Recent Comments

Prev  1041  1042  1043  1044  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  Next

Comments 52401 to 52450:

52401. Doug Bostrom at 03:25 AM on 30 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       Re Malloy it's a terrific thing to hear from a public servant who's able to look to the future and understand an object lesson even while dealing with immediate contingencies.
52402. Don9000 at 03:08 AM on 30 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       Thank you, Doug. Technically, I see that the 11 am update is now showing the inlets southwest of Manhattan are potentially looking at higher storm surges than western Long Island Sound. Down along our shoreline, however, we have a lot of residential neighborhoods. Our governor here in Connecticut, Dannel Malloy, just held a noon press conference in which he made a few subtle yet telling remarks. He pointed out that the storm is unprecedented, yet noted that it was a wake-up call for all of us. The two specific points he made were that our state would need in the future to plan for similar events that have the potential to knock out our electrical grids and sewer systems in low-lying areas. It turned out that an electrical substation in Bridgeport, Connecticut, almost needed to be shut down. Malloy said the storm surge was a matter of 8 to 10 inches shy of causing a shutdown at the point of high tide. The prediction is safety shutdowns will be required this evening going into the next high tide. Of course, we are already seeing wind-caused power outages all over the state, even though the wind is still barely gusting to tropical storm strength. I think one of the interesting facts about this storm and last October's snow storm is that we are seeing a convergence of traditionally winter and summer weather events here in the northeast. All that extra energy in the climate system is finding new ways to act.
52403. Doug Bostrom at 01:17 AM on 30 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       Grinsted, that's a very interesting and timely paper. Thank you.
52404. Doug Bostrom at 01:16 AM on 30 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       That's an excellent point about time correction for tides, Don. The more complicated the coast line, the more arrival of tides varies from location-location. Here's a pretty nice tool for deducing tide timing in specific locations in the NE: Nor'East Saltwater Tide Charts
52405. DSL at 23:53 PM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       We can add this recent one to Doug's list: Sedláček & Knutti (2012). Abstract: “Of the additional energy absorbed by the Earth over the past decades, by far the largest fraction is taken up by the oceans. Yet most attribution studies focus on the surface warming, and only few have used patterns of ocean warming to attribute changes to external forcing or internal variability. Here we use the combined observed evidence from warming of the atmosphere and ocean with the latest climate model simulations to demonstrate that both the depth profiles and spatial warming patterns near the surface are very heterogeneous when resulting from internal unforced variability. In the 20th-century simulations on the other hand, the observed spatial pattern is smooth, and the warming decreases almost gradually with depth in the ocean, consistent with observations and a penetration of the surface warming to intermediate depth by diffusion and advection. We argue that such physically motivated arguments combining different lines of evidence and types of observations offer insight that is complementary to optimal fingerprint attribution methods. We conclude that the simultaneous global warming of the atmosphere and mixed layer alone is uninformative for attribution, but the magnitude of ocean heat uptake, the homogeneity of the spatial pattern as well as the distribution of warming below the mixed layer strongly argue for the 20th-century warming being largely externally forced.” The bibliography for that paper should of tremendous help to you, Bill, and I would expect you to use some of the works referenced if you continue, here, your public thought on the subject. You may also want to check out the Knutti & Plattner (2011) response to Schwarz et al. (2010) -- and the works referenced. Ocean warming is an extremely complex process, with dozens of distinct circulation/mixing mechanisms both large and small. Check out Ari's research blog (usually reprinted at SkS) on the subject here. If you don't have access to the journals, let the blog know, and someone may be able to finagle a copy of the article you need.
52406. gws at 22:47 PM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       BillHunter Let's assume for a moment that there were indeed no direct measurements of an energy imbalance (note: even the decreasing amount of outgoing infrared (aka heat-) radiation from Earth into space has been measured). Then we would still know that greenhouse gases (GHGs) have increased in Earth's atmosphere (not disputed by anyone). Our knowledge of the physical properties of those GHGs says that they will "trap" heat radiation, a well-known mechanism, also not disputed. This then is roughly equivalent to putting a pot of water (Earth) on the stove and turning the heat on (GHG). Self-named "skeptics" still allege that the water in that pot will not get warmer despite the "energy imbalance" the stove is creating. (-snip-)
       Moderator Response: [DB] Text snipped per request.
52407. Don9000 at 21:55 PM on 29 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       Just a brief note: Dr. Masters mentions 9 p.m. for the high tide. That is probably for the Manhattan or central NYC area in general. In Long Island Sound, where the storm surge is likely to be the most severe, the high tide times for tonight range from about 10 p.m. at the eastern end to midnight in the western end where the most water will pile up. I'm glad I'm in West Hartford, Connecticut, well above the current sea-level.
52408. Bernard J. at 21:40 PM on 29 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       

       Recently in the news and discussed at Skeptical Science was the effort by North Carolina legislators to set boundaries on what information could inform public policy concerning coastal development. Virginia has been tempted to go down the same path. Sandy's arrival reminds us of the folly of trying to legislate facts not amenable to or concerned with matters of law.

       Worth noting in this context is the move just over a month ago by the NSW conservative government to do away with the necessity for local councils to consider, when assessing development proposals, IPCC sea level rise predictions. Someone with a bit of nous might put them on notice that Sandy demonstrates why this was a negligent move, and why the government might be considered culpable for future flooding of new developments. If only the relevant politicians could be held accountable for any future damage that results from this policy change...
52409. grinsted at 19:27 PM on 29 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       I recently published a paper on hurricane surge threat finding greater and more frequent hurricane surges in globally warm years compared to cold. This was looking at extremes in tide gauge data since 1923. This is just a correlation ofcourse, but it certainly makes me wonder about the future.
52410. CBDunkerson at 19:11 PM on 29 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       Heh, I've been looking around for detailed information on the storm. Should have come here first. Nothing too bad here yet, but the wind has been steadily picking up since Sunday morning. I work in Newark, but my office is shut down today and tomorrow along with most of the rest of the city. My biggest worry ATM is another power outage like we had with Irene and then the big snowstorm this time last year. Both of those were followed by fairly warm weather, but this time they are predicting a cold snap after the storm. They finally started upgrading the infrastructure after those outages and the solar energy boom here in New Jersey has also been helping to push towards a more modern power grid. Among other things, they've installed individual solar panels on a few hundred thousand telephone poles around the state. Each of these is tied in to the electric line running on the same pole and capable of reporting back current power flow (along with performance of the solar panel and other data). That should immediately let them know where there are power outages, but we'll have to see how well it holds up.
52411. Billhunter at 18:02 PM on 29 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       It doesn't seem to me that an energy imbalance has been observed. Its hypothesized. If I am wrong about that I would be interesting in reading about it. (-SNIP-)
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) The oceans have warmed - that is where 93% of the energy imbalance has gone in the last 5-6 decades. That you do not comprehend this rather simple observation implies poor understanding on your part. And as stated earlier, time to start providing some supporting literature to back up your claims.
52412. Doug Bostrom at 17:20 PM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Long waffle rewound to original essence: Billhunter: It [deep ocean warming] has in fact not been measured. But it has. If somebody disagrees, they need to do a proper literature search and then effectively contradict findings therein. "I doubt it" is not an argument.
52413. Billhunter at 16:59 PM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Doug thanks for you comments. (-SNIP-)
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) - The cornerstone of this site is peer-reviewed science. Time to start backing up some of your inventive claims with some peer-reviewed literature.
52414. Doug Hutcheson at 16:49 PM on 29 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       Bill, you said

       "Is there any evidence that the global warming trend has slowed in the last decade or so compared to its previous trend during the 90s?" Well yes. The surface stations.

       But, as has been pointed out earlier, land surface stations measure only a small percentage of global warming. The globe in question includes atmosphere, land surface, cryosphere and oceans. When you look at all the temperature measurements, not just land surface stations, has the warming trend changed by any significant amount? When you look at the energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, it is clear that energy is being absorbed somewhere in the global system. Where do you think it is going and what form does it take? (Hint: something is melting Arctic ice and warming the oceans.) If you look only at a short period of land surface temperatures, the noise drowns out the signal, so it is not a useful metric, unless you want to obfuscate the evidence.
52415. JasonB at 16:40 PM on 29 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       

       Well yes. The surface stations.

       Well, no -- and that's the point. The surface station records show a flattening in the past decade or so that makes it look like the long term warming trend might have slowed when viewed in isolation, but the whole point of the escalator graphic is that this has occurred many times in the past and every time it turned out that the underlying global warming trend kept right on going, so we need to figure out if this time is any different. (The point of the Foster and Rahmstorf graphic right below it is to highlight this fact and make it easier to discern the trend in less time by removing the influence of exogenous factors, effectively improving the signal:noise ratio.) My question was "Is there any evidence that the global warming trend has slowed?". To answer that question you need to assess the statistical significance of the recent apparent change in trend. The whole point of "arguing statistics" is to make sure we're not being fooled by what we think we see in the data. If you don't want to argue the statistics or put the effort in to working out whether recent surface station records signal a reduction in trend then you can't go around claiming that they indicate less warming in the future than projected. If you do want to go around making that claim (???) then you have no choice but to do the work to see if the data supports that claim. After all, how can you make that claim without already knowing it's true from having analysed the data? The question about whether we should act and what should be done is completely besides the point and the subject of other posts here.
52416. Billhunter at 15:40 PM on 29 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       "Is there any evidence that the global warming trend has slowed in the last decade or so compared to its previous trend during the 90s?" Well yes. The surface stations. I think its normal that the number of people who think the globe has warmed and that mankind is in someway responsible is going to fluctuate with the weather. You can number me in that group. I am not particularly strong on the man-caused question but give the choice between yes and no I would have to pick yes. Its the number of people who think something should be done about it thats below 50%. And you can put me in the category of being in the minority there was well. For instance I think solar water heating systems with demand water heating should be mandated for new construction and I think persons looking at newly constructed homes should consider paying a bit more for a home with excess insulation and radiant heating systems running off of solar heating panels either as a primary source of heat, with or without supplementation. Though that's probably a little expensive to mandate. So apparently I am in the minority with you guys on the question of doing something, but probably differ on what should be done. But lets not argue statistics. Lets keep this simple and relevant to public opinion. Statistics is really off topic here I think. (-SNIP-)
       Moderator Response: [DB] For someone who claimed to be a statistician, your claim to now not want to discuss statistics rings hollow and is specious. Statistics on a science-based site are always in play. Your evasion to the responses you have generated is noted. Please return the discussion to that of the OP of this thread. Off-topic snipped.
52417. Doug Bostrom at 14:51 PM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Billhunter It [deep ocean warming] has in fact not been measured.

       Johnson GC et al. (2006) Recent western South Atlantic bottom water warming Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14614 Abstract: Potential temperature differences are computed from hydrographic sections transiting the western basins of the South Atlantic Ocean from 60 degrees S to the equator in 2005/ 2003 and 1989/1995. While warming is observed throughout much of the water column, the most statistically significant warming is about + 0.04 degrees C in the bottom 1500 dbar of the Brazil Basin, with similar ( but less statistically significant) warming signals in the abyssal Argentine Basin and Scotia Sea. These abyssal waters of Antarctic origin spread northward in the South Atlantic. The observed abyssal Argentine Basin warming is of a similar magnitude to that previously reported between 1980 and 1989. The Brazil Basin abyssal warming is similar in size to and consistent in timing with previously reported changes in abyssal southern inflow and northern outflow. The temperature changes reported here, if they were to hold throughout the abyssal world ocean, would contribute substantially to global ocean heat budgets. Johnson GC et al. (2007) Recent bottom water warming in the Pacific Ocean J. Climate 20, 5365-5375. Abstract: Decadal changes of abyssal temperature in the Pacific Ocean are analyzed using high-quality, full-depth hydrographic sections, each occupied at least twice between 1984 and 2006. The deep warming found over this time period agrees with previous analyses. The analysis presented here suggests it may have occurred after 1991, at least in the North Pacific. Mean temperature changes for the three zonal and three meridional hydrographic sections analyzed here exhibit abyssal warming often significantly different from zero at 95% confidence limits for this time period. Warming rates are generally larger to the south, and smaller to the north. This pattern is consistent with changes being attenuated with distance from the source of bottom water for the Pacific Ocean, which enters the main deep basins of this ocean southeast of New Zealand. Rough estimates of the change in ocean heat content suggest that the abyssal warming may amount to a significant fraction of upper World Ocean heat gain over the past few decades. Johnson GC (2008) Warming and Freshening in the Abyssal Southeastern Indian Ocean J. Climate 21, 5351-5363. Abstract: Warming and freshening of abyssal waters in the eastern Indian Ocean between 1994/95 and 2007 are quantified using data from two closely sampled high-quality occupations of a hydrographic section extending from Antarctica northward to the equator. These changes are limited to abyssal waters in the Princess Elizabeth Trough and the Australian-Antarctic Basin, with little abyssal change evident north of the Southeast Indian Ridge. As in previous studies, significant cooling and freshening is observed in the bottom potential temperature-salinity relations in these two southern basins. In addition, analysis on pressure surfaces shows abyssal warming of about 0.05 degrees C and freshening of about 0.01 Practical Salinity Scale 1978 (PSS-78) in the Princess Elizabeth Trough, and warming of 0.1 degrees C with freshening of about 0.005 in the abyssal Australian-Antarctic Basin. These 12-yr differences are statistically significant from zero at 95% confidence intervals over the bottom few to several hundred decibars of the water column in both deep basins. Both warming and freshening reduce the density of seawater, contributing to the vertical expansion of the water column. The changes below 3000 dbar in these basins suggest local contributions approaching 1 and 4 cm of sea level rise, respectively. Transient tracer data from the 2007 occupation qualitatively suggest that the abyssal waters in the two southern basins exhibiting changes have significant components that have been exposed to the ocean surface within the last few decades, whereas north of the Southeast Indian Ridge, where changes are not found, the component of abyssal waters that have undergone such ventilation is much reduced. Ozaki H et al. (2009) Long-term bottom water warming in the north Ross Sea J. Oceanograph. 65, 235-244. Abstract: We measured potential temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen profiles from the surface to the bottom at two locations in the north Ross Sea (65.2A degrees S, 174.2A degrees E and 67.2A degrees S, 172.7A degrees W) in December 2004. Comparison of our data with previous results from the same region reveals an increase in potential temperature and decreases in salinity and dissolved oxygen concentration in the bottom layer (deeper than 3000 m) over the past four decades. The changes were significantly different from the analytical precisions. Detailed investigation of the temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and sigma (3) value distributions and the bottom water flow in the north Ross Sea suggests a long-term change in water mass mixing balance. That is to say, it is speculated that the influence of cool, saline, high-oxygen bottom water (high-salinity Ross Sea Bottom Water) formed in the southwestern Ross Sea has possibly been decreased, while the influences of relatively warmer and fresher bottom water (low-salinity Ross Sea Bottom Water) and the Ad,lie Land Bottom Water coming from the Australia-Antarctic Basin have increased. The possible impact of global warming on ocean circulation needs much more investigation. Johnson GC et al. (2009) Deep Caribbean Sea warming Deep Sea Research. 1 –Oceanograph. Res. 56, 827-834. Abstract: Data collected from hydrographic stations occupied within the Venezuelan and Columbian basins of the Caribbean Sea from 1922 through 2003 are analyzed to study the decadal variability of deep temperature in the region. The analysis focuses on waters below the 1815-m sill depth of the Anegada-Jungfern Passage. Relatively dense waters (compared to those in the deep Caribbean) from the North Atlantic spill over this sill to ventilate the deep Caribbean Sea. Deep warming at a rate of over 0.01 degrees C decade(-1) below this sill depth appears to have commenced in the 1970s after a period of relatively constant deep Caribbean Sea temperatures extending at least as far back as the 1920s. Conductivity-temperature-depth station data from World Ocean Circulation Experiment Section A22 along 66 degrees W taken in 1997 and again in 2003 provide an especially precise, albeit geographically limited, estimate of this warming over that 6-year period. They also suggest a small (0.001 PSS-78, about the size of expected measurement biases) deep freshening. The warming is about 10 times larger than the size of geothermal heating in the region, and is of the same magnitude as the average global upper-ocean heat uptake over a recent 50-year period. Together with the freshening, the warming contributes about 0.012 m decade(-1) of sea level rise in portions of the Caribbean Sea with bottom depths around 5000 m. Johnson GC (2008) Reduced Antarctic meridional overturning circulation reaches the North Atlantic Ocean Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L22601 Abstract: Potential temperature differences are computed from hydrographic sections transiting the western basins of the South Atlantic Ocean from 60 degrees S to the equator in 2005/ 2003 and 1989/1995. While warming is observed throughout much of the water column, the most statistically significant warming is about + 0.04 degrees C in the bottom 1500 dbar of the Brazil Basin, with similar ( but less statistically significant) warming signals in the abyssal Argentine Basin and Scotia Sea. These abyssal waters of Antarctic origin spread northward in the South Atlantic. The observed abyssal Argentine Basin warming is of a similar magnitude to that previously reported between 1980 and 1989. The Brazil Basin abyssal warming is similar in size to and consistent in timing with previously reported changes in abyssal southern inflow and northern outflow. The temperature changes reported here, if they were to hold throughout the abyssal world ocean, would contribute substantially to global ocean heat budgets. Fukasawa, Masao, et al. "Bottom water warming in the North Pacific Ocean." Nature 427.6977 (2004): 825-827. Observations of changes in the properties of ocean waters have been restricted to surface1 or intermediate-depth waters2, 3, because the detection of change in bottom water is extremely difficult owing to the small magnitude of the expected signals. Nevertheless, temporal changes in the properties of such deep waters across an ocean basin are of particular interest, as they can be used to constrain the transport of water at the bottom of the ocean and to detect changes in the global thermohaline circulation. Here we present a comparison of a trans-Pacific survey completed in 1985 (refs 4, 5) and its repetition in 1999 (ref. 6). We find that the deepest waters of the North Pacific Ocean have warmed significantly across the entire width of the ocean basin. Our observations imply that changes in water properties are now detectable in water masses that have long been insulated from heat exchange with the atmosphere. Kawano, Takeshi, et al. "Bottom water warming along the pathway of Lower Circumpolar Deep Water in the Pacific Ocean." Geophysical research letters 33.23 (2006): L23613. Repeat trans-Pacific hydrographic observations along the pathway of Lower Circumpolar Deep Water (LCDW) reveal that bottom water has warmed by about 0.005 to 0.01°C in recent decades. The warming is probably not from direct heating of LCDW, but is manifest as a decrease of the coldest component of LCDW evident at each hydrographic section. This result is consistent with numerical model results of warming associated with decreased bottom water formation rates around Antarctica.

       Etc. For some reason there's a widely held wrong belief that we know nothing of abyssal temperatures.
52418. Doug Bostrom at 14:24 PM on 29 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       An article in the NY Times does a fine job of explaining some of the mechanics of storm surge, why the region Sandy is expected to hit is at particular risk: Shallow Waters and Unusual Path May Worsen the Surge
52419. citizenschallenge at 14:08 PM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Dana another great post. Keep up the great work. I thought I should let you know that I wrote my own post regarding Rose's meme over at my little WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot.com I mention it because after I finished with what I wanted to say - I posted this article. You know, to follow up with plenty of serious resources. So a big Tip Of The Hat for SkepticalScience's generous sharing and reposting policy. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012/10/david-roses-global-warming-stopped-16.html
52420. Billhunter at 12:33 PM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Old Mole thanks for your comments. I agree my comments do not have anything to do with convection near the poles. But I have never seen 4c water off California's coast, much less seen it pushing any water under it. I have to assume it doesn't happen at the equator either. And yes I agree living at the coast in southern California is great, cool summers and balmy winters thanks to the California current. When I said the average temperature of the ocean is around 5C or less, I was not talking about the surface which might be 17C. There must be sufficient downwelling of water colder than 5C to maintain it at that average temperature as the surface is constantly conducting heat downwards and the ocean floor is conducting heat up into a cold ocean. Downwelling of water warmer than 5c will not maintain the ocean at 5C. So that implies that the ocean has overridden all or part of the greenhouse effect as far as its average temperature is concerned. Unusual upwelling at the equator over time could be indicative of a natural variation on this on going negative feedback process. A possible mechanism is ice retreat. If the ice edge moves north its fairly reasonable to assume the downwelling zones will also move north. If they move north they will have a larger area where it will be cold enough to downwell. Obviously a larger Arctic halocline would offset that in some way, but is there any evidence the halocline is increasing in size? I guess that's a possibility but that merely adds to the problem of figuring where the additional upwelling cold water that has dominated the last decade is coming from. I think we can assume some of it comes from the ongoing negative feedback process that keeps our oceans cold. . . .on average. I recall Jim Hansen back in 2000 declaring that El Ninos were the new normal. Since then there has been an expectation of repetitions of 1998. But what we see is just the opposite. An emerging La Nina dominance not seen for quite a while. Unfortunately most of the measures of the ocean are in the upper 700 meters. (-snip-). 700 meters represents the warmest 18.5% of the ocean. If upwelling and downwelling is concentrated in limited areas it makes sense that downwelling conduction could have warmed the ocean between 700 meters and the bottom of the mixing zone (or even maybe deeper) from recent ocean surface warming even while the ocean cooled overall and provided additional cold water for the surface. Let me be clear. I am not saying thats the case. I am saying that contrary to Michael Sweet's statement that the science is mixed on deep ocean warming or cooling. It has in fact not been measured. (-snip-). Bottom line is the ocean is not a good explanation for the missing heat. Most studies of OHC come up way short. That spawned the idea that the heat was migrating below our measurements. But no mechanism for that has been proposed and ocean surface warming has been lagging so its not likely conduction from the mixing layer of the ocean which has also experienced a slowing in warming. But we know less about the bottom of the ocean than we do the surface of planet Mars. In the interest of full disclosure I am an ocean guy so I want to see more funding for research in the oceans.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Intimations of impropriety snipped. Let me be clear: Please re-read the Comments Policy. Subsequent comments constructed as this one will be summarily deleted in their entirety. Please also note that unsupported assertions, as you make, that have been debunked on multiple occasions constitute sloganeering, itself another Comments Policy violation.
52421. Bob Lacatena at 12:30 PM on 29 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       Bill,

       Pre-1980's the risers were lower and the treads longer. For the 80's and 90's the risers get higher and the treads shorter.

       You say this as if the "trend" lines in the escalator mean anything, and as such is evidence that you are entirely missing the point, and yet you go on to say

       Somebody can draw various trends through the data and point out all sorts of interesting stuff.

       Yes, that's exactly the point, if you play games. There are no "risers" and "treads". There is no "polynomial fit." All of that is nonsense, as the Escalator demonstrates and as Spencer well knows. You take a long enough trend, and compute a proper linear trend line. If you break the trends up, you do it for valid, physical reasons following rules that you establish before you begin carving, not after. This is all about playing games with numbers, and it's a waste of everyone's time. There is only one thing that the numbers consistently and indisputably say, and that is that the climate is warming steadily and dangerously. If that warming seems to have slowed, then there are only two possibilities. One is that a number of negative factors are combining to minimize the warming for a time. This would be very, very bad if people accept it as an excuse for inaction, because there will inevitably be another period where temperatures "catch up," and people will be stunned by what that means. Alternately, we could be finding that the rate of warming is slower than expected. The setting of the thermostat is still the same. We have at this point committed ourselves to about 1.4˚C of warming, no matter what we do, and because of our lack of progress in reducing emissions, since we can't simply go "cold turkey," many argue that when you consider the future emissions that we cannot avoid, we are already committed to a temperature rise of well beyond 2˚C. So if we're committed to such a rise, but the rise is slower than expected (either only in the short term, due to temporary, negative factors, or over the long term, due to the "sluggishness" of the system), in either case we are in very bad shape if people continue to use that to argue for inaction. Because the reality is that regardless of pace, we are committed to a dangerous increase in the earth's climate, and the longer we delay, the worse the end result will be, no matter how long it takes. People need to wake the F up.
52422. YubeDude at 10:50 AM on 29 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       I've already encountered a "skepticons" argument that the energy of this storm is built upon the surging cold front and this cold front is evidence of a "global cooling which is on the rise". At what point do you throw your hands up and walk away, head into the kitchen, open the fridge and pull out a frosty adult beverage, go to the porch and watch the sunset? On the other hand...as this storm is tracking straight into the liberal elite's heartland as well as the center of both financial and political power, is there a possibility that this could be an event of seminal importance in tipping the scale of awareness toward honest and objective analysis of the mountain of evidence that has built into an Everest? As is our nature, action, albeit reactive, will be determined by a body count of inescapable sadness and tragedy; anything less than rows of body bags and this storm will be just another History Channel footnote.
52423. JasonB at 10:37 AM on 29 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       Bill, The fact that you are trying to draw inferences from the perceived change in appearance of those trends suggests you have rather missed the point, which was this: you can't infer anything when the period is too short because the signal is swamped by noise. I'd also like to point out that those trends were deliberately cherry-picked to maximise the effect, and that your "observations" completely fall over as soon as a different temperature series is picked, as with the original escalator graphic. In that case you could argue that because the cherry-picked trends have greater negative slope from the early 80s to the mid-90s and that it's harder to find such negative trends now, warming has actually accelerated. But if you really want to analyse the data, rather than drawing inferences from the shapes of trends that were cherry-picked for dramatic effect, I suggest you ask yourself the following question: Is there any evidence that the global warming trend has slowed in the last decade or so compared to its previous trend during the 90s? As a statistician you can calculate the trend prior to 1997, say; then see whether the data since 1997 fits within the 95% confidence interval of that prior trend extrapolated to today. (Of course you need to account for autocorrelation in order to calculate the 95% confidence intervals.) Do that with each of the global temperature data sets. Assuming you find that the answer is "no", then ask yourself: If there is no statistically significant evidence of a change in trend since 1997, how can we say that global warming has slowed? Regarding 4th order polynomials -- of course that's inferior. If the data is noisy, you don't make it easier to capture the underlying behaviour and make useful predictions by giving your model more degrees of freedom! Every additional parameter has to be shown to be justified. Adding a linear term to a model of global temperatures since the 1970s, for example, clearly results in a better model than a model that simply has a constant temperature term. But models with more parameters will be worse according to the Akaike information criterion for that period in time. Over longer periods, when other factors come into play, then additional parameters may be justified. There's another important reason for a linear trend that's not just based on the statistics -- it's called Physics. We expect a linear increase due to the exponential increase in CO2 emissions coupled with the logarithmic nature of CO2 concentrations on temperature. From knowledge of the problem itself we can predict what model should work best. Roy Spencer knows this as well, which is why he says it's for "entertainment purposes only" and doesn't offer it as an argument. If he didn't know it was inferior, as you apparently don't, then he wouldn't have to say that, he could defend it. It's easy to construct a higher-order polynomial that shows temperature about to embark on a precipitous increase, but I doubt you'll find anybody here posting one "for entertainment purposes only". Something to think about.
52424. Doug Bostrom at 10:27 AM on 29 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       Just noticed that Michael Tobis connected some dots on this story, way back when on the 25th. Grim Trajectories.
52425. Doug Bostrom at 09:35 AM on 29 October 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #43
       My favorite quote of the week, as heard on "Klick and Klack" of NPR, one that seems appropriate when thinking about how e do or don't deal w/our C02: "Is your problem ignorance, or apathy?" "I don't know and I don't care." From a recitation of quotes from college sports coaches. Another good one: "Son, you got four "F" grades and a "D." It looks like you're focusing too much on one topic."
52426. Doug Bostrom at 08:41 AM on 29 October 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #7
       Estiben: We've gone directly from denial to nihilism. Denihilism?
52427. Estiben at 07:34 AM on 29 October 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #7
       Agreed, ranyl. I found the ABC article depressing. That seems to be the narrative these days, "it's too late to stop warming, so we just have to figure out how to live with it." We've gone directly from denial to nihilism. How do we convince the public that admitting there is a problem doesn't mean giving up to it? We can't undo global warming, but we can keep it from being the worst case, while we also adapt to the inevitable consequences.
52428. Billhunter at 07:33 AM on 29 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       _________________________________________________________ I apologize for getting too wordy and out of topic in my last response so I rewrote it below. Feel free to erase the previous post so I am in compliance with your posting policy. I have read the policy and will try to adhere to it. _______________________ The climate escalator graphic is pretty revealing. Especially in the video screenshot version. Pre-1980's the risers were lower and the treads longer. For the 80's and 90's the risers get higher and the treads shorter. The IPCC projections for the future projected an even higher step for the coming decades. But for the 2000's the riser got a lot shorter than the 80's and 90's and the tread a lot longer than ever. Seems to me until the next step comes its suggesting or matching what many scientists have been saying about an oscillating climate possibly suggesting less warming for the future than projected. Obviously one such step is not very convincing to somebody already convinced, but it is a bit of problem for convincing those who are not convinced. Somebody can draw various trends through the data and point out all sorts of interesting stuff. But statistically the less these curves comply with each other the more uncertainty that suggests. Regarding statistical trends Roy Spencer at his blog has been drawing a 4th order polynomial fit that is just another view of the trend, not superior, not inferior. Spencer though acknowledges his trend is for "entertainment purposes only" and doesn't offer it as an argument.
52429. Old Mole at 07:29 AM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Bill @38 "If heat is sinking into the ocean it should be broadly supported by science and clearly that's not the case. " You do realize that if your supposition was correct, there would never be an Arctic ice cap in the first place? You seem to be missing that essential (and peculiar quality of water, that it expands as it cools (after it reaches 4C), and it is that change in density that allows for the counter-intuitive downwelling of warmer water. The point that michael sweet makes is also pertinent "The average surface temperature of the ocean is higher than the air above it." That is average temperature over both day and night ... air and surface cool much more quickly than water does. It is one of the reasons we have such a great climate in California ... since we get the cold Alaska current running offshore, we get much cooler nights than the East Coast does with the Gulf Stream.
52430. littlerobbergirl at 07:11 AM on 29 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       Sitting listening to gentle rain on caravan roof thinking how lucky i am 200m up (and 2000 miles away) Good luck to you folk in the danger zone. Lets hope its not as bad as it could be, and if all goes well lets hope the mayor doesnt get attacked for being alarmist! It is indeed alarming.
52431. michael sweet at 06:56 AM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Bill, The graph in the OP shows measured increase in heat content of the deep ocean. This is not theoretical heat, it is measured heat. Your "Occam's razor suggests more downwelling of supercooled water" is simply uninformed speculation. Please provide a citation of your speculation. What scientists have measured is increased temperatures in the deep ocean. The ocean circulation is well understood by scientists. You are getting information from uninformed sources. The average surface temperature of the ocean is higher than the air above it. The ocean warms the air in the majority of the world. This is because the sun shines on the ocean and warms it. In locations like the Arctic, cold water sinks so the deep ocean is cold. As the Arctic warms the sinking water has increased in temperature. This increase has been measured. Because the sinking water is now warmer than it was in the past the deep ocean is warming. This is measured data. The heat coming from the Earths core is measured and is much smaller (orders of magnitude) than the heat retained by greenhouse gasses. It has no significant effect on climate. The difficulty scientists have predicting weather,like El Nino, is a completely different situation to long range climate forecasts. Hansen does not do weather forecasts. He occasionally speculates on what he thinks El Nino will do, but it is not his area of expertise. Read the links in the OP if you want to see the data. Making up explanations off the cuff does not go over well on a scientific blog.
52432. Billhunter at 06:50 AM on 29 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       The climate escalator graphic is pretty revealing. Especially in the video screenshot version. Pre-1980's the risers were lower and the treads longer. For the 80's and 90's the risers get higher and the treads shorter. The IPCC projections for the future projected an even higher step for the coming decades. But for the 2000's the riser got a lot shorter than the 80's and 90's and the tread a lot longer than ever. Since the IPCC made that projection in 2000 (not 1980) thats raises a good deal of concern right out of the box. Might have been a well hit ball but the batter stumbled on home plate. Seems to me until the next step comes its matching what many scientists have been saying about an oscillating climate possibly suggesting less warming for the future than projected. Obviously one such step is not very convincing to somebody already convinced, but it is a bit of problem for convincing those who are not convinced. This has been my problem anyhow. I am schooled in investigation, auditing, and statistics. I have used this skill in 3 entirely different technical/scientific fields so while I know little about climate I do understand a statistical argument for climate. When I first became interested in this topic, and who would not? Especially somebody who has dabbled in passive solar heating design such as myself. Anyway I went to the so-called bible and read IPCC AR3. I was surprised at the reliance on historic weather patterns and Ben Santer's fingerprinting being front and center in the attribution chapter with virtually nothing from science. (I realize that science has some stuff but its not organized into a soup to nuts documentation). Auditors are frequently confronted by both forms of evidence. If its technical an independent expert is found. If its statistical or historical the auditor tests that and recommends adjustments based upon his tests. Actually there is practically no soup to nuts science/physics discussion of climate change in the whole of the AR3 document. So if the bible says so climate change has to be primarily based on historic warming. Thus the recent change in step height and width has to be very concerning to the authors of the attribution chapter. This is why I stepped in on the Curry discussion. There is no explanation for what is happening and it has to be seen as uncertainty. It would be a disservice to readers if the IPCC were to merely adjust the historic temperature attribution by adding in new entirely new historical arguments. Auditors generally don't allow that as consistency is important. Such an approach is like stepping back 12 years. Begging for an answer is why that step is so low and so long especially at a time in the face of alleged extreme climate forcing the other way. So I hope everybody seriously takes this as the question "Why?" as opposed to a lecture. Sure somebody can draw linear trends through the data and call it natural variation. Thats one answer but I know statistically it results in less certainty and the amount of less certainty is in no way affected by drawing a linear trend. Likewise Roy Spencer at his blog has been drawing a 4th order polynomial fit that is just another view of the trend, not superior, not inferior. Spencer though acknowledges his trend is for "entertainment purposes only" and doesn't offer it as an argument. Statistically speaking he is right on the mark about that.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Part of your problem is insisting on arguing from ignorance. You refer to AR3 while the AR4 has been out for 5 years and AR5 is being drafted.

       At Skeptical Science, thousands of threads exist dealing with virtually everything to do with climate science...and the denial of it by skeptics and the like. This thread specifically deals with Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement. If you would care to break up this long comment into more appropriately-specific subjects, utilization of the Search function will certainly locate for you specific threads where those bits will be more on-topic. And likely have already been dealt with, either by the OP of those threads or in the comment threads to the posts.

       Also, please acquaint yourself with the Comments Policy of this website (linky adjacent to every comments box).

52433. Philippe Chantreau at 06:47 AM on 29 October 2012
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       We can only hope that this will bring insight about sea level rise to a certain state's legislature...
52434. IanC at 06:46 AM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Bill, Understanding and predictability are completely different. You can have the most sophisticated model that includes all the relevant physics (i.e. 100% understanding), yet have dismal predictability because you have insufficiently good initial data. The difficulty with forecasting ENSO is that it is effectively a long term weather forecast for the ocean, and it suffers from sensitivity to initial conditions the same way a weather model does. Let's not get side tracked by predictability and finish the original discussion My points are 1) Ocean can warm or cool the atmosphere. It depends on the surface temperature. 2) Your objection pt 3 in #38 is likely due to an incomplete understanding of oceanic dynamics. Warm water can downwell if you apply a wind forcing.
52435. OPatrick at 06:03 AM on 29 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       Tristan - "I had to stop, because it was adversely affecting my mood." I'm sure we can all empathise with this, and I've little doubt this is an active, albeit possibly subconscious, strategy employed by those who want to shut down debate. I know from talking to people who are deeply concerned about climate change how many of them avoid comment threads because they find them too depressing. I wonder if there's call for a basic 'how to cope with internet climate discussions' guide, particularly for people who don't spend the necessary hours reading up on the details of the science to be confident responding to the more technical misinformation. I know how helpful it is just to have a bit of support at times and I think if more people gave moral support it would help to tip the balance. I think there are a few simple things that can make a difference which anyone can do. Just starting off with clicking recommends can help. Some other ideas: asking for evidence for unsupported claims (and following this up if not forthcoming or if evidence provided is questionable), pointing out contradictions - not necessarily scientific ones but just in terms of tone, pointing out when questions haven't been answered, pointing out when more points have been thrown in before others have been addressed etc. etc. I'm sure there must be many people who have time to make a difference but are reluctant to take part because of the reactions any commenting draws. Anything to encourage more people to weigh in.
52436. Billhunter at 05:32 AM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       IanC at 01:31 AM on 29 October, 2012 "Billhunter, You characterisation of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) as folklore cannot be more incorrect. Of all the modes of variability on longer timescales (> 1 year), it is probably the most well understood." Wow! Most well understood! ENSO prediction in at least the 5 years I have been monitoring it is abysmal. 3 months ago a fairly decent El Nino was projected for right now. The two models controlled by Jim Hansen GISS an Cola CCSM something have hands down the worst record of the lot. Usually predictions in the short run are fairly decent like over the first 3 months or so. Beyond that success tails off dramatically. The ENSO forecast system only goes out 8 months. If thats the best climate stuff we have, we don't have much climate prediction ability. To carry on a bit, prediction is aided some by the fact its an oscillation. So some predictibility arises from that. It is also appearing that the Pacific oscillation may have some effect on the mix of El Nino and La Nina, though it seems few know enough to incorporate in their models. Some models are doing much better than others. It might be worthwhile to look at why.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Please take any further discussion of models to the appropriate page.
52437. Billhunter at 05:14 AM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       I appreciate the reasonable comments from most. It seems that the primary argument here is that heat is sinking in the oceans. I am not arguing that heat cannot sink via wind and tides (thats what the mixing layer is dominated by). But that alone is insufficient to explain the missing heat. I am not lecturing anybody either, merely pointing out that heat rises in both liquid and gaseous mediums of unchanging chemical composition. If heat is sinking into the ocean it should be broadly supported by science and clearly that's not the case. Cherry picking which scientists we choose to believe about what is going on in the system seems rather overwrought, which was basically my claim of a lot of to do about nothing. I am just a member of the public that has been regaled for over a decade from numerous institutions offering up warming atmosphere temperatures as evidence of global warming. Now that the popular and primary evidence no longer supports the case, no one is going to convince the public that Curry is wrong without actually demonstrating the heat is sinking into the ocean as the idea runs contrary to our empirical sensibility. One might start by explaining why the average temperature the ocean is so much below that of the average temperature of the surface. Should not heat coming from both directions warm the ocean? We have intense heat at the core of the planet very slowly conducting to the surface. If we dig a hole in the ground the average depth of the ocean 3,000 meters it gets warmer. We also have a greenhouse effect that makes the surface about 10degrees warmer than the average temperature of the ocean. So obviously there must be an explanation for why the ocean is not isothermal. Downwelling of super cooled water is one theory some scientists have proposed. One might assume that process has some variability to it. But what we are seeing concurrent with the loss of ice is more cold upwelling not less. Thus increasing the strength of the arctic halocline by melting ice would seem to be an explanation that adds to the problem rather than provides an explanation. Occam's razor suggests more downwelling of supercooled water. I am not saying thats a fact that simply the answer that best reflects our understanding. Throwing salinity in is a lot like throwing convection into the greenhouse effect argument. One cannot pick and choose what he wants to ignore. . . .I agree with that. But thats the challenge of those who pretend to understand climate, not the public. One explanation is perhaps the loss of multiyear ice and the distribution of surface waters world wide has weakened the arctic halocline either on average or regionally say at places of higher rates of downwelling. Not saying thats so, but some cohesive explanation is very much needed for increased upwelling of cold water. But I am getting too much into the weeds. This is the job for climate models to explain. A lot less certainty about whats happening would much more accurately reflect the need for additional knowledge. Seems to me that's what Curry has been saying since day one. So to be clear I am not giving a science lecture but I am open to one.
52438. michael sweet at 02:39 AM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Bill, Before you can say "Finally the claim the heat is in the oceans seems to defy physics. Heat rises in both water and the atmosphere. " you need to understand basic Physics and Chemistry. Fresh water is most dense at 4C. 0C water floats on top of 4C water. This is related to the obvious fact that ice floats. In sea water the situation is more complicated. The density is a function of the salinity and the temperature. Since, as was pointed out above, the circulation of the oceans is partly driven by wind, if the salinity and temperature of the surface changes it is basic physics that the bottom water will be affected also. Do you think the catastrophic ice loss in the Arctic changed the salinity at all? If the water column increases in temperature by 0.1C that is a lot of heat. Please review your basic physics before you give others lectures. You will come across much better if you ask questions instead of giving lectures. How can warmer water sink? would be appropriate.
52439. trah at 01:34 AM on 29 October 2012
       Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
       This paper may be of interested to you. The rates are derived from permanent GPS stations. The rates of GIA are quite smaller than those suggested in figure 4 in the Hudson's bay area. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Articles/2006GL027081.pdf
52440. IanC at 01:31 AM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Billhunter, You characterisation of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) as folklore cannot be more incorrect. Of all the modes of variability on longer timescales (> 1 year), it is probably the most well understood. The heat transfer between atmosphere and the ocean depends crucially on the the temperature difference between air and sea surface, and it is not always true that the ocean warms the air. If you cool the ocean surface sufficiently ( e.g. during La Nina years), the heat can be transferred from the air to the ocean, leading to a drop in global temperature. You said:

       La Ninas appear to be upwellings of cold water from the bottom of the ocean, but it seems it needs to actually represent ocean cooling as the upwelling water needs to be replaced by water via downwelling, and warm water does not downwell.

       In the pacific there is constant upwelling on the eastern end due to the trade winds. It is more accurate to think of La Nina as years with stronger than normal upwelling, and El Nino as years with weaker upwelling. It is also incorrect to state that ocean must cool during La Nina years: it is true that the ocean surface cools, but the overall heat content of the entire ocean is largely unchanged. Warm water can in fact downwell. What you are thinking of is likely up/downwelling due to density/buoyancy changes. However the upwelling/downwelling in the ENSO is driven not by density, but by surface wind.

       The AMO shows the main downwelling zones being near the poles where water is being cooled so basic physics suggests...

       What you are describing here is called "deep water formation". This is a density driven process, so it is not helpful at all to think about ENSO in terms of deep water formation, as the physics is completely different.
52441. DSL at 01:21 AM on 29 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Bill, I'm sure you're going to get an earful, and I hope you come back after you do get your earful. I hope you listen to criticisms of your comment, because that comment contains a number of very irritating "smudges." The line in paragraph three says, "current slowed rate of global surface warming." You say it says,"you acknowledge global warming has stopped." This is the kind of imprecision that paid "skeptics" produce as a matter of course, because they know their audiences aren't going to understand the distinction. Note that the troposphere/surface makes up all of what, 5% of the Earth's surface-ocean-atmosphere system thermal capacity. If you say that AGW has stopped because 5% of the system has experienced a slower rate of warming (using the least representative surface temp analysis) even though the other 95% is rolling along as predicted (or even more strongly than predicted), pardon me if I laugh in your face -- unless, of course, you honestly didn't realize the globe consists of more than the simple surface temp (minus poles for Hadley (GISS is a significant .146C per decade over 1996-2011, the last 16 whole years)). Note also that 2-3% of the additional energy is going into global ice mass loss, and that loss has accelerated over the "haitus" period of surface temp. As for the oceans, see (and reply to) the Levitus piece, this article, and SoD's pieces.
52442. Tristan at 22:20 PM on 28 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       Gary I appreciate your call to action. A lot of regular posters on this site do engage with the sketpics (typo, but then I decided I liked it!) elsewhere. I had to stop, because it was adversely affecting my mood. I have no idea whether or not I swayed any of the 'undecided' as a result of my trek through a hundred thousand lines of snark. My hat goes off to John Brookes, who has been doing it almost daily over at JoNova's site for what must be at least 2 years. Also to one "Adam Smith" who 'won the game' by being banned for somehow responding to almost every silly meme perpetrated in several dozen threads. He was so effective and prolific that the denizens decided he must be a team of individuals from GetUp, the ALP or (presumably) Endor.
52443. Billhunter at 21:37 PM on 28 October 2012
       Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
       Seems a lot of to do about nothing. 1) It seems in paragraph 3 you acknowledge global warming has stopped. (you say slowed but for all practical and statistical purposes it has stopped). You said: "the current slowed rate of global surface warming". .03 warming per decade is as good as stopped (at least temporarily) 2) You also acknowledge that it is due to aerosols produced by China burning coal in a rapid industrialization. Not only is that in conflict with your claim the heat is going into the ocean, but it in fact means the heat is not even entering the planet in the first place due to manmade emissions. I think that means its stopped too. 3) Finally the claim the heat is in the oceans seems to defy physics. Heat rises in both water and the atmosphere. Its basic physics. So if you claim it is entering the ocean I think you need to explain, via some physics, why its allegedly coming out more slowly and not warming the atmosphere in accordance with the basic physics it normally does. I have built passive solar space heating systems using water as a heat storage medium. I have yet to notice the system just mysteriously slowing down. La Ninas and El Ninos is kind of a folklore type explanation so thats not adequate. La Ninas appear to be upwellings of cold water from the bottom of the ocean, but it seems it needs to actually represent ocean cooling as the upwelling water needs to be replaced by water via downwelling, and warm water does not downwell. The AMO shows the main downwelling zones being near the poles where water is being cooled so basic physics suggests that the cold upwelling La Nina water is being replaced by colder water and El Nino must generally be a time of low rates of downwelling cold water. That would at minimum likely be the null hypothesis unless I am missing something. Don't take any of the above as an argument against CO2 being a greenhouse gas. It just seems its not the only thing that controls temperatures of the surface.
52444. ranyl at 20:40 PM on 28 October 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #7
       It is not Adaptation versus Mitigation that is very misleading and not understanding what adaptation means now at all. Adaptation includes all mitigation efforts otherwise adaptation isn't going to be possible and we're into the survival! I would suggest people read about adaptation and how adaptatioon and mitigation go hand in hand. Also watch Eileen Shea talk at the Waether and Climate summit earlier this year to get a deeper understanding of Adpatation (which again includes all mitigation efforts and carbon sequestration on a massive scale!). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1CySwdMW7w&list=PL61B096B67AD0EE3E&index=15&feature=plcp
52445. ianw01 at 09:02 AM on 28 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       For me the most remarkable aspect of the program was how clearly it revealed the line of thinking among deniers. It starts with quite libertarian and wealth-centric priorities, which in turn are the basis for objections to any action on climate change. With those objections established, they are immediately convinced that the science is wrong. Their route to that conclusion completely bypassed an investigation of the facts as a factor in the conclusions they reach. At that point the science is - dare I say it - an inconvenience, and becomes their arena of choice for (a) cherry-picking to support a confirmation bias and (b) a place to try to sow doubt. Their mind is already made up. The effort to develop meaningful climate action is a task akin to religious conversion, rather than reaching scientific conclusions. Ugh.
52446. JohnMashey at 08:48 AM on 28 October 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Just so it's here, not only might there have been MWP-LIA differences in solar insolation and volcanic activity,but in Law Dome CO2 over last 2000 years. Snow-albedo amplification works both ways, and Northern Hemisphere around snow line is where one would expect to see larger effects. As noted elsewhere, one has to be really careful with apples/oranges comparisons among reconstructions. NH "extra-tropics" is not the same as NH, it's either 50% of the NH (30degN-) or 60% (23.5degN-). Spaghetti charts sometimes require reading fine print somewhere else.
52447. funglestrumpet at 08:24 AM on 28 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       On BBC R4's Today programme this morning I heard the Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson, blame climate change on the sun. What hope is there if someone can hold such an office yet can't be bothered to study the most important item in their brief?
52448. Mal Adapted at 07:53 AM on 28 October 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #7
       Errm, "Phsycotherapy"?
52449. Gary Lance at 05:49 AM on 28 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
       The 'stink-tanks' have been around Americans (and I am one) since the mid 50s. Facts are never facts as long as people are prone to believe what they want to believe and don't tune into reality. How long will the simple minded love simplicity? It's good to be told in your old age that the global temperature is declining and the arctic sea ice will rebound. I'm still waiting to hear Santa Claus is real and the Tooth Fairy is going to pay up with interest. It's good in my old age to think I haven't left a screwed up mess of a planet for my children to inherit and deal with. There may be a chance in the next three years for certain governments, including my own, to be shocked enough by events and put away their interests in the arctic, like a child getting bored with a new toy. It's human nature to always want more of something we can't take care of and we can only hope sanity gets it's day. If we allow that arctic sea ice to melt away, we can kiss every city that is near a coast good-bye. That means no more Washington, DC and London.
52450. vrooomie at 01:58 AM on 28 October 2012
       Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
       sincam, as a long-time car nut/mechanic, could you show me the source of an engine, of any type, that can run on pure O2? Not being combustible in any automotive engine I'm aware of, I need to see what documentation supports the idea. I'll also step in here and say that, other than in the form of H2, no internal combustion engine runs solely on water.

Prev  1041  1042  1043  1044  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  Next