In "the beat goes on" department.
Another study, this time, reevaluating data, incorporating information from multiple studies, using refined modeling approaches to crunch the numbers from all that extra data. These authors make clear that humanity is having an ever greater impact on our global climate engine.
And what is the reaction of our Republican/libertarian friends and fellow citizens? Dig in deeper and allow their level of disconnect from understanding our life sustaining biosphere to drive them to down right crazy levels of claims.
Think I'm exaggerating, spend some time reviewing the increasingly bizarre posts by our Mr. Anthony Watts, {which are then spread like astro-turf throughout the blogosphere in order to confuse an apathetic public}. Sou at HotWhopper.com has been doing an excellent job of documenting Anthony's on-going war on rational learning. For instance, http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/anthony-watts-gets-slam-dunked-in.html. Or consider Anthony's recent disingenuous claims against the National Geographic Magazine's reporting
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/09/anthony-watts-attacks-national.html
I'll let the report speak for itself, followed by the thoughts of some others:
Volume 3, 2014, Pages 1–12
A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes
Philip Kokic, Steven Crimp, Mark Howden
DOI: 10.1016/j.crm.2014.03.002
Used under a Creative Commons license
Abstract
December 2013 was the 346th consecutive month where global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th century monthly average, with February 1985 the last time mean temperature fell below this value. Even given these and other extraordinary statistics, public acceptance of human induced climate change and confidence in the supporting science has declined since 2007.
The degree of uncertainty as to whether observed climate changes are due to human activity or are part of natural systems fluctuations remains a major stumbling block to effective adaptation action and risk management. Previous approaches to attribute change include qualitative expert-assessment approaches such as used in IPCC reports and use of ‘fingerprinting’ methods based on global climate models.
Here we develop an alternative approach which provides a rigorous probabilistic statistical assessment of the link between observed climate changes and human activities in a way that can inform formal climate risk assessment.
We construct and validate a time series model of anomalous global temperatures to June 2010, using rates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as other causal factors including solar radiation, volcanic forcing and the El Niño Southern Oscillation. When the effect of GHGs is removed, bootstrap simulation of the model reveals that there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average.
We also show that one would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling global temperatures (as observed since 1998) if climate change was not occurring. This approach to assessing probabilities of human influence on global temperature could be transferred to other climate variables and extremes allowing enhanced formal risk assessment of climate change.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Introduction
There is a clear upward trend in global temperatures from 1882 to 2013 with a number of short time periods of stable or falling temperatures (Fig. 1). Of particular note, from March 1985 to December 2013 there was an unbroken sequence of average monthly temperatures exceeding the 20th century average for each corresponding month resulting in a total of 346 months.
Such a fact would seem to strongly support the hypothesis that global warming is occurring, but the question remains: how strong is this evidence (Bowman et al., 2010)?
Even given these and other extraordinary statistics as well as the body of evidence synthesised in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007 and IPCC, 2013) regarding climate trends, detection and attribution, public acceptance of human induced climate change and confidence in the supporting science has declined since 2007 (Leiserowitz et al., 2011). The degree of uncertainty as to whether observed climate changes are due to human activity or are part of natural systems fluctuations remains a major stumbling block to effective adaptation action and risk management.
Consequently, there are calls for alternative analyses to better understand climate change risks as well as improved approaches to effectively communicate this risk (Bowman et al., 2010). Previous approaches to attribute change to human influence include qualitative expert-assessment approaches such as used in the IPCC reports and use of ‘fingerprinting’ methods based on global climate models.
Here we develop an alternative approach which provides a rigorous statistical assessment of the link between observed climate changes and human activities in a way that can inform formal climate risk assessment. ...
{study can be viewed at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163}
Here's an interesting article followed with a comments discussion at TheConversation.com
4 September 2014,
99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study
There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, our new research shows.
"...The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report provided an expert consensus that:It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.
Decades of extraordinary temperatures
July 2014 was the 353rd consecutive month in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average. The last time the global average surface temperature fell below that 20th-century monthly average was in February 1985, as reported by the US-based National Climate Data Center. ...
Detecting and measuring human influence
Our research team also explored the chance of relatively short periods of declining global temperature. We found that rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring, the observed number of cooling periods in the past 60 years strongly reinforces the case for human influence. ...
Ignoring the problem is no longer an option. If we are thinking about action to respond to climate change or doing nothing, with a probability exceeding 99.999% that the warming we are seeing is human-induced, we certainly shouldn’t be taking the chance of doing nothing. ...
{link to the full story}
Posted on 15 September 2014 by dana1981
A pair of climate scientists recently had a dispute regarding how much global warming humans are responsible for. Gavin Schmidt from Nasa represented the consensus of 96–97% of climate experts in arguing that humans have been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950, while Judith Curry from Georgia Tech represented the opinions of 2–4% of climate experts that we could be responsible for less than half of that warming.
Curry is to be the featured speaker on this subject at a National Press Club event tomorrow hosted by the Marshall Institute; a right-wing thinktank that has spread misinformation about the dangers of smoking, ozone depletion, acid rain, DDT, and now climate change. She may also discuss the subject at an event next week hosted by the fossil fuel-funded right-wing think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF).
The exchange between Schmidt and Curry can be read on RealClimate – a blog run by climate scientists. The discrepancy in both the quantity and quality of the supporting evidence used by each scientist was one of the most telling aspects of their debate.
For his part, Schmidt referenced the most recent IPCC report. The IPCC summarises the latest and greatest climate science research, so there is no better single source. The figure below from the IPCC report illustrates why 96–97% of climate science experts and peer-reviewed research agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. ...
{read the rest of this story here}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Finally I want to share a link to a closer look at "the most authoritative statement of the views of Republican/libertarian climate science skeptics (as of May 2012)":
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
The Sceptic View (Rev. 0.5)
by ScottishSceptic -
examined by CC
No comments:
Post a Comment