Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 Next
Comments 62351 to 62400:
-
DSL at 04:44 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
The fear of being wrong publicly (and the humiliation that we've been trained to think naturally goes with it) keeps most people from presenting their beliefs and the sources of those beliefs. Having people talk with each other in small groups as peers (within the context) first is a good idea. It allows people to defuse the public spectacle, to look at each other as humans and recognize that the event is a co-learning experience rather than a banking-model experience. Of course, all it takes to ruin such an excellent social situation is one or two crackpot ideologues who have access to the Absolute Truth and respond with terminal intent to any challenge or question. Many people--even those who feed themselves from the ideological trough--probably suspect that there's something to the science. It is, after all, very hard to completely toss aside that whole epistemological project. Working with suspicions is better than working with Absolute Truths, and pure lecture tends to come off as Absolute Truth too often (and, in the classroom, often quite unintentionally). Bring out the suspicions in a comfortable, safe, and friendly environment, and then bring forth the science, very carefully and one key chunk at a time. New understandings, like eggs, must be tempered before they are added to a hot mix (and AGW is certainly a hot mix). Small, un-shiny, local events like this need to occur all over the place--in the sticks, the burbs, and the cities. I think I'll do something like this over the summer, if my local experts aren't off in woods doing research. Maybe there should be a SkS Local Outreach team--a mod-accessible listing of people who would be willing to travel up to 50 miles or so to put on a workshop/discussion. Room and board provided by the requester. -
Composer99 at 04:36 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
I suspect that it is easier to publically agree that a climate science myth has been satisfactorily busted without also publically admitting that one's mind has been changed about climate science (if indeed many minds required changing), even if the mythbusting will eventually result in changing of mind. The former agreement does not entail loss of face; the latter admission does - IMO of course, since I am ignorant of the literature on the topic. -
dana1981 at 04:28 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
pvincell - correct, except that it appears to be Howard Hayden who made this error, and Lindzen simply used Hayden's plot without verifying its accuracy (see the green box at the top of the post). It's certainly possible that Hayden simply clicked the wrong data set in one instance, but Lindzen should have known better than to uncritically accept a plot posted on Junk Science (or wherever he got it) which accuses other scientists of data manipulation without verifying its accuracy. -
Martin at 04:18 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Perhaps next time you should ask right at the beginning how many believe that at least one of these skeptic statements has merit? Of course, there might be quite a number of undecided people who simply believe that the science isn't settled. Anway, it sounds like you enjoyed yourself. -
Sapient Fridge at 03:52 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Admitting that you were wrong and have changed your mind is hard, especially in public. I wonder how many people silently change their minds and just change their stance next time the issue comes up? -
pvincell at 03:48 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
If I understand correctly, Dr. Lindzen is plotting the difference between two datasets but presenting it as the difference between two versions of the same dataset. Is this correct? (I am a biologist, not a climate scientist, so I am asking for verification.) If so, I can't explain how a scientist would do such a thing. -
Martin Lack at 03:44 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
#52 All they have to do is tell me investigation yes/no. In other words, something more than an automated reply (which I did not get). They do not need to find him innocent/guilty in 7 days. Indeed, it has been suggested to me that it may take MIT 6 weeks to investigate. I have certainly given them plenty to read. #55 Your comments are noted but, Lindzen does not hold back on the mockery and denigration of the expertise of others. I have also complained to my MP and suggested that Lindzen may have slandered their Chief Scientist and/or UK-based IPCC contributory authors. -
Sapient Fridge at 03:10 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Martin I followed your link and understand what you are saying, but I don't think melodromatic statements such as "he is in a prison of denial from which death will probably be his only escape" are helpful. IMHO. You might want to dial it back a notch or two. -
dana1981 at 03:09 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Sounds like a cool event. Too bad they missed out on the Escalator! Do you know how many were 'skeptics' to begin with? -
dana1981 at 03:03 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
The final 2 data points in the Escalator, which are only based on ~40 Antarctic stations, are kept intentionally because the 'skeptics' used those data points to argue that global warming had stopped. However, if you prefer, there is a version using NOAA data which is more up-to-date and does not have the incomplete data points. -
KR at 02:44 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - "It is not so easy to find data of actual events independent of people to see if the trend is increasing as stated in the OP." Which is why including geophysical events is useful to try to tease out the population coverage versus climatic influences. Which is the real value of the Munich Re and Swiss Re data. WRT tornadoes, the NOAA data, Fig. 1 on observed tornadoes shows an upwards trend over the years, which as they clearly state is due in large part to increases in observations. F5 tornadoes are fairly rare events, more easily observed - and are not showing a significant trend. Looking at the last 30 years of tornado events, as per NOAA, McCarthy and Schaefer, Fig. 1, the last 15 years or so have seen a higher tornado frequency overall. Tornado days (Fig. 2) are not showing a trend, but damages due to F0 storms (Fig. 3) are again much higher over the last 15 years or so. If you have evidence to the contrary, a reference would be good. -
Nichol at 02:26 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Unfortunately, there is no way that truthseekers can win from those that simply repeat their wrong arguments. What is even worse: the only answer is to repetitively debunk them. I very much admire the untiringly persistent and polite debunking at this site. It must be very tiring. But it is necessary. And Martin .. I feel your sense of urgency and anger. Maybe your methods are further from the science, but nearer to the way to fight this: like a political activist. Activists make use of the same advertising/PR-technique of repetition, repetition, repetition. It works. It is the way the world works, unfortunately. -
John Hartz at 02:25 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
“When at least 80 tornadoes rampaged across the United States, from the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico, last Friday, it was more than is typically observed during the entire month of March, tracking firm AccuWeather.com reported on Monday. “According to some climate scientists, such earlier-than-normal outbreaks of tornadoes, which typically peak in the spring, will become the norm as the planet warms.” Source: “Scientists see rise in tornado-creating conditions” by Sharon Begely, Reuters, Mar 5, 2012 To access this timely article, click here. -
funglestrumpet at 02:10 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
post 52 is in response to post 51 - for some reason this got deleted twixt preview and submitting. -
funglestrumpet at 02:08 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Can I recommend that you pause a while and take stock. You seem to be as annoyed as I am that people such as Lindzen can, for what seems to be the sake of appearances, deliberately refuse to concede that they might be wrong and endanger us and our children and grandchildren into the bargain. He is not alone in refusing to admit to being wrong. I have a friend who was a science teacher before retiring. He is never ever wrong on any issue, not just scientific ones. There is no winning with him, nor, I suspect, Lindzen. And let's face it, Lindzen and those like him lead a good life. They are revered wherever they go and I'll bet they don't pay their expenses out of their own pocket, so there is an incentive to follow a formula that works for them if only because it gives them a better life than that of most of those that revere them. Monckton, who flits from limelight to limelight, will, on the other hand, never admit publicly that he is wrong for psychological reasons and in some ways is to be pitied, as indeed are his and Lindzen’s acolytes. I don’t think that setting deadlines, such as your demand for a response within seven days, is going to get you far. It is probably impossible for MIT to assemble their committee that deals with such matters as professional misconduct within such a short time. In any event, it would be a strange University that was oblivious of the behaviour of one of their professors on such a prominent public issue, especially seeing as said professor is running very much against the tide. If you put yourself in their shoes, they will probably take offence at being dictated to and ignore your correspondence – hardly a ‘win win’ situation. I will not advise on what you should do after pausing to take stock, other than to suggest that you gather round you wise heads and plot a strategy that will get you the goals you seek. Oh, one other comment: It is perfectly o.k. to write a strongly worded letter, just so long as you don’t send it. As a solicitor once said to me: You win more with honey than you do with sh*t. Think on and good luck. From my perspective, I think that the issue of climate change is so grave that a case can be made for charging deniers in positions of influence with committing a crime against humanity unless they can show good scientific reasons for holding the views that they do and that those views have not been properly debunked by their peers. Perhaps that is a route to follow with Lindzen if you don’t get MIT to respond to you, try to get him in The Hague instead. -
John Hartz at 01:21 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
@ Norman #28: What is the source of your assertion that the number of severe tornadoes in the US is trending downwards? -
fpjohn at 00:21 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
re Norman@21 This may be of interest [link] [link] [link] sign up required. yours FrankModerator Response:[RH] Hot linked URL's that were breaking the page format.
[DB] Fixed URLs.
-
Martin Lack at 23:22 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Can all readers, even if you don't look at any of my other posts on my blog, please read this one: Lindzengate - an update report (8 March 2012). It could change the course of human history (or at least your response to it could)! -
Norman at 23:06 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Glenn Tamblyn @26 I did read your post @16. The point I was making was not to show an upward trend in earthquakes. It was just to show that there were more in the 2000 decade than the 1990 decade. It seems odd that allow in reality there were more large earthquakes in the 2000 decade the Munich Re graph shows a decline in the number of geophysical catastrophes. The point I am making is this Munich Re graph is not a useful tool in determining if events are increasing. We know large earthquakes have increased but have not resulted in more catastrophes. More large earthquakes in 2000's actually led to fewer natural catastrophes counted as compared to the 1990's. I think the evidence I presented will show the Munich Re graph is good for one thing and that is for insurers to determine rates. It is not a good tool to determine if storms or floods are on the increase as it is not designed to make that determination. Only an actual event count can be a valid tool to make such a determination, not a disaster or catastrophic count (dependent on people and property which is a sliding variable on many scales...people move around, want better things and the overall population increases over time). You know the severe tornado (F3 to F5 scale)number has been trending down over the years in the US, yet the Munich Re graph shows a trend upward from storm related catastrophes. So the actual number of severe tornadoes is down but the catastrophe count is up. I keep seeing this Munich Re graph used on Skeptical Science to demonstrate Climate Change but I still believe it is a poor tool to use. Other sources should be investigated that have an actual event count. -
OPatrick at 22:54 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Dick, that version of the graph was used by 'sceptics' (e.g. in the Daily Mail here) -
funglestrumpet at 21:11 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
dana1981 @ 47 I do keep old copies and I can assure you that Monckton Misrepresentations part 3 does not appear as a primary reference on any of the emails that I have received. It does appear as a link in Part 1 with the words "(as we will see here in Part 3)". It now does cover the topic, but obviously did not at the time because it was a future event.) I can find no primary notice of Part 3 (or part 2 other than another link in Part 1, for that matter) in the daily emails. I will freely admit to not being the brightest light on the Christmas tree, so it might be that I am missing something blindingly obvious. However, if we are supposed to hunt for links in other posts, I humbly suggest that it would be better for future multi-part posts to have each part treated as a primary post and notified as such in the daily email, if only so that thickos like me and 99% of WUWT can follow. On a completely separate topic, can we notify all and sundry that James Hanson has just given a really good talk on climate change to TED2012 (TED.com/talks)? He not only talks from the heart, but as we on this side of the fence are fully aware, he actually knows what he is talking about. Perhaps a better description would be that he is the exact opposite of Monckton. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:35 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
So Hanrahan knows we'll all be rooned.... ...Unless we chew a piece of bark The cadences of old bush language is just about gone, sadly. The Suburban working class language of 3 cars and a big McMansion on a tiny block of land is no substitute. And when you mix the bush language with Australias re-invention of Cockney Rhyming Slang there was something magical. Redheads were called Bluey, people with straight hair called Curly, and the millions of terms for someone not to bright - 'he's a couple of sheep short in the top paddock' made for an amazingly rich language. Now we all speak 'motivated speak', or 'management speak', or 'ernest & concerned speak' or 'gung-ho tradie speak' or 'Focused and Committed Sportsman speak' or 'Rap speak' or 'EMO speak' or something. All so bland.... -
RonManley at 19:25 PM on 8 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Dave123 I tried splitting the data in two. The parameters were very similar for both periods. As I've said I don't make claims for this 'model' as a model. Think of it more as an educational toy. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:19 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman. The Munich Re data is about number of events defined as catastrophic. If a 6+ event occcurs and a 5+ event occurs, they may both be catastrophic. This measure produced by Munich Re doesn't differentiate once an event is above the threshold for catastrophic. They are counting events not severity. So any event - geophysical or other - will have different impacts depending on where it occurs. But what we are looking for is a signal showing how common an event is and how this may be changing over time. Increasing storms in the Bay of Bengal may have huge impacts on people. Increasing storms in Hudson Bay would have a much lower impact on people. But it would still be an indicator of changing climate patterns. Also, if you read my comment at 16, I personally wouldn't place that much credence in supposed trends on scales of decades. It is easy to imagine how one geophysical event could be linked to subsequent events physically. If I was looking for trends I would look at Century timescales at a minimum. Just as Climate has an inertia that imposes decadal timescales, geophysical has an inertia that imposes century and higher timescales -
Martin Lack at 19:08 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
It seems to be often repeated that we are merely complaining about one or two graphs in Lindzen's talk and/or that this does not matter because they did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal. What kind of myopic tunnel vision is this? Just about every single slide (certainly every single graph) was either incompetently-drafted or intentionally-misleading. (There is also the case of the missing slide @28:30 in the video). There are no other options. As James Hansen has said, in Storms of my Grandchildren, Lindzen appears to behave like a lawyer presenting only information and argument favourable to his client, appears not to be seeking the truth – only a win for his client, and, as such, policy inaction appears to be the aim of those (like him) that dispute global warming. What other explanation is there? If my complaint does not work, does not all of the above appear to be good grounds for a complaint by someone connected with MIT? Please feel free to adapt my wording above (#45). Will someone other than me please locate some moral courage and take action? -
Rob Painting at 18:51 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Dick - the weird end point is due to data only from Antarctica temperature stations being incorporated into the BEST temperature series at that time. Why they didn't wait for further data to come in before release is unknown. I agree - it creates confusion. Dana's very busy at the moment, but maybe he'll update the animation in the coming months. -
Dick Veldkamp at 18:11 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
@5 Chriskoz Thank you for your explanation. However I do not see any mention of the weird end point in the link you give; only the general mechanism is given (which is of course perfectly obvious to anybody unbiased). It may be good to explain the weird end point explicitly, because a small thing like that is used by the denialists to cast doubt on the whole graph. PS If I overlooked something, apologies. -
Doug Hutcheson at 18:08 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Yes, O'Brien is one of my favourite bush poets. You do realise, don't you, that he is taking the Mickey out of the persistent denier who ignores the evidence? Very apt, actually. -
DLB at 18:02 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Being on the other side of the AGW debate I can't resist this Australian bush poem by John O'Brien. "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, In accents most forlorn, Outside the church, ere Mass began, One frosty Sunday morn. The congregation stood about, Coat-collars to the ears, And talked of stock, and crops, and drought, As it had done for years. "It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke; "Bedad, it's cruke, me lad, For never since the banks went broke Has seasons been so bad." "It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil, With which astute remark He squatted down upon his heel And chewed a piece of bark. And so around the chorus ran "It's keepin' dry, no doubt." "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." "The crops are done; ye'll have your work To save one bag of grain; From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke They're singin' out for rain. "They're singin' out for rain," he said, "And all the tanks are dry." The congregation scratched its head, And gazed around the sky. "There won't be grass, in any case, Enough to feed an ass; There's not a blade on Casey's place As I came down to Mass." "If rain don't come this month," said Dan, And cleared his throat to speak - "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If rain don't come this week." A heavy silence seemed to steal On all at this remark; And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed a piece of bark. "We want an inch of rain, we do," O'Neil observed at last; But Croke "maintained" we wanted two To put the danger past. "If we don't get three inches, man, Or four to break this drought, We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." In God's good time down came the rain; And all the afternoon On iron roof and window-pane It drummed a homely tune. And through the night it pattered still, And lightsome, gladsome elves On dripping spout and window-sill Kept talking to themselves. It pelted, pelted all day long, A-singing at its work, Till every heart took up the song Way out to Back-o'-Bourke. And every creek a banker ran, And dams filled overtop; "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If this rain doesn't stop." And stop it did, in God's good time; And spring came in to fold A mantle o'er the hills sublime Of green and pink and gold. And days went by on dancing feet, With harvest-hopes immense, And laughing eyes beheld the wheat Nid-nodding o'er the fence. And, oh, the smiles on every face, As happy lad and lass Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place Went riding down to Mass. While round the church in clothes genteel Discoursed the men of mark, And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed his piece of bark. "There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man, There will, without a doubt; We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." -
Andy Skuce at 17:32 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
There was a recent (2010) group of papers published by the Royal Society that linked climate change and non-atmospheric disasters. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2311.full.pdf -
cornish_oceanographer at 16:58 PM on 8 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
Furthermore (and I apologise for having no references to back this up) but in my opinion some of the skeptic community are likely financially backed by various think-tanks or pro-industry groups. It's likely in these cases that private backing is not transparent or open to the public whereas research scientists pay grades in the university and research council sector are openly public. -
cornish_oceanographer at 16:54 PM on 8 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
184 - PRussell With regards to money while I accept that there are some good scientists who have made serious money by publishing books the reality is the majority of us in natural/earth/climate sciences earn relatively far less than in commerical technical applied science. In the UK for example, I studied oceanography because I love science and I love the oceans. In this process I ended up with student loan debt. However I followed my passions and maintained in research science. Post-doctorial 3 year research contacts in universities and institutes is frequently in the £20 to £30k bracket, yet if one choses to turn to private companies (e.g. geologists to the Oil and Gas sector, oceanographers to offshore construction, medical researchers to pharmeceutical companies) they will be earning vastly larger sums. As research academimcs, higher earning begins via climbing the university ladder as lecturers or heads of department which does pay more - but often the reality then is that these people get little time to research as they have managerial and or teaching responsibilities. -
Norman at 16:13 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Glenn Tablyn What I find most odd about your Munich Re graphs is that the actual number of 6+ magnitude earthquakes have been steadily increasing in numbers but there is not reflection of this on the Munich Re natural catastrophe chart you posted. USGS link. If you add up the earthquake number by decade given in the graphs of the above link. 1980-1989 average is 109.5 (6+ magnitude quakes/year) 1990-1999 average is 149.2 (6+ magnitude quakes/year) 2000-2009 average is 161.3 (6+ magnitude quakes/year) There is a 32% increase in the number of 6+ earthquakes in the 2000's decade over the 1980's decade but the Munich Re graph does not show this nor does it indicate the vastly increased number of deaths due to earthquakes over that period. Something is not right here. -
GreenCooling at 16:05 PM on 8 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Actually thoughtful @87 Without wanting to endorse any particular company the Bitzer Refrigerant Report is a very useful source of detailed information on refrigerant properties. Natural refrigerants include the "friendly five" of Ammonia, Carbon Dioxide, Hydrocarbons, Air and Water, but NH3 or HCs (R290 or R600a or a blend) would be most useful in Ground Source Heat Pumps, although some kind of heat exchange or secondary loop might be required if leakage into occupied spaces is a possibility. The folks at ammonia21.com and hydrocarbons21.com have a lot of good information available, and I've seen HC GSHPs in use at supermarkets in Sweden, so it can be done. There are some amazing new developments in ammonia chillers using waste heat or solar, have a look at what Firechill is doing for instance. If you'd like to get in touch directly i'd be more than happy to put you in touch with some real experts - brent at greencooling dot org -
Norman at 15:48 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR @14 It is not so easy to find data of actual events independent of people to see if the trend is increasing as stated in the OP. Here is one attempt to show actual event numbers for global flooding. It only covers 1998 to 2008 but it has a graph of total events that have taken place within this document. On page 419 of this linked document they show a graph of global flood events. This is the only valid type of data to access if conditions are truly getting worse as the globe warms. Disaster amounts are biased with humans involved (life and property). I have stated before since population and property are variables in the equation they can distort the actual picture. Also about the earthquake data. It is rather misleading approach to the actual severity of earthquake data. You look at the Munich Re chart and things don't look so bad. Going just by the numbers of events that are listed as natual catastrophes. It does not paint the correct picture at all in terms of human misery. Here is the USGS Earthquake link. If you look at the decade graphs: From 1980-1989 estimated deaths were 58880 From 1990-1999 estimated deaths were 114646 From 2000-2009 estimated deaths were 471015 From 2010-2012 estimated deaths were 341642 On the Munich Re chart the number of natural catastrophes from geophysical events was down. Looks good on paper but does in no way indicate actual impact on people. -
muoncounter at 14:19 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
scaddenp: Published papers? That research was published in the well-known and authoritative voice of science, the Wall Street Journal. What is stunning is this line is also embraced by those who say climate change isn't real. That it's simultaneously not happening and causing earthquake or volcano clusters is a bit of a paradox, but what of that? -
scaddenp at 13:05 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
So is there any published papers (as opposed to magazines/book articles) to support this? The big earthquakes in recent times have taken place pretty much where they always have, and the really big ones on oceanic crustal boundaries. I dont buy it. -
Riduna at 12:22 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Writing in New Scientist, Richard Fisher argues that crustal sensitivity to mass redistribution is greater than generally supposed. In his recent book Waking the Giant, Bill McGuire comes to a similar conclusion. A couple of short articles in New Scientist worth a read are at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html?full=true and http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328522.500-climate-change-may-stir-geological-mayhem.html -
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:36 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
LukeW I doubt that better monitoring is the likely cause, not over this time scale. Rather an event triggers insurance claims and this data is extremely well recorded - it is essentially the actuarial basis that insurance is based on. Although their are predictions regarding specific events like Hurricanes, the Munich Re data covers a much larger range of weather/climate impacts - drought, forest fires, flooding and land-slides etc. That is why it is a useful metric. Prediction of the changes in rate of individual types of events is one thing.But this is giving the aggregate over all classes of events. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:30 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
The geophysical data can easily include clusters of events, particularly earthquakes, that are related and this can look like an increase when we look at timescales of a few decades. If a major fault line is under stress, a quake at one point on the fault can relieve the stress at that location but then result in a section further along the fault being under higher stress and resulting in a later quake. So a fault line can conceivably 'unzip' progressively releasing stresses over years or decades. Then it might be stable for centuries while the stresses build up again. Possibly the best recent example of this is the Boxing Day Earthquake & Tsunami in Indonesia. Since then there have been several more significant quakes further along the fault line running through Indonesia. Another region that has seismologists worried is Norther Turkey. Over decades there have been some major quakes, each occurring along the same major fault, each a bit further west. And this fault-line is pointed like an arrow at Istanbul. So related geophysical events can easily create a 'bulge' in events over decades that then subsides away again. And this data, at several decades, is still relatively short. In this context, the time scales needed to discern any trends are probly much longer than the scales needed for Climate - centuries & millenia rather than decades. So personally I don't read anything into Munich Re's trend for geophysical. Global warming might have a very small impact on geological events due to changes in mass distribution. But this is likely to be very slow. Several things could cause a possible impact. As major ice sheets melt, the crust beneath them that has been supporting that weight starts to rise slowly - this is called Isotatic Rebound. But it is very, very slow. Scandinavia for example is still slowly rising, recovering from the weight of the Ice Sheets that melted 1000's of years ago. As this rebound occurs it could slowly change the stresses associated with fault-lines, possible triggering tremors or quakes. But a lot would depend on how close to fault lines the uplift zones are. And localised melt of glaciers that happen to be near faults might have an impact. Secondly, melt of large amounts of ice, particularly Greenland & Antarctica redistributes that water into the world oceans. This adds extra total weight to the oceans, although trivially small compared to the total ocean mass. However another effect is that the extra mass of that ice sitting there creates localised regions of slightly higher gravitational fields, in turn slightly attracting more sea water to that area. So sea levels near large masses - land and ice - will on average tend to be a bit higher than far from those masses. So if ice melt of the large ice sheets is removing ice from those regions and spreading it out around the worlds oceans as water, the slight decline in the local field then tends to lower the local bulges in the ocean in those regions as well, increasing the local rebound effect. Both these effects however happen very slowly. So there well could be geophysical events caused by this but the rate of change is very slow. This doesn't mean that a cluster of geophysical events couldn't happen because of AGW, but the clustering is going to be due to geological links between the events rather than any change in the underlying rate of stress accumulation due AGW. A process that could trigger geophysical events, particularly at a local scale is changes in local water storage. This is both depletion of ground aquifers, and construction of surface dams - concerns have been expressed for example about the impact of the 3 Gorges Dam in China and furure planned ones. These type of changes may not involve the masses of ice sheets but could be locally significant. And this process could happen on time scales of decades. However, this isn't caused by AGW. Anthropgenic yes - we are using the water. But not Climate Change related yet. If climate changes increase temperatures enough this could alter precipitation levels that influence water table accumulation. But this would probably be a process over centuries - all but the most shallow aquifers tend to need this long to recharge. -
LukeW at 10:26 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
However - how much of their "trends" are due to better data and better reporting. In fact looking close to John's home, the Queensland coast, tropical cyclones making landfall have markedly declined since the 1970s and we know the trends have high decadal/multi-decadal variability as well as variation with ENSO. www.cawcr.gov.au/.../fd/.../Power_SPCZ_wshop_Apia_2010.pdf www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/sbp/.../Callaghan_and_Power_CD_2010.pdf "The extent to which global warming might be also be partially responsible for the decline in land-falls—if it is at all—is unknown." they say And is not the general AGW modelled future for tropical cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons for fewer or the same number events but an increase in intensity? -
KR at 09:54 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - I would agree that these are "observed catastrophes" affecting people and property, and I would likewise agree with CBDunkerson that they are event counts, not costs. All such events will scale with observational coverage (population growth, property expansions) - and as Glenn Tamblyn has pointed out, the differences in trends between geophysical events (which should be unaffected by the climate) and others shows a clear climate influence. I think CBDunkerson could have stated it better by noting that population and property expansion should have no impact on the difference in trends. -
rustneversleeps at 09:28 AM on 8 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Kent overlooked calls for 'transparency' on climate science research: memos Environment Minister Peter Kent overlooked calls from his department in 2011 to show more "transparency" and he delayed the release of a scientific paper on Canada's climate change challenges — prepared several months before the May 2 federal election — until late July, newly released internal memorandums reveal. The memos referred to an analysis of Canadian trends in greenhouse gas emissions that projected a sharp rise in emissions from the energy-intensive oilsands industry.... "Public release of this detailed paper (and associated tables) would permit the government to proactively frame Canada's current progress and challenges in managing greenhouse (GHG) emissions, while maintaining the commitment to transparency and informed public dialogue consistent with Environment Canada's status as a world class regulator," wrote the department's deputy minister, Paul Boothe, in a May 30, 2011, memo to Kent, released through access to information legislation.... . . . But instead of signing off on Boothe's request that the research be released in response to another access to information request that was due on June 10, Kent waited until he received a second memorandum requesting that the material be released in late July. A spokesman for Kent said the minister was too busy in early June to respond to the department's request, but followed up on it in the summer after getting a reminder from Boothe.. . . ... The date of the first memo coincided with intensive international media coverage about Environment Canada's decision to exclude data showing a substantial rise in pollution from the oilsands in a mandatory inventory report on emissions to the United Nations. The missing data revealed that the oilsands industry's annual emissions were greater than annual pollution from all cars on Canadian roads and almost as much pollution in a year as all light-duty trucks in the country.. . . ... Environment Canada recently has declined to release a separate discussion paper that estimates emissions per barrel from the oilsands sector, arguing that it contains information that may harm Canada's national security and foreign relations. The department also said, in response to an access to information request, that this discussion paper includes privileged advice to the government on a matter under consultation. . . . ... Kent has recently indicated he will introduce a plan to regulate emissions from the oilsands in the coming months. But questions about whether the industry is actually reducing its emissions per barrel have become controversial in recent months, with industry stakeholders suggesting they are making progress, while the most recent government statistics show that oilsands companies are no longer collectively achieving reductions... -
chriskoz at 09:21 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Dick @4, There is no bug. The "skeptical" (==ignorant or willfuly misleading) version draws from incomplete 2011 data and goes out of whack. The realist version draws from complete data. It is explained in this thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-2.html -
Albatross at 09:11 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Hi Dana, It was in the 26 February 2012 email, together with articles by Chris Colose and John Cook. -
mandas at 09:10 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Hi Glen, I too am Australian and this poem has always been a favourite of mine. I also used to live in Wagga Wagga, and I watched as the area surrounding my house went under water. Just a small point though, and as much as I hate to be a pedant, could you please change 'loose' in the second paragraph to 'lose'. Cheers -
Norman at 09:09 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
CBDunkerson @7 I have to disagree with your post about the meaning of the Munich Re graphs. They are of Natural Catastrophe's not actual events. An F5 tornado in a field that causes no damage is a natural event and potential catastrophe but will not be logged as one unless it causes some damage or kills someone. If you do not believe me here is something from Re itself. On this Google link (I can't link directly to the document) Google link. Click on the NatCatSAV1 link 4 down and you can read what a catastrophe is yourself and it definately involves people and property. -
Dick Veldkamp at 09:01 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Sorry, this is somewhat off topic, so you can delete this after reading. Your excellent Escalator graph seems to have a small bug: in the 'Skeptical' version the temperature drops completely at the right end of the graph (but without a point??). I know we have had some 'flattening' over the last decade, but we didn't drop to the 1973 value, did we? Also in the 'Realist' version I don't see the drop. P.S. Of course if the value really occurred, we should include it! -
owl905 at 08:56 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Lintzen making an accusation of deliberate falsification by NASA is repugnant. Tony T. Watt holds court with this kind of smear tactic. Lintzen has drifted so far from his academic roots, it's MIT that needs to splain things to him. Historical records are revised whenever new data or errors of interpretation are uncovered (ask the guys at UAH about a career in it). Lintzen should accuse Spencer and Roy of the same thing. The U.S. Government just cancelled a NOAA project to do a detailed reconstruction of American weather conditions for the entire 20th century. That certainly would have revised the ddata sets, and by extension the global data sets. There is a current blog-buzz over apparent temperature adjustments to Icelandic data - without consulting the meteorologists in Reykjavik. Lintzen is no better than the blogs. The MET is coming out with a 'new and improved' HadCrut4. Ricky MIT might want to leave England before he smears that one. Lintzen, beyond whatever data-selection errors he may or may not have had, is playing the Janus when he points at inaccurate or insufficient data, and then cries 'fix' when the dataset is upgraded. He's jumped the shark on this one. -
dana1981 at 08:43 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
I don't keep old copies of the daily emails - it should be in the email on 26 or 27 February.
Prev 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 Next
