January 9, 2014

climateadaptation:

Obama’s science advisor describes the #PolarVortex and climate change. Seriously! Check it out.

President Obama’s Science and Technology Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, explains the polar vortex in 2 minutes—and why climate change makes extreme weather more likely going forward. Learn more at http://wh.gov/climate-change.

LTMC: This is actually pretty great explanation of what the “polar vortex” is and why it covered the U.S. recently.  

September 29, 2013
Insurers Stray From the Conservative Line on Climate Change

climateadaptation:

LTMC: The Conservative zeitgeist often pegs itself as “pro business.”  Here is the business community that specializes in managing risk collectively saying that climate change is real and we need to prepare for it.

If you don’t want believe an international consensus formed by  thousands of climate scientists, fine.  Believe the Business leaders who manage economic and environmental risks for a living.  Whatever it takes to finally get people to understand that this stuff is real, and it’s going to affect everybody, no matter what their political affiliation is.

November 25, 2012
0.17%

jtotheizzoe:

or…

“Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Number”

Deniers of climate science are fond of the following wacky idea: That the scientific community does not agree on the cause of climate change. It’s time to bury that idea like a senile dog hiding a ham bone: Somewhere where we’ll forget about it forever.

According to some recent data-mining of the scientific literature, 0.17% is the percentage of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the past 21 years that offer a scientifically-viable alternative to human-caused global warming.

Only 24 of 13,950 articles (0.17%) try to make this case in a scientific manner. If any of them were right, they would have been cited hundreds of times, instead of forgotten forever.

Among the public, denying global warming is a very popular and very influential idea. Among scientists, it holds slightly less than no water.

LTMC: It’s generally taken as gospel in climate change skeptic circles that the reason the numbers cited above are so low is because academia actively discourages and retaliates against individuals who attempt to formally refute anthropogenic climate change.  Of course, when you take into account the fact that these numbers represent a global consensus across various borders and institutions, this position would require one to believe that there’s a conspiracy of international proportions in academia, spreading across many nations, governments and scientific institutions, private and public, for-profit and non-profit, to suppress members of the academic community who attempt to dispute anthropogenic climate change.  The amount of tin foil required to construct that hat is impressive, to say the least.

March 26, 2012
More Than 6,000 Record High Temperatures Set This Month

thecallus:

letterstomycountry:

Clearly just Al Gore’s liberal conspiracy weather machine creating false controversy with junk science so he can make millions off carbon credits.  Also, manbearpig.

It was silly when climate change deniers were all remarking on the snow last year, and it’s silly to remark on the small sample of an early Spring this year. The Earth is getting warmer. This is the wrong evidence.

LTMC: I agree that isolated occurrences to not indicate a trend.  Nor is “warming” per se the the primary facet of climate change.  But an increase in the occurrence of unusual and/or extreme weather patterns are part of that body of evidence.  What we are seeing is a virtually unprecedented weather pattern, and it deserves to be noted.  By itself, it proves nothing of course.  But in the context of other unusual and/or extreme weather events, it is one more strange weather phenomenon that contributes to a critical mass of evidence which confirms the thesis of anthropogenic climate change.

To be clear, it is not the warmth per se that makes this remarkable, but the unseasonable nature of it.  April showers are supposed to bring May flowers.  There are already flowers on my front lawn.  Strange indeed.

(via thecallus-deactivated20130520)

March 26, 2012
More Than 6,000 Record High Temperatures Set This Month

Clearly just Al Gore’s liberal conspiracy weather machine creating false controversy with junk science so he can make millions off carbon credits.  Also, manbearpig.

March 4, 2012
Must-Read: Economist William Nordhaus Slams Global Warming Deniers, Explains Cost of Delay is $4 Trillion

sarahlee310:

Yale economist William Nordhaus has eviscerated the 16 scientists who wrote a disinformation-filled Wall Street Journal piece in late January.

This is a must read.  One to bookmark for resharing with anyone foolish enough to send you one of those deniers email forwards.

LTMC: I think the most devastating piece of this article is section 6, where he takes climate skeptics to task for mis-citing his work:

On this point, I do not need to reconstruct how climate scientists made their projections, or review the persecution of Soviet geneticists. I did the research and wrote the book on which they base their statement. The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results.

Someone’s about to get served.

October 31, 2011
jonathan-cunningham:

mohandasgandhi:

evilteabagger:


Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago. …
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

Interesting to say the least.

Here we go again. This crap is still being tagged in #politics.
Since evilteabagger decided not to provide any citation, I found it for him - an article from the widely conservative Daily Mail.
What sort of problems could there be with Judith Curry?
I hope evilteabagger never has to do research professionally.

It’s honestly shameful the way #politics allows Evilteabagger to repeatedly and purposefully mislead readers. After the third or fourth time he posted faulty information that got called out without so much as a mention or retraction from him, he should really be banned from having his stuff tagged. I don’t understand how the editors of #politics can defend allowing him to lie to the Tumblr community.

I’m not going to speak for any of the other editors, but I can tell you that I saw this post and *didn’t* promote it for two reasons: look at the X and Y-axis of each graph.  One is from 1800 to ~2010 and tracks temperature variance ranging from -2.0 to 1.5 degrees celsius.  The other is from 2000 to ~2011, and tracks temperature variance from -1.5 to 2.25 degrees celsius.  So immediately the 2nd graph is suspect because the author changed the goalposts on the Y-axis, showing an intent to manipulate the data in a way that is favorable to their bias.  By placing two similar graphs near each other with different ranges on the Y-axis, the potential for untoward manipulation is already present; expanding the range of the Y-axis also makes the data line flatter.
But the worst part is that the second graph actually doesn’t stand for the proposition the author claims it does.  In fact, the second graph shows a ~0.325 degrees celsius increase in land surface temperature over the past decade.  Here’s the second graph with a best-fit line drawn over it:

Speaking purely in my capacity as an editor, *that* is why I personally thought this post unfit to promote from my point of view: the second graph doesn’t actually stand for the proposition that the original author claims it does: it still shows an increase in land temperatures over the last decade.  To me, that’s dispositive independent from any questions of climate science.  This graph could be about anything, and I still would’n’t have thought it was worth curating.

jonathan-cunningham:

mohandasgandhi:

evilteabagger:

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago. …

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

Interesting to say the least.

Here we go again. This crap is still being tagged in #politics.

Since evilteabagger decided not to provide any citation, I found it for him - an article from the widely conservative Daily Mail.

What sort of problems could there be with Judith Curry?

I hope evilteabagger never has to do research professionally.

It’s honestly shameful the way #politics allows Evilteabagger to repeatedly and purposefully mislead readers. After the third or fourth time he posted faulty information that got called out without so much as a mention or retraction from him, he should really be banned from having his stuff tagged. I don’t understand how the editors of #politics can defend allowing him to lie to the Tumblr community.

I’m not going to speak for any of the other editors, but I can tell you that I saw this post and *didn’t* promote it for two reasons: look at the X and Y-axis of each graph.  One is from 1800 to ~2010 and tracks temperature variance ranging from -2.0 to 1.5 degrees celsius.  The other is from 2000 to ~2011, and tracks temperature variance from -1.5 to 2.25 degrees celsius.  So immediately the 2nd graph is suspect because the author changed the goalposts on the Y-axis, showing an intent to manipulate the data in a way that is favorable to their bias.  By placing two similar graphs near each other with different ranges on the Y-axis, the potential for untoward manipulation is already present; expanding the range of the Y-axis also makes the data line flatter.

But the worst part is that the second graph actually doesn’t stand for the proposition the author claims it does.  In fact, the second graph shows a ~0.325 degrees celsius increase in land surface temperature over the past decade.  Here’s the second graph with a best-fit line drawn over it:

Speaking purely in my capacity as an editor, *that* is why I personally thought this post unfit to promote from my point of view: the second graph doesn’t actually stand for the proposition that the original author claims it does: it still shows an increase in land temperatures over the last decade.  To me, that’s dispositive independent from any questions of climate science.  This graph could be about anything, and I still would’n’t have thought it was worth curating.

(Source: antigovernmentextremist)

October 21, 2011
Koch-funded scientists confirm global warming

mohandasgandhi:

Remember when physicist Richard Muller was called to testify in the House by denialist Republicans who thought he’d debunk global warming, and he ended up supporting it instead? That was fun! And it just happened again on a grander scale. Muller’s group at Berkeley, which was funded in part by the Charles G. Koch foundation, has reexamined (with a skeptical eye, of course) a metric crapload of climate information — including data from the University of East Anglia, i.e. Climategate Central. Their conclusion? “Global warming is real.” Direct quote.

“Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK,” said Professor Muller.

“This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”

You don’t say.

Now, the results haven’t been peer-reviewed yet, so it might not be time to start demanding that Anthony Watts drink beer out of his shoe. But in fact, Watts has promised to abide by whatever results the Berkeley group came up with, “even if it proves my premise wrong,” so it’ll be interesting to see what he and other prominent skeptics do once the paper is published. Probably just click their tongues and say “so sad — another good scientist corrupted by the Conspiracy.”

straight to the source


I’ve always been one of the first to praise Berkeley for their incredible staff but like any other school, they employ some of the worst in several fields, Richard Muller being one of them. This is pretty huge news for climate change/environmental activists and I must admit, it’s rather pleasurable seeing Muller eat (at least some of) his words. The climate skeptics are now losing their spokespersons almost as quickly as we’re losing our glaciers.  

This is a story I’ll be covering (hopefully with joy) as it continues to play out. Muller is one of my least favorite “academics.”

October 21, 2011
theeconomist:

Daily chart: climate change. A new measure of global warming, intended partly to address the concerns of “legitimate sceptics”, offers fresh evidence that the world is warming fast.

theeconomist:

Daily chart: climate change. A new measure of global warming, intended partly to address the concerns of “legitimate sceptics”, offers fresh evidence that the world is warming fast.

(via jtotheizzoe)

October 15, 2011
Starbucks & Climate Change, Ctd.

beatyourselfup:

“God I hate climate change deniers”. To me, that quote says it all which could be reworded as: “If you don’t believe what I, or the majority believe, then I hate you.”

Just as a side note, the problem with this post is this: “What we are really seeing as a company as we look 10, 20, 30 years down the road – if conditions continue as they are – is a potentially significant risk to our supply chain, which is the Arabica coffee bean,”

This is where it takes a wrong turn. Do you know how difficult it is to predict the weather tomorrow? Try adding 3,650 days (which is 10 years) to that guess! And do you know how meteorologists come to these conclusions? They use inaccurate, small scale modeling. There are many scientists that I have found, thousands more that I’ve heard about, that deny the harsh speculation around climate change. I have read many scholarly, peer-reviewed articles debunking climate change science. There appears to be a significant disagreement. And the last time I checked, a majority agreement was not a requisite of truth.

I’m not a scientist and I can’t actually test these theories myself. But I do know one thing: As Mark Twain once said, “If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect”. I also know, with good reason, that a large portion of the “green movement”, which encompasses organics, PETA, and other radical movements, is globalist, power grabbing propaganda that has done nothing but chase industry away from my country, into the protective boundaries of other countries who are more nonchalant about these supposed issues.

I remember in the 80’s when the scare was the complete opposite. It wasn’t “global warming”. It was “global cooling”. The “science” that was spread around, and the the common folk (people like you and I) who don’t really know diddly shit about climate science were hysterical over this fanatical idea that the next ice age was right around the corner. The only thing right around the corner was the flip-flop of the scientific consensus. Color me so surprised.

I can’t say I’m a climate change denier because I expect the Earth’s climate to change naturally on its own. But this time around, I have learned my lesson. I am just going to accept the fact that I don’t know shit about the science and I’ll be damned if I’m going to hop on some social movement bandwagon like a bunch of silly fuckin’ liberals.

More

Your response was a reasonable counter-point until we got to this:

I’ll be damned if I’m going to hop on some social movement bandwagon like a bunch of silly fuckin’ liberals.

In this one sentence, you demonstrated the very derision that you began your post by castigating.  So we’ll call that one a wash and get to the core of the issue.

I’m not a scientist either.  Which is why I trust their conclusions when consistent majorities of them tell me that something is true.  Twain’s wisdom about finding one’s self in the majority does not preclude one from coming to the conclusion that the majority is in fact correct.

What we are talking about here is scientific consensus.  Of course there’s disagreement in the scientific community about climate change.  There’s disagreement in the scientific community over virtually every single topic known to man.  The question is: do we have anything resembling consensus on the issue?  And do the readily observable facts on the ground support an inference by the average individual that they aren’t just blowing smoke up our collective asses?  The answer to both those questions is yes.

First, let’s start with a 5000+ capture of climate-change articles:

That’s pretty lop-sided.  Out of 5000+ papers published on the topic, only 189 affirmatively assert that man-made climate change either does not exist or has not been demonstrated.  that’s less than 0.1%.  We do have a fleshy “neutral” category, whichsuggests that there might be room for debate.  But put it in context: if the evidence is so granular and unclear, as the signatories of the U.N. letter you posted suggest, then why is the distribution so lop-sided?  The fact that it is that lop-sided ought to say something about where the evidence is pointing us.  And that’s the direction that Climate Science is headed.  Don’t take my word for it either.  Ask the scientists themselves.

A 2008 poll of American Climate Scientists showed that 8 out of 10 believed climate change is real and humans are contributing to it.  The specific numbers are staggering:

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

 i.e. we’re not just talking about simple majorities.  We have large, consistent super-majorities of the folks who study this stuff for a living are coming to the same conclusion.  You could reasonably reject the 5000+ article survey above as demonstrating consensus.  You can’t reasonably reject 80+% agreement on an issue as consensus.

Why are the numbers so high?  Because the evidence is there.  And as time has gone on, more and more scientists who used to be “on the fence” change to the majority position:

In 1991 the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global climate change among 400 scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union.

We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming. Among the changes:

In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today.

In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming,” compared to three out of four (74%) today.

The proportion of those who see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius has increased from 47% to 56% since 1991.

The proportion of scientists who have a great deal of confidence in our understanding of the human-induced sources of global climate change rose from 22% in 1991 to 29% in 2007. Similarly, the proportion voicing confidence in our understanding of the archeological climate evidence rose from 20% to 32%.

Despite these expressions of uncertainty, however, the proportion which rating the chances at 50-50 or better that the role of human behavior will be settled in the near future rose from 47% in 1991 to 69% in 2007. 

The letter you posted represents a determined minority of the scientific community.  Poll after poll after poll after poll after poll of the scientific community shows supermajorities of the scientific community affirming anthropomorphic climate change, and the highest level of consensus is among actively-publishing climate scientists:


I posit that it is unreasonable to suggest that a poll which delivers 97% consensus on any allegedly unresolved academic issue, much less anthropomorphic climate change, is even possible in the absence of consensus among the academic community being polled.

Lastly: why did I write that I hate climate-change deniers?  I didn’t write that sentence because I hate anyone who disagrees with me.  Anyone who’s been reading my blog for any amount of time knows that I enjoy a rather cordial relationship with quite a few of my ideological rivals on any number of subjects.

I wrote that sentence because, 1) I believe that skepticism on this front is unreasonable given the weight of scientific authority behind it, but more importantly, 2) agnosticism in this arena is literally putting us all in danger.  Their “prudent skepticism” is delaying a response.  The entire global community has a role to play on this issue; and there may have been a time when the climate-change question was genuinely debatable.  I think that time has passed.  FFS man, our polar ice caps are disappearing:

These numbers aren’t trivial.  Polar Bears, who have gotten along great for millenia, are now seeing their natural habitat disappear:

Those searching for unmistakable evidence of the global climate crisis should pay a visit to the Arctic. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. The average annual temperature in Barrow, at the northern-most tip of Alaska, has increased 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 50 years. Almost every week Alaskans see a news story about the impacts this rapid warming is having right here at home: coastal villages being forced to relocate because of accelerated erosion caused by climate change; Arctic ice cellars in the permafrost melting and causing the loss of stored food; violent fall storms threatening people and animals; walrus and polar bears coming ashore in greater and greater numbers because their sea-ice habitat is melting beneath them.

And while animals are seeing their natural habitats destroyed, natives are seeing ancestral homelands become unlivable.  This thing is going to blow up wide soon unless we collectively commit to doing something about it.

I generally respect the position of skepticism as a rule of thumb.  Regardless of context, everyone should always approach a new subject with a desire to be inundated with evidence before making a decision.  But this isn’t a new subject.  And we have been inundated with evidence.  The trends are clear.  The consensus is there.  And every time some “smoking gun” about climate science surfaces, we always inevitably find out that it was anything but.  At a certain point, intractable skepticism needs to give way to acceptance of what’s in front of one’s nose.  I’m not asking you to abdicate your capacity your free thought; nor am I trying to force a social agenda on you.  I’m asking you to acknowledge the work that’s out there and weigh it properly from an evidence-based standpoint.  Retaining skepticism in the face of the degree of consensus which currently exists among the scientific community on anthropomorphic climate change seems more like intransigence disguised as prudence.

(via beatyourselfup-deactivated20131)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »