Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 Next
Comments 80901 to 80950:
-
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 05:18 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
In the article you quote Don Easterbrook as saying "the 30-years of global cooling that we experienced from ~1945 to 1977. However, also likely are several other possibilities (1) the much deeper cooling that occurred during the 1880 to ~1915 cool period, (2) the still deeper cooling that took place from about 1790 to 1820 during the Dalton sunspot minimum, and (3) the drastic cooling that occurred from 1650 to 1700 during the Maunder sunspot minimum." My question is, why did he pick the start period for his ummm 'predictions'? Did he just conveniently skip all the years from 1977 to now? And how successful is his 'model' in hindcasting? How does he explain why it got so hot in recent years - or the overall rise in temperature of the entire past century? If his 'cycles' were merely 'cycles', why is the temperature not yet back to, say, that of 1700? Just when does he expect the whole 'cycle' to complete? A lot of questions, I know. I don't expect him to answer any of them :D -
dana1981 at 04:59 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Eric #9 - yes, as mentioned towards the beginning of the post, Figure 1 came from a presentation Easterbrook gave at the AGU conference in 2008, re-posted on WUWT. He had made very similar projections since 1998. Recently in the report you reference co-authored with D'Aleo, they revised the figure to include the very strange 2000-2008 temperature, probably from UAH. However, UAH has a different baseline than the the surface temperature dataset used up to 2000 (probably HadCRUT). I don't know how they spliced the two together, but there seems to be something shady going on there. Figures 1 and 2 in the post above do basically match, by the way, except we used GISTemp as opposed to whatever IPCC temperature data Easterbrook used up to 2000. -
Eric the Red at 04:28 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Ok, let's assume that he's using fuzzy data for temperatures. It is the 2000-2010 range that is causing me some concern. Figs. 1 and 2 do not appear to match, and neither seem to agree with the figure from his report (link above). His report seems to start his projection from 2008 and a temperature anomaly of ~0.2C. Your projections seem to start at 2001 and an anomaly of 0.4C. Did Easterbrook present an earlier version of this report to which you are referring? -
mspelto at 04:16 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Don is not very careful with accuracy. He often mentions the 1977-1998 warm period to be followed by the current cool period. yet on page 13 he refers to the 1977-2007 warm period. That is because the Mount Baker glaciers were still retreating rapidly. He also uses for Figure 20c and 21c images I took, not Jon Scurlock who is a great aerial photographer. Since he emailed me about using these images, he knows well where they came from. I have provided a more up to date look at Boulder Glacier and Easton Glacier -
grayman at 04:11 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Thanks Dana, As you know from me, how anybody can say this much temp(one way or the other) will be this i can not understand,as you are a more learned man than myself on this i can see some things better know, though i am still a skeptic i have been learning. sorry i did not get back to you on the Renewables post family matters came up. You know how that goes. I still have a few questions on renewables, will address them later. -
dana1981 at 04:03 AM on 29 June 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Can you provide some quotes (with links) for Santorum that we can add to the database, badger? -
John Hartz at 03:50 AM on 29 June 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Add former US Sen(R-PA)Rick Santorioum who is currently seeking the Repblican presidential nominmation. -
Eric the Red at 03:49 AM on 29 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
Somes_J Thanks for the links. Apologies for the long delay. -
dana1981 at 03:43 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Hi grayman. Although I used GISS in the graph, I actually used the Wood for Trees composite in the numerical analysis, which is the composite of GISTemp, HadCRUT, UAH, and RSS. I did that to avoid using a single particular data set. But there's not really much difference between GISTemp and HadCRUT, though the latter shows a bit less warming over the past decade. Easterbrook uses a "model" in the sense that any prediction must use a model. His model assumes that PDO, AMO and sunspots dominate global temperature change, and that future changes will be similar to past changes. But I don't think he's using any sort of computer model. His process appears to be much more crude. -
Tom Curtis at 03:38 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
grayman @4, for the "cooling based on 1945-1977" prediction he appears to just append a smoothed version of one of the HadCRU global temperature indexes from 1945 to about 1995. He then appears to draw his own line to 2060, then appends the 1945-1995 line again. For the "cooling based on 1880-1915 prediction, he appears to use the same technique, but uses the HadCRU temp from 1880 to 1940. The last section (2090 onwards) appears to be free form in both cases. I believe this to be his procedure based on the similarity of the relevant curves rather than any stated procedure by Easterbrook. -
grayman at 03:19 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Hi Dana, I see you use GISTEMP and NASA GISS, what about HADCRUT, how do they compare? Does Don use a model or is he just plotting on a graph? -
John Hartz at 03:17 AM on 29 June 2011Bob Carter’s climate counter-consensus is an alternate reality
Speaking of volcanoes, check out: Humans Dwarf Volcanoes for CO2 Emissions by Jessica Marshall and posted (June 27) on Discovery News. The gist of the article: 1. Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year. 2. Volcanoes emit less than cars and trucks, and less, even, than cement production. 3. Climate change skeptics have claimed the opposite -
dana1981 at 03:14 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
CW - I recommend you read Glenn's "Of Averages and Anomalies" series, which explains how the surface temperature datasets are compiled. In particular, Part 2A explains the GISS 1200 km extrapolation. -
dana1981 at 03:09 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
jhudsy - as you can see in Figure 1, Easterbrook did not include error bars in his projections. The error bars in the surface temperature data are approximately +/- 0.05°C. Therefore, Easterbrook is already wrong by a large margin outside of the margin of error. Eric - as noted in the post, Easterbrook claims to have gotten the temp data in Figure 1 from one of the IPCC reports (TAR, I presume). Figure 42 in the paper you reference is unclear. The black line between 2000 and 2008 may be from UAH. -
Eric the Red at 02:46 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Does anyone know what temperature dataset Easterbrook is using. It does not resemble anything I can envision. His projections start from a 2008 value of about +0.2C. Compare fig. 1 & 2 above with fig. 42 from the Easterbrook report. http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/easterbrook_climate-cycle-evidence.pdf -
Tom Curtis at 02:30 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Sphaerica @88, after I read your first paragraph, the joke of the optimist leaping of a skyscraper came to mind. Unfortunately it came to yours first, so I don't get to pretend I'm clever. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:25 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
I need to point out that all efforts to measure and dismiss extreme weather events through either death tolls or economic losses fail abysmally on two counts. The first is that the noise in the numbers is far too great. Modern warning systems, building methods, response plans and equipment, and such far, far outweigh the strength or frequency of events. There's just no way to properly compare 1950 to 2010 using economics or fatalities and to say with any degree of confidence whatsoever "there's nothing to worry about." That's just looking for the silver lining by very purposefully ignoring the entire cloud. The second is that we're only into the very, very earliest start of climate change. This is the worst denial distraction there is: "I don't see anything to worry about yet." Except that we haven't doubled CO2 yet, even though it seems beyond inevitable, and the impacts of the CO2 that we have added have not yet been felt (i.e. the temperature of the earth is still trying to catch up, and slow feedbacks like albedo change and additional bio-generated CO2 have not yet made its way into the system). More than this, I expect changes in weather (this is unsupported and unsupportable opinion, not fact) to be incremental and non-linear. I think there will be points reached where people suddenly go "holy cow, when did all this start?" We may even be there now, or maybe it will only happen for the moment during ENSO events. We'll see, unfortunately. But I go once again to my favorite analogy, the story of the man who jumped from the top of a skyscraper, and was heard to remark, each time he passed an open window, "so far, so good." That, in a nutshell, is most denial to me, and the seeming perspective of Norman, Camburn, Eric the Red, and others. "So far, so good," they say, as the air whistles in their ears and they watch the windows of the building fly by, one by one.... but not forever. -
Michele at 02:23 AM on 29 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
@ Patrick Heating of the thermosphere has nothing to do with avoiding runaway. I clear my thought. There is the CO2 that avoid the runaway. An atmosphere perfectly transparent and heated solely at its bottom would be isothermal at T=Te. The thermosphere adds a heating source at its top and this heat has to reach the surface so that it can be radiated to space. Thus the surface would have a temperature Ts greater than Te (how much?), just below the thermosphere there would be a temperature Tt = Ts + 1.2e5*Ф/λ, i.e., we had Tt – Ts = 4.8e7*Ф and, even with a specific thermal flux Ф = 1W/m², we had Tt – Ts = 48000000 °C. Take away the ozone layer and the upper stratosphere and lower mesosphere get colder. Not at all. The absence of the heating will make all convective the atmosphere between the surface and the thermosphere and that will establish Venus-like conditions. But all the processes that do occur, including those which excite or relax a molecule so that it may emit a photon or so that it may not emit a photon after just absorbing one, are occuring in any sufficient population of molecules with sufficient collisional frequency. At LTE among the non-photons, which can be approximately maintained by sufficient collisional frequency, the distribution of energy among states is such that the fraction of molecules with some probability of absorbing any incident photons and the fraction that will emit photons in a given time period fit the temperature of the material, and it will emit according to the Planck function and absorb according to incident radiation and do both according to the same absorption/emission spectrum. Here is missing the thermal flux that the surface yields to the atmosphere by conduction and as sensible heat which can leave the atmosphere only once the KE of the colliding molecules has been transformed to radiative energy within the isothermal regions that allow the phase transition from the non-excited to excited state and so the photons emission. Just a point. Why do you continue to argue that all the thermo kinetics is founded on the radiative transfer, completely omitting the conduction and, over all, the convection, or leaving them a very marginal role? As far as I know, the heat output of a column radiator for room heating plan has the ratio radiative-heat/convective-heat equal about to 1/3, i.e., the convective effect is the 300% of the radiative one. Then neglecting the convection would be very hazardous and non-real. -
ClimateWatcher at 02:22 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
#19 What peer reviewed journal has 'Tamino' published this in? Why do you post a chart that does not represent measurement? -
ClimateWatcher at 02:19 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
CRU and GISS use the same input data set which does not cover the quarter of the globe which is land surface, much less the globe. The chart more accurately would be labeled: CRU - doesn't extrapolate over large unmeasured areas such as the Arctic, Antarctica, and Africa. GISS - extrapolates observations as distant as 1200 kilometers. This extrapolation probably doesn't matter much in the longer term, though in the shorter term ( a few decades ), the large smoothing radius of extrapolation tends to exaggerate whatever anomalous trend exists at the periphery of the large unmeasured areas. For example, in the early twentieth century warming, the GISS trend was less than the CRU trend by about the same amount that the recent GISS trend exceeds the CRU trend. -
Tom Curtis at 02:18 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
It turns out that the industry whose business depends on understanding the risk of extreme weather events is very worried about climate change: Insurance industry facing a climate of fear -
jhudsy at 02:17 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
While I disagree with Don's projection, would it not be fairer to him to post his projections with error bars included? Once his projections leave the 95% confidence interval mark when compared to what we've seen so far, then we can say he is (almost certainly) wrong. Until then, he's only probably wrong. -
Tom Curtis at 02:08 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @83, an earthquake of a given strength will lose strength as it propagates away from the epicenter. Consequently a small magnitude 5.5 quake, which is strong enough to do significant damage in a particular area will be felt as a magnitude 4 quake, or less, just a few miles away. Now consider this map of faults just north of Los Angeles:
A small quake on the Simi-Santa Rosa fault zone, Camarillo-Santa Rosa section fault (98b) might well not cause any damage in Thousand Oaks or Oxnard ten or twenty years ago, but cause damage now because of expansion of the urban fringe. In this it is no different from a small tornado near an urban centre in the midwest.
Because California, like most earthquake prone regions, is netted with faults, possible epicenters for quakes can be found virtually anywhere in the state. Indeed, they are found everywhere in the state on a daily basis (see map above). Therefore it is likely that small quakes which are large enough to do damage will most often occur in rural areas or just outside the surburban fringe. The expansion of the suburbs into rural areas will increase the risk of a an earthquake hazard becoming an earthquake disaster in exactly the same way that expansion of cities will increase the risk that a weather related hazard will become a weather related disaster.
The map above shows the earthquakes in California in the past week. None were above 3 on the Richter scale, but as you can see they are more or less randomly distributed along the major fault lines. All the major fault lines have their own cloud of small fault lines (as shown in the first map) increasing the distribution of potential earthquake hazards.
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.
-
les at 02:07 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
30 - CBDunkerson. Sure My post was a glib 'throwaway' but what I've been contemplating is the relation between Carter's behaviour and that analysed in the chapter referred to in this post. -
CBDunkerson at 01:37 AM on 29 June 2011New Zealand Snow No Show = No Jobs
apirateloksat50, notice the two to three month difference in time of year the two photos were taken. Ponder how much snow can melt in that time frame. -
Chris G at 01:37 AM on 29 June 2011A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
Bern (#8), I agree. Though, sometimes it is a chicken-egg scenario; if you are comfortable hearing what the channel saying, you tend to watch it more. There was an interesting poll study about the percentage of people who regularly watched/listened to specific channels and their belief in climate change. Something like 60% of Fox daily viewers did not believe there is a consensus among scientists, and only ~13% of NPR listeners felt the same way. CNN was somewhere in the middle. Related to "The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change": Misinformation and the 2010 Election: A Study of the US Electorate page 21 -
Norman at 01:33 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Badgersouth I posted this information previously and thought I would repost for you. Am I a "denier" or is the evidence still lacking to make a link with Global Warming causing more extreme weather. Texas Droughts. I need good solid evidence. A list of weather extremes in 2010 would not be enough unless the list was embedded in Historical data showing that last year's extremes were way beyond the normal for extremes that occur every year. -
CBDunkerson at 01:32 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Sorry les, I should clarify: I was proceeding from the hypothetical that Carter believed his claims about the CRU were true... in such a case he'd be using data he 'knew' to be fraudulent to advance an argument about recent warming. Stepping away from the hypothetical... yes objectively both of Carter's articles were clearly examples of journalistic malfeasance (i.e. reporting things which are obviously false). It's just that if we 'give him the benefit of the doubt', that he believed what he wrote in the 'Kill the IPCC' article, then in the 'An Inconvenient Fallacy' article he deliberately based his 'scientific' argument on 'faked' data. -
Eric the Red at 01:31 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Human Arctic warming was amplified in the early part of the 20th century also. http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/box_yang_jc_2009.pdf -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:28 AM on 29 June 2011New Zealand Snow No Show = No Jobs
And, on the other hand on the other side of the globe we have the opposite. Do they cancel out? :) Deep snow delaying opening of sunrise area in Mount Ranier National Park
-
dana1981 at 01:27 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
It's worth reading John's entire article. The 'cooling since 1998' claim was just one of five so-called "facts" put forth by Carter in the article which were all either half truths or outright lies. -
Norman at 01:22 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Badgersouth @ 81 If you want go to my post 33. It has a link to NOAA sight for Global Weather extremes on a monthly basis. Start looking at the different years and then demonstrate why you believe 2010 extremes were more extreme than other years. Is the evidence there, that first 2010 is really that extreme and also that the extremes are linked to global warming (as I have asked in numerous posts...what are the specific mechanisms that have been altered by global warming that would cause exterme weahter in 2010?) -
Norman at 01:16 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @78 "What is more, large weather related hazards, such as a tornado outbreak, are counted as just one disaster even though they may spawn many thousands of thunderstorms and hundreds of individual tornadoes." Why do would they do this? If Omaha got hit the same day as Huntsville, Alabama these would not be counted as seperate disasters? On the Earthquakes. The larger disaster causing earthquakes are small in number. I am sending two links. One with Earthquake number (global) and the other is the level they become disasters. Global Earthquakes last 10 years. Earthquake damage chart. In order for Earthquakes to cause more disasters, a growing population would have to migrate to places where noone is currently living yet prone to earthquakes. If they migrated to already populated areas (as they do) then an earthquake large enough to cause a disaster will not be effected by population growth. The number of targets is not increasing as is with population in storm areas or on flood plains. I am hoping that makes sense to you. -
Humanracesurvival at 01:08 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Related National Security Implications: Key climate denier funded by big #oil, #coal for decade, plotted to take down #IPCC -
Norman at 01:01 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Camburn @ 71 Here is a link from February discussing the spring runoff and plans. Gavin's point was releasing 21,000 cfs durning winter. Army Corp Winter plans for Missouri River. -
Humanracesurvival at 00:59 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
@ Eric the Red The warming for most is very present in the arctic. Might make this point as well. The warming of the Arctic, due to climate change, has been twice as high as the world average since 1980. Surface air temperatures in the Arctic since 2005 have been higher than for any five‐ year period since measurements began around 1880. Arctic summer temperatures have been higher in the past few decades than at any time in the past 2000 years. Link Summer snowfall decreases in Arctic because it changes to rain AGWObserver -
Humanracesurvival at 00:55 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Vote for this article @ reddit National Security Implication, Climate Denial: Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies -
Eric the Red at 00:54 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Long term, both GISS and CRU show the same linear trend of 0.6C / century (computed from 1880-present), even though they have different increases and decreases in the mid-century region which may or may not be cyclical in nature. On an annual basis, all the indices were above their long-term trend lines. On a monthly basis, CRU fell below its long-term trendline in Dec. - likely start of the La Nina impact on temperatures, and has been below the long term average for 4 of the last 5 months (through April, 2011). Yes, CRU does not cover the Arctic. On the flip side, its dataset is more consistent over the measurement period. The differences are not great. In the long run, which of these years, 1998, 2005, or 2010, is the hottest, will get lost in the noise. -
Humanracesurvival at 00:54 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
National Security Implication, Climate Denial: Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ibbzw/national_security_implication_climate_denial/ -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:34 AM on 29 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Ken Lambert The same applies to outbound fluxes. Also, as I pointed out, the same is true for CO2 radiative forcing. Does CO2 being above its long term equilibrium value cause indefinitely increasing temperatures? No, but the integral is similarly "the total energy under the CO2 radiative forcing curve between times t1 and t2". -
John Hartz at 00:25 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman's posts proove once again how difficult it is for a climate denier to mask his/her true identity and purpose. -
Eric the Red at 00:25 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Regarding the Neumayer and Barthel Paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378010001019 The authors found, "What the results tell us is that, based on historical data, there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters. More cannot be inferred from the data. In particular, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural disasters." And, "We find no evidence for an increasing trend in the normalized economic toll from natural disasters based on historical data, but given our inability to control for defensive mitigating measures we cannot rule out its existence, let alone rule out the possibility of an increasing trend in the future." -
John Hartz at 00:22 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Dr. Master's report is the basis of the in-depth article: "Climate change hots up in 2010, the year of extreme weather" by Jon Vidal, Environmental Editor, Guardian/UK, June 27, 2011 -
KR at 00:06 AM on 29 June 2011It's the sun
JoeRG - Please see CO2 is not the only driver of climate, and mentally replace "CO2" with "the sun" throughout the article. There are a lot of forcings that affect the climate - when looking at climate change we need to look at what the forcing changes are. TSI changes (as with magnetic storms, and ion counts, and galactic cosmic rays) don't correlate with recent warming. -
KR at 00:00 AM on 29 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Arkadiusz Semczyszak - I don't believe this thread is appropriate to discuss Milankovitch cycles - but you are raising a red herring, a distraction from the subject, by claiming that any uncertainties in the glacial cycle (occurring on a time frame 10's of thousands of years) has anything to do with the current global warming (occurring over the last century). I sincerely hope this red herring is simply an error, and not a deliberate misdirection. --- Ken Lambert - "TSI is a power unit (W/sq.m) - energy/unit time. Integrating it wrt time will give the total energy under the TSI curve between times t1 and t2." And again you look at TSI in isolation, not considering the response of the climate. You are directly asserting a constant imbalance, requiring a constantly changing TSI - and that.is.not.the.case. More properly, you should state that "integrating the imbalance between TSI and TOA radiation wrt time will give the total energy change of the climate" - a much different question, particularly since we know the changes in TSI since the pre-industrial level quite well, and hence must look elsewhere for the imbalance leading to climate change. Moderators - I sometimes feel the need for a 'bit bucket' for arguments that have been refuted a thousand times...Moderator Response: (DB) The TSI/TOA/equilibria bit has indeed been "Point Refuted A Thousand Times" (PRATT); the conclusion is becoming inscapable that KL is purposefully conflating the issue. -
les at 23:47 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
21 - CBDunkerson "Are we sure he knows what 'scientific malfeasance' means? Cuz... that'd be it." No. That is 'journalistic malfeasance' iz what that'd be. not much science to be had there. -
Ken Lambert at 23:32 PM on 28 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
DM #65,66 "If so, it is well worth asking what is the physical mechanism that would mean that TSI affects the climate by long term integrated, rather than direct forcing?" TSI is a power unit (W/sq.m) - energy/unit time. Integrating it wrt time will give the total energy under the TSI curve between times t1 and t2. Energy will be absorbed in the system by two main mechanisms - mass x specific heat x Delta T (temperature increase in water, land, air) and phase change in ice or water at constant temperature (mass x latent heats of ice melt or water vaporization). -
CBDunkerson at 23:09 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Hmmm... let's see. In the past Bob Carter has said; "The Climategate files have demonstrated the scientific malfeasance of an influential and internationally well networked segment of the climate research community. A small group of scientists and computer modellers - with the aid of an enormous supporting cast of environmental activists and organisations, self-interested business groups, and crusading journalists - have managed to turn the global warming issue (which in 1990 was an entirely sensible matter to have raised) into the scientific scam of the century, if not the biggest ever." Carter's "Kill the IPCC" article So, Carter claims the people at HadCRUT are guilty of "scientific malfeasance" and "the scientific scam of the century"... and therefor he holds their results above all others? Are we sure he knows what 'scientific malfeasance' means? Cuz... that'd be it. -
Tom Curtis at 22:35 PM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @77 continues to show his double standards when it comes to evidence. In this case he wants to argue that population growth is the cause the increase in disasters, and it is indeed a factor, but not sufficient to explain the entire trend as discussed in 55 above. However, he wants to argue that the trend in geophysical events is less likely to be effected by population growth than is the trend in weather related events. To do this he imagines the trend in geophysical events can be modeled by considering a quake in Los Angeles. In fact the entirety of California is heavily faulted, and quakes come at all levels on the Richter scale. Consequently California's population growth would see more people being likely to be harmed by small quakes, just as the US population growth would leave more people likely to be harmed by weather related hazards. What is more, large weather related hazards, such as a tornado outbreak, are counted as just one disaster even though they may spawn many thousands of thunderstorms and hundreds of individual tornadoes. It is only by assuming that earthquakes are always large, and come only at a very few locations and that weather related disasters are typically small and dispersed that he thinks he can get his argument up, whereas no such distinction exists. -
Kevin C at 22:23 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
And here's a very similar result from Lean and Rind in GRL.
Prev 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 Next
