There is a new report on global climate change this week that addresses many of the claims being raised against the theory by critics. Despite the overwhelming agreement of the scientific community, people continue to cite anecdotal observations of cool temperatures to refute predictions. The new report crunches the climate numbers and concludes that there is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
The research published in Climate Risk Management by Philip Kokica, Steven Crimpc, and Mark Howdend is reportedly the first to quantify the probability of historical changes in global temperatures. They directly address the arguments promulgated by climate change critics:
December 2013 was the 346th consecutive month where global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th century monthly average, with February 1985 the last time mean temperature fell below this value. Even given these and other extraordinary statistics, public acceptance of human induced climate change and confidence in the supporting science has declined since 2007. The degree of uncertainty as to whether observed climate changes are due to human activity or are part of natural systems fluctuations remains a major stumbling block to effective adaptation action and risk management. Previous approaches to attribute change include qualitative expert-assessment approaches such as used in IPCC reports and use of ‘fingerprinting’ methods based on global climate models. Here we develop an alternative approach which provides a rigorous probabilistic statistical assessment of the link between observed climate changes and human activities in a way that can inform formal climate risk assessment. We construct and validate a time series model of anomalous global temperatures to June 2010, using rates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as other causal factors including solar radiation, volcanic forcing and the El Niño Southern Oscillation. When the effect of GHGs is removed, bootstrap simulation of the model reveals that there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average. We also show that one would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling global temperatures (as observed since 1998) if climate change was not occurring. This approach to assessing probabilities of human influence on global temperature could be transferred to other climate variables and extremes allowing enhanced formal risk assessment of climate change.
They note that July 2014 was the 353rd consecutive month in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average. Notably, anyone born after February 1985 has not lived a single month where the global temperature was below the long-term average for that month. Their analysis put the probability of getting the same run of “warmer-than-average months without the human influence was less than 1 chance in 100,000.”
We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined.
Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data.
It is an interesting paper that I recommend to you. I am obviously already sold on the concept of climate change and strongly disagree with those fighting efforts to control the pollution linked to the change. However, we can have a civil discourse on the subject and I believe that this is a credible report worthy of inclusion in that ongoing debate.
The ozone layer is affected by CFCs, not CO2 . . .
This might be interesting to some of you:
Australian scientists with the Bureau of Meteorology have been accused of manipulating the country’s temperature record to make it seem it’s gotten warmer over the decades, The Australian newspaper reports.
Dr. Jennifer Marohasey claims the BOM’s adjusted temperature records are “propaganda” and not science, according to the Australian. Marohasey said she analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia and compared them to BOM data.
The result: the BOM’s adjusted data creates an artificial warming trend. Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of “dramatic warming” over the past century.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/25/australia-government-climate-office-accused-of-manipulating-temperature-data/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming Debate is that no debate is allowed. It’s either agree with the party line or be called derisive names. Honest, open discussion is not typically tolerated among the Liberal party.
It’s unfortunate, because that’s not how the Liberal party began. And yet, on topic after topic, it’s always the same – agree with the party line or you’re stupid, racist, anti-woman, anti-poor . . . pick the epithet.
It’s a shame, because honest, sincere discussion of issues is what this country really needs. But we’ve thrown away the ability to talk to each other. Next we’ll be hurling shoes.
Centinel
“If out gracious host wants I will send him the math and he can post it here if he wants.”
Why don’t you send it to people that are qualified to critique it? Why don’t you publish your work?
“In fact I have developed solutions to that problem that would actually work which is why they never will be.”
Ah, yes, the sole genius — works never shown because, “they never will be.”
Spin says:
“Great thoughtful reply.”
Matt Johnson – the climate debate publication is a monopoly held by Michael Mann and his minions. Anything that does not meet their meme of global warming, does not make the cut to be published. This is one of the very clear things we learned from Michael Mann’s emails.
Centinel – great post. I would love to see the math, and your suggestions on pollution. Politicians don’t get much done, besides raising taxes and wasting money, do they?
Karen, The education industry is corrupt. It hates the First Amendment and are whores for whomever is paying them.
Actually, having worked in science, anyone who researches science is a scientist, including MDs. I’ve personally known many MDs with the job title “Associate Scientist,” or “Scientist.”
In college, they study the science of medicine. Their undergraduate degree will typically be a Bachelor of Science.
The difficulty here is that the “consensus” referred to among scientists is composed of scientists in varied fields simply believing the IPCC.
When people hear there is consensus among anthropologists, paleontologists, ecologists, etc, they may assume that each of these scientists investigated climate research independently and came to a similar conclusion. That would be a useful body of knowledge. However, in actuality, scientists merely believe what the IPCC tell them, without actually researching or looking into it. Or they use the “homogenized” data provided them, with the original data missing and unable to be verified. If we all used the same “homogenized” data, many would come to similar results. However, the sad fact is that their computer models have NEVER been right. They have never made an accurate prediction. So we have homogenized data that came out of faulty computer models. And yet, chunks of the original data were lost, so none of us can independently verify the homogenization process. Also, testing stations were moved from their original locations, and the researchers either lied about it or were unaware. So that data is also tainted.
So honest, sincere scientists are depending on the IPCC to be ethical, when they have serious violations. And they are depending on data that has been homogenized, that no one can check. And they depend on computer modeling and forecasts that have never ever been accurate, even once.
So, again, “consensus” does not mean that the entire scientific community came to the same independent conclusion.
Why are the IPCC et al so stubborn? They should rectify their mistakes immediately so that we can all have some good data to go on. And, to play Captain Obvious for a moment, no one should make publishing decisions for his own paper in any peer-reviewed journal. If they had followed basic Good Laboratory Practices years ago, and started over, we would have some good data by now. But now, let’s just keep throwing money at it and flogging anyone who has a problem with how they did the research.
Industry never would have gotten away with this. What is going on in academia?
@Maxcat-06
Oh, I don’t take the barbs personally. I strike back in my own low key fashion, when someone calls me stupid ala “open window” , “sake'”, and “poetry at short notice. . . ”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Barkin dog – the gov’t is already on it, with plans to address cow fart contributions to global warming. Because apparently it’s completely different than when mega fauna walked the Earth, farting.
Centinel
Is it true that you’re suggesting that wearing a plastic bag over ones head does not raise the risk of death due to over exposure to CO2?
Max-1 – sticking someone’s head under H2O and leaving it there for 5 minutes will also do damage. That does not mean H2O is a pollutant.
Centinel
Too much CO2 can kill you. Period. Fact.
Centenial2012 …. I
I’d be very much interested in the formulas you have. If you can, send them to my email at aridog@comcast.net. Curiosity of mine is to see how close they are to the projections of the Hydraulics & Hydrology Engineers I worked with before retirement.
Centinel, Great thoughtful reply. It stands out even more w/ some of the vapid ones lately.
Turley needs to cut this cancer out. They are driving away good people.
Wow, its about time for JT to step in again.
WOW I’m surprised this thread is still going I left it this morning as I had to go to work.
Just a point of reference CO2 is a requirement for plants to grow and is therefore not a pollutant but a plant food. Plants grow best with CO2 over 1000 ppm. The issue with CO2 is the sensitivity or forcing value witch was first set by the National Academy of Sciences in 1979 at 3.0 degrees C +/- 1.5 degrees C per doubling. That value is still being used today even though most current peer review papers are trending down ward and none that i have seen are in the range the IPCC uses. If natural causes are ignored that the value of 3.0 is required to make the models work.
But if you use 3.0 then its hard to make the models work with geological values with are known that is the core problem and as a previous post indicated anyone that has modeled complex system knows how difficult it is and how important that it is to be able to work with observations. There are also “serious” math issues with the log functions that are used to models the forcing values based on the levels of CO2 in the Atmosphere. It appears that if a forcing value of under 1.0 degree is used that a proper mix if natural and CO2 can be developed and that shows that CO2 does have an effect and does raise the temperature just not to the degree that the IPCC claims.
I’m not worried of this issue any logger since the debate will be over within the next decade which s how long the current down trend in temperatures will last. By that time the models will be corrected and may actually work. If any one is interested I will give them equations that will work from 1650 AD to today and be within +/- 1% of published NASA global temperatures for the past 20 or so years. If out gracious host wants I will send him the math and he can post it here if he wants.
Just becuase i don’t believe CO2 is the problem that it is said to be doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that pollution is real and shouldn’t be stopped. It is real and the oceans are a huge problem. In fact I have developed solutions to that problem that would actually work which is why they never will be.
Politicians to not want to really solve issue that like to keep things stirred up so that they can raise money for their political and personal purposes. This applies to both parties in equal proportion.
Not related to this subject but a point of clarification. The tea party is actually composed for the most part of financial conservatives that see the national debt ballooning out of control by crony capitalism. China is now using the surplus money they have accumulated to buy up US corporations. They have well of a trillion dollars just in Government securities and who knows how much else they have. China Russian India along with Brazil and South Africa have formed the BRICS which has been set up to replace the Dollar as the reserve currency. This is not speculation but hard fact and it is being implemented as I write this. The result will be a flood of dollars coming back into the u.S. either to buy assets or property which will give foreigners title to much of our resources I would guess. it will also create inflation beyond what we have ever experienced.
In the mean time we call each other names and worry about things with no consequence while the real issues which are financial are building to a crescendo that is close to the breaking point. This is what I and most my my other tea party members worry about.
Nick…if Lawnboy or the LPN is no matter to me. I read a couple more threads like this one and I can save some band width easily.
Really? Funny how Spin hasn’t said squat since about 8:00 PM and yet the sniping continues. No matter to me, I’m a new guy and if I see much more of this I’ll be a gone guy, no loss to y’all I am sure. BTW…one of y’all periodically fires up their sock puppet and drops poop over on Lem’s Levity…easy to spot as he/she speaks only of persons commenting here….on subjects from here, not Lem’s. How adult.
Ari, Dogs can smell that stuff out. Lawnboy?
Yeah, Spin brought it with him.