FGB
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2013
- Posts
- 7,368
How the Global Warming Scare Began
- Thread starter FGB
- Start date
FGB
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2013
- Posts
- 7,368
FGB
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2013
- Posts
- 7,368
Minor technicalities...
http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2...ler-physicist-and-his-surprising-climate-data
Q&A With Richard Muller: A Physicist and His Surprising Climate Data
By Eli Kintisch 6 April 2011 5:47 pm 16 Comments
Richard Muller of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California has gained a solid scientific reputation for his work in astrophysics and particle physics. He's waded into policy debates over nuclear weapons and terrorism as a member of the secretive JASON panel. And his introductory course, Physics for Future Presidents, is popular among undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley.
But that impressive track record of research, teaching, and service wasn't why the science committee of the U.S. House of Representatives invited Muller to testify last week. The topic was climate change research and policy, and Republicans wanted Muller to discuss his recent reanalysis of global temperature records. Republicans expected Muller to challenge the accepted wisdom that the earth has warmed 0.7˚C since the 1880s. But to the dismay of skeptic bloggers, his preliminary analysis supports that canonical view.
Muller first delved into paleoclimate research in the 1980s to counter what he calls "a lot of B.S." in the field. Over a decade, his papers in Nature, Science, and other journals questioned standard explanations of the ice ages involving eccentricities in the planet's orbit.
"He is a very, very independent thinker. He does not take it for granted when he is told something. His instinct is to go check it out for himself," says fellow Berkeley physicist Raymond Jeanloz, who has served with Muller as a JASON panelist. "He's a very eclectic, very broad scientist. He'll apply physics to earth science, and apply earth science to physics or astronomy."
He also began to question what scientists were saying about the likely impacts of present-day climate change, and in November 2009 he became concerned about what he regarded as the imperial behavior shown by some climate scientists in leaked e-mails released as part of what's become known as Climategate.
So in 2009, Muller assembled a team of physicists and statisticians and launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
The project has sought to use new techniques to analyze temperature data to see whether problems like the bad stations could bias the results. Muller says he admires the work of prominent skeptic blogger Anthony Watts, a bête noire for most climate scientists, who has published photographs that document problems with hundreds of official U.S. government temperature stations. (Whether those problems affect reported climate trends is controversial.)
Muller spoke twice with ScienceInsider after testifying on 31 March before the science committee. Here are excerpts from those conversations.
Q: You testified that the scientists maintaining the three climate temperature sets—maintained by NASA, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.K. Met Office—have done "excellent" work. So how did you feel when the e-mails from the University of East Anglia emerged?
R.M.: I felt like a woman who's just learned her husband was cheating on her. It doesn't mean he's a bad husband in all ways, but that trust is lost. ... The e-mails didn't relate at all to the temperature work. … It was all the [paleotemperature] proxy data. [But] that disillusioned me.
Q: What does your initial examination of 2% of world temperature stations find in terms of world climate?
R.M.: Some [readings] are going down—but more are going up. The average is going up.
Q: You compared U.S. climate trends from some 300 stations deemed well or moderately-well located with 800 stations that are poorly sited. What did you find?
R.M.: There was no statistical difference [in the data] between the good groups and the bad groups.
Q: Why was that surprising?
R.M.: Because the stations were so bad. … You see stations right up against buildings, next to heat sources.
Q: How is your technique different than the methods used by the teams analyzing the three major datasets?
R.M.: [Their goal is] to generate long continuous methods. … If there was a change, [like] a station moved, they would adjust the data to try to eliminate that. [But] it makes me very uncomfortable when you adjust the data. … [So] we just cut the data at that point [and create two shorter records]. It means we wind up in our analysis with [not very many] continuous records.
Q: Did you have any trouble getting access to data? Access was central to the fight that led to the East Anglia e-mail flap.
R.M.: We believe we have 95% of the data that the U.K. [Met Office] is not releasing. ... Merging the data—from 16 sources—we found there is a great deal of overlap.
Q: You say that "openness and transparency" are central to your project. So why present your findings to Congress before describing your methods in a publication that everybody can read?
R.M.: We were originally planning to submit a paper at the same time as the testimony, to a journal which would allow simultaneous publication of the draft online. ... This is a problem that causes us great concern. What do you do when you are working on [something] and Congress asks you to testify? It's a difficult issue.
Q: Did photos on [skeptic] Anthony Watts' Web site showing official temperature gauges in flawed locations like parking lots inspire you to get involved in the debate over the accuracy of the weather stations ?
R.M.: I realized that Watts was doing something that was of importance. The issues he raised needed to be addressed. It made me seriously wonder whether the reported global warming may be biased by poor station quality. Watts is a hero for what he's done. So is [prominent skeptic blogger] Steve McIntyre.
Q: What are you hoping to accomplish with Berkeley Earth?
R.M.: There's a huge penumbra of scientists who have … heard from prominent scientists that the debate is over, it's all been settled and so on. … [So] when they stumble across things like the Watts pictures they're disturbed. ...They feel that many of these questions haven't been answered. What I'm hoping to do is calm the debate.
Q: What's next for your project?
R.M.: Very soon we hope to have both the data and the programs online. And if you don't like our results, my [advice] is to change the program, but be open and transparent about it. Let us know what you changed. If there's some assumption we make that you think is invalid than change the assumption and run the programs and see what answer you get. I'm hoping that if we make it that open and that accessible that the people who are interested in the answer … will be won over.
Q: Are there any other lines of research that you want to pursue?
R.M.: We're applying for funding to study the ocean temperature data. That will allow us to get a true global picture of temperature trends.
*This item has been corrected. Anthony Watts was originally identified as Andrew.
http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2...ler-physicist-and-his-surprising-climate-data
Q&A With Richard Muller: A Physicist and His Surprising Climate Data
By Eli Kintisch 6 April 2011 5:47 pm 16 Comments
Richard Muller of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California has gained a solid scientific reputation for his work in astrophysics and particle physics. He's waded into policy debates over nuclear weapons and terrorism as a member of the secretive JASON panel. And his introductory course, Physics for Future Presidents, is popular among undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley.
But that impressive track record of research, teaching, and service wasn't why the science committee of the U.S. House of Representatives invited Muller to testify last week. The topic was climate change research and policy, and Republicans wanted Muller to discuss his recent reanalysis of global temperature records. Republicans expected Muller to challenge the accepted wisdom that the earth has warmed 0.7˚C since the 1880s. But to the dismay of skeptic bloggers, his preliminary analysis supports that canonical view.
Muller first delved into paleoclimate research in the 1980s to counter what he calls "a lot of B.S." in the field. Over a decade, his papers in Nature, Science, and other journals questioned standard explanations of the ice ages involving eccentricities in the planet's orbit.
"He is a very, very independent thinker. He does not take it for granted when he is told something. His instinct is to go check it out for himself," says fellow Berkeley physicist Raymond Jeanloz, who has served with Muller as a JASON panelist. "He's a very eclectic, very broad scientist. He'll apply physics to earth science, and apply earth science to physics or astronomy."
He also began to question what scientists were saying about the likely impacts of present-day climate change, and in November 2009 he became concerned about what he regarded as the imperial behavior shown by some climate scientists in leaked e-mails released as part of what's become known as Climategate.
So in 2009, Muller assembled a team of physicists and statisticians and launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
The project has sought to use new techniques to analyze temperature data to see whether problems like the bad stations could bias the results. Muller says he admires the work of prominent skeptic blogger Anthony Watts, a bête noire for most climate scientists, who has published photographs that document problems with hundreds of official U.S. government temperature stations. (Whether those problems affect reported climate trends is controversial.)
Muller spoke twice with ScienceInsider after testifying on 31 March before the science committee. Here are excerpts from those conversations.
Q: You testified that the scientists maintaining the three climate temperature sets—maintained by NASA, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.K. Met Office—have done "excellent" work. So how did you feel when the e-mails from the University of East Anglia emerged?
R.M.: I felt like a woman who's just learned her husband was cheating on her. It doesn't mean he's a bad husband in all ways, but that trust is lost. ... The e-mails didn't relate at all to the temperature work. … It was all the [paleotemperature] proxy data. [But] that disillusioned me.
Q: What does your initial examination of 2% of world temperature stations find in terms of world climate?
R.M.: Some [readings] are going down—but more are going up. The average is going up.
Q: You compared U.S. climate trends from some 300 stations deemed well or moderately-well located with 800 stations that are poorly sited. What did you find?
R.M.: There was no statistical difference [in the data] between the good groups and the bad groups.
Q: Why was that surprising?
R.M.: Because the stations were so bad. … You see stations right up against buildings, next to heat sources.
Q: How is your technique different than the methods used by the teams analyzing the three major datasets?
R.M.: [Their goal is] to generate long continuous methods. … If there was a change, [like] a station moved, they would adjust the data to try to eliminate that. [But] it makes me very uncomfortable when you adjust the data. … [So] we just cut the data at that point [and create two shorter records]. It means we wind up in our analysis with [not very many] continuous records.
Q: Did you have any trouble getting access to data? Access was central to the fight that led to the East Anglia e-mail flap.
R.M.: We believe we have 95% of the data that the U.K. [Met Office] is not releasing. ... Merging the data—from 16 sources—we found there is a great deal of overlap.
Q: You say that "openness and transparency" are central to your project. So why present your findings to Congress before describing your methods in a publication that everybody can read?
R.M.: We were originally planning to submit a paper at the same time as the testimony, to a journal which would allow simultaneous publication of the draft online. ... This is a problem that causes us great concern. What do you do when you are working on [something] and Congress asks you to testify? It's a difficult issue.
Q: Did photos on [skeptic] Anthony Watts' Web site showing official temperature gauges in flawed locations like parking lots inspire you to get involved in the debate over the accuracy of the weather stations ?
R.M.: I realized that Watts was doing something that was of importance. The issues he raised needed to be addressed. It made me seriously wonder whether the reported global warming may be biased by poor station quality. Watts is a hero for what he's done. So is [prominent skeptic blogger] Steve McIntyre.
Q: What are you hoping to accomplish with Berkeley Earth?
R.M.: There's a huge penumbra of scientists who have … heard from prominent scientists that the debate is over, it's all been settled and so on. … [So] when they stumble across things like the Watts pictures they're disturbed. ...They feel that many of these questions haven't been answered. What I'm hoping to do is calm the debate.
Q: What's next for your project?
R.M.: Very soon we hope to have both the data and the programs online. And if you don't like our results, my [advice] is to change the program, but be open and transparent about it. Let us know what you changed. If there's some assumption we make that you think is invalid than change the assumption and run the programs and see what answer you get. I'm hoping that if we make it that open and that accessible that the people who are interested in the answer … will be won over.
Q: Are there any other lines of research that you want to pursue?
R.M.: We're applying for funding to study the ocean temperature data. That will allow us to get a true global picture of temperature trends.
*This item has been corrected. Anthony Watts was originally identified as Andrew.
FGB
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2013
- Posts
- 7,368
Keep in perspective... or is that prospective?
http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm
http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
It hasn't? OK then.
FGB
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2013
- Posts
- 7,368
"It has long been thought that the great Ice Ages came and went on time scales measured in thousands of years, and less momentous changes--such as the Holocene Maximum or the Little Ice Age--over the span of several centuries. Current studies and more recent paleodata have revealed quite another face of the climate system, called "abrupt transitions," in which major shifts in some components of the Earth's climate are accomplished on time scales of decades or less.
Initially proposed, and later verified, was the revolutionary notion that the large-scale circulation in the North Atlantic could persist in one of two patterns, or states, both of which were quite stable, with the possibility of abrupt switching between the two. In the first, the warm Gulf Stream that flows along the eastern coast of the U.S. continues northward, reaching beyond the British Isles to the Norwegian Sea, ameliorating the climate of northwest Europe. James Joyce aptly referred to this condition in Ulysses, when he wrote that "All Ireland is washed by the Gulf Stream."
In the other possible mode, the northward extension of the Gulf Stream is weakened by a reduction in the salinity of surface waters in high latitude regions of the North Atlantic. With less salt, seawater is not as dense, and is less able to sink during normal wintertime cooling. Restricting the ability of the North Atlantic to circulate water downward limits the amount flowing in from the warm Gulf Stream. The result of this "short-circuit" in ocean circulation is a much cooler climate for all who live downstream, including Northern Europe.
The surprising evidence from the paleoclimate record is how quickly the switch between warm and cold states can be accomplished. Evidence from ice-age portions of recent Greenland ice cores suggests that changes of this sort may have taken place in the past in the span of five to ten years. These abrupt transitions are most likely linked to an increase in the release of icebergs from continental glaciers, which on melting contribute large volumes of freshwater into the ocean, systematically reducing the local salinity."
FGB
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2013
- Posts
- 7,368
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
You cannot argue math and science and significant figures, margins of error and made up legends with a religious zealot.
Phrodeaux believes that Al Gore is Gaia's holly angel sent down from the non-heavens to preach the word of Terra-firma salvation.
Phrodeaux believes that Al Gore is Gaia's holly angel sent down from the non-heavens to preach the word of Terra-firma salvation.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
You're a model of religious tolerance, aren't you?
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 28,290
I'd love to talk science & significant figures.
Let's talk about what happens when you raise a mammal's body temperature by .5 degrees Celsius.
U
unregistered
Guest
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
This happens when the ambient temperature of the mammals environment goes up .5 degrees? Or does the mammalian body have a temperature regulating system?
You do know, that on any given day, the ambient temperate varies far more than 1/2 a degree, right?
Did you also want to discuss the 'science' of what happens to a mammal's body when you kill it, skin it, gut it, and through it on the grill?
How about if when I mention that the water has risen a 1/2 an inch you tell me that not all mammals can drown if you gather 1/2 inch of precipitation at a time till you have a bucketful and hold their head under it?
FWIW, the nonsequiter wasn't clever the first few dozen times it was used.
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 28,290
That sounds like a big no, which is disappointing after you said people didn't want to talk about it.
Remember, we're talking about an average here, so the fluctuating isn't an issue. I'd like to talk about what would happen if you raised a mammal's average body temperature .5 degrees Celsius, although I'd prefer we used the latest data which is .61 degrees Celsius.
We can talk about that other stuff that isn't at all related to the thread someone else.
You ran away from this topic a few months ago, just like you're running away from it now.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
This is the sort of quixotic post that makes me think you are just fucking with people.
NO ONE is this fucking stupid.
If the outside temperature was up an average of 6.1 degrees not .61 degrees a mammals body temperature would not be raised at all.
Mammals can survive from sub-zero temperatures all the way up to 130 degrees. Global warming at its most alarmist level will not raise a mammals body temperature at all. Not a single degree. Not half a degree, not a tenth of a degree. Mammals are self, temperature regulating.
Maybe you are thinking of reptiles. They depend on ambient temperatures and are dormant when it gets cold. They, however, thrive in warm weather.
No one is "running away" from your abject stupidity when they directly address your IDIOTIC concerns.
Enjoy. That is the very last time I will waste a single keystroke on your relentlessly obtuse questions.
NO ONE is this fucking stupid.
If the outside temperature was up an average of 6.1 degrees not .61 degrees a mammals body temperature would not be raised at all.
Mammals can survive from sub-zero temperatures all the way up to 130 degrees. Global warming at its most alarmist level will not raise a mammals body temperature at all. Not a single degree. Not half a degree, not a tenth of a degree. Mammals are self, temperature regulating.
Maybe you are thinking of reptiles. They depend on ambient temperatures and are dormant when it gets cold. They, however, thrive in warm weather.
No one is "running away" from your abject stupidity when they directly address your IDIOTIC concerns.
Enjoy. That is the very last time I will waste a single keystroke on your relentlessly obtuse questions.
Last edited:
U
unregistered
Guest
Similar threads
