East Anglia, i.e. Climategate Central. Their conclusion? "Global warming is real." Direct quote.

"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Professor Muller.

"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."
You don't say.

Now, the results haven't been peer-reviewed yet, so it might not be time to start demanding that Anthony Watts drink beer out of his shoe. But in fact, Watts has promised to abide by whatever results the Berkeley group came up with, "even if it proves my premise wrong," so it'll be interesting to see what he and other prominent skeptics do once the paper is published. Probably just click their tongues and say "so sad -- another good scientist corrupted by the Conspiracy."

http://www.grist.org/list/2011-10-20-koch-funded-scient...

 

[dogtowner]

OK, So That Didn't Work ...

The page you requested could not be found. (When last seen, it was muttering something about joining an anti-whaling campaign and "really making a difference for once.")

 

[Openmind]

OK, So That Didn't Work ...

The page you requested could not be found. (When last seen, it was muttering something about joining an anti-whaling campaign and "really making a difference for once.")

Here is one:

EnvironmentA skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data
Posted by Brad Plumer at 04:18 PM ET, 10/20/2011
Text Size PrintE-mailReprintsShare:More > FacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditStumbleUponDiggDeliciousGoogle +1Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims. Remember, this was not long after the Climategate affair had erupted, at a time when skeptics were griping that climatologists had based their claims on faulty temperature data.


(Jonathan Hayward/AP) Muller’s stated aims were simple. He and his team would scour and re-analyze the climate data, putting all their calculations and methods online. Skeptics cheered the effort. “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong,” wrote Anthony Watts, a blogger who has criticized the quality of the weather stations in the United Statse that provide temperature data. The Charles G. Koch Foundation even gave Muller’s project $150,000 — and the Koch brothers, recall, are hardly fans of mainstream climate science.

So what are the end results? Muller’s team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science. Back in March, Muller told the House Science and Technology Committee that, contrary to what he expected, the existing temperature data was “excellent.” He went on: “We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” And, today, the BEST team has released a flurry of new papers that confirm that the planet is getting hotter. As the team’s two-page summary flatly concludes, “Global warming is real.”Here’s a chart comparing their findings with existing data:

The BEST team tried to take a number of skeptic claims seriously, to see if they panned out. Take, for instance, their paper on the “urban heat island effect.” Watts has long argued that many weather stations collecting temperature data could be biased by being located in cities. Since cities are naturally warmer than rural areas (because building materials retain more heat), the uptick in recorded temperatures might be exaggerated, an illusion spawned by increased urbanization. So Muller’s team decided to compare overall temperature trends with only those weather stations based in rural areas. And, as it turns out the trends match up well. “Urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change,” Muller’s group concluded.

That shouldn’t be so jaw-dropping. Previous analyses — like this one from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — have responded to Watts’ concerns by showing that a few flawed stations don’t warp the overall trend. But maybe Muller’s team can finally put this controversy to rest, right? Well, not yet. As Watts responds over at his site, the BEST papers still haven’t been peer-reviewed (an important caveat, to be sure). And Watts isn’t pleased with how much pre-publication hype the studies are getting. But so far, what we have is a prominent skeptic casting a critical eye at the data and finding, much to his own surprise, that the data holds up.

 

[Openmind]

OK, So That Didn't Work ...

The page you requested could not be found. (When last seen, it was muttering something about joining an anti-whaling campaign and "really making a difference for once.")

Here is one:

EnvironmentA skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data
Posted by Brad Plumer at 04:18 PM ET, 10/20/2011
Text Size PrintE-mailReprintsShare:More > FacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditStumbleUponDiggDeliciousGoogle +1Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims. Remember, this was not long after the Climategate affair had erupted, at a time when skeptics were griping that climatologists had based their claims on faulty temperature data.


(Jonathan Hayward/AP) Muller’s stated aims were simple. He and his team would scour and re-analyze the climate data, putting all their calculations and methods online. Skeptics cheered the effort. “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong,” wrote Anthony Watts, a blogger who has criticized the quality of the weather stations in the United Statse that provide temperature data. The Charles G. Koch Foundation even gave Muller’s project $150,000 — and the Koch brothers, recall, are hardly fans of mainstream climate science.

So what are the end results? Muller’s team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science. Back in March, Muller told the House Science and Technology Committee that, contrary to what he expected, the existing temperature data was “excellent.” He went on: “We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” And, today, the BEST team has released a flurry of new papers that confirm that the planet is getting hotter. As the team’s two-page summary flatly concludes, “Global warming is real.”Here’s a chart comparing their findings with existing data:

The BEST team tried to take a number of skeptic claims seriously, to see if they panned out. Take, for instance, their paper on the “urban heat island effect.” Watts has long argued that many weather stations collecting temperature data could be biased by being located in cities. Since cities are naturally warmer than rural areas (because building materials retain more heat), the uptick in recorded temperatures might be exaggerated, an illusion spawned by increased urbanization. So Muller’s team decided to compare overall temperature trends with only those weather stations based in rural areas. And, as it turns out the trends match up well. “Urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change,” Muller’s group concluded.

That shouldn’t be so jaw-dropping. Previous analyses — like this one from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — have responded to Watts’ concerns by showing that a few flawed stations don’t warp the overall trend. But maybe Muller’s team can finally put this controversy to rest, right? Well, not yet. As Watts responds over at his site, the BEST papers still haven’t been peer-reviewed (an important caveat, to be sure). And Watts isn’t pleased with how much pre-publication hype the studies are getting. But so far, what we have is a prominent skeptic casting a critical eye at the data and finding, much to his own surprise, that the data holds up.

Here is the other one:

climate science
Koch-funded scientists confirm global warming10
by Jess Zimmerman

21 Oct 2011 9:04 AM
Remember when physicist Richard Muller was called to testify in the House by denialist Republicans who thought he'd debunk global warming, and he ended up supporting it instead? That was fun! And it just happened again on a grander scale. Muller's group at Berkeley, which was funded in part by the Charles G. Koch foundation, has reexamined (with a skeptical eye, of course) a metric crapload of climate information -- including data from the University of East Anglia, i.e. Climategate Central. Their conclusion? "Global warming is real." Direct quote.

"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Professor Muller.

"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

You don't say.

Now, the results haven't been peer-reviewed yet, so it might not be time to start demanding that Anthony Watts drink beer out of his shoe. But in fact, Watts has promised to abide by whatever results the Berkeley group came up with, "even if it proves my premise wrong," so it'll be interesting to see what he and other prominent skeptics do once the paper is published. Probably just click their tongues and say "so sad -- another good scientist corrupted by the Conspiracy."

 

[dogtowner]

Do they also confirm no warming since 98 ?

 

[Openmind]

Do they also confirm no warming since 98 ?

Absolutely not. . .if you had gone to those links. . .you would have seen the graph!

Warming has been absolutely evident!

 

[dogtowner]

Absolutely not. . .if you had gone to those links. . .you would have seen the graph!

Warming has been absolutely evident!

no links provided only text

lack of warming since 98 is what I asked. I get that they agreed that prior to that it was up a degree or two.

 

[Openmind]

no links provided only text

lack of warming since 98 is what I asked. I get that they agreed that prior to that it was up a degree or two.

Current Attachments (15.0 KB)
climate change chart.jpg (15.0 KB)

 

[dogtowner]

Current Attachments (15.0 KB)
climate change chart.jpg (15.0 KB)

FYI attaching images in that way is harmful to the site owner as it takes up server space. That costs someone money.

Instead of that right click the desired image, click COPY image location, go to here and position cursor where you want to place the image then click the icon that looks like either a mountain with a sun in the right sky or a letter with a stamp, paste the image ((CTRL and V).

 

[Openmind]

FYI attaching images in that way is harmful to the site owner as it takes up server space. That costs someone money.

Instead of that right click the desired image, click COPY image location, go to here and position cursor where you want to place the image then click the icon that looks like either a mountain with a sun in the right sky or a letter with a stamp, paste the image ((CTRL and V).

Good. . .you do it!

 

[dogtowner]

Current Attachments (15.0 KB)
climate change chart.jpg (15.0 KB)

Seems not to so since the Warmers have admitted this is the case neither is meaningful.

 

[Openmind]

Seems not to so since the Warmers have admitted this is the case neither is meaningful.

So. . .you are smarter than every scientists. . . including Koch's scientists!

NOw that even Koch has admitted they were wrong in negating climate change...you keep hanging on to your straw.

Can you EVER recognize that you may be wrong in ANYTHING?

I don't think so. . .so discussing with you is worthless.

 

[dogtowner]

So. . .you are smarter than every scientists. . . including Koch's scientists!

NOw that even Koch has admitted they were wrong in negating climate change...you keep hanging on to your straw.

Can you EVER recognize that you may be wrong in ANYTHING?

I don't think so. . .so discussing with you is worthless.

You denying this ?

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.


The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.


Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.


And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

 

[Openmind]

You denying this ?

Let's start by this:

Your quote. . .which speaks of "professor Jones said YESTERDAY" actually datees from February 2010.


Now, the data I provided dates from THIS MONTH.

And, really, I don't give a damn if a scientists has problem with organization! Who cares?

He was the scapegoat for bashing some valuable scientific data. . .that is IT.

Now, the new data are so compelling, that EVEN those scientists who WERE sceptical a year ago, had to reconsider their position.

Can you deny this?

 

[GenSeneca]

Climate is constantly changing... Name a period in the history of the earth when the climate WASN'T changing.