Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  1485  Next

Comments 73851 to 73900:

  1. Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
    Economics is not an exact science to begin with, and the farther into the future that an economic forecast goes, the less reliable it is. (I have a bachelor's degree in the subject, and know just enough to be dangerous.) The problem with the Stern Report and similar studies is that the costs of taking action are relatively near term, but the benefits of taking action and costs of not taking action are very long term. The 50% non-response rate for the NYU law school study also raises issues. The skeptics are the ones most likely to toss the questionnaire into the waste basket. This is not an endorsement of Monckton. I just think the economic studies are a weak link in climate theory.
  2. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    "likely continue to delude themselves" Delusion indeed. See the comments at Peter Sinclair's Sea Ice Min video posting: "I’m (one of the ones) siding with Steven Goddard. He was right." It's funny because the video has the NSIDc's scientist saying "being the 2nd lowest vs the lowest is not really recovery."
  3. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    Heh one of the few things I remember from school was one of my teachers telling the class that global warming was a load of bollocks because melting ice couldn't raise sea level because it just displaced it's own mass in water. I don't know why that stuck in my mind, I think I speak for the rest of the class that I was rather indifferent to the content of his claim at the time, but I think I remembered it simply for the sudden way he delivered such a passionate claim in a lesson that had nothing to do with melting ice let alone global warming. Looking back on it I've always regarded his mistake was threefold: not taking into account melting ice on land, not taking into account thermal expansion of sea water and not taking into account that global warming is more than sea level rise. Now from reading this article I can add a fourth mistake.
  4. Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
    I think you already dealt the killer blow. Salby states "CO2 after the turn of the (21st) century continued to increase, in fact if anything slightly faster, but global temperature didn't. If anything it decreased in the first decade of the 21st century. " He says what!!!! Salby's entire premise is that CO2 in the air is directly dependent upon temperature – if you increase temperature, you will increase CO2. Yet here he argues that CO2 can increase without being driven by an increase in temperature. Which contradicts his thesis.
  5. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    Dana @11, "Will they learn something from their poor Arctic sea ice prediction? " Very likely not. They will likely continue to delude themselves and others, or rationalize that it is not a big deal, or eventually concede that it is a big deal but argue that human emissions of GHGs are only a bit player. There are unfortunately, and sadly, far too many ways people can rationalize their denial of something, including AGW.
  6. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    WUWT readers are clearly a very optimistic group regarding Arctic sea ice and anything global warming related. You have to wonder how long it will take them to realize that their optimism is unwarranted. Will they learn something from their poor Arctic sea ice prediction?
  7. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    Dana @8, You are welcome. What is kinda interesting is that WUWT readers actually predicted the sea ice extent minimum in 2011 would be higher than that in 2005, and that is very similar to Bastardi's erroneous prediction. So I wonder how much he influenced their thinking? Is it an example of group think, or group denial about the plight of the Arctic sea ice? I mean the loss of Arctic ice is accelerating, yet they keep trying to tell themselves and that there it is going to recover soon, "No really, this time it will recover". I wonder when will they will be saying that, "Oh don't worry, the ice extent next year will be back to the 2007 extent next year". Dikran @9, Yes, strictly speaking, I would have to agree with you.
  8. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    CharlieA... You're right. This is a small effect...and the future impacts are limited by the amount of sea ice available for melting. I think it's just kind of a neat wrinkle to an old truism that says something about chemisrty/physics of the ocean. I'd think the more important effects of salinity changes from sea icea melting are related to the the local bouyancy effects of melting sea ice on currents and associated heat transfer. To get changes in salinity related to the hydrologic cycle you need to either increase the salinity of the incoming water (by increasing weathering) or alter the balance between river inflow and evaporation from the ocean. There is some evidence for increasing alkalinity (HCO3- and Ca++) of some major rivers (e.g. the mississippi). I'm guessing that does not affect salinity too much because of the dominance of NaCl as a solute. Haven't done the calcs though. As Rob painting has pointed out, there are some net movements of water between the ocean and land on multiyear timescales that could influence salinity a little. That must imply evaporative concentration of salts in the ocean. My guess is that accounts for only a small proportion of the recent sea-level rise anomaly though, but it would be interesting to know.
  9. Dikran Marsupial at 03:04 AM on 28 September 2011
    2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    Albatross Given my own definition of "reasonably accurate", I'd say that Watts prediction is "reasonably accurate" in the sense it is as accurate as you could reasonably expect it to be given the method used! ;o) I think I may have a go at statistical prediction for next year, looks like fun.
  10. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    We'll be doing a 'Lessons from Past Predictions' post on Arctic sea ice predictions in the near future. I plan to highlight Bastardi, Watts, Goddard, perhaps WUWT readers (thanks Albatross), and tamino. Any other suggestions are welcome.
  11. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    In stark contrast, Tamino used some stats analysis in October 2010 to predict the JAXA minimum for September 2011. That analysis predicted a minimum of 4.63 million km^2 (+/- 0.9 km^2) for extent. The observed minimum for JAXA in 2011 was 4.53 million km^2. And also in contrast to Tamino, Anthony Watts submitted a forecast (based on a poll from his readers) to the SEARCH project on 31 May 2011 (so a 3.5 month forecast versus 11 months for Tamino). Here is the WUWT forecast: "PAN-ARCTIC OUTLOOK – WUWT (acronym for WattsUpWithThat.com) 1. Extent Projection: 5.5 million square kilometers 2. Methods/Techniques: web poll of readers 3. Rationale: Composite of projections by readers, projection bracket with the highest response is the one submitted. 4. Executive Summary: Website devoted to climate and weather polled its readers for the best estimate of 2011 sea ice extent minimum by choosing bracketed values from a web poll which can be seen at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/19/sea-ice-news-call-for-arctic-sea-ice-forecasts-plus-forecast-poll/15.64% chose 5.5 million km2 or greater, with 13.09% choosing 5.0 to 5.1 million sq km2 as the second highest vote. 5. Estimate of Forecast Skill: none" Pay attention to point number 5. On that we agree ;) Out by about one million km^2. Readers do not buy into this meme that the Arctic sea ice is recovering that is being perpetuated by 'skeptics' and those in denial about AGW.
  12. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    It's going to be interesting to see if Bastardi (and Goddard as well) continue to do this. It's going to make for more interesting videos and blog posts in the future when we can go through and show exactly how wrong they have been, year after year after year.
  13. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    dana1981 - According to the title of GISS figure 28a 1.5 W/m2 is the forcing difference only up to 2000. Your calculation is close to Skeie et al.'s 2010 CO2 forcing as quoted by Kevin above.
  14. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    barry @ 3... I believe the NSIDC called the minimum back on Sept 9th, so it's been pretty clear that we've already seen the min for at least a couple of weeks now.
  15. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    So Shepherd et al calculate (49 ± 8 μm yr−1) rise in mean sea level due to melting sea ice decreasing the salinity of the ocean and thereby reducing the specific density of the oceans. As long as we are looking at miniscule adjustments to sea level projections, has anybody ever looked at the slight decrease in sea level caused by salts being emptied into the oceans by rivers? The adjustment of 1/20th of a millimeter per year for sea ice melt is small, even compared to the approximate 0.3mm/year rise caused by the mining of water from ground aquifers or the approximate 0.4mm/yr reduction in rise caused by reservoir impoundment. (Ref: Church et al 2010, Revisiting the Earth's sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008)
  16. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Hmm I wonder why GISS puts CO2 at 1.5 W/m2. The IPCC put it at 1.66 W/m2 in 2007, and I calculate it at 1.77 W/m2 now.
  17. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, I suggest you read Barnett (2008) and Hong et al. (2008) on contrails. Note also that IPCC AR4 has contrail warming at a tiny .01 Wm-2. I thought SkS had an article on "It's contrails."
    Response:

    [DB] See CO2 is not the only driver of climate (Intermediate tab).

  18. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 00:19 AM on 28 September 2011
    Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Are there any deep water temperature measurement from the region of the NADW (North Atlantic Deep Water) near Labrador or off the east coast of Greenland? It would be interesting to see if some of the warming in the Arctic is being transferred to the deep oceans when the water sinks as part of the thermohaline circulation. It makes logical sense that this may be happening.
  19. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Kevin - One key point of difference is that the GISS net forcing graph b includes solar, whereas Skeie et al. only consider anthropogenic variables.
  20. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    I had a read of Rob Painting's reference to SKS thread "Ocean Cooling Corrected Again". Berényi Péter Post #70 of that thread (1AUG11) makes a detailed discussion with some interesting points about how heat is transported in the oceans - particularly the role of mechanical forces in deep mixing rather than thermal drivers. While Argo is the best temperature measurement of the ocean profile available, the error bars are wide compared with the very small temperature changes being measured to represent a vast amount of heat due to the huge mass and high specific heat of water involved. Would Rob care to comment on these points.
  21. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Thanks Paul. Skeie et al use GISS for their GHG data, so that much is identical. However it looks like their aerosol data is rather different. I'll try and get hold of the data. They give a figure for total anthropogenic RF of 1.4W/m2, of which CO2 contributes 1.8W/m2. That's even further from RPSr's figures. By eye, I'm guessing that their forcings will better reproduce the temperature peak of the 30s/40s, but fail to reproduce the 'hiatus' of the last decade. So their aerosol forcings are significantly different from those of Kaufman et al. But they only give decadal values. However, there is something odd going on: It seems to me that the decadal SO4 numbers in Table 3 don't match the plots in figure 2b. I'll post a comment on the article.
  22. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    adelady#65: Yes, the 2011 map makes the point: Extremes are more polarized, wets are wetter, drys are drier. The extreme wet conditions in the upper midwestern US are, of course, the result of heavy snowfall the past winter. Its amazing how many people simply refuse to connect those dots. By way of anecdote, all the locals in those areas say 'its never been like this before' and the number of records broken this year backs that up.
  23. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    67, Norman, You do know, I assume, that warmer nights are a predicted consequence of CO2 induced climate change?
  24. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    How much longer can the likes of Bastardi go on predicting that all the current trends will reverse next year for no apparant reason?
    I suspect indefinitely. The opening of the NW passage and the Northern sea route should have been a wakeup call. But it's already become the new normal. We have short memories.
  25. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Kevin C - Skeie et al. (2011), published last month provides another set of forcing estimates up to 2010. Time series graphs on page 31 of the pdf.
  26. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    skywatcher @ 64 1980 had higher high temps and more days above 105 (misery index). 2011 had a higher overall temp (high and low) because the lows were warmer. It would be interesting to have the satellite data for 1980 vs 2011. I am making a hypothesis that the contrails in 2011 were much more extensive in Texas in 2011 as compared to 1980 and in some studies this could be the cause of the warmer nights. But if you go by misery index (human suffering) then 1980 would have been a worse year than 2011 for the citizens of DFW area. 28 days above 105 in 1980, 18 in 2011.
  27. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Rob, Yes, there is the natural cycle superimposed upon the long term trend. I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, too many have focused on either the short-term up or down portion and making claims based on such. I am eagerly awaiting your post concerning global warmings impact on ENSO strength.
  28. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana - Good work on this. One comment:
    Dr. Pielke claimed that CO2 was responsible for 26% of the current energy imbalance (the rest is other greenhouse gases, black carbon, etc.). Based on the scientific literature, we believe it's twice that (about 50%).
    I thought I may as well check this against the GISS forcings (which I note they've now updated to 2010, hoorah!) here. But how do you count? Net forcing relative to 1880 is about 1.5W/m2. The CO2 contribution to that is 1.5W/m2, or 100%. But that's meaningless. If we add up just the GHGs, then CO2 is 1.5 out of 3.0W/m2, which I presume is your 50% figure. If we naively add up all the positives in the top graph and ignore the negatives, then CO2 is 1.5 out of 4.1W/m2, which is still 36%. That's the most generous figure I can get, so I guess RPSr disagrees with the GISS forcings.
  29. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    I winced where Sinclair extended the Arctic sea ice September minimum by adding a point for 2011. Still a few days before September ends.
  30. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    How much longer can the likes of Bastardi go on predicting that all the current trends will reverse next year for no apparant reason?
    If you had predicted something in the order of a 20% drop in the minimum extent over the next 4 years in May 2007 the skeptics would have gone spare calling you all the names under the sun for such an unthinkable and outlandish suggestion. Now if you suggest that that drop was in any way unusual you are lambasted for trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Its all natural variability and to be expected you see. The unthinkable becomes the mundane. Denial flourishes.
  31. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Jonathan @ 29 - To understand the natural oscillation in ENSO, we need to look back further in time, and for that we have to turn to proxies. When viewed in the context of the last 1000 years - the 20th century shows more frequent/intense ENSO events than at any other time in the (paleo) record. In other words, it's not "just La Nina", global warming has actually made La Nina (and El Nino) worse. I'll deal with this in an upcoming post, in a couple of weeks. As for the current hiatus in global surface temperatures, this is also covered in an upcoming post on Meehl (2011). In a nutshell: we have a long-term ocean warming trend upon which a natural cycle of ups-and-downs is superimposed (or vice versa if you like). These cycles are already apparent in the OHC record. See Levitus (2009) -linked to @ 25. Pete Dunkelberg @ 36 - cheers Pete, I read the series a while back. My post is based on Professor Peter Minnett's post at Real Climate a few years back - it's much more accessible to a general audience.
  32. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Good point Adelady. And that was before the floods of September in the northeast too. And how many of the white areas near the Mississippi had issues with tornadoes or flooding earlier in the year? In fact, how many parts of the USA have been 'coasting along' all year, let alone August?
  33. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter, that PDSI comparison is very interesting. And not just for the current drought. The biggest difference between the 2 maps is all of the extremes. 1980 is largely coasting along for most of the country. A few extreme drought spots, a few flooded spots. And the extreme areas are less than the graduated, less severe areas. When you look at the 2011 map it's almost the reverse. Huge swathes of the country at both extremes. Not much of the country coasting at averages. Haven't 'counted pixels', but it might be worth it for those with the patience.
  34. Dikran Marsupial at 17:01 PM on 27 September 2011
    Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    tblakeslee The correct response when someone demonstrates that a line of evidence that you have presented is nonsense, is to either accept that it is nonsense or to demonstrate that it isn't. In a rhetorical argument moving on to another line of evidence is a good strategy, in a scientific argument it isn't (it basically a tacit admission that you know you can't defend the first line of evidence but can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, which is a deeply unscientific attitude). Now the idea that there are cyclic changes in solar output is nothing new. The paper you provide says precisely NOTHING about the link between the solar cycle and ENSO, so it is of no use whatsoever in supporting the idea of a link between the two. You write "After 2002 the predictions continue to be correct including accurate prediction of last years la nina and its return next year. O.K., show me where the ENSO prediction was made. You have made an unsubstantiated claim (based on climastrology) now it is time to back it up with a verifiable source.
  35. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    Great video, Rob. I remember you saying, Rob, on an earlier thread that the melting of the polar ice caps would be the big wake up call about the realities of AGW, and indeed you were correct. What astounds me is how those in denial avoid mentioning ice decline at the higher lattitudes and coral atoll inundation at the lower lattitudes. How much longer can the likes of Bastardi go on predicting that all the current trends will reverse next year for no apparant reason?
  36. Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
    As Belloc put it, "And always keep ahold of Nurse, For fear of finding something worse"
  37. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    "The changes in the ocean heat content over time, when accurately measured, provides a diagnostic of the radiative imbalance without the need for considering lags or a so-called “climate sensitivity" Of course, RPSr said this a couple of years ago knowing fully that data on OHC - the entire ocean - is sparse and not nearly (to put it mildly) as well-measured as surface temps. And of course there's nothing like the historical record we have for surface temps. He then pinned his notion that there's nothing really serious to worry about on the lack of data on OHC. Utterly transparent from the git-go.
  38. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    No Norman, your NOAA link shows 2011 to utterly put 1980 and any other year in the shade, for both Dallas and for Waco. If you don't think that breaking average temperature records by a the same amount as the span of 2nd to 10th place on the record table, then you and I have a very different idea of extreme. It was Texas' hottest summer by a clear margin, NOAA data shows this. In case it hasn't already been linked, Tamino has an interesting FEMA graph of the numbers of declared US disasters, with 2011 already top of the tree with three months to go. I'd say it's a more complete survey of extreme weather events than Pielke Jr's attempt to evaluate just coastal counties' hurricane damage (thus avoiding inland flooding from hurricane remnants), and doesn't involve sums of money. There are of course weaknesses as to how individual disasters are declared, but it is more evidence. Note how the rising trend with an early spike in 1998 looks rather familiar... European floods showing an increase, corroborated by the The International Disaster Database, where you can see that the trend in storm and flood damage is much more pronounced than the trend in geological disasters. If weather-related disasters worldwide are rising faster than geological disasters, Pielke Jr's nitpicks disappear. Powell is on the money, and it becomes clearer every year as what was once an abstract trend gets large enough to substantially impact people and productivity. That we see this happening worldwide is of course the key.
  39. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    skywatcher @62, Look at my last post at 61. It was much more extensive than on city in Texas. Also the drought post you refer to is from muoncounter. 1980 has not been put in the shade in terms of heat. It was one of the hottest years Texas has experienced. But the ground was not so dry as in 2011 and it did not cover as much area of Texas. Also skywatcher, I am not making a claim against AGW theory that the globe is getting warmer. And the term significant is one of those "in the eye of the beholder". I would agree many areas show warming. Not sure at this time if it is significant. Significant in what way? It is a matter of degrees. Maybe you can't stand it when the temp should be 88 (normal) and it is now 89 on a regular basis. For you this would be significant. Maybe not for others. This thread is not about global warming (evidence would suggest a degree or 2 of warming depending on your temperature scale). It is about extreme weather events. Are they increasing because of the global warming? That is what I question. I am not saying I am correct in my position. I just of the opinion that at this time there is not enough good, reliable data to make a sound judgement upon this issue. I see some blogs throw out the year's worst weather events and tell me things are getting worse. Maybe they are, I just need more evidence than one or two years worth of data. Need a lot more from a lot more areas and over a lot longer time period. Need a consistent way of logging an extreme event. I think monetary damage is not a good one. Hail size, area of coverage, duration of hail storm. That is much more scientific. Get enough of this data compiled and you can answer the question in a sound scientific way based upon solid data. What I intended with the Texas data of 1980 was to show that in one small location (as compared to the whole earth) in one year you have many extremes and disasters. Why should listing 30 global extremes lead me to think that climate is shifting in a very dangerous way?
  40. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, you cherry-pick one site (Dallas), then claim to wish to look at the whole globe? Nice goalpost shift there. Following your example, can I call on Russia (2010), Europe (2003), Pakistan (2010), Australia (2010), amongst a wealth of other examples, including (flippantly) Arctic heat in winter or British record-breaking heat in spring? Why not a global temperature dataset? Ah, they all show significant warming. We should be amazed because in Texas, 1980 has been utterly put in the shade by 2011 in terms of heat and drought severity, as shown by your NOAA link. Are the cats and dogs falling in your area yet?
  41. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @58 Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the 1980 drought. "The 1980 United States Heat Wave was a period of intense heat and drought that wreaked havoc on much of the midwestern United States throughout the summer of 1980. It is among the most devastating natural disasters in terms of deaths and destruction in U.S. history, claiming at least 1,700 lives[1] and because of the massive drought, agricultural damage reached US$20.0 billion (US$55.4 billion in 2007 dollars, adjusted for the GNP inflation index).[2] It is among the billion-dollar weather disasters listed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" Wikipedia information on 1980 drought. Here is a NOAA chart of some of the most costly weather related disasters. The drought and heat of 1980 ranks very high in both life and property damage. Maybe you need to reconsider. The drought of 2011 would be higher on the PDSI because of low rain amounts from 2010. Areas were already dry. We will see how 2011 summer drought compares to 1980 in cost. NOAA chart of billion dollar weather related disasters in US.
  42. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, you tried to cherry-pick one site, yet from your link, that site is #1 in all the temperature records for August (high max, min, average), and all but the high max for the summer. Hardly supportive of this being a typical year. Following the link on the NOAA page for Waco also shows the extremes. When average temperatures for a month are broken by >2F (Dallas) and 3F (Waco), and for the entire summer by >1F, you don't have to wonder if it is extreme. You do realise how hard it is to break a monthly average temperature record by that much? Look at 2nd-10th rankings for the average temperatures at these sites: they span 2.6F for Dallas, 1.7F for Waco. The new records are so far above the older series that they show the records being not just broken, but utterly smashed. muoncounter's NOAA map summarises it nicely too. These droughts are not similar.
  43. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    mdenison - I think Pielke believes the methane and black soot forcings are underestimated. I certainly disagree on methane, as will be discussed in the Disagreements post. Black carbon he may have something of a point. It's possible that both the negative and positive forcings from aerosols and black carbon are underestimated by the IPCC. I think we discuss this in the Disagreements post too.
  44. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    I am posting a link to an article on the extremes of weather in Texas in 1980 for a reference. The claim is that weather is getting weirder. But remember now we are using the entire globe as our sampling table. If one State in one year can have all these extremes (some very wet places, some super dry, some really hot, some really cold, some very snowy places...all one state all one year), why should any be amazed that there are extremes in 2011? Wild Texas weather in 1980.
  45. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, By the 1980 drought, you mean this: PDSI, August 1980: as opposed to PDSI, August 2011: Yep, they look about the same. You can look at the monthly US PDSI history here
  46. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @45 "Norman's thesis appears to be 'yeah, but this has all happened before.' 'This' being drought, heatwave, flooding, windstorms, tornadoes, etc. Until it literally starts raining cats and dogs, he's right. Its just that the list of 'yeah, buts' keeps getting longer." Not a thesis. Just looking at evidence. Here are some links for you to check out and see what you think. You can clearly see that listing weather disasters strictly by a dollar value can give very misleading results on trend lines and after more detailed analysis is performed, the trends are no longer there. Normalized Hurricane damage shows no trend. Quote from article: "Across both normalization methods, there is no remaining trend of increasing absolute damage in the data set, which follows the lack of trends in landfall frequency or intensity observed over the twentieth century." Here is another study done on floods. It depends upon how you calculate the losses that determines what is actually going on. Three types of graphs are given using different approaches to financial loss. Floods in USA.
  47. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Eric (skeptic) @49 Your quote says that only one summer (1789) matched 2011 summer drought in Texas. The question I have for you is how many others were close. Maybe only one matched but maybe 20 or 30 were close enough. Not enough data in your quote to form a valid conclusion on the extremity of the 2011 Texas drought.
  48. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    skywatcher @44 I believe a valid explanation of the Texas 2011 point on the John Nielsen-Gammon (way outside the cluster) is that this year's drought covered more area and with a similar drought in the 1980's, this one shows up much worse because it could have included area that 1980 did not reach. Here is a NOAA page with 1980 vs 2011 in the Dallas FortWorth area (DFW). 2011 was not much different than 1980 in this area. In fact 2011 had almost 2" more of rain in the area as compared to 1980. Night temps were warmer in 2011 but 86 F is not a brutal temp that would likely lead to death. 1980 vs 2011.
  49. Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
    I have heard it said that ridicule is a last resort when you have run out of arguments to put, but I think its use is broader than that, and employed by both sides of the war. 'Christy Crocks' and 'Lindzen Illusions' are whimsical headings, but arguably ridicule. And fair enough, I say. Albatross notes this is a 'PR game' for the deniers. But it is really a PR game for all of us - concerned laypeople, scientists; skeptics and industry drones alike. Hearts and minds have to be won to one side or the other, and we are all doing PR, like it or not. It's a shame we can't have a bipartisan approach to this issue, but so be it. War it is. As to ridicule, (neat segue coming up), Australian readers of SkS might like to check out 'Crownies' on ABC1 this Thursday 29/9, 8.30pm. Climate Change makes it into pop culture, with B-story status at least, with a denialist in court against a climate scientist. Regulars can play Climate Blog Bingo and tick off the skeptic memes. You may recognise some of the one line rebuttals :). And a few less than subtle references to key players. The issue is skated over, as only TV can. But if you like a bit of ridicule in your war, this episode is fun. Thursday. 8.30.
  50. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    dana1981 @28 I would also very much like to see Professor Pielke explain the 26%. I have been through the calculation on his web site which appears to differ considerably from that made in the TAR. As he said this was a back of the envelope estimate from several years ago which probably explains why I found it so odd to follow. I am sure he would appreciate the opportunity to clarify with the latest data. An update of his website would be useful. It appears to me that an estimate of CO2's relative impact now and in the future is central to differences expressed in the previous posts over his hypothesis 2a and 2b. I read his EOS forum article and references but could not agree with him that the literature provides support hypothesis 2a over 2b. I am inclined to think that my approach seeking quantitative estimates of forcing is not his approach. Unfortunately I have not been able to find his analysis in the literature. In some ways I find hypothesis 2a has some merit. I think if I have understood Professor Pielke's viewpoint correctly he has concerns that by focusing constantly on global change we miss the point that we will all experience climate change locally. Some anthropogenic changes such as BC in the Himalaya or land uses change such as deforestation in the tropics will have far a greater local than global impact on climate. Although perceived as small effects on the global stage compared to CO2 they could remain significant concerns to those affected. Perhaps we could find more common ground by understanding why he thinks CO2 is not the dominating issue for the coming century.

Prev  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  1485  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us