New climate study deals blow to skeptics

Discuss the live critter cams, animals and green topics around the planet.

Moderators: Kenya, webearthonline

Post Reply
User avatar
webearthonline
Global Moderator
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:18 am
Contact:

New climate study deals blow to skeptics

Post by webearthonline »

Here is the latest news on global warming:

"New climate study deals blow to skeptics
By Matthew Knight, CNN
October 21, 2011 -- Updated 1122 GMT (1922 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Independent study concludes global land temperatures have risen since 1950s
Study examined 1.6 billion weather reports from nearly 40,000 weather stations
Climate skeptic concern over "urban heat island effect" not borne out by research
Study also finds no evidence of data selection bias claimed by skeptics

London (CNN) -- An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real.

The new analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project examined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 data archives stretching back over 200 years in an effort to address scientific concerns raised by climate skeptics about the data used to inform reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Researchers found "reliable evidence" of a rise in average world land temperatures of one degrees Celsius since the mid-1950s.

"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the United States and the UK," professor Richard A. Muller, Berkeley Earth's scientific director said in a statement.

"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions," Muller added.

Climate skeptics have consistently challenged the findings of studies by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the UK's University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, whose research is used by the IPCC.

Many skeptics argue that the urban heat island effect may be distorting temperature rises and too much data gathered from weather stations is of poor quality.
This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions
Richard A. Muller, Berkeley Earth founder

They also contend that data selection has been biased -- a charge which gained credence during the so-called "Climategate" scandal in 2009, when thousands of private emails from the UK's University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) were published on the Internet.

'Climategate' explained

The charge that CRU scientists and other climate scientists had manipulated data was rejected by an independent review in July 2010.

But doubts persisted in many climate skeptic's minds.

Addressing these concerns directly, the new study has concluded that while the urban heat island effect is "locally large and real" it "does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise."

On the issue of data from poor stations the study found that they showed "the same pattern of global warming as stations ranked 'ok'" and "that there is not any undue bias from including poor stations in the survey."
Lead scientist at Berkeley Earth, Robert Rohde said that the study was the first to address issues concerning data bias and used nearly all available data, which amounted to five times more station locations (39,000 compared to 7,280) than reviewed by prior groups.

In total, around one third of temperature sites around the world reported global cooling since the 1950s but the remaining two thirds showed warming, according to the study.

The study has now been submitted for peer review.

Professor Phil Jones, the director of research at CRU who considered suicide during the furore over the "Climategate" scandal, said he looked forward to reading the finalized paper when it is published.

"These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal," Jones said in a statement.

Muller conceded that the study's remit did not extend to questions about how much warming has been influenced by human activity.

Berkeley Earth plan to address ocean temperatures (which the IPCC state has not warmed as much as land) in their next study, with a view to gaining a more accurate view of the total amount of observable global warming."
weo
User avatar
webearthonline
Global Moderator
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:18 am
Contact:

Re: New climate study deals blow to skeptics

Post by webearthonline »

Also in the news,

Climate change: now is not the time to renege on green pledges


"The Observer, Saturday 22 October 2011

Charles Koch is a billionaire and a climate warming sceptic. At least, he was until last week when a study that he part-funded indicated that estimates of global temperature increases in the past century had not, after all, been artificially boosted by the "urban heat island" effect.

Sceptics such as Mr Koch had argued that data had been skewed by temperature stations being engulfed by, or moved closer to, cities. Now, a study by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in California has demonstrated that "very rural" temperature stations miles from new towns or cities have recorded global warming of 0.9% since 1900. Global warming, according to believers in climate change, is directly attributable to the increasing emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Climate change urgently demands that we overcome cultural, social, political and economic barriers to act together to cushion its impact. That requires strong leadership and long-term vision. If we collectively fail to act now, then the potential result, on an international scale, could be instability, conflict and collapse as water becomes an increasingly rare resource, food production is adversely affected and energy sources become more vulnerable."

weo
Post Reply