Image: Flickr/j-sin
Yes, it really is that hot.
Extreme summer heat—like the sizzling temperatures that hit Texas and Oklahoma last year and Moscow in 2010—occurs far more frequently now than it did 30 years ago, according to a new study from NASA climatologist James Hansen.
Between 1951 and 1980, just 0.2 percent of Earth's land areas experienced that kind of scorching summer, on average. Today, that number has soared to 10 percent, according to Hansen's statistical analysis of global temperature data. And the likely cause is man-made climate change.
"We can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small," Hansen and his co-authors wrote in a study that will be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The scientist put it more bluntly in an op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post: "The future is now. And it is hot."
Hansen's study does not rely on climate models or attempt to link the change in heat wave frequency to carbon dioxide emissions. It is based on observed temperature trends—a statistical analysis of the global temperature record maintained by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which Hansen leads.
The researchers examined changes in summer temperatures—averaged monthly for June, July and August—in the Northern Hemisphere, comparing modern-day conditions with their 1951-1980 baseline period.
The obvious question may be the wrong one
The findings try to answer a question that seems to crop up every time extreme weather strikes: Is this climate change? Last year alone, the United States was hit with a record-breaking 14 natural disasters that each caused $1 billion or more of damage.
For many years, scientists often answered that question by noting that it is impossible to say with certainty whether climate change caused any particular weather event.
But researchers have since developed new methods of examining the link between warming and changes in the frequency and severity of weather trends. Many now answer such questions by explaining that climate change is changing the odds of many kinds of extreme weather.
It is a conclusion supported by a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that found evidence that climate change is increasing the frequency of drought and heat waves and the intensity of rainstorms, warning that such shifts will require the world's governments to change how they cope with natural disasters.
But to Hansen—a scientist and outspoken advocate for policies to fight warming—"Is it warming?" when a natural disaster strikes is posing the wrong question.
"Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change," he wrote in his Washington Post op-ed. "To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change."
Some criticize policy discussion
Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said the new study "does a reasonably good job in demonstrating the changes in the distribution of [temperatures] over time."
While Hansen's study draws on previous research to infer a link between more frequent extreme heat and climate change, that is a reasonable choice, said Trenberth. He's co-author of a paper to be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research that examines how climate change is affecting global weather patterns and the role those changes played in the 2010 Russian heat wave, 2011 floods in Queensland, Australia, and other recent extreme weather events.
See what we're tweeting about
92 Comments
Add CommentThe real issue is how to supersede fossil fuels far more rapidly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefending against a surprisingly possible shutdown of power grids for months by a solar storm opens a path to rapid decentralization of power.
See the Aesop Institute website for an overview.
Nuclear plants with grid failure for a week are meltdown candidates.
New technology might protect the grid.
Installing 50 million more solar roofs in the USA and the same number overseas would be a wise insurance policy for the planet.
Lol, what a joke. Lets cherry pick the data and baselines to make sure the dustbowl of the 30s are not included for example or any other time of heat wave and lets come up with ridiculous statistical numbers like the "average temp of all the land mass" which is something no one measures accurately, unless someone believes the warlords and other tyrants around the world and covering most of that land mass, take the time to measure temperature data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis same ridiculous logic was used in the 70s to predict massive freezing because of the unusual number of blizzards happening back then. Well I assume the article takes that into account, going back exactly to the time of those blizzards to throw the data off and make it seem like this year it is unusually hotter.
My favorite of course is the articles claim this is definitive proof of man-made global warming. Specifically, the heat today has somehow been directly linked to global warming caused by us evil humans spewing CO2.
It is not science to declare a "link between warming and changes in the frequency and severity of weather trends" and then start coming up with new methods to examine an unproven theory. First prove the link, then examine it.
We have not even touched yet on the cause, which will be the next article. First the link between warming and the extreme weather, then the so called link between CO2 and only CO2 and the warming. Also totally unproven.
How about a better theory, the fact that 7 billion humans, their livestock in the billions, their homes, cook fires in the billions, their factories, offices and motorized equipment in the millions all producing heat and it could just well be all of that extra human produced heat is the problem. I guess you warmists dont like that because it is easier to blame natural substances that no one can measure or control, so you can take grant money for it.
"..Nuclear plants with grid failure for a week are meltdown candidates.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBull. Nuclear power plants in the USA have a 92% Capacity Factor and only 2% of that is unscheduled. Your solar fails 16 hrs every day, whenever cloudy weather arrives are completely wiped out after a major volcanic eruption for a year, as happened twice in the 1800's. And no modern Nuclear power plants have EVER melted down, and even if they did there would be no harm to anyone, unlike your daily NG explosions roasting alive thousands of people, and of the Solar/NG power system, NG supplies at least 70% of the power.
So explain how Solar PV is decentralized power. It relies on a large grid to supply the bulk of the power that must shadow the Solar daily variation. And if you use batteries to reduce that need for a large grid, then costs skyrocket into the absurd zone.
And Solar is concentrated in southern regions, a very poor fit for northern regions, wet regions, heavily forested regions, agricultural regions - so what are you gonna do about that, build gargantuan, super-centralized, super expensive, long distance power transmission.
So a homeowner in Colorado must get a $31k subsidy from the Colorado taxpayer in order to install Solar Panels on his roof that puts out an avg of 971 watts! Money stolen out of the pockets of the poor who can't even pay their electricity bill never mind install $50k Solar PV systems on their roofs.
So $43k per kwavg with latest IEA projected cost for Nuclear in the USA @ $3.8k per kwavg, so 11X the cost of Nuclear - BEFORE your take into account the INESCAPABLE Shadowing Fossil Fuel power source that accompanies the Solar - paid by the utility customer, see:
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2010/09/our-first-year-with-steves-solar.html
We need innovation! We already have grid level cheap electrical storage coming soon with Liquid Metal Battery Corporation. I would like to see the liquid metal battery sold to consumers as well. Solar and wind power on the roof, cheap storage 24/7 off the grid decentralization! But additionally we need to consider stronger, more efficient and even cheaper construction. We need better water management, and food management. There are a lot of economic opportunities for residential and commercial establishments to collect and distribute resources to the grid. Decentralization to centralization and back. Looking at the big picture of profit, people, and planet will equal sustainability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Prideseren,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it you continue to spout known lies? Your refusal to acknowledge the science does not make the science go away. You have been repeatedly shown the attribution study after attribution study showing that the current warm period is human induced.
When will you learn that your person incredulity does not a scientific argument make? Shutting down your brain and insisting the evidence does not exist does not make the evidence go away.
Nobody knows when another storm of this size will envelop our planet, but if it does, electrical grids throughout the world will be destroyed. NASA warns that such an event would cause "an avalanche of blackouts carried across continents [that] "could last for weeks to months." A Solar Superstorm would be impossible to repair (rapidly).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if this were not bad enough, the loss of power to nuclear power plants would threaten to create a whole string of Fukushima-type disasters around the globe. The core meltdowns last March was caused by the loss of power to the reactor cooling systems which made the nuclear fuel rods overheat. A potential loss of power for weeks at a time, such as would result from a Solar Superstorm, could overwhelm the capacity of emergency electrical power systems at nuclear generating plants to cope, according to a 2011 report by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Solar roofs can now be installed in the USA by homeowners without cash outlay. Payment is made over time by electric bill savings.
To protect against grid failure a switch is needed to disconnect from the grid in that event.
Storage should be part of the plan. The cost of both solar and storage is falling.
See Cheap Green on the Aesop Institute site for a new very high efficiency, very low cost solar cell. Black Swans can also be found there. Highly improbable innovations with huge implications some few of which are likely to prove practical and commercial in the near future.
See Moving Beyond Oil on the same site for breakthrough battery development spun out of the U. of Colorado.
Nuclear power would help but there is not enough uranium that is easily available for extended global use. Perhaps Fusion but that is at least 30 years away or more. Solar, wind, and wave are the best bet since we now have grid level electrical storage technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWasn't it just a few years ago that the Man-made Climate Change crowd was saying that the unusually cold temperatures were simply a normal weather pattern variation and that no conclusions should be drawn from such a small sample time frame? I guess that all goes out the window when you have an unusually hot variation. Then it becomes definitive proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an amateur historian I can tell you that climate does vary over time, in unpredictable cycles. There was a time in the middle ages, when it was so warm in England, that they began producing English wine that rivaled that of France and the Mediterranean regions. I don't think we've even gotten back to that point yet. Conversely, there was the a massive streak of cold weather during the colonial period.
We may indeed be undergoing global warming, but I've seen nothing to definitively prove that it is man made rather than normal weather cycles.
The good news is that the increased carbon dioxide is expected to increase growth of food crops. One estimate I saw was a 16% increase in food production. Unfortunately, I can not remember the source of that information and so it is circumstantial.
Unfortunately this will become more and more frequent. We need to act and create a better and safer world. The second industrial revolution is fading away and the third industrial revolution of ecological capital is just beginning. Those who innovate will become wealthy, and those who do not will, like always, complain. This is assuming we will even remain intact. I hope so but there is certainly a lot of resistance to the harsh reality of human caused climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFusion, both cold and hot, may be close to practical use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee Cheap Green on the Aesop Institute site for several examples of cold fusion claiming that possibility.
And pion fusion may surprise almost everyone. The same site contains some information about an Australian firm that seems to think that will be the case.
@ krohleder and m goldes, " we need to be a bit more realistic" and not fall for the hype of technologies that are far from proven or just not affordable. Coming back to the weather. The US is not the world, England has the wettest summer in years, in the southern hemisphere they have an unusually cold winter. Has Mr. Hanssen added it really all up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Jump4cover,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder why someone who has proclaimed themselves a "amateur historian" is utterly ignorant of the history of climate science? You have with complete credulity repeated a know falsehood. A falsehood so well known that it has been the subject of a peer reviewed study. Here is what the researchers found once they surveyed
the literature of the era. The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.|
So in other words not only were predictions of cooling in the definite minority, but other scientist did not see the papers as either worth citing or relevant.
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio217a/sio217afall08-myth1970.pdf
"Installing 50 million more solar roofs in the USA and the same number overseas would be a wise insurance policy for the planet."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're kidding right? And the natural resources, manufacturing, toxic process waste, transport, installation, repair, maintenance, and ultimate recycling of these inefficient devices comes from where? Mars? Fairy dust?
Your recipe would be an environmental disaster of epic proportions.
Natcore Technology says: “We have technology that will change the world.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatcore Technology controls a new thin-film growth process that promises to allow mass manufacturing of tandem solar cells with twice the efficiency of the best solar cells available today.
This would mean that solar energy would finally be cost-competitive with conventional power and we can significantly diminish dependence on fossil fuels.
Moreover, their technology allows for solar cell production that eradicates the need for toxic silane; eliminates the need for intensive energy used to apply the antireflective coating; and significantly lowers silicon usage.
Efficiency of Tandem Solar Cells: By increasing solar cell efficiency to 30% or more (standard cells are about 17% efficient), tandem solar cells can nearly double solar cell power output.
Note: I have no connection with or financial interest in this company.
Mark Goldes, "Fusion, both cold and hot, may be close to practical use." - I am skeptical about the cold fusion claim with good scientific reason but I really hope you are correct about fusion in general. I would like to see commercial fusion energy in my life time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJump4Cover, The key word in your post was "amateur", as in amateur historian. The article reports the work of professionals in climate science. Many posts by denialists (yours included) want "proof" of climate change and the role of CO2 in causing it. By asking for "proof" you prove your poor (and amateurish) understanding of science. Science never proves anything, it supports hypotheses and develops theories. The professionals in climate science agree overwhelmingly that the evidence supports the hypothesis and theory that CO2 is increasing due to human activity (burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests), and that this increase in CO2 is causing a planetwide energy imbalance (global warming), which is producing climate changes and rising sea levels. Of course you can find lots of contrary web sites and blogs out there, just as you can find lots of people who believe the Earth is 10,000 years old, that UFOs have visited Earth, and that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA bit more info on Jim Hansen...What the Muppets and Climate Climate Change Have in Common http://bit.ly/HensonHansen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFanandala, I think you may have it flip around. I think perhaps you are not being realistic. Technologies such as Liquid Metal Battery have been proven and are on there way to commercial testing in about a year. It is unrealistic to think we can afford to continue with chasing after fossil fuels when they are clearly getting more expensive to find and process. That is not even adding in the true landed costs that we have yet to see. I know we are seriously entrenched in fossil fuel use; this is why we need to seriously invest now in alternatives that have been proven before it is too late.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom 1170 to 1290 a drought in the southwest US is thought to be one of reasons the ancient Puebloians relocated to the Rio Grande areas. Was this caused by human factors too?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm cracks me up...
Agreed. If I were to study Engineering, an environmental concious apporach would be embraced; politcally economically and functionally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnice
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Petemicus,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of us who are adult recognize that the same phenomena can have different phenomena. You objection is akin to saying since forest fires happened before humans ever existed that arson is therefore impossible. Madness.
Are you at all familiar with the attribution studies that show humanity is responsible for the current warming period? If not why not?
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore of us adults recgonize the political agenda which has been promoted to PROVE global warming rather than conduct actual balanced scientific investigation.
I am very familiar with the biased human attribution studies. Their error bars alone make the entire political climate agenda a farce.
to all those who dispute these and other findings: what would it take for you to be convinced? A sign from your God?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter Micus Translated: More of us adults who have thoroughly duped by fossil fuel interests like to spout empty rhetoric laden with conspiracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter Micus Says: I am very familiar with the biased human attribution studies. Their error bars alone make the entire political climate agenda a farce.
Trent Says: Are you now? Then please explain using the peer reviewed literature why the prediction (first predicted in 1896) that nights would warm faster days (observed in the 20th and 21st) is flawed. I look so forward to hearing from you.
You just waving your hands and screaming "error bars!" is not going to cut the ice here.
That kind of hype on Solar Cell efficiency has been going on for 20 yrs. Problem as always is it has always proven cheaper per unit energy for the lower efficiency cells. And even though solar cells have dropped below a $1 per watt in large quantities due to below cost dumping by China, and world surplus after major cutbacks in demand, still the latest largest & cheapest commercial installations are still over $3.50 per peak watt or over $20 per avg watt plus a whole lot of grid added costs. And residential are still running an absurd $7 per peak watt. Well beyond the the cost of cleaner & greener Nuclear and always will be. A waste of money except for niche applications. Pull the subsidies and Solar PV will fall dead - almost instantly. Try it - I dare you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, commercial installations are down to $3/watt and projected to keep falling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlack Swans appear increasingly likely to provide highly competitive renewable energy costs, particularly for decentralized systems.
Time will tell the tale...
Is there any mechanism proposed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLight was at one time thought to propagate through an "ether." Scientific journals were full of experiments attempting to describe the physical properties of this ether. Then Einstein heard the whispers of angels and all mention of this ether stopped. Real science.
Now for some reason falsifying the number of drowned polar bears by scientists looking to garner lopsided grants by organizations whose initial charter is to prove what is now being called "climate change" is being passed off as real science.
The earth's climate has warmed and cooled from the first rain drop. Change is constant.
And Trent, we both know your sixth grade science teacher is waving her finger at you for discounting error bars. They are the basis of real science.
Do your own homework. I have done mine. Putting one dime into climate change research is to further P.T. Gore's incongruent business plan.
dwbd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen did nuclear become green? Japan has put the world on the edge of destruction with one more misplaced earthquake. All nuclear plants need to shut down immediately and the waste stored as securely as possible.
@ Petermicus,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomehow you have conflated rhetoric for understanding. You did not answer my question. Here it is again:
Pease explain using the peer reviewed literature why the prediction (first predicted in 1896) that nights would warm faster days (observed in the 20th and 21st) is flawed. I look so forward to hearing from you.
Ranting will not make these facts go away.
"Wasn't it just a few years ago that the Man-made Climate Change crowd was saying that the unusually cold temperatures were simply a normal weather pattern variation and that no conclusions should be drawn from such a small sample time frame?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, no. It's a regurgitated straw man argument.
Bull, the latest, greatest and largest Prologis commercial installation was $3.54 per peak watt. And black swans are FAR MORE likely to occur in the VASTLY LARGER Nuclear Class of Energy than the much smaller renewable class of energy. Renewables are always limited by the unbelievably low energy density of ALL renewable sources of energy. They just are a total loser for a modern civilization. You can't run an industrial civilization on Pixie Power. And even gung-ho renewable advocates have admitted to me, very reluctantly, that a world powered by renewables could sustain a population of AT MOST one billion people. So tell us who the six billion people you figure should die so your religious worship of renewables can be sustained? You are not included in that six billion I bet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo your own homework. I already have.
"..Japan has put the world on the edge of destruction.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a load of BS. You have ZERO credibility making such a ridiculous statement. ZERO deaths as a result of the 1000 yr tsunami on an ancient 50's designed NPP that was scheduled to be closed, and could easily have been modified to prevent the ZERO DEATH incident.
Too bad you could care less about the VASTLY WORSE Mud Volcano in Indonesia caused by your NG drilling, which releases 6 million cubic feet of mud per day, causing the evacuation of 13,000 families already & a dozen deaths, homes buried forever, and is expected to continue for another 80 yrs. Makes Fukushima look like a bad rainy day.
Or just one of many Hydro Dams, like the The Itaipu Dam in the lush tropical rainforest of Brazil, which devastated more land PERMANENTLY and displaced more people than the temp Fukushima incident. And that releases 150x more GHG emissions than a Coal power plant, including methane & indirect land use effects.
Or all the historic towns in Germany forcibly evacuated and PERMANENTLY destroyed to make way for giant, filthy Lignite Strip Mines, whose product produces horrendous amounts of toxic, deadly emissions and giant, poisonous sludge heaps. Millions die every year from such Coal Pollution. Which is vastly worse than your Nuclear Power Plant Terrorism fantasy or the VERY REAL effects of Coal Pollution.
And Nuclear Waste is trivial in volume compared to the millions of times greater volume of your fossil fuel wastes, which unlike Nuclear which contains all of its wastes, you dump recklessly into our air, water and land for us to eat, drink and breath. Hey dude, I don't want your fossil fuel waste, when are you gonna stop dumping it into my atmosphere?
@ Peternicus,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSort of new to the whole concept of rational debate, huh?
Petemicus wrote:- "Do your own homework. I already have."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't even come close to showing any homework; just a mish-mash thrown at the discussion.
"Puebloians"? If a drought isn't related to AGW then AGW can't cause droughts is implicit in your mumblings. It's rubbish.
Add this to Trent's push-back. The Greenhouse Effect is one of the great climate drivers. The strength is proportional to GHG concentration. The concentration has increased by 40%. Please explain how the Greenhouse Effect stopped working.
I wrote a paper back in 2002 for a technical writing class about global warming. It was about ten pages long. I questioned predictions at the time, but left the conclusion open to debate. I reread it just today and those predictions were very optimistic compared to what is really happening today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to agree with Hansen. I also take a very dim view of people who just don't care enough to take an honest look at our predicament.
You people who can't figure it out are entitled to your opinion, but that has nothing to do with the truth. Eventually though, we will all come around. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late.
It is kind of like what happened in the Vietnam war. By the time most Americans woke up and realized what a disaster it was getting involved in the first place, 50,000 young men lost their lives. The right waved their false flags and the left flashed peace symbols and demonstrated in the streets. It was the beginning of the great divide that now plagues the country and prevents congress from doing anything but making matters worse.
The right still thinks hippies run the left and the left gave up trusting the bankers and Wall Street that symbolizes the right.
It's a vicious circle and this debate is just another example of people that refuse to accept the fact that we are all in this together and it will get worse long before it gets better.
The key of course is more renewable energy sources and a lot more conservation (conservatives dirtiest word).
Oh, and lest I forget, denial will only get you in more hot water; literally.
The Murghab river in about the 3 millennium BC was attributed to global climate change. I wonder how quickly they would jump to the conclusion it was anthropomorphic climate change if this occurance happened today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Murghab river in about the 3 millennium BC was attributed to global climate change. I wonder how quickly they would jump to the conclusion it was anthropomorphic climate change if this occurance happened today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you for real? The price of corn is up double digits because the corn belt is tilting towards desert. All time high temperatures for states are being challenged; some in excess of 110 degrees Fahrenheit. There's plenty of carbon dioxide on Venus, too. Good luck taking advantage of the "plant food" there, as well. And in case you can't read, this article is summarizing that, in fact, man made climate change IS responsible for conditions we are seeing. What do you base your denials of the obvious, on?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy post was in response to 8. Jump4Cover 03:49 PM 8/6/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. The coming solar storm and the coming asteroid hit does not mix with nuclear power. The nuclear war should also be cancelled and breeding like rats should end.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHansen cherry picked all of the data in his study to support a pre-determined conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore utter crap from SCIAM, NASA and Hansen.
No science here. The garbage that these activists present is similar to presenting Cheez-Whiz as a real cheese, rather that a diary-like food-like product.
Shorter Shoshin: It is a conspiracy! A blog told me so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent says: "You objection is akin to saying since forest fires happened before humans ever existed that arson is therefore impossible."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot much different than your objection which is akin to saying: "No one, in the history, has seen a flying pig, but I will predict that 100 years from now, the sky will be full of them... prove me wrong"
Saying things with great conviction is NOT part of the scientific method. If our present heat wave is climate, than so is the 1934 heat and drought, which were far worse.
Here is June 2012 drought:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/drought/historical-palmers/201206-pdsi.gif
Here is the June 1934 drought:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/drought/historical-palmers/193406-pdsi.gif
Certainly there are no flying pigs in the data. GK
Here is the July comparisons:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJuly 2012: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/drought/historical-palmers/201207-zndx.gif
July 1934: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/drought/historical-palmers/193407-zndx.gif
Pig didn't fly in July also. GK
Black Swans include Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - LENR. As it happens, the most likely of the Black Swan systems to become commercial may prove not to be nuclear. See Cheap Green on the Aesop Institute website. Scroll down to page 24 for a 1994 USAF Small Business Innovation Research contract example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the same website, BlackLight Power's CIHT, if it proves practical, is potentially a low-cost renewable system that they claim is not nuclear.
Scrolling down further, The Australian pion fusion work is clearly nuclear and may be a pleasant surprise.
Moving Beyond Oil on the same website has several other seemingly impossible renewable energy systems.
The fuel cell under development in Vietnam, for example, needs only water, fresh or salt, to be added.
G. Karst Says: Not much different than your objection which is akin to saying: "No one, in the history, has seen a flying pig, but I will predict that 100 years from now, the sky will be full of them... prove me wrong"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Actually that bears no resemblance at all to what the scientific community is saying at all. But you really do not care if you accurately depict what an argument is do you?
Here is the part that you lot refuse to understand or even admit exists. The scientific community has made predictions based on the PHYSICS that have been OBSERVED and put in the peer reviewed literature.
Here is just a sampling of the science that you clowns are either in denial of or are ignorant of:
1. Nights would warm faster than days. First predicted back in 1896 and observed in the 20th and 21st century.
2. The stratosphere cooling while the troposphere warms. First predicted in 1967 and observed in the late 20th and 21st century.
3. Less IR waves escaping the atmosphere at the spectrum that CO2 captures. This has been predicted and observed since the late 20th century
4. Conversely more downward IR waves are observed at the expected spectrum by ground stations.
5. The increase in the height of tropopause.
Now you can see that not only was the current warming period predicted as far back as the late 19th century, but that the peculiar character of what a CO2 induced warming would look like was predicted too. No flying pigs here just documented empirical prediction and observation.
Disagree? Then what you need to do is using the peer reviewed literature show what explains all of the above predicted phenomena. Any other answer will be taken as a concession to reality.
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent, You are referring to the 1970 "new ice age is coming" hubaloo. I was not referring to that at all anywhere in my post. I was referring to two historical periods hundreds of years ago. The cool period just a few years ago was just that. I think it was the year before last (I might be off a year) that we had unusually cold weather. All the climate change folks were saying that it was silly to refer to a current year's weather as evidence of a longer term trend. I was pointing out that this article was doing just that.
I myself wonder why people choose to use terms like "utterly ignorant" when responding to an opinion they don't agree with. Try being civil and letting your arguments speak for themselves.
Smurfcrusher,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I'm real (funny saying that to a guy named Smurfcrusher).
So, historic accounts of warmer periods in history that were significant enough to allow England to rival France in wine production and allowed for colonization of Greenland, and then the subsequent "little ice age" that ended those same Norse colonies is just what? An inconvenient truth (couldn't resist)?
Oh and about CO2 and plants..
A quote with the USDoA researcher named:
"In 55 experiments conducted by U. S. Department of Agriculture research scientist Sherwood Idso, increased levels of CO2 dramatically enhanced plant growth. For example, Idso found:
With a CO2 increase of 300 ppm, plant growth increased 31 percent under optimal water conditions and 63 percent when water was less plentiful.
With a 600 ppm CO2 increase, plant growth increased 51 percent under optimal water conditions and an astonishing 219 percent under conditions of water shortage (see Figure II).
Also, CO2 enrichment causes plants to develop more extensive root systems with two important results. Larger root systems allow plants to exploit additional pockets of water and nutrients. This means that plants have to spend less metabolic energy to capture vital nutrients. Additionally, more extensive, active roots stimulate and enhance the activity of bacteria and other organisms that break nutrients out of the soil, which the plants can then exploit."
The 1934 dust bowl event was not the same as what is happening with weather today, other then the fact that most of the damage done was a result of man made problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you read the article without prejudice you would notice that it is the percentage of the Earth's surface that is experiencing drought conditions that lead to the alarm and conclusion of Dr. Hansen and NASA.
The dust bowl days had a different cause and affect. In 1934 the area hardest hit by drought was the pan handle areas of Texas, Oklahoma and parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Kansas. Today half the counties in America are experiencing record drought conditions. Even where I live in Hawaii, out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, is now in a severe drought.
In the dust bowl days the farmland was not properly managed and as a result millions of tons of dust were picked up by a series of storms that caused wide spread crop loss throughout the mid-west and as far east as New York.
Today it is high temperatures in these regions that are causing the crop losses.
It is interesting to note that in 1934 the US Government took action by increased spending in relief programs and conservation corps and planted millions of trees for wind breaks as well as educating farmers on the practice of crop rotation, which stabilized the regions for decades to follow. Millions more were spent replacing livestock and providing irrigation projects.
Read 'em and weep Karst, it was the Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt that got the country out of that mess with taxpayer's money.
The issue today is a much bigger scale and the consequently the cost to mitigate this disaster is orders of magnitude higher too.
The only impediment this time is people who don't understand the root cause of the problem and have been led to believe by private industry that they are not the problem and would never lie to the population about it's own research. There is also a vast right wing conspiracy in congress to block and efforts to control private industry and at the same time obfuscate the research data that scientist who study climate change have amassed, all because of big money lobbyists who influence our elected representatives in a crooked two party system.
In the end this foolishness is not sustainable and the damage done by not taking positive action now will likely go down in history as America and the worlds greatest blunder.
@Jump for cover,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWent and re-read your post. You are right you were talking about the fallacious idea that since climate has changed before the Industrial Revolution that therefore humans can not be affecting it now. Got it. My apologies.
Now onto the your faulty reasoning and understanding of facts. You have claimed that English vineyards rivaled French wines and the Mediterranean (France borders that sea btw. That is pretty vague assertion. Are you talking about the quality or quantity of the wine?
Anyway their are vineyards in England now:
http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html
I also have no clue why you think vineyards are good proxy for temperature. We have studies that show what the global and hemispheric temperatures were:
Medieval Warm Period:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Notice that the graph is a spaghetti graph of 12 different studies by different researchers, using various methodologies and proxies.
I once again want to offer my apologies for confusing your long debunked specious argument for another.
"Oh and about CO2 and plants..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately the effects of drought have proven the opposite of what you claim is true. Crops are failing in half the country.
Also, recent studies have shown that increased CO2 has limited benefit and forest begin taking in less CO2 and transpiring more as the percentage goes up. It can also affect the symbiotic relationship soil bacteria has with plants in the breakdown of organic material that is plant food.
There is a point where CO2 actually becomes toxic to the environment and this toxicity shows up first in the oceans which are a huge part of the world's food chain.
It is all a delicate balance.
@Jump4cover,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I suggest that while your trumpeting how great CO2 levels are for plants that you contemplate the idea that you are citing a study that looked at how plants isolated in a lab with controlled amounts of water performed?
Nowhere in your post does it describe how the plants perform under heat stress, increased weed growth (Not just crops like the CO2 too) and increased infestations from bugs that were previously confined to lower latitudes.
May I also suggest that you go look up what Liebig's Law of the Minimum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum
"Nuclear plants with grid failure for a week are meltdown candidates."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll nuclear power stations are "independent" from the grid. They only "need" to connect to the grid, is to export power.
Their power for station services, normally come from their own main generators. Should that power be unavailable, then a switch to stand-by generators, usually CTU (jet engines), with their dedicated large fuel tanks. In addition, there are further dedicated emergency power supplies (usually CTU combustion turbine units) which connect only to emergency coolant equipment. There are many depths to power security.
What happened, in Japan, was the tsunami wave took all that away, fuel tanks, SGs, emerg SGs... everything.
Nuclear stations can perk along fine, without a grid... but what would be the point in THAT. GK
Actually, I should have written two weeks. At that time the fuel will have been exhausted for any and all standby systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResupply is considered doubtful, due to the widespread power outages.
That would create a potential meltdown condition as the water evaporates in the cooling ponds.
See Dire Warnings on the Aesop Institute website for detailed information.
No flea. What it means... is that there is nothing exceptional happening, with the weather today. It only becomes exceptional when projected hundreds of years, in the future. Warmist have fun playing that video game, but it is conjecture, all the way down. No warming trend goes on forever. Check your history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy sympathy, to all suffering under U.S. drought, but talk to your grandparents. They have endured worse. GK
....."likely cause"..... is MOST likely a result of hot/cold planet cycles millions of years old having nothing whatever to do with humankind's activity....it is shameful our tax dollars are directed politically to "study" ONLY so-called human-caused climate change; there are between zero and zero grants offered by Obama's pseudo-scientist 'advisor/Tsar' to do actual scientific research...bunch of elitist phonies
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark - maybe you misunderstood, their normal supply is their own nuclear powered generators. With reactors at 10% power, they can supply themselves, until Armageddon. Barring a tsunami wave, of course. Besides, CTUs can run on vegetable oil or cooking fats, if they have to. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGK, If that is correct, it is good news.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany thanks. Mark
priddseren,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's amazing that you are willing to discount an actual theory with tons of evidence, but then offer a "theory" (actually a hypothesis at best) that has no evidence. Do you think the numbers of your "theory" add up?
Mark - I have commissioned 8 of the world's biggest reactors. It damn well better be true. Let me know if things have changed since I retired - back to the farm. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe winter of 2011-12 was one of the mildest (if not the mildest) in my memory which goes back to the winter of 1948-49. Yet, the winter of 2010-11 was the fourth snowiest in the Syracuse area since records have been kept. Are such obviously diverse conditions also the result of man-made climate change? How does the current heat wave situation compare with the dust bowl conditions of the 1930s which, if my understanding is correct, lasted a decade?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" I have commissioned 8 of the world's biggest reactors. It damn well better be true."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGovernments commission reactors and nuclear submarines. What was your involvement?
Five phases in the life of a nuclear powered station
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Planning,Finance,Regulatory
2) Construction
3) Commissioning
4) Operation
5) Decommissioning or re-fit
The commissioning team takes the responsibility hand-over from the builders and equipment installers. They test the realities against the design specifications. They basically start everything up, stabilize, determine all flow rates, best equipment operating procedures, neutron flux shaping, reactivity specs etc. They basically prove the design and work any bugs out. When everything is hunky-dory, they hand responsibility to operations, for it's expected life.
We are getting way off topic for this thread. GK
And the evidence just continues to mount, as if we need any more. We are past the point of needing evidence to prove we are shiting in our nest....we need solutions to the problem without destroying our economies. And of course the political, social and economic will to put the necessary plans into action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut perhaps we shall deny and put it off just a little longer........
"And the likely cause is man-made climate change." Do you even read your articals? this is a direct contradiction of the title of the artical, "U.S. Heat Waves of 2011 Linked Directly to Man-Made Climate Change" A new analysis shows that there is "virtually no explanation other than climate change" But there are lost of things that cause climate change and man is not one of them. The only reason that you nuts blame us for it is political. Read your own articles for mor info, particulary the ones that explaine why stars, including our Sun, are getting bigger, and hotter, due to them running out of hydregon and fusing heiulim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this64. Bill_Crofut asks:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How does the current heat wave situation compare with the dust bowl conditions of the 1930s which, if my understanding is correct, lasted a decade?"
In my comment #46,#47, you will find links for comparison, JUNE & JULY 1934. If you backspace the url address to:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/drought/historical-palmers/
You will arrive at the index for the drought charts of the USA. You can examine any month, for any year. GK
GK,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for that information.
Bill Crofut,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "Are such obviously diverse conditions also the result of man-made climate change?"
Temperature and precipitation are related, but not the same. You are comparing a temperature event with a precipitation event. More snow does not necessarily mean colder; in fact, warmer air can hold more moisture, which might mean that when/where it does precipitate, there is more of it.
Re: "How does the current heat wave situation compare with the dust bowl conditions of the 1930s ...?"
The current heat wave situation is an increase in unusually high temperatures around the globe. AFAIK, the dust bowl in the U.S. circa 1930s did not occur about the same time as high temperatures and shifted precip patterns elsewhere. Globally, the earth has a higher heat content now than it did then. From a global perspective, it does not matter much whether it is the US that's hotter now or if Europe, Russia, Australia, or elsewhere got hit again; it would still be an increase in unusual heat events.
Apparently, Hansen's above paper has fallen apart and there are calls for investigations. It seems that Hansen should have known his paper would fail basic testing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Pat Michaels - (former Virginia State Climatologist):
"Hansen claims that global warming is associated with increased drought in the US. This is a testable hypothesis which he chose not to test, and, because PNAS isn’t truly peer-reviewed for Members like him, no one tested it for him.
The following excerpt from his PNAS paper tells you everything you need to know about James Hansen’s paper:
“Although we were motivated in this research by an objective to expose effects of human-made global warming as soon as possible…”
Dr. Michael continues:
"I have [examined] drought data [that] are from NCDC, and the temperature record is Hansen’s own. His hypothesis is a complete and abject failure."
He bases his rejection on this scatter graph, showing recent warming has NOT affected drier/wetter conditions.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/michaels_pdsi-vs-gistemp_scatterplot.png
and perhaps this graph (sorry I only have a screenshot)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ScreenShot2447.jpg
Sounds like it's popcorn time - again. GK
If you find that amazing, you have clearly never read anything he has written.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it amazing he is actually capable of reading and writing at all.
Any evidence for this great disproving other than the blog of a paid hack?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know, like a respected news organization?
" I have commissioned 8 of the world's biggest reactors."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The commissioning team..."
All this says is you could have been the janitor.
I worked on a major Hollywood production once. It doesn't make me a producer.
And yes it is off topic, starting with the first line of this post.
Someone heads BP too, but the fact that he has drilled thousands of wells does not make him an expert on global warming either.
Chris G (comment 71),
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe “. More snow does not necessarily mean colder…”
My personal experience has been, snow does not fall in “warmer” weather.
The following quote does not seem to justify what has all the earmarks of media hype in the title of the piece:
"The average temperature across the Lower 48 was 77.6 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.3 degrees above the 20th-century average, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration reported. That edged out the previous high mark, set in 1936, by two-tenths of a degree, NOAA said."
Brutal July heat a new U.S. record
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/us/temperature-record/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Silly man: evidence comes from data and the graphs they substantiate - NOT news reporters or their rags. No wonder your science comprehension is so poor. The charts are based on NCDC, and Hansen's own GISS data. Even you can plot it. Facts are arguable - NOT your rhetorical blather. Tell us why NCDC and GISS data is unreliable and we will have something to discuss. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFlea - the fact that you once fetched coffee in Hollywood hardly qualifies you to judge other people's careers. The commissioning team consists of physicist, engineers, and chemists (no janitors). As commissioning chief operational engineer , nothing happens without my approval and order. All other personnel are provided by the utility and this pool is used as required.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is obvious that you are discussing things beyond your pay scale (if you ever had one). Unemployed equipment installer would be my guess... a fine occupation, if you are any good at it, but then, you wouldn't be unemployed, would you?? I believe, you now have the floor, please tell us why you are better qualified, to speak on nuclear matters or any science field, for that matter. SSDD GK
I'm listening... GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://ifasgallery.ifas.ufl.edu/entnem/walker/buzz/487ss.wav
@Bill:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe “. More snow does not necessarily mean colder…”
My personal experience has been, snow does not fall in “warmer” weather.
----------------------
So your "personal experience" is a substitute for science?
You can't comprehend 30F air holding more moisture than 25F air? . . . Mindboggling. . .
@Bill:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe “. More snow does not necessarily mean colder…”
My personal experience has been, snow does not fall in “warmer” weather.
----------------------
So your "personal experience" is a substitute for science?
You can't comprehend 30F air holding more moisture than 25F air? . . . Mindboggling. . .
"The commissioning team consists of physicist, engineers, and chemists (no janitors). As commissioning chief operational engineer , nothing happens without my approval and order."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" ...please tell us why you are better qualified, to speak on nuclear matters or any science field, for that matter. SSDD GK"
Why? Because I didn't help commission 8 nuclear power plants without any contingency plans for long term storage of the nuclear waste. That would have been one of my first concerns. Irregardless of whether or not you were the man responsible for this massive oversight, I would never have overlooked a detail as obvious as what to do with the waste.
Does your plumbing also drain out on the street?
Because of a total lack of foresight from people like you, the US Government just recently suspended all further new permits and further recommissioning of aging plants until this issue is resolved like it should have been 30 years ago.
http://www.examiner.com/article/nrc-suspends-nuclear-plant-licensing-for-lack-of-nuclear-waste-disposal
Good luck with that.
You knew it would be an issue eventually and with gross incompetence, you went ahead with your money making scheme any. Now the damage is done and nuclear power in America is a dismal failure because of the people who commissioned the plants and were ultimately responsible for this mess.
BTW, you have no idea I do for a living, so any garbage you toss back is just more proof of your incompetence in general.
Tell me why I should believe a paid shill whose work has been laughed out of his field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy "comprehension" is not poor, I am simply not a climatologist. I'm not an oncologist either, in both cases I rely on expert opinion; my question would be the same if you linked to a discredited doctor who claimed cancer doesn't kill people.
"virtually . . . " that great wiggle-word! . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismoss boss (comments 80, 81),
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComprehension of 30F holding more moisture than 25F is well within the scope of my comprehension. Presumably, 35F will hold more moisture than 30F. The question is, How much of it will fall in the form of snow?
Based on the historical assessment images that G. Karst provided links to, we have far less drought severity and have had the current levels of drought for a shorter time than was experienced in the 1930s. These images only cover the USA so I can only speak to a comparison of the USA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving followed the UNL drought monitor for several years now, I'm quite confident that in the last couple of hundred years we have experienced similar or more severe issues. The real difference is the sheer number of people has increased dramatically so the impact is felt much more.
I neither reject or accept global warming (anthropomorphic or not) until there is a longer baseline to compare against or the weather patterns are outside of historical boundaries. I am rather discontent with the devastation that the heat and lack of water is imposing on the fruit producing vines and bushes I've planted the last couple of years. Nearly half are dead now and water restrictions are even tighter.
"Based on the historical assessment images that G. Karst provided links to, we have far less drought severity and have had the current levels of drought for a shorter time than was experienced in the 1930s."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue at the heart of the article is not the severity or duration of the drought during the dust bowl days or any other period in history. A drought or flood is a consequence of changing weather patterns, but not necessarily a good indicator of climate change. Weather is a local phenomena. Climate is global weather patterns.
It is a common mistake to compare weather extremes to climate changes. Hansen did not do that. He merely claims that the mathematical frequency and severity of local weather phenomena world wide, in the past few decades, can only be explained by a change in the global climate.
This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. It is not proof of AGW, nor was it inferred in this article. It was merely intended to be a published observation by a well respected expert in the field of climatology.
People like Karst and Watts are politically motivated to act as shills for the energy industry which is in business to sell more energy, not less. There are others on this forum who work for big oil.
The problem as they see it is, if it were admitted that the over production of energy is causing negative effects on the planet, then the real solution is to cut down on wasted energy. G.Karst claimed he retired from and obviously still supports the nuclear power industry. The truth is that humans need to start dismantling power plants and get rid of nuclear power first, which has serious problems with long term storage of nuclear waste and this is a huge financial burden in a time when the whole world is in a depression. Nuclear power plants also pose a threat of local disaster from meltdowns, (which some in the industry still insist never happened!).
Our technology would be best directed to improving the efficiency of vehicles, machines and manufacturing plants to cope with less energy rather then trying to produce more power.
Watts has an agenda that is driven by politics too. Just look at his supporters. They are right wing capitalists who put quarterly profits above sustainability and common good. So be it, but it does not make them patriots or model citizens, nor does it make them educated or wise.
Wise men work toward resolving man's blunders and misguided intentions without unnecessarily pointing the finger. Fools carry on making the same mistakes over and over.
"Wise men work toward resolving man's blunders and misguided intentions without unnecessarily pointing the finger. Fools carry on making the same mistakes over and over."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said.
@ Singing Flea,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"They are right wing capitalists who put quarterly profits above sustainability and common good. So be it, but it does not make them patriots or model citizens, nor does it make them educated or wise."
This.
If we could only get Flea, Marcher, and Trent to shut off their A/C, lights, heat, and stop driving their cars, we wouldn't need any large generation or energy supplies. The utilities are only responding to demand. Then we could all take pride in being another worker's paradise... just like North Korea is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven then, they would not be happy, as they labor under the belief that Man is parasite, separate from nature, which needs to be culled, so that life will be better for THEM, not you. Elitist from top to bottom.
These people ease their conscience, by replacing, a few incandescent light bulb, sure in the knowledge, that they are environmentalists, and don't deserve to be culled.
Meanwhile, there are the realists, working hard, to keep production steady, so that when FLEA gets up in the middle of the night, to relieve himself, warm, instantaneous light greets them at the wall switch. Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, they display, if the light switch fails to deliver. For some reason, such idealistic prattle, does not power, so much as one L.E.D., nor will it feed one hungry child. GK
Bad habits are hard to break old man. Fortunately for me, I don't need as much energy as you. I learned about conservation and alternative energy sources decades ago. You learn to think smart when electricity is averaging $0.35 a kilowatt. To be fair, I do pay around $50.00 a month for propane, but I'm not a hermit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou could learn a lot from a dummy like me.
// Lol, what a joke. Lets cherry pick the data and baselines to make sure the dustbowl of the 30s are not included for example or any other time of heat wave and lets come up with ridiculous statistical numbers like the "average temp of all the land mass" which is something no one measures accurately, unless someone believes the warlords and other tyrants around the world and covering most of that land mass, take the time to measure temperature data. //
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love it when deniers talk about "cherry picking" while pointing to a handful of outlying skeptics and ignoring a vast consensus of experts and copious evidence from multiple converging lines and independently confirming sources.
I think proving causality in any specific weather incidence is pretty darn hard, but when you've got climate change loading the dice cumulatively year by year, it's not a huge surprise when snake eyes turn up more and more.
// his same ridiculous logic was used in the 70s to predict massive freezing because of the unusual number of blizzards happening back then. Well I assume the article takes that into account, going back exactly to the time of those blizzards to throw the data off and make it seem like this year it is unusually hotter. //
Oh man did you just blow your credibility. The definition of a denier is someone who stops listening, stops being curious, stops being involved in the dialog. Much like a 9/11 Truther clinging to long-debunked arguments like "molten steel", you are using an argument so well-refuted I had to pause to re-close my jaw. It was the ~media~ and not ~scientists~ who erroneously predicted cooling in the 70's.
Here's evidence:
"A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008)."
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm">What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?</a> (hope that hyper-link works!)
// It is not science to declare a "link between warming and changes in the frequency and severity of weather trends" and then start coming up with new methods to examine an unproven theory. First prove the link, then examine it. //
The link has been proven in multiple ways:
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirically-observed-fingerprints-of-anthropogenic-global-warming.html"> Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming</a>
I'm tired of doing your research for you.