donsutherland1

By that severely stretched reasoning, biochemistry, astrophysics, etc, are not “real science.” That they are sub fields within larger fields does not render them “not real science.” Such claims amount in substance to ad hominem attacks, not against a person, but a scientific area. They are deployed, because those making such claims are unable to debunk the growing body of climate research using science, evidence, and peer review scrutiny. Finally, with its growth and increasing societal relevance, climate science could well become its own fully distinct field within earth science in a decade or two.

All known natural variables cannot adequately explain today’s global scale warming. There is an extremely close match when atmospheric carbon dioxide is added to the mix. That’s why scientists are now extremely confident about the matter with a few individual exceptions. The unmet (and likely unattainable) challenge for those who reject the scientific understanding is to identify a new natural mechanism and demonstrate that it offers at least as strong an explanation statistically as the AGW consensus explanation.

Impacts can have regional variation and also lags. Do you have the relevant global charts?

Two key parameters were omitted: 1. The Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer than today in part of the Northern Hemisphere, not globally. 2. The excess warmth over today in those regions concerned the summer months. When everything is taken in context, a more accurate statement would read: the Holocene Climatic Optimum had warmer summers than today in part of the Northern Hemisphere.

Context matters. One could adopt a similar position toward, let’s say iron. Iron is an essential “nutrient” that is necessary for the formation of red blood cells. Too much iron can lead to some devastating health consequences. In excess, it is poison. A similar analogy holds with regard to carbon dioxide. In excess, it is pollution given its well-established properties.

As I continue to travel overseas, this is a short extension and update to my discussion just before the start of August. So far, the Middle Atlantic and southern New England areas are off to a warmer than normal start to August. One constant that has simplified things over the past two months is persistent blocking. Blocking will like persist in general through the next two to three weeks. At the same time, the ENSO evolution has continued toward neutral-warm conditions in Region 3.4. Nevertheless, there has been a significant change. Today, the SOI reached +22.94. During the most recent 10-year period, three years saw the SOI rise to +20.00 or above in August: 2008, 2010, and 2017. All three saw one or more 90-degree readings in September (two during the first week). Two (2010 and 2017) saw September wind up with a mean temperature of 70.0 degrees or above in New York City. As I visit the Great Wall of China in coming days, I will be thinking of something else that has seemingly survived the test of time: the ongoing blocking. Nevertheless, nothing is permanent if one extends the time horizon to sufficient length. Perhaps the big reversal in the SOI may be a precursor for a larger set of circumstances that could fray the blocking toward month’s end and then give rise to a nascent positive AO/NAO regime just in time to negate the impact of gradually lengthening wave lengths. That development would further reinforce the idea of a warm September consistent with the 1993 base case. For now, a period of near normal to somewhat cooler than normal temperatures is imminent. After mid-month warmth should begin to return. The potential for much warmer than normal temperatures during the last week of August and first week of September exists.

Central Park picked up 0.92” in about one hour.

The U.S. Tax Code is filled with tax expenditures that benefit specific industries and companies. Conventional energy producers also receive large tax benefits.

The scientists aren’t politicizing the science. The science is solid. Others outside the field have been doing so.

The anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the rising atmospheric concentration of such gases. They made the marginal difference. That concentration is driving the ongoing warming. As for the world ending in 12 years, that’s nonsense that has almost nothing to do with climate change. It is exaggeration that exploits it for political ends that are largely disconnected from it e.g., an economic reordering that deals with non-climate goals. Such tactics fall on the opposite side of the spectrum as denial, with both undercutting the science. Denial ignores the science. The economic reordering gives life to conspiracy theories wielded to discredit the science.

“Trapping” is used to describe the slowing release of heat to space. On account of that process, some of the heat that would otherwise escape is re-radiated to the earth. The end result is the observed warming that is now underway and its evidence assessed by science as all but unequivocal. The deflection to common usage of technical terms—even by physicists to readily communicate complex concepts with the public so that they are readily understood—cannot undermine the breadth and depth of scientific understanding of contemporary warming and its principal cause.

CO2’s heat-trapping properties are not non-existent. They have been documented. Instead, what had happened is that there had to be a trigger to start the release of stored greenhouse gases. That trigger was natural e.g., an increase in solar insolation, which led to warming, which in turn allowed for some stored greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere, which led to further warming, etc. Today, humanity is the trigger via its burning of fossil fuels. Atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is rising and leading to warming. That process is underway and the body of evidence is large. There are no mysteries of physical laws involved.

To be sure, Dr. Curry does not fall into the category of a “denier.” Her objections are narrower and more specific based on what I have read. There are some people in social media who have taken the anti-science route, which differs from honest skepticism.

Differences of opinion over nuance or degree of magnitude are not a big issue. The big issue is those who reject the basic areas that are supported by what is an overwhelming body of evidence/absence of any compelling alternative explanation in combination with a rigid refusal to bring their ideas to peer review for scrutiny. If they have something of value, they should bring it before the scientific community for examination. Instead, they are little different from those who chose to stick with the idea of an earth-centric solar system long after Copernicus and later Galileo demonstrated that it is solar-centric. In the end, when one dismisses scientific understanding out of hand despite the evidence for it and also refuses to submit one’s own ideas for peer review, one ceases to engage in science. When one rationalizes the latter (refusal to seek publication) with unfounded and unsustainable fears of bias, etc., one merely engages in conspiracy theories. The true denier often satisfies both those conditions.

There’s little doubt that science is a field of continual discovery/knowledge acquisition. In practically all areas more can be learned, including in the area of climate. Nevertheless, the two big ideas on the climate—1. That the climate is warming globally and 2. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the principal reason—are largely settled. More precision remains possible. Greater understanding of feedbacks can be obtained. All of this knowledge can lead to still better forecasts of multiple related variables and outcomes. Crankywxguy’s argument was not a good faith assertion that more remains to be learned: the climate papers are filled with expressions of such a need. It was an attempt to wield the claim to undermine what is known without having to provide a compelling plausible alternative. Finally, with regard to the paper, it notes that climate change contributed to the outcome. It provides a range of probabilities. It leverages the climate models for insight. Even with simple mathematics, alone, one could reach a reasonable judgement based on what is known from the data concerning mean temperatures and standard deviations. In a world where the mean temperature is higher than it was and variability is constant, the probability of a high temperature is increased. If variability is increasing—as has been shown to be occurring on a modest basis in many areas—the probability of that warm outcome is further increased.

The blogger misses at least three important points: 1. While record highs can occur at anytime, the ratio of record highs to record lows has been increasing. The former is now consistently more numerous than the latter. That’s what one would expect to see in a warming climate. 2. The cold air mass in Russia did not even begin to compare with the historic heat that toppled national records in Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, along with widespread all-time and monthly record highs. The cold air mass generated some daily record low readings but no monthly record lows (at least none had been reported as of August 4). Globally, there was no balance between the heat and cold during July. The just released climate bulletin from Copernicus revealed: Global average temperatures for July 2019 were on par with, and possibly marginally higher than, those for July 2016, the warmest previous July and warmest of all months on record. https://climate.copernicus.eu/another-exceptional-month-global-average-temperatures and https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-july-2019 3. Temperature homogenization for the GHCN v4 dataset deals with, among other things, UHI. The modifications from v3 were peer reviewed. That review did not sustain the blogger’s hypothesis concerning its treatment of UHI.

Among serious scientists, there’s very little “distrust.” The papers being published show remarkable consensus on the overall reality of climate change and the leading role anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have played in driving it. Areas of uncertainty exist, especially as they relate to potential feedbacks. Finally, rapid attribution has become necessary for the science to transcend the claims of those who seek to confuse or mislead the public over what’s happening. These papers aren’t perfect, but mathematics and the current climate models provide reasonable insight, even if it isn’t precise.

That’s a false analogy. To “know everything” about climate is not the required level of knowledge to possess an understanding of some major elements of the climate and its evolution. In fact, the notion that science must understand 100% about something to reach conclusions is a rationalization for refusing to accept what science does understand. Indeed, a lot is not well understood when it comes to the processes that drive tropical cyclone intensification, yet enough is known for some really solid forecasting. As more knowledge is developed, forecasting will improve further.

The United States is a relatively small part of the world. A map illustrating the increasing global frequency of heat waves can be found here: https://maps.esri.com/globalriskofdeadlyheat/#

There’s no violation of Wien’s Law. The temperature at 7 km-10 km in the atmosphere where the trapping has been observed (cooling above/warming below) falls within those parameters.

Science gives people the tools to break out of the vast limitations of their five senses. Scientific knowledge has been accepted albeit with periods of difficulty across history. The science is now all but unequivocal in its general conclusions. Residual uncertainties persist, but no plausible science-based alternative explanation exists. Over time, even as the small number of vocal resisters to science try to thwart public understanding, attribution studies are eroding that point of resistance. In Europe, a critical threshold of public opinion has already been achieved. The United States is lagging, but opinion polls taken over the past five years show a decided move toward the scientific conclusion.

The paper describes the synoptic pattern involved. It was a warm one. Such patterns do not disappear in the context of climate change. The probability of their occurrence can change and their impact can change. The best estimate is that the given pattern resulted in an outcome that was 1.5C - 3.0C warmer than otherwise would have been the case due to climate change.

The attribution report can be found here: https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/July2019heatwave.pdf In sum, without the contribution of ongoing climate change, the heat would have been much less likely and, in some places, all but improbable.

I will need to look into this when I return to the U.S. in about three weeks.

Unfortunately, the Park has issues.