Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

is it just me or is he demonstrating his extreme ego and arrogance?

It's not just you.

since decades scientific studies show the same he came up with today. he was unconvinced, but now that he has worked out the same on a much more simplistic method, he thinks other skeptics and even the deniers have to follow?

He'll probably move on to confirming CERN's latest findings, thereby putting everybody's mind to rest on that. Then on to general relativity. So much science which needs Muller's approval, and so little time ... Especially with all the interviews and media-attention he has to reluctantly put up with.

 

[This is The End]

I assume you are all discussing this already but I thought I'd link to this article either way:

Koch-funded climate change skeptic reverses course

The verdict is in: Global warming is occurring and emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity are the main cause.

This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, MacArthur Fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Never mind that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago.

The difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.

 

[mike3]

is it just me or is he demonstrating his extreme ego and arrogance?
since decades scientific studies show the same he came up with today. he was unconvinced, but now that he has worked out the same on a much more simplistic method, he thinks other skeptics and even the deniers have to follow?

What's bad about thinking people should follow the evidence?! That's what good science is all about. Isn't it a GOOD thing if someone discovers, by their own attempt to prove their claims, that they are wrong, admit to it, and suggest others should do the same? If a creationist comes around and sees the light and then argues publicly for evolution, is he wrong/bad ("ego and arrogance" is a bad thing)?

 

[CapelDodger]

Wasnt this chap in the news at least a year ago or maybe two, about changing his mind from climate change skeptiscism? I remember there was a group of skeptic/denier scientists who set out to once and for all resolve the issue, and and the results didnt come out the way they expected... and this guy was the one who made it public...

It isn't a group of denier scientists, only Muller and Curry fit that description. The preliminary results were released before the associated papers had passed peer review and been published; I don't think that's happened yet. The problem appears to be that the papers contain nothing new or useful (one of the criteria for peer-review). The preliminary release was less than a year ago, I think.

The preliminary results only went back to 1850, I think, and these results go further back. In scientific terms there's really nothing to see there, but in the fake AGW debate it's a major event.

 

[CapelDodger]

What's bad about thinking people should follow the evidence?! That's what good science is all about.

It's unfortunate that Muller sounded off against the competence of climate scientists long before he looked any further than McIntyre and Watts's blog sites and a lecture or two by Monckton. What this is is a promotional stunt by Muller, who really thinks a lot of himself.

Many people have looked at the evidence before, and there are over a dozen independent temperature reconstructions already out there - good science, none of which Muller regarded as competent or trustworthy. The man is a self-regarding media-whore.

 

[Reality Check]

What are the changes in albedo in rural Colarado which caused the heat wave there

If you don't want to admit there is a sharp increase in talk about global warming with every extreme weather event that's fine, but you're wrong.

That is nothging to do with my post.
Of course there is a lot of news reports about about global warming with every extreme weather event ! That is how news works.
These extreme weather events are data that supports the already existing evidence that the frequency of extreme weather events increases with global warming as expected by climate scientists, e.g.
Public Perception of Climate Change and the New Climate Dice - Hansen (2011)

Likewise, you're wrong about changes in albedo and resulting changes in weather.

Changes in albedo do result in changes in local weather, e.g. urbanization for cities: The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF)

Global albedo is a significant factor in climate.
Urbanization and deforestation (the only source of of albedo change that you have mentioned) are not significant.

Thus you're wrong about changes in albedo and resulting changes in weather as shown in the actual scientific journals that I have read and cited.
Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures

• Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation
  G. Bala*,†, K. Caldeira‡, M. Wickett*, T. J. Phillips*, D. B. Lobell*, C. Delire§, and A. Mirin*
• Climatic Impact of Global-Scale Deforestation: Radiative versus Nonradiative Processes
  Edouard L. Davin* and Nathalie de Noblet-Ducoudré

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
Since you have an pseudo-scientific bias against all science web sites (like Nature ), here is the pre-print on the BEST web site:
Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average

I would strongly suggest reading and citing actual scientific journals instead reiterating your unsupported assertions such as:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Where are the "strip mall, 2 lanes of black top and a concrete urban jungle" in rural Colarado which is causing the heat wave there?

First asked 3rd July 2012 (27 days and counting!)

I think the heat wave is over now so I changed the tense to past tense in this post's title.

 

[mike3]

It's unfortunate that Muller sounded off against the competence of climate scientists long before he looked any further than McIntyre and Watts's blog sites and a lecture or two by Monckton. What this is is a promotional stunt by Muller, who really thinks a lot of himself.

Many people have looked at the evidence before, and there are over a dozen independent temperature reconstructions already out there - good science, none of which Muller regarded as competent or trustworthy. The man is a self-regarding media-whore.

So you don't think he's really changed his mind? What if he has? Have you ever heard of anyone who was a "denier" and dissed all the evidence as incompetent and then eventually gave up the belief? Or do you think he hasn't really given it up ("my study is right, but all the rest are still wrong", etc.)?

 

[Krikkiter]

Happy to be corrected but isn't this old news? Weren't the BEST results published last year?

 

[DC]

What's bad about thinking people should follow the evidence?! That's what good science is all about. Isn't it a GOOD thing if someone discovers, by their own attempt to prove their claims, that they are wrong, admit to it, and suggest others should do the same? If a creationist comes around and sees the light and then argues publicly for evolution, is he wrong/bad ("ego and arrogance" is a bad thing)?

that's nothing bad at all. the message of follwing the evidence. what i think is showing arrogance is things like this

I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes

he has brought up no new answers to anything, and according to the article in the OP

Muller said his team's findings went further and were stronger than the latest report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

which is an absolutely laughable claim.

 

[mhaze]

Skeptic? Hardly.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

'


But... it's lying for a GOOD CAUSE! TO SAVE THE PLANET!

 

[DC]

'


But... it's lying for a GOOD CAUSE! TO SAVE THE PLANET!

and what is his lie according to you?
that he was a sceptic or that he is no longer?

 

[Furcifer]

That is nothging to do with my post.
Of course there is a lot of news reports about about global warming with every extreme weather event ! That is how news works.
These extreme weather events are data that supports the already existing evidence that the frequency of extreme weather events increases with global warming as expected by climate scientists, e.g.
Public Perception of Climate Change and the New Climate Dice - Hansen (2011)


Changes in albedo do result in changes in local weather, e.g. urbanization for cities: The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF)

Global albedo is a significant factor in climate.
Urbanization and deforestation (the only source of of albedo change that you have mentioned) are not significant.

Thus you're wrong about changes in albedo and resulting changes in weather as shown in the actual scientific journals that I have read and cited.
Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures

• Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation
  G. Bala*,†, K. Caldeira‡, M. Wickett*, T. J. Phillips*, D. B. Lobell*, C. Delire§, and A. Mirin*
• Climatic Impact of Global-Scale Deforestation: Radiative versus Nonradiative Processes
  Edouard L. Davin* and Nathalie de Noblet-Ducoudré

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
Since you have an pseudo-scientific bias against all science web sites (like Nature ), here is the pre-print on the BEST web site:
Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average

I would strongly suggest reading and citing actual scientific journals instead reiterating your unsupported assertions such as:

First asked 3rd July 2012 (27 days and counting!)

I think the heat wave is over now so I changed the tense to past tense in this post's title.

Sorry you're just misinformed. The changes in albedo do have a profound effect on weather while admittedly little effect on climate. You keep using examples of climate when we're talking about weather.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I thought last summer was bad with it's record breaking temps, but this summer the heat is out of control. At least we got to skip winter here. How many times can we break the heat record in one summer before we melt?

 

[bit_pattern]

Wrming trend in the US been doubled by adjustments?

Watts has just published his newest paper prior to peer review.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

he hopes to have a broader base of reviewers when publishing before perr review.

anyone read it already?

Apparently it was such a momentous announcement that he had to breathlessly CEASE PUBLISHING his blog until this Very Important Announcement came through.

Clearly it is Very Dramatic stuff!

Haven't read it yet but let's just hope that poor Anthony doesn't end up with egg on his face again like last time he pre-published on his blog prior to peer-review

 

[Pixel42]

For the record, here's the comparison of the BEST results with those of those other climate scientists who were so incompetent and untrustworthy their work had to be checked by Muller personally:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought last summer was bad with it's record breaking temps, but this summer the heat is out of control. At least we got to skip winter here. How many times can we break the heat record in one summer before we melt?

It'll be sadly ironic when the heat requires more air conditioning which requires more power which requires more hydrocarbon burning to produce.

 

[rcfieldz]

maybe

Perhaps with the tons of fossel fuel that's been removed from the core of our planet and refined to gasolne then transformed to vapor has left the planet lighter and Earh is being pulled gravitationally closer to the Sun?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps with the tons of fossel fuel that's been removed from the core of our planet and refined to gasolne then transformed to vapor has left the planet lighter and Earh is being pulled gravitationally closer to the Sun?

No, duh. If it's lighter, gravity doesn't pull so hard, so it gets further away. It's just as likely [1] that the mass-equivalent of all the energy released has made the Earth heavier so it's being pulled closer to the sun.

Dave



[1] Well, it is.

 

[ehcks]

Perhaps with the tons of fossel fuel that's been removed from the core of our planet and refined to gasolne then transformed to vapor has left the planet lighter and Earh is being pulled gravitationally closer to the Sun?

Even though that's just crazy, wouldn't it still be in our best interest to use less gasoline and coal?

 

[lomiller]

its not often that i learn something new from the Youtube comments on a video dealing with AGW, only new lies from the deniers mostly. But today i learned something.
I knew that there is a gravitational effect from ice sheets and that sea level rises are not uniform around the globe. but how huge the gravitational effect actually is, that i didn't know. at the coast of greenland, the sea levels will actually fall when it melts. lol very counterintuitive.


admitetly i didn't check the scientific literature about it to see if its actually correct. but to me it seems legit so far

What’s really jaw dropping is how much he says it will fall. He says that between the crust rebounding and the gravitational effects of the ice sheet, if the Greenland ice sheet were to disappear rapidly sea levels at Greenland would drop by 100!