Temperature study funded by climate sceptics confirms rate of global warming

"We are seeing substantial global warming" declares new scientific work from an independent group of researchers called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study. The research team is at least partially funded by the Koch Brothers who fund several climate denial groups. The team was setup to identify flaws in the climate science of global average temperature trends, but has confirmed the analysis undertaken by NASA, NOAA and the Hadley Climate Centre in the UK that about 1 degree Celsius of global warming has occurred since 1950.

Related Commentary: Nature Different method, same result: global warming is real | Climate Progress Hot Dog Bites Skeptical Man: Koch-Funded Berkeley Temperature Study Does “Confirm the Reality of Global Warming”

The study also subtantially eliminated arguments that heat island effects, temperature station quality, and the risk of data selection bias had more than a very modest or marginal impact on the trend for increasing global average temperatures.

In a related study published this week - Effects of Urban Surfaces and White Roofs on Global and Regional Climate - Stanford University researchers have quantified the contribution of the heat islands on a global basis for the first time, showing that the contribution to global warming from urban heat islands is very modest compared with what greenhouse gas emissions contribute. The study also ran a simulation for the geoengineering solution of painting roofs white in urban areas to enhance local cooling. The cooling effect does work, but it also marginally increases warming on a global scale. Professor Jacobson advised it was better to Install solar panels to combat Global Warming rather than paint roofs white.

Four research papers have been released for public discussion by the Berkeley Earth team with a view for them all to be submitted for peer review and eventually published. The research team was lead by Professor Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley and included Saul Perlmutter who was recently announced as a winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics (for his work in cosmology). Muller criticised the global temperature trend during 2004 in an article in Technology Review, alledging that the "hockey stick" of global temperatures was broken.

"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the U.S. and the U.K.,” Muller said. “This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

The study ruled out of contention the urban heat island effect and poor station quality in terms of bias in the results by NASA, NOAA and the Hadley Centre. Robert Rohde, lead scientist for Berkeley Earth, noted that "the Berkeley Earth analysis is the first study to address the issue of data selection bias, by using nearly all of the available data, which includes about 5 times as many station locations as were reviewed by prior groups."

On the urban heat island effect the BEST study reported "The urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise. That’s because the urban regions of the Earth amount to less than 1% of the land area".

On temperature sites the BEST study detailed "About 1/3 of temperature sites around the world reported global cooling over the past 70 years (including much of the United States and northern Europe). But 2/3 of the sites show warming. Individual temperature histories reported from a single location are frequently noisy and/or unreliable, and it is always necessary to compare and combine many records to understand the true pattern of global warming."

"The large number of sites reporting cooling might help explain some of the skepticism of global warming,” Rohde commented. “Global warming is too slow for humans to feel directly, and if your local weather man tells you that temperatures are the same or cooler than they were a hundred years ago it is easy to believe him."

The research looked in some depth into the allegations by Anthny Watts that temperature results were skewed in the US due to "poor" station data. The research identified that these stations showed the same pattern of global warming as stations ranked “OK”. "Absolute temperatures of poor stations may be higher and less accurate, but the overall global warming trend is the same, and the Berkeley Earth analysis concludes that there is not any undue bias from including poor stations in
the survey."

The website explains in depth the methodology of the research and also publishes full datasets which required combining data from different sites and formats and building from scratch a statistical analysis of the data.

While the research identifies that the same degree of global warming is ocurring as other well known analyses, it hasn't made an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human actions according to Richard Muller.

Academic Response

Scientists from Australian and the UK have commented on the release of these papers. Several commented that the papers need to undergo the peer review process. “I think it would be very unwise to comment until the peer review process has completed. If we have learned anything over the last couple of years it is surely that ensuring the rigour of the science is paramount - however good the "scoop" might seem." said Professor Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science at UCL

Professor Neville Nicholls from the School of Geography and Environmental Science at Monash University, Melbourne said "Only those most desperate to dismiss global warming have tried to blame urbanization for the observed warming. But I guess it is always good to have yet another group confirm decades of work by climate scientists. Perhaps this will finally put to rest the furphy that the warming is caused by urbanization. I won't hold my breath though. I guess those spreading misinformation about warming will just move on to another one of their furphies."

Professor Dave Griggs, CEO of ClimateWorks Australia and Director of the Monash Sustainability Institute, Melbourne said that: "The paper confirms previous work that the observed warming of the Earth since the beginning of the 20th Century cannot be attributed to the urban heat island (UHI) effect."

"This comes as no surprise to climate scientists who take great care to take account of this effect in their work. It also confirms findings from other studies using very different methods. For example, looking at temperature trends on windy days and calm days also show no difference contrary to what you would expect from the urban heat island as the heat would build up more on calm days. So, hopefully this paper will help to put this urban (heat island) myth to bed." said Dave Griggs.

Professor Simon Tett, Head of Global Change Research Institute School of Geosciences at the University of Edinburgh, said:

"Earlier analysis, including that from the [Hadley] Climatic Research Unit, using a restricted set of temperature records, to avoid urban warming, show large scale warming. Comparison of that data with climate models leads to the conclusion that anthropogenic drivers are responsible for the late 20th century warming. The BEST study, assuming its results are similar after peer review, would not change that view."

Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director, Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE), said:

"This new study confirms what we already knew. The warming of the land areas of the Earth since the 19th century cannot be explained by the impact of cities growing to engulf rural weather stations. So-called 'sceptics' should now drop their thoroughly discredited claims that the increase in global average temperature could be attributed to the impact of growing cities, which create an urban heat island effect. This claim was always dubious as oceans also show the same level of warming as land areas."

"The warming of the Earth is unequivocal and, as every major scientific organisation in the world has pointed out, the overwhelming evidence indicates that this warming is being driven by the unarguable increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

"More broadly this study also proves once again how false it was for 'sceptics' to allege that the e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia proved that the Climatic Research Unit's land temperature record had been doctored. Several independent inquiries, and now this study, have shown that allegation to be entirely untrue. It is now time for an apology from all those, including US Presidential hopeful Rick Perry, who have made false claims that the evidence for global warming has been faked by climate scientists." concluded Bob Ward.



No one every denied global warming, what has been denied is that man is the cause, the climate has been changing since the start of time to try and keep the climate at a steady temperature is what is stupid, it is like trying to keep the world in a ice age because that was the normal temperature for hundreds of years,or to keep the world hot as it was on medieval times.Our climate is always changing and man is not the cause

Takver is on the side of the flat Earthers now.How times change

I just highlighted that even some of the sceptical scientists have now confirmed the level of global warming as also worked out by NASA, NOAA, and the Hadley Climate Centre. The Hockey stick graph which was derided so much by climate sceptics, now stands as accurate according to this fourth analysis of temperature data by sceptical scientists.

the hokey stick graph is wrong because it deletes the medieval warm period come on takver tell the truth

The hockey stick graph is rubbish made up by the nutter Michael Mann


Read it and weep all you Clmate Alarmists

The IPCC can not be trusted don't be sucked in by lies

Glaciers melting as reported by the IPCC is rubbish, the IPCC have been caught out time and time again, some people only read what they want to believe.


The US senate gets into the Man made Global Warming debate


About time, someone that tells the truth but you might not want to hear it

How many expert scientists do you want? here is some views on Global warming/climate change from the experts


"No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more" Oral Statement By DR. JOHN T. EVERETT HEARING ON WILDLIFE AND OCEANS IN A CHANGING CLIMATE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 17, 2007 read more at.

Here is a list of just 50 former IPCC experts whose voices your prejudiced ears refuse to hear With comments like
"The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).
"The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

. Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."

You can read more at:

The carbon dioxide Tax is a Tax on Plant Food and the Air We Breath out! Start using your brains and think for yourselves

Sorry, you have reduced complex biochemistry to simple ideology. The actual science is far more complex than that.

Rising atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels threaten crop yields and food security

Crop yields are under threat from rising carbon dioxide emissions with climate change, according to new scientific research. In a new study published in Science on wheat and the mustard plant Arabidopsis at the University of California at Davis, scientists found that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide interferes with plants' ability to convert nitrate into protein resulting in lower nutritional yield.

USA: Climate Change likely to severely damage U.S. crop yields

Koalas face starvation, extinction due to climate change

Sorry takver I know of over 100 climate change experts that say climate change is a load of rot.the experts are starting speaking out about the lies and con the IPCC represent,the game is up for the Alarmists.



See if you can talk your way out of this one

The Scientists that speak out about man made climate change /Global Warming saying it is an orchestrated litany of lies cooked up by the IPCC are all retired, they can afford to because they can not loose their jobs for speaking the truth thats why they speak out all the other scientists keep their mouths shut in fear of loosing their jobs.The IPCC have been caught out so many times Lying, rigging information and deleting research to keep the man made climate change lie alive.
The truth needs to be told before the Alarmists wreck our economy

These two sites have over 120 climate change expert scientists some Authors and peer reviewers for the IPCC that will tell you man made Global warming/Climate Change is rubbish.



What is going on? have we all been sucked in?can anyone Help Please?

The battle of truth versus disinformation is nowhere better demonstrated than in the distortion of climate science. More than 97 percent of practicing climate scientists support the fact that global warming is happening and caused by humans, yet the public often thinks that scientists are seriously divided on this issue. In this special public lecture, Silicon Valley computer scientist and technology expert Dr. John Mashey will expose the underhanded, but effective PR/lobbying tactics of the anti-science campaign. It has included Internet-propagated disinformation, personal attacks, threats of violence and hate mail, including the manufactured non-event “Climategate.” His talk will examine the organization and activities of anti-science funders, think tanks, and spokespeople over the last 20 years, including recent developments and initiatives to counter their efforts.


I watched your video with Dr John Mashey who says he is not a Climate scientist but has friend that are,he is a computer scientist.His Lecture was sponsored by PICs Pacific Impacts Consortium he said he had done 500 lectures and a 1000 sales pitches I think this was one of his sales pitches.You talk about personal attacks on people what did you think when he described Dr Monckton as a barking toothless Chihuahua or someone out of a Monty Python movie?All Dr John Mashey did was bag people and organizations,is that o/k because they has a different opinion to yours? A case of double standard I think.Dr John Massey was paid by PICs to hang shit on all climate scientists that did not follow the Climate Alarmist line he is not even qualified to talk about the Climate, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

You also talk about a anti science campaign, I will give you a example of anti science. A September 2007 analysis of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific review process entitled “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. According to the analysis, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.” The paper continued: "In [the IPCC's] Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.' The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all." The analysis concluded: “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.” This is a classic example of anti-science and more like propaganda.

Team of Scientists Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature' – The study was published in Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Excerpt from a March 18, 2007 article in Science Daily: “Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.” The Science Daily article reads: "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate.” He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate.’” The article concludes: “Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.”

An April 2007 study revealed the Earth’s climate “seesawing” during the last 10,000 years, according to Swedish researchers Svante Björck, Karl Ljung and Dan Hammarlund of Lund University. Excerpt: During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We can identify a persistent "seesaw" pattern. When the South Atlantic was warm it was cold in the North Atlantic and vice versa. This is most certainly related to large-scale ocean circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. The main current system - "the Great Ocean Conveyor" - is driven by sinking of dense, relatively cold and salty water in the northern North Atlantic. This results in southward-flowing deep-water that is replaced by warm surface water brought to high northern latitudes from the tropics and ultimately from the South Atlantic, says Svante Björck. Our results from Nightingale Island in the Tristan da Cunha island group, between South Africa and Argentina, for the first time give evidence of warming of the South Atlantic associated with cooling in the north. This is a major breakthrough in palaeoclimate research.

Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be “excessively exaggerated.” Excerpt: “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,” the two scientists concluded.

New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”

No Evidence to Support Carbon Dioxide Causing Global Warming!

All these Climate scientists are Nut Bags Right?

L.O.L you got then good that's why they will not argue the point

The Climate Alarmists have been exposed !!!!!!

Let’s look at the NOAA claim that the surface temperature increased .11° C during 2000-2009. Although they did everything possible to hide this information from the public, media, politicians, and even fellow scientists, by the late 2000s even die-hard alarmists were eventually forced to accept that the surface temperature record showed no warming as of the late 1990s, and some cooling as of about 2002. In other words, overall, for the first decade of the 21st century, there was either no warming, or no warming and even some cooling.


Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, was among those addressing the three-day conference. According to Professor Easterbrook, author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, the Earth is now in the beginning period of a trend of global cooling.

“Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 degree Fahrenheit per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel of the 4th International Conference on Climate Change. The cooling trend, Easterbrook says, will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell for the next several decades. As reported previously in The New American, an increasing number of scientists are viewing the accumulated climate data as supportive of the proposition that our planet may be experiencing cooler, not warmer, temperatures for the next couple of decades.


Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, and it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modelers.

Latif thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world's oceans.
Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany's Kiel University and an author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-sa...

Our star, the sun, was born in the heavens about 4.5 billion years ago. Our sun is about 1/3 of the way through its expected life. Scientists are now predicting the following events during the remaining life of our star:
In the next 1.1 billion years, its brightness will increase by 10%. This will super-heat our planet as a result of a severe greenhouse effect. All of the oceans on earth will boil away and all life will be destroyed. The plan is for us to evacuate this planet & terraform Mars . . .

The year 666x3 (1998) was when the sun began to expand its outer layer.