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.
Any objective observer, hopefully JT being among them, will see what side of this debate is being personal and uncivil and which side is being adults.
Over the years I’ve come to accept that “Rock and Roll” is dead. So too, I am finally coming to the acceptance that true science is dead. Money and preconceived beliefs have pretty much destroyed science as we thought it should be. It would also seem not so coincidental that science has died as our govt. has grown and the nanny state has taken over. Just look at how much power our non-elected EPA has over us.
I never said Centinel was a paid troll, merely a member of the Tea Party, which compromises his integrity in my opinion. Members of the Tea Party subscribe to a very warped and constricted view of government and by extension, society.
However, I salute you Centinel for your work with the stipulation that your patents do nothing to validate your understanding of climate science.
This business of calling people trolls or suggesting that either side is trolling will have to stop. I have not deleted any comments but I will do so under our civility rule. It is a juvenile form of argument to attack opponents personally in his way and paint those who disagree with you as trolls. I also fail to see why it is a viable argument to dismiss people because of their alleged political affiliation or associations. Some of us would like to discuss the climate change issue on its merits. If you want to accuse people of trolling or claim to be troll stomping, please move to another blog for such recreation. Both sides of this thread have engaged in uncivil and frankly immature name calling on this issue. I hope that this warning is sufficient to allow other people to comment on the merits and the facts from both sides.
justagurl – here is one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/
That didn’t take long. The Reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy. For those not familiar with it, it is a combination of ad hominem or ad misericordiam; i.e., a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something’s or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. Its name is a variation on the reductio ad absurdum argument.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is usually referred to as, “Playing the Nazi card,” and is a rhetorical tactic used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent. See the commentary and explanation by Gary Curtis at the link below.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html
Guys and gals its been fun but I’m off to work! Have fun with the discussion but keep it civil it works better that way.
Paul, Don’t get in a tit for tat. The 2 accusers have been called out. I strongly urge shunning of them. Chucky won’t return, that’s his MO. Accuse and leave. But, this new troll, rainparade, will keep agitating. Let him and JT will be given a heads up. Don’t get caught in his web.
Schulte: If you had a point, you keep making these ridiculous allegations. The subject of this post has nothing to do with Dr Mann and paleoclimatoligists.
Centiniel,
“This is basic science and engineering the field that I work in and all of the great minds of science such as Richard Feynman would be appalled at what passes for science today.”
Thank you, that was much better said than what I was going to write. But it’s true, I work for a scientific organization and I see far too often the conclusion written before the results are in to prove the theory correct. Sometimes it works out. Other times there is such a manipulation of the data that it’s near impossible to show if the results are correct or not. And when grant money and scientific fame are on the line…
I sure wish i was being paid I’m an independent researcher and have to watch every penny … 🙂 Oh and BTW I have 7 issued patents and I’m working on an 8th (a wind turbine design that might stop killing the birds) almost all in the field of energy
Charlton – I made the Hitler connection because I thought it would make sense. There is no association except the analogy. Even you can see that. I could have put any number of people in that slot, but Hitler and social justice came to mind to show how absurd the idea of Michael Mann being a legitimate scientist was.
The fallacy argument does not fit here because I did not call him a Nazi or Hitler. I just pointed out the absurdity of his research standards. I do not think you are using the fallacy correctly.
BTW, put your money where your mouth is. Who on here is a paid troll? You have made the accusation, back it up.
Paul Schulte: Apologize to the thread for your work
Nick: Your sworn testimony has absolutely no value. You appear to be a nice guy looking to make friends beyond your immediate social circle, and that’s great. But I think you’ve been taken in
Nick: Belief in climate change is not a religion; you’re analogy is an extremely poor one, and very convoluted owing to the fact that denialists of make religious claims and appeals to bolster their contentions.
Climate scientists are doing what scientists do: study natural phenomena, make observations, and report their findings to the community. In the case of global warming, they’re attempting to warn us about a potentially cataclysmic event unless we do something. The remedies they are proposing, based on their research, are achievable and pose no great inconvenience for anyone except for the extremely powerful corporate element of world society.
Centinel, The left religious zealots are showing what they’re about. We normal need to stay positive. Call them on their BS and zealotry, but we must not stoop to their level.
Perfect. An anonymous troll identifies 2 people as paid trolls I know offline. I know PaulS and KarenS. They are both easily identifiable.I will testify under oath are not paid trolls. But, a “rainparade appears from nowhere and starts naming names that are a lie. This is the religious left @ it’s “finest.”
Just an aside when anyone results to name calling they dismiss themselves from the argument they become irrelevant.
justagurlinseattle It has absolutely been politicized! I have worked in the field of science and engineer all my life and I saw no reason to disbelieve the theory of anthropogenic climate change as why would scientists lie? That would be against everything I knew. But when i was finishing work on a PEM Fuel Cell project in 2004 I was getting concerned of energy supplies and dusted of some of my books for the ’70s (excellent work was done back then) so after digging in I found there was much that didn’t make sense.
So I spent thousands of hours research and studying and it became obvious that something was very wrong. Politics and money have made it impossible to do real science today and so we have hard positions taken and to be honest neither side is completely right not completely wrong. CO2 does have an effect on the climate and anyone that’s says otherwise is wrong. On the other side are those that claim it will kill us off and they are also wrong the truth is that CO2 does raise the temperature of the planet but just not as much as some think.
We are in a ~30 years cooling period and then starting in ~2035 there will be a ~30 year warming period due to factors not related to CO2; however CO2 will effect the magnitude of those movements and cause to cooling to be less than it would be and the increase to be more than it would be. All of this is obvious when one studies the issue without a political objective.
Scentinel: “Left or right are not relevant in a discussion of science and engineering.”
That would seem more credible if you weren’t proudly proclaiming your affiliation with the Tea Party
rainparade – this is very Alinsky of you. Paid trolls is a new meme of the Democrats and left to deflect from the paid trolls they have working. They could include you. BTW, the Tea Party does not have the money to pay trolls, however, the DNC does.
Nick: “Identify the paid trolls.”
Karen S.; Paul Schulte; and Joe Blow. Off the top of my head
rainparade – prove it!!!!
Scentinel: You don’t seem to be catching on to the thesis at the center of this study, which is that global temperatures would be cooler than they are now if it weren’t for the increase in atmospheric carbon caused by human use of fossil fuels.
You are correct that climate science is very complex, but you clearly lack a basic understanding of it.
It’s quite simple. Carbon in the global biome was removed from the atmosphere and sequestered in geological deposits by the earth’s plant communities. Not until a sufficient of carbon was locked up in this way were conditions suitable for humans to evolve. The very factors of our species success also allow us to change the environment enough to make it very inhospitable to life as we know it.
The corptocracy benefits enormously from the current system of energy production and resource exploitation. Under this system, they have been able to practice an extortion upon the world’s population. The incredible wealth now in the hands of this corptocracy allows it fund a denial industry that has achieved nothing less than a brainwashing of otherwise intelligent people like yourself.
One of the initiation rites into the Tea Party is to guzzle a gallon of Kool-Aid. Put the jug down and take a new look at the data.
rainparade – IF a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its butt every time it jumped. And belief is climate change has become a religion, a dangerous religion. I say this because paleoclimatologists refuse to give us the data to make our own decisions or run the same models. They are expecting (not asking) us to take what they say on faith alone. “I am the scientist-priest. Bow down before my superior knowledge!!!”
McCarthyism! “I have in my hands a list of paid trolls..”