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  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  1566  Next

Comments 77901 to 77950:

  1. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Eric the Red - WRT groundwater influences, please see the Moderator comments in this post. Groundwater contributions, as Wada notes, are so uncertain that they are not incorporated. If you feel otherwise, then I would suggest doing the groundwater study yourself and reducing those uncertainties. Your inclusion of groundwater contributions is not justified due to those, and I consider it rather a red herring. Albatross did not avoid the question, he simply pointed out (unlike some of the posters on this thread) that there are uncertainties on all of the measurements, that anyone should be capable of examining them. If you feel that the range of uncertainties do not overlap, that there is sufficient information to consider some of the numbers unsupportable: Then show your numbers. Demonstrate that the input/output values differ by more than is understandable given their uncertainties. Demanding that others do your work for you (as you did with Albatross), and implying that they are incorrect if they don't, is a Burden of Proof fallacious argument, one that I see on this site entirely too often from the skeptics. If you feel the numbers are wrong, that published work is incorrect, demonstrate it with the uncertainty ranges.
  2. keithpickering at 04:53 AM on 4 August 2011
    Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    L&S use a value of .0016°C/yr for their constant C, or .16°C per century. In other words, 1 degree every six hundred years.
  3. Rob Honeycutt at 04:50 AM on 4 August 2011
    Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Daneel... Oh, I think it's quite clear that Spencer's purpose is not to create good science but to merely add noise to the climate denial echo chamber.
  4. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    What I don't understand is why would anyone make such poor research that add next to nothing to our scientific understanding. I mean, this kind of model would be acceptable if it were a preliminary and first approximation to a problem but is just useless when we've had decades of research and piles of better models. That do take into account our previous knowledge. I might be wrong, but this seems to me like trying to fit the movements of the planets using circular orbits and epicycles. It may very well have been an useful model but now that we know about Kepler's laws and gravity you gain nothing by ignoring them.
  5. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    KR, The uncertainties have been discussed several times previously. The point I was trying to make is that all the the listed contributions to SLR were increasing, and were significant beyond the error bars (at least according to the published papers). Since SLR has been decelerating recently, this is a contradiction; ALL the factors contributing to SLR cannot increase at the same time that SLR is decreasing. ( -Snip -). BTW, the issue of groudwater being held in reservoirs was addressed in Wada 2011, and found to reduce the runoff to the oceans significantly also.
    Response:

    [DB] Per Wada 2010, uncertainties in groundwater contributions are large enough to make them unquantifiable.

    As for the rest, please note that inflammatory tone and accusations of misconduct contravene the Comments Policy and were deleted.  Keep the focus on the science and avoid personalizing the discussions.

    As has been already noted on this very thread, posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Personally, moderating this site is a PITA, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.  Please also note that there will be no other warnings to you in this matter.  We look forward to your future positive contributions to the dialogue and discussion on this blog.

    Have a nice day.

  6. Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
    A new paper from Oregon State University states: "If water were to warm by about 2 degrees under the ice shelves that are found along the edges of much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Marcott said, it might greatly increase the rate of melting to more than 30 feet a year. This could cause many of the ice shelves to melt in less than a century, he said, and is probably the most likely mechanism that could create such rapid changes of the ice sheet." http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/aug/ancient-glacial-melting-similar-concerns-about-antarctica
  7. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Eric#391: Doll and Sieber 2010 define 'extreme events' in a scientific manner, making no reference to financial loss. Many of the above disasters are caused be extreme weather events. The IPCC (2001) has defined an extreme weather event as an event that is rare within its statistical reference distribution at a particular place. Definitions of ‗rare‘ vary, but an extreme weather event would normally be as rare as or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile. Their figure 5, disasters due to natural hazards in EEA member countries 1980-2009 is remarkably similar to the Munich Re graphics. the number of disasters in Europe has been showing an upward trend since 1980, largely due to the continuous increase of meteorological and hydrological events. KR#394 is correct; if you really believe that all the evidence of trends in extreme weather here is wrong, present some to substantiate your case.
  8. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Exactly Paul. Makes you wonder why Curry gave Loehle a guest post on her blog to advertise this joke of a paper. We've come to expect this behavior from WUWT, but Curry's blog appears to be little better.
  9. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Eric the Red - Regarding groundwater contributions: Don't forget that groundwater depletion is not the only direct human influence on the hydrological cycle. Dam building (Fiedler and Conrad 2010) has offset something like 30.0 mm (∼10,800 km^3) over the 20th century. While dam construction has slowed over the last several decades, and groundwater depletion only increased, are the numbers you are giving corrected for impoundment to show a total contribution? And, to second Albatross on this, why have you not stated any uncertainties in those numbers?
  10. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    EtR @127, You are determined to argue/debate in circles here-- we are now at post #128. I'm not biting or wasting more time on this, so please do not try and bait me with a Gish Gallop, or by moving the goal posts. "In your opinion which value(s) do feel are most in error? " All the values cited in Hansen et al. (2011) and Leuliette and Willis (2011) and von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011), as well as the various estimates of GSL have error bars or uncertainty ranges-- figure it out yourself, but without preconceived biases. I'm intrigued that until now "skeptics" on this thread have expressed little or no interest in error bars or uncertainty. Finally, it might help your credibility in future if you bothered read the papers (and the stated caveats and limitations) that BP carefully cites, instead of uncritically accepting his claims. BP's cherry picking of Wada (2010) being the most recent example. I am no longer going to engage people on this thread who are not here to discuss these matters in good faith, or who give free pass to repeated deception by the likes of BP.
  11. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    Badger#45: "sarcasm" Me, sarcastic about phyzzics teachers? 10 years ago I couldn't even spell it and now I are one.
  12. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Eric (skeptic) - My objections to Norman's posts are primarily in (a) extremely limited geographic extent, as we can expect climate change to have considerable local variances (and at 4% of the surface, the US rates as 'local'), and (b) his continuing overly-simplistic take on weather interactions, despite input from various knowledgeable people. In regards to your event definition questions, I'll note that even the links you provided contain statements by Munich Re to the effect that while reporting has increased, the number of weather related events has increased faster than reporting or economic expansion alone can account for. So - according to the folks providing the data, this is not only an effect of population, economic valuation, or reporting levels. There is an increase in weather related events over and above those other causes. And, since you've been in the discussion from the beginning, you should know that! And yet - after almost 400 posts on this thread you continue to hunt for a reporting change or other data distortion that would account for the increased weather events they see. I consider that to be beating a dead horse. It's simply isn't going to get off the ground and trot away...
  13. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Albatross, How do you reconcile the following: Groundwater depletion has increased its contribution to SLR from 0.4 (pre-1990) to 0.8 mm/yr (2000), and expected to continue rising. Mountain glacial runoff has increased its contribution from 0.4 (pre-1990) to 1.1 mm /yr (2006), and expected to rise 10% by 2010. Greenland and Antarctic did not contribute to SLR prior to 1993, but had increased to 1.3 mm/yr by 2006, and continues to increase to ~1.7 mm/yr currently. The steric rise component has increased from ~0.5 mm/yr to 0.7 mm/yr today (the average of your posted values @108). Granted there are large uncertainties in each of these measurements, but the summation of groundwater, mountain glaciers, GIS & Antarctica, and steric rise has increased from 1.3 mm/yr prior to 1990 to 3.7 mm/yr around 2000 and to 4.6 mm/yr today. According to tidal gauge measurements, the SLR prior to 1990 was ~1.5 mm/yr, good agreement with the summation value. According to the University of Colorado, SLR reached a maximum increase of ~3.9 mm/yr around 2000, another good agreement. However, since then, the SLR has decreased to ~2.3 mm/yr, about half the summation value. Do you see the dichotomy here? In your opinion which value(s) do feel are most in error?
  14. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    It's silly, just plain silly. Geez, anyone can knock together some sine and cosine functions and make pretty patterns, claiming a match to something. There is a good reason why this junk isn't published in reputable journals, even I can see that. It's the sort of thing that an imaginative teenager might have cobbled together, after reading some conspiracy fiction.
  15. Eric (skeptic) at 03:15 AM on 4 August 2011
    2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Tom, thank you. FTR, I do not claim zero increase. For example, extreme rainfall disasters should be increasing with AGW.
  16. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    cynicus - their projection is in the paper. Roughly 1°C warming between 2000 and 2100, as I recall. I just didn't include it in the post because a model which can't hindcast also can't forecast. It's a worthless prediction. But they do predict warming - just relatively slow warming (relative to real climate models).
  17. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Ken @124, You are stating the obvious, I have crunched the numbers too. You sadly continue to fail to see the problem. Ken laments "where did BP claim that 3.1mm/yr applied for the whole period 2005-2010?" Really that is your defense? I see. Allow me to quote from the OP. From the opening paragraph of the OP: "A recent paper Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) put the kibosh on ocean cooling claims. They find that from 2005 to 2010 the global oceans (10 to 1500 metres down) have continued to warm" From Fig.1: "Revised estimate of global ocean heat content (10-1500 mtrs deep) for 2005-2010" From Fig.2: "Method validation using gridded altimeter SSH measurements (AVISO): gridded SSH during 2005–2010 has been subsampled to the Argo profile position and the simple box averaging method has been applied." Also: "For the 2005-2010 period the error uncertainty is plus/minus 0.1 watt per square metre." From the Concluding paragraph: "Over the period 2005-2010 the oceans (10-1500 meters down) have warmed 0.55 watts per square meter, but error uncertainty is almost 20%." So if all else fails try to plead ignorance and dismiss context. "Skeptics" are admitting to not looking at the means for the 2005-2010 when that is what one should be doing in the context of the OP. And even when it was blindingly very clear that others here were using data for the appropriate time window, 2005-2010, "skeptics" continued to push the incorrect data. "They will not understand, because they are not willing to." This is laughable. A classic case of projection-- and we know that BP knows what that means ;) Come on, falsely accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing is also an old 'skeptic' and debating trick. This thread demonstrates that multiple times. And interesting how "skeptics" are still giving BP free pass for claiming that current (~mid 2011) estimated contribution of GIS and Antarctica to GSL is actually a value for 2012.....
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] BP gets no more free passes.

  18. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Eric (skeptic) @391, a disaster is a single event causing loss of life, significant injury or significant damage. In 2010, an Earthquake in Indiana damaging three buildings and causing a few injuries was classified as an event by Munich Re. A Major Disaster is a disaster in which at least 100 people die, or in which approx (85 + 4 * (t - 1980)) million dollars damage is done, where t = the year of the event. Clearly a hazard on the scale of the first may have passed without notice in 1950, but a hazard meeting the definition of a major disaster would not. The property value index approximately matches that of an exponential growth rate of 3% per annum, so increased property values are unlikely to have caused significant "bracket creep". An "event" is so defined that, for example, the April 22-28 and the May 20-25 Tornado outbreaks in the US in 2011 are each classified as a single event. So did the 2011 Queensland floods with a flooded effected area larger than Texas and California combined. Given this we can safely say that major catastrophes would not pass notice in any era post WW2 in the US, yet Munich Re data show a trend line for major climate related events which doubles the number of events over the last 30 years. In the meantime geophysical events have only increased by 60% over the same period. Property value bracket creep would effect both types of disasters equally, so the difference is likely to be primarily the result of a 25% increased frequency of extreme weather events relative to geophysical events with a margin of error close to the magnitude of the increase (ie, the relative increase could have been 40%, or 10% for all we know). I have not seen actual error bars put on the figure, and I doubt they could be effectively calculated given the data available. But claiming zero increase is done in the face of the evidence - not based on it.
  19. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Dana, it might me interesting to learn what this simple model projects for the future? I wouldn't be surprised to see these septics actually being 'extreme warmists' in disguise if you drive their model 100 or 200 years in the future...
  20. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Badgersouth - perhaps I posted the link to Skeptical Science too conspicuously...
  21. Eric (skeptic) at 02:19 AM on 4 August 2011
    2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    KR (389), I am waiting for a reply on what Munich Re's definition of "event" is. If I had more time I would keep looking myself. Secondly, Norman summed up the case for you in 373, namely that heat and humidity are necessary but not sufficient for some types of extreme events and an increase in heat and humidity on the whole does not mean there will be an increase in those types of extreme events. Those types include strong tornadoes, currently in a long term downtrend. Tom (387), is the event you defined there, the same as Munich Re's event shown in the chart in 378? If so, then I have the definition I asked for and withdraw my request.
  22. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Camburn @388, are you seriously suggesting that storm cells that span multiple states and which generate multiple tornadoes might just have not been noticed in 1950? Where Americans all blind and deaf in the 1950's that you wish to argue this as a credible possibility?
  23. Berényi Péter at 02:11 AM on 4 August 2011
    Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    #124 Ken Lambert at 23:38 PM on 3 August, 2011 Again Albatross Dear Ken, let them alone, please. They will not understand, because they are not willing to. ( -Moderation Complaints Snipped- ). Suffice it to say high and accelerating rate of mass addition to ocean (like land based ice melt and groundwater depletion*) is inconsistent with much thermosteric expansion if eustatic sea level change is (sub)linear. Also worth noting, that it is not heat accumulation that melts ice, but (local) temperature. That is so, because very small amount of heat is needed to melt ice compared to warming seawater (because volume of oceans is a bit larger than global ice volume and also because mass addition is much more efficient in raising sea level than expansion driven by heat accumulation). Therefore rate of ice loss (or gain) is only dependent on the details of heat distribution in the climate system, not on changes in its absolute heat content. * "We estimate the contribution of groundwater depletion to sea level rise to be 0.8 (±0.1) mm a−1", see Wada 2010. Needless to say it is also accelerating.
    Response:

    [DB] "very small amount of heat is needed to melt ice compared to warming seawater"

    You are not having a good day.  From ze Wiki:

    "When ice melts, it absorbs as much energy as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C."

    You also left out this bit from the conclusions of Wada 2010:

    "However, it is also mentioned that uncertainty is large and that the positive contribution of groundwater depletion may be offset by impoundment in reservoirs and associated recharge of surrounding aquifers. For this reason, anthropogenic contributions to sea level rise are not quantified in Fourth Assessment Report, although they are mentioned as the possible cause for the discrepancy between observed sea?level rise and the sum of the known sources [Church et al., 2001]"

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  24. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Eric (skeptic) - I have to agree with what Tom Curtis said. Why are you continuing to beat a dead horse? Extreme weather is increasing, and it's not just increases in reporting or population density.
  25. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Adam C - not at all. Another commenter (I forget who) referred to this sort of argument as "climastrology", I believe. When no physical mechanism is identified, it is indeed more like astrology. Tom - thanks.
  26. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Well done Dana. An exceptionally clear and detailed dissection of Loehle and Scafetta's nonsense.
  27. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    Alexandre - I've never seen a prediction from Spencer (or Christy) that we could put to the test. If you can find one, I'd be more than happy to do a post on it. "Skeptics" tend not to put their money where their mouths are. They like to criticize others without making predictions themselves. We had to reconstruct a 'prediction' from Lindzen based on his previous comments (see Lindzen vs. Hansen) because even though he's researched the climate for 40 years, he's never made a concrete prediction either. Badger - Braswell is a colleague of Spencer at UAH.
  28. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Would it be outside the bounds of the Comments Policy to observe that the use of "astronomical cycles" seems more like astrology than astronomy?
    Response:

    [DB] Hence the arise of the scientific term "climastrology"...

  29. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    @Alexandre #1: Perhaps you were too polite?
  30. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    I have posted a comment at Spencer's blog this morning. I politely pointed out that Spencer's models had poor agreement with periods outside the calibration one (I assume that's standard validation procedure). OTOH, mainstream climate models are able to make consistent projections. I asked what would be his response to that. Unfortunately, my post got censored. I wonder why.
  31. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    In this case, having the science on our side is actually a detriment. When a scientist becomes an advocate, he tends to lose credibility in the scientific arena. There was one climate scientist I recently asked to do a guest post on SkS - he said even though he liked our site, we had "taken a side" in the debate, and he wanted to remain impartial, so he declined the offer. Basically he was afraid of being seen as more of an advocate than a scientist. "Skeptics", on the other hand, don't worry about appearing impartial. They can make politically-tinged arguments, and since "skepticism" tends to be politically-based, they don't lose any credibility. Even Spencer has made very political statements, and hasn't lost any standing amongst "skeptics". Can you imagine the reaction if James Hansen said his job was to increase the role of government? It would have been on every blog, every newspaper, "skeptics" would have called for his resignation, etc. Spencer says his job is to minimize the role of government, and there are no consequences, other than losing credibility with scientists and others who already didn't think very highly of him. The problem is that it's science vs. politics/ideology, and it's easier to sway people with the latter. Regarding the Union of Concerned Scientists, it's an excellent group. We've collaborated with them in the past, for example in responding to "skeptic" testimony before US Congress in real time. I think they're already doing just about everything they can on the climate front.
  32. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Tom: Some of your assertions require a bit of question. You state in item 4 that storms with multiple tornados would not have been missed in 1950. The tech to observe said multiples was not here in 1950. On this whole issue I am going to have to go with NOAA climate slueths, who find that there is no discernable trend at this time.
    Response:

    [DB] "I am going to have to go with NOAA climate slueths, who find that there is no discernable trend at this time"

    You'll need to furnish a supportive link for that claim, given the extensive corroborating evidence Tom has already provided in this thread.

  33. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    KR @386, I have been all over the Munich Re data and all its permutations with Norman, both on the Linking extreme weather and global warming thread, and earlier on this thread. We covered every permutation on the data and established that: 1) The increased number of climate related extreme events relative to geophysical extreme events survives when the events are filtered for magnitude. 2) The increased number of climate related extreme events also occurred in long, densely inhabited regions such as Germany. 3) That geophysical and climate related events are not significantly different in the way the likelihood of damage changes with increase population densities. 4) That Major events are not single thunderstorms (or the equivalent) but a single weather system, possibly containing multiple supercells and tens of tornadoes, something no more likely to be missed in 1950 than now. 5) That Major events are classified as events that cause deaths or a time variant level of property damage, where that level of property damage increases faster than GDP so that increased wealth is unlikely to have caused in increase of reporting. 6) Indeed, on the contrary, improved warnings and building standards have reduced deaths and property damage and so if so the rate of reporting is as likely to have declined as increased. The clear conclusion is that there has been an increase in climate related extreme events due to global warming, although it is not certain how large that increase is. Eric(skeptic) was active in both threads where this was discussed, so he knows this as well as does anyone else. The intriguing question is why is he recycling a dead issue?
  34. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    @muoncounter #44: A cautionary note -- Although sarcasm is a way to vent, it is not a very effective communication tool. Much better for you to have said: "Kudos to all those physics teachers who recognize quality work when they see it!"
  35. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    Badger#43: "like-minded advocacy organizations" We're veering off-topic; John C., how about compiling a list of advocacy groups and organizing a framework? A quick search shows global warming activism under the Physicians for Social Responsibility and the ABA. Of course, today is a good day: James E. Hansen, is the 2011 recipient of the Klopsteg Memorial Award from the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT). Hansen will receive the award on August 3 at the 2011 AAPT Summer Meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. The theme of the meeting will be communicating with the public about physics and Hansen's work on global climate change has been an exemplar in this area. So we know which side those radical pinko physics teachers are on!
  36. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    @muoncounter #41: SkS ought to form partnerships with like-minded advocacy organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists to aggressively educate the media and the general public about the consequences of manmade climate change.
  37. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    Q. Why doesn't the mainstream media in the US devote more time and energy into covering what scientists are telling us about climate change? A. The amount of money spent by the fossil fuel industry and its allies on advertising is staggering, i.e., "Never bite the hand that feeds you."
  38. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    Given the dearth of posts praising the Spencer and Braswell paper, the climate Denial Spin Machine must be having a hard time coiming up with talking points to defend this latest piece of Swiss cheese from Dr. Spenser. PS -- Who the heck is Braswell?
  39. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Eric (skeptic) - (Two links regarding exposure changes versus climate changes) From your second link: '"Nevertheless," Munich Re said, "it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change."' Your link therefore contradicts what you were (apparently???) trying to assert with it. Exposure increases are part of the increased risk factors, as has been repeatedly discussed before here - but weather related insurance events are occurring faster than (for example) tectonic events, and while it may be early to make statistical conclusions about it, extreme weather events do appear to be increasing. (Incidentally, Eric, it would have been nice if you had included some descriptive text along with the links, as anyone not familiar with the discussion would have found that completely incomprehensible. See the Comments Policy.)
  40. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Sorry accidental post - continuing #123 2006: 877/360 = 2.4mm/yr 2007: (877+48.1)/360 = 2.57mm/yr 2008: (877+96.2)/360 = 2.7mm/yr 2009: (877+144.3)/360 = 2.84mm/yr 2010: (877+192.4)/360 = 2.97mm/yr 2011: (877+240.5)/360 = 3.1mm/yr Again Albatross - where did BP claim that 3.1mm/yr applied for the whole period 2005-2010?
  41. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    Sphaerica#40: "that takes money, and they need to spend money elsewhere." It doesn't need to be that elaborate. When the head of the NHC is on the nightly news, he has a bully pulpit, if only for a few seconds. What is needed is the freedom from fear of reprisal, ie, job threats. "a "consumer advocacy" group arises to collect funds, organize people, organize advertising campaigns, and execute them." What gave the tea party life was a unifying issue (the health care reform debate of last summer) and the organizing power of outside agitating groups (Americans for Prosperity and their ilk). Of course, they also have a built-in propaganda apparatus. What about the Union of Concerned Scientists? They do have a global warming 'take action' page, including sending Sean Hannity a failing report card. Can they be motivated to become more aggressive than that?
  42. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Albatross #122 At #9 BP wrote: "I translate it for you. According to Rignot at al. rate of land based ice melt is 877+48.1(t-2006) in gigatons (where t is time in years AD). As it takes about 360 gigatons to raise sea level by 1 mm, in 2011 this rate is 3.1 mm/year." At #122 Albatross is still claiming that: "Now his graph also shows how he misled earlier, claiming that the mean contribution from ice melt to GSL for 2005-2010 was 3.1 mm/yr. Well, his very own graph shows that he did that by taking the expected rate for 2010 (~1.75 mm/yr from GIS and Antarctica, plus ~1.3 mm/yr for estimated contribution from glaciers in 2010), and claimed that that resulting rate ~3.1 mm/yr applied for all years between 2005-2010. That is he claimed that the estimated rate in 2010 was the mean rate for 2005-2010. Wrong." Where did BP claim that "the estimated rate in 2010 was the mean rate for 2005-2010."? I read through his posts and cannot find this claim. He clearly says in #9 that the 2011 rate is 3.1mm/yr by using the formula he derived from Rignot. Using that formula: 877+48.1(t-2006), the rates would be: 2006:
  43. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Eric#384: From the GCRI report's 'methodology': Each country´s index score has been derived from a country's average ranking in all four analyses, according to the following weighting: death toll 1/6, deaths per inhabitants 1/3, absolute losses 1/6, losses per GDP 1/3. Fully 50% of this index is based on mortality and is thus independent of loss value threshold. It is, however, telling that we have to look to the insurance industry for these data. Are you simply rejecting the basic premise that extreme events are occurring more frequently? Quoting Masters: Never in my 30 years as a meteorologist have I witnessed a year like 2010--the astonishing number of weather disasters and unprecedented wild swings in Earth's atmospheric circulation were like nothing I've seen. Or that there is an obvious cause and effect? Again quoting the OP: ... in his recent post, Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate: "Given that greenhouse gases are well known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny a human-caused impact on weather need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it."
  44. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    39, muoncounter,
    Why don't the folks on the Weather Channel, the National Hurricane Center, etc...?
    Because that takes money, and they need to spend money elsewhere. As an organization, promoting climate change awareness isn't in their business or designated interests. The only way this will happen, methinks, is if a "consumer advocacy" group arises to collect funds, organize people, organize advertising campaigns, and execute them. So it sort of falls to people like us to get the ball rolling. In addition to trying to explain the truth to the common man (which we can't) through science blogs, we should also be organizing and promoting, just to keep the issue at the forefront and motivate people to learn more about it... the same way beer commercials keep you thinking about beer. We need to prove democracy is alive, I think, and not just for silly, selfish tea partiers, but for something important and necessary.
  45. Eric (skeptic) at 22:53 PM on 3 August 2011
    2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Muon, the number of events is dependent on the value (there is a threshold). I have looked in vain for the threshold, but Munich Re didn't publish their definition of "event" AFAICS.
  46. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Eric#382: From your first source, The report ... analyzed 22 peer-reviewed disaster loss studies from the last 30 years, conducted by a variety of sources that included the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and some insurers. The studies analyzed mostly looked into losses in developed countries, in particular the U.S. -- emphasis added Reports that look at only the US would of course be biased by property value. However, the graphs I posted show number of events, not value of loss. From the report of Global Climate Risk Index: - Bangladesh, Myanmar and Honduras were the countries most affected by extreme weather events from 1990 to 2009; - All of the ten most affected countries (1990-2009) were developing countries in the low-income or lower-middle income country group; - In total, more than 650,000 people died as a direct consequence from almost 14,000 extreme weather events, and losses of more than 2.1 trillion USD (in PPP) occurred from 1990 to 2009 These are just indicators of what is already happening. Go back to the original post for the underlying cause: Hot years tend to generate more wet and dry extremes than cold years. This occurs since there is more energy available to fuel the evaporation that drives heavy rains and snows, and to make droughts hotter and drier in places where storms are avoiding.
  47. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    fungle#38: "How about a global strike by all scientists" Only effective (at least in the US) when the strike cuts into the production of some popular product (or shuts down pro football). The problem is that the message is always too soft, too qualified, too tentative. Those days should be over (see the extreme weather threads); it is time to publicly attribute the increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves, droughts, flooding, storms, etc to climate change. Why don't the folks on the Weather Channel, the National Hurricane Center, etc, take every opportunity to insert a science-based climate change message into a forecast? TV is pure power; there's no means for the denialist crowd to respond with their 'no its not' version of 'four legs good, two legs bad.' Even phone calls to the stations could be met with a sternly worded 'that's what the science says.'
  48. Eric (skeptic) at 22:17 PM on 3 August 2011
    2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Muon, http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2010/08/25/increased-exposures-not-climate-change-responsible-for-higher-cat-losses Reply from Munich Re: http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2010/09/27/munich-re-2010-cats-cause-18b-in-insured-losses-likely-linked-to-climate-change
  49. Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
    Is there any prediction from Spencer that could be added to the Lessons from Predictions series?
  50. funglestrumpet at 18:50 PM on 3 August 2011
    Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    Thanks guys, at last some debate that might lead to this side of the argument actually winning the wider battle for public support. Excellent as this posting is, it will do very little to change public opinion simply because very few of the general public is going to read it. This side of the debate surely needs to change tactics if future generations are not going to suffer greatly. I am glad that my posting at 15 stirred up such a discussion. I personally do feel that, Dale’s comments not withstanding, the deliberate promotion of falsehoods that are clearly designed to counter action on this global issue need some form of sanction. Unlike Galileo being the subject of church doctrine, I did say this sort of misdemeanour should be judged in a court, thus offering the opportunity of a defence. I would love to see Spencer’s defence against the evidence that this post represents. Not only that, imagine the public exposure to the events in court and what that would do to change public opinion. All the more so if the fossil fuel industry can be shown to be implicated. We have to realise that despite the fact that 97% of climate scientists are of the view that AGW is a real and present danger, only about 30% of Americans believe in it. We simply cannot carry on with the debate as it is because it is clearly being lost, and if America does not change, no one will. Whether the sun or the earth is at the centre of the solar system is of absolutely no consequence to the vast majority of people even today, let alone in Galileo’s day. Climate Change is of very real consequence to everyone, whether they know it or not. A difference, surely? I believe this side of the fence has a moral duty to not just put forward valid science as a counter to the Spencers and Moncktons etc, but to take the fight to the opposition. ‘Needs must when the Devil drives.’ At present it feels like we are doing 90mph down a dead-end street. The trouble is that the ‘dead-end’ is literal. No matter how reluctant it might be to get involved in the wider politics of the matter, it seems to me that this side of the fence is about the only grouping capable of forcing change. Can there be any doubt that change is necessary when public opinion is still as it is despite the science? Can the debate linger on in its current form while we commit future generations to what is still, but only just, an avoidable catastrophe? I will close with a suggestion just as a thought starter, no more than that (which was the motive behind my post at 15). How about a global strike by all scientists, regardless of discipline, that feel that action is both essential and urgent?

Prev  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  1566  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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