Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 Next
Comments 73201 to 73250:
-
keithpickering at 15:39 PM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Somewhere there must be a reasonably large scale map of this area from the 1940's, 50's, or 60's. A good map library would be a place to start. It could easily settle the issue indisputably. -
skywatcher at 15:09 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Norman, I've pointed you towards links that are not just anecdotal, yet you ignored them. Your 'challenge' is similarly anecdotal unless you can quantify the area covered by the relevant PDSI levels. Just looking at them won't do. In that context, Daniel Bailey's response at #106 is relevant, not only is the dataset global, but there is an example of quantification of the current summer temperatures with respect to a long-term dataset. There's already a lot in the published literature about the intensification of the hydrological cycle through warming. Do you think that this can't happen? If so, why? Do you think that this will not lead to extremes, both of temperature and precipitation when weather conditions are right? If not, why not? -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:03 PM on 4 October 2011The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
Two extra changes that were relevent on small million year timescales. Creation of the Isthmus of Panama 3-5 million years ago, closing the seaway between the Pacific & Atlantic. Given how significant the North Atlantic Conveyor system is to regional and even global climate this could have bbeen significant. Certainly there seems to have been a change in the frequency & intensity of glacial cycles around then. Also at around the time the Drake passage was opening as TIS meantions - changing circulation patterns - a different geological process was occuring - India was crashing into Asia, lifting the Himalayas & the Tibetan Plateau behind them. This is significant for 2 reasons. It probably changed air flow patterns in the region. But also it exposed lots of new rock, allowing the rate of removal of CO2 by chemical weathering on rocks to increase, quite possibly lowering CO2 levels enough to push us into a climate where Ice Age conditions were possible. And if you want a long term property investment, avoid Denmark, Florida, The Netherlands. But there could be money in and England To Archangelsk ferry service. -
scaddenp at 14:51 PM on 4 October 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Continuing further on this, I note that you have focused on the paleoclimate measures of sensitivity, though they are in broad agreement with the other measures of sensitivity. Schmidt at RC commented recently on this too. "It's certainly conceivable that climate sensitivity is a function of base climate and surely is at some level. How large that dependency is unclear. But you need to distinguish between estimates of sensitivity derived from comparing older climates to today, and estimates of variability within an overall different base climate. Comparing the LGM or Pliocene to today is the former, looking at the variations during an ice age would be the latter. There have been a couple of papers indicating that sensitivity at the LGM is different to today (Hargreaves - not sure of the year - for instance), but in each case the differences (while clear), are small (around 10 to 20%). - gavin" See here. You have commented previously that you thought climate sensitivity was low (hence no "C"AGW). What science did you examine that led you to that conclusion? At the moment, it looks you are trying to find science to back an a priori determination that sensitivity is low. -
Norman at 14:31 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
scaddenp @ 165, I think there is enough evidence available with current data basis to see at least if some weather related extreme events are increasing in intensity, duration, frequency but the process would be way too time consuming for one person. It seems NOAA has large amounts of weather data at their website for many locations. I was looking at extreme 24 hour precipitation at Austin a bit ago. There are hundreds of cities with this information, it is just a matter of data entry and proper scientific analysis for patterns and trends to determine if it is getting worse, and if it is attempt the best policy to minimize the effects. -
Norman at 14:26 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
skywatcher @ 53 "Norman, I can't believe you don't see that what you are doing is cherry-picking, and finding occasional anecdotes to support a very weak position." "Stupid evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal is a logical fallacy." Why then would not this also qualify as anecdotal? "The last couple of years have certainly seen a large number of extreme events take place, from the floods in Queensland, Colombia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, to the droughts in Texas, Australia, China and the Amazon, and record-setting high temperatures in countries that cover approximately one-fifth of the Earth's surface. Wildfires, snowstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes have also made the headlines in a number of countries. This has led to the appearance of new expressions: 'global weirding' and 'a new normal'." It is picking some extreme events around the world and forming a conclusion. How is what I am attempting different except in time frame. I am looking for extreme events around the world. I am asking that good studies be done to look at global extremes of each year and match them up. It looks like Bibliovermis at #117 is interested in determining trends for wet and dry areas for various areas around the globe. The best I can give you for some form of statistical view is to take the challenge I gave to muoncounter at post #90. This challenge covers 30 years of drought/wet cycle in the US. I can't post the animation so if you are interested you can run it yourself. It covers the region of the US (yes only a small percent of the Earth's total land but a very dynamic and versatile area of study subject to all forms of weather patterns). -
scaddenp at 14:23 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Norman,any useful tool for looking at change in extreme weather has to have reliable data sources going back 50-100 years at least, and have sufficient geographical coverage that it can be meaningfully compared to models. Since you are critical of all presentations to date, what record do you propose? If you demand only what can be done with current technology, then you are effectively just arguing for delaying action on climate change and ignoring the tools that are around. The last IPCC report looked at river level data. Your objection to this? -
LewisC at 14:20 PM on 4 October 2011Sea level fell in 2010
Adelady - thanks too for your response - It's good to hear of the land around you getting the chance to recover somewhat from the awful drought. As far as I know, Grace is able to sense the gravitational signature of additional water, whether it's on the surface or deep underground. Thus it shows the net change at year's end for each area of land, and it is the sum of these changes across all lands that seems to me far short of what has gone missing from the sea. As you say more numbers and analysis are needed to clarify the issue. Regards, Lewis -
Bob Lacatena at 14:14 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Joe Romm on a blog post quoted someone else who presented anecdotal evidence. This makes your use of the same technique valid here, in this context, in what way? -
Bob Lacatena at 14:11 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
162, Norman, You are completely missing the point. Your argument is flawed. -
LewisC at 14:02 PM on 4 October 2011Sea level fell in 2010
DB - thanks for your response - which I'm afraid still leaves me puzzled. As I understand it, Grace is the most sensitive instrument yet built for observing gravitational anomallies, and has been calibrated to identify changes in the presence of water both on and within the land. I'd agree that extreme rainfall will, on some adverse terrain, be very slow in its return to the ocean, and some will be subsumed into aquifers, but this doesn't explain why Grace doesn't show the gravitational reponse on land of the volumes of seawater that went 'missing'. What it appears to show on and in land - as best I can judge - is around 20% of that volume, and while I'd doubt it is accurate to say 0.5%, the idea of it being wrong by 80% seems implausible. NASA data on the actual net volume of anomalous water Grace recorded on the land would clarify the issue, but as it stands, it appears that ~9.2mm is 'missing' from the sea, of which Grace can sense only around 1.85mm on land. Short of a surprising leak in the seabed somewhere, this implies that around 7.3mm is now somehow being retained as airborne water vapour, being, as you say, recycled about every 9 days. Quite why this should be happening seems unclear. Regards, Lewis -
Norman at 14:00 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Sphaerica Here is an example of why I question the expert opinions on the question of extreme weather events. "Dr. Jeff Masters: An extreme rainfall event unprecedented in recorded history has hit the Binghamton, New York area, where 7.49″ fell yesterday. This is the second year in a row Binghamton has recorded a 1-in-100 year rain event; their previous all-time record was set last September, when 4.68″ fell on Sep 30 – Oct. 1, 2010. Records go back to 1890 in the city…. You don’t often see a major city break its all-time 24-hour precipitation record by a 60% margin, according to wunderground’s weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, and he can’t recall ever seeing it happen before." The weather historian can't recall ever seening it happen before. Source of above quote. "1973 – Flooding In late September 1973, another flood event in San Antonio left 6.54 inches of rain September 26th and 0.87 inches September 27th. This rain event produced a 24 hour record of 7.28 inches for San Antonio, later broken October 17 to 18, 1998 when 13.35 inches of rain fell in 24 hour" Source of San Antonio rainfall records. This is a 83% margin and it only happened 13 years ago. This is only one example I found and I would think there are more. Here is a page to view from check this out. It has all the 24 hour rainfall records of Austin, Texas. Look at each month and you can see some extremes that are way above any other reading for the month. I assume it is due to a rare hurricane moving over the area and dumping a lot of rain. I link it only to show that choosing one city in New York with a large amount of rain is not a scientific study.Response:[DB] "The weather historian can't recall ever seening it happen before."
Perhaps Mr. Burt has not worked for Wunderground for its entire existence (since 1995). Since the event you cite occurred in 1998, Mr. Burt could still be correct in his assertion. But perhaps that possibility did not occur to you.
Nevertheless, the endless stream of comments focused on weather events, in the absence of robust methodologies, amount to little more than spamming of this Forum. You have been given sincere and able advice on how to better prosecute your admitted agenda. You would do well to observe that advice.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:54 PM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
mspelto @4, don't forget to include Stray Dog West island:
Caption from source:
"Greenland, Stray Dog West Aerial July 16, 2007 - Four days after the discovery of Stray Dog West on foot, we flew over the island on the way back to Norway. This is the new northernmost point of land in the world. It is north of Kaffeklubben. It is now an official place on Shea's Register of the World. (IMG_5257R) Stray Dog West lies at 83�40'30" north latitude."
According to wikipedia, Stray Dog West is a gravel and rock bank whose permanence (and hence status as the most northerly land mass) is disputed. Still, I challenge any fake skeptic to find a map or photograph showing any land north of Kaffeklubben Island prior to 1998.
-
Shibui at 13:50 PM on 4 October 2011It's ozone
I wonder how the above chart explains the current ozone hole in the arctic ...Response:[DB] Actually, the chart does nothing to explain Arctic ozone holes, as the chart above deals with the Antarctic. :)
The Arctic ozone hole that formed this winter (2010/2011) was primarily due to prolonged cold in the stratosphere during the long Arctic winter:
This NOAA page does an excellent job differentiating between the Antarctic and Arctic ozone depletions.
Note that stratospheric cooling is an expected effect of AGW...
-
Bob Lacatena at 13:19 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
160, Norman,The content of this thread is not that there are extreme weather events happening today (and tomorrow). It is that these events will increase in number, intensity and frequency of return.
So you accede to my point that repetitively finding and precenting anecdotal evidence of other, past extreme events is a pointless exercise. -
Norman at 13:12 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Sphaerica @ 147 I went to Barnes and Noble to look for the book but found out it is an ebook. It is not expensive, only $0.99. I do prefer to read a book rather than on a computer screen. I generally print the article links (peer reviewed papers)and then read them. "Second, you also recognize that you've been following an anecdotal argument to a statistical question. You admit that the question becomes one of average frequency and intensity, and yet you've been arguing it by cherry picking events from the past, as if finding a previous, intense drought or hurricane invalidates the intensity we see today." It would not invalidate the intensity of an extreme event today. That is not my point in finding historical extremes. The content of this thread is not that there are extreme weather events happening today (and tomorrow). It is that these events will increase in number, intensity and frequency of return. "Third, you know that we've already been through a variety of measures of extreme event intensity (dollars in damages, loss of life), and you know that there are many obscuring factors (such as changes in population, early warning and engineering improvements, total property value exposed to danger, changes in reporting methods, etc.) that make comparisons over long time periods difficult." Using monetary values to determine trends in extreme weather event number does not seem the best choice of systems. It is a very important topic and one that should be analyzed in a proper scientific fashion. With computers and advanced equipment the task will be much easier today than before. Rather than use a Munich Re disaster chart as evidence why not get direct measurements that do not have a floating variable? We do very well with hurricanes, tropical storms, and tornadoes. Now we can also do it with Supercell thunderstorms. Each can be logged based upon various factors. Height of storm, area storm covers, total rainfall amount of storm, duration, location, tornadoes spawned by storm and their intensity, hail size and duration, wind speed, etc. There are thousands of these stroms each year and a complete log of each storm would give you a good answer in a few years (still enough time to divert disaster if the storm number is showing signs of increasing). "So in the end what your comment tells me is that you know that everything that you have been saying is wrong." I have been told I am wrong. I do not exactly know what I am wrong about. -
Norman at 12:51 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Eric (Skeptic) @ 154 I believe most of the September rain records in Pennsylvania was because of the renmants of Tropical Storm Lee.
source.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 12:26 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
In the same box as the kindle was the Roger Pielke Jr book. After just 45 pages so far, I have a pretty good idea of where he is going. There were several forward references so far to chapter 7 (and no others) which is titled "DIsasters, Death and Destruction". There is quite a bit of reference to the Pielke Sr theme of anthropogenic factors other than CO2. Some telling phrases so far "Efforts to increase intensity [of public support] whether by hyping the science or seeking to scare people by apocalyptic visions of catastrophe, are more likely to turn people off than to motivate them to become politically active." and "...those advocating action too often focus on trying to get everyone to think alike, forgetting that it is how people act, not what they think, that in the end matters the most." and 'In the hyperpoliticized world of climate politics, any emphasis on factors beyond carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) is, for some people, a distraction." In short, an argument for a narrow form of political pragmatism that appears to address two straw men of CO2 overemphasis and climate catastrophe rhetoric. While some catastrophe rhetoric is indeed present, a much stronger case has been made for the sheer magnitude of the inevitable CO2 rise itself, far beyond anything in experienced in the present geologic configuration. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt and keep reading. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:02 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Got my kindle and created an "AGW" collection (only 1 level of hierarchy?) and bought the the Rough Winds book (do they keep my CC on file, because it didn't ask for one?). I thought the book had a good balance of scientific detail most of the time while maintaining a riveting story line. The political references are ok, the characterizations (e.g. Inhofe) are accurate, but I would have left out the religious references, some readers might take offense. Regarding Hurricane Irene he states "First, Irene dumped far more rain and dumped much of it farther north than forecaster had predicted: 20 inches in Virginia Beach and enough to cause the worst flooding in Vermont in 80 years." That is not really true, the forecast was for 6-10 inches with isolated maximum amounts of 15 inches, but the key factor that was not forecasted was the strength of the upper trough along the east coast that enhanced the rainfall amounts and directed the storm further west than forecast. But the forecasts were quite accurate overall, see http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/583120main_irene_rain_20-29aug11.jpg as compared to the 6-10, isolated 15 forecast. He asks us to imagine if warmer SSTs from previously emitted CO2 had pushed Katrina to a category 4 or 5 storm. Not hard to imagine at all since that is what happened for a substantial period of time before landfall. Perhaps he meant to say when making landfall, but cat 4-5 was also the prediction for landfall. The dynamics of strong TCs are not controlled by SST over the short run. He said it better towards the end of the hurricane discussion "global warming makes such events more likely" (but other factors can easily get in the way) Some good points are his mention of both prominent 2007 hurricane count reanalyses. The flooding section is good in general and mentions the effects of levees and plusses and minuses of damming. One small note I would have added about Minot was the flood water release treaty that prevented the Canadians from emptying reservoirs when it could have done some good (part of the reason that Minot thought they would be safe). I was a bit dismayed that there was no mention of UHIE in the high/low records ratios. But worse than that was at the end where the he states "What else but global warming can explain record temperatures set when the sun is not shining?". (Answer in part: UHIE) Also there is a long list of events that the earth has experienced that are "exactly the events that scientists have predicted global warming will make more common and more extreme". I would get rid of the word exactly or trim the list or give the full range of predictions which may be less in some cases. But those are mostly pet peeves. -
adelady at 11:55 AM on 4 October 2011Sea level fell in 2010
Lewis. I'm not so sure about all that water piling up on land. Quite a lot of it is 'in' the land. Australia's vast, drought-parched landscapes have soaked up a lot of water. Dry and cracked wetlands have filled (not all of them, unfortunately), most rivers, lakes, dams, reservoirs and rainwater tanks are brimful and many millions of thirsty trees and other plants have replenished their starving cells. And on top of that, I expect that we'll soon be seeing some figures about how much of the flooding and soaking rains have replenished groundwaters and deeper aquifers. And we're not the only ones. I'm just not familiar enough with other geographies to venture any opinions. More numbers from more observations and analyses are needed before we can get too detailed on this one. -
dana1981 at 11:21 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
No button yet, as we've only got 3 Michaels posts so far. -
John Hartz at 10:58 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Where's the SkS button for this series? PS -- Don't forget to add an apostrophe to Michaels. -
LewisC at 10:17 AM on 4 October 2011Sea level fell in 2010
To a layman, the Grace plot appears to contradict the explanation that La Nina has transferred around 6mm of seawater onto the land, and to do so on two counts. First, assuming that both thermal expansion and cryosphere decline remained ongoing from 3/10 to 3/11, then ~3.2mm of the trend annual sea level addition is missing as well as the noted 6mm - i.e. around 9.2mm is missing in total. Second, the ratio of the area of land to sea being around 1:2.43, that 9.2mm of seawater should pile up substantially on land - i.e. to around 22.3mm on average. Even the 6mm volume would pile up to an average of 14.6mm on land, which Grace doesn't appear to show. Given the cartography of the Grace plot, it is hard to estimate areas of inundation in ratio to areas of drought, alongside the area of no net change, but studying it with the best impartiality I can apply, it doesn't appear to show more than an average of perhaps 4.5mm being retained on land - which, divided by 2.43, would represent only around 1.85mm of sea level. No doubt you will have accurate data from the Grace plot and can thus provide the proper figure for additional water on land. In surmising that it may be of a different scale to what should result from the missing 9.2mm of seawater being stored on land, if this were correct, I'd be glad to read your views on the percentage increase in airborne water vapour that the missing water now represents, given a normal mean equivalent of just 25mm of global rain being held as vapour. It would also be helpful to learn just what would be the CO2e of that increase in water vapour, and just how La Nina, and maybe other phenomena, could have evaporated that volume to remain as water vapour without an observed commensurate spike in global temperature - assuming that a global 1.0C rise is actually required to raise global water vapour by just 7%. I feel I must be missing something(s), as it's all rather puzzling. Regards, LewisResponse:[DB] "I'd be glad to read your views on the percentage increase in airborne water vapour that the missing water now represents"
Lewis, remember that atmospheric water vapor excesses have a residence time of about 9 days. Thus that water piled up onto land masses has a slow trek through cachments, impoundments and reservoirs on its way back to the sea. And some will make its way into water tables as well.
-
skywatcher at 09:26 AM on 4 October 2011There is no consensus
Dana69, if I do some research, and independently come to the same conclusion as a great many scientists carrying out similar research before me, then I am following the consensus. I'm not doing it blindly, and I would be doing so absolutely based on my own views. Let's say, on the hypothesis that an apple released at shoulder height will go down, rather than up, I carry out the experiment. I find the same answer as the scientific consensus on the matter. Am I blindly following the consensus? When you (indirectly) accuse others of being sheep, be careful your argument is not wooly. -
skywatcher at 09:13 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Another issue with weather stations in Grenland is exposure to wind, not just open coast vs fjord, but also katabatic winds from the interior. I don't know if this area is vulnerable to katabats, but it's another reason in your long list why not to use a single station hundreds of kilometres away. Patrick, this is a superb rebuttal - it's always a pleasure to read work from someone who does their research thoroughly. Every time Michaels or his cohorts open their mouths on this subject, this article should be rammed down their throats. -
dana1981 at 09:10 AM on 4 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
Sounds like Pielke has some responses in the works. I certainly agree with Gavin's comments with respect to using OHC as the global warming diagnostic. OHC data just isn't extensive enough, aside from the fact that we need to consider all the evidence. -
Albatross at 08:35 AM on 4 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
RealClimate has a post up on Oceanic Heat Content and they discuss Dr. Pielke Snr's comments on same. They do not agree with Dr. Pielke's reasoning. "I understand Dr. Pielke Sr. has for some time now claimed the Argo system has yet to detect an increase in upper ocean heat content or an ocean heat transport to the deep. Do you concur with his claim and, if not, can you explain how and where this transport to the deep is accomplished? Thank you for your time. [Response: Argo measures temperatures, not heat flux. You can calculate a net heat flux into the top 700m of the ocean given the changes in temperature in this region, but Argo cannot measure the heat flux through that region. The latest data from Willis and others indicates that ocean heat content (top 700m) is increasing, although a lower rate than in the last decade, and the (less comprehensive) studies related to below-700m oceans indicate an increase as well. Most heat transport into the deep ocean will occur in the down-welling branches of the overturning circulation, centered in the North Atlantic and the Southern Oceans. Diffusive fluxes in the rest of the ocean will be much smaller. - gavin]" And "He [Pielke] asks: 1) “If heat is being sequested in the deeper ocean, it must transfer through the upper ocean. In the real world, this has not been seen that I am aware of. In the models, this heat clearly must be transferred (upwards and downwards) through this layer. The Argo network is spatially dense enough that this should have been seen.” Do you agree with this? [Response: Obviously heat going below 700m must have passed through the upper ocean. However, the notion that Argo could see this is odd. Argo measures temperature, not flux. The net flux into a layer is calculated by looking at the change in temperature. It cannot tell you how much came in at the top and left at the bottom, only how much remained. - gavin] Interesting how Dr. Pielke's ideas continue to remain at odds to the science, despite him being presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. PS: "gavin" above is Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a much respected NASA scientist. -
logicman at 08:23 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
dana1981 The nearest weather station with records covering the relevant periods is Daneborg. Although it is only about 75 km from Warming island it is in a fjord which runs roughly north to south. That fjord is sheltered from ice streams and affords no shade from the sun throughout most of the Arctic summer. Even though only 75km apart, the Daneborg and Warming Island microclimates are not, I suggest, comparable. -
robert way at 07:50 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Another way of looking at the Jan Mayen Temps:
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9035/janmayentemps.png
Response:[DB] Enabled in-line graphic.
-
Albatross at 07:44 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
The very first post on this thread by "renewable guy" nicely sums things up: "Long wrong Patrick Michaeals. Some people are paid to be accurate and correct in what they do. Others are paid to be professionally wrong" It is truly depressing and sad that some are willing to sell their souls and ethics to support their ideology, not to mention their complete disregard for future generations. What is worse they claim to do it in the name of science. Anthony Watts has once again showed his one-sided skepticism and bias by uncritically accepting whatever paid misinformers like Michaels state. Yet Pielke Snr assures us that Watts complies with highest scientific standards. I'm sure that we can expect a correction at WUWT an day now ;) -
dana1981 at 07:39 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
As far as I can tell, the closest temperature station with a continuous record to Present is Jan Mayen, which is still 500 km away, but looks like this:
Pretty consistently warmer this past decade than during the mid-20th Century. The same is true of the second-closest such station, Danmarshavn.
Response:[DB] Fixed image.
-
robert way at 07:28 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
dana1981 at 05:58 AM on 4 October, 2011 Middleton had yet another post on the subject on WUWT just a couple days ago. >> Yeah I saw that, I'm going to deal with his sea ice and temperature reconstruction methinks. -
pauls at 07:04 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
I didn't find your argument about the GISS temperature data to be completely convincing. Do you have any data to show quantitatively how different the climate regimes are at the two locations? Are there other stations around the area? -
logicman at 06:39 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
It's amazing how some people will jump on a bandwagon without first checking to see if it has any wheels."there is nothing new about ‘Warming Island’ — it was clearly shown on maps with this name more than 50 years ago, long before the global warming scare began." Christopher Booker
Maps? Plural? Where did that come from? Ah, yes!"As it turns out, maps show that Warming Island, indeed, was very much an island a mere 50 years ago, when Greenland, in fact, was warmer than it has been for the last 10 years." Patrick Michaels
If Patrick Michaels has maps - plural - then he has a duty in science to show them to the world. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 06:25 AM on 4 October 2011The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
FundMe #6, 125,000 years ago is far to short a period of time for the Earth to be different in any physical way. The differences in the continents would be measured in tens of meters at the most which is not enough for the Earth to be considered a different planet. The last time the physical characteristics changed enough to make a large difference was 34 million years ago when the Drake Passage was opening between South America and Antarctica. -
logicman at 06:24 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
mspelto: thanks. I have already spent quite some time editing and re-editing and incorporating many excellent suggestions from the SkS team, so I'll simply post the image here rather than edit yet again.
Warming Island in 2010 (mspelto, Upernavik)
-
logicman at 06:15 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
dana1981: Middleton seems not to understand how his temperature reconstructions have no bearing on the Warming Island coastal microclimate issue. Greenland isn't a tiny island, it's a very big place. Here is what has been said in a similar context regarding Antarctic temperature reconstructions:"The problem with Antarctic temperature measurement is that all but three longstanding weather stations are on or very near the coast. Antarctica is a big place, about one-and-a-half times the size of the US. Imagine trying to infer our national temperature only with stations along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, plus three others in the interior."
Yes, one must approach such reconstructions with a great deal of skepticism, according to the author of the article which I quote above - Patrick Michaels. -
Rob Painting at 06:08 AM on 4 October 2011The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
Micawber @ 24 -"But there is still little data in the upper 10m – 50m of the oceans." I have no idea what you're talking about here, but the surface exchange of heat in the top 500 mtrs of ocean is the subject of an upcoming post. Peter Hogarth @ 29 - thanks. I've read Smith (2010), but not Harris (2011). Cheers. -
mspelto at 06:00 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Also note in the post on Upernavik there is a 2010 image of Warming Island. What is also interesting in that image is the ratio of snowcover to blue ice, is pretty low. I encourage you to post that high quality more recent imagery in the above. -
dana1981 at 05:58 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Middleton had yet another post on the subject on WUWT just a couple days ago. -
logicman at 05:49 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
CTG: you are perfectly correct as to the exactness of scientific terms. My intention was to point out that what Michaels suggests is neither a theory nor a hypothesis as known to science. Michaels' idea that (sketch map + temperature set from a remote location) = (the overturning of nearly 200 years of scientific observations) is beyond wrong - it is not even wrong. mspelto: good to 'see' you too! Yes, as Scoresby suggested in 1823: Greenland is an archipelago. Loads of potential there for people to name their very own island - and move there to avoid the worst climate impacts. -
Peter Hogarth at 05:42 AM on 4 October 2011The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
Rob Painting at 19:08 PM on 3 October, 2011 Thanks, Water Vapour parts interesting, here's a couple of nice papers if you haven't seen them: Harris 2010 quantifies the amount of surface temperature drop from volcanic SO2 (modeling) and Smith 2010 on new global anthropogenic SO2 inventory and historical time series of anthropogenic SO2, this and similar work makes me suspect this probably isn't the culprit for any very recent effects. Micawber at 23:05 PM on 3 October, 2011 I have no argument with getting more real measurements (I design sensors) but the modelling skill has improved substantially even since the papers you cite. Not the time or the post to pursue here though! -
mspelto at 05:42 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Good to bring back to the fore. Let us not forget and in fact emphasize that there are many new island developing or at least no longer connected to the main ice sheet or ice shelf depending. In Antarctic with the Wlikins Ice Shelf Charcot Island is no longer connected to Latady Island by an ice bridge. Near Palmer Station Amsler Island now is separated by an open water passage from the Ant. Peninsula. The retreat of Upernavik Glacier has led to new island formation as well. -
pielkesr at 05:29 AM on 4 October 2011SkS Weekly Digest #18
I appreciate the constructive posts regarding my perspective that you have most recently presented on your weblog. I will be posting on my weblog in response to several of your questions and requests for clarification later this week. -
logicman at 05:27 AM on 4 October 2011The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
FundMe #6 The ancient philosophers - mostly Greek - determined that if two things have every single detail in common then they must be one and the same thing. Let me put it this in a modern way: any two atoms whatsoever cannot be exactly identical in every property if they occupy different locations in space or time. The scientific principle of the discovery of common features and formulation of sets of things having common properties is based in ordinary human cognition. It was used by the ancient Greeks to discover rules of logic, rhetoric and grammar and to discover universal laws of nature. A basic assumption of science is that what was common to a group of things in the past and what is common now will be common in the future. It doesn't matter if a black cloud is shaped like a human face or a banana: it will almost certainly rain on somebody's parade. Some features or properties not held in common are entirely irrelevant to predictability. -
CTG at 05:17 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Just one quibble - the "only a theory" line is supposed to be sarcastic, I know, but SkS should really stick to proper scientific terms. Where you write "This is an assertion unsupported by relevant and credible evidence and is in both the scientific and popular senses of the term just a theory." you are incorrect, as this is not a theory in the scientific sense, it's a hypothesis. Yes, I know that "it's only a hypothesis" doesn't get as many laughs, but it is important to be accurate about these things. -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:56 AM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
The bulk of the rain was closer to the beginning of Sept but the saturated ground could certainly contribute to future flooding. As for the snow and cold rain, seems like the most unusual factor is how early in the season this strong, stalled upper low is. There was no snow or much cold upstream from us in the upper midwest, the cold came down from aloft with the heavier precip (isothermal from the surface through 850mb). -
Bob Lacatena at 04:25 AM on 4 October 2011The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
FundMe, I think your sticking point is that you'd like an exact template to which to compare today's events. This doesn't exist, but we have a very good understanding of where the differences lie, enough to project (with research, intelligence and thought) what is expected to happen. This is no different from getting your car fixed or going to the doctor. You cannot demand that the mechanic or doctor point you to a car/patient with the exact same symptoms; same make/model/year, number of miles, funny noises, repair history, etc., or for a patient the same age, sex, weight and family history, environmental issues, same symptoms, exact same reaction to drugs, etc. In particular, you'll find that doctors and surgeons are even loathe to give you a percent chance of success for a treatment because of this. There are too many variables. They know what they're doing, and that their course of action is justified, but they are never going to be able to justify it to the layman by saying "meet Mr. Jones here, he is exactly like you, and the surgery worked perfectly for him." Many, many things in life are too complex and have too small a sample size to predict by saying "ah ha, this is exactly the same, and this is what happened then, so..." -
muoncounter at 04:22 AM on 4 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
tblakeslee#121: "Only extremely high energy particles effect climate because they can survive all the way down to the low cloud altitude" I'm sorry, that is just not true. Muons routinely detected at surface have an average energy of approx 4 GeV; this is not 'extremely high.' The highest energy cosmic rays are in the 10s of EeV range. Anyone claiming that clouds decrease during Forbush events must know, at the level of Wikipedia, that those events are caused by relatively low energy solar cosmic rays. -
logicman at 04:22 AM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Re: comment #1 - a note on ad hominem. Pointing to a scientist's funding sources is ad hom only if it has nothing to do with the scientific topic at hand. Patrick Michaels runs New Hope Environmental Services. It is a self-described advocacy science consulting firm. Science sifts all available argument and evidence for cogency, validity, relevance and accuracy in order to discover facts. Advocacy selects evidence which seems plausible enough to support a pre-determined "fact". The term 'advocacy science' is an oxymoron. One is either a scientist in search of fact or an advocate of some preferred "fact". One cannot be both. Patrick Michaels used to focus on climate and crops, when he wrote some very interesting papers. Since he switched to writing about climate change per se he has become a source of widely copied erroneous 'climate facts'.
Prev 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 Next
