Meanwhile, Outside...

Now that grownups are now running the show and science has been elevated to a cabinet level position, I thought it a good idea to return to my monthly NOAA based blogging.

From the scientists at NOAA:

The global land and ocean surface temperature for December 2020 was 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average and the eighth highest departure from average for December in the 1880–2020 record. Compared to recent months, this value was the smallest monthly temperature departure during 2020 and the smallest monthly temperature departure since February 2018.

There's even some art:

See the red (-ish) columns on the right? That's the global land and ocean temperatures. It's bad and it's going to get worse.

So not only is the country dangerously polarized (something made much worse by the Trump Administration), it's fighting a deadly pandemic (also made much worse by the Trump Administration), it's still facing a global climate crisis (which was, of course, very bad in 2016 but made much much worse by the Trump Administration).

Oh yea, and there's systemic racism strangling the country - Trump had a hand in making that worse, too!

You Can Believe The Science Or You Can Believe The Senator With The Snowball

This happened on February 26 on the floor of the United States Senate.  The speaker is Senator James Inhofe (R-OK):


He's looking to disprove global warming by saying it's very cold outside in Washington DC.

Meanwhile in Anchorage Alaska, Monday saw record high temperatures (the average temp for that day is 30 °F and on Monday it was 43 °F.

Does this mean that global warming is occurring in Sarah Palin's abandoned state but not in our nation's capitol?

Luckily, another Senator produced some actual facts:


(Crooks and Liars has the transcript)

In his statement, Senator Whitehouse lists a number of groups/individuals who accept the science.  Here are his sources:

• NASA Earth Now website.
• Navy Admiral Samuel Locklear

  America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change.
  
  Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, in an interview at a Cambridge hotel Friday after he met with scholars at Harvard and Tufts universities, said significant upheaval related to the warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

• US Conference of Catholic Bishops:

  The best evidence indicates that power plants are the largest stationary source of carbon emissions in the United States, and a major contributor to climate change.

• Coke and Pepsi:

  The Coca-Cola Company, for instance, has created a comprehensive “field-to-market” environmental program using climate-related data to quantify water use, fertilizer use, energy use, and greenhouse emissions. By the end of 2015, half of the company’s global corn supply will be part of this environmental program built around the reality of climate data.
  
  PepsiCo just announced the installation of a solar photovoltaic system that will supply massive amounts of renewable energy for the company’s Gatorade manufacturing operations in Tolleson, Arizona. Pepsi officials publicly describe the effort as a way of preventing the release of 50,000 tons of carbon and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Pepsi has said it will use data from this solar project to help inform future solar installations and projects so that it can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions globally.

• Ford Motor Company:

  Ford is committed to doing our share to prevent or reduce the potential for environmental, economic and social harm due to climate change.

• General Motors:

  GM asserts addressing climate change is not only good for the environment, it delivers tangible business value.

• Caterpillar:

  Caterpillar Inc. Chairman and CEO Jim Owens joined a diverse group of businesses and environmental organizations to call on U.S. policymakers to establish a mandatory emissions reduction program to address climate change.

• Wal-Mart:

  Wal-Mart, the planet’s largest retailer, has announced a plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and substantially procure large amounts of renewable energy globally.

• Target:

  The Corporate Sustainability team and the Energy and Sustainability team coordinate Target's climate change strategy, identify key initiative areas, assess risks and opportunities, and coordinate the company’s response to climate change.(pg 5)

• VF:

  VF Corporation (NYSE: VFC) is a global leader in branded lifestyle apparel, with more than 30 brands that reach consumers in nearly all channels of distribution and markets. At VF, we seek to conduct our business with the highest levels of honesty, integrity and respect. These values are embedded in our approach to sustainability, which reflects our commitment to operating our business so future generations can live with cleaner water and air, healthier forests and oceans, and a stable climate.

• Nike:

  Nike, which has more than 700 factories in 49 countries, many in Southeast Asia, is also speaking out because of extreme weather that is disrupting its supply chain. In 2008, floods temporarily shut down four Nike factories in Thailand, and the company remains concerned about rising droughts in regions that produce cotton, which the company uses in its athletic clothes.
  
  “That puts less cotton on the market, the price goes up, and you have market volatility,” said Hannah Jones, the company’s vice president for sustainability and innovation. Nike has already reported the impact of climate change on water supplies on its financial risk disclosure forms to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

• Mars:

  The consequences of climate change, such as changing temperatures and rainfall patterns, floods, droughts, and the spread of pests and diseases, are putting whole habitats and communities at risk.

• Nestlé:

  Increasing levels of anthropogenic green house gases (GHG) in the atmosphere are causing changes to the climate and thereby the ecosystems and processes upon which human prosperity is based. Of particular concern are changes to the weather patterns, water availability, and agricultural productivity, as well as the loss of biodiversity upon which much of the resilience of natural systems is built.

The Senator from Rhode Island added:

Every major American scientific society has put itself on record -- many of them a decade ago -- that climate change is deadly real. They measure it, they see it, they know why it happens, the predictions correlate with what we see as they increasingly come true.

And you can see a list of them here.

To paraphrase Senator Whitehouse:

So, you can believe NASA, The US Navy, The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Coke, Pepsi, Ford, GM, Caterpillar, Wal-Mart, Target, VF, Nike, Mars, Nestlé and every major American scientific society, or you can believe the Senator With The Snowball.

Well?  Do you believe the science or the senator and his snowball?

Stephen Colbert Explains The Difference Between WEATHER And CLIMATE

I am sure you've seen this by now:

Global warming isn't real because I was cold today! Also great news: World hunger is over because I just ate.

Four feet of snow (as of yesterday) in Buffalo must mean that the so called "global warming" must be wrong, right?

I mean if the world is warming up then how can there be so much cold snow out there?

I wonder if they're saying the same thing in Sydney, Australia:

Sydney is in for another burst of summer-like heat, as a series of troughs draw in some of the hot air massing over central Australia.

The mercury in the city will climb to 38 degrees on Friday, according to updated forecasts from the Bureau of Meteorology, after reaching about 27 degrees on Thursday.

Many western suburbs sweltered in temperatures well above 30 degrees on Thursday, with 35 degrees reached in Bankstown and 37 in Penrith.

Those numbers are in Celsius by the way.  Here's a Celsius to Fahrenheit conversion for all those numbers:

• 38C = 100.4F
• 27C = 80.6F
• 30C = 86F
• 35C = 95F
• 37C = 98.6F

Due to the tilt of the Earth on its axis, they're moving into Summer in Australia while we move into Winter.  So just imagine if it's 6 months from now, say May 21, and Jeff Verszyla were to tell you that it's gonna be 100.4 out. That's what's happening in Sydney while Bills fans are getting 4+ feet of snow in Buffalo.

Meanwhile globally:

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for October, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F).

The difference between "weather" and "climate."

NOW They're Relying On Peer-Reviewed Science??

Take a look at this from the Tribune-Review:

Separating climate fact from opinion is the focus of a free-market think tank's lawsuit against the White House science office over a video asserting that last winter's bone-chilling polar vortex originated from climate change.

In its lawsuit, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is demanding documents related to the video, featuring White House science czar John Holdren blaming the bitter cold on climate change, contrary to peer-reviewed studies, The Daily Caller reports. In the video Mr. Holdren says the extreme weather “is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.”

While Holdren's statement isn't an “outright lie,” it's a “half-truth and even a stretch at that,” according to two scientists with the Cato Institute.

Let us, as they say, unpack this.

First the Scaife money the Trib's braintrust never gets around to mentioning:

• $2.2 million to Cato
• $3.9 million to CEI

Imagine what would happen if the Block Family (they own the P-G) were to donate such funds to, say, Mediamatters and then cite some mediamatters research.  I am sure the braintrust would be screaming all the way to Brent Bozell's front door.

But back to the second paragraph.  did you see it?  Did you see how they're "debunking" Holdren?  I'll give you the sentence again with the appropriate emphasis:

In its lawsuit, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is demanding documents related to the video, featuring White House science czar John Holdren blaming the bitter cold on climate change, contrary to peer-reviewed studies...

Yea those "peer-reviewed studies" would probably be included in these "peer-reviewed studies" - you know the ones.  They're the "peer-reviewed" studies that show that 97% of climate scientists affirm the existence of climate change.

And yet our friends on the braintrust have the audacity to still cling to this:

After CEI petitioned for a correction, the White House acknowledged that Holdren's statement was “personal opinion” and exempt from data quality laws, The Hill newspaper reports. So much for the administration's “settled science.” [Emphasis added.]

Fact of the matter is, it's probably too early to link last year's polar vortex to climate change (in fact Holdren starts the video by saying that no single event can either prove or disprove global climate change) but using the peer-reviewed science that supports climate change as a way to try to undermine that same science is simply laughable.

And it shows either a shocking disregard for science, if they believe it's an adequate argument) or a shocking disdain for their audience, f the Tribune-Review's editorial board thinks it can fake them out so blatantly.

So which is it, guys?  Are you just ignorant or are you assuming your audience is?

The Braintrust Keeps Trying To Debunk The IPCC...

...and they keep failing.

From today's Tribune-Review:

Cooler heads must deflect the latest blast of hot air from the discredited United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And then:

The International Climate Science Coalition notes that 16 years without warming show U.N. climate models are wrong and weather's extremes remain within natural variations' range. Yet the U.N. climate change panel urges draconian anti-growth measures.

Yea, but we've already looked at that, haven't we?

Yea, like 5 days ago.

I guess we'll have to do it again.

The "16 years without warming" meme is what they call "selective evidence" and I'll let desmogblog explain.  But first, some of their artwork:

They're gonna be talking about that small area of the upward sweep marked by that big red arrow.  By the way, do you notice the upward sweep from just after 1900 to now?  So even if the line is, in fact, "leveling off" that still wouldn't discredit the upward sweep that represents the rising temperatures of the 20th century now, would it?

Anyway, back to desmogblog.  They explain that 1998 and 2005 were rather hot "el Nino" years and that:

After 1998 and 2005 global temperatures were not as hot, but still on the whole still much hotter than most years prior to 1998.

So the temperature is still clearly going up globally as can be seen by the long-term upward trend over time. But like any good conspiracy theory, if you look hard and long enough you will find “proof” of your theory — and the climate deniers seem to be clinging on to this latest proof pretty hard.

And again, this issue is already addressed in the IPCC summary report:

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible (medium confidence). The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (Figure SPM.1a). Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. [Italics in original]

They never learn, do they?

The Trib also makes this claim:

The U.N. panel again is providing “cover for costly new regulations and energy rationing” even though the EPA admits “electricity regulations will have no discernible impact on the global temperature,” U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, told The Hill newspaper.

Here's what the fool said in The Hill:

“Yet the EPA has admitted that electricity regulations will have no discernible impact on the global temperature,” he added. “America cannot afford to drive its economy over a cliff with the hopes that the rest of the world will make the same mistake.”

So far, I haven't been able to track down when the EPA actually admitted to anything of the sort (doesn't mean it's not out there, it just means I haven't found it yet).  But I suspect that the rhetorical ruse being played here is found in the phrase "global temperature."  Could the EPA have merely been pointing out that a great many other countries would also have to limit their carbon emissions that this global problem can't just be solved by the US limiting its own carbon emissions?  That a whole mess of other stuff has to happen as well?

That's what I suspect.  But until I see for sure, I'm withholding judgement.

In either case, the Trib Braintrust is still wrong about the science and they're doing it now so often that it has to be an embarrassment to any rational person working at that newspaper.

More Faith-Based Anti-Science On The Way

From The Washington Post:

Sen. James M. Inhofe, an the Oklahoma Republican who once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo, is likely to lead the Environment and Public Works Committee when the GOP takes control of the Senate next year.

And then there's this:

In his 2012 book, “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” Inhofe describes himself as a lonely crusader against an environmental-liberal conspiracy. “First I stood alone in saying that anthropogenic [man-made] catastrophic global warming is a hoax,” he wrote.

And let's not forget where at least some of teh crazie comes from:

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on Voice of Christian Youth America’s radio program Crosstalk with Vic Eliason yesterday to promote his new book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, where he repeated his frequent claim that human influenced climate change is impossible because “God’s still up there.” Inhofe cited Genesis 8:22 to claim that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.”

This is Genesis 8:22:

As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night,
shall not cease.’

Yes, that's right. That's why all the science is wrong.

Senator James Inhofe, the picture of the the GOP's faith-based non-science.

Meanwhile, Outside...

Yes, I know there's a midterm election tomorrow.  Get your ass out there and vote!

But meanwhile, from the beeb:

The IPCC's Synthesis Report was published on Sunday in Copenhagen, after a week of intense debate between scientists and government officials.

It is intended to inform politicians engaged in attempts to deliver a new global treaty on climate by the end of 2015.

The report says that reducing emissions is crucial if global warming is to be limited to 2C - a target acknowledged in 2009 as the threshold of dangerous climate change.

Here's the report.

Some highlights:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

And some details regarding the above:

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).

The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C1 over the period 1880 to 2012, for which multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available. For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. [Italics in original]

But it hasn't warmed in 18 years right?  So that means all that above is bullshit, right?

Wrong:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

So next time you hear someone say that the warming has stopped because it "hasn't changed" (or whatever) in 18 years or so, tell them that they're bringing up something the actual scientists already know about and they've already explained away and that coming to a conclusion based on a short term that's skewed by the dates picked is not very reliable scientifically.  No, not at all.

And Now...A Message From The Pentagon

A few days ago the Post-Gazette editorial board published this:

Conservative members of Congress may not be ready to acknowledge the reality of climate change, but the Pentagon sees it for what it is — a threat to national security.

On Monday, the Pentagon issued a report assessing the immediate dangers of climate change.

And here's the report itself.

And this is from Secretary Hagel's forward:

The responsibility of the Department of Defense is the security of our country. That requires thinking ahead and planning for a wide range of contingencies.

Among the future trends that will impact our national security is climate change. Rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. They will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe.

And so on.

While the other, smaller, and far more ideological (in this case rightwing) paper in town, the Tribune-Review did reprint this AP piece that said:

The report — described as a Pentagon road map — identifies four things that it says will affect the military: rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, more extreme weather and rising sea levels. It calls on the department and the military services to identify more specific concerns, including possible effects on the more than 7,000 bases and facilities, and to start putting plans in place to deal with them.

More broadly, the report warns that as temperatures rise and severe weather increases, food, water and electricity shortages could cause instability in many countries, spreading disease, causing mass migration and opening the door for extremists to take advantage of fractures in unstable countries.

However, our friends on the Trib's editorial board are still looking to disprove the science with this:

Wattsupwiththat.com , which bills itself as “the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change,” says the water temperature of the Great Lakes is more than 6 degrees colder than last year at this time and 3 degrees colder than normal. Experts say should the trend continue, the lakes could freeze over earlier. And that could impair Great Lakes shipping. This global warming stuff is getting ridiculous.

So, I guess, because a rightwing science denying website says the Great Lakes are warmer this year than last year the Pentagon has to be wrong,

Hmm...ponder that for a bit because that's what the braintrust wants you to believe.

No Warming Since 1998?

Here's some more evidence that the "no warming since there's been no warming since 1998" myth really needs to be put to sleep:

The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.

And:

The global land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), the second highest on record for August, behind 1998.

And:

For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).

And:

The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June–August period was also record high for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), beating the previous record set in 1998.

Then there's the art:

See that black line?  That's this year so far.  Third highest of the five highest on record.

Still, No Actual Science Here

And by "here" of course I mean the editorial page of the Tribune-Review.

Take a look at this warning about some upcoming legislation.  I want to jump all the way to the bottom to the "science" that supports the whole argument:

As Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute points out, atmospheric and surface warming began in the late 1970s and ended in the mid-to-late 1990s. In effect, the “Great Carbon Chase” is a nonstarter.

So who's this Benjamin Zycher of AEI?   (Let's not forget that AEI is itself a beneficiary of millions of Scaife money.) Is he a climate scientist?

Um, no. From his AEI bio page:

Ph.D., economics, University of California, Los Angeles
M.P.P., public policy, University of California, Berkeley
A.B., political science, University of California, Los Angeles

And what does this econ Ph.D. actually say about the carbon legislation?  Specifically the "science" about how the warming ended in the late 90s?

Take a look:

With respect to the explicit assumption about the "warming of our planet": The most recent warming period ended 15 or more years ago.

Ah, that argument.  The warming ended in the late 90s.  The "link" above is actually two links.  One leading to an actual scientist (Roy Spencer, Ph.D.) and the other leading to another non-scientist (Christopher Monckton) who is more or less a quack.

So let's look at the scientist.  He actually gets his own page at the Skeptical Science website.  (Actually, it's a page devoted to him, titled "Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer).  And here's how Skeptical Science debunks Spencer's "no warming in x number of years" argument. I wrote only yesterday about how it's still warming outside (FYI - that's where the science points)

It's the same old selective evidence fallacy that's been used countless times before.

And the Trib is still using it.

Meanwhile, Outside

What's going on in Ferguson is the most important story of the day, by far.  Without a doubt.  No one deserves to be gunned down in the street like that.  No one.  No one's corpse deserves to be left there for hours.  No one.  No one's pre-shooting reputation deserves to be smeared like that by the local police - especially since it was the police that did the shooting.  No one.

This is America.  Crap like that isn't supposed to happen.  But it does.  All too often.

That being said, it's still getting warmer out there.  From NOAA:

• The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2014 was the fourth highest on record for July, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F).
• The global land surface temperature was 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.3°C (57.8°F), marking the 10th warmest July on record. 
• For the ocean, the July global sea surface temperature was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), tying with 2009 as the warmest July on record. 
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–July period (year-to-date) was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), tying with 2002 as the third warmest such period on record.

It may have been cool round these parts, but overall it's still getting hotter out there.

More Scientific Consensus on Global Climate Change (As If We Needed It)

Remember that "97%" number?  Remember how it states that 97% of all climate scientists agree with the science of global warming?

Here's another paper to confirm it.

The study's primary (?) author, has a quick and easy FAQ explaining the science without too much science-y jargon.  Here's what the study found:

Our results are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

Cook et al. (2013) found that 97% of papers that characterized the cause of recent warming indicated that it is due to human activities. (John Cook, the lead author of that analysis, is co-author on this current article.) Similarly, a randomized literature review found zero papers that called human-induced climate change into question (Oreskes, 2004).

Other studies surveyed scientists themselves. For instance, Doran and Kendall-Zimmermann (2009) found lower levels of consensus for a wider group of earth scientists (82% consensus) as compared to actively publishing climatologists (97% consensus) on the question of whether or not human activity is a “significant contributor” to climate change. Our results are also in line with those of e.g. Bray and von Storch (2008) and Lichter (2007).

In our study, among respondents with more than 10 peer-reviewed publications (half of total respondents), 90% agree that greenhouse gases are the largest – or tied for largest – contributor to recent warming. The level of agreement is ~85% for all respondents.

The interesting thing about this survey is that they didn't limit the questions to ONLY peer-reviewed climate scientists.  They asked a broad array of scientists and then correlated each scientist's area and level of expertise with how much they agreed with climate science.  Guess what they found?  Take a look:

[IPCC]AR4 authors are generally domain experts, whereas the survey respondents at large comprise a very broad group of scholars, including for example scientists studying climate impacts or mitigation. Hence we consider this to be an extension of the observation -in this study and in e.g. Anderegg et al. (2010) and Doran and Kendall-Zimmermann (2009) – that the more expert scientists report stronger agreement with the IPCC position. Moreover, on the question of how likely the greenhouse contribution exceeded 50%, many respondents provided a stronger statement than was made in AR4. Using a smaller sample of scientists, Bray (2010) found no difference in level of consensus between IPCC authors and non-authors. [Emphasis added to the link.]

Not only that but they found this interesting bit of info tucked into the corners:

Scientists with dissenting opinions report receiving more media attention than those with mainstream opinions. This results in a skewed picture of the spectrum of scientific opinion. Whether that is problematic is in the eye of the beholder, but it may partly explain why public understanding lags behind scientific discourse (e.g. the “consensus gap”).

So if I am reading this correctly, just short of all peer-reviewed climate scientists agree with climate science.  The farther away you get in expertise you are, the less likely you'll be in agreement with the science and the more likely you'll be hit up for an opinion in the media.

Interesting.

And We're Back To The Selective Evidence AGAINST The Reality

An embarrassingly typical "argument" against the Climate Science can be found in today's Tribune-Review:

Speaking of climate clucking, Western Pennsylvania broke records this week for summer cold. “What was that, honey? Why, yes, of course, I'll throw another log on the fire, baby — all that global warming is making it cold outside.” [Bolding in Original.]

As if the weather in one local area over a short time span is an indication of a global trend.

It isn't.

But I wonder if the Trib's editorial board would be issuing the exact same denial if they lived in Phoenix:

The official temperature in Phoenix hit 115 degrees at 1:32 p.m. on Thursday. That breaks the record of 114 degrees set in 2006. The high reached 116 degrees shortly after 2:15 p.m.

The overnight low on Thursday was 93 degrees. That also set a record.

Or Los Angeles:

Triple-digit heat scorched inland areas of Southern California on Wednesday as forecasters predicted that above-normal temperatures would continue into the weekend.

In the desert, Thermal hit 119 degrees, breaking a daily record of 118 degrees that was set in 2006. Palm Springs reached 116 degrees, tying a daily record that also was set in 2006, according to the National Weather Service.

As of 4 p.m. in Los Angeles County, Northridge, Saugus and Van Nuys each had hit 100 degrees. Acton and Lancaster topped out at 102, according to the weather service.

Or on Planet Earth:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that June was the globe’s warmest in 134 years of records following its report that May was also the hottest on record. These reports are feeding anticipation that 2014 could become the warmest year on record.

But, according to the scientifically illiterate editorial board of the Tribune-Review, none of that has any meaning because Allegheny County has been colder than usual for a few weeks.

So embarrassing wrong that it undermines the whole paper as a "news" source, doesn't it?

More Science Denial By The GOP

This happened yesterday in the United States Senate:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) blocked Senate Democrats on Monday from passing a resolution that would have acknowledged the reality of climate change.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked unanimous consent to pass S.Res. 524, which is a measure that expresses the sense of the Senate that climate change is occurring and poses a risk to the United States. But Inhofe objected.

Where else but amongst American Conservatives (yes, I know - not ALL of them, but enough for the rest of them to be ashamed) can a resolution acknowledging reality be so easily blocked?

Luckily, there was someone in the Senate (a New Englander, thankyouverymuch) who responded to the ignorance with some science.  From thinkprogress:

[Rhode Island Senator Sheldon] Whitehouse began by addressing one of Inhofe’s most oft-used arguments against the existence of climate change — that the earth’s atmospheric temperature has not risen in the last 15 years.

That “little rhetorical device” Inhofe is using fails to consider two things, Whitehouse said. One, is that more than 90 percent of the heat generated from increased carbon emissions gets absorbed into the ocean, not into the atmosphere. Two, is that any changes in ocean temperature will eventually have “a pronounced effect” on atmospheric temperature. Indeed, recent studies show that global temperatures are set to rise rapidly in the face of our increasingly warm and acidic oceans.

“To say that we have no warming is just not factual,” he said.

You can watch Senator Inhofe get some science by Senator Whitehouse:


Here's the 2014 National Climate Assessment if you want to read it.

Climate Denier Governor To Meet With Climate Scientists (An Update)

Hey, remember this?

My blog post started with this article in the Tampa Bay Times.  A group of actual scientists offered to meet with Florida Governor (and climate science denier) Rick Scott to explain the science to him.

I was wondering if we couldn't get a few climate scientists from Pennsylvania to meet with our own climate denying Governor.

Anyway, there's an update.  From the Miami Herald:

Democratic candidate for governor Charlie Crist fueled the climate wars Friday and called Florida State University oceanography professor Jeff Chanton offering to meet with the scientists who asked to meet with Gov. Rick Scott.

Scott said this week that someone in his administration would meet with the 10 climate scientists from universities and colleges across the state, but after Crist agreed to meet, them, the governor also agreed.

Of course, this is all about the upcoming gubernatorial election in Florida.

Hey, we have a gubernatorial election coming up in Pennsylvania, right?  Maybe Democratic challenger Tom Wolf should reach out to meet with some scientists and discuss the issue.  Maybe that would get Corbet to do the same - just like in Florida.

Wolf even has a "climate change" page on his website.  It starts with this:

Tom knows we need to remove the politics from the discussion about climate change and global warming. We need to take action so that future generations have access to fresh air and clean water, and have the opportunity to explore and enjoy Pennsylvania's natural beauty.

As governor, Tom will promote policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote clean energy alternatives, and invest in green energy technology and infrastructure. Additionally, Tom will appoint qualified individuals to lead the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources who will be responsible for proactively addressing climate change and promoting policies that are in the best interest of current and future residents -- not special interests.

Not a heck of a lot of room in there to say that climate change is "subject to debate" so it should be a rather easy conversation for Wolf to have with some climate scientists on climate change.

How long until we get a serious discussion about it from Governor Corbett?

Hey, Can We Get Something Like This In Pennsylvania??

From the Tampa Bay Times:

In an effort to push Gov. Rick Scott into the debate on climate change, 10 prominent Florida scientists on Tuesday asked for an opportunity to explain to him the impact human-induced global warming will have on Florida.

"We note you have been asked several times about how, as governor, you will handle the issue of climate change," the scientists wrote in a two-page letter to Scott. "You responded that you are 'not a scientist.' We are scientists and we would like the opportunity to explain what is at stake for our state."

I mean we have a Governor who's denied the science and we have some very important climate scientists in this state as well.  Why can't something like this happen in our state?

As a reminder this is exactly what Governor Corbett said:

I think everybody is taking a look at this. I think some people believe that it is clearly evident and it’s coming very, very quickly. I think there are others who are equally qualified that disagree with that. It’s a subject of debate.

And that's exactly untrue - especially since we know that 97% of climate scientists endorsed the position that climate science is real and that human beings are causing it.

Weather.com has a copy of the letter sent to Florida's governor.  Here's the text:

Dear Governor Scott:

We respectfully request the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the current and future impact of human-induced global warming on Florida. As scientists, we believe such information is vital given the threat posed by climate change. There is a clear need to develop a state plan to both mitigate and adapt to the threats to Florida's communities, businesses, tourism industry and protect the state's economic well being.

We note you have been asked several times about how, as Governor, you will handle the issue of climate change. You responded that you were "not a scientist." We are scientists and we would like the opportunity to explain what is at stake for our state.

We welcome the chance to present you with the latest climate science. Our hope is this will inform you as you consider Florida's plan for meeting the recently announced carbon pollution standards from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each state will be called on to implement reductions with Florida's carbon intensity rate reduction target of 38 percent by 2030, from 2012 levels.

When asked about climate change, Florida Gov. Rick Scott's stock response is: I'm not a scientist. Florida scientists say: Let's talk.

We will also respond to any questions you might have regarding the recent National Climate Assessment (NCA) and any adaptation planning decisions you may be considering. That report, as you may be aware, concluded that climate change "is already affecting the American people in far-reaching ways." This includes more frequent and/or intense extreme weather events, more acidic oceans, and rising sea levels. The report further found "unambiguous" evidence that human activities — the burning of fossil fuels, the clearing of forests — are the cause. The NCA also found we are "exceptionally vulnerable to sea level rise, extreme heat events, and decreased water availability" caused by climate change, with "residents in some areas such as Miami Beach [already] experiencing seawater flooding their streets."

In short, Florida is one of the most vulnerable places in the country with respect to climate change, with southeastern Florida of particular concern.

This is not a hypothetical. Thousands of scientists have studied the issue from a variety of angles and disciplines over many decades. Those of us signing this letter have spent hundreds of years combined studying this problem, not from any partisan political perspective, but as scientists — seekers of evidence and explanations. As a result, we feel uniquely qualified to assist you in understanding what's already happening in the climate system so you may make the most effective decisions about what must be done to protect the state, including reducing emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants.

It is crucial for policymakers, such as yourself, to have a full understanding of the current and future threats to Florida. Most importantly, you should have a detailed understanding of the specific climate change impacts already affecting Florida to help you formulate the optimal plans for mitigating future impacts, while simultaneously preparing Florida's communities and businesses for the changes already underway, and almost certain to accelerate in coming years.

We look forward to meeting with you, and await your response.

And while I've not found any instance of Governor Corbett saying "I'm not a scientist" it shouldn't be that difficult to re-write the above letter, change some of the details (like replacing "Florida" with "Pennsylvania" and so on) and sending it to Harrisburg.

For the Governor to state that the science is still "subject of debate" only shows how much he needs to be properly educated on the subject and that's something one or more of Pennsylvania's climate scientists should seek to address.

How 'bout it??

Meanwhile Outside...

From Slate:

New data released Monday shows humanity has just unlocked another achievement in the race to cook the planet: The last three months were collectively the warmest ever experienced since record-keeping began in the late 1800s.

The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June globally since at least 1891, when its dataset begins. This follows May 2014, which was the warmest May globally on record, which follows April 2014, which was the warmest April globally on record.

And this is the artwork from our friends in Japan:

See that red line? That's the long term linear trend.  It's going up.

And then a few paragraphs later:

Also on Monday, NASA released its monthly global temperature numbers for June, with nearly identical results that were reached by a different method. According to NASA, June was the all-time third warmest, May was the warmest, and April was tied for second, with 2010 nudging out 2014 by an imperceptible 0.003 degrees Celsius in the three-month average. [Emphasis added.]

Why did I emphasize the "reached a different method" part?  If two separate studies using different methodologies both point to the same conclusion, then the chances of both being incorrect are lessened.

The temperature is still going up.  The science is still solid and I still have to write this blog post (it seems) ever couple of weeks.

Governor Tom Corbett, Science Denier

From Thinkprogress:

Climate denial runs rampant in the halls of Congress, with over 58 percent of congressional Republicans refusing to accept the reality of basic climate science. A new analysis from the CAP Action War Room reveals that half of America’s Republican governors agree with the anti-science caucus of Congress.

And so what did they report about Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett?

Take a look:

Governor Tom Corbett (R) questions the science behind climate change: “I think some people believe that it is clearly evident and it’s coming very, very quickly. I think there are others who are equally qualified that disagree with that. It’s a subject of debate.” In 2011, Corbett withdrew the state of Pennsylvania from the legal defense of the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. While he did implement a climate action plan, it was criticized as inadequate because it fails to set greenhouse gas reduction goals and fails to incentive renewable energy, according to an op-ed by Rep. Greg Vitali (D) in the Lebanon Daily News. The governor has cut funding for climate change research, has appointed climate science deniers to his administration, and has eliminated bipartisan programs that focused on renewable energy and conservation. Instead, he has moved his focus to natural gas production and the booming fracking industry in Pennsylvania. Despite coming under fire for pollution from drilling, Corbett handed authority of some of the state’s most critical environmental decisions to C. Alan Walker, a Pennsylvania energy executive who has fought against environmental protections and donated $184,000 to Corbett’s campaign efforts. The governor also made false job claims on behalf of the fracking industry, has been accused of trying to confuse the public with an environmentally friendly fracking agreement, and has called to lift the ban on oil and gas drilling in state parks and forests. Governor Corbett is running for re-election in 2014.

What the Governor's doing, by saying that it's "a subject of debate" is to set up a false equivalency of sorts.  He's asserting that there's a pro-climate science side and an "equally qualified" con-climate science side and that are still debating the science.

Which we know is factually incorrect.

To assert that the debate is still on going is to deny the science.

Tom Corbett, science denier.

Steve Doocy Is An Idiot

And he got a "Pants on Fire" grade at Politifact.

Here's what he did, according to Politifact:

Fox News host Steve Doocy gave the doubters some ammunition on June 24, 2014. In a segment on Fox and Friends called "News by the Numbers," Doocy drew viewers’ attention to the year 1934.

"That's the hottest year on record in the United States," Doocy said. "At least until NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming. The 1930s were by far the hottest decade in the United States."

Interestingly, I had roughly this same debate on Facebook some months ago with a prominent local Pittsburgh conservative and his son (and so you can guess who they are). These two gentlemen are definitely not idiots but they used the same idiotic "the scientists fudged the raw data numbers!" argument.

It's incorrect then and it's incorrect now.

Politifact sets up it's debunkment:

We asked Fox News for their source and while they didn’t respond, a number of conservative news outlets have made much in recent days of a blog post from a man who writes under the pseudonym Steven Goddard. Goddard charged that until 2000, NASA reported that in the United States, 1934 was hotter than 1998 and that the country has been cooling since then.

And then the debunking:

As far as what the blog actually claimed, while it accurately copied the changes in the government charts, experts in U.S. temperature measurement say it ignores why the charts shifted. There were major changes in how the country gathered temperature information over the decades.

Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.

"He is simply averaging absolute temperatures," Hausfather wrote. "Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time."

Which it didn't.

What the actual scientists are doing is this: they are compensating for the messy data in the first place.  Even the climate skeptics agree that Goddard is incorrect:

John Nielsen-Gammon is a researcher at Texas A&M University and is the Texas state climatologist. Nielsen-Gammon finds nothing nefarious in the government analysis of temperature trends.

"It is reasonable to expect the adjusted data record to change over time as the technology for identifying and removing artificial changes improves," Nielsen-Gammon said. "If there are any biases, they are caused by the quality of the underlying data, not by any biases intentionally introduced into the adjustment process."

All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected Goddard’s conclusions.

Mark C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder, said no fabrication has taken place.

"Goddard's results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data," Serreze said.

Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.

"I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better," Watts wrote. [Emphasis added.]

The biggest problem that Doocy had with this data is that even if it was true (which it isn't) and it adequately reflected reality (which it doesn't), it was only data about the continental United States.  Even if it was true it would be a huge mistake to generalize it to a global frame of reference.

Meanwhile it's still getting warmer across the globe, no matter what Steve Doocy says.

Meanwhile, Outside...

From the NOAA:

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2014 was record highest for this month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). [Emphasis added.]

Oh, and this is their analysis for the globe, not just the good old U. S. of A.

It was a very warm month of May - not that that's taken anyone by surprise.  If you're having trouble wrapping your head around the May warm, here's some art work:

And hey, if you're reading this from the eastern half of the above mentioned Good Ole US of A, do you remember that bitter polar vortex we had?  With temperatures hitting somewhere below zero (fahrenheit)?

Yea, didn't do much for the global temps:

The first five months of 2014 was Earth's fifth warmest such period, with a combined average land and ocean surface temperature that was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average. With the exception of February (21st warmest), each monthly temperature in 2014 to date has ranked among the four highest for its respective month.

So tell me again how global warming stopped 12 or 15 or 17 years ago?