Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 Next
Comments 52301 to 52350:
-
tksoft at 16:31 PM on 31 October 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
Can anyone explain why the first chart on the page shows the global warming to have about 2X greater slope than the second chart? Thanks. -
ajki at 16:20 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
For german readers: As noted by some german newspapers (e.g. sz) S. Rahmstorf puts together some early thoughts about the very special conditions of this unusual storm on his blog [KlimaLounge]. And then, there is always the "loaded dice" [SkS]. -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:47 PM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
DOOMDAYS, I think we are missing each other's point. I am trying to see the change in global temperature: you seem to be looking at the change in land surface temperature, which is barely useful as a measure of global warming, because global warming includes oceans, cryosphere, land surface and atmosphere. Therefore, looking at recent dimming due to atmospheric pollution and expecting to see a correlated change in land surface temperature is missing the point. Dimming may change the rate of increase of global temperature, but it cannot magically eliminate all the other positive forcings and cannot eliminate all the energy used to heat the ocean and melt Arctic ice. As long as the relatively constant sun shines on a planet with increasing levels of CO2 in its atmosphere and as long as the ingoing radiation exceeds the amount reflected/radiated back into space, the planet will warm. The more aerosols in the air, the more gets reflected without heating the planet, but no-one is suggesting that the aerosols are currently reflecting enough to stop the globe from warming. Thus, trying to conflate global dimming with hemispheric land surface temperature changes is not going to get enough legs to run with, IMO. Trying to extrapolate warming/cooling trends for the short time-span 2001-2006, is always going to be a bad idea, because such a short time span will have the signal so swamped by the noise that no robust conclusions can be drawn one way or the other. -
chriskoz at 15:37 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
With his post @18, Dale partially vindicated himself by saying an obligatory "sorry" to the 100mega victims. Up to this point, I had an impression he was simply disappointed that Sandy was too weak, perhaps he was expecting he will see something ala "Independence Day"... With such quality of argumentation, even with the "sorry" acknowledged, I still find any factual discussion with Dale worthless. How can I expect from such a person to understand/appreciate the slow-paced AGW, which makes the events like Sandy more and more probable? And how can I expect from such a person any duty of care to future generations when he ignores the damages to his peers affected by the storm right now? -
Doug Bostrom at 15:24 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
With respect to your earlier remark, Dale, the significance of Sandy with regard to climate change is what the storm tells us about vulnerability of cities such as New York. Arguing about the exact contributory effects of climate change to Sandy is rather missing the point. Or do you believe sea level rise isn't a problem? -
Doug Bostrom at 15:21 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
This website is focused on climate change and so-called "climate skeptics," Dale. Perhaps you could comment with your complaints at Media Matters, or write to editors. -
Dale at 14:42 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
I'm sorry, but my heart-felt sympathies to those affected by the storm. But it's hard to believe the media beat-up when NYC mayor Bloombery declares the city will be open for business tomorrow. How long did it take New Orleans to be open for business after Katrina? Question: if this system had've hit a much less populated area, and much less financially and politically important area, would the same media hype have been seen? Absolutely not. Whilst it's a very public tragedy, this is no New Orleans/Queensland/Japan. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:25 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Albatross: I find Dale's indifference given the scale of this calamity to be troubling. "I have other priorities" is the way one recent US VP expressed it. Question is, what are those priorities? Defending a doomed dinosaur? -
Dale at 14:23 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Fine, let's look at the facts which led to Sandy doing what she did. 1. AO is currently strongly negative, which pushes the Arctic front down across central US. 2. NOA is currently strongly negative, which results in a blocking high-low formation in the North Atlantic. 3. Sandy formed in such a broad area in the Caribbean due to uniformity of pressure across a massive area. 4. Sandy strengthened as she hit the gulf current. 5. The North Atlantic block caused a pressure compression on the north of Sandy increasing wind speeds. 6. The broad area and strength of wind moved a massive amount of water westward (towards the US). 7. Sandy was bounced towards the US by the North Atlantic block crashing into the Arctic front elongating the system across the eastern seaboard. 8. A peak tide (full moon) would have caused a higher than usual storm surge. So ultimately, unless AGW controls the AO, NAO, Caribbean air pressure and the moon, I fail to see how Sandy is a result of climate change. BTW, here's a good site explaining why Sandy became what she did. http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/the-science-of-sandy-how-a-category-1-storm-can-panic-a-nation/ -
John Hartz at 13:45 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Additional reading: Hurricane Sandy's Storm Surge Wreaks Havoc As Its Energy And Trajectory Stun Experts,Tom Zeller Jr., The Huffington Post, Oct 30, 2012 -
scaddenp at 13:24 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, if my memory serves me right, you have persistently beat the drum that its only weather, nothing unusual going on, no evidence that warming is making things worse. Well what about the evidence in the latest Grinsted paper discussed with further analysis here? Note the correlation between temperature and surge. Are you trying to fool us or yourself? -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:23 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #43
When and how did you first become concerned about manmade climate change and its consequences?
It is only in the last couple of years that I have confronted AGW as an issue, although I have been subconciously aware of GW for some time. I was led to investigate AGW as a spin off from web searching for information about Peak Oil, which has been a concern of mine for a long time. Many people referred to AGW as the 'partner' crisis to PO and I kept hitting links to SkS. Reading SkS, it did not take me long to realise that AGW is something deserving my attention. IMHO, PO and AGW are going to be biting about the same time in our collective future: at the very point we will need copius surplus energy to mitigate and adapt to AGW, PO will be restricting our access to cheap fossil fuels. I used to regard Homo Sapiens sapiens as pretty smart, but the wilful ignorance about where we are heading is making me revise my opinion. Homo Stupidus suicideous might be closer to the mark. -
DSL at 13:10 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, a .22 caliber bullet is considered small -- until the gun containing it is pointed at your head. Context is everything -- that's the first law of critical thinking. You would have to be incredibly dense to fail to realize that the danger of Sandy was in its not-simply-highly-unusual but actually unique track, combined with its size. I say you'd have to be incredibly dense, or you'd have to be trolling. Or perhaps you've been out of town for a while and all you know at this point is that Sandy was a Cat 1. Here's part of what Jeff Masters had to say: "In a stunning spectacle of atmospheric violence, Superstorm Sandy roared ashore in New Jersey last night with sustained winds of 90 mph and a devastating storm surge that crippled coastal New Jersey and New York. Sandy's record size allowed the historic storm to bring extreme weather to over 100 million Americans, from Chicago to Maine and from Michigan to Florida. Sandy's barometric pressure at landfall was 946 mb, tying the Great Long Island Express Hurricane of 1938 as the most powerful storm ever to hit the Northeast U.S. north of Cape Hatteras, NC. New York City experienced its worst hurricane since its founding in 1624, as Sandy's 9-foot storm surge rode in on top of a high tide to bring water levels to 13.88' at The Battery, smashing the record 11.2' water level recorded during the great hurricane of 1821. Damage from Superstorm Sandy will likely be in the tens of billions, making the storm one of the five most expensive disasters in U.S. history." -
John Hartz at 13:09 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Additional reading: Sandy's impact: State by state, CNN, 0ct 30, 2012 -
Albatross at 13:07 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale @8 is trying to make a strawman argument and . It is not going to work. Whether people refer to "hurricane Sandy" or a "Frankenstorm" or "Superstrom Sandy" or "post-tropical storm Sandy" does not change the facts, the storm was a record breaker: 1) Record low surface pressure, smashing previous records 2) Unprecedented storm surge along portions of the coast, smashing previous records 3) Hurricane-force winds 4) About eight million people without power 5) Up to 13 inches of rain causing widespread flooding 6) About4050 deaths and counting (not including the 30 deaths in the Caribbean) 7) Damage running into tens of billions of dollars, the final tally will only be known after several months, perhaps longer The following claim is a red herring and misses the point, "NYC has a long and proud history of being hit by big storms / weak hurricanes" Yet the 100 plus year old transit system has never seen flooding like this. But don't take my word for it: ""The New York City subway system is 108 years old, but it has never faced a disaster as devastating as what we experienced last night," said Joseph Lhota, chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or MTA." [Source] I find Dale's indifference given the scale of this calamity to be troubling. Superdenial indeed. -
numerobis at 13:00 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
If it had been a category 5 storm, it might have been worse, indeed. So? -
DOOMDAYS at 12:59 PM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
To understand that I'm "questioning" that indeed the aerosol forcing is negative in the SH and positive in the NH in the last decade of the 21st century -
Brian Purdue at 12:44 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, you definitely fall into the “Superdenier” catalogue, and we can all guess why. -
Dale at 12:44 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
@ doug_bostrom: Care to explain what the "Morano Memo" is? I actually have no idea. And seriously, Sandy was not category 1 when it hit land. @ Doug_H: I refer you to the NYC website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms_hurricanehistory.shtml NYC has a long and proud history of being hit by big storms / weak hurricanes. -
DOOMDAYS at 12:41 PM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
True, before the 2000s decade warming in the NH is more pronounced in the SH qeu but I think that has more to do with the more continental NH vs SH, although it certainly could and should have also influenced the decline in anthropogenic aerosols emissiones in the 80s and 90s. But I did not mean for that period, but the period after the 2000s, (which is also part of the study period analyzed 2001-2006) where, for me, in the NH the heating rate is less than 2 decades whereas in the above SH is almost equal. Sorry I can not express myself better ... It is clearer now??? -
Doug Bostrom at 12:23 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Historic barometric pressure records broken by Sandy:Atlantic City, NJ: 28.01"/948mb 28.37"/961mb 3/6/1932 Philadelphia, PA: 28.12"/953mb 28.43"/963mb 3/13/1993 Harrisburg, PA: 28.46"/964mb 28.62"/969mb 1/3/1913 Scranton, PA: 28.69"/971mb 28.72"/973mb 2/25/1965 Trenton, NJ: 28.31"/958mb 28.43"/963mb 3/13/1993 Baltimore, MD: 28.49"/965mb 28.68"/971mb 3/3/1932 Harrisburg, PA: 28.46"/964mb 28.62"/969mb 1/3/1913
The Morano Memo says we're supposed to focus on semantics rather than facts on the ground. -
YubeDude at 12:19 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
You missed one. Count on this getting lots of traction as it is memed around the WUWT denialo'sphere. I found it on the Drudge so it is going to get heavy traffic. Al Gore blames Hurricane Sandy on 'global warming' The Washington Times October 30, 2012, 03:16PM Al Gore has to be the gift that keeps on giving for all the "deskepticons" like Morano, Watts and Harris. Consider the discussion regarding public perception of AGW like a person fighting addiction. They can stay sober for months while the empirical metrics build and build and build toward a reasoned conclusion and then one day Al Gore is mentioned and suddenly they are half naked in the streets, lying in a pool of their own vomit which reeks from the scent of cheap red wine and Climate Depot while mumbling something about "climate-gate" and "where's the 100% undeniable proof?" Best if you just stay off the radar Al. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:18 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Oh come on. Sandy wasn't even a category 1... Morano Memo has arrived. -
John Hartz at 12:17 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
@bharath272 #1: Correct link inserted. Thanks for bringing the glitch to our attention. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:17 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Dale, when was the last time NYC experienced a ten foot storm surge with inches of rain and 110kmh winds? Sandy covered an unusually large area and was impacted by Arctic conditions from a 'stuck' jet stream. A storm of this size in NY etc affects a large population living near sea level, just as has been projected. Does an end-of-season hurricane impacting an unusual polar weather pattern justify asking the question: How did this happen? Prudence suggests to me that it does. YMMV. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:03 PM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
DOOMDAY, I am confused by your question. All the graphs you posted show greater warming in the northern hemisphere than in the southern. If the study is correct and there has been dimming in the south vs brightening in the north, we would expect the solar forcing to promote greater warming in the north and that is what your graphs show. The bigger question is the amount of forcing this dimming/brightening gives. Was the temperature of the globe in the decade 2001-2010 more influenced by aerosols, or GHGs? Did the dimming/brightening over-ride the GHG forcing? To my mind, the forcing from aerosols is not sufficient to completely negate the forcing from GHGs, so we should see both hemispheres warming. Your graphs show both hemispheres warming, so they support my expectations. Have I misunderstood your question? -
Dale at 12:00 PM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Oh come on. Sandy wasn't even a category 1 when it made landfall. Since when is a big storm global panic? So there was a 10 foot storm surge, inches of rain, 110 kmh winds. It's being beat-up like a category 5 with 30 foot storm surge, a foots of rain, 250+ kmh winds. Katrina and Yasi sized cyclones/hurricanes eat Sandy size storms for breakfast and don't even flinch. Sandy wasn't even a small hurricane. It was a big storm, that is all. -
bharath272 at 11:47 AM on 31 October 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #1: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Hi, The link for "Sandy versus Katrina, and Irene: Monster Hurricanes by the Numbers" seems to point somewhere else.. Thanks, Bharath -
DOOMDAYS at 11:22 AM on 31 October 2012Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
@Rob Painting Rob. Firstly sorry for my bad English Second..Great Post!!! , but are something that not match for me... the study afirms that the South Hemisphere is dimming and the North Hemisphere is Brightening Correct? So how is it possible that as GISS temperature data can show just the opposite of what is expected???
If the study is correct and the S.H is dimming, and this brightening NH, we should not expect the temperature falling in the SH and the NH will increase in the period in question? If I did not misread the previous graphs see just the opposite in recent years, the SH is heated to the "same speed" as before, but the NH "apparently" stopped warming to the "same speed" even appear to have "stopped", this interpretation is correct?
I would really appreciate an answer to my question...
many Thanks
-
Don9000 at 09:41 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Brian Williams on NBC's extra half hour of Nightly News coverage tonight (Tuesday, 30 October 2012) has just forcefully pointed out that Sandy and last year's epic October storm in the Northeastern U.S. constitute the "new normal." He went on to point out that scientists have explained the storms will get worse due to global warming. Dr. Kevin Trenbreth was the first go-to person Williams went to in order to back up the reporting. Trenbreth forcefully identified the increasing ocean heat content as a key player in the changing weather. Then Dr. Katharine Hayhoe got a chance to speak. Very powerful. -
Andy Skuce at 05:24 AM on 31 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
There's a good article by Dan Kahan on the science communication problem, in which he identifies what he thinks is the best explanation (identity-protective cognition); what he thinks are bad ones (including misinformation); and what he sees as a fitting solution (separating scientific facts from cultural values). "Identity-protective cognition" means "the tendency of individuals to form perceptions of fact that promote their connection to, and standing in, important groups". In other words, motivated reasoning and information filters are employed to protect and enhance somebody's standing within their social group. Kahan sees misinformation as a symptom, not a cause of the disease. Perhaps this explains why dealing with climate denialism is so frustrating. We are carefully lancing one misinformation boil at a time, even as others rapidly pop up due to the underlying and untreated socially-driven staph infection that is actually causing these eruptions. Kahan suggests that the fitting solution is to separate scientific facts from cultural meanings. This would make the facts more palatable since the bitter taste of potential social-identity challenges would be less obvious. Many people here, me included, have criticized scientists for not speaking out more strongly on the policy implications of their work. But, if Kahan is right, the more politically reticent scientists may actually be the more effective communicators and the more activist scientists, like James Hansen, may be doing more harm than good when it comes to changing people's minds. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:09 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Vroomie, I'm reminded again of this excellent interaction: "Why are you failing? Is it ignorance, or apathy?" "I don't know and I don't care." Meanwhile, the WSJ talks with a VP of ConED:WSJ: A lot of meteorologists, including one who tracks weather for The Wall Street Journal, were blaring sirens about this storm. In what sense was Con Ed was not prepared for the ferocity of the surge? We’ve never had a 14-foot surge in New York City — I don’t know how you predict that. We were tracking probably 10 different storm models — I never heard an inch more than 12. WSJ: What would ConEd have done differently if you knew the that the water levels were going to be 14 feet. I’m pretty sure I would not have taken out the [E. 13th St substation] in advance — 220,000 customers. We always…look for lessons learned. I don’t know, if we could we have got the fire department with pumps, the National Guard with pumps? You’re talking about a lot of water. I don’t know if there was any way to keep up with the water. It’s basically the sea is up into the substation. The same thing happened during Katrina, the same thing happened in a bunch of different places. I mean, the force of nature is just tremendous. WSJ: Any lessons learned so far to prepare for next time? I think it’s too soon to tell…We certainly have to look at the water, 14-foot tides, certainly we need to look at a plan going forward as to what we can possibly do differently. Maybe we can move equipment up to higher levels [like control wiring], but that’s going to take some time. WSJ
A lot of information packed into that sequence: "We’ve never had a 14-foot surge in New York City — I don’t know how you predict that." Arm yourself with the best information and don't let legislators tell you that you shouldn't know certain things. We’ve never had a 14-foot surge in New York City — I don’t know how you predict that. We were tracking probably 10 different storm models — I never heard an inch more than 12. Researchers are conservative. Uncertainty is not your friend. Legislators mandating that models be less reliable is not a good thing. It’s basically the sea is up into the substation. Get used to it. Avoid the problem by choosing wisely. Don't allow legislators to make you ignorant. I mean, the force of nature is just tremendous. True. Why make it more powerful yet? -
vrooomie at 05:03 AM on 31 October 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
Composer99, as is the style of the drive-bys...after data, facts, and rational thought was laid out, from LaughinChance we .. hear.... -
vrooomie at 04:44 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
"Why would legislators mandate ignorance for their citizens?' That' a trick question, ain't it, doug?...;) -
Doug Bostrom at 04:27 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
We really do need to listen and think when we're given a harsh education, "gifted" with an example big enough to penetrate our daily distractions. This is a shockingly expensive lesson so let's benefit from it. Doing otherwise is disrespectful. A few inches of water makes a big difference. Such a simple thing but so easily forgotten or overlooked, or just ignored. Just a little less water going to the wrong place can be a wonderful thing. We still have some control over this. -
Albatross at 03:59 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Excellent comments Doug. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:55 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Another example of the kind of risk legislators will expose people to when they blind policy to facts. A hospital in NYC is evacuated in the middle of the storm due to unprecedented flooding:Dr Andrew Brotman, senior vice president and vice dean for clinical affairs and strategy at the hospital told CNN that, between 7 and 7.45pm on Monday the hospital's basement, lower floors, and elevator shafts filled with 10 to 12 feet of water and the hospital lost its power. "Things went downhill very, very rapidly and very unexpectedly," Brotman said. "The flooding was just unprecedented." Guardian
Failure of foresight has serious consequences. Things that are unprecedented can still be anticipated, if you're allowed to employ your intellect. Legislate intellect out of the picture and you're effectively left ignorant. Why would legislators mandate ignorance for their citizens? Today's newspapers are littered with stories like this hospital's experience, all telling the same basic message. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:19 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Meanwhile, here's a perfect example of why legislation such as that in Virginia and North Carolina is effectively demented and dangerous:PSE&G said it had 1.3 million electricity customers in the dark, including many customers in Newark without power, because a surge in Newark Bay had flooded substations and other equipment. The company, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company, had laid sandbags, based on previous experience with flooding from rain and runoff, but was not prepared for the surge, said Ralph A. LaRossa, president and chief operating officer of Public Service. The sandbagging “really didn’t match up with where this storm surge hit us in Newark Bay,” he said in a telephone conference call with reporters on Tuesday morning. “This wall of water that hit us was not something we could have prepared for, although I certainly wish we could have.” New York Times
It should go without saying that legislators who forbid use of facts in planning set up folks like LaRossa for failure. When executives "fail to anticipate" in the future VA or NC, who'll be fired? Legislators will be dust, leaving the bag in other hands. -
vrooomie at 03:15 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Absolutely correct, doug_b: it's, at minimum, a goal post shift to even talk of seismological or vulcanolical influences on Sandy. As for me? I remain *extremely* skeptical of the claim that storms lead temblors and/or vulcanism. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:13 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Identify your useful politicians by how connected they are with the future.Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York on Tuesday raised the possibility of building a levee in New York in the aftermath of major flooding in Lower Manhattan and other parts of the city. “It is something we’re going to have to start thinking about,” Mr. Cuomo said. ”The construction of this city did not anticipate these kinds of situations. We are only a few feet above sea level. The flooding in downtown Manhattan was really extraordinary and unlike anything I had seen.” New York Times
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:06 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Perhaps that's sound reasoning Paul, but the immediate issues and proximate effects along the east coast of the US have nothing to do with seismology. -
vrooomie at 03:05 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
"...as it has been noted in the geological record that earthquakes, volcanoes and seismic activity does increase with the changing climate." As a geologist, I find this *fascinating*: are you saying (just so I'm hearing you correctly) that GW ~drives~ seismic and volcanic activity? *Really*? Please cite the sources of that data, given you assert "...it has been noted in the geological record...." -
vrooomie at 03:01 AM on 31 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
OMG..was Ebell expressing---dare I speak it?---*doubt* as to the utter correctness of CEI? dana, I do think that was a *very* interesting admission. -
Paul Magnus at 02:56 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
I think that locally there is an effect due to the raising of the water table as the tidal surge pules in in areas that are fault prone. -
dana1981 at 02:54 AM on 31 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
Pete Wirfs @22 - indeed, Ebell's response to that question made my jaw drop. At least he answered it though, it's rare for a 'skeptic' to even consider the possibility that he might be wrong. I'll have a post on this subject/quote in the future. -
Paul Magnus at 02:46 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
I just had a thought which I am going to throw out here... Can super storms like this generate low frequency seismic waves or pressure pulses which trigger earthquakes locally or remotely (for example on the west coast)? This could be one mechanism which is involved when we get sudden climate change like GW as it has been noted in the geological record that earthquakes, volcanoes and seismic activity does increase with the changing climate. Paul -
Doug Bostrom at 02:32 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
For my part the lesson here is pretty simple: a "few" inches of water make a tremendous difference; dismissing what may appear to be minor SLR as being insignificant and something easily brushed off is deeply unimaginative. Attribution: if AGW causes sea level to increase by 12" and because of those few inches your defenses fail during a storm in a way costing billions of dollars, AGW just cost you billions of dollars. If protecting your infrastructure against a "few" inches of sea level rise costs you billions of dollars, that's AGW costing you billions of dollars. The past is prologue. Sandy's surge may have been influenced by AGW to a greater or lesser extent but Sandy's utility lies in telling us what we may expect. Sandy was a rehearsal. So let's keep the SLR to a minimum. Simple enough? -
vrooomie at 02:23 AM on 31 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
Son of Krypton@20, I'm not sure (others will have the referencecs at-hand) but it does seem to me it's time for a new button, on SkS: Curry Incorrects. >;-P Irrepsective of her CV viz. peer-reviewed works showing how the REST of sciencia is wrong, that in no way tilts the balance far at all, towards the vast body of climate change research being incorrect. Judith long ago ceded the higher ground of scientific scruples to what I can only imagine to be the conclusion of her wanting the attention, regardless of what appears to be the serious self-torpedoing her own credible work in the field. She allows the most defamatory comments on her website to stand, and simply glosses over or outrightly refuses to answer legitimate ciricisms of her work, whereas anyone--*anyone*--who had their scientific scruples on, would not allow such rank denialism. In the end, denialism is its own worst enemy, given how far afield they go in asserting anything even remotely credible. -
Pete Wirfs at 02:16 AM on 31 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
" I sometimes wonder how these people can sleep with a clear conscience." They have it covered! They will apologize! JOHN HOCKENBERRY: What if you’re wrong? MYRON EBELL: Then I’ll have to say I’m sorry and I wish we could speed up our efforts to reverse the policies that we have supported here at CEI. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:58 AM on 31 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Hank, it wasn't long ago (the 90's) that global warming was implicated in a positive NAO trend. NAO appears to have cycles rather than trends. The current negative NAO is probably coincidental although there might be an effect from the anomalous heat released from the refreezing Arctic. The abstract that you posted does talk about a potential fall/winter seasonal effect but I don't see from that abstract what the specific cause and effect is (probably too complex to explain in an abstract). There was certainly a contribution to the strength of Sandy from anomalously warm Atlantic temperatures. Sandy showed up coinciding with a deep upper trough and short wave. Otherwise we would have had a merely normal nor'easter instead of a record breaking one.
Prev 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 Next
