Submitted by Charlton Stanley (aka Otteray Scribe), Guest Blogger
Approximately 1,000 weather reporting stations all over the world have been monitoring local temperatures for decades. Temperature data have been compiled and analyzed by NASA scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since the year 2000. The tenth? From the 20th Century, that was 1998. Temperature rise is not completely steady and consistent from one year to the next. That is due to factors such as volcanic eruptions and other natural causes; however, trends are the important thing.
We can see from the short video below the flip that Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. Weather experts warn that a consistent global average change of even a half-degree Fahrenheit can have catastrophic effects on global weather patterns. Anyone recall April and May 2011?
130 years in 27 seconds:
Viewers are reminded that we are in the longest stretch in the written hurricane record ( Notice I said written ? get tired of hearing hottest on record….. hottest on record) to go without a Major Hurricane Strike Cat 3 or higher on the coast of the United States. Barack Obama under any president has had the least amount of hurricanes during his presidency than any other U.S. President thus far.
The number of F3-F5 violent tornadoes over the last 50 years is going down.
The total acreage burnt of World Wide Wild fires over the last 50 years is going down. I love Smokey the Bear Only you can prevent wildfires.
Number of Major floods last 50 years is decreasing.
ON and On and On the only way to know this is by looking at the empirical data on each.
NASA Climate Change Letter Belongs To Long Tradition Of Fake Expertise
By Lucia Graves
4/13/12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/13/nasa-climate-change-denier-stunts_n_1424492.html
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — When former NASA administrators, astronauts and engineers released a letter earlier this week attacking the science of climate change, its veneer of legitimacy kicked off a media blitz. Yet none of the letter’s 49 signatories are climate scientists, and with more than 18,000 people currently working for NASA, to say nothing of the tens of thousands more who are retired, the letter seems more than anything like an empty publicity stunt, and one for which there’s considerable precedent.
“When you have an area of the science where there is a consensus like in climate change, where the problem is real and the scientific implications are on a collision course with vested interests like the fossil fuel industry, you often see this,” said Michael Mann, a well-known climate scientist and Penn State professor.
NASA has been clear that it firmly accepts the reality of the science behind climate change, including the work of renowned climate scientist James Hansen, so complaints from a few dozen retired NASA administrators and a handful of astronauts and engineers calling on NASA to stop saying that anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes climate change can hardly be taken seriously.
A full 98 percent of all working climate scientists affirm anthropogenic climate change, according to a paper published in 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found the evidence that the world is warming to be “unequivocal.”
“They can’t discredit the science in the legitimate sphere of scientific debate, which is to say, the peer-reviewed literature, the various assessment reports published by various governments … so what they try to do is create the illusion that the science is being hotly contested by finding the small group, often of curmudgeonly individuals, who might feel left out,” said Mann, who documents this recurrent phenomenon in his newly released book, “The Hockey Stick And The Climate Wars: Dispatches From The Front Lines.”
Author John Cook similarly considers such public announcements as one of the five most easily identifiable characteristics of science denialism, wherein deniers use fake experts to undermine established science.
“These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge,” writes Cook. “Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.”
The stunts gain traction in part because it can be hard for non-experts to determine what is and what isn’t legitimate criticism. Evolutionary biologists, who’ve long had to contend with such attacks, have parodied the trickery with “Project Steve,” a media stunt in which they collected the signatures only of evolutionary biologists named Steve to demonstrate how easy it is to round up a group people who’ll sign on to just about anything.
There’s a long history of climate deniers who write such letters (their preferred vehicle) to voice their discontent. The much-discussed Oregon Petition has been repeatedly debunked, with both the scientific credentials and the authenticity of its signatories’ names being called into question. When Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories, for instance, only “11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.”
Another effort, known as the Wall Street Journal 16, urged people not to take any actions to address climate change. Spearheaded by Harrison Schmitt, who also helped organize this week’s letter from former NASA employees, the op-ed boasted only two climate scientists who’d published climate research in the past three decades. What’s more, nearly half of the 16 scientists on the list had received fossil fuel industry funding, according to Skeptical Science.
The other question is has CO2 in the atmosphere ever been recorded at 0.
What is the relevance of speculation regarding the output of models for CO2 in those ranges? If there were a real interest or a need to consider effects in those ranges why not just run the appropriate model instead of suggest that people outside the field guess?
No need for speculation. The worlds top climate scientist has already testified years ago that 350PPM is just right see 350.org
The problem is the weather was much much worse when CO2 was below 350PPM as evidence in the empirical data of everything from hurricanes to rain that ends up in the drain. So the questioned poised is. If 350PPM is just right to make the weather stable why not make it 300 like the old days and see what happens.
“How long does the record go back ?”
Systematic recording of weather data began in the US in the mid 1800’s.
“Do you believe that the record is accurate now or before it was adjusted?”
Even back yard mechanics know that sensors, even something as simple as a MAP sensor, sometimes have to be adjusted – biased or calibrated – to give accurate results to work with the rest of the electronics in the auto.
It is my understanding that much of this data was collected by automated equipment. The question is not was the data adjusted but whether the adjustment is reasonable and appropriate. The people who actually work in this field seem to think the data has been handled appropriately.
“He created a fake memo and committed identity fraud. A very ethical person which forced his resignation. ”
His forced resignation ought to tell you something – there are zealots every where and the institution deals with problems as it becomes aware of them. The incident does not seem to have changed the opinions of members, or the consensus of the organization regarding this matter.
“The president of the AGU Carol Finn is a federal employee by the way.”
Your argument seems to be that the actions of one person impugns the integrity of all the people in a group. And then that group membership call into question the integrity of a different person, in particular Carol Finn.
This is an ad hominem attack that reveals faulty reasoning at two points. First there is no reason to believe that bad actions by one government employee reflects on all government employees. The second is that Carol Finn’s employment in government somehow suggest she is not a capable leader.
The fact is that thousands of professionals in this field choose Finn to represent them.
“How long does the record go back ?”
Systematic recording of weather data by the weather service began in the US in the mid 1800’s.
“Do you believe that the record is accurate now or before it was adjusted?”
Even back yard mechanics know that sensors, even something as simple as a MAP sensor, sometimes have to be adjusted – biased or calibrated – to give accurate results to work with the rest of the electronics in the auto.
It is my understanding that much of this data was collected by automated equipment. The question is not was the data adjusted but whether the adjustment is reasonable and appropriate. The people who actually work with this data seem to think the data has been handled appropriately.
“He created a fake memo and committed identity fraud. A very ethical person which forced his resignation. ”
His forced resignation ought to tell you something – there are zealots every where and the institution deals with problems as it becomes aware of them. The incident does not seem to have changed the opinions of members, or the consensus of the organization regarding this matter.
“The president of the AGU Carol Finn is a federal employee by the way.”
Your argument seems to be that the actions of one person impugns the integrity of all the people in a group. And then that group membership call into question the integrity of a different person, in particular Carol Finn.
This is an ad hominem attack that reveals faulty reasoning at two points. First there is no reason to believe that bad actions by one government employee reflects on all government employees. The second is that Carol Finn’s employment in government somehow suggest she is not a capable leader.
The fact is that thousands of professionals in this field choose Finn to represent them.
Joe Blow:
Good luck to you.
Climate changes all the time, its natural. In fact it changes from place to place.
Apparently you neither understand sarcasm nor what constitutes proper statistical surveying methods, Joe.
And if you’re irritated?
I’m f**king ecstatic.
I tend to have that reaction when I irritate the scientifically ignorant and corporatist apologists. That you’re both in one package? Joy!
WSJ Publishes Op-Ed From 16 Climate Deniers, Refused Letter From 255 Top Scientists
By Brad Johnson
January 30, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/30/414277/wsj-publishes-op-ed-from-16-climate-deniers-refused-letter-from-255-top-scientists/
Excerpt:
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, sixteen prominent global warming deniers with scientific backgrounds — such as tobacco apologist Richard Lindzen of MIT and ExxonMobil executive Roger Cohen — concede that manmade carbon dioxide emissions have a warming effect on the planet, but argue that the effect is “small” and nothing to “panic” about. All the other scientists in the world who believe the science are part of a conspiracy to intimidate people like themselves, they write, just as Soviet biologists who believed in genes were “sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.”
As climate scientist Peter Gleick reports at his Forbes.com blog, those other scientists include 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences who wrote a letter about the scientific threat of climate change for the Wall Street Journal — but were turned down:
The most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal with respect to manmade climate change is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a scientifically accurate essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because 16 so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.
The NAS letter was eventually published by Science magazine.
The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists.
I hope to hell there are alot more scientist out there than that or we are in for some real trouble.
E.M —So I take it your answer is yes the weather will get better
G.H.—-Normally when someone ends with Have a Nice day it is assumed that they are leaving and saying good bye. Your like a canker sore that keeps coming back.
Have a Nice day
No, Joe, I just didn’t miss this:
“Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity.
The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is “very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century.”
Click here for an interactive graphic that shows how global warming occurs.
As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.
In the study, the authors wrote: “This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.”
The study authors were William R.L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider.
The report comes as the Earth continues to sizzle in 2010. So far, through May, 2010 is the warmest year ever recorded, according to the National Climatic Data Center.”
Joe,
It is the Kochs, you and your ilk who are trying to stifle the debate on climate change. Deny, deny, deny. Echo, echo, echo.
Joe,
You’re right–the world is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth, which was created in less than a week.
When I hear someone whine about corporate free speech as if it is a real thing, I hear a fascist/corporatist apologist who buys into the false paradigm of Buckley v. Valeo that money is the equivalent to free speech. It wasn’t then and it isn’t now, but it is a fine example of how money can and does corrupt the legislative and judicial processes to get counterfactual laws effected that trash the duty to the public good in favor of private profits.
Centuries ago, people believed that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. What they believed was incorrect…wasn’t it?
And Just a few short years ago the majority of people believed climate change is real and man was the major cause. Today not so much. Why ? Because they probably asked themselves, 3rd time asking you……
Do you think if we reduced CO2 to 300 or below that the weather will get better ?
The vast majority of the climate sciences community –
You must have missed this
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
When I read this
We have seen the kind of influence that money has in elections and advertising of commercial products. I think if we reduced the financial influence of KOCH2 in the climate change debate, we’d probably see a change in the attitudes of many people.
I hear stifle debate. After all the theory of evolution,,gravity, relativity are theories but climate change is fact. It’s always changing.
Joe,
If being a Kochpuppet makes you happy, then I’m happy for you.
However, when it comes to climate change, you’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. The vast majority of the climate sciences community – those not bought and paid for by fascists like the Kochs anyway – agree the AGW is a real thing. Anyone with a basic understanding of the chemistry of carbon can understand how the mechanism works. If taking action to mitigate the damage caused by human produced carbon to our environment takes profits from people like your nominal employer the Kochs? I really don’t care. Business is a risk and we as a species have no obligation to prop up their profits at the cost of our environment. In fact, we as a species have a survival obligation to put fascist sociopathic clowns like the Kochs out of business.
Have a nice day.