We wanted to make sure you heard the news. Yesterday, a new study confirmed the overwhelming scientific consensus that the Earth has warmed rapidly in recent decades.
So why is this news, you may ask? A fair question — the evidence of climate change is overwhelming and has been understood for some time. But this particular study is noteworthy because it was initiated and funded by climate skeptics. The largest single funder of the organization conducting the study was the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, a leading supporter of climate denial.
What did they find? Here’s the first sentence of this summary from the group that conducted the study, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project: “Global warming is real, according to a major study released today.”
Specifically, the study examined whether temperature stations around the world provide an accurate picture of global temperature data. Climate deniers have argued the record is inaccurate because the “urban heat island effect” makes cities warmer than surrounding areas. This study took another look, and confirmed previous assessments that global temperatures are heading upward.
It’s important to mention that this study has not yet been peer reviewed, so the results are not final. What’s equally important is that no matter what the deniers say, we don’t need this study to confirm the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Here’s the reality: the evidence is in, the science is clear and climate change is happening now.
We hope you share this news with people you know — especially those who are skeptical about climate change. Here’s just a few of the headlines we’ve seen in the media about this latest news:
“Study: Global Warming is Real” (U.S. News and World Report)
“Global Warming Indeed Under Way, Contrarian Panel Says” (New York Times)
“A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data” (Washington Post)
“Climate skeptic admits he was wrong to doubt global warming data” (Los Angeles Times)
“Breaking News: The Earth Still Goes Around the Sun, and It’s Still Warming Up” (Forbes)
“New climate study deals blow to skeptics” (CNN International)
Now, we want to hear from you. Do you think this study will help convince the deniers that climate change is a reality?
Randall W. Kane
October 24th
No, I do not believe that this study will change their minds. Their minds are controlled by Rush Limbaugh and others like him. If Limbaugh comes on the radio and says “global warming isn’t real”, then as far as the skeptics are concerned, global warming will not be real. Forget scientists, Rush Limbaugh knows EVERYTHING!!! If he said “S**t doesn’t stink”, his followers would be out in cow pastures the next morning with their noses to the ground, enjoying the odor!
Erik
October 24th
Have to agree with Randall, facts never do anything to make anyone change an opinion. Holding onto defiance at this point.
rolsthro
October 24th
How has the temperature changed in the last 15 years in comparison to CO2 level changes?
A negative correlation which seems to disprove the AGW hypothesis. (according to Phil Jones)
The earth has warmed, there is no denying that. To attribute this to a trace gas such as CO2 is delusional!
MARK BROBST
October 25th
SURE ONLY CO2 IS JUST IN TRACE AMOUNTS TO THE TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC MAKEUP BUT TO ANYONE THINK OF IT LIKE THIS IF SAY INSTEAD OF AIR WE USE WATER FOR COMPARISON SAKE . SO WE TAKE AN ORDINARY GALLON OF WATER AND WE ADD MAYBE AN CUP OF ORDINARY TABLE SALT , EVEN THOUGH ITS NOT NEAR THE SAME IN VOLUME ITS TRAITS BECOME PART OF THE WATER TO BECOME SALTY WATER ,NOW THAT USE SAY AN TABLESPOON FULL OF CYANIDE TO THAT SAME GALLON OF WATER WITH OR WITHOUT THE SALT . YOU NOW HAVE AN GALLON OF POISON NOT FIT FOR ANYTHING TO USE FOR EXCEPT POISONING SOMETHING . SO REALLY WHAT PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT EACH ELEMENT HAS ITS GOOD AND BAD PROPERTIES AND CO2 HAS BOTH AS WELL .GOOD BECAUSE MOST IF NOT ALL LIFEFORMS ARE MADE OF IT AND THAT MAY BE ONE REASON IT IS FOUND IN SMALL AMOUNTS IN OUR ATMOSPHERE. THE BAD ONE IS OF COARSE THE FACT ITS AN GREENHOUSE GAS AND HAS BEEN KNOWN TO BE ONE FOR OVER AN HUNDRED YEARS I SEEN IN AN ARTICLE.
Bradley J. Dibble
October 31st
To Rolsthro: Your comments reflect a real misunderstanding of climate science. If indeed the ONLY determinant of global temperature was the amount of carbon dioxide, that might be a problem for the hypothesis of global warming. But carbon dioxide is only one of many. Others include solar irradiation (the amount of sunlight we get), the amount of volcanic dust int he atmosphere, and such localized events like El Nino that have a broad impact. The fact that the last solar sunspot cycle (number 23) was at an extreme minimum explains the reason for the plateau effect, or “negative correlation” as you describe it. And thank goodness that was the case: if cycle 23 had been associated with greater than average sunspot activity, we’d be in real trouble thanks to the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, soon to be 400 ppm in a matter of a few years. The science is so overwhelmingly in support of man-made or anthropgenic climate forcings that to deny it is akin to denying evolution, what boils down to ignoring the facts or misunderstanding the science.
J C
October 31st
What is amusing is how people will attack others for believing the words of one person, simply because they believe the contradictory words of another person. People are often ignorant of the logical fallacies they commit when deciding to take the words of a large figure as facts.
And what of the gaps in this study? They boast five times as many stations as previous studies yet do not specify how well distributed these temperature reading stations were. Based on the minimal information given, one could just as easily assume they were concentrated on one continent as distributed evenly throughout all the earth’s land.
This study only measures temperatures on land, what of the other two thirds of this planet? No temperatures were taken of water, yet it covers approximately 66.6% of Earth.
Matthew S. Kight
October 31st
One of the things being missed, is a basic description of,… not “if” CO2 is warming the climate, but “how” it does it. The bonds between the carbon atom and the two oxygen atoms can be thought of as soft springs. This results in natural frequency that is low enough to be in the irfrared range. When CO2, H2O, CH4 vibrate in the infrared range, that vibratory motion is stored energy. Remember “molecular motion” is temperature. When these vibrating molecules bump into the other molecules Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon etc. that motion results in an extra kick during the collision, and slightly higher velocity. This higher velocity “is” a higher temperature. I do not understand why Scientists and educators are putting together visual aids and 3D moving models to help explain how greenhouse gases store and re-emit energy, thus raising the earths temperature as their concentration increases.
Matt