New global climate temperature change analysis

[Brian Ellis]

A team of renowned independent scientists, including some anthropogenic climate change contrarians, has undertaken an analysis of the evidence and have come to the conclusion that the scientific temperature analyses of the IPCC, NASA, UK met etc. are by and large correct:

http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php

Resources
Berkeley Earth Analysis of Full Data Set (October 2011)

The Berkeley Earth team has completed the analysis of the full data set, and summary charts are available here. The Berkeley Earth team has already started to benefit from feedback from our peers, so these figures are more up-to-date than the figures in our papers submitted for peer review (see below).


Papers Submitted for Peer Review (October 2011)

The Berkeley Earth team has now submitted four papers for peer review. We are making these preliminary results public, together with our programs and data set, in order to invite additional scrutiny. The four papers are:

Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process
Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average
Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States
Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures

...

The latest summary conclusions, dated last Thursday, are at http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/B...Summary_20_Oct

This should put to rest all controversy created by contrarians and denialists how the global temperature has changed over the last 200-odd years.

[Umfriend]

This should put to rest all controversy created by contrarians and denialists how the global temperature has changed over the last 200-odd years.

ROFLMAO! Methinks you overestimate the power a few graphs have.

[Brian Ellis]

ROFLMAO! Methinks you overestimate the power a few graphs have.

Not at all! All I say is that this independent team has confirmed that the results obtained by other teams are correct. If you prefer it, this is a peer review of the findings of the conventional scientific consensus. Read the four draft papers, awaiting peer-reviewed publication. The two graphs which I've linked to are just an easily-understood illustration of the findings, for the scientifically inept, not the proof, per se.

[Umfriend]

But you seriously believe this will put to rest the controversy created by contrarians and denialists?

[Brian Ellis]

Strangely, there was never anything controversial about the data in question: they were the results of physical measurement. Their interpretation was also barely disputable. What caused the discussion was WHY this happened. Only 2 or 3 days ago, another measured fact was disputed in a public forum, showing the downright ignorance of certain members of the public. The person in question claimed that CO2 levels had risen by 3% since 1800; in reality, physical measurements showed the increase was from 280 ppm to 390 ppm which amounts to 39.3% by my book. Note that this does not suggest cause and effect because they are proven facts. That the cause and effect is now pretty well 99+% certain for the major part is not material for the Berkeley study.

[Umfriend]

Sorry, I misunderdidnotreadstood what you actually said in the first post. I get it now.