World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[DaveBj]

Every expert that I have talked to personally believes global warming is happening and is man made. (In fact, just two days ago at a talk on tide-water glacier caving by a USGS scientist) The science has moved on from if to how much. Given that nearly all peer reviewed papers (97%) on this subject conclude anthropogenic climate forcing is occurring, it is almost certain that it is not bogus.

Now there is plenty of uncertainty about how bad it will be.

How many of those researchers who are reviewing each others papers are also funding their research with money taken from the pro-MMGW lobby? Unfortunately, sometimes the conclusions come to by scientists are swayed by where the scientists’ next grants are coming from. (Unfortunately, finding any actual evidence will be extremely difficult.)

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it.

Average temperatures over the continent have been 1.2C above the 1961-1990 average, breaking the previous record set in 2005 by 0.17C. It was also the hottest year on record for South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The other states - Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania – recorded above-average temperatures that rank in their top four hottest years.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How many of those researchers who are reviewing each others papers are also funding their research with money taken from the pro-MMGW lobby? Unfortunately, sometimes the conclusions come to by scientists are swayed by where the scientists’ next grants are coming from. (Unfortunately, finding any actual evidence will be extremely difficult.)

I expect these people all know each other.

When I was in graduate school, I was in charge of a journal that was published by the school. A number of my fellow students participated in it as part of a series of graded classes. We received all of these “scholarly” papers from contributors, and depending on their qualifications and sometimes the content, we would rework them and publish them. Very frequently, the contributors cited each other, and a lot of their articles overlapped. At times, the journal would dedicate a whole issue to one single thing.

In researching, I found it interesting that someone who was published in our journal was in charge of another school’s journal to which our own professorial director sometimes contributed. A bit incestuous but, after all, they were all in the same field, right? Protection in the “publish or perish” game.

Never will I forget when I found out that one of them had organized a group of contributors to publish a textbook. We on the journal staff, of course, were obliged to make it work for them. Some of it we barely changed. Some we rewrote from scratch and the professor or renowned rsearcher contributor put his name on it, contributing little more than that. I remember one particularly famous guy who simply provided an “idea for research”. We, of course, did all the research on that one, and wrote it. I will admit he looked it over before publication. And naturally, all of the professorial friends of the contriubtors were enlisted to review and praise the book and recommend it to their administrators because the favor would be returned some day and in some manner. And, of course, the respective schools of all the contributors bought the textbook, and the contributors got royalties. Sometimes some support even came from public funding, and I wondered whether the entitites providing the funding had any idea who was really doing such a large part of the work. And then I thought perhaps they didn’t even care because, after all, they could justify themselves to their funding sources by pointing to this truly attractive and seemingly wonderful work. Little did the students who were obliged to buy that expensive textbook realize that a good part of it had been written by students no more erudite than themselves, who got nothing but a grade out of it.

Sooooooo, ever since then, I have been less than entirely impressed with “scholarly works” of one kind or another. Some, of course, are the result of true scholarship. Others are the product of the “journal/textook machines”, of which I played a part at one time.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it.

Maybe. We’ll see.

When Australia heats up, and goes dry, California tends to do the same thing, which is happening as we speak. It’s too early to tell whether the “rest of the story” will turn out. If it’s relatively cool and wet here in “tornado alley” after March and into the summer, I will know El Nino conditions prevail in the eastern Pacific. Yes, I know NOAA is predicting ENSO neutral conditions, but they can’t see beyond March anyway, ever. And they admit it.

Typically, Australia’s bane (and California’s) is our blessing, and vice versa.

We’ll see.

 

[DaveBj]

I expect these people all know each other.

snip

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut from “the voice of experience.”



People talk about how “big money” is funding the anti-MMGW side of the debate, but there is plenty of “big money” (and academic dishonesty) on the pro side.

 

[lynnvinc]

Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it.

Quote:
Average temperatures over the continent have been 1.2C above the 1961-1990 average, breaking the previous record set in 2005 by 0.17C. It was also the hottest year on record for South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The other states - Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania – recorded above-average temperatures that rank in their top four hottest years.

One way to look at it is climate anomalies and standard deviations from the norm. What’s been happening is that over the decades there have been more and more extreme high temps several St.Dev. from the norm (and less extreme cold temps an the other tail).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

See the charts in columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf.

Scientists will still say that one summer’s average temp in one country does not prove GW, even if there is only a .0001% chance for that to happen, only that the dice are loaded with GW for that to happen (the chance has increased).

However, from a lay perspective, where we are not operating from the null hypothesis, I think we can say that we are living in a globally warmed and warming world, and it’s up to the naysayers to prove at 99.9% certainty that we are not (they simply cannot do so when the stats are diametrically opposed to their position – they couldn’t even prove it at 35% certainty) – but even if they could prove GW is not happening I’m not going to stop mitigating it, since I’m also mitigating a host of other serious problems by mitigating it, AND it’s saving me so much money

 

[frobert]

Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it.

Tony, I agree with your assessment but we will only be sure that it is indeed part of Hunan induced change in hindsight, even though all the indicators are that it is slam dunk.

If it weren’t for the catastrophic impact on future weather the deniers would actually be comical, right up there with the earth being only several thousand years old and that evolution is a discredited theory. Unfortunately climate chaos is not a laughable matter.

 

[Ender]

However, from a lay perspective, where we are not operating from the null hypothesis, I think we can say that we are living in a globally warmed and warming world, and it’s up to the naysayers to prove at 99.9% certainty that we are not …

Nonsense, the major issue isn’t even about whether the Earth has warmed but about what has caused it. The fact that summers have been getting hotter in Australia, even if true, says nothing whatever about whether CO2 caused it.

I think we are living in a world that has warmed but you also asserted that it is warming and - even according to those who believe in AGW - it isn’t.

Ender

 

[frobert]

However, from a lay perspective, where we are not operating from the null hypothesis, I think we can say that we are living in a globally warmed and warming world, and it’s up to the naysayers to prove at 99.9% certainty that we are not (they simply cannot do so when the stats are diametrically opposed to their position – they couldn’t even prove it at 35% certainty) – but even if they could prove GW is not happening I’m not going to stop mitigating it, since I’m also mitigating a host of other serious problems by mitigating it, AND it’s saving me so much money

Reasoning, no matter how reasonable, is not going to have much influence on the deniers. Think on the impact it would have on them should they be convinced otherwise. It’s much more comfortable believing everything is just find and the next 10, 20, 30,40 years will be as innovative and energy abundant as the past century was. By not doing anything the future is not difficult to imagine, but that would be for another thread.

 

[lynnvinc]

Nonsense, the major issue isn’t even about whether the Earth has warmed but about what has caused it. The fact that summers have been getting hotter in Australia, even if true, says nothing whatever about whether CO2 caused it.

The scientists have ruled out everything else as causing the bulk of the warming. The sun, for instance as been in a solar minimum for the past 13 years, and one would have expected temps to decline below the long-term (from 1880s thru 1960s) average, but they have not only remain well above that, but have even increased a bit. See graph below (which also shows the impact of el ninos and volcanos. Also noted that the global average temps jigsaw due to the many factors, so climate scientist always look a long term (over 30 years) trends (BTW they actually know about all the other factors and factor them in, despite contrarians saying they don’t); all the temps over the past 30 years (since 1979) have be above and well above the average (0 line on the chart). There aren’t any other explanations for the overall increase except the increasing GHGs in the atmosphere, mainly put their by human activities.



Here’s one showing the sunspot/solar irradiance patterns, CO2, and global average temps over the past 150 yrs:

I think we are living in a world that has warmed but you also asserted that it is warming and - even according to those who believe in AGW - it isn’t.

Ender

The climate most certainly has been warming – considering that scientists say we have to look at trends of 30 or more years (since there are so many factors involved) – unless one wants to keep going down the up escalator:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

It is a very well known fact, established over the past 200 years, that GHGs, esp CO2, have an impact on warming the climate.

It is also known that there is a lag time, so that the CO2 and other GHGs that are in the atmosphere now will continue to warm the climate. Some researchers have estimated that there is 2.4C more warming in the pipes, even if we halt all GHG emissions today.

It is also well known that warming causes various positive feedbacks into more warming. For instance, as it warms, ice and snow melt, revealing darker ocean and land, which absorbs more heat, which causes more warming, and so on.

Another positive feedback is the ice melting causing release of methane (which has a atmospheric residency of about 10 years, but degrades into CO2) from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates, causing more warming, causing more methane release and so on. That process is already underway (there is always some release from melting, but these releases are increasing).

(I’m thinking that when these positive feedbacks really kick in, and there’s nothing we can do to stop them, the denialists will shout with glee that it isn’t humans, but nature to blame…even tho we pulled the trigger on it or awakened the sleeping dragon, so to speak.)

For anyone who values life on earth, or at least one’s own children and descendants (and I know many people do not, as evidenced by the high abortion rate), it really behooves them to read the real science of what is going on, rather than the bogus science promoted by the fossil fuel industry, and do whatever they can.

Unfortunately it is now not only a matter of mitigating GW, but also preparing and adapting for a radically different and harsh world.

But what are states like Oklahoma doing? Arresting environmental activist students demonstrating peacefully and charging them with terrorism for glitter that fell off their banner; refusing to provide storm shelters for children at public schools; and paying out $645 million in tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry over the past three years. See gptarsandsresistance.org/

Great going ,OK.

And NY, NJ, and LA are also very lax – having known they could have storms as bad as Sandy and Katrina, IF they had only been keeping up with the science. And nearly all other states and countries around the world. For the most part a bunch of irresponsible do-nothings with irresponsible citizens. Thank God for JPII, BXVI, and Pope Francis, and all the other good people of the world who aren’t afraid to take this issue on squarely.

 

[vz71]

By not doing anything the future is not difficult to imagine, but that would be for another thread.

Was the current climate so easily seen from 1990?

Was the climate of 1990 so easily seen in the 70’s?

 

[lynnvinc]

Was the current climate so easily seen from 1990?

Was the climate of 1990 so easily seen in the 70’s?

Science keeps improving all the time (along with scientific tech aids) … but still it does keep underestimating GW, and that is probably due to the false positive-avoiding scientific reticence.

Also looking at paleo-climatology, there are just no analogs from the past. The end-Permian great warming that killed about 95% of life on earth occurred over 100,000 or so years; and PETM great warming that killed a large chuck of life occurred over 10,000s of years; and now we are causing it to happen over a couple hundred years. There is no analog. We are in for very big surprises.

 

[vz71]

We are in for very big surprises.

Agreed.

Every morning the weather is anything like predicted I am surprised.

 

[frobert]

Was the current climate so easily seen from 1990?

Was the climate of 1990 so easily seen in the 70’s?

---

duly deposited.

Ditto

The post wasn’t meant for deniers. Still 20 years may or may not be a sufficient time period, too many factors are interacting and complex change of any kind is seldom linear. You will need to ask the appropriate scientists. Oh, forgive me my short term memory is not what it used to be, I forgot, most climate scientists are pseudo scientists or are selling out or something like that.

 

[Ender]

The scientists have ruled out everything else as causing the bulk of the warming.

Unlike the rest of us it appears that climate scientists know what they don’t know.

The climate most certainly has been warming

You didn’t read what I said carefully enough. I acknowledged that the climate had warmed … before it stopped, about 15 years ago. Will it go up again? Perhaps so, perhaps not, but the point is that it is incorrect to say that the Earth is warming now because that is simply wrong, as even the (what’s the opposite of deniers? affirmers?) affirm.

It is also well known that …

With so much being so well known one can only wonder why every single major climate model not only missed the current “hiatus” in warming but had ruled out the possibility of its even happening.

For anyone who values life on earth, or at least one’s own children and descendants (and I know many people do not, as evidenced by the high abortion rate), it really behooves them to read the real science of what is going on, rather than the bogus science promoted by the fossil fuel industry, and do whatever they can.

By all means, let’s take the words of the people who have employed deceit and distinctly un-scientific methods to get their message out. Whatever one may say about the science involved it is quite clear that the behavior of some of the most notable scientists has been atrocious and one can only wonder why, if the science is so indisputably on their side, they found it necessary to behave in such a manner.

And NY, NJ, and LA are also very lax – having known they could have storms as bad as Sandy and Katrina, IF they had only been keeping up with the science.

The only thing out of the ordinary about Katrina was where it hit; as far as the storm itself, it was a category 3 when it hit land, which is far from being “bad”. What made it bad was that it hit New Orleans. Suggesting that Katrina was some super storm caused by global warming is the kind of pseudo-scientific assertion that gives the entire AGW cause a bad name. Which, considering some of the misbehavior they’ve engaged in, is saying something.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

By all means, let’s take the words of the people who have employed deceit and distinctly un-scientific methods to get their message out.

Who has employed deceit?

 

[lynnvinc]

…Suggesting that Katrina was some super storm caused by global warming is the kind of pseudo-scientific assertion that gives the entire AGW cause a bad name. Which, considering some of the misbehavior they’ve engaged in, is saying something.

Ender

…but when global warming really kicks in then we’ll be seeing much worst than Sandy and Katrina. I guess that’s what many people want…sort of the way people like horror movies or gawking at bloody accidents. Maybe our lives have become hum-drum, so people want total disaster on mega-scales even scientists and sci fi writers can’t imagine. Up the ante…

 

[lynnvinc]

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/52dac240eab8ead323034ea0-800-/powell pie chart 2.png width=“200” height=“85”

So what people who doubt AGW are saying here is the 9135 scientists are wrong – because they are biased, corrupted, and evil – while one single scientist and 100 armchair bloggers are right, because they’ve got to be right.

What would happen if they were wrong and AGW really were happening. It just can’t possibly be happening. We’re good people. We wouldn’t do that. We love our children. We’d never do things to harm them. Never. Ergo, AGW just can’t be happening. No way.

 

[frobert]

Who has employed deceit?

Thank you for asking.

Not that you will consider this study by Drexel, but I have a few minutes to waste.

Climate Change Denial a Billion Dollar Industry of Fabrication Says Study

Added by Rebecca Savastio on December 22, 2013.
Saved under Rebecca Savastio, Science
Tags: Climate Change

A new study out of Drexel University in Philadelphia has exposed a billion dollar industry of fabrication-a complex construction of false information created by those engaged in climate change denial and the conservative organizations that support that denial. To uncover the organized effort, researchers examined the Climate Change Counter Movement (CCCM), a structured “think tank” supported by 91 official organizations and funded by 140 non-profits. The total budget for these synchronized groups as a whole is over 900 million dollars; funds that are provided largely by corporations, conservative organizations and groups set up specifically to promote climate change denial. The study, entitled Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations includes a meta-analysis of numerous previous studies.

The study found that these organizations and non-profits, as a unified body, deliberately put forth untrue propaganda in order to purposely confuse the public and create vast misunderstanding over climate change. The CCCM also endeavors to block legislation that could potentially harm the movement’s shareholders. The study states:

A number of analyses have shown that one major factor driving this misunderstanding and an overall lack of legislative action is a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate change.

The study found that stockholders who could be affected by climate change legislation are major funders of the CCCM. Two big players are Exxon Mobil and Koch Enterprises, although, according to the study, both of these organizations have recently “pulled back” from making easily identifiable public donations and have shifted to “untraceable sources,” also called “dark money,” to disseminate funds to the CCCM.

There is much more to the study which can goggle.

Your almost certain rebuff should be entertaining for Sunday morning reading.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Moderator Note

Avoid ad hominem posts. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Ad hominem posts are normally considered off topic and attempts to hijack a thread. You will receive infractions for them.