Berkelely group, preliminary results

[Si modo]

And when someone presents articles from Science, Nature, or the lectures at the AGU and GSA conventions, you state that is politics. LOL

When you can back that up with something written in my own words, some will believe you.

As you can't, you're posting bullshit. As usual.

Don't lie about me or my views.

 

[Oddball]

And when someone presents articles from Science, Nature, or the lectures at the AGU and GSA conventions, you state that is politics. LOL

Right...As long as the hoaxers stand by their story, you'll stand by them.

Perish the idea that an independently arrived upon thought permeate your cement head.

 

[konradv]

And when someone presents articles from Science, Nature, or the lectures at the AGU and GSA conventions, you state that is politics. LOL

Right...As long as the hoaxers stand by their story, you'll stand by them.

Perish the idea that an independently arrived upon thought permeate your cement head.

Don't really see any independence from you either. You ridicule all the science from the AGW side, because it goes against your lockstep political views!!!

 

[Two Thumbs]

Looks like Muller has confirmed Hansen, Mann, and everybody else.

April 4, 2011
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

hipinion.com • View topic - "scientists were right about global warming" say critics

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

...............................................................................


Over the years, Muller has praised Watts' efforts to show that weather station data in official studies are untrustworthy because of the urban heat island effect, which boosts temperature readings in areas that have been encroached on by cities and suburbs.

But leading climatologists said the previous studies accounted for the effect, and the Berkeley analysis is confirming that, Muller acknowledged. "Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming?" he asked in his written testimony. "We've studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no."

From the link;

Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.



Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman who runs the skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat.com, wrote that the Berkeley group is releasing results that are not "fully working and debugged yet.... But, post normal science political theater is like that."



Temperature data are gathered from tens of thousands of weather stations around the globe, many of which have incomplete records. Over the last two decades, three independent groups have used different combinations of stations and varying statistical methods and yet arrived at nearly identical conclusions: The planet's surface, on average, has warmed about 0.75 degrees centigrade (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the beginning of the 20th century.




Much ado about nothing. 1.4 degrees in 100 years? the horror of it all.

 

[Oddball]

And when someone presents articles from Science, Nature, or the lectures at the AGU and GSA conventions, you state that is politics. LOL

Right...As long as the hoaxers stand by their story, you'll stand by them.

Perish the idea that an independently arrived upon thought permeate your cement head.

Don't really see any independence from you either. You ridicule all the science from the AGW side, because it goes against your lockstep political views!!!

I used to buy into the hoax, up until the time that I let an independent thought enter into my head...

It was then that I noticed that virtually everything is being blamed on gullible warming.....It's not falsifiable.

Then I noticed that the alleged phenomenon can't be physically bench tested on demand.

Then I noticed that there is no static control model, other than computer models that are only as perfect as the imperfect people writing the code and controlling what data is added/omitted.

Then I noticed that when you point these things out, you get branded a "denier" and accused of being in the pockets of the "polluters".

Then I noticed that the "solutions" are the same ones supported by every other collectivist authoritarian tyrant throughout history: Higher taxes and less freedom for you and me, and more money, prestige and power for them.

Then along came Warmergate....Then along came IPCC hacks using opinion pieces as "peer reviewed" research....Then along came IPCC insiders admitting that the whole process is hopelessly politicized....

Your little hoaxer scam is crashing like a house of cards in the breeze, Buckwheat.

 

[IanC]

And when someone presents articles from Science, Nature, or the lectures at the AGU and GSA conventions, you state that is politics. LOL

Right...As long as the hoaxers stand by their story, you'll stand by them.

Perish the idea that an independently arrived upon thought permeate your cement head.

The writing is on the wall. Very soon the AGW alarmists will only be claiming that 50% or less of the warming is CO2 induced instead of all of it, and pretending that is what they were saying all along. And the revisionists like Old Rock & Co will find lots of links to prove it. They will show, without doubt, that only the media was making such wild and reckless claims, totally inconsistent with what the real scientists had been saying all along.

 

[IanC]

Looks like Muller has confirmed Hansen, Mann, and everybody else.

April 4, 2011
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

hipinion.com • View topic - "scientists were right about global warming" say critics

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

just to keep this post current.

Initial Findings
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has not yet done the analysis of the full data set with the corrections to produce a global surface temperature trend. We are first analyzing a small subset of data (2%) to check our programs and statistical methods and make sure that they are functioning effectively. We are correcting our programs and methods while still “blind” to the results so that there is less chance of inadvertently introducing a bias.

A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

what BEST actually says rather than Old Rocks interpretation.

here is one part of a Muller lecture on climate-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1sNBaHx2cw]YouTube - Climate Change 8of12: Probability of Anthropogenic Causes[/ame]
his views on the IPCC report is that he believes it to be a good description of what is going on. he believes in global warming although he is critical of some of the exaggerations.

but he is willing to contemplate 'disaster'--
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f57tvEFCqbw]YouTube - Richard Muller: Global Warming Is 'Likely Disastrous'[/ame]

Muller is not exactly the climate skeptic that Old Rocks would like to make him out to be



like I said before, we shall see when the BEST database is actually released.

 

[wirebender]

I am waiting to see what they say about the arctic. Hansen et al base much of their global warming on increasing temperatures in the arctic and other places that are not monitored by temperature gathering stations. The test (for me) will be whether or not they expose this practice of adjusting temps up in broad areas where ground data simply does not exist.

 

[IanC]

I am waiting to see what they say about the arctic. Hansen et al base much of their global warming on increasing temperatures in the arctic and other places that are not monitored by temperature gathering stations. The test (for me) will be whether or not they expose this practice of adjusting temps up in broad areas where ground data simply does not exist.

yup. Hansen is spending his remaining reputation on propping up his theories and it shows by the widening differences between his database and the others, especially the satellite data.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really?

Arctic Surface Air Temperatures for the Past 100 Years

 

[IanC]

interesting link OR. I would be a lot more convinced if the data matched up with the writen historical reports of decreased ice in the early warming period.

 

[rdean]

YouTube - What does climate change mean for the US Navy?

AGU and the US Navy

this is the coldest fucking march and april iv ever seen. I'm not kidding...i pray to god it warms up soon.

That's like saying, "No one is poor where I live, so there must not be any poor people".

Or better yet, "No one I know is a scientist, so there must not be any Republican scientists". Actually, the number is very low, 6% or less. Probably much less.

 

[skookerasbil]

Anybody else see this on the other thread???

Deans solution to the rising gasoline prices.................

 

[bripat9643]

Looks like Muller has confirmed Hansen, Mann, and everybody else.

April 4, 2011
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

Berkley scientist who want to challenge the Chicken Little theory of AGW?

The incredulity factor of your story is already off the scale. There's no need to read any further.