• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Berkeley Earth project's results are now available:

Researchers at the Berkeley Earth project compiled more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world and found that the average global land temperature has risen by around 1C since the mid-1950s.

This figure agrees with the estimate of global warming arrived at by major groups that maintain official records on the world's climate, including Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), and the Met Office's Hadley Centre, with the University of East Anglia, in the UK.
Click to expand...

Raw data, programs and four draft papers can be found here: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/findings.php
 
Pixel42 said:
The Berkeley Earth project's results are now available:



Raw data, programs and four draft papers can be found here: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/findings.php
Click to expand...

Generally speaking I don't see his methodology as an improvement over previous studies, but it's not surprising he gets similar results as the existing ones are robust.

I guess it's good he can change the preconceptions he had going in but the fact he had to re-invent the wheel to convince himself that random internet bloggers didn't really know things the climate scientists do not isn't really all that impressive.
 
Pixel42 said:
...Raw data, programs and four draft papers can be found here: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/findings.php
Click to expand...

"Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process"
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process

Abstract
A new mathematical framework is presented for producing maps and large-scale averages of temperature changes from weather station data for the purposes of climate analysis. This allows one to include short and discontinuous temperature records, so that nearly all temperature data can be used. The framework contains a weighting process that assesses the quality and consistency of a spatial network of temperature stations as an integral part of the averaging process. This permits data with varying levels of quality to be used without compromising the accuracy of the resulting reconstructions. Lastly, the process presented here is extensible to spatial networks of arbitrary density (or locally varying density) while maintaining the expected spatial relationships. In this paper, this framework is applied to the Global Historical Climatology Network land temperature dataset to present a new global land temperature reconstruction from 1800 to present with error uncertainties that include many key effects. In so doing, we find that the global land mean temperature has increased by 0.911 ± 0.042 C since the 1950s (95% confidence for statistical and spatial uncertainties). This change is consistent with global land-surface warming results previously reported, but with reduced uncertainty.
Click to expand...

"Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average
Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications"
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_UHI

Abstract
The effect of urban heating on estimates of global average land surface temperature is studied by applying an urban-rural classification based on MODIS satellite data to the Berkeley Earth temperature dataset compilation of 39,028 sites from 10 different publicly available sources. We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 16,132 sites chosen to be distant from all MODISidentified urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant warming. Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these shows a slight negative slope over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.19°C ± 0.19 / 100yr (95% confidence), opposite in sign to that expected if the urban heat island effect was adding anomalous warming to the record. The small size, and its negative sign, supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change.
Click to expand...

"Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the
United States"
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Station_Quality

Abstract
An analysis team led by Anthony Watts has shown that 70% of the USHCN temperature stations are ranked in NOAA classification 4 or 5, indicating a temperature uncertainties greater than 2C or 5C, respectively. This uncertainty is large compared to the analyses of global warming, which estimate the warming of 0.64 ± 0.13 C over the period 1956 to 2005. The quality problem suggests that the instruments used to measure the warming may not be sufficiently accurate to yield a meaningful number. We perform two analyses on the USHCN stations ranked by the team. A simple slope analysis shows no statistically significant disparity between stations ranked “OK” (NOAA scale of 1, 2, and 3) and stations ranked as “poor” (NOAA scale of 4 and 5). This method suffers from uneven sampling of the United States land area, but it illustrates important properties of the data. A more detailed temperature reconstruction is then performed using the Berkeley Earth analysis method. From this analysis we conclude that the difference in temperature rate of rise between poor stations and OK stations is –0.014 ± 0.028 C per century. The absence of a statistically significant difference between the two sets suggests that networks of stations can reliably discern temperature trends even when individual stations have large absolute uncertainties.
Click to expand...

"Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures"
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations

Abstract
Interannual to decadal variations in Earth global temperature estimates have often been identified with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)events. However, we show that variability on timescales of 2-*‐15 years
in mean annual global land surface temperature anomalies, Tavg are more closely correlated with variability in sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic. In particular, the cross-*‐correlation of annually-*‐averaged values of Tavg with annual values of the AMO, the Atlantic Mutidecadal Oscillation index, is much stronger than the cross-* ‐correlation of Tavg with ENSO. The pattern of fluctuations in Tavg from 1950 to 2010 reflects true climate variability, and is not an artifact of station sampling. A world map of temperature correlations shows that the association with AMO is broadly distributed and unidirectional. The effect of El Nino on temperature is locally stronger, but can be of either sign, leading to less impact on the global average. We identify one strong narrow spectral peak in the AMO at period 9.1 ± 0.4 years and p-*‐value 1.7% (CL 98.3%). Variations in the flow of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation may be responsible for some of the 2-*‐15 year variability observed in global land temperatures.
Click to expand...
 
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

...When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.
Click to expand...
 
Motivating the general public to act and drive forward large scale and meaningful changes to combat the threat of global warming is no longer a science issue. It is now a sales and marketing issue.

Marketing and sales of this need for action is hardly an area of expertise for most scientists. We are witnessing how effective, how well deployed globally, and how convincing the marketing campaign against the science of AWG has been. This is clearly reflected in the polls that are conducted of the general public's opinion on the need to address climate change.

The businesses that have funded the attack on AGW science have done so much better at selling people on the idea that AGW is not a big issue, so much so that they have effectively drowned out and cleverly overridden the stark message coming from virtually the entire international scientific community.

Forget about the science as the debate is over. This is now a sales and marketing battle.

I still think that creating an international scientific consensus statement which gets posted at all kinds of educational facilities and science sites such as, NASA, NOAA, universities, colleges, schools, libraries, all internet sites that concur, and so many other types of entities such a businesses, coffe shops, etc. that people have to see it where ever they go, or whenever they peruse sites online. Make the consensus statement so ubiquitous that it can't be ignored. What scientific org wouldn't want to host it?

Perhaps a distinctive logo could be created to indicate that an entity supports the consensus statement and need for action.

For most websites hosting an internationally accepted consensus statement would be easy. Posting support logos for the consensus in or on buildings could be funded easily as well.

Yes, present consensus statements can be found online easily but has this worked thus far? We need to step up our marketing a lot.

1. Get a scientific entity to draft the consensus statement or series of questions.
2. Get relevant scientists at a location to download and sign it.
3. Post that at the entity where it is signed.
5. Email the statement with the signatures to a number of global database hosts.
4. Download and post the entire international list of signatories in order of country, region, city entity, etc.

This should be very cheap to accomplish and hopefully be very convincing. The logo and consensus statements could be in so many locations for very little cost. Posting an HTML page is so simple and cheap.

Thoughts?
 
Warmer1 said:
Motivating the general public to act and drive forward large scale and meaningful changes to combat the threat of global warming is no longer a science issue. It is now a sales and marketing issue.

Marketing and sales of this need for action is hardly an area of expertise for most scientists. We are witnessing how effective, how well deployed globally, and how convincing the marketing campaign against the science of AWG has been. This is clearly reflected in the polls that are conducted of the general public's opinion on the need to address climate change.

The businesses that have funded the attack on AGW science have done so much better at selling people on the idea that AGW is not a big issue, so much so that they have effectively drowned out and cleverly overridden the stark message coming from virtually the entire international scientific community.

Forget about the science as the debate is over. This is now a sales and marketing battle.

I still think that creating an international scientific consensus statement which gets posted at all kinds of educational facilities and science sites such as, NASA, NOAA, universities, colleges, schools, libraries, all internet sites that concur, and so many other types of entities such a businesses, coffe shops, etc. that people have to see it where ever they go, or whenever they peruse sites online. Make the consensus statement so ubiquitous that it can't be ignored. What scientific org wouldn't want to host it?

Perhaps a distinctive logo could be created to indicate that an entity supports the consensus statement and need for action.

For most websites hosting an internationally accepted consensus statement would be easy. Posting support logos for the consensus in or on buildings could be funded easily as well.

Yes, present consensus statements can be found online easily but has this worked thus far? We need to step up our marketing a lot.

1. Get a scientific entity to draft the consensus statement or series of questions.
2. Get relevant scientists at a location to download and sign it.
3. Post that at the entity where it is signed.
5. Email the statement with the signatures to a number of global database hosts.
4. Download and post the entire international list of signatories in order of country, region, city entity, etc.

This should be very cheap to accomplish and hopefully be very convincing. The logo and consensus statements could be in so many locations for very little cost. Posting an HTML page is so simple and cheap.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It isn't the science, or the people who should be focussed on the science who are at fault, and they should not be distracted from the science which is their work. This is a political and societal failure that I'm not sure our species is clever or wise enough to overcome.
 
Trakar said:
... This is a political and societal failure that I'm not sure our species is clever or wise enough to overcome.
Click to expand...

Well yes but isn't the failure more severe in the US than, say, Europe? There are degrees of self-destructive stupidity even among members of the same species. Correct me if I'm wrong---since at the level of detail I don't know much about what policies have been adopted.
If other people are doing better then we in US could be doing better.
 
Trakar said:
It isn't the science, or the people who should be focussed on the science who are at fault, and they should not be distracted from the science which is their work.
Click to expand...

I agree with your concern for their time but signing a consensus statement should not take much time, and what is the point of doing so much work if people don't get their message and take the action that is needed?

So much work has been done and less and less people in the US are concerned about the problem because the science is not being marketed as well as the denial. The results of all of the work that they have done is getting shot down effectively. The scientists might line up to sign a consensus statement that may help convince more people that this issue needs a far greater response. I'm sure the scientists would love a huge push of public support for their work.

This is a political and societal failure that I'm not sure our species is clever or wise enough to overcome.
Click to expand...

I agree whole heatedly but perhaps there is still hope for a scientific solution of some sort.
 
Marshall said:
Well yes but isn't the failure more severe in the US than, say, Europe? There are degrees of self-destructive stupidity even among members of the same species. Correct me if I'm wrong---since at the level of detail I don't know much about what policies have been adopted.
If other people are doing better then we in US could be doing better.
Click to expand...

Could you possibly be more correct?

All of the international scientists work is useless in creating change because intellectuals can't market the validity of the science better than the deniers can market doubt.

This person has a chance at running this country?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYOQDz9Gt0Q&feature=related

Out here in Queasyville, in the corn belt, many people agree with his opinion because they have been told the wrong information, and they aren't smart enough to understand the science.

The need to address AGW in a meaningful way is a sales and marketing issue.

Valid science is being undersold to the masses.
 
What is the science? As in, if science was in charge, with the rule of law and a gun, what would science demand everyone do today? To stop GW?
 
Warmer1 said:
Could you possibly be more correct?

All of the international scientists work is useless in creating change because intellectuals can't market the validity of the science better than the deniers can market doubt.

This person has a chance at running this country?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYOQDz9Gt0Q&feature=related

Out here in Queasyville, in the corn belt, many people agree with his opinion because they have been told the wrong information, and they aren't smart enough to understand the science.

The need to address AGW in a meaningful way is a sales and marketing issue.

Valid science is being undersold to the masses.
Click to expand...

The key is social and political, in that first we as a society must forego feel good short term, easy solutions, quick profits and mandate at the least we need higher education minimums, and need to learn valuations that respect and hold knowledge, critical thought and rational decision making as pinacles of social value. It isn't just an individual issue, we have to deal with general societal disrespect for institutions of science and academia in general.

Until we as individuals do so, it is impossible to properly understand the issues and view them in perspective, yet alone expect a voting public and the representatives they elect to properly address and legislate such propblems.

It doesn't matter how strong the science, if science itself is dismissed as unrealistic, impractical and of little or no value, which is basically the current situation among a large and increasing segment of the population. It comes down to beliefs, and those that feel that government action is always wrong and the worst possible means to address any problem, are not going to change that perception because science, economics, or any other branch of knowledge tells them this is so, in fact speaking against these strongly held beliefs in the name of science, often merely brings into question the sources you use to argue against the beliefs it does not compellingly challenge the beliefs to those who hold these ideological precepts.

We have to alter the precepts and the societal support for those valuations which is not easily or quickly accomplished and tends to be a generational more than a short-cycle type of goal. Unfortunately, by the time we train a new generation to respect education, academia, science and governmental competence, and allow them to mature to voting age, the issues we need to address will be too far along in their progression for any gradual or economically friendly course of adequate response. I've been working for these changes for most of the last 30 years and we actually seem to have regressed a bit rather than gotten closer to achieving those goals in that time frame.
 
Furcifer said:
No,it's just not a priority. If it ever becomes one it's fairly easy to overcome global warming.
Click to expand...

There is nothing "easy" to accomplish with respect to climate change issues. As to prioritization, as I stated, it is a societal and political issue that I am not sure that our species is clever or wise enough to overcome.
 
Warmer1 said:
I agree with your concern for their time but signing a consensus statement should not take much time, and what is the point of doing so much work if people don't get their message and take the action that is needed?
Click to expand...

People have to respect and comprehend the work before they will act upon it, and if these people perceive that this work contradicts or interferes with their preferred social and political ideologies, they will dismiss the work not the ideologies, that is the nature of humantiy in general. People don't reject the science community's work because denialists make better arguments, they embrace denialist arguments because they agree with their political and social ideologies.

So much work has been done and less and less people in the US are concerned about the problem because the science is not being marketed as well as the denial. The results of all of the work that they have done is getting shot down effectively. The scientists might line up to sign a consensus statement that may help convince more people that this issue needs a far greater response. I'm sure the scientists would love a huge push of public support for their work.
Click to expand...

It isn't a "facts against lies" situation, regardless of how attractive that framing is. It is currently an ideology vs ideology battle, and until you can move beyond that by finding an acceptable ideologically neutral framing of the situation we will never be able to acheive full action potential.

I agree whole heatedly but perhaps there is still hope for a scientific solution of some sort.
Click to expand...

Science provided a set of solutions that haven't substantively changed over the last century or so since the problem was identified, until politics and society in general are ready to engage in actively solving the issues, however, those solutions are largely irrelevent.
 
Marshall said:
Well yes but isn't the failure more severe in the US than, say, Europe? There are degrees of self-destructive stupidity even among members of the same species. Correct me if I'm wrong---since at the level of detail I don't know much about what policies have been adopted.
If other people are doing better then we in US could be doing better.
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy of the failure is more apparent in the US due both to the nature of our media and the history of our science/technology facade. The manner and degree to which European block and third world economic entities switch and change their rhetoric with regards to climate change issues, seems to indicate that there is nothing especially different about the US's responses and supports of the issue, it is just that our "dirty laundry" and internal debate are much more visible.
 
r-j said:
What is the science? As in, if science was in charge, with the rule of law and a gun, what would science demand everyone do today? To stop GW?
Click to expand...

The first part of the science solution is to stop releasing previously sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels, into the active carbon cycle (air/water'surface soils). This needs to happen as rapidly and completely as is possible.

The second step is to engage and promote activities that will long-term sequester atmospheric carbon.


a related resolution issue is in pushing efficiency with regards to how we produce, transmit and store electrical power, but this is more of a side issue than of primary importance to climate change issues.
 
Trakar said:
The first part of the science solution is to stop releasing previously sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels, into the active carbon cycle (air/water'surface soils). This needs to happen as rapidly and completely as is possible.
Click to expand...

I think most people know that. How would science make that happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom