Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 Next
Comments 80151 to 80200:
-
CBDunkerson at 03:43 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Hey dana. Nice writeup. Maintaining 50 mpg with the Prius is pretty impressive, I usually come out around 48... though given my lead foot that actually isn't too bad. I keep wishing that they had a way to set an 'acceleration control' (kinda like 'cruise control') such that you don't exceed 50 mpg unless you push the gas pedal past a cutoff point. I think that and increasing the electric only top speed to 30 mph (currently 25) would make a huge difference... currently when trying to stay on electric power in 25 mph residential zones I'm always winding up annoying the people behind me because I'm at 22 or hitting 26 for a second and having the gas engine kick on. Of course, plug-ins will probably make the Prius seem like a gas hog before too much longer. The Leaf and Volt already do that for people whose daily drive is short, but the next generation of these kinds of cars should see longer ranges and lower prices. -
dana1981 at 02:45 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Mark #173 - you have to keep in mind that fossil fuels are currently artificially cheap, and their true cost is actually higher than most renewable energy sources. We may not pay that high cost in market energy prices, but we pay it elsewhere, and so would developing nations which chose to install artificially cheap coal power. -
dana1981 at 02:34 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Mark H - 80-90% of a vehicle's lifetime energy use comes during operation, so the fact that the Prius is slightly worse during the ~5% which vehicle production accounts for makes little difference in lifecycle emissions. Your claims about solar PV are out of date. This is not the place to talk about nuclear power. Your claims that renewables 'can't fill the gap' are also incorrect. We are in agreement about a carbon price, however. -
Albatross at 02:23 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom @289, I'll reply later if you don't mind. -
Albatross at 02:22 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Interesting that Xie et al. (2008) paper cited by a 'skeptic' at #293 was loudly trumpeted over the denialosphere and is in the discredited NIPCC report. Here are the findings from another study by Xie et al. (2010): "The climatology and long-term trend of hail size in four regions of China are documented for the period of 1980–2005 using the maximum hail diameter (MHD) data obtained from the Meteorological Administrations of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR), the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (IMAR), Guizhou Province, and Hebei Province. The reported MHD is mainly around 10 mm in the four regions. Guizhou (in southwestern China) has the largest proportion of severe hail (MHD greater than 15 mm) among the four regions. Severe hail in southwestern China mainly occurs between February and June, while in northern China it occurs in summer (from May to August) with the peak in June. During the period studied, the size of severe hail shows a slight downtrend in Guizhou and IMAR, whereas it shows an uptrend and a flat trend in Hebei and XUAR, respectively. However, none of the trends is statistically significant. Results from sensitivity experiments using a one-dimensional numerical model show that hail size is sensitive to the freezing level height, the maximum updraft, and column cloud liquid water—all working together to determine the geographic distribution and long-term trend of the observed hail size in China." I'd be interested to know what the 1D model is that they used. -
Mark Harrigan at 02:13 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Ouch - obviously the practical realities in Germany mean that the denial of nuclear and the as yet "not ready" renewables means more fossil fuels German Emissions to increase Unfortunately reality mugs wishful thinking again? This is why we need a carbon price - because it's just so hard to know just exactly what is the "right" choice when trying to reduce CO2 emissions - other than NOT using energy. So, in the west - it's just gotta be less :(Response:[dana1981] Please move any discussion about German energy to German Energy Priorities
-
Mark Harrigan at 02:09 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
I commend you for using a Prius - I guess?? Is Prius Green? You use of a solar panel has it's issues too - the high subsidy on Solar PV makes it one of THE most expensive ways to abate CO2. Our refusal to countenance nuclear also has it's costs German Nuclear windback will increase emissions Nuclear actually has extremely low risk (chance of going wrong) but apparently unmanageable hazard (impact when something does go wrong) - and while new tech nuclear is probably a lot safer there's no escaping the issue of fallible management (avoiding accountability and transparency) compounding the risk/hazard equation (like we saw in Japan). There are NO reliable renewable technolgoies currently available that will fill the gap - though CST has promise it's got a long way to go. This is why we need a carbon price - becuase it's just so hard to know just exactly what is the "right" choice when trying to reduce CO2 emissions - especially when there really isn't a right choice! - other than NOT using energy. So in the west - it's gotta be use less!Response:[DB] Please move any discussion about German energy to the German Energy Priorities thread.
-
Albatross at 01:57 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
For crying out loud guys, this repeated focus on the traditional paradigm of "tornadoes are caused when cold air from Canada meets warm air from the south" has been addressed before. Has it ever occurred to you that the storms are following the heat (and jet stream) as the warming progresses northwards as the seasons change? On the Canadian prairies, for example, the severe storm season peaks in July when baroclinicity is at an ebb and cold Arctic air is in short supply. -
Albatross at 01:50 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
EricS @293, You have not accurately represented the findings of the Xie et al. paper that you found-- particularly with respect to the role of vertical wind shear (interestingly, the authors do not appear to understand the role of the shear, thinking that it is involved with the triggering of storms rather than the organization of the storms, not sure how the reviewers missed that), and the possible causes for the decline in the number of hail days. Whenever a 'skeptic' cites a paper, especially when they do not use quotes, always go to the original (H/T to Peter Hadfield). With regards to the decline of hail days in this region, the authors state that: "....the vertical shear seems not to have played a dominant role in the observed down trend in hail frequency in China since a similar weakening trend in the annual mean vertical shear is found for the stations with and without down AHD trends. The long-term change in CAPE seems to have little correlation with the down trend in hail frequency, however. We considered that although the CAPE increased in the past, the annual mean precipitation and extreme precipitation events in north and northeast of China decreased as a result of the weakening of the East-Asian summer monsoon [Wang and Zhou, 2005], leading to a decreasing trend in hail frequency in these regions. On the other hand, the rising in freezing-level and the increase in aerosols may offset or even dominate the positive effect of CAPE, resulting in little trend in hail frequency in south China. The results from this study may imply a possible reduction of hail occurrence under the global warming due to the increase in freezing-level height in China." Not quite as simple as your post claimed, and a few untested hypotheses as well. Also, as they authors noted, the huge increase in aerosols in the region over recent decades complicates matters even further. Finally, the paper speaks only to the occurrence of hail days, not severe hail days. I need to give it a proper read before commenting further though. -
Eric the Red at 01:34 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom, That is precisely why more severe weather occurs in the spring. The warm, moist gulf air collides with the cold, dry air from the Rockies. This sets up the potential for supercell formation. Severe weather typically occurs in March in the deep south, and gradually works north through June. The potential stills exists for extreme weather later in summer, but is greatest in spring. Global warming would increase the warm, moist air component, but decrease the cold, dry air. The net result is probably more rain, but less severe storms. -
Chris G at 01:14 AM on 8 July 2011The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?
Hmm, that is not the only thing going on. The earth will spend more time near aphelion than near perihelion. So, the delta from the mean for both hemispheres will be greater on the aphelion side. Ah, so, not only will the hemisphere with the lower heat capacity (NH) show a greater variation than the other in general, but under current orbital parameters, that same hemisphere will spend more time in the greater W/m^2 orientation than the other. It is not at all surprising that the temperature graph looks the way it does, but that still does not mean that TSI has no effect. -
Mark Harrigan at 01:08 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Thanks BDD for your comments #172 But I just try and point to where I think the evidence and data lead. I try to avoid any sort of ideological advocacy. I wish renewables were more effective and lower cost than they are. So then the challenge for us all is not to simply pretend these problems don't exist (and I agree too many advocates of renewables fall into this trap) but also not to simply point them out and leave it at that. We must apply our thinking to how do we solve the problems since continued increasing CO2 emissions are unacceptable and nuclear, whatever it's benefits, is simply politically unacceptable Along the way we have to solve the problem of energy poverty This article articulates that well Solving Energy Poverty When around 25-30% of the world's population have NO electricity at all it is morally repugnant for us in the west to presume we can force high cost solutions on those who do not enjoy the benefits of a high energy high wealth economy (and let's face it wealth and energy correlate). It's an ugly truth at the moment that fossil fuels, because they do not currently have to carry the real cost of the damage they cause to the climate, are by far the cheapest way to provide energy. Which is why no matter what we in the west do we will see India and China dramatically increase their overall emissions (even though I applaud them for making great efforts to reduce their per capita and per unit of GDP emissions to be much lower than we in the West produced as we created our wealth.) I think the demonstration city China is creating might be a very useful experiment China Green City. Certainly worth watching. I wonder if Mr Diesendorf has tried to talk to them about implementing a test of his proposal? It will also be very interesting in this country to see what happens after Sunday's announcement of what Australia's Carbon Tax system will look like - not doubt a vigorous debate will take place about the impacts and what actions might ensue. -
Chris G at 00:51 AM on 8 July 2011The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?
TIS, You are failing to make the proper connections between energy (TSI is measured in energy) and the temperature of matter. There is not a uniform relationship between energy and temperature; different forms of matter require different amounts of energy to achieve the same change in temperature. There most certainly is a relationship between energy and temperature, but you are treating all matter the same and it is not. It takes more energy to cause the areas covered by water to change 1 K than it does to change the areas were land is exposed. What you keep pointing out with the yearly temperature plot is that there is more land area in the NH than there is in the SH. Yeah, so? You are saying that because oceans have a have a higher heat capacity, variations in TSI have no effect. I'm saying that graph you have linked includes effects of both higher heat capacity and TSI, (plus others as well) and clearly the differences in heat capacity dominate, but that does not mean the TSI has no effect. It isn't a 'one thing or the other' situation, and you are saying that it is. Maybe the reason that the NH curve goes 7 K above the mean in the summer, but only 6 K below the mean in the winter is partly to do with the earth receiving more TSI in the NH winter. -
adelady at 23:46 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
Paul "...digitising Royal Navy log books and extracting weather and climate data:" All of us who take an interest should put in some time on one of the several digitising projects. Speaking for myself I hate the logbooks, but the various weather stations data is pretty straightforward to read and enter. Just 15 minutes a day from a lot more people will get the historical data ready for more interesting work. (Shame they didn't record this kind of exceptional event, but we can't have everything.) -
adelady at 23:40 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
Tom "...many areas including most of the Great Barrier Reef were not frequented by ships until the late 19th century." Maybe not by British ships, but foreign based whaling ships operated around the GBR at various times from late 18th to 19th centuries. And travel between settlements would have been by sea as often in Queensland as it was for the rest of the country. Regular sailors would have observed anything a bit odd. Newspaper worthy if not formal logbook entries. Does anyone know if there are any indigenous reports of noteworthy events in the various areas of the reef before settlement? I'd be very surprised if people who knew the area well enough to know when to expect turtles and other desirable marine food items (or dangerous weather) to turn up didn't have stories about 'when the reef went strange' if it had been observed. -
Rob Painting at 23:30 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
DLB - "Looking at Fig. 5 (coral sea summer temp anomalies) for 1998 and 2002 were 0.4C and 0.3C warmer than the long term average. In most of the subsequent years SSTs have been well above 0.4C but I have not heard of any wide spread bleaching events during these other years?" Coral bleaching often begins when sea surface temperatures are 1-3°C above the normal summer maximum. So we wouldn't expect bleaching under those conditions. -
Rob Painting at 23:23 PM on 7 July 2011Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
No worries Papy. I'm just finishing up a post on Kaufmann 2011 - let's say my take is a bit different. -
Papy at 23:15 PM on 7 July 2011Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
I agree and I don't contest its interest, but the presentation (title/abstract) of the study sounds like a communication deal to me, like if they were perfectly aware of their decadal flaw (part of the answer about this apparent stagnation is in the question), but made this deliberated choice to promote their work... and some media titles confirm this feeling : "Chinese coal pollution halted global warming !". Thanks for your answer anyway. -
les at 23:13 PM on 7 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
60 CBDunkerson ;) -
Tom Curtis at 23:12 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
PaulD @6, the directive certainly precedes the Challenger expedition of 1872. The question is whether it precedes Beaufort's directive that his scale be used in recording wind force (in the 1830's), or his accession to the position of Hydrographer of the Navy (1825). -
Paul D at 23:01 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
The Corral project is digitising Royal Navy log books and extracting weather and climate data: http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/view/badc.nerc.ac.uk__ATOM__dataent_1239019538627371 The log books date back to 1669, at least currently. Although the page says that the data is available as jpegs, a lot of work if you want to go through them all. -
thepoodlebites at 22:58 PM on 7 July 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
#56,57 scaddenp The model simulations use observed forcings up until 2000 (or 2003 in a couple of cases). This sounds like adjusting model parameters to match observations. How do the observed forcings differ from modeled forcings and how do these modeled forcings compare to Meehl’s 2004 runs? What are the observed forcings and how are these forcings measured? The modeled trend is about +0.2C per decade, which fits scenario C the best. But scenario C assumed no further emissions after 2000. Why the discrepancy? Scenario B predicted +0.27C per decade. What are the forecasts for 2020, 2050, 2100? From what I read, separating climate sensitivity to CO2 from natural climate variability is still a work in progress, especially considering the observed temperature record over the last decade. How can you say with confidence that most of the warming over the last 30 years is from CO2 rise when it seems that ENSO/PDO/AMO/AO (and solar) are playing a much more significant role in changes in global surface temperatures? -
Rob Painting at 22:54 PM on 7 July 2011Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
Papy - Yes, they are not great communicators. I've had a wee to-and-fro with other SkS authors over that point, but regardless it seems a useful attempt to understand recent variability in the climate. And no global warming didn't stop, just like it hasn't throughout the instrumental records - all of them If Kaufmann and co-author's findings are validated by other research, it's not good news. Sulfate aerosols have a short atmospheric lifetime, and when the Chinese stop pumping out all that extra sulfate pollution, it's going to unleash some warming. And yes they have to at some point, for health reasons and to prevent Ocean Acidification. -
CBDunkerson at 22:52 PM on 7 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
les wrote: "I'm sure no one on any part of the mainstream political spectrum would want to encourage political interference anywhere near that level..." Haven't been keeping tabs on Ken Cuccinelli, have ya? :] -
Paul D at 22:49 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
Tom - The weather observation directive I think pre-dates the Victorian Challenger voyage. I tacked on the comment about Challenger in addition to my initial comment. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:48 PM on 7 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Here's an interesting paper about hail trends in China: http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/users/yqwang/xie_zhang_wang_grl08.pdf While the long term trend in CAPE is up, the freezing level heights are also rising and vertical sheer is dropping. Consequently the long term trend in annual hail days is down. -
les at 22:46 PM on 7 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
58 - JMurphy - yes, I was nodding in the direction of your post. I've been racking my mind to think of any organisation - publicly or privately funded - which tackles complaints in general and misconduct in particular, with anything but an internal panel of professionals from around the organisation; given that the complaint isn't a violation of national law. ...and I mean examples from within the modern western democracies - I'm not, of course, including the USSR, Maoist China etc. I'm sure no one on any part of the mainstream political spectrum would want to encourage political interference anywhere near that level... -
cynicus at 22:45 PM on 7 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Dana, thanks for the response. I've glanced through the paper again and notice that Akasofu also uses an 'interpreted' dataset for his 'theory', so I guess choosing the WfT Index seems warranted and perhaps even a better one. Although it clearly doesn't matter in light of the other criticisms. @14 Alex C, I don't know how I came to think that Akasofu used HadCRUT only. Now that I read it again this is clearly not the case. Must have had a blackout or something. Thanks for pointing it out. -
Papy at 22:26 PM on 7 July 2011Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
New study about chinese aerosol/sulphur cooling effect during the 2000s : (Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008) "Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008" Are they aware of the exceptionnaly warm 1998-niño-year flaw in their decadal trend ? -
JMurphy at 22:18 PM on 7 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Good to see Cornwall (in the UK) doing its bit to provide clean energy (with more coming soon), while re-using an old tin mine : Solar park goes live Every little helps... -
Tom Curtis at 22:04 PM on 7 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @283, while accepting the point about equilibrium, I should point out that although the temperatures peak in August, the difference in temperatures between north and south is greatest in winter, and greater in Spring than in Summer. I just made the comparison between Austin, Texas, and Chicago, Illinois (below); but I suspect it is a general feature:
(Austin Temp - black; Precipitation - olive; Chicago Temp - red; Precipitation - Green)
Therefore we would expect the forces driving climate towards equilibrium would be stronger in winter and spring than in summer in the American mid-west.
Despite this, thunderstorms and tornadoes are generally associated with warmer weather. The logical conclusion is that they will be more frequent in spring than in summer, ie, when it is warm enough for super cells to form, but before the strong north south temperature gradient dissipates.
-
DLB at 21:39 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
After reading this article I am left with more questions than any answers to coral bleaching and the fate of the GBR. I have just read the Osborne paper (2011) and in it they describe how bleaching has had minimal effect on the GBR between 1995-2008 with coral loss quickly recovering after such events when compared to recovery from Crown of Thorns Starfish or storms. They also mention widespread bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 from which the coral quickly recovered. Looking at Fig. 5 (coral sea summer temp anomalies) for 1998 and 2002 were 0.4C and 0.3C warmer than the long term average. In most of the subsequent years SSTs have been well above 0.4C but I have not heard of any wide spread bleaching events during these other years? I found Fig.2 intriguing it is obvious that the reefs near the continental shelf were not bleached but why? Is it because there is mixing with deeper cooler water or is it due to some other reason like this region is nutrient poor? The bleached outer-barrier between Townville and Cairns was an exception. It made me think a warm current was running up the coast and exiting in this region. If the 1998 bleaching is due to warm waters temps I’d say it is probably due unusually strong solar heating of shallow water than anything to do with global warming. Finally I have had direct experience with coral bleaching. Around 2010 I was in the Capricorn Group at the Sth end of the Reef, it was the middle of winter and about 10-20% of the coral was bleached. The bleaching was not species specific nor was it depth related as coral just under the surface or 3m down exhibited the same amount of bleaching. Again it left me with more questions than answers -
Eric (skeptic) at 20:55 PM on 7 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom, #289, I would note that the Canadian Arctic is not as cold as it used to be last century. If that temperature is truly a factor in our severe weather, it could help explain why the incidence of strong tornadoes is dropping. -
CBDunkerson at 20:47 PM on 7 July 2011Over the tipping point
Ranyl wrote: "Wonder what weather changes the rapid loss of arctic summer ice will bring?" Yeah, that's the looming question. The problem is, as the article notes, it is just such a huge change that we can't tell what will happen. Will the removal of the sea ice allow a strong Pacific to Atlantic current to develop through the Arctic ocean? Will that change the course of the Gulf Stream and thus replace warm North Atlantic waters pulled up from the equator with frigid waters pulled down from the North Pole? Will the albedo shift be enough to warm Arctic waters to the point that clathrates release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere? What will all these changes do to the melt rate of the Greenland ice cap? And if the weather has been on a crazy roller-coaster ride for the past couple of decades what will a fundamental change to the planet's climate system provoke? The whole world is about to get a first hand demonstration of why the saying, 'May you live in interesting times', is considered a curse. -
Eric (skeptic) at 20:43 PM on 7 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Albatross, in this post on a related thread you mentioned Stanley Changnon. His paper on hail trends is here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282000%29013%3C0658%3ALTFIHI%3E2.0.CO%3B2 First the caveats: he has the typical selection bias found in many studies: "high quality". That's unfortunately often different from "randomly selected" or "representative". Second, his study shows hail increasing in the Plains and SE U.S. where hail is more common. Third, the study period ends in 1995. Fourth it's all hail, not severe hail. That said, he claims that overall U.S. hail incidences peaked in mid-century. -
Tom Curtis at 20:42 PM on 7 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Albatross @269, first and most importantly, thanks. However, I still have some questions. It has always been my understanding that the US midwest has the most severe thunderstorms on Earth, something I could have been clearer about in my 258. However, I have also understood this to be a more or less unique feature of the US as a result of its unusual geography, specifically the very cold canadian arctic linked to the very warm caribbean. I notice that the Argentine plains are also noted for intense storms. However, I suspect that this is again due to peculiarities of geography, specifically the conjunction of cold dry winds aloft due to the Humboldt current and the Andes, and warm humid conditions below due, in part, to the Brazil Current. My question is, to what extent do these regions owe there intense thunderstorms to their peculiar geography, and to what extent to their mid-latitude location? Or perhaps better, are storms more frequent and intense in the tropics except under unusual geographical circumstances which promote thunderstorm and tornado formation?
I continue to believe the lightning map gives a reasonable representation of thunderstorm frequency and intensity. As can be seen above, within the US lightning frequency (top) correlates well with tornado frequency (bottom). (Norman should also note that tornado frequency increases with greater warmth, and also with proximity to the Rockies.) Clearly it needs to be interpreted more cautiously than I did before, in that either different types of storms having different frequencies of strikes, and/or differences of seasonality can distort the result, especially given the clearly stronger CAPE in tropical regions:
-
JMurphy at 20:15 PM on 7 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Very true, les. Having posted a link previously to the guidelines for such a enquiry (To establish a means to handle inquiries and/or investigations into questions of ethics related to research and other scholarly activities), it would appear that such guidelines are fine for everyone except those like Dr Mann, who, presumably, should be subject to the full force of criminal law - as long as it leads to serious consequences for him. If such a legal route were also to acquit him, then the legal route must also be dismissed as biased and part of that all-encompassing conspiracy, Mann will then be judged by the blog 'scientists' and commentariat, and their followers, in the docks of the Denialosphere. In the end, nothing will satisfy some people except the public humiliation of climate scientists, following a show-trial decided by debate and a show of hands... -
les at 19:46 PM on 7 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
It would seem a large number of people would like PennState to break the law over this. Universities function under three things: National laws, their bylaws/regulations and their charter, given them by the government. Their regulations state how accusations of misconduct (in teaching or research) should be treated. This comes under the terms of their charter and if they do not respect those procedures the government can have an external enquiry, remove their charter and they're out of business. On the other hand, any acts which violate national law is prosecuted in court. Justice is blind. No one can decide, outside of the described terms, that some situation is big enough or annoying enough or news-worthy enough to treat in a special or partial way. That is corruption. What batvette and others are advocating is that people should act corruptly and treat some complaints differently to others because, well, they just feel they should. Pointing at the system and saying "well, that looks like 'good 'ole boy' culture" either has to be substantiated and tackled under national law or has to be seen as a bit of a 'look! rabbit!' trick to distract from their desire for lynch-mob 'justice'. -
les at 19:31 PM on 7 July 2011Peer review process was corrupted
Interesting article on Soon: Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show -
Tom Curtis at 18:57 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
PaulD @2, the observations may well have been for scientific reasons. If they were ordered by Rear Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort then a scientific motivation was certainly of great (though not exclusive) importance in ordering the observations. The secondary reason, and the reason the British Navy funded the many expeditions Beaufort ordered (including that of the Beagle), was to both chart the waters of the world, and likely sea conditions so that the British Navy could operate confidently in all the waters of the world. However, I have to disagree with Adelady's initial observation. Although wide spread bleaching would have been obvious to ships in a given area, many areas including most of the Great Barrier Reef were not frequented by ships until the late 19th century. The most efficient routes from Australia to England (and back) where along Austalia's southern coast. Those ships travelling north would have stuck to the main channels. As it is, it is difficult to get a 19th century cyclone history of Queensland waters, still less a bleaching history (assuming there was any bleaching). -
adelady at 18:40 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
I guess it wasn't for scientific reasons... Not as we understand it. But there were 2 driving forces at the time. The prime one being survival. Sailors take a great deal of notice of changes in their environment. Either to recognise something unusual in familiar circumstances - is it dangerous? does it affect the fishing? does it affect tides/currents/weather? Or second. Old-fashioned naturalists noted observations of all sorts of things. Modern people do the same. First sighting of the season of certain birds, date of budburst or harvest dates for crops. For sailors, what indicates land is near but out of sight. What does or doesn't indicate fish, or desirable fish, in the area? Which waters are clear, murky, turbulent at various times of the year - does it matter just now? Knowing the best winds and currents was a matter of profit. Knowing the best time to venture into the best fishing grounds likewise. A lot of general knowledge was gained for the purpose of power or profit. But it was knowledge nevertheless. And of course, some of the expeditions were designated as scientific. A lot of mapping was related to power relations and claims on territory, but a lot was also an expression of what we now recognise as straightforward scientific curiosity. -
Paul D at 18:03 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
Adelady, I think it was a formal part of a Royal Navy captains job to make weather measurements on a daily basis. Failure to do so was a dereliction of duty. I guess it wasn't for scientific reasons, the need for such information was related to political power and domination of the seas. I only recently found out about the Challenger exhibition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition I had never heard of it before until it was mentioned on a TV documentary. -
DLB at 17:49 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 1: Current Conditions and Human Impacts
John, I tend to agree with you about the effects on the reef of deforestation but I would imagine much of the clearing for cane and dairying was late 19th to early 20th Century. -
adelady at 17:29 PM on 7 July 2011Great Barrier Reef Part 2: Climate Change Impacts
"...mass coral bleaching events may have occurred in the past but we've only just begun to notice them. ..Firstly, mass coral bleaching events are hard not to notice. When a reef undergoes mass coral bleaching, there is a brilliant white colour that can be seen from passing satellites. Secondly, these events cover hundreds of square kilometres of territory when they occur,..." No need for satellites, or even planes. We should remember that in earlier times, naval, merchant, scientific, fishing and whaling vessels made formal detailed observations in their logs. In the case of Britain, worldwide observations for centuries. Where such formal recordings were lacking, informal conversations with other sailors in shore based pubs and the like would surely have spread the word on weird and wonderful things observed on various voyages. Fishing and coastal merchant vessels often travel the same routes repeatedly. They would surely have noticed such extreme changes in the areas they know in detail. -
les at 17:11 PM on 7 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
With reference to the post 283 - Norman*. "The above is an example of chemical equilibrium but in my view I think it is a Universal concept that applies to many branches of science." For a start; not all chemical reactions are equilibrium;
and for those who are fond of Wiki...
Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics that deals with systems that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Most systems found in nature are not in thermodynamic equilibrium
"My understanding of weather and most physical systems is that as they get closer to equilibrium, intensity is diminished."
In physics two kinds of dynamics exist which may be though of as static equilibrium and dynamic equilibrium. An example of the former is a bicycle at rest; its stable point is when it falls on its side. An example of the latter is a bicycle in motion; it's stable point - upright - is still a minimum but requires work input.
There's no natural fact of the matter that all systems are one or there other (any more than all systems are 'predictable' as in Newtonian dynamics).
Often, but not always, non-equilibrium dynamics is closely linked to chaotic systems. Due to friction etc., most systems which exhibit chaotic dynamics will drop out of chaotic mode unless energy is input... but when energy is input; the systems can remain around fixed attractors ... they are in dynamic equilibrium.
I'd suggest that the weather is, indeed, a dynamic system with many equilibria points amongst which bits of it switch. IMHO appeal to and faith in equilibrium dynamics is equivalent to the same error as the 'predictability' discussion.
*Note: I'm not addressing this to Norman since it's clear that when people post things which contradict his fundamental understanding of how the world works, he just ignores it; as in the case of the predictability of systems. This is for general discussion and consideration of the general reader.
-
batvette at 16:53 PM on 7 July 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
@JMurphy: The only disinformation is your continued accusation that's what I am doing when I state: "Michael Mann's conduct was examined by an internal, not independent, review board of the entity which employed him and stood to lose credibility if it were revealed he acted improperly." Which I simply asked you to point out what about it was such- you could not, [inflamatory deleted] [inflamatory deleted] ... that because University of Pennsylvania faculty members are from different departments than Dr. Mann, this constitutes an unbiased form of review in a matter which could place the institution's reputation at stake, but buying I'm not. This form of review which is standard at large universities is fine and dandy for matters of scope on a scale of student-teacher interactions, academic controversies like scoring papers, etc. When their work becomes influential enough that it leads to national and international policy affecting all of our lives being forged down the road, it is wholly inadequate and amounts to "good 'ole boy" culture of corrupt justice. You provide a passage which supports just what I am saying, inasmuch as it describes how these faculty members should not have a "conflict of interest", if you can describe how they all do not share the same interests of being faculty members under the employ of the same institution I'm all ears.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please acquaint yourself with the comments policy; any more of this inflamatory tone from any participant on this thread and I will start deleting posts. -
Albatross at 14:52 PM on 7 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @285, Sigh. Some of us have tried really, really hard to inform you on the science, but its seems a lost cause I'm afraid. Norman, I know hail pretty damn well. I can't say why that is, but I urge you to please take my word for it. Now with that in mind, you are glibly dismissing a peer-reviewed journal paper because of something that you read on Wikipedia. Wikipedia can be OK, but the following statement is not accurate and perpetuates at least two popular myths (can you spot them?): "Unlike ice pellets, hail stones are layered and can be irregular and clumped together. Hail is composed of transparent ice or alternating layers of transparent and translucent ice at least 1 millimetre (0.039 in) thick, which are deposited upon the hail stone as it cycles through the cloud, suspended aloft by air with strong upward motion until its weight overcomes the updraft and falls to the ground". As for the claim about freezing levels, that is true, but only to a point and in fact when one actually looks at the physics and thermodynamics the freezing level is not that critical severe hail because the high terminal velocities of the large hailstones results in them having a relatively short residence time below the melting level. Florida storms have produced severe hail with ridiculously high freezing levels and relatively weak ambient lapse rates. And last but not least Norman, had you bothered to look at the sounding I showed in my post @269 (you know the one for the almost 3 inch diameter hail), you will have noticed that the ambient freezing level was over 14400 ft! One reason for the paucity of hail in the tropical regions is that those environments have very weak lapse rates (especially over the oceans) and as a result they have what we call "skinny CAPE", which means that the CAPE is distributed over a great depth and that the mean difference between the updraft temperature and the ambient air is relatively small-- the end result is relatively weak updrafts despite high CAPE. Any hail that is then produced in the short-lived updraft is relatively small and much more likely to melt before reaching the ground. I can back this all up with references, but I am not willing to waste more time on this only to have contrarians repeatedly and glibly dismiss the science. Now I suppose someone in the know is going to have to try and fix that Wikipedia page.... -
scaddenp at 14:49 PM on 7 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
"I have not yet seen a tipping point in any yearly cycle. Everything seems to change gradually." Why would you expect otherwise? CO2 changes gradually too. "Tipping point" ideas arent really mainstream science. Best one I can think of would be arctic melt where beyond a certain point, change in albedo might make for feedback loop that would require substantial drop in other forcing to reverse. Another might be catastrophic release of hydrates but these are highly debatable points. I see no expectation of tipping points in original article or in these discussions. -
Norman at 14:14 PM on 7 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Albatross @ 269 "Extrapolations of the historical relations between hailstorm damage and weather indicators under climate change scenarios project a considerable increase in future hailstorm damage." I am not sure how this gentleman came up with this conclusion. Based upon what actually is happening with hail... "Hail is most common within continental interiors of the mid-latitudes, as hail formation is considerably more likely when the freezing level is below the altitude of 11,000 feet (3,400 m).[13] Movement of dry air into strong thunderstorms over continents can increase the frequency of hail by promoting evaporational cooling which lowers the freezing level of thunderstorm clouds giving hail a larger volume to grow in. Accordingly, hail is actually less common in the tropics despite a much higher frequency of thunderstorms than in the mid-latitudes because the atmosphere over the tropics tends to be warmer over a much greater depth. Hail in the tropics occurs mainly at higher elevations.[14]" Hail. Based upon the places hail falls, it would seem a warmer climate would inhibit hail from reaching the ground. -
Norman at 14:10 PM on 7 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Side note I almost forgot about. Half the globe experiences extreme global warming every year. 41.4 F in US from Winter to Summer. We can observe the behavior of extreme global warming every year. I have not yet seen a tipping point in any yearly cycle. Everything seems to change gradually. It is not winter one day then spring then summer. All the changes are gradual. There is not a light switch flip on climate change to every indicate the realtiy of a tipping point mechanism. There may be a few days that are way above normal or below in the gradual cycle but no tipping point at all.
Prev 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 Next
