Recent Comments

Prev  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  1314  1315  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  Next

Comments 65801 to 65850:

65801. Tealy at 10:18 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       If i am going to be challeneged iin such a way i will use the most established most peer reviewed source, th IPCC. While there are other reports these do not have the backing of th IPCC. They may in time but I am not going to be accused of using obscure reports. The IPCC report is for the current period as we are in 2012. I read RB citation of Leuliette et al, and all I gleaned was comparison the heat of formation of ice for the same heat to cause expansion of water. You could arrive at that from a table of material properties. They did not say ice was melting more. Note this, they did not say that. Quote what they actually said? They did not say how if the heat was put into ice, that heat would be isolated into only melting ice, and not into warming sub zero ice that results in no melt .ie remember much of antarctica is very sub zero, sub zero ice still absorbs the heat, produces no melt and no sea level rise. You just get warmer sub zero ice. (-snipIf you don't understand all this, then you don't have any relevant qualifications and I might as well be debating it with my barissta, at least I will get a coffee in the process.-)
       Response:

       [DB] "The IPCC report is for the current period as we are in 2012."

       No.  THe IPCC is a distillation and summary of the available literature at the time of the (AR4) report.  While certain sections contain modelled periods covering some aspects of the near future, they do not (as has been pointed out to you several times) properly address ice sheet contributions to sea level rise.  Said ice sheet losses are currently ongoing (as they were back in 2007, at the time of the AR4), and are increasing in volumes lost.

       To continue your prosecution of this fallacy is false and misleading.  Please desist.  And familiarize yourself with the Comments Policy.

       Inflammatory and derogatory snipped.

65802. Albatross at 10:11 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Rob, The misguided poster on this thread seems convinced that the reason for the increase in sea level is an increase in the easterly trade winds. This is only partly correct. Research has shown that since the nineties there has been an increase in the strength of the easterly winds in the western tropical Pacific has indeed been partly responsible for the increase in the sea level there-- in fact, SLR in that regions is 3-4 times greater than the global average in that region. But their claim fails to address the bigger picture. You cite Merrifield (2011). Merrifield published another paper in 2011 on this issue. But first let me set the stage by quoting from Merrifield (2011): "This sea-level trend shift in the western Pacific corresponds to an intensification of the easterly trade winds across the tropical Pacific. The wind change appears to be distinct from climate variations centered in the North Pacific, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation....The shifts in trade wind strength and western Pacific sea level rate resemble changes in dominant global modes of outgoing longwave radiation and sea surface temperature. It is speculated that the western Pacific sea level response indicates a general strengthening of the atmospheric circulation over the tropical Pacific since the early 1990s that has developed in concert with recent warming trends." So this paper suggests a positive feedback associated with global warming, with a general increasing trend in sea-level being amplified over the western tropical Pacific due to changes in the wind field possibly associated with AGW. Merrifield and Maltrud (2011) published another paper on this issue. This paper was highlighted in the EOS newspaper and they summarize the implications of the paper's findings as follows: "...using a general circulation model, Merrifield and Maltrud show that western tropical Pacific sea level trends are likely due to a gradual intensification of the Pacific trade winds in the past 2 decades. They also highlight other aspects of ocean circulation that have been altered in response to the intensifying trade winds. Some previous research has suggested that the trade wind intensification is a result of global warming, although that has yet to be verified. If that is the case, the authors conclude the western tropical Pacific sea level trends will likely continue to be anomalously high." Even if the trade winds do moderate, things are not looking good for Tuvalu, and down the road they could face serious issues during La Nina years when the long-term underlying trend will be amplified when water piles up in the western equatorial Pacific. In fact, they may be already experiencing problems on account of the current prolonged La Nina.
65803. Albatross at 09:45 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Rob and Michael, In addition to your excellent posts, let me try and clear up some of the confusion that is being sown a certain misguided and ill-informed poster. This thread is about Tuvalu sea levels, but the ill-informed poster has managed to derail the discussion in several directions. As I will demonstrate, for both 1972 to 2008 and for 1993 to 2008 the contribution to the total sea level rise from land ice exceeds that from the total thermal expansion contribution. The ill-informed poster seems to be confused about the difference between observations and projections when it comes to the relative contributions of the thermal and land ice to the total sea-level rise. Becker et al. (2011) use a combination of observations and model simulations to better understand what is happening with sea levels around tropical Pacific islands since 1950. So the focus is what has happened in the past. The ill-informed poster makes the mistake then of confusing observations with projections (that exclude contributions from dynamic land ice loss) and draws the conclusion that thermal contribution is greater than the contribution from land ice. This assertion is of course demonstrably false and not supported by the data. Rob you gave the example of Willis and Leuliette (2011). I will provide another, Church et al. (2011). Church et al. (2011) used observations to close the sea-level budget. Below is their Table 1 which summarizes the different contributions the sea level budget. Note that for both 1972 to 2008 and for 1993 to 2008 the contribution to the total sea level rise from land ice exceeds that from the total thermal expansion contribution. More so for the 1993-2008 window, reflecting the increasing importance of land ice over thermal expansion in the past 15 years or so to sea level rise.
65804. John Hartz at 09:30 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       This caught my eye: As usual, when we write about such efforts to muddy the scientific waters, there will be those who argue that we are "stifling debate" or silencing critics. We are not. We are asking that science education be based on an understanding of the science, not a reading of the latest opinion polls or the hyper-partisan political debates of the day. We don't teach our kids "two sides" of the debate on whether tobacco causes cancer (despite a long history of corporate efforts to sew doubt and encourage "debate" on that issue), so why would we kowtow to corporate misinformation on climate change too? Even the oil industry is planning for dangerous climate change. These backroom dealings are just attempts to delay the inevitable. Source: “How Oil Money is Corrupting Our Children's Education” by Sami Grover, Treehugger, Jan 27, 2012 To access the entire article, click here.
65805. jimspy at 09:18 AM on 28 January 2012
       Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
       For those of us who are short on time, can you give the time index of your confrontation with the "challengers"?
65806. Pete Dunkelberg at 08:56 AM on 28 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       At the street level many people are unaware or only vaguely aware that there is such a thing as climate data.
65807. Rob Painting at 08:20 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy - "Don't tell me, take your vitriol to the IPCC and tell them they got it all wrong and that it is "nonsense" No need to blame the IPCC, it's just [ snip ] You claimed that current thermal expansion is greater than the contribution of ice melt. You are wrong Tealy The citation I provided above - Leuliette & Willis (2011) - Balancing the Sea Level Budget, shows current ice melt contribution to sea level rise is double that of thermal expansion. When challenged you gave up [snip] . You are still doing so, as if the average reader will not cotton on to this. The 2007 IPCC report is a projection for the coming century which does not include the dynamical contributions of ice melt (as Michael Sweet also points out). They even state that in the reports you linked to. They did not include the ice melt contributions because it could not be adequately modeled at that time - it's still very uncertain even now. But we don't need models to understand that at a similar stage of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet cover - the Eemian interglacial - that warming saw rapid multi-meter century-scale rises in sea level. This is because the ice sheets 'collapsed'. If that happens this century,sea level rise at Tuvalu could be be far greater than the current 5.1 mm per year. In fact they could likely top 20mm per year by century's end, according to some estimates. Now just to be clear: Tealy, you were wrong when you asserted current thermal expansion was greater than ice melt. In fact if you even remotely understood the energy requirements needed to elevate sea level through expansion versus the energy required to melt land ice, I would not have to explain to you that you are wrong. But regardless, the observations show that you are wrong Citing the IPCC report about projected future rates of sea level rise, which exclude increased ice melt contribution, does not support your false assertion. How can they, they haven't happened yet anyway? Why does that simply fly by your cognitive filters?? The right thing to do here is to just admit none of this makes any sense to you because you [ snip ] waste people's time. This is clear by your continued repetition of false assertions throughout this thread. And by the way, the snipped portion in my previous comment wasn't an ad hominem, it was a description of an activity with the sole intent to waste people's time.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] These snips are indeed ad hominem. Please tone it down.
65808. michael sweet at 07:48 AM on 28 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       Peter, The amount of heat that goes into melting ice is very small compared to the amount of heat that the ocean absorbs. This graphic has a small area at the bottom that includes the latent heat. It is not discussed very often because it is not a player in the major changes. If something like ocean currents starts to transport large amounts of heat to the Antarctic it could melt ice very quickly.
65809. muoncounter at 07:15 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       pirate#64: "Any teacher wanting to go more in-depth would have to own their own, but would be constrained by time." Some would say the textbook is a starting point, rather than an ending point. One could argue that a very valid 'critical thinking' exercise would be to ask how well the textbook agreed with current research. Of course, a teacher has to want to go more in-depth ... or want their students to question what is written in the textbook. Modeling that behavior may catch on; we could call it being 'skeptical' or some such. How hard could it be, given websites such as NCSE's Climate 101 and that other Skeptical whatchamacallit one. But if that's not what you might want, I suppose there's no reason to find the time.
65810. Bob Lacatena at 07:05 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       64, Pirate, In fact, a good teacher should look at those text books, go to the local and state boards of education, and stand up and say "We have a problem here, these books do not reflect the state of the science. We are teaching commercial instead of scientific positions and that's not what a school system should be doing. Knowledge and facts should not be for sale to the highest bidder, any more than political power should be (but is)."
65811. Bob Lacatena at 07:00 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       64, Pirate, Then the textbooks suck. Note that "some scientists" equals a handful of fringe scientists that honestly in any sane world would be discredited and dismissed. The way you cling to the denial tripe is just astounding. Even when you were shown that the very first of your misconceptions (the source of CO2 in the atmosphere) was false as a result of being purposely misled by denial propaganda, you still persist in believing only those end results that appeal to you (e.g. no extinctions have yet occurred due to climate change) and your thought process stops there. You "choose" what to teach, and give your students the option of "believing" what they choose, because you yourself have not and will not tackle the task of actually understanding that which you are supposed to teach, and that which you are so vocal about voicing an opinion. Please forgive my frustration with you, but you wasted my time by pretending to care about the science, while everything I sent was ignored and your reply would always consist of "what about..."? No matter how much information I gave explaining your fallacies, you said you had no time, but still trotted out more nonsense to consume my time. You are doing yourself, your community, and your students a grave disservice by carrying and promoting such a strongly held opinion from a position of extreme ignorance. That there are other people as misled and foolishly biased as you does not provide an adequate excuse. You are a teacher, and twenty years from today you will have to look in the mirror and take a healthy portion of the blame for the sort of world your students are going to have to live in -- and there will be no time machine that lets you go back and correct your errors.
65812. Daniel Bailey at 06:49 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       @ apiratelooksat50

       "You are making an assumption that has no basis. I did not leave anything out."

       Not the part missing from the text; that is understandably lacking. What is missing is the proper context (to which I referred) that is missing for students such as yours to be able to properly understand the text you reference. Since it was lacking from the text, it is your job as their educator to provide that context. By failing to provide that context you are biasing their education. Hence my concluding statement:

       "Thus, you continue to prosecute your agenda of manufactured doubt and delay. You dissemble."

65813. apiratelooksat50 at 06:41 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       DB at 62 You are making an assumption that has no basis. I did not leave anything out. As I stated that is from an Active Reading worksheet and is a direct cut/paste. I am simply showing what the textbook has in print. This is what the typical student sees and is taught and is assessed on. The textbook chapter and section pertaining to climate change goes further in depth, but is not up to date with the latest information as it was printed in 2008. The other textbooks we reviewed last year and considered for adoption offered very similar information. Any teacher wanting to go more in-depth would have to own their own, but would be constrained by time.
65814. Rob Painting at 05:35 AM on 28 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Actually Thoughtful - here's the thing, on the one hand you suggest people work things out for themselves, and on the other you say (as if speaking on behalf of most) that things are not clear. Do you see the rather large contradiction here? In fact your initial suggestion of letting people works things out for themselves actually invites people to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with "there be dragons" and other modern-day variants thereof - you know climate myths. We know for instance that many members of the public cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the scale and rate of climate change now happening far exceeds that of major extinction events in Earth's history. People hear that climate has changed in the past and fall for this simple-minded propaganda. This distortion of the truth has to be continually corrected. There is no point in relying upon the man or woman in the street to work things out for themselves - they get the bulk of their misinformation and myths from the mainstream media. "I find this statement incredibly elitist:" Who cares? That's a subjective interpretation you have chosen to apply. Are you now suggesting that the general public is well-acquainted with climate science? Many a poll suggests that that isn't the case. " If you don't understand why people are confused by short term weather patterns" Many people are confused on a great many things, especially when it comes to climate science. But I don't confuse an attempt at trolling (casting doubt in this case) by several individuals as indicative of what people might think in general, and there is certainly no way to correct confusion in one blog post. Now it's just me, but I think it might be useful for the general public to understand the reasons why we are likely to get rapid global warming over the next 2-4 years (or thereabouts). Maybe when it happens a light bulb will go off in their heads and they'll remember "Hang on, there was some NASA scientists that said this was going to happen, and it's because of the solar cycle and El Nino!" That would be preferable to the alternative of filling knowledge gaps with myths.
65815. michael sweet at 05:14 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, Everyone knows that the IPCC estimates specificly omit ice melt from the great ice sheets. they leave out the greatest contributator to sea level rise. You need to read the background so that you don't make these basic mistakes. The citations you have ignored detail these errors.
65816. actually thoughtful at 04:58 AM on 28 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       I wrote this one before, it appears to have gone missing. Rob Painting - your reply to me relies on part 2, which as of this writing, is not available. The concerns raised by some posters here indicate that part 1 may not be able to stand on its own. While you are welcome to your opinion - I find this statement incredibly elitist: "The woman and man in the street isn't going to be able to make sense of the observations, especially with distortions by fake-skeptics. That's why we exist - to communicate this information in a, hopefully, comprehensible manner. To expect a public audience to be able to process this information without guidance is foolish." At the end of your reply to me you mention there is no nuance. If you don't understand why people are confused by short term weather patterns, that could be a root cause of why this post is getting so many responses of the "there be dragons" type.
65817. muoncounter at 04:32 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       pirate#61: "our Holt Environmental Science textbook" That is because Texas is a major buyer of textbooks in the US - and publishers write to conform to Texas' educational standards. Texas' conservative-dominated SBOE has this policy since 2009: in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student. On the surface, this is benign; in reality it can be insidious because it creates the false impression of equivalence between sides. If 'all sides' are to be evaluated, all sides get to present their 'evidence'. Hence demand for Michaels and his ilk to creatively edit. All sides: objects fall because they 'want to'. Let the kids decide. Science by popular consent. Sounds like fun.
65818. mspelto at 04:18 AM on 28 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       The increased open water and warmer air have sure impacted the glaciers on Arctic islands such as Svalbard and Novaya Zemyla
65819. Daniel Bailey at 04:15 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       @ apiratelooksat50

       "They point out that widespread fluctuations in temperature have occurred throughout geologic time."

       You omit the understood caveats: that said fluctuations occurred due to known forcings and feedbacks, none of which explain the warming of the past 50 years without the consideration of the radiative physics of CO2. And that the rate of change of those past fluctuations occurred at geologic changes, which contrasts to the extreme rate of change of temps and CO2 over the past 50 years, which is without parallel in the paleo record. Thus, you continue to prosecute your agenda of manufactured doubt and delay. You dissemble.
65820. apiratelooksat50 at 04:06 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       In South Carolina for Environmental Science, we don't have any state direction on teaching climate change other than our curriculum and pacing guides. We assess knowledge retention with District based 9-weeks tests and are moving toward a statwide end of course test. I would imagine that if this was put in place it would be treated by the individual teachers about like we treat evolution - which as you know is a topic that is polarizing. Our state guidance is that we present evolution as a well-supported theory. The student does not have to believe in evolution, but is responsible for understanding the mechanisms and other facts. We do not offer any religious based theories due to separation of church and state. I push the limits on teaching evolution, while others shy away from it and do the bare minimum. And, FWIW, from our Holt Environmental Science textbook is the following excerpt from an Active Reading worksheet in the Climate Change section: "Many scientists think that the increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere result in increasing the average temperature on Earth. The result, they believe, will be a warmer Earth. This predicted increase in global temperature is known as global warming. Earth’s average global temperature increased during the 20th century. Many scientists project that the warming trend that began in the 20th century will continue throughout the 21st century. However, not all scientists agree that the observed global warming is due to greenhouse gases. Some scientists believe that the warming is part of natural climatic variability. They point out that widespread fluctuations in temperature have occurred throughout geologic time."
65821. CBDunkerson at 02:49 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy wrote: "I agree with you wholeheartedly." So... you agree that Tuvalu sea level is changing primarily due to ice melt? Funny how that isn't clear from your postings. Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that we don't have an exact breakdown of long term Tuvalu sea level rise by category (e.g. total ocean volume change vs gravitational change vs land subsistence vs prevailing winds change). As such, I don't really see the point. Becker 2011 estimates land subsistence at about 10%, and the other three are all being driven, in the same direction, by global warming. Is this just another variation on, 'if we do not know everything then magical unknown factors could come along and reverse all observed and modeled trends'? If so, then yes... that could happen. It is just so unlikely as to be not worth worrying about until some shred of evidence supporting it is found.
65822. Peter Roberts at 01:46 AM on 28 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       I am a layman - albeit one that has been following James Lovelock's writings since 1980. I hope this isn't off topic but I would appreciate being pointed at an explanation of exactly how latent heat of melting (fusion?) fits into the whole warming pattern and which models it appears in and which it doesn't. I assume that as ice melts for good and all that energy isn't 'used up' it isn't just albedo that decreases but there is a (major?) increase in the amount of heat being added to the system. Nobody seems to talk about this though. Perhaps I am at such a low level of knowledge that everyone includes it as a constant or something but I'd appreciate the pointer.
65823. Fred Staples at 01:30 AM on 28 January 2012
       Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
       (-snipI sit in a London Flat overlooking the River Thames, with a patch of lawn, and the paved Thames Walk between my window and the river. The Thames here is tidal, rising some 40 feet twice a day, and halving its surface area. The flats are built on the site of an old wharf (dock) with its workings and its warehouses long gone. Let us go back to the beginning of the 20th century and attempt to measure its surface temperature trend from 1900 to 1997, almost 100 years. To define the temperature we could install a few max/min thermometers close to the foreshore, a few meters above the high water mark, and take the temperature of the water from Putney bridge with a bucket a few times a day (across the oceans they used buckets from ships). We would rapidly accumulate a large amount of time series data, moderator, which we could average daily, weekly, monthly, and annually.. Over time we would have to move the thermometers, the wharf and all the surrounding area would be extensively developed (and re-developed), traffic, trains, and planes would be introduced, and the population would rise at least ten-fold. We might also be uncomfortably aware that we have not even attempted to measure the temperature at the actual surface; we are measuring atmospheric temperature with all its wind-based variability. But we can face all that squarely and pass on. Over the period, almost a century, we will be looking for the impact of a CO2 increase from about 290ppm to 360 ppm, or 24%. What would our results have looked like? How can we possibly tell? As a matter of fact we can get a good idea, because the Central England Temperature record is measured like this, averaged over three sites, without the complication of water.Their trend temperature over the period was 0.54 degrees C per century. Did the surface temperature, with all its systematic (not random, Tom) variations, really increase by half a degree? Who knows. It is, at best, suspect. We do know that we climbed out of a Little Ice Age over at least half of this period. In the nineteenth century the Thames here frequently froze in the Winter, as did the sea round our coasts. If the surface temperature really did increase, what caused it? Was it the CO2 increase (24%)? If we had known this result in 1900, would we have stopped all the development, left our coal in the ground and not looked for oil? Will China and India abandon their development today on this kind of evidence? Will the Americans give up their air conditioning?-)
       Response:

       [DB] The subject of this thread is Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data, a discussion of satellite global temperature variations & the misrepresentation of the same by fake-skeptics.

       Off-topic musings on regional and local temperature variations & misc things snipped.

65824. Esop at 00:02 AM on 28 January 2012
       Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
       Very interesting! Informative answers to the (archetypal) "skeptics" of the audience as well.
65825. Tealy at 23:58 PM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Cbdunkerson @55 I agree with you wholeheartedly. Yes zonal tilting (or regional variations if you prefer) will be insignificant compared to other causes of sea level rise. It's poorly understood, even acknowledged on this forum as contradictory, and therefore should not be included in projections of sea level rise. A recent (50 year) increase in zonal tilting does not in itself mean zonal tilting will continue to rise. Daniel Bailey @56 Thank you but they are all references to sea level rise being the average sea level rise. Regional differences in sea level rise, by that i mean why say Tuvalu has a different sea level rise than say Fiji, Hawaii, or Panama, is not addressed by those references, only the average rise is addressed.
       Response:

       [DB] "Thank you but they are all references to sea level rise being the average sea level rise."

       In order to properly answer your question you need more than a simple answer; SLR is a complex process, but is well studied from the paleo record & well-reproduced in models and subsequently verified with regional analyses.

       The first portion establishes that there is extensive literature much more current that the IPCC AR4 you reference.  You were given a small portion of that, a portion documenting considerably higher SLR rates in the pipeline as well as the relationship between temperature (a defining metric for sea levels) and SLR.  The last two links specifically reference regional variations in SLR due to ice sheet melt. So you were indeed given answers.

       Here's more:

       Regional impacts due to SLR:

       • The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly by Region
       • Human Impacts of Rising Oceans Will Extend Well Beyond Coasts (also at SkS here)

       Thermal expansion of sea water a limited factor in SLR:

       • Rising Oceans: Too Late to Turn the Tide?

65826. Tealy at 23:39 PM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Rob Painting @57 Don't tell me, take your vitriol to the IPCC and tell them they got it all wrong and that it is "nonsense". If you would read my post you will see I gave a citation as you asked, it quoted the IPCC, I gave a web address, and an explanation. If you would like more detail here is the IPCC website showing 6 climate models of sea level rise from 2000 to 2100, and all 6 models show thermal expansion is the greater component of sea level rise accounting for about 2/3 of the total rise. For example the B1 model shows the main components over the 21st century for the 95% confidence interval as:- Thermal expansion of 0.24m Land ice sum of 0.18m Resulting Sea level rise of 0.38m Ie thermal expansion is greater than ice melt!!!! http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html
       Response:

       [DB] "Ie thermal expansion is greater than ice melt!!!!"

       Again, you rely upon outdated information.  More current exist, as referenced in the response to your comment subsequent to this.  Future SLR in the pipeline will greatly exceed thermal expansion of the oceans.

       A presumption that your source citations from 5 years ago supercede the advice and citations given to you in 2012 is a strategy for failure.  FYI.

65827. Esop at 22:03 PM on 27 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       The interesting thing is that the Arctic is heating up rapidly, while spilling colder air onto the continents, like we saw during the winters of 09/10 and 10/11. The AO has now gone negative again, and we are seeing the same thing again. Due to the poor coverage of the Arctic, this puts a cool bias into the global average data that mostly ignore the Arctic, especially the CRU data. I would think some of Trenberths' "missing heat" is right there, in the Arctic, melting the sea ice, among other things. At Longyearbyen, Svalbard (close to 80 degs latitude), it is raining as we speak. On January 27th. Average temp for the last 30 days is 17F above the normal: http://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Svalbard/Longyearbyen/statistics.html Temps have been way above normal for years, pretty much without getting any media coverage whatsoever. In mainland Norway, after a very warm autumn and early winter, a few days of normal January temps was obviously sensational enough to warrant pretty much the entire frontpage of the national newspapers: http://www.yr.no/artikkel/1.7967259 Pretty much no coverage of 4 months with way above normal temps, but slightly below freezing temps at the latitude of Labrador in January is first page news. The press here is mostly run by hardcore disinformers, so not too surprising, I guess.
65828. adelady at 20:17 PM on 27 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #3
       "Does one have to be a climate science wonk in order to comprehend the majority of articles posted on SkS?" No. If you're a non-science person, SkS is probably the best way to become such a 'wonk'. And the 3 tier system is fantastic.
65829. Ari Jokimäki at 18:59 PM on 27 January 2012
       New research from last week 2/2012
       Day et al. have published a correction to their paper "The impact of a seasonally ice free Arctic Ocean on the temperature, precipitation and surface mass balance of Svalbard". Their abstract says that: "This experiment results in a 3.5 m water equivalent increase in Svalbard's SMB compared to the present day." The number 3.5 m is an error, it should be 0.35 m.
65830. Sceptical Wombat at 18:03 PM on 27 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       A small typo. The word "monotonous" just after Fig 1 should presumably be "monotonic."
       Moderator Response: [Rob P] Fixed thanks. Mind you it would be tedious and boring!
65831. Doug Hutcheson at 17:56 PM on 27 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #3
       

       From your perspective, how well does SkS communicate what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming?

       SkS is my major resource for AGW info. The recent addition of the weekly summary of papers gives me the impression that I am getting access to a broad cross-section of the available literature, so from my perspective you are doing an excellent job.

       Does one have to be a climate science wonk in order to comprehend the majority of articles posted on SkS?

       Majority? No. Some are beyond my non-scientific education at times, but the comments generally clarify points that have gone over my head.

       Does the three-tiered rebuttal system serve a useful purpose?

       Definitely valuable to me. In fact, reading them in order from simplest to most technical often helps me to understand the technical ones better.

       How could SkS better communicate information to the average person who has only a rudimentary understanding of climate science?

       I came here as a person in that category and have found almost everything accessible and comprehensible, but that may partly be due to my being interested enough in the topic to google for further explanations of things I don't understand first time. Often, I find the original papers under discussion a bit incomprehensible, for example because I lack the math to follow the equations, but the SkS articles themselves are generally lucid and paced at my speed (unlike one of your commenters to a thread late last year, who linked to his own blog and I challenge anyone to figure out what he is saying: perhaps I lack the comprehension skills needed [grin]).
65832. Phila at 14:09 PM on 27 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Victull, you say: As a lukewarmer, I must admit that there seems to be some confusion of surface temperature warming with heat energy absorption in the oceans in this post. And you also say: I would like understand the mechanism of how this heat gets back up into the atmosphere. If you don't understand this mechanism, which is not an unimportant one by any means, why would you describe yourself as a "lukewarmer"? Shouldn't you hold off on applying that sort of label to yourself until you've understood the mechanisms under discussion? I don't mean this an attack. I'm honestly curious. What is the justification for presuming to know the most likely outcome of a process that you concede you don't adequately understand?
65833. muoncounter at 12:53 PM on 27 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       John Hartz#57: I can't find any first-hand source for the story about new Texas education standards. Everyone has quoted the LA Times article, Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. But there are no citations in this article and a search turns up nothing other than websites and blogs repeating the same story without further details. One source may be from late November, here: At last week’s meeting in Austin, state board members began mapping out the schedule for adopting textbooks and curriculum standards over the next decade. Although they won’t make any final decisions until early next year, board members considered a schedule that would have them adopting new science textbooks in 2013 There's an ongoing struggle for textbook language, with nothing new about climate change education beyond the 2009 textbook standards. There will be an election for the State Board of Education this year; a right-wing takeover could start this ball rolling again, but it appears to be on hold for now. Oklahoma is another story: The bill would, if enacted, require the state board of education to assist teachers and administrators in promoting "critical thinking, logical analysis, open and objective discussion of scientific theories including, but not limited to, evolution, the origin of life, global warming, and human cloning" Louisiana has such legislation on its books since 2008. The buzz words are once again 'teach both sides, let the kids decide,' which is straight out of the ID playbook.
65834. John Hartz at 12:31 PM on 27 January 2012
       National (US) Strategy Proposed to Respond to Climate Change’s Impacts on Fish, Wildlife, Plants
       Recommended reading: “Obama's Global Warming Plan: Band-Aids for Wildlife” by Edward Flattau, the Huffington Post, Jan 26, 2012 To access this article, click here.
65835. Rob Painting at 11:36 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy - at comment @46 you claimed that thermal expansion contributed more to current sea level rise. When I asked for a citation at comment @47, you replied with an armflapping response about projections for the 21st century, you did not provide a citation to support your assertion. Your assertion is wrong. The addition of water mass (melt-water from ice sheets and glaciers) to the rate of current sea level rise is over twice that of that of thermal expansion from global warming. See Leuliette & Willis (2011) - Balancing the Sea Level Budget. It is clear from your persistently wrong assertions and unwillingness to learn that you are here simply to create the false impression of doubt, and also to waste people's time. I'm sure you can find other blogs where your commitment to non-learning and erroneous beliefs is appreciated. I would urge other moderators to not tolerate further nonsense -snip-.
       Moderator Response: [Albatross] I share your frustration but please tone it down. Thanks.
65836. Wcalvin@uw.edu at 11:17 AM on 27 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Continuing.... Most of the excess CO2 and heat is still in the surface layer. The North Atlantic is the only place with a lot of excess CO2 (and presumably heat) below the thermocline (Sabine et al 2002) and thus kept away from the atmosphere for a thousand years. That is the only part that can be considered to be in long-term storage. So yes, most of the excess CO2 and heat is now in the ocean. But it is only in the wind-stirred surface layer and not really in long-term storage.
65837. muoncounter at 11:03 AM on 27 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       DB, Yep, lovely. It appears the 'hiatus decade' started at +0.6C and ended above +1.5C. Anyone still saying warming has 'slowed down', 'paused' or whatever needs to explain this graph.
65838. Wcalvin@uw.edu at 11:03 AM on 27 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Re times for deep ocean heat to make a difference see Winton, Takahashi, and Held, 2009:  Importance of ocean heat uptake efficacy to transient climate change. J.Clim, 2009 Deep ocean is 98% of the water so there is a 50-fold dilution of whatever excess CO2 and heat is sunk into it by the overturning circulation. Takes about 1000 years to make it back up.
65839. Utahn at 11:00 AM on 27 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Ah, it was before that...
65840. John Hartz at 10:15 AM on 27 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       @Sphaerica #58: My suggestion that you and Pirate take your discussion off-line had to do with the deteriorating tone of your exchanges. I purposely did not post my suggestion as a Moderator's comment.
65841. Daniel Bailey at 09:18 AM on 27 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       Then there was this lovely corroborative graphic derived from the BEST datasets from longtime Neven-contributor Wipneus:
65842. Bob Lacatena at 08:57 AM on 27 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       54, Pirate, The problem with your interpretation of that last bullet point is that you appear to be reading the phrase "to do so we need to understand why climate change is happening" as an implicit admission that "we don't know," when what they are actually saying is "we do know, and we need you as a teacher to convey that knowledge to those that do not know." As far as what the IPCC says about human activities causing climate change, first that is now 5 years old. What they said then you can see here, such as:

       Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

       But times have changed. Consider these recent posts (Huber and Knutti 2011 and Foster and Rhamstorf) here on Skeptical Science, covering the latest research. The upshot is that when you separate natural and anthropogenic causes, the warming is obvious, and natural factors are most likely to have contributed a net cooling effect. This means that not only is all of the warming you see today anthropogenic in origin, but it would also be even worse if not for the cooling factors. 55, John Hartz, No. This is a post about teaching the science, and Pirate is a science teacher. If this is not an appropriate topic of debate on this site, then what is?
65843. Daniel Bailey at 08:56 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       @ Tealy

       "ice melt and thermal expansions of oceans contribute to regional differences in sea level, but have not been able to explain why in scientific terms or provide a specific source that says it does."

       Try these papers and articles from around SkS and the web:
       1. Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia
       2. Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise
       3. Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
       4. Sea Level Rise
       5. Global sea level linked to global temperature
       6. Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years
       7. Sea Level Hockey Stick
       8. The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
       9. 2000 Years of Sea Level (+updates)
       10. Melting Threat From West Antarctic Ice Sheet May Be Less Than Expected; But U.S. Coastal Cities At Risk
       11. Reassessment of the Potential Sea-Level Rise from a Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
65844. owl905 at 08:40 AM on 27 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       It's taken a bit of time to really filter through - the observations of the methane degassing seems to have triggered another round of attention. It's a pity that the IJIS tracking system went down last October - between its 15% baseline and DMI's 30% baseline, there was an easy way to do daily tracking of extent. Do not expect any political action. Brace yourself for the worst-case forecast being the mid-line of possible outcomes. You might as well tell the Conquistadors to stop looking for gold.
65845. CBDunkerson at 08:17 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, you misread. The trade winds are responsible for the entirety of the phenomena you are calling 'zonal tilting'. What is tiny is the long term change in sea level due to changes in the trade winds. Basically, you are ignoring the two largest factors causing sea level rise (i.e. thermal expansion in the short term and ice melt in the long run) to concentrate obsessively on a factor which disappears in the rounding. Think about it for a moment. Do you really think that the slight increase in sea surface height due to wind blown water, caused by the slight increase in trade wind strength (caused by global warming), is going to be more significant than adding more water and increasing the volume of the water already present? It's like arguing that the water level in a pot isn't rising because the chunk of ice inside is melting and the water is getting hotter... it is rising because there is a slightly stronger breeze blowing over the surface.
65846. John Hartz at 08:10 AM on 27 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Here’s another piece of the puzzle… On January 16, the Los Angeles Times revealed that anti-science bills have been popping up over the past several years in statehouses across the U.S., mandating the teaching of climate change denial or "skepticism" as a credible "theoretical alternative" to human caused climate change came. The L.A. Times' Neela Banerjee explained, "Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom." What the excellent Times coverage missed is that key language in these anti-science bills all emanated from a single source: the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Source: “ALEC Model Bill Behind Push to Require Climate Denial Instruction in Schools” by Steve Horn, DeSmog Blog, Jan 27, 2012 To access this detailed expose, click here.
65847. andylee at 08:08 AM on 27 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       Brian, I also saw it on Neven's blog too last week, and although IANACS, was immediately struck by its significance, as well as the its lack of coverage in the media. Hopefully it'll get mainstream airtime soon.
65848. michael sweet at 08:03 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, "Zonal Tilting" appears to be a term that you have made up so it is not surprising that you get no hits. The IPCC projection is outdated and incomplete. Current worldwide sea level rise is about 3.2 mm/yr. The Tuvalu excess is only 2 mm/yr or 4 cm over the past 20 years. That rate could go on for decades. Worldwide average global sea level rise is currently conservatively estimated at 1-2 meters by the year 2100. That is about 15mm/yr over the entire globe (but the rise will not be linear). Obviously, that includes Tuvalu. You suggest that the rise at Tuvalu will be substantially less than that. You must provide evidence for your extraordinary claim. Since you appear to be unaware that 1-2 meters by 2100 is the current projection, you need to read the background so that you can contribute to the discussion.
65849. Albatross at 07:25 AM on 27 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Utahn @26, "Oddly, he often uses your submitted email to reply to any complaint, rather than in the comments.." He is not permitted to do that. Your email on that site is meant to be confidential. If if he has emailed you or someone else in the last week or so), please let me know.
65850. Tealy at 07:04 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       CB @ 52 Yes people have told me that ice let and thermal expansions of oceans contribute to regional differences in sea level, but have nnot been able to explain why in scientific terms or provide a specific source that says it does. I have looked to my wits end and cannot find an explanation or source either, hence why I am asking. Zonal tilting is the name for the regional difference that occurs across the pacific, it's the macro regional difference. If trade winds are a tiny cause of the zonal variations, what are the large causes?

Prev  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  1314  1315  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  Next