Sunshine with a chilled breeze this early Wednesday on California’s north coast as we look forward to ‘a brief return to winter‘ tonight and tomorrow.
The NWS predicts gusty winds with heavy rain, possible hail, thunderstorms, too.
Last night, a surprise heavy rain about dark — didn’t expected it, and strong parts of the storm lasted for a little while, but droplets pattered weighty on the roof all night.
Yet in actual rain, barely a ripple across dry sand. Stats show a ‘Trace‘ for that period, and at best, .11-of-an-inch of actual rain. Sight and sound doesn’t meet expectations.
Weather has become an oddball subject, gaining in the last few years to more than a mundane-conversational topic, to a real-WTF! dialogue, which should be leading the news.
Another grieving example from the category of “Why aren’t they turning?” — via Science Daily yesterday: ‘A research team confirms that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans.’
(Illustration found here).
Finally, a confirmation of a consensus of a consensus.
Right now, basking in sunshine out here on the Left Coast, eastward across America, the weather-shit hits the fan — images of those Texas hailstorms this week are downright freaky.
Out-the-window observation and science come together.
Details on the climate science guys, and from Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University:
“What’s important is that this is not just one study — it’s the consensus of multiple studies,” Green says.
This consistency across studies contrasts with the language used by climate change doubters.
This perspective stems from, as the authors write, “conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent.”
Environmental Research Letters published the paper this week.
In it, the team lays out what they call “consensus on consensus” and draws from seven independent consensus studies by the co-authors.
This includes a study from 2013, in which the researchers surveyed more than 11,000 abstracts and found most scientists agree that humans are causing climate change.
Through this new collaboration, multiple consensus researchers — and their data gathered from different approaches — lead to essentially the same conclusion.
The key factor comes down to expertise: The more expertise in climate science the scientists have, the more they agree on human-caused climate change.
…
“The public has a very skewed view of how much disagreement there is in the scientific community,” she says.
Only 12 percent of the US public are aware there is such strong scientific agreement in this area, and those who reject mainstream climate science continue to claim that there is a lack of scientific consensus.
People who think scientists are still debating climate change do not see the problem as urgent and are unlikely to support solutions.
Adding the real-heightened kicker: ‘“But climate change denial is not about scientific skepticism,” she says.’
Yet the science and reality continues — some noted climate news just most-recently…
Last Thursday, another in the continuing series of studies revealing low-ball expectations — via the Guardian:
Climate change projections have vastly underestimated the role that clouds play, meaning future warming could be far worse than is currently projected, according to new research.
Researchers said that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere compared with pre-industrial times could result in a global temperature increase of up to 5.3C — far warmer than the 4.6C older models predict.
The analysis of satellite data, led by Yale University, found that clouds have much more liquid in them, rather than ice, than has been assumed until now.
Clouds with ice crystals reflect more solar light than those with liquid in them, stopping it reaching and heating the Earth’s surface.
The underestimation of the current level of liquid droplets in clouds means that models showing future warming are misguided, says the paper, published in Science.
It also found that fewer clouds will change to a heat-reflecting state in the future – due to CO2 increases – than previously thought, meaning that warming estimates will have to be raised.
…
A lack of data and continuing uncertainty over the role of clouds is to blame for the confusion about warming estimates, said Ivy Tan, a graduate student at Yale who worked on the research with academics from Yale and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“Models have been systematically underestimating the amount of liquid in clouds, meaning that we aren’t fully appreciating the feedback,” she said.
“It could mean our higher limit of warming is now even higher, depending on the model, which means serious consequences for us in terms of climate change.
“This is one of the largest uncertainties left in climate change. We need to understand these feedbacks a lot better.”
And then, the next day, a sci-fi scenario — from National Geographic:
Finding the North Pole means traveling north, right? Yes, but with a slight caveat: Earth’s northern pole is drifting rapidly eastward, and it looks like climate change is to blame.
The discovery may have major implications for studies of ice loss and drought, potentially improving our ability to predict such changes in the future.
…
Explorers and scientists have been reliably measuring the precise positions of the rotational poles since 1899, first by measuring the relative positions of the stars and then by using satellite telemetry.
Over the past century or so, the poles have tended to wander by just a few centimeters a year.
“That may seem like a tiny variation, but there is very important information embedded in that,” says Surendra Adhikari, an Earth scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
The north pole had shifted back and forth from east to west, with on overall trend that had it moving toward Canada.
But since 2000, the pole’s typical drift has “made a dramatic change,” says Adhikari.
Since that time, the pole has been moving steadily eastward by about 75 degrees, heading toward the Prime Meridian that runs through Greenwich, England.
Exacerbating the whole shebang came this past Monday — from Climate Change News:
Giants of the oil and gas industry spent millions of dollars last year to manipulate lawmakers and public discourse on climate change, an NGO claimed on Thursday.
Exxon, Shell and three trade associations spent US$114 million, according to data compiled by London-based non-profit organisation Influence Map.
Lobby group the American Petroleum Institute spent the most at $65 million, followed by Exxon Mobil on $27m and Shell on $22m last year.
Two smaller trade groups, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association totalled about $9m.
…
While more and more investor groups are spending money on pro-climate advocacy,
Influence Map estimates the amount is much smaller, at less than $5 million a year.
Meanwhile, still basking…