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.
raining on parade:
“your comment doesn’t sound like your own writing”
Well what does it sound like? Have you seen much of my writing?
This is fairly much standard physics dynamical analysis, I didn’t have to take that from anyone in particular.
But believe it, I wrote it, didn’t look it up, and all at one 3 minute session.
As an engineer (I also have a geology degree), I work with CFD modeling software. We use it to develop combustion systems for gas turbines. These are fairly “closed” systems with a relatively small variable set. All I can tell you is that there is not an engineer here who would put his “you know what” on the line with only our modeling data. Computer modeling should only be used as a guide to help you along the design path. As far as the Earth is concerned, when I was in college getting my geology degree, I always felt is was very egotistical for man to think that he understood let alone could control all of the variables that make up our climate. If you really believe in Earth models, look how bad the predictions for the paths of hurricanes are in their infancy.
Meade is weighing in!
Oh, my apologies. Last comment retracted. (Posted accidentally. Truly.)
Carry on.
And what Jill said: “There is no Planet B.”
Mann and his minions are always in the shadows. They are the puppet-masters of climate change.
A very paranoid statement. Dr Mann has minions, and yet the Koch Bros aren’t funding a campaign of smears. Betcha butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths
Jill, I love the southern Utah Canyons. Ironically, JT was there just a couple months ago. You can see the layers where this arid area was once ocean, jungle, forest, etc. over the billions of years. This planet is always changing. It’s arrogant to think we are so much of an influence on its changes, and it’s arrogant to think we are so powerful to manage those changes. The majority of people are down w/ reasonable adjustments to control pollution, the Goreists want dranconian changes. And they are positioned and leverages to reap enormous profits when the govt. mandates those changes. Fat Al Gore needs money for his grocery and massage bills.
Rainparade,
Dr. Mann probably left out the threats and intimidation of scientists who don’t agree with the IPCC. Ignoring the vocal and non-scientific people out there, when the “science is settled and beyond discussion” you’ve reached a point where it is no longer science. It’s dogma. Voice a dissenting opinion and prepare to face the inquisition. Even if no one ever expects it.
That’s concerning for the future of scientific integrity.
Gary: I’ll tell you the same thing I said earlier; you can’t see the data if you refuse to look. And what you wrote in your comment doesn’t sound like your own writing; it smacks of confirmation bias and I doubt you fully understand what you wrote.
I wouldn’t characterize global warming as a popular theory anymore than I would call cancer research a popular subject. Personally, I enjoy driving cars; I wish things didn’t have to change, but there comes a point when you have to look at all the signals that are occurring in the environment and conclude that something far-reaching is happening, and unless we, the people, take control of energy production, the corporate apparatus is going to wreak some long-lasting harm to us and the world.
Michael Mann is the person Climate Changers wish never existed. Those emails changed the equation for anyone not a zealot. I’m sure their emails are sanitized or encrypted now. I would love to know who hacked those smoking guns.
Climate change also brings about extreme climate instability. I think one need only go outdoors and pay attention to see things in the natural world are changing rapidly. Species migration is different. There are animals dying off, plants that can’t grow. Weather has extremes that the earth hasn’t seen before.
I always like the saying, “There is no planet B”. If you don’t like the science then like this planet and help other people. The same things that will help with global warming are things that humans should be doing anyway. They will create jobs, breathable air, clean water and a clean environment. They will support industry who steps into the breech-the innovators– people libertarians and greens should both support!
Humans need solar, wind, geothermal, alternative energy and we need it now. We need jobs, safe food, air and water. Even if one doesn’t hold with global climate change, we should all want these things for ourselves, others, and those yet to be born. We know how to do these things, let’s get moving.
There is no Planet B.
I do believe the topic of the denial industry and the people employed by it to sew doubt bears some relevance to the issue of climate science. Dr Mann devotes a significant portion of his book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. In it he relates the threats and intimidation faced by climate scientists.
I agree that the issue of climate science must be discussed on its merits, which is why I found the immediate recitation of Dr. Mann early in this thread to be disruptive. The post, as I said before, makes no mention of Dr. Mann, and the report has no relation to him or his work.
Well it is refreshing to see that the alternate view of global warming prediction is well represented here.
As was mentioned, the fever at which people will defend “climate science” and its dire sky-is-falling predictions, and then accuse others of bad-faith opposition to their theories, is so over the top that it is exactly like talking to religiously converted acolytes.
I am quite skeptical of currently popular global warming theory and its predictions. I do not believe that the atmosphere has an unstable positive feedback dynamism, but rather the opposite. Over billions of years, just by happenstance alone, if it truly was inherently unstable such a tipping point would have manifested itself already many times, and the so-called runnaway warming would have occurred.
The models that are used to justify these predictions do not predict anything, as they have not already, and the number of variables is variable itself to plug into the models, as is the coefficients of the variables.
I do not see it. The global warming hysteria crowd has all the trappings of the doomsday cults of that pop up regularly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult
JAG, I strongly disagree. JT obviously disagrees, and he’s the boss. But, this is all wasted energy. The topic is controversial enough w/o throwing gas on it. Let’s all get back to the topic.
Same here JT, I was slow in writing my post, and didn’t see yours….
Michael Crichton, a scientist, spoke eloquently about the religion of climate change. He was no right winger.
Sorry, JT, I posted that last comment before I saw your’s go up.
My last comment was eaten like warm baklava. Help!
I’d like to just throw this out there. Climate change or not the discussion is entirely wrong. Does it matter if humans caused climate change? Not so much. How about the people living downwind from coal plants that have higher rates of respiratory troubles and other conditions? How about the people in places like Toledo that have contaminated water partially due to farm waste and runoff?
The most anti-global warming person also is likely to also be sportsmen or outdoorsman. Many on the “right” are hunters. They should be allies with the groups on the left that are pushing for legislation related to climate change issues. And its hurting all of us.
In my imaginary world where I’m President I would:
– Tell the AGW people to shut and sit down. Crying wolf didn’t work for Peter and it isn’t working for them. Al Gore’s predictions have hurt those of us that want a clean environment.
-Get the hunters and Sierra club in the same room and ask if they both want clean air and water. And then figure out how to sell THAT message to Americans.
-Talk to industry and figure out what is realistic. The current plan to cut back coal plants, without a reasonable replacement, will just leave us short of power. Increase funding for private and public research into alternatives. And not just the politically popular ones of solar and wind.
-70% of the earth is covered in water, most of it salt. Why aren’t there billions going into better and cheaper techniques for desalinization? Did you know in the US there is a Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility? And from what I could tell, the DOI budget for grants in brackish water was about $12 million. Toward a solution that could solve a problem for large portions of the world.
We don’t have the same value on science that we did in the 60’s. The scientists inspired by the space race are going to be retiring soon. Kids today are far more environmentally conscious. Let’s take advantage of that and get them into science (and that means by spending money) to make this a better world regardless of the root causes of the climate changing. Instead we fight over who’s right on AGW and other petty causes to increase the political standing of certain groups. What a waste.
rainparade – Michael Mann is central to any discussion of climate change. The report we are discussing does not mention him, but Mann and his minions are always in the shadows. They are the puppet-masters of climate change.
BTW, if you have read Mann’s book, have you read his emails?
Thank you sir. Very timely.
Paul… Why don’t you post a link to this proof of yours….
I can find a lot of different articles, NONE of which support what you are saying….
so, can you please reference a source you are using for this information????
Centinel, You have been attacked and are showing class and dignity. I am hopeful JT will weigh in on the people “agreeing” w/ his side of this debate. He should be embarrassed!!