Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 Next
Comments 61951 to 62000:
-
Norman at 18:54 PM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Tom Curtis @65 Thank you for understanding my point. I do greatly appreciate that effort. I would concede to your point except it does not seem to be established in the data provided. I can't link to my excel sheet but I did enlarge the Munic Re graph to the point where 2" = 200 counts on the Munich Re chart. Then to the nearest 16th it determined the actual Munich Re count. Here is my data. Left column is earthquake number (from USGS web page) starting at 1980 and ending at 2011. The right column is a close approximation of actual Munich Re numbers given in the OT chart of natural catastrophes. 119.... 83.3 103.... 66.64 95.... 74.97 140.... 108.29 99.... 66.64 124.... 83.3 95.... 99.96 123.... 91.63 101.... 99.96 86.... 116.62 127.... 141.61 112.... 108.29 179.... 116.62 149.... 124.95 159.... 116.62 203.... 133.28 164.... 133.28 136.... 166.6 129.... 141.61 134.... 141.61 173.... 166.6 142.... 99.96 143.... 116.62 155.... 99.96 159.... 108.29 151.... 108.29 153.... 124.95 196.... 124.95 180.... 116.62 161.... 99.96 175.... 108.29 205.... 91.63 When I make a line graph of the two number sets in Excel I do not see a correlation between the two lines. It is not a change in belief that is needed. It is a change in information source. One that has no basis in populaton or property values. An indepentdent variable. Actual tornado counts, actual earthaquake numbers, actual counted numbers of hurricanes, actual floods, actual droughts. I am mainly requesting information that has no bias and let the information determine the reality without any potential for bias. I still do not understand why this request is met with hostility or accusations of dishonesty or intentional misleading of potential visitors to this web site. The Munich Re report uses property and population in their determination of catastrophe. It seems possible that they are lumping all catastrophe categories together in this graph, from the smallest to largest so it is possible that a person killed by a lightning strike is given the same weight as a massive flood, hurricane or earthquake. All are equally counted as one catastrophe. This approach does not seem logical, reasonable or informative. The only acceptable scientific approach to see if events are increasing is to give actual numbers and then determine if those numbers are indeed increasing. I do not see why this request is considered "trolling" bad or inappropriate for this scientifically based web site. If it is can anyone provide an explanation as to why this constitutes unacceptable behavior?Moderator Response: [JH] You raise issues, those issues are responded to, and you ignore those repsonses. You are either playing a game with us, or you have blinders on. Either way, you are exhausting our patience. -
climatesight at 18:02 PM on 10 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Andy, this is a FABULOUS piece. It is so eloquently written and well thought out. My own story of discovery is much less remarkable. Going through grade school I vaguely knew there was some problem called global warming, but almost nothing else. I was lucky enough to have my first real introduction to the subject from a climate scientist at one of the local universities, during a day long environmental workshop for high school students that I went to on a whim. His presentation was, in retrospect, a total life changer for me (given how much of my time I spend on climate science, and the fact that I am beginning a career in the field). I remember that my thoughts on the presentation were not "we're all going to die" as much as "wow, this research is really interesting!" The very fact that oxygen isotopes could be used as proxy data for temperature sort of blew my mind. Previously I had enjoyed science in school, but mostly because it was so nicely organized and I have always enjoyed classification (apparently my mum first suspected I would be a scientist when she noticed me sorting the contents of my Christmas stocking into categories). This was the first area of applied science, however, that really appealed to me. Previously I had always liked theory and concepts more than applications - ie, the periodic table over chemistry labs, even if explosions were involved. So I approached climate change like a scientist, rather than an activist, from the very beginning, and have more or less remained that way since. I think the only obvious psychological influence on my position was the fact that I was brought up to trust experts like doctors and scientists. The credibility spectrum, in a very crude form, was present in my mind at a very young age :) Kate http://climatesight.org -
jyyh at 17:48 PM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Thanks much Tom Curtis, this got me searching for the vertical profiles for CO2 in the troposphere as well, it turns out they change pretty much with seasons, as should be expected for the biosphere uptake/release: Some of the middle/upper tropospheric level variation is probably due clouds (CO2 gets dissolved in cloud droplets). The level of stratospheric high concentration might be the one level where CO2 can freeze? -
Rob Honeycutt at 17:11 PM on 10 March 2012James Hansen's Motivation
Best talk I've seen Hansen give. And I totally dig the hat. -
Tom Curtis at 15:28 PM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
jyyh @10, with regard to the stratosphere, Bischof et al 1985 write:"Although many measurements of the abundance of CO2 in the troposphere have been made, knowledge of its stratospheric abundances and variability is sparse. Here we report mid-latitude vertical profiles of CO2, up to 35 km, measured in 1979, 1982 and 1984 by analysing cryogenically collected balloon samples supplemented by air samples taken aboard aircraft. CO2 mixing ratios are not constant with altitude but rather decrease by ~7 p.p.m.v. (parts per 106 by volume) from the tropopause to the mid-stratosphere. The growth rate of the atmospheric CO2 abundance caused by anthropogenic emission, which varies between 1.0 and 1.5 p.p.m.v. yr–1 at ground level1, is also observed at all stratospheric heights up to 35 km. The shape of the profiles suggests that excess CO2 above 20 km enters the stratosphere through tropical upwelling rather than mid-latitude diffusion. The time lag of this height region with respect to the tropospheric CO2 level is ~5 yr."
These results have been confirmed by Daube et al, 2002:
Original caption:
"Fig. 7. (a) CO2 and (b) N2O from the ER-2 (light crosses) and OMS (dark filled circles) intercomparison flights of 23 Jan 2001. ER-2 data are shown only for the descent into Kiruna, Sweden, since that occurred at the same time the balloon was ascending from Esrange. The profiles were separated by 1.25°–3.75° lat and 1°–3° lon, with the largest separation at the highest altitudes"
You may also want to see Carlotti et al, 2007 for a more detailed picture. The pools of "CO2 on the ground" have come from the overturning of volcanic lakes, which brings the bottom water with a very high concentration of CO2 to the surface and releases it to the atmosphere in a cool form. Direct volcanic emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere are unlikely to form volcanic pools IMO because the gas will be warm, and hence rise. -
Composer99 at 15:26 PM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
MattJ, as a matter of taxonomical convention, the one instance of Homo sapiens in the article, if written correctly, would be written as I have done in this comment. Minor nitpick of a nitpick... -
jyyh at 14:42 PM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Isn't it so the normal evaporation of water drives the convection? Airborne H2O hits the the CO2 near the ground and drives it to tropopause levels. I mean there really has been some (temporary), observed pools of CO2(g) (and other gases) on some vulcanic locations where the mixing of the atmosphere (by wind) has been suspended (temporarily). I do not know how CO2 mixes in the stratosphere or does it get mixed there as mixed up as in troposphere since there's so much less water vapor up there. Other planets have less airborne ice crystals in their atmophere so their weathers are more predictable, no? -
Tom Curtis at 14:23 PM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
muoncounter @64, I agree with the point you are making. In fact I made the same point rather forcefully in my post 56. Never-the-less, we need to tackle the argument Norman is actually making rather than the one he appears to be making. The facts are simple: 1) The error rate in detecting magnitude 6 plus earthquakes is very low; 2) The number of magnitude 6 plus earthquakes varies from year to year with a long term average of about 150 earthquakes per year; 3) The 1980's where unusually quiet, with an average of 108.5 earthquakes per year; 4) The 1990's where not unusual in any way, with an average of 149.2 earthquakes per year; 5) The 2000's where slightly more active than usual, with an average of 161.1 earthquakes per year; 6) This real change in the number of earthquakes does not represent a statistically significant trend showing there is no reason to expect its continuation or apocalyptic climax in 2012 (your point); but 7) It is, however, a real change in the number of earthquakes between the 1980s and the most recent decade (Norman's point). However, where it gets bizarre is that Norman argues that this fact (7) proves the Munich Re data is unreliable. As it is a crucial point, I will quote his argument verbatum:"Earthquake numbers are critical to the discussion as they are used (assumed to be relatively flat which is not the case) to prove that population growth and property values are not the reason Munich Re shows increasing catastrophes caused by Climate and weather related effects. My point is that large (prone to cause damage if near population centers and unless the greater number of quakes in the 2000 decade just all happened to occur outside the bounds of civilization as compared to 1980 decade or even the 1990 decade, but the number of deaths does not support this conclusion as they have increased at a dramatic rate). If whatever system Munich Re is using to determine a catastrophe can't pick up a noticeable increase in large earthquake number, it should be evident that this system is not valid in determining event numbers but I keep seeing the same graph used as evidence of increasing bad weather related events. If it can't match earthquake number to reality (provided by the USGS) why would I believe it is a valid portrayal of increasing bad climate or weather related phenomena. "
What is bizarre is that the system used by Munich Re did pick up a large increase in earthquake numbers. Specifically, the graph in the OP showing the increase in relative trends shows an increase in geophysical events from 1980 to 2011 of about 50%, closely approximating to the 54% increase in magnitude 6 plus earthquakes over the same period. Having pinned his argument on this point, having it so clearly refuted we should now be able to expect Norman to conclude that the Munich Re data does indeed show an increase in damaging weather related events. Of course, we both know from long experience that no such change of believe will occur. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:47 PM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
muoncounter @ 13:10 PM, what will the Inhofe's of this world do when the climatic changes become undeniable? When the CO2 levels hit 500ppm, when the wheat fields become barren, when the sea level rises, when the Arctic is ice free, when human population becomes unsustainable, will they say "It's not us, it's God and He knows what is good for us"? Wilful blindness in legislators does not make for good legislation. -
KeefeandAmanda at 13:45 PM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Do we not need to see some researchers come up with a global heat index history of the planet of the last half-century or the last century, to go along with the actual global temperature history? And with this, also a comparison of daytime and nighttime global heat indexes to go along with the same for actual global daytime and nighttime temperatures. (Is it not so that the global nighttime heat index going up faster than the global daytime heat index would be as powerful as the global nighttime temperature going up faster than the global daytime temperature as evidence for a powerful increase in greenhouse gas activity? No other method of heating can cause these diurnal range decreases that have occurred as they have occurred.) The heat index measure (temperature and relative humidity) may be much more important than mere temperature as we go forward. That is, with ever-increasing global water vapor, since eventually it's harder to get temperatures as high when there is more and more water in the atmosphere compared to when it's dry, should we not expect eventually a slowdown in actual global temperature increases but no slowdown in global heat index increases? And the heat index is much more relevant to survivability for animals like birds and mammals - see the warnings of such studies as that study published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS): "An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress" http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.full This NAS research says that even with just an eventual 5 degree C global temperature increase down the road (they looked at both a 5 degree C and 10 degree C increase), smaller and then larger parts of the planet will become uninhabitable because of non-survivable summertime heat indexes. (They are talking heat indexes not seen for tens of millions of years, before modern birds and mammals evolved and covered the planet as it cooled over those millions of years.) A 5 degree C increase would stress human civilization to a breaking point. And if an eventual 10 degree C global temperature increase happens somewhere down the road, half the planet would probably become a dead zone in terms of bird and mammalian life, and present civilization could not survive. One reason for this last point is simple - the land mass that would be left as habitable could not support the many billions population that will obtain this century. There would have to be a reduction of many billions. Just think the implications through. See what the researchers themselves say about their own research in terms of the heat indexes, directly and indirectly: http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimits.html Quote: ""The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," Sherwood said. "Although we are very unlikely to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the next."" http://www.gaia-movement-usa.org/?q=node/46 Quote: ""Most people are more familiar with the heat index, or the feels-like temperature they see on the weather report. The wet-bulb temperatures we are talking about would have a feels-like, or heat-index, temperature of between 170 to 196 degrees Fahrenheit," Huber said. In line with this NAS-published research: By this online heat index calculator http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html/heatindex.shtml a temperature of 100 degrees F with a relative humidity of 75 percent gives a heat index of 150 degrees F, and a temperature of 105 degrees F with a relative humidity of 75 percent gives a heat index of 176 degrees F. The former would kill many humans and other modern birds and mammals within hours, and the latter (the lower range of a wet bulb temperature of 95 degrees F) would kill all humans and probably all other modern birds and mammals within hours. (Don't dismiss this. Don't forget that air conditioning can go out and power failures can occur, and so on.) Do we not need to care about the future of our planet and the life on it, and care what heat indexes the middle parts of our planet will be experiencing throughout the next couple or few short centuries during summertime heat waves, as the globe accumulates more and more heat energy? -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:32 PM on 10 March 2012James Hansen's Motivation
This should be compulsory viewing in every high school. Watch the talk, then research the supporting evidence for every statement made. Making students do the search of the literature themselves might drive the facts home. -
Rob Painting at 13:29 PM on 10 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
jzk - see Lindzen Illusions top left-hand corner of the SkS page. -
owl905 at 13:26 PM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Following on points by william-19 and Chemware-22: the hit on our living standards is exposure one. It's already adding to taxes and insurance premiums (extreme events rising in number and rising faster in damages). Weather pattern instability is already increasing. So the second hit will be on aqua&agriculture - basically, the things that can't move and that driver producers out of business. Any idea that the damage stops if the pollution is stopped is expecting a runaway train to stop at the flip of a switch. While the species can survive, it will become impossible to support 7 billion-plus inhabitants; the forecast of double that by mid-century shows hit three - population upheavals and crisis. It took politics, religion, civil war, AND drought - to produce the South Sudan Drought. -
Jose_X at 13:26 PM on 10 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
We could play devil's advocate and come up with tens, hundreds, .. of questions that would not have been addressed at a short presentation. People who have already considered some of these aren't going to change their minds without going down that list to some degree. Those who might be convinced on the spot might develop doubt later on as some of these questions surface. Many people will not "change sides" until they can go back and first remove a fair amount of the doubts they acquired from numerous websites. This is why this comprehensive website is great and why a presentation (or even interactive gathering of at most an hour or two) might be only marginably successful if the goal and focus in it largely becomes to get skeptics to change their minds within the short time period of the presentation. Let me ask, how many of you here "changed your minds" in a few hours and solved the doubt for good? I would agree that a primary goal of the presentation should be to motivate people to pursue this topic further if they have questions (eg, by visiting this website). Passing on that motivation would be very useful. Those who agree should also know they have this website to use to help others. BTW, "debunking 3 myths" is catchy and can be used to draw an audience (and interactivity and feedback during the presentation are great). As an aside (and indirectly also a positive review of much of what this website covers): One debunking/motivational technique I like is to raise doubts about "skeptics". Scientists put a lot of burden on proving x and y, but we don't see that serious effort on skeptic sites. If we could easily present a convincing, comprehensive, cohesive answer in the way science demands, then scientific papers would also be simple and hardly rely on mathematics or not come with extensive reference sections. ["If anyone believes the papers are easy to read, then you should be reading them."] The fact is that it is easy to raise doubt yet hard to cover all loose ends in addressing that doubt. Impress this idea upon people.. that without reading lots of formal literature and gory details, in the end they are necessarily going to rely on faith.. faith in scientists who offer cohesion and lots of research ["Did you know there are hundreds of papers written every x days?"] or else in skeptic amateurs who ignore that detail. As a stat, show them how most who do go in depth end up coming out convinced (show the 97% agreement and how this number drops as knowledge decreases). .. We should be skeptical about skeptical websites online. Are the websites using data that is accurate? Are they explaining all the context? Are they accurately representing the state of the science? Are they conducting experiments or are they making things up? Etc. Turn the tables on skeptics to prove a little of their ideas in a rigorous fashion. Explain how its easy to create doubt but hard to prove anything or even come out with a theory that is consistent with the rest of reality and established science and engineering. ..Note: Monckton excels at giving the impression everything he says is backed by reams of precise mathematics... Now, to address the fact that there is skeptic math out there (eg, as that indirectly referenced by Monckton), I think this website should continue to debunk such skeptic papers and website arguments that have prominence. It should be easy to find the rebuttal to almost any skeptic "peer-reviewed" paper even if the peer-review is very weak and the paper is professionally ignored. Except for legit papers, just the fact a rebuttal exists goes far in limited debates (eg, to counter Monckton and similar speakers). Legit papers that don't dispel anything about AGW and which are used as padding on such skeptic lists should be so marked so as not to count in a tally against AGW. .. It's important to note that the goal of the IPCC is to present risk management scientific information. AGW may never be "proven" in various uses of that word, but there can certainly be overwhelming evidence behind it. The IPCC's goal is to define probabilities, much as is done in the insurance industry and by people managing risks every day. This should be made clear. In a public debate, I wouldn't want to get pinned (a) trying to show climate science has proven AGW or otherwise (b) offer only silence to allegations it hasn't. The answer is on risk management and abundance of evidence for or against. And speaking of debates with Monckton: challenge Monckton to agree that all claims will be listed at the end of the debate (or else don't count) and a followup will be done, first where each side lists references in support of their claims, and then where the other side can offer it's rebuttal.. and then the counter-rebuttals, etc, on some official debate webpage run by a neutral party. -
jzk at 13:23 PM on 10 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
dana1981@18, Could you list them? -
muoncounter at 13:10 PM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
While this article deals with Texas Gov. RPerry's delusions, it is worth noting Oklahoma senator James Inhofe's latest take: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on Voice of Christian Youth America’s radio program Crosstalk with Vic Eliason yesterday to promote his new book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, where he repeated his frequent claim that human influenced climate change is impossible because “God’s still up there.” Inhofe cited Genesis 8:22 to claim that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.” If you have difficulty believing your eyes, you can listen to the great man making his case. -
Jim Eager at 13:07 PM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
MattJ, the Eemian interglacial, the peak near 120,000 before present, *was* slightly warmer than the Holocene by ~1-2C, CO2 was slightly higher than pre-industrial Holocene CO2 (~300 vs ~280), and sea level was ~4-6 meters higher as well. But the current CO2 level of ~390 ppm is higher than at any time since the mid-Pliocene, when it was 2-3C warmer than today and sea level was ~25 meters higher. -
muoncounter at 12:59 PM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Tom C, A different look comes from Figure 3b in Engdahl (your second graph here is Figure 3a). The decadal averages of earthquake number (M>= 6.5) is very flat since 1940. We note a slight increase in the number of earthquakes ... in the 1940-1960 period. Nothing noted about the even slighter bump in the 1990s. If this was a real increase with some sort of underlying physical cause, we would see a corresponding increase in M>= 7 numbers. We do not. I note that Googling 'increasing earthquake numbers since 1980' lead to lots of 'Mayan apocalypse' and 'end-of-times' websites. However, this geology blog is well worth the read: So, if we modify our graph to show an error bar of 2 standard deviations, you’ll notice that every result since 1990 fits inside this model! Simply put, there is absolutely nothing strange happening. In fact, thanks to this normal curve you can basically predict, with a 99.7% chance of success, that an earthquake of equal / greater than M6.0 will occur somewhere around the world within the next 3.5 days. Please, let's end this distraction into armchair seismology. -
MattJ at 12:48 PM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
The article is a good article, true, but there are a couple small points that if addressed would make it even better, and that by a lot. 1) Homo Sapiens should be capitalized throughout 2) the text would be a lot easier to follow if it did not appear to contradict the graph: just eyeballing the graph, it looks like the highest temperature WAS the peak near 120,000 before present, while the text gives an earlier date for a higher one. this suggest 3) the diagram would be greatly improved if there was some indication of the vertical temperature scale. 4) lose the sarcastic line about what Perry would prefer. That really does not help make the case at all. We all know Perry is a Creationist too. -
MattJ at 12:43 PM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
@19 Yes, we will survive as a species, but our near descendants will live in such misery, they will wish we had not survived. And those cultures that still practice ancestor worship (think China) will replace it with ancestor cursing if they preserve just enough scientific knowledge to understand why they are suffering so. -
jzk at 12:22 PM on 10 March 2012CO2 lags temperature
Your article states "CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone." How do you square that with Roe, G. (2006), In defense of Milankovitch, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027817 "In other words, variations in melting precede variations in CO2. Thus, the relatively small amplitude of the CO2 radiative forcing and the absence of a lead over dV/dt both suggest that CO2 variations play a relatively weak role in driving changes in global ice volume compared to insolation variations." and "Furthermore, variations in atmospheric CO2 appear to lag the rate of change of global ice volume. This implies only a secondary role for CO2 – variations in which produce a weaker radiative forcing than the orbitally-induced changes in summertime insolation – in driving changes in global ice volume." Thanks! -
Chemware at 11:39 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
"Humans survived past climate changes". Well, no, not really. Our "cousins" the Neanderthals didn't survive the last ice age. -
Tom Curtis at 11:06 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
JH inline @58 and @59, if a poster is identified as trolling, there should be no question of feeding them as their posting privileges should have been removed. However, while their posting privileges have not been removed, the correct policy for posters who care about truth and our future is to rebut their nonsense when it appears. It is intolerable that we should have a moderation policy that is both unable to silence trolls, but does silence the rebutals of the the myths they spread.Moderator Response: [JH] The current Comments Policy does not explicitly state that trolling is bannable offense. If you want to chase Norman's tail, that is your perrogative. -
Tom Curtis at 11:02 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
muoncounter @61, the previously linked (@57) Engdahl and Villsenor indicate that the centennial catalog is complete for magnitude 5.5 plus earthquakes from 1964 forward. Therefore the approximately 50% increase in magnitude 6 plus earthquakes since 1980 as shown by the USGS is almost certainly accurate. It is not statistically significant in that it does not show significant long term deviation from the centenial average of 150 earthquakes per year, but it is a real difference between the (historically low) number of earthquakes in the 1980s. What remains a mystery is why Norman thinks an approximately 50% increase in magnitude 6 plus earthquakes since the 1980s proves the inaccuracy of the 50% increase in geophysical catastrophes as recorded by Munich Re over the same period. -
muoncounter at 10:57 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Lucas Verma#17: "During the Holocene Climatic Optimum... for the Northern Hemisphere, longer more intense summers and the same duration but more intense winters.... southern summers and winters were more moderate." Do you have any references to support this? "Were winters ten degrees colder and summers ten degrees hotter..." Do you see a mechanism that results in this combination? -
muoncounter at 10:48 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman#58: Thanks for correcting my error; 2011 does indeed total 205 mag 6 or greater earthquakes. However, the question of statistical significance still stands. In addition, your position is based on half an hour with a spreadsheet and is without any published references. Until you can answer the challenge of finding some literature that supports your position, it remains unsubstantiated. There are factors that might explain your perceived trend: As others have pointed out, the impact on the numbers of improved detection systems worldwide is something professional seismologists are able to quantify. This post is about floods, droughts and impacts of climate change. Geophysical catastrophes are a sidebar. Until you produce suitable references, your excursion into armchair seismology has little weight and can be construed as an attempt to hijack this thread. -
Tom Curtis at 10:17 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman @59, you are correct. I have not been following your posts as I find you to be a dishonest time waster. Never-the-less, you have acknowledged that there is no overall trend, so my previous post was beside the point, and the accusation of cherry picking was inaccurate I would say I apologize for that, except the accusation is inaccurate as to its basis, but not wrong. If your point is explicitly to criticize the Munich Re graph, there is no justification for your using a data base of hazards to criticize a data base of catastrophes. This is particularly the case in that the USGS provides several data bases of catastrophes which you could have consulted. You could have, for example, looked at the number of earthquakes causing 1000 or more deaths, which show half decade figures as follows: 1980-84: 6 1985-89: 5 1990-94: 5 1995-99: 9 2000-05: 4 2005-09: 4 2010- April 2011: 3 Hardly evidence of a rising trend. You might also have tabulated the significant earthquakes, not all of which are magnitude 6 plus, but of which there are a lot less than the 6 plus earthquakes. You may find a rising trend there, or you may not. Given that you have so vehemently argued in other threads that the Munich Re data is irrelevant because it measures catastrophes, not hazards, it is inexcusable (and very selective) for you to not make this distinction when you criticize their data now. What is more, and perhaps more important, is the fact that Munich Re show a 50% increase in geophysical catastrophes over the period since 1980. How then, can you by pointing at data which shows a 50% increase in earthquakes over the same period call their data into question? What is your argument here? That the rise in Munich Re's geophysical catastrophes matches the rise in earthquakes and therefore it must be inaccurate? Is that seriously your argument? Finally, Munich Re's data is based on insurance data and newspaper reports. It is known to understate catastrophes in areas with low take up of European (and US) insurance such as Asia, South America, and particularly Africa for that reason. This does not mean the trends they show are not representative, particularly as similar trends are shown in areas with high population density and extensive insurance take up over a prolonged period (such as Germany). -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:05 AM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
One would think that if you were invited to conduct an inquiry at the invitation of a Congressman that you'd at least attempt to bring someone - at least one person - with some understanding of climate systems. Maybe that's just me. I remember back in the day when C Everett Koop was asked by President Reagan to do a study on the health effects on women who had had abortions. The expectation being that, if there were post-procedural impacts there might be reason to ban abortions. Koop, who was appointed by Reagan, stated that the results of the data did not support the position. There's a pretty good wiki account of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Everett_Koop -
chriskoz at 09:42 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Thanks John Russell @7 four giving us verbal strength in dealing with denialists. There is a saying "don't cut the branch on which you're sitting", invented I guess by loppers. It's becoming obvious that the "civilisation" is doing that by mining and burning fosils and altering the carbon cycle in unprecedented manner. The problem of altering carbon cycle with consequence of AGW is just one example. Another is land use change, forest destruction, chemical contamination, which all contribute to alteration of environment and ongoing mass species extinction. Overuse of DDT was one example. Coal Seam Gas mining is another emerging example (both chemical contamination and carbon cycle alteration is involved here). Until the economical balance of so called "civilisation & proggress" does not include the environmental sustainability, mankind will continue "cutting the branch on which it's sitting" -
JP40 at 09:31 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
An impact powerful enough to vaporize all the world's oceans would do it, but I don't think it is possible to do it just with co2, and civilization would collapse long before. I think civilization could collapse as soon as 2100. Most major cities around the world are close to sea level. -
shoyemore at 09:27 AM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Michael Mann seems to becoming more feisty and combative by the day. It is as if his shackles have been ripped off. Here's hoping we see and hear more from him. -
Norman at 09:20 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Tom Curtis @ 56 I do not think you have read my previous posts based upon this comment. "Indeed, it is quite droll of you to cherry pick a short period which gives the appearance of a rising trend when no such rise can be seen in centenial records:" I think you are a very intelligent person but I do not think you have followed my line of thought at all or understand the point I was making with the earthquake data. So to get you in the loop. The Munich Re graph in the OT starts at 1980. I am not trying to make a conclusion that earthquake numbers are overall rising. (note the not). I was pointing out a simple fact that the Munich Re chart was showing a decline or at least a flatline geophysical related catastrophes. But from 1980 to 2011 the frequency of 6+ magnitude (considered strong and will damage populated areas if they strike there) has increased. If you actually read some of my posts you will have seen this. Please read post 41 and you will see me address this very issue you are bringing up.Moderator Response: [JH] Please do not feed this troll. -
Norman at 09:11 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
muoncounter @55 You did not look at the date on your source, it only goes to August 2011, it is not the full year. Completed list of 6+ earthquakes in 2011. 185+19+1=205Moderator Response: [JH] Please do not feed this troll. -
Composer99 at 09:07 AM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Kevin C: The fact that we haven't all asphyxiated is pretty good evidence that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, and even the science-ignorant such as myself can figure that one out. :) -
Composer99 at 09:05 AM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Caveat to the above: The number of total & 5-star reviews is as of the time of the posting of the above comment. -
Tom Curtis at 09:02 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Sorry, I forgot to include the link to Engdahl and Villsenor in my previous post. -
Composer99 at 09:02 AM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
It's probably worth mentioning that Amazon indicates of the 96 reviews posted so far, 61 are 5-star reviews. -
Tom Curtis at 08:59 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman @54, I cannot help but notice that you failed to indicate the annual average number of earthquakes of magnitude 6 or greater on your chart, according to the USGS (noted by the red line below):
The annual average is that determined by the USGS from observations since 1900. Indeed, it is quite droll of you to cherry pick a short period which gives the appearance of a rising trend when no such rise can be seen in centenial records:
Figure 3 a from Engdahl and Villsenor. The slight upward trend in 6.5 plus earthquakes from the 1900s to the 1940s is probably an artifact due to improved observations as is shown by a lack of such a trend in magnitude 7 and 7.5 plus earthquakes, which being larger can be detected on a sparser network.
-
muoncounter at 08:52 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman: Your source is a vanity blog site; the author is someone who has also written on 'the 10 most annoying English phrases.' But he at least poses a sensible question about this apparent trend and concludes: "To answer that, you'll have to ask a seismologist." The seismologists in question work for the USGS - and they say there's no statistically significant increase. "There was also 205 6> magnitude quakes in 2011" My source shows 149. "Regardless of standard deviation the trend is up." No. With as high a standard deviation and as poor a correlation as these data show, the trend is insignificant. This is a debate that has taken place on many threads. Statistical significance is paramount. People who make conclusions based on statistically insignificant data are just making noise out of the noise in the data. Once again, until you have the published research documenting this so-called trend, you have very little credible evidence. And you've pulled this thread into a relatively insignificant tangent. Again. -
Kevin C at 08:43 AM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Actually, I don't find the CO2 point obvious. In response to a 'skeptic' who was claiming that CO2 formed a layer at the bottom of the atmosphere (yes, really!), I set out to demonstrate how CO2 should be mixed through the atmosphere using the equation for the entropy of mixing. The problem is that you get the wrong answer. If entropic mixing were the only thing going on, then the relative concentration of CO2 would decrease with altitude with a scale height of 5-10km. But it doesn't. Measurements show that it is pretty even throughout the troposphere. So there are other mixing effects going on. Clearly in the troposphere convection is going to be the big player. But I can't quantify the mechanism from first principles. I suspect that doing so is horribly complex. However, the fact that CO2 is well mixed should certainly be well known to anyone with any knowledge of the field. -
TOP at 08:37 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
@19 It is impossible to push the Earth's climate to a Venus like state. -
Norman at 08:08 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
muoncounter @53 I have to state I do enjoy your subtle and clever humor you put into your posts (205 in 1995 so earthquake increase has stopped...good one). Since I could not show my Excel sheet here someone has done it.
source.
There was also 205 6> magnitude quakes in 2011 so the graph will go up a bit from the image I have linked to.
Now tell me how this does not show an upward trend from 1980? Regardless of standard deviation the trend is up.
Moderator Response: [JH] Please do not feed this troll. -
william5331 at 07:51 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Unless we push the climate to a Venus like state, it is pretty certain we will survive as a species. It will be like the Roman Empire collapsing times two orders of magnitude. Our great great grandchildren will have Atlantean type legends of these god like beings that could talk to people on the other side of the world, that flew to the moon and who actually turned rock into metal. Science fiction keeps coming true. -
caerbannog at 07:30 AM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Those of you who have read Dr. Mann's book might want to consider putting up your own review at amazon.com (in order to counter the "bad" reviews put up by those who clearly haven't read the book). If you don't have time to do that, consider leaving comments setting the record straight, or just vote up/down the reviews based on their quality and whether or not the reviewers appear to have read Dr. Mann's book. Dr. Mann really appreciates gestures of support like that. Linky here for convenience I did my part and posted a review entitled, "Attack of the C-Students". -
Paul D at 07:18 AM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Yeah, we live on a layer cake planet! -
Alexandre at 05:57 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Chris G at 05:31 AM on 10 March, 2012 More abrupt indeed. PETM took a time of the order of 10,000 years to warm some 6ºC. Now we're talking about the potential of warming as large as that, happening in one or two centuries. -
Lucas Verma at 05:57 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
One must be careful with global averages. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum, global annual average temperatures may not have varied much from average. But that does not mean significant variation did not occur. But orbital variation meant for the Northern Hemisphere, longer more intense summers and the same duration but more intense winters. Conversely, southern summers and winters were more moderate. Were winters ten degrees colder and summers ten degrees hotter, the average might be the same, but the climate would be much more extreme. -
kampmannpeine at 05:44 AM on 10 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Thanks, Sarah ... this is just a super nice addition to my public lectures for "normal citizens" in our local area near Hannover, Germany, which I will give coming May ... but also lot of comments are very useful with all their knowledge and graphs ... The paleoclimate is one of the "Tummelplätze" (German for "play areas") for our friends the denialists ... -
Pete Dunkelberg at 05:35 AM on 10 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
Duly noted in this video is a point in Congressional hearings where it becomes painfully obvious that Wegman is not a
climatescientist and does not understand the most basicclimatescience, as he notes that CO2 is heavier than air and should, as a result, reside close to the planet surface. -
muoncounter at 05:32 AM on 10 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman#49: "put the year and the number and generate a graph and select make a linear trend and tell me what you see." Yes indeed, a positive linear trend. With an R^2 of 0.42 "That would be the approach of a scientist to actually enter the data and see what comes out." Actually, a scientist (and perhaps the USGS has a few of them about the place) would be interested in a slightly more sophisticated treatment of these numbers. For starters, this list gives an average annual mag >6 count since 1970 of 135, with a standard deviation of 28. So any increase up to 163 per year is within one stddev. BTW, the max was 205 in 1995. So you have to say it hasn't increased since 1995; therefore this mysterious increase in number of earthquakes has stopped. I believe I asked here if this so-called increase in earthquake frequency been published. If not, why not? Or has an individual with internet access and a spreadsheet found something that no one else has recognized? Odds on that, anyone?
Prev 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 Next
