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.
Daily Mail touts McKitrick study using biased methods to question climate change
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/09/04/daily-mail-touts-mckitrick-study-using-biased-methods/
@Maxcat06
Well, the way I handle it, is to be doing something else while the laptop is open to the website. That way, I can pop in and out of the comments without totally concentrating on them. Right now, I am also reading a How To Play The Harmonica book, and I have had a fit of giggles all night about the unintentional double entendres. That helps with the barbs. I want to be a chartreuse when I grow up, and the harmonica will give me a way to play some melody and counterpoints to the guitar.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@Squeeky
Interesting. Your idea puts me in mind of my public library. They actually loan out ukeleles. I asked one of the librarians how the program was going, and she said that it was wildly popular. I don’t know if I can get one, but it’s an idea. I’m many years past my piano and clarinet days, but I think it’ll come back; it’s like riding a bike, right? As I posted to you one night, for me, of all things, baseball helps, but my team has an off day tonight.
Annie,
Here’s that link I promised on ozone…
Three new ozone-depleting gases discovered in atmosphere
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/04/three-new-ozone-depleting-gases-discovered-in-atmosphere
http://youtu.be/UOLKXIIItfg
Squeeky,
“Well, who I had in mind when I wrote it is not something I will ever reveal because that would be un-civil. But FWIW, it wasn’t NickS. And that is all I will say about that.”
I’m so surprised that your scatological limerick wasn’t addressed to St. Nick.
“. . . I don’t think Karen S (although I don’t speak for her), complaining about unfairness . . . ”
That’s all she’s done for some time now. You go ahead and bury you head in the sand. Once you move out from your parent’s basement, you’ll find the world doesn’t think you’re so clever.
Maxcat, I’m only a year younger than you. I get being tired of it, but it’s a challenge and even fun to point out dishonesty and hypocrisy to me. When it ceases to be worth my effort, I too will step back and say F it.
@Annie
I’ll see. By now, I just need to prioritize what is worth the effort and what isn’t. Considering the high opinion some here have of their own importance, I don’t think it’s worth it. Perhaps if I did just find it amusing, it would be different…
@Annie
At age 63, I’ve been fighting for too long, and I’m tired. I used to be brave. Now, I really don’t give a s**t, but I don’t need the insults for no reason. I have things I’m still involved in that take my time, and, despite what some here might think, they’re not all “woo woo” causes. I hate nastiness for no reason, however.
@Matt Johnson
Well, who I had in mind when I wrote it is not something I will ever reveal because that would be un-civil. But FWIW, it wasn’t NickS. And that is all I will say about that.
And, you will never see me, and I don’t think Karen S (although I don’t speak for her), complaining about unfairness. I can take it, and I can more than dish it out.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Good night all. Maybe some of you should form a support group. I hear they help some folks.
@Nick
They might help the chronically nasty as well.
I understand Maxcat, come back and don’t stay away too long? As for me, I refuse to be cowed. I refuse to be intimidated. I will continue to call out dishonesty where I see it, my skin is thick.
Squeeky,
Also, could you refrain from calling your rhymes “poems”? They are nothing but juvenile limericks.
Squeeky,
“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!”
You’ve described Nick to a “T”.
Good job.
Now, as the two hens of St. Nick, why don’t you and Karen write a libretto clucking about the unfairness of the world and how you’re both so misunderstood.
Maxcat
Nick generally sets that stage. It’s his MO. And Mr Turley allows him that privilege… Amazing!
Maxcat liberals have been called cultists and worse and the very ones who seem to be playing victim either are quiet or agree outright. I have seen blatant liberal bashing with added attention to female liberals. Usually the one who comments how well the discussion is going is the one who calls liberals cultists. They seem to be expert at handing it out, but they most assuredly cannot take it. I think Karen should make a greater effort to stop the name calling of liberals here, then she might be viewed at being honest about name calling.
@Annie
You and I are thinking of the same person. That’s why I had to take a “vacation” from this place. I love the topics, and often the conversation, but I suppose I’m thin skinned. There should be room given and respect given to both sides of an argument, but once that is attempted, the insults begin. Of course, some on the “liberal” side can tend to go off on tangents, as on this topic, but there are reasonable liberals that make up a large segment of this country, and this site, but are marginalized continuously. There are individuals I can converse with, but as a whole, I think I’m dropping back again. I don’t have to invite insult for simply having a different political persuasion, and I don’t need to constantly have to defend it. I don’t know the absolute demographic, but judging from the last election, this country is probably split 50/50, and to discount an entire half of the population is absurd.
Showing GREAT discipline Karen. Stay strong.
on 1, September 4, 2014 at 10:28 pmKaren S
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.
*********************************
And Karen, who is stopping you from discussing any topic? That straw man just keeps getting larger. Is a spirited discussion in which people disagree with you stopping you from engaging in discussion?
@Annie
What I have actually seen, especially in threads where I decided to not inject myself, was that there would be a sneer about “liberals” and then someone would comment on how well the discussion was going!
Annie – since I have been following your comments for some time I have learned when you pick up a new meme. This week it seems to be ‘straw man.’ You are actually using a straw man fallacy in your response to Karen.
BINGO! Karen has a penchant for mischaracterizing the comments of some others here. It seems to be a thing that happens in every debate with her, despite correcting her mischaracterization. She then cuts and pastes ones comments, and puts her OWN spin on them all over again. It’s frustrating as all get out and then she goes on to indicate that it is she that has been maligned. When asked directly who maligned her she doesn’t seem to be able to point to a specific comment, but says it’s constantly happening.
Again Karen, who here has called you any names??
🙂
Wise advice.
It’s so appreciated that Prof Turley writes his posts with the implication that all sides of an issue will be discussed. I agree with his statement that “Some of us would like to discuss the climate change issue on its merits.” I do not think he would call any of us names if we discussed all sides of a topic he introduced.
Centinel,
The only way anyone would dismiss your contribution in this thread is if they had formed an opinion based on an agenda and not on science. They are also likely to be the first to challenge the character of the messenger and not the quality of the message.