New Preliminary Analysis Agrees—Global Temperatures Are Going Up

|

Another entrant into the climate wars

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was put together in the wake of the Climategate blowup in 2009. Led by University of California Berkeley physicist Richard Muller and advised by Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry, the BEST project is examining various surface temperature records with the aim of resolving

…current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record.

The BEST project is using over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies.

In Congressional testimony last week, Muller released some initial findings:

Prior groups (NOAA, NASA, HadCRU) selected for their analysis 12% to 22% of the roughly 39,000 available stations.    (The number of stations they used varied from 4,500 to a maximum of 8,500.)

They believe their station selection was unbiased. Outside groups have questioned that, and claimed that the selection picked records with large temperature increases. Such bias could be inadvertent, for example, a result of choosing long continuous records. (A long record might mean a station that was once on the outskirts and is now within a city.)

To avoid such station selection bias, Berkeley Earth has developed techniques to work with all the available stations.

This requires a technique that can include short and discontinuous records.

In an initial test, Berkeley Earth chose stations randomly from the complete set of 39,028 stations.    Such a selection is free of station selection bias.

Not a dime's worth of difference

In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend that is shown in the figure. It is very similar to that reported by the prior groups: a rise of about 0.7 degrees C since 1957. (Please keep in mind that the Berkeley Earth curve, in black, does not include adjustments designed to eliminate systematic bias.)

The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don't yet address many of the known biases. When they do, it is possible that the corrections could bring our current agreement into disagreement.

Why such close agreement between our uncorrected data and their adjusted data? One possibility is that the systematic corrections applied by the other groups are small. We don't yet know.

The main value of our preliminary result is that it demonstrates the Berkeley Earth ability to use all records, including those that are short or fragmented. When we apply our approach to the complete data collection, we will largely eliminate the station selection bias, and significantly reduce statistical uncertainties.

One oft expressed concern is that climatologists have failed to adequately account for confounders in their temperature data such as urban heat island effects, station placement and equipment changes, changes in the time of monitoring and so forth. Perhaps such changes have led researchers to find a spurious trend toward higher average global temperatures. However, Muller testifying about the BEST project's preliminary (and un-peer reviewed) analysis of station quality reported: 

Many temperature stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to heat sources. Anthony Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations in the US Historical Climatology Network would be ranked "poor" by NOAA's own standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C.

Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We've studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.

The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.

Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.

Go here to download Muller's testimony.

On the other hand, it must be noted that BEST's efforts have not received universal approbation. Both skeptics and alarmists (I use the terms they call each other) take Muller and BEST to task for releasing conclusions in advance of peer review. Particularly at issue will be the validity of whatever statistical tweaking BEST is applying to temperature datasets. It will be very interesting to see what happens as the BEST project analyses proceed to peer review.

NEXT: How Libya Fails the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The documents were forged, but their content is accurate.

    1. The problem with these graphs is the coverage of temperature stations. Go to the GISS site and plot the land data for 1900. You get this:

      http://www.free-the-memes.net/…..S_1901.gif

      The data just isn’t extensive enough to get a “global mean temperature” for those years. And since the farther you go back, the less data there is, it introduces a strong trend into the graph.

  2. That chart shows an increase of just under 2 deg C. Is it my imagination or is that actually incredibly stable?

    1. Total variation of 2 deg C. What interests me is how much narrower the graph is getting. Seems like maybe they might look at that as a form of systemic error.

      1. This could represent an increase in the number of stations over time, but if so it indicates that they were statistics limited in earlier epochs.

        1. I’m thinking that both the precision and distribution of measuring instruments increased. Without error bars its hard to know whether and how they’ve accounted for this.

  3. Temperatures are never below normal. They’re below average.

    And they’re never above average. They’re above normal.

    Below average, above normal.

    Got it?

    1. Either way temperature should be something different than it actually is because we collected underpants.

    2. Funny, but true. It’s even funnier when you consider that there is no such thing as either an “average” or a “normal” temperature, and even if there were we have no way of definitively knowing what they are.

      1. Below average is, well, below average. Who cars?

        Above normal is, well, abnormal. That’s bad.

        Global Warming we’re all gonna die in the fire aaaaaaaaauuuugggghhhhh!

          1. Clicked from that to Drive.

            Wow, Paulina Porizkova was young. And smokin’, but duh on that.

  4. Guys, I’m super cereal! ManBearPig is a real threat to the planet and the survival of the human race.

    1. Are you positive?…Are you HIV positive?

  5. Ronald. Nice shout-out to “The the” in the first paragraph.

    1. You sure he wasn’t referencing “Attack of the the Eye Creatures”?

    2. FM: Fixed. Thanks.

  6. I caught some show this weekend on the life cycle of the Earth (History Channel, I think). I had to laugh at the end when the narrator mentioned that the most that warming caused by industrialization could do was slightly delay the next inevitable civilization crushing ice age.

    Somebody obviously didn’t get the climate change talking points memo…

  7. I’m sick to death of seeing this curve.

    I was doing some research on wine making in the middle ages and stumbled on a lengthy description of the little ice age — that period of 500 years or so that coincided with massive famines and plagues in the late dark ages. It seems the “official” end of the little ice is at the start of this graph.

    Graphology is how technical people lie.

    1. Graphology is how technical people lie.

      It’s a little similar to polling in that regard. In the same way that any reasonably intelligent person can usually design a poll to show the outcome they want to show based upon the way the question is phrased and who they ask, any reasonably intelligent person can use selective endpoints and sample size on a graph to show the “trend” they want to show, even when there really is no trend in existence.

    2. Me three. If AGW is really going on, and I think it probably is, why all the dishonest graphs and exaggerated predictions. IOW I don’t think it’s a hoax but why is everyone behaving so goddamn hoaxishly

      1. Here’s my theory (as somebody who was once an atmospheric scientist): the truth isn’t alarming enough. The truth is enough to spark thoughtful policy debate, but you have to do better if you want a crisis significant enough to scare people into voting for you/enacting your favored policies. That’s what kills me: the irresponsible exaggerations only give more fuel to the denialists.

        1. That makes sense for politicans but why do scientists play along? Tell me there’s more to it than just quid pro quo grants.

          1. but why do scientists play along?

            Grants.

            1. Not to mention that not going along, unless you are very established, amount to professional suicide with respect to this horrificly politicized issue.

        2. I tell people that it seems intuitively obvious that if you dump billions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere over a couple of hundred years that there must be “some” effect. The issue is quantifying “some”.

          The data is far from conclusive that we are on a catestrophic path.

        3. For what it’s worth, the meteorological community has been far more skeptical than the “earth science” community. As for playing along, well, first I don’t think they’re playing along as much as the media suggests. Alarmist papers get all the attention, but there are tons of other studies you’ll never read about unless you’re in the field. And keep in mind that a body like the IPCC is self-selecting; scientists trying to make names for themselves or evangelical environmentalists are far more likely to seek an appointment. It’s been eight years since I left the field, but certainly there were plenty of skeptics in my department; the politicians (and to a lesser extent the media) simply ignore them.

          1. As I had it related to me by a frustrated biologist, part of the problem is that you can’t easily get a, say, NSF grant to study the sex lives of squirrels. But if you couch the proposal as trying to show how AGW affects squirrel sex lives, then you can. Rinse/repeat across the sciences.

            1. That’s only partially true. A couple years ago I was chatting with a friend who’s still in the field and she pointed out that if you published a study conclusively disproving anthropogenic global warming you would be a rock star. So while it’s certainly true that certain positions are more likely to get you jobs/grants, there is an incentive (albeit a smaller one) to reach other findings.

              1. Given the amount of institutional and ideological inertia behind AGW, that would have to be one kick-ass paper.

        4. I saw some documentaries recently about the late Permian and Cretaceous/Tertiary (K-T) extinctions. Global warming from CO2 was thought to play a part in both of those.

          However, the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere was massive, on the order of thousands of times the amounts currently released yearly. 3000 times our current output of CO2 was thought to result in a global temperature rise of 20?C. So a 1?C rise from a little over 100 years makes sense.

          I agree with both of you – this is something we should be watching, but right now it doesn’t make sense to do more than look for the “lowest hanging fruit”. e.g.- Make sure we aren’t subsidizing dirty coal in any way.

          1. And if you look at this graph, what’s with the drop from around 1940-1980? Surely that was a period when CO2 emissions rose. So if CO2 emissions didn’t track with temperature then, why are they so sure they’ll track over the next century?

          2. Otto,
            IIRC, the total CO2 is many times our current level, but these events did not happen at a greater rate than the current CO2 output. We would need a couple of hundred years at this rate to get there, but the previous events took many times longer to unfold. The Siberian Traps put out a fraction of the current annual human-made CO2…they just did it for a million years.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/4877…..ichow-2009

    3. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

      1. Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is enticing, but what they conceal is vital.

  8. The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.

    See, if you tell me that you have sensors that you know are poor quality, and that the stations you think are good quality give the same results, to me that calls into question the quality of all the data.

    “Look, Sensor A is crap. We know its crap, and it tells us X. Sensor B over here is also telling us X. Should I believe (a) that Sensor A is not crap, (b) that Sensor B is crap, too, or (c) that the whole project is irretrievably fucked”?

    1. I don’t like defending these twits, but that is not an accurate summation. The expectation is that stations situated in “good” places would show one trend, and stations situated in “bad” places would show another trend (probably with temperatures rising faster than the “good” stations).

      I can’t accept a station that was rural 50 years ago and is urban now shows the same trend as a station that was always urban or always rural. But that not the same as saying the sensors were crap.

      1. I can’t accept a station that was rural 50 years ago and is urban now shows the same trend as a station that was always urban or always rural.

        And I can’t accept the accuracy of “algorithms” used to correct for these changes, as the assumptions made to quantify the output are completely untested in such a complex system.

    2. with nearly 40,000 stations providing incredible amounts of data regarding something as easy to measure accurately as temperature this is an invalid arguement. The sensors themselves arent poor quality, they were only admitting that it was possible outside influences could have acted on some of them, but it turns out that after checking for that it didnt occour.

  9. As a skeptic (DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNN) I have two problems with this graph.

    1.) I understand that the “poor” recording stations are in fact labeled “poor” for a reason, but the authors of this study state that this doesn’t affect the overall trend. I would like to know more about why. If the “poor stations” aren’t a factor because it’s statistically insignificant from a reporting standpoint I suppose that would make sense, but why include them at all? And if it is statistically significant (a 5 degree difference is huge in this dataset), how much and what was factored in to account for the bias?

    2.)Why do these graphs always start after 1870? Is there a reason why we can’t go back to say, 1700 and start plotting? The reason I ask this is because graphs like this show the temperatures from 0 AD up to the present, and those trends look a lot less dramatic than the ones in this graph.

    (source)Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 19, 93-100

    1. Note that at the peak in Loehle graph is around 1000 A.D. when the vikings settled in Greenland — and they called it Greenland, because is was fucking green. The vikings settlements were abandoned by the mid-1300s at the start of the Little Ice Age.

      The Little Ice Age bottomed out around the same time the river Thames froze over in London (in the 1600s).

      So the terrifying hockey stick graphs always start at the peak temperature in 1000 AD, show the bottom around the start of the industrial revolution 1700ish, and show the OMFG high temperatures we now have.

      1. “Note that at the peak in Loehle graph is around 1000 A.D. when the vikings settled in Greenland — and they called it Greenland, because is was fucking green. The vikings settlements were abandoned by the mid-1300s at the start of the Little Ice Age.”

        Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warming Period were local, not global events.

        If you were a human being and not a Randroid, you would have bothered to find that out before saying anything about the subject.

        Next time you want to say something, ask a left-winger first so you don’t embarrass yourself. Retarded little cunt.

        1. Next time you want to say something, ask a left-winger first so you don’t embarrass yourself.

          Irony, how does it fucking work?

        2. Hi Axel,

          Perhaps you weren’t paying attention to your leftist buddies in Cambridge.

          Here, try this-

          http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP71C..09L

          And run along now, the adults are talking.

          1. Eastern China was one of the very few and limited areas that saw warming during the Medieval Warming Period:

            http://www.skepticalscience.co…..rn_MWP.gif

            “The Medieval Warm Period saw warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961?1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures were even as warm as today. However, certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler compared to the 1961 to 1990 average.”

            But you made an effort, Tman.

            1. Hi Axel,

              Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warming Period were local, not global events.

              And then you call people “retarded little cunts”.

              Then you say-

              Eastern China was one of the very few and limited areas that saw warming during the Medieval Warming Period:

              But you fail to admit your first statement was wrong.

              Who is the “retarded little cunt” now?

              That would be you Axel.

              You couldn’t shine the shoes of most of the people here.

              1. Axel = rather’s…partner

              2. Uhh, Tman, if the Medieval Warming was a local event, then it’s entirely consistent for Eastern China to be one of a very few warm areas.

                1. CCC,

                  “The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China,[1] New Zealand,[2] and other countries[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] lasting from about AD 950?1250.[10]”

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..ite_note-0

                  If by “local” you mean “may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China, New Zealand, and other countries” then yes, it was local.

                  1. The trick here is to get the MWP localized to places with written records (China, Europe, Islamolands, subcontinent) because people living then inconviently wrote down things for us to read later.

                    But I’m sure where no human voice speaks from then to us today – all of blackfrica, virtually all the western hemisphere, Oceania, and the polar regions far removed from Vikings annals – there was no warming I’m sure.

                    So you could say MWP will be ‘localized’ eventually to only literate places of the medieval world.

                    1. New Zealand’s mentioned, and that was uninhabited in 1200 AD.

        3. I too busy to look it up, but I am sure the arctic and antartic ice core samples also show the MWP and Little Ice Age.

          So go fuck yourself.

          1. “I too busy to look it up”

            Your kids need some extra beatings today?

            1. What the fuck are you doing here? Don’t you have some kulaks to rape? Who are you telling to run along on a site for what and what exactly? Oh, that’s right Che, you don’t recognize property but that which you plunder from some poor sap. No poor saps here, so the killing ain’t so easy.

        4. You know, I think Atlas has a fairly compelling reason to whine like a bitch.

      2. Not true, they called it Greenland as a marketing ploy to get settlers. However, it supported life, so it was greener than it is today, but its name was still a lie.

        1. There is a fine line between marketing and criminal fraud.

        2. Greenland supports life today. 50k-60k people live there.

    2. I just had a thought (painful i know)…it seems that good weather (ergo the assmuption of more food supply) leads to opression (the “dark” ages didnt have too many uprisings in a vast philosophical sense) and the end of Rome coincides with a cold period as does the renaisance…i wonder if the scarcity of food (in the aggregate) has any effect on long term political stability. just spitballin here.

      1. Yes. Food losses almost certainly collapsed the Roman empire. Why do you think the Vandals sacked Rome? OTOH, when you’re trying to figure out which kids you’re gonna feed come winter, you don’t tend to think too much about the big picture. It tends towards naked warlordism.

        1. I have often thought about loss of tribal knowledge (the irony of hte phrase not withstanding) per say in a societal shift towards survival over leisure…it is a fun experiment to think of “The Pencil” in such a scenario. Kind of frightening but eye opening.

    3. 2) In their defense, they are doing the historic surface temperature record of North America. Anything before 1850 would be inferred not measured.

      1. Sorry, global surface temperature, but the point remains that there is no direct global data before the second half of the 19th century.

        1. stop bringing common sense into this debate and let people keep complaining about the faultyness of graphs starting at 1870. Clearly theres just a huge conspiracy to hide years before that!!!!!!
          it couldnt possibly be due to that being when they ACTUALLY have data for

    4. That graph is an effective facepalm induction system.

    5. 1.) I understand that the “poor” recording stations are in fact labeled “poor” for a reason, but the authors of this study state that this doesn’t affect the overall trend. I would like to know more about why.

      Probably for continuity’s sake. If they stopped using some measurements and started using others, they could be accused of trying to fudge the data. Moreover, even bad sensors can show a trend, and the trend is more important than any particular data point.

      2.)Why do these graphs always start after 1870?

      I don’t know. Two guesses:

      1. The data before 1870 aren’t measured in the same way and have to be deduced from ice cores, tree rings, etc.

      2. Human activity prior to 1870 was probably too small to affect the climate, so 1870-onwards is used to illustrate humanity’s climate effect as opposed to nature’s regular oscillations.

      Other guesses are welcome.

      1. How does one discern humanity’s effect when one doesn’t know the scope of nature’s regular oscillations?

        1. By guessing in a way that is profitable for the guesser.

  10. …current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the long overdue, new earth sciences discipline: Public Relations.

  11. Since ‘Skeptic’ has come to connote a credulous ignoramus , and ‘Alarmist’ one fearful of playing with fire , let’s call all K climate wars media products however subsidized, by their proper name: propaganda.

    If you can’t be bothered to read the non-vanity press peer reviewed scientific literature , _and_ keep track of its political drift , you are doomed to be the lawful prey of K street’s dueling tuba bands.

    1. Um… if someone gave testimony in front of Congress based on unpublished research that has not been peer validated, Watts’ reaction is understandable. It’s more of the same shit that happened at IPCC. “Science” conducted on the downlow.

      Maybe scientists need to take transparency as seriously as Obama. Oh wait, they already do…

      1. The problems started when “scientists” branched out into multitrillion-dollar global policy consulting. When people started checking their work, it quickly became clear they were mostly environmental activists and what they claimed was evidence-based policymaking was actually policy-based evidencemaking, all done on the taxpayer dime.

        It’s funny how the same people who mock televangelists are happy to shovel money at the Gaia cult.

  12. You left out the “best” part, Ron. BEST runs in part on Koch cash, much to the confusion of the easily confused Paul “The enemy of my enemy is my … what? Oh, fuck it, I’m Paul Fucking Krugman so shut the fuck up” Krugman.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04…..ef=opinion

    1. The best part is this non sequitur.

      My favorite, still, was Ron Paul’s first hearing on monetary policy, in which the lead witness was someone best known for writing a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln as a “horrific tyrant” ? and for advocating a new secessionist movement as the appropriate response to the “new American fascialistic state.”

    2. Serves the Republicans right for inviting someone plausibly called an actual scientist to testify on a scientific matter.

      Of course, since he changed his mind and came to the wrong conclusion, he was immediately refudiated.

      1. Ever get tired of fishing for Palin-Republicans at a libertarian site?

        1. I get tired of the overwhelming level of science denialism in both Republican and libertarian spheres.

          1. Okay, as somebody who believes that anthropogenic global warming occurs (though I also believe that folks on the left exaggerate how much of it is anthropogenic, as well as the impacts of warming), I’ll agree that there’s some science denialism going on within libertarian circles when it comes to this issue. But I find it odd precisely because it’s an anomaly within libertarianism, which is the MOST scientifically-minded political sphere of which I’m aware. So I’m curious… what would you consider to be another example of libertarians (not Republicans, mind you) being science denialists?

            1. Well, it’s pretty much scientific fact that central planning is much more efficient for allocating resources than some mystical market sprinkling its pixie dust everywhere.

              1. Tony proves he doesn’t know what “scientific fact” means.

                1. Yeah, I was seriously curious to hear what Tony had so say. His response was almost as disappointing as Obama’s first two years.

              2. “Well, it’s pretty much scientific fact that central planning is much more efficient for allocating resources”

                No. Just no. Try harder. What were you saying about denialism?. Hve you ever heard about the Soviet Union, how about East compared to West Germany after the Berlin wall fell? Chist you’re stupid.

                “…mystical market sprinkling its pixie dust everywhere.”

                There’s nothing mystical about people making their own choices. Is this spoof Tony or do you just sound like you’re making fun of yourself today.

              3. Re: Spoof of Tony,

                Well, it’s pretty much scientific fact that central planning is much more efficient for allocating resources than some mystical market sprinkling its pixie dust everywhere.

                This is clearly somebody spoofing Tony!

                Right?

                1. Good job OM!

                  I will note that if the market were efficient at solving global warming, it would have started by now.

              4. I’m so lonely Tony.

              5. Well, it’s pretty much scientific fact that central planning is much more efficient for allocating resources than some mystical market sprinkling its pixie dust everywhere.

                North Korea agrees with you.

            2. Tony, I don’t reject climatological findings, but you should understand that the more common libertarian reaction was directly caused by the politicization of climatology by liberals. I see it every day at Brandeis; green activists distorting scientific findings and misstating things as scientific fact which aren’t, all for a political agenda. The wrong of exaggerating science is just as bad as, if not worse than, denying it.

              1. “you should understand that the more common libertarian reaction was directly caused by the politicization of climatology by liberals.”

                You mean stating that since CO2 is an externality that market forces will never adapt to in time voluntarily, the government pretty much has to step in – as with acid rain or the ozone layer damage? Because to many of you libertarians, that is still “politicization” of science (tut tut).

                Which is why I really dislike libertarianism – so many of you are a bunch of concern-trolls.

                1. Chad is right about one thing – DRINK!

                2. You mean stating that since CO2 is an externality that market forces will never adapt to in time voluntarily, the government pretty much has to step in – as with acid rain or the ozone layer damage? Because to many of you libertarians, that is still “politicization” of science (tut tut).

                  No, that is a completely political opinion. Science tells us what is, not what we ought to do. The politicization of science is the distortion of scientific findings for the purposes of a political agenda. Saying that science tells us what to do isn’t really politicization, it’s just plain ignorance of what science is.

                  If pollution is damaging to life and/or property than libertarians should support government action to correct it, just as we would support government action to correct any other violation of property rights.

                  Of course, there is no reason why the government could not operate voluntarily and still protect our rights. If we had a voluntary society in the first place, voluntary or “market” action could address pollution at least as well as any coerced action.

                  1. Why would polluting industries voluntarily put a price on pollutants if they didn’t have to?

                    1. fucking liability how does it work?

                    2. Why would polluting industries voluntarily put a price on pollutants if they didn’t have to?

                      Because their customers might leave them if they don’t find ways to stop polluting? Liberals believe is people power actions – how about (voluntary) boycotts of CO2 producers?

                    3. So if all the Al Gore lites of the world united and boycotted CO2 producers? It’d be like Jonestown but Al Gore stars as Jim Jones:

                      ‘Everyone, now, be brave…hold your breath!’

                      Wow, that boycott was quick…and unusually effective. Yes, the Gore-groupies should get together and try this carbon boycott thing.

                    4. Why would polluting industries voluntarily put a price on pollutants if they didn’t have to?

                      Where did you get any of this from what I wrote? Try again.

                    5. Why would polluting industries voluntarily put a price on pollutants if they didn’t have to?

                      Perhaps you should ask the Koch’s.

                      They did fund the above mentioned Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.

                  2. “If pollution is damaging to life and/or property than libertarians should support government action to correct it, just as we would support government action to correct any other violation of property rights.”

                    Yeah, Adler over at Volokh (one of the few human libertarians I know of) has done a paper on that.

                    1. Atlas I can’t believe you would characterize libertarians as “subhuman” and then expect us to take you seriously. Don’t you have some comments to write up on YouTube?

            3. Libertarians are definitely not the most scientifically-minded political faction. Their entire economic worldview is predicated on an almost total lack of historical evidence (just trust us… in libertopia it would work!) How much room is there in libertarianism for first principles to be challenged by evidence? I see little to persuade me that evidence, scientific, historic, economic, social, plays a large role in libertarianism at all.

              The prevalence of climate denierism seems to be a symptom of this rigidity, not an exception. It’s after all just plain impossible to admit the facts of climate change and then propose a libertarian free-market oriented solution, especially in libertarianism’s most vocal form: radical anti-statism.

              1. Their entire economic worldview is predicated on an almost total lack of historical evidence (just trust us… in libertopia it would work!)

                Yes, there is little historical evidence that voluntary action works well. You’re a fucking genius.

                How much room is there in libertarianism for first principles to be challenged by evidence?

                If you try to use an is to disprove or prove an ought, you’re probably going to fail regardless.

                The prevalence of climate denierism seems to be a symptom of this rigidity, not an exception. It’s after all just plain impossible to admit the facts of climate change and then propose a libertarian free-market oriented solution, especially in libertarianism’s most vocal form: radical anti-statism.

                Except that I propose the “solution” every time we have a thread on this subject. You just happen to be arguing in bad faith. The prevalence of the politicization of science is inherent to all political agendas, not just libertarianism (See your insistence that libertarianism is impossible to reconcile with science).

              2. Libertarians don’t claim that their preferred economy will lead to puppies and rainbows for all, but it does have the advantage of not having lead to mass starvation, genocide, mass political execution, or totalitarianism like the alternatives (the center-left corporatist planning of the fascists and progressives, or the far-left complete central control of the socialists and communists) being offered.

                1. It has also made america and everyone who has been doing business with americans over the years extremely wealthy.

            4. This is refreshing to hear this point. Thank you for admitting this, now I wish these sentiments would spread to the others. I agree that some on the left do try to stretch the damages a little too much, but there’s going to be effects from it that should be prepared for.

          2. Suck me harder, bitch! Harder! HARDER!!!

            1. HARDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      2. Re: Tony,
        Seems like you still grasp at straws. The issue is not global warming per se, it is the assumption that a) is bad, that b) we humans are the SOLE source and c) we need to go back to the plains, hitting antelopes with rocks, in order to “save” ourselves.

        1. Are those goalposts I hear moving?

          Science has answered your questions (except c, which is a ridiculous lie). A) on balance, yes B) yes.

          1. You seriously want to argue humans are the SOLE source of our current warming? If you have a degree in any scientific field you should hand it back, and if you don’t then you have some reading to do.

            1. Correct, there are no other sources of warming other than humans. And even though I don’t have a science degree, my english lit degree is more than adequate to understand these things. The science is settled.

              1. Is this a spoof?

              2. I already like you better than the real Tony.

              3. Re: Tony,

                Correct, there are no other sources of warming other than humans.

                Somebody turned off the sun 50 years ago…

              4. The problem is that even English Lit would seem to be too much for Tony to comprehend.

                Comprehension is not Tony’s strong point.

          2. Re: Tony,

            Are those goalposts I hear moving?

            You must be dreaming. I have never said global warming was a hoax – actually, I have reiterated many times that GW is a REQUIREMENT for life on this Earth.

            Science has answered your questions

            Seems like it has NOT, since scientists are clearly concerned RIGHT NOW with showing that the temperature trends are a real thing. The idea that the trend is due to human activity is just an assumption, it has NOT been proven, and even WORSE to your argument, nobody has shown that global warming is a BAD thing – all the predictions about the potential dangers have turned out to be utterly FALSE, which is why people are becoming ever more skeptical.

            So, a) has not been proven AT ALL, and b) is just an assumption based on a correlation, nothing more. You just assume a) is true because you want c).

            1. “The idea that the trend is due to human activity is just an assumption, it has NOT been proven”

              Physics clearly show that CO2 in an atmosphere trap energy.

              “nobody has shown that global warming is a BAD thing”

              Darfur kinda has already.

              “all the predictions about the potential dangers have turned out to be utterly FALSE”

              Such as?

              1. Physics clearly show that CO2 in an atmosphere trap energy.

                Like a battery? Why don’t we get us some of that and run our cars with it?

                1. It confines a greater degree of the sun’s energy inside the atmosphere, basically. Maybe physics have an anti-capitalist bias, like you subhumans decided the Nobel committee had when they gave the Economics prize to K-Thug (you guys really *hate* K-Thug and I think that is just so adorable).

                  1. Please stop feeding the troll.

                  2. Right…so how do we get us some of that?

                    1. That was in response to the troll.

                      SF, birds gotta fly. Trolls gotta eat. Steve Smith gotta rape. Deal.

                    2. holy crap i think i just peed a little.

              2. Physics clearly show that CO2 in an atmosphere trap energy.

                Physics also shows that past a certain saturation point, it doesn’t cause appreciable additional warming. I believe the last estimate I saw was that we would probably max out at something like 2 degrees C.

                1. Source? Data right now shows no decelerating marginal effects – on the contrary.

                  http://www.skepticalscience.co…..ediate.htm

                  Why do I have to do all the work for you little idiots? If you were proper skeptics you would have perused all the relevant information (and then debunked it with your Galtian ?berminds – showing those sickening anti-capitalist conspirators what for!).

                  Lazy cunts.

              3. Really Darfur? I didn’t realize there had never been a drought before the industrial revolution.

                1. My point was that warming is bad.

                  Bangladeshis are already seeing their potable water becoming undrinkable as the sea table is rising. Of course, they are brown and stuff so perhaps they don’t matter.

                  1. And my point was that trying to claim a win with an argument that is unprovable (darfur drought was caused by GW)is moronic. However you do bring up a good point about Bangladeshis. If only there were some way to reclaim land from the sea. Maybe we should ask the Dutch.

                    1. Because that’s incredibly cheap and cost effective as a solution, especially with their GDP…
                      Money makes a lot of things doable. But unfortunately not all countries have the money they need to avert the crises

                  2. Atlas, why are you being such a prick. Re read all of your comments and ask yourself, “Why do people want to hit me in the face with a brick?’

                    You’ve completely shat all over our entire world view because of one issue. You also do not appear to grasp our point of view in the least, so why are you trying? You’re just a little troll…

                  3. I bet the Canadians think some warming would be good.

              4. “Physics clearly show that CO2 in an atmosphere trap energy.”

                CO2 doesn’t trap anywhere near enough energy to have an appreciable impact on the temperature. The whole charade is based on wild “guesses” about water vapor that are divorced from any empirical justification.

            2. Old mex… you’re better than this… I don’t know where you pretend to get your sources of information from but this is sad even for you 🙁

              1. Bangladeshis are already seeing their potable water becoming undrinkable as the sea table is rising.

                You may want to check the actual sea level trend. It is not accelerating. In fact, it has been flattening lately.

                http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..ince-2005/

        2. hitting antelopes with rocks

          Don’t bother with the rocks. All you have to do is run until they collapse.

    3. Say what you will about Paul “The enemy of my enemy is my … what? Oh, fuck it, I’m Paul Fucking Krugman so shut the fuck up” Krugman, but the guy sure has a cool nickname.

  13. I noticed Paul Krugman took up the mantle of grammatically nonsensical ‘climate-denier’ for AGW-skeptics. Then derided some of the more looney-tunes skeptics out there for their lack of academic credentials relative to the subject at hand. I could only laugh for the other option was to cry.

    And why is this news? I’ve never seen a credible source on climate information – especially once data-sets from the space age enter the mix (mid-sixties and up) – countermand the notion the Earth has warmed on average over at least past fifty years. If there is any question on that trend, it is only in the past ten years.

    1. “I’ve never seen a credible source on climate information”

      This is, of course, not your fault but the fault of the people you hate.

      1. This is, of course, not your fault but the fault of the people you hate.

        What?

        1. Hey retard, I have never seen one of the creationists subhumans in America try to find work on Darwin’s theories either. So you saying that “I’ve never seen a credible source on climate information” is not exactly an indictment of climate science.

          1. Let me help you out here fuckface: Here’s my whole original quote:

            ‘ve never seen a credible source on climate information – especially once data-sets from the space age enter the mix (mid-sixties and up) – countermand the notion the Earth has warmed on average over at least past fifty years.

            You disagree with that statement? Really? I thought you were pro-AGW and that statement by itself is pretty amenable to that position.

            Before pontificating on the lack of wide-readership of On the Origin of Species perhaps you should learn how to read at all.

            1. Asking someone to read a complete sentence to find out whether it means what they assume it will or the exact opposite too much to ask.

              Fortunately, it does tell us a lot about how trustworthy AWLAB is around facts — once he starts to even suspect they might contradict his worldview, it’s time to put up the mental defenses.

              1. Yeah, but to be like that and then criticize how the rubes don’t read is…well, its kind of delicious actually. Har.

            2. The satellites show warming in the troposphere – and their readings comport with model predictions and surface readings.

              The reason you can’t find good information is that you seek it from your equals, not your superiors.

              1. The satellites show warming in the troposphere – and their readings comport with model predictions and surface readings.

                Given your inability to read whole sentences I take your epic stupidity with the grain of salt it warrants. You make me laugh cunt. Thanks.

          2. There’s no point in arguing with Axel, anyone who disagrees with him is “subhuman.” Classic narcissist asshole, no point in engaging him.

            1. Yeah, but I mean he should at least hate what he actually hates, you know?

              1. He should stop being an internet tuff gai, but that’s not going happen either.

            2. …anyone who disagrees with him is “subhuman.”

              Y’know who else anyone who…

              Ah, fuck it.

              1. nahh don’t give up. you almost had it. Ohh, and I am refusing to recognize any moniker change BP. My tiny subhuman mind can’t comprehend it.

  14. .7 plus or minus what degree of error? Oh I forgot. We’re able to measure temperture changes across the entire globe over decades without error because we’re so damn brilliant.

  15. In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend that is shown in the figure. It is very similar to that reported by the prior groups: a rise of about 0.7 degrees C since 1957.

    Actually, you can see a cooling trend from 1960 to 1980. The warming trend is clear from 1980 towards today, which makes the question pertinent: Wasn’t CO2 accumulating during 1960-1980, or is preoccupation with rising global temperatures pertinent only when they support an anti-capitalist narrative?

    1. is preoccupation with rising global temperatures pertinent only when they support an anti-capitalist narrative?

      And Paul Krugman does not disappoint. My point is made.

    2. YOU’RE OFF MESSAGE!!1!

      All kidding aside, the imporant thing is that the right people be placed in charge of the World Economy because this is a crisis. Of epic proportions. And the right people get hardons thinking about using social controls to keep the billions of people who are both stupider and unsubmissive from breeding. I wish I believed I was being hyperbolous in the foregoing, but that was my takeaway from Gore et. al.

    3. “Actually, you can see a cooling trend from 1960 to 1980”

      Solar fluctuation.

      Right now, the sun is actually in a less intense period again. Yet we are not cooling now. Hm.

      1. Is it at all possible that maybe we don’t know what the fuck we are talking about? All of the other Global Warming zealots tell me that the decline was due to the use of aerosols. Now it’s solar fluctuation.

        I’ll admit that I was a climate change denier for quite a while, but about 4 years ago, I changed my tune. Obviously, something is happening.

        However, you sir, are a complete asshole, and I hope that somebody kicks you in the pussy sometime soon.

      2. “Yet we are not cooling now”

        Ooooh, you’re good. Of course, there’s been no warming for 15 years, but of course, you only claimed we’re “not cooling”.

        1. Actually, 2001 was hotter than 1998 and the longest 12-month period was from June 2009 to May 2010.

          I hope your kids die before you do, liar.

  16. Peer review smchear review. I doubt Jones and his gang ever stopped rigging the system.

  17. Climate “Change” Ping-Pong.

    “The data is not conclusive”
    Deniers!

    “But seems that the trend is upwards”
    Told you so! We’re all going to die!

    “However, we still have to adjust the data to eliminate noise”
    Deniers!

    “But at least the trend seems plausible”
    Told you so! We’re all going to die!

    1. I love this game!

    2. I love this game!

    3. I wanted to post “I love this game!” under the name “Admiral Stockdale” but the fucking spam blocker won’t let me. Why do you hate Ross Perot, fucking spam blocker???

      1. That’s how you beat that bitch spam blocker, CMS.

  18. But satellite data shows a trend that is consistent with land weather stations. Of course, satellite data has a slightly higher temperature, which I doubt is due to urban heat. But regardless if the temperatures are off by a few hundredths of a degree, they are still showing an overall increase.

    I’m really surprised that people are still resisting the fact that the Earth is warming. It’s like arguing in a Flat-Earth.

    1. Hey you stupid pile of crap, I have a degree in Physics, so I am hardly a flat-earther. The 10,000 year graph (going back to the last ice age) shows that the world have been hotter than now and colder than now. The last 150 years may be meaningful or may be noise. It certainly isn’t proof that mankind has pushed the earth off some critical equilibrium and towards disaster.

      1. “has pushed the [E]arth off some critical equilibrium and towards disaster”

        Straw man.

        1. Bullshit — this is the very premise of AGW — radical change in our way of life is necessary to prevent catastrophe.

          1. It *is* possible to push the climate into a positive feedback cycle that changes the climate for a long time – this has happened before.

            It is also possible for mankind to do the same thing. The worst part is that mediocre cunts like you will bear little of the damage while societies who have not contributed any CO2 at all will be struck first, and hard.

            1. Everybody look out! It’s a message board tough guy!

              1. Is it true that if I close my browser he can’t climb through my monitor and beat me up?

                1. I would cut the power cord just to be safe. He sounds pretty tough.

            2. name one society that has not contributed an ounce of CO2 to the atmosphere. I fucking double dog dare you.

              1. Ah, a minor mistake that you are right to point out – there are however societies who have contributed a fraction of a percent of historical anthropogenic CO2 and they will still suffer the worst effects.

                1. OK, so let’s say that we (the US, China, India, etc.), decided to shut off all the cars and factories tomorrow. How many lives would be saved from those societies that would be suffering the worst effects? What’s the cost/benefit looking like?

                  1. sage, standard libertarian ethics says that acting in your own interest is not acceptable if it destroys someone else’s capacity to do the same.

                    Adler over at Volokh has made a paper on it. Go over there and call him a fascist.

                2. You seem to have a talent for those minor rhetorical mistakes. The reason they will suffer the impacts the greatest is because they haven’t had the economic development that would enable them to meet the impacts with technological answers. Economic and technological development have shown themselves to be the most potent defense against natural disaster regardless of the cause of said disaster. The AGW fanatics would hamstring the advancement of both since they both depend on energy prices.

                  1. They could probably advance a lot and not contribute at all to the problem. Thing is that the contribution from the developed world is going to cripple them.

        2. I’m with kinnath on this one. If there’s no new nearby equilibrium point, its a crisis. If the new equilibrium is +3 deg C. +/-1.5 deg C, I expect food to get substantially cheaper AND inherit my parents beach house intact.

    2. The Earth is clearly warming. There is some legitimate debate about how much it is warming, usually in the range of 0.5-1.0 degrees Celsius over the last 50 or so years. This is scientific fact, although it is predicated on the assumption that instruments are accurate and samples are representative.

      On the other hand, the causes are not fully understood. Man-made pollution contributes, yes, but to what degree? Are there internal environmental factors at work (livestock, volcanic activity, deforestation, etc.), and to what degree are they contributing? Are there external environmental factors at work (solar radiation, loss of ozone in the atmosphere, etc.) and to what degree are they contributing?

      Then of course, there are broader questions. What impact, both locally and globally, will global warming have? Will humans be able to adapt to a warming climate? Is this a permanent trend, or is this a cyclical event? Can the global ecosystem compensate for the change, regardless of human action? If changes in human behavior are made, what impact will they have, both on our lives and on the warming trend?

      The fact of the matter (global warming) does not provide answers to the other questions.

      1. Deforestation and livestock are part of anthropogenic climate change, since we are infact raising them in order to provide our demand to eat? This is why food choice plays a big role in limiting your CF, eating chicken is theoretically a lot better for the environment then beef. Volcanic activity we have little control over.
        There’s some great papers in ES & T about the topic.

        1. Deforestation and livestock are part of anthropogenic climate change, since we are infact raising them in order to provide our demand to eat?

          If so, AGW would have happened in ancient times.

          1. I think this is a troll, but I cant be sure.

            There’s a number of reason that logic is off including the scale and method used for industrial agriculture to feed 7 billion people. As well as the confluence of variables associated with Climate change that were not occouring in so called ancient times.

            I never said they were the only causes; but that they are significant contributors

    3. Wikipedia has graphs of temperatures derived ice-core samples that show hundreds of thousands of years of temperatures. Do a little fucking research before you come here and call skeptics “flat-earthers”.

    4. I’m surprised that liberals didn’t stop caring about global warming when Obama got into office like they stopped being anti-war.

      1. We can control you better with AGW; peace not so much.

  19. Nice, you played the “I have a degree” (unverifiable and an argument from authority fallacy) and ad hominem card in the same comment. Two fallacies for the price of one.

    Maybe you need to save your talking points for comments that actually are related to them? Because my point is that the Earth’s temperature is rising. Even the poster-boy for global warming skepticism, Roy Spencer, admits to this fact.

    1. You’re calling “fallacy” at his response to your insults and name calling? That’s hilarious.

      -You’re a dumb piece of shit

      -No I’m not, I’m very smart.

      -QUESTION BEGGING FALLACY!!! Gotcha!!

      You’re too cute

    2. the Earth’s temperature is rising.

      So what? It has been higher and it has been lower.

      Are you trying to say that this time it’s different? Because, if you have just come here to state the obvious, then shut up.

      1. “So what? It has been higher and it has been lower.”

        Except none of the non-human factors in temperature changes in the past have been found to be culpable now. The fact that you don’t know this shows that your education is irrelevant and has not prepared your mind for anything more than being an academic salaryman and subhuman, good only for paying taxes.

        1. The past temperature trends are far less well understood than the current one. And we don’t understand the current one very well at all. The explanation from a scientific perspective is “we don’t know why it’s happening and can draw no relibale conclusions about its future impact.” The explanation from a political perspective is “it’s caused by something we don’t like and it’s going to be terrible so we have to spend trillions to stop it.”

          1. “The explanation from a scientific perspective is “we don’t know why it’s happening and can draw no relibale conclusions about its future impact.”

            A majority of active, paper-publishing scientists involved in studying the climate are saying human activity is responsible.

            Now for your next contention: Find me evidence that any of these scientists have seen their *private* financial lives improved to a suspicious degree since this whole “conspiracy to destroy the Western world” started.

            1. A majority of active, paper-publishing scientists involved in studying the climate are saying human activity is responsible.

              Science =/= polling scientists. Studies of expert predictions have found they have very little predictive reliability. This is especially true in fields where self-selection bias is a large problem.

              Find me evidence that any of these scientists have seen their *private* financial lives improved to a suspicious degree

              Seriously? Are you not aware how many billions of dollars have been spent on AGW grants already? The grant process is just as corrupt as the peer review process, for the same reasons.

    3. I provided my qualifications. Graduated with honors from a mid-major university with majors in CompSci and Physics. I have 26 years of experience in engineering safety-critical systems (that means a certain amount of interpreting data and stastics).

      If you want to call me a flat-earther, then show your credentials or shut the fuck up.

      1. Even an education cannot dissipate ideological and philosophical insanity. Since you are an anti-left and anti-government bigot, you are perfectly capable of subconsciously being as ignorant about the climate and the relevant physics as any Palinite.

        1. thanks, now I fully understand you.

          1. AWLAB isn’t parading science, he’s parading elitism. 150 years ago his elitist ancestors were telling your ancestors the same thing as they applied leeches to cure fever.

      2. How does this make you an expert on climate science and potential effects? Unless you did the lit review, made the models, collected and analyzed the data yourself you really dont have a leg to stand on.
        I’m proud of you for being educated, but just because you have a diploma doesnt make you an expert in every field. I don’t claim to know anything about english lit or art.

        1. I’m proud of you for being educated, but just because you have a diploma doesnt make you an expert in every field. I don’t claim to know anything about english lit or art.
          reply to this

          Paul Krugman claims to be an expert on this subject.

          1. I know nothing of his credentials to say whether he is or isn’t. If I didnt just google his name I would have no idea who he was. I stick to the scientific aspect of it, not the NYT aspect of it.

  20. See, if you tell me that you have sensors that you know are poor quality, and that the stations you think are good quality give the same results, to me that calls into question the quality of all the data.

    “Look, Sensor A is crap. We know its crap, and it tells us X. Sensor B over here is also telling us X. Should I believe (a) that Sensor A is not crap, (b) that Sensor B is crap, too, or (c) that the whole project is irretrievably fucked”?

    This wildly misses the point.

    Read this again:

    Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.

    Another way to think about this is that the poor sensors are rated “poor” only when you are concerned with “absolute temperatures.” They are saying that they don’t appear to be “poor” when you are looking for trends.

    The signal comes through despite the noise coming from the “poor” stations.

    1. Yeah, yeah, I got it the first time.

      1. Then why the comment?

  21. The flat-earthers are the ones who say the Earth is not warming.

    If you’re skeptical that global warming is not going to affect us, or is completely natural, then I don’t think that’s flat-earther mentality. I disagree with you, but I can’t prove it.

    But anyone who doesn’t accept the multitude of independent evidence that the Earth’s temperatures are trending upwards have flat-earth mentality.

    1. Actually, they have been trending downwards since about 1998ish.

      1. Which brings up a point of scale, what size ruler are we gonna use?

        Myself, when talking about Earth science, prefer a rolling 1000 year average.

        1. sample is too small in my opinion robc…when talking geologic scales it should be at LEAST 10,000 but more appropriately 1,000,000 to get statistically significant.

          just sayin.

  22. Al Gore says: “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first generation ethanol. First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small? One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president…”

    Al Gore’s a fraud and all you nitwits who favor some sort of govt. schemata to change the global temperature are dupes.

    It’s all a scheme to suck money from the private sector to the govt. If you can’t see that, again, you’re a fool.

    B-b-but the Earth is warming! Good, as if cold weather is more conducive to life. It’s not.

    Idiots!

    1. And this is what I expect to see out of you. Use that sound logic

  23. Seems like it has NOT, since scientists are clearly concerned RIGHT NOW with showing that the temperature trends are a real thing.

    Science always works to refine past findings.

    The idea that the trend is due to human activity is just an assumption, it has NOT been proven,

    Proven? We are talking about science…proof is a rare thing. Evidence is strongly in favor of the “assumption.” It has both theoretical and empirical support.

    and even WORSE to your argument, nobody has shown that global warming is a BAD thing – all the predictions about the potential dangers have turned out to be utterly FALSE, which is why people are becoming ever more skeptical.

    Most of the important predictions are for times too far in the future to say whether they are going to come to pass or not. On those predictions for the nearer term, many seem to be panning out as expected. For some the results are within the confidence interval. I would need to see the list of “utterly FALSE” you are referencing to comment further.

    1. I heard a lot about how we were going to experience terrible hurricane seasons year after year in the time following hurricane katrina. The weather channel even ran a special on climate change, and the advertisements included a young child asking, “Why do we have so many hurricanes now!?!?” In the 5 summers since, we have not experienced a single katrina like scenario.

      Later, I was told that global warming will actually lead to less hurricanes. Then I learned that there will be less hurricanes, but they will be super powerful.

      I’m sure that the people who actually understand the science are pulling their hair out when somebody who knows nothing about science opens their mouths, but that is exactly how I feel when I hear a scientist with no knowledge of economics or praxeology demanding that the government do x,y, or z.

      1. If hurricanes are heat engines equalizing warmer ocean surface temperatures (high surface energy) with the atmosphere, it is quite probable we would experience ferocious hurricane activity at the start of a warming cycle (lots of energy on the ocean surface that takes a while to get absorbed deeper, but still WAY more energy than in the air. ) and after a few years of a cooling cycle (deep ocean heat transfer to the surface as a newer lower energy equilibrium is established).

      2. the distortion of facts between the scientific community, the general public, and policy makers is unfortunately the biggest issue (outside of lobbying and shady politics) in the current political system.
        Fortunately interdisciplinary study is becoming much more popular (and infact encouraged by the NSF) and more people are coming out with strong backgrounds in more than one subject. My PhD’s in engineering with a focus on economics and policy -which consequently allowed me to see first hand the huge distortion between all the poli-sci majors and science.
        obvioulsy the best government is a world dictatorship with me in charge.

  24. “On those predictions for the nearer term, many seem to be panning out as expected.”

    Bullpoop. Name one.

    1. stronger storms? Increased destruction of marine habitats cush as coral reef bleachings? Associated decreases in wildlife populations and diversity? Increase in bugs and pests and everyones favorite jellyfish.
      Granted there are larger things that play into some of these such as the ridiculous overfishing of the ocean – but most of those have been pretty spot on.

  25. The libertarian flat-earthers are out in force today. It’s a fact that global warming is occurring, that virtually 100% is being caused by humans, and that a global catastrophe is a certainty. Libertarians will have the blood of billions on their hands.

    1. Some say the world will end in fire,
      Some say in ice.
      From what I’ve tasted of desire
      I hold with those who favor fire.
      But if it had to perish twice,
      I think I know enough of hate
      To say that for destruction ice
      Is also great
      And would suffice.

    2. Is this a spoof?

    3. Btw, I am very curious how you think it’s possible for the US to coerce 6.5 billion people spread across multiple nations into radically altering their economic and industrial ways. But continue with the fear mongering, although I feel I should tell you that The Day After Tomorrow was just a crappy movie.

      1. Giving up a few luxuries won’t kill you. Try growing a garden instead of your stuffing face with corn-fed Big Macs. Instead of sitting around on your fat ass every Sunday watching football on your plasma TV, try giving back and plant a tree somewhere in your community. Grow up and stop being a parasite.

        1. Giving up a few luxuries won’t kill you. Try growing a garden instead of your stuffing face with corn-fed Big Macs. Instead of sitting around on your fat ass every Sunday watching football on your plasma TV, try giving back and plant a tree somewhere in your community. Grow up and stop being a parasite.

          Make me bitch.

        2. Grow up and stop being a parasite.

          Yeah, you tell ’em!

        3. Oh my, the guilt, it’s too much! I’m off to live in the woods like Thoreau.

          Seriously Tony, I asked how you plan on COERCING the entire world into becoming do-gooder environmentalists like yourself. I’ll take your non-answer as proof that you don’t know how and that it’s frankly impossible for various economic, political, and sociological reasons.

          1. Well.. typically the proposed solution is global markets for CO2 and other pollutants as was successfully done with SOx.
            no one said it would be easy.

        4. Growing a garden and planting a tree don’t mean shit. You want to save the world? Do something creative and make a million dollars. Then you can sit on your fat ass watching as much Sunday TV as you want knowing you’ve contributed more than 1000 dumbfuck libtards who planted a tree on earth day while they spread the poverty by destroying society’s productive capacity through progressive taxation and overregulation.

        5. Giving up a few luxuries won’t kill you. Try growing a garden instead of your stuffing face with corn-fed Big Macs. Instead of sitting around on your fat ass every Sunday watching football on your plasma TV, try giving back and plant a tree somewhere in your community. Grow up and stop being a parasite.

          Or we could simply detonate ther world’s entire nuclear arsenal, which will reduce temperatures, as proved by the TTAPS study, the most important scientific paper since Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”.

      2. I feel I should tell you that The Day After Tomorrow was just a crappy movie.

        Yeah, you know where the script for that thing came from? A book by none other than the likes of Whitley Streiber (of Communion aliens-probed-my-ass fame) and the always-credible Art Bell. ‘Nuff said.

    4. Libertarians will have the blood of billions on their hands.

      Finally we get to be like every other ideology. We can only dream Tony, we can only dream.

      1. +10^6

    5. “Libertarians will have the blood of billions on their hands.”

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! What a dumbfuck!

  26. To give you something to chew on…let’s we could talk glaciers.

    http://www.skepticalscience.co…..ciers.html

    How you read the evidence there is a good indicator of whether you are “skeptical” or in “denial.”

    AGW predicts an accelerated loss of glacial ice…and that seems to hold up, despite the error in the AR4.

    1. Are you really citing the World Wildlife Fund information that the IPCC has disavowed?

    2. Evapotranspiration and deforestation are better explanations.

      Skepticalscience is neither skeptical nor scientific.

  27. Oh, no, glaciers are melting. That’s never happened before. Never Never!

    No, asshole, we were lectured by Gore et al. around Y2K that the Earth would be boiling over in a few years. Cities and whole countries would need be relocated. Or at least turned into Socialistic paradises.

    Wow, glaciers. It must be true, an organization filled with UN bureaucrats says so. Idiot.

    1. So Holy Cow falls firmly in the “denier” camp with an off-topic comment about Al Gore. \

      Glaciers provide fresh water to huge portions of the world’s human population (places like India). Loss of glaciers is a big deal for human civilization. We can, of course, adapt to the change and we have some time to do it, but this is one of those consequences that we will have to deal with…not an irritant, but a real problem.

      1. I like you better when you called yourself Al Gore. Actually, I didn’t like you that much then but I like you less now.

    2. “No, asshole, we were lectured by Gore et al. around Y2K that the Earth would be boiling over IN A FEW YEARS.”

      Are YOU a spoof now too? Seriously, if you are this fucking lazy about smearing the other side I think you should get raped or something.

      “It must be true, an organization filled with UN bureaucrats says so.”

      Arthur M. Greene is not a UN affiliate: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/…..4/art00002

    3. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/…..4/art00002

      This guy is not a UN affiliate.

  28. I provided my qualifications. Graduated with honors from a mid-major university with majors in CompSci and Physics. I have 26 years of experience in engineering safety-critical systems (that means a certain amount of interpreting data and stastics).

    While the job experience is your best card here, there is a big difference between interpreting data for engineering and for answering scientific questions. Not speaking of you in particular, but many of the most dunderheaded comments on this topic (including a few of the prominent bloggers on the topic) come from folks who take an engineering approach to the problem and harp endlessly about scientifically unimportant issues. The most common error is the “check the numbers” folks who confuse reliability with validity and confuse re-running a simulation with the same program and data with “replication of an experiment.”

    1. So you’ll agree that one of the problems is that you can’t replicate the time series? Mighty honest of you to admit that 1900-1940 is not in all other ways statisically identical to 1970-2010. Atmospheric carbon and T are not the only variables. Which is the usual quibble many of us scientifically educated skeptics have.

    2. I am an expert in the process of collecting data and proving to regulators that it actually means something.

      I am glad to see things like the BEST project, because the processes at East Anglia were borderline criminal in my opinion.

    3. NM says:

      … there is a big difference between interpreting data for engineering and for answering scientific questions

      I suppose if one majors in art history science, sustainability science, political science or ecology science there are probably major differences in how they view data as compared to engineers. For something like honest physics however this is beyond silly

      1. For something like honest physics however this is beyond silly

        How so? The interpretation of data is highly dependent upon the questions being asked. Engineers and scientists ask very different kinds of questions. Do you disagree?

        1. Engineers and scientists ask very different kinds of questions. Do you disagree?

          Yeah, I do.

          1. The fucking contrived condescension of the lefties is just too much.

            No, cocksuckers, we won’t just trust your opinions. Go try to steal funds from somewhere else.

          2. Are you a scientist or engineeer?

            1. That was for VGO,

              Vermont Gun Owner|4.4.11 @ 6:50PM|#

              Engineers and scientists ask very different kinds of questions. Do you disagree?

              Yeah, I do.

              Are you a scientist?
              Are you an engineer?

              1. Just for fun…

                http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo…..ot-science

                1. Statement: The world is getting hotter — science.

                  Statement: We should do something about that — politics.

                  Statement: Let’s roll back the industrial revolution — social fucking engineering.

                  Clear enough?

                  1. Statement: The world is getting hotter — science.

                    Statement: We should do something about that — politics.

                    Statement: Let’s roll back the industrial revolution — social fucking engineering strawman.

                2. NM,

                  It is an interesting article, and I am sure there are B rate engineers that do nothing but memorize equations and deal with problems other people have solved. Some I am sure, even reach academia never having dealt with a serious problem.

                  One of the wonders of the scientific method is that it works pretty well no matter what your title or position. In any field there are hacks who fix and debug things by random chance, but I think you will find that whether they are engineers, auto mechanics or even a teenager fixing an old radio, it takes a certain amount of scientific talent to be good at it.

              2. I’m a scientist and engineer 😮 I agree with most of your posts, but am confused as to why science and engineering need to be mutually exclusive?

                1. They are not mutually exclusive… I did not mean to imply that they were. But the are also not equivalent. Sort of an Arts versus Crafts kinda thing.

              3. Engineer, and that article doesn’t prove that engineers and scientists think very differently. It’s just a different application.

                1. VGO,

                  It’s just a different application.

                  Right. They use data differently.

                  The article points out that they “ask different questions,” and approach problems differently, which was my main point. They are certainly interconnected, but as a working scientist who started my education in Engineering (EE) the difference in approach seems pretty stark to me.

                  An engineering approach to a scientific question is rarely a fruitful path to the answer. Likewise (as the article points out) a scientific approach to an engineering problem is seldom the way to go.

                  It seems many of the most vocal critics of climate science are trying to understand it through an engineering lens. It leads to fruitless discussions as they confuse statistical models with scientific models, conflate reliability and validity…the list goes on and on.

                  1. the most vocal critics of climate science are trying to understand it through an engineering lens. It leads to fruitless discussions as they confuse statistical models with scientific models

                    You are asserting that Climate Scientists are all Statisticians? I seem to recall something along the lines of:

                    “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians”

                    You have this exactly backwards.

                    1. Once again from a report that was largely debunked and its 3rd point asked for MORE FUNDING for statisticians. There couldnt possibly be a bais for them to produce a report saying the statistical analysis was wrong in order to get more funding for their field.
                      Again… I believe climate scientists are far better at statistics then statisticians are at climate science.

                    2. You are asserting that Climate Scientists are all Statisticians?

                      No, I am not.

                      You have this exactly backwards.

                      How so?

        2. NM says:

          Do you disagree?

          I think you are confusing two completely different concepts. Sure there are a near infinite number of questions one can ask about any data set, but once the question is asked, the number of interpretations is something entirely different.

          This isn’t literary criticism. If a specific claim is made about a physical property of the data, that claim is objectively subject to verification. Things like statistical significance and proper statistical technique are constant between disciplines. They are either done correctly or they are not.

          1. I think you are confusing two completely different concepts.

            No. I think we have a miscommunication.

            once the question is asked, the number of interpretations is something entirely different

            I am talking about the choice of questions.

            If a specific claim is made about a physical property of the data, that claim is objectively subject to verification.

            Of the data? Science asks questions about the world and the data helps answer it. Verification of a property of the data is a low-level step toward that larger goal. Like polishing your telescope lens…verifying that the lens is clean does not help you understand the stars…or something.

            Things like statistical significance and proper statistical technique are constant between disciplines. They are either done correctly or they are not.

            True, sort of. Again, it is about the questions they are used to answer.

    4. The most common error is the “check the numbers” folks who confuse reliability with validity and confuse re-running a simulation with the same program and data with “replication of an experiment.”

      This guy disagrees with you.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

      You really are an idiot New Mex.

      1. you provided the link to the talk 2 months ago of the scientist in this article that is now admitting that his analysis of the data conforms with past analysis 🙁

      2. This guy disagrees with you.

        I am not so sure he does.
        He seems to understand these issues well enough. I didn’t hear anything in there about checking other people’s math being the same as replicating their results. Maybe I missed something.

  29. It seems to me there are two main points to take from this “new” research:

    1) Although there has been some controversy on the amount of warming in the last 150 years, most people agree there has been warming. The real question is where that warming comes from. The sun has been in a very active period that seems to be coming to an end. The number of sunspots over the last couple of years seems to be entering Maunder Minimum territory, and our winters have been getting noticeably worse around the globe. Temperature is also know to *lead* CO2 levels as warmer temperatures liberate trapped carbon from the topsoil and oceans, so it is not clear that increasing CO2 levels is the cause of warming or just an effect.

    2) The more important point, however, is this article seems to imply that this “new” study puts Climategate to bed. Climategate mostly surrounded the shenanigans of the hockeystick team relative to paleo proxies going back beyond recorded temperatures. The most notorious example being “hide the decline” where various members of the team just dropped tree-ring data past 1960 because it declined dramatically away from known temperature readings and brought the whole use of paleo proxies for prehistoric temperatures into question. Even worse, in some graphs they added measured temperatures to the paleo data and smoothed the connection to make it appear continuous. The Berkeley study has nothing to do with any of this.

  30. Here’s some SCIENCE:

    Ready?

    Heterosexual AIDS– the Left was wrong about the dangers.

    Silicone breast implants– the Left was wrong about the dangers.

    The Left still continues to lie and exaggerate about the effects of second hand smoke. As if it can be proven conclusively. It can’t. Just ask real Scientists (not UN bureaucrats).

    Overpopulation! Oh, wait– the Left was wrong about the dangers.

    Y2K, remember that one? Was it the Left? Mmm, not sure, but all the Hysteria– wrong!

    But Global Warming. This is different. I mean, have you seen how all the 93-pound 42-year old women at Whole Foods look at me when I cruise by in my Prius? Have you??!!

    Manmade GW is real and it’s spectacular….

    1. Are you telling me that you make your mind up on science matters by looking to see if certain political persuasions embrace the findings or not and then believing the opposite?

      That’s downright childish.

      1. No, the point is that what the left claimed to be scientific fact was actually politicized speculation.

      2. No it isn’t, you arrogant fuck. The left infiltrated the media and the University’s for the express purpose of controlling the information flow, so that a healthy skepticism based on political orientation is absolutely prudent.

    2. How are your posts continually so ignorant- its incredible almost to the point of mindblowing. You cant possibly believe what you post is sound and logical, can you?

      Every one of your examples is terrible. This isn’t a situation of right vs. left politics. It’s simply stating a scientific fact, the policy makers can do what they want from that information.
      and also:
      Overpopulation is definately an issue… not to you because your not one of the 1 billion people that food is an issue for.
      You can’t possibly believe second hand smoke is good for you.
      you’re really going to bring up y2k? A couple of fanatics over reacting to something 99% of the world didn’t care about.
      Heterosexual aids seems to be a pretty big deal in africa.

      Just because you are not directly exposed to these things in your incredibly small sphere of your daily life doesnt mean they arent issues. Take your head out of your ass, leave your small house in the foothills of kentucky and open your eyes.

  31. Next thing you know they will start claiming that nuclear reactors on fault lines are an unacceptable risk.

    Goddammed hippy environmentalistas!

    1. Dude, I know you’re kidding but if iirc threads were full of people mocking anyone who took the Japan disaster and the BP spill as reason to question nuclear power and oil drilling respectively.

      1. Fuck you guys. There were also several people pointing out the dangers of nuclear power all along. Stossel ran a special on how Nuclear Power was over subsidized quite a while ago.

        I noticed that you lefties have been getting way more arrogant and assholy lately…

      2. Yeah, let’s close all the nuclear plants. That will prevent a Japanese disaster from happening here!

        What, nukes don’t cause earthquakes and tsunamis that kill thousands? Well at least we won’t have to worry about the two deaths that occurred in a nuclear plant (and were actually due to injuries from the tsunami).

      3. mocking anyone who took the Japan disaster and the BP spill as reason to question nuclear power and oil drilling respectively.

        You mean like Obama? He also doesn’t seem to question drilling at all. Especially if it’s the Brazilians doing the drilling!

  32. You really can’t come to these threads with an open mind and conclude much other than that pretty much everyone on here doesn’t know what they are talking about, or better put that this, like most scientific topics, is one where if you don’t have a great deal of expertise in the area you are like the blind men describing the elephant by touching it. When such a situation exists it seems sensible to defer to experts on the subject, and when there is disagreement among the experts the prudent thing to do would be to go with the majority. In this case it seems we would go with some form of AGW as the situation.

    Of course experts in climatology are not experts in policy studies so their proferred responses to AGW should not be deferred to.

    1. You really can’t come to these threads with an open mind and conclude much other than that pretty much everyone on here doesn’t know what they are talking about,

      Welcome to the internet, dude.

      When such a situation exists it seems sensible to defer to experts on the subject, and when there is disagreement among the experts the prudent thing to do would be to go with the majority.

      Aside from the difficulty in defining “experts” and conducting science by majority vote,

      What about the problems created by groupthink and/or grant-driven distortion of scientific studies? Climategate, to my mind, was not so much about falsifying the data as corrupting the process.

      1. So-called Climategate was a trumped-up bunch of nothing. Any politicization happening on the science side is hugely outweighed by the fact that the denier side is completely 100% political.

        1. Yeah? How many deniers have gotton rich from their activities? How many Manbearpigs have gotten rich from trumpeting AGW?

          1. Wait is this a joke? You’re saying that the main ACG deniers don’t have financial incentives to prevent legistlation or movements away from process with high GHG emissions. thats funny.

        2. People who deny climate change aren’t demanding the ability to tell me how to live my life. I don’t consider them a threat. I consider technocratic elitists like yourself to be a huge threat, because the number of things that you’d have the government tell me to do is infinite. Sure, you claim that you don’t care what other people do, but you often side with those that want to interfere with many aspects of the lives of others, and no, they are not always for good reasons either.

          You’ve already stated that you are completely in favor of initiating violence to achieve goals, and you’ve also claimed in another thread that you don’t even want to use the government as a tool for helping poor people. To you, the government is some giant supercomputer used to tell us all what to do all of the time.

          1. To you, the government is some giant supercomputer used to tell us all what to do all of the time.

            Nope – for Tony & his crony leftists, it’s an ATM.

            1. Lol, you win.

    2. Government-funded research biases the whole process. Researchers have incentive to find the “right” answer in order to continue receiving taxpayer money.

      There is also a lot of peer pressure in the academic realm to “go with the flow” or risk being outcast. That’s pretty clear from the Climategate emails. It’s also clear from Climategate that a lot of underhanded “tricks” take place in the realm of peer reviewing that undermines that techniques’ ability to do what it is supposed to do — ensure unbiased, “real” science.

      1. R C Dean|4.4.11 @ 4:54PM|#
        What about the problems created by groupthink and/or grant-driven distortion of scientific studies? Climategate, to my mind, was not so much about falsifying the data as corrupting the process.
        reply to this

        FlyingComic|4.4.11 @ 4:55PM|#

        Government-funded research biases the whole process. Researchers have incentive to find the “right” answer in order to continue receiving taxpayer money.

        The beauty of science is that it is self-correcting when it comes to these dangers. There is just as much incentive to prove the “group-think” wrong as there is to be part of the group. As for government versus private grants distorting the science. It is hard to say how it balances out, but on the issue of AGW, there’s plenty of money to chase on both sides of the issue. I don’t see how grant money would favor one version of the story over the other.

        1. In a perfect world, science would not be affected by political ideology. Sadly, it is, especially in climatology.

          1. It is impacted, but, as I said, the beauty of the process is that it is self-correcting. Bias operates at the level of the individual scientist or group. Or, in the worst case, at the level of a journal or institution. But that bias rarely infects a whole community and the community thrives on finding and exposing those biases.

        2. “There is just as much incentive to prove the “group-think” wrong as there is to be part of the group”

          This isn’t true in any field. It’s always easier to go along. Always.

          “there’s plenty of money to chase on both sides of the issue”

          The goverment is funding deniers? Really? Maybe funding them with a big cup of shut up but that’s about it.

          1. This isn’t true in any field. It’s always easier to go along. Always.

            Easier to go with the flow, sure. But the pay-offs are bigger if you can stand out from the crowd and prove them wrong. A big incentive in science.

            The goverment is funding deniers? Really? Maybe funding them with a big cup of shut up but that’s about it.

            No. Deniers aren’t doing science – sorta by definition.

            But there are certainly government funded studies going on that “deniers” would find helpful to their cause. Find any decent peer-reviewed study that you want to cite as evidence against AGW, and there is a good chance it was funded (at least in part) by government dollars.

      2. Funding for scientific research comes from a pretty wide variety of sources, and even within the government not all administrations have been big AGW supporters so I’m not sure proponents would have been supported as much as you think. I think this claim rests on a pretty paranoid assumption that all governments want to find evidence of AGW so they can enlarge themselves.

        Given that many very large wealthy interests would be harmed by many proposals to deal with AGW I’m pretty sure that funding for such groups that have good science behind them is available.

        1. Given that many very large wealthy interests would be harmed by many proposals to deal with AGW I’m pretty sure that funding for such groups that have good science behind them is available.

          How would those wealthy interests be harmed?

          Have you considered the possibility that maybe the science would not be so politicized if these proposals had never been made?

    3. Yes that applies to climatological findings, not climatological politics. Accepting climatology does not mean accepting liberal environmental policy.

  33. Atmospheric carbon and T are not the only variables. Which is the usual quibble many of us scientifically educated skeptics have.

    I have never seen a climate simulation that only included atmospheric CO2 and T, so why is that one of your quibbles?

    So you’ll agree that one of the problems is that you can’t replicate the time series?

    Depends, I guess. I think I’d need more detail to comment.

    1. While climate-sims I’ve seen incorporate A LOT more variables than just carbon and temp, the general tenor of the criticism is true.

      One, you’ve got an order-of-operation issue in the sims that is pretty hard to reconcile: No matter how you construct such a thing, it will be one massive differential equation. Where you elect to place your feedbacks from variable to the next will change the output.

      Some things are obvious (the Sun’s stats – things like output and spectral distribution – come ‘first’ in the differential) but when you get into the nitty-gritty, especially the anthropogenic variables, it gets real messy real fast.

      1. it gets real messy real fast.

        It would have to…and yet, given all that mess and noise, different groups making different choices for different reasons are coming away with a similar story when it comes to the impact of anthropogenic co2.

        No?

        1. Not particularly. No one has ever built a sim to attempt prioritizing a variable beyond the normal CO2 trope as to account for temp changes. They all will show a rise in temps – they kind of half to – and they all reliably show CO2 doing it, because that’s the idea.

          And that’s no knock on the AGW crowd either. I haven’t seen Kochto-Exxon or whatever crank out a sim with a different variable prioritized as accounting for a temp-rise, anthropogenic or otherwise.

          1. I’ve gotta go teach a class at the moment, but it seems that there have been plenty of “fishing trip” simulations that would allow for other variables to rise to “prime mover” status in climate simulations.

            It would take some time to dig anything up. Am I completely off-base here?

            1. You know, I wish I could say there were. But you get some interesting institutional problems with these sims. Several factors I’ve got anecdotal experience in actually. To wit:

              1. Computer-time. It takes a lot of computer to run these sims. Supercomputer-scale unfortunately. And just like Hubble or any other significant science instrument you have to fight for time on the machine with other scientists, groups, etc. So virtual fishing trips – in all kinds of subjects like genetics especially – don’t get a chance.

              2. Debugging. Just getting code ready to put on the computer (if code crashes while you run it it wastes hard-got supersim time) is a bitch. You end up spending a lot of time running stripped-down code again and again making sure stupid stuff like version control of the back-files, calls to the right data-sets etc. are functional. Again it de-prioritizes any ‘fishing trip’ or ‘what-if’ type things from getting silicon-time.

              Again, I don’t have direct experience in climate-sims per se, but that’s the working environment climate-simmers are in. So no, fishing-trips as you call them are exceedingly rare.

              I thought long and hard last year about a distributed global-warmer sim program on the likes of folding@home, or seti@home. But the nature of the sim – again its just a massive differential equation – stymies any architecture for distributed computing like that. You need localized supercluster to run these programs.

              The old adage ‘butterfly flaps its wings in Hong Kong makes it rain in New York’ is very true in this case.

      2. To simplify the matter and still attain useful information, take the previous peak in 1998 and measure what has occurred since then, and you still get a cooling trend even after accounting for the 2010 rise. Not only that but this is during a period of time when carbon levels rose almost exponentially.

        The kicker, you’ll arrive at that conclusion even when you use Hanson’s data.

        http://sppiblog.org/news/the-h…..al-warming

        Yawn. Call me back when we have something real to worry about.n

    2. Sorry to be late answering my own question, but there are essentially two major types of models, one that (more or less) assumes constant input and variable output (greenhouse effects), and one that assumes variable input and simplistic variable output. Neither type run very well in forecast mode, and both types tend to be divergent over the long term from proxy data.

      Both also suffer from positive feedback loops, which we haven’t seen in the climate record, and we don’t tend to see in natural systems. If we lived in a positive feedback loop, we most likely wouldn’t have a 4 billion year fossil record. While its possible that anthropic activity could break through the cycle, the data don’t point in that direction, and there is a significantly higher burden of proof than a divergent computer model that is highly effective over a small data set.

      All of this tells me that none of the models are accurate, however, the AGW camp has made statements as if CO2 levels have a direct relationship to T. From what I can tell, solar irradiance, cosmic rays, cloud formation, and vulcanism have not been incorporated into detailed models. At some point as mentioned below, the noise level is so high, I find anthropic claims based on present models to be inadequately proven.

      1. there are essentially two major types of models,

        Two? Do you mean two types of “climate models?” They are many more than two types of models.

        one that (more or less) assumes constant input and variable output (greenhouse effects), and one that assumes variable input and simplistic variable output.

        Perhaps, if you mean to include the possibility of a steady rate of increase when you say “constant input.” Not sure what you are trying to say with “simplistic variable output.” Most of the models include a large number of inputs/forcing factors…CO2 being one among many.

        Both also suffer from positive feedback loops, which we haven’t seen in the climate record, and we don’t tend to see in natural systems.

        No positive feedback loops in natural systems? I would need you to elaborate on why you think this is true.

        If we lived in a positive feedback loop, we most likely wouldn’t have a 4 billion year fossil record.

        A loop? I am really not clear what you are arguing here. No one is claiming that feedback loops would come to dominate the system over the long term. They are too complex. It isn’t like a guitar amp feeding back into itself with the guitar glued to the speaker cabinet…there are lots of parameters constantly changing conditions…any number of which can kick the system into a different state. (Walk away from the amp, or change the angle, add another sound source, touch a string, and the feedback goes away).

        While its possible that anthropic activity could break through the cycle, the data don’t point in that direction, and there is a significantly higher burden of proof than a divergent computer model that is highly effective over a small data set.

        OK.

        All of this tells me that none of the models are accurate, however, the AGW camp has made statements as if CO2 levels have a direct relationship to T. From what I can tell, solar irradiance, cosmic rays, cloud formation, and vulcanism have not been incorporated into detailed models. At some point as mentioned below, the noise level is so high, I find anthropic claims based on present models to be inadequately proven.

        I am sure most climate modellers would agree with you. That’s why they keep working on it.

  34. The Climate Change mistake wasn’t climate change, it was climate CONTROL and was a CO2 death threat to billions of children from unstoppable warming and nothing more. You can’t have a little crisis.

    If the heartless fear mongers had really loved the planet they would have been happy unstoppable warming was grossly exaggerated and therefore mankind’s worst crisis ever, was thankfully averted. Fear is always unsustainable.
    As for you criminals in the media and you lab coat consultants? :History is noting that Scientists and journalists have done to science and journalism what abusive priests did for religion.
    American IPCC funding is gone and Obama didn’t even mention the CRISIS in his state of the union address and there is real talk now for criminal treason charges being laid against those in academia responsible for leading us to a false war against climate variation. And meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 24 years of climate control instead of needed population control. History is watching.

  35. I read something interesting a while back. I’m not sure if I believe it or not, but a study suggested that AGW was at least partly due to CFCs, which are extremely potent GHGs. Perhaps the study was wrong and got torn apart. Thoughts?

    1. Some GHGs are worse than others. Methane is supposedly 20 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat.

      Pretty much all the flouride gases are considered “High GWPs”.

      Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are potent greenhouse gases, and some persist in the environment for thousands of years. These gases, referred to as high global warming potential gases (high GWPs) are from 140-23,900 times more potent than CO2 in terms of their capabilities to trap heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period…

      1. I shouldn’t have used the “supposedly” qualifier.

      2. I hear DHMO is also some multiple more effective at trapping heat. Any plans for regulating the emission of that chemical to the atmosphere? 😉

        1. Aha you got me!

    2. CFC’s among other chemical releases play roles in AGW. This is why most GHG emissions are reported in CO2 equivalents. For example, methane is typically listed as 20-24 times more, and other gasses significantly more so. You can see all of the CO2 equivaletn values for different in the TRACI Life Cycle Impact Assessment tool.
      The reason CO2 is typically the main focus is just the sheer amount of its release into the atmosphere, and its viewed as the source humans can most control.
      For example- if you look at the TRACI database you;ll see that water vapor has a huge CO2 equivalent value, but no one talks about doing anyting about it. That’s because it would be impractical and silly to try to prevent the natural process of evaporation from occouring – and in fact we need it in every facet of our lives.
      Sorry this is a bit choppy, but summary: Yes you are correct, and no it has not been torn apart it is very commonly accepted.

      1. Clearly I didn’t proofread that at all (blame the NCAA championship game) but you get the point

        1. One big miss on GHG inclusion on models and such is water. The assumption is you get to a dew point and the atmosphere ‘rains’ it out, maintaining an average that is treated as static in these models and the thinking behind them.

          Yet humans mechanically transport literally millions of tons of water high into the stratosphere – far drier by molar content than the troposphere – every day and streak it all over the planet in the form of jet contrails. As fast as the earth can rain it out, the chimps are dragging a fresh load up. As a result, at any given point there is literally millions if not billions of tons more water suspended in the atmosphere then say, a century ago. Or even sixty years ago as this phenomena is peculiar to the jet age. That’s a huge miss in contemplating and modeling this subject.

  36. Dear MNG:

    Find me a health or environmental hysteria brought on by The Left and then tell me which one has come true. Go ahead….

    Oh, yeah, remember when Joe Biden, a man of The Left, told everyone not to get on an airplane because of what, swine flu epidemic? Remember that? Was he right?

    Here’s the deal. The Right rarely if ever comes up with these same sorts of nonsensical scare schemes. At least not one that even registers. You got anything?

    In fact, all the faux hysteria over the Patriot Act (a fucking joke in terms of civil rights abusing laws) pales in comparison to the economic destroying nonsense so much of the enviro crowd has forced upon ALL of us.

    Buy, hey, Dick Cheney considered scanning the library records of 2 Americans, but then couldn’t as his cheap fluourescent bulbs burned out.

    When Rightwingers start making movies about AGW fraud and start going on and on and on and on and of course lying about the effects of, say, aerosol cans destroying the ozone, then we’ll talk. MMMkay?

    1. “remember when Joe Biden, a man of The Left”

      That was comic gold, do you have more?

    2. The Right rarely if ever comes up with these same sorts of nonsensical scare schemes. At least not one that even registers. You got anything?

      The Iraq war, and at least in large part the War on Terror.

      1. The war on drugs

        1. Progressive left started that up, but the Right worsened it.

  37. The Right rarely if ever comes up with these same sorts of nonsensical scare schemes. At least not one that even registers. You got anything?

    You’re not a Glenn Beck fan I guess. He is just the latest in a long line of similar voices from the right. Different demons, but the same tactics you decry. Usually the demons the right worries about have human or cultural faces.

  38. I’m so tired of cleaning the latrines around here. No one in this place recognizes my brilliant mind and wont give me a chance! I’m going on some Libertarian blog and I’m going in with two fist of fury!

    1. Your spoof isn’t far off. Some of Axel’s choice comments from the rest of the intertubes:

      I have to blame the excessive democracy. The lowest common denominator is, well, LOW. America is based on the idea of equality, but the day we are all equal, we will all be *worthless*.

      A homophobe, racist, climate denier or anti-secularist can never be anything but inferior to people like me. If you don’t keep them down and away from power, you cannot have a succesful, modern nation.

      For example, do you have gorgeous red hair and is your name Axel? No? then you and I are not equal *because we are not identical*.

      The idea that someone like Palin or Angle could ever be anything but inferior to me is as laughable an idea as having special sports categories for women so they don’t have to compete with men (why not have a special category for men with hereditary lung problems so they don’t have to compete with Armstrong?).

      Heck, I can point out several people on this board whose retention of voting rights is a philosophical aberration and sick joke brought about only because barbarism is (as of now) a less tenable idea than dealing with their voting power.

      one endowed with the power of critical thinking would recognize that the theory of CO2 creating a “hockey stick” rise in average global temperatures has been called into question and is not “settled science”.

      Passive-aggressive, petulant pissiness. You are obviously a Christian since childhood. Please report to a sex-change clinic and get some testicles attached.

      I am just saying that our legal equality is nothing but a convenience and a historically temporary arrangement. You could pick us apart atom by atom and you would find no mystical essence that is equal between us.

      Just say it to yourself and liberate your mind a little ? “Maniacs like Zel and jwest are inferior to people like Axel, which says more about them than him.” Go on, say it ? you’ll be better for it.

      In order to compare two objects in terms of A SINGLE quality (in this case: in terms of scientific validity and usefulness to societal and individual decisions), ALL OTHER FACTORS MUST BE EQUAL.

      I am 22 years old and I am informing an older man of this basic fact. I wish I had a bigger stomach so I could PUKE in amounts sufficiently illustrating how disgusted I am by this latest example of utter Western decadence. There is no god!

      1. Chad is an especially goofy aberration. He also claims to have acquired a bride some months back. Around the time Rather showed up around these parts. Keep a good spinal surgeon on speed dial, Chad. You are going to need one.

        1. …and if you have any pet rabbits, now would be a good time to give them away…

  39. If nothing else, at least this study seems to be conducted in a manner consistent with science …

  40. The bottom line is, the truth of things counts for very in this and in virtually all public issues. It doesn’t matter what the truth is. The world doesn’t operate on truth. All that matters is what you can get people to believe.

  41. It’s long been known that the badly sited stations do not have a markedly different trend than the good ones. However, this is a bit of a shell game, because the data is “homogenized” so one would not expect to see such difference.

    So are they using raw data, or the adjusted data? We were told CRU had lost the raw data, so I’d be curious to know if by some miraculous process this data is now available.

    If not, this is just another in a long series of climate change shell games.

    In any case, this study doesn’t mean much. The exaggeration of the trend is not really a major point of dispute. A bigger question is whether it is historically unusual (the well-debunked hockey stick claimed it was). And of course the trillion-dollar question is what reliability can be assigned to GCM extrapolations of the trend, and according to the actual forecasting scientists who actually study such things, the answer is “virtually none.”

    1. And of course the trillion-dollar question is what reliability can be assigned to GCM extrapolations of the trend, and according to the actual forecasting scientists who actually study such things, the answer is “virtually none.”

      Sigh…still? Really? You would have think you’d tire of that tact.

      1. Oddly enough, the reliability of GCM projections is still sort of important to the question of whether we should be spending trillions of dollars on the basis of these projections.

        Last I heard, the only relevant response from Gavin was “well, we can backfit to the hockey stick, therefore they must be right.” This was greeted with the appropriate howls of laughter.

        1. But hey, don’t take the forecasting scientists’ word for it, ask the modellers themselves. Read chapter of AR4 , 8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability:
          “The above studies show promise that quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projections may be developed, but because the development of robust metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical reasoning, as has been the norm in the past.”
          What this says by obfuscation is that if errors were computed they would be so large to make the projections to future meaningless.

  42. The problems started when “scientists” branched out into multitrillion-dollar global policy consulting. When people started checking their work, it quickly became clear they were mostly environmental activists and what they claimed was evidence-based policymaking was actually policy-based evidencemaking, all done on the taxpayer dime.

    It’s funny how the same people who mock televangelists are happy to shovel money at the Gaia cult.

    1. “The problems started when “scientists” branched out into multitrillion-dollar global policy consulting.”

      Let us start with James Hansen. Then who are we talking about? Remember that the IPCC do not contain any CBOs about policy changes or responses.

      “It’s funny how the same people who mock televangelists are happy to shovel money at the Gaia cult.”

      It’s funny how degenerate societies dependent on cheap energy won’t survive peak oil.

      1. Let us start with James Hansen. Then who are we talking about? Remember that the IPCC do not contain any CBOs about policy changes or responses.

        The same James Hansen who claimed that AGW would result in the Venus syndrome, causing the Earth’s oceans to boil away?

        It’s funny how degenerate societies dependent on cheap energy won’t survive peak oil.

        Centrally planned economies will not survive peak oil.

        Free market economies will.

  43. “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

  44. Doc S.|4.5.11 @ 8:37AM|#
    I believe climate scientists are far better at statistics then statisticians are at climate science.

    An understanding of the topic is essential to choosing the proper statistical technique. Also, I would note, that the report Apogee linked to includes a lot of talk about the fact that different methods would not give significantly different results.

  45. Ron – You seem like a reasonable guy, and you write for a reasonable magazine. Why do you keep falling for this shit?

    1. Well one reason might be that your non-existent argument is not very convincing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.