ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming

by Dana Nuccitelli, via Skeptical Science.

Cherrypicking global surface air temperatures is one of the most common errors associated with global warming. In reality, a very small percentage of overall global warming goes into heating surface air temperatures, while approxiately 90 percent is absorbed by the world’s oceans (in totality, at all depths). Because many other factors influence surface air temperatures on short timescales, the data are noisy, and as a result it’s easy to cherrypick temporary flat periods to wrongly claim that global warming has stopped.

Here’s the average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green), with linear trends applied to the timeframes January 1970 – October 1977, April 1977 – December 1986, September 1987 – November 1996, June 1997 – December 2002, and November 2002 – November 2012:

However, climate contrarians are now more frequently shifting their cherrypicks to the relatively shallow layer of the oceans (the upper 700 meters). The average depth of the world’s ocean is nearly 4,000 meters, but the deeper the ocean layer, the more difficult it is to measure its temperature and heat accumulation.

Fortunately most ocean heat accumulation occurs close to the surface, but accounting for less of the deep ocean layers also means missing more global warming. The best ocean heat measurements are for the 0–700 meter layer, which accounts for over 60 percent of overall global warming. However, only considering ocean heat accumulation to 700 meters also means neglecting 30 to 40 percent of overall global warming.

Similar to surface air temperatures, the warming of the 0–700 meter oceans has slowed in recent years (since about 2003), which has made them a ripe candidate for cherrypicking. This was one of the key findings of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), in which we noted that while heat accumulation in the 0–700 meter oceans has slowed in recent years, at the same time it has accelerated in the 700–2,000 meter oceans.

Overall, there is no sign that the warming of the 0-2,000 meter oceans has slowed. In fact, they have accumulated more heat in the past 15 years than during the previous 15 years. Here’s data from the National Oceanographic Data Center, comparing ocean heat in the 0–700 meter layer and the 0-2,000 meter layers:

 

It should be no surprise that climate contrarians constantly ignore the accelerated warming of the 700–2,000 meter oceans, pretending that they simply don’t exist. In one recent example, a denialist blog disputed the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012) by showing the data below (also discussed in this post by Tamino at the Open Mind blog). It shows 0-700 meter ocean heat accumulation from NOAA PMEL using the methodology described in Lyman et al. (2010), with an arbitrary yellow line drawn in an effort to indicate slowed ocean warming:

The ocean heat content data used in Nuccitelli et al. (2012) and the previous graph are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) using the methodology described by Levitus et al. (2012), whereas the data in the graph immediately above are from the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) using the methodology described in Lyman et al. (2010).

The Levitus methodology fills data gaps with the averaged value of the available data, which has the tendency to underestimate any anomalies. The Lyman methodology infills the data gaps with anomalies from nearby grids. The end result is that Levitus is likely to underestimate any warming trend, as discussed in Lyman (2008). As a result, the data plotted on the denialist blog actually shows more 0-700 meter ocean warming than the data plotted in Nuccitelli et al. (2012). This is illustrated below, with 0-700 meter ocean heat content data from NOAA NODC (Levitus) and NOAA PMEL (Lyman) using the same baseline. The yellow arbitrary denialist line is shown, followed by the linear trends for 2003–2012 and 1993–2012 in red. Standard error bars are also shown:

Despite showing a larger ocean warming trend than Levitus, climate contrarians likely prefer the Lyman data because it does not include the ocean layers below 700 meters. However, even if we cherrypick this shallow ocean data and cherrypick 2003 as the starting point, the 0–700 meter ocean heat accumulation for 2003–2012 in the Lyman PMEL data is equivalent to 1.2 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second over the past decade. For 1993–2012, this rate increases to the equivalent of 3.7 detonations per second, and when including global heat accumulation in Nuccitelli et al. (2012) including the 0–2,000 meter oceans, the Earth has accumulated the equivalent of 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second over the past decade.

When we consider all the available data, it becomes quite clear that ocean and global warming continue unabated at a rapid rate. Cherrypicking cannot change that reality.

– This piece was originally published at Skeptical Science and was reprinted with permission.

Security

Rand Paul Launches Talking Filibuster: Demands Assurance Obama Won’t Use Drones Against Americans In U.S.

Senators Rand Paul (R) and Ron Wyden (L)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has long demanded a national conversation about President Obama’s claimed power to kill American citizens. On Wednesday, he took a big step towards starting one, using a rare “talking filibuster” to hold up the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA and deliver an extended critique of the targeted killing of Americans on American soil.

Brennan played a critical role in the development and codification of the Obama Administration’s targeted killing program, so his nomination has become a flashpoint for Paul and others worried about the scope of the powers claimed in it. Publicly released documents, particularly the infamous CIA white paper outlining the legal thinking behind the strike on American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, have not provided specific guidance on the territorial limits of the Presidential power to kill citizens. A more recent document, submitted to Congress by Attorney General Eric Holder, suggested that under “extraordinary” circumstances, such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11, the president could kill an American citizen on American soil. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Holder specifically admitted that killing an American in the United States would be inappropriate and unconstitutional if the individual did not pose an imminent threat.

Throughout his filibuster, Paul repeatedly said that he would be willing to move to a vote on Brennan’s nomination if the Obama administration translated Holder’s reply into a written response and stated that it did not believe that the executive branch could target and kill Americans on American soil in most instances.

Paul acknowledged that it was unlikely that Obama would launch a drone strike against someone sleeping in their bed, but demanded clarification of what criteria the administration had for conducting targeted killing. While he initially questioned the principles behind so-called “signature strikes” against suspected terrorists not currently fighting,” Paul later shifted his focus to whether tactics used overseas could be transferred to American citizens within the U.S.
Read more

Justice

AG Holder On Aaron Swartz Case: ‘Good Use Of Prosecutorial Disecretion’

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder commented on the prosecution of activist, programmer, and internet culture figure Aaron Swartz which ended with his suicide in January:

The Justice Department never intended for Internet activist Aaron Swartz to go to jail “for longer than a three, four, potentially five-month range,” Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee during an oversight hearing on Wednesday.

Calling Swartz’s January suicide “a tragedy,” Holder defended the Justice Department’s handling of the case, stating that looking at Swartz’s conduct and fashioning a potential sentence based on that conduct was “a good use of prosecutorial discretion.”

At the time of his death, Swartz was under indictment for a scheme to rapidly download documents from a database of scholarly articles with the intent to make those articles public. He faced a potential maximum sentence of several decades, but under sentencing guidelines would have likely only received “a few years” in prison if found guilty at trial.

As ThinkProgress previously noted, Swartz’ case is far from unusual — although it has received a great deal more attention than many similar cases due to Swartz Internet celebrity. Holder is no doubt telling the truth when he says the Justice Department did not intend for Swartz to spend more than a few months in jail, but it is difficult to imagine that Swartz was able to think rationally about whether or not to accept a plea bargain after reading a DOJ press release that used his named followed by the words “faces up to 35 years in prison.”

Guilty pleas resolved 97 percent of all federal cases the Justice Department prosecuted to a conclusion in 2011 — up from 84 percent in 1990.

Justice

Utah Lawmaker: Cockfighting Can’t Be A Felony Because Abortion Is Legal


Cockfighting is a barbaric activity where roosters specifically bred for aggression are placed in a ring and often forced to fight to the death. In many cases, the birds are loaded up with steroids, and sharp knives or other weapons are strapped to their legs in order to make them more deadly to their opponent. And yet, this brutal bloodsport cannot be a felony, according to one Utah lawmaker, because abortion:

In a state where we can still allow people to kill their babies, we want to make it a felony to let chickens fight for the purpose of which they were raised,” said Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden.

Christensen said cockfighting is not “beautiful” or “wonderful.” But the birds “naturally want to do this thing in their lives and we’re going to send their owners to prison for this, yet we allow people to go ahead and murder their unborn babies.”

Despite Christensen’s odd objection, the bill was preliminarily approved by a 17-11 vote. It will receive a final vote in the state senate later this week.

Health

Virginia Republican: It Can Be Better To Be Uninsured Than On Medicaid

Lt. Governor candidate Pete Snyder (R-VA)

Lt. Governor candidate Pete Snyder (R-VA)

Wealthy investor and Republican candidate for Virginia Lt. Governor Pete Snyder released a new campaign ad Wednesday criticizing bipartisan efforts to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. In the ad he suggests that poor Virginians might actually be better off uninsured than covered by the Medicaid program.

Snyder cites a study by “Jim DeMint and the conservative Heritage Foundation” to claim the expansion would cost Virginia “more than $900 million over the next eight eight years alone” — a figure that even Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R) administration disputes. He then warns:

It gets worse. Along with the unprecedented spending, President Obama’s “free money” will force more and more Virginians into Medicaid, a costly program that we all know desperately needs reform. Cause get this: In some cases it hurts the very people it’s meant to help. In fact, a University of Virginia study showed in some cases it’s actually better to be uninsured than to be on Medicaid.

The ad offers no citation for this claim, but attributes the text “increased risk of adjusted mortality” to the University in general.

Watch the video:

In a guest post on the conservative Virginia blog Bearing Drift, Snyder identifies the study in question: a 2010 report by UVA doctors and others. (Snyder also elevates the suspect $902 million price tag claim to “$902 billion,” in an apparent typo in that post.)

That study merely found that — by a difference within the margin of error — Medicaid patients had a fractionally higher in-hospital mortality rate after major surgery than uninsured Americans did between 2003 and 2007. Even with Snyder’s heavy caveats, this does not match his claim. Given that those without insurance during that period were often young and healthy people — and were, by definition, wealthier than those who qualified for Medicaid coverage — it is to be expected that the poorest Americans might have slightly worse medical outcomes.

Moreover, those on Medicaid get good medical care. It provides cost-efficient coverage for lower-income patients who “face elevated health risks” and offers a broad range of services, “including preventive care and special services needed by those with disabilities or other chronic conditions” — at levels “comparable to access provided under private health insurance and far better than access available to the uninsured.” In fact, a study by the Government Accountability Office showed Medicaid beneficiaries were just as happy with their health care as those with private insurance.

Snyder, who claims in the ad to be an “entrepreneur” and “not a career politician,” has been a longtime political operative, working as a Fox News contributor and as senior political director for Republican pollster Frank Luntz, a key leader in the Republican opposition strategy during the Obamacare debate.

Alyssa

Rand Paul’s CIA Filibuster And ‘Iron Man 3′s Fantasy Of Tony Stark As The Ideal Drone

Inspired by Teju Cole, who has begun writing microfictions that make famous literary characters the target of drone strikes, and Bones‘ recent episode in which a terrorist hacked a drone and aimed it at an Afghan girls’ school, I’ve been thinking a great deal recently about the depictions of remote killing devices in our culture, popular and otherwise. And when I saw the trailer for Iron Man 3, I was struck by an idea: is Tony Stark so compelling to us because he and his Iron Man suits are a fantasy of the way that drone warfare is actually supposed to work?

It’s an idea that’s heightened by the idea, clearly suggested by the trailer, that Tony has gone from dissing Congressional committees to working directly for a President of the United States who’s been elected almost solely on a platform of aggressive action in defense of American security. The question of how superheroes would be regulated or controlled has been an open one around the edges of many of the movies in The Avengers franchise. Joss Whedon’s movie suggested that there was some sort of intergovernmental council in charge of making decisions about superhero deployment, but it was also clear that Nick Fury had the ability, if not the authority, to shrug off their decisions. Iron Man 3 looks like it will tackle Stark’s work for the president much more directly.

And what is it that Tony Stark does for the President? His primary job is to hunt down a terrorist called the Mandarin, and to prevent him from causing more damage to American interests. In pursuit of that goal, Tony swoops in to save people who have been blown out of jets by the Mandarin. As we’ve seen since the first movie, he also appears out of the sky, suddenly and without much warning, much like a drone, to kill people. Except, and this is where the fantasy comes in, he’s got targeting technology that means he can shoot just villains, rather than their victims, even if they’re being held hostage. With Iron Man technology, you don’t have to worry about obliterating a wedding party or killing American teenagers. The person piloting the technology, Tony Stark himself, is both directly in the war zones where he kills people on behalf of the government, so he can make decisions based on information he’s seeing in person, rather than from behind computer monitors, a remove that hasn’t prevented real-life drone pilots from getting burned out or diagnosed with PTSD. But unlike, say, the SEAL team that we sent in to kill Osama bin Laden, and no matter how many times we see Tony pull off his face mask and look dazed, as Iron Man he’s not really at physical risk: both the franchise and our dream of his capabilities demand it.
Read more

LGBT

Colorado House Finance Committee Advances Civil Unions

The Colorado House Finance Committee met today to hear the legislation for civil unions. It passed 7-6 along party lines, with all six Republicans on the committee voting against it. Once again, Republicans attempted to add an amendment that would allow Catholic Charities to discriminate against same-sex couples in its adoption services, even implying that it functions as a government entity, but the amendment failed. Last year, Catholic Charities testified that it would shut down whether it had exemptions or not. The bill advances to one more committee later this week — House Appropriations — before it can proceed to the House floor for a vote.

Climate Progress

(Mis)Understanding Sea-Level Rise And Climate Impacts

Cross-posted from National Geographic

One of the most important and threatening risks of climate change is sea-level rise (SLR). The mechanisms are well understood, and the direction of changes in sea-level is highly certain – it is rising and the rate of rise will accelerate. There remain plenty of uncertainties (i.e., a range of possible outcomes) about the timing and rate of rise that have to do with how fast we continue to put greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the responses of (especially) ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, and the sensitivity of the climate.

Even little changes can have big consequences. As we saw with Superstorm Sandy, where extremely severe weather was combined with a very high tide, on top of sea levels that have risen six to nine inches over the past century, even a little bit of sea-level rise around the world has the potential to cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damages and the displacement of millions of people.

The Pacific Institute, among many other organizations, has been working to understand and evaluate the nature of the threat of sea-level rise and the risks posed to coastal populations, property, and ecosystems. In 1990, a colleague and I published the first detailed mapping and economic assessment of the risks of sea-level rise to the San Francisco Bay Area, looking at populations at risk, the value of property in new flood zones, and the costs of building some kinds of coastal protection (“adaptation”) to protect higher valued assets. That early report can be found here.

Then, in 2009 and 2010, the Pacific Institute, with funding from the State of California, conducted a detailed, high-resolution mapping analysis of the entire coast from Oregon to Mexico. We analyzed a set of sea-level rise scenarios developed by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and worked with the California Energy Commission, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Ocean Protection Council, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US Geological Survey, FEMA, and others to evaluate the risks to people, property, transportation infrastructure, ecosystems, power plants, wastewater treatment plants, and more, should those scenarios of sea-level rise happen. The full peer-reviewed report, the high resolution maps, specialty maps, and all open source GIS data can be publicly downloaded here. (A peer-reviewed journal article was also published.) That analysis suggests coastal regions are highly vulnerable to even modest sea-level rises with hundreds of thousands of people and more than a hundred billion dollars of infrastructure already in zones at risk of future flooding.
Read more

Economy

Attorney General Says That The Nation’s Biggest Banks Are Too-Big-To-Jail

Both Democrats and Republicans have raised criticism of the Justice Department’s leniency when it comes to the prosecution of Wall Street banks for their roles in the housing crisis and financial collapse that sparked the Great Recession. But today, Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the very size of those banks is what inhibits prosecution, Bloomberg reports:

Criminal charges against a bank — something that could threaten its existence — may also endanger the national or global economies in the case of the largest ones, because of their size and interconnectedness. That has “made it difficult for us to prosecute” some of those institutions, Holder said today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“That is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large,” Holder told lawmakers. “It has an inhibiting impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate.

The six largest Wall Street banks have grown exponentially in recent decades and now hold assets worth more than 60 percent of the American economy. But despite widespread fraud, discrimination, and other predatory acts during and after the recent crises, the banks have largely escaped prosecution, drawing the ire of both Democratic and Republican senators.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) renewed their calls to break up banks in Senate speeches last week, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) challenged regulators on the lack of prosecutions in a Banking Committee hearing in February. Brown and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) wrote a letter to the Justice Dept. alleging that banks have become “too big to jail,” and Grassley has criticized the banks for having a “get out of jail free” card.

Financial prosecutions reached a 20-year low in 2011, as regulators and the Justice Dept. chose instead to settle claims with large banks over mortgage and foreclosure fraud and other scandals. But those settlements have been rife with problems, as banks have found different ways to game the settlements to their advantage.

Update

In a statement to Politico after the hearing, Grassley repeated his “get out of jail free card” claim and criticized Holder for the Justice Department’s “passivity” in prosecuting banks:

“The attorney general recognized that in effect, the big banks and their senior executives have a get-out-of-jail-free card,” said Grassley, the top Republican on the panel. “After hearing today’s testimony, big bankers know that if they commit financial crimes, they can expect a passive response from the Justice Department.”

Health

Everything You Need To Know About Arkansas’ New Abortion Ban, The Strictest In The Nation

Arkansas lawmakers have voted to override Gov. Mike Beebe’s (D) veto of a 12-week abortion ban, ensuring that the legislation will go into effect this spring. SB 134 represents the worst abortion restriction in the nation — cutting off women’s access to legal abortion services well before the point of viability, which is typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy — and it is the first “fetal heartbeat” abortion measure to go into law. Here’s everything you need to know about this egregious attack on Arkansas’ women’s reproductive rights:

1. The governor vetoed it because it is unconstitutional. Earlier this week, Beebe vetoed the bill because, as he explained, banning abortion at 12 weeks “blatantly contradicts the United States Constitution.” Under Roe v. Wade, women have a constitutionally protected right to legal abortion services until the medically accepted point of viability. But under Arkansas law, legislatures can override their governor’s vetoes with a simple majority vote in each chamber, and that’s what happened this week.

2. This isn’t the first stringent abortion ban that Arkansas Republicans have forced past the governor. Just last week, lawmakers voted to override Beebe’s veto of a 20-week “fetal pain” abortion ban, ensuring the measure would immediately become law. Beebe also rejected that legislation over concerns about undermining Roe v. Wade, and the American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue if it went into effect. But that wasn’t enough to stop Arkansas Republicans — and that wasn’t enough to stop them from pushing for an even stricter 12-week abortion ban to supersede the 20-week ban, either.

3. “Fetal heartbeat” bans aren’t rooted in any scientific logic. “When there is a heartbeat there, you have a living human being,” the bill’s sponsor, State Sen. Jason Rapert (R), told the Associated Press to justify his support for the policy. But there’s no reason to ban abortion procedures after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Heartbeat measures are simply a dangerous attempt to redefine the medical terms of pregnancy and roll back women’s right to abortion on a state level.

4. Arkansas is now home to the worst abortion ban in the country. Radical heartbeat bills popped up in states around the country at the beginning of this legislative session, but Arkansas and North Dakota are the only states to successfully advance heartbeat measures — and Arkansas is the very first state to actually enact one into law. The original version of the bill sought to ban abortions after just six weeks, and Rapert ended up amending it after a massive outcry. But pushing back the deadline by six weeks is hardly an improvement. Banning abortion services at just 12 weeks still goes much further than the 20-week bans abortion bans on the books in seven other states, making Arkansas’ law the strictest in the nation.

5. Republicans are fully aware they’re inviting a host of legal challenges. Several advocacy groups, including the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights, have already threatened legal action against Arkansas if the state moves forward with the heartbeat measure. When the governor vetoed both the 20-week and 12-week abortion bans, he indicated he would rather avoid the court battles those measures would bring — particularly since two other states are currently engaged in legal fights over their own 20-week bans. But Arkansas Republicans, who won back both chambers of the legislature in the 2012 election, have been so eager to advance their anti-abortion agenda that they simply don’t care.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up