Recent Comments

Prev  1008  1009  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  Next

Comments 50751 to 50800:

50751. noelfuller at 15:40 PM on 20 January 2013
       Ed Hawkins: Hiatus Decades are Compatible with Global Warming
       I fancy you might enjoy my lurching Bedford analogy based on Hansens use of the term standstill. Of course it can't be taken too far: When learning to drive I was one afternoon given the wheel of a 2 ton Bedford truck with an unbaffled tank of water on the back and instructed to drive it from Napier to Taradale. As I pulled out the water surged backwards, then forwards and so forth resulting in an uneven motion of the truck which I struggled to get control of. Ahead was a major intersection. A vehicle was approaching from the right. I clapped on the brakes but nosed onto the inersection with the water slopping forward over the cab. The car having dodged the truck, I tried to keep going but the wave was heading aft. The truck remained almost at a standstill with more traffic coming in all directions – then the wave started forward again with my foot still on the accelerator and the impulse of the wave, the truck rocketed across the remainder of the intersection to the surprise and consternation no doubt of the oncoming drivers. Eventually I got the hang of it. So if we label the wave in the tank ‘ENSO’, the road toward Taradale ‘Climate Change’ and paint ‘Rising Global Surface Temperature’ on the truck we have it. The wave in the forward direction is El Niño, the wave going aft La Niña. Perhaps the engine could be labeled ‘Fossil fuel Combustion’ and the exhaust ‘GHGs’. Hmm, what about the driver? – new video animation for skeptical Science?
50752. Doug Hutcheson at 13:55 PM on 20 January 2013
       CO2 is plant food
       Soilfertility @ 11, I am still puzzled by your comments. Where in points 1,3,4,5 and 6 in the list, is there a scientific error? You are the one asserting there has been a scientific mistake. No-one is disputing the rôle of soil impoverishment on plant growth. Exactly what error(s) are you claiming?
50753. Tom Curtis at 13:37 PM on 20 January 2013
       CO2 is plant food
       Soilfertility @11, you introduced your original comment by saying, "... consequences of declining soil fertility are incorrectly said to be caused by global warming." Your evidence of this is that certain predicted consequences of global warming are also predicted consequences of reduced soil fertility. You proceed to make the unjustified assumption that any observed feature that is predicted as a consequence of both global warming and of decreased soil fertility is in fact only a consequence of reduced soil fertility. Your argument fails at that point. Your assumption is unjustified. It appears to be worse, however. You point out that decreased soil fertility can result in increased floods and drought due to, respectively increased water runoff, and decreased water retention. You then simply assume the increased floods and droughts actually experienced are due to reduced soil fertility without providing evidence of that reduces soil fertility at the locations of said floods and droughts, or even checking rainfall figures to see if they have changed over time (they have). So not only do you assume that decreased soil fertility is the proper explanation without examining the evidence, you do so even when it is against the evidence.
50754. Tom Curtis at 12:58 PM on 20 January 2013
       Ed Hawkins: Hiatus Decades are Compatible with Global Warming
       Klapper @3, what percentage of 15 year trends cherry picked to have a record breaking EL Nino event in the start year had low trends? And what percentage cherry picked to stradle a record breaking El Nino at the start, and two very strong La Nina events at the end of the record? And why do we care about cherry picked short term trends when it has been repeatedly shown by different methods that once allowance is made for ENSO influences on temperature, the underlying trend continues unabated? The simple fact is that 15 year trends in temperature are scientifically uninteresting - but they sure make good politics.
50755. Soilfertility at 12:17 PM on 20 January 2013
       CO2 is plant food
       Hi Doug: I was commenting on numbers 1,3,4,5 and 6 in the list of "...the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general". I was not commenting on any topic on this thread. I thought comments were invited to made on the article itself. In the article I wrote for "The Bovine" titled, "Albrecht on Droughts and Soil Fertility" I have included references to where in Albrecht's papers I came across the evidence. I am not going to retype that article here. If you have any interest whatsoever in challenging the evidence provided by Albrecht you might just go and read the article and then tell me where I am wrong. Ignoring evidence does not refute it. I don't know the name of the person who wrote this article but the person's lack of knowledge of the consequences of declining soil fertility has resulted in the mistake of blaming more carbon dioxide in the air for consequences that are actually caused by declining soil fertility. In conditions of higher soil fertility there would be no need to plant trees and trees would grow better free from insect and disease problems and they would thereby do a better job of removing carbon dioxide from the air and they would make better firewood. If you knew that agriculture produces food for yield at the expense of its nutritional value, would you be concerned? If you would be concerned about this, that would give you another reason to wade through Albrecht's papers which would serve you better than wading through any post of mine.
50756. Klapper at 11:39 AM on 20 January 2013
       Ed Hawkins: Hiatus Decades are Compatible with Global Warming
       In the model world, how rare are months where the previous 15 year trend is less than 0.043C/decade, the current 15 year linear regression? To find out I downloaded a number of runs from CMIP5 for the same scenario used above(RCP6.0)for the parameter SAT. To start I chose the 3 "best" models for simulating ENSO according to Dessler 2011 (MPI, MRI and GFDL). However MPI didn't have a RCP6.0 run (yet) and I needed a better representation than just 3 models. So I added the model used in this post (CSIRO) plus 2 more from prominent institutions (GISS and Hadley). That gave me 5 model runs, not a lot but a start. Where there were multiple runs under RCP6.0, I used a random individual run. Source of the data was the KNMI Climate Explorer website. I ran a 15 year rolling linear regression by month for all 5 runs and found that 3.4% of months had a 15 year linear trend of less than 0.043C/decade, the current number. I used 15 years since that's what the graph above used (1998 to now). So while temperature growth "stand-stills" do happen in the model world they are certainly not common.
50757. Doug Hutcheson at 10:49 AM on 20 January 2013
       CO2 is plant food
       Soilfertility @ 9, you said

       I have come to the conclusion that blaming consequences of declining soil fertility on global warming is a scientific mistake

       I asked you for evidence that scientists have made such a mistake, but you have not produced any. Who, exactly, is making this "scientific mistake"? Where is your evidence? Without support for your allegation, it appears you have constructed a strawman argument. I am sure Albrecht makes some interesting points about soil fertility, but what precisely is the connection with the topic of this thread?
50758. Bob Loblaw at 10:18 AM on 20 January 2013
       Ed Hawkins: Hiatus Decades are Compatible with Global Warming
       Yes. I wonder if some of the people that think that the recent (non-significant) observational "trends" are meaningful also think that there are "unknown factors" causing "pauses" in the simulations, too.
50759. Albatross at 09:02 AM on 20 January 2013
       Ed Hawkins: Hiatus Decades are Compatible with Global Warming
       Now that is a great animated gif by Ed Hawkins, and it really illustrates the problem of cherry picking short windows of time and then making misleading claims about what they suggest for the future. Hey look, there are multiple "slowdowns"/plateaus in the future too, that must be good news for those in denial ;) They can be playing this game of seeking out stalls and claiming AGW has ended many decades from now. PS: My guess estimate was that the blue trace would, in the short term, exceed the red trace but that was wrong.
50760. DSL at 08:10 AM on 20 January 2013
       16  ^  more years of global warming
       Isn't there a paper on the "shift" in the AMO-GST relationship post 1960? You can see the emergence of the GW signal in the development of the lag between GST and AMO post 1960. Or am I hallucinating publications?
50761. DSL at 08:05 AM on 20 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       Oh, come on DB! The entertainment value . . . sigh. Maybe we should have a deleted comments thread--one that doesn't get aggregated into the "all comments" stream.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Patience. Such a thing is in development.
50762. Dikran Marsupial at 04:28 AM on 20 January 2013
       16  ^  more years of global warming
       @curiousd/ianC Tamino discussed AMO here, and makes the point that AMO may be the effect rather than the cause.
50763. IanC at 04:07 AM on 20 January 2013
       16  ^  more years of global warming
       curiousd, An issue with their analysis, IMO, is that the AMO index used is based on the North Atlantic sea surface temperature, which is not surprisingly highly correlated with global temperature change: Even though the AMO index is constructed by detrending the north atlantic SST, it is very likely that the nonlinear component of global warming signal is still embedded in the index. The issue is that when you use the AMO index as a regressor, you are potentially trying to use part of global temperature to explain global temperature, which exaggerates the role of the AMO.
50764. Klaus Flemløse at 03:43 AM on 20 January 2013
       Accumulated Cyclone Energy Questions and Answers
       It has been positive to read R. N. Maue's blog with easy access to data. However, I am somewhat surprised to read one of his conclusions of his paper, namely that R. N. Maue:“Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low”. Considering the fact that the tropical storms have only a small impact on ACE – approx. 12 %? - and it is common knowledge among climate scientists that the proportion of Major Hurricanes is growing, it is difficult to understand why R. N. Maue reaches his conclusion. He ought to have concluded: “The number of Tropical Storms has according to my analysis and in line with IPCC been decreasing and Major Hurricanes increasing. It is a paradox that we have not seen an increasing ACE.” Remember that scientists love paradoxes. Therefore R.N. Maue ought to be happy that I have appointed a paradox to him.
50765. citizenschallenge at 03:29 AM on 20 January 2013
       Accumulated Cyclone Energy Questions and Answers
       And how does the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) fit into this? Atlantic tropical cyclone (hurricane) activity, as measured by both frequency and the Power Dissipation Index (which combines storm intensity, duration, and frequency) has increased. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ And for discussion sake there's this: https://ams.confex.com/ams/90annual/techprogram/paper_165391.htm 18th Conference on Applied Climatology (5B.5) The misuse and misinterpretation of the ACE and PDI indices for hurricane energetics Angela M. Fritz, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA; and J. I. Belanger, J. A. Curry, and G. J. Holland "The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index and the Power Dissipation (PDI) Index are widely used as metrics to quantify seasonal hurricane activity both in the Atlantic basin and worldwide. It can be shown that both of these indices are based on inaccurate assumptions that lead to a misuse and misinterpretation of the resulting index. Towards advancing the indices of hurricane energetics that are associated with potential damage, we develop a new methodology for calculating an integrated kinetic energy (IKE) climatology. A simple, observation and dynamical – based radial wind speed model is used with the Extended Best Track dataset to calculate IKE for North Atlantic Hurricanes from 1988 to 2008. The method is evaluated against previous methods of tropical cyclone intensity analysis, and the results are compared to traditionally misinterpreted indices in terms of characterizing storm energetics and relating it to storm surge. It is shown that the traditional indices are inaccurate measurements of hurricane energetics, and the assumptions that they are based on are not valid." Session 5B, Topics in Applied Climatology II Tuesday, 19 January 2010, 1:30 PM-3:00 PM, B212
50766. JoeT at 03:17 AM on 20 January 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #3
       Thank you for putting together this round-up. I always find something interesting to learn. One thing I would point out --- in the article titled "Megadrought took long-lasting toll on Amazon rainforest" there is this quote from Sassan Saatchi, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the lead author of the paper: "Our results suggest that if droughts continue at five- to 10-year intervals or increase in frequency due to climate change, large areas of the Amazon forest are likely to be exposed to persistent effects of droughts and corresponding slow forest recovery," Saatchi said. "This may alter the structure and function of Amazonian rainforest ecosystems." I would point out that Ranga Myneni is a co-author on the paper. Myneni is the guy who Matt Ridley quotes in his Wall Street Journal article as saying that the increasing greening of the planet is half due to increased warming or rainfall and half due to carbon fertilization. All the more reason for someone to check with Myneni and see if his views were represented accurately.
50767. Philippe Chantreau at 02:15 AM on 20 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       I perused through Backslider's posts and I did not see a single real scientific reference. Plenty of rethoric with words such as "very", "unscientific", "qualified" and what not. No analysis, no peer-reviewed paper, nothing. How am I to take it seriously? I'll add that arguing Urban Heat Island when the temp records are across the entire country is a rather amusing stand. Ironic that this happens on a thread about denying reality.
50768. citizenschallenge at 02:08 AM on 20 January 2013
       Accumulated Cyclone Energy Questions and Answers
       It would be interesting if a future update of this post included a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of these two metrics and what they tell us. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Alternative Metrics of Tropical Cyclone Impact http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/ike/ Tropical cyclone damage potential, as currently defined by the Saffir-Simpson scale and the maximum sustained surface wind speed in the storm, fails to consider the area impact of winds likely to force surge and waves or cause particular levels of damage. Integrated kinetic energy represents a framework that captures the physical process of ocean surface stress forcing waves and surge while also taking into account structural wind loading and the spatial coverage of the wind. Integrated kinetic energy is computed from gridded, objectively analyzed surface wind fields of hurricanes now available in near real-time from the H*Wind web page http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/wind.html ~ ~ ~ 11/02/2012 Superstorm Sandy packed more total energy than Hurricane Katrina at landfall By Brian McNoldy ~ ~ ~
50769. curiousd at 01:49 AM on 20 January 2013
       16  ^  more years of global warming
       Technical Question on Zhou and Tung, J. Atm, Sci. vol 70, Jan 2013 pp. 3-8. Quite on topic, just out to academic libraries.. They do a regression analysis including the AMO and find this addition strongly reduces the rate at which the temp increases due to GHG. But they have data all the way back to 1850 and try only fits that are linear with time. Why should one even expect the GHG contribution is linear with time, especially over this long a time period? See their Fig. 4 to see problems that arise. If driven by CO2 temp increase is linear with respect to log to base two of COs concentration ratio, not linear with time and the difference will be pronounced if you go back to 1850. In my figure in comment 47 above, I get a good fit with a c.s. of 2.035 plus or minus .074. We should have, perhaps, a discussion about the Zhou and Tung paper.
50770. Bernard J. at 01:40 AM on 20 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       Backslider at #34:

       I might also remind you Tom that climate events do not constitute climate change.

       Even with the most generous of concessions, this is not true. A single climate event, if sufficiently extreme, can indicate a change in climate by simple fact of the nature of its extremity. And a particular trend in the nature of "climate events" can certainly "constitute" climate change. At #42:

       In my very logical opinion, a Stevenson box is the most unscientific contraption ever invented. I don't actually accept any of their readings as being close to accurate.

       With due respect, there is little that resembles logic in your opinion. 1) Stevenson invented the screen in 1864, and it was introduced into Australia in the 1880s, with almost universal use by the first decade of the 20th century. Therefore the use of the screen was prevalent before any appreciable signal from human-caused global warming. 2) Even if there was a warming bias resulting from a Stevenson screen (and as Albatross notes at #46 the bias is actually in the opposite direction), the nature of the bias in the temperature record would be consistent across time. And as the use of Stevenson screens pre-dates global warming, there is no change in the nature of the temperature record resulting from any bias - and certainly not in a warming direction. You may not accept the data obtained from Stevenson screens as "being close to accurate", but the data do not have any regard for your opinion. Even if a bias exists it is systematic, rendering your protestation moot. Interesting churning of a denialist meme though - I was unaware of this particular nonsense from Watts and Codling until you dragged it here.
50771. sauerj at 00:02 AM on 20 January 2013
       Skeptical Science and social media - Ask not what SkS can do for you, but what you can do for SkS
       I've put key graphs on my FB "Cover". I think this is a good way to advertise to friends key persuasive information. When they mouse over your profile picture, they will see this cover picture pop up. I've had one image in place now for several months; it would be better if I rotated through different pictures so to keep interest up. But, one issue is that to effectively show the whole picture requires cropping and re-sizing the image to 712(W)x260(H) pixels. This is a very wide & squatty image. This doesn't work for most of the graphs and yet still show a proportionally sized image. Not asking for a lot of work to issue 2nd set of images, but just laying this out as something to think about when generating these images.
50772. Soilfertility at 21:01 PM on 19 January 2013
       CO2 is plant food
       Hi Doug: I said that I have come to the conclusion that blaming consequences of declining soil fertility on global warming is a scientific mistake. I did not say that any scientist has ever written a scientific paper blaming the consequences of declining soil fertility on global warming. I am not aware of any global warming research scientist who has knowledge of the consequences of declining soil fertility that would allow his or her writing of such an paper. What lead to my coming to that conclusion was, as I suggested at the end of my post answering the question I posed, was my reading of papers left by the late soil scientist, William A. Albrecht, Ph.D. In his papers, Albrecht explains many consequences of declining soil fertility. Albrecht did not address global warming as he was dead before global warming became an issue. Around the middle of the last century, Albrecht explained how declining soil fertility was increasing the severity of weather hazards such as floods and droughts. He also explained that the soil fertility controls the erosion of the soil itself with lower soil fertility being the primary cause, not the wind or rain. With respect to CO2, the subject of the article above, he explains how the carbon dioxide dissolving in the rain creates a weak carbonic acid that is beneficial in increasing soil fertility by breaking positive ions necessary for life (such as calcium, magnesium and potassium) out of rocks that contain these elements when such rocks are still in the soil. This certainly suggests how to restore or increase soil fertility when parent rocks containing these minerals have been exhausted from the soil and soil fertility is necessarily declining. If you wish to read an article I wrote I titled "Albrecht on Droughts and Soil Fertility" you can read it here: http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/droughts-and-soil-fertility/ Hopefully it might inspire you to wade through Albrecht's papers which I think will serve you better than wading through a post of mine.
50773. skywatcher at 20:39 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       Well worth noting the utter lack of support for Backslider's claims, especially the allegations of impropriety made in the second paragraph of #42. In science, Backslider, we require evidence. You don't appear to have anything but your incredulity. A more measured take on Australia's heatwave comes from this informative article in The Conversation, written by the BoM, and published the morning before Sydney broke it's all-time high temperature record. Particular attention might be drawn to the ratio of high to low temperature records, and the ratio of night-time to daytime temperature records, consistent with the expected effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect. Others can probably highlight the links to studies showing how rural stations also show warming and are an integrl part of temperature monitoring. I'd like to draw attention to measures that cannot be attributed to UHI - the near-universal retreat of mountain glaciers, the melt in Arctic sea ice, the temperature of the lower troposphere, and the shifting poleward of species. The tough truth is, when conditions are right, heat records are much, much more likely to fall than cold records in our warming world.
50774. Doug Hutcheson at 16:51 PM on 19 January 2013
       Skeptical Science and social media - Ask not what SkS can do for you, but what you can do for SkS
       Excellent, John. Puts things handy for quick reference.
50775. John Cook at 16:48 PM on 19 January 2013
       Skeptical Science and social media - Ask not what SkS can do for you, but what you can do for SkS
       Note: I've just added icons in the SkS left margin linking to our YouTube channel and Pinterest page.
50776. Albatross at 16:05 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       Regarding the outrageous (and unsupported claim) made by poster "backslider" about Stevenson screens. The fact of the matter is that, if anything, Stevenson screens have a slight cool bias when compared against the reference instruments. From a World Meteorological Organization report. (conducted in Australia as it happens): "It has been recognised since the early part of the century (Koppen 1913) that the Stevenson screen impacts significantly on the temperature measured. Its large thermal mass results in a large thermal lag and as a consequence underestimates the maximum and minimum temperature. Despite this it remains a useful screen." Other field tests have made similar findings, see here for example. Stevenson screens are not the problem here, it is some people's ignorance and denial about global warming that is the real problem.
50777. Tom Curtis at 15:55 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       Backslider @41:

       "We have records since the first fleet in fact, kept by reputable scientists using well calibrated equipment and a far more sane method of measuring which is totally at odds with a Stevenson hot box."

       My, the joys of being a Sydney-sider and imagining that Sydney is all of Australia. Anyway, more importantly, name these "reputable scientists" and their scientific qualifications. You will in fact find that they are, in the early period, army or navy officers with a pro-forma interest in accurate temperature records using instruments of far inferior quality to those today.

       "Try sitting in your car in forty degree heat with the windows down - that's what a Stevenson box is like."

       Do you even know what a Stevenson Screen is? They are double louvred on all sides so that there is no impediment to passing breezes, and no possibility of accumulating heat through restricted convection. The proper comparison is sitting under an extensive wooden roof guaranteeing full shade but not restricting any air flow. I tire of you now. You have done nothing but regurgitate talking points from Jonova without any apparent understanding of what you are talking about. What is more, you are demonstratably making up claims to bolster your case with no knowledge of the relevant facts ("respected scientists", "explorers ... were scientists"). You are adding nothing useful this conversation except for those with a taste for the absurd.
50778. Tom Curtis at 15:42 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       Backslider @37: 1) You may not be able to get your head out of Sydney, but the rest of Australia can. We (those Australian's outside of Sydney) are talking about a heat wave not because of two very hot days in Sydney, but because of 46 individual maximum temperature records in Australia so far in 2013; and because of repeated Australian mean maximum temperatures at or near record levels. 2) The early explorers were not scientists, but ex-Navy or Army officers like Charles Sturt and Burke with the occasional surveyor like Wills. (And for non-Australian's, please read up on the Burke and Wills expedition to see just how absurd is this suggestion that because records were taken by explorers, they were taken with unusual competence.) Charles Sturt was, of course, very competent, but the suggestion that measurements made on thermometers packed and carried very day, then set up in an ad hoc fashion in tents or in the partial shade provided by eucalypt trees, and at an unknown distance from the ground should be more accurate than that provided by Stevenson Screened instruments is absurd. 3) I do not have to make a comparison between Stevenson Screened instruments and others. It has already been done:

       "In view of the implications for the assessment of climatic changes since the mid-nineteenth century, systematic changes of exposure of thermometers at land stations are reviewed. Particular emphasis is laid on changes of exposure during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when shelters often differed considerably from the Stevenson screens, and variants thereof, which have been prevalent during the past few decades. It is concluded that little overall bias in land surface air temperature has accumulated since the late nineteenth century: however, the earliest extratropical data may have been biased typically 0.2°C warm in summer and by day, and similarly cold in winter and by night, relative to modern observations. Furthermore, there is likely to have been a warm bias in the tropics in the early twentieth century: this bias, implied by comparisons between Stevenson screens and the tropical sheds then in use, is confirmed by comparisons between coastal land surface air temperatures and nearby marine surface temperatures, and was probably of the order of 0.2°C."

       See also here for comparisons between modern methods. I also know, as you obviously do not, that temperatures taken in the shade in poorly ventilated locations locations, or unusually close to the ground can exceed temperatures recorded in Stevenson Screens by up to ten or 15 degrees. That is why it is now law in Australia that you are not permitted to leave unattended children in parked cars. Poor house design in outback and subtropical Australia can easily result in internal temperatures several degrees above that found in neigbouring Stevenson Screened instruments, as indeed can internal temperatures in tents, particularly tents lacking a fly. @38, living in Mount Isa, I know from personal experience that the numbers of birds described as dying are way in excess of the carrying capacity of the land they are described as dying in. I also know that hyperbole is a favoured technique in Australian story telling. You do the maths. So many birds they snapped the branches of the trees, according to one account. Which makes a good yarn, and a better one when some (--snipped--) can't recognize when a yarn is being spun.
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) Inflammatory snipped.
50779. Backslider at 15:38 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       And yes JasonB, the equipment., even from the 1700's has been acknowledged as very accurate by very real modern day scientists.....
50780. Backslider at 15:30 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       @Jason - Let me be clear. In my very logical opinion, a Stevenson box is the most unscientific contraption ever invented. I don't actually accept any of their readings as being close to accurate. The biggest flaw with modern climatology is all the unscientific generalisation and adjustments being made, which ultimately are based only upon opinion. "Oh yes, I think we should deduct a degree or two here and perhaps add a couple over there". That, in truth, is what we have. A far better measure is to collate records only from areas that have not subsequently become urbanised. Then we would have a far clearer picture of the true situation. Then we would havesomething that I could regard as perhaps a little closer to scientific (except for Stevenson screens). Alas, we do not have that.
50781. Backslider at 15:24 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       @JasonB - Exactly where have I said that old temperature records are suspect? Or do you think that your "scientific" generalisation fits just because you want it to? Old records show global warming do they?.... I don't think so. They show a far hotter Australia way back in the 1700's
50782. Backslider at 15:22 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       "the first time that has happened since record keeping began in 1910" Since record keeping accepted by you began you mean. We have records since the first fleet in fact, kept by reputable scientists using well calibrated equipment and a far more sane method of measuring which is totally at odds with a Stevenson hot box. Try sitting in your car in forty degree heat with the windows down - that's what a Stevenson box is like.
50783. Doug Hutcheson at 15:20 PM on 19 January 2013
       CO2 is plant food
       Soilfertility @ 7, After wading through your post, I find you said

       blaming consequences of declining soil fertility on global warming is a scientific mistake

       Excuse my ignorance, but exactly which scientific papers are you referring to? I cannot recall ever hearing a scientist blame 'consequences of declining soil fertility on global warming'. It sounds suspiciously like a strawman argument to me.
50784. JasonB at 15:14 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       It's funny how old temperature records are considered suspect when they show warming, but are made by "scientists, using calibrated equipment which has been acknowledged as accurate" when they show high temperatures in the past. Anyway, my favourite is Darwin and the change that happened during WWII. :-)
50785. Albatross at 15:05 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       What has made this recent heat wave in Australia unusual is its scope in terms of the area affected and the duration, respectively. The latter was unprecedented in the record. From Dr. Masters' blog: "The nation's [Australia's] average high temperature exceeded 102°F (39°C) for seven consecutive days January 2 - 8, 2013--the first time that has happened since record keeping began in 1910. To put this remarkable streak in perspective, the previous record of four consecutive days with a national average high temperature in excess of 102°F (39°C) has occurred once only (1973), and only two other years have had three such days in a row--1972 and 2002." [Source] Expect much more, and worse, in the future folks.
50786. Soilfertility at 14:43 PM on 19 January 2013
       CO2 is plant food
       It seems a shame that apparently no one informed on global warming is also informed about declining soil fertility. As a result, consequences of declining soil fertility are incorrectly said to be caused by global warming. This article on CO2 is a good example. Depending on their protein requirement to be healthy, plants require a certain level of soil fertility. This soil fertility is based on the minerals necessary to support life. In low soil fertility the plants are primarily carbonaceous or high in carbohydrates with low protein content. As such, they are of little use to support animal life in health. As soil fertility is increased, the protein content of the plants is increased as a percentage of the dry matter and the carbohydrate content is decreased. This allows a greater density of animal life per acre. Plants being damaged by insects indicate malnourished plants that are growing in soil that cannot meet their protein requirements. Increase the soil fertility and you won't need to worry about insect damage. Adding NPK only to soil to increase fertility only creates an unbalanced soil that causes the grower to go back to the same guy who sold the grower the NPK for the poisons to treat the symptoms of the low soil fertility, i.e. the insects doing the damage, the weeds out competing the crop and the diseases the plants are getting. When it rains in conditions of high soil fertility, the top soil acts as a blanket allowing the rain to soil into the soil and thereby to gradually go down into the subsoil raising the water table. In conditions of low soil fertility the shallow surface top soil not only absorbs little water from a rainfall, it actually often seals the surface so that very little water penetrates during a rainfall and this runoff often causes erosion of the soil itself. Downstream the drainage from a large land area can often result in floods. Later in the year the complaint is about a lack of rainfall and high temperatures and the increasing severity of droughts. In droughts it is usual for the high heat to damage the protein of the plants more than the lack of water. If the plants are damaged but are not wilting, the problem is the heat, not a lack of water, i.e. corn firing in a drought. Wind or rain are necessary but not sufficient for soil erosion. The "dust bowl" is an example of a result of declining soil fertility. Where can someone learn about the consequences of declining soil fertility and perhaps, as I have, come to the conclusion that blaming consequences of declining soil fertility on global warming is a scientific mistake and we should direct our primary climatic ecological concern to the former, not the latter? "The Albrecht Papers" by the soil scientist, William A. Albrecht, Ph.D.
50787. Backslider at 14:24 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       @Tom - you might just sit down and take the time to actually look at the temperature records, rather than (-snip-). For example, Sydney has had two hot days this month and everybody is screaming "heat wave due to climate change". Tommy rot. (-snip-)? (-snip-). The explorers who took those measurements (and made those reports) were scientists, using calibrated equipment which has been acknowledged as accurate - (-snip-). You may be certain that their shade was a great deal cooler than the little hot box known as a Stevenson screen. I challenge you: Try it - put the two together and see just how much hotter the Stevenson readings are. (-snip-)
       Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped. Please stick to the science with less rhetoric. And please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy. Complaints about moderation are summarily deleted. Also, if you cannot maintain a civil tone in this discussion than further moderation will ensue.
50788. Tom Curtis at 14:10 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       Backslider @33 & @34: 1) I grew up in the outback (Mount Isa) so I know when accounts have been grossly exaggerated. The accounts of bird deaths are clearly so. Curiously, the accounts of bird deaths seem to include no deaths from heat alone. So, I'm not inclined to take sensationalized anecdote (they are after all reported in newspapers) over official records. 2) "In the shade" is a very variable quantity. Is it in the shade under a Morton Bay Fig, or under a Ghost Gum? The former provides full shade, while the later does not. Or perhaps it was "in the shade" in a tent house, in which case the maximum day time temperature recorded would have been well above that recorded in a Stevenson Screen. The point here is not that it has never been hotter in Australia. It may well have been, but without reliable records we cannot know. What we do know is that the first eight days of 2013 were all rated in the hottest 20 days since 1910, and that one of them was the hottest on record. We also know that that was not because of a lack of sea breazes or potential urban heat island effect in Sydney. You may be desperate to scrabble for any reason not to consider any implications of the recent heat wave. I prefer a more measured view.
50789. DSL at 14:08 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       Actually, backslider, Tom is pretty good with the critical thinking. You may want to check out this post. The SST animation suggests pretty strongly that the heat was hardly local. Your responses need to step it up a notch. Bring the data. The rhetoric is empty.
50790. Backslider at 13:33 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       I might also remind you Tom that climate events do not constitute climate change. You will find this to be the prevalent view among scientists. While some may indeed be new records, these will always be arguable and uncertain for a number of very good reasons, the primary reason being that many previous measurements, while at the same time describing horrific events such as animals dying, birds and bats falling out of the sky and many people perishing, were measured in the shade, not a little hot box sitting out in the sun as we now have with Stevenson screens.
50791. Backslider at 13:02 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       Well gee Tom, you present yourself as such a thinker. Let me remind you that when the real records were set, when birds and bats were falling out of the sky in their millions, we did not have the urban sprawl of Sydney's Western Suburbs... which is the prime source of extra heat on its way to Observatory Hill..... as explained by a qualified Meteorologist in Sydney itself. You can deny experts all you like, it does not prove anything.
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) All Caps (now removed) are a contravention of the comments policy. No more thanks.
50792. Tom Curtis at 12:38 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       Backslider @31, so your explanation of the new maximum temperature record at Dunedoo is the failure of sea breezes, and the temperature increase from the wind blowing across all those roads its 836 inhabitants have built? Presumably that is also the explanation for the new maximum temperature at Curtin Springs. And so on for all of the more than 34 new maximum temperature records set in Australian since January 1st. (More than 34 because M Hrerrera has not caught up with the new record at Observatory Hill on Friday). Perhaps you might want to consider that local geography cannot explain a national heat wave. Or that previous records set at Observatory Hill were also set when hot westerlies prevented the onset of sea breezes. Perhaps you might even want to consider that your desperaton to throw out the data shows clearly that the data refutes your (--snip--) views.
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) Inflammatory snipped.
50793. Andy Skuce at 12:30 PM on 19 January 2013
       Skeptical Science and social media - Ask not what SkS can do for you, but what you can do for SkS
       A number of us are already on G+ but we are not really organized there yet. John, I agree with you about Twitter. It's much more useful than I thought it would be and it's the best climate news feed I have got. I'm relatively new there and am slowly learning my way around. Your advice seems sound.
50794. Backslider at 12:10 PM on 19 January 2013
       2012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
       These so called "records" are pretty much meaningless, as are most temperature measurements. This was best put by a meteorologist with the Australian Bureau of Meteorolgy when commenting on Fiday's hot day in Sydney (which also broke supposed records): “Without a sea breeze it meant we had westerly winds billowing across the city, gathering heat off the roads and concrete buildings” Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/lack-of-sea-breeze-leaves-sydneysiders-to-bake-20130118-2cyre.html#ixzz2INO801Zd Nice to see a reasonable explanation for a change rather than all the (--snip--). Thus, whether its the highest recorded temperature or not, the fact that the heat is significantly increased by development puts paid to any argument that its particularly hotter than ever before.
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) Inflammatory snipped.

       Please note that record-breaking heat has increased, and will continue to increase, in frequency and severity, as the Earth warms further. This should be transparently obvious.

       Clearly other non-climate related factors (such as weather fluctuations) play a part in record-breaking temperatures too.
50795. Doug Hutcheson at 11:51 AM on 19 January 2013
       16  ^  more years of global warming
       Rob, I have noticed a trend where comments linking to SkS posts trigger the denier zombie hordes to reply with comments like "Skeptical Science is a religious activist site, run by spin merchants", or variations of that. To counter this, I have now taken to finishing my comments linking to SkS with this:

       Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com is an award-winning web site where scientific research is discussed in a civil manner and questions from ordinary yobs like me are answered intelligently. It is well worth a visit, if you are genuinely interested in the science behind AGW theory. (Cue the outraged bluster from contrarians, who will claim that a science-backed venue like Skeptical Science must really be an 'AGW religious site'. Sigh!)

       So far, this tactic has worked to prevent such follow-up zombie comments, but I wonder for how long?
50796. Tom Curtis at 11:31 AM on 19 January 2013
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       AlanSE @137: 1) Greenhouse effect: The explanation of the greenhouse effect at sierrapotomac.org is of poor quality, and will only confuse you if you are trying to understand it correctly. In particular, it describes the greenhouse effect as causing a greater absorption of heat. In fact, an increase in atmospheric CO2 would result in a greater increase in heat only while the Earth was not a radiative equilibrium. Once the Earth reached radiative equilibrium, there would be no further net gain in heat, but the greenhouse effect would still be enhanced relative to the condition with less CO2. It also says,"The heating of the earth due to the radiant heat of the sun is called the greenhouse effect", which is egregiously wrong. The radiant energy received from the Sun at the Earth's current albedo is 239 W/m^2. In the absence of a Greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth's surface would rise till it emitted 239 W/m^2, ie, approximately 255 degrees Kelvin (-18 C). A low IR emissivity would raise the temperature slightly; while a less than even temperature distribution across the surface would lower it. In practice, the second is the stronger effect so that the mean global surface temperature would be less than 255 K. As it happens, the Earth's global mean surface temperature is approximately 288 K (15 C). The higher temperature results in a much higher outward IR flux at the surface than the energy received from the Sun, and indeed, much higher than the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere. The difference between the outward flux at the surface and that at the top of the atmosphere is the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Trenberth et al (2010) give that difference as 156 W/m^2 (see diagram below), while Schmidt et al (2010) gives it as 155 W/m^2. It is very important that the IR radiation at the TOA is less than that at the surface only because greenhouse gases absorb outgoing IR radiation; and because those gases are cooler than the surface, so that when they emit IR radiation it has a reduced flux. It is also important to recognize that the TOA flux can only be smaller because energy absorbed by the atmosphere is also transferred to the surface. Without the energy transfer to the surface both the reduced flux at TOA, and the flux at the surface greater than solar radiation absorbed would violate conservation of energy. As it happens, the energy equations do balance (see diagram above). The energy transfer from atmosphere to surface is in the form of back radiation, but could be in another form and you would still have a greenhouse effect. 2) Atmospheric Window: You appear to be confused by the "atmospheric window". "Atmospheric windows" are frequencies within the electromagnetic spectrum in which there is almost no atmospheric absorption, so that radiation in the window can go directly from the surface to space (or vise versa). As can be seen in the modtran image below, there is an IR atmospheric window between wavenumbers 800 cm^-1 and 1000 cm^-1, and another smaller window around 1100 cm^-1. As it happens, about 40 W/m^2 escapes from the surface to space through these "atmospheric windows", but they should not be confused with the total radiation to space (236 W/m^2, most of which comes from the atmosphere) or with the atmospheric greenhouse effect. As noted in section one, the atmospheric greenhouse effect is the difference between the upward IR radiation from the surface and the upward IR radiation to space from the Top of the Atmosphere. Doubling CO2 concentration creates a radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2, ie, it reduces the IR radiation to space by 3.7 W/m^2. The reduced upward flux at the TOA creates an energy imbalance which warms the Earth until the imbalance ceases to exist. Ignoring all feed backs, that requires a warming of approx 1.1 C at the surface to accomplish; or in other words an increase in the upwards IR flux at the surface by about 6 W/m^2. Because equilibrium is reached (ignoring feedbacks), the upward IR flux at the TOA will have returned to 239 W/m^2, so a radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 will have caused a total change in the net atmospheric greenhouse effect of 6 W/m^2. In practice, the net change will be approximately two to three times that amount, with much of the increase attributable to the water vapour feed back. This may seem confusing, but only if you mistake radiative forcing, ie, the net change in TOA radiative flux before temperature adjustments with the net atmospheric greenhouse effect, ie, the difference between surface and TOA upward IR flux. Unfortunately, that is a mistake I made in my previous post @134. I apologize for any confusion I have caused as a result. 3) Increased CO2: Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere widens the large valley in outgoing radiation between 600 and 700 cm^-1 (see modtran graph above). To maintain equilibrium, the total area of the graph, which represents the total upward flux, must remain constant. Because the area is reduced near 600 and 700 cm^-1, it must be increased elsewhere, including in the atmospheric windows. As the upward flux in the atmospheric windows comes from the surface, this means the surface temperature must increase. Consequently your assumption that most of the warming would occur in the atmosphere (ignoring feed backs) is mistaken.
50797. ChrisJJ at 10:16 AM on 19 January 2013
       Skeptical Science and social media - Ask not what SkS can do for you, but what you can do for SkS
       Yes, I agree with pbjamm. I realise you can't do everything at once, but Google+ is quite large now, 500 million users to Facebook's 1000 million. G+ is still growing fast, FB is showing signs of struggling. At the very least set up an account before someone else takes the name. Do that now, today, right away. Come back and develop it later but secure the name now.
50798. John Russell at 09:32 AM on 19 January 2013
       Skeptical Science and social media - Ask not what SkS can do for you, but what you can do for SkS
       I was very sceptical of Twitter for several years, believing it was just used for inane chat. Then I spoke to someone who explained their use of it. I was intrigued; and not too long ago I signed up. I then discovered that in fact Twitter is whatever you want it to be. My approach is to focus, choose a range of complementary subjects to tweet about and don't be tempted to stray into areas where one group of your followers will be put off by what another group is discussing. As an extreme example; don't tweet about climate change and about your love of drag racing; or your belief in creationism and your support for abortion. You get the drift. Next; only follow people that discuss things you are really interested in and who are consistent (see para above). Following other people just because they've followed you is tempting but ultimately just clogs your in-box. Last; keep the standard of your tweets as high as you can. By which I mean original, interesting, informative and occasionally funny. You'll be rewarded with a good band of followers: quality not quantity. Hey, I've just 193 as I write, but they include 24 scientists; 31 journalists; 15 climate scientists; oh, and 3 people who are, let's say 'in denial' (one can't have everything). So jump on in if you've not tried already. The main benefit is that if something happens that's important to your interest areas, you'll hear about it within minutes of the news breaking. Who knows, you might be instrumental in making the news. If you have an original thought or stumble across some interesting info and tweet it (like I just did about this SkS post!), there's a lot of pleasure in seeing a top journalist or climate scientist re-tweeting it within seconds. So please follow me @JohnRussell40
50799. JoeT at 08:49 AM on 19 January 2013
       Ridley, Murdoch, and Lomborg Attempt to Greenwash Global Warming
       As a follow-up to my post above, I did a cursory search for papers by Myneni to see if he ever wrote anything suggesting that carbon fertilization is responsible for the greening of the planet as suggested by the Ridley article. I was unsuccessful in finding anything by Myneni, but I did find the following in a paper in which Nemani is a co-author regarding the western Amazon basin: "CO2 fertilization effects were evenly distributed over the course of an entire year, but NDVI did not show such an overall increase. Our results do not exclude the possibility that potential gains in productivity resulting from CO2 fertilization effects were not likely distributed to leaf production; however, we suggest that changes in climate rather than CO2 fertilization effects could explain the increasing trend in NDVI. Specifically, a positive trend in shortwave radiation and negative trend in cloud cover most strongly explain the corresponding increase in NDVI, as our simulations showed that these factors drove a simulated increase in NPP for the same months (from August to December) in which the increases in NDVI have been observed."
50800. pbjamm at 08:28 AM on 19 January 2013
       Skeptical Science and social media - Ask not what SkS can do for you, but what you can do for SkS
       Don't forget G+!

Prev  1008  1009  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  Next