Statistical models demonstrate that recent severe weather is caused by climate change

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
An about-to-be-published, peer-reviewed paper written by NASA climatologist James E. Hansen et al demonstrates that the severe weather extremes seen in the past 30 years have an extremely high probability of being attributable to climate change.

http://science.time.com/2012/05/10/global-warming-an-exclusive-look-at-james-hansens-scary-new-math/

and here is a preliminary draft of the paper

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf

Let's predict the climate-change-denial talking points:

1. James E. Hansen is just a shill for the climate-alarmists.
2. All the data is fake.
3. The observed change in climate is all natural, so just accept it.
4. Anybody can lie with numbers, even in a peer-reviewed paper.
5. I don't believe 1000 peer-reviewed papers showing that man-made climate change is real, because I can show you quotations from five climatologists who disagree.

How can NASA physicist and climatologist James E. Hansen, writing in the New York Times today, “say with high confidence” that recent heat waves in Texas and Russia “were not natural events” but actually “caused by human-induced climate change”?

It wasn’t all that long ago that respected MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel flatly refuted the notion that you can pinpoint global warming as the cause of an extreme weather event. “It’s statistical nonsense,” he told PBS.

In 2005, Emanuel reported that hurricane intensity, which is fed by warmth, had increased some 80 percent during the previous 50 years, a period during which temperatures had increased more dramatically than any time in at least 500 years. Nonetheless, he asserted, that didn’t mean Hurricane Katrina, the sixth strongest Atlantic storm on record, had been brought on by climate change.

Even with a multitude of extreme weather events in recent years — tornadoes in New York City, blizzards in Washington, D.C., 15,000 warm-temperature records shattered across the U.S. in March — each consistent with computer models of a warming world, Emanuel and many other noted scientists have been unwilling to attribute any one event to global warming. There’s just too much variability in the weather, these experts say, and their dedication to data has helped prop open the door for “denialists” to sow doubt about the reality of our warming world.

But Hansen’s shot across the bow this morning indicates that the unwillingness to point fingers may be changing. According to a peer-reviewed paper Hansen has submitted to a leading scientific journal and made available to Time.com prior to publication, scientists can now state “with a high degree of confidence” that some extremely high temperatures are in fact caused by global warming, simply because they occur much more frequently than they used to.

Hansen’s reasoning has to do with math. Statisticians employ standard deviation to measure variability; it’s the calculation pollsters use to determine margin of error, and it’s especially valuable when looking at the weather. Perfect distribution of standard deviation is graphed as the familiar bell curve; about two-thirds of the time, data points fall in the middle of the bell — or within one standard deviation of the mean.

Hansen, with co-authors Reto Ruedy, also of NASA, and Makiko Sato, of Columbia University, has crunched decades’ worth of readings from more than 1,000 weather stations around the world as well as satellite observations and measurements from Antarctic research stations. The aim: to figure out how often temperatures varied from the mean — and how far they varied — during two periods.

In the paper, which Time.com confirmed has been peer-reviewed, the authors show that extreme outliers of more than three standard deviations above the mean temperature covered between six and thirteen percent of the globe during the years 2003 to 2008. If they were normally distributed and similar to the climactic record, that should have been just a 0.1-to-0.2 percent frequency of an extreme heat event. (That’s about exactly as often as a perfect bell curve predicts they would occur.) Hansen dubs this difference a “three-sigma anomaly,” for the Greek-letter symbol for standard deviation. And in the world of statistics, these anomalies represent a stunning 10-fold increase in extreme weather events.

Hansen says the heat wave that struck Texas and Oklahoma last summer and the Moscow heat wave of 2010 (which caused 11,000 deaths in the city) are examples of three-sigma anomalies. In a paper published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Stefan Rahmstorf and Dim Coumou of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in Germany, wrote that it was 80 percent probable that the Moscow heat wave had been caused by global warming.

“These three-sigma anomalies,” Hansen says, “we can now say are due to global warming.” But what about the extreme cold snaps climate-change deniers keep pointing to? Even with global warming, Hansen told Time.com in an email, there “is still a broad bell curve. In fact, it has become broader, which means there will still be times when a season is colder than average. When that happens [people] should not say, ‘What happened to global warming?’ It will still be there — they are just looking at natural variability.”

Back in 1988, when Hansen was among the first and most credible scientists to sound the alarm about global warming, he, Ruedy and several co-authors came up with the concept of “climate dice.” Imagine dice with two sides red (for hot), two sides blue (for cold) and two sides white (average temperatures). If you roll the dice, you’re equally likely to get any result. With continued emissions of greenhouse gas, however, the authors predicted that by the early 21st century, four of the sides would be red.

“The climate dice are loaded now, just as we said back in the 1980s that they would be,” Hansen wrote to Time.com. “People should be able to recognize the change, especially the increasingly extreme events. Don’t be surprised if there are more examples this summer.”

From the paper's abstract:

The "climate dice" describing the chance of an unusually warm or cool season, relative to the climatology of 1951-1980, have progressively become more "loaded" during the past 30 years, coincident with increased global warming. The most dramatic and important change of the climate dice is the appearance of a new category of extreme climate outliers. These extremes were practically absent in the period of climatology, covering much less than 1% of Earth's surface. Now summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (σ) warmer than climatology, typically cover about 10% of the land area. Thus there is no need to equivocate about the summer heat waves in Texas in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, which exceeded 3σ – it is nearly certain that they would not have occurred in the absence of global warming. If global warming is not slowed from its current pace, by mid-century 3σ events will be the new norm and 5σ events will be common.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
From that article:
There’s just too much variability in the weather, these experts say, and their dedication to data has helped prop open the door for “denialists” to sow doubt about the reality of our warming world.

Take James E. Hansen for instance. He still heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.

In 1971 he wrote a piece for the Washington Post entitled "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming" fretted that burning fossil fuels discharges particles into the atmosphere that reflect the sun's rays back into space. Emissions over 5–10 years supposedly "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?

The NASA research behind this hysteria was supported by a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," the same guy who now refers to those who won't drink the global warming Kool-Aid as "court jesters."
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,644
9,946
136
James E. Hansen is a radical political activist and everything he touches should be burned as the trash it is.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
There more than likely is something to the global warming but I will wait till we start have some real un-biased studies by people not out for government grants or book deals and by people who are not going to change their opinion a few years later or exaggerate the numbers for effect.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
From that article:


Take James E. Hansen for instance. He still heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.

In 1971 he wrote a piece for the Washington Post entitled "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming" fretted that burning fossil fuels discharges particles into the atmosphere that reflect the sun's rays back into space. Emissions over 5–10 years supposedly "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?

The NASA research behind this hysteria was supported by a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," the same guy who now refers to those who won't drink the global warming Kool-Aid as "court jesters."

It should be mentioned that this is a PNAS paper, Hansen got to hand pick his reviewers and they got to rubber stamp the paper in a very bad case of cronyism or "pal review"
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,173
6,400
136
So the answer is to tax energy, heavy taxes will curb consumption, and do what else? The rich will buy carbon credits, based on the premise that paid for carbon doesn't count. The poor will of course get a free ride because they're poor, that leaves the middle to pay the bill for something we may not be able to influence at all.
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
The climate has been changing since day 1 of Earth's existence. It'll change for billions of years after mankind has moved on our died off.

Fuck all that carbon nonsense. We need to go back to focusing on cleaning up pollution and toxins vs. the mythical and scary carbon caused global warming monster.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,969
140
106
http://www.climatedepot.com/

'The Godfather' of AGW Challenged: 'It is pure and simple cherry-picking. Had Hansen compared against 1930s he would have seen that recent temperatures have been relatively quite cool'..
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
What made the last ice age end?

Dont know do you?

I will give you a hint. . . It was not man made global warming.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
The climate has been changing since day 1 of Earth's existence. It'll change for billions of years after mankind has moved on our died off.

Fuck all that carbon nonsense. We need to go back to focusing on cleaning up pollution and toxins vs. the mythical and scary carbon caused global warming monster.


Why clean up pollution? Toxins and pollution have existed since day 1 of earth's existence. Hell, uranium has existence since day 1, so you should take up residence in a nuclear waste dump site. :rolleyes:
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
So what if it's man-made? Not like we can do anything it when we are such a myopic species.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
The climate has been changing since day 1 of Earth's existence. It'll change for billions of years after mankind has moved on our died off.

Fuck all that carbon nonsense. We need to go back to focusing on cleaning up pollution and toxins vs. the mythical and scary carbon caused global warming monster.

This!
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Even the Myans predicted this hot spell this year. So how did they know that? Were they smarter than us?
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Men are Prideful. We think we are the cause of everything!

So if you put on a sweater, and you feel warmer, do you think it's because you put on the sweater or because of "nature"? We know for a fact that the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is enough to cause warming. We know that putting on a sweater is enough to cause warming of your body. The whole "we can't affect anything" view is pure ignorance.


What if I burn down your house and say "Man is weak, I couldn't have done it. It was probably lightning"?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
The climate has been changing since day 1 of Earth's existence. It'll change for billions of years after mankind has moved on our died off.

Fuck all that carbon nonsense. We need to go back to focusing on cleaning up pollution and toxins vs. the mythical and scary carbon caused global warming monster.

Cancer has been killing humans for as long as humans have existed, and will continue to kill humans until the human species dies out. So fuck all of the carcinogen and free-radical nonsense. We need to go back to washing our hands and buckling our seat belts vs the mythical and scary carcinogens cause cancer monster.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Cancer has been killing humans for as long as humans have existed, and will continue to kill humans until the human species dies out. So fuck all of the carcinogen and free-radical nonsense. We need to go back to washing our hands and buckling our seat belts vs the mythical and scary carcinogens cause cancer monster.

Smoking can't possibly cause lung cancer. People were getting lung cancer long before cigarettes were invented!!
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
We know for a fact that the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is enough to cause warming.

So man made global warming is a fact now. I do know many people think it is. Please don't site anyone that was bought and paid for by people who stand to make money off of it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,888
55,148
136
Guys, countless studies haven't convinced the climate change deniers, why do you think one more will? What part of climate change denialism makes you think that they are open to facts or rational argument? It's a religion. You can't prove global warming to them anymore than you can prove or disprove Jesus.

We don't have much choice, we will just have to solve this problem ourselves, dragging them kicking and screaming the whole way. It's sad, but what else can you do? The topic is too important not to act.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Here's an IPCC author and climate scientist rebutting most the points in the article.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/07/krugman-vs-research-who-you-gonna.html

Actually, Pielke doesn't address Hansen's paper at all. Her responds to a column written by Paul Krugman, not to the statistical evidence provided by Hansen. Furthermore, Pielke takes pains to add:

PS. Here is the necessary disclaimer to ward off those, like Krugman, who use the notion of "deniers" to shout down inconvenient voices: Climate change is real, humans have a significant impact on the planet, and mitigation and adaptation policies both make sense, as I argue in The Climate Fix. None of that justifies treating climate science like astrology.

Finally, all you've done is adopt one of the classic five talking points I cited at the outset. You've found one of the handful of climate scientists who don't agree wholeheartedly with the climate science consensus. And for some reason, you've decided to believe the small minority rather than the huge consensus. Why?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
So man made global warming is a fact now. I do know many people think it is. Please don't site anyone that was bought and paid for by people who stand to make money off of it.

How are climate scientists who write papers that support the consensus view of man-made climate change "making money off of it" any more than a physicist writing a paper providing evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson?

And why do you and the rest of the climate-change-denial crowd so readily accept results of scientific research funded by the fossil fuel industry?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
If the topic is too important not to act does it matter if the result of acting is negligible while the costs of acting are enormous and crippling?
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
So man made global warming is a fact now. I do know many people think it is. Please don't site anyone that was bought and paid for by people who stand to make money off of it.

You can test this in a lab. CO2 is a greenhouse gas by definition. Increase it by 50% and the atmosphere warms.

If I tell you that adding insulation to your house will increase heat retention, do you deny it?