DOCSLIB.ORG

A Fluctuation in Surface Temperature in Historical Context: Reassessment and Retrospective on the Evidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Environmental Research Letters TOPICAL REVIEW • OPEN ACCESS Recent citations A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical - Influence and seepage: An evidence- resistant minority can affect public opinion context: reassessment and retrospective on the and scientific belief formation evidence Stephan Lewandowsky et al To cite this article: James S Risbey et al 2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 123008 View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 193.174.18.1 on 01/03/2019 at 11:10 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018) 123008 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf342 TOPICAL REVIEW A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: OPEN ACCESS reassessment and retrospective on the evidence RECEIVED 8 February 2017 James S Risbey1 , Stephan Lewandowsky1,2 , Kevin Cowtan3 , Naomi Oreskes4 , Stefan Rahmstorf5,6 , REVISED Ari Jokimäki7 and Grant Foster8 9 November 2018 1 CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Hobart Tas, Australia ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION 2 23 November 2018 University of Bristol, Bristol, UK and University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia 3 Department of Chemistry, University of York, York, United Kingdom PUBLISHED 4 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States of America 19 December 2018 5 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research, Potsdam, D14473, Germany 6 University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany Original content from this 7 Independent researcher, Finland work may be used under 8 1 Noyes Ct, Augusta, ME 04330, United States of America the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 E-mail: [email protected] licence. Any further distribution of Keywords: climate variability, climate trends, temperature fluctuation, pause hiatus this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation Abstract and DOI. This work reviews the literature on an alleged global warming ‘pause’ in global mean surface temperature (GMST) to determine how it has been defined, what time intervals are used to characterise it, what data are used to measure it, and what methods used to assess it. We test for ‘pauses’, both in the normally understood meaning of the term to mean no warming trend, as well as for a ‘pause’ defined as a substantially slower trend in GMST. The tests are carried out with the historical versions of GMST that existed for each pause-interval tested, and with current versions of each of the GMST datasets. The tests are conducted following the common (but questionable) practice of breaking the linear fit at the start of the trend interval (‘broken’ trends), and also with trends that are continuous with the data bordering the trend interval. We also compare results when appropriate allowance is made for the selection bias problem. The results show that there is little or no statistical evidence for a lack of trend or slower trend in GMST using either the historical data or the current data. The perception that there was a ‘pause’ in GMST was bolstered by earlier biases in the data in combination with incomplete statistical testing. ‘Nowadays any reference to polywater industrial revolution is imposing climate changes on is always tinged with ridicule, but ten timescales from decadal to centennial, and ultimately years ago many competent and experi- much longer too as the oceans and cryosphere respond enced scientists were quite convinced to the changes in Earth’s energy balance (Hansen et al of its reality. I can see no reason why 1985, Houghton et al 2001). The detection and the scientific and sociological issues attribution of greenhouse climate change (Mitchell raised by this unique episode should be et al 2001) deals with the identification of the ‘signal’ of shrouded in secrecy’—Felix Franks, the forced response to greenhouse gases from the Polywater. ‘noise’ of variability of climate that occurs on the same decadal and multidecadal timescales. The greenhouse climate signal is always accompanied to some degree ‘ ’ ( ) 1. Introduction by noise variation from other forcings of the climate system (such as due to changes in aerosol loading or )( ) The Earth’s climate varies on a vast range of temporal solar variations Marotzke and Forster 2015 and by scales (National Research Council 1982, 1995). The internal variations intrinsic to the coupled climate persistent increase in greenhouse gases since the system (O’Kane et al 2013). © 2018 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018) 123008 J S Risbey et al In recent years there have been more than two evidence for the ‘pause’ in the observed GMST record, hundred articles in the climate literature discussing as it is now, and as it was at the time the research was the notion of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in greenhouse warm- undertaken. ing that is variously alleged to have taken place some The review provides initial context by describing time in the past couple of decades (Lewandowsky et al temperature fluctuations in the climatological litera- 2016). The form of alleged climate ‘pause’ varies across ture and some issues in constructing observed series of the literature, but essentially involves calculation of a GMST. The consequences of the uncertainties in short-term trend in global mean surface temperature GMST are described for assessment of short-term (GMST) over a decade or two, which is then compared GMST trends. The review then proceeds by providing with either other periods in observed GMST (Stocker a series of retrospective constructions of short-term et al 2013), or with trends estimated from coupled cli- GMST trends on the basis of what was known about mate model projections (Fyfe et al 2013, Risbey et al uncertainty in each of the major GMST series at differ- 2014). This review addresses the former issue (com- ent points in time compared to what is known now parison of observed trends), while a companion about uncertainty in each of these series. This retro- review (Lewandowsky et al 2018) addresses the com- spective analysis provides a framework in which to parison with climate model expectations of trends. assess what was known (or could have been known at When it first emerged, the concept of a global the time) when assessing the evidence for a ‘pause’ in warming ‘pause’ was mostly cast in terms of the obser- global warming. The retrospective (historical) assess- vational record as a period of slower than average ment of trends uses the versions of the GMST data that warming (e.g. Stocker et al 2013). With time, usage existed at the times when researchers carried out their broadened to include a comparison of observed assessments of trend-intervals. warming rates with those inferred from model projec- Because the literature on the ‘pause’ is now so vast, tions. The observations-based view of the ‘pause’ is the review treats the literature primarily as a database perhaps more intuitively accessible, whereas the for statistical assessments. The sets of definitions model-comparison view of the ‘pause’ allows for more implied for the ‘pause’ can be inferred from the pause- complexity in matching variations in the forcing and literature, which provides the range of intervals against the (model simulated) response to that forcing with which to assess potential pauses. We have attempted to observed trends. Neither definition turns out to be summarise some of the key messages and the approach straight-forward in practice. We concern ourselves to statistical methods in this literature, but do not pro- fi ( ) exclusively here with the rst observations-based vide a chronological assessment of individual con- ‘ ’ view of the pause . As such, we do not consider the tributions in the sense more common in reviews. Our role of climate forcing, and we do not conduct any concern is with the definitions, data, and methods fl analysis directed at a causal understanding of uctua- used and their implications for the conclusions drawn. tions in GMST (which would require the use of cli- mate models). We do not discount the worth of the model-comparison view of the ‘pause’, but the issues 2. Climate fluctuations past and present are complex enough that they require separate exam- ination (Lewandowsky et al 2018). While the observa- The field of climatology has long recognized that tions-based view of the ‘pause’ is intuitively appealing climate varies on decadal and longer time scales. The in that one can ostensibly ‘see’ a slowing of warming concept of a ‘climate normal’ was introduced in the rate in (parts of) the GMST record, mere description is early 20th century as a 30 year record or average of not the same as statistical evidence. The complexity climate (Arguez and Vose 2011). The 30 year period here lies in the choices of data, periods, and tests was considered necessary to smooth out at least some employed to quantify whether any part of the record is of the known large decadal-scale variations in climate. indeed unusual. This review attempts to foreground The various GMST datasets have used a 30 year some of those choices and their consequences. ‘climate normal’ period as a baseline against which to The notion that global warming ‘paused’ is now calculate anomalies for similar reasons. The literature entrenched in the journal literature (Stocker et al on climate variability and change has recognized 2013). The ‘pause’ in warming is generally posited in episodes or periods of multidecadal GMST variation this literature as an anomaly about climate that is throughout the 20th century (Handel and Risbey 1992, inconsistent with rising greenhouse gases. Many National Research Council 1995). Thus, the notion of pause-papers commence with the statement that fluctuations in GMST is not new and has been despite rising levels of greenhouse gases, GMST has recognized as a confounding factor in attributing not increased since about 1998 (although the sup- causes of decadal-scale GMST changes in all the IPCC posed start year varies)(Guemas et al 2013, Kosaka reports since their inception in 1990.
Recommended publications
  • Climate Change Skepticism and Denial

    Climate Change Skepticism and Denial

    Climate Change Skepticism and Denial Oliver Mehling Seminar “How Do I Lie With Statistics” University of Heidelberg, Winter term 2019–20 Talk: November 28, 2019. Report submitted: January 9, 2020. 1 Introduction The science behind understanding climate change dates back to the 19th century, when Eunice Foote as well as John Tyndall conducted fundamental experiments on the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (Jackson 2019), and Svante Arrhenius famously linked CO2 to warming of the Earth’s surface (Arrhenius 1896). Nowadays, there is a broad scientific consensus about the underlying physical science of global warming, and that anthropogenic (human-induced) emissions of CO2, methane (CH4) and other greenhouse gases are the main drivers of the current warming. There have been many attempts to quantify this consensus, and a survey of these studies by Cook et al. (2016) showed that among publishing climate scientists, between 90% and 100% agree “that humans are causing recent global warming”. About every seven years, the current state of the science is summarized in an “Assessment Re- port”, a large review study in the framework of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which also states the likelihood of scientific findings (Mastrandrea et al. 2011). In its most recent Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC calls it “unequivocal” that anthropogenic green- house gas emissions have “substantially enhanced the greenhouse effect” (IPCC 2013, p. 661). Yet, over the past four decades, climate change skeptics and deniers have successfully managed to seed doubt about these findings, and have greatly distorted public opinion on global warming.
  • Decadal Climate Variability and Predictability Challenges and Opportunities

    Decadal Climate Variability and Predictability Challenges and Opportunities

    Decadal Climate Variability and Predictability Challenges and Opportunities CHRISTOPHE CASSOU, YOCHANAN KUSHNIR, ED HAWKINS, ANNA PIRANI, FRED KUCHARSKI, IN-SIK KANG, AND NICO CALTABIANO DECADAL PHENOMENA AND THEIR early 2000s also contributed to the recent hiatus (Hu- CHARACTERISTICS. The slowdown in the rate ber and Knutti 2014; Santer et al. 2017). Yet, because of global surface warming in the early 2000s, and of uncertainties in observational estimates in both especially its regional characteristics, highlights the radiative forcing and global temperature measures, it importance of decadal climate variability (DCV) as a is impossible to stringently attribute the early 2000s modulator of long-term warming trends due to ever- hiatus to a specific origin (Hedemann et al. 2017); increasing anthropogenic forcings (Medhaug et al. rather, it should be interpreted as a combination of 2017). This event, which was termed in the scientific several factors (Medhaug et al. 2017). and public domain as a “pause” or “hiatus” in global Whether in cases of external forcing due to natural warming (Lewandowsky et al. 2016), was argued by (solar and volcanic) or anthropogenic factors, or during scientists to be associated with long-recognized [see, internal climate system interactions, the oceans play e.g., IPCC (1996) for an early assessment] multiyear a central role in DCV because of their thermal and phenomena, and in particular the undulation of the dynamical inertia. Decadal variations of both regional ocean–atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific and global-mean surface temperature can be associated (Kosaka and Xie 2013; Meehl et al. 2016a). According with, and often attributed to, changes in ocean heat to several studies, changes in Earth energy balance at uptake and heat redistribution (Yan et al.
  • Climate.2007.73.Pdf

    Climate.2007.73.Pdf

    NEWS FEATURE What’s next for the IPCC? AMANDA LEIGH HAAG Now that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has spoken more clearly than ever — and policymakers are listening — it may be time to take a new direction. Amanda Leigh Haag reports on suggested ways forward. hen the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) W was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize together with former US vice president Al Gore in October, it was a crowning moment on an already stellar year for the climate-change icon. Th e release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in early 2007 propelled the international body’s acronym to the status of a household name and reinforced its role as the defi nitive authority on climate change. Th e most recent report’s message was not dissimilar to those of the preceding three reports since 1990, but it came through in richer detail and with greater degrees of confi dence and consensus. Th e biggest diff erence was that this time the social climate seemed poised to receive it. “One of the reasons the Fourth Assessment was so eff ective was that the world was ready to hear it,” says Michael Oppenheimer, a climatologist PHOTOS PA at Princeton University in New Jersey and a lead author on AR4. But many are wondering what the IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, left, and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon show the new foremost authority on climate change can synthesis report at a press conference. Scientists are now discussing what the focus and scope of future IPCC achieve from here.
  • PIK-Sachbericht 2019

    PIK-Sachbericht 2019

    Inhaltsverzeichnis 01 Highlights 02 Eckdaten 03 Forschungsabteilungen 04 FutureLabs Wissenschaftsunterstützende 05 Organisationseinheiten 06 Anhang 7 United in Science 9 Von Deutschland nach Europa und in die Welt 12 Aus der Forschung 18 In eigener Sache 23 Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung 26 Medien-Highlights 2019 28 Besuche am PIK 29 Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung 30 Breitenwirkung 33 Klima, Kunst und Kultur 34 Berlin-Brandenburg – das PIK aktiv in der Heimat 36 Finanzierung | Beschäftigungszahlen 37 Publikationen | PIK in den Medien 38 Vorträge, Lehre und Veranstaltungen | Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs 40 Forschungsabteilung 1 – Erdsystemanalyse 46 Forschungsabteilung 2 – Klimaresilienz 52 Forschungsabteilung 3 – Transformationspfade 58 Forschungsabteilung 4 – Komplexitätsforschung 64 69 Informationstechnische Dienste 70 Verwaltung 71 Kommunikation 72 Stab der Direktoren 73 Wissenschaftsmanagement und Transfer 75 Organigramm 76 Kuratorium und Wissenschaftlicher Beirat 77 Auszeichnungen und Ernennungen 80 Berufungen, Habilitationen und Stipendien 81 Drittmittelprojekte 89 Veröff entlichungen 2019 5 Vorwort So klar man schon jetzt sagen kann, dass 2020 als Aber wir haben noch viel vor uns, das zeigt auch die das Corona-Jahr in die Geschichte eingehen wird, Pandemie-Krise, während derer dieser PIK-Sachbe- so klar lässt sich wohl auch sagen: 2019 war ein richt erstellt wurde. Die Herausforderungen werden Klima-Jahr. Klar wie nie zuvor standen Klimawandel komplexer und internationaler. Von den Planetaren und Klimapolitik im Mittelpunkt der öffentlichen Grenzen bis zu den Globalen Gemeinschaftsgütern: Aufmerksamkeit. Angestoßen durch die Fridays for Nachhaltiger Wohlstand im 21. Jahrhundert und da- Future-Bewegung gingen in Deutschland und überall rüber hinaus hängt ab vom grenzüberschreitenden auf der Welt Hunderttausende junge Menschen auf Management öff entlicher Güter – das gilt für den Ge- die Straße – unter Berufung auf die Klimaforschung, sundheitsschutz genauso wie für die Klimastabilität.
  • Reducing Black Carbon May Be Fastest Strategy for Slowing Climate Change

    Reducing Black Carbon May Be Fastest Strategy for Slowing Climate Change

    Reducing Black Carbon May Be Fastest Strategy for Slowing Climate Change ∗ IGSD/INECE Climate Briefing Note: 29 August 2008 ∗∗ Black Carbon Is Potent Climate Forcing Agent and Key Target for Climate Mitigation Reducing black carbon (BC) may offer the greatest promise for immediate climate mitigation. BC is a potent climate forcing agent, estimated to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO 2). Because BC remains in the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing BC emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term. 1 Addressing BC now can help delay the possibility of passing thresholds, or tipping points, for abrupt and irreversible climate changes, 2 which could be as close as ten years away and have potentially 3 catastrophic impacts. It also can buy policymakers critical time to address CO 2 emissions in the middle and long terms. Estimates of BC’s climate forcing (combining both direct and indirect forcings) vary from the IPCC’s estimate of + 0.3 watts per square meter (W/m2) + 0.25,4 to the most recent estimate of .9 W/m 2 (see Table 1), which is “as much as 55% of the CO 2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other 5 greenhouse gasses (GHGs) such as CH 4, CFCs, N 2O, or tropospheric ozone.” In some regions, such as the Himalayas, the impact of BC on melting snowpack and glaciers may be 6 equal to that of CO 2. BC emissions also significantly contribute to Arctic ice-melt, which is critical because “nothing in climate is more aptly described as a ‘tipping point’ than the 0° C boundary that separates frozen from liquid water—the bright, reflective snow and ice from the dark, heat-absorbing ocean.” 7 Hence, reducing such emissions may be “the most efficient way to mitigate Arctic warming that we know of.” 8 Since 1950, many countries have significantly reduced BC emissions, especially from fossil fuel sources, primarily to improve public health, and “technology exists for a drastic reduction of fossil fuel related BC” throughout the world.
  • The Global Warming Hiatus: Slowdown Or Redistribution? 10.1002/2016EF000417 Xiao-Hai Yan1, Tim Boyer2, Kevin Trenberth3, Thomas R

    The Global Warming Hiatus: Slowdown Or Redistribution? 10.1002/2016EF000417 Xiao-Hai Yan1, Tim Boyer2, Kevin Trenberth3, Thomas R

    Earth’s Future REVIEW The global warming hiatus: Slowdown or redistribution? 10.1002/2016EF000417 Xiao-Hai Yan1, Tim Boyer2, Kevin Trenberth3, Thomas R. Karl4, Shang-Ping Xie5, Veronica Nieves6,7, 8 5 Xiao-Hai Yan and Tim Boyer contributed Ka-Kit Tung , and Dean Roemmich equally to the study and are co-first 1 authors. Joint Institute of CRM, University of Delaware and Xiamen University, Newark, Delaware, USA & Xiamen, Fujian, China, 2National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA, 3National Center for 4 5 Key Points: Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA, Independent Consultant, Mills River, North Carolina, USA, Climate, • From 1998 to 2013, the rate of global Atmospheric Science & Physical Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, California, USA, 6Joint mean surface warming slowed (some Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA, 7Jet have termed this a global warming Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA, 8Applied Mathematics, University hiatus); we argue that this represents a redistribution of energy within the of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA Earth system • Natural, decadal variability plays a crucial role in the rate of global Abstract Global mean surface temperatures (GMST) exhibited a smaller rate of warming during surface warming • Improved understanding of ocean 1998–2013, compared to the warming in the latter half of the 20th Century. Although, not a “true” hiatus distribution and redistribution of in the strict definition of the word, this has been termed the “global warming hiatus” by IPCC (2013). There heat will help us better monitor Earth have been other periods that have also been defined as the “hiatus” depending on the analysis.
  • Beyond Debate: Answers to 50 Misconceptions on Climate Change

    Beyond Debate: Answers to 50 Misconceptions on Climate Change

    Beyond Debate: Answers to 50 Misconceptions on Climate Change Contents Preface vii Introduction: Climate Change 101 1 Natural Change 1. Greenhouse gases don’t really trap heat. 21 2. No one really knows what prehistoric CO2 and 25 temperature were like. 3. Volcanoes are warming the earth, NOT people! 31 4. Earth’s natural cycles can explain recent warming. 24 5. Solar cycles are to blame! 36 Climate Conspiracy 6. Scientists are “in” on a climate hoax! 41 7. There’s no 97% climate consensus 44 8. Climate change is a Chinese hoax! 47 9. Climategate – What about “the emails? 51 10. “Glaciergate” proves a climate conspiracy 55 11. The IPCC is corrupt and/or misleading 58 Doubt 12. Climate change is just a “theory” 63 13. The atmosphere is huge, we can’t possibly affect it. 65 14. The scientists are wrong! 74 15. There is still “uncertainty” around climate change. 76 16. Most climate studies aren’t even about the “climate 83 science” 17. The “climate debate” means the science isn’t settled 86 18. Temperature and CO2 are within the range of natural 92 variation 19. CO2 can’t be measured with precision. 97 20. Scientists are just defending their work! 99 21. How can we predict next year’s climate when we can 104 hardly predict next week’s weather? 22. Warming is due to the urban heat island effect 110 23. Climate models don’t account for the strongest 113 greenhouse gas—water vapor! 24. Don’t you know the sun is getting brighter? 117 25.
  • "Klimaskepsis in Germany." Climate Change Scepticism: a Transnational Ecocritical Analysis

    "Klimaskepsis in Germany." Climate Change Scepticism: a Transnational Ecocritical Analysis

    Goodbody, Axel. "Klimaskepsis in Germany." Climate Change Scepticism: A Transnational Ecocritical Analysis. By Greg GarrardAxel GoodbodyGeorge HandleyStephanie Posthumus. London,: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. 91–132. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 29 Sep. 2021. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350057050.ch-003>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 29 September 2021, 04:07 UTC. Copyright © Greg Garrard, George Handley, Axel Goodbody and Stephanie Posthumus 2019. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 3 Klimaskepsis in Germany Axel Goodbody Climate scepticism in Germany – surely not? Germans are proud of their country’s reputation for environmental awareness and progressive green legislation, and not without justification. Over the last thirty years, Germany has led the way in reducing pollution from industry, transport and domestic heating, promoting recycling and reducing the volume of waste, decoupling economic growth from resource consumption and carbon emissions, and generally meeting the environmental challenges associated with population growth, urbanization and industrialization. The OECD called the country a ‘laboratory for green growth’ in 2012 and praised its ‘proactive role in environmental policy within the EU and internationally’. Its energy policy in particular had ‘a beacon-like character for many other countries around the world’ (see Uekötter, ch. 1). The Green Party has governed at regional level and, in coalition with the Social Democrats, formed the federal government between 1998 and 2006. More importantly, many of its policies have been adopted by other parties since the 1980s and passed into legislation.
  • The NASA Data Conspiracy Theory and the Cold Sun « Realclimate

    The NASA Data Conspiracy Theory and the Cold Sun « Realclimate

    start here home about data sources RC wiki contributors index archive Search Site Google Custom Search Recent Comments Forced Responses: Jan 2018: nigelj Unforced variations: Feb The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun 2018: Omega Centauri Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record Scientific practice skeptics Sun-earth connections — stefan Forced Responses: Jan @ 16 January 2017 2018: nigelj The claim of reduced uncertainty for When climate deniers are desperate because the measurements don’t fit equilibrium climate their claims, some of them take the final straw: they try to deny and discredit sensitivity is premature: the data. Digby Scorgie Forced Responses: Jan 2018: Thomas The years 2014 and 2015 reached new records in the global temperature, and 2016 has Forced Responses: Jan done so again. Some don’t like this because it doesn’t fit their political message, so 2018: nigelj they try to spread doubt about the observational records of global surface Unforced variations: Feb 2018: Barton Paul Levenson temperatures. A favorite target are the adjustments that occur as these observational The global CO2 rise: the records are gradually being vetted and improved by adding new data and eliminating facts, Exxon and the artifacts that arise e.g. from changing measurement practices or the urban heat island favorite denial tricks: Thomas effect. More about this is explained in this blog article by Victor Venema from Bonn Forced Responses: Jan University, a leading expert on homogenization of climate data. And of course the new 2018: Thomas paper by Hausfather et al, that made quite a bit of news recently, documents how Forced Responses: Jan meticulously scientists work to eliminate bias in sea surface temperature data, in this 2018: Thomas case arising from a changing proportion of ship versus buoy observations.
  • Impacts of Climate Change: Perception and Reality Indur M

    Impacts of Climate Change: Perception and Reality Indur M

    IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE PERCEPTION AND REALITY Indur M. Goklany The Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 46 Impacts of Climate Change: Perception and Reality Indur M. Goklany Report 46, The Global Warming Policy Foundation © Copyright 2021, The Global Warming Policy Foundation ISBN 978-1-8380747-3-9 TheContents Climate Noose: Business, Net Zero and the IPCC's Anticapitalism AboutRupert Darwall the author iii Report 40, The Global Warming Policy Foundation 1. The standard narrative 1 ISBN2. 978-1-9160700-7-3Extreme weather events 2 3.© Copyright Area 2020, burned The Global by wildfires Warming Policy Foundation 10 4. Disease 11 5. Food and hunger 12 6. Sea-level rise and land loss 14 7. Human wellbeing 15 8. Terrestrial biological productivity 23 9. Discussion 27 10. Conclusion 28 Note 30 References 31 Bibliography 34 About the Global Warming Policy Foundation 40 About the author Indur M. Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the US delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a US delegate to the IPCC, and as an IPCC reviewer. ‘The effects of global inaction are startling ‘Now I think America is learning lessons on …Around the world, we are seeing heat the importance of ecology…on the east waves, droughts, forest fires, floods and coast, floods, and on the west coast, [for- other extreme meteorological events, ris- est] fires’. ing sea levels, emergencies of diseases The Dalai Lama5 and further problems that are only premo- nition of things far worse, unless we act and act urgently.‘ His Holiness, The Pope1 ‘2015 was a record-breaking year in the US, with more than 10 million acres burned,’ he told DW in an interview.
  • Rep Beyer Factcheck Project Bi

    Rep Beyer Factcheck Project Bi

    Response to Congressional Hearing Naomi Oreskes Professor Departments of the History of Science and Earth and Planetary Sciences Harvard University 10 April 2017 Among climate scientists, “refutation fatigue” has set in. Over the past two decades, scientists have spent so much time and effort refuting the misperceptions, misrepresentations and in some cases outright lies that they scarcely have the energy to do so yet again.1 The persistence of climate change denial in the face of the efforts of the scientific community to explain both what we know and how we know it is a clear demonstration that this denial represents the willful rejection of the findings of modern science. It is, as I have argued elsewhere, implicatory denial.2 Representative Smith and his colleagues reject the reality of anthropogenic climate change because they dislike its implications for their economic interests (or those of their political allies), their ideology, and/or their world-view. They refuse to accept that we have a problem that needs to be fixed, so they reject the science that revealed the problem. Denial makes a poor basis for public policy. In the mid-century, denial of the Nazi threat played a key role in the policy of appeasement that emboldened Adolf Hitler. Denial also played a role in the neglect of intelligence information which, if heeded, could have enabled military officers to defend the Pacific Fleet against Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. And denial played a major role in the long delay between when scientists demonstrated that tobacco use caused a variety of serious illnesses, including emphysema, heart disease, and lung cancer, and when Congress finally acted to protect the American people from a deadly but legal product.
  • A REVOLUTION in SPORT People Are Pushing Themselves to Their Limits

    A REVOLUTION in SPORT People Are Pushing Themselves to Their Limits

    01 2018 THE MESSE MÜNCHEN MAGAZINE MESSE MÜNCHEN MAGAZINE MESSE MÜNCHEN MAGAZINE 01 2018 A REVOLUTION IN SPORT People are pushing themselves to their limits. The sports industry is one of the beneficiaries and also a pioneer of new technologies THE TASTE OF TOMORROW City farms and in-vitro burgers MAN AND MACHINE A summit meeting on the boundaries of artificial intelligence Flughafen München steht für Mediapower PREMIUM out of home triff t Premium-Zielgruppe Bei uns erreichen Sie konsumfreudige und kaufkräftige Entscheider in einer dynamischen, internationalen Atmosphäre: ∫ 44,6 Mio. Passagiere – davon 41 % Businessreisende ∫ Europas erster und einziger 5-Star-Airport seit 2015 ∫ über 700 State-of-the-Art- Werbefl ächen Entdecken Sie Ihre Werbemöglichkeiten: www.munich-airport.de/werbung FM-0655_Messe-Magazin-AZ_M_steht_fuer_Mediapower_212x290_RZ.indd 1 09.05.18 13:50 EDITORIAL Flughafen München DEAR READERS steht für » T h e o l d - f a s h i o n e d Mediapower b i c y c l e s p e e d o m e t e r has been replaced by e l e c t r o n i c f i t n e s s devices. PREMIUM out of home triff t « Premium-Zielgruppe Bei uns erreichen Sie konsumfreudige 2.0, 3.0, 4.0–in the past, these may Te old-fashioned bicycle speedometer has including some from the world of trade fairs. und kaufkräftige Entscheider in einer have sounded like soccer results. But now they been replaced by electronic ftness devices. In As usual, we will be publishing more informa- dynamischen, internationalen Atmosphäre: are used to indicate the progress we have made our cover story, “A Revolution in Sport,” you tion relating to the topics in our magazine on in automation and digitalization.