Droughts Linked To Global Warming 535
Layzej writes "Two new papers indicate that we are likely already seeing some of the predicted impacts of global warming. The first used Monte Carlo simulations to analyze how many new record events you expect to see in a time series with a trend. They applied the technique to the unprecedented Russian heat wave of July 2010, which killed 700 people and contributed to soaring wheat prices. According to the analysis, there's an 80 percent chance that climate change was responsible. The authors have described their methods and how they improved on previous studies. The second group studied wintertime droughts in the Mediterranean region. They found that 'the magnitude and frequency of the drying that has occurred is too great to be explained by natural variability alone. This is not encouraging news for a region that already experiences water stress, because it implies natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region's climate to normal.'"
Critics have questioned the 100 year period. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We're not there yet... (Score:2, Informative)
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer.ars
Re:Falsifiable (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't science (Score:0, Informative)
It's statistical variability. Just because you experience an outlier doesn't mean the world is falling apart.
Re:Falsifiable (Score:5, Informative)
So in fact, the Mueller report is not even remotely evidence of, or confirmation for, AGW.
Re:We're not there yet... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We're not there yet... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm just not convinced that 1) humans are making a measurable effect on the climate
You can believe whatever you want, but at least admit that your approach is completely unscientific. Here's how science works:
We have a model (increase of CO2) that explains the observed temperature increase and is accepted by the vast majority of climatologists and scientists in general. If you want to propose a new model that discounts CO2 levels as driving the observed temperature increase, then you have to explain not only where the temperature increase is coming from, but also your model needs to fit the observed data better than the existing one. You also have to explain why the observed increase in CO2 - a known greenhouse gas - isn't causing the expected increase in temperature that it should be causing. Waving your hands in the air and saying "I just don't believe it" is not an option.
As for your other points, they have been refuted many times over:
Global Warming (Score:1, Informative)
Global Warming is dumping 8 inches of snow on me right now.