New independent study confirms global warming

nilhg

An independent study partly funded by climate change skeptics has come up with results which pretty much mirror the disputed "hockey stick" graph.

A good report is here on the BBC site


All the data and methodology used is available on the project's website and the team are asking for comments and feedback before they publish a final report.


Some interesting work on the effect of the Atlantic SST's on global temperatures in there too.

bb1234567

i thought it was proven ages ago that the globe was defintely warming no? the REAL question is ,is it man made or is the earth going through cyclical warming and cooling phases? i dont think its man made i think it just the earth doing what it does:)

Sponge Bob

Bit of controversy from one of the major dataset sceptics here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/#more-49601

thetonynator

All the controversies about weather stations being on tarmac in airports over the last 20 years, and the effect of jet engines on readings and this is the picture they choose to put with the article:

fizzycyst

bb1234567 wrote: »

i thought it was proven ages ago that the globe was defintely warming no? the REAL question is ,is it man made or is the earth going through cyclical warming and cooling phases? i dont think its man made i think it just the earth doing what it does:)

Any evidence to back up this up?

Not saying you're wrong but we can't just make assumptions because we're more comfortable with a certain agenda. We need to look for evidence, and I believe the evidence is heavily weighted toward "man-made" global warming, at least to some degree, at this point.

thetonynator

thetonynator wrote: »

All the controversies about weather stations being on tarmac in airports over the last 20 years, and the effect of jet engines on readings and this is the picture they choose to put with the article:

I suspect that someone in the BBC thinks that the article has "cooked" some of the data, be interesting to see how long that image remains on the website.

sharper

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Bit of controversy from one of the major dataset sceptics here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/#more-49601

Yes Watts is annoyed because he's been claiming for years the surface records are wrong and manipulated. His own published paper demonstrated warming trends were not a function of site quality and therefore agrees with the BEST analysis.

So now he's in the bizarre position of trying to stick to his idealogical guns against his own published work and against BEST which he earlier claimed he's support regardless of the conclusion reached.

He's raised no actual controversy with the BEST results, just quibbles because they coordinated their press release with publication which is common practise.

For years before his published his peer reviewed paper Watts was publishing stuff like this

The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”.

That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century

His published paper concludes

Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications.

Neither Watt's nor the BEST publication are at all surprising to people familiar with the topic. Of course that won't stop sceptics from continuing to claim it's all a fraud or whatever.

opinion guy

nilhg wrote: »

A god report is here on the BBC site

I would assume, now that God has apparently weighed in with his report, that this 'controversy' is settled ? I mean the republicans aren't going to argue with God are they ?????:eek:

Ben Hadad

Why in the rush to provide "balance" do media organisations need to give equal weight to stances that are scientifically shown to be wrong. Surely now there is no need to even publish climate skeptics points of view. They are beginning to remind me of comical Ali at this stage.