How much Real Science is there in the science of climate change?

Some of you may find this of interest:

A draft copy of a new U.S. climate report appeared on the web this week, with word that it had been leaked to prevent its suppression by the Trump Administration. Here are five quick facts about this new report.
1) Leak or no leak?

Firstly, regardless of the numerous headlines proclaiming the original document - released on Monday, August 7 - as a leak, it was not actually leaked.
The report in question, the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), was produced by scientists from NOAA, NASA and various universities and laboratories from across the United States. This report is intended as a summary of the current science of climate change, as it pertains to the climate conditions and extreme weather events that are being witnessed in the United States. It is part of the process of these agencies and institutions putting together the U.S.'s Fourth National Climate Assessment, which is due out sometime in late 2018. This particular copy of the report was its third draft.
Just like any document of its nature, this draft report was posted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, from December 15, 2016 to February 3, 2017, on their review webpage, so that anyone from the public - layperson or scientist - could download and read it, and submit comments regarding its content.

2) The message is clear

This final draft of the report is quite clear: climate change is definitely being felt around the globe, right now as opposed to some time in the future, human activities are the dominant cause of the observed changes, and according to longer-term records, the observed warming is unprecedented (in magnitude and speed) for the last 1,700 years or more.
According to the report's key findings:

"The global climate continues to change rapidly compared to the pace of the natural variations in climate that have occurred throughout Earth’s history. Trends in globally averaged temperature, sea level rise, upper-ocean heat content, land-based ice melt, Arctic sea ice, depth of seasonal permafrost thaw, and other climate variables provide consistent evidence of a warming planet."
"The frequency and intensity of extreme heat and heavy precipitation events are increasing in most continental regions of the world."
"The frequency and intensity of extreme temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases. Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world."
"We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era. For the period extending over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence. Solar output changes and internal variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate."
"Without major reductions in these emissions, the increase in annual average global temperatures relative to preindustrial times could reach 9oF (5oC) or more by the end of this century."
"Longer-term climate records over past centuries and millennia indicate that average temperatures in recent decades over much of the world have been much higher, and have risen faster during this time period, than at any time in the past 1,700 years or more, the time period for which the global distribution of surface temperatures can be reconstructed."​

Hopefully these statements, given their confidence levels, will be a wake-up call to those still at odds with the overwhelming scientific evidence for the current trend in climate change, and our role in it.
3) Our ability to see the role of climate change in extreme weather events is improving

When asked about whether climate change was the cause of events like Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, the Calgary floods, etc, the usual response has been that we can't attribute individual events to climate change. These days, however, due to observing weather and the effects of climate change in various regions and with regards to various types of weather, scientists are becoming better at seeing the possible contribution of climate change to these kinds of extreme events.
The confidence levels in this part of the report are not as high as it is with general temperature and precipitation trends (mostly "medium" confidence, based on fewer sources, emerging methods of study, developing models, and competing schools of thought), mainly because this science of attribution is still in development.
That said, based on the report, scientists may have identified some trends, for an upward trend in hurricane activity in the North Atlantic since the '70s, for greater intensity and higher precipitation rates from tropical cyclones, more variability with tornado activity across the United States (fewer tornado days, with more tornadoes per tornado day), earlier snowmelt and decrease in snowstorm frequency towards the southern reaches of traditionally snowy climates, a northward shift of winter storm tracks, and increasing frequency and intensity of "atmospheric rivers" impacting the U.S. West Coast. There is also a noticeable trend towards tropical cyclones reaching their peak strength farther away from the equator, associated with the expansion of the tropics.
Curiously, a recent study mentioned in the report has given a potential clue with regards to the apparent 11-year "drought" in major hurricanes making landfall in the United States. The researchers point to a potential pattern of conditions that can cause a hurricane to strengthen when it is deeper in the tropics, but then weaken as it approaches the United States coastline.

While it's clear that this 11-year U.S. landfall "drought" is an anomaly, at the same time, the report calls into question the use of "landfall" as any form of metric here, as there have been storms during the past 11 years (Ike in 2008, Irene in 2011, Sandy in 2012 and Matthew in 2016) that have had severe impacts on the United States, even though they had weakened from their "major hurricane" status (category 3 or above) before making landfall. Those impacts, alone, could invalidate the "drought", simply by pointing out that there have been severe impacts from major hurricanes, prior to their landfall.
As this branch of the science develops further, we will likely see these confidence levels shift, either way, as it becomes more clear exactly how the changing climate influences these different weather phenomena.
4) Suppressed or watered down?

With the 5th draft now leaked to the public, it remains to be seen what the White House will do with the report.
If they suppress it, make sweeping changes to the language of the report, or water down the statements of confidence level and likelihood regarding the current and future impacts contained in the report, the public will now know about it.
That fact may not act as a deterrent, of course.​

It's a matter of public record that government websites, especially the Environmental Protection Agency, have removed references to climate change, yet that did not prevent or reverse the changes that were made.​

5) Unlikely to sway

Even if the White House leaves the report as is, or makes only minor changes, leaving the overall conclusions intact, given the collective stance of the Trump Administration, it is very unlikely that this report will sway their opinions or official positions on climate change.
The sad fact is that they have committed to their current position despite the overwhelming evidence, already widely available, that climate change is real, it is happening right now, and the primary cause of it is the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the environment, due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Unless they decide that a political reversal on the subject would be to their advantage, it is far more likely that they will simply brush the conclusions of the report aside, and claim that there are higher priorities - security, the economy, or whatever else suits them at the time.
We'll just have to wait, to see what happens.
In the mean time, you can read the full Final Draft of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report here.
Source: New York Times | U.S. Global Change Research Program​

 

There are some inaccuracies in that report.

First off, the Conservatives do not, I repeat do not claim that the climate is not changing. The term Climate Change Deniers is for those that do not agree with sensationalist prediction of the climate change advocates, on what is causing the change and how it should be dealt with.

If the average global temperature were to reach 75 degrees Fahrenheit let alone 90, most of all life on the planet would be dead.

Canada should be glad of Global Warming. It would mean shorter milder winters, an increased growing season, the north coast will become open to shipping, reduction of severe blizzards. Canada should be doing its best to pump as much carbon into the atmosphere as possible.

It doesn't mention that the advocates want to reduce the industrialization of major 1st world countries and move production to the 3rd world countries. They want to put shackles on the 1st world countries especially the U.S. and do a massive transfer of wealth to the 3rd world, this is basically income redistribution on a global scale. Since the U.S. is the most wealthiest country in the world they want to punish it the most. Not only do they want to restrict the U.S. they want to destroy it in the form it's in now, and they want the U.S. to pay for its own destruction and to build up the 3rd world.

Nothing the advocates want to do is good for the U.S. and everything is bad. Their greatest obstacle is how to convince the U.S. to cut its own throat.

 

I would classify these things into four categories:

1) Weather change. Takes place day by day and week by week.​

2) Seasonal change. Takes place month by month and year by year.​

3) Generational change. Takes place decade by decade.​

4) Climate change. Takes place century by century.​

The weather people have been monitoring the changes for around 50 years. What the Climate Change Advocates are trying to do is to predict the climate a hundred years from now. That's the equivalent of predict the weather next week by looking out the window for an hour or two. Their measurements of previous centuries are by indirect methods, some of which are checking tree rings, checking pollen in older sediments, and taking air samples trapped in ice cores. They have a few other techniques but remember, they invented the modern thermometer only 300 years ago.

 

I have to take exception to that one, my friend. Global warming, wrong term, really climate change is the real concern. The social and economic consequences of a changing climate to Canada are a disaster. It has already cost our economy billions and it will only get worse. Flooding in Calgary, flooding in Montreal, flooding in my own back yard. Drought in Saskatchewan, this years crop yield is a zero. ZERO. Forest fires in Alberta and BC on an unprecedented level. The permafrost is melting, we are losing our access to the north. We have to fly, yes fly, food and fuel into Churchill just to keep the people alive.
Canada is not glad of global warming. The implications for my country are horrific.

ps: we've done our part too, the oil sands have pumped more than their share of pollution out, but they seemed to have wakened up a bit lately - hopefully

 

Let us, for a moment, dismiss all the different sides, the political posturing and finger pointing. There is one undisputable fact - the climate is changing. To hell with the "why" for the moment.

Pussycat will now play Nostradamus.

This is what is going to happen:
Within about 30 years, give or take, the Middle East will become uninhabitable. The daytime temp will exceed 50c every day and it will stay there. People will either leave, or they will die. If you think the Syrian refugee crisis is bad, wait till you see this. The strain on Europe will be intolerable, and there will be a war - a bad one.
Thats just the start.
Another 10 -20 yrs, the Indian subcontinent will go the same way. 50c plus. Now you have 1 billion people trying to get anywhere else. Goodbye Australia, its the most likely target. Now you have a world war.
It isn't the weather that will kill us, we'll kill eachother.

How do you like me now?

 

The changes that the Climate Change Advocates want to make to avoid the dire predictions you are making should come to 250 trillion dollars each year for all of eternity (I can do dire predictions too). If you take every last penny from every person in the entire world, you still won't have enough and the world will come to a grinding halt. You predict 30 years till major crises to occur, if we follow what the advocates want to do, I predict 1 year for a world ending event to occur. I rather have the 30 years than just 1. Even if the entire world agrees 100% and goes full speed to do what the advocates want, it can't be done. The advocates know it can't be done, but the advocates will try to convince everyone, if you give them absolute power over everything and everyone, they will be able to fix it, the cost will be everyone in the world will be complete slaves living in abject poverty for the rest of their lives. The Climate Change Advocates are just running a scam, that's why people are rejecting their message. They are lying, so either you believe their lies or call them out for what they are.

 

I know what you believe, and, not meaning to offend, but quite frankly, I could care less.

 

You may be missing what I didn't say - that there was anything we can do about it. I said its going to happen.
I'm not advocating for or against any side or opinion, just presenting some peoples conclusions.
My honest feelings are that we have probably crossed the tipping point, and its too late to make a difference.
But I don't blame people for trying. Hell, maybe they'll succeed.

 

My apologies to the forum, I was trying to be diplomatic (not my strong suit normally), but you are right, better to just ignore sometimes and let it ride.

My bad.

 

Honest question. Outside of the "What my grand daddy's grand daddy did, so it is a family tradition"? Why are we pushing hard on bringing COAL back? Because, all Climate Change disagreements aside. Here is what will actually happen if they can dig again. They will NOT say "Lets hire every LOCAL, today, for 3 full shifts.". Most of it will be automated. A rise in coal mining? It will not create the jobs people think it will. The best thing we can do for coal country, long term, is to get through to the thick headed ones that "Those days are OVER. They will not return. Learn a new skill. Stop longing for what you kin did back in the day.".