Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 Next
Comments 51551 to 51600:
-
Tristan at 18:01 PM on 13 November 2012It's aerosols
If you add the confidence intervals for the radiative forcing due to aerosols presented in the 4AR, you get approximately {-2.5,-0.5}W m^-2. This seems to account for the majority of the uncertainty of the total RF. To what extent has the aerosol uncertainty reduced since 2006/7? -
Kevin C at 17:48 PM on 13 November 2012Fasullo and Trenberth Find Evidence in Clouds for High Climate Sensitivity
chriskoz: The two results are pretty much independent - indeed now you have raised it, I think that adjustment of the Hansen'88 results on the basis of ECS is probably invalid. Over decadal timescales, climate response is represented by transient response (TCR), not ECS, and assuming the two covary is not necessarily warranted. Indeed Hansen & Sato (2011) speculates that TCR in models may be a bit off because the rate of ocean overturning is underestimated. AR4 finds signficiantly different TCR from pure physics models (~1.6) and empirically adjusted models (~2.2). (This is all from memory, I may have some of the details wrong). So Hansen'88 is dependent on TCR, whereas FS12 is classifying models by ECS. It would be really interesting to reclassify the models by TCR and see if the result is the same. It would also be really interesting to revisit the Hansen'88 discussion looking at the TCR of Hansen's '88 model. I don't know if they were reporting TCR at the time, however if someone has the forcings and the temperature projections for each scenario I could make a good estimate. It's a lot of work for a purely historical question though - given all the exciting current problems to work on I can't get very excited about it. -
JasonB at 17:10 PM on 13 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Tom Curtis @ 45:Pielke's normalization procedure handles the extra expense in sea walls, hurricane proof construction etc in an obtuse way. By increasing current building costs, and hence current estimated wealth per capita, these defensive measures will inflate the normalized costs of damages done by earlier hurricanes.
On the face of it that seems absurd — a major modern hurricane that causes widespread adoption of new and much more expensive construction standards will not have those additional costs added onto it's economic losses or even those of future hurricanes whose actual losses are reduced because of those investments but will instead make earlier hurricanes suddenly seem to be more damaging relative to the modern hurricane! But looking deeper, if you want to ask the question "What economic losses would we experience today if that particular historical hurricane were to hit now instead of 1923 (or whenever)?" then the logic behind it starts to make some sort of sense. But only briefly, because the raw loss data for the historical hurricanes were related to the actual construction standards employed at the time. In other words, you can't simply take the actual economic losses of an historic hurricane, multiply them by a correction factor to account for higher costs, and expect to get a good estimate of the economic losses were that same hurricane to hit today. Why? Because modern construction standards actually work. I have lived through many tropical cyclones in a region prone to them. Due to their regularity and severity (the worst I experienced — and the only one I can think of where the eye passed directly over us — had 240 km/h winds and a central pressure of 915 mbar/hPa) buildings were naturally built to stand them and damage is often minimal and loss of life rare. An historic cyclone that might have caused significant damage and loss of life in the early days would barely make a dent now. Yet "correcting" the historical cyclones economic losses to take into account modern construction costs would give exactly the opposite impression! This report on building damage in Goldsworthy and Port Hedland following Amy (which I referred to above) and Dean in 1980 is actually quite an interesting assessment of the effect of improved building standards that confirms my own experience. This whole exercise seems fraught with problems and a terribly indirect way to say what the consequences of global warming will be. I think "events" is a much simpler and more meaningful quantitiy to get a handle on than "normalised losses". Once a trend in "events" has been determined — magnitude and/or frequency — then you can try to figure out what the economic impacts will be going forward. After all, if New York was to experience Sandy-like events every few years, that would massively add to the costs of future construction and those additional costs should certainly be sheeted home to global warming if global warming was the reason for NY experiencing Sandy-like events every few years. Instead, Pielke's normalisation method would keep making the historic storms seem more and more expensive as more and more expensive construction techniques were employed, allowing him to continually claim there is no trend in normalised losses! -
chriskoz at 16:37 PM on 13 November 2012Fasullo and Trenberth Find Evidence in Clouds for High Climate Sensitivity
The result of this study is indeed pessimistic if it concludes ECS > 3K However, Hansen 1988 was using ECS 4.2K, and it was shown to have overestimated the amount of current warming (Hansen's scenario B which turned out to be on track so far). Lesson learned from Hansen 1988 is: ECS should be 3.0K for his 1988 model to be spot on. Details were discussed here So, in the end, I'm not convinced that FS12 results are robust and bad news are inevitable. How do you reconcile FS12 with Hansen 1988? -
Bernard J. at 12:30 PM on 13 November 2012Fasullo and Trenberth Find Evidence in Clouds for High Climate Sensitivity
Grim reading indeed. I've always hoped that sensitivity would converge at a value no higher than 3 C, although my guts have always thought that it would be higher. FS12 seems to imply that it could be appreciably higher than 3 C which, combined with the almost complete lack of action to date in addressing carbon emissions, bodes ill for our children and the biosphere in which they will live - such as that 'living' will be. I've said as much before and I'll say it again - an emergency response to AR5 is our last chance, else all our subsequent activities will simply be as aimless as Deck-chair Thimblerig on the Titanic. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:31 AM on 13 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Well, Rosco, (-snip-). There is plenty of information available on the subject, from NASA and other sources, with which you are obviously not familiar. I will not bother linking anything because, if you have any sincerity, you will find it quite easily, no help needed. Your argument is not well constructed, it is a delirious case of Dunning-Krueger effect. The fact that you feel that you can come here and lecture not only on planetary science but also on moral principles is laughable. The kicker was putting together the idea of a well thought out argument and that of a square planet. Thanks for the entertainment. (-snip-).Moderator Response: [DB] References to deleted comments snipped by request. -
Rosco at 09:28 AM on 13 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
As an interesting thought experiment - would a cubic blackbody have a different temperature to a spherical one ?Moderator Response: [DB] Please note that Rosco has recused himself from further participation in this venue (essentially a meltdown/temper tantrum). -
Kevin C at 06:57 AM on 13 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Brief update on my analysis at #70 and #71: Despite the convincingness of the p-values, the method fails on the robustness tests I've been performing. Results should be treated with extreme caution. More tomorrow. -
littlerobbergirl at 05:56 AM on 13 November 2012About New research from last week series
I'm glad to see another 'lurker' was brave enough to 'de-lurk' to support you - for every poster there are 100s of readers :) -
IanC at 04:42 AM on 13 November 2012New research from last week 45/2012
Mark, The Stephen et al. paper is basically an update to the global energy budget (e.g. Trenberth et al.), in light of newly available new satellite measurements. The main changes occur in the surface budget instead of the top of atmosphere (TOA) budget. The biggest change is an increase in the estimation of downwelling long wave radiation (a.k.a. back radiation), over previous estimation given by Trenberth. The reason given by Stephen et al. is that the Trenberth estimation is largely based on reanalysis models that have a known lack of low clouds. It should be noted that Stephen et al. compared the measurement to the current CMIP5 models, and they are in fact reasonable agreement (given the large uncertainty). As pointed out by Gavin Schmidt on realclimate, the Stephen et al. paper in fact brings the estimation of longwave radiation closer to the current generation of climate models. The main point, I think, is that the Stephen et al. paper is in no way contradictory to our current understanding of climate, nor does it fundamentally change any of our current understandings. -
Lanfear at 02:51 AM on 13 November 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Tom Curtis@63 "Never-the-less, I think you need to support your claim a bit better." No strong evidence, only my own perception of that the actual problem that the engine-engineer have been trying to solve is (as you also note) the even distribution of the fuel with the intake air. Incidently (if the linked Wikipage is accurate), the O2-level of the diesel exhaust would indicate that the issue is not asmuch O2, rather some other factor. OTOH there is not any O2 in the gasoline(petrol) exhaust, but a sizeable amount of CO which could be the result of too rich mixture resulting in O2 'starvation' and incomplete oxifidation of the carbon, or reversely, not enough O2. Hmm... if only Vroomie had done some exhaust analysis on his Suburban in the different configurations, then his example would not be up for speculation. Regarding the rockets, I still am of the view that they are apples, since sincam's original claim included a possible design with high efficiency and zero emission (carbonwise I presume). Hence the rocket (in any form my limited imagination can procure) is out of the question since it does in effect rely on having the combustion gases immediately expelled to the environment as a mean of propulsion. His reference to rockets is thus an irrelevant distraction. -
Mark Harrigan at 02:25 AM on 13 November 2012New research from last week 45/2012
Hi Ari - have you, or anyone, carried out an analysis on this paper from Late September in Nature Geoscience? An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations The abstract says, in part "In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm−2, than earlier model-based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface." I have scanned on here and can see any reference to it. I also can't get behind the paywall to read the actual paper but a number of "sceptic" sites are claiming that it is a serious blow for AGW and associated models. I'd like to be able to read it and reach my own conclusions on that but would also really appreciate some of the more expert posters on this site and their views if they have read it? -
Kevin C at 23:09 PM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
JRT: I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't think I understand your question. None of the ACE analysis we've been doing in the comments or the figure in the article includes Sandy since the current ACE data only runs to 2011. Apart form that, for Sandy to become a post-tropical cyclone (as opposed to a mid-latitude formed extratropical cyclone) it had to first be a tropical cyclone. The frequency of formation of tropical cyclones is therefore a relevant factor (although not the only one) in the chances of a Sandy-like event recurring. If that's not what you were asking, please feel free to clarify. -
Tom Curtis at 21:55 PM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Michael Sweet @91, if no heat was stored in the Moon's regolith, temperatures would fall to 2.7 degrees K at night, that being the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. The near constant night time temperature contrasts sharply with the presumed behaviour of a "simple black body". (Of course, there is nothing in the nature of black bodies per se from retaining heat, and therefore not instantaneously matching incoming radiation with outgoing radiation with the same power.) As a matter of interest, I have googled Roscoe's quote and found it on several denier documents without citation. Therefore, the attribution of the quote to NASA must be considered suspect until the source of the quote is cited and linked to. -
michael sweet at 21:21 PM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Roscoe, I see no conflict between your quote from NASA and the article. According to you, the article states "the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C". NASA says "in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation" A black body would drop to -110C almost immediately. If it takes "several hours" as the article says, that is "significant warming" as NASA says. The problem is you are reading the articles incorrectly. Perhaps you should read the article again to clarify the data. Just because you do not understand the data does not mean everyone else does not understand it also.Moderator Response: [DB] All parties please note: Rosco's Moon comparison has been previously rebutted, most recently here. As such, it is to be treated as sloganeering and subject to moderation. -
Ari Jokimäki at 21:11 PM on 12 November 2012About New research from last week series
Thank you for the interest! :) -
JRT256 at 21:09 PM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
I was wondering why you are treating Sandy as though it was just a hurricane. IIUC from NOAA/NASA, the category 1 hurricane Sandy never actually made landfall but became a extratropical cyclone (which did) after it merged with a large cold front. -
Tom Curtis at 21:07 PM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
emperical_bayes @72, the PDF of the paper is here. The data for the paper can be downloaded in Excel format here. -
Brosz at 19:35 PM on 12 November 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
First time reader here. Very informative. Thanks. BTW CBS Sunday Morning did a cover story yesterday that showed climate is real, is human caused, and there is scientific consensus regard that. http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=sundaymorning&catid=57548138&feed_id=35 I am encouraged that the media, starting with Frontline is starting to find the courage to address this. GWB -
empirical_bayes at 15:27 PM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
@BWTrainer, I'd say your characterization of Piekle is a "reverse ad hominem". In fact, the only way Pielke Jr is "clever" is in his crafting an argument out of the shards of denialism that remain which are likely to obfuscate, confuse, and distort the true argument. I have seen this in person at conferences featuring many TV meteorologists as well. I wonder why Pielke appears to be the "house favorite" of the WSJ, but don't expect a forthright answer from anyone. I'd also say that Pielke's study (anyone have a free, direct link to it?), as near as I can tell, neglects to compensate for the clear positive correlation between economic and population growth and storms damage and losses, even without any mechanism in mind. One could as readily drive the hypothesis into Pielke's view of the world which says that the increased economic and population growth are directly causing the losses, even if we know better because of lags and other interactions. The point is, if his analysis cannot differentiate between these two modes, what real good is it? -
Doug Bostrom at 14:53 PM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Rosco, what happens at the top of the atmosphere-- where convection ends? Also, you need to do some research on why the ISS employs radiators. Start with something simple, like the Apollo spacecraft. Try here: history.nasa.gov. -
Tom Curtis at 14:14 PM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Rosco, the mean surface temperature of the Moon at the equator is approximately 206 degrees Kelvin. For comparison, the mean daily temperature in August (the coldest month) at Vostok Station (the coldest place on Earth)is 205 degrees Kelvin. In other words, the means surface temperature of the hottest location on the Moon is the same as the mean surface temperature of the coldest location on Earth when it is at its coldest. The mean annual temperature at Vostok Station is actually just over 10 degrees K warmer than the mean annual temperature of the Moon at the equator. As it happens, the Moon has a lower albedo than the Earth, so all else being equal, it should be warmer than the Earth, yet it is colder. Can you explain how your theory that the Earth's atmosphere cools the Earth is compatible with these facts? -
Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Rosco - Your comments here are interesting, but perhaps not in the fashion you intended. Rather, they show what errors occur when you don't take all factors into account. Convection and latent heat indeed cool the earth, pushing heat into the upper atmosphere where it can be radiated. If the atmosphere lacked convection, we could readily expect temperatures perhaps another 40-45°C warmer than currently exist. We are indeed fortunate that convection exists, that atmospheres become unstable and convect with warming, that evaporative processes move energy away from the surface. But without the greenhouse effect (in a Gedankenexperiment consideration, as certainly other things would change with such a physical modification), without significant radiation from high in the cold atmosphere rather than the warmer surface, the Earth would be ~33°C colder than current temperatures, on the order of -16°C to -18°C. Heating and cooling of the lunar regolith are indeed factors in the moon's average temperature. But that average is quite a bit cooler than the Earth's temperature (in fact, if the Moon had an equivalent atmosphere, it would be warmer, as the albedo of the Earth is rather higher - 0.3 as opposed to the Moon's 0.12). If you take all of these factors into account, rather than focusing on a single factoid (defined as a piece of information smaller than a useful fact), the radiative greenhouse effect has just the influence predicted by the physics of spectroscopic absorption, emission, and the atmospheric lapse rate. And that's ~33°C warmer than we would be without the greenhouse effect if that was the only change. -
Rosco at 12:34 PM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
doug_bostrom - it is not my analysis - I have quoted NASA. (-snip-).Moderator Response: [DB] All parties please note: Rosco's Moon comparison has been previously rebutted, most recently here. As such, it is to be treated as sloganeering and subject to moderation/snipping. -
threadShredder at 12:11 PM on 12 November 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #45
Is anybody else having trouble with the RSS feed on SkS? I keep getting: The address (http://www.skepticalscience.com/feed.xml) does not point to a valid HTML or XML page. "An error occurred while parsing EntityName. Line 83. Position 52. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:53 AM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Rosco, your remark is unlikely to be deleted and your enjoyment will probably be brief. :-) Starting with: based on Rosco's analysis, may we conclude that Earth's moon has an atmosphere comprised of regolith? -
Rosco at 11:23 AM on 12 November 2012Greenhouse effect has been falsified
There is a basic flaw in the paragraph Empirical Evidence for the Greenhouse Effect We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F). The flaw is that the cooling rate on the Moon is significantly slower than your article suggests and even NASA state :- “During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick. As the moon passes into night, the radiation from the sun quickly approaches zero (there is still a bit of radiation from the earth) and, in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation.” Contrast this with the fact that Earth's atmosphere obviously reduces the heating "power" during the day and you have empirical evidence that atmospheres reduce surface heating of planets - not the reverse.I expect this comment to be deleted but it was enjoyable posting it. (-snip-).Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped; moderation complaints struck out.
All parties please note: Rosco's Moon comparison has been previously rebutted, most recently here. As such, it is to be treated as sloganeering and subject to moderation.
-
Alpinist at 10:33 AM on 12 November 2012Fred Singer - not an American Thinker
[snip]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory snipped. Please keep the discussion strictly to the science. Name calling (whether justified or not) detracts from the argument being made, and hence is best avoided. -
Riduna at 10:10 AM on 12 November 2012Fred Singer - not an American Thinker
PBS in general and Frontline in particular have a question to answer: Why is it in the public interest to provide a platform to people like Singer who deny basic science for financial gain funded by those who produce and use fossil fuels? -
piet.zijlstra at 08:09 AM on 12 November 2012About New research from last week series
Dear Ari, Yes I am a regular reader too and I also cannot respond. I am studying climate science for only one year now. (after retiring Thanks for your effort! Sincerely yours, Pieter -
Kevin C at 07:32 AM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Here's an idea: I added a trend term to both regressions. They will now both give identical results, since the only difference between AMO and sea temp is the detrending term. However, the values of the trends will tell us something. Here are the stats on the trend term using AMO: TREND 0.24495 0.09866 2.483 0.0143 * And here's what you get using temps: TREND -0.1346 0.1138 -1.182 0.239 The additional trend that has to be added to fit ACE using AMO is different from zero by about 2.5 sigma - that's significant at the 95% confidence level. So there is a statistically significant trend over and above what is predicted by AMO+ENSO. When using temperatures, the additional trend is only 1.2 sigma (in the opposite direction). The ACE trend is slightly less than would be expected from temps+ENSO, but the difference is not statistically significant. Sea temperature certainly seems to play the dominant role. Whether there is an AMO component over and above the temperature component is inconclusive. -
Kevin C at 07:19 AM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Brian B: I had noticed the same thing - that the trends are dependent on the point in the AMO cycle. So I've spent the last couple of days looking at more sophisticated analyses. The literature is clear on the link between both AMO and ACE, and ENSO and ACE. We can examine this in detail. I ran a multivariate regression of AMO and MEI (using the extended MEI which runs back to 1872, supplemented by the normal MEI from 1950). Here are the stats:Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 93.613 3.985 23.491 < 2e-16 *** AMO 150.013 21.829 6.872 2.04e-10 *** MEI -20.963 5.294 -3.960 0.00012 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 - *** - 0.001 - ** - 0.01 - * - 0.05 - . - 0.1 - - 1 Residual standard error: 47.03 on 137 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.2932, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2829 F-statistic: 28.42 on 2 and 137 DF, p-value: 4.73e-11As expected, ACE is positively correlated with AMO and negatively with MEI. The coefficients are also highly significant. Now, AMO is simple detrended Atlantic temperature. The interesting question is whether hurricanes are actually influenced by AMO, or by temperature. So I took the raw temperature data before detrending and used it in place of AMO. Here's what I got:Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 95.552 3.937 24.270 < 2e-16 *** AMO_temp 136.179 18.597 7.322 1.88e-11 *** MEI -24.318 5.276 -4.609 9.18e-06 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 - *** - 0.001 - ** - 0.01 - * - 0.05 - . - 0.1 - - 1 Residual standard error: 46.24 on 137 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.317, Adjusted R-squared: 0.307 F-statistic: 31.79 on 2 and 137 DF, p-value: 4.571e-12Now that's interesting! The fit against temperatures is rather better. Temperature+ENSO is a better predictor of ACE than AMO+ENSO. Is the difference statistically significant? As a crude measure, the difference in log likelihood suggests the latter model is about 10x more likely than the former, but I need to do a bit of digging to find the proper significance test for this kind of comparison. That has implications. If ACE is controlled by AMO and the correlation with temperature is incidental, then when AMO flips back around 2020 we should see a reduction in hurricanes. However if ACE is controlled by sea temperature, then things are likely to continue to get worse as the Atlantic warms. And the data appears to point in the latter direction, I'm just not sure how strongly. This is very preliminary - as well as the significance tests I need to investigate lags between the different terms. A lot of tedious analysis I'm afraid. -
Dave123 at 07:14 AM on 12 November 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
I just noticed this question about why- why do faux skeptics hang on to Hansen's old work? Why do they obsess about Mike Mann's original paper? For Hansen's paper the answer is that 30 years have elapsed. If Hansens models are seen as right and valid, they constitute a prognistic, falsifiable test of climate modeling and thus are consistent for the need to act NOW. But if you can trash Hansen, then you can say "well, models may have improved, but we won't know until we "freeze" today's models and see how they come out 30 years from now. Taking today's models, starting them 30 years ago and seeing how they read forward to today isn't good enough, because we already know the outcome. We need to make the scenario forecast without knowing the outcome. The Hockey stick (which is off topic for this thread, I know) is a matter of needing a MWP that no one can explain. If we've got an unexplainable MWP, then our current warming could be from the same unknown source...regardless of all the physics and laws of thermodynamics. It's a complex system and we just don't know enough. Motivated reasoning. It's fun ain't it? -
littlerobbergirl at 07:12 AM on 12 November 2012About New research from last week series
Thank you for your efforts ari its appreciated. i read several of your picks each week but dont feel qualified to comment - i imagine i'm not alone. -
dana1981 at 05:49 AM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
idunno @68 - yes, Ridley and the WSJ is a bad combination. Rob Painting is working on a response to that article. Suffice it to say that like everything Matt Ridley writes related to the climate, it's riddled with errors. -
dana1981 at 05:47 AM on 12 November 2012Vision Prize Results
dvaytw @19 - the IPCC looks at changes since 1750 (approximately 250 years) - I think it's just chosen as a reasonable "pre-industrial" date. -
dvaytw at 03:50 AM on 12 November 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Curious if anyone's heard of this fellow and his paper on worldwide hurricane activity: http://www.leshatton.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/HurricaneActivity1946-2010.pdf Best I can tell, he's not actually a climate scientist and his paper isn't actually peer-reviewed, but Google his research links to about a thousand denier sites. -
dvaytw at 02:57 AM on 12 November 2012Vision Prize Results
Quick question: why 250 years? -
idunno at 02:50 AM on 12 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
More content from the WSJ here: http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-medieval-heat-cool-warming-worries/ ...in which CO2Science's collection of academic papers is cited as the go-to source for information on the subject. No mention of the SkS debunk. -
Alpinist at 01:52 AM on 12 November 2012Fred Singer - not an American Thinker
Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Roger Pielke Jr. and the other [snip] need to get out and look and see what actual scientists are finding: In the Northern Rocky Mountains it means temperatures are getting hotter, extreme precipitation events have increased, there’s a winter shift from snow to rain at lower elevations, late spring snowpack is decreasing, the average date of annual peak streamflow comes earlier, annual streamflow is decreasing, summer stream temperatures are increasing, fire season starts earlier in the spring and continues longer into the fall for a fire season that’s now a month longer than it used to be. If Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Roger Pielke Jr. and and the WSJ editorial board want to send in the clowns and propose some alternate explanations, we’re all ears.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory snipped. -
Lionel A at 22:05 PM on 11 November 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #9
Working link to the Huffington Post article cited above: Dramatic Impacts of Rapid Climate Change on the Antarctic Peninsula .Moderator Response: [JH] Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The link in the OP has been fixed. -
Sapient Fridge at 20:42 PM on 11 November 2012Earth's five mass extinction events
Bolandista, the only problem with your hypothesis is that there is no evidence to support it. If small shifts in CO2 levels caused major metabolic changes, or cancer, then it would have been spotted long ago. Can you point to any research to back up your ideas? You are also lacking evidence that life arrived on earth 2.5 billion years ago in a "cosmic event". There is evidence that life was around at least a billion years before that. -
Tom Curtis at 11:41 AM on 11 November 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Lanfear @62, space rockets certainly carry oxidizing agents in part because it is hard to find oxygen in a vacuum. However, rocket cars also carry oxidizing agents, and that is certainly not the issue for them. The need for very rapid combustion to produce maximum power, however, is. With regard to diesel engines and soot, whether or not they produce soot will depend on a number of factors including their cycle (two stroke engines will always have uncombusted fuel), and age (worn engines will admit sump oil which burns poorly and produces soot). As it happens, I have seen diesel engines in which I could not detect any soot by eye (or nose), but that may not be the relevant test. Never-the-less, I think you need to support your claim a bit better. With regard to pure O2, you are quite correct. Indeed, ordinary grease can spontaneously explode in a pure oxygen atmosphere (one of the safety hazards boilermakers need to be warned of). -
Russell at 11:03 AM on 11 November 2012The Climate Show #30: Obama, Sandy and the rabbit
It was painful to watch :Quelle Naufrage ! -
Doug Bostrom at 09:43 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Leaving aside the problem of teasing a signal from a TS record imperfect in many ways and influenced by more than one factor, there's still the problem of the trend in surge, compounded by John's point. Nobody yet seems to offer a persuasive argument that sea level is not rising, or that Grinsted's id of trend in surge is false. Pielke seems be signed on with surge trend. Interestingly, at Pielke's Brian (same Brian?) says there is both no trend and a trend, so let's count that as no opinion. If your house is flooded or falls into the ocean, how much do you really care what caused the problem? -
K.a.r.S.t.e.N at 09:07 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Brian B #61/#62 The last 100 years of AMO are very likely the result of anthropogenic forcing changes, namely in sulfate aerosols (with a subsequent AMOC response which we otherwise wouldn't have seen with the same magnitude). Your argument therefore presumably seriously flawed. Would you be so kind as to point us to a source which supports your claim that Pielke Jr. ever explicitly acknowledged that other damages than hurricane damage could potentially be linked to AGW (if not yet identifiable as a signal in the noise, then as a future threat)? To seize the opportunity, could you also provide a link to a source where Pielke Jr. criticize his father (Pielke Sr.) for misrepresenting the science? Thanks! -
John Hartz at 09:05 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Speaking of sea level rise and what lies ahead... "Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, due to critical feedbacks missing from earlier models, according to the University of Colorado." Source: Why sea levels are rising ahead of predictions FutureTimeline.net, Nov 7, 2012 -
John Hartz at 08:55 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Hmmm, Jeff Masters is listed as an author of the article listed below. It is reasonable to assume therefore that he concurs with its contents and its title. Did climate change contribute to Sandy? Yes. by Bob Corell, Jeff Masters, and Kevin Trenbereth, Politico, Nov 5, 2012 -
John Hartz at 08:44 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Per usual, Chris Mooney hit the nail squarely on the head when he wrote: “Following this debate, I’ve been struck by the strong impression that people are making things too complicated. Here’s the simple truth: Leaving aside questions of systemic causation—and sidestepping probabilities, loaded dice, atmospheres on steroids, and so on—we can nevertheless say that global warming made Sandy directly and unmistakably worse, because of its contribution to sea level rise.” Source: Climate Change Made Sandy Worse. Period. by Chris Mooney, Climate Desk, Nov 8, 2012 -
Brian B at 08:07 AM on 11 November 2012WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
Albatross (#60), Regarding your quote from Jeff Masters, Roger Pielke has said exactly the same thing many times. He has always insisted that hurricane damage is not the place to look for AGW signals, and that there is plenty to see elsewhere. (I challenge you to find evidence that Pielke has ever said anything different from that.) So how does that make Pielke the bad guy? He does insist--correctly--that others (politicians, media, activists) should not use hurricane damage as a pretext for action on AGW. Scientists and those concerned about AGW should join Pielke in decrying this false use of data, which is damaging to science. Such hyperinflated claims have done far more to hurt the AGW action agenda than Pielke ever could.
Prev 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 Next
