Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 Next
Comments 78001 to 78050:
-
ianash at 14:32 PM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
I see that the authors were happy to answer questions at Climate etc. Any chance they would post here to answer some questions here? I think L&S owe some of their 'theory' to Samuel Benner. Sam Benner was a 'cycles man' like these guys and is still quoted by some chartists today. According to Benner, "the cause producing the periodicity and length of these cycles may be found in our solar system". "It may be a meteorological fact that Jupiter is the ruling element in our price cycles of natural productions; while also it may be suggested that Saturn exerts an influence regulating the cycles in manufacture and trade". Additionally, Uranus and Neptune "may send forth an electric influence affecting Jupiter, Saturn and, in turn, the Earth". "When certain combinations are ascertained which produce one legitimate invariable manifestation from an analysis of the operations of the combined solar system, we may be enabled to discover the cause producing our price cycles, and the length of their duration. Benner never fully explained the basis of his cycle, but he did make a connection through the weather and climate, suggesting he was aware of the earlier work on sunspots by Jevons, Herschel and others." Pig iron, wheat futures, climate change...all in a days work for these guys... -
muoncounter at 14:24 PM on 4 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
A very nice analysis of just how extreme the current drought really is posted at John Nielsen-Gammon's blog.
One can quickly see the mean rainfall pattern -- and the historic variation around the mean in this spaghetti display. I won't be a spoiler; you'll have to see how 2011 compares for yourself.
-
DSL at 14:01 PM on 4 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Hrmmm . . . yeah I don't know, scadden. It has been demonstrated endlessly that when one's position within the economy changes, one's politics change. Some of the basic goals might not change (e.g, "end human suffering"), but the willingness to accept certain means to achieve those goals does change. Education can also change politics. Particular political strategies emerge from the defense of economic positions, and this emergence is modified by awareness (knowledge does indeed force responsibility, to some extent). That's why the doubt game works so well. All that is needed is to bump an idea from the "fact" category to the "well, I don't know" category. You have to compete. A group of southerners in the U.S. tried for decades to normalize the idea of slavery. The idea didn't just peter out on its own. Changing someone;s politics can be done, but it takes repeated efforts, observable evidence, and tact. I suspect that even the most apparently unchangeable 'skeptics' who post here have had their politics altered significantly while engaging in the comment stream. That's what it takes: dialogue. Not the article but the discussion that follows. It's a beastly slow process, but it beats shooting people. -
Stevo at 12:59 PM on 4 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
scaddenp @51 I agree totally. The trouble is that media outlets, at least in Australia and the USA, seem to be becomming more polarised towards representing particular political points of view. Dispassionate representation of facts and background is on the decline. Makes getting a scientific result across to the public rather difficult when news outlets are partisan. -
trrll at 12:44 PM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
It is fairly routine for journals to cause a publication fee (normally called "page charges"). It is also common for journals to encourage authors to suggests reviewers, but the suggestions may be overridden by the editor. It is the responsibility of the editor to verify that the reviewers are qualified and not cronies of the author. -
scaddenp at 12:32 PM on 4 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Mostly, you cannot change people's political values. We may even be born with them. What you need to do is divorce the facts from a particular political strategy. Normal political narratives (right or left) retell facts and history to fit a values-based outlook on the world. Politicians are extremely adept at this so its best not to try and compete. -
Albatross at 12:16 PM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Muoncounter @20, 'Is it customary for a scientific journal to charge authors a publication fee?" Maybe I misunderstood your question, but page charges are not at all unusual. In my discipline page charges are typically around US$2000, but the cost of publishing can vary depending on the number of figures and whether or not they are colour. Of course one only pays that amount when the paper is accepted and goes to press, not before. The same appears to apply to "The Open Atmospheric Science Journal" in which this poor paper was published, so no it is not a "vanity press". So the problem here lies with the editor and the reviewers. A potential issue is this: "Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution." Sadly this is not unusual nowadays, and I fault the editorial boards for that. It would be interesting to determine who, if anyone, L&S suggested to review their paper. -
ptbrown31 at 12:09 PM on 4 August 2011Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
This argument was explicitly rebutted in the literature before Lindzen even made the argument in the 1st place (1985): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6021/abs/315649a0.html -
muoncounter at 11:59 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
dana#18: "It is unfortunate that L&S were able to find a journal to accept this paper" Perhaps a copy of this post should be sent to the editor, who is identified in this editorial in this volume of the 'open journal.' Is it customary for a scientific journal to charge authors a publication fee? (scroll to page bottom for the fee schedule). Doesn't that sound more like a vanity press? -
Stevo at 11:50 AM on 4 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Never forget the political effect. Many people view the world through an ideological lens rather than a fact based one. In discussions with some people about climate science, just as I feel I'm about to bring them around to an understanding of the measured effects of climate change, they retreat to their comfortable position of accusing me of being of a certain political persuasion (Jeepers, I'm being careful not to use any specific political terminology here.)Both side of politics do it. Of course one side is traditionally opposed to anything supporting the environment. As a wiser man them me once said, "ideology trumps facts every time". Many of the public have already made up their minds around their political beliefs and only accept evidence which supports what they have already decided. Quality of argument is not relevant and their are plenty of media outlets happy to promulgate pseudoscientific garbage just so long as it supports their own established position - and the facts be damned. Once upon a time I was a policy committee member of a political party. Once I realised that ideology trumps facts I resigned my membership but at least I kept my conscience. -
Ernst at 11:17 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Nice pattern..is it available in any fabric? -
dana1981 at 10:25 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Thanks Andy and skywatcher. Credit to Albatross for suggesting the comparison between Loehle's model and his reconstruction. I don't consider Loehle's reconstruction on par with peer-reviewed versions like Moberg's, so I hadn't initially included it. But when Albatross suggested it, I had a "why didn't I think of that?" moment. It is unfortunate that L&S were able to find a journal to accept this paper, and also unfortunate that blogs like Curry's and WUWT gave Loehle free reign to advertise it. I'm no climate scientist - if I can immediately see all of these glaring errors in the paper, then somebody like Curry should be able to as well. As should any competent reviewer. -
dana1981 at 10:20 AM on 4 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
John #48 - the scientist in question believes he can be most effective by maintaining his credibility as an impartial climate scientist. I'm not sure how he arrived at that conclusion, since impartial climate science has utterly failed to convince humans as a whole to take sufficient action to address climate change. -
skywatcher at 09:23 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Good grief, what a load of pure guff! Climastrology at its very worst. Thanks for that debunk Dana, your rebuttal seems like nuking fish in a barrel, but it has to be done these days. It's a sad state of affairs when this sort of garbage can be published, even in journals of dubious quality. I'm surprised they didn't include a 12-year cycle for Jupiter on its own (Jupiter's gravity is much much more effective than Saturn's at our distance), after all they could hardly make their fit any worse than it already is! Maybe the relationship between Pluto and Eris accounts for the glacial-interglacial cycle, and Comet Hale-Bopp triggered the super-El Nino of 1997-8? Does Loehle win a prize for publishing two reconstructions that are the most out-of-phase rather than in-phase (at least when they are not totally diverging)? -
John Russell at 09:01 AM on 4 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
dana1981 writes: "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." There's a man whose moral integrity as a scientist is more important to him than his moral integrity as a human being. Like James Hansen, if he really believes what his work is telling him then he should have no doubt what needs doing. Sometimes one has to stand up and be counted for the sake of future generations. -
Andy Skuce at 08:35 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Excellent rebuttal. I especially like Figure 3, showing that Loehle and Scafetta's model of 60 year cycles only fits Loehle's own temperature reconstruction for about one-half cycle, after 1920. Correlation may not imply causation (xkcd comic) but lack of correlation plainly implies lack of causation. I'm awaiting an equally scathing review of the L&S paper at Climate Audit. I suppose that critical scrutiny of climate science has to be put on the back-burner while they continue to deal with Climategate. -
dana1981 at 07:04 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Daneel - these "skeptics" are pretty clearly just trying to find an alternative explanation for the warming that doesn't involve human GHG emissions. I agree, the problem is that in doing so, they're basically disregarding most of what we've already learned about the climate. Keith - yeah, that's your 'natural' warming trend since about 1700 (a.k.a. "LIA recovery"). A whopping 0.16°C per century. -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross - Agreed. Eric the Red - Groundwater contributions are a red herring without consideration of impoundment. You're again using end point numbers (single years) when discussing 6 year averages. The fact remains that Von Schuckmann has demonstrated directly measured (i.e., thermometers) temperature increases in the oceans, particularly in the deeper sections. Steric expansion is perhaps the most certain contributor to SLR - if you feel the numbers are in error I suggest you look at melt contributions or GIA estimates instead. Don't forget to consider seasonal/yearly variations in the signal. Absolutely none of the cherry picked numbers or arguments that have been bandied about here actually address the thermal readings from Von Schuckmann's paper. And hence, quite frankly, they are off-topic in this thread on OHC. -
Albatross at 06:51 AM on 4 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KR @131, You are correct. My post @64, based on Hansen et al. and others, incorporates the uncertainty. And FWIW, Eric is still comparing the wrong data @132-- we are talking about the 2005-2010 window here, not end points, and despite being advised to the contrary he has used the estimated groundwater contributions (note how the goal posts have shifted). The former point concerning the time frame under consideration has been made ad nauseum, and it is inconceivable that they continue to ignore that important fact. Further to that, and with that observation in mind, as a publishing scientist I take very strong exception to the accusation made by EtR: "His avoidance of the issue borders on climate misinformation, as he appears to believe that all these factors can increase simultaneously, while SLR decreases." I request that EtR apologizes for that and for misrepresenting my position which has been very clearly stated in previous posts. The true misinformation being perpetuated here is by BP and his supporters. There are more falsehoods in EtR's post @130, but quite frankly I can't be bothered with them...astute readers following this thread can decide for themselves who is playing fast and loose with the facts here. ( -Snip- )Response:[DB] Let's try and take the high road here (translation: let me be the bad guy; as moderator, that's my role...keeping electrons from being wasted).
-
Bob Lacatena at 06:47 AM on 4 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Does anyone know the average temperature of the volume of melt water being added to the system, and how that distributes over the (significant) upper layer of the ocean? Does that in any way affect the steric component? I'm sure scientists have considered it. Has it entered into any calculations here? Wouldn't a certain amount of heat transfer reduce the steric contribution, temporarily masking its effects due to warming (until the original plus melt water has had time to warm to an equilibrium value)?Response:[DB] I'll email someone who may know.
-
Eric the Red at 06:34 AM on 4 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KR, The contributers with uncertainties (all taken for earlier post). Pre-1990: Groundwater: 0.4 +/- 0.1 mm/yr Mtn Glaciers: 0.4 +/- 0.1 mm/yr GIC & Antarctica: 0.0 +/- 0.2 mm/yr Steric: 0.5 +/- 0.1 mm /yr TOTAL: 1.3 +/- 0.3 mm /yr compared to tidal gauge SLR of 1.5 (uncertainty unknown). Early 2000s: Groundwater: 0.8 +/- 0.1 mm/yr Mtn Glaciers: 1.1 +/- 0.3 mm/yr GIC & Antarctica: 1.3 +/- 0.45 mm/yr Steric: 0.5 +/- 0.1 mm /yr TOTAL: 3.7 +/- 0.5 mm /yr compared to satellite SLR of 3.9 +/- 0.6 mm /yr. 2010: Groundwater: 1.0 +/- 0.2 mm/yr Mtn Glaciers: 1.2 +/- 0.3 mm/yr GIC & Antarctica: 1.7 +/- 0.5 mm/yr Steric: 0.7 +/- 0.15 mm /yr TOTAL: 4.6 +/- 0.65 mm /yr compared to satellite SLR of 2.3 +/- 0.8 mm /yr -
cynicus at 05:33 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Thanks Dana, I guess I got fooled by the timespan in figure 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. -
keithpickering at 04:53 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle 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. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:50 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle 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. -
DaneelOlivaw at 04:48 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle 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. -
Eric the Red at 04:44 AM on 4 August 2011Ocean 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.
-
SEAN O at 04:28 AM on 4 August 2011Rising 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 -
muoncounter at 04:26 AM on 4 August 20112010 - 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. -
dana1981 at 04:25 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle 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. -
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? -
Albatross at 04:18 AM on 4 August 2011Ocean 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. -
muoncounter at 04:07 AM on 4 August 2011Just 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. -
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... -
Eric the Red at 03:56 AM on 4 August 2011Ocean 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? -
Paul D at 03:51 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle 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. -
Eric (skeptic) at 03:15 AM on 4 August 20112010 - 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. -
dana1981 at 03:10 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle 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). -
Albatross at 03:07 AM on 4 August 2011Ocean 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:05 AM on 4 August 20112010 - 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. -
cynicus at 02:56 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle 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... -
Alexandre at 02:27 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Badgersouth - perhaps I posted the link to Skeptical Science too conspicuously... -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:19 AM on 4 August 20112010 - 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. -
Tom Curtis at 02:18 AM on 4 August 20112010 - 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? -
Berényi Péter at 02:11 AM on 4 August 2011Ocean 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.
-
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. -
dana1981 at 01:54 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle 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. -
Tom Curtis at 01:51 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Well done Dana. An exceptionally clear and detailed dissection of Loehle and Scafetta's nonsense. -
dana1981 at 01:51 AM on 4 August 2011Spencer'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. -
Adam C at 01:48 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle 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"...
Prev 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 Next
