[Vision2020] Four Separate Climate Surveys Agree of Global Warming

[nickgier at roadrunner.com]

Climate change: A record-making effort
Mar 31st 2011, 23:20 by O.M. The Economist

Graph is attached

ON THURSDAY March 31st Richard Muller [formerly a climate skeptic]of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory gave evidence to the energy and commerce committee of America’s House of Representatives on the surface temperature record. Without having yet bothered to check, Babbage can say with some certainty that this event will be much discussed in the blogosphere—as, oddly enough, it should be. 

Here’s the short version of the reason why: a new and methodologically interesting study, carried out by people some of whom might have been expected to take a somewhat sceptical view on the issue, seems essentially to have confirmed the results of earlier work on the rate at which the earth’s temperature is rising. This makes suggestions that this rise is an artefact of bad measurement, or indeed a conspiracy of climatologists, even less credible than they were before.

Now here’s the much longer version.

There are two topics which, more than any other, can be guaranteed to set off arguments between those convinced of the reality and importance of humanity’s impact on the climate and those not so convinced. One revolves around the question of how reliable, if at all, statements about average global temperatures before about 1500 AD are. This is the so-called “hockey stick” debate. The amount of computer processing power and data storage capacity devoted to endless online discussions of the hockey stick— the subject featured in a great deal of the brouhaha over the “climategate” e-mails—must, by now, have the carbon footprint of a fair-sized Canadian city, which of course would worry one side of the argument not a whit.

The second touchy topic is the instrumental record of the world’s temperature over the past 100 years or so. This is a more genuinely interesting subject, for two reasons. First: Consider a person who looks at all the non-hockey-stick evidence and arguments for thinking people are changing the climate (we won’t rehearse them now, but here’s a relevant article from The Economist last year). Imagine this person then saying “you know, that radiation balance and basic physics and ocean heat content and all the rest of that stuff looks pretty conclusive—but because I can’t say for sure whether it was warmer in 1388 than it was in 1988 or the other way round I’m going to ignore it all.” This would probably not be a person you would take very seriously. 

More at http://news.economist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/eCYik0Yv8At0Mo0UoLR0E4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TemperatureFourSeparateSurveys.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 62997 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110401/e1b1c6de/attachment-0001.jpg