The temperatures for the next three days in Davis are expected to push up to and then exceed 90 degrees, here in mid-October, before cooling down to more normal readings in the 70s with even a chance of showers next week.
But it has been another abnormal year. Sacramento broke a record in September when 26 of the 30 days met or exceeded 90 degrees. The previous record was 24 and it was set back in 1974.
September was consistently warm, but not scorching. It never topped 100 degrees in Davis. Davis only had 22 days of 90 degrees or higher, but October started with a pair of 98 degree days before the weather cooled to more normal levels.
The debate over global warming remains, shall we say, heated, though the public once again seems to be swinging toward believing that there is something going on.
Yesterday, Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman reported that September was, globally speaking, the warmest September on record, actually tying 2005 for the mark.
But that is not the most stunning data. Scientists have been able to track global surface temperatures since 1880 – 132 years of data. Based on that data, September marked the 331st consecutive month where the global temperatures were above average. It was the 36th consecutive such September with a global temperature above the 20th century average.
Think about this, the last time the September average temperature globally was below normal was 1976, when it was Gerald Ford running for President against Jimmy Carter, the Governor of Georgia.
The last time any month was below average was February 1985, during the Reagan administration.
Mr. Freedman reports, “The first nine months of 2012 were the eighth warmest such period on record, and barring unusual cold during the October through December period, the year is likely to fall within the top ten warmest years on record globally. In the U.S., the year is on track to be the warmest year on record, after the country experienced its third-warmest summer and warmest spring since records began.”
The ability for the US to deal with climate change has been hampered by political polarization on the issue and a strong partisan divide. But that may be changing.
A poll released Monday from the Pew Research Center found that the percentage of Americans saying there is solid evidence of global warming has steadily increased over the past few years.
Currently, 67% say there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, up four points since last year and 10 points since 2009.
Similarly, an increasing proportion say that the rise in the earth’s temperature has mostly been caused by human activity. Currently, 42% say the warming is mostly caused by human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, while 19% say it is mostly caused by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. Last year, 38% mostly attributed global warming to human activit,y and in 2010, 34% did so.
The national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 4-7 among 1,511 adults, finds increasing numbers of Democrats, Republicans and Independents saying there is solid evidence of warming, although there continues to be a substantial partisan divide on this issue.
Fully 85% of Democrats say there is solid evidence that the average temperature has been getting warmer, up from 77% last year and similar to levels in 2007 and 2008.
Nearly half of Republicans (48%) say there is solid evidence of warming, compared with 43% last year and 35% in 2009. The percentage of Republicans saying there is solid evidence of warming is still lower than it was in 2006 and 2007, but is now about where it was in 2008.
The Pew Poll dovetails with a new poll from George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication and Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, which matched the findings of a similar poll from the Brooking Institute back in February.
The key findings included:
- A large and growing majority of Americans say “global warming is affecting weather in the United States” (74%, up 5 points since our last national survey in March 2012).
- Asked about six recent extreme weather events in the United States, including record high summer temperatures, the Midwest drought, and the unusually warm winter and spring of 2011-12, majorities say global warming made each event “worse.”
- Americans were most likely to connect global warming to the record high temperatures in the summer of 2012 (73%).
- Americans increasingly say weather in the U.S. has been getting worse over the past several years (61%, up 9 percentage points since March). A majority of Americans (58%) say that heat waves have become more common in their local area over the past few decades, up 5 points since March, with especially large increases in the Northeast and Midwest (+12 and +15 points, respectively).
- More than twice as many Midwesterners say they personally experienced an extreme heat wave (83%, up 48 points since March) or drought (81%, up 55 points) in the past year.
- One in five Americans (20%) says they suffered harm to their health, property, and/or finances from an extreme heat wave in the past year, a 6-point increase since March. In addition, 15 percent say they suffered harm from a drought in the past year, up 4 points.
The Hill a few weeks ago reported that more undecided voters wanted more action from President Obama and Congress to fight global warming.
The poll “found that undecided voters’ beliefs about the existence and causes of global warming are far closer to President Obama’s likely voters than GOP rival Mitt Romney’s.”
All told, 64 percent of undecided voters surveyed believe President Obama should be doing more to address climate change, and 72 percent said Congress should be doing more.
The survey, though, found a strong divide, with 78 percent of President Obama supporters wanting more action while only 35 percent of those likely to back Mitt Romney did.
According to the Yale-GMU Poll, 55 percent of undecided voters surveyed said that the candidates’ views on climate would be among the most important issues that help determine which way they vote.
“While polling consistently shows that the environment lags behind the economy and jobs, healthcare and several other topics among voters’ top concerns, the new data nonetheless suggests that undecided voters will consider climate change when casting their ballots,” the Hill reported.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Periods of extreme heat and drought in the Midwest and other regions have happened before. The difference is that Democrats had not yet conceived of the strategy to collaborate with government-paid scientists to exploit the weather for political gain.
Correction: The difference “was”.
Another fake catastrophe:
“The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) posted a blog last year entitled “Polar Bear Population in Canada’s Western Hudson Bay Unlikely to Survive Climate Disruption.”
They claimed the polar bear population was suffering due to man-made climate change. AL Gore used this ideal as well in his film An Inconvenient Truth.
Yet, a recent survey by the Government of Numavat in April of 2012 tells a completely different story. The region they monitored encompasses the Nunavat and Manitoba where polar bears live. This area is close to the Arctic.
Researchers found that polar bear populations are estimated at 66% higher than climate change alarmists predicted.
The claim of the drowning polar bears goes back to a federal study that was obviously doctored. The 2006 paper from the journal Polar Biology lacked any supporting evidence for its claims that “drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues.”
Biologist Charles Monnett, the lead scientist on the paper, who is currently working with the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, found a polar bear carcass and then devised the story that became the claim that polar bears were drowning.
To further substantiate this research, satellite images show 36 groups of Antarctic emperor penguins. They have grown to be twice as large as climate change alarmists had warned about in the previous year.
The climate change alarmists have been wrong about nearly all their predictions. According to them, we should be living in a burned planet; however, everything appears to be less than catastrophic.”
I suppose it is interesting to look at popular opinion, but that is not what tells you about the realities of climate change. Peoples’ memories are short and inaccurate. Many peoples’ opinions are not based on having studied and understanding the science, and I do not claim to understand it all either. It is the climate numbers in this article that are of much more interest than opinions. Certainly we have had warm and even hot weather into October before. I happen to remember Oct. 1993 because my parents visited and it was so hot on my Dad’s birthday which happens to be today. But those kinds of memories mean nothing when is comes to assessing statistically significant l scientific trends.
What will be catastrophic is a smaller overall planetary movement in warmth than I think most people realize. There is a point when according to the science, the balance tips, it is not just a continuum.
Donna:
“I suppose it is interesting to look at popular opinion, but that is not what tells you about the realities of climate change”
I think you’re missing my point here. It’s important to look at popular opinion because that is what is going to change public policy.
You cannot make conclusions about global warming from single area data for a single or a few years. Bad science, period.
“Periods of extreme heat and drought in the Midwest and other regions have happened before. The difference is that Democrats had not yet conceived of the strategy to collaborate with government-paid scientists to exploit the weather for political gain. “
To me the most consequential data is the 331 consecutive above average months – has that happened before too?
David, I do get your point about policy. And I was trying to allude to the numbers being the only responsible way for the opinions to matter. The 331 months is striking. And it being a planetary average, not a localized average to any particular area, is what makes it particularly striking and alarming.
[quote]
…
To me the most consequential data is the 331 consecutive above average months – has that happened before too?
[/quote]
Yes, yes it has; Climate change has occurred several times in the history of our planet, in point of fact.
Let’s assume for a minute that this data is accurate*, the only thing that can be shown is a trend in the direction of increasing temperatures. All other “conclusions” are opinion and it is important that everyone understand that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
What one chooses to believe is not science; science is what can be proven repeatedly through well established methods.
*Several possible problems exist with how these temperatures were collected ranging from instrumentation accuracy to procedural consistencies, all of which may never be resolved. Thus, we can only work with what we have and continue to improve the fidelity of the data.
” All other “conclusions” are opinion and it is important that everyone understand that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.”
Not quite. You have the correlation between the CO2 levels and temperature variation and the scientifically demonstrated causal link that shows that CO2 acts as a greenhouse to allow heat in hold it in the atmosphere longer before it dissipates.
[quote]Not quite. You have the correlation between the CO2 levels and temperature variation and the scientifically demonstrated causal link that shows that CO2 acts as a greenhouse to allow heat in hold it in the atmosphere longer before it dissipates[/quote]
I never said anything about whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas and I don’t dispute that numerous models support the conclusion that an increase in CO2 levels [i]could [/i]result in a rise in temperature. However, this does not invalidate anything I’ve said because the data points to an increase in temperature prior to an increase in CO2. Put another way, an increase in temperature is more likely to cause an increase in CO2 than the other way around… correlation does not mean causation!
Furthermore, CO2 isn’t the only “greenhouse” gas that may play a significant role in Earth’s ever changing climate. Methane, CH4, is one of several commonly occurring examples.
You, nor anyone else, can provide a causal link between humans and climate change without making several significant assumptions.
In my opinion, the current geopolitical debate surrounding climate change resembles religion far more than it resembles science.
[i]”…the current geopolitical debate surrounding climate change resembles religion far more than it resembles science.”[/i]
There are tens of thousands of geophysicists working on aspects of climate change. Are you one of them? Do you have special expertise in this field?
[i]”without making several significant assumptions.”
[/i]
Climate models obviously involve assumptions. Refining those assumptions is what the models are all about. Which assumptions do you have problems with, sufficient to make your ‘resembles religion’ conclusion?
“the data points to an increase in temperature prior to an increase in CO2”
To what time periods are these data correlated. I did not know this and find it very interesting. This could be a classic vicious cycle.
Note to David: if you start your article with any reference to current weather, you are making the same mistake that climate change denialists often do. Regardless of average world temperature, we will see high and low temperatures, snowy and rainy and dry winters, etc. Every weather condition will continue to occur, just in different patterns than in the past. Distribution of warmer winters in the U.S., for example, has not been consistent across the west.
Also, ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ aren’t really accurate. ‘Average’ is what we are comparing. There’s no such thing as normal weather.
Just a few of my pet peeves on this topic.
dlemongello:
[i]”to what time periods are these data correlated. I did not know this and find it very interesting. This could be a classic vicious cycle.”[/i]
Proxy records indicate otherwise. For an abstract of a recent study in Nature, see:
[url]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html[/url]
Don Shor wrote:
[quote]There are tens of thousands of geophysicists working on aspects of climate change. Are you one of them? Do you have special expertise in this field? [/quote]
Indeed there are, but I don’t see what relevance your question has – Does my being tied to one of these fields increase or decrease the value of my opinion? I’ll decline to comment in the hopes of preventing stereotyping in either direction.
I don’t have an agenda… other than to try and discuss the issues by pointing out the problems I see with the arguments being presented by those that do have an agenda.
Don Shor wrote:
[quote]Climate models obviously involve assumptions. Refining those assumptions is what the models are all about. Which assumptions do you have problems with, sufficient to make your ‘resembles religion’ conclusion?[/quote]
My point here wasn’t to dissuade faith in the models themselves but rather the dissonance between the “source” of CO2 and global warming. The decisions behind the assumptions can be defended (in general) but, at present, humans being the unequivocal source of CO2 is underwhelming.
dlemongello:
[quote]To what time periods are these data correlated.[/quote]
The records show that Antarctic temperatures rose about ~800 years before CO2 during several cycles that were on the order of 10,000 years.
You’re just citing Antarctic information without any references. The abstract I linked to above uses proxies of worldwide data. But I don’t feel like buying the article to go any further on it.
The reason I ask who you are is because it is common for people who are debating this topic to just start pulling stuff from Anthony Watts site, or similar ones, without providing reference links or any indication of their understanding of the information. We could debate this topic[i] ad infinitum[/i], but you’ve given a good example already.
Other than his site, there’s very little dissonance of the sort you’re describing. I have no problem with disagreements about policies to mitigate or adapt to climate change. I disagree with alarmists on that topic. But I think debating the causes of global temperature increase is pretty pointless.
AeroDeo:
“In my opinion, the current geopolitical debate surrounding climate change resembles religion far more than it resembles science.”
The best statement on this blog today, and so true.
Don, I wasn’t aware that references were required during the course of this conversation. I’m not trying to be an alarmist, quite the opposite; in my opinion, articles like this are alarmist… and references aren’t the end all, be all.
Take, for example, Shakun et al. (the paper you referenced) that was heralded as a definitive rebuttal to the “CO2 lags temperature” argument by many sources (including you if I’m reading your post correctly). What it actually says is that they found that the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere rose first, whereas, in the Northern Hemisphere, the CO2 increase was first. Thus the conclusion is far more nuanced because CO2 both lags and leads, but many are only seeing what they want to see or only recognize the pieces that fit into their preconceived notions. To be clear, I’m not arguing against anything presented in the paper I’m just trying to eat the whole cow, not just the Filet.
If you don’t want to buy the article you can find a decent, albeit somewhat biased, summary here:
[url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html[/url]
An odd link to provide in view of what you have been saying.
The conclusion is ‘far more nuanced’? No, clearly Shakun shows that CO2 leads, in counterpoint to the common skeptic claim that temperature leads. They describe the mechanism of the southern temperature increase.
Bottom line: [b]”So while CO2 did lag behind a small initial temperature change (which mostly occurred in the Southern Hemisphere), it led and was the primary driver behind most of the glacial-interglacial warming.”[/b]
Your presentation of the Antarctic comment ([i]”The records show that Antarctic temperatures rose about ~800 years before CO2 during several cycles that were on the order of 10,000 years[/i]”) without the context suggests that you are leaning strongly toward the skeptic arguments. One might think, reading what you said about Antarctica, that temperature leads CO2. Describing a clear rebuttal of that as ‘nuanced’ and that CO2 “both lags and leads” is really a process of selecting your quotes rather carefully to make Shakun et al appear more ambivalent than it is (see bolded quote above).
Your statement about the discussion being more religious than scientific makes me think you probably do, in fact, have an agenda. It unfortunately gives succor to the denialists who always reply fastest on this blog. If you have some actual science to bring to the discussion, I’d be interested.
Re: “Does my being tied to one of these fields increase or decrease the value of my opinion?”
Right, if you don’t like the doctors diagnosis of your medical condition; go get an opinion from an engineer, your lawyer, or the check-out gal at the grocery store.
Not all the people involved in climate research are idiots, and it is not the idiots that generally lead the way in forming scientific consensus around highly complex processes like climate change (though sometimes the popular press likes to give attention to extremists, for drama). Many have spent most of their lives deeply involved in the workings of various aspects of earth and solar processes related to climate change.
“if you start your article with any reference to current weather”
I don’t think that’s a fair statement. I referenced current weather to reference September to reference the consecutive month streak which I do think is relevant.
Don Shor wrote:
[quote] An odd link to provide in view of what you have been saying. [/quote]
What is it that you believe I been saying? Why is it odd? Is it because it doesn’t fit into your preconceived notion about me? Is it possibly because anyone that would say such things is clearly not on your “side”?
Don Shor wrote:
[quote] The abstract I linked to above uses proxies of worldwide data. But I don’t feel like buying the article to go any further on it. [/quote]
Then you wrote:
[quote] No, clearly Shakun shows that CO2 leads, in counterpoint to the common skeptic claim that temperature leads. They describe the mechanism of the southern temperature increase.
Bottom line: “So while CO2 did lag behind a small initial temperature change (which mostly occurred in the Southern Hemisphere), it led and was the primary driver behind most of the glacial-interglacial warming.” [/quote]
So, just to be clear, you’re linking to a paper you didn’t read completely and then telling me that I’m wrong based on your interpretation of the abstract that you’ve copied and pasted here. I hope you can see why I might take issue with this.
I may be wrong, but I don’t recall saying that CO2 isn’t a GHG and therefore wasn’t a contributor. I do recall saying that, in previous global climate cycles, CO2 wasn’t the leading indicator. These two ideas are NOT mutually exclusive as is wonderfully described in the Shakun paper whereby a positive feedback cycle is induced. (more on this later)
I’ll forgive you for not reading the entirety of the paper (though, again, you were the one that posted it as a reference) but, as I see it, you have taken it upon yourself to espouse a belief that you hold, which you believe I do not share, in an attempt to bring me over to your “side”. (I’m honestly not trying to be disrespectful with any of this, I’m just trying to draw a few parallels.)
[quote] Your presentation of the Antarctic comment (“The records show that Antarctic temperatures rose about ~800 years before CO2 during several cycles that were on the order of 10,000 years”) without the context suggests that you are leaning strongly toward the skeptic arguments. [/quote]
He asked a direct question, I provided a direct answer. You’ve already brought up this point and said that without references my statement is baseless. You then suggested a reference that contained all the data I was referring to and that corroborated my answer, yet this same reference is ultimately in support of your beliefs.
How on Earth (warming or not) does that mean that I am leaning strongly toward being a skeptic? … and a skeptic of what exactly?
[quote] One might think, reading what you said about Antarctica, that temperature leads CO2.[/quote]
/Sigh… but it DOES. Look, according to Shakun et al some warming occurs (likely due in part to orbital variations) that causes a rise in CO2. This increase in CO2 then exacerbates warming, which in turn releases more CO2 and so it goes. This is referred to as a positive feedback cycle, and CO2 was a catalyst in those cases.
[quote] Describing a clear rebuttal of that as ‘nuanced’ and that CO2 “both lags and leads” is really a process of selecting your quotes rather carefully to make Shakun et al appear more ambivalent than it is (see bolded quote above). [/quote]
Rebuttal to what? To me this statement is hypocritical… by your own admission you only quote the abstract and then you accuse me of carefully selecting quotes. So, let me turn this around and say exactly the opposite: Quoting the abstract is really a process of ignoring the body of the paper to make Shakun et al appear more conclusive than it really is. (Conclusive of what, I’m not sure =P but it makes a good snippet!)
[quote] Your statement about the discussion being more religious than scientific makes me think you probably do, in fact, have an agenda. [/quote]
I’d like to put an end to people twisting scientific data to support conclusions the authors never intended.
[quote] It unfortunately gives succor to the denialists…[/quote]
This is a very good point… an unintended consequence I suppose.
[quote] …who always reply fastest on this blog. [/quote]
Comments like this need to not be included… this shouldn’t be an us vs. them issue and I think it weakens your position by being a bit petty.
[quote] If you have some actual science to bring to the discussion, I’d be interested. [/quote]
I’d like to discuss the science you brought to the discussion; I find mine boring by comparison to say nothing of tangential to the topic.
jimt wrote:[quote] Right, if you don’t like the doctors diagnosis of your medical condition; go get an opinion from an engineer, your lawyer, or the check-out gal at the grocery store. [/quote]
This is intellectually dishonest at best, and an attempt to start a flame war at worst. The discussion here is taking place on a public forum with no expertise on this subject expected or implied.
How about this analogy instead: You have an ailment and you call your PCP’s office where you speak with an advice nurse. You don’t like what the advice nurse said, so you make an appointment to see your PCP. You’re not quite sure about her diagnosis either, so you seek a second opinion where you’re seen by a NP.
If you’re coming to this discussion forum for medical advice or an in depth technical analysis of climate change I don’t know what to tell you. Anyone here is more than welcome to not participate in this discussion but resumes are, in my view, are beside the point because the whole premise of this article is public opinion.
Am I missing something?
AeroDeo
I don’t think that you are missing anything. I would like to clarify one point.
“In my opinion, the current geopolitical debate surrounding climate change resembles religion far more than it resembles science.”
Since science and scientific debate are by their very nature ongoing, and changing, while many who are religious feel that they are already in possession of the ultimate truth, is there some “tipping point” for you in scientific discourse at which you believe that there is sufficient evidence that some policy action would be warranted ? From your posts, I am making the inference that you do not feel that we are yet at that point with global climate change. However, since I do not know you or your philosophy, I can see another possibly interpretation. You could be an individual who believes that your religion corresponds to truth and that this is your basis for your opinions regarding climate change and that you perceive those who are believers in human activity as a driver of climate change as being as locked into their belief system as you are to yours.
Can you clarify your position ?
I am going to get a little off but still related to the topic. Whether CO2 trapping is causing climate change or a result of it or both can take us around and around. But climate change aside, our behavior should change dramatically because fossil fuel use causes pollution both in extracting it and using it, is responsible for many wars, has killed and displaced a multitude of indigenous peoples, especially in the Amazon, etc. We are addicted to a way of life that is just plain wrong for the planet and the creatures who call it home, but we are so spoiled in it that we simply can not possibly see how to give it up in any significant way. There is nothing right about it, I just shake my head and feel sad.
Hi Medwoman,
[quote]I don’t think that you are missing anything. I would like to clarify one point.
“In my opinion, the current geopolitical debate surrounding climate change resembles religion far more than it resembles science.” [/quote]
My point was that new information doesn’t seem to change anyone’s mind, or, at least, many don’t appear to digest new information; the minute new studies come to life each camp is trying to spin it. Similarly, every comment on the topic is immediately judged as to wheatear the commenter is a “supporter” or “denier”. People tend to have strong views on this topic about things they don’t fully understand.
Not to single him out, as I respect his position here, but Don’s comments were immediately aggressive (not overly, but apparent) and dismissive towards my posts. Because my initial comments didn’t advocate for, and were then assumed to be in opposition to, established views in support of climate change his reaction was to effectively pull rank – “source up or shut up”.
[quote]Since science and scientific debate are by their very nature ongoing, and changing, while many who are religious feel that they are already in possession of the ultimate truth…[/quote]
Indeed! My observation is that many supporters of climate change hold their views to be ultimate truths and they then attempt to convince others by sharing weak or poorly supported ideas. They may not be wrong, per se, but they are not helping their own cause by speaking about things in a dogmatic fashion.
[quote]…is there some “tipping point” for you in scientific discourse at which you believe that there is sufficient evidence that some policy action would be warranted? From your posts, I am making the inference that you do not feel that we are yet at that point with global climate change. [/quote]
I come at this issue from a different direction: I firmly believe that releasing copious amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere is a bad thing simply because it’s pollution. Some of this cannot be avoided, and I readily accept that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, but I firmly believe that we, as a nation, and as a species for that matter, are incredibly wasteful with our resources. Attempting to come up with a reason to justify the idea that we need to try and curb pollution seems frivolous.
[quote]…However, since I do not know you or your philosophy, I can see another possibly interpretation. You could be an individual who believes that your religion corresponds to truth and that this is your basis for your opinions regarding climate change and that you perceive those who are believers in human activity as a driver of climate change as being as locked into their belief system as you are to yours.
Can you clarify your position ? [/quote]
I can see how you came to this, but, no, I’m not engaging in a faith based approach to this in any way.
Damn, AeroDeo took you all out to the wood shed.
AeroDeo–
But here is your quote from earlier:
“Does my being tied to one of these fields increase or decrease the value of my opinion?”
Is this what you meant to say? That opinions of those who are experts in the field, for example having worked most of their lives in the field, are of no more value than those who have only a passing familiarity with the field?
Actually, rusty, the CO2/temperature discussion is such a common denialist talking point that it is dealt with at the FAQ’s of most climate blogs. So I don’t really feel like debating something here that you can learn about elsewhere if you are interested. The fact that it is a common contrarian argument, that it is presented with out-of-context data points, and that the broad scientific consensus is equated with religion tells me this will not be a fruitful discussion. Particularly since it is with someone who is anonymous, thus whose credentials and motives are not known.
If you’re really interested, realclimate is always a good starting point on specifics like this.
[url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/[/url]