Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 Next
Comments 78101 to 78150:
-
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"...
-
John Hartz at 01:47 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
@Alexandre #1: Perhaps you were too polite? -
Alexandre at 01:45 AM on 4 August 2011Loehle 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. -
dana1981 at 01:45 AM on 4 August 2011Just 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. -
Camburn at 01:37 AM on 4 August 20112010 - 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.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:32 AM on 4 August 20112010 - 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? -
John Hartz at 01:19 AM on 4 August 2011Just 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!" -
muoncounter at 00:38 AM on 4 August 2011Just 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! -
John Hartz at 00:12 AM on 4 August 2011Just 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. -
John Hartz at 23:58 PM on 3 August 2011Just 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." -
John Hartz at 23:47 PM on 3 August 2011Spencer'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? -
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.)
Prev 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 Next
