Slashdot Mirror
Droughts Linked To Global Warming
Layzej writes "Two new papers indicate that we are likely already seeing some of the predicted impacts of global warming. The first used Monte Carlo simulations to analyze how many new record events you expect to see in a time series with a trend. They applied the technique to the unprecedented Russian heat wave of July 2010, which killed 700 people and contributed to soaring wheat prices. According to the analysis, there's an 80 percent chance that climate change was responsible. The authors have described their methods and how they improved on previous studies. The second group studied wintertime droughts in the Mediterranean region. They found that 'the magnitude and frequency of the drying that has occurred is too great to be explained by natural variability alone. This is not encouraging news for a region that already experiences water stress, because it implies natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region's climate to normal.'"
Critics of the first paper have questioned why a 100 year period was used and implied that this is cherry picking. These critics are ignoring the fact that the paper examined 100 years, 100 years excluding the last (very hot) year, and also the entire record since 1880 - each time coming to the same result http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/roger-pielke-jr-just-cant-help-himself/
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer.ars
The data is available. Anyone can attempt to replicate the temperature series. As a matter of fact, skeptic Richard Mueller did just that recently with the Berkeley Earth Surface temperature project. He found that warming had actually been under reported by Phil Jones. Being a true skeptic he was persuaded by the facts and now accepts that the rate of warming is very well understood. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/10/20/breaking-news-the-earth-still-goes-around-the-sun-and-its-still-warming-up/
It's statistical variability. Just because you experience an outlier doesn't mean the world is falling apart.
What was NOT said by the Mueller report, but is true nevertheless: Mueller simply confirmed the historical temperature record. His study had absolutely nothing to do with any difference between natural causes and man-made causes, nor (unlike the Jones, Mann et al.) does it pretend to make any predictions about future trends.
So in fact, the Mueller report is not even remotely evidence of, or confirmation for, AGW.
You mean like Christy, Michaels, Spencer, Lindzen and Pielke? Yeah, like that.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I'm just not convinced that 1) humans are making a measurable effect on the climate
You can believe whatever you want, but at least admit that your approach is completely unscientific. Here's how science works:
We have a model (increase of CO2) that explains the observed temperature increase and is accepted by the vast majority of climatologists and scientists in general. If you want to propose a new model that discounts CO2 levels as driving the observed temperature increase, then you have to explain not only where the temperature increase is coming from, but also your model needs to fit the observed data better than the existing one. You also have to explain why the observed increase in CO2 - a known greenhouse gas - isn't causing the expected increase in temperature that it should be causing. Waving your hands in the air and saying "I just don't believe it" is not an option.
As for your other points, they have been refuted many times over:
Global Warming is dumping 8 inches of snow on me right now.