EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

New study seeks to shut up climate sceptics

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 21 October 2011, updated 14 December 2012

Global warming is 'real' and temperatures have climbed steadily over the past decades, a long-awaited, independent study has found, refuting sceptics' claims that there isn't enough evidence to assert that the world climate is changing.

According to a study published yesterday (20 October) by the Berkley Earth Project, which included US physicists, climatologists and statisticians, the average world land temperatures climbed approximately 1 degree Celsius since the mid-1950s.

The Berkley project, funded among others by the Koch Foundation, linked to the company which Greenpeace called a 'kingpin of climate science denial,' has analysed data from 15 different sources, in some cases going back as far the 1800. That makes it the most complete historical record of land temperature ever compiled, said physicist and head of the project, Richard Muller.

"My hope is that the findings will cool the debate over global warming by addressing many of the valid concerns of the sceptics in a clear and rigorous way," said Elisabeth Muller, co-founder and executive director of the Berkley Earth project.

Much of the concerns over available and reliable data were fuelled by the so-called Climategate scandal, which started in 2009 before the Copenhagen climate conference, with the hacking of roughly 1,000 emails from a server at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, one of the leading centre providing data to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Climate sceptics alleged that the emails revealed scientists were manipulating data and that global warming was a scientific conspiracy, while in fact they seemed to express  more a genuine exchange of ideas.

The more than one billion temperature records, compiled by the Berkley Earth project's scientists, in fact agree with figures already collected by other scientists in the US and the UK and spelled out in previous studies, carried out by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Met Office's Hadley Centre with the University of East Anglia.

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

Ahead of the Durban climate conference in December, the Berkley group decided to use alternative methodologies to find convincing arguments addressing sceptics' concerns primarily on urban heat island effect, poor weather stations quality and the risk of data selection data.

The Berkeley group surveyed about 40,000 weather stations around the world whose output has been recorded and stored in digital form.

According to the Berkley project's leading scientist, Robert Rhode, urban heat does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise, because urban regions amount to less than 1% of the global land area.

Still, two-thirds of the weather stations reported warming of land temperatures over the last 70 years, while only one-third of sites, the bulk of them in Europe and the United States, reported cooling temperatures.

"The large number of sites reporting cooling might help explain some of the scepticism of global warming," Rhode said, adding that it is very hard to measure weather consistently over decades and the presence of sites reporting cooling temperatures can falsify data. This is why it takes hundreds of stations to detect and measure an average warming, work that was done by the California University scientists.

Environmental migrants and refugees

While scientists try to reassert clear evidence that temperatures are rising, a British government study released yesterday (20 October) has underscored that millions of people will move from areas where they will feel vulnerable to global environmental change, greatly affecting migration trends in the next 50-60 years.

Prepared by the Foresight group, a think tank that advises the UK government, the report explores the complex relationship between human migration and changing environmental conditions and argues that the issue must become a top policy priority on national and international agendas.

The study, titled 'Migration and Global Environmental Change', warns that trying to block migration will result in increased poverty and ultimately, potentially unmanageable waves of movement.

Next steps: 
  • 28 Nov. - 9 Dec.: COP 17 in Durban, South Africa

COMMENTS

  • The insight that 30% of the stations actually show a cooling trend will not only fail to silence skeptics: this insight was actually discovered and publicized by a skeptic, namely by myself, in July 2011, e.g. on a widely read blog entry

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/04/analysing-the-complete-hadcrut-yields-some-surprising-results/

    at Anthony Watts' blog which was read by something like 50,000 people and pretty much everyone who follows what's happening in the climate change industry. For Richard Muller to suggest that his team may claim priority would amount to plagiarism.

    The fact that 30% of stations don't show any warming trend but show a cooling one proves at least that the "warming" isn't global and that it is misguided for someone to assume that his particular country or region will be warmer in 50 or 100 years. It may be at most "more likely than not" that a warming will occur.

    By :
    Luboš Motl
    - Posted on :
    21/10/2011
  • A Warning From History:
    Taxing air via the bank'$ CorporateCarbonTradingMarket$ ruled by politician$ will cau$e the ultimate global revolution

    Fear from the CO2 mistake is unsustainable and we must return to loving the planet, not condemning billions of children to a CO2 death like neocons.

    By :
    mememine69
    - Posted on :
    21/10/2011
  • This is a furfy. The BEST data only goes to 2007 on the graph it has been cooling since then current SST's are lowest on satellite record check it out at AMSU satellite temps.

    By :
    Anonymous
    - Posted on :
    21/10/2011
  • After the definitive CERN experimental results, it is really rather sad to observe the pathetic floundering of anthropomorphic global warming believers, clutching at any straws as their religion slowly dies.

    By :
    Anonymous
    - Posted on :
    23/10/2011
  • The phrase "climate change" has become an example of real-world Newspeak. It denotes what an apolitical native speaker of English would mean by "global warming", "anthropogenic global warming", or "climate change" as suits the interest of the political left or the grant-hungry climatologist or computer modeller.

    The lead paragraph's assertion "refuting skeptics’ claims that there isn’t enough evidence to assert that the world climate is changing" is fatuous. "Climate skepticism" is not directed at the assertion that "the world's climate is changing" -- every "climate skeptic" of any note points to the fact that the world's climate changes whenever they mention "the Medieval Warm Period" (it used to be called "the Medieval Climate Optimum") or "the Little Ice Age". Nor does "climate skepticism" represent the notion that human activity has no effect on climate -- again every "climate skeptic" of any note will point to urban heat island effects when questioning the choice of measurement stations used by the IPCC which preferred urban stations and stations with discontinuous records, esp. in Russia.

    "Climate skepticism" is skepticism about the assertion that recent global aggregate climate change is caused by human activity, which assertion is supported only by computer models, bad enough that they are modelling a chaotic dynamical system and purporting to make long-term predictions, but worse models which were built ignoring the Svensmark effect, undersea vulcanism, and a lot of other things.

    In reporting their experimental confirmation of Svensmark's proposed causal link between the solar magnetism and global temperatures (explaining the correlation of global temperature and the sunspot cycle), CERN estimated that half to all of the observed global warming over the past half century was attributable to the Svensmark effect.

    And, of course, there is the fact that the models that purport to show human causation of greenhouse-effect warming, also predict a hot spot in the troposphere above the tropics, which, well, isn't there (cf. work of Lindzen and Choi). In normal science, that's trying to discover what is true about the world, that is called a "falsification of the theory".

    By :
    DNY
    - Posted on :
    23/10/2011
  • Berkley Earth Project, eh? Their credibility is about the same as that of a being known as Lucifer.

    By :
    heiliges roemisches reich
    - Posted on :
    23/10/2011
  • Glaciers have been melting for at lest 20,000 years. No science disputes at least 10,000 years. The question is whether Man has caused any of it. There is NO proof that I have seen that proves man has changed it, sped it up or slowed it down, or had any effect at all on the temp. Any thinking person knows the industrial revolution would be the only possible chance for their theory to even have a chance. There is no evidence that the change, or speed of the glacial ice melt, has been affected in this period. On the contrary, we see periods of climate change hotter than today in the past BEFORE the industrial revolution. The climate changes, we know that, but man has NO effect. The Sun is a more likely candidate for this change. Cow farts, and auto emissions cannot effect change in the large amount of atmosphere we have surrounding Earth. Volcanic eruptions or forest fires emit much larger amounts of harmful gas than man made progress.
    This has been exposed as a political power grab more than a science theory. It is just another line in a progressive think tank to raise taxes and gain control of our lives.

    By :
    chuckles
    - Posted on :
    23/10/2011
  • I predict this "study" will do nothing to quiet legitimate criticism of man-made global warming, if for no other reason than it does nothing but demonstrate the world is getting warmer. Skepticism is rooted in WHY, not necessarily IF.

    By :
    Chris R
    - Posted on :
    23/10/2011
  • I see the corporate shills are out in force - anonymous or under pseudonyms as ever - why so shy boys?

    With respect to "Chuckles" "glaciers have been melting for the past 20k years" er not those in the Alps - they were advancing until the middle of the 19th century - at which point they started to retreat i.e. melt. As any fool knows this was due to pixies chipping away at them and not CO2 emissions.

    To the shills - whoever is paying you I have a sense that you are not giving them value for money - given the stupidity of your comments.

    By :
    Mike Parr
    - Posted on :
    23/10/2011
  • Mr. Parr, I almost wish I were a "corporate shill": then I could get paid for expressing my genuine skepticism of climate modelling. Do you know anywhere that are hiring climate shills? It would have to be on a consultancy basis, since I'm not giving up a tenured position as a Professor of Mathematics, but a little side income for critiquing the misuse of mathematical modelling whenever I post on forums be nice.

    As to advancing glaciers in the Alps until the mid-19th century, you might want to review the history of the Little Ice Age in light of Svensmark's causal link between solar magnetism and global temperature. (Hint: look at the Maunder Minimum) Time scale matters in assertions like yours and "Chuckles": on average, glaciers have been melting since the end of the last full-blown Ice Age, so "Chuckles" is right using long time-averages. Using short time averages, you are right, but "until the mid-19th century" is unfounded, unless you cut off the timeline at the beginning of the Little Ice Age.

    By :
    DNY
    - Posted on :
    23/10/2011
  • BEST was to show that the climate records as used in the models are correct. And it shows an warming up of the earth. UHI are giving a negligible 0.01 of cooling. So if sceptics are using those records to prove there is a cooling or whatever they have to use a certain data-interval to make any statistical significant prediction. None of the sceptic models, ignoring or interpreting differently anthropogenic GHGs, can prove that there model is working i.e. is significant given the terms of use of those datasets. Models used by IPCC including GHG do predict the correct temperature rise. Especially models like the one from Hansen, set up in 1980, has been able to predict the rise we do see now.
    One can disagree about the models but one can not (of course you can but you have no rounds for it) disagree any more on the use of the temperature data as cited in the study.

    By :
    Ger Groeneveld
    - Posted on :
    24/10/2011
  • There is no doubt that the phenomenon of global warming is real. But, it doesn't end there. For there is no doubt that there is also an opposite phenomenon called global cooling. Both occurs because of a general principle that anything unstable will always seek a state of stability or EQUILIBRIUM. What is happening I believe is external and internal factors react to achieve a state of EQUILIBRIUM and the total sum is a negative impact we identify as CLIMATE CHANGE.

    By :
    Leodegardo M. Pruna
    - Posted on :
    03/11/2011
Background: 

Rising temperatures, already about 0.8 degree Celsius above pre-industrial times, mean the world will struggle to limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, a target agreed by almost 200 nations at UN talks last year in Mexico.

Many experts see 2 degrees Celsius as a threshold for dangerous climate change, such as more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising seas.

Data from British institutes published earlier this year showed 2010 was the world's second warmest behind 1998, while the other two main groups tracking global warming, based in the United States, said 2010 was tied for the hottest on record.

Over the 10 years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.45 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since climate records began, according to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now "unequivocal," based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. 

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Climate & Environment News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Climate & Environment Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising