Moderated: Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by DC

hey its you that simplified it by just using the albedo. wich surely is confusing as your claim was wrong, sure if you factor in other things than merely the albedo, then yes it surely is much more complicated. why didn't you make that clear from the beginning? you only talked about the albedo. this leads me to believe that you do not really know what you are talking about here.

I did. I wasn't the one who tried to simplify it, incorrectly mind you. You did that.
It's not uncommon though, you're in good company.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

FYI, I haven't been absent. I read the thread. I only respond to posts which are scientifically worthy of merit. Most of the posts citing sources like RealCrapClimate are simply Woo and are unworthy of consideration.
Unless it's journal citation it's woo.

((I believe MacDoc was speaking about his own rather lengthy absence, its been several months since I last saw a post here with the MacDoc sig attached ---btw, MacDoc, welcome back, good to see you again, I hope all is well with you and yours!!))

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

We present examples of weather extremes, which can easily be explained through changes in albedo....

You are wrong - none of these examples of weather are caused by the changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) .
These changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) are insignificant in climate change.
See my Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures post
and
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

If you want to move the goalposts to "any changes in albedo" causes climate change then that is trivially correct, e.g. the loss of polar ice is a feedback from global warming that will cause more global warming.
The albedo effect

As for Chicago's urbanization affecting local weather, it does!
The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF)
They derive that different urban categories can produce up to 5 °C difference in local temperatures relative to a unified urban category.

[Reality Check]

Whoops missed this!

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Chicago turn the entire city to a big block of concrete without having serious, or noticeable effect of Global Warming.

But you would have to be completely ignorant of climate change to think such a change won't have any effect on the weather.

You would have to be completely ignorant of climate change meteorology to think such a change won't have any effect on the weather.

Furcifer, You may have missed this but this thread is about global warming , not weather. If you want to discuss the effects of urbanization on weather then a new thread would be appropriate.
The discussion of the basic climate science that global warming causes the frequency of extreme weather events (e.g. examples given previously) does though belong in this thread.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Only source I've been able to find; Daily Fail. I don't care much for it either.

But has anyone yet debunked this purported study?

Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age

LOL interesting spin, but the paper paper doesn't need to be debunked because it doesn't say what you are claiming it says.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1589.html

First of all it's specific to a relatively small area of northern Scandinavia. Secondly what the paper really discusses is the fact they can detect a long term 0.3 deg C per 1Ky cooling trend. If you are counting that's 3000 years of cooling reversed in a mere 100 years..

It doesn't say whether today's temperatures are warmer or cooler but visually it looks like recent instrumental temperate data (the red line) shows warmer, than 2000 years ago, but the result is probably not statistically significant either way.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...ate1589-f2.jpg

[DC]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Only source I've been able to find; Daily Fail. I don't care much for it either.

But has anyone yet debunked this purported study?

Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age

i dont think this paper will be accepted by climate change deniers. They used computer models. ECHO-G, ECHAM5–MPIOM, etc.
they hate models.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Whoops missed this!

You would have to be completely ignorant of climate change meteorology to think such a change won't have any effect on the weather.

Furcifer, You may have missed this but this thread is about global warming , not weather. If you want to discuss the effects of urbanization on weather then a new thread would be appropriate.
The discussion of the basic climate science that global warming causes the frequency of extreme weather events (e.g. examples given previously) does though belong in this thread.

??? I didn't bring up the weather. Perhaps you missed a few posts.

You're correct though, it doesn't belong in this thread, that's why I've been debunking the erroneous associations.

Alarmists can't refrain from desperately trying to make some correlation to AGW during these heat waves. The scientists not so much.

[DC]

Originally Posted by lomiller

LOL interesting spin, but the paper paper doesn't need to be debunked because it doesn't say what you are claiming it says.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1589.html

First of all it's specific to a relatively small area of northern Scandinavia. Secondly what the paper really discusses is the fact they can detect a long term 0.3 deg C per 1Ky cooling trend. If you are counting that's 3000 years of cooling reversed in a mere 100 years..

It doesn't say whether today's temperatures are warmer or cooler but visually it looks like recent instrumental temperate data (the red line) shows warmer, than 2000 years ago, but the result is probably not statistically significant either way.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...ate1589-f2.jpg

But it does say that it might be that currentl tree ring based temperature reconstructions might underestimate the temperatures.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You are wrong - none of these examples of weather are caused by the changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) .
These changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) are insignificant in climate change.

Oh dear, you're confusing weather and climate again. We're talking about these heat waves, which are weather, and albedo.
But don't blame me, I didn't bring it up!

[Justinian2]

The sea levels have been rising for the last 21 thousand years since the last glacial maximum. Assuming that melting ice corresponds to an increase in heat, then the earth has been warming for that period. Melting ice, fortunately, moderates the rise in temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Po..._Sea_Level.png

The difficult argument is whether or not man is contributing to the rise in temperature.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Only source I've been able to find; Daily Fail. I don't care much for it either.

But has anyone yet debunked this purported study?

Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-developments/

The Daily Mail story is easily debunked by reference to the paper. The paper itself is not bunk but is in the throes of post-publication peer-review. There have been unfortunate press-releases and quotes as well.

Research which does make some contribution, but another imaginary straw grasped at in the denial world. One hopes that the authors won't let the attention lead them onto the Judith Curry path.

(It's worth noting that the latest denial shout is about history again, not the present (with its insignificant warming) nor even recent history (like the long-term cooling-trend we entered back in 2007 or so). That and the urban heat-island effect - this is positively nostalgic. We haven't seen denial like this since 2003. )

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

LOL interesting spin, but the paper paper doesn't need to be debunked because it doesn't say what you are claiming it says.

AlBell didn't claim it, the Daily Mail did. Just to be clear. AlBell is explicitly dubious about the source, and for good reason, I'm sure we can all agree.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Oh dear, you're confusing weather and climate again. We're talking about these heat waves, which are weather, and albedo.

Oh dear , you are not understanding what I wrote again.
There is no confusion. These are two different topics (in English a new paragraph means a new topic)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
You are wrong - none of these examples of weather are caused by the changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) .
These changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) are insignificant in climate change.

Topic 1: The heat waves, which are weather, are not caused by the albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up. This is simple to undertand since deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures (but heat waves happened in rual areas!)and urbanization does decrease albedo and increase local tempertaures (The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF) derived a 5 °C increase).
Thus my still unanswered question about your previous assertion:

Furcifer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Where are the "strip mall, 2 lanes of black top and a concrete urban jungle" in rural Colarado which is causing the heat wave there?

First asked 3rd July 2012 (10 days and counting)

Topic 2: The albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up are insignificant in climate change.
Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

[Reality Check]

Furcifer, You missed the question in my post's title
You asserted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furcifer
We present examples of weather extremes, which can easily be explained through changes in albedo....

So there must be an easy explanation somewhere.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Justinian2

The sea levels have been rising for the last 21 thousand years since the last glacial maximum. Assuming that melting ice corresponds to an increase in heat, then the earth has been warming for that period. Melting ice, fortunately, moderates the rise in temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Po..._Sea_Level.png

The difficult argument is whether or not man is contributing to the rise in temperature.

It isn't a difficult argument, it is an almost casually demonstrable fact.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Justinian2

The sea levels have been rising for the last 21 thousand years since the last glacial maximum. Assuming that melting ice corresponds to an increase in heat, then the earth has been warming for that period. Melting ice, fortunately, moderates the rise in temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Po..._Sea_Level.png

The difficult argument is whether or not man is contributing to the rise in temperature.

why difficult? we know human is adding to it.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Justinian2

The difficult argument is whether or not man is contributing to the rise in temperature.

There's no reasonable doubt that humanits is causing the warming, and the argument for that is pretty easy to make; the dificulty lies with unreasonable doubt or outright conviction that AGW is not real.

The graph you linked shows a large increase in sea-level during the glacial/inter-glacial transition as the most vulnerable ice-sheets melted, followed by a much slower continuing increase, which reflects the lagged response of the less vulnerable ice. That, of course, does not mean that there has been warming over that period - in fact there's been a cooling trend for the last 6-8 thousand years - but shows how long it takes for the high-latitude ice-sheets to reach an equilibrium.

[bit_pattern]

Groundbreaking research has shown how climate change significantly increased the odds of some recent extreme weather events.

This latest science is featured in a companion piece to The State of the Climate in 2011 report, which is led by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US and is published as part of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).

The new report, Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective, includes contributions from the Met Office and many other research institutions from around the world. For the first time it includes so-called 'climate attribution studies', looking at six key weather events shortly after they have happened

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Groundbreaking research has shown how climate change significantly increased the odds of some recent extreme weather events.

This latest science is featured in a companion piece to The State of the Climate in 2011 report, which is led by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US and is published as part of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).

The new report, Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective, includes contributions from the Met Office and many other research institutions from around the world. For the first time it includes so-called 'climate attribution studies', looking at six key weather events shortly after they have happened

"Increased odds" lends support to the conclusion that a warming climate may have played a role in some recent extreme weather events, but it would still be inappropriate to say "this summer's heat wave was directly caused by AGW."

[Warmer1]

"On Tuesday, for the first time, government scientists are saying recent extreme weather events are likely connected to man-made climate change. It's the conclusion of a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

From
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...limate-change/

'The head of NOAA's climate office, Tom Karl, said: "What we're seeing, not only in Texas but in other phenomena in other parts of the world, where we can't explain these events by natural variability alone. They're just too rare, too uncommon."

'NOAA made a point of saying in their study that the climate change they've identified is man-made.'

I can't find these specific quotes on NOAA's site yet but it's great to finally have scientists making the connection between AGW and extreme weather events with much greater certainty.

Here's another great compilation by Peter Sinclair
Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives at Climate Denial Crock of the Week on You Tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS...1&feature=plcp

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Trakar

"Increased odds" lends support to the conclusion that a warming climate may have played a role in some recent extreme weather events, but it would still be inappropriate to say "this summer's heat wave was directly caused by AGW."

Yes, it's not reasonable to explain individual weather events in such a generic way, although I think it would be reasonable to say it is consistent with AGW (for what it's worth).

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Warmer1

"On Tuesday, for the first time, government scientists are saying recent extreme weather events are likely connected to man-made climate change. It's the conclusion of a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

From
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...limate-change/

'The head of NOAA's climate office, Tom Karl, said: "What we're seeing, not only in Texas but in other phenomena in other parts of the world, where we can't explain these events by natural variability alone. They're just too rare, too uncommon."

'NOAA made a point of saying in their study that the climate change they've identified is man-made.'

I can't find these specific quotes on NOAA's site yet but it's great to finally have scientists making the connection between AGW and extreme weather events with much greater certainty.

Here's another great compilation by Peter Sinclair
Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives at Climate Denial Crock of the Week on You Tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS...1&feature=plcp

I wonder how many times these people were virgins?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...climate-change

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133843...Climate-Change

and wait a minute, aren't meteorologists climate scientists? well,...one can hope that they are, at the least, conversant in the basics to the degree that they don't sound idiots when they are speaking about climate issues.

"Is global warming responsible for a slow tornado season?" - http://www.examiner.com/article/is-g...tornado-season

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Trakar

"Increased odds" lends support to the conclusion that a warming climate may have played a role in some recent extreme weather events, but it would still be inappropriate to say "this summer's heat wave was directly caused by AGW."

True. But I don't see anyone making any such claim so not quite sure what your point is?

[Warmer1]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I wonder how many times these people were virgins?

That's great!

I tied to fact check Tom Karls statements at NOAA but missed checking the "first time" claim.

[Puppycow]

Hopeful result on seeding the ocean to grow diatoms as a carbon sink.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sequesters-co2

It's far from certain though that this can scale to a level that would have a significant impact globally.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Hopeful result on seeding the ocean to grow diatoms as a carbon sink.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sequesters-co2

It's far from certain though that this can scale to a level that would have a significant impact globally.

Another stage in a rather sorry story. The primary problem is that iron isn't the only limitation on ocean fertility, and in much of it isn't the primary one. Now the idea's been reduced to ocean areas where eddies and upwelling make for "ideal conditions". Not the 70% of the planet surface originally envisaged, by a long chalk.

This will go further, I strongly suspect. Unlike the decline of SciAm, which I remember fondly as a first-class production.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by dlorde

Yes, it's not reasonable to explain individual weather events in such a generic way, although I think it would be reasonable to say it is consistent with AGW (for what it's worth).

Oh course, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise; its just that with the hyperpartisan scrutiny and filtering that every casual press-release and media statement that a reporter can get their hands on now goes through, we really need to make sure that these researchers who are unaccustomed to such attentions pay very close attention to how they say what they say. To me, this is the largest change that has been wrought over the last decade. Researchers in any given field get used to discussing their work primarily amongst themselves. This means that at a casual level, they get out of the habit of properly qualifying and framing their discussion; there is a lot that "goes without saying." This is especially obvious when it is a young(ish) researcher who may have been included among authors on previous papers but is submitting the first paper in which they are primarily responsible for the write-up. Their involvement and personal enthusiasm for their work is difficult for them to contain. Their understanding of proper form is obvious, but it is often like watching the four-year olds some parents harness and leash in malls, they exist in an "orbital cloud" not some easily or intuitively confined pathway.

Being familar with the field in which I see such submitted papers, I generally understand "that which goes without saying," but when a young researcher in told to speak to a fact-checking journalist, there is a breakdown in the system. Reporters record verbatim and then attempt to translate into their paraphrased simplification via their own, often very general, academic understandings into something they believe will interest and be understandable to the popular masses. This then gets picked up by the various and often disparate advocate authors who add their distortions to the grapevine and we get articles like:

"Global warming 'may cause big chill'" - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...big-chill.html

"Texas Heat Wave Caused By Global Warming, NASA's Hansen Says" - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1244788.html

"Government Report Says Global Warming May Cause Cancer, Mental Illness" - http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=10810

The main point being that as proponents of rigorous science and proactive public policy action, it is incumbant upon us to hold ourselves, and those who are presenting the information which we seek to use to educate and inform the public and their governing representatives, to much higher standards. If we appear to be making the same types of uninformed and sloppy rhetorical mistakes as those who deny the science, then we really are no more than the flip-side of them. In that case, the faux parity that much of the media desires to present is deserved, and we can blame no one but ourselves.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Warmer1

That's great!

I tied to fact check Tom Karls statements at NOAA but missed checking the "first time" claim.

I'm so glad you took this as I intended. I have no issue with the facts, but the manner in which the media is prone to presenting them, makes a lot of unneccessary work for all of us. That is time and energy that would be better spent developing and refining the scientific, technological and economic solutions neccessary to address AGW.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Hopeful result on seeding the ocean to grow diatoms as a carbon sink.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sequesters-co2

It's far from certain though that this can scale to a level that would have a significant impact globally.

Still a lot of problems with geo-engineering concepts, I've little doubt that we are beyond the point where a smooth and non-disruptive transition away from fossil fuels can eliminate our concerns for the future. But until we transition away from fossil fuels, I'm not even sure projects like this would result in net positive carbon sequestration. Think of the fuel requirements to recover, process and transport/distribute the iron.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Hopeful result on seeding the ocean to grow diatoms as a carbon sink.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sequesters-co2

It's far from certain though that this can scale to a level that would have a significant impact globally.

Yeah, just heard that story. What I wonder is if there will be some knock-on effect we didn't anticipate?

[bit_pattern]

Here's something that might be useful when the old 'there's no consensus' canard get raised:

Quote:

Vision Prize Results

Posted on 19 July 2012 by dana1981
The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated below.

[BenBurch]

I've noticed that denialism is dying out. It looks like their marks, except for the knuckle-draggers, have wizened up to the scam and moved on down the midway.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I've noticed that denialism is dying out.

It may appear so, but consider

"Aestivation (from Latin aestas, summer, but also spelled "estivation" in the USA) is a state of animal dormancy,[1] characterized by inactivity and a lowered metabolic rate, that is entered in response to high temperatures and arid conditions"

in light of the fact that denialism is largely a North American phaenomenon. Come the boreal winter it may well emerge hale and hearty, and I fully expect to hear that Arctic sea-ice has recovered by Feb 2013. Prior to that there may be a record rate of re-freeze to report.

Quote:

It looks like their marks, except for the knuckle-draggers, have wizened up to the scam and moved on down the midway.

Politically, the campaign seems to have moved on from AGW denial (leaving a skeleton crew) to a direct assault on alternative energy sources (the real targets all along). I doubt AGW will get much mention in the US elections, but incentives to alternative energy industries probably will (Romney against them, Obama not so much).

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I'm not even sure projects like this would result in net positive carbon sequestration. Think of the fuel requirements to recover, process and transport/distribute the iron.

There could be more sustainable means:

Larger populations of whales would have produced more of this "bio-available" iron, leading to bigger phytoplankton and krill populations in turn, says Nicol.

"Allowing the great whales to recover will allow the system to slowly reset itself," he says. And this will ultimately increase the amount of CO2 that the Southern Ocean can sequester.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...bon-cycle.html

Save The Whales!

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I've noticed that denialism is dying out. It looks like their marks, except for the knuckle-draggers, have wizened up to the scam and moved on down the midway.

You very well should have, after all "Denialism" has always been a strawman.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Oh dear , you are not understanding what I wrote again.
There is no confusion. These are two different topics (in English a new paragraph means a new topic)


Topic 1: The heat waves, which are weather, are not caused by the albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up. This is simple to undertand since deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures (but heat waves happened in rual areas!)and urbanization does decrease albedo and increase local tempertaures (The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF) derived a 5 °C increase).
Thus my still unanswered question about your previous assertion:

Furcifer



First asked 3rd July 2012 (10 days and counting)

Topic 2: The albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up are insignificant in climate change.
Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

Again, you're making the common mistake of confusing weather with climate. As anyone can tell you the weather fluctuates considerably from day to day and season to season.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Justinian2

The sea levels have been rising for the last 21 thousand years since the last glacial maximum. Assuming that melting ice corresponds to an increase in heat, then the earth has been warming for that period. Melting ice, fortunately, moderates the rise in temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Po..._Sea_Level.png

The difficult argument is whether or not man is contributing to the rise in temperature.

More accurately it's to what extent we're contributing. The fact is scientists are unsure.

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

So says Stephen Nicol of the Australian Antarctic Division, based in Kingston, Tasmania, who has found "huge amounts of iron in whale poo".
[snip]
Nicol's team analysed 27 samples of faeces from four species of baleen whales.

That tells us all we need to know about life in Kingston, Tasmania. Anywhere you can form a team around whale-poop has to be seriously lacking in more conventional stimulations.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

You very well should have, after all "Denialism" has always been a strawman.

not at all. there are even people in denial of the greenhouse effect. there are also people in denial about warming trends, there are people in denial of physical properties of Co2 etc etc.
there are many levels of denial. but there are also people merely being skeptical.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Again, you're making the common mistake of confusing weather with climate.

Again you are making your own mistake of confusing Topic 1 with Topic 2. Maybe it is the 1 and 2 that you do not understand so here we go again!
I hope that I do not have to split this into 2 posts so that you can understand that the first topic is about weather and the second topic is about climate.

Topic about weather that does not mention climate change:
The heat waves, which are weather, are not caused bythe albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up. This is simple to undertand since deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures (but heat waves happened in rual areas!) and urbanization does decrease albedo and increase local tempertaures (The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF) derived a 5 °C increase).
Thus my still unanswered question about your previous assertion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Where are the "strip mall, 2 lanes of black top and a concrete urban jungle" in rural Colarado which is causing the heat wave there?

First asked 3rd July 2012 (21 days and counting)

Topic about climate change that does not mention weather:
The albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up are insignificant in climate change.
Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

Originally Posted by Furcifer

As anyone can tell you the weather fluctuates considerably from day to day and season to season.

Only a really ignorant person would not know this.
Luckily I do not claim that .
I claim what climate science backs up, that global warming will cause (and may already be causing) an increase in the frequency of the extreme ends of those fluctuations.
See for example: Public Perception of Climate Change and the New Climate Dice - Hansen (2011) (PDF)

Quote:

Should the public be able to recognize that climate is changing, despite the notorious variability of weather and climate from day to day and year to year? We investigate how the probability of unusually warm seasons has changed in recent decades, with emphasis on summer, when changes are likely to have the greatest practical effects. We show that the odds of an unusually warm season have increased greatly over the past three decades, but also the shape of the frequency distribution has changed so as to enhance the likelihood of extreme events.