Richard Muller, a cantankerous but creative physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who once derided climate change research, then dove in with his own reconstruction of terrestrial temperature changes and confirmed substantial warming, has now concluded that recent warming is “almost entirely” human caused.
He claims his new analysis, which is being posted later today for public review but has not yet been peer reviewed (more on that below), provides an even firmer view of human-driven warming than the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Here’s the general flow of events, which are — as Keith Kloor noted overnight — “great fodder for the long-running soap opera, ‘As the Climate World Turns.’”
I was looking for the part where they talk about all the fires and what percentage they contribute.
bumper sticker - honk if you will pay my mortgage
"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." attributed to Margaret Thatcher
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson
Raees wrote: Richard Muller, a cantankerous but creative physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who once derided climate change research, then dove in with his own reconstruction of terrestrial temperature changes and confirmed substantial warming, has now concluded that recent warming is “almost entirely” human caused.
He claims his new analysis, which is being posted later today for public review but has not yet been peer reviewed (more on that below), provides an even firmer view of human-driven warming than the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Here’s the general flow of events, which are — as Keith Kloor noted overnight — “great fodder for the long-running soap opera, ‘As the Climate World Turns.’”
That's rather interesting since in the July 28th 2012 op-ed that he penned himself in the NYT Muller says...
It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years or work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.
The new rating method employed finds that station siting does indeed have a significant effect on temperature trends”
Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and was endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.
Other findings include, but are not limited to:
· Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.
· Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.
· Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.
· Urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites.
· The raw data Tmean trend for well sited stations is 0.15°C per decade lower than adjusted Tmean trend for poorly sited stations.
· Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.
These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.
Raees wrote: Richard Muller, a cantankerous but creative physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who once derided climate change research, then dove in with his own reconstruction of terrestrial temperature changes and confirmed substantial warming, has now concluded that recent warming is “almost entirely” human caused.
He claims his new analysis, which is being posted later today for public review but has not yet been peer reviewed (more on that below), provides an even firmer view of human-driven warming than the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Here’s the general flow of events, which are — as Keith Kloor noted overnight — “great fodder for the long-running soap opera, ‘As the Climate World Turns.’”
That's rather interesting since in the July 28th 2012 op-ed that he penned himself in the NYT Muller says...
It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
Just to clarify, your link pretty much matches the original link in that Muller is now saying humans are the main cause of warming during the last 250 years.
What your link adds is Muller also saying that global warming alarmists exagerate the effects of recent warming. To add more from your link, Muller says...
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.
As I mentioned I'm just clarifying because I was confused with the similar links.
pineinthegrass wrote: Just to clarify, your link pretty much matches the original link in that Muller is now saying humans are the main cause of warming during the last 250 years.
What your link adds is Muller also saying that global warming alarmists exagerate the effects of recent warming. To add more from your link, Muller says...
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.
As I mentioned I'm just clarifying because I was confused with the similar links.
To a paper that is gong to be released for peer review proves that the temperature data that has been collected for the last 30 years from siting temperature gauges all across the US has been skewed.
And these links are to the paper itself and the supporting material (for those who can read scientific jargon)...
The first, led by “converted skeptic” University of California-Berkeley professor Richard Muller, claims almost all of the warming observed in modern times is due to human activities. The second, led by blogger Anthony Watts, in an apparent attempt to diminish the impact of the Muller paper, argues warming in the U.S. since 1979 is about half the amount calculated by NOAA.
Peer review is the primary pillar of scientific legitimacy. Without it, a study has little to support it - which brings us to the Watts study.
...given the serious accusations Watts et al. make about the integrity of NOAA’s temperature analysis, it’s critical NOAA be given the opportunity to respond just as they did the last time Watts issued such a challenge in 2009.. NOAA’s U.S. temperature record has been painstakingly constructed by many scientists over many years and many peer-reviewed publications support its methodologies.
this new effort by these scientists to grab attention for studies that have not yet been vetted by other, independent scientists is disturbing and unproductive. It’s a disingenuous attempt to score points on a highly polarized scientific issue.
My advice? Ignore these publicity stunts and pay no attention to these studies until they have passed peer review.
And then weigh them against the accumulated, previously accepted peer-reviewed data to see if they improve our understanding, refine the models and methodologies at all, better explain some unclear points, or bring up new contentions to test. One paper is not going to make or break the wealth of data gathered so far.
In fact, the entire team seems dedicated to providing an open source, fully transparent, and replicable method no matter whether their new metric shows a trend of warming, cooling, or no trend at all, which is how it should be. I’ve seen some of the methodology, and I’m pleased to say that their design handles many of the issues skeptics have raised and has done so in ways that are unique to the problem.
And, 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. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.
My response, penned days ago, went unheeded as far as I can tell, because I’ve received no response from Muller or the Journal author. Apparently, PR trumps the scientific process now, no need to do that pesky peer review, no need to address the errors with those you ask for comments prior to publication, just get it to press.
This is sad, because I had very high hopes for this project as the methodology is looked very promising to get a better handle on station discontinuity issues with their “scalpel” method. Now it looks just like another rush to judgement, peer review be damned.
Says the guy who just released his paper prior to peer-reviewed publication and on the same day as Muller. :faint:
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Science Chic wrote: Says the guy who just released his paper prior to peer-reviewed publication and on the same day as Muller.
Past comment by Muller or Watts has nothing to do with the validity of the new papers. We'll just have to wait for the peer reviews and/or the backlash. You're quick to try to shoot Watts down, not so much on providing you OWN reasons as to why his new paper is wrong.
I can clip and paste till the cows comes home too!
I didn't say it was wrong. I said wait until it's peer-reviewed, then weigh it against the accumulated evidence so far. Just like that last bit of sludge that contrarians tried to use to claim that global warming was debunked due to tree ring studies done on only one small portion of the world and covering only a small segment in time. It's ridiculous to make any claims unless you look at the bigger picture, and his claim that the NOAA data is fudged has yet to be proven, and even if it does turn out that he's right, it doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening - he himself has admitted as much - it would just mean that it's not as immediately severe as previously thought but will still be a huge problem.
Nothing that Watts has ever claimed has withstood peer-reviewed publication so I have yet to be convinced by anything that man tries to state as fact. But yes, I will wait and see.
And expect that the next argument that the peer-reviewed process is compromised will be forth-coming soon.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Science Chic wrote: I didn't say it was wrong. I said wait until it's peer-reviewed, then weigh it against the accumulated evidence so far. Just like that last bit of sludge that contrarians tried to use to claim that global warming was debunked due to tree ring studies done on only one small portion of the world and covering only a small segment in time. It's ridiculous to make any claims unless you look at the bigger picture, and his claim that the NOAA data is fudged has yet to be proven, and even if it does turn out that he's right, it doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening - he himself has admitted as much - it would just mean that it's not as immediately severe as previously thought but will still be a huge problem.
Nothing that Watts has ever claimed has withstood peer-reviewed publication so I have yet to be convinced by anything that man tries to state as fact. But yes, I will wait and see.
And expect that the next argument that the peer-reviewed process is compromised will be forth-coming soon.
I still haven't seen anything from your pen as to to your opinion on Watts new study. I'm not a scientist, so the most I can do is follow the news about it, were as you have claimed to know a lot more about all this climate change stuff. So... your initial opinion on his paper?
I'm not going to read his paper until it's peer-reviewed; I've got too many other higher-priority things going on at the moment to spend time reading something that might not even pass muster. That goes for Muller's work too.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
