Is the planet warming?- truly independent study a resounding YES

[Strongbad]

You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, I don't even see the word denier anywhere. Second of all, some skeptics (like Anthony Watts) ARE deniers and deserve zero respect. Muller IS a skeptic and he does not appear to fully understand the evidence that humans are causing the warming. Nevertheless, his conclusions about the magnitude of warming are correct. He's not 'admitting' that they didn't assess the causes of the warming. He's saying that because he apparently has doubts that the warming is caused by humans. He's a skeptic and he's wrong. But his temperature analysis is sound.

What I don't understand is why we let you get away with anything? Muller is not a skeptic, it really is that plain and simple. I have already posted proof in his website, along with his statements in the WSJ. You are making these statements as if they were factual, but don't provide a lick of evidence. Muller only questioned Mann's ridiculously absurd Hockey Stick because most scientists with a shred of decency or brains admit it is a fraud. Muller is a proponent of Geoengineering. Something you can only believe in IF you are a proponent of the importance of AGW science.

The lack of effort you put in your posts can be insulting. If you prefer to believe otherwise then you are swimming in a world of delusion. Enjoy drowning.

[tacoman25]

Seriously? How long have you been around here posting your unfounded opinion of GISS? And yet you have developed almost no basic familiarity with the methodology or data used?

20% of the stations used were classified as urban in the 1999 analysis (>50,000 pop). http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf

The reason that when the UHI adjustment is made there is almost no effect is that 1) Urban stations are only 20% of the total. 2) 70% of the world is ocean not land. 3) The urban stations were only used for a very small area because they are surrounded by other rural stations which are also used. Rural stations tend to 'occupy' or be extrapolated over a much larger area.

Of course now the urban stations are not used at all really b/c their long-term trend is adjusted to = that of nearby rural stations. The only purpose they serve now is to reduce the year to year sampling error but make no contribution to the long-term trend.

My unfounded opinion of GISS? All I have done is point out the divergences.

That is a very incomplete explanation. Remember all of the things I mentioned: increased concrete, blacktop, and land use changes like deforestation that also effect many areas >50,000.

[skierinvermont]

What I don't understand is why we let you get away with anything? Muller is not a skeptic, it really is that plain and simple. I have already posted proof in his website, along with his statements in the WSJ. You are making these statements as if they were factual, but don't provide a lick of evidence. Muller only questioned Mann's ridiculously absurd Hockey Stick because most scientists with a shred of decency or brains admit it is a fraud. Muller is a proponent of Geoengineering. Something you can only believe in IF you are a proponent of the importance of AGW science.

The lack of effort you put in your posts can be insulting. If you prefer to believe otherwise then you are swimming in a world of delusion. Enjoy drowning.

I read the WSJ article. He didn't say denier anywhere. And he ends it by insinuating that doubt about man-made warming is reasonable. He's a skeptic and he's wrong. It is not reasonable.

Plenty of skeptics 'believe in' geoengineering. In fact, geoengineering is advocated much much more by skeptics than AGW scientists. Why? Because AGW scientists, being scientists, understand how dangerous geoengineering is, while skeptics, being unscientific morons, don't understand the dangers and readily embrace it in their unending quest to prove that global warming is no big deal. You see it on this forum all the time with many of the so-called skeptics embracing geoengineering while I and other more scientifically minded individuals point out the flaws and dangers. It's funny how skeptics latch on to ANY idea which disputes the seriousness of AGW. It's not that they find that there are some errors here and there. Deniers think that ANYTHING which disputes the seriousness of AGW is true and anything which suggests AGW might be a problem is wrong. That's just one of the obvious ways you can tell they are agenda driven rather than fact driven. It would be an awfully large coincidence for every single shred of theory and data which supports AGW to be wrong while every single shred of theory and data which disputes it is correct.

[skierinvermont]

My unfounded opinion of GISS? All I have done is point out the divergences.

That is a very incomplete explanation. Remember all of the things I mentioned: increased concrete, blacktop, and land use changes like deforestation that also effect many areas >50,000.

Which is why they ensure proper station siting. And as the surfacestations project showed once again there is no station siting bias.

UHI is generally differentiated from station siting issues although the line is not entirely black and white. UHI is what you get when you put a thermometer in central park and then a huge metropolitan area of 10+ million people grows up around it. It's in a park, far away from blacktop and buildings, but the UHI effect still creates a bias. Station siting issues you can get in the most rural areas by building a building or paving blacktop near a thermometer.

[PhillipS]

Seriously? Blooming trees change on a year to year basis. Let's stick to the real science.

Yes, seriously. That branch of science is called phenology. Wikipedia has an entry on it. Perhaps you will learn something.

Ignorance is curable - but as comedian Ron White says "there's no pill you can take for stupid".

[tacoman25]

not at all. I don't understand why you would think so.

Others have argued that we shouldn't care about studies until they pass peer review. C'mon, don't play dumb here, my point is pretty clear.

[Strongbad]

I read the WSJ article. He didn't say denier anywhere. And he ends it by insinuating that doubt about man-made warming is reasonable. He's a skeptic and he's wrong. It is not reasonable.

Plenty of skeptics 'believe in' geoengineering. In fact, geoengineering is advocated much much more by skeptics than AGW scientists. Why? Because AGW scientists, being scientists, understand how dangerous geoengineering is, while skeptics, being unscientific morons, don't understand the dangers and readily embrace it in their unending quest to prove that global warming is no big deal. You see it on this forum all the time with many of the so-called skeptics embracing geoengineering while I and other more scientifically minded individuals point out the flaws and dangers. It's funny how skeptics latch on to ANY idea which disputes the seriousness of AGW. It's not that they find that there are some errors here and there. Deniers think that ANYTHING which disputes the seriousness of AGW is true and anything which suggests AGW might be a problem is wrong. That's just one of the obvious ways you can tell they are agenda driven rather than fact driven. It would be an awfully large coincidence for every single shred of theory and data which supports AGW to be wrong while every single shred of theory and data which disputes it is correct.

The sad thing is that you don't even bother to verify your own misunderstanding of the science. Whether or not you like it, this seems to be something plenty of environmentalists are for.

Off of Wikipedia:

The modern concept of geoengineering (or climate engineering) describes deliberately manipulating the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. Other uses of the word sometimes occur.

The National Academy of Sciences defined geoengineering as "options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry." ^[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in 2007 that geoengineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, remained largely unproven.^[2] It was judged that reliable cost estimates for geoengineering had not yet been published.

If my understanding is correct, you have to believe in the dangers of AGW in order to believe in geoengineering. Why would skeptics care about geoengineering if they doubt the dangers AGW'ers love to suggest?

Source

[skierinvermont]

If my understanding is correct, you have to believe in the dangers of AGW in order to believe in geoengineering. Why would skeptics care about geoengineering if they doubt the dangers AGW'ers love to suggest?

Source

I don't know, you'd have to ask them. But the large majority of 'skeptics' I have met are firm believers that geoengineering could be used to avert AGW on the off chance that AGW is real. My guess is that this belief is just another cog in their agenda driven belief that AGW is not a serious issue.

[skierinvermont]

Others have argued that we shouldn't care about studies until they pass peer review. C'mon, don't play dumb here, my point is pretty clear.

If this paper were to be blocked by peer review or there were any remote potential that it would be blocked, you might have a point. As it is, it will likely make it through perhaps with some revisions.

[tacoman25]

I read the WSJ article. He didn't say denier anywhere. And he ends it by insinuating that doubt about man-made warming is reasonable. He's a skeptic and he's wrong. It is not reasonable.

Plenty of skeptics 'believe in' geoengineering. In fact, geoengineering is advocated much much more by skeptics than AGW scientists. Why? Because AGW scientists, being scientists, understand how dangerous geoengineering is, while skeptics, being unscientific morons, don't understand the dangers and readily embrace it in their unending quest to prove that global warming is no big deal. You see it on this forum all the time with many of the so-called skeptics embracing geoengineering while I and other more scientifically minded individuals point out the flaws and dangers. It's funny how skeptics latch on to ANY idea which disputes the seriousness of AGW. It's not that they find that there are some errors here and there. Deniers think that ANYTHING which disputes the seriousness of AGW is true and anything which suggests AGW might be a problem is wrong. That's just one of the obvious ways you can tell they are agenda driven rather than fact driven. It would be an awfully large coincidence for every single shred of theory and data which supports AGW to be wrong while every single shred of theory and data which disputes it is correct.

Give me a break. Not only is calling all skeptics "morons" ridiculous, but acting like scientists always know better than to tamper with science that could be dangerous is also ridiculous - and quite frankly, moronic.

[tacoman25]

If this paper were to be blocked by peer review or there were any remote potential that it would be blocked, you might have a point. As it is, it will likely make it through perhaps with some revisions.

That doesn't affect my point at all.

Because of the conclusions of the paper (fitting your expectations), peer review is a mere afterthought. Far different than your, and others, approach to peer review in the past. If the standard is that a paper needs to be peer-reviewed first, and then if it passes and is published it gains scientific merit, then that standard should be applied evenly across the board.

[tacoman25]

this is the best part based on the crap posted in this thread:

http://thinkprogress...global-warming/

And all this proves is that the value and necessity of peer review is subjective, often depending on the paper being discussed and the beliefs of the person evaluating. Watts is a hypocrite and so are others on the other side of the debate.

[tacoman25]

huh?

Thank you for this articulate expression of your confusion. It says everything and nothing all at once.

[tacoman25]

The study has been very transparent and spearheaded by a self described skeptic. I kinda wish they would had waited until the papers got through peer review.

But skiier says that skeptics are unscientific morons. Should we really trust a study produced by a moron?

[tacoman25]

it doesn't prove that at all.

you don't seem to have the first idea of what peer review is.

We've discussed peer review on this forum many times before, there is no logical reason for you to honestly believe that.

[skierinvermont]

Give me a break. Not only is calling all skeptics "morons" ridiculous, but acting like scientists always know better than to tamper with science that could be dangerous is also ridiculous - and quite frankly, moronic.

Where is your sense of humor? I thought you were all about bringing humor to these threads.

[skierinvermont]

That doesn't affect my point at all.

Because of the conclusions of the paper (fitting your expectations), peer review is a mere afterthought. Far different than your, and others, approach to peer review in the past. If the standard is that a paper needs to be peer-reviewed first, and then if it passes and is published it gains scientific merit, then that standard should be applied evenly across the board.

If we know nothing else about the paper then passing peer-review is a good standard to follow.

But if you actually understand the science behind the papers it is possible to pass judgment before peer-review has been passed and to anticipate what will and what will not pass peer-review. That's not to say that we can substitute our own judgment for peer review and accept arguments that are contrary to peer-reviewed wok. But if you have a good understanding of the peer-reviewed science then you should be able to make good judgments on your own prior to the review occurring. Now if you accept something as true which never makes it through peer-review, perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do. But in this case, because of my familiarity with the existing peer-reviewed science on the issue, I feel perfectly confident accepting the paper as scientifically valid before it has passed review.

[The_Global_Warmer]

That doesn't affect my point at all.

Because of the conclusions of the paper (fitting your expectations), peer review is a mere afterthought. Far different than your, and others, approach to peer review in the past. If the standard is that a paper needs to be peer-reviewed first, and then if it passes and is published it gains scientific merit, then that standard should be applied evenly across the board.

why are you doing this?

You know this type of paper is

1. Legit

2, Legit

3. Legit

4. This post above of yours is rubbish. You know this. This paper is special it was designed to be transparent and leave no doubt or create more questions. It happened to leave no doubt. Now your throwing a fit that people in this thread are being hypocritical because we say papers need to under go legit peer review. Now your trying to use that against us in some desperate act saying we should question the validity of this paper. Even though we all know this is a special case.

So I guess you think this paper is rubbish and needs to be peer reviewed before we can accept it?

Since that is your view...would you show us what you think is rubbish in the paper?

Or are you just throwing a fit because the facts are proving the Earth is warming and will continue to do so?

I Know your a smart guy I just don't know why you can't just accept the reality you know of instead of playing games like this.

[Mencken_Fan]

Therein lies the rub...because the vast majority of land surface area is not represented by thermometers. By and large, there are more thermometers in cities and towns than true rural areas. The thermometers are where the people are, and the population of the earth has increased by 600% over the past 100 years. Urbanization and sprawl have encompassed much larger areas across the globe. Add in land use changes like deforestation, increased pavement/concrete in populated areas, blacktop in urban areas, etc, and the average thermometer is representing a different landscape than it would have been in the same location 50 or 100 years ago.

Earth's population has increased 600% in the last hundred years - and thermometers are rising? Go figure.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Earth's population has increased 600% in the last hundred years - and thermometers are rising? Go figure.

Kinda Funny....I thought the same thing.

[Mencken_Fan]

Yes, seriously. That branch of science is called phenology. Wikipedia has an entry on it.

Ignorance is curable - but as comedian Ron White says "there's no pill you can take for stupid".

Good point (phenology); thanks for posting it.

I'm also a fan of Ron White but remember his punch line as: "you can't fix stupid."

By the way, in case you're not familiar with H.L. Mencken from Baltimore, Maryland (America's greatest intellectual during the first half of the 20th Century) I recommend Googling him. I bet you'd like him!

[tacoman25]

Where is your sense of humor? I thought you were all about bringing humor to these threads.

Calling people morons is funny? Was that supposed to be a joke? Nice copout, though.

[tacoman25]

why are you doing this?

You know this type of paper is

1. Legit

2, Legit

3. Legit

4. This post above of yours is rubbish. You know this. This paper is special it was designed to be transparent and leave no doubt or create more questions. It happened to leave no doubt. Now your throwing a fit that people in this thread are being hypocritical because we say papers need to under go legit peer review. Now your trying to use that against us in some desperate act saying we should question the validity of this paper. Even though we all know this is a special case.

So I guess you think this paper is rubbish and needs to be peer reviewed before we can accept it?

Since that is your view...would you show us what you think is rubbish in the paper?

Or are you just throwing a fit because the facts are proving the Earth is warming and will continue to do so?

I Know your a smart guy I just don't know why you can't just accept the reality you know of instead of playing games like this.

I don't think the paper is rubbish and I'm not playing games. I'm making a point about peer review, and the subjective nature it is regarded by...just like anything else.

[tacoman25]

If we know nothing else about the paper then passing peer-review is a good standard to follow.

But if you actually understand the science behind the papers it is possible to pass judgment before peer-review has been passed and to anticipate what will and what will not pass peer-review. That's not to say that we can substitute our own judgment for peer review and accept arguments that are contrary to peer-reviewed wok. But if you have a good understanding of the peer-reviewed science then you should be able to make good judgments on your own prior to the review occurring. Now if you accept something as true which never makes it through peer-review, perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do. But in this case, because of my familiarity with the existing peer-reviewed science on the issue, I feel perfectly confident accepting the paper as scientifically valid before it has passed review.

But some bad papers make it through peer review, and I'm sure there have been some good ones rejected. It doesn't guarantee anything, and you are revealing now that you believe the same thing.

[tacoman25]

But skiier says that skeptics are unscientific morons. Should we really trust a study produced by a moron?

Notice skiier's inability to respond to this. He cannot confront his own illogical inconsistencies.

[skierinvermont]

Notice skiier's inability to respond to this. He cannot confront his own illogical inconsistencies.

Inability? I didn't know you were so keen on a response.

Even morons can do some good work now and then. Surfacestations was pretty good too.

[skierinvermont]

But some bad papers make it through peer review, and I'm sure there have been some good ones rejected. It doesn't guarantee anything, and you are revealing now that you believe the same thing.

Of course I believe that but that has nothing to do with your accusations of hypocrisy.

So which is it taco... do you think that we should ignore this paper because it hasn't passed peer review yet, or do you think that peer review is unnecessary to science?

Or.. are you ready to stop playing games, stop creating a false black and white dichotomy, and admit that I can believe that peer-review is a good guide as to what is and is not good scientific work, but also accept work which has not yet been peer-reviewed because I understand the work itself and the fact that it likely will pass peer-review in the future?

[tacoman25]

Of course I believe that but that has nothing to do with your accusations of hypocrisy.

So which is it taco... do you think that we should ignore this paper because it hasn't passed peer review yet, or do you think that peer review is unnecessary to science?

Or.. are you ready to stop playing games, stop creating a false black and white dichotomy, and admit that I can believe that peer-review is a good guide as to what is and is not good scientific work, but also accept work which has not yet been peer-reviewed because I understand the work itself and the fact that it likely will pass peer-review in the future?

Why don't you read some of the things you wrote about why you only use peer-reviewed research and get back to me.

[tacoman25]

Inability? I didn't know you were so keen on a response.

Even morons can do some good work now and then. Surfacestations was pretty good too.

In other words, some skeptics are scientific and in fact do good research. And as long as they have conclusions that fit your expectations, you're all for it (though in the same breath you will call skeptics morons).

Not all skeptics are alike??? Not all are "deniers"??? But this is so confusing!

[skierinvermont]

In other words, some skeptics are scientific and in fact do good research. And as long as they have conclusions that fit your expectations, you're all for it (though in the same breath you will call skeptics morons).

Not all skeptics are alike??? Not all are "deniers"??? But this is so confusing!

Whoever said they were? I've always used the term denier to refer to deniers and skeptics to refer to skeptics. I'd define a denier as somebody who ignores all evidence they don't like and is completely irrational. I'd define a skeptic as somebody who is able to discuss rationally but does not yet fully understand the evidence of AGW.

And no.. I am not only for conclusions that fit my expectations. I am for all conclusions which are proven scientifically.