Climate change

[kenberg]

I do recognize that sometimes a small group of people can sound like a very large group of people simply by being loud and resourceful. It happens. But I don't think the scientists and planners who are concerned about global warming fit this description. A little browsing reveals that there is a fair amount of planning going on to deal with the consequences of warming. These planners simply accept global warming as fact and are preparing for how to cope with it. Such plans involve the National Academy of Science and The National Research Council, as well as a number of agencies in other countries. I am far from saying that we should just accept everything we hear at face value, but this does seem to go well beyond a small bunch of noisy people.

 

We all like to get paid for work that we do. We like to advance in our careers. It's fair enough to consider that a person may have a less than totally altruistic purpose in publishing a paper, but it would be a mistake to dismiss all of this concern as hoopla from people trying to make a quick buck.

 

Wisdom right now seems to amount to concluding that we do not have the will to address the problem seriously and collectively, so we will all have to do the best we can to cope with the results individually.

[Winstonm]

I do recognize that sometimes a small group of people can sound like a very large group of people simply by being loud and resourceful. It happens. But I don't think the scientists and planners who are concerned about global warming fit this description. A little browsing reveals that there is a fair amount of planning going on to deal with the consequences of warming. These planners simply accept global warming as fact and are preparing for how to cope with it. Such plans involve the National Academy of Science and The National Research Council, as well as a number of agencies in other countries. I am far from saying that we should just accept everything we hear at face value, but this does seem to go well beyond a small bunch of noisy people.

 

We all like to get paid for work that we do. We like to advance in our careers. It's fair enough to consider that a person may have a less than totally altruistic purpose in publishing a paper, but it would be a mistake to dismiss all of this concern as hoopla from people trying to make a quick buck.

 

Wisdom right now seems to amount to concluding that we do not have the will to address the problem seriously and collectively, so we will all have to do the best we can to cope with the results individually.

 

 

The real problem is that there is a fairly large group of humans for whom a challenge to status quo elicits a hormonal explosion that then requires excessive amounts of circle jerking in order to rectify. It then becomes too messy for any real studies to be done, of course, which fits in nicely with the agenda of the jerks in the circle jerking. <_<

[Daniel1960]

The real problem is that there is a fairly large group of humans for whom a challenge to status quo elicits a hormonal explosion that then requires excessive amounts of circle jerking in order to rectify. It then becomes too messy for any real studies to be done, of course, which fits in nicely with the agenda of the jerks in the circle jerking. <_<

There are too many who fall into this category. They assert that their position is true, while simultaneously disavowing their opponents as being "anti-science." Fortunately, there is still a significnt amount of science being performed, which does not cater to either extreme.

[jdeegan]

:P For many in academia, studying climate change is their rice bowl. No danger, no funding. Even a smart guy like Jared Diamond gradually fell victim to this syndrome.

 

That said, the polar ice caps ARE melting. The problem is whether it is cheaper to adjust to rising sea levels and work to solve the human-caused part of the problem gradually or to jump in with drastic and expensive action. Verdict is still out.

[Daniel1960]

:P For many in academia, studying climate change is their rice bowl. No danger, no funding. Even a smart guy like Jared Diamond gradually fell victim to this syndrome.

 

That said, the polar ice caps ARE melting. The problem is whether it is cheaper to adjust to rising sea levels and work to solve the human-caused part of the problem gradually or to jump in with drastic and expensive action. Verdict is still out.

Actually, just one ice cap is melting - the Arctic. Antarctica has been growing, although only minimally. At present rate, adjustment would be cheaper. If rates change drastically, then adjusting may become the more expensive option.

[Al_U_Card]

Worth the watch.

 

A good answer to the OP

[billw55]

I think that adjusting is wiser because we can be much more confident that it will work.

[hrothgar]

I think that adjusting is wiser because we can be much more confident that it will work.

 

I think adjusting is ever so much better, because it puts all the costs where it belongs...

On the backs of the Africans and Asians who didn't have the foresight to be born white and wealthy...

[mike777]

I dont know if the problem is urgent.

 

News reports such as this regarding the UK Meteorological Office just seem to add to the confusion of just how urgent is the problem.

 

 

 

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

 

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

 

This means that the plateau or pause in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2NFDHuDEt

[mike777]

And this from NASA's James Hansen:

 

 

Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

 

James Hansen: Less than 10 Years Left to Reduce CO2

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/12/1073510/-Less-than-10-Years-Left-to-Reduce-CO2?detail=hide

 

 

NASA's James Hansen Officially Admits Global Temperature Standstill Is Real: 'Mean Global Temperature Has Been Flat For The Last Decade' Read the Full Article

 

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/19252/NASAs-James-Hansen-Officially-Admits-Global-Temperature-Standstill-Is-Real-Mean-Global-Temperature-Has-Been-Flat-For-The-Last-Decade

[hrothgar]

 

News reports such as this regarding the UK Meteorological Office just seem to add to the confusion of just how urgent is the problem.

 

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

 

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

 

 

Mike, what happens if you cherry pick different dates?

Do you still see no long term trend?

 

What happens if you measure water temperature rather than air temperature?

Do you still see no long term trend?

 

You might find the following graph of interest

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

[hrothgar]

 

NASA's James Hansen Officially Admits Global Temperature Standstill Is Real: 'Mean Global Temperature Has Been Flat For The Last Decade' Read the Full Article

 

 

And did Hansen offer any explanation why this was so?

Did he make any statements regarding La Niña?

Did he say anything about how asinine it is to try to measure long term trends using 10 years worth of data?

 

Alternatively, is the article that you are citing cherry picking his words as well as the data...

[mike777]

Good question, it seems to have taken his data and words in context but welcome more comments from those of you with expertise in stats

 

 

CCNet 17/01/13

 

 

 

 

James Hansen (NASA) Admits Global Temperature Standstill Is Real

 

 

 

 

"Mean Global Temperature Has Been Flat For The Last Decade"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is some stuff from Hansen:

 

The GWPF has been right all along. In a new report Hansen, Sato and Ruedy (2013) acknowledge the existence of a standstill in global temperature lasting a decade. This is a welcome contribution to the study of global temperature. When others reached the same conclusion they have been ridiculed; so this admission should provide some pause for reflection by those who have attacked the very idea of a recent temperature standstill, often without understanding the data, focusing on who was making the argument and their alleged non-scientific motives. The bottom line is that the recent global temperature standstill is a real event. David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 17 January 2013

 

 

 

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing. --James Hansen et al., 15 January 2013

 

 

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=caf18e122c&e=f4e33fdd1e

[mike777]

Global Temperature Update Through 2012

15 January 2013

J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy

 

 

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.

 

 

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

 

 

The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4

[hrothgar]

 

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.

 

 

Perhaps your confusion is occurring because you are skimming the summary rather than looking at the actual text of the report...

The section titled "The Global Standstill" seems like a good starting point.

 

Global Warming Standstill.

 

The 5 year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade. It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher

level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped". Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability.

 

BTW, it seems strange to appeal from help from those with expertise in Statistics when the real problem seems to be that you haven't bother to invest the time or effort to read the material.

[hrothgar]

 

Here is some stuff from Hansen:

 

The GWPF has been right all along. In a new report Hansen, Sato and Ruedy (2013) acknowledge the existence of a standstill in global temperature lasting a decade. This is a welcome contribution to the study of global temperature. When others reached the same conclusion they have been ridiculed; so this admission should provide some pause for reflection by those who have attacked the very idea of a recent temperature standstill, often without understanding the data, focusing on who was making the argument and their alleged non-scientific motives. The bottom line is that the recent global temperature standstill is a real event. David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 17 January 2013

 

 

This is not "some stuff from Hansen"

 

This is a quote from the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" misrepresenting Hansen

[billw55]

I think adjusting is ever so much better, because it puts all the costs where it belongs...

On the backs of the Africans and Asians who didn't have the foresight to be born white and wealthy...

er .. huh?

 

Rising sea levels don't know the races of people on the shores they creep in on. Are low lying areas always poor/nonwhite?

[hrothgar]

er .. huh?

 

Rising sea levels don't know the races of people on the shores they creep in on. Are low lying areas always poor/nonwhite?

 

Always, no...

Usually, yes...

 

The population of Bangladesh and Indonesia alone total close to 400 million people.

That significantly outnumbers the entire United States.

 

Western nations can afford to waste sea side real estate on hotels and retirees.

Throughout most of the world, people cluster on the coasts to exploit the fish stocks

 

Equally significant, the negative impacts of climate change are hardly limited to rising sea levels.

[Al_U_Card]

Perspective

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.jpg?w=542&h=329

[hrothgar]

Perspective

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.jpg?w=542&h=329

 

Al's chart has been around long enough that there are entire web pages discrediting it

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

[Al_U_Card]

Skeptical Science .... the reference of choice ... :ph34r:

[hrothgar]

Skeptical Science .... the reference of choice ... :ph34r:

 

In an amazing development, Al has actually responded to a critique of crap he posts.

Maybe, in a year or two, he might even rise to the level of informed response.

 

For now, we'll just need to accept that he prefers his own set of "facts"...

 

BTW, if you don't like Skeptical Science, maybe you prefer the New York Times

They raise the same set of critiques

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

 

or Hot Topic

 

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

[Al_U_Card]

Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years

 

 

And then some...

 

Oh those hockey-stick proxies that rely on spliced, different resolution, time series...

 

To quote Steve McIntyre on this paper and its statistical manipulations:

 

While the article has so many problems that it’s hard to know where to start, it doesn’t actually use “Mike’s Nature trick” (as properly defined at Climate Audit,) Mike’s Nature trick (as UC dissected) was the splicing of temperature data with proxy data for smoothing, with the smooth chopped back to the end of the proxy data. It’s tricky, so to speak.

 

The Marcott study conspicuously doesn’t show temperature data, spliced or unspliced. One reason may be a rather severe divergence problem. Their SH extratropics reconstruction maxes out at 1.22 deg C in AD1900, declining to the reference period 0 in 1961-90 (not shown in the article.) This dramatic decrease in SHX temperatures in the 20th century will doubtless come as a surprise to many.

 

Similarly their NHX temperature increases all comes between 1920 and 1940. If Marcott is right, the ability of early 20th century Northern Hemisphere societies to cope with the 1.9 deg C increase between 1920 and 1940 bodes well in my opinion for the prospects of adapting to the lesser temperature increases projected in the next 60 years in most climate models. Of course, it is also possible that the 20th century portion of the Marcott reconstruction is completely worthless.

[Al_U_Card]

More perspective crap ( that would be peer-reviewed crap, however valid that may make it since Mann's hockeystick was pal...er peer-reviewed too... )

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/vostok-10kd.jpg?w=542&h=329

[hrothgar]

More perspective crap ( that would be peer-reviewed crap, however valid that may make it since Mann's hockeystick was pal...er peer-reviewed too... )

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/vostok-10kd.jpg?w=542&h=329

 

 

And we're back tot he normal state of affairs.

 

Rather that addressing the critiques of the crap that he posts, Al responds by changing the subject and posting a whole new graph.

 

BTW, do you need to send any royalties to Watt's Up with That?

You're entire "contribution" seems to be linking to graphics on their web site.