Following up on Green Living Monday, this is Global Weirding Wednesday — so, here’s a rundown of good global weirding (aka climate change or global warming) stories from the past week or so:
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair.
Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant – a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.
But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are “real”.
Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis….
h/t Climate Denial Crock of the Week, which also posted the video above and a little extra commentary with this: BTW, per Phil Jones, warming since 1995 now “significant”….
You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?
“The only answer can be denial,” argues Paul Gilding, the veteran Australian environmentalist-entrepreneur, who described this moment in a new book called “The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World.” “When you are surrounded by something so big that requires you to change everything about the way you think and see the world, then denial is the natural response. But the longer we wait, the bigger the response required.”…
Denial is as old as humanity but is not the same as scepticism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a sceptic as ”A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. We should thus all seek the truth. Genuine scepticism in science is one of the ways science progresses.
Denial is very different; it is a refusal to believe something, no matter what the evidence. Climate change deniers often call themselves ”sceptics”. However, refusing to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence is not scepticism but denial….
By far the three most prominent and most frequently referenced climate scientists who are “skeptical” of the dangers of human-caused global warming are Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, and Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). These are not your typical unqualified “skeptics”, like so many others (i.e. computer programmers, politicians, and former political consultants). No, these are genuine climate scientists who receive government research grants, publish peer-reviewed studies, and have not received any funding from fossil fuel companies in recent years. Thus their arguments are well worth examining. Is there scientific validity to their skepticism?
We often hear that our CO2 emissions are such a tiny fraction of the world’s total, around 1.5%, that there is no need for us to take action. If we are only responsible for such a small proportion, why should we bother with a carbon tax?
Is there any validity to this argument?
Not really. In fact, not at all.
And to understand why, we need to understand the basics of carbon emissions. The key to understanding what is happening with carbon in the atmosphere is your bathtub at home—because the atmosphere is just a bathtub that are currently filling with extra CO2, in the same way that you fill your bathtub by turning on the tap….
As a taste of things to come, much of the United States has just been hit by a monster heat wave. Steve Scolnik at Capital Climate analyzed the data from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and found, “U.S. heat records in the first 9 days of June have outnumbered cold records by an eye-popping ratio of 13 to 1″ — 1609 to 124….
Of all the people that doubt the science of climate change, geologists seem to be the most vocal. But they, of all people, should be the most concerned.
I was headed to the Sydney ABC studio to talk about my new book on climate change denial. What was unique about this interview was my coauthor Haydn Washington and I would have the opportunity to answer questions from callers. Considering the topic at hand, we expected some demanding questions from those who doubt the climate science. On the way, I declared to Haydn I’d put money on someone bringing up past climate change. In every interview over the weeks following the launch of our book Climate Change Denial, the same question always arose: “Climate has changed naturally in the past so how do we know current climate change is caused by humans?”…
According to Jim Culbertson, executive manager of the California Cherry Advisory Board, about 30 percent of California’s cherry crop has been lost after nearly two inches of rain fell June 4-5 over the entire cherry growing region that had yet to be picked, followed by excessive heat….
The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.
Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now….
Tornados, wildfires, droughts and floods were once seen as freak conditions. But the environmental disasters now striking the world are shocking signs of ‘global weirding’….
In an “Open letter from the Scientific Community”, a series has begun this week in The Conversation, (a not-for-profit news service backed by CSIRO – Australia’s leading science organization – and Australia’s leading universities) – “Climate Change is Real: An Open Letter from the Scientific Community“.
Part 2, just published, is headlined The Greenhouse Effect is real – Here’s why.
I’m pairing it with the above video on “What Do We Know about Climate Change?” – both answer basic questions for the newcomer on what scientists know about climate, and why we have a problem. The “Conversation” piece, written by Bureau of Meteorology scientist Karl Braganza, discusses fundamental issues in clear english – reprinted below….