Slashdot Mirror
BEST Study Finds Temperature Changes Explained by GHG Emissions and Volcanoes
riverat1 writes "The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature studies latest release finds that land surface temperature changes since 1750 are nearly completely explained by increases in greenhouse gases and large volcanic eruptions. They also said that including solar forcing did not significantly improve the fit. Unlike the other major temperature records BEST used nearly all available temperature records instead of just a representative sample. Yet to come is an analysis that includes ocean temperatures."
If we just plug up the volcanos, everything will be fine!
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The question is: what is "human nature"?
Your post, and you, just demonstrated this true answer.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Do we really want to believe what Richard Mueller has to say about climate change. First he denied climate change, now he says it is all man made. Oh, he is funded by the Koch Brothers and the Getty family. No bias there. I heard him interviewed last year about becoming a believer in man made climate change. But he believes that the proposed solutions to climate change are all wrong.He prefers natural gas over renewable energy sources like wind and solar. The Koch brothers finally realized that they can't continue to deny climate change and haven't figured out how to make money from wind and solar, so they will promote natural gas still produces large amounts of carbon. http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/technology/article/1065919/richard-muller-converted-climate-change-sceptic-still-maverick http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.dailycal.org/2012/08/01/berkeley-researcher-publishes-findings-in-new-york-times-before-journals-sparks-controversy/ http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2/climate_skeptic_koch_funded_scientist_richard
The summary makes it sound like volcanoes are the explanation for greenhouse gases, which is completely false. It doesn't say that at all. Actually, it's the opposite.
RTFA and you learn (as quoted from the .PDF supplied by the article): "According to a new Berkely Earth study released today, the average temperature of Earth's land has risen by 1.5 C over the past 250 years. The good match between the new temperature record and historical carbon dioxide records suggests that the most straightforward explanation for this warming is human greenhouse gas emissions." (Emphasis mine.)
The .PDF article explains that human CO2 contribution, volcanic activity, and ocean activity (e.g. Gulf Stream and El Nino) are the biggest contributors that are needed to match the graph of temperatures over time. But volcanoes follow the drops in temperature on the graph, not the rises in temperature. Contributions from solar activity exist but were determined to be negligible. They explain that CO2 doesn't prove to be responsible for the warming, but is by far the best contender. As stated by the scientific director, "To be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide." So denialists can't simply supply "common sense" alternatives: the alternatives must match the data at least as well (or better) than CO2.
No.
The BEST study failed peer review at JGR Atmospheres but flew peer review at the inaugural issue of "Geoinformatics and Geostatistics" by an Indian publisher. The funding is irrelevant to the study except to people in denial of the massive fossil fuel funding of climate alarmism.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Well, what about the avocados?
Uh-huh, big whoop. We've had heaps of models that fit the historical data - that's the easy part. It's all there, you can tweak your model as you like until it fits the historicals just right. The value of a model isn't in how well it fits the historical data, but how well it predicts future data.
So crank a prediction or two out of this puppy and get back to us in a decade.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Yep, "peer reviewed". This is apparently volume 1, issue 1 of a new series of journals started by an Indian publisher that decided to simultaneously launch 53 new journals. In order to fill them, they took pretty much anything that anyone wanted to publish.
Taking a larger set of stations would seem to mean that this study includes stations that other studies eliminated as poor-quality. For example, stations with siting issues, stations that have moved over time between rural/urban locations, stations suffering UHI in unknown amounts.
Given the need to work in corrections for all of these quality issues, and given a pre-stated conclusion, it is very easy to make the corrections in a way that supports your desired conclusion.
In short: not credible.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Berkeley. Maybe you've never heard of Berkeley before. You should google them. They are not anarchists, but they have a good deal in common with anarchists. They are not democrats, but they have some things in common with democrats. They're not libertarians, but they share some libertarian ideas. What Berkeley is NOT - most definitely NOT - is conservative and/or republican. Berkeley. This is about the last place the Cock Brothers would go in search of "scientific" support for their views. Ooops, I misspelled Koch? My bad! LMAO
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
1. Temperarature rise for the last 250 years of 1.5 degree C is entirely because of increased CO2 emissions.
2. Vulcanic activity can seriously lower the earths temperature and affects the curve with downward spikes.
No other activity shows any significant colleration towards earth temperature. They have checked against solar flares and other activites and all they compared against has had no impact. CO2 rise looks to be the major cause behind it all.
Basically they are saying: Critics of AGW are wrong.
The data will be fully available on their webplacce form 30 july with abilities for visitors to test the data themselves and to toy with how the temperature rise has affected their local temperature.
Just saying it like it are.
Better to grow a flower in a basement, than to grow it in a sewer.
Well, what about the avocados?
I highlighted the passage relevant to your question:
because you're just jealous of my LAURA and the awesorme sexy love that we have for each other!
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?
Muller was rather more of a skeptic than a denialist.
I'm not aware of David and Charle's Koch specific opinions on the BEST results, but in the denialist blogosphere, Muller and BEST went from white knights to treacherous scum overnight. Compare Anthony Watt's comments before the announcements:
I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing ... I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.
and after:
And still, he hasn’t published anything and his papers have not passed peer review, but the political apparatchik wants to showcase the incomplete and rushed, non quality controlled, error riddled BEST science as if it were factual enough to kill off “denialism” worldwide. That’s political desperation in my opinion.
obvious troll is obvious.
Nice one, screaming "denialist!" based on a misleading summary of an an article that's gung ho in favour of anthropogenic climate change (or whatever we're calling global warming this week). A better example of greenwashed "thinking" I could not hope to find.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
No idea, but ... just look at their website, as well as the website of their sponsor (Novim), and it should be pretty easy to judge the credibility of the study.
Actually, it would be the first place they would go. If they belived their views were correct and the science showed it, you couldn't reject it easily.
Every major industrial force on the planet will continue as they are so long as their quartlerly reports show 'growth.' It's a system we can't change or undo. The major industrial forces will not allow it to change. They can't see or don't believe in a future that exists beyond the next year. When was the last time you heard "5 year plan"? And they are playing chicken with the future of humanity whether they realize it or not. Whoever hesitates or turns back will 'lose' as market forces will crush anyone into insignificance who isn't pushing forward.
They don't "lead" the markets let alone control them. With such short vision, how can they? The market is still in the hands of the consumer... sheeple consumers mostly. If anyone has been paying attention to the increase in guns and ammo and especially the market effect the government's billions in ammunition purchases, then it should be pretty clear. This gun control talk and scarcity of supply isn't only causing a rise in prices, it's causing a rise in interest. People who had no interest in buying guns and ammo are now interested.
Consumers can shape the next quarter. And the quarters to follow. Keep buying green. Keep buying things that do as little harm as possible. *I* don't make a difference. *You* don't make a difference. But *we* do. Talk to people, but don't argue or preach. Short, simple statements and move on. They won't think you're a crazy person if you don't come off that way.
If you're thinking about moving, I would consider moving away from major weather areas... you know, like the coasts, or places where mountains have significant impact. That's what all this climate change is about anyway--the weather, the redistribution of water, the content of the air and what it does with the sun's energy. Take up a hobby like gardening. It could be useful. (Just don't grow things indoors too much... UV lamps attact cops.)
Global Climate Change (which I believe in) proponents should publish a model, with a margin of error, and STOP CHANGING IT and agree that they will go away and start over if they are wrong, Instead, as each new bit of data comes in, they modify the "model" to better match the new data on a regular basis. Come on -- predict, and cast in concrete, the average tropospheric temperature from 2013 to 2018, with a low margin of error, and "lock it in". Cancel most "global climate change" funding, conferences, papers etc. for the next five years. If the prediction holds five years from now, then it has creds, else it's back to starting over.
Faith is cast in concrete and chiseled in stone. Science is more of a wiki page.
Marxism Leninism is not communism. Bolchevics destructed the real communist society in 1917/1918, keeping only the label.
This same research has been rejected by every other climate and atmospheric research journal, by the peer review process.
Key researchers are omitted from the paper - like Judith Curry, who I suspect will have something to say, since she was a key member of the BEST project.
Sources?
denialists can't simply supply "common sense" alternatives: the alternatives must match the data
That's why science works, bitches!
Comets are made out of ice.
Ice is cold.
Bombard Earth with comets.
QED
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
There is no single answer to this question because it will depend upon local circumstance. Human nature in times of plenty may well tend towards communism, in times of mild to medium stress it may tend towards capitalism and in times of extreme stress it may be mixed with some giving up personal hope and going for the greater good and others going for a more selfish agenda. There is also no single human nature as we're all different and we change throughout our lifetime. It would be possible to construct an average human nature but this may not apply to anyone, just as on average people have less than two arms but has anyone got exactly the average, probably not. In terms of avocados, I prefer Hass, more flavour.
Australia still burned down in December. We've had more fires, worse droughts, bigger storms, worse heat waves, more floods and unheard of winter storms all predicted by climate change models. At what point do you finally concede? When the planet is the twin of Venus? Physical reality first, ideology second. You can nit pick all day long, but y'all are picking nits. You're complaining about issues that impact the 5th or 6th places after the decimal point in the analysis results, while ignoring the whole numbers. That would indicate y'all are less deniers and more in denial. Sorry that climate change is messing with your "Atlas Shrugged" world view but we need to come up with smarter answers. By the way, if the Germans make solar work, then from this day forward, we all get to call bull shit on those folks who've been stone walling renewables, just because Chevron can't figure out a way to create an artificial sun shortage to jack up prices.
As I'm sure there are several studies proving your point right?
I love when no matter the evidence many still go with their gut and ignore everything else.
Only under COMMUNISM will human nature become evident. "Human nature" today, under capitalism, is like a flower trying to grow in a basement.
So human nature is genocide? Makes sense.
Seriously, this study is saying exactly the opposite - the sun has no effect, it's all CO2, and that CO2 comes from human activity and volcanic activity.
GHG means greenhouse gas.
Your assinine assertion was more extremely full of bollocks than a porn star slapper.
It currently reads "GHG Emissions and volcanoes".
However, the Slashdot Groupthink has clearly decided that what they meant to say was "GHG Emissions from volcanoes", because obviously anything published about climate must be assumed to be denialist propaganda from filthy big oil shills.
It's far easier simply 'correct' reality than to turn aside an ecowarrior in full battle frenzy, is what I'm saying. Why fight it?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Why not move south for warmer winters?
He asked a question, a legitimate one at that. You jumped to the conclusion he was "greenwashed", whatever that means. One of you demonstrates clear thinking.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Cutting down the Amazon and SE Asia Logging - Nah can't be that
Growing Deserts - creates heated steam of air to burn & not slowed down, - ignore that
Rainfall moving away from mega cities where a gazillion tons of road tar and cement divert clouds from their natural path - nah.
Extra water vapor (1 Barrel of oil, burnt = 0.5 unit of water H2O and 0.5 unit of Carbon.) - Nah
A good plate earthquake like Japan probably released a lot.
Woop-de-dooo. Let them explain the last interglacial temperature max, when sea levels were 3 to 6 meters above current levels, the subsequent cooling, glaciation, and massive reductions in CO2 and CH4, then turn around from peak glaciation 22,000 years ago and the warming to the present. 250 years of warming? Try 20,000+ years of warming....
The sun's output is easy to measure.
Given that, you'd think there'd be some solid evidence to back up your claim...but noooo.
No sig today...
First Phase
The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)
We also received funding from a number of private individuals, totaling $14,500 as of June 2011.
Second Phase
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)
Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)
So the two single largest specific funders are Koch related and an unnamed group.
Your bad! LMAO
Correlation does not equal causation.
That waiting has already happened.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/model-data-comparison-lesson-2/
And what was the result?
"We must just wait to see whether the models turn out to be right".
You're busy doing nothing,
Working the whole day through.
Trying to find lots of things not to do.
You're busy going nowhere,
Isn't it such a crime?
You'd like to do something about it,
But you never do have the time.
Incidentally, the Koch's are typically considered libertarians, not conservatives (although more than a few libertarians consider their influence to have "tainted" the Cato Institute).
He asked a question, a legitimate one at that.
The question "Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?" is not legitimate because yes, it is a group funded by the koch brothers but no, its not that other charged shit about denialists.
The fact that you think its a 'legitimate' question in the form that its in just proves that you have been greenwashed too. You really don't see the problem with it, do you?
"His name was James Damore."
I still wonder about those graphs that show CO2 lagging temperature by 800 years during past global warming events. Not saying that there isn't a relationship, but I still think that there is something that isn't really understood.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Ever think that the burning coal mines everywhere contribute?
Jesus, I hope not. If denialists are coming up with "Yeah, it's real" then the truth must be "OH DEAR GOD IT'S FAR WORSE THAN WE EXPECTED."
Maybe all the honest researchers already realized it's hopeless, quit, short sold their houses to go out in a haze of cocaine and hookers before the earth burns up.
Wrong.
Skeptic means actually thinking about the evidence and attempting to provide different explanations that can be supported by fact.
Denialist means screaming "you're wrong!" loudly, faking data and slandering until your opponent gives up.
Ok, and how do you talk your way out of this one. Since 1990 there have been various studies on the climate. The scientific consensus in 1990 was that the temperatures on earth would rise by 0.2 degrees per decade. The scientific consensus on climate in 2000 was that it would rise by 0.18 degrees per decade. The scientific consensus in 2005 was that it would rise 0.23 degrees per decade.
The reality ? http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+climate+studies+last+20+years
Now we can go through the motions if you like, but looking at that graph, is it so hard to believe that we're below every 95% certainty interval for temperature prediction made at least 5 years ago (5 years, because there was an IPCC assessment report in 2007).
Can you just remind me, because I seem to have trouble remembering my philosophy of science class. What does one do with theories whose predictions (which means measurements made AFTER publication) provide completely wrong ? And, given that climate theory has failed the only test that matters for science, accurate predictions, can you please explain to me why anyone believes it ? Please note that saying "others know better than you" is wrong, as made obvious by these "95% certain" predictions the "others" you speak of made.
Every percent of solar variance translates into about 3 degrees at Earth temperatures. In any case, one would habe to map this vs. avg. temp, which would probably lag by 3-4 months, like winter does vs. actual daylight time.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Just one small problem with your hypothesis, warmer air is *not* "capable of diluting more CO2", Nitrogen/Oxygen and CO2 can exist in *any* ratio.
Besides that, the "heat" produced directly by human activity is a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the total heat input to the planet by the Sun, in the grand scheme of things it is negligeable.
What is, however, not negligeable is the fact that since we've started burning fossil fuels on a larger scale, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone from 285ppm to roughly 400ppm, and we know from isotope fraction analysis that this increase is caused almost entirely from carbon from fossil fuel sources.
The chain is thus: Humans burn more fossil fuels --> CO2 concentrations rise ---> the environment warms up.
You wouldn't even collect an *ig*Nobel prize with a hypothesis so far removed from any of the scientific data...
No, a denialist is someone who, when faced with a thorough debunking of his arguments, will come up with new arguments instead of considering that he was wrong. Most of the self-proclaimed 'AGW skeptics' are just that. An actual sceptic will consider the available facts; a denialist will trump up new reasons for ignoring them.
(captcha: Alarmist)
I agree with this exactly. The problem I have is the frequency that anyone who raises a question is labeled as a denier. There are a lot of good points that get glossed over because the points are being addressed to a non-existent group identity with a large helping of name calling. There are many different beliefs that dont swear by AGW, and some of which are loony tune deniers, and some are pointing out scientific questioning.
I like to read through all of these comments, replacing "denialist" or "denier" with "poo-poo head", then again with "person" . The arguments can be vastly different this way.
AH BEST. The original paper was rejected by the journal JGR Atmospheres but finally they have passed "peer review". The BRAND NEW heretofore unheard of Journal Geoinformatics and Geostatistics will now feature the BEST paper. Yes ladies and gentlemen, issue 1 volume 1 will have this study as its centrepiece.
In other earth shattering news - NOAA has discovered that the further away from the structures you put the thermometer, the recorded night time temperatures are colder. This is known as the "theory of duh" in physics circles, but required experimental verification by climate scientists.
There is still much science to be done and much politics to extricate from climate science
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
You can argue all you want about whether global warming is real or not, and if so, man-made or not. But those who believe it is real (and I am cautiously one of those) deploy a long array of data, scientific studies, models, peer-reviews and global consensus.
BUT, when it comes to deciding what action is needed, if any, then the solutions are based on nothing at all. Where are the scientific studies that prove that renewables, carbon capture and storage, fossil fuel phase-out or carbon taxation, etc. leave us globally with a better standard of living? There are other alternatives, but the hysterics only promote the ones that inflict maximum misery by returning us to caves. And the unintended consequences are rarely evaluated.
As Hippocrates would have it regarding a sick patient, "First, do no harm". I believe that doing nothing is the best strategy.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Actually, there are.
Mars Ice Caps have been recorded since Newton's time by many early scientists, and of course current probes and high resolution telescopes.
Certainly longer than Earths, and better sizing data as we could see the entire extent of the planet and the icecaps, something we on Earth have only been able to do in the last half of the century with satellites.
And guess what? They are shrinking. No human input. And no volcanic activity, either.
So there is your control, and it is behaving the same way as the "experiment"
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
You can use woodfortrees.org to plot various climate indexes. For example, here is solar activity plotted against global temperatures. There is very good agreement between the two from 1850-1980. Since then they have gone in opposite directions: woodfortrees.org
Of course, the answer could not be "the quality of the science is not related to the source of funding"
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Yes - Berkeley California is a known hot-bed of shills for big corporate interests!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
If there were no Sun, the planet would not be very hot. Q.E.D.
There was at least a double negative in there, and possibly sarcasm, so I'm confused about which direction you were going with it. Source of funding doesn't necessarily prevent a scientist from being honest, but in this case to be safe and given the character of the Kochs, one should assume that Koch funded studies will be lies supporting the Kochs.
.. on just about any subject (especially global warming, or religion), cruise on over to Slashdot.
Read the comments on any given post. The world's best experts are at your service.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
to give credit, the responses that were actually written out were reasoned and decent, and could actually allow room for a conversation. It is funny that the knee jerk reaction that I was mocking occured.
NOAA has discovered that the further away from the structures you put the thermometer, the recorded night time temperatures are colder.
Oh god not this shit. Just think for a second. How does that explain the temperature trending upward over the years?
Either you're suggesting that they move the thermometer closer to the structure every year, or it really is getting warmer every year.
There is still much science to be done and much politics to extricate from climate science
You are correct, because the more I see the same, tired, discredited, and just plain wrong arguments trotted out over and over again by "skeptics" (hint, a skeptic changes their conclusions in light of new evidence) the more my inner skeptic tends to agree with AGW.
It's happening. It means that our fossil fuel way of life needs to change in some way. Nuclear? I don't know. It doesn't mean we need to go back to living in caves, except if we don't change anything, we really will wind up living back in caves. I don't want to live in caves. That means we need to deal with reality, stop industry from externalizing the cost of its environment impacts, especially in developing economies (yes, developed economies might have to GIVE something to them so we all benefit, the horror) and find a better way, not stick our heads in the sand and go LALALALA.
"Yet to come is an analysis that includes ocean temperatures"
So how do you know anything if you dont have all the data?
"The funding is irrelevant to the study except to people in denial of the massive fossil fuel funding of climate alarmism."
The funding is irrelevant unless it supports your side of the argument???
Hahahaha! Now THAT is trying to have it both ways!
Almost everyone of those who "raise questions" just regurgitate stuff they've sucked up on internet messageboards, frequently debunked falsehoods that are still recirculated ad nauseam just because those people (look, I called them people, not denialists!) don't really care about facts. I notice that you don't mention any one of those "good points" you pretend to refer to, glossing over them yourself while blaming your strawman of the very same.
i did mention one though... scientific questioning. When a claim is made, many people as to see the base data, and that is frequently hidden. The debunking on message boards happens on both sides of the issue, and the regurgitation also happens on both sides. The facts are constantly obscured through a level of loyalty that reflects religion more than science. Both sides of this debate always question the funding of any study, and rightly question the fact that the ones paying for a study seem to have findings that reflect a benefit to the sponsor. I also mentioned the folks that dont care about facts, even called them loony tunes. This doesnt mean that anyone who wants detail to facts should be called names and dismissed as a fool. The real fun thing about this, is that I havent declared my thoughts on AGW, or climate change, or GW, or GHG... any topics... my comments are strictly related to the process of not allowing discussion at all.
Link to a supporting source please?
You aren't going to post one (not a credible scientific publication for sure) since this is entirely made up.
We do not have centuries of data about the extent of Martian ice caps, which vary considerably seasonally. Visual observations of planet from the Earth's surface are extremely difficult and give low resolution fuzzy images, and until well into the 20th century had to be sketched by hand. Remember those non-existent canals on Mars? That was typical for attempts at interpreting blurry indistinct features on the tiny visible orb.
To have any hope of estimating Martian ice cap coverage at even one point in time you need at least sufficient accurate observational data to draw up a map of Mars. The first such was not prepared until 1840, and one with sufficiently quality for any hope of a quantitative estimate of ice cap coverage was not until the opposition of 1887-1891. In fact good data about Martian ice caps only became available in the age of space probes.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Actually the answer is yes. That's exactly what it is. The Koch Bros financed an AGW sceptical scientist to do this research, hoping that he'd produce results they liked. But he didn't. Having done the research the scientist was no longer skeptical of AGW.
Of course, the answer could not be "the quality of the science is not related to the source of funding"
It is widely understood in the scientific community that funding for a study is an important, relevant factor is considering its merits. Disclosure is considered essential, and scandals erupt regularly when a researcher conceals connections, including study funding, from a party that has a financial interest in the result.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Oh wow, you must be a wannabe journalist to feign neutrality like that. "Both sides of the issue." Right. When one side is right and the other side is wrong, you can't expect the right side to stop mentioning facts out of fairness to those who should stop stating falsehoods. Also, your comment is still void of empirical fact. Once again, you obscure the issues you pretend to raise. You may not have declared your position on AGW, but you have proven yourself to be a dishonest prick who will accuse others of doing the things you're doing yourself in the process.
Just imagine: You create a model as you suggest, then test with the 10 years of data, and it's a terrible fit. So you go back and try again, then test again, and it's a better fit. Then you go back and try yet again, then test yet again, and after doing this enough, you've included that last 10 years in the calculation of the parameters of your model, whether you want to admit it or not.
The reason "wait ten years and let us know if your predictions were true" works as a validation method is that you're unable to tweak your model until those ten years fit, because those ten years aren't available when your model was created. If, instead, those ten years are available, then there's no way to be certain that you didn't just cheat and use them anyway, or that you haven't deluded yourself into thinking that you weren't using those ten years to tweak your model. Indeed, if you work in this area at all, then even without having the last ten years of data on your computer when you work on your model, you still have a good idea what that data looks like and how previous models faired against it, and so while you may tell yourself that you're creating a new model, you're indeed only tweaking the model from ten years ago now that it's been found to have failed to match reality.
just because those people (look, I called them people, not denialists!) don't really care about facts.
And just what exactly do you mean by "those people"! ;)
Look at titles of papers with subjects like "A Revised ..." or "A New ..." or just read a media source that reports on science and you'll see - but of course you don't believe this shit you are spouting anyway so I don't know why I'm wasting my time. Use your own brain instead of parroting retarded bullshit for some PR agency's denialist playboook. I'm sure you are more capable of rational thought than the idiot that came up with the idea of shouting "not falisifiable" after reading two pages of a book about the philosophy of science.
How about National Geographic? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Btw, I am not arguing against any of this, but pointing out an article that at least discusses the conversation.
I'm delighted to see that serious research into this topic continues. I have an allergic reaction to psuedo-political global (aka North-Western Hemisphere) organisations claiming a consensus in science, especially when correlation and causation are involved. I want desperately to see more up-to-date research in this area.
Until recently, the most in-depth analysis I could find on Wikipedia was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png which only shows records to ~1994. I was ashamed of us as a species. I am encouraged that the Berkeley model is simple, not too complicated for mere technical experts in other fields. They make their data available, it is not bound up in IP issues. This is Open Source Science.
If this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:This_graph_shows_Global_Average_Temperature_between_1880-2009_compared_with_the_Atlantic_Multi-decadal_Oscillation_%28AMO%29_Index._The_roughly_parallel_curves_of_the_two_parameters_show_that_they_are_related.gif
is correct, AGW correlation is in for a tough few decades and we as a species will have to mature past politicians with Hawaian anecdotes and a pair of hockey sticks.
On a tangent, I don't think my grandchildren will thank me for covering the land with fragile, widely dispersed polycarbonate junk and lead-acid batteries. What's the half-life of lead? My opinion as an engineer in primary industry is that we should start building nuclear power stations now to replace all coal stations. Nothing else has a good blend of environmental benefit, reasonable production cost and universal feasibility. Yes, I will accept one in my back yard.
Now we wait for the reviews from climateaudit.org and wattsupwiththat.com where things get gone over with a fine tooth comb. Always good to have skeptics go over things. If/when they find problem(s) it improves the science as it should be.
Interesting that the paper was published in a new journal "Geoinformatics and Geostatistics, Volume 1 issue 1".
I hear climate "deniers" and climate "liars" and I struggle to understand where the truth is. The more I read the more I don't know.
Put down the talking points:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/
There have been observations of Mars accurate enough to determine the day on Mars since Cassini, or 1666. You can google them, they show the ice caps existed, but not in high detail.
Honeré Flaugergues, 1813, starts tracking the melting cycle of the ice caps, and also can see the dust storms. That is a lot more detail than "blurry indistinct features on the tiny visible orb".
The canals were not a case of them not being there, it was a case of misinterpreting the lines that are clearly there, caused by natural features. There is even some debate over the meaning of the original Italian report, which used a word that does not mean man made, just a "channel". His drawings look more like channels in a delta, the "straight" line stuff came later. Actual daguerreotypes made in the mid-1800 show the white caps, so they are there.
100x magnification gets you an image of Mars roughly the apparent size of the moon with the naked eye. Such telescopes have been around for 3 or 400 years.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra