[blueash]

I emailed the study's lead author Dr. Claudie Beaulieu as follows: (email slightly edited)

Dear Professor Beaulieu

My interest and reason for emailing is simple. On our local community internet comment website your paper is now being cited as evidence that there is no human induced climate change, it is all just sun spots and the usual climate changes that occur over tens of thousands of years.

From the online discussion: ....

I would love a brief comment from you summarizing that such is not the conclusion to be drawn from you work and perhaps a sentence or two explaining to non-scientists how your work fits into the narrative that greenhouse gases are real (they even deny that) and that global warming is clearly being caused by increased greenhouse emissions.

Thank you "

and here is the reply :

"Dear ....,

Thank you for reaching out, and sorry to hear that our study is being misinterpreted on your community website. Clearly people using our study to deny climate change have not read it!

This UCSC news story will provide you with the quotes you need I believe.

Best wishes,
Claudie"

For those who don't do links
Global warming is happening, but not statistically ‘surging,’ new study finds

Key quotes from that news article from her university

For example, they identified that, for the year 2012, the rate of warming would have needed to increase by at least 55% before its trajectory could be statistically detectable in 2024—and therefore be called a “surge.” In another example, they show that a change in the warming rate of around 35% in 2010 would become statistically detectable by around 2035.

Although their findings show no statistical evidence that we are in the midst of a warming surge, Beaulieu emphasized that they aren’t refuting the reality of climate change.

“Earth is the warmest it has ever been since the start of the instrumental record because of human activities—and to be clear, our analysis demonstrates the ongoing warming,” Beaulieu said. “However, if there's an acceleration in global warming, we can't statistically detect it yet." 

“When coupled with other studies I've recently done, which include generally declining snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and changes in hurricane and tropical cyclone counts, the work shows that the Earth's climate is changing, and more often than not, the changes are bad for humans,” said co-author Robert Lund, professor and department chair of statistics at the UC Santa Cruz Baskin School of Engineering.

my bold added

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The difference between a doctor and God is;

To change the subject; it appears to not well educated me who by the way votes differently than you do, is that there has been great evidence presented to all of us that in fact that the atmosphere of this earth is getting warmer and causing a lot of problems.

I am not a person with a lot of letters after her name, but I am a pretty smart woman and the globe is warming.

The problem is that there isn't a precise and effective way to stop it that anyone on this earth knows about.

Sir.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is multi-fold:
1) there are people who adamantly deny that it's happening at all.
2) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, but adamantly insist that there's nothing anyone can do about it.
3) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, and then toss in the red herring that the problem is that no one can STOP it - as if that was the only possible option.

The fact is:

1. It's happening.
2. We are CONTRIBUTING to it, and not causing it. It'd happen whether we contributed or not, but we are, and that leads people to conclude that our contribution is the only thing we can address, which I am sure is true.
3. There are things we absolutely CAN do to slow it down. However, the attempt needs global participation and we can't even agree within our own country that it's something that needs to happen at all, let alone how. There's no way the entire planet will agree that it's a problem, we've contributed to it, and we can slow it down, and then take those steps to slow it down.

ALL of those things must happen. a) we have to ALL see that it's a problem. b) we have to ALL acknowledge that we contributed to it. c) we have to ALL agree that we can slow it down. d) we have to DO those things to slow it down.

If all 4 things don't happen on a global scale, then the entire argument is moot. Pray for the descendants of your great-great grandchildren. They'll be inheriting a damaged planet that can no longer recover, but could've been livable for another 10-100 generations if we had taken steps NOW to slow down the damage.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No, that's not the problem. The problem is multi-fold:
1) there are people who adamantly deny that it's happening at all.
2) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, but adamantly insist that there's nothing anyone can do about it.
3) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, and then toss in the red herring that the problem is that no one can STOP it - as if that was the only possible option.

The fact is:

1. It's happening.
2. We are CONTRIBUTING to it, and not causing it. It'd happen whether we contributed or not, but we are, and that leads people to conclude that our contribution is the only thing we can address, which I am sure is true.
3. There are things we absolutely CAN do to slow it down. However, the attempt needs global participation and we can't even agree within our own country that it's something that needs to happen at all, let alone how. There's no way the entire planet will agree that it's a problem, we've contributed to it, and we can slow it down, and then take those steps to slow it down.

ALL of those things must happen. a) we have to ALL see that it's a problem. b) we have to ALL acknowledge that we contributed to it. c) we have to ALL agree that we can slow it down. d) we have to DO those things to slow it down.

If all 4 things don't happen on a global scale, then the entire argument is moot. Pray for the descendants of your great-great grandchildren. They'll be inheriting a damaged planet that can no longer recover, but could've been livable for another 10-100 generations if we had taken steps NOW to slow down the damage.

I believe that what you just said is pretty close to what I just said,

Only I said it....

Gentler.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

You realize that would include golf course conditions and how long we have to wait b4 they open. 😱

And the ongoing dog poop crisis

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

And the ongoing dog poop crisis

Maybe we can get the white footed ants to eat the dog poop.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No, that's not the problem. The problem is multi-fold:
1) there are people who adamantly deny that it's happening at all.
2) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, but adamantly insist that there's nothing anyone can do about it.
3) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, and then toss in the red herring that the problem is that no one can STOP it - as if that was the only possible option.

The fact is:

1. It's happening.
2. We are CONTRIBUTING to it, and not causing it. It'd happen whether we contributed or not, but we are, and that leads people to conclude that our contribution is the only thing we can address, which I am sure is true.
3. There are things we absolutely CAN do to slow it down. However, the attempt needs global participation and we can't even agree within our own country that it's something that needs to happen at all, let alone how. There's no way the entire planet will agree that it's a problem, we've contributed to it, and we can slow it down, and then take those steps to slow it down.

ALL of those things must happen. a) we have to ALL see that it's a problem. b) we have to ALL acknowledge that we contributed to it. c) we have to ALL agree that we can slow it down. d) we have to DO those things to slow it down.

If all 4 things don't happen on a global scale, then the entire argument is moot. Pray for the descendants of your great-great grandchildren. They'll be inheriting a damaged planet that can no longer recover, but could've been livable for another 10-100 generations if we had taken steps NOW to slow down the damage.

Science is all about demonstratable empirical proof, from time to time other facts are determined that supplant that "proof" , I guess its neither here nor there but as I recall many years ago we were projected to be freezing, starving in the dark at this point and they had "proof"

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No, that's not the problem. The problem is multi-fold:
1) there are people who adamantly deny that it's happening at all.
2) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, but adamantly insist that there's nothing anyone can do about it.
3) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, and then toss in the red herring that the problem is that no one can STOP it - as if that was the only possible option.

The fact is:

1. It's happening.
2. We are CONTRIBUTING to it, and not causing it. It'd happen whether we contributed or not, but we are, and that leads people to conclude that our contribution is the only thing we can address, which I am sure is true.
3. There are things we absolutely CAN do to slow it down. However, the attempt needs global participation and we can't even agree within our own country that it's something that needs to happen at all, let alone how. There's no way the entire planet will agree that it's a problem, we've contributed to it, and we can slow it down, and then take those steps to slow it down.

ALL of those things must happen. a) we have to ALL see that it's a problem. b) we have to ALL acknowledge that we contributed to it. c) we have to ALL agree that we can slow it down. d) we have to DO those things to slow it down.

If all 4 things don't happen on a global scale, then the entire argument is moot. Pray for the descendants of your great-great grandchildren. They'll be inheriting a damaged planet that can no longer recover, but could've been livable for another 10-100 generations if we had taken steps NOW to slow down the damage.

Nothing you just said is a "fact"...

[davefin]

It's true. I challenge you to fact check your reaponse!

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No, that's not the problem. The problem is multi-fold:
1) there are people who adamantly deny that it's happening at all.
2) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, but adamantly insist that there's nothing anyone can do about it.
3) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, and then toss in the red herring that the problem is that no one can STOP it - as if that was the only possible option.

The fact is:

1. It's happening.
2. We are CONTRIBUTING to it, and not causing it. It'd happen whether we contributed or not, but we are, and that leads people to conclude that our contribution is the only thing we can address, which I am sure is true.
3. There are things we absolutely CAN do to slow it down. However, the attempt needs global participation and we can't even agree within our own country that it's something that needs to happen at all, let alone how. There's no way the entire planet will agree that it's a problem, we've contributed to it, and we can slow it down, and then take those steps to slow it down.

ALL of those things must happen. a) we have to ALL see that it's a problem. b) we have to ALL acknowledge that we contributed to it. c) we have to ALL agree that we can slow it down. d) we have to DO those things to slow it down.

If all 4 things don't happen on a global scale, then the entire argument is moot. Pray for the descendants of your great-great grandchildren. They'll be inheriting a damaged planet that can no longer recover, but could've been livable for another 10-100 generations if we had taken steps NOW to slow down the damage.

I agree with much of what you say. Global warming is happening. It has been since the last Ice age. So, without technology and hordes of people the word decided to warm. The glaciers that were comfortable over a good portion of the current US just decided to retreat and start to warm the planet, raise the ocean level.

That actually enhanced the opportunity of Humanoids to expand and develop our civilization.

But this all happened before the human influence. So now we start to blame humans for global warming. I agree that creating large metropolises can create heat sinks, burning down rain forests can cause a loss of cooling, chemical processes and fossil fuels can create possible impacts to the atmosphere that enhance global heating, but that is a consequence of the initial start of global warming.

Yes, we should do our due diligence to minimize our impact, but as you said it is happening.

But, let us not be stupid and initiate programs based upon hope rather than fact.

Expecting that the earth is still the master, we need to do smart things. Example, with the earth having rising oceans for more than 10,000 years, why should we expect change.

Is there any plan that we could establish that will definitely change the trend?

Climate trends can be caused by natural order. We need to continually adapt.

[Rocksnap]

If anyone still believes in global warming, I have a nice bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

[LoisR]

Nonsense. Just ask the Easter Bunny and Santa. Anyone can publish anything they want. What scientific group or university reviewed it and approved it for publication? Duh.

[CybrSage]

The big issue for many is that no one can say how much of the increase in temps is caused by humans. 1% or 99%?
How can we say something is increasing the temps if we do not know what the temp would be without the increase?
Not even a rough range is ever stated in any study.
The only amount I have ever actually read was something like "any possible increase by himanity is within the margin of error of the calculations".

[Ptmcbriz]

Here is the problem. For some reason there is a segment of our population that believe no matter what, humankind has zero
Impact on the earth with the billions of pounds of pollution we create. So apparently they think it’s fine to pollute, pollute, pollute. Common sense would tell you that you can’t continue to pollute your backyard and it continues to be pristine and beautiful. So, whether you believe in climate change or not, get on board to helping clean up the earth instead of continuing your dirty deeds that somehow will have zero impact on humanity. That’s what all this is about. Improving ourselves and leaving things better for our descendants.

[Margefrog]

Just published! Wow. Isn't that just amazing. Someone call the League of Nations.

[biker1]

While you cannot run a controlled experiment on the planet, we do know to a high probability that the anthropogenic increase in the global mean surface temperature anomaly is about 1C. Many people don’t understand the concept of time scales. If you don’t know what an FFT is then it may be hard to understand. The natural climatic variations are probably driven primarily from the 3 Milankovitch cycles, which have time scales of about 20K, 40K, and 100K years. Also, volcanic eruptions have played a part due to the release of CO2 and aerosols. The concern is not, and has never been, natural variations on those time scales. The concern is the rapid increase in observed temperatures over a timescale of 100-200 years and where we will be at the end of the century. We could be at 2-3C warmer by the end of the century. That is actually a lot. Presumably, we will have bent the CO2 emissions curve down by the end of the century, although the impacts will continue for some period of time. We know that increasing CO2 levels impacts the longwave radiative transfer budget and results in stratospheric cooling and lower tropospheric warming. These have both been observed. There are also some positive feedbacks such as warming the atmosphere through increased CO2 levels will increase the moisture content and that can further warm the atmosphere through additional impacts on the longwave radiation budget. Also, as the atmosphere warms the planet’s albedo can drop which impacts the shortwave radiation budget and can lead to further warming. There can also be some negative feedbacks; it’s a complex system. There is a substantial amount of literature available that goes into as many details as you would want. Unless you were trained as a scientist, you may have trouble understanding the material. AR6 is a good place to start. You can also start reading the JoC. The major “doom and gloom” fallacy I hear is that the world is going to end. The other fallacy is that anthropogenic warming is a hoax. The world is not going to end but there will need to be remediation efforts in coastal regions (due to both increasing sea levels and subsidence of the coastal plains). Some geopolitical issues will also probably arise as the warming, and the impacts, vary regionally. So, what can we do? Well, it turns out, not much. 80% of the world’s energy comes from hydrocarbons and that ship is hard to turn. I suspect we can make some progress by mid century but that means CO2 levels will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. In the US, we have little ability to impact anything. While the anthropogenic warming has geographical variations, CO2 itself is well mixed in the atmosphere, both horizontally and vertically. CO2 released in the US doesn’t stay in the US; it mixes globally. We only contribute about 15% of the world’s CO2. It really doesn’t matter what we do. US autos only contribute 3% of the world’s CO2. China and India are the long poles in the tent. If you have ever looked into the details of the Paris Accords you will be surprised at what is in there (and not in a good way).

Originally Posted by CybrSage

The big issue for many is that no one can say how much of the increase in temps is caused by humans. 1% or 99%?
How can we say something is increasing the temps if we do not know what the temp would be without the increase?
Not even a rough range is ever stated in any study.
The only amount I have ever actually read was something like "any possible increase by himanity is within the margin of error of the calculations".