Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  1036  1037  1038  1039  1040  1041  1042  1043  1044  1045  1046  Next

Comments 51901 to 51950:

  1. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    @59 Albatross, I'm looking forward to what you can unearth. I've been scouring Google Scholar and other websites for more homogenous info regarding wind fields and sizes for historic hurricanes, but cannot come up with much. I would like to read the following study but cannot find a copy online: "Dunnavan. G. M. and Diercks, J. W. 1980. An analysis of super typhoon Tip"
  2. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    markx - this is straying far the topic of this thread. I have instead responded to you here which I think is more appropriate before moderators start removing posts as offtopic.
  3. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Dhogaza - that's a most vivid analogy - thanks for posting! AndersMi, you need to examine in turn the factors that initiate, drive/inhibit, steer and multiply the effects of hurricanes in the North Atlantic and consider how these parameters may be affected by a system containing more energy. Such factors including variations in sea surface temperatures, convective instability in the tropics, deep-layer shear throughout the entire area, likewise atmospheric circulation patterns, changes in sea level and so on. These vary from basic physics based on observations over many years to new emergent properties (e.g. atmospheric responses to very rapid - compared to predictions - meltdown of Arctic sea ice). Some of these factors (e.g. shear profiles) may well change in ways that might inhibit developing storms (then again they may go the opposite way), but it is worth noting that Sandy ploughed straight through a zone of fairly high shear quite merrily on its way to landfall. Just one of the meteorologically-interesting features of the storm. Another was its explosion in energy during barotropic to part- and then fully-baroclinic transition. Baroclinic storms thrive in high-shear environments and these two features may well be related.
  4. CO2 limits will harm the economy
    Responding to Comment here markx - "equitable" <> "equal". What I means is that most of the extra carbon in the air is from the west. Other countries need to emit to grow their economies while the west has the wherewithal to decarbonise. I would also notice that in the west, it is predominantly the rich convervatives on the right that deny climate change and resist calls for decarbonising. Mind you a carbon-tax on the border would ensure that exporters to the west would rapidly look for ways to decarbonise too. Let the market work its magic.
  5. The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
    Taken from the IEA monthly electricity stats archive are some figures on German electricity production. The first number is the production by combustible fuels, the second is total electricity production. Units are GWh. 2005: 372,086/581,251 2006: 354,871/569,943 2007: 388,834/584,939 2008: 380,334/607,286 2009: 357,134/571,397 2010: 374,080/580,849 2011: 354,178/551,348 In the period Jan-July 2012 electricity production by combustible fuels was up 4.2% on the corresponding period in 2011. Total production was up 3.5%. The situation appears approximately static. Assuming that combustible fuels includes biomass, the situation should be a little better than the figures indicate at first glance. But that also raises environmental concerns over the large scale use of agricultural biogas, it's carbon footprint and issues of scalability. Claims that Germany does or will show it is possible to do without nuclear and fossil fuels have a long way to go before they could be proven. Most likely decades and that is far too long. This is not an anti-renewables comment, it is a pro arithmetic comment.
  6. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    markx - now you are talking about politics and that’s our biggest problem because it is corrupted by the existing energy generation “establishment”. I didn’t say this was going to be an easy transition. I bought solar panels two and a half years ago, and since then their power output has nearly doubled, while the price has nearly halved. It took coal generation 150 years to reach current efficiencies, so solar is still in its infancy. There are only a handful of base-load solar power stations so far so they have yet to reach economies of scale. “- like on your roof for one”........ so I wasn’t just talking about solar. There’s plenty more renewable energy sources that haven’t reached anywhere near their potential, and some we haven’t heard of yet. By the way, it will probably be China that develops them.
  7. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    scaddenp at 14:35 PM on 4 November, 2012 "...An equitable solution would be decarbonise the west so other countries can grow without damaging the climate...." Not so simple really - I'm forever dealing with incredibly rich individuals and businesses in China - the wealth is astounding. And no doubt there are huge numbers of poor there, but such people also exist in western countries. So perhaps it is inevitable that any 'carbon trading scheme' will require a huge social engineering program, redistributing cash (the poor's energy needs are fixed - reduce energy usage and someone will go hungry or cold).
  8. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    Brian Purdue at 10:45 AM on 4 November, 2012 "...We have to think local for our energy supply – like on your roof for one...." I agree entirely with you on that Brian. But I think you will find big business still has it's way in the end - governments much prefer centralized business control (purposes of tax, monitoring, QC, control, regulation). In some areas of Australia there are already limitation as to the number of solar cells you may put on a household roof (and anyway solar cells are not so far living up to the sales talk). Even solar hot water is over regulated, mainly because somewhere in the system you must have connections to a public supply system... and there is no hope of avoiding that as in some areas you cannot even catch the rain which falls on your roof - "they" want to catch it a sell it to you! ... with similar legislation for use of stream or underground water. (becoming fully a commercialized commodity.)
  9. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Markx, at the moment, you are making a claim from Personal Incredulity. Perhaps it would be best to start with the actual papers that make the claims and fault their logic instead? But as Doug points out, the claim passes the "sniff test" - the OHC increase is consistent with thermosteric sea level rise.
  10. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    If someone is going to play the "China" card then its worth noting that China is also retiring older inefficient coal plants; that the energy demand in the China is largely to supply goods to the west - in effect the West is exporting emissions to China; and that per capita energy use in China is far below that of USA. The emissions causing trouble in our atmosphere at the moment are from western emissions over the last 100 years, not Chinese. An equitable solution would be decarbonise the west so other countries can grow without damaging the climate.
  11. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    If size of storm surge is a good proxy for intensity,(and since this proxy avoids observational biases in other measures)t then the Grinsted paper does find statistically significant correlation between temperature and intensity.
  12. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    As so often happens, a denier is pulling the thread completely off track be presenting a vacuous argument, and then sticking to it no matter what, so that everyone finds the need to argue with him. Meanwhile, the original point of the post (that the fingerprints of climate change can be found all over this particular extreme weather event) is lost under silly arguments about what a trend is, what the trends say, how they apply, etc. If the argument actually had any merit, that would be one thing. But it doesn't. It's just another hardcore-denier pretending that there is no evidence, when the evidence is slamming his head over and over into a brick wall saying "can you hear me now?"
  13. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    markx, you neglect to mention the mining of the coal. This is obliterating the landscape, poisoning the air and water, and destroying the health of the surrounding population along the way. A lot of the coal has to be transported halfway around the world by truck, rail and ships, which uses up oil reserves and damages the environment in the process. We have to think local for our energy supply – like on your roof for one.
  14. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    AndersMi, you're confusing a lack of statistical significance with a lack of trend. The two are not the same. A dataset can have a strong apparent trend that has not quite enough datapoints to reach a desired level of significance. This does not mean that there is no trend. Your kind of fallacious argument has often been used in evaluating short-term global temperature trends- a trend of +0.010C/yr +/- 0.012C is nonzero and not quite statistically significant. Failing to reject the null hypothesis does not mean you unconditionally accept the null hypothesis.
  15. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    "As for my "silly argument". No statistically significant increase doesn't mean, as you say, "an uncertainty in the magnitude of the increase". It means no increase detected." I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. One can detect an increase that doesn't reach statistical significance, which is commonly meant to mean that the computed trend reaches the 95% confidence level. A[n] [in]famous example was the "no statistically signifcant trend since 1995" comment twisted into "no increase detected" by denialists. Actually, at the time the statement was made, the significance level was > 90% but < 95%. If you think this means "no increase detected", let me hand first hand you a revolver with 100 chambers, 95 filled with cartridges, and then one with (say) 92 cartridges. If you have faith in your interpretation you'll gladly play russian roulette with the second, because it is "empty" while the first is "full".
  16. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Tom, thanks for your long and interesting reply. I take the first of your quotings from SREX as supporting the lack of certainty over the presumed trends (the Webster et al. paper is dated 7 years earlier than the SREX report and has been certainly weighted in). The fact that the lack of confidence in the trend has to be attributed to a small number of new events or in the uncertainty in the actual number of old ones, is frankly irrelevant. And if overall this doesn't tell us that there is no trend, as Dana1981 rightly remarks, it suggests that the global warming signal, if there is any, must be difficult to single out. The new Grinsted et al paper is certainly interesting and I didn't know about it. Let's see whether its findings will be confirmed by other studies. As for my "silly argument". No statistically significant increase doesn't mean, as you say, "an uncertainty in the magnitude of the increase". It means no increase detected. If you can't detect changes in events on a statistical scale, how can you blame a single instance on a specific cause? Not only you would need an absolute certainty on the causation mechanism, and on the fact that in different conditions the event wouldn't have realized - which you don't and can't have in this case; but you also need to justify why this causation mechanism doesn't show its signature with a detectable statistical trend, that is, why doesn't it happen *repeatedly*. You're like somebody claiming that a tumour was caused in a patient by a particular chemical substance, although there is no statically significant increase in tumours in populations subject to that same substance.
  17. Philippe Chantreau at 09:10 AM on 4 November 2012
    Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Markx says ""I worry at the statistically calculated precision over a 55 year period from data which itself has required corrections." Looking a the loss of Arctic Sea ice, loss of permafrost, extreme weather events, rising sea levels, extreme storm surges, I am of the opinion that there are other things to "worry" about.
  18. The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html This is a graph of Co2 emissions by various countries. Please note the difference between Germany and France. I rest my case your honour.
  19. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    AnderMi has variously conflated "low confidence" in the SREX report with lack of statistical significance (they are not the same), and quoted summary results on global statistics as though they are representative of observations in the North Atlantic. In fact, the SREX says this of the North Atlantic (p 159, PDF):
    "Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency have been identified in the North Atlantic, but the fidelity of these trends is debated (Holland and Webster, 2007; Landsea, 2007; Mann et al., (2007a). Different methods for estimating undercounts in the earlier part of the North Atlantic tropical cyclone record provide mixed conclusions (Chang and Guo, 2007; Mann et al., 2007b; Kunkel et al., 2008; Vecchi and Knutson, 2008)."
    Webster et al (2005) (PDF) says of the North Atlantic:
    "Figure 3 shows that in each ocean basin time series, the annual frequency and duration of hurricanes exhibit the same temporal characteristics as the global time series (Fig. 2), with overall trends for the 35-year period that are not statistically different from zero. The exception is the North Atlantic Ocean, which possesses an increasing trend in frequency and duration that is significant at the 99% confidence level. The observation that increases in North Atlantic hurricane characteristics have occurred simultaneously with a statistically significant positive trend in SST has led to the speculation that the changes in both fields are the result of global warming (3)."
    So, the trend in North Atlantic cyclones (Hurricanes) is statistically significant, contrary to Andermi's clear suggestions. The validity of that trend, at the time of the SREX had "low confidence" not because the data do not show a trend, but because it is unclear whether the data accurately reflects the frequency of hurricanes in the early part of the record. That lack of confidence is no longer warranted. Grinsted et al have used long records of consistent quality to establish that Hurricanes are twice as likely in warm years as in cool years. The connection between increased temperature and increased frequency of Hurricanes in the North Atlantic must therefore be considered well established. (Note: although Grinsted et al show a positive trend in US land falling tropical storms, and in Accumulated Cyclone Energy, those trends are not statistically significant in large part because the record starts in the relatively warm 1930s.) Turning to AndersMi's frankly silly argument, he says:
    "So, since there is no clear statistical increase of storms, it follows that if we can prove that some storms are indeed caused by global warming, then some others must be disappearing to keep the observed balance even. Otherwise we would see an increasing trend, which we don't."
    Leaving aside the fact that his premise is false of the North Atlantic, the implied argument is nonsense. He equates "no statistically significant increase" with no increase. That is, he assumes uncertainty about the magnitude of the increase implies certainty that there has been no increase. Assume the increase in tropical cyclones since the 1950s was 5 +/-10 per annum. Then there would have been no statistically significant increase. We would not know from that fact, plus the fact that one particular cyclone was caused by global warming that the increase was in fact zero, and that therefore a potential cyclone was caused to dissipate by global warming.
  20. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Anders @72 - as I noted @70 and as I believe others have noted as well, inability to detect a statistically significant trend due to a large amount of noise does not mean a trend doesn't exist.
  21. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    I note that the graphical representation of the data from Levitus 2012 shows approximately 50% data coverage down to 2000 m up to the end of the time series shown. I suspect, given additional papers discussed in this Skeptical Science post, that improving the coverage would not favour the claim that the oceans are cooling.
  22. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Moderator and dana1981: as I've already written in many comments, the source for the statement "there is no clear statistical increase of storms" is IPCC's SREX report, published in March 2012. Full report, page 111: "There is low confidence that any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities." And more, with a slightly different nuance in the same report's Summary for Policymakers, page 6: "There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.". For Moderator, I'd appreciate if you'd remove from my previous comment the request to provide a source, since it suggests that I hadn't - while I alrady had in my very first comment to this post: >>----- AndersMi at 22:06 PM on 3 November, 2012 It seems to me that this post contradicts the latest IPCC report on extreme events, SREX, published in March 2012, where it says: "There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities." >>----- For dana1981: The Knutson et al. (2010) paper has been surely taken in account in IPCC's SREX (2012). As for what Emanuel shows, it's fine, but it's model-based. Reality doesn't seem (yet) to show the signature of GW in this respect.
  23. Climate Newbie at 06:06 AM on 4 November 2012
    Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Thanks michael sweet - it's just perplexing that he has enough time to answer the question, and to block me, and then to re-edit his answer. And erase my question. My comment and question were (and are) on this topic.
  24. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Markx - Yes, with a mercury thermometer. Reversing thermometers, but it's good to see you've moved on from the ropes and buckets claim. I note you never attempted any explanation as to why you thought ropes and buckets were used to measure subsurface ocean heat. Is that a myth circulating on contrarian blogs? "It seems to be quite test of the power of the statistical analyses to take this back to 1955" The uncertainty of the analysis is shown in vertical red bars (0-2000mtrs) & grey shaded areas (700-2000m) in this figure from Levitus (2012): "I worry at the statistically calculated precision over a 55 year period from data which itself has required corrections" Virtually all datasets require corrections. Until such time as humans invent a perfect measuring instrument, it's something we have to live with. The issues with some of the ARGO floats is unlikely to side with the wishful thinking of contrarians I'm afraid. The faulty floats have a pressure sensor issue which underestimates the actual depth that they are at. This means they are taking a temperature reading colder than is actually the case, introducing a cool bias into the dataset. This issue is still being addressed, and no doubt other problems will crop up, but this is no different to any other climate-related dataset. I do note, however, that many contrarians, such as Roger Pielke Snr, thought ARGO was the greatest thing since sliced bread when it indicated the oceans were cooling. But now that ARGO confirms the long-term ocean warming trend, contrarians are falling over themselves trying to find excuses not to accept the evidence.
  25. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    If China pulls off the juggling act they need to perform in order to maintain social and political stability while building a durable system it'll be quite remarkable. As Markx implies, coal is a necessary if unfortunate part of that equation but still amenable to optimization. It's the permitted longevity of the band-aid fix in the form of more efficient coal plants that's dubious, unpredictable. Brutal as it is,the Chinese government might order plants only a couple of decades old decommissioned, if that government survives, and be obeyed. Scary and fascinating at the same time.
  26. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Regarding hurricane intensity I recommend Knutson et al. (2010) linked in the post. They explain that there is a great deal of natural variability in hurricane intensity (and frequency), and therefore it is very difficult to discern a trend in the noise. Nevertheless, they do find a trend in the intensity of the strongest hurricanes, and the models clearly predict that they will continue to grow stronger in the future. Despite this difficulty in detecting the signal beneath the noise, as Emanuel shows (in the many links to his work in the post), higher SSTs fuel stronger hurricanes. SSTs are higher than they were in the past due to AGW, and that's the world in which Sandy existed.
  27. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    AndersMi you have ignored the point I made. An absense of something doesn't impact the intensity of the individual events. The cause of an event that has a greater amplitude has no impact on the absense of the signal at other points. The problem I have with your statements is that you are implying a cause and effect regarding the absense of something. That is frankly absurd. It also probably breaks the laws of thermodynamics and most other phyical laws. You are confusing actual physical events and actions with mathematical human assessment of those events and actions.
  28. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Climate newbie, Dr. Mann is very busy. I recommend you ask your questions here where people try to answer newbie climate questions. Find a thread where your comment is on topic and you will receive replies.
  29. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Paul D: you say "If there is more energy being held in the system and it gets unevenly distributed you would expect the frequency and intensity of storms to increase.". I agree with you. But that's exactly what, according to the IPCC, is NOT happening (at least in a statistically relevant way). So, since there is no clear statistical increase of storms, it follows that if we can prove that some storms are indeed caused by global warming, then some others must be disappearing to keep the observed balance even. Otherwise we would see an increasing trend, which we don't.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "since there is no clear statistical increase of storms"

    Please provide a link citation to a reputable source that documents this. Assertions lacking citations to proof sources are subject to moderation, as they constitute sloganeering.

  30. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    Sphaerica at 02:50 AM on 4 November, 2012 "...Except that those new coal fired plants are going to kill us..." Not really, they are a step in a better direction (at this stage of the game). The energy demand is there, it will be met one way or the other. The current system is not good. It is amazing to see factories (even pharmaceutical companies) burning coal for their energy. Not to mention hotels, and even pig farms. But you should see the often wet and dirty coal piles, and the age of some the old furnaces used (although there are good modern ones too). Good point re the Solar hot water - and we should mention all the low cost electric vehicles - all possible by being extremely affordable to the poor. Legislation wise (if that is seen as the need), Sandy was a convenient arrival, at exactly the right time.
  31. Climate Newbie at 03:38 AM on 4 November 2012
    Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    I asked Dr. Mann a question on his FB page about the extent of sea level rise he referenced in his interview with Alan Colmes on Fox Radio. In a FB reply he directed me to this article, which explains the reference completely. But now I cannot seem to comment on his FB page anymore. I have lots of questions about the evidence and theory of climate change. Did asking one question result in my being barred from D. Mann's page? Confused.
  32. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Markx, you're probably not very worried, or you'd dig into the literature and learn how the temperature record is assembled. If you're really worried it would be better to take a hint, stop voicing your fears and go help yourself. Clearly you know how to do that. But here's the rub if you've got other issues with the matter of ocean warming: if you question the measured amount of warming of the ocean then you also have to come up with an alternate explanation for thermosteric SLR. Tough cookie to crack: if the average km3 of the ocean is expanding in volume, how does it accomplish that without becoming warmer? As you begin to replace thermosteric SLR with a novel hypothesis you'll be entering the region of "here be dragons." Tread carefully.
  33. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    Markx forgot to mention the 20+GWE of domestic solar hot water installed in China in the past half dozen years, with ~40GWE more slated for installation coming right up. 20GWE of solar DHW is quicker and easier to put in place than the 20 or so nuclear plants otherwise needed to warm up water. Similarly, PV and wind. Similarly we see that coal plants don't yield energy "in the most efficient manner." What's strangely inefficient is ignoring an ample supply of fusion nuclear power delivered daily to our doorsteps. One thing we can probably agree on: while we yammer endlessly about what we might do, the Chinese actually deliver results. Too bad it takes an iron handed authority to substitute for common sense; it doesn't have to be that way, if we ignore people like the Koch bros. who are throwing sand in our mental gears.
  34. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    AndersMi "...if we can prove that some exceptionally strong or frequent storms have to be attributed to GW, then we also have implicitly proved that GW prevents the formation of some other storms or lowers their intensity..." That is the most bizare statement I have seen for a while. It is logically flawed. It's a bit like saying that when you increase a signal amplitude such as a sine wave clipped at zero. That the energy in the signal is responsible for when the voltage is zero as well as when it is at the peak! You don't measure the absense or attribute an absense to a cause. If there is more energy being held in the system and it gets unevenly distributed you would expect the frequency and intensity of storms to increase.
  35. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    I worry at the statistically calculated precision over a 55 year period from data which itself has required corrections. It seems the Argo floats are not always precision instruments. From NASA – (Titled “Correcting Ocean Cooling”. by Rebecca Lindsey November 5, 2008 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php “…But when he factored the too-warm XBT measurements into his ocean warming time series, the last of the ocean cooling went away. Later, Willis teamed up with Susan Wijffels of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) and other ocean scientists to diagnose the XBT problems in detail and come up with a way to correct them. “So the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled,” says Willis. …”
  36. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Rob Painting at 19:10 PM on 2 November, 2012 "...measure ocean temperature down hundreds of meters..." Yes, with a mercury thermometer, but marked in 1/10th degrees. Until about 2004, there were not so many Argo measures being taken below 700 meters. The Argo project only really starting in earnest in 2000. It seems to be quite test of the power of the statistical analyses to take this back to 1955. Granted, not evenly distributed: Levitus etal 2010 showed a 0.18 degree C rise in the Zero to 700 meter depth range world wide over 55 years, as well as the aforementioned 0.09 degrees C rise over the whole 2000 meter depth over 55 years.
  37. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    markx, Except that those new coal fired plants are going to kill us. We're all going to look back on that "short cut" and say "what were we thinking?"
  38. Grinsted et al. Examine Historical Hurricane Storm Surges
    Tamino, Nice presentation. Your technique of reducing the noise looks to be very effective. I wonder if Grinsted et al. might be better able to judge the significance of historical trends by applying something like this to the raw daily data for all their stations over their whole period. Incidentally there may be methods based on knowledge of tides and movement of the moon to choose the particular frequency and phase for each tide gauge theoretically, rather than by a fit to the data. Malcolm Griffin
  39. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    AndersMi, Oh, and you'll forgive my personal attacks on you (or not), but I live on the east coast, and have many friends and family in VA, MD, NJ and MA who are directly suffering as a result of Hurricane Sandy, so you'll forgive me if I'm just a little more sensitive than usual to denier B.S. [I myself was very, very lucky, because while much of my town lost power, I did not, but MA in general pretty much dodged this storm, because it hit a little further south than it could have.]
  40. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    I suspect Obama will get elected, at least partly because of Sandy, and you are going to get the "Climate Programme" you wish for. (Sloganeering snipped)(Some will do very well indeed http://www.4-traders.com/CO2-GROUP-LIMITED-6501027/news/CO2-Group-Limited-CO2-Group-delivers-a-record-$7-million-full-year-profit-well-positioned-for-fut-15439948/.) I spend a lot of time in China. I think they are going the right way about this, opening a new efficient coal fired power station every ten days, to replace the millions of old smoky boilers inefficiently burning dirty wet coal, investing in vast hydro-power projects, investing in nuclear power, centrally investing in vast infrastructure projects including highway networks and high speed rail, and new airports everywhere I go. They are also rapidly modernizing, mechanizing and expanding farming operations. All in the interests of producing what is needed in the most efficient manner. All of which will use energy more efficiently and decrease all sorts of pollution (Oh, to see a blue sky over Beijing!) On storms, the Beijingers find it amusing that their press covers Sandy but ignored a recent storm which hit Beijing in July and killed 70 people.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Please review the comments policy.
  41. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    FYI, the "no statistical evidence" and "no empirical evidence" are constant denier tactics (it's a favorite of Jo Nova's). They take a faux-science position of being thoroughly objective and requiring statistical evidence to prove a point, knowing full well that there are many cases in the world in general and climate change in particular where the only way to gather such evidence is to wait until it is far, far too late. But there are many tools in the human brain's toolbox, besides statistics, with which to evaluate positions, think ahead, and plan intelligently.
  42. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    I'm not commenting on the IPCC meme because it's silly. I never contested what AR4 said. I contested how it does or does not apply to this situation. You are right in that you did not attack the IPCC. That's my mistake. You tried instead to use it to incorrectly support a position of denial and inaction. On that I stand corrected. You didn't attack the IPCC. You simply misunderstood and misrepresented the facts.
  43. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    I'm sorry, that's my last reply to you. I think that my logic is pretty clear. In fact you didn't even question it but said that I was attacking IPCC or AR4, while it is you the one who disagrees with IPCC's report (I see you're not commenting on this anymore). Now you say that the time period taken in consideration by IPCC (40 years) is too short to detect trends... It seems to me that you're changing your argument every time and mixing in personal attacks. I invite the other readers to check our comments and decide by themselves.
  44. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    AndersMi,
    ... if GW can be held responsible for some storms, then it has to be held responsible also for the absence of some other, because the overall trend is flat.
    False. As stated, the time period and degree to detect a statistically significant trend is too short, and the science is uncertain at this point as to what trend we will see. You cannot make the statement that the trend is flat. We don't yet know what the trend is. It is not statistics, it's logic. This has been explained to you several times now, and you can't seem to get it. This is not statistics, this is physics and logic. [Don't worry, a lot of deniers have trouble with that distinction. They can't seem to let go of the things that are appealing to them and help them to arrive at the conclusions they prefer.] It can and should be considered that Sandy was likely enhanced, in timing, strength and direction/location, by climate change. There is no positive proof, but to me it is beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can't follow the logic, that's your problem. Other people can.
  45. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Cynicus, You may have a point here. I know you asked Dana, but I'm curious about this so will delve a little deeper. One could rank the estimated energy for all Atlantic storms by category (1-5) and by energy, regardless of the Saffir-Simpson classification.
  46. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Sphaerica, you keep failing to understand that if GW can be held responsible for some storms, then it has to be held responsible also for the absence of some other, because the overall trend is flat. If you blame Sandy on GW, then you have to thank the same GW for other missing storms. It's trivial statistics. Second, my assault on IPCC and AR4? You must be joking. I said that *you* are in disagreement with IPCC and its SREX report, which hasn't been published 5 years ago, but this year, 2012.
  47. citizenschallenge at 01:05 AM on 4 November 2012
    Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    For what it's worth I've done a paragraph by paragraph review of Judith Curry's latest publication. "Climate change: no consensus on consensus" I think it's time to count up the falsehoods and slights of hand these mesmerists use. Dr. Curry's "Climate change: no consensus on consensus" - challenged" A review of Dr. Judith Curry's reader's digest to "Climate change: no consensus on consensus"  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ re: ¶1 "Manufacture consensus" Notice the slight of hand Curry has performed. Curry creates the assumption that the IPCC process is nothing but high octane politics...  ... now we try to look for her evidence. I intend to review Curry's reader's digest with an eye toward finding and evaluating the supporting evidence for her claims. ~ ~ ~ Along the way I'll be looking for intellectual slight-of-hand, such as turning suppositions into self-evidence truths.  Which she has already done in her opening. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
  48. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    DSL, I've never said that if "Sandy was huge because of AGW; therefore, all storms should be huge because of AGW". I've said quite the opposite: since there is no statistically significant trend in intensity and frequency of storms under GW conditions, if we can prove that some exceptionally strong or frequent storms have to be attributed to GW, then we also have implicitly proved that GW prevents the formation of some other storms or lowers their intensity, such that the overall trend is flat. If this is true, as it can be, then it's right to blame Sandy on GW, but at the same time we should thank the same GW for other missing and/or high intensity storms that simply aren't there. Bottom line: as far as we know, stopping or reverting global warming would leave us with exactly the same number and intensity of tropical storms.
  49. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    AndersMi,
    That's why we have to look at statistics
    No. You keep missing the point. In many cases, in general, yes, we need statistics with a long enough time frame and enough storms to measure the trend. In this particular case, however, we are able to use logic and physics to evaluate possible causality. Your knee-jerk assumption that we must use statistics and so we must wait for decades to perform any analysis is just another excuse to wait and deny. As far as your (tired, trite, predictable) assault on the IPCC and AR4... I will readily admit that the IPCC and AR4 tended (needed?) to err on the side of "caution" (as in underestimating), and they have made some mistakes in that regard (underestimating, for example, sea level rise). No one ever said the science 5 years ago was perfect, and there certainly had been and still is political pressure to make sure they aren't "overselling" the dangers. Sadly, "underselling" the dangers is even more dangerous, especially with certain people who will use any excuse they can to ignore and fail to address the problem. I just hope that ten and twenty years down the road, those people realize that they have blood on their hands.
  50. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    DSL, "low confidence" means that a statistically significant trend is hardly discernible. When you can hardly see something even at a statistical level, even less you can blame the single event on a cause. It's somehow right what you say: every single weather event is related to global warming, in the sense that, had the global warming not been there, the weather would have been different. However, exactly the same can be said also of the proverbial butterfly in Japan, that flapping its wings can cause a hurricane over the US: had that butterfly not been there, the weather would have been different. But does this imply that by killing all the butterflies we'd get less storms, i.e. a statistically significant decreasing trend in storms? Not at all, we would just get them in different places and times. Would it make sense to blame a particular storm on the butterfly that caused it? Obviously not, because then you should praise the same butterfly for the absence of storms everywhere else in the same moment.

Prev  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  1036  1037  1038  1039  1040  1041  1042  1043  1044  1045  1046  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us