Climate change is here — and worse than we thought

[skierinvermont]

While I fully support drastic improvement of renewable and phasing out fossil fuel, argueing that we have economically suffered from 0.8 degrees of warming is halarious when compared to the expense of non-fossil fuels today. To keep the world running with renewables today would put the majority of the 3rd world in the stone age.

It's even debatable if we have suffered even a dollars worth of damage from climate change. Human lifespan and health worldwide is far better then 200 years ago due to fossil fuel utilization.

On net? Of course we have not suffered net damage from our utilization of fossil fuels. But there are pros and cons. I'm just saying there are cons. There was the paper posted recently about more intense rainfall events. That means more flooding damage.

And no it would not put the 3rd world in the stone age if we started using renewables at least if we are talking about power generation and gave a long period for implementation. The total levitized cost of wind power is less than coal or natural gas. Which is why most new power generation in the U.S. is coming from wind. We've been building 5-10GW of wind power capacity a year for the last 5 years.

[ORH_wxman]

My main objection continues to be that you are treating Hansen's paper as if it was meant to be a definitive prediction. It wasn't. It was just a projection where he essentially says well if we assume XY and Z something like AB and C may occur. He specifically states that the sensitivity used of 4.2C is on the high side of the National Academy of Science estimate of 3 +/- 1.5.

So to respond to your statement and to your questions.

First to your statement, we do not know that 4.2C is too high of a sensitivity although it very likely is. If the aerosol negative forcing is on the high side of current estimates, it would be probable that climate sensitivity is over 4C. That would be the only way we could have observed 20th century warming based on a smaller net forcing. Which is why mainstream estimates continue to be 2-4.5C with a mean of 3C. Is it likely that it is 4.2C? Not at all. Impossible? I would not say that either.

To your first question: scenario B included a faster pace of methane increase than has occurred. The other big discrepancy between scenario B and reality is CFCs which are significant GHGs but were curbed by the montreal protocol. I am unsure about aerosols.

To your second question: I would rephrase. It doesn't make the model incorrect. It makes the assumption of 4.2C climate sensitivity probably incorrect, unless aerosol forcing is larger than thought.

One thing I am very confused about at the moment is aerosols. If I am reading correctly, he did include negative forcing from aerosols prior to 1980 in the hindcast but in the future projections there is no negative forcing from aerosols. I am not sure how that assumption stands up. Humans have curbed emissions.. but have aerosols plateaued (it depends on the type and altitude of aerosols as well)? Plus nobody really knows how strong of a forcing aerosols are anyways. They could be very weak, which would argue for a lower climate sensitivity. Or very strong, which would argue for a higher climate sensitivity.

On your first point...you are right, I shouldn't treat it that way...the only reason I do is because a lot of the subsequent statements from Hansen (including this article) is "worse than we thought in 1988" which I find a bit disingenuous. If he thinks the extreme events are more threatening than he thought back then, I can live with that (even if I might not agree), but then we should mention the flaw of temperature estimate too and sensitivity estimate. I think its fair to say both sides of the equation. But on the whole I agree with you that we shouldn't build too many strawmen to get away from the science aspect which goes on too frequently already in here.

At the bottom, my understanding of aerosols isn't very high since I've only read a few papers that mention them but do not specifically target them for their impact on climate sensitivity. From what I understand that the moment, I do not think aerosols can be blamed for the bulk of the cooling or lack of warming from 1940-1970 since CFC emmissions were quite low still in the 40s/50s...they ramped up in the 1960s and 1970s and peaked around or just before 1990 which was around the time of the Montreal Protocol. Global temperaures certainly didn't match them all that well...just loosely. So I'm not sure we can really blame them as a significant negative feedback...but just because they didn't match global temperaures very well doesn't mean they aren't.

[The_Global_Warmer]

How come open air Nuclear Weapons Testing is never a candidate for global cooling through dimming.

I think testing went from 1945-1980 open air.

[Jonger]

On net? Of course we have not suffered net damage from our utilization of fossil fuels. But there are pros and cons. I'm just saying there are cons. There was the paper posted recently about more intense rainfall events. That means more flooding damage.

And no it would not put the 3rd world in the stone age if we started using renewables at least if we are talking about power generation and gave a long period for implementation. The total levitized cost of wind power is less than coal or natural gas. Which is why most new power generation in the U.S. is coming from wind. We've been building 5-10GW of wind power capacity a year for the last 5 years.

I'm on board with everything you said.... I think we should phase out fossil fuels within 10 years here... At least 50/50 natural gas and wind.

The parts of the world that can afford it should be first.... That alone may reduce manufacturing costs for others.

[Jonger]

On your first point...you are right, I shouldn't treat it that way...the only reason I do is because a lot of the subsequent statements from Hansen (including this article) is "worse than we thought in 1988" which I find a bit disingenuous. If he thinks the extreme events are more threatening than he thought back then, I can live with that (even if I might not agree), but then we should mention the flaw of temperature estimate too and sensitivity estimate. I think its fair to say both sides of the equation. But on the whole I agree with you that we shouldn't build too many strawmen to get away from the science aspect which goes on too frequently already in here.

At the bottom, my understanding of aerosols isn't very high since I've only read a few papers that mention them but do not specifically target them for their impact on climate sensitivity. From what I understand that the moment, I do not think aerosols can be blamed for the bulk of the cooling or lack of warming from 1940-1970 since CFC emmissions were quite low still in the 40s/50s...they ramped up in the 1960s and 1970s and peaked around or just before 1990 which was around the time of the Montreal Protocol. Global temperaures certainly didn't match them all that well...just loosely. So I'm not sure we can really blame them as a significant negative feedback...but just because they didn't match global temperaures very well doesn't mean they aren't.

I think the aerosol theory is a cop-out.... We have warming now, but it just didn't coincide with co2 as perfectly as some would hope. I'm more of a landform change believer, but rising co2 will be more of a factor as time moves forward.

[skierinvermont]

On your first point...you are right, I shouldn't treat it that way...the only reason I do is because a lot of the subsequent statements from Hansen (including this article) is "worse than we thought in 1988" which I find a bit disingenuous. If he thinks the extreme events are more threatening than he thought back then, I can live with that (even if I might not agree), but then we should mention the flaw of temperature estimate too and sensitivity estimate. I think its fair to say both sides of the equation. But on the whole I agree with you that we shouldn't build too many strawmen to get away from the science aspect which goes on too frequently already in here.

At the bottom, my understanding of aerosols isn't very high since I've only read a few papers that mention them but do not specifically target them for their impact on climate sensitivity. From what I understand that the moment, I do not think aerosols can be blamed for the bulk of the cooling or lack of warming from 1940-1970 since CFC emmissions were quite low still in the 40s/50s...they ramped up in the 1960s and 1970s and peaked around or just before 1990 which was around the time of the Montreal Protocol. Global temperaures certainly didn't match them all that well...just loosely. So I'm not sure we can really blame them as a significant negative feedback...but just because they didn't match global temperaures very well doesn't mean they aren't.

I agree discussing only the worse than we thought without talking about the better than we thought isn't completely scientifically balanced. Of course, the reason they do it is that they are trying to get the public to take agw seriously. Does that justify it scientifically or is it even a good PR strategy? I'm not sure. Ideally they would just state what's better what's worse plane and simple and people would pay attention and take the information seriously.

[WeatherRusty]

This is ridiculous. You can and you should ignore them. This is a science based discussion forum not a policy forum. All you do is drag the conversation through the mud when you argue with people who don't acknowledge facts.

Yet their opinion is winning the day, so what should we do. We are rebuffed at every turn when speaking of the science. The science is limited to what it is. The skeptics are free to throw the kitchen sink at the science and create doubt. Shouldn't we stand up for the scientific consensus and try to impress those on the fence who are prone to falling prey to the denier's tactics?

[Msalgado]

Yet their opinion is winning the day, so what should we do. We are rebuffed at every turn when speaking of the science. The science is limited to what it is. The skeptics are free to throw the kitchen sink at the science and create doubt. Shouldn't we stand up for the scientific consensus and try to impress those on the fence who are prone to falling prey to the denier's tactics?

Except this isn't the place for that. This is a science forum. Stick to science. You're not going to convince someone who doesn't agree with peer reviewed science. You're just not.

Furthermore, its extremely debatable whether or not their opinion is winning the way. In the US, maybe (although thats not clear cut either) but certainly not on the entire world stage.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yet their opinion is winning the day, so what should we do. We are rebuffed at every turn when speaking of the science. The science is limited to what it is. The skeptics are free to throw the kitchen sink at the science and create doubt. Shouldn't we stand up for the scientific consensus and try to impress those on the fence who are prone to falling prey to the denier's tactics?

Hopefully the technology sector can innovate our ass out of this mess because the General American populace isn't going to switch sides until their backyard is hit enough.

And I don't mean snow bunnies losing the precious winter climate that they long for from decades past. I mean major climate change like sea level rise in 20-30 years if it increases and increases. Then I am sure more folks will get on board. But not until they are shown with fear. A lot of these 18 year old pups on here do not know any climate different from their current warmer one. They are typically the most in denial of it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Except this isn't the place for that. This is a science forum. Stick to science. You're not going to convince someone who doesn't agree with peer reviewed science. You're just not.

Furthermore, its extremely debatable whether or not their opinion is winning the way. In the US, maybe (although thats not clear cut either) but certainly not on the entire world stage.

Then we need an off topic-Climate Change forum for the rest of it because the science accepts unequivocally GHG warming on top of the natural background(variance).

How much time is spent explaining this to absurd unfounded bogus crap science. I think it's a general accepted trend at this point that Natural variance and GHG forcing are pushing the climate towards a warmer equilibrium based on how much the GHG's change overtime.

There is so much data to be broken down based off of that assumption, we waste way to much time in a pissing match about the validity of that statement. If we did that in the Human Evolution field we wouldn't get anywhere like we have. In this area especially in discussions there is way more crackpot wastes of time, at least it hasn't ruined the science yet.

[Msalgado]

Yes - there is much time wasted on it. Which is why its better to ignore it.

[WeatherRusty]

Except this isn't the place for that. This is a science forum. Stick to science. You're not going to convince someone who doesn't agree with peer reviewed science. You're just not.

Furthermore, its extremely debatable whether or not their opinion is winning the way. In the US, maybe (although thats not clear cut either) but certainly not on the entire world stage.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Are skeptics/deniers not permitted to question the science here. What about lukewarmers who accept the physical basis for AGW, yet believe climate sensitivity to be very low? For instance, should someone like ORH_wxman (Will) be ignored because he believes natural variability is largely responsible for the warming we have experienced to date, in defiance of the peer-reviewed literature?

[Jonger]

Then we need an off topic-Climate Change forum for the rest of it because the science accepts unequivocally GHG warming on top of the natural background(variance).

How much time is spent explaining this to absurd unfounded bogus crap science. I think it's a general accepted trend at this point that Natural variance and GHG forcing are pushing the climate towards a warmer equilibrium based on how much the GHG's change overtime.

There is so much data to be broken down based off of that assumption, we waste way to much time in a pissing match about the validity of that statement. If we did that in the Human Evolution field we wouldn't get anywhere like we have. In this area especially in discussions there is way more crackpot wastes of time, at least it hasn't ruined the science yet.

If we created a climate change debate subforum, I bet 90% of the posting would take place there.

[ben4vols]

What nonsense you spew! "Paid handsomely"? Clearly you've never compared the salaries of professional climatologists to, say, professional athletes - where a kid who has to have his contract read to him because he's functionally illiterate can earn a signing bonus greater than Dr. Hansen will earn in his entire career.

And as for who has the larger cojones - scientists put their work out there in the scientific press to be reviewed, dissected, criticized and ridiculed if wrong. That's honest debate - and they take part in it every day of their careers. That's a lot tougher than posting on a blog where you can post anything you want and you can censor opposing views or close comments completely.

Scientists don't hide behind anonymous internet handles, either - Dr. James Hansen is exactly who he says he is. As are the other climatologists in academia and government. A lot of them have received loads of vitriolic emails and phone calls from the denialist fringe. It takes sizable cojones to choose a career that you know will draw down the wrath of the lunatic fringe.

Peer review? Give me a break. Yeah the peer review was a pretty rough process for Mann when he put out the discredited hockey stick. That isn't a debate. They hid behind the peer review process that is stacked in their favor.

[ben4vols]

If we created a climate change debate subforum, I bet 90% of the posting would take place there.

I think what they want is a private room to hold their chicken little parties.

[Conclue]

I think what they want is a private room to hold their chicken little parties.

No their probably looking for scientific discussions instead of being attacked by folks like yourself is what I'm assuming.

You can't really have any real discussions on this forum I allready can see that. There's far too many "skpetic soliders" on this forum. Their on all of them. It's as if someone hired thousands of people to act like goofballs on websites.

Its very telling when you can read through someones post and hear a tone in their voice; simply here with an agenda.

I do want to be part of some of these threads however.

[BNAwx]

No their probably looking for scientific discussions instead of being attacked by folks like yourself is what I'm assuming.

You can't really have any real discussions on this forum I allready can see that. There's far too many "skpetic soliders" on this forum. Their on all of them. It's as if someone hired thousands of people to act like goofballs on websites.

Its very telling when you can read through someones post and hear a tone in their voice; simply here with an agenda.

I do want to be part of some of these threads however.

I would say that if all you're going to do is resort to name calling and claiming people have an "agenda" just because they disagree or have different views then you should probably not bother. There's enough of that already.

[bluewave]

I would say that if all you're going to do is resort to name calling and claiming people have an "agenda" just because they disagree or have different views then you should probably not bother. There's enough of that already.

There are a few things going on here. First, no one is suggesting that you can't have an honest disagreement

on some of the finer points of the debate. The problem arises when people refuse to believe AGW is even going

on. There is a difference between a scientific debate and a well funded disinformation campaign. The complaints

arise out of false arguments that are meant to create enough noise to make people doubt that global warming

is even happening. There is plenty of big money funding this type of disinformation.

[ben4vols]

There is plenty of big money funding this type of disinformation.

There really isn't and it is a drop in the ocean compared to where the rest of funding goes.

[PhillipS]

Peer review? Give me a break. Yeah the peer review was a pretty rough process for Mann when he put out the discredited hockey stick. That isn't a debate. They hid behind the peer review process that is stacked in their favor.

I'll grant that peer review can be less than perfect but it is still the best process ever developed for implementing the scientific method. The pseudo-skeptics and denialists love to claim the review process is biased, or that some papers get 'pal-review' instead of rigorous review - but when pressed for examples they have little to show.

Can you suggest a better method for ensuring that all research gets vetted before publication and poor research gets culled?

You claim that Mann's hockey stick paper (I assume you meant Mann et al 1998) has been discredited - but that denialist favorite has been debunked so often you should be embarrassed to bring it up again. Yes there were a number of criticisms of that paper, some legitimate and many bogus, but Mann's fundamental findings have held up very well. Here is the paleoclimate reconstruction from Mann et al 1998:

Look familiar? The hole in your cliam that it has been discredited is that other, independent paleoclimate reconstructions done since 1998 show the same basic results of a slowly declining global temperature until around 1900 and rising global temperatures since then. In 2007, NCAR did a study (Wahl 2007) of paleoclimate reconstructions to assess their strengths and robustness. Here's the abstract:

The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05–0.10◦), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. Our results are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced amplitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400–1900, in relation to some other climate reconstructions and model-based examinations. We find that, from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses probably exist, but they may be smaller than those reported in other recent work

And, in case that abstract had too many long words for you to understand, here is a plot of a number of paleoclimate reconstructions which may be easier to comprehend:

Enough hockey sticks there for a whole team. Are you going to claim that ALL of those reconstructions have been discredited? If so, please provide links to evidence that supports such a claim.

[BNAwx]

There are a few things going on here. First, no one is suggesting that you can't have an honest disagreement

on some of the finer points of the debate. The problem arises when people refuse to believe AGW is even going

on. There is a difference between a scientific debate and a well funded disinformation campaign. The complaints

arise out of false arguments that are meant to create enough noise to make people doubt that global warming

is even happening. There is plenty of big money funding this type of disinformation.

I'm going to respond to this and then back away as I don't want to derail the thread anymore than it has been.

I think most believe AGW is going on. The extent to which man is playing a role is the big question for many.

Regarding any type of funded "disinformation campaign", I believe the pro-AGW/CAGW crowd is not without fault and has more to lose if, in time, their position turns out to be incorrect. Billions and billions of dollars have been poured into research, grants, green initiatives, etc.. Lots of jobs, money, and personal interests are bundled into the pro-AGW position so I don't think those involved would simply say "oh well, I guess we were wrong" and simply walk away without a fight.

[WeatherRusty]

I'll grant that peer review can be less than perfect but it is still the best process ever developed for implementing the scientific method. The pseudo-skeptics and denialists love to claim the review process is biased, or that some papers get 'pal-review' instead of rigorous review - but when pressed for examples they have little to show.

Can you suggest a better method for ensuring that all research gets vetted before publication and poor research gets culled?

You claim that Mann's hockey stick paper (I assume you meant Mann et al 1998) has been discredited - but that denialist favorite has been debunked so often you should be embarrassed to bring it up again. Yes there were a number of criticisms of that paper, some legitimate and many bogus, but Mann's fundamental findings have held up very well. Here is the paleoclimate reconstruction from Mann et al 1998:

Look familiar? The hole in your cliam that it has been discredited is that other, independent paleoclimate reconstructions done since 1998 show the same basic results of a slowly declining global temperature until around 1900 and rising global temperatures since then. In 2007, NCAR did a study (Wahl 2007) of paleoclimate reconstructions to assess their strengths and robustness. Here's the abstract:

The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05–0.10◦), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. Our results are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced amplitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400–1900, in relation to some other climate reconstructions and model-based examinations. We find that, from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses probably exist, but they may be smaller than those reported in other recent work

And, in case that abstract had too many long words for you to understand, here is a plot of a number of paleoclimate reconstructions which may be easier to comprehend:

Enough hockey sticks there for a whole team. Are you going to claim that ALL of those reconstructions have been discredited? If so, please provide links to evidence that supports such a claim.

In his mind they have little credibility. He has stated many times that the instrumental/paleoclimate proxy record is a joke of data manipulation and outright fraud designed to dupe we poor imbeciles into believing the temperature records supports the idea of man made climate change. He believes, like Oklahoma's Senator Inhofe, that this is all a hoax.

[WeatherRusty]

I'm going to respond to this and then back away as I don't want to derail the thread anymore than it has been.

I think most believe AGW is going on. The extent to which man is playing a role is the big question for many.

Regarding any type of funded "disinformation campaign", I believe the pro-AGW/CAGW crowd is not without fault and has more to lose if, in time, their position turns out to be incorrect. Billions and billions of dollars have been poured into research, grants, green initiatives, etc.. Lots of jobs, money, and personal interests are bundled into the pro-AGW position so I don't think those involved would simply say "oh well, I guess we were wrong" and simply walk away without a fight.

If we are to stick to the peer-reviewed science, then what you have said here is a rationalization in defiance of that peer-reviewed literature and the consensus of scientific opinion.

The actual science informs us that nearly all of the warming since mid 20th century is due to mankind's activities.

[ben4vols]

How is history going to look on people who knew deep down what they were doing was wrong just for a quick dollar?

I don't know how history will view the snake oil salesmen who push the AGW agenda.

[ben4vols]

The actual science informs us that nearly all of the warming since mid 20th century is due to mankind's activities.

So what is the climate sensitivity exactly? Without knowing that, which you admit you don't know you just give the wide margin given by IPCC, how can you make such a statement?

[Vergent]

So what is the climate sensitivity exactly? Without knowing that, which you admit you don't know you just give the wide margin given by IPCC, how can you make such a statement?

Climate sensitivity is the ratio of temperature change at equilibrium to forcing.

[Vergent]

The problem is that to reach equilibrium we have to melt all the ice and warm the oceans and stop putting GHG in the air. We have lit the fuse, but it is our grandchildren who will helplessly watch the climate bomb go off.

[Jonger]

The problem is that to reach equilibrium we have to melt all the ice and warm the oceans and stop putting GHG in the air. We have lit the fuse, but it is our grandchildren who will helplessly watch the climate bomb go off.

Is it accurate to say that warming is typically a slower process then cooling?

[donsutherland1]

A look at the U.S. climate statistics for summers (1895 through 2011) reveal that Dr. Hansen's concept of "loaded dice" is very relevant for the United States.

Using the National Climatic Data Center's summer (June-August temperature anomalies) and applying the same climatic base period (1951-80) as Dr. Hansen's uses in his paper, one finds that there has been a dramatic shift toward more frequent hot summers, especially since 2000.

During the 1895-1999 timeframe, just 5 of 105 (4.8%) of summers had temperatures of 2σ or more above the baseline and 2 of 105 (1.9%) of summers had temperatures of 3σ or more above the baseline. Since 2000, 8/12 (66.7% of summers had readings of 2σ or more above the baseline while 2/12 (16.7%) had temperatures of 3σ or more above the baseline. 2010 (+2.911σ) and 2010 (+3.764σ) were both more than 2.9σ above the baseline. Put another way, during the 2000-2011 timeframe, summers with temperatures 2σ or more above normal are 14 times as common as those during the 1895-1999 period, while summers with temperatures 3σ or above are nearly 9 times as common as those during the 1895-1999 timeframe. Even the frequency of +1σ summers has nearly quadrupled, with 10 of 12 (83.3%) of years in the 2000-11 period having summers at or above that threshold.

How about cold summers? During the 1895-1999 timeframe, summers with readings 2σ or more below the baseline occurred in 8 of 105 (7.6%) of years while those with readings of 3σ or more below normal occurred in 1 of the 105 (0.1%) of years. Since 2000, there have been no summers with readings 2σ or more below normal. The last such summer was 1992. The last one before that was 1950. The coldest summer during the 2000-2011 period was summer 2004 with a temperature anomaly of 1.432σ below normal. The frequency of -1σ summers during the 2000-2011 period is less than one-third of what it was during the 1895-1999 timeframe.

[BNAwx]

If we are to stick to the peer-reviewed science, then what you have said here is a rationalization in defiance of that peer-reviewed literature and the consensus of scientific opinion.

The actual science informs us that nearly all of the warming since mid 20th century is due to mankind's activities.

I'm not defiant nor do I dismiss peer-reviewed literature; however, the peer-review process can be flawed, as suggested by the IAC regarding IPCC's processes. Perhaps the science is settled. We'll find out over time. However, I do think that people should be objective, step outside of the "peer-reviewed" box, and be open to differing viewpoints. There's a lot of good "non peer-reviewed" work being done as well. I realize this will fall on deaf ears to most but right or wrong, this is how I've approached the subject.