• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

is global waming to blame?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Rare October snowstorm pelts the Northeast

Snow was coming down from central Pennsylvania up into southeastern New York and Connecticut after blanketing parts of Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland earlier in the day, AccuWeather.com forecasters said.

"It's a strong storm for October," said AccuWeather.com senior meteorologist Paul Walker.

"We don't usually see storms this deep and this strong," he said, adding it was unusual to get accumulating snow this month.

The rare early season snowstorm was expected to unleash heavy, wet snow and wind across much of the Northeast on Saturday with some areas bracing for up to a foot of snow and major power outages.

The storm was moving northeast, starting as rain and changing to snow as temperatures dropped, and was expected to hit hardest areas west and northwest of the I-95 highway corridor, Walker said.

While October snow is not unprecedented, this storm could be record-setting in terms of snow totals.

Hartford, Connecticut, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Worcester, Massachusetts were among the cities that could be blanketed with up to a foot of snow, forecasters said.

Allentown, for example, typically sees its first measurable snow around December 5, according to The Weather Channel.

Boston will generally see its first measurable snow around the end of November, while New York City and Philadelphia measure their first flakes, on average, mid-December.

The major coastal cities are not likely to be spared from this October nor'easter, meteorologists predicted.

New York City was bracing for up to four inches of snow, tapering off Saturday night, The Weather Channel said.

In Boston, the forecast called for a windy afternoon rain to turn to snow overnight, bringing up to three inches of white stuff, it said.

Wind gusts along the coast could reach 45 miles per hour, it said, adding to the tree limbs and power lines already expected to be down from the heavy, wet snow.

locally we have lots of rain, flooding, and winds are picking up... but thankfully no snow yet..
 

flounder

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
0
Location
TEXAS
Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real


SETH BORENSTEIN 10/30/11 03:39 PM ET


WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

On Monday, Muller was taking his results – four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says – to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.

"Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things."

Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."

And that started on Sunday, when a British newspaper said one of Muller's co-authors, Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, accused Muller of another Climategate-like scandal and trying to "hide the decline" of recent global temperatures.

The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues "are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice."

The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller's public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.

Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too.

Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.

"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."

Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said.

Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer – frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email.

In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins.

___

Online:

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature site: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/index.php

Judith Curry's blog on the study and her supposed criticisms: http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

Santa Fe climate conference: http://bit.ly/rQknVi

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
MWP.jpg

if you note the end of the data.. how the red (man-made measures) and the blue, go in different directions,

Why?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
flounder said:
Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

Richard Muller has been a believer in "man made global warming (AGW) since the 80s, but is a "poor scientist" that was criticized back in March for taking funding from Koch for this study.




So how credible is this guy, after lying about being a skeptic?


But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties
– a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/10/30/climategate-ii-supposedly-science-settling-proof-global-warming-allegedl#ixzz1cPGxNkSr




So what did Muller prove?


Here's a chart showing Muller's findings on "global warming" using Best's own numbers"



global-temps-lg.jpg


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/30/surprise-no-warming-in-last-11-years/








So flounder......which is it now?

1) Muller made some mistakes with the data, illustrating that he is a poor scientist

2) Koch paid him to skew the data, and to claim "man-made Global warming is real"

3) His data is correct and there hasn't been any global warming for the past 10-11 years

4) Prof Curry is a liar and the data really does show that global warming has continued the past 10-11 years



Why is it you libs/Huffington post jump on this stuff before doing any type of verification.....which could have been done with a 2 minute "google", like I just did?


San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2006:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0623-03.htm

… Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that humans are causing global warming…



I guess it's official AGW is happening and we need to tax economic growth out of existence. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
It would be funny if people weren't so gullible.

The Title itself is hilarious.

"Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real"

So Global Warming was suppose to be real- though it wasn't.
Now the same people that just told us that lie, are saying that Climate Change is really really real and we are suppose to believe them because they are credible?

I understand that the originators are set to make financial gain and political power. But it amazes me how this lie has tapped into to so many other people. At the root of it all, I guess it is easier for people to buy into a lie (that they can control their own destiny and that of humanity) vs admitting that God is, has been and will be in control of our Universe since Creation.
 

Latest posts

Top