Personal and Public Barriers in Responding to Climate Change

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 1:28 AM GMT on March 14, 2013

Share this Blog
25
+

Personal and Public Barriers in Responding to Climate Change

I want to continue on the subject of barriers to the use of information about climate change. In last week’s entry, I wrote about barriers like engineering standards and permitting processes that have not evolved to the point that they are flexible enough to take a changing climate into account. I ended with language barriers and how the political and emotional responses to climate-change knowledge influence language. For example, perhaps it is impossible to talk to city politicians about adaptation to climate change but possible to talk about vulnerability of their seashore to the increasing storm surges of the past 20 years. There is an aspect to the language barriers that is purely political. This charging of language with political purpose happens in any contentious process where there are advocates of different points of view.

I want to leave those political barriers in the realm of hopeless irrationality and explore more general barriers. There has been an enormous amount of effort to communicate about the science of climate change and global warming. I have argued before that polling data suggest that as a community we have actually done quite well in this communication path. A large majority of Americans think that global warming is real and concerning. Recent polling data suggest that a growing number of people are alarmed about climate change (Six Americas in September 2012). Yet there remains the general perception that, as a whole, we are not doing anything. One response to this is to communicate more, to educate more, with the idea that in a participatory democracy such as ours, the ultimate solution comes from the public’s demanding a policy response.

This experience suggests that there must be barriers to the public response of this knowledge of climate change. Often in environmental problems, people identify cost and inconvenience as barriers – think about recycling. In some instances, we try to reduce these barriers through policy to offset the cost or to improve convenience. A couple of years ago, for example, there were many programs of reduced cost or free distribution of compact fluorescent light bulbs. These bulbs use less energy, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and helping slow climate change (EPA on compact fluorescents). This is a typical approach that focuses on personal behavior, using essentially marketing techniques. Such approaches can be effective, but generally in a piecemeal way (Meeting Environmental Challenges).

In 2009, a group of my students looked into more systematic ways to instill the use of climate-change knowledge in day-to-day life. Their particular focus was on sustainable communities. They did a lot of analysis of energy and water use, house design, and transportation and then developed guidelines. But one of the ideas that they had in that document was the use of community associations and civic organizations to both promote and provide incentives to take behavior normally associated with individuals and to extend that behavior to communities. There were also ideas to extend across communities through, for example, competitive marketing techniques. One goal of such a strategy is to help reduce the reluctance that individuals might have to taking action in the absence of their neighbors, their social network.

An important finding from this work on building sustainable communities is that knowledge, even in combination with a receptive attitude towards sustainability, is not a strong predictor of whether or not individuals will alter their behavior to take action. Perhaps one could conclude that there is just too much anchoring in our old behavior to change. I know that I will drive by the ATM that takes deposits 10 times, thinking that the branch office has to be open to make a deposit. Perhaps reluctance to act is a matter of cost and convenience; yet in polls of those people with the positive sustainability attitude, they’re willing to pay more and be inconvenienced. These real barriers, small and large, in total retard our response to climate change.

Returning to the beginning and to the idea that communicating and educating more completely will motivate action. Though necessary, this is not sufficient. What is obvious is that there is a convergence of items that motivate any individual to take action. This is formalized in a paper by Hines and others in 1987 entitled Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior. In this work, they pose that, in addition to knowledge, there is a need for information about what to do with that knowledge and training on the skills of how to use that knowledge. They state specifically, “The erroneous assumption is often made that skills evolve naturally from knowledge.” These knowledge and skill bases then need to come together with personality factors, including attitude and perhaps situational factors that become motivators for action.

Though this work does not suggest that there is an easy formula for breaking down these barriers, it does suggest training on what to do with the knowledge and the skills on how to do it are as important as the knowledge itself. With an accompanying structure of practice, there is an increased probability that people will take action, which should then beget more action.



Figure 1: Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior – Adapted from Hines and others in 1987 entitled Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior. An individual who expresses an intention to take action will be more likely to engage in the action than will an individual who expresses no such intention. However, it appears that intention to act is merely an artifact of a number of other factors acting in combination. Before an individual can intentionally act on a particular environmental problem, that individual must be cognizant of the existence of the problem; this is prerequisite to action. However, an individual must also possess knowledge of those courses of action that are available and will be most effective in a given situation.


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 264 - 214

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

261. etxwx
Norway's Arctic idyll shivers at oil plans
By Alister Doyle and Balazs Koranyi
SVOLVAER, Norway | Tue Mar 12, 2013

Excerpt: (Reuters) - Oil companies seeking new Arctic areas for exploration face a battle with environmentalists, fishermen and hotel owners over Norwegian islands where jagged snow-capped peaks rise sheer from the sea.

With oil production falling to a 25-year low this year and the state depending on oil revenues, Norway's ruling Labour Party is warming to drilling in Lofoten's pristine waters, setting up the issue as the year's biggest political fight ahead of elections in September.


More here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


A Story of Greenland

For those that might be interested, yesterday I posted a rather lengthy essay about some of my personal experiences in Greenland in the 70s, on Neven's Artic Sea Ice Forum, in the Arctic Board that includes history. It includes far too many pictures to include here and the only relevance to Climate Change is my discussions of the impact on the indigenous Inuits and their disappearing way of life.

My Memories: Annual Greenlandic Sled Dog Races - 1975
I read your story at the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and enjoyed it and the photos. Thanks for writing and posting it. I didn't comment over there because I'm not registered on that blog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
259. Skyepony (Mod)
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT.

(a) Hydrogen Sulfide as a Hazardous Air Pollutant- Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412) is amended by adding `Hydrogen Sulfide' to the list of hazardous air pollutants under subsection (b)(1) of such section.

(b) Repeal of Exemption for Aggregation of Emissions From Oil and Gas Development Sources- Section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(n)) is amended by striking paragraph (4).


You can look up the water one. Bottom of that first link is these links to the bills.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 162 Comments: 37829
258. Skyepony (Mod)
Looks like the happening was it made it to the house subcommittee..

H.R.1204
Latest Title: To amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the exemption for aggregation of emissions from oil and gas development sources, and for other purposes.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 162 Comments: 37829
255. Skyepony (Mod)
Fracking was except from the previous air & water acts because the way it is done now is different then when those bills were passed. They currently don't have the same restrictions against polluting their neighbors water or atmosphere that a concrete, paper or coal burning company would have.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 162 Comments: 37829
252. Skyepony (Mod)
Obama pitches clean-fuel car plan in Chicago but signals retreat on Keystone

President unveils $200m-a-year plan to fund research into clean fuels but advisers suggest Keystone pipeline will be approved ..more here.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 162 Comments: 37829
249. Skyepony (Mod)
BREATHE Act and FRESHER Act..being introduced..would close the loop holes on fracking holding them to the air & water standards other industries have to.

allah~No he wasn't banned..
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 162 Comments: 37829
Quoting spathy:



Please enlighten me as to why we shouldnt focus on the rate yet the drastic end and near scenarios are all based on "the RATE".

We as the World society are spending Billions to try and negate a rapidly warming world.
We are told we must spend billions to rapidly change to new sources of fuel because of the rapid change in World Temps,and dwindling fossil fuel supply.(Carter 35 years ago)
So why again should it be urgent spending and rapid rise in Carbon based fuel prices at the expense and death of the Worlds poor,when we shouldnt be focusing on the rate of warming.
Spathy, I suspect you support a free market. If so, you support a tax on carbon emissions, correct? And if not, why not?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
For those who missed it, Skeptical Science published a stinging rebuke of denialist darling Anthony Watts this week. It seems that the non-scientist, ex-YV weather reader was given an audience by some media outlet or other, and during the interview that ensued, Watts implemented a number of classic denialist tactics, every one of them cataloged and mercilessly destroyed with rapier wit and devastating insight by Skeptical Science's Dana. As a public service, here are the strategies themselves. See how many are used by some of this forum's own regulars, then head over to SS for much more detail.

#1: Self-Contradictory Arguments are Welcome
#2: Rewriting History
#3: Damage Control by Misrepresenting Data
#4: Exaggerate Uncertainty
#5: Peddling Blog "Science"
#6: Downplay Climate Impacts
#7: Misrepresent Successful Climate Predictions
#8: Misrepresent Basic Economics
#9: Misrepresent Climate Solutions
#10: Cherrypick the Noise
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Global warming over the last 16 years

[...] a video created by Skeptical Science's Kevin C, with voiceover provided by Daniel Bailey. The video shows the statistical removal of the short-term warming and cooling influences of volcanic eruptions, solar activity, and El Niño and La Niña events from the global surface temperature record.



The video shows that the global surface temperature record provides no evidence to suggest that human-caused greenhouse warming has slowed.

From SkS; Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting ScottLincoln:

No, it's not false. I already elaborated on why you are analyzing the data incorrectly. If the question is:
Has the warming trend continued over the last 15 years?
...then you cannot use part of the last 15yrs in the trend line for the previous years. Your graphs vs. my graphs are answering two different questions, although the answer they reach is exactly the same - there is not evidence that the warming rate has changed.

Now that I have informed you of this twice, I'm sure you will not make the same mistake again, or make dishonest accusations.



No, you didn't make a mistake, nymore did. Nymore continues to not understand the difference between the two plots, and compares them as if they are answering the same question.


It's like deja vu with you sometimes. Again, I already pointed out that the data we were both using was current up through 2012. Because 2012 is the last full year that has occurred, it is the latest data. You are confusing a time frame of data analysis with data itself.
You know what you are correct. I have to wait until the end of the year to win this one. So enjoy making your point about the last 15 years until then.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:

IPCC Recognises The Standstill

181. In an interview with
The Australian
in February, Rajenda Pachauri, the chair of
the IPCC, acknowledged the reality of the post-1997 standstill in global average
temperatures.

However, Pachauri’s assertion that it will take a temperature standstill of ‘30-40 years at
least’ to affect theories of man-made global warming is without a scientific basis. The
16-year standstill already strains climate models, and if it continues for a few more years
it will increasingly demonstrate that the climate models on which the IPCC has based its
assumptions are inadequate.

[...] an article by Graham Lloyd in The Australian (paywalled) claims that the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri agreed that there has been a 17-year pause in global temperature rises. Unfortunately we don't know exactly what Pachauri said on the subject, because Lloyd did not quote him directly (which is a red flag).

The IPCC communications office tells Skeptical Science that The Australian has not provided a transcript or audio file of the interview for verification, but it does not accurately represent Pachauri's thoughts on the subject - namely that as discussed in this post, global surface temperatures have plateaued (though over the past decade, not 17 years), and that this in no way disproves global warming.

Despite the lack of useful verifiable content, the story headline has nevertheless gone viral. This is not the first time Lloyd has been caught misrepresenting climate science in The Australian - in January of this 2013 he wrongly claimed that a study had found no link between global warming and sea level rise. Oceanographer John Church, who was co-author on the misrepresented research in question and also Nuccitelli et al. (2012) from which Figure 1 above originated, set the record straight, and The Australian was forced to retract the article.

[...]

To hear what Pachauri actually thinks about global warming without first passing through The Australian's filter, you can listen to interviews with him on Radio Australia and ABC News. Also see a similar debunking of this myth by The Australian Climate Commission.


Source

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting nymore:
I agree it has warmed but your claim of above the trend for the last 15 years is false as the graphs I posted show.

No, it's not false. I already elaborated on why you are analyzing the data incorrectly. If the question is:
Has the warming trend continued over the last 15 years?
...then you cannot use part of the last 15yrs in the trend line for the previous years. Your graphs vs. my graphs are answering two different questions, although the answer they reach is exactly the same - there is not evidence that the warming rate has changed.

Now that I have informed you of this twice, I'm sure you will not make the same mistake again, or make dishonest accusations.

Quoting Naga5000:


Fair enough, my mistake there and I apologize. Going back, I see I misinterpreted what you were saying. Personally, I think it's pretty dumb to even argue over 15 year trends for the reasons I mentioned previously. It steers the discussion into non scientifically sound areas of debate.


No, you didn't make a mistake, nymore did. Nymore continues to not understand the difference between the two plots, and compares them as if they are answering the same question.

Quoting nymore:
No I believe my point is to use the latest data. Period.

It's like deja vu with you sometimes. Again, I already pointed out that the data we were both using was current up through 2012. Because 2012 is the last full year that has occurred, it is the latest data. You are confusing a time frame of data analysis with data itself.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
Quoting nymore:
My point was against the last 15 years were above the trend line in a previous post. Tamino shows this is not true in the graphs he released last month. I agree it has warmed and is within 1 standard deviation. All I want from either side is to use the latest data.


Fair enough, my mistake there and I apologize. Going back, I see I misinterpreted what you were saying. Personally, I think it's pretty dumb to even argue over 15 year trends for the reasons I mentioned previously. It steers the discussion into non scientifically sound areas of debate.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting Naga5000:


Maybe I am not getting what you are trying to argue... Using the latest data sets, there is still a positive, statistically significant warming trend over the last 30 years. Even more so, according to the graphs you posted, not one individual point has been outside 1 standard deviation from the trend line. What am I missing here?
My point was against the last 15 years were above the trend line in a previous post. Tamino shows this is not true in the graphs he released last month. I agree it has warmed and is within 1 standard deviation. All I want from either side is to use the latest data.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
What bias would that be using the latest data. Yes I am bias in that regard, And for not caring you sure seem to have posted quite a few times on it.


Maybe I am not getting what you are trying to argue... Using the latest data sets, there is still a positive, statistically significant warming trend over the last 30 years. Even more so, according to the graphs you posted, not one individual point has been outside 1 standard deviation from the trend line. What am I missing here?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting Naga5000:


Considering I have never even been to the site, I frankly don't care. You are really showing your true colors and bias today, keep it up, I needed a good laugh.
What bias would that be using the latest data. Yes I am bias in that regard, And for not caring you sure seem to have posted quite a few times on it. Never been to the site but yet somehow you thought you knew what the graphs showed, Your bias would be ignorance
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Bring it up with Grant not me, they are his graphs not mine. I bet you don't say a thing to Tamino though.


Considering I have never even been to the site, I frankly don't care. You are really showing your true colors and bias today, keep it up, I needed a good laugh.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting Naga5000:


I am also trained in statistics, thanks. I didn't do all those years in school to be lectured about stats by some random person on the internet that wants to use 15 year trends and call them reliable as it goes against the basic tenants of statistical analysis for non normal distributions.
Bring it up with Grant not me, they are his graphs not mine. I bet you don't say a thing to Tamino though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
No I believe my point is to use the latest data. Period. Now I like how some are telling a person trained in statistics (Tamino), how to do statistics. LOL


I am also trained in statistics, thanks. I didn't do all those years in school to be lectured about stats by some random person on the internet that wants to use 15 year trends and call them reliable as it goes against the basic tenants of statistical analysis for non normal distributions.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting Naga5000:


Excuse me, if that's the trend line, then there has been no cooling trend, I believe that is the point, eh?
No I believe my point is to use the latest data. Period. Now I like how some are telling a person trained in statistics (Tamino), how to do statistics. LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Decadal global temperature anomaly, with respect to the average for 1951-80. Source NASA GISS.

1981-90 +0.20C
1991-90 +0.32C
2001-10 +0.55C

Sure looks like warming to me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
I agree it has warmed but your claim of above the trend for the last 15 years is false as the graphs I posted show.


Under 30 years is statistically not reliable. Remember basic stats, n > 30 for distributions that are not normal.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting nymore:
All three graphs are the trend line. The IPCC graph he posted is the one I questioned, because it is a model graph. Maybe you should have read Tamino for yourself.


Excuse me, if that's the trend line, then there has been no cooling trend, I believe that is the point, eh?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting ScottLincoln:

The charts I showed were in rebuttal to claims that there "has not been any warming in 15yrs." This is the exact claim, or hidden indirect claim, almost always made when someone talks about "temperatures flatlining." To analyze whether or not temperatures in the last 15 years have continued to follow the past trend, you use only the data prior to the last 15 years. You cannot include some of the last 15 years in the trend line for the previous years.
That's not cherry picking, it's called actually doing the statistics correctly.

What you are showing - the "you are not showing the latest data" graphs - are in response to a different question, one which appears to be "has the warming continued since 2000". They also show that the warming trend has remained within the uncertainty range, and there is no evidence that the trend has changed - the same conclusion one reaches from the graphs I showed.

The funny thing about your "latest data" claim - both of these charts appear to have data right up through 2012. So in reality, I was using "the latest data."

I agree it has warmed but your claim of above the trend for the last 15 years is false as the graphs I posted show.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:
Florida’s typically warm and sunny beaches have a very unwelcome guest this year – Old Man Winter - forcing beach lovers to bundle up.

Temperatures averaging 10 to 20 degrees below normal have dipped into the southeastern U.S., with temperature highs in the 50 and 60 degree range.

CapitalClimate reports that record low temperatures were set in Florida on Wednesday: Naples hit 36 degrees, Tallahassee hit 18 degrees and pockets of Florida saw it get even colder with the Gainesville area dropping to 10.7 degrees in northern Florida and the Lake Okeechobee area in southern Florida dipping down to 15.3 degrees.

Naples hit 36 degrees,
Where's Neap to tell us it was not that cold????


Weather is not climate. I live in Florida, during the time of our abnormal cold snap this late winter, we had our first 90 degree day of the year in FEBRUARY. We have been 10-20 below average at times, and 10-20 above average at times. This is directly in line with climate change / global warming. Cold snaps, even extreme cold, are part of the disruption of normal patterns in the jet stream and arctic air flow.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting Naga5000:


Nice try, Scott Lincoln said above the "trend line" not "model line" like your graphs show.
All three graphs are the trend line. The IPCC graph he posted is the one I questioned, because it is a model graph. Maybe you should have read Tamino for yourself.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Lets see Tamino's latest graphs shall we.
You don't seem to like using the latest data, why is that?

The charts I showed were in rebuttal to claims that there "has not been any warming in 15yrs." This is the exact claim, or hidden indirect claim, almost always made when someone talks about "temperatures flatlining." To analyze whether or not temperatures in the last 15 years have continued to follow the past trend, you use only the data prior to the last 15 years. You cannot include some of the last 15 years in the trend line for the previous years.
That's not cherry picking, it's called actually doing the statistics correctly.

What you are showing - the "you are not showing the latest data" graphs - are in response to a different question, one which appears to be "has the warming continued since 2000". They also show that the warming trend has remained within the uncertainty range, and there is no evidence that the trend has changed - the same conclusion one reaches from the graphs I showed.

The funny thing about your "latest data" claim - both of these charts appear to have data right up through 2012. So in reality, I was using "the latest data."
Quoting nymore:

Also why does Grant arbitrarily start his Ipcc graph above the model line?

You and Watts both should go get jobs picking cherries.

Are you seriously asking this question? Have you ever calculated a trend line before? If not, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to lecture me, or statistician Grant Foster, on how we're doing it wrong.

In regards to the IPCC graphs, perhaps you should read Grant Foster's post - he specifically discusses why putting the starting point right in line with the observed temperature is incorrect.


What should be done is to offset the observations so that the hotter-than-average 1990 really is hotter than average. When I offset the observations by 0.1 deg.C, we get more realistic comparison of observations to projections:


You can't take a forecast that does not include internal variability from ENSO and then force it to a minima or maxima on observations that include natural variability from ENSO.

Neither of these instances are cherry picking... it's called doing the science correctly.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
Florida’s typically warm and sunny beaches have a very unwelcome guest this year – Old Man Winter - forcing beach lovers to bundle up.

Temperatures averaging 10 to 20 degrees below normal have dipped into the southeastern U.S., with temperature highs in the 50 and 60 degree range.

CapitalClimate reports that record low temperatures were set in Florida on Wednesday: Naples hit 36 degrees, Tallahassee hit 18 degrees and pockets of Florida saw it get even colder with the Gainesville area dropping to 10.7 degrees in northern Florida and the Lake Okeechobee area in southern Florida dipping down to 15.3 degrees.

Naples hit 36 degrees,
Where's Neap to tell us it was not that cold????
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
Quoting nymore:
Lets see Tamino's latest graphs shall we.







You don't seem to like using the latest data, why is that?

Also why does Grant arbitrarily start his Ipcc graph above the model line? Is it because it would show what the graphs over at Gavin's show. Maybe you should stop by Gavin's site and do some reading. Real Climate

You and Watts both should go get jobs picking cherries.


Nice try, Scott Lincoln said above the "trend line" not "model line" like your graphs show.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
134. The important question is whether 15 years is a sufficient length of time from which
to draw climatic conclusions that are usually considered over 30 years, as well as the
implications for climate projections. Global warming simulations, some carried out by
the UK Met Office and mentioned previously, have been able to reproduce ‘standstills’ in
global warming of a decade or so while still maintaining the long-term 0.2°C per decade
average rise. These decadal standstills occur about once every eight decades. However,
such climate simulations have not been able to reproduce a 15-year standstill:
Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in
the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule
out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an
observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with
the expected present-day warming rate (NOAA 2008).

135. Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg,
said in an interview that the models run on the supercomputers of the Hamburg Climate
Research Centre also show such (decade-long about every 80 years) plateau phases:
The physical causes are still unclear, and our simulations show them occurring at other
times. Thus the models are not consistent with the current observations.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
Quoting ScottLincoln:

Oh boy. This is right up there into near-record territory regarding how far into an article one reads before knowing it is complete nonsense.
Global warming has not stopped. In fact, global temperatures in the last ~15yrs have remained above the trend line.

This is, of course, assuming that global near-surface air temperatures are the only measure of global warming and the only reservoir of heat energy in the climate system. We know that this is not true, not even close, as the oceans and the crysophere - gaining heat as fast if not faster than predicted - hold far more heat.

Yes. And this is what has happened.

You shouldn't be focusing on the rate, especially for such a short period. I seem to think that people have reminded you of this before. Observed global temperatures have been within the ranges of each of the last three IPCC reports:


Once again, I would suggest a re-read on the important differences between weather and climate.
Lets see Tamino's latest graphs shall we.







You don't seem to like using the latest data, why is that?

Also why does Grant arbitrarily start his Ipcc graph above the model line? Is it because it would show what the graphs over at Gavin's show. Maybe you should stop by Gavin's site and do some reading. Real Climate

You and Watts both should go get jobs picking cherries.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


You spoke too soon, the "IceBucket" was just kind enough to spam us with a reminder that winter still occasionally happens around the world, along with some "Denialist" blather.


No fear JarHead, it wouldn't be neighborly to let the alarmists rant on about the eco-religous diatribe.


"It won't be as cold as yesterday but is still colder than average for this time of year," she said. "Tonight there will be lows of -5C (23F) to -7C (19.5F) across the whole country, so it is still really cold."




Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061


IPCC Recognises The Standstill

181. In an interview with
The Australian
in February, Rajenda Pachauri, the chair of
the IPCC, acknowledged the reality of the post-1997 standstill in global average
temperatures.

However, Pachauri’s assertion that it will take a temperature standstill of ‘30-40 years at
least’ to affect theories of man-made global warming is without a scientific basis. The
16-year standstill already strains climate models, and if it continues for a few more years
it will increasingly demonstrate that the climate models on which the IPCC has based its
assumptions are inadequate.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
Quoting iceagecoming:
The Global Warming Standstill

No Increase In Warming Above Current Levels

Oh boy. This is right up there into near-record territory regarding how far into an article one reads before knowing it is complete nonsense.
Global warming has not stopped. In fact, global temperatures in the last ~15yrs have remained above the trend line.

This is, of course, assuming that global near-surface air temperatures are the only measure of global warming and the only reservoir of heat energy in the climate system. We know that this is not true, not even close, as the oceans and the crysophere - gaining heat as fast if not faster than predicted - hold far more heat.
Quoting iceagecoming:
Can it really be the case that, over the past 15 years, the sum total of all the Earth%u2019s
natural climatic variables, such as changes in solar irradiance, volcanoes, the PDO, the NAO, and the AO... have behaved in such a way as to produce a cooling effect that is the mirror image of the warming postulated
by the anthropogenic climate forcings from CO2 and other greenhouse gases...?

Yes. And this is what has happened.
Quoting iceagecoming:
Looking at the spread of predictions of the climate models used in the IPCC%u2019s AR4, the
forecast for average warming is 0.2%uFFFDC per decade centred on a Gaussian distribution with
a standard deviation of about 0.14%uFFFDC per decade.... Importantly, the 0.2%uFFFDC per decade warming predicted by the IPCC has never
been met.
Rates have always been lower.

You shouldn't be focusing on the rate, especially for such a short period. I seem to think that people have reminded you of this before. Observed global temperatures have been within the ranges of each of the last three IPCC reports:

Quoting iceagecoming:
[snipped irrelevant weather anecodtes]

Once again, I would suggest a re-read on the important differences between weather and climate.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
Quoting pintada:
So ... the trolls seem to be off for the weekend.


You spoke too soon, the "IceBucket" was just kind enough to spam us with a reminder that winter still occasionally happens around the world, along with some "Denialist" blather.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
The Global Warming Standstill


No Increase In Warming Above Current Levels

175. On 24th December 2012, the UK Met Office revised its global temperature
predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations
using it (see Figure 22). The revision was not picked up until after the Christmas break.
It stated that global temperatures up to 2017 will most likely be 0.43°C above the 1971-
2000 average, with an error of ±0.15°C. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global
temperatures above current levels. The new forecast is a considerable change from
forecasts given in the past few years.
79
An excellent comparison between the new and
older forecasts can be found here.


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/b/1/informin g.pdf



192. Can it really be the case that, over the past 15 years, the sum total of all the Earth’s
natural climatic variables, such as changes in solar irradiance, volcanoes, the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Arctic Oscillation, all of which
can change from cooling to warming over decadal timescales, have behaved in such a
way as to produce a cooling effect that is the mirror image of the warming postulated
by the anthropogenic climate forcings from CO2and other greenhouse gases, from the
changing water vapour, from tropospheric ozone, and from a clearing aerosol burden?
Am I alone in thinking, that in the dynamically changing global climate, this looks like a
contrived, indeed scientifically suspicious, situation?

193. Looking at the spread of predictions of the climate models used in the IPCC’s AR4, the
forecast for average warming is 0.2°C per decade centred on a Gaussian distribution with
a standard deviation of about 0.14°C per decade. Thus, if one regards a measure of spread
of climate models as a reasonable basis for prediction (even though different models
contain different physics; they are not simply ‘samples’ drawn from a random distribution)
there is an 8% probability of getting no increase in a ten-year period and a less than 1%
chance of twenty years with no trend. At the moment, the chances of 15 years of no trend
are about 4%. Importantly, the 0.2°C per decade warming predicted by the IPCC has never
been met. Rates have always been lower.

194. Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Plank Institute for Meteorology adds:
We really do not know why this stagnation is taking place at the moment. I hardly
know a colleague who would deny that it has not got warmer in recent years.
Quite a turnaround for an idea that was dismissed just a few years ago as ‘wrong,
completely wrong’.


March 2013


Link








In the wake of the crippling blizzard which stretched from Germany to the UK with most extreme impacts seen across Northern France, major cold set in over the freshly laid snowpack to produce a mid-winter level deep freeze. Beneath clear skies and light winds, temperatures plummeted to a record -12C or 9F overnight in Brussels, Belgium. According to FlandersNews.Be, this marks the coldest March 13th in 167 years and according to @WassimCornet, this is the coldest so late in Brussels since 1847!

In the Netherlands, the village of Ell saw a record low of -13C this morning, breaking the old record of -9.7C set in 1962. Eindhoven fell to -12C.




Unseasonable freezing weather and snowy conditions have continued to cause disruption across the UK, with a huge backlog of freight traffic waiting to use the Channel Tunnel.

Bad weather in France and Belgium forced the tunnel's closure on Wednesday, causing hundreds of lorry and heavy goods vehicle drivers to sit out the wintry weather on the M20 in Kent.

The motorway was turned into a giant car park on Tuesday night as vehicles waited for the tunnel to be opened.

The tunnel was reopened overnight and by Wednesday morning was operating normally with no delays, but the Highways Agency said freight traffic waiting for ferries from the Port of Dover would face another long wait.


Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061

Viewing: 264 - 214

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.