Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1609  1610  1611  1612  1613  1614  1615  1616  1617  1618  1619  1620  1621  1622  1623  1624  Next

Comments 80801 to 80850:

  1. Eric the Red at 21:18 PM on 30 June 2011
    2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Tom, Have you compared your rainfall anomaly graph with the GISS temperature anomaly posted in #158? The rainfall follows temperature, but with an ~15 year lag.
    Response:

    [DB] What physics-based explanation do you propose for that?  Otherwise it's another case of "I see cycles".

  2. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Camburn @ 152 I did read through your Devil's lake article. It does show a similar concept of what I have been trying to point out in my numerous posts. Histroically the climate does not appear to be getting worse. There are large variations in rain amounts (drought and flood cycle) going back several centuries. When looking at the long history of any given area I have examined, I cannot conclude from the evidence that climate patterns are becoming more extreme or that flood/drought cycles are more intense, more frequent, or longer in duration.
    Response:

    [DB] The inescapable conclusion is that one cannot draw regional or global inferences based on single point references.  So the premise of your comment and your concept is based on a fallacious understanding of time series analysis.

  3. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    DB in 158 Thanks for the correction. I did reread Jeff Masters point on that and it is not that warmer air woould cause more overall rainfall (as you pointed out) but more extermes. Heavier rain in some areas and stronger droughts in others. You are completely correct. This is a very intelligent website and the posters expect and demand a higher level of reasoned responses. Too many mistakes and misunderstandings is too sloppy. I am trying to demonstrate points of histrorical weather patterns but a failure to keep it error free will work to make my posts seem sophmoric and not worry of consideration.
  4. The Climate Show 15: Michael Ashley and the ineducable Carter
    To be honest, I rarely watch the show - I download the podcast onto my iPod and listen to it while doing chores. My interview is on at the 45 minute mark and hurtles by for only 13 minutes (over that time, my daughter walks past in the background, our dog ambles by and you can see the back of Wendy's head the whole time).
  5. Ocean acidification: Coming soon
    That list of punning headlines would make any sub-editor proud. Does 'always take the weathering' make any sense outside of Oz and NZ? Looking forward to the series.
  6. Throwing Down The Gauntlet
    "Cool", yup, that's definitely what they're thinking Adelady, no doubt about it. Well, actually it might be bemusement, it's difficult to tell sometimes. I'm sticking with 'electric motorbike' though, electric bike means electric bicycle to me. And plenty of bragging rights when it comes to mpg conversations.
  7. Throwing Down The Gauntlet
    Oh, & I've also gone with a Green Power scheme recently. I only use around 5-6kw-h of electricity per day, so its only costing me an extra 1c/kw-h for 100% Green Energy. That's a *bargain* in my opinion-especially once the carbon tax kicks in ;-)!!!
  8. Throwing Down The Gauntlet
    I went with a Continuous Flow Gas Hot Water system myself. Cost a few hundred dollars more than an electric hot water storage system but, in the 5 years since I installed it, its paid for itself several times over. Plus its generating a fraction of the CO2 emissions that my old water heater used to generate, because its much, much more efficient!
  9. Throwing Down The Gauntlet
    David, I think the personal/ domestic action is worthwhile. Mainly because of the general perception that running the government is much the same as running a household or a business. (I think this is a bit misguided, but nevertheless it's there.) If people see that it's 'normal', 'economical' or even 'cool' to take these actions, the stage is set for more general economy wide action. ('Cool' refers to the opinion of school students about a teacher happily coasting straight past school buses held up in traffic - on an electric bike, not a motorbike. It actually looks more like a Vespa scooter.) When lots of people in your street have solar PV, you're not becoming a 'hippie' or a 'greenie' if you instal it too. And it's easy to get bragging rights in your retirement village - my mum always checks the readings on her system before she goes anywhere.
  10. The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
    @ Patrick I downloaded the free software FreeFem++ at http://www.freefem.org/ff++/ which solve the PDE systems and I used it. I used a domain 90x120. The abscissas between X15 and X75 represent an entire Earth’s meridian circumference, that’s, X15 is the equator at midday, X30 the North Pole, X45 the equator at midnight, X60 the South Pole, X75 again the equator at midday. The abscissas 0-X15 and X75-X90 have been used only to obtain a perfect symmetry of the range X15-X75 with respect to X45. The ordinates represent the Earth’s atmosphere layer high 120 km above the surface. The assumed surface temperatures change sinusoidally along the meridian being 200K at poles and at equator 290K at midnight, 320K at midday. Using FreeFem++ I have solved the two-dimensional problem in the steady state using the follow system: ∇•u = 0 //continuity u •∇u + gk + Cp∇T – νΔu = 0 // momentum u •∇(CpT + gz) – λΔT = 0 // total energy without KE imposing a) T = 270 K at 120 km (within the thermosphere) and at 50 km (top of the stratosphere) b) T = temperature of equilibrium due to the emission 6e-8*T^4 for the thermal sinks of the tropopause at 10 km and the mesopause one at 90 km and plotting a) the temperatures ”(temperature)” b) the vertical velocities ”(vertical velocities)” c) the vectors velocity ”([u,v])” d) the lapse rates at X15 (equator at midday) ”(X15-equator at midday)” , at X22.5 , mid latitude at midday, ”(X22.5-mid latitude at midday)” , at X30, poles, ”(X30-poles)” , at X37.5, mid latitude at midnight, ”(X37.5-mid latitude at midnight)” , at X45, equator at midnight, ”(X45-equator at midnight)” I have to make amends for my mistake. The mesosphere lapse rate is not able to activate the convection. I have reduced the ordinates to 10 km and plotted also the horizontal and vertical components of the velocities which are quantities with sign so it is possible to understand the sense of the eddies thermally induced. ”(velocities X90)” I have plotted some lapse rates for different latitudes. At the equator the concavity of the lapse rate is positive showing that the energy of the lower atmosphere is increasing both in daytime and nighttime; for the mid latitudes the lapse rates day/night are linear; at the poles the concavity of the lapse rate is negative because the falling air is losing its energy.” (lapse rates of temperatures)” The results of this very simple simulation confirm what was well known: - we need different temperatures on the surface to activate circulation induced by convection - the turbulence is present almost exclusively within the lowest region of the tropopause - if the Earth is not rotating and then without the Coriolis forces, the global circulation occurs according to a simplified one-cell way between the equator and the poles, as we can see, e.g., at http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7p.html or at many other sites of physical geography on the web. The most important result is that it is enough to add two radiating layers at the top of both the troposphere and the mesosphere and the behavior of the entire atmosphere seems satisfactorily (even if grossly) explained. May be, the physics is more and more simpler than we tend to depict it.
  11. Throwing Down The Gauntlet
    Given perseus's point above I'll tell you about my new electric motorbike: It costs not significantly more than an equivalent (125cc) petrol driven bike, £3000 new, and has similar performance. Top speed 60mph. Range 40 miles, and possibly up to 70, which is more than adequate for my commute to work and back each day. Cost of charging less than 1p per mile and the batteries should last 2000 charging cycles, or about 4 to 5 years of regular use, before they need replacing (current price about £800). Even with the current energy mix this gives emissions reductions compared to a petrol bike over its lifetime - and if you're replacing a car then the savings, both financial and environmental, are massive. This is a realistic solution that's available now. I enocurage you all to participate in it.
  12. The Climate Show 15: Michael Ashley and the ineducable Carter
    Hey, that's a good 15 minutes shorter than the previous episode, so the efforts at brevity are having some effect! barry, it's well worth watching the whole lot. I like to have it open on my second screen while doing other more menial tasks on the first [cough World of Warcraft cough]...
  13. Throwing Down The Gauntlet
    I think the economic argument for some sorts of action is quite strong (thus the comment about the denier with the rooftop PV). A few years back, our (electric resistance) hot water system failed. We paid a premium of ~$1,000 or so to go solar. Since then, our electricity bill has been about $100/quarter less. In another few years, the savings will have completely paid for the hot water system - total cost, not just the 'solar premium'. Given the prospects for ever-rising electricity prices, I think a rooftop PV array may be in our near future as well. I'd love to get one big enough to offset our entire daily use, but not sure the budget will stretch that far. Perseus, I like your analogy - it fits in well with the government motivation. If 50% of people with riverfront properties sandbag, then the government will probably step in and do the rest. You're certainly not going to ever get 100% community buy-in, waiting for that means the whole enterprise is doomed because of the cranky denier on the corner who claims the river has flooded before, it's entirely natural, we shouldn't do anything about it...
  14. Ocean acidification: Coming soon
    Also looking forward to this series! OA, all by itself, may have devastating impacts on human activity - here's a quote from an FAO briefing paper[pdf] for the COP15 conference: Fish (including shellfish) provides essential nutrition for 3 billion people and at least 50% of animal protein and minerals to 400 million people in the poorest countries. Over 500 millon people in developing countries depend, directly or indirectly, on fisheries and aquaculture for their livelihoods. Not to mention the monetary value - the NOAA indicates that commercial fisheries in the US alone were worth $3.9 billion in 2009. FAO numbers put just the international trade in fishery produce at ~$85 billion per year.
  15. It's the sun
    @KR You cannot deny that a well tuned, means a good model can predict everything wanted. Honestly, this IPCC model linked is a bad one. The only section that has a nearly proper correlation is the time after 1963 in the upper diagram (anthropogenics included). The other part, 1900 until 1963, does not fit at all. This is a mess, because this is the section to which the natural forcings have to be attuned. Neither in the upper nor in the lower diagram there are any signs of fitting the lower peak around 1910 or the higher peak in the 40th. So the predicted temperature curve is much too flat. As well, the effect of global dimming, widely accepted in science, is missing (the natural forces would have caused higher temperatures, countered by this effect). This is a clear sign of underestimated natural forcings in this model (both curves are almost identical in this time, so the anthropogenic forcings are negligible). One that claims to have a sceptic look at science must have recognized this - and, if I am right, most posters here claim it. Regrettably I have to conclude that it is not as you suggest that there would be an excellent correlation. Perhaps some kind of excellence in the part that is claimed to be important, but a mess in the offcut. Generally, models, even those accepted by the IPCC, do not always match the reality. You can of course use the models to get your conclusions, but how reliable can models be if the tuning sections don't fit at all?
  16. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Further to Tom's point - a proper evaluation of an hypothesis is compare observation to actual model prediction not just what you think the model predicts. The models for regional effects of weather as the globe warms are not that robust but do clearly delineate areas which will get wetter and which will get dryer. The worrying thing about the Min et al paper was that there was more extreme precipitation events than models than their models predicted.
  17. The Climate Show 15: Michael Ashley and the ineducable Carter
    Yikes - it's an hour+ long. Not all of us have spare bandwidth/time to check it out. Can you do a quick round-up of the segment, or at least give the time code? Cheers, barry.
  18. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
    stefaan: Yes, you can add more and more cycles, sub-cycles, and epi-cycles until your simulation provides quite an accurate reproduction of past behaviour. Such models almost invariably fail the prediction test - which I believe was one of the key reasons for the downfall of the geocentric model of the solar system - as time went by, more and more sub-cycles were needed to account for the variance between model and reality, until the whole house of cards collapsed, to be replaced by the heliocentric model which was described by a few (relatively) simple equations, and which allows fairly accurate prediction centuries into the future. I think the term 'house of cards' is accurate in that example, as it was all based on, and completely relied on, one fundamental assumption, that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Observation showed that fundamental assumption was incorrect, and additional complexities were added in to the model (with no basis in physical science whatsoever) in order to account for that error. In the climate science field, however, there are multiple foundations (e.g. CO2 absorption spectra, black body radiation, conservation of energy) which are so thoroughly tested by experiment and observation that it would be very improbable for any of them to be overturned at this point in time. Tamino has a good post covering another 'skeptic' prediction that turned out to be not-so-good - this time from the 2009 NIPCC report regarding arctic sea ice. The last graph is a cracker - especially when you consider most of that data was available at the time the NIPCC report was written!
  19. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Norman @158, your conclusion that warmer air will hold more water, and hence there will be fewer droughts is to simplistic. As a first order effect, it is in fact true that warm air can hold more water; and all else being equal, this will lead to greater precipitation. Indeed, that is just what we see globally (over land). As can be seen below, the expected daily rainfall over the globe is increasing with increasing temperatures. Based on the GRCM3 model, the expected increase is about 0.06 mm per day over course of the 20th century, and as much as five times that increase over the course of the twenty first: A 0.06 mm/day increase translates to an annual increase of 22 mm over the period 1900 to 2010, or about 2 mm per decade. That does not sound like a lot, but it is an increase in the mean global anomaly, ie, the average of the increase at all recording stations. In other words, your typical city is expected to be receiving 242 mm more rain per annum now than they where in 1900. According to Australia's Bureau of Meteorology, the trend over that period has been 2.08 mm/decade, or a mean increase of 243 mm. As a hindcast, that retrodiction was not bad. But that is just the simple stuff. In fact, the change in precipitation is not expected to be, and has not been evenly distributed in space: Some areas are expected to receive less rainfall, and consequently other areas must receive more. The natural consequence of that is that some regions are now more prone to droughts, and some more prone to floods. And one crucial point you neglected is that, if air is dry, its increased capacity to carry water just means it sucks more moisture out of the environment than it used to. That means just looking at changes in precipitation understates changes in aridity in some areas.
  20. Throwing Down The Gauntlet
    What is surely more important is that others learn by your example and the behaviour spreads. There is little to be gained in being an isolated example and making oneself feel better. Surely the community as a whole needs to be encouraged (or made) to participate. Otherwise it becomes the mentality of sandbagging your stretch of the river whilst your neighbour does nothing. It only works if everyone does it.
  21. Stephen Baines at 15:02 PM on 30 June 2011
    Climate's changed before
    That's really interesting kiwipoet. I think there are some important observations here that I have observed myself, albeit in a less obvious way. I wonder if you should post this in another thread where it might be more relavent - maybe the consensus image thread or another concerning communication of climate science. Any advice moderators?
    Response:

    [DB] Several come to mind, chief of which is probably this one:

    Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming

  22. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
    Albatross: Well, yes. Check out this paper from his home page: http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/CO2_atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.pdf
  23. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Tom Curtis # 149 You chop too much off my concept and then use it as an agrument against my point... I continued my line about the proxy link of Munich Re. "The best posted so far is the Munich Re disaster trend. And this is an indirect proxy with too many other varialble to create a conclusive argument of the overall thesis." On the paper you reference, what did you think I was trying to show? My point of adding that paper was the larger point. Weather extremes happen all the time. The article of this thread is concerned that 2010 is so unusual and is proof that Global warming is now drastically changing weather patterns. I do not happen to share this view and post long term historical records of various locations and ask for evidence that shows a drastic or unusual nature in our current weather or climate patterns. So far I have looked at droughts. I looked at droughts in Texas, North America, Australia, the Pacific Coast. In the data I pull up I cannot see any increasing droughts in intensity, duration or frequency. I have mentioned flooding. I have found China has floods at least every other year. A proxy with too many variable that can effect it is not the best type. Some proxies are very direct. The expansion of a liquid based upon its temperature. What we are directly measuring is expansion. The expansion translates well to a temperature of the liquid. There are few other variables, besides temperature, that expand the fluid so it works well. Munich Re even mentions the many possible variables when linking disaster events to extreme weather events. It is the last page of the Munich Re report you linked to. I am not against proxies but data using them may only give you an approximation. If many variables effect a proxy then it probably would not be used.
  24. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    skywatcher @ 148 Sometimes I am not clear enough in the point I am making and I apologize for that. I was talking about the wet years cycle and it level. The wet cycles from 1950 to the present do not show any significant upward trend that I can see. You are correct during the cooler years the Global precipitation was mostly dry except a few wet years. I am thinking of connections buy may not present them well. I am not a professional presenter and I think my fingers move faster than my brain. If this was a formal paper I was writing in college, I would be more careful with my wording and thought process. I have been assured if I make a mistake in one of my posts then some interested member will point them out, I will then attempt to correct the error the best I can. Here is the connection I was getting at with the wet cycle trends on the Jeff Masters global precipitation chart. GISS global temp anomaly. You can see the temp was going down from the 1940's to the 1970's. Then it begins its rapid rise for the next 40 years. The precipitation graph does not show this increase. I am saying I can't see a similar upward trend in the precipitation graph that would prove the expected result of global warming prediction. Warmer air holds more water and this will lead to increased precipitation.
    Response:

    [DB] "Warmer air holds more water and this will lead to increased precipitation."

    What source do you have for that declaration?  As written, the logic does not parse.  As warmer air does indeed hold more water, the evidence shows that desertification and soil aridity increases overall, while precipitation events may become more severe, with greater potential for runoff and erosion.

    To have an expectation that temperature increases will then show similar upward trends is an unsupported fallacy.

    You are faring poorly in your argumentation.

  25. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Camburn @153, if that is supposed to be a rebuke to this thread, it is ill placed. Jeff Masters does not mention tornadoes in his post. Nor has anyone here, to my knowledge, argued that there has been a statistically significant increase in the number of severe tornadoes. I and others have argued that there has been a significant increase in severe weather events in general, and that that is related to global warming, but to suggest that we should not discuss extreme weather in general is nonsense.
  26. David Horton at 13:55 PM on 30 June 2011
    Throwing Down The Gauntlet
    That is fine, but the trouble is that personal action (and I have taken actions along the lines you suggest) is nowhere near enough - only a fraction of the response needed.
  27. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Tom Curtis @ 150 I did not know I had any credibility with you in the first place but thanks for pointing out my error. I did mean North America and for some reason put Northern Hemisphere. I checked again and I did have it correct on my original link.
  28. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Tom Curtis @ 146 Thank you for the links to the Amazon and past droughts. You are a better cyberman than myself. Most my searches for any type of record on Amazon droughts pulled up page after page of the 2010 drought with no history.
  29. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
    Hi Dana, This may have been addressed, but going by Easterbrook's "predictions" it is not clear to em what he thinks climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is. From what I can gather they suggest that sensitivity is very close to zero, in which case that would be ludicrous.
  30. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Norman @94 (By special request) Norman is arguing against my contention (@88) that:
    "You think there is an important distinction only because you have in your mind that an Earthquake is a big thing hitting a large region. Of course, the damaging region of most earthquakes is in fact small, but you typically think of the big newsworthy quakes. In contrast your idea of a weather related disaster is just a single thunderstorm or twister. In fact, for statistical purposes it is a weather front, or a tornado outbreak; so while a big earthquake is pretty much guaranteed to damage nearby cities, a large weather related disaster is very likely to hit multiple states, or even countries."
    (Emphasis added) Against this contention he supplies the following evidence:
    "The quake just before 4:37 a.m. was centered six miles from West Salem, Ill., and 45 miles from Evansville, Ind. It was felt in such distant cities as Milwaukee, Des Moines, Iowa, and Atlanta, nearly 400 miles to the southeast. "It shook our house where it woke me up," said David Behm of Philo, 10 miles south of Champaign. "Windows were rattling, and you could hear it. The house was shaking inches. For people in central Illinois, this is a big deal. It's not like California." In West Salem itself, a chimney on one house fell and there were reports of cracks in walls. "We're very thankful we had no one injured," said Harvey Fenton, the town's police and fire chief. He was at first unsure what to make of the sudden rumbling when it woke him up. "A major shaking is the best way I can describe it," said Fenton, 58. Fifteen miles to the southeast, in Mount Carmel, a woman was trapped in her home by a collapsed porch but was quickly freed and wasn't hurt, said police dispatcher Mickie Smith. A century-old apartment building there, a former schoolhouse, was evacuated because of loose and falling bricks."
    (emphasis added) As the point of contention is the damaging radius of small earthquakes, evidence that a small earthquake has a damaging radius of around 10 miles (six miles from West Salem to the epicentre in approximately the directionof Evansville, and hence Mount Carmel, which was 15 miles from West Salem). I assume Norman has focussed on the fact that the earthquake was felt up to 400 miles away. However, what is at issue is not detection, but whether the event would have been recorded as a natural disaster, and for that, the relevant issue is the radius of damage, not of detection. Norman also presents evidence that magnitude 7 quakes can have damaging radii of up to 100 miles. Again, I do not see how this does anything but support my claim that "a big earthquake is pretty much guaranteed to damage nearby cities", and nor is it relevant to my claim that "a large weather related disaster is very likely to hit multiple states, or even countries". To put this into context, there are seven earthquakes listed by wikipedia as occurring in the US in 2010. They were: The Eureka Earth Quake (6.5), 463 buildings damaged, $43 million in losses; The Illinois earthquake (3.8) no damage or injuries; The Pico Rivera earthquake Not worth more than a stub, so no futher information; The Baja California Earthquake (more details later); The Borrego Springs earthquake (5.4) apparently no injuries or damage; The Potomac-Shenandoah earthquake , again only worth a stub; and The Indiana Earthquake (3.8) no injuries or damage. The important thing to note is that of these earthquakes, only two would count as natural disasters according to the criteria of Neumayer and Barthel, 2011, and only one, the Baja California earthquake, would count as a major natural disaster by their criteria. As it happens, the Baja Earthquake is listed as number 17 on Munich Re's list of 50 major natural disasters in 2010. They list it as causing, 2 fatalities, overall losses of $US 1.15 billion, and describe as follows:
    "Mw 7.2. 6,000 homes damaged. Water and sewage systems damaged. Telecommunication, electricity cut off. Injured: >230, evacuated/displaced: 25,000"
    Five other natural disasters in the US make the 2010 list of major natural disasters: 15) Severe storms and floods in New York and New Jersey, causing 11 fatalities, $US 1.7 billion in damage, and "Thousands of homes, businesses, cars damaged/destroyed. Losses to airport facilities and infrastructur[e]"; 22) Severe storms, tornadoes, and floods in Tennessee causing 32 fatalities, $US 2.7 billion in damages, and ">70 tornadoes. Thousands of homes and cars damaged. Water supply affected. Crops destroyed, livestock killed. Losses to infrastructure."; 26) Severe storms, tornadoes, and flash floods in "USA esp CO" (Connecticut?) causing 1 fatality, $US 0.85 billion in damages, and "Buildings, cars damaged. Losses to infrastructure and agriculture."; 33) Severe storms and tornadoes in "USA esp MT, MN", causing 4 fatalities, $US 0.83 billion and "Buildings, cars damaged. Losses to infrastructure and agriculture."; and 42) Wildfires in " USA: esp. CO" causing no fatalities, $US 0.31 billion in damage, and "170 homes, mobile homes, numerous cars destroyed, thousands of buildings damaged." (Number 50 on the list is also from the US, but does not meet the Neumeyer and Barthel's criteria for a "major disaster".) Bear in mind that the annual rate of "major disasters" have doubled over the last thirty years. Norman's contention that weather related natural hazards are not increasing is only plausible if detection rates of major natural disasters have risen by close to 100% or more over that period. If they have only risen by 50%, then there is still a substantial increase in events over that period. Looking at the list of major weather related disasters above, clearly that claim is not reasonable.
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed tags.

  31. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    I can only recommend everyone read response number 6 in the following thread. The author of said response is a scientist at NOAA. Bill Patzert
    Response:

    [DB] "The author of said response is a scientist at NOAA."

    Umm, no.  If it is indeed the same Bill Patzert as this one, then he is a scientist at JPL.

  32. Humanracesurvival at 12:48 PM on 30 June 2011
    Throwing Down The Gauntlet
    I like the blunt way this is going... Bottom line, shut down the denial machine now and do not let the MSM get away with underreporting the story of the century.
  33. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Devils Lake is not far from the Missouri River Basin and experiencing very simliar long term precipitation trends. This study shows long term Devils Lake basin hydrology. Long Term Hydro study of Devils Lake
  34. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Norman @145, your counter-argument against Father Theo is specious. The tornado peak in 1974 was a consequence of the very strong 1974 La Nina, while the 2011 peak (expected to be almost as large, and possibly larger) is also correlated with a very strong La Nina. Therefore attributing the large 1974 peak to "chaos" is not justified and your counter-argument fails. The annual run off for the Missouri does not show any correlation to ENSO discernible by eye. However, it does show a distinct rising trend, with 9 out of 12 MAF 34.3 events occurring in the last 40 years of a 110 year record, and the highest three occurring in the latter period in nice sequential order. This does not prove a causal relationship between global warming and high run off. However, there is a proven relationship between global warming and higher specific humidity, so the maths here isn't that hard.
  35. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Norman @147, it would help your credibility no end if you would at least start drawing a distinction between North America and the Northern Hemisphere.
  36. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Norman @144:
    "My strongest objection is it is an indirect proxy for measuring actual weather extremes."
    (My emphasis) Norman @140:
    "Does the evidence really show this? Here is a report on British Columbia long term climate... There were some very big fires in the past. British Columbia drought history.
    (My emphasis) From Norman's source:
    "High-resolution charcoal analysis of lake sediments and stand-age information were used to reconstruct a 1000-year Ž fire history around Dog Lake, which is located in the montane spruce zone of southeastern British Columbia. Macroscopic charcoal (>125 mm) accumulation rates (CHAR) from lake sediment were compared with a modern stand-origin map and fire-scar dates in the Kootenay Valley to determine the relative area and proximity of Ž fires recorded as CHAR peaks. Small fires close to the lake and larger more distant fires appear as similar-sized peaks in the record. This information reinforces previous Ž findings where CHAR peaks represent a complex spatial aggregation of local to extra-local fires around a lake site."
    So to be absolutely clear, Norman has strong objections to using indirect proxies ..., unless he thinks they show what he wants them to show, in which case they are fine despite such confounding factors as an inability to distinguish between small, close fires and large, distant fires, or the effects of modern fire fighting on fires. Of course, the paper does not show what he thinks it shows. On the contrary, it shows "frequent stand-destroying fires" in the MWP, the last time NH temperatures were similar to modern values.
  37. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Norman #142 and #147, you seem to be looking only for 13's on the climate dice. Even if they haven't happened (and Russia and Pakistan must've been close to 13's), there's an awful lot of 11's and 12's being rolled together in close proximity. Scanning the archives for widely-scattered individual events in scattered localities and disparate times does not capture the remarkable concentrated nature of what we have seen in the past few years. I also do not trust your assertion that in Jeff Masters' precipitation chart you "... do not see any noticeable or certain upward trend in his graph." Well, I do. It just so happens that before about 1950 nearly all years were below average. Most years after 1950 were above average, and there is an upward trend, which is quite noticeable.
  38. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Albatross @ 143 "Your argument , if one could even call it that, that because there were fires in the past means that we can not be causing fires now, or that we are not worsening existing situations now or into the future, is a logical fallacy." That is not my argument. Sorry that is what you see. My argument is fairly simple. Jeff Masters posted some severe weather events of 2010. He used these events to make the conclusion "The pace of extreme weather events has remained remarkably high during 2011, giving rise to the question--is the "Global Weirding" of 2010 and 2011 the new normal? Has human-caused climate change destabilized the climate, bringing these extreme, unprecedented weather events? Any one of the extreme weather events of 2010 or 2011 could have occurred naturally sometime during the past 1,000 years. But it is highly improbable that the remarkable extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011 could have all happened in such a short period of time without some powerful climate-altering force at work. The best science we have right now maintains that human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 are the most likely cause of such a climate-altering force." I just do not agree with his conclusion or that the weather is becoming more extreme. I am looking at various historical information of weather and climate events to determine if his statement is correct. That we are entering extreme times. I sent a report of droughts in the Northern Hemisphere for the last 1000 years and put a challenge to you. Look at the graphs provided and explain to me how they show droughts are getting worse either in frequency of events, duration of such events, or intensity of such events. The graphs have length of time per drought cycle and the intensity and the frequency of each cycle as well. I can not see an increase in droughts in North America from the graphs I look at, maybe you can. That is what I am asking for. On the fires, it is not about the cause of the individual fires. I posted that as demonstrating that the patterns are not more extreme. Points to get across. I am not against taking action and finding alternate fuels, I think it is a very good idea. So I am not against the general consensus of this website (which I believe most are advocating). I am questioning the whole concept of weather getting worse. Maybe a climate model predicts such events, that is about as good as a weather model forcasting weather. They are good for a few days and then it is anybody's guess. I am asking the posters to come up with conclusive empirical data that supports the thesis that Global Warming is definately leading to more severe weather (as defined by one of the following, intensity, frequency and duration). The best posted so far is the Munich Re disaster trend. And this is an indirect proxy with too many other varialble to create a conclusive argument of the overall thesis.
  39. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Norman @123, the most extensive direct record of Amazon water states is from the river gauge at Manaus. That provides a continuous record of river levels for the Rio Negro, a major Amazon tributary, since 1903. The record is analysed by Richey et al 2004. The data through 2009 is available on a spreadsheat, in which river depths are given in centimetres. Analysing that data, the low river point in 2005 was 1.78 standard deviations below the mean, while in 2010 it was over 2.5 standard deviations below the mean. That gives an incomplete picture of the droughts. The 2005 and 2010 droughts where unusual both as to the location of the rainfall deficit and to their timing. In particular, their timing correlated with El Neno's, whereas, the 2005 and 2010 droughts correlated with La Nina's and where probably caused by unusually warm tropical Atlantic sea water. More importantly for this point is that, unusually for Amazon droughts, the 2005 droughts had low water simultaneously in all its tributaries (see abstract below). That means that a measure of river levels, and in particular the standard deviation of just one tributary (the Rio Negro) will understate the impact on the total Amazon flows.
    "Severe hydrological droughts in the Amazon have generally been associated with strong El Nino events. More than 100 years of stage record at Manaus harbour confirms that minimum water levels generally coincide with intense warming in the tropical Pacific sea waters. During 2005, however, the Amazon experienced a severe drought which was not associated with an El Nino event. Unless what usually occurs during strong El Nino events, when negative rainfall anomalies usually affect central and eastern Amazon drainage basin; rainfall deficiencies in the drought of 2005 were spatially constrained to the west and southwest of the basin. In spite of this, discharge stations at the main-stem recorded minimum water levels as low as those observed during the basin-wide 1996–1997 El Nino-related drought. The analysis of river discharges along the main-stem and major tributaries during the drought of 2004–2005 revealed that the recession on major tributaries began almost simultaneously. This was not the case in the 1996–1997 drought, when above-normal contribution of some tributaries for a short period during high water was crucial to partially counterbalance high discharge deficits of the other tributaries. Since time-lagged contributions of major tributaries are fundamental to damp the extremes in the main-stem, an almost coincident recession in almost all tributaries caused a rapid decrease in water discharges during the 2005 event."
    In the entire 108 year record , the Rio Negro has been lower than in 2005 (14.75 m) just 7 times {1906 (14.2 m); 1916 (14.42 m); 1926 (14.52 m); 1958 (14.74 m); 1963 (13.64 m); 1997 (14.34); and 2010 (13.63)}. The 2010 figure is, of course, the record low for the Rio Negro. The occurrence of two such low levels of the Rio Negro in just six years is itself unusual. When you consider that the reduction in the flow of the Amazon itself was even greater in relative terms, that the droughts occurred in an unusual geographic region, that they occurred when, based on the ENSO cycle we would have expected heavier rain rather than ligher, and that between them (2009) the record flood levels for the Amazon were set as well, also unusual as to timing and location, the notion that this is a continuation of "same ol', same ol'" is nonsense. Please note that the droughts of 2005 and 2010 were unusual dry season droughts. The most extreme Rio Negro drought on record was the wet season drought of 1926, in which Rio Negro peak flows were five standard deviations below the normal peak. Nor was 2005 exceptional in terms of total flows over the year, in that an almost normal wet season meant that lower annual flows have been achieved in one if four years. The distinction between wet season and dry season droughts is probably important with regards to impacts on the Amazon forest, but not with regard to the unusual nature of the 2005 and 2010 droughts. (As a side note, 1963 was also a wet season droughts.) More information available here (pdf)
  40. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    FatherTheo @141 Maybe it does show a marked change and then again maybe not. When you deal with weather events, any single weather event (tornado, heavy rain etc) is created from a complex of many forces. Many factors go into a weather event (temperature, humidity, wind structure, cold lifting air, jet stream) all of which are variable and may influence each other. You remember the old physics experiment when you have a water bath and generate waves. The average wave height is a product of the energy input. But you can have constructive interference and generate waves much bigger than the average. You see a trend in the Missouri river drainage graph. Then look at this one. Weather is chaotic. Now look at the trend of this graph. Look at 1953 a peak above the rest (now compare your analysis to the Missouri river basin) then 1957 is above that. Then in 1965 maybe double the normal. Then 1974 stands out like a sore thumb. Proof positive the climate is changing for the worse and we will all soon be killed....whoops but then look what happens after that, everything goes back to normal until 2011. I believe you can see this random and wide fluctuations on most historical weather data. I compiled a little excel graph of snowfall in Omaha. You have these 3 huge peaks and then it never gets up there again. If you do not accept this I will find more historical graphs of weather related events and show to you that it is indeed how it works. The 2011 heavy rains were just like the biggest wave in the tank of water. All the right elements came together to produce the very heavy rainfall in the Missouri river basin. As I stated it this occurs a few more times I will think you are correct. My tornado graph was a demonstration of seeing trends were there may be none. Hope that clears it up for you.
  41. Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
    Eric, which kind of event(s)/data in the future will convince you that you are wrong?
  42. Bob Lacatena at 10:36 AM on 30 June 2011
    Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
    126, Eric, That's a cop out. You seemed to give a pretty clear description, but by leaving it unquantified, it gives you all the wriggle room that you want to claim "that's not what I meant." Set things high if you want, but set some numbers. There has to be some point where you'd say really, this isn't right, no matter what. On the whole middle thing... science doesn't have a middle. There are a few fine points where you can argue one way or the other, and there are some other points where you can appear to argue it two ways (like climate sensitivity), but overall, the facts are the facts. The two sides of the road are "people who understand, and are concerned" and "people who are confused, and don't realize that they should be concerned." People who stand in the middle of the road, unable to choose, have either fooled themselves into thinking they understand when they don't, and they belong on the ignorance side of the road, or else the do understand and they are being disingenuous for some unknown reason, and are misleading people into thinking there is some reason to hesitate before picking a lane. There is no middle of the road. There's the side that's trying to steer the car around an upcoming, deadly obstacle, and there are the people on the other side, driving backwards, laughing, drinking beer, and guffawing at the frantic looks on the faces of the people in the other lane, shouting "Look out behind you! You're going to crash! Look out!"
  43. Climate's changed before
    Bear with me, bloggers, as this is my first post to SkSci, in fact my first post ever. I would like to make a comment on E Sato’s post in this thread of May 16, as there is a story behind it. I teach writing at a NZ university, and gave a stage 1 (first year) English class (three tutorial groups, actually, about 60 students) a copy of the graphic that shows 97% of climate scientists acknowledging AGW, with media acceptance about 48% and the general public about 46%, and asked the students what conclusions they could draw from the data. (Sorry don't have link handy.) I further challenged the students to check out the SkSci site and a denier site, such as WUWT. The graphic produced a fierce discussion. About half the class seemed to get the point, although almost no one suggested that the monopolistic ownership of the media might be a problem. I should have been prepared for it, but I was quite shocked at the degree of confusion and fallacious thinking evident, with some truly ridiculous things being said. One student even suggested that climate scientists were terrorists of a kind. A student from India got angry at the idea that I was suggesting countries like India should curb their emissions while the ‘developed’ countries go on their merry way, while I had said nothing of the kind – I was solely concerned with the issue of scientific consensus. Anyway, of all the students E Sato was the only one to take up my challenge and post SkSci. E Sata describes herself as a second language learner, which explains some of her English, but aside from that the confusions evident in her post do reflect to some extent the more general confusion among the students. It seems that attitudes to possible solutions to AGW get conflated with the science of the issue: In other words, if you don’t like the tax, reject the facts! I came away from these classes thinking, rather gloomily, of that wonderful quote from Adorno, in his Minima Moralia: "The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false." (page 15, recently quoted but not referenced by Al Gore in his Rolling Stone article) A further thought. The words ‘science’ and ‘scientist’ have in themselves become a kind of mental block; after all it was ‘scientists’ who told us nuclear power was safe, ‘scientists’ who told us genetic engineering would feed the poor and not just make Monsanto rich. When talking with deniers I no longer use the words ‘science of global warming’ but rather refer to the evidence or the facts and try to leave the S word out of it. Finally, with regard to the subject of this thread (!), It seems that the ‘climate has changed before’ argument, most prominent among the students, is a refuge for those who know nothing about the issue at all, who wouldn’t know a Moncton from a Monbiot, and is therefore difficult to deal with. Denial, as we are starting to realize, has deep emotional and ideological roots. Voltaire said it all in four words: ‘men argue, nature acts’.
  44. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    scaddenp @142 I could only get an abstract to your article and from the reading it seems a model is used as opposed to direct measurements. Plus Jeff Masters already has a global precipitation chart in his article. It has 2010 as an extreme year over land but the graph does not look like an upward trend. I see cycles, dry and wet but I do not see any noticeable or certain upward trend in his graph. On the Insurance links. This issue is still up for debate. Even the Munich Re webpage that Tom Curtis linked to give multiple reasons as to explain why disasters are increasing. Climate Change is one of the possibilities. My strongest objection is it is an indirect proxy for measuring actual weather extremes. Weather extremes may be increasing and then they might not be. Too many other variables in the mix of what a disaster is. I have been asking for just the actual extreme weather events and a trend in these. Is there a chart out there in cyberspace that shows the number of floods a year increasing, or that the intensity of the flooding is going up as compared with previous years. Is there a chart of severe storms (as defined by meteorlogists) that show that the number and intensity is increasing? This is what I would call strong science. Direct evidence of the claim made Global warming is increasing extreme weather related events. So if you have direct (not modeled) evidence that precipitation is increasing that would help, but as I stated Jeff Masters already has a global chart up.
  45. Ocean acidification: Coming soon
    OA is the elephant in the room ignored by the "Geo-engineering will save us from warming!" crowd. I look forward to this series. Are you paying attention, Lomborg? (Probably not.)
  46. Tom Smerling at 08:51 AM on 30 June 2011
    ClimateBites.org -- A communicator's toolkit to complement SkS
    Nice catch, Badgersouth. we'll add it as a variation to our current "loaded dice" bite. (BTW you can add your own favorite "bites" directly on the site, with the "add a bite" button in "Bites.")
  47. ClimateBites.org -- A communicator's toolkit to complement SkS
    The following is worth bottling... Scientists compare the normal variation in weather with rolls of the dice. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere loads the dice, increasing odds of such extreme weather events. It's not just that the weather dice are altered, however. As Steve Sherwood , co-director of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Australia, puts it, "it is more like painting an extra spot on each face of one of the dice, so that it goes from 2 to 7 instead of 1 to 6. This increases the odds of rolling 11 or 12, but also makes it possible to roll 13." Source: Global Warming and the Science of Extreme Weather, Scientific American, June 29, 2011
  48. Tom Smerling at 08:19 AM on 30 June 2011
    Ocean acidification: Coming soon
    What a great idea! OA is such a "sleeper." I'm particularly interested in the latest projections re: impacts on the food chain and marine ecosystems in general. P.S. Love your titles!
  49. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Norman @140, Why oh why do you repeatedly insist on missing the point? The situation has been repeatedly explained to you, yet you insist with this position. That is not "skepticism"...and I for one am getting rather tired of this tired old "skeptic" and denier of AGW trick. Your argument , if one could even call it that, that because there were fires in the past means that we can not be causing fires now, or that we are not worsening existing situations now or into the future, is a logical fallacy. You mention BC forests. If I recall correctly, the dire pine beetle infestation that has destroyed swaths of BC's forests has been exacerbated by the marked warming, especially during the cold season, and may have set in motion a positive feedback loop in the Carbon cycle. See for example, Kurz et al. (2008, Nature).
  50. Ocean acidification: Coming soon
    The correct links are University of Otago Clark University I do know my OA but I don't yet know how to fix a link in a published post.

Prev  1609  1610  1611  1612  1613  1614  1615  1616  1617  1618  1619  1620  1621  1622  1623  1624  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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