@ Steve Fish I am well aware that CO2 driven models have concluded that deforestation cools the planet and afforestation warms the planet. I think that only illustrates the bizarre use of the global average and models that in effect suggest cutting down trees would increase albedo and cool the planet. All organisms respond to local conditions. Increasing forests and grassland not only cools the local climate but provides habitat.thus I have concluded that the aims of CO2 advocates are often diametrically opposed to good environmental stewardship.
Iansays
Interestingly, I note Arctic sea ice is increasing.
Furthermore we have recent evidence of significant accretion in Greenland see “Glacier Girl” for details. Even National Geo did a piece on this interesting recovery.
Keep up the great work.
Reteograde Orbitsays
Skeptics reject global warming based on common-sense intuition.
And no amount of communication will overcome that.
So I think Ray and Sean are both right. Scientists have done everything they can to educate the public, but it’s a lost cause. Skeptics reject global warming on instinctive grounds not on intellectual grounds.
Ronniesays
What, exactly, does a “Hopeful” not “believe”?
The Opinions of others who believe that it is likely to get warmer at sometime in the future at some location on Earth?
The Opinions of others that it may get dryer? Wetter? Colder? Hotter?
Or perhaps it is the opinion that the current climate is not too warm and not too cold… but it is just right?
Or maybe the “Hopeful” is skeptical of the opinion that Man can manipulate the climate to a specific desired state by simply adding or removing a 1/2 a gross of CO2 molecules?
Enough of scientific opinion….
How about we offer 1 fact;
The climate today is warmer than it was 10000 years ago.
As a “Hopeful” (I prefer ‘heretic’) this warmer climate is a good thing.
~ronnie
Post Script:
Warmer is better than Colder IMO
How extensive must the damage to the web of life on our planet be before we recognized it as criminal, as ecocide and pursue criminal prosecution. Find out about the campaign to prosecuton ecocide under the mandate of the International Criminal Court at http://www.eradicatingecocide.com
Dan H.says
These results are hardly surprising. The premise in the RCP3-PD scenario is one of warming at twice the rate of the 20th century. Given that premise, the experts concluded that sea level would rise at about twice the rate of the 20th century.
Seansays
@216 Wili … breathe out.
Seansays
In a study released today in Nature Geoscience, we show that extreme weather events in Australia such as drought and bushfire are linked to temperature changes in the Indian Ocean. Much like El Niño in the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean Dipole has far-reaching consequences, and these effects are likely to strengthen under climate change.
More than a statistical fluke
In earlier studies, scientists showed that there are statistical links between the IOD and extreme weather in Australia.
In this new research we’re able to show that these linkages are not statistical flukes, and can in fact be predicted by climate models.
And because these events can be simulated by models, we can use these models to find out whether positive IOD events will become more common in a warming world.
We examined 54 climate models and experiments that participated in the International Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report. These model experiments include the historical period up to 2005, and a future period under a high emissions scenario. These experiments provide a large number of samples with thousands of years of virtual climate, which allows us to distill climate change signals. https://theconversation.com/indian-ocean-linked-to-bushfires-and-drought-in-australia-20893
Seansays
In a study released today in Nature Geoscience, we show that extreme weather events in Australia such as drought and bushfire are linked to temperature changes in the Indian Ocean. Much like El Niño in the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean Dipole has far-reaching consequences, and these effects are likely to strengthen under climate change.
More than a statistical fluke
In earlier studies, scientists showed that there are statistical links between the IOD and extreme weather in Australia.
In this new research we’re able to show that these linkages are not statistical flukes, and can in fact be predicted by climate models.
And because these events can be simulated by models, we can use these models to find out whether positive IOD events will become more common in a warming world.
We examined 54 climate models and experiments that participated in the International Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report. These model experiments include the historical period up to 2005, and a future period under a high emissions scenario. These experiments provide a large number of samples with thousands of years of virtual climate, which allows us to distill climate change signals. https://theconversation.com/indian-ocean-linked-to-bushfires-and-drought-in-australia-20893
Methane is not a global warming gas, and doesn’t stay in the atmosphere for long. Vegetarians concocted that methane is a GLOBAL warming gas, which is wrong.
The danes are measuring temperatures in the high arctic very accurately and their records seem to indicate a bit of cooling from as far back as the 1950s
Harold Faulknersays
WHY THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING
People in the USA, are being told by the government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the earth has experienced in past years? Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph at the bottom of this article shows the temperatures of the earth before Christ to 2040.
In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.
In approximately 983AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.
When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.
After the year 1200AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:
The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982.
“The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”
The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e., “The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”
Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html.
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE.
Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!
The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people cannot allow this to happen.
Dear MARodger, alt reply #3 – seems to me given this: “no difference between a troll and an annoying jerk”, that ad hom is an acceptable form of communication on this board. It must be as the moderator/s allow it regularly and sometimes use it as well.
In all moderated discussion groups (and organisations, groups and even corporations) the culture, values, and acceptable norms are set in place from the top down. So regards my ‘opus’ I am powerless here, so you are addressing your concerns to the wrong person.
You enjoy this venue under the pleasure of a benevolent dictatorship – all power rests with them. I didn’t post what I wrote, the moderator did. Given you and many others have issues about the length and the content of that ‘comment’ and many others, then take it up with them. Ask them what on earth are they doing? That’s my best advice on the subject. Cheers Sean
adrian smitssays
DMI seems to indicate cooling in the arctic north of 80 degrees since the 1950s.
Anonymous Cowardsays
Wili wrote: “It matters if the levels are increasing at an exponential rate. That seems to be the main question before us.”
Certainly not! We know the levels are NOT increasing at an expotential rate. Atmospheric CH4 is being monitored. I know you’re aware of this because you previously referenced outlying data points as an indication that some catastrophe was taking place. The rest of us were able to guess what subsequent measurements would show…
There is no physical basis for speculation that levels might start increasing at an exponential rate in the future either. Besides yourself, whoever said anything about exponential growth to begin with? What purpose is served by repeating these talking points over and over and over again?
Adam Gallonsays
The failure stems from “The boy who cried wolf”
The models have failed to replicate climate.
Predictions of (insert any parameter you like) have not come to pass.
The reports fail to revue previous predictions.
The SPM is written by politicians for their own ends.
The whole process has been subverted to act simply as a method of transfering wealth, generally from the poor in the rich countries to the rich in poor countries.
Seansays
DELETE MY POSTS
The following short list in the first instance IMMEDIATELY, plus ALL others that you and the scumbags found wanting, too long, too short, off topic, too stupid, or whatever other weasel complaints you and them have about my comments.
I want nothing to do with your site and no connection with it. Delete every single one for all I care. You deserve nothing.
If the following items are the work of a TROLL then it proves how incompetent you are for letting them through in the first place!
May the new year bring everything to you that you so rightly deserve and have duly earnt.
Seansays
@86 Steinar Midtskogen, you bring up a really good point here imho. The IPCC are ‘precluded’ ie ‘blocked’ by their mandate to suggest solutions aren’t they? This was done in the beginning by the politicians aka ‘customers’ who set it up.
The reason this was not part of their ‘brief’ was the more wise ‘policy makers/politicians’ would make the best decisions of any actions taken beyond ‘simple scientific’ solutions. iow economic and social policy implications.
iow as Michael Sweet suggests quite rightly @89 “These lawyers can use their influence to have the SPM written in a manner that is not very effective at conveying the information.”
eg US policy makers are called ‘Lawmakers’, a big % of politicians were lawyers before entering politics. They are good at making convincing arguments in court. Works a treat in Parliament and TV debates during elections. But winning an argument/debate does NOT equal being right. Many a guilty person has got off charges by a good Lawyer.
Ex-lawyers were two of our last 4 PMs here, including John Howard already mentioned (listen to him spin the BS, please). Every nation has an Attorney General and whole Justice Department of Lawyers working for them – first order of business with international agreements of all kinds and in the UN.
M Sweet @ 89 also asks “Is it possible that obstructors like Exxon or Saudi Arabia [USA/China/Australia/Financiers/ the 1% iow] deliberately use the requirement for 100 percent agreement to get the discussion of uncertainty at the front?”
… possible? My opinion is 100% Guaranteed they use it… and it’s worked.
Heads Up : the last thing Climate Change recalitrants are interested in is the Science. And as soon as they can use Fiscal crisis to cut climate budgets to the bone they will. Just as is happening right now in Australia. 35+ govt funded Climate programs, and Departments are being shut down and Laws repealed, new Govt only been in place 100 days. The doubt sowers have been really effective here. Climate Science has been trashed to the core in the public’s consciousness.
Australia no longer has a Minister for Science … first time in over 70 years or so.
re ” Much of the content cited on this thread sounds like a law brief and not a scientific report to me.” which should reflect the ‘communication’ issue has nothing to do with the Science of itself – so why keep pretending it does?
The mythical belief is that every thing will change once people and the Politicians really do “understand the science” – it will be ‘obvious’ to all. No sorry, that is faulty thinking which has persisted for 25 years now and is not working.
The naysayer Machine and their Politicians in their ‘pockets’ or ‘ideology movement’ THEY DON’T CARE – THEY DON’T WANT TO LISTEN – THEY HAVE TO BE CONFRONTED HEAD IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THEIR FALSE ARGUMENTS DESTROYED and their personal credibility ruined with their voices shut down in the Public Domain by being laughed out of town.
Then and only then will the public, The People listen and heed warnings and support viable solutions. Unfortunately that’s a big IF … never been successful on the planet before today. Always a first time I guess.
But in a world of NSA et al pervasive monitoring and control freaks I’m not putting my head above the crowd only to get it kicked to death or worse. People who already accept the science and the near crisis of CC and who are supposed to be ‘like minded friends” are already doing that in spades. Therefore I am not interested in lifting a finger to help. It’s all downside this game.
Seansays
The Donor Class and Streams of Dark Money
The historian Plutarch warned us long ago of what happens when there is no brake on the power of great wealth to subvert the electorate. “The abuse of buying and selling votes,” he wrote of Rome, “crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread in the law courts and to the army, and finally, when even the sword became enslaved by the power of gold, the republic was subjected to the rule of emperors.”
We don’t have emperors yet, but we do have the Roberts Court that consistently privileges the donor class.
We don’t have emperors yet, but we do have a Senate in which, as a study by the political scientist Larry Bartels reveals, “Senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators’ roll call votes.”
We don’t have emperors yet, but we have a House of Representatives controlled by the far right that is now nourished by streams of “dark money” unleashed thanks to the gift bestowed on the rich by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case.
We don’t have emperors yet, but one of our two major parties is now dominated by radicals engaged in a crusade of voter suppression aimed at the elderly, the young, minorities, and the poor; while the other party, once the champion of everyday working people, has been so enfeebled by its own collaboration with the donor class that it offers only token resistance to the forces that have demoralized everyday Americans.
Writing in the Guardian recently, the social critic George Monbiot commented,
“So I don’t blame people for giving up on politics… When a state-corporate nexus of power has bypassed democracy and made a mockery of the voting process, when an unreformed political system ensures that parties can be bought and sold, when politicians [of the main parties] stand and watch as public services are divvied up by a grubby cabal of privateers, what is left of this system that inspires us to participate?”
Why are record numbers of Americans on food stamps? Because record numbers of Americans are in poverty. Why are people falling through the cracks? Because there are cracks to fall through. It is simply astonishing that in this rich nation more than 21 million Americans are still in need of full-time work, many of them running out of jobless benefits, while our financial class pockets record profits, spends lavishly on campaigns to secure a political order that serves its own interests, and demands that our political class push for further austerity.
Not so astonishing that they likewise continue to deny and obfuscate the reality of Climate Change, it’s causes and it’s self-evident solutions.
Pekka Kostamosays
It is not complicated, not at all.
For years some scientists have claimed that there has been a global warming of 0,8 degC. Now, the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization, in his official capacity, states that the warming has been just 0,4 degC.
Clearly, there is no consensus of scientists, so why go waste time on hundreds of pages of jargon? Maybe we are heading for the ice age as some scientists say.
SecularAnimist@106: > Your term “the scientific community” overlooks the reality that there are in fact multiple scientific communities, which represent widely varying fields of knowledge and expertise.
There are many disciplines in science, but I spoke of them collectively. The more united scientists are, the stronger the message, that is what I’m saying. It doesn’t mean that everybody has to be experts in everything, but scientists can still have an opinion on whether the results of experts in other fields are something worth paying attention to.
> The moderators of this climate science site are climate scientists who are, I think, wisely well aware that they are not experts on energy technologies, and who wish to keep the focus of this site on climate science, where they have a HUGE amount of knowledge and expertise.
I never said that I expected the moderators here single handedly to write an effective SPM. On the contrary I’m saying that should include many disciplines.
> Hence the original topic of this thread — how to more effectively communicate the findings of climate science.
Yes, and it is my opinion that a SPM needs to include more than just such findings in order to make any impact.
> I think that your comments have a bit of “begging the question” about them, in suggesting that the necessity of expanding nuclear power to reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation is an established fact, upon which any “debate” about addressing AGW must be based — rather than an unproven assertion to be argued.
Now we’re returning to that discussion again. I’ll be brief. Yes, I think that anyone who hold the view that the current CO2 emissions are harmful, will also have to be pro nuclear if they want to be taken seriously, or at least view nuclear energy as the lesser evil. Simply because the risk is lower. It’s technology that is already available, and it’s proven and done many times at large scales. We have an expression here in Norway, that you shouldn’t cross the brook to fetch water. If reducing CO2 emissions has any urgency, we should start with what is at hand. But it doesn’t matter what I think, or you think. What would make a difference is that experts in the field can arrive at a consensus and with climate scientists send a common message.
Let’s imagine an ideal climate model. By ideal, I don’t mean it can predict temperatures year by year. What I mean that given a set of assumptions about volcanic activity, greenhouse gases, etc. it will generate a trend line that over 70 or 100 years will be close to what actually will happen in the real world. On any given year, it might be below or above the trend line, there might be pauses, but overall it models the real world with a great deal of accuracy. I think this is model we would hope to have.
Now let’s imagine a less than ideal model. Perhaps it runs a little hot or a little cold. A hot model will generate a trend line above the ideal. A cold model will generate a trend below the ideal. However, for short periods of time either of these two less than ideal models might be almost indistinguishable from the ideal model. It is only as the time increases do the departures from ideal become apparent. What’s more even small differences from the ideal will become increasingly larger as more time passes.
If we say we cannot judge models by short time frames, haven’t we effectively lost any ability to judge the model? We have no way to see how close it is ideal because even a model that generates a result that departs significantly from the ideal might remain close to ideal for short time periods.
Dan H.says
C. Town,
A robust and predictive interval is not determined by the timeframe, but the data. A 15-year interval could be robust if the temperature trend was significant based on the scatter in the data. The decrease from a 14-yr to a 16-yr temperature trend is quite large compared to the uncertainty. This is one of those instances where we need to wait for further data.
extra heat in the atmosphere is not accumulative. If for any reason the atmosphere gets warmer -> oxygen & nitrogen expand INSTANTLY -> release extra heat and equalize in a jiffy: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/
DPsays
About the sun we should be at a maximum in the sunspot cycle but it has failed to happen. How much has this reduced the temperature for this year? Also some think that with the sunspot cycle so weak we could be headed for another Maunder Minimum after 2020. This could cause a cooling of 0.25 – 0.3C, which would cancel out a decades warming.
Matti Virtanensays
Stefan. You admit that “short term trends can vary widely due to natural variability”. Could you please define “short term”, so we would know when the anthropogenic greenhouse forcing is expected to trump the recent natural cooling effects, whatever they may be. You are surely not of the opinion, that any trend for whatever period strengthens your conclusions, are you?
vukcevicsays
Advocates of advocacy need to be aware that the climate change as perceived by voting public is not considered as an imperative problem requiring immediate attention.
what kind of ”Climate Scientists” are; when cannot acknowledge that oxygen & nitrogen are 998999ppm, that they are regulating the temp overall by expending extra the troposphere when warmer than normal and waste that EXTRA heat in a jiffy. ”scientists” who think that the atmosphere is made only from CO2 & CH4: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/
I read that post thoroughly the day it was published here. You’ll notice I made the first comment. Nothing in it explains why it’s appropriate to say observed temperatures are within a range that they are not.
[Response: Actually, they are still in the range, and the Cowtan and Way paper (as well as the GISTEMP analysis) indicate that you need to be careful that you are comparing like with like. HadCRUT4 is not a true global mean (though close), so either you need to sample at the same points (as Ed Hawkins showed) or take account of the bias in undercounting Arctic warming. Both factors reduce the issue. – gavin]
Kip Hansensays
Reply to ==> Philip Machanick 24 Dec 2013 at 3:52 AM
It is not the dismissal of contrarian opinions that I object to. It is the dismissal of collegial opinions and frames of reference that I object to.
This is the current situation: Dr. S looks at his group’s findings and believes that it calls for conclusion X. However, Dr. Q (equally qualified, equally published, equally PhDed) and his group looks at their findings, and Dr. S’s, but arrives at conclusion Y. Both Dr. S and Dr. Q come out publicly advocating for different social and political solutions for the common problem they both study, both claiming that the science supports their view, and leaving the public in a confusion as to why “the scientists disagree?” Maybe one of our Dr.s says “More scientists agree with me than with Dr. Q”. This does not help.
Ideally, Dr. S (and/or Dr. Q) should say to himself, “Gee, this is science, it seems clear to me, why does Dr. Q see it so differently? He’s a good egg, a clear head, a sharp mind, well educated, does good work. Well, why don’t he and I get together, or better yet, get our teams together, and go over this, and see where we disagree and what studies we could do that would resolve the science underlying the issues in contention. May I’m missing something, maybe he is, or maybe we both are.”
I believe that Dr. Judith Curry, at Georgia Tech, has encouraged such an effort.
I was asking you for a statement by Dai where he claims that civilization will collapse in 2050-2055, and expressly not a map showing severe drought in some parts of the world, not others, later in the century. Are you unable to find or quote a relevant passage?
You continue:
“Preliminary Analysis of a Global Drought Time Series” by Barton Paul Levenson, not yet published. Under BAU [Business As Usual], agriculture and civilization will collapse some time between 2050 and 2055….
Irrelevant. As I stated, I am aware of Levenson’s unpublished claims. I was asking about Dai’s.
You continue:
Not being able to grow corn in the corn belt does imply the collapse of civilization.
Not if it can be grown and shipped in from elsewhere. And if some nations run out of food those nations may collapse, but this does not imply the collapse of civilization itself.
Incidentally, Aiguo Dai is listed as the second author of the paper:
Increased heating from global warming may not cause droughts but it is expected that when droughts occur they are likely to set in quicker and be more intense.
Even were Dai to have made the claim that you attribute to him in one of his earlier papers, wouldn’t you agree that in judging an author’s opinion a more recent paper supersedes a less recent one?
D. HOFF, Esq.says
So, to be “CLEAR”, … Climate “Change” (current or more ‘recent’ euphemism for Global “Warming”) is NOT synonymous with, oh… let me see . . . “WEATHER”… the “SEASONS” (“Duh?!?”)… or, the “NATUR”(AL) operation of the Earth (our World). [I really, REALLY love this “Kangaroo Logic” as it is being “applied” here — as elsewhere in the ‘high-minded’, ivory-towered & “elitist” circles.]
D. HOFF, Esq.says
“Anthro”-pogenic… Gee, how “HIGHLY” ‘oui’ think (stink?!?) of ourselves ! ! !
Fred Staplessays
The decadal chart in this post is interesting. It shows that the evidence for any global warming, whatever the cause, rests on the past few decades where the global temperature shows a marginal increase.
I noticed that Nate Silver in “The Signal and the Noise” suggests this approach. He comments that “if temperature changes are purely random and unpredictable, the chance of a cooling decade would be 50%, since an increase and a decrease in temperatures are equally likely”.
This suggests a good method of testing for significant trends without the problem of start-points, non-linearity, and temperature persistence. But where could we find enough decades to test the idea? The Central England Temperature record covers 34 decades, from the end of the first decade in 1679, and it is a good proxy for the Northern Hemisphere temperatures.
The results are illuminating.
The first 22 decades, to 1889, show 10 warming and 12 cooling decades, randomly scattered, with negligible overall change.
The next 6 decades to 1949 are all warming as temperatures climb out of the Little Ice Age, (when the Thames and the sea froze) from about 9.1 to 9.6 degrees C.
For the last 6 decades, to 2009, we are looking for the impact (or non-impact) of exponentially increasing CO2. There are 3 warming decades and 3 cooling decades.
If the global atmospheric CO2 content continues to increase exponentially, as it will, and temperatures remain static, how many decades must pass before the IPCC reduce their confidence in AGW?
Franksays
Ray, I would do so if it would be possible. I calculated 23 running 31-years trend for the 12 month during the warming phase 1960…2012 to find a signal… there is only noise and I can’t make a fit for finding the best offset in time when there is no signal. If there is a large positive feedback from lower/ medium clouds it is not to see in the saisonal data albeit there is a deviation of 1K in the SST.
HAL-9000says
To cynically sum all this up:
Our videogames are better than their videogames.
Socratessays
The extravagant language of owl905 undermines the seriousness of this discussion.
In many posts I detect an element of, “Lord I believe, help Thou mine unbelief.”
At last some researchers are probing the link between CO2 and warming, a link that depends entirely on ‘colouration’ of the atmosphere. Heat radiated to space at the ‘greenhouse’ wavelengths must come from high altitudes. At lower altitudes the repeated radiation and absorbtion acts to reduce the escape to one of diffusion. The question reduces to one of whether increasing CO2 will raise the ‘escape horizon’ from which radiation can leave the Earth. (At 15 microns, this horizon is actually above the tropopause and its lifting will increase outward radiation!)
As long as carbon and warming are associated without question, the political implications defeat any scientific objectivity.
the sea level raises for two reasons: 1] sediments washed from the land into the sea every year. 2] lees water on the land = more water into the sea a] lake Chad is getting empty. b] Aral sea is almost empty. Also other lakes around the world contain less and less water + desertification: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/sea-rising-or-not/
Chris Masierosays
I wonder why this site rarely covers the arctic methane release with any seriousness.
It’s the largest accelerator of climate warming known, and its finally checking out of it’s frozen prison. To be relative to the OP, It’s sure to whip up storms a such a magnitude that the thames will need to be raised with _much_ more frequency than even its recent past.
Surely we are all big boys and girls and can see the world killer when it’s right in front of our noses.
Dan H.says
Tony,
May I suggest that we stop talking about short-term trends altogether? Anyone can choose 10-, 15-, or 30-year trends to make a emphasize a particle point. That opens one to claims of “cherry-picking.” Instead, use the long-term record (from 1880) to make ones point. Then, you can talk about the subtle changes in the long-term trend, without counter-claims of cherry-picking.
why ALL the ”scientist” ignore that in the earth’s atmosphere there is plenty oxygen and nitrogen, and the job those two gases do to regulate the temperature? http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
David L. Hagensays
Do you uphold the right for scientists to raise other evidence and espouse other policies that they see as more cost effective?
John Bradysays
In the spirit of “say something, see something”, it’s necessary to pick out this excerpt:
“The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science.”
The overwhelming majority of climate skeptics agree that human-caused climate change is happening – that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 will lead to a small amount of warming. We also believe that the effects of natural variation have been underestimated; that the GCMs which failed to predict the ongoing hiatus in temperature increases did so because they over-estimated the effects of CO2; and that until the climate science community addresses these concerns head-on it will continue to lose credibility. This belief is entirely rational and it is wrong to characterise it as anti-scientific.
You’re as entitled as the next citizen to hold an opinion on what should be done. Your primary purpose, however, is to publish the facts – even the facts you find inconvenient – to the polity, so that we may come to an informed decision on the appropriate policy response.
David L. Hagensays
Your argument presumes mitigation as the only and necessary solution. Adaptation appears to be more cost effective. Caring for the poor addresses the greatest needs now. See the Cornwall Alliance.
T Marvellsays
I’m not a climate scientists, and I view all this from the outside.
If scientists are to persuade policy makers, they must present arguments that actually persuade policy makers. Obviously. They must place themselves in the shoes of the public. They must present arguments the public can understand.
Imagine an ordinary person or the average policy maker. By and large, they do not understand the science, and they would rather not be worried about the dire consequences that scientists forecast. The climate scientists throw out their models, which are a black box to almost everyone else. The scientists say “We have done our work and proven global warming. Now trust us that we have actually proven that, even though you don’t understand.” That won’t work with a lot of people. To them, the scientists might be just witch doctors trying to make a living off of their magic. Even medical doctors are sometimes viewed in that light.
Remember that about half the people and policy makers don’t believe that evolution is proven (the proof is another black box). It took every-day experience, seeing people die, to make most believe that smoking is dangerous.
And, of course, major economic interests see themselves as harmed by the idea of global warming. It’s easy for the policy makers to believe that climate scientists are witch doctors when to believe otherwise they would have to downplay obvious economic facts, including threats to campaign donations.
What to do? First, don’t argue odd bits of weather and short term climate. Everybody knows these are erratic. Since the science and theory linking global warming in the short term is much weaker than the underlying rationale for long-term global warning, arguing about short term trends is dangerous. Predictions about more hurricanes, for example, are likely to prove wrong. That hurts the credibility of over all global warming theory.
I have several suggestions:
1) Scientist should argue the obvious stuff. Right now, probably the only examples are ice – glaciers and polar ice (without shunting aside the antarctic trends). The climate science societies should publish, or persuade others to publish, ads with the pictures, which are striking.
2) Spend more time trying to persuade other scientists and other professionals – people who can at least understand the basic reasons for climate change. As things stand, policy makers often believe that there is a small cabal of scientists pushing their expertise. If the professional and scientific community comes around, the politicians will be less likely to ignore the issues. Climate scientists should try to work through professional scienties, the ABA, AMA, and so on. Those in universities should spend more time talking to people in other departments, including the humanities.
3) The climate scientists would be more persuasive if they were not so arrogant. They act like know-it-alls, and those who disagree are ignorant or evil. They act like they “own” the issue. That comes out in these posts and in the climate-gate leaks. Even if true, this attitute makes it hard to persuade others.
I have run across some hostility to the climate scientists by other scientiests, on the grounds that the climate scientists are too “pushy” and are pushing weak science – I know one such person at NASA and another at the Dept. of Energy. That kind of thing should not happen.
Bradley McKinleysays
When it comes to political activities (rather than scientific ones), I think Mann needs a lesson in pragmatism. Can anyone here argue that a review of the effectiveness of advocating for lower carbon emissions based on the dangers of a changing climate shows rather conclusively that such efforts are ineffective? After over two decades of efforts, what political results can you point to for your efforts? Far better to talk about the other negative impacts of fossil fuel use that are observable right now. The EPA estimates that 40,000 people die every year from air pollution coming from coal plants. The BP oil spill resulted in a measurably negative economic impact on the tourist and fishery industries of the gulf. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives have been wasted defending America’s oil interests in the Middle East. The fact that climate change will result in negative impacts that pale in comparison to these things is irrelevant. You need to do what is effective, and in the world of politics talking about dangers that exist 50 or 100 years into the future is rarely effective. The impacts I listed above are not based on computer model projections of what things will look like in 100 years, they are things that the average person can see and witness right now. It seems obvious to me therefore that any scientist truly concerned about the impact of increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere should probably stop talking about AGW immediately. Bringing it up in the political sphere merely serves to distract the public away from other, more compelling arguments for getting us off of fossil fuels.
CPVsays
Couple more points:
1. A good analogy might be with journalists – highly politically active journalists lose credibility and in fact are usually prohibited by their employers from certain political activities. You can’t play all the positions that need playing credibly.
2. More scientist activism isn’t going to help. The message is out. People just don’t think it’s that big a problem….because it hasn’t been. And yes I understand the limitations of this thinking, but more “activism” won’t change it.
3. Increasingly shrill and scary pronouncements in the face of the warming “pause” (however you want to spin it or explain it) don’t sound credible. If and when warming (as measured by some comprehensible benchmark) resumes, there will be more broad-based uptake for policy action. And yes I understand the risks here.
3.
simon abingdonsays
#82 Ray Ladbury
Thanks Ray for taking time out to respond, although I’m disappointed that you sidestepped my specific questions.
When you say “If the oceans are warming at all, or if the net ice melting is positive, we are not in equilibrium” it suggests that you see temperatures inexorably rising towards an equilibrium. But they’re not doing so. They’ve been flatlining for many years. You can’t just wish facts away Ray. Current explanations of the standstill seem ad hoc and unconvincing. Maybe we just don’t know nearly enough about the behaviour of (for example) clouds or the oceans to predict the future course of climate evolution reliably. Nature does what nature does.
the models suffer from obesity, not fit for the catwalk: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/
@ Steve Fish I am well aware that CO2 driven models have concluded that deforestation cools the planet and afforestation warms the planet. I think that only illustrates the bizarre use of the global average and models that in effect suggest cutting down trees would increase albedo and cool the planet. All organisms respond to local conditions. Increasing forests and grassland not only cools the local climate but provides habitat.thus I have concluded that the aims of CO2 advocates are often diametrically opposed to good environmental stewardship.
Interestingly, I note Arctic sea ice is increasing.
Furthermore we have recent evidence of significant accretion in Greenland see “Glacier Girl” for details. Even National Geo did a piece on this interesting recovery.
Keep up the great work.
Skeptics reject global warming based on common-sense intuition.
And no amount of communication will overcome that.
So I think Ray and Sean are both right. Scientists have done everything they can to educate the public, but it’s a lost cause. Skeptics reject global warming on instinctive grounds not on intellectual grounds.
What, exactly, does a “Hopeful” not “believe”?
The Opinions of others who believe that it is likely to get warmer at sometime in the future at some location on Earth?
The Opinions of others that it may get dryer? Wetter? Colder? Hotter?
Or perhaps it is the opinion that the current climate is not too warm and not too cold… but it is just right?
Or maybe the “Hopeful” is skeptical of the opinion that Man can manipulate the climate to a specific desired state by simply adding or removing a 1/2 a gross of CO2 molecules?
Enough of scientific opinion….
How about we offer 1 fact;
The climate today is warmer than it was 10000 years ago.
As a “Hopeful” (I prefer ‘heretic’) this warmer climate is a good thing.
~ronnie
Post Script:
Warmer is better than Colder IMO
How extensive must the damage to the web of life on our planet be before we recognized it as criminal, as ecocide and pursue criminal prosecution. Find out about the campaign to prosecuton ecocide under the mandate of the International Criminal Court at http://www.eradicatingecocide.com
These results are hardly surprising. The premise in the RCP3-PD scenario is one of warming at twice the rate of the 20th century. Given that premise, the experts concluded that sea level would rise at about twice the rate of the 20th century.
@216 Wili … breathe out.
In a study released today in Nature Geoscience, we show that extreme weather events in Australia such as drought and bushfire are linked to temperature changes in the Indian Ocean. Much like El Niño in the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean Dipole has far-reaching consequences, and these effects are likely to strengthen under climate change.
More than a statistical fluke
In earlier studies, scientists showed that there are statistical links between the IOD and extreme weather in Australia.
In this new research we’re able to show that these linkages are not statistical flukes, and can in fact be predicted by climate models.
And because these events can be simulated by models, we can use these models to find out whether positive IOD events will become more common in a warming world.
We examined 54 climate models and experiments that participated in the International Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report. These model experiments include the historical period up to 2005, and a future period under a high emissions scenario. These experiments provide a large number of samples with thousands of years of virtual climate, which allows us to distill climate change signals.
https://theconversation.com/indian-ocean-linked-to-bushfires-and-drought-in-australia-20893
In a study released today in Nature Geoscience, we show that extreme weather events in Australia such as drought and bushfire are linked to temperature changes in the Indian Ocean. Much like El Niño in the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean Dipole has far-reaching consequences, and these effects are likely to strengthen under climate change.
More than a statistical fluke
In earlier studies, scientists showed that there are statistical links between the IOD and extreme weather in Australia.
In this new research we’re able to show that these linkages are not statistical flukes, and can in fact be predicted by climate models.
And because these events can be simulated by models, we can use these models to find out whether positive IOD events will become more common in a warming world.
We examined 54 climate models and experiments that participated in the International Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report. These model experiments include the historical period up to 2005, and a future period under a high emissions scenario. These experiments provide a large number of samples with thousands of years of virtual climate, which allows us to distill climate change signals.
https://theconversation.com/indian-ocean-linked-to-bushfires-and-drought-in-australia-20893
Methane is not a global warming gas, and doesn’t stay in the atmosphere for long. Vegetarians concocted that methane is a GLOBAL warming gas, which is wrong.
on the other hand they don’t hate the elephant, wildebeest, bison and other wild grass eating animals: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/methane-ch4/
The danes are measuring temperatures in the high arctic very accurately and their records seem to indicate a bit of cooling from as far back as the 1950s
WHY THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING
People in the USA, are being told by the government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the earth has experienced in past years? Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph at the bottom of this article shows the temperatures of the earth before Christ to 2040.
In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.
In approximately 983AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.
When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.
After the year 1200AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:
http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/kultur-sjael/historie/vikingetiden/erik-den-roede.aspx
The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982.
“The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”
The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e., “The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”
Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html.
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE.
Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!
The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people cannot allow this to happen.
If the Earth’s temperature graph is not shown above, you can see this temperature graph at the link:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Dear MARodger, alt reply #3 – seems to me given this: “no difference between a troll and an annoying jerk”, that ad hom is an acceptable form of communication on this board. It must be as the moderator/s allow it regularly and sometimes use it as well.
In all moderated discussion groups (and organisations, groups and even corporations) the culture, values, and acceptable norms are set in place from the top down. So regards my ‘opus’ I am powerless here, so you are addressing your concerns to the wrong person.
You enjoy this venue under the pleasure of a benevolent dictatorship – all power rests with them. I didn’t post what I wrote, the moderator did. Given you and many others have issues about the length and the content of that ‘comment’ and many others, then take it up with them. Ask them what on earth are they doing? That’s my best advice on the subject. Cheers Sean
DMI seems to indicate cooling in the arctic north of 80 degrees since the 1950s.
Wili wrote: “It matters if the levels are increasing at an exponential rate. That seems to be the main question before us.”
Certainly not! We know the levels are NOT increasing at an expotential rate. Atmospheric CH4 is being monitored. I know you’re aware of this because you previously referenced outlying data points as an indication that some catastrophe was taking place. The rest of us were able to guess what subsequent measurements would show…
There is no physical basis for speculation that levels might start increasing at an exponential rate in the future either. Besides yourself, whoever said anything about exponential growth to begin with? What purpose is served by repeating these talking points over and over and over again?
The failure stems from “The boy who cried wolf”
The models have failed to replicate climate.
Predictions of (insert any parameter you like) have not come to pass.
The reports fail to revue previous predictions.
The SPM is written by politicians for their own ends.
The whole process has been subverted to act simply as a method of transfering wealth, generally from the poor in the rich countries to the rich in poor countries.
DELETE MY POSTS
The following short list in the first instance IMMEDIATELY, plus ALL others that you and the scumbags found wanting, too long, too short, off topic, too stupid, or whatever other weasel complaints you and them have about my comments.
I want nothing to do with your site and no connection with it. Delete every single one for all I care. You deserve nothing.
If the following items are the work of a TROLL then it proves how incompetent you are for letting them through in the first place!
DELETE THEM NOW
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/a-failure-in-communicating-the-impact-of-new-findings/comment-page-1/#comment-430513
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/a-failure-in-communicating-the-impact-of-new-findings/comment-page-1/#comment-430516
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/a-failure-in-communicating-the-impact-of-new-findings/comment-page-1/#comment-430627
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/a-failure-in-communicating-the-impact-of-new-findings/comment-page-1/#comment-430628
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/unforced-variations-dec-2013/comment-page-2/#comment-430726
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/comment-page-1/#comment-429836
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/comment-page-2/#comment-429961
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/comment-page-2/#comment-430472
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/sea-level-rise-what-the-experts-expect/comment-page-1/#comment-428475
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/sea-level-rise-what-the-experts-expect/comment-page-1/#comment-428478
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/sea-level-rise-what-the-experts-expect/comment-page-1/#comment-428480
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/sea-level-rise-what-the-experts-expect/comment-page-1/#comment-428483
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/sea-level-rise-what-the-experts-expect/comment-page-1/#comment-428491
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/sea-level-rise-what-the-experts-expect/comment-page-1/#comment-428672
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-427469
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-427584
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-427599
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-427819
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-427820
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-428252
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-428215
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-428371
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-2/#comment-428508
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-2/#comment-428556
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-2/#comment-428564
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-2/#comment-428567
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-2/#comment-428651
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-2/#comment-428654
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-2/#comment-428676
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-2/#comment-429646
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-5/#comment-428662
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-5/#comment-428674
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-5/#comment-428708
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-5/#comment-428715
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-5/#comment-428717
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-5/#comment-428817
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-5/#comment-428899
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-5/#comment-428966
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-5/#comment-428974
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-6/#comment-429196
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-6/#comment-429229
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-6/#comment-429298
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-6/#comment-429344
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-6/#comment-429347
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-6/#comment-429507
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-4/#comment-428549
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-4/#comment-428552
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/unforced-variations-nov-2013/comment-page-4/#comment-428571
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417262
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417306
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417428
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-427469
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-427584
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/statistics-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-427599
May the new year bring everything to you that you so rightly deserve and have duly earnt.
@86 Steinar Midtskogen, you bring up a really good point here imho. The IPCC are ‘precluded’ ie ‘blocked’ by their mandate to suggest solutions aren’t they? This was done in the beginning by the politicians aka ‘customers’ who set it up.
The reason this was not part of their ‘brief’ was the more wise ‘policy makers/politicians’ would make the best decisions of any actions taken beyond ‘simple scientific’ solutions. iow economic and social policy implications.
iow as Michael Sweet suggests quite rightly @89 “These lawyers can use their influence to have the SPM written in a manner that is not very effective at conveying the information.”
eg US policy makers are called ‘Lawmakers’, a big % of politicians were lawyers before entering politics. They are good at making convincing arguments in court. Works a treat in Parliament and TV debates during elections. But winning an argument/debate does NOT equal being right. Many a guilty person has got off charges by a good Lawyer.
Ex-lawyers were two of our last 4 PMs here, including John Howard already mentioned (listen to him spin the BS, please). Every nation has an Attorney General and whole Justice Department of Lawyers working for them – first order of business with international agreements of all kinds and in the UN.
M Sweet @ 89 also asks “Is it possible that obstructors like Exxon or Saudi Arabia [USA/China/Australia/Financiers/ the 1% iow] deliberately use the requirement for 100 percent agreement to get the discussion of uncertainty at the front?”
… possible? My opinion is 100% Guaranteed they use it… and it’s worked.
Heads Up : the last thing Climate Change recalitrants are interested in is the Science. And as soon as they can use Fiscal crisis to cut climate budgets to the bone they will. Just as is happening right now in Australia. 35+ govt funded Climate programs, and Departments are being shut down and Laws repealed, new Govt only been in place 100 days. The doubt sowers have been really effective here. Climate Science has been trashed to the core in the public’s consciousness.
Australia no longer has a Minister for Science … first time in over 70 years or so.
re ” Much of the content cited on this thread sounds like a law brief and not a scientific report to me.” which should reflect the ‘communication’ issue has nothing to do with the Science of itself – so why keep pretending it does?
The mythical belief is that every thing will change once people and the Politicians really do “understand the science” – it will be ‘obvious’ to all. No sorry, that is faulty thinking which has persisted for 25 years now and is not working.
The naysayer Machine and their Politicians in their ‘pockets’ or ‘ideology movement’ THEY DON’T CARE – THEY DON’T WANT TO LISTEN – THEY HAVE TO BE CONFRONTED HEAD IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THEIR FALSE ARGUMENTS DESTROYED and their personal credibility ruined with their voices shut down in the Public Domain by being laughed out of town.
Then and only then will the public, The People listen and heed warnings and support viable solutions. Unfortunately that’s a big IF … never been successful on the planet before today. Always a first time I guess.
But in a world of NSA et al pervasive monitoring and control freaks I’m not putting my head above the crowd only to get it kicked to death or worse. People who already accept the science and the near crisis of CC and who are supposed to be ‘like minded friends” are already doing that in spades. Therefore I am not interested in lifting a finger to help. It’s all downside this game.
The Donor Class and Streams of Dark Money
The historian Plutarch warned us long ago of what happens when there is no brake on the power of great wealth to subvert the electorate. “The abuse of buying and selling votes,” he wrote of Rome, “crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread in the law courts and to the army, and finally, when even the sword became enslaved by the power of gold, the republic was subjected to the rule of emperors.”
We don’t have emperors yet, but we do have the Roberts Court that consistently privileges the donor class.
We don’t have emperors yet, but we do have a Senate in which, as a study by the political scientist Larry Bartels reveals, “Senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators’ roll call votes.”
We don’t have emperors yet, but we have a House of Representatives controlled by the far right that is now nourished by streams of “dark money” unleashed thanks to the gift bestowed on the rich by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case.
We don’t have emperors yet, but one of our two major parties is now dominated by radicals engaged in a crusade of voter suppression aimed at the elderly, the young, minorities, and the poor; while the other party, once the champion of everyday working people, has been so enfeebled by its own collaboration with the donor class that it offers only token resistance to the forces that have demoralized everyday Americans.
Writing in the Guardian recently, the social critic George Monbiot commented,
“So I don’t blame people for giving up on politics… When a state-corporate nexus of power has bypassed democracy and made a mockery of the voting process, when an unreformed political system ensures that parties can be bought and sold, when politicians [of the main parties] stand and watch as public services are divvied up by a grubby cabal of privateers, what is left of this system that inspires us to participate?”
Why are record numbers of Americans on food stamps? Because record numbers of Americans are in poverty. Why are people falling through the cracks? Because there are cracks to fall through. It is simply astonishing that in this rich nation more than 21 million Americans are still in need of full-time work, many of them running out of jobless benefits, while our financial class pockets record profits, spends lavishly on campaigns to secure a political order that serves its own interests, and demands that our political class push for further austerity.
Not so astonishing that they likewise continue to deny and obfuscate the reality of Climate Change, it’s causes and it’s self-evident solutions.
It is not complicated, not at all.
For years some scientists have claimed that there has been a global warming of 0,8 degC. Now, the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization, in his official capacity, states that the warming has been just 0,4 degC.
Clearly, there is no consensus of scientists, so why go waste time on hundreds of pages of jargon? Maybe we are heading for the ice age as some scientists say.
SecularAnimist@106: > Your term “the scientific community” overlooks the reality that there are in fact multiple scientific communities, which represent widely varying fields of knowledge and expertise.
There are many disciplines in science, but I spoke of them collectively. The more united scientists are, the stronger the message, that is what I’m saying. It doesn’t mean that everybody has to be experts in everything, but scientists can still have an opinion on whether the results of experts in other fields are something worth paying attention to.
> The moderators of this climate science site are climate scientists who are, I think, wisely well aware that they are not experts on energy technologies, and who wish to keep the focus of this site on climate science, where they have a HUGE amount of knowledge and expertise.
I never said that I expected the moderators here single handedly to write an effective SPM. On the contrary I’m saying that should include many disciplines.
> Hence the original topic of this thread — how to more effectively communicate the findings of climate science.
Yes, and it is my opinion that a SPM needs to include more than just such findings in order to make any impact.
> I think that your comments have a bit of “begging the question” about them, in suggesting that the necessity of expanding nuclear power to reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation is an established fact, upon which any “debate” about addressing AGW must be based — rather than an unproven assertion to be argued.
Now we’re returning to that discussion again. I’ll be brief. Yes, I think that anyone who hold the view that the current CO2 emissions are harmful, will also have to be pro nuclear if they want to be taken seriously, or at least view nuclear energy as the lesser evil. Simply because the risk is lower. It’s technology that is already available, and it’s proven and done many times at large scales. We have an expression here in Norway, that you shouldn’t cross the brook to fetch water. If reducing CO2 emissions has any urgency, we should start with what is at hand. But it doesn’t matter what I think, or you think. What would make a difference is that experts in the field can arrive at a consensus and with climate scientists send a common message.
Philip @ 14, it isn’t that hard, try it yourself:-
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/last:207/trend/plot/rss/last:207
You don’t even have to go to an “anti-science blog”
Let’s imagine an ideal climate model. By ideal, I don’t mean it can predict temperatures year by year. What I mean that given a set of assumptions about volcanic activity, greenhouse gases, etc. it will generate a trend line that over 70 or 100 years will be close to what actually will happen in the real world. On any given year, it might be below or above the trend line, there might be pauses, but overall it models the real world with a great deal of accuracy. I think this is model we would hope to have.
Now let’s imagine a less than ideal model. Perhaps it runs a little hot or a little cold. A hot model will generate a trend line above the ideal. A cold model will generate a trend below the ideal. However, for short periods of time either of these two less than ideal models might be almost indistinguishable from the ideal model. It is only as the time increases do the departures from ideal become apparent. What’s more even small differences from the ideal will become increasingly larger as more time passes.
If we say we cannot judge models by short time frames, haven’t we effectively lost any ability to judge the model? We have no way to see how close it is ideal because even a model that generates a result that departs significantly from the ideal might remain close to ideal for short time periods.
C. Town,
A robust and predictive interval is not determined by the timeframe, but the data. A 15-year interval could be robust if the temperature trend was significant based on the scatter in the data. The decrease from a 14-yr to a 16-yr temperature trend is quite large compared to the uncertainty. This is one of those instances where we need to wait for further data.
extra heat in the atmosphere is not accumulative. If for any reason the atmosphere gets warmer -> oxygen & nitrogen expand INSTANTLY -> release extra heat and equalize in a jiffy: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/
About the sun we should be at a maximum in the sunspot cycle but it has failed to happen. How much has this reduced the temperature for this year? Also some think that with the sunspot cycle so weak we could be headed for another Maunder Minimum after 2020. This could cause a cooling of 0.25 – 0.3C, which would cancel out a decades warming.
Stefan. You admit that “short term trends can vary widely due to natural variability”. Could you please define “short term”, so we would know when the anthropogenic greenhouse forcing is expected to trump the recent natural cooling effects, whatever they may be. You are surely not of the opinion, that any trend for whatever period strengthens your conclusions, are you?
Advocates of advocacy need to be aware that the climate change as perceived by voting public is not considered as an imperative problem requiring immediate attention.
what kind of ”Climate Scientists” are; when cannot acknowledge that oxygen & nitrogen are 998999ppm, that they are regulating the temp overall by expending extra the troposphere when warmer than normal and waste that EXTRA heat in a jiffy. ”scientists” who think that the atmosphere is made only from CO2 & CH4: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/
“Please read this”
I read that post thoroughly the day it was published here. You’ll notice I made the first comment. Nothing in it explains why it’s appropriate to say observed temperatures are within a range that they are not.
[Response: Actually, they are still in the range, and the Cowtan and Way paper (as well as the GISTEMP analysis) indicate that you need to be careful that you are comparing like with like. HadCRUT4 is not a true global mean (though close), so either you need to sample at the same points (as Ed Hawkins showed) or take account of the bias in undercounting Arctic warming. Both factors reduce the issue. – gavin]
Reply to ==> Philip Machanick 24 Dec 2013 at 3:52 AM
It is not the dismissal of contrarian opinions that I object to. It is the dismissal of collegial opinions and frames of reference that I object to.
This is the current situation: Dr. S looks at his group’s findings and believes that it calls for conclusion X. However, Dr. Q (equally qualified, equally published, equally PhDed) and his group looks at their findings, and Dr. S’s, but arrives at conclusion Y. Both Dr. S and Dr. Q come out publicly advocating for different social and political solutions for the common problem they both study, both claiming that the science supports their view, and leaving the public in a confusion as to why “the scientists disagree?” Maybe one of our Dr.s says “More scientists agree with me than with Dr. Q”. This does not help.
Ideally, Dr. S (and/or Dr. Q) should say to himself, “Gee, this is science, it seems clear to me, why does Dr. Q see it so differently? He’s a good egg, a clear head, a sharp mind, well educated, does good work. Well, why don’t he and I get together, or better yet, get our teams together, and go over this, and see where we disagree and what studies we could do that would resolve the science underlying the issues in contention. May I’m missing something, maybe he is, or maybe we both are.”
I believe that Dr. Judith Curry, at Georgia Tech, has encouraged such an effort.
Edward Greisch wrote in 182:
I was asking you for a statement by Dai where he claims that civilization will collapse in 2050-2055, and expressly not a map showing severe drought in some parts of the world, not others, later in the century. Are you unable to find or quote a relevant passage?
You continue:
Irrelevant. As I stated, I am aware of Levenson’s unpublished claims. I was asking about Dai’s.
You continue:
Not if it can be grown and shipped in from elsewhere. And if some nations run out of food those nations may collapse, but this does not imply the collapse of civilization itself.
Incidentally, Aiguo Dai is listed as the second author of the paper:
In the conclusion they state:
… as quoted by:
Even were Dai to have made the claim that you attribute to him in one of his earlier papers, wouldn’t you agree that in judging an author’s opinion a more recent paper supersedes a less recent one?
So, to be “CLEAR”, … Climate “Change” (current or more ‘recent’ euphemism for Global “Warming”) is NOT synonymous with, oh… let me see . . . “WEATHER”… the “SEASONS” (“Duh?!?”)… or, the “NATUR”(AL) operation of the Earth (our World). [I really, REALLY love this “Kangaroo Logic” as it is being “applied” here — as elsewhere in the ‘high-minded’, ivory-towered & “elitist” circles.]
“Anthro”-pogenic… Gee, how “HIGHLY” ‘oui’ think (stink?!?) of ourselves ! ! !
The decadal chart in this post is interesting. It shows that the evidence for any global warming, whatever the cause, rests on the past few decades where the global temperature shows a marginal increase.
I noticed that Nate Silver in “The Signal and the Noise” suggests this approach. He comments that “if temperature changes are purely random and unpredictable, the chance of a cooling decade would be 50%, since an increase and a decrease in temperatures are equally likely”.
This suggests a good method of testing for significant trends without the problem of start-points, non-linearity, and temperature persistence. But where could we find enough decades to test the idea? The Central England Temperature record covers 34 decades, from the end of the first decade in 1679, and it is a good proxy for the Northern Hemisphere temperatures.
The results are illuminating.
The first 22 decades, to 1889, show 10 warming and 12 cooling decades, randomly scattered, with negligible overall change.
The next 6 decades to 1949 are all warming as temperatures climb out of the Little Ice Age, (when the Thames and the sea froze) from about 9.1 to 9.6 degrees C.
For the last 6 decades, to 2009, we are looking for the impact (or non-impact) of exponentially increasing CO2. There are 3 warming decades and 3 cooling decades.
If the global atmospheric CO2 content continues to increase exponentially, as it will, and temperatures remain static, how many decades must pass before the IPCC reduce their confidence in AGW?
Ray, I would do so if it would be possible. I calculated 23 running 31-years trend for the 12 month during the warming phase 1960…2012 to find a signal… there is only noise and I can’t make a fit for finding the best offset in time when there is no signal. If there is a large positive feedback from lower/ medium clouds it is not to see in the saisonal data albeit there is a deviation of 1K in the SST.
To cynically sum all this up:
Our videogames are better than their videogames.
The extravagant language of owl905 undermines the seriousness of this discussion.
In many posts I detect an element of, “Lord I believe, help Thou mine unbelief.”
At last some researchers are probing the link between CO2 and warming, a link that depends entirely on ‘colouration’ of the atmosphere. Heat radiated to space at the ‘greenhouse’ wavelengths must come from high altitudes. At lower altitudes the repeated radiation and absorbtion acts to reduce the escape to one of diffusion. The question reduces to one of whether increasing CO2 will raise the ‘escape horizon’ from which radiation can leave the Earth. (At 15 microns, this horizon is actually above the tropopause and its lifting will increase outward radiation!)
As long as carbon and warming are associated without question, the political implications defeat any scientific objectivity.
the sea level raises for two reasons: 1] sediments washed from the land into the sea every year. 2] lees water on the land = more water into the sea a] lake Chad is getting empty. b] Aral sea is almost empty. Also other lakes around the world contain less and less water + desertification: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/sea-rising-or-not/
I wonder why this site rarely covers the arctic methane release with any seriousness.
It’s the largest accelerator of climate warming known, and its finally checking out of it’s frozen prison. To be relative to the OP, It’s sure to whip up storms a such a magnitude that the thames will need to be raised with _much_ more frequency than even its recent past.
Surely we are all big boys and girls and can see the world killer when it’s right in front of our noses.
Tony,
May I suggest that we stop talking about short-term trends altogether? Anyone can choose 10-, 15-, or 30-year trends to make a emphasize a particle point. That opens one to claims of “cherry-picking.” Instead, use the long-term record (from 1880) to make ones point. Then, you can talk about the subtle changes in the long-term trend, without counter-claims of cherry-picking.
why ALL the ”scientist” ignore that in the earth’s atmosphere there is plenty oxygen and nitrogen, and the job those two gases do to regulate the temperature? http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
Do you uphold the right for scientists to raise other evidence and espouse other policies that they see as more cost effective?
In the spirit of “say something, see something”, it’s necessary to pick out this excerpt:
“The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science.”
The overwhelming majority of climate skeptics agree that human-caused climate change is happening – that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 will lead to a small amount of warming. We also believe that the effects of natural variation have been underestimated; that the GCMs which failed to predict the ongoing hiatus in temperature increases did so because they over-estimated the effects of CO2; and that until the climate science community addresses these concerns head-on it will continue to lose credibility. This belief is entirely rational and it is wrong to characterise it as anti-scientific.
You’re as entitled as the next citizen to hold an opinion on what should be done. Your primary purpose, however, is to publish the facts – even the facts you find inconvenient – to the polity, so that we may come to an informed decision on the appropriate policy response.
Your argument presumes mitigation as the only and necessary solution. Adaptation appears to be more cost effective. Caring for the poor addresses the greatest needs now. See the Cornwall Alliance.
I’m not a climate scientists, and I view all this from the outside.
If scientists are to persuade policy makers, they must present arguments that actually persuade policy makers. Obviously. They must place themselves in the shoes of the public. They must present arguments the public can understand.
Imagine an ordinary person or the average policy maker. By and large, they do not understand the science, and they would rather not be worried about the dire consequences that scientists forecast. The climate scientists throw out their models, which are a black box to almost everyone else. The scientists say “We have done our work and proven global warming. Now trust us that we have actually proven that, even though you don’t understand.” That won’t work with a lot of people. To them, the scientists might be just witch doctors trying to make a living off of their magic. Even medical doctors are sometimes viewed in that light.
Remember that about half the people and policy makers don’t believe that evolution is proven (the proof is another black box). It took every-day experience, seeing people die, to make most believe that smoking is dangerous.
And, of course, major economic interests see themselves as harmed by the idea of global warming. It’s easy for the policy makers to believe that climate scientists are witch doctors when to believe otherwise they would have to downplay obvious economic facts, including threats to campaign donations.
What to do? First, don’t argue odd bits of weather and short term climate. Everybody knows these are erratic. Since the science and theory linking global warming in the short term is much weaker than the underlying rationale for long-term global warning, arguing about short term trends is dangerous. Predictions about more hurricanes, for example, are likely to prove wrong. That hurts the credibility of over all global warming theory.
I have several suggestions:
1) Scientist should argue the obvious stuff. Right now, probably the only examples are ice – glaciers and polar ice (without shunting aside the antarctic trends). The climate science societies should publish, or persuade others to publish, ads with the pictures, which are striking.
2) Spend more time trying to persuade other scientists and other professionals – people who can at least understand the basic reasons for climate change. As things stand, policy makers often believe that there is a small cabal of scientists pushing their expertise. If the professional and scientific community comes around, the politicians will be less likely to ignore the issues. Climate scientists should try to work through professional scienties, the ABA, AMA, and so on. Those in universities should spend more time talking to people in other departments, including the humanities.
3) The climate scientists would be more persuasive if they were not so arrogant. They act like know-it-alls, and those who disagree are ignorant or evil. They act like they “own” the issue. That comes out in these posts and in the climate-gate leaks. Even if true, this attitute makes it hard to persuade others.
I have run across some hostility to the climate scientists by other scientiests, on the grounds that the climate scientists are too “pushy” and are pushing weak science – I know one such person at NASA and another at the Dept. of Energy. That kind of thing should not happen.
When it comes to political activities (rather than scientific ones), I think Mann needs a lesson in pragmatism. Can anyone here argue that a review of the effectiveness of advocating for lower carbon emissions based on the dangers of a changing climate shows rather conclusively that such efforts are ineffective? After over two decades of efforts, what political results can you point to for your efforts? Far better to talk about the other negative impacts of fossil fuel use that are observable right now. The EPA estimates that 40,000 people die every year from air pollution coming from coal plants. The BP oil spill resulted in a measurably negative economic impact on the tourist and fishery industries of the gulf. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives have been wasted defending America’s oil interests in the Middle East. The fact that climate change will result in negative impacts that pale in comparison to these things is irrelevant. You need to do what is effective, and in the world of politics talking about dangers that exist 50 or 100 years into the future is rarely effective. The impacts I listed above are not based on computer model projections of what things will look like in 100 years, they are things that the average person can see and witness right now. It seems obvious to me therefore that any scientist truly concerned about the impact of increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere should probably stop talking about AGW immediately. Bringing it up in the political sphere merely serves to distract the public away from other, more compelling arguments for getting us off of fossil fuels.
Couple more points:
1. A good analogy might be with journalists – highly politically active journalists lose credibility and in fact are usually prohibited by their employers from certain political activities. You can’t play all the positions that need playing credibly.
2. More scientist activism isn’t going to help. The message is out. People just don’t think it’s that big a problem….because it hasn’t been. And yes I understand the limitations of this thinking, but more “activism” won’t change it.
3. Increasingly shrill and scary pronouncements in the face of the warming “pause” (however you want to spin it or explain it) don’t sound credible. If and when warming (as measured by some comprehensible benchmark) resumes, there will be more broad-based uptake for policy action. And yes I understand the risks here.
3.
#82 Ray Ladbury
Thanks Ray for taking time out to respond, although I’m disappointed that you sidestepped my specific questions.
When you say “If the oceans are warming at all, or if the net ice melting is positive, we are not in equilibrium” it suggests that you see temperatures inexorably rising towards an equilibrium. But they’re not doing so. They’ve been flatlining for many years. You can’t just wish facts away Ray. Current explanations of the standstill seem ad hoc and unconvincing. Maybe we just don’t know nearly enough about the behaviour of (for example) clouds or the oceans to predict the future course of climate evolution reliably. Nature does what nature does.