Last year Richard Muller, the Berkeley scientist who headed the Koch-funded global warming study, announced that global warming was actually occurring. Now he has completed another study that acknowledges that the warming measured is completely due to carbon dioxide emitted by humans.
Muller was immediately attacked by climate change deniers like Anthony Watts, who released a dueling study claiming that NOAA artificially doubled temperature increases. Note that Watts isn't saying that there's no temperature increase, he's just quibbling over the amount.
We can now see conservatives starting to pivot on climate change. They can't simply deny it any more: climate change is obviously happening, what with the increasingly weird weather we've been having (more tornadoes, more drought), measurably higher sea levels on the east coast, demonstrably earlier springs and later winters, migrating species (resulting in dying forests and rampant wildfires in the west), and the melting of the polar ice caps.
In June Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, admitted that climate change was happening. He blithely stated that it was "just an engineering problem" and we'll just adapt. Yes, it's true: rebuilding your house after it's destroyed by a hurricane or a tornado is "just a construction problem." Moving millions of people out of Miami and Manhattan after sea levels rise is "just a relocation problem." Rising temperatures and climate shifts that turn America's breadbasket into a dustbowl are "just an agriculture problem."
As we continue to burn so much oil and coal, there will be climate winners and losers. Tillerson's "engineering problems" will cost some people trillions of dollars to fix and displace millions of people. The economies of some states and countries that just happen to be in the wrong end of the climate stick may be completely destroyed. Some island countries will simply cease to exist.
Rex Tillerson profits from the thing that causes climate change, and he wants to stick the rest of us with the bill for fixing the problems that his product causes. This attitude makes him, in engineering parlance, a "dick."
But if we're going to blithely talk about engineering solutions to climate change, the most obvious one is to stop using so much coal and oil and start generating more electricity with wind, solar and other technologies. After all, there's only a finite amount of oil left in the ground, which we will nearly deplete in my lifetime. We'll never really run out because it'll get so expensive no one will ever bother to drill the last drop.
From an engineering perspective, the internal combustion engine is a dying technology, soon to be made obsolete by a lack of fuel. Best to switch sooner than later, since it's got so many other downsides to it. And if we Americans do it, we'll get in on the ground floor and become the providers for the rest of the world. In addition to being an engineering solution, it's also a business opportunity!
27 comments:
Some interesting points from the Muller article...
Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
Settled science. Data here.
http://berkeleyearth.org/
Don't agree? Refute with evidence using the scientific method.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
For those of you who still are members of the Church of the Climate Denier
We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.
In addition, it's important to note these observations...
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.
Right. One has to stop thinking locally and in such a finite time period. Droughts and heat like we are experiencing this summer in the Midwest are not necessarily the outcome of the climate change that is being caused by humans. When this sort of thing continues to happen around the world and over a 20 year period, then yes.
I look forward to the response to Muller from my fellow critical, logical and reasoned thinkers that post on this blog.
First off, neither study has been peer reviewed and published - so for now it is 'science' by press release.
This is a pretty fair assessment of the two.
I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
So M, does Muller explain that mechanism - particularly as his observation of temperature rise begins long before fossil fuel utilization could be a significant factor? I think we know just how scientifically inclined you are.
So, where do people get the idea that the Dems are still hot for gun control?
neither study has been peer reviewed and published
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
Care to retract that comment?
does Muller explain that mechanism - particularly as his observation of temperature rise begins long before fossil fuel utilization could be a significant factor?
Yes, he does.
juris, it's over. I know how hard it is for you guys to admit that you are wrong but it will go a lot easier if you just capitulate now. Muller was hired by the Koch Brothers as they figured he'd be an honest (and skeptical) examiner of the science. He has examined all the data and has come to the conclusion that climate change is man made. If you disagree, make an academic argument after you review all of his materials. Let's hear your point by point rebuttal to his claims using the scientific method.
He has been a doomsayer since at least 2001...
You want a scientific rebuttal...here you go.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5949
I don't simply want a link, GD. I want you guys to analyze the data and offer your critical assessment. You folks continually deride me for not adhering to reason and logic. Yet here you are with a chance to do just that and you abdicate any sort of critical thinking to a fucking link.
I'd say this proves that you are completely full of shit. The next time you want to dump some wordy squirts about me, remember your failure (thus far) here.
YOU PRESENTED A LINK AS YOUR EVIDENCE DUMBASS!!!!
A link followed by not one iota of critical assessment, reason or logic of your own. (cut, paste and blend with your own filler doesn't count)
I don't need to provide anything other than the link - Your evidence is shit because it's conclusions are not science - and it is more than adequately and much more eloquently explained in the link I gave you.
But, GD, I'm not the one denying the research...you are. The onus is on you to dispute Muller's conclusions. He's addressed all the issues that skeptics whine about and provided plenty of data to support his conclusions.
Now, if you choose not to do this, fine. That means we are now operating under a new set of rules which means I can simply put up a link to TPM and that will be enough, correct?
>But, GD, I'm not the one denying the research...you are. The onus is on you to dispute Muller's conclusions.
To quote you Mark:
"Don't agree? Refute with evidence using the scientific method."
Go for it with GD's link. Oh? You simply want to link something, say "refute that!", crow about winning the argument, and then you don't want to be held to the same standard when someone gives you a link to refute? Odd behavior for someone who accuses other people of simply trying to win the argument. :) But we always knew that was projection Mark, so it's ok.
>That means we are now operating under a new set of rules which means I can simply put up a link to TPM and that will be enough, correct?
Er - what's new about that? You've always done that. You did it in this very post.
Myself, I think this argument is largely irrelevant. The Earth is getting warmer, at least it was before 15 years ago, and it may or may not be caused by humans. In either case, if the proper mitigation to this warming is to cut carbon output, our hands are very tied. People in this country aren't going to accept the kind of carbon reductions (ie cut by half) that would be necessary to put a dent in carbon production, nor will other countries, short of going to war over it. Government "investment" (ie funneling money to politically connected parties) certainly won't accomplish much either. In short, the best hope for decreasing carbon production is free market innovation. You know, people trying to make a buck. The best thing you can do is advocate for getting the government out of the way of that innovation, or other such places it might interfere. (Hello - nuke plants?) You're onboard with that, right Mark?
Care to retract that comment?
You might want to learn what peer-reviewed and published mean.
Yes, he does.
Can you summarize his point? Or is all that matters for you is that An Authority has spoken?
Hmm...I guess a different set of rules applies fo me than it does to you guys. I'd be happy to offer analysis and summations but not if I'm the only one doing it. I'm not going to waste my time if you guys aren't going to dedicate any I yours...
And, yes, Hap, i am on board with nuclear energy. So is the president.
But, GD, I'm not the one denying the research
You are the one claiming the research as correct, not me. The onus is upon you, first, to prove something you claim. If your 'proof' is a link, then my rebuttal can also be a link.
If you present some original research, using the scientific method, then you have standing to request our rebuttal be original as well. Unless of course your 'research' is tired old tropes that have already be dismissed.....
That is nothing new, or unrealistic Mark. Unless you consider the new tack you are using as a whining point.
It's not "my" proof, GD. It's Richard Muller's. I'm not a climatologist nor a research scientist. Clearly, neither are you as you don't want to refute any of the evidence presented in his research. You guys ask for evidence, logic and facts. Muller presents it. And then you suddenly get lazy and say it's all my fault.
Unless you want to put in the effort to analyze the data, neither will I. If you change your mind, I'll be glad to put in the time looking through your link. Until that time, I'm going to enjoy watching the a level of denial not seen since the Flat Earth Society.
You guys ask for evidence, logic and facts. Muller presents it.
How do you know that M? You only read his op-ed. In the op-ed he does not answer the question I asked (and that you claimed he answered). Muller doesn't answer on the BEST website either. In short, you believe it because he said so - and it confirms your own biases.
There are no global temperature records going back 250 years (let alone more), so it is pretty obvious that they used a proxy for temp. They also used a proxy for GH gas assumed to be human sourced.
Oh, and here is what the BEST website says about the 5 papers:
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has drafted five scientific papers setting out the main conclusions of the study to date. The papers have been submitted for peer review and cover the following topics
Do you understand what they just said there?
Now, let's see some of your self touted critical thinking. BEST says that the temperature rise beginning 250 years ago is attributable to volcanoes and human greenhouse gas emissions. 250 years ago the vast majority of the world was pre-industrial, including the U.S. So what carbon emissions were the source prior to the industrial revolution spanning the globe (i.e. the last 100 years)? If humans are causing this via fossil fuel consumption, then the change should be far more dramatic (in the last 100 years) and not apparent in the pre-industrial past.
You only read his op-ed
No, I didn't. I read through the site he linked. Again, I'd be happy to spend significant time pouring over the details and discussing them with any of you if it means that you are going to put in some serious time critically analyzing the data.
In the op-ed he does not answer the question I asked (and that you claimed he answered). Muller doesn't answer on the BEST website either.
Did you read through the entire BEST site? I guess I'm wondering if you read the op-ed carefully as well.
including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.
our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.
That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity.
And from the BEST site...
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions
Did you...miss that part?
I guess science is too hard for you M. Nowhere did Muller say how humans were producing enough greenhouse gas to impact global temperature. He just assumes that any increase in GHG from 1753 is human generated. As though the planet has no natural production of them.
I won't even address the silliness of stating that 40 or so years of satellite observation concludes anything about solar behavior.
He just assumes that any increase in GHG from 1753 is human generated. As though the planet has no natural production of them.
So, you missed the part about volcanoes?
Uhhh, He claims the volcano's reduce temps. Except his examples of volcano activity that have corresponding drops in temps are not actually correlating. The examples of volcano activity occur during or toward the end of temp drops, not preceding.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/30/new-data-old-claims-about-volcanoes/
So, you missed the part about volcanoes?
You are not the person to challenge my reading comprehension.
I posted that the results have not been peer-reviewed or published and you quote me the website that says the results are not peer reviewed or published as though that proves I was wrong. More of that childish dishonesty we have all come to know and love.
Muller does not distinguish natural from human sources of CO2 prior to, at, or post 1753. The assumption is that all increases in GHG (i.e. not volcanic activity) are human sourced. I guess you actually understand that and that is why you play so dumb - amirite?
The assumption is that all increases in GHG (i.e. not volcanic activity) are human sourced.
you quote me the website that says the results are not peer reviewed or published
And where exactly do you see both of these things in his information?
GD, the same question for you. I'm not interested in an interpretation (and a very biased one at that) of Muller's research. I'm interested in YOUR interpretation. You say that you are a critical thinker. Let's see you do it.
And where exactly do you see both of these things in his information?
Really? You REALLY have to ask? OK,
I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
And the papers have been posted to the BEST website for review. That is entirely commendable as it runs contrary to what Mann and CRU did. The papers have NOT yet been published in any journal and THAT is when the peer review process usually happens. We will see if the Watt paper goes the same route. You ought to read the Briggs link as well - but I suppose you won't because that might challenge a cherished belief.
Explain why, in a concise manner, you consider that source biased.
At work, will answer your question tomorrow.
juris, I think you and I are just reading the information differently and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Explain why, in a concise manner, you consider that source biased.
Well, the Climategate page is a great place to start. Nothing new after 2009. Now, why is that...?:)
Further, Watts is an admitted skeptic so his information begins not with an open mind but the belief that it is not man made.
I'm not too worried, though. Eventually Watts is going to come around. What will you do then?
M: la-la-la
Watts is an admitted skeptic so his information begins not with an open mind but the belief that it is not man made.
Leaving aside that skepticism is the proper stance for a scientist to take.......
So, a source that is skeptical of man-made climate change or that presents evidence contrary to proponents of such change would be automatically classed as a biased source by you and therefore not to be trusted or even looked at? That's what you're saying?
Why is it you then expect me to look at the BEST site? That source is an admitted proponent of man-made climate change and is therefore biased by your own criteria.
You circular logic is going to ensure you never see let alone accept any contrary information than that which you want to see.
The sun revolves around the earth huh?
I have no problem with skepticism. What I have a problem with is starting from the point that climate change is a hoax and then suffering from confirmation bias after that.
I'll ask you again...why is it that his Climategate page only goes to 2009?
Why is it you then expect me to look at the BEST site?
Because Muller was a skeptic hired by the Koch brothers. He concluded that the science is sound and offers it up for all to review. I'm willing to bet that it won't be long before Watts flips as well. What will you do then?
If this is the best the Koch's can do to fund a skeptic, then I wonder why you fear them so much. It was lousy vetting.
I'll consider "flipping" when someone explains why all GHG since 1753 is attributable to human activity and not before. When someone can explain how pre-industrial civilization was consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels that in turn drove CO2 (and that in fact CO2 is the forcing function in global temperature).
You of course are much easier to 'convince'.
Post a Comment