Today’s New York Times Op-Ed section has a must-read piece by an erstwhile climate-change skeptic who has been converted, Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley.  His piece, “The conversion of a climate-change skeptic,” is a must read (it’s short), and links to five technical papers on the phenomenon by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. According to Muller, the data are nearly incontrovertible: global warming is real, and we’re the cause.  He is properly cautious, but the case is strong. It’s a good, well-written piece that carefully explains the science behind the conclusions.

Muller first explains his conclusion:

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

And then he shows how it withstands common criticisms:

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

What is the basis of his conclusion? Note how he leaves room for other explanations, as unlikely as they may be:

What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice. . .

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

He then warns us not to go whole hog:

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

Read the papers (link above); he notes that four of them have already been peer-reviewed. They conclude that global temperature over land will increase by 1.5 degrees overthe next five decades, or even two decades if China keeps growing and using coal.

We must do something about this. But we won’t.  Such is the tragedy of the commons.

Last week Matthew Cobb put up a nice animated map of the world’s ocean currents. Today, courtesy of alert reader Ken, we have a cool real-time map of where and how strongly the winds are blowing in the U.S. at this moment:

Animated wind map here.

You can click on any point to enlarge the map and find out the local wind-speed reading.

Right now it’s blowing gusts down the central U.S., but things are pretty calm in Chicago.