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.
Jim22:
The demise of scientific understanding is the result of the effort by the same monopolistic interests that seek to privatize education in this country. This monopolistic interest, the corptocracy, seeks to create an educational system that will tell you only what it wants you to know, and that means little more than it needs yoou to know in order to produce and consume. This same power seeks to quash the funding for climate research, preferring to tell you don’t worry, be happy…and consume.
The world many of you seem willing to accept is one where we are valued not as citizens, but as consumers. Drink up, kids
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/07/libertarians-unable-see-climate-change.html ” “So here we have a simple and coherent explanation of why libertarianism is so often associated with climate change denial and the playing down or dismissal of other environmental issues. It would be impossible for the owner of a power station, steel plant, quarry, farm or any large enterprise to obtain consent for all the trespasses he commits against other people’s property – including their bodies.
“This is the point at which libertarianism smacks into the wall of gritty reality and crumples like a Coke can. Any honest and thorough application of this philosophy would run counter to its aim: which is to allow the owners of capital to expand their interests without taxation, regulation or recognition of the rights of other people. Libertarianism becomes self-defeating as soon as it recognises the existence of environmental issues. So they must be denied.”
Darren, That’s not the issue. I protect the environment. Do you see a downside to abdicating your freedoms and changing our economy and tax structures. It’s not about the environment, it’s about CONTROL.
“Something is terribly wrong w/ the planet.” I taught my high school students how to CRITICALLY watch the news. I taught a current affairs course for seniors. I had them count how many times the word “crisis” is used. I had them discuss how many stories were framed so as to try and frighten people. Fear sells erectile dysfunction pills, bladder control pills, feminine flow products, dog and cat food, etc. And sales are booming!!
I don’t see a downside to protecting the environment.
Darren – there is a financial downside to protecting the environment. The cost outweighs the benefit. And the benefit is insignificant.
I have now deleted six comments from various people who still want to accuse people on the other side of being trolls or engaging in other forms of personal attacks. We are not interested in that type of discourse on this blog. If you cannot address the merits of the science or the story, this is not the blog for you.
i’m 63 I have lived thru many end of the world scenarios the ice age of the 1970’s the acid rain that destroyed all the forest in north america the hole in the ozone that killed those of us who survived the new ice age and the over population that happened in the 1990’s that caused world wide starvation.all were predicted by science (check out all the predictions about global warming that haven’t occurred and the reasons given and you will find many deniers on the warming side]
rainparade – any of this sound familiar?
Those who say climate change is a threat to the planet continue to call for actions against climate skeptics.
On May 19, PBS’ “Moyers & Company” played a clip of scientist, David Suzuki, calling for politicians skeptical of man-made climate change to “be thrown in the slammer.” On day later, a tweet by well-known alarmist Michael Mann suggested that skepticism could be a “crime against humanity.” As least far back as 2006, and as recently as March 2014, liberal journalists and radical scientists have advocated punishing people who doubt catastrophic, man-made climate change.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/05/21/after-years-threats-prominent-climate-alarmists-still-seek-jail-climate-d#ixzz3CMOUZMF7
Farmers, as a whole, are a rather conservative group, politically and socially. But they demand real information based on hard data to help them grow their crops for profit regardless of politics. When it comes to predictions on weather and growing conditions, left and right don’t enter to it, as Centinel pointed out above, and they tolerate very little politicizing of the data they need.
The USDA produces a chart of Hardiness Zones, which growers use to determine what can be grown in certain locations. In 2007-2008, the chart was revised to show these hardiness zones shifting North to reflect what was known about the shifting climates, and giving farmers a choice between switching crops or investing in expensive applications of fertilizer and soil treatments..
The survivability of invasive plant and insect species as they migrate further North provides another indication to researchers and farmers, who will be faced with increasingly costly expenditures of pesticides
In UK, I don’t know what the figure is for the States, 50 percent of the power we use is to heat our homes. A bit of foresight from our politicians could have researched efficient house design from the point of view of reducing the power we need. An adjacent problem is water. Houses could have been built with rain harvesters. Why didn’t politicians do this? It is common sense. Because monied interests would have lost out and the govt would have lost taxes.
Jill: What the HeL^ are we doing?
You mean H – E – Double Hockey Sticks. Get it? Hockey sticks!
Jim, We have current, off the shelf technology, that is clean. Natural gas exaction is causing a lot of environmental depredation. Nuclear waste has no place to go and stays radioactive for a very long time.
The US used to be a place where people were not afraid to innovate. We still have these people. There are cars that run on air, hydrogen, etc. We could have non bird and bat killing wind tubes, which if set up in N. Dakota, could power a great deal of the US. I see no logical reason why we aren’t doing so. It will bring jobs, clean air, water and soil. Why is this a problem for anyone?
I happen to affirm the science of global warming but as I said, even if one does not, it’s clear that something is going terribly wrong with the planet. In order to better the situation, whatever its cause, there are so many things people should be doing right now. We need jobs, we have innovators. We spend 7.5 million per day in our new war in Iraq. What the HeL^ are we doing?
Greens and Liberatarians should get behind industry innovators. Why aren’t we?
Jill: Actually there is a Planet B. A planet was found that appears to have many similarities to our own planet in terms of atmosphere and distance from the sun.
Four or five generations from now, travel to it should be ready for the descendants of the plutocracy that is growing wealthy draining the the world of our resources.
http://www.alternet.org/story/149197/are_right-wing_libertarian_internet_trolls_getting_paid_to_dumb_down_online_conversations “Reading comment threads on the Guardian’s sites and elsewhere on the web, two patterns jump out at me. The first is that discussions of issues in which there’s little money at stake tend to be a lot more civilized than debates about issues where companies stand to lose or gain billions: such as climate change, public health and corporate tax avoidance. These are often characterized by amazing levels of abuse and disruption.”
“Articles about the environment are hit harder by such tactics than any others.”
SWM – you have a better source?
The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The corollary is that it is extremely unlikely (0.001 percent) that the observed anomalous warming is not associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions. Solar radiation was found to be an insignificant contributor to global warming over the last century, which is consistent with the earlier findings of Allen et al. (2000).
In case those who think this is all fallacy and did not use the click in the prof’s post.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
Has climate change started to affect Earth’s ice sheets?
The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet has begun to decline. From 1979 to 2006, summer melt on the ice sheet increased by 30 percent, reaching a new record in 2007. At higher elevations, an increase in winter snow accumulation has partially offset the melt. However, the decline continues to outpace accumulation because warmer temperatures have led to increased melt and faster glacier movement at the island’s edges. To learn more about research on the Greenland Ice Sheet, visit former CIRES Director Konrad Steffen’s research Web page.
Reverse the engineering. How many humans can the earth support?
The late-18th century philosopher Thomas Malthus wrote these ominous words in an essay on what he saw as the dire future of humanity. Humans’ unquenchable urge to reproduce,
Malthus argued, would ultimately lead us to overpopulate the planet, eat up all its resources and die in a mass famine.
Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people.
So 10 billion people is the uppermost population limit where food is concerned. Because it’s extremely unlikely that everyone will agree to stop eating meat.
The maximum carrying capacity of the Earth based on food resources will most likely fall short of 10 billion.
Bailers: “Dr. Mann probably left out the threats and intimidation of scientists who don’t agree with the IPCC.”
That’s because there are no threats and intimidation against the denialists – certainly not on par with what the scientific community has experienced.
cite some proof
Wow, I hope I pass the rainparade test of who I am. Amazing how they know us better then we know ourselves.
Jill, Do you oppose natural gas and nuclear? We should all do some research on LFTR reactor designs. The nuclear reactor world was at a cross roads during the development and it is really a shame that the DOD came in and forced the light water design on use for the weapons grade Pu that it produces. Gee, another example of the govt. stepping in and screwing it up for us.
GaryT, Several people have been falsely accused here this morning. It really sucks. JT is monitoring. I have a list of 10 or so people I ignore completely. That list is about to gain one or two. It’s tough to do but I would ignore these scurrilous accusations and hope JT comes down on people who agree w/ him, but hurt his cause.
Nick: Actually, I’m very grateful for Dr. Mann’s work and courage in the face of intense opposition, which includes threats and intimidation. His book is a must read for anyone seeking to understand the science of climatology.
His unedited emails were found to contain nothing conspiratorial in the least. They were doctored to appear suspicious by the Heartland Institute, which BTW, is a thinktank of paid trolls. (You opened the door by mentioning the emails, Schulte). The Heartland’s email account was accessed by a reporter posing as a kool-aid guzzler – excuse me – I meant true believer and was given emails revealing an orchestrated conspiracy to slander climate reasearchers. How ironic
rainparade – here is a link to Michael Mann’s detractors on his infamous hockey stick
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/18/climategate-star-michael-mann-courts-legal-disaster/