Recent Comments

Prev  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  Next

Comments 51351 to 51400:

51351. Andreas at 02:43 AM on 3 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       The Financial Post article also contains a claim that "The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion." This doesn't seem like a correct reading of the NOAA report. The claim from NOAA seems to be that an _observed_ 16-year trend of zero (or negative) warming would deviate statistically from the model. The FP article claims instead that any trend non-significantly different from zero (no matter how positive) invalidates the model. That is something quite different, and in the denialist's favour. (the NOAA report is linked from the FP article. See p23-24 in the report.)
51352. John Hartz at 01:46 AM on 3 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       @Bob Tisdale: You have not responded to the question I posed to you in #121. For everyone's convenience, I will repost it here. Do you believe the following graph to be a valid representation of Jan-Oct global land & and surface temperature anomalies with respect to the 1961-1990 base period for calendar years 1950 through 2012? Source: 2012: Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt, Multiple Extremes and High Temperatures, WMO Press Release No 966, Nov 28, 2012
51353. DSL at 01:22 AM on 3 December 2012
       Climate's changed before
       Dan, you're right: if we de-funded the education system, life would be simpler. We'd all believe whatever our priests told us, we'd have much shorter lifespans, and most of us would be in the ag industry (and not as property owners). We would not be swilling down Nut Browne Ale in a Public House in Merry Olde Englande. Actually, we'd probably all be dead. If AIDS had developed in 1400 instead of the 1970s, it would have been much worse. And children? What was the global child mortality rate in 1700? What's the point of all the scare-mongering? Think of the children. You clearly are not. In Europe, the Little Ice Age represented a .5C-.8C drop in temp (from the Medieval Climate Anomaly). It was not pleasant for the children of Europe. Rapid climate change is never pleasant for children, because it usually puts a strain on food supply. Why, you might wonder, did humans evolve agricultural civilization over the past 10k years instead of some other 10k year period? It's not like we haven't been smart enough. Indeed, a recent study concluded that we've become worse at problem solving over the last 10k years. So what was it? Try climate stability. The Holocene has been remarkably stable, as interglacials go. Human cultural memory, in fact, assumes a stable climate. There are no representations of persistent instability of the type that occurred during glacial periods and previous interglacials. We assume a stable climate. We have trouble imagining anything else. Even when we imagine it--with the help of science even--it's still so unreal that we can't imagine the full range of everyday consequences. Writers have tried. We're going to get persistent instability for quite a while, dan. If we de-fund education, then we de-fund the means of thinking through the persistent change. You perhaps imagine a world where we drop back and rely on conventional wisdom with regards to the weather and agriculture. No. Weather is changing, and it is not changing from one regime to another. It is persistent change. All systems are changing: climate is everywhere. If you de-fund education, you blind the world just as it is walking across a period that, metaphorically, is the top surface of a glacier. Of course, we may be blind already, since the "brains" of the world, the political guidance, do not believe their "eyes." Oh, and dan, imagine living your life according to the comet theory: at any point, a stray bullet could come through the window and kill you. Why do anything? Why post your comment?
51354. Bob Tisdale at 01:06 AM on 3 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       Skywatcher says at 138: “To date I have not seen you directly tackle these absolutely crucial questions, despite several of them being asked on this thread.” I believe I’ve answered your questions. Please review my comments on this thread, including the ones I posted while you were writing yours. As opposed to my answering your questions by cutting and pasting those comments, here’s a link to a video that also answers all of your questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmjaNO5DD_Q
       Moderator Response: [Sph] I'm sorry, but no, they have not been answered, and they are simple, straightforward questions that deserve simple, straightforward and clear answers.
       
       I think Skywatcher's request deserves a non-evasive response (a link to an hour long video is hardly a response to a question).
       
       I would suggest, for clarity, posting one comment for each question, and sticking to the question being addressed, to avoid any confusion. Please answer the questions directly and succinctly.
51355. Bob Tisdale at 00:49 AM on 3 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       

       At comment 107, Composer99 quoted one of my earlier comments: “Are you aware that the global oceans can be divided into logical subsets which show the ocean heat content warmed naturally?”

       Composer99 replied, “No, they can't. Ocean heat has to come from somewhere.”

       Apparently you have never divided OHC data into subsets, because if you had, you would not make such a statement. Dividing the oceans into subsets shows the ocean heat comes from somewhere, but it’s not CO2.

       For the sake of discussion, I’m going to borrow some graphs from an upcoming post. Here’s a comparison graph of Global ocean heat content and the ocean heat content for the Pacific Ocean north of 24S, which captures the tropical Pacific and the extratropics of the North Pacific (24S-65N, 120E-80W). The Pacific OHC (North of 24S) shows similar but somewhat noisier warming. That is, the decadal variations are similar. The warm trend of the Pacific subset is about 72% of the global trend, but that’s to be expected since the excessive warming of the North Atlantic OHC skews the global data. All in all, both datasets give the impression of a long-term warming that’s somewhat continuous. People might assume the warmings of both datasets were caused by CO2.

       We’re going to separate the tropical Pacific (24S-24N) from the extratropical North Pacific (25N-65N), looking at the tropical Pacific first, but that requires a brief overview of how La Niña events produce the warm water that fuel El Niño events.

       El Niño and La Niña events are part of a coupled ocean-atmosphere process. Sea surface temperatures, trade winds, cloud cover, downward shortwave radiation (aka visible sunlight), ocean heat content, and subsurface ocean processes (upwelling, subsurface currents, thermocline depth, downwelling and upwelling Kelvin waves, etc.) all interact. They’re dependent on one another. During a La Nina, trade winds are stronger than normal. The stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover, which, in turn, allows more downward shortwave radiation to enter and warm the tropical Pacific.

       If you’re having trouble with my explanation because it’s so simple, refer to Pavlakis et al (2008) paper “ENSO Surface Shortwave Radiation Forcing over the Tropical Pacific.” Note the inverse relationship between downward shortwave radiation and the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region in their Figure 6. During El Niño events, warm water from the surface and below the surface of the West Pacific Warm Pool slosh east, so the sea surface temperatures of the NINO3.4 region warm, causing more evaporation and more clouds, which reduce downward shortwave radiation. During La Niña events, stronger trade winds cause more upwelling of cool water from below the surface of the eastern equatorial Pacific, so sea surface temperature to drop in the NINO3.4 region, in turn causing less evaporation. The stronger trade winds also push cloud cover farther to the west than normal. As a result of the reduced cloud cover, more downward shortwave radiation is allowed to enter and warm the tropical Pacific during La Niña events.

       To complement that, here’s a graph to show the interrelationship between the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region and cloud cover for the regions presented by Pavlakis et al.

       That discussion explains why the long-term warming of the Ocean Heat Content for the tropical Pacific was caused by the 3-year La Nina events and the unusual 1995/96 La Niña. First, here’s a graph of tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content. It’s color coded to isolate the data between and after the 3-year La Niña events of 1954-57, 1973-76 and 1998-2001. Those La Niña events are shown in red. Note how the ocean heat content there cools between the 3-year La Niña events. Anyone who understands ENSO would easily comprehend how and why that happens. It’s tough to claim that greenhouse gases have caused the warming of the tropical Pacific when the tropical Pacific cools for multidecadal periods between the 3-year La Niñas, Composer99.

       As you can see, the warming that took place during the 1995/96 La Niña was freakish. Refer to McPhaden 1999 “Genesis and Evolution of the 1997-98 El Niño”.

       McPhaden writes:

       For at least a year before the onset of the 1997–98 El Niño, there was a buildup of heat content in the western equatorial Pacific due to stronger than normal trade winds associated with a weak La Niña in 1995–96.

       Based on the earlier description, that “build up of heat content” resulted from the interdependence of trade winds, cloud cover, downward shortwave radiation and ocean heat content. Simple. As you can see in the above graph, the upward spike caused by the 1995/96 La Niña skews the trend of the mid-cooling period, and if we eliminate the data associated with it and the 1997/98 El Niño, then the trend line for the mid-period falls into line with the others.

       So far, there’s no apparent AGW signal.

       Let’s move on to the extratropical North Pacific. That dataset cooled significantly from 1955 to 1988, more than 3 decades. Where’s the CO2 warming signal there, Composer99? Then in 1989 and 1990, there was an upward shift. It’s really tough to miss, because the North Pacific was cooling before the sudden 2-year warming and then it warmed after it. As you’ll note, the cooling trend before the shift is comparable to the warming trend after it. BUT, big but, the cooling period lasted for 34 years, while the warming period only lasted for 22 years. That means the North Pacific (north of 24N) would have cooled since 1955 if it wasn’t for that 2-year upward shift.

       In summary, the ocean heat content data for the Pacific Ocean north of 24s (the initial graph)  gives misleading impression of a relatively continuous warming; it’s misleading because, when the data is broken down into two logical subsets, tropics versus extratropics of the North Pacific, the data clearly shows that factors other than greenhouse gases were responsible for the warming.

51356. skywatcher at 00:42 AM on 3 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       Bob, in all your focus on one region of the Earth, you have apparently neatly dodged important questions with relation to global warming and your unusual conjectures: 1: Where's the heat coming from? The oceans, globally, are warming, the atmosphere is warming, and yet the Sun is not getting any brighter. What's your energy source? 2: What's the physical mechanism involved, if it's not the rise in greenhouse gases? Sloshing water about the oceans does not appear adequate if the oceans, as a whole, are warming. 3: Why is this mechanism unidirectional, when ENSO is oscillatory? 4: Assuming that a new unidirectional process must be a recent or temporary occurrence, otherwise we would have boiled or frozen awfuly quickly ... Why is your proposed physical mechanism a recent occurrence, when ENSO has been around for millennia, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years? 5: Why is the well-understood mechanism of an enhanced greenhouse effect from long-lived GHGs not operating according to their physics, despite this physics neatly explaining both present climate and palaeoclimate changes? To date I have not seen you directly tackle these absolutely crucial questions, despite several of them being asked on this thread.
51357. Bob Tisdale at 00:41 AM on 3 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       

       IanC says at 120: “Seriously, do you see yourself being wrong on the issue? do you see a possibility that your analyses are wrong?”

       IanC, with respect to my understanding of ENSO, I have investigated, discussed, illustrated, and animated the process of ENSO and its effects on global surface temperatures, ocean heat content and lower troposphere temperatures for almost 4 years. I have presented the effects of ENSO on sea surface temperature, sea level, ocean currents, ocean heat content, depth-averaged temperature, downward shortwave radiation, warm water volume, sea level pressure, cloud amount, precipitation, the strength and direction of the trade winds, etc. I have presented the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO on sea surface temperature, land-plus-sea surface temperature, lower troposphere temperature and ocean heat content data. I have created numerous animations. Everything I’ve investigated confirms my understanding of ENSO and its long-term effects.

       ENSO is a process. It cannot be accounted for by an ENSO index. Compo and Sardeshmukh (2010) “Removing ENSO-Related Variations from the Climate Record” seems to be a step in the right direction. They write (my boldface):

       An important question in assessing twentieth-century climate is to what extent have ENSO-related variations contributed to the observed trends. Isolating such contributions is challenging for several reasons, including ambiguities arising from how ENSO is defined. In particular, defining ENSO in terms of a single index and ENSO-related variations in terms of regressions on that index, as done in many previous studies, can lead to wrong conclusions. This paper argues that ENSO is best viewed not as a number but as an evolving dynamical process for this purpose.

       Compo and Sardeshmukh have not accounted for the left over warm water associated with major El Niño events, like the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niños. In time, maybe they will.

51358. Bob Tisdale at 00:35 AM on 3 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       

       John Hartz says at 123: “Please explain in one or two succinct paragraphs why you do not agree with the above statement.”

       Easy to do. I’ll cut and paste my opening comment on this thread, where the East Pacific data agrees with the WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud’s quote, but the Rest-Of-The World data does not:

       The East Pacific Ocean (90S-90N, 180-80W) has not warmed since the start of the satellite-based Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature dataset, yet the multi-model mean of the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) simulations of sea surface temperatures say, if they were warmed by anthropogenic forcings, they should have warmed approximately 0.42 to 0.44 deg C. Why hasn’t the East Pacific warmed?

       The detrended sea surface temperature anomalies for the Rest of the World (90S-90N, 80W-180) diverge significantly from scaled NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies in 4 places. Other than those four-multiyear periods, the detrended sea surface temperature anomalies for the Rest of the World mimic the scaled ENSO index. The first and third divergences are caused by the eruptions or El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo. Why does the detrended data diverge from the ENSO index during the 1988/89 and 1998/99/00/01 La Niñas? According to numerous peer-reviewed papers, surface temperatures respond proportionally to El Niño and La Niña events, but it’s obvious they do not.

51359. Bob Tisdale at 00:33 AM on 3 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       

       In response to KevinC comment at 131:

       Thanks for your efforts. As you noted, it’s a great place to start a discussion. You seem to have created a great fit for the Mount Pinatubo eruption and the lesser ENSO events.

       KevinC says: “However we now only have one event. You can’t fit a pattern to a single event.”

       The 1997/98 El Niño was the strongest event and should have the cleanest signal, which makes your model versus Rest of the World graph look very awkward and unrealistic. (The fact that it should be the cleanest signal is why I keyed off the leading edge of the 1997/98 El Niño in my illustration.) Note how the other larger El Niño events in your model-data graph also don’t fit that well. If you would, please subtract the ROW data from your model to show how significant the residuals are.

       Therefore, for a really detailed analysis you’re attempting to perform, where you’re keying off all events, it’s likely you’ll need to isolate the East Pacific El Niño events like the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 events and their trailing La Niña events. Why? The global temperature response to East Pacific El Niños (large events) is different from Central Pacific El Ninos (lesser events). That was the basis for the Ashok et al (2007) paper El Niño Modoki and its Possible Teleconnection.

       The reasons for the divergences in the Rest-Of-the-World data during the 1988/89 and 1998-2001 La Niñas are physical, KevinC. You can try to eliminate or minimize them using models, but they exist. East Pacific El Niños like the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Niños release vast amounts of warm water from below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool. Much of that warm water spreads across the surface of the central and eastern tropical Pacific. For the East Pacific El Niño events, like those in 1986/87/88 and 1997/98, that warm water impacts the surface all the way to the coast of the Americas (while with Central Pacific El Niño events it does not). The El Niños do not “consume” all of the warm water. At the conclusion of an El Niño, the trade winds push the leftover warm surface water back to the West Pacific. Additionally, there is left over warm water below the surface that’s returned to the west Pacific and into the East Indian Ocean via a Rossby wave or Rossby waves. This animation captures a Rossby wave returning warm water to the West Pacific and East Indian Oceans after the 1997/98 El Niño. Watch what happens when it hits Indonesia. It’s like there’s a secondary El Niño taking place in the Western Tropical Pacific and it’s happening during the La Niña. It’s difficult to miss it. (The full JPL animation is here.) Gravity causes that warm water to rise to the surface with time. The leftover warm water exists and it cannot be accounted for with a statistical model based on an ENSO index. You can see—you can watch it happen—the impacts of that warm water in this animation. There are no ENSO indices that account for the leftover warm water.

51360. Bob Tisdale at 00:26 AM on 3 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       

       KR says at 124: “If as you say La Nina's absorb more heat (due perhaps to changes in cloudiness or other effects) than El Nino releases, how can this have driven warming since the 1970's? There has been a preponderance of El Nino events over that period (fewer than average La Nina events to raise total climate energy, esp. late 1970's-1998).”

       You need to look at surface temperature and ocean heat content separately, because they respond differently to ENSO.

       Let’s discuss surface temperatures first:

       KR, we agree on something. “There has been a preponderance of El Niño events over that period…” Glad you confirmed that ENSO has been skewed toward El Niño since the late 1970s. This means that more warm water than normal has been released from the tropical Pacific and redistributed, and it means that more heat than normal has been released to the atmosphere. That answers your question, “how can this have driven warming since the 1970's?”

       Now let’s address the ocean heat content portion of your question: “If as you say La Nina's absorb more heat (due perhaps to changes in cloudiness or other effects) than El Nino releases…”

       This makes itself known in the Ocean Heat Content for the tropical Pacific. The 1973-76 La Niña created the warm water that served as the initial fuel for the subsequent 1982/83 through the 1994/95 El Niño events, with the La Niña events that trailed those El Ninos replacing part of the warm water. That’s why the tropical Pacific OHC trend is negative from 1976 until the 1995/96 La Niña.

       The 1995/96 La Niña was a freak, and discussed in McPhaden 1999. “Genesis and Evolution of the 1997-98 El Niño”.
       http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/mcph2029/text.shtml

       McPhaden writes:

       For at least a year before the onset of the 1997–98 El Niño, there was a buildup of heat content in the western equatorial Pacific due to stronger than normal trade winds associated with a weak La Niña in 1995–96.

       In other words, there are parts of ENSO that cannot be accounted for with an ENSO index.

       The impact of the 1995/96 La Niña stands out like a sore thumb in the graph of tropical Pacific OHC. Then, moving forward in time, there’s the dip and rebound associated with the 1997/98 El Niño and 1998-01 La Niña.

       KR asks: “Why now? What has changed? The ENSO has been an existent pattern for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Why would it suddenly change behavior in recent years, when it hasn't in the past?”

       Paleoclimatological studies find evidence of ENSO back millions of years ago—not just hundreds of thousands of years. See Watanabe et al (2011). Your second question (“Why would it suddenly change behavior in recent years, when it hasn't in the past?”) is an assumption on your part. El Niño events were also dominant during the early warming period of the 20th Century, and global temperatures warmed in response then, too.

       KR asks: “Finally, what about the greenhouse effect?”

       Downward longwave radiation appears to do nothing more cause a little more evaporation from the ocean surface, which makes perfect sense since it only penetrates the top few millimeters.

51361. Bob Tisdale at 00:20 AM on 3 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       

       michael sweet says at 122: My point is still valid, you must compare to the range of estimates, not the average.”

       NCAR and Gavin Schmidt disagree with you.

       The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Climate Change Scenarios webpage has a relatively easy-to-read description. This quote appears on their Frequently Asked Questions webpage:

       Averaging over a multi-member ensemble of model climate runs gives a measure of the average model response to the forcings imposed on the model. Unless you are interested in a particular ensemble member where the initial conditions make a difference in your work, averaging of several ensemble members will give you best representation of a scenario.

       On the thread of the RealClimate post Decadal predictions, a visitor asked the very basic question, “If a single simulation is not a good predictor of reality how can the average of many simulations, each of which is a poor predictor of reality, be a better predictor, or indeed claim to have any residual of reality?”

       Gavin Schmidt replied:

       Any single realisation can be thought of as being made up of two components – a forced signal and a random realisation of the internal variability (‘noise’). By definition the random component will [be] uncorrelated across different realisations and when you average together many examples you get the forced component (i.e. the ensemble mean).

       We’re interested in the forced component, michael, not the noise, hence my use of the multi-model ensemble mean.

       michael sweet says: “Many other data sets exist that expand the time period of your analysis. It has been shown by others in this thread that you cherry picked the data set you used.”

       I cherry-picked my dataset? Since I must have missed the comments you’re referring to, let me answer your and their comments now. Maybe you’re referring to a comment by IanC. I replied to him, Why aren’t we looking at the sea surface temperature data prior to the satellite era? Because there’s little source data south of 30-45S. Here’s a map that illustrates the ICOADS sampling locations six months before the start of the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset:
       http://i47.tinypic.com/k2g6bs.jpg

       Same map for June 1975:
       http://i49.tinypic.com/73040z.jpg

       And it doesn’t get better as you go back in time. Here’s June 1943:
       http://i49.tinypic.com/2eb8sb8.jpg

       And to further respond to your accusations of cherry-picking, michael sweet, are you aware that HADSST2 and HADSST3 are spatially incomplete during satellite era? Are you aware that NOAA’s ERSST.v3b has to be infilled during the satellite era because it does not use satellite data? Are you aware that Smith and Reynolds called the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset the “truth”? Refer to Smith and Reynolds (2004) Improved Extended Reconstruction of SST (1854-1997). It is about the Reynolds OI.v2 data we’ll be using as the primary source of data for this book:

       Although the NOAA OI analysis contains some noise due to its use of different data types and bias corrections for satellite data, it is dominated by satellite data and gives a good estimate of the truth.

       The truth is a good thing, don’cha think?

51362. Bob Tisdale at 00:18 AM on 3 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       

       Tom Curtis, in your comment 80, you presented your findings about the significance (the lack thereof) of the lack of warming in the East Pacific sea surface temperature data versus the IPCC model hindcasts/projections. A recent post at Niche Modeling titled East Pacific Region Temperatures: Climate Models Fail Again found precisely the opposite, as you may have guessed from the title of the post.

51363. ranyl at 23:43 PM on 2 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/thin-film-solar-market-to-grow-1500-percent-by-2017_100004524/#axzz2DlT7sIK0 This article suggest thin well on the rise 1500% from above. And the articles age spread was deliberate to shpow that things have been to be toxic for ages and still are. And what si said dosn;t jsut apply to thin that is just tri-ntiroforide and as you well know any silicon used to pureifed to >99% pure. And the maximum efficiency on practice is 12-15%. But hey beleive what you like abotu them, we still have any carbon to spend oon then when other options are much better, like not using so much power.
51364. dan7912 at 20:09 PM on 2 December 2012
       Climate's changed before
       wow, I trawled through a lot of this some fascinating battles going on, and none dispassionate. On the one hand it seems scientists are fitting hypotheses around one data set (CO2) when the earth could be observed as a much more intricate system with too many observable forces than one.It depends how you look at it I suppose. It's like they're trying to find a theory of everything. I do reckon the industrial system produces too much stuff causing pollution in the atmosphere like satellites, what's the carbon footprint on a couple of satellites? I think if we all just slowed down a bit, stopped our industrial systems and stopped funding university's and science programs, life would be less splintered and more holistic and we could observe the natural rythyms of life and ourselves. also its very fatalistic, you can make all this effort and then a solar comet is just round the corner at any given moment/ like in the plastacene era. Whats the point of all the scaremongering. Think of the children guys.
51365. Clyde at 17:56 PM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       @dana1981 - 10 Hyper linked from the link you claim i never read. But the issue is far from settled, and climate change is not the only factor. For example, while sea surface temperatures are currently about 3 °C above average along the Atlantic coast, the expected increase due to global warming is just 0.6 °C, according to Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. So while the changing climate certainly plays a role, Trenberth says, there is plenty of space for natural variability. Looks like Trenberth agrees with me. Nobody can say how much a role GW played. On the link you claim i didn't read. "While it’s impossible to say how this scenario might have unfolded if sea-ice had been as extensive as it was in the 1980s, the situation at hand is completely consistent with what I’d expect to see happen more often as a result of unabated warming and especially the amplification of that warming in the Arctic" Trenberth said that the null hypothesis would be that the negative North Atlantic Oscillation was just part of the oscillation's natural phases, and at present the influence of polar warming was speculative. There is actually a fairly simple answer to this question: human-caused climate change amplified the hurricane's impacts. My question is by how much? If there was no GW would Sandy's damage been mild compared to what is actually was? So for news article to say GW caused Sandy to do X amount of damage is "Gish Gallop." I'm not saying GW had zero effect on Sandy. I'm just saying it can't be proved how much of an effect it did have, nor can it be proven what Sandy would have been like say in 1980. Was the climate a whole lot different in 2011? Why didn't Irene turn into a Sandy?
51366. Brian Purdue at 16:36 PM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       I often wonder what it will take for people like Clyde to even consider there might be human-induced climate change, in the absence of natural causes. The climate is made up of weather events. Climate change is their duration, severity and their frequency. I can only speak for where I live, but the pattern is world-wide. In Australia, the following are “some” of weather-related events in the last three (3) years. # Victorian “firestorm” bushfires killed 173 people and burnt down over 2000 homes. It was hotter in the howling winds than out and; # A 1,000 kilometer-long thick chocking red-dust storm swept from central Australia, across the east coast and went as far as New Zealand and; # Record Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian floods that caused a “tsunami” on top of a mountain range. These floods required a national flood levy to be set up by the federal government and; # Category 5 cyclone Yasi slammed into North Queensland and; # Record- breaking sea temperatures in the oceans around Australia and; # Record-breaking dry period in central Australia -147 days and; # Record-breaking land temperatures around Australia, with record temperatures for November in parts of Victoria only 2 days ago. The clear evidence shows no sign of slackening.......
51367. chriskoz at 12:16 PM on 2 December 2012
       The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
       Meanwhile, the damage bills are soaring... This news a month after the storm, puts the final figure in NY NJ alone as $71billion. Much higher than $40-50b estimated soon after the event. Only second to Katrina, while occuring so late in the season, that damage extents are unusual. Obviously that does not prove Sandy has been caused by AGW but it should be taken as "cirumstancial evidence" in the case.
51368. dana1981 at 11:06 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Clyde @6 - again, read the link I posted @5, where I answered the questions you're asking. If you're not going to bother to read the links provided to you then there's not much point in continuing a one-way discussion.
51369. chriskoz at 08:35 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       I strongly object to the practice of insreting short and "naked" and pointless links as Clyde did @4. As I understand the comment policy, every link must be accompanied by a comment and explanation that suggests the commenter has read the link and ideally should help other readers to understand the science. Inserting two numbers and hand waiving as in Clyde@4, not only means nothing to me but annoys me and wastes my time. If I was Clyde, and I wanted to make his point, I'd at least check the articles (not too many, some 5-10 of them) in the posts linked and listed the source newspapers herein with my comment about the credibility/associations of each nwespaper. That would help the readers forming an opinion. But, with the "skeptic" background, Clyde is expressing here, the useless hand waving as seen @4 is the typical modus operandi.
51370. Kevin C at 08:16 AM on 2 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       So, on the basis of Bob’s comments, I’ve been looking at figure 13, shown below. Bob asked us to explain the features of the graph. The aim is to understand the features of the rest-of-the-world SST anomalies in terms of Nino34 and volcanoes. Now, as a starting point we don’t have a hypothesis for a mechanism. That means that we’re data mining. That’s OK, but it means we have to be very careful. If we already has a model we would be very constrained in testing fit to the data. With no model, we’re free to make up any sort of model, and as a result it is very easy to fool ourselves. This is a particular source of concern to me with your argument, since data mining has produced only two events, and as we will see the chances of making spurious connections as a result of artifacts of the method is rather high. So I started out by setting some rather stringent ground rules: 1. Any parameter added (including hidden parameters) must decrease the AIC of the model by at least 10. 2. Any parameter must be statistically significant at the 95% level after taking into account autocorrelation. (Preferably 99%, but I reduced that because it drew out something which may be of future interest.) I apologise that I haven’t had time to illustrate every step graphically, but I’m sure you can follow along with the analysis. So the first step was to fit the detrended rest-of-the-world SST data (henceforth Rest) with the Nino34 data, allowing a lag, a constant offset and a linear trend. Your eyeballed lag of about 30 weeks gives an R2 of ~10%, which is pretty poor. Surprisingly, you can get a rather better R2 with a lag of minus 30 weeks, which is of course nonsense, but highlights the problems of very poor models. The worse our model, the more noise we will have and the more easily we can be fooled by spurious features. The issue of course is that we’ve got a big nuisance variable - the volcanoes. So next I picked up tau_line.txt from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/, and calculated a term aod=0.4*NHem+0.6*SHem to take into account the proportion of ocean in each hemisphere. Including this makes a huge difference straight away, and makes the 30 week lag a clear winner over the nonsense one. Now - a physics aside: Lagging terms in a regression is a pretty unphysical thing to do. It requires a pretty funky mechanism to achieve, e.g. a delay line in electronics. A much more common mode of response to an input is an exponential decay, e.g. an RC network in electronics, the temperature response of a heat reservoir to energy input in physics, or a 1-box model in climate science. And indeed adding an exponential decay term to aod again dramatically improves the model. It looks like this:

       f(t) = exp(t/τ) {t<0} f(t) = 0 {t>0} g(t) = f(t) / Σ f(t) aodlag = aod ⊗ g

       where ⊗ denotes convolution. t is in years. τ = 0.85. (The sign of t may be reversed depending on your convolution convention, obviously the effect of the volcano must lag it’s cause.) So now the model (using R notation in which the coefficients are inferred) is: Rest ~ constant + trend + Nino34 + aodlag But we also need to take into account the the effect of Nino34 also need not be a simple lag. One of the things I try when attempting to understand a time series response to an input is feed in multiple lags simultaneously to the regression. That is a profligate use of parameters and can be misleading, but you can sometimes learn something from it. Often you see coefficients which decay over time, and you know to replace the multiple lags with an exponential response function as above. However in this case something more interesting occured. If you replace the 30 week lag with two lags of 15 and 45 weeks, you get a much better fit. So next I tried Gaussian and top hat smooths to cover the two lags and everything in between. Surprisingly, it gives a much worse model. In fact you can drop a 30 week lagged term in the middle, and it comes back weaker than the other two. The system really does seem to respond to Nino34 with two different lags. That’s really interesting, and a kick-off point for further study. With your knowledge of teleconnections and experience with the data I’m hoping you can use this as a kicking off point for some serious investigation, although I should stress that further work is required to ensure there is not a simpler explanation. I tried fitting three arbitrary lags, and got a best model with lags at 0, 9 and 46 weeks. The 0 week term is interesting, because the coefficient is negative. It’s not huge - it fails to meet my 99% criterion, but is significant at the 95% level. It doesn’t make a visual impact on the model, but I’ve kept it in case it offers a further insight into mechanism. So the model is now: Rest ~ constant + trend + lag(Nino34,0) + lag(Nino34,9) + lag(Nino34,46) + aodlag So what do the model stats look like? Here they are: Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 9.130818 0.476369 19.168 <2e-16 *** sst$Nino34a -0.029659 0.003410 -8.699 <2e-16 *** sst$Nino34b 0.049365 0.003374 14.630 <2e-16 *** sst$Nino34c 0.034237 0.001911 17.920 <2e-16 *** sst$Year -0.004543 0.000238 -19.085 <2e-16 *** sst$aodlag -3.495310 0.095644 -36.545 <2e-16 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Residual standard error: 0.06831 on 1555 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.5086, Adjusted R-squared: 0.5071 F-statistic: 321.9 on 5 and 1555 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16 ν ≈ 11, so the t-values can be scaled down by a factor of 3.3, but they’re all hugely significant except lag(Nino34,0), which has a p-value of ~98%. R2 is now up to 0.5. That’s a model we can begin to draw conclusions from. What does it look like? See the following figure. Red is Rest, blue is the model, both with a 13 month smooth. We can still see a divergence around 1998-2001, although it doesn’t stand out like it did. However the 1989-1991 event has all but vanished. In eliminating the nuisance variables to obtain a better model whose parameters are therefore vastly more significant, one of the two events you identified has disappeared. That’s why I cautioned about the dangers of data-mining. When the model is poor it is far too easy to over-interpret the results. What about the 1998-2001 divergence which is still present? It’s magnitude is much reduced, but the ends are now very sharply defined. It could be down to a number of causes. It could be of genuine climatic significance. It could be noise - some more data would help. An observational issue is not impossible - we could look at other datasets to see if they show anything similar. It may be an artifact of the model - if we were doing real rather than blog science we’d either want to characterise the filter analytically (maybe some frequency domain analysis), or do extensive trials with synthetic data to see if it there is any possibility that the feature is an artifact of the method. (Note especially that nearby lags with opposite coefficients have a high pass filter effect.) Discussion: Improving the model to better fit the observations reduces the noise significantly. As a result the 1989-1991 feature largely disappears. The most convincing explanation for this feature is that it is an artifact of a poor model. The 1998-2001 feature is still present at much reduced magnitude, although the endpoints are now very clearly defined. However we now only have one event. You can’t fit a pattern to a single event. Also it gives us no grounds for determining the frequency or likely scales of such events. We really need more data. There are a number of issues requiring further study: 1. How unique is the 2 / 3 lag solution found here? Is there any less physically exotic model which would produce an equally good fit? 2. Is there any physical mechanism which can explain this behaviour? 3. Can we find similar events by extending the analysis further back in time? How unusual is the 1998 event in terms of size and shape? Do past events show any connection with surface temperature changes? 4. Is the same behaviour seen in other datasets?
51371. Doug Bostrom at 08:13 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Would a few cm lower sea level helped [Sandy] be less damaging? A few centimeters of water: More or less damaging than those same few centimeters less? Water is sort of a binary thing when it comes to it being inside homes; even the first centimeter of water inside a house makes a world of difference.
51372. John Hartz at 07:56 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       @Clyde #6: I highly recommend that you read the following two articles. The Science behind Superstorm Sandy’s Crippling Storm Surge by David Biello, Scientific Amterican, Nov 7, 2012 Sandy’s Storm Surge Explained and Why It Matters by Micael Lemonick, Climate Central, Oct 29, 2012 These articles will provide you with a basic understanding of the mechanisms of storm surges and why the height of the sea relative to the shoreline plays such a critical role.
51373. Clyde at 07:22 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       The other stories you reference that we linked to are just that - news stories, not letters by scientists advocating a position on climate mitigation. My point exactly. Those (OK some/most of those) new stories wasn't written scientists. Their non scientists advocating a position on climate mitigation. If not directly, then indirectly. Can anybody proof what Sandy would have been if GW was smaller? They can "speculate" that she wouldn't have been as damaging as she was. Would a few cm lower seal level helped her be less damaging? Would .06 degree cooler water made much of a difference?
51374. scaddenp at 07:01 AM on 2 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       Ranyl, a quick look through various items on your list all apply to thin-film - a rather specialty area in PV. Some of the information is dated as well. In the energy use concerns, what matter is energy yield (amount produced over lifetime cf to energy required to manufacture). For, say northern Europe, with a 20 year lifetime (by which time polycrystalline cells will have dropped to 80% output cf new), this could be as low as 4 (way less than wind), but still very much better than 1. Ratios are much better for say Australia, for CSP, and for new single-pass silicon processes.
51375. dana1981 at 05:50 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Clyde @4, you might want to try reading the SkS Sandy post, which contains references to a ton of peer-reviewed studies. The other stories you reference that we linked to are just that - news stories, not letters by scientists advocating a position on climate mitigation.
51376. Tom Curtis at 05:39 AM on 2 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       vrooomie, I am unable to find either the Tamino article or the Atmoz article on the web, so the links appear to be permanently dead. The wayback machine is currently not loading for me, so I am unable to check there. Tamino's critique was widely discussed on the web at the time, including by by Greenfyre and deepclimate, and a similar critique was made by James Annan. Tamino has a later blog discussing some of the fallout. Most importantly, an expanded version of Tamino's crtitique later appeared in a peer reviewed paper of which he was the lead author (discussed here).
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] The Atmoz article is available here.

       The Tamino article is available here, via the Open Mind Archives.

       This link to the web archive is functional.

51377. Clyde at 05:33 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       For climate denialists, the preferred route by which to air their grievances about global warming is not via the scientific peer-review process, but rather through opinion letters published in the mainstream media. It would be foolish to be convinced by a letter published by a list of non-experts in a newspaper, full of false, long-debunked, and unsubstantiated assertions. The public deserve better from scientists. 1 2 To my knowledge no papers has been peer reviewed & published on Hurricane Sandy, yet it was OK for SKS to have multiple post (just 2 of the 5?) above with news stories claiming GW's effect on Sandy. Can't have it both ways & be credible IMO.
51378. dana1981 at 05:09 AM on 2 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       I found the source pages elsewhere - links fixed.
51379. vrooomie at 03:06 AM on 2 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       Mods, I *still get 403 and 404 errors when I click on the first two links under this thread....?
       Moderator Response: [JH] Exactly where are these two broken links located.
       
       [Sph] The links cannot be fixed, only removed, as the external source documents have been removed from the Internet (and we have no control over that).
51380. vrooomie at 02:51 AM on 2 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       "I agree coal is very likely to be worse than PV's but then I never said use coal as an alternative." Since the heart of any rational discussion is an exceedingly-fine understanding of the words and concepts contained therein, let it be clear: *I* never suggested coal as an alternative; I intended that PV be a alternative to coal, as far as it can be, which ain't too far, as of now. Clear now? Your own statement, "I always think well even if no else does anything at least I tried to do what I could.", perfectly illustrates why no one should impugn every individual's ability to impact their local situation--regardless of how "small" the effort would be--in whatever way they can. Edmund Burke said it better, but we all do what we can do, and that cascade of action will eventuate into larger and larger actions. The largest action any of us can make--at least in terms of getting the powers-that-be off their dead asse--is us lighting the fires underneath them. Environmentally benign fires, mind you....;)
51381. Composer99 at 00:18 AM on 2 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       If the pseudoskeptics had a real case, they'd be presenting it in the literature. Of course, they don't, but to cover that they have the ready-made excuse that we saw on the El Niño thread: "gatekeeping" allegedly keeping their papers from being published.
51382. shoyemore at 17:21 PM on 1 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Is this a worldwide phenomenon? I noticed a very effective rejoinder in yesterday's Irish Times to a letter from a faux-sceptic with many of the points made in the post. Irish Times Letter The rejoinder is authored by a physics lecturer at Waterford IT.
51383. bill4344 at 14:57 PM on 1 December 2012
       The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
       Given the transparency - and increasing desperation - of their tactics I suspect pre-bunks (of bunkum!) are going to be with us for a while. The chart with the McLean prediction cracks me up every time!
51384. ranyl at 13:27 PM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       Vroomie, I agree coal is very likely to be worse than PV's but then I never said use coal as an alternative. All suggest is to consider the issues, consider the carbon cost per potential KWh without displacement savings, remember there is no carbon budget and decide what to spend whatever amount of additional carbon emissions you're prepared to risk on generating energy. The carbon budget is a debt already. So will the addiction to power per se blow the budget in trying to keep the lights on? Almost definately it would appear at present. However the way the weather's shaping up there will be a point of realisation that this is real. Then what? Well who knows lets just hope the budget isn't blown already as the Arctic melt is already very alarming. And fun was inappropriate your right, but it can be creative challenge with parto f that challenge making the lives of the 3 billion in hunger better for them, by accepting migration? Eating less so they can eat more? Stopping wasting food? Laernign how to synergise farming with high productivity into eco-systems such that biodiversity florishes. I always think well even if no else does anything at least I tried to do what I could. BTW the silicon used for solar PV is refiend silicon metal with is 99.9% and highly refiend in high energy intensive toxic substance using processes. Would you work in the factory? Look at the Chinese paper listed in the previous post from Standford, looks pretty industrialised to me.
51385. ranyl at 13:08 PM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1765&context=ealr http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/cadmium-telluride.html http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/art_170.pdf http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2009/july/draft_resconcept/ito.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Solar_11.2.pdf http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp59.pdf http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/upload/Norwegian-Geotechnical-Institute-Study.pdf Recycling isn’t that easy it seems and is full of chemical and energy intensive processes, just like making the original panels was, so many things not accounted for. http://2011.solarteam.org/news/recycling-methods-for-used-photovoltaic-panels http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/1281 Doesn’t really bust any myths but does resort to comparison to nuclear and coal albeit without actual comparison and doesn’t say solar panels aren’t an environmental hazard just says that the risks are minimized in the production process although waste disposal and issues aren’t really addressed that well. http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/industries/pv-nf3-lifecycle-emissions-from-photovoltaics.aspx Company sponsored paper so will be biased to a degree. http://www2.avs.org/symposium2011/Papers/Paper_EN+TF-TuA7.html http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/thin-film-solar-market-to-grow-1-500-percent-by-2017_100004524/#axzz2DlT7sIK0 http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/types_silicon.html http://svtc.org/wp-content/uploads/Silicon_Valley_Toxics_Coalition_-_Toward_a_Just_and_Sust.pdf http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2008/03/13/materials-for-solar-photovoltaic-cells-i-silicon-v http://www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/oipp/docs/life-cyclehealthandsafetyconcerns.pdf
51386. scaddenp at 11:48 AM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       "For example PV panels are a toxic waste within 20-30 years, releases tri-nitrofloride to make (a very potent GHG), " hmm, I thought TNF was only used in manufacture of thin-film solar panels, and only very small quantities were emitted. Most PV around today is not thin-film, and if these somehow turn into toxic waste, I would like a reference please. I am also not aware of any rare chemicals in standard solar cells, and they can be made from lower grade silicon.
51387. Tom Dayton at 10:23 AM on 1 December 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Dang, Dana, I'm not going up against you at the whack-a-mole booth at the county fair. You're way too fast!
51388. Bernard J. at 10:21 AM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       Ranyl. Yes, yes, yes. But, like any group of addicts - whether addicted to nicotine, ethanol, other carbohydrates, triglycerides, opiates, adrenaline, caffeine, or any of the other pernicious drugs of dependence - breaking free is difficult, and never observed en masse. Policy makers in the carbon emissions context could do worse than to ackowledge the summary made a few years back by Doug Sellman. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02673.x
       Moderator Response: [DB] Hot-linked referenced paper.
51389. vrooomie at 10:16 AM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       ranyl@14... "Don't we need to come together, stop using so much excessive power and plan a sustainable informed, concerned and equitable future through an adaptive transformation away from fossil fuels, excess resource extraction, gross inequality, unnecessary wars, waste production, and creating toxic landscapes and show our descendants what humanity humankind is capable of or do just hope that the overwhelming evidence is somehow wrong or that some divine intervention is on the way?" Yes. And while you're up...I'd like a pony...;) Certainly what you say is correct but--and I'll reference you back to your earlier statement that small actions are essentially meaningless--nothing of your utopian agenda can, or will, come to pass until a couple things occur; know that this is coming from a man who has spent his life as optimistic about life and our chances as anyone could possibly be. Till he grew up and figured out human nature, that is. 1) There are too many humans, chasing too few resources, and occupying too small of a "spaceship" for the ship to trimtab its direction in a meaningful--fast, in your vernacular--rapid way. Nature, or us, *will* thin the herd, and until that is done, I see no way we'll attain the level of resource use you assert is needed. To turn a Churchillian phrase around, leave it to mankind to do all the wrong things, right up to the point it does the REALLY wrong thing, and snuffs out a good deal of itself. History is *rife* with such examples and, frankly, I see no turning that around this time, either. That said... 2) We--each and every one of of us who has some voice--has to, read again MUST exert pressure on the leaders to follow the people. None of what you wish to happen; "Leave the car in garage, stop flying, turn the thermostat down, wear more clothes, stop consuming, have a gift free Christmas (share friendship not gifts for everyone's sake?), eat locally and seasonally and be creative about it, to let this be the fun it can be," will or can be done in the vacuum of lax leadership. There are also, oh, I'd say at a guess, about 3 billion souls who do not even come CLOSE to thinking what you posit is, or will be "fun:" I sure don't. Needed? Likely. Easy to attain? Not on your life. Can we? Sandy got a few folks' attention--most notably those who were devastated by the storm's intensity--and even though we cannot say with a high degree Sandy was *caused* by AGW, we do have a pretty good idea that storms like her will become the new normal; when they do, more people will be affected drastically, and at ~that moment~, folks--singular, at-large, and unelected--will really push the pollies to help them do something that is needed. I go back to a position I've long espoused and is typified by the "100th monkey" meme (yes, I know it's been disproved as bunk, but it's as useful an allusion as the equally-debunked "ostrich" meme) and that is, every single person must do whatever little--or much--as they can do, to start that ball rolling. Finally, do you have a source for the assertions you've made, re: the toxicity of solar panels as they age? That's new to me. Even if true, I seriously doubt it's as bad an effect as what burning gigatons of coal does, and has done, to the commons of the atmosphere. we cannot wait for perfect safety.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Corrected spelling by request.
51390. dana1981 at 09:50 AM on 1 December 2012
       Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections, Find Sea Level Rise Underestimated
       Agnostic @6 - they have so far.
51391. dana1981 at 09:49 AM on 1 December 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Tom @ 95 - just posted a mole whacking response. We aim to please!
51392. Riduna at 09:13 AM on 1 December 2012
       Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections, Find Sea Level Rise Underestimated
       The IPCC Has Accurately Projected Global Surface Warming … Really? It seems unlikely that the IPCC or Rahmstorf have done any such thing beyond the year 2010, certainly not up to the year 2100 - unless they have accurately predicted the effects of slow feedbacks arising from cryosphere ice loss particularly in the Arctic. The latter is a very difficult task though good approximations can be made.
51393. Tom Dayton at 09:11 AM on 1 December 2012
       WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
       Oh, goodie, another round of the game of whack-a-mole! A bunch of the usual deniers published an "Open Climate Letter" to the Sec-Gen of the UN in the Financial Post yesterday.
51394. ranyl at 08:28 AM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       "Here's what I meant: Yes, today's situation looks pretty grim, but compared to the grimness which appears to be in store for our crandchildren and beyond, looks VERY grim indeed." Fair enough vroomie it is just an ever common theme that the time of change is tomorrow. Only grim if we don't act now and appropriately to the actual scale of the problem. 350ppm is a metaphorical 1000 miles away and still means basically 2C if the climate sensitivty paper in nature is anything go by, considering we are actualy at 460ppm already (CO2e) and we have been shaded by SO2 for the last 50 years, and the unbrella is the same size now as it was 1980. Don't we need to come together, stop using so much excessive power and plan a sustainable informed, concerned and equitable future through an adaptive transformation away from fossil fuels, excess resource extraction, gross inequality, unnecessary wars, waste production, and creating toxic landscapes and show our decendants what humanity humankind is capable of or do just hope that the overwhelming evidence is somehow wrong or that some divine intervention is on the way? For at the current time these very early signs of climatic change are very alarming and much worse than expected or predicted, and therefore all solutions put forward so far are off the table and the stakes seem to rise with every study published. We have no more carbon to risk safely (I say that loudly and with concerned conviction) and therefore every ounce extra has to be wisely spent and very carefully considered and only spent for essential needs. We also have no room to stress the world's eco-systems further, (everything else humanity is doing has induced a mass extinction already), indeed more than that the earth's eco-system need intensive care (and we are capable of this) and global warming a known previous killer has only just started albeit at rate that is unprecedented and it is the rate that counts. Don't we need to take this with the gravity it deserves and stop using fossil fuels asap? (I do live a low carbon lifstyle but I could do better) Isn't the quickest way to do this, is to just stop using them? Leave the car in garage, stop flying, turn the thermostat down, wear more clothes, stop consuming, have a gift free christmas (share friendship not gifts for everyone's sake?), eat locally and sesonally and be creative about it, to let this be the fun it can be. However we also need to assess every solution objectively, is something called green always actually environmental enhancing? For example PV panels are a toxic waste within 20-30 years, releases tri-nitrofloride to make (a very potent GHG), are highly energy intensive to manufacture requiring high grade silicon, need rare chemicals that are toxic to make and need mining and extensive processing to get, are highly inefficient, are black if placed in the desert (albedo), and are not very effective in wet cloudy climates were lots are found, so are they a sensible solution or a mal-adaptation? Tropical dams and probably higher latitudes ones release massive amounts of methane (ongoing) and disrupt whole eco-systems for ages (look at the Nile delta), silt up, require huge amount so of materials to make, large maintainence rquirements and overall and are more GHG intensive and eco-system disrupting than fossil fuels!(not advocating fossil fuls by saying that, just seing large scale hydro power for what it is) With no carbon to spend and eco-systems on the brink don't we need the lowest carbon solutions that provide longer term sustainability,(even if that means much much less and even intermittent power or using sail ships built with today's understanding for sea trading) and that also enhance the environments eco-systems arround us, rather than being an eventual toxin to them as we need our eco-systesm to become larger carbon sinks despite the nitrogen fertilization that has occured in the last 50years being taken away!!? The diagnosis is grim if we do nothing or the wrong thing without proepr assessments, yet the treatment however is simple, come together in purpose and stop ignoring the truth of the situation. No one has a get out of jail free card in this game, it really is all together or no all at all. We need to relocate New York. Greenland?
51395. KR at 08:22 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       Tom Curtis - Quite correct, my error, I clearly was thinking about NINO3.4 while typing... the SOI is from Darwin vs. Tahiti air pressure. While more complex, and with a shorter history, the MEI is IMO a good measure as it encompasses a great many of ENSO variables. However, given the high correspondence between the MEI, the ONI, and the SOI, I believe all of the three are reasonable indices to use when examining ENSO effects. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 ran their regression analysis with both MEI and SOI - they did not find significant differences.
51396. ramiram at 07:14 AM on 1 December 2012
       Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
       Can anyone please put all this in context, please? (only the third e-mail is from climategate 1.0, the others are from climatgate 2.0). I know I'm asking for a lot but I really need your help in order to get rid of an annoying friend... (stolen correspondence snipped) Thank you.
       Moderator Response: [Sph] Nice try. Skeptical Science does not exist to allow you to disseminate nonsense by pretending to ask for help.
51397. Tom Curtis at 05:47 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       KR @124, The ENSO Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is calculated from the pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin (in Northern Australia) by the formula:

       SOI= 10*[Pdiff-Pdiffav]/SD(Pdiff) where Pdiff = (average Tahiti MSLP for the month) - (average Darwin MSLP for the month), Pdiffav = long term average of Pdiff for the month in question, and SD(Pdiff) = long term standard deviation of Pdiff for the month in question.

       (Source) IMO the SOI is a superior measure of ENSO activity to purely temperature based measures such as Nino 3.4 (and Nino 3, Nino 4, etc) in that it measures the cause of the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the pressure differences across western Pacific, rather than the consequences. It also has the advantage of having a direct instrumental record going back to the 19th century.
51398. vrooomie at 04:21 AM on 1 December 2012
       It's El Niño
       To the mods: The links below, "Atmoz compares SOI to temperature, comparing correlations" ...brings up a 404 error: is it me, or is the link broken? In addition the next one: "Debunking of McLean/Carter paper by Tamino" ...brings me a "not found" error on Tamino's blog. Thanks!
51399. vrooomie at 04:14 AM on 1 December 2012
       Subcap Methane Feedbacks, Part 1: Fossil methane seepage in Alaska
       villabolo, here are a few references...I tried to read them for the info you requested, but my eyes glazed over...;) http://tinyurl.com/cg86zu3 http://tinyurl.com/brn4s2u
       Moderator Response: [DB] Hot-linked referenced papers.
51400. mike roddy at 03:34 AM on 1 December 2012
       SkS at the AGU 2012 Fall Meeting
       John- I'll be at AGU, going to private meetings in nearby hotels, since I'm not a member. If you want to meet, please let me know at my regular email address, or this one: mike.greenframe@gmail.com I will be at a lunch meeting on Monday that maybe you could join us for. Alternatively, I am arriving early Sunday, and if you're in town then that could be a good day.

Prev  1020  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  Next