Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 Next
Comments 77901 to 77950:
-
muoncounter at 13:45 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Dale#30: "At least them I see both sides of the story and can assess the truth of everything being said. " How do you do that? What do you bring to the table, so that you can 'assess the truth' of the likes of Hansen or Trenberth vs. Goddard or Watts? "isn't that what all the Murdoch News problems are about?" No, that's about breaking the law. We'll see how far the hacking investigation goes. Remember that hacking incident? "you can deny the positive argument, or you can deny the negative argument. " No again. As several folks have pointed out, it is not the arguments that are being denied. What separates skeptic from denier is denial of the facts. If there were relevant facts on the 'negative' side (something more germane than 'it's changed before'), then there would be both sides to the story. -
Dale at 13:31 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Albatross, if you don't look at all the evidence, how can you conclude it's not equal in credibility and relevance and validity? You may say I'm unskeptical and uncritical, so be it. I just don't think the climate is as sensitive as claimed. I could raise points to support my belief, but this is not the thread for it. "What is more WUWT do not present evidence, they present, for the most part, propaganda and fodder for "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW. WUWT also offers a podium for certain people who disparage, threaten and harass climate scientists. WUWT is not a genuine skeptic site, far, far from it." I find this an interesting comment, since wouldn't the WUWT diehards say the same thing about here (substituting relevant terms)? That is why I read and post at both sites. As I said above, I come here for an AGW slant, and I got to WUWT for a non-AGW slant. At least them I see both sides of the story and can assess the truth of everything being said. If anything, isn't that the intelligent thing to do rather than fall into a trap of becoming warped in your belief from a single sided message? Gee, isn't that what all the Murdoch News problems are about? Which comes back to what I originally said, you can deny the positive argument, or you can deny the negative argument. Denial sits on BOTH sides of skeptic as portrayed in the OP video. -
muoncounter at 13:22 PM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Norman#94, The NOAA Normals are based on a 30 year period; their observation of a DTR change occurred when the decade components of the 30 year period changed. Climate change, not cyclical weather phenomena. My reference to current nightly high temperatures began with the word anecdotally, as in - based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers; - of, relating to, or being the depiction of a scene suggesting a story . You present additional anecdotal evidence: The Dallas data link clearly shows that nightly lows are consistently well above the average. When nights are that much warmer than usual, I don't see how that's greater than normal cooling. And nowhere did I suggest that warm nights cause hot days. But this is what Austin's Emergency Management says: Extreme heat with higher than normal evening temperatures has caused the National Weather Service to issue a Heat Advisory for the Central Texas Region until Friday evening at 10pm. Peak temperatures happen between approximately 3-6pm daily. Temperatures of 105 degrees and above are expected this week. Limited nighttime cooling only serves to enhance this effect and limit the relief that people may expect in the nighttime hours. This 'blocking' seems to get a lot of play: Is it really a cause or an effect? The Weather Channel map for 4 August looks a lot like this cartoon from a weather prediction site:
This high pressure cell, which is an extension of the Bermuda-Azores high, can become fixed over the same general region for several days, especially if the jet stream is weak and with a lack of Canadian cool fronts. The air is most stable at the center of the high pressure.
Rather than dismiss this weather system with 'blocking,' look into what causes the blocking.
-
Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
I have to note (compliments to John Cook, and all the contributing authors and moderators) that this site is (IMO) a complete breath of fresh air on the Intertubes. Actual consideration of evidenciary values, peer reviewed papers, and the idea that facts outweigh opinions? I've had folks point out that I was wrong, and they were correct, which I value immensely. I much prefer a fact-based discussion than the echo-chambers of the already convinced. There are already far too many of those. Priceless... -
dana1981 at 12:50 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Aside from a possible small natural component, the warming over the past several decades has been caused by humans. That's just reality, supported by a large body of physical scientific evidence. Denying a falsehood (that a substantial amount of recent warming is 'natural') is not denial. If somebody publishes a paper in some obscure journal concluding that elephants are blue, you can call that evidence, and argue that it's entirely possible that elephants are blue, because we need to consider all the evidence, including this obscure paper. It doesn't change the fact that in reality, elephants are not blue. And if you seek out evidence to support that view because you want to believe that elephants are blue, it's hard to dispute that you're in denial about the fact that elephants are not blue. -
muoncounter at 12:22 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Albatross#23: "your post at WUWT demonstrates that you are very unskeptical and uncritical of seriously flawed work that seems to support your position. " Ah, that is the beauty of 'selective skepticism.' Anything that supports your position is by definition free from all flaws; anything said by the opposite side is total bunk. What is refreshing about SkS is that you can't get away with that. -
SoundOff at 12:20 PM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Skepticism is about looking for the truth while denial is about hiding from it. -
Norman at 12:16 PM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
muoncounter @ 78 Your comment "From the OP: "the stronger the greenhouse effect, the smaller the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures." And whaddya know? Here's NOAA's assessment of the New Normal: This time around, the 30-year window for the U.S. Climate Normals is 1981-2010: the decade 1971-1980 was dropped, and 2001-2010 was added. Since the ’70s were an unusually cool decade, while 2001-2010 was the warmest ever recorded, it is not surprising that the average temperature rose for most locations. For the United States as a whole, it was not daytime highs (maximum temperatures) but overnight lows (minimum temperatures) that rose the most compared with the 1970s. --emphasis added Anecdotally, the ongoing heat emergency in Texas and Oklahoma isn't likely to be canceled anytime soon, because nighttime temperatures are stubbornly high." muoncounter, I have to disagree with your post on this topic. Where the overall nightime temps may be closer to the highs overall this is definately not the case in Texas! The available evidence does not support your position and accually shows the opposite to be true. I think Camburn has the Texas heat and drought correct, a blocking high that does not allow rain storms into the area. From Accuweather website they list the entire month of high/low temps and the normal high/low temps. I used Dallas, Texas but will also link to Austin, Texas to demonstrate that Dallas is not an exceptional condition but the same pattern persists over a large area. I started Dallas temp on July 2 (day over 100 F in the long series of such hot temps) Here are the links. Month of July and early August temperature record.Austin Texas temperature record for supporting evidence. Dallas resembles Phoenix, Dallas lattitude 32.90 Phoenix 33.43. I took the Dallas high temp and wrote down how much above normal the daytime temp was for each day from July 2, 2011 to August 3, 2011. I did likewise with the low temperature. The daytime temperature averaged 7.03 F above normal. The nightime average was 4.24 F above normal. The daytime temp was almost 3 degrees F more above normal than the nightime temps. Conclusion: Logically determined from the evidence available. The higher Dallas nightime temperatures are not the cause of the higher daytime temperatures. The higher daytime temperatures are what are causing the higher nightime temperatures. Here is another one I calculated. The average difference between the High and Low temperature in Dallas from July 2, 2011 to August 3, 2011 was 21.97 F. The normal difference between high and low temperatures in Dallas is 19.27 F. So it is obvious from the data that your inserted quote in 78 "the stronger the greenhouse effect, the smaller the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures." that the greehouse effect is not the responsible feature in Dallas heat wave. The blocking high is not allowing rain and clouds into the area so the increased solar insolation during the day is raising the overall temperatures and the nightime cooling (although greater than normal) is not enough to go down to normal. -
scaddenp at 11:41 AM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Rapid sea level rise 10K was caused by milankovich operating on ice sheets that are now long gone. No mysteries and that forcing isnt going to change sealevel one way or the other anytime soon. Note also that rate of temperature change then was at least 10x less than current rate of change. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:31 AM on 5 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
I received an answer to the issues Sphaerica raised in 133 above. Per Hansen, "ocean cooling due to Antarctic ice cap melt could delay or reverse loss of sea ice for awhile" Not saying that that is definitive, mind you, but it is an interesting wrinkle to consider... -
Composer99 at 11:29 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
One thing I forgot to conclude the last comment with is that the majority of members of the contemporary skeptical movement whom I have read extensively tend to accept the scientific mainstream/consensus position on AGW. (e.g. Novella, as well as Scienceblogs' Orac, PZ Myers, and Discover Magazine blogger and astronomer Phil Plait). -
Composer99 at 11:23 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Michael Shermer has a Skeptical Manifesto in which he attempts to define the contemporary skeptical movement. The pan-Canadian skeptical blog Skeptic North has a series overviewing skepticism in its modern context. I have also heard that neurologist & notable skeptic Steven Novella (who also is involved in the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast) came up with a good, short definition of modern skepticism; I have been unable to locate it to share here, however. I would summarize the definitions above as saying that the contemporary skeptic provisionally accepts or rejects claims based on the body of evidence available to support them (or lack thereof), and the logic by which the evidence is marshalled to support the claims. The modern skeptic also adjusts acceptance or rejection of claims as better evidence or logic is assembled. -
Albatross at 11:11 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Dale, "Isn't that the point of the video, look at ALL the evidence." What a very telling comment. You are naively assuming that all 'evidence' is equal in terms of credibility and relevance and validity. That is most definitely not true and not how to properly access where the science is at. That is faux balance. Next you will be insisting that medical students seriously consider the views of people who are of the belief that HIV and AIDS are not linked, or that governments should not take action on AIDs in Africa (e.g., Mugabe) b/c some people question the link between HIV and AIDS. Or mathematicians to consider that pi should be a nice round 3.0. And your post at WUWT demonstrates that you are very unskeptical and uncritical of seriously flawed work that seems to support your position. What is more WUWT do not present evidence, they present, for the most part, propaganda and fodder for "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW. WUWT also offers a podium for certain people who disparage, threaten and harass climate scientists. WUWT is not a genuine skeptic site, far, far from it. In light of some of the disparaging comments you have made at WUWT, I find your posts here disingenuous and strikingly similar to those that would be posted by a "concern troll". PS: Do you also post at BishopHill? -
Camburn at 11:10 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Moderator: I don't know where else to post this. In this link, the commentator talks about the blocking high etc. Thank you. Farm Futures commentary -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:52 AM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
DB @88 I am not sure of the difference between making a point, or advancing an agenda. If you can enlighten me, I would appreciate it. I was trying to make a point (you may inform me differently) that when reading scientific articles the wording is very important. You see people on both sides of the argument that latch on to certain papers as if they were the gospel. This paper Sean posted was full of words that in the scientific lexicon do not imply that the stated effect will happen, but merely that it is possible.Response:[DB] And no one other than you was implying that it was. Please let us return the dialogue to that of the OP.
-
Camburn at 10:36 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross: Apparantly NOAA now agrees with what I have been observing concerning a potential La Nina. I guess I am not the only one that is nuts. (Said with tongue in cheek) La Nina watch Back to DNT: The effects of this summer's warm night time temps are hurting corn yields. Last time this happened in this intensity was 1955. The high daytime/nightime temps will provide statistical verification over time to extent the trend. This climate year is an outlier, and hopefully will not be repeated for another 60 years. But the significance of it can not be denied. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:31 AM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
scaddenp @ 89 Yes, I do. When modern humans began transitions from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agrarian societies. And, this was during a time of (compared to today) of extremely rapid SLR.Response:[DB] Actually, human agriculture and civilization emerged due to unusual climate stability:
A period nearing the end of its "natural cycle"...
C'est la vie
-
Dale at 10:23 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Albatross, yes I do read both sites. As mentioned in the video, a true skeptic assess all the evidence. I fail to see how what I wrote locks me as a "denier" as all I did was paraphrase what the paper's claim. I read SkS for a AGW slant, and WUWT for a non-AGW slant. Isn't that the point of the video, look at ALL the evidence? I also read two newspapers too, one critical of AGW and the other supporting AGW. Does that make me a denier as well? IMO, anyone who only reads one source is denying that other opinions and evidence may exist. -
muoncounter at 10:10 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross, Agreed. Which is why I thought it so striking that the normals moved in the direction they did. And that my local weatherman started talking about not being able to take down the heat advisory because nights weren't cooling. And here's another look at DTR. Even though repeat heat waves brought sizzling hot days, overnight temperatures broke far more records: According to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), in July there were 6,106 record high minimum temperatures, and "only" 2,722 record high daytime temperatures. -
muoncounter at 10:01 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
pirate#16: "if your argument was phrased that human activities are influencing a natural cycle. " So human activities are significant enough to influence these unnamed natural cycles, but we are not significant enough to cause changes on our own? We have to be 'helper engines' at the back of a naturally moving train? This requires that these same cycles are somehow moving with the same frequency and phase as our activities: heating when we are pumping out CO2, cooling when we are putting out the aerosols. But we already know that's not true; the past climate change you are fond of citing operates on a much longer time frame than anything we could possibly do. I'm skeptical of this model. If you haven't had a look, see the Loehle and Scaffetta thread. Natural cycles run rampant there. -
Albatross at 09:52 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Muoncounter @89, Agreed. I was curious to see whether the assertion could be backed by something of substance. Now to be fair, the reduction of DTR is perhaps not the most robust AGW fingerprint, b/c it is quite sensitive to a number of factors. That has been discussed elsewhere at SkS and in the literature. But that is of little solace to the poor folks enduring nights when the minimum temperatures are hovering around +30 C. -
muoncounter at 09:44 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross#86: "explain the physical mechanism by which a blocking high over the north-central Pacific is causing record high nighttime temperatures across most of the USA, and parts of Canada too." Considering that this DTR decrease appears as a result of the 'new normal' calculation, it's cause cannot be seasonal. A blocking high running for a large part of the decade? Now, that would be an anomaly indeed -- what would cause that? An effect significant enough to show up in a 10-year statistic is neither a transient nor an oscillation. -
Albatross at 09:15 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Hi Dale, Is the text below (from WUWT) written by you? Do you also post at WUWT as "Dale"? Because the quoted text is a great example of someone who is not a true/genuine skeptic, but rather of someone who is in denial about the inconvenient truths of AGW, and who is uncritically willing to believe anything that supports their position. "Dale says: July 28, 2011 at 11:24 pm This seems as good a place as any to mention this recent paper: [Albatross removed hyperlink to paper] The paper shows how current AGW models break the laws of physics (that the amount of radiation emitted is proportional to its temperature) which explains the findings of Lindzen (and now confirmed by Spencer-Braswell in this paper) that Earth’s radiation emitted is actually fluxing with temperature. The paper also slams the AGW models as they use equations which physicists use to model stars, which do not work for terrestrial bodies. Thus all the AGW models are completely useless." -
scaddenp at 09:13 AM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Pirate, when you say agricultural revolution, I assume you mean 10k BP? -
scaddenp at 09:09 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Yep, we are suddenly adding a lot of heat on top of a milankovich-driven interglacial cycle that will last for several ten's of thousands of years. That suit you pirate? However, there is no evidence that 20 century warming is driven by milankovich cycles (a slight cooling could be expected), or any other natural cycle. All natural cycles have physical mechanisms. Invoking a natural cycle with no mechanism as an alternative to warming from a well-known mechanism doesnt make sense. It then begs the question of why you think the measurable change in radiative forcing from GHG emissions is having no effect while a natural mechanism with no known source does have an effect. Wishful thinking in my view. -
Camburn at 09:09 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Thanks Albatross: I have no desire to pollute the thread, and if I can find the description of the whys etc that I read, I will post the link to your attention. -
Camburn at 09:05 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Stephen: Cause and effect is the very high temperature of the pool of water off the PNW. This is causing a blocking high that while it shifts at times, refuses to break down. There are two areas of the world that affect climate/weather in the central US corridor. They are the PNW and the Greenland high/Icelandic Low. I should explain that the PNW refers to not only US territory, but Canadian as well. The worry that the forcasters are seeing is the blocking high finally breaking down, but the return of La Nina which will continue the dry parched conditions. This will allow summer highs to be very warm, and winter temps to be very cold. DB: My point was that people who are regular posters here have enough knowledge to understand the effects/causes etc of a blocking high. I do not mean to imply that this is not a good site. What I did mean to imply is that others have a knowledge base that should be examined, thought about, and then replied to in a civil manner. (-Snip) Thanks, my intention was not to disrupt. That is never my intention when I post.Response:[DB] Text snipped per request.
-
Albatross at 08:50 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn, Your talk of SSTs in the north-central Pacific in a thread about record high nighttime temperatures over the USA is OT. Please explain the physical mechanism by which a blocking high over the north-central Pacific is causing record high nighttime temperatures across most of the USA, and parts of Canada too. Referring to your link, that is the SST anomaly I was referring to, over the north-central Pacific-- your language has not been very specific or clearand the N. Pacific is huge. Now instead of making subjective assertions, how about we look at a quantitative measure of blocking? That SST anomaly may well be contributing to a blocking high aloft over the north-central Pacific or Aleutian region, however the blocking index does not support that assertion. The figure shows there certainly has not been persistent blocking in the vicinity of the SST anomaly for the last 40 days during which time the highest temperatures have been observed. But, again, what is at issue here is what is causing the huge number of nighttime records that are being broken across the USA. Now can we please get back on topic. Tks. -
Dale at 08:40 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Stephen, you don't have to deny past natural change to deny the current change. In one of the newspapers I read (The Age in Melbourne) on climate change articles you can see reader comments displaying the belief that the current warming is all human induced. It's quite possible that emotional headlining by the paper is responsible for this. -
Stephen Baines at 08:39 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
apirate Well that's easy enough. Humans (who are in fact a part of nature) are affecting the natural carbon cycle, which influences climate through natural physical mechanisms that have always acted in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Does that work ? -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:31 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
DB at 3 and Muon at 6 Since you brought it up: of course there have been cycles and of course it could be natural. You have a much better chance of swaying me to your position if your argument was phrased that human activities are influencing a natural cycle.Response:[DB] I learned long ago the futility of spitting into the wind or arguing with a mind already made up.
And the warming of the past 3-4 decades is anthropogenic in origin. If that means "natural" in your book, so be it.
-
Stephen Baines at 08:24 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn, the point being made is that the weather pattern you refer to cannot explain the pattern of warming nights relative to days. Also, while it could explain a persistent period of warmth and drought, what is so unusual about that setup that would cause long standing temperature and drought records to be broken? -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:22 AM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Sean at 87 From the article you linked to, please note that key words in bold: “We don’t know whether or not water will warm enough to cause this type of phenomenon,” said Shaun Marcott, a postdoctoral researcher at Oregon State University and lead author of the report. “But it would be a serious concern if it did, and this demonstrates that melting of this type has occurred before.” 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.Response:[DB] Do you have a point with this? Sean was merely relaying new info. Or are you merely advancing an agenda...?
-
Stephen Baines at 08:12 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Dale, certainly someone who denied that climate changed in the past would be in denial. Given that belief, they would also have a hard time arguing for human caused climate change in the present. That said...I actually don't know anyone who denies that climate has changed in the past - and I don't see it in the papers every day. Point me to a citation perhaps. -
Camburn at 08:08 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Daniel: feel free to delete again. No....in this battle I am not even close to being outgunned. I am talking a specific area of the world. In this specific area....I not only have my knowledge, but a host of people who sell forcasts and to keep getting paid, they have to have a good track record. The payments seperate the wheat from the chaff.Response:[DB] I understand your point. However as one who knows whom you are up against, your expertise and resources, while considerable, are still less than the mighty Albatross, that ancient mariner of yore.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 08:07 AM on 5 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Scaddenp@85 I must be misunderstanding you in your last paragraph. Can you explain what you mean. "Sorry, but I dont see anything on those graphs to support that conclusion. You get high rates during the collapse of ice sheets but they are gone. What can give you that now? (well aside from melting of the polar ice sheets but you wont do that from natural forcings as paper I pointed you earlier shows)."Response:[DB] Scaddenp refers to the SLR which occurred during the demise of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which is long gone now.
-
logicman at 08:06 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
I deny that the audio is clear enough for most people who, like myself, have a substantial hearing problem. With my speakers in their normal position I heard " ss p gg dd cll ". With one speaker right up against my best ear I could clearly hear the busker in the street outside. Please boost the recording volume next time - and shut the window! ;-) I did like the image of the graffiti reflected in floodwater. I couldn't make out the narration, but imagined: "The only benefit from rising sea levels will be the drowning of graffiti artists." -
Camburn at 08:05 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
When I came here, I had the expectation that there was a certain amount of at least rudimentary climate knowledge on this site. With that expectation in mind, the mundane characteristics of weather should have been a slam dunk. Apparantly, I was disillusioned. Moderator: Feel free to delete this post, but also understand that the condescending attitude will drive away more peple than it will attract. And a lot of us live in the real world where we observe, and use intuition derived from decades of observation. And that intuition does have predictive power. Thank you.Response:[DB] I am truly sorry you feel that way, Camburn. Because that tells me you have only skimmed the surface of what SkS has to offer those truly interested in learning. Thousands of posts and comment threads exist here on virtually any and everything related to climate science. All posts abound with links to source references. Actual working climate scientists not only read this blog daily, some contribute guest posts or participate in discussions here. One such is Albatross.
All of us live in the real world, not in the myth of the ivory towers of academia. The fact that you feel disllusioned about what this site has to offer is telling. Honestly, it is your preconceptions that are holding your understanding back, not the lack of knowledge or expertise on display here. To say only a rudimentary understanding of climate science is on display here is a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
-
Camburn at 07:58 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross: ENSO has been neautral since May, but the climatic effects of the La Nina have not been. I was stating the reasons why the drought is prevelant right now in Tex/Ok/Ks etc. I was also stating why the temps are what they are. I don't know where you are from, so it is probable that you don't understand the dynamics of what affects weather in the USA. I farm, the weather dynamics that affect production areas are extremely well understood by farmers. A lack of that knowledge will make or break this profession. In fact, it is so important that it is updated twice a day, and the dynamics are discussed in great detail to allow us to plan accordingly. Are they 100% accurate all the time? No, but the best information available at this time. Thank you in advance for acknowledgeing that.Response:[DB] A word to the wise: It is best not to lecture to someone until you are sure that you actually are the expert.
In this battle you pick, you are far outgunned.
-
Rob Painting at 07:55 AM on 5 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KL @ 137 - "Rob Painting I called your error at #101 when you only told half the story and claimed that I 'did not listen'.As the author of the header of this thread, why have you not answered?" Busy with other things Ken, but I see you are still reluctant to admit BP's error, despite Albatross repeatedly going over this. -
Camburn at 07:51 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross: If you can't see the very warm temps off the Pacific North West in your map, maybe this one will be clearer. Do you see the are that is labeled 6.2? This is what is causing the blocking high. Hot water creating blocking high -
Dale at 07:49 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Stephan, actually there are people who deny natural warming. You see it in newspapers every day. People who believe all the warming is human caused. They are in denial that natural warming occurs in the face of evidence some warming is natural some is human. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:28 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Re: Composer99"a systematic misrepresentation of evidence to propagate a viewpoint at odds with said evidence"
This is something that has been displayed several times recently on this very website. Alas. -
Composer99 at 07:23 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
It should also be noted that denial is in many respects distinct from denialism, which is a systematic misrepresentation of evidence to propagate a viewpoint at odds with said evidence. -
ptbrown31 at 07:20 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Most climate change "skeptics" would categorize themselves as the type of skeptics being described in the video. The problem is that they don't realize that they are coming to the party late. In other words they don't realize that most of the "skeptic" questions have already been discussed and addressed in the published literature over the last several decades. This is why well cited websites like Skeptical Science are such a valuable tool for scientific communication. -
Stephen Baines at 07:19 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Also Dale, noone questions whether climate change has happened naturally. That is a red herring. In a way the effect of CO2 is natural, just as the effects of the sun, albedo, and aerosols are. They effacts are the result of "natural" physical laws. As they have changed so has climate in the past. The only thing different about the current situation is that humans are producing the CO2. FYI... earth is only 4.5 billion years old. You're thinking of the universe. -
Albatross at 07:12 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
First, I am aware of no study that has demonstrated that teleconnections cause nights to warm faster than days. And the warm nights are not limited to TX and OK, ac clearly stated by NOAA (it was even bolded by muoncounter)the results apply to the whole United States. My, how "skeptics" are quick to attribute these events to teleconnections (yes, they are important and may possibly playing a role in the TX/OK drought and heat wave, but that is not the whole story). ENSO has been neutral since mid May and is expected to stay neutral until at least the fall. I do agree that if another La Nina is in on the cards, that does not bode well for the SW'rn USA. "Skeptics" are not quick to acknowledge the role of feedbacks. That is less rain, lower soil moisture and less vegetation, increase in surface sensible heat flux and as a result higher temperatures. And the impacts are not limited to the boundary layer (see reference below). The low soil moisture is known to have played an important role in elevating temperatures observed during the 2003 European heat wave. See this paper by Fischer et al. (2007): "The evaluation of the experiments with perturbed spring soil moisture shows that this quantity is an important parameter for the evolution of European heat waves. Simulations indicate that without soil moisture anomalies the summer heat anomalies could have been reduced by around 40% in some regions. Moreover, drought conditions are revealed to influence the tropospheric circulation by producing a surface heat low and enhanced ridging in the midtroposphere. This suggests a positive feedback mechanism between soil moisture, continental-scale circulation, and temperature." The same physics probably hold true now in southwest USA. PS: SSTs off the Pacific NW coast are below normal. SSTs in the central Pacific are above normal, reflecting the negative phase of the PDO.
-
Stephen Baines at 07:09 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Muoncounter is right, Dale. You are confusing "deny" with "denial." You can deny that a proposition is true - in which case you are just on one side or the other of a debate. That is not denial, however. Denial is when you refuse to accept a proposition despite clear evidence that the proposition is true. -
Dale at 07:06 AM on 5 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
muoncounter, the video gave me the distinct feeling that the term "denial" had been set to only the denial of human effects (the use of the thermometer near the AC). Even if you think that no one sits in the "deny natural" section, you can't say that it doesn't exist. Also I question your comment "until there is some credible evidence of 'it could be natural'". I hate to point out that there's ~15 billion years of natural climate change on Earth. That's some pretty credible evidence that natural climate change does occur. It's just this time, it may or may not be (depending on your view). -
Camburn at 06:48 AM on 5 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
muoncounter: The cause of the high temps in Texas etc is the warm waters in the Pacific NW. This is causing a blocking high. All signs are now pointing towards another La Nina, so relief from drought in this area will be marginal as the monsoon season during the onset/duration of a La Nina is quit weak. It appears the only hope of substantial drought busting precip in this area will require a hurricane of enough strength to over ride the effects of the blocking high.
Prev 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 Next
