Month: September 2014

Obama Tweets the 97 Percent – and Jason Box


photo.PNG

 

Barack Obama just tweeted the “97 Hours of 97 percent” project.
John Cook of Skeptical Science ecstatic. Denio-sphere apoplectic.

Salon:

While the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that man-made climate change is happening, the public is still working to catch up: Even among those who accept that it’s probably a thing, not nearly enough appear to understand just how certain most scientists are about the basic relationship between human activity and Earth’s warming.

Not that we aren’t making progress. Politicians are listing humanity’s continued contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere among their top concerns and risking attack should they continue to deny the scientific facts. On my subway ride to work, colorful advertisements are urging me to show up in Columbus Circle two weeks from now to participate in what organizers are promising to be the biggest climate march in history. And on social media, the climate science website Skeptical Science has launched a 97-hour campaign — begun, naturally, on 9/7 — highlighting the 97 percent scientific consensus, and featuring 97 forceful, tweetable quotes from 97 experts.

As their statements attest, anyone who tries to argue that climate change is some fringe theory, or not nearly as settled as “environmentalists and the liberal media” make it seem, is picking a fight with not just some scientists, but nearly all the scientists. Fortunately for us, some of the top climate experts also happen to be excellent science communicators. There’s still a lot to come, but some highlights from the campaign so far prove they’re up to the task of explaining both why we should believe climate change is happening, and — crucially — why we should care:

Study: Climate Models Replicate Temperature “Pause”

First point:  there is no “pause” in global warming – merely a temporary slowdown in the increase of one indicator, global surface temperatures. The planetary thermometer – namely, the oceans, continues to register an increase in global heat storage, as evidenced by continuing sea level rise.

Sea level Satellite record from the University of Colorado

That said, a new paper from Jerry Meehl at the National Center for Atmospheric Research sheds some light on how climate models are used, and can be employed to shed light on the way the earth indicates climatic change.  It’s a wrinkle in the way computer models handle  cyclical changes in Pacific Ocean temperature, referred to as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, similar to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), but covering the whole pacific.  The study may lead to better modeling and prediction going forward.

I talked to Meehl about a year ago while he was engaged in this research, and found his explanation to be lucid and useful.  Recommend the 7 minute excerpt above as a primer for the text discussion here.

National Center for Atmospheric Research:

If today’s tools for multiyear climate forecasting had been available in the 1990s, they would have revealed that a slowdown in global warming was likely on the way, according to new research.

The analysis, led by NCAR’s Gerald Meehl, appears in the journal Nature Climate Change. It highlights the progress being made in decadal climate prediction, in which global models use the observed state of the world’s oceans and their influence on the atmosphere to predict how global climate will evolve over the next few years.

Such decadal forecasts, while still subject to large uncertainties, have emerged as a new area of climate science. This has been facilitated by the rapid growth in computing power available to climate scientists, along with the increased sophistication of global models and the availability of higher-quality observations of the climate system, particularly the ocean.

Continue reading “Study: Climate Models Replicate Temperature “Pause””

Oil Industry’s New Climate Position. That Looks Painful.

CNBC:

Global oil markets are as lubricated with supply as ever. That, however, hasn’t stopped major oil companies from testing an unusual energy production strategy—protecting the environment from carbon emissions.

With varying degrees of success over the years, Big Oil has tried—but mostly failed—to bolster its green credentials even as it pumps more fossil fuels. Royal Dutch Shell is the latest example of how oil majors are trying to strike an environmentally friendly pose.

In a speech at Columbia University in New York last week, CEO Ben van Beurden added his voice to the growing chorus of those who think the U.S. ought to export its burgeoning oil bounty.

Yet van Beurden devoted a surprising amount of time to addressing what he termed “the real and current threat of climate change,” and he promoted Shell’s own initiatives to reduce carbon emissions. The CEO implied that oil companies and conservationists could find common ground in a “skewed global debate” about the environment and oil production.

Continue reading “Oil Industry’s New Climate Position. That Looks Painful.”

97 Hours of 97 Percent Continues

John Cook and the Skeptical Science crew are continuing to count down 97 Hours of Consensus. Find out more at their site.

One of the best responses so far, which came thru Reddit:

I first want to thank you for what you are doing and let you know it’s not all for nothing. A few years ago your website convinced me that I was wrong about climate change. I use to be a “climate skeptic” and back then I would have assumed you were a paid shill and wouldn’t trust anything anyone would say about climate change, except the deniers like Mr. Watts.

I can’t remember exactly what changed my mind but I know it was because the methods you use on your website seemed less biased and the commenters were more friendly and willing to discuss the evidence with out personal attacks, especially in comparison to “Watts up with that?” Since then I’ve completed my degree in Environmental Engineering and work in air quality.

On to the question. How do you remain sane when dealing with and responding to the numerous deniers blogs out there? Isn’t frustrating daily having to combat the same misinformation over and over again? How do you take the personal attacks? When do you just ignore them?

Thanks again, and keep up the good fight!

SkepticalScience[S] – an hour ago

Thanks very much for your comment, Howard. It’s very encouraging to hear that our efforts are having an impact.

How do I cope with the seemingly Sisyphean task of debunking misinformation? In one sense, I just keep calm and carry on.

However, as a social scientist researching the attacks of science deniers on science, I see the attacks on science (and on myself) as opportunities to better understand the technique and cognitive processes behind science denial. We have a responsibility to future generations and this includes understanding those people not willing to protect those generations.

McKibben: The Fractured Hope for Fracking

Above:

During two days of intensive airborne measurements, oil and gas operations in Colorado’s Front Range leaked nearly three times as much methane, a greenhouse gas, as predicted based on inventory estimates, and seven times as much benzene, a regulated air toxic. Emissions of other chemicals that contribute to summertime ozone pollution were about twice as high as estimates, according to the new paper, accepted for publication in the American Geophysical Union’s Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

See more details in the Bloomberg piece lower in this post.

Bill Mckibben in Mother Jones:

If you’re a politician, science is a bitch; it resists spin. And a new set of studies—about, of all things, a simple molecule known as CH4—show that President Obama’s climate change strategy is starting to unravel even as it’s being knit. To be specific: most of the administration’s theoretical gains in the fight against global warming have come from substituting natural gas for coal. But it looks now as if that doesn’t really help…

…For a political leader, it was the very definition of a lucky break: Without having to do much heavy lifting against the power of the fossil fuel industry, the administration was able to produce results. In fact, it gave Obama cover from the right, as he in essence turned the GOP chant of “Drill Baby Drill” into “Frack Baby Frack.” Not only that, the cheap gas was a boost to sputtering American manufacturing, making it profitable once again to make chemicals and other goods close to home. As Obama said in his 2012 State of the Union address, as his re-election campaign geared up, “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly a hundred years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

In his second term, Obama has become more vocal about climate change—and even more explicit in his reliance on natural gas to make the numbers work. Here’s the State of the Union 2014: “if extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.”…

…Whether that strategy pays off or not, a likely result of the new EPA regulations, as Forbes magazine pointed out that day, is “the dramatic expansion of natural gas as a fuel for power generation.” Some sun, some wind, but an awful lot of gas. In fact, the administration is so bullish on fracked gas that it is both moving to export more of our supply to other nations (it’s even been suggested as a way to stand up to Vladimir Putin) and offering many countries technical assistance in learning how to frack on their own. (NTF: SEE: UKRAINE and R. Hunter Biden)A long list, including India, China, Indonesia, South Africa, and Mexico have taken up the State Department on the offer…

Below –

CIRES and NOAA scientists are flying a Twin Otter aircraft over and around the oil-rich Bakken formation in western North Dakota. In this TOPDOWN 2014 project, scientist are quantifying chemical emissions from the Bakken including methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ethane, and ozone

Continue reading “McKibben: The Fractured Hope for Fracking”

“97 Hours of 97 Percent Consensus” Continues at Skeptical Science

Only 12 percent of the American people understand that 97 percent of their most trusted authorities, scientists, agree that global warming is real, serious, and caused by humans.
At the Skeptical Science blog, John Cook and friends are celebrating “97 Hours of 97 Percent Consensus” this week, with a new cartoon image and quote from a well-known climate expert. Worth checking out the page, (click on each scientist to see their quote) and John’s twitter feed, which will continue updating each hour.
(many don’t know, that John, like myself, is a cartoonist as well as master of climate info)

Dana Nuccitelli in the Guardian:

Research has shown that when people are aware of the expert consensus, they’re more likely to accept the fact that humans are causing global warming, and also more likely to support taking action to address the problem. Hence the consensus gap is a significant roadblock preventing us from tackling global warming.

Arctic Ice and Extremes

Research continues on the link between arctic warming, ice loss, and extreme weather events in the temperate zones, where most of the developed world’s population resides.

Description:

CIRES’ Julienne Stroeve and John Cassano, featured here, and several colleagues plan will spend the next few years investigating how Arctic sea ice loss affects the jet stream—a high-altitude stream of fast-flowing air that helps steer weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere. With NASA funding, the science team will use sophisticated models and decades of observations to search for physical links between Arctic sea ice patterns, the jet stream and atmospheric blocking, which can stall weather patterns in place and prolong rain, drought, heat or cold spells. Scientists on the research team do not all agree about the nature of possible links between Arctic sea ice and mid-latitude weather, they say, which makes the collaboration more compelling.

More video from NSIDC below.

Continue reading “Arctic Ice and Extremes”

97 Hours of Cartoon Climate Consensus – Continued

jason

Near photographic likeness of Jason Box is part of the 97 Hours of Consensus, now underway at Skeptical Science.

Ed Maibach, Über-pollster at George Mason University, has more:

The campaign was inspired, in part, by our research which has shown that less than 12% of American adults are aware of the scientific consensus about human-caused climate change, that people who understand there is a scientific consensus are more likely to support actions to slow climate change, and that simple messages from credible sources can help set the record straight.

It’s 9/7 – Time for 97 Hours of Climate Consensus!

I posted yesterday on the conspiracy hysteria floating around the climate denial blogosphere, as well known climate denier Anthony Watts went into a tirade about hints of a new initiative from John Cook’s Science affirming Skepticalscience blog – who he referred to as “.. creepy playtime Nazi cross dressers.”

Have not known John to  show up in drag anywhere, so not getting the reference, unless Watts is following Cook et al a lot more closely than I do.  It’s a revealing comment in any case – the degree of sheer hatred and paranoia displayed by Watts and his commenters is remarkable.

My guess? John Cook has likely put his failed cartooning talents back to work again. Given the juvenile fascination former cartoonist turned amateur psychologist and numbers bookie for the 97% John Cook has with smearing climate skeptics, this will reveal itself as some sort of interactive “name and shame” application for the top 100 climate skeptics worldwide.

I hope it does, because if so, and if it turns out to be as libelous as I think it will be, it will give a whole bunch of people a reason to sue the pants off that whole team of creepy playtime Nazi cross dressers. Bring it.

Skeptical Science:

97 Hours of Consensus communicates the fact that 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are causing global warming. The research, conducted by scientists at The University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute, University of Reading, Michigan Technological University and Memorial University of Newfoundland found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorsed human-caused global warming. The paper was published in the academic journal Environmental Research Letters in May 2013.

In contrast, less than 10% of Americans are aware of the 97% consensus on climate change. This ‘consensus gap’ matters. When the public aren’t aware of the overwhelming scientific agreement on global warming, they’re less likely to support action to mitigateclimate change. 97 Hours of Consensus seeks to close the consensus gap.

The campaign begins on 9/7 (the date itself reinforcing the 97% consensus). An interactive webpage featuring the quotes and caricatures is available at http://sks.to/97

How You Can Help

  • Retweet our tweets, sent out via @skepticscience every hour for the next 97 hours. Tweet excerpts from your favourite quotes, using the #97Hours hashtag, or retweet your favourite caricatures (Raymond Pierrehumbert is a personal fave)
  • Share our Facebook posts, also published on the hour every hour.
  • Share our images posted on skepticalscience.imgur.com.
  • Blog about #97Hours and embed our quotes/caricatures (which are all creative commons licenced and free to be republished)

Continue reading “It’s 9/7 – Time for 97 Hours of Climate Consensus!”