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.
@Nicks
Well, with apologies to Mark Twain for the title, I just did a generic Irish Poem for all those commenters who proffer only insults, in one form or another:
To The Person Sh_ _ _ ing in Darkness???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a poster obsessed,
With flinging insults at the rest!
All take-ee, no give-ee,
He sat in his privy,
Enjoying the smell of success!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Karen, Today I added a guy to my list after only responding once. Some just SCREEEEAM “DO NOT RESPOND.”
Nick,
“It is choosing the light over the darkness.”
But only after you make your dark slights, eh?
Annie
I’ll link to an article later (at work now w/ no time) about ozone. I think you’re correct about sunscreen and hats.
Squeeky, LOL! As bad as threads like this become, you remember the really dark days. I just don’t want us to go back to those vicious days. For some here, that’s their goal. They got no game, so sabotage is their end game.
Well, Professor Turley seems quite sure that the new report has merit. I trust his judgment in this matter.
@Annie
I agree. He’s not a raging liberal, to be sure.
@KarenS
OH, well I remember the Trayvon threads! When I did a Trayvon song to the tune of Horst Wessel,and the Sarcastic Good Night Prayer, things got heated quickly. I was called every name in the book. I guess that’s when you know you’re over the target.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Karen, Dark sunglasses. I have cataracts so then I can’t see shit. And, it is just that.
Schuey, There you go thinking for yourself. Just trust the govt. They would never lie to you.
Nick – do they make special glasses for that? I need to buy some.
And I haven’t even “denied” climate change! I just have a problem with how they handled and collected the data, and feel I can’t form an opinion either way. Imagine what would happen to me if I actually opposed anthropogenic climate change. 🙂
Karen, You don’t need to walk away from the computer. With some folks, I simply don’t even read the drivel they write. That makes it much easier.
Haha, now I pray at the alter of St Spin because I criticize documented fraud in the data. See what I mean about a complete inability in the Liberal party to have a discussion among the many opinions in the country? It’s group think or nothing.
I personally am skeptical of global warming, & not because I don’t believe in it, or think it’s not possible. With populations exploding around the undeveloped world, it’s a distinct possibility. Do I believe people as a whole we’re having a negative impact on the earth, hell ya, do I think we’re changing the climate overall, undecided. The problems I have is there’s constantly two sides to this argument with one side screaming change, the other screaming hogwash, it does leave one wanting in terms of right & wrong, with seemingly shades of grey in the middle. The second issue I have with this, is it is always pushed to use governments, which frankly are becoming very despotic in the west due to the never ending war and climate of fear they themselves have created, not to mention the insolvency problems our governments face, to usher in more über government control over people. This is a complete misappropriation of govt power & I believe in many cases the pro side has a nefarious agenda in many cases. So personally I’m always hesitant to trust govt climate studies, the inevitable conclusion is always more tax and tyranny. I think given the glorious decline of Liberty & freedom in the west in the last decade + we should be very careful about taking a hard stance on this issue and reflexively calling for govt controls. That said, I believe most people are good, & the more we educate society about caring for the environment, the better choices they will make as consumers, & more & more companies will follow a “greener” path if ya catch my drift.
Nick – darn it, I keep trying reason. I’m going to walk away from my computer/temptation. Hahaha.
I said that anyone who disagrees with the Liberal party line gets called names, and that discussion does not seem to be allowed. This has happened to me many times, as well as others.
Just a casual review of this blog will turn up “deniers” “low cranial capacity” “race to the bottom of intellect.”
It’s patently obvious to the most casual observer. But denial does not recognize itself. It would be helpful if people would become more open to discussing issues rather than jumping on anyone who disagrees with them. As in the Trayvon Martin Case, Ferguson, Global Warming, Police Brutality . . . shall I go on? I’m sure I can name 20 topics in which discussion was not allowed, and anyone who had another opinion was called names and belittled, instead of hearing everyone out and having a public discussion on important issues.
Karen, You’re doing a great job ignoring. It’s the only way. It is choosing the light over the darkness.
Squeeky – of course they have. It’s rampant in Climate Science, and well documented, which is exactly why I complain so often about the poor ethics in this popular topic.
Karen do you think someone is calling you derisive names because they disagree with you? What names have you been called? Or is that another straw man?
“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.”
Honest, open discussion requires just that. Go ahead and pray at the alter of St. Spin, while you pretend to be slighted.