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."
Greetings Slashdort readers,
I've been thinking about some deep subjects, and now I think I'll share some of my thoughts with you. Please give me your constructive criticism, but if you don't like this, you can just fuck off, OK?
The question is: what is "human nature"? I think any time someone talks about "human nature" to back up their argument, they are full of crap. For them, "human nature" is just a mystified name for a particular set of social relations. It's a secular form of political argument to the divine rights and authority of kings. Fuck all that.
We don't know what human nature is because what confronts us is the historically determined nature of our society which clearly limits and deforms human development.
Only under COMMUNISM will human nature become evident. "Human nature" today, under capitalism, is like a flower trying to grow in a basement.
Anyway, I know some of you syncophants for CAPITALISM will make all sorts of stupid arguments against me or call me a "troll" or whatever but YOU are the real trolls, because you're just jealous of my LAURA and the awesorme sexy love that we have for each other!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
If we just plug up the volcanos, everything will be fine!
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
Your comment is invalid and you are a goatfucker, because you could not handle the great, concentrated amounts of TRUTH in my first poste! Concentrated, odorous, potent hot steaming Marxist Leninist TRUTH! That's how LAURA likes it!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
http://www.climatedepot.com/
denialists can't simply supply "common sense" alternatives: the alternatives must match the data
That's why science works, bitches!
with THOUSANDS of be forggoten in a demise. You don't
Comets are made out of ice.
Ice is cold.
Bombard Earth with comets.
QED
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
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.
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?
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.
That says it all.
What they are trying to do is "fit" the data to the outcome, picking and choosing which data to include that makes the model "fit" their hypothesis.
Business as usual from the First Fraudulent Church of Global Warming
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....
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.
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.
Warmer air is capable of diluting more CO2.
So warmer air CAUSES more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Besides not realizing that "Correlation is not equal to Causation", these "scientists" get their causation backwards by saying that more CO2 in the air causes warmer air!
Let's investigate how humans have been increasingly warming up the environment:
- The human population grew TREMENDOUSLY in the past 250 years.
- The average human consumes MUCH more energy:
a) automobile engines running at 200 F
b) airplane engines running at 2000 F
c) homes warmed at 74F
d) large buildings warmed at 70F
e) and when it's warm outside, everyone uses air-conditioning systems (which consume even more power = heat)
So there is a clear correlation between the warming atmosphere, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and humans burning more energy (thanks to technological advancements).
And basic science shows that warmer air is able to dilute more CO2.
Hence, the chain of causation is as follows:
Humans burn more energy -> the environment warms up -> higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
QED
So where's by Nobel Prize?
Ever think that the burning coal mines everywhere contribute?
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.
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
If there were no Sun, the planet would not be very hot. Q.E.D.
They should stop giving that poor bull cocaine enemas while listening to Frank Zappa and the MOI's 'Illinois Enema Pumping Man'.
XD
BEST stands for Bull Es Shit T.
Today is 'Blue Monday'. For the low down see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Monday_(date).
Wiki even has the pseudoscience equation, from a mental health facility, for calculating 'Blue Monday'.
Since BEST is pseudoscience, they should integrate the Blue Monday equation into their 'Surface Temperatures'
so to derive the effect of Blue Monday on the rise or fall of the Earth's temperature.
XD
.. 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.