Prof Curry,
For examples of certainty in science communication we need only look to our major climate agencies. The Karl et al paper in Science provides potentially new information because it contradicts some earlier research. NOAA's website describes their results as definitive, and mentions none of the previous papers that came to different conclusions.
From NOAA news: "<a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus" rel="nofollow">The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus</a>" (no author or date given) -- " The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or “hiatus” in the rate of global warming in recent years."
Another more-often quote NOAA story is even stronger: "<a href="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html" rel="nofollow">Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming</a>" -- "A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years <strong>has been</strong> as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study <strong>refutes</strong> the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years." {Bold emphasis added}
(The headline has mislead some to describe this as a "NOAA report", rather than the correct description NOAA uses as "a study by NOAA scientists."
Both in the body quote the lead author, who strikes a more professional note (bold emphasis added):
<blockquote>“Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that <strong>contradict</strong> the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends,” said Thomas R. Karl, LHD, Director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. “Our new analysis <strong>suggests</strong> that the apparent hiatus <strong>may have been</strong> largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century.”</blockquote>
Activists showcase words of the NOAA media liaison, and ignore the more tentative words of the study and the authors. More care by the NOAA media staff would help. It's a common problem. Press releases by university public relations staff often exaggerate the results of studies.
Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by David Springer
I reject your analysis of Mr. T.
↧
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by mosomoso
Pipeline wars and politics, strait and maritime disputes, territorial disputes, major alliance/trade shifts, all these tensions and more with energy at the centre…while the developed West is sleepwalking toward energy poverty and dependency.
So the G7 are going to “insure” the poor maybe by infrastructure spending, or maybe by getting the atmosphere just right, or maybe by all of the above? (They never exactly say, do they? Why define ‘climate change related hazards’ when you can just use the words as a shamanic spell?) For dialling a better atmosphere those German solar panels at 50+ degrees N are no doubt a good start…but let’s hope for Asia’s sake that they don’t achieve the atmospheric conditions of 1970, 1881 or 1839.
But debt. What’s the point of worrying if the fridge has the maximum number of green stars if the repo truck is coming for all your appliances? Oh well, later.
Can’t look down on G7 members, however. Australia, geologically and politically stable, stupendously rich in coal and uranium, is the zombiest sleepwalker of them all. We presently have a supposedly conservative/skep leadership and they are like rabbits in a spotlight before the airheads of the press and the shills of Big Green. But wait till you meet our new Labor leadership! Rally the Guardinistas, get ’em democratically elected, show ’em any dotted line and they’ll sign! (Just make sure you ask those union lawyers for your pen back, however.)
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by climatereason
David
I am sure that jch is equally sceptical about the merits of sea level measurements derived from satellites.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by omanuel
What matters is what’s missing:
TRANSPARENCY & HONESTY
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by JCH
I’ve looked at it. There are multiple lines of evidence for sea level rise.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by climatereason
Multiple? Ok, five will do that show significant human caused sea level rise.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Don Monfort
Thanks for that very useful clarification, willy. We all been wondering about that crap. Maybe you should compose an e-book glossary of your cute little willyisms. It seems that 99 cents is a good price point, according to Brandoon.
↧
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by Ben Palmer
“Ideally G7 countries would help vulnerable populations get access to insurance against extreme weather hazards of all origins – whether or not those are generated by climate change – and, in practice, that’s presumably what insurance would do.”
Insurance in the form of prevention, not in the form of insurance payouts. The funds pumped into “climate research” would be much better invested in helping vulnerable population to have access to food (agriculture) and to decent housing. If the UN organized an International Panel for Underdeveloped Countries with they some budget as for the IPCC many million people could have a better life and become in turn suppliers and customers of developed nations. Surely a win-win.
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by JCH
Gravity
Altimetry
Tide gauges
Ice melt
Water storage
Paleo
OHC
physics of thermal expansion
Whatever.
How many times has it been claimed that there has been no warming for 18 years, sometimes more, because of RSS? It been obviously wrong for years.
↧
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by justinwonder
I agree most, but don’t fret too much. Australia and the USA are rich in some combination of oil, gas, coal, and uranium. Most importantly, we still have some rational voters. One day this scam will be uncovered and we’ll see some greens doing the perp walk.
↧
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by justinwonder
Roger that.
↧
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by Wagathon
What’s changed since Copenhagen is that the market for the international trading of CO2-pollution indulgences has gone the way of Solyndra and all of the insiders have flown off in their private jets while Western governments ponder the Maunder and rethink whether they really want to print more money to blow up the Tesla bubble and on windmills in the sky. Cap-and-trade is dead.
↧
↧
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by andymay2014
I see predictions in here that we will run out of oil and natural gas in the near future, less than 100 years. This is very unlikely. Predictions that the world would run out of oil go back to the mid 19th century and they have all been wrong. See Professor Deming’s interesting monograph here: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/bg159.pdf. At least read his conclusions on page 10, I wholly agree. We do not have an energy resource shortage. Any problems will be political.
↧
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by PA
This is very unlikely.
Well, again history is relevant to the future only if you understand the history.
The 20th century was mostly exploration problems. Those were solved by better exploration.
The 21st century issues are getting more oil from existing fields and going to new difficult-to-get-to fields.
The 20th century oil cost less than $10 per barrel to extract. The new fields and enhanced extraction from old fields is running about $50 per barrel. And the extraction cost of new oil is steadily increasing.
The claim that we will run out of oil per se is wrong. But the claim we won’t run out of economically extractable fossil fuels is equally wrong.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by PA
JCH | June 11, 2015 at 3:21 pm |
I’ve looked at it. There are multiple lines of evidence for sea level rise.
This claim is dumb.
The tidal gauges are still in use.
If the rate of change of the tidal gauge aggregate hasn’t changed, the sea level rise hasn’t changed.
We don’t care if the subsidence of inland areas due to ground water/oil extraction throws the geoid off.
If the satellites aren’t calibrated to the tidal gauges it is pointless to do satellite measurement of sea level. We should treat satellite measurement of sea level as a different measurement since it is pretty obvious it isn’t measuring sea level.
However – if the satellite sea level is divided by two it is roughly comparable to the real sea level rise. Perhaps the satellite teams should be required by law to divide their sea level anomaly by two so that their result correlates with real measurements giving the satellite measurements some physical significance by proxy.
↧
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by Barnes
We can only hope, but I am not sure if will happen in our lifetime. The progressives shout louder and are supported by what has become a fully corrupted MSM – and they are all too invested in the horrors of AGW to back away anytime soon. Plus, given that every extreme weather event will be due to AGW (and the events do not even have to be extreme at this point), we have a lot of work to educate the gullible, low/no info voters.
However, the Sierra club is systematically and successfully carrying out lawsuits to shut down coal plants in the US. If they continue their success and the impact is felt by a sufficient number of people, there may be a chance. We will, however, need to overcome the narrative that it’s all the utilities fault for not planning and investing better while milking the rate payers.
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Richard Arrett
JCH said “I’ve looked at it. There are multiple lines of evidence for sea level rise.”
Yes – the sea level has risen 120 meters over the last 20,000 years.
The average sea level rise per year over that time is 6mm/year.
Currently we are only rising at 1/2 the average rate.
Perhaps humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere has slowed down sea level rise (grin).
But seriously – are you talking about sea level rise or sea level rise caused by humans? You have to subtract out the natural sea level rise from the total to obtain the human cause sea level rise. I have never seen a convincing analysis for that number (or any at all for that matter).
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by climatereason
I live 100 yards from a tide gauge
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2713719
When they wanted data for a possible new sea wall they decided the satellite data was too unreliable and put in a more modern tide gauge as well. If jch would give me the magic formula for determining the human caused element of sea level change I will go over in the morning and do the necessary calculations. Of course, we will need to take into account the isostatic change as well, which in many paces is greater than the sea level change.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on What matters (and doesn’t) in the G7 Climate Declaration by Karl Quick (@KarlQuick)
When I’m feeling most discouraged with the brainpower of our fellow residents of this earth, I drift toward worrying they are not dumb, but in reality, vastly immoral.
They know that the world they want cannot sustain billions of unemployable people, so rather than educating the masses, they are engineering a new world in which the vast majority of “true believers” starve themselves to death “to protect the planet” while the elites merrily fly huge jets from one resort to another.
They are not just awaiting a die-off, but counting on and planning for it!
If they cared about the 3rd world, they’d teach them to frack!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
