New climate study deals blow to skeptics

[Crabtownboy]

Note the study took 1/6 billion, yes 1.6 billion readings.

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 -- or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit -- 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.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/climate-study-warming-real/?hpt=T2

 

[Ruiz]

Note the study took 1/6 billion, yes 1.6 billion readings.

In one of my professional organizations, there is a man who is an expert in his field dealing with climate change. One week, our organization asked him to present his research on this issue.

He explained that there is no doubt about climate change and presented his personal research on the matter (much of which has been published). He relayed that from all the research he has conducted, he is utterly convinced beyond any doubt that climate change has occurred.

Yet, on the other hand, he is not convinced that this is caused mostly by humans. His research was fascinating and, to be honest, was a little over my head in places.

I do not doubt things are getting warmer, but I think the science is not set on how to solve this "problem" or all the causes.

Yet, again, I am not a scientist and thus I admit my utter ignorance in this area.

 

[SolaSaint]

We will never get a straight answer on this issue because there are billions to be spent and made by those who can spin it the best. Please don't ask me how Al Gore spun it to gain his millions. I guess he used his previuos job title to gain clout.

 

[Alcott]

If we could find a way to stimulate a major eruption of Krakatoa, that ought to cool it back down for a while.

 

[preachinjesus]

I have always maintained that we are in a warming cycle of climate change and that humans have had, and do have, an effect on the environment.

However, I dispute that it is either catastrophic or will lead to dramatic environmental destruction.

 

[InTheLight]

I have always maintained that we are in a warming cycle of climate change and that humans have had, and do have, an effect on the environment.

However, I dispute that it is either catastrophic or will lead to dramatic environmental destruction.

I would agree with this as well. I don't put much emphasis on the human factor, though I do believe it exists. I also think a lot of this research is slanted by selective endpoints.

 

[Arbo]

Thirty-something years ago it was doom and gloom because of a new ice age that was inevitable. :sleep:

 

[Havensdad]

Yeah...

There is warming. But not by us the paltry amount of emissions we little ants are pumping out. The evidence has been demonstrated, countless times, that the warming is due to increased solar activity. You know, that hundreds of billions of tons of fusion in the sky caused by gravitational collapse? Yeah, that is whats causing the warming. Its not cow farts.

 

[quantumfaith]

Perhaps this whole concept of "global warming" and associated issues should serve to remind us of our God given role as stewards. Radicalism, at any end of the spectrum, be it conservative or liberal can be dangerous.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Perhaps this whole concept of "global warming" and associated issues should serve to remind us of our God given role as stewards. Radicalism, at any end of the spectrum, be it conservative or liberal can be dangerous.

Very true. It does not matter if iti s a right wing bullet or a left wing noose, the person is still dead.

God told mankind to be the caretaker of the earth, not the destroyer.

For many to admit, finally, that the climate is changing is a big step. In the early days many refused to admit there was any change. Their views have changed slowly as they have been proven wrong again and again. It is not hard to see that our climate has changed. 1.6 billion is a pretty good sample size.

 

[Aaron]

The earth be damned if that means even one more statute abridging the liberty of American citizens.

And I don't use the word lightly or profanely. I mean it sincerely in the manner in which it appears in Scripture.

 

[quantumfaith]

Very true. It does not matter if iti s a right wing bullet or a left wing noose, the person is still dead.

God told mankind to be the caretaker of the earth, not the destroyer.

For many to admit, finally, that the climate is changing is a big step. In the early days many refused to admit there was any change. Their views have changed slowly as they have been proven wrong again and again. It is not hard to see that our climate has changed. 1.6 billion is a pretty good sample size.

, The larger the sample space, the more accurate the statistic. Personally I have little doubt that mankind has some measure of impact on the environment in a multitude of ways, "global warming' notwithstanding. The difficulty, mathematically speaking is "isolating" the most contributory variables to that effect. While I do look for science and technology to continue to seek "better answers" for energy needs, in the end, the law of the conservation of energy is a limiting principle. Entropy rules, in line behind our sovereign God of course.

 

[billwald]

>The earth be damned if that means even one more statute abridging the liberty of American citizens.

You a dispensationalist?

 

[preachinjesus]

The earth be damned if that means even one more statute abridging the liberty of American citizens.

And I don't use the word lightly or profanely. I mean it sincerely in the manner in which it appears in Scripture.

Seems that the burden of Scripture is that mankind be the caretakers of creation as we have been given it (i.e. good stewards.) The overwhelming evidence of Revelation is that though this world is, in light of eternity, a passing thing only God has the authority to destroy the creation. Mankind is, as represented in Scripture, to be a good caretaker. The environment matters. To say it doesn't takes a hatchet to the Bible exegetically.

 

[Havensdad]

Seems that the burden of Scripture is that mankind be the caretakers of creation as we have been given it (i.e. good stewards.) The overwhelming evidence of Revelation is that though this world is, in light of eternity, a passing thing only God has the authority to destroy the creation. Mankind is, as represented in Scripture, to be a good caretaker. The environment matters. To say it doesn't takes a hatchet to the Bible exegetically.

The scriptures are clear that the good of man takes precedent over trees, bees, and animals. In fact, trees and the "environment" in general, are NEVER spoken of in terms of something to be preserved, or protected. That man is a "steward" of the earth, denotes his responsibility to propagate, establish just government, etc. It has nothing whatsoever to do with environmentalism.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The scriptures are clear that the good of man takes precedent over trees, bees, and animals. In fact, trees and the "environment" in general, are NEVER spoken of in terms of something to be preserved, or protected. That man is a "steward" of the earth, denotes his responsibility to propagate, establish just government, etc. It has nothing whatsoever to do with environmentalism.

So a good care taker has no responsibility for abusing what he is to take care of. What blindness! God never told us to destroy the earth we are to take care of.

 

[Havensdad]

So a good care taker has no responsibility for abusing what he is to take care of. What blindness! God never told us to destroy the earth we are to take care of.

He never said we are take care of the trees and the bees. We are to take care of the people. When did God put us back in the Garden?

YOU are the blind one. You place value on things that are temporal, rather than placing the value on the eternal. Read the scriptures, instead of inserting your silly liberal dogma into the margins.

 

[Crabtownboy]

He never said we are take care of the trees and the bees. We are to take care of the people. When did God put us back in the Garden?

YOU are the blind one. You place value on things that are temporal, rather than placing the value on the eternal. Read the scriptures, instead of inserting your silly liberal dogma into the margins.

Once you and people like you destroy all the bees who will you blame for there being no food? Are you so blind that you cannot see the connection between the welfare of people and their environment?

We cannot take care of people once our environment is destroyed. Elementary my dear Watson, elementary. Taking care of the earthand people is being a good steward.

You must have grown up in an urban area.

 

[Havensdad]

Once you and people like you destroy all the bees who will you blame for there being no food? Are you so blind that you cannot see the connection between the welfare of people and their environment?

We cannot take care of people once our environment is destroyed. Elementary my dear Watson, elementary. Taking care of the earthand people is being a good steward.

You must have grown up in an urban area.

Actually I was literally raised in a barn.

Allowing people to suffer and die now, in order to protect them from some silly possibility of danger far in the future, is the height of evil and insanity.

Funny how the liberals want to "protect the poor," until it comes down to choosing between a poor person and a tree...

 

[quantumfaith]

Once you and people like you destroy all the bees who will you blame for there being no food? Are you so blind that you cannot see the connection between the welfare of people and their environment?

We cannot take care of people once our environment is destroyed. Elementary my dear Watson, elementary. Taking care of the earthand people is being a good steward.

You must have grown up in an urban area.

Actually Crabtownboy, YOU are correct. Man was given a stewardship responsibility LONG before he was given an evangelistic obligation.