Yesterday, I wrote about Allegheny County Person-at-Large Heather Heidelbaugh's climate change skepticism/denial.
As I like Heather a great deal personally, I want to help her out of her self-imposed scientific illiteracy.
We should start, perhaps, with Businessweek:
An unscientific survey of the social networking literature on Sandy reveals an illuminating tweet (you read that correctly) from Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota. On Oct. 29, Foley thumbed thusly: “Would this kind of storm happen without climate change? Yes. Fueled by many factors. Is storm stronger because of climate change? Yes.” Eric Pooley, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund (and former deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek), offers a baseball analogy: “We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.”Weather on steroids that "amp up" the factors that contribute to big storms. Hurricane Sandy is but an example. But what's the evidence to back that up?
In an Oct. 30 blog post, Mark Fischetti of Scientific American took a spin through Ph.D.-land and found more and more credentialed experts willing to shrug off the climate caveats. The broadening consensus: “Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.” Even those of us who are science-phobic can get the gist of that.
Back in July, NOAA released it's annual "State of the Climate" report and with it came a press release and in that press release we find this:
Worldwide, 2011 was the coolest year on record since 2008, yet temperatures remained above the 30 year average, according to the 2011 State of the Climate report released online today by NOAA. The peer-reviewed report, issued in coordination with the American Meteorological Society (AMS), was compiled by 378 scientists from 48 countries around the world. It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on land, sea, ice and sky.So what's in that report? Let's go to the climate indicators for some answers.
“2011 will be remembered as a year of extreme events, both in the United States and around the world,” said Deputy NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. “Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment. This annual report provides scientists and citizens alike with an analysis of what has happened so we can all prepare for what is to come.”
We can ask the question: Have the oceans warmed?
Yes, yes they have. Take a look:
The temperature at the surface of the ocean has been rising over time. The blue line in the graph above shows how far above or below the 1981-2010 average (dashed line at zero) the sea surface temperature has been each year since 1950. The data shown are one of several ocean temperature records included in State of the Climate in 2011, each of which shows similar anomalies. Each year in the past decade, the sea surface temperature has been warmer than the 1981-2010 average, an indicator of long-term climate change.And has the atmosphere warmed?
Yes, yes it has. Take a look:
Earth’s average annual surface temperature is higher today than it was when record-keeping began in the late 1800s, an indicator of long-term, global-scale climate warming. The red line shows how far above or below the 1981-2010 average (dashed line at zero) the combined land and ocean temperature has been each year since 1880. The data shown are one of several temperature analyses included in the State of the Climate in 2011, all of which show a warming trend.So there's the evidence (rising sea and air temps) that climate scientists are now saying contribute to making big storms worse.
So unless, Heather, you can claim the evidence is wrong or how the conclusion based on them is wrong, you're kinda stuck with the idea that climate change is not a hoax.
We can keep going if you like...
11 comments:
Joe says...no not.. Denardo...Bastardi..Stance on Global Warming
Bastardi is skeptical of human-induced global warming.[9][10] He asserts that the world was likely warmer in the 1930s than today, that human contribution of carbon dioxide is too small to have any effect, and warming is caused by sun spots and exchange with warmer oceans.[11] He frequently argues in his columns that extreme weather events occur occasionally and that there is not enough evidence to state that such events are unusual. For example, commenting on major storms and flooding in 2006 Bastardi stated:
I have no doubt this may be some value to human-induced global warming, but there are a lot of things that are happening now that have happened before.
—Joe Bastardi, Larry King Live[12]
Bastardi has also argued that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming, because this would violate the first law of thermodynamics,[11] despite the fact that carbon dioxide traps atmospheric heat through the greenhouse effect and is not claimed to heat the atmosphere directly.[13] He expects that over the next 30 years, the global average temperature will return to levels seen in the late-1970s due to a so-called "triple-crown of cooling" comprising oceanic temperature cycles, solar radiation cycles, and volcanism.[9]
Bastardi frequently comments on global warming during guest appearances on Fox News and Fox Business Network.[13]
Bastardi's employer, Weatherbell Analytics, provides long range weather forecasting for energy companies.[13]
There is much more skepticism of global warming among meteorologists (such as Bastardi) than among climate scientists. This is attributed to different training and experience. Weather models are quite different than climate models, and many meteorologists have not studied climate science. Nevertheless, the American Meteorological Society has affirmed the science of global warming.[14]
Bastardi believes in the cyclical theory of climate and uses this in his long-range forecasts. He predicts two major hurricanes to hit the Northeastern United States by 2015, one of which has already come to pass as hurricane Sandy made landfall in New Jersey in late October of 2012 as the most powerful storm to hit the region in recorded history. He also predicts that with the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation) cold and the AMO (Atlantic multidecadal oscillation) turning colder, the global temperature will fall to 1970 levels within the next 20-30 years.
Abv from Wikipedia. Joe Bastardi. He's a weather guy ..not a climate guy ...the issue may settled in your mind. Of course liberals always know the truth and endeavor to guide us in the correct direction..
Not sure if you're using wikipedia to support or undermine my blogpost.
You do see that he's completely wrong about the first law of thermodynamics, right? The Wikipedia article you quote even says so.
Apart from Joe Bastardi, are there other "scientists" who dispute climate change. Heather Heidlebaugh says there are lots, but I would challenge her to come up with names.
Mind you,I couldn't name that many scientists who believe man made climate change is occurring. James Hanson, Phill Jones, what's his name Mann at Penn State. I am tempted to name Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but I don't think his specialty is climate.
But here's the thing, the National Academy of Science for the US and most of the worlds other academies of science as well as AAAS, NASA and the APS all say man made climate change is real and occurring. So deniers need a lot more names, or at least two or three.
Like most laypeople, I'm in no position to judge climate science models.
Perhaps Nine-El would like to explain how he knows climate scientists who are convinced global warming is occurring and is caused by human activity are "liberal."
Maybe he sees an analogy between climate scientists and physicians who claim smoking is harmful to your health. If so, would he also like to explain what benefits climate scientists get from making their claims about global warming? Maybe he can explain how this is similar to the corrupt, greedy, self-promoting insistence of doctors that smoking is bad for your health.
And if he can't do these things, maybe he should just shut up.
Well.... NO!!!! DD I will not shut up.....but let us move on ...for the sake of discussion, ..we will posit the existence of man-created global warming ....what do you propose to do about it? I guess we can park our cars...shut off our lights ....what else? Well let's just end the use of all fossil fuel....no nuclear generation ...we live in a real, physical world ..there risks.(don't hold a squirming two year old on the rail of a wild dog pen) And all life is trade offs... You, my friend are dying...we all are ...the good earth and all creation will pass away ....we, are living in conflict will the eternal truths and there are consequences ... End of mini rant ...vote like your future depends on it..
Who remembers after Katrina when the Climate Change promoters (that Dayvoe with cite as authorities) predicted that it was the beginning of future EXTREME Hurricane seasons!!!1!
The next year was one of the calmest Hurricane seasons.
Because climate trends aren't based on 12 month models?
@Nine-El
I didn't think you'd shut up that quickly. Unfortunately, you then proceed to dance around the issue. Let's deal with one thing at a time, shall we? How does asserting that human-caused climate change is real make one a political liberal? I say it doesn't, and your assertion that it does amounts to a smear job just as transparent as the smear job tobacco companies used on the AMA.
Now, are you going to address the issue or keep trying to wiggle out of it with sophosmoric non sequiturs?
Nine-El - I suggest the former Republican solution for various types of pollution - cap and trade.
HTTT - did you notice Sandy?
http://www.ecomii.com/ecopedia/cap-and-trade
Post a Comment