Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 Next
Comments 80951 to 81000:
-
Camburn at 11:03 AM on 29 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
KL: Some of the variables in climate that we are learning, but are resisted every step of the way....I call the "Oliver Heaviside" variables. He faced an uphill battle against the "established" at the time. He was right.....they were wrong. The Royal Society would not even grant him membership...a true travesty as he had a most wonderful mind. -
Tom Curtis at 10:44 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Camburn @91, massive move of the goal posts there, Camburn. I take that as a concession that you have lost the actual argument, which is about extreme weather as the term is used by scientists (and just about everybody else). -
Phila at 10:37 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
And if they exagerate, they can justify increasing the premium, hence the profit. This reminds me: I've been amused lately to see a "skeptic" I know -- who normally worships the Free Market -- wringing his hands over the horrible effects of the Profit Motive on professional honesty. It's all very earnest. If I hadn't been hearing the "private vice = public virtue" boilerplate from him for years, I'd almost think he meant it, and wasn't simply eager to beat his opponents with any stick that comes to hand. -
adelady at 10:34 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
norman, it's just a newspaper report with a brief overview of their work. The important things a) it's obviously a comprehensive database b) they're obviously good at it. Why? Because they're still in business. If they'd been under or over estimating risks they'd have been put out of business either by overcharging for risks and losing customers or by undercharging premiums/ paying out too much on insured events and going bankrupt. Note their overview is pretty general. I doubt very much they'll give away their commercial advantage for nothing. They use the expertise they have to maintain commercial viability. Following their links eventually leads you to an invitiation to sign up for their services. No surprise there, they're not NOAA or NSIDC. -
Ken Lambert at 10:32 AM on 29 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
KR & DM DM - Yes the same is true for CO2 radiative forcing and all the other AG forcings. All the Radiative Forcings in Fig 2.4 of AR4 are 'looked at in isolation'. In AR4, CO2GHG is estimated at about +1.66W/sq.m, Aerosols estimated at -1.3W/sq.m, Solar (TSI) at +0.12W/sq.m etc, etc That is how the sum of all AG radiative forcings is computed. In AR4 the sum is +1.6W/sq.m. The climate response forcings are S-B (-2.8W/sq.m and WV + Ice Albedo Feedback at +2.1W/sq.m) (Trenberth). Total forcings: Radiative + TSI: +1.6W/sq.m Total responses: S-B + WV etc: -0.7W/sq.m Net Imbalance: +0.9W/sq.m This Net Imbalance has been reduced by Hansen to 0.59W/sq.m 2005-10, due to his assumed increase in Aerosols and other factors. These are instantaneous (power) quantities. To get the history of the energy added - you need to look at all the forcing curves wrt time (in isolation) and add them together to produce a composite curve. All the AG forcing curves are grounded to zero because they did not exist in AD1750. The TSI curve is not. We don't know if the TSI was producing 'equilibrium' or zero imbalance in AD1750, hence the area under its curve is an unknown component in the composite forcing curve over time. This is one of the uncertainties relevant to this thread. -
Sarah at 10:12 AM on 29 June 2011Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
A recent update from AGU: http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-22.shtml -
Norman at 09:46 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
adelady @95 I checked your Scientific American link and did not see what I was hoping to see. What do they call a climate disaster, what is the criteria, where are they taking place, is it as Tom Curtis states...they take one huge tornadic event that might destroy multiple sites and call this one disaster? Here is all the link provided. "Researchers at the company, which obviously has a keen financial interest in trends that increase insurance risks, add 700 to 1,000 natural catastrophes to the database each year, explains Mark Bove, senior research meteorologist in Munich Re's catastrophe risk management office in Princeton, N.J. The data indicate a small increase in geologic events like earthquakes since 1980 because of better reporting. But the increase in the number of climate disasters is far larger. "Our figures indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change," says Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re's Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center: "It's as if the weather machine had changed up a gear." -
Bob Lacatena at 09:32 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
15, Alexandre, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The day is going to come when the history of all of this is written, and certain weathermen, creationists, tobacco-scientists, retired geologists, British "lords" and many others are going to be the laughingstocks of the scientific world, and also suffer the anger of a rather disappointed (but ultimately culpable) public who will feel that they were grossly mislead (and will steadfastly feel that they were mislead, and it wasn't their own lazy recalcitrance that lead to their ignorance, and everyone's dilemma). -
Bob Lacatena at 09:23 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
99, Camburn,And if they exagerate, they can justify increasing the premium, hence the profit.
No, Camburn, in a free market economy, if they exaggerate they lose out to their competitors. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:21 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
96, Norman, Science is important, but science does not always work through irrefutable empirical evidence boiled down to simple, single, easy to graph scalar values. You know that. This is particularly true in an area such as extreme weather events, where the final impact of climate change on that particular symptom cannot be known until climate change itself has reached dangerous levels. The position that you are adopting amounts to saying "prove to me that the cancer I have will kill me by showing me my dead body, and until you do so, I just can't be sure that you're right." There is ample evidence for a thinking, reasoning being to assess which points to an increasing number of extreme weather events, even with only the relatively small degree of climate change that we have seen to date. The obvious and irrefutable conclusion is that things will get markedly worse as temperatures increase by several fold over the current anomaly. Your efforts to try to "scientifically" quantify the changes, through a lame series of cherry picked statistics (fatalities, damages, U.S. damages, fatalities through 2006, etc.) do not qualify as an effort "to make sure these posts remain scientific, supported by evidence." There are many, many ways to approach science, and I find your implication that the original post is unscientific, while your random, frenzied efforts to prove otherwise are scientific, merely because your efforts involve easy to graph scalar numbers, to be transparently misguided, at best. I would agree that at some point in the future, when it is statistically viable, science will need to formulate a systematic and objective way of measuring the change in extreme weather events. Such a measure does not currently exist. What we have instead are random, incoherent, easily cherry-picked numbers that can be used to try to prove whatever the cherry-picker wishes to prove, or else anecdotal events, considered and reviewed logically and seriously. The latter is more than good enough for me as evidence that my pre-existing fears, which are based on a whole raft of solid science, are almost certainly coming true. That it is not good enough for you is plain, but then, every post that I have seen from you suggests that you do not respect or give credence to the position of the vast majority of climate scientists, so your starting point is to expect nothing at all untoward to happen, and hence your stance on this particular issue is not surprising. -
Alexandre at 09:13 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
From the WUWT article: "The sun’s recent behavior suggests we are likely heading for a deeper global cooling than the 1945-1977 cool period and ought to be looking ahead to cope with it." "The good news is that global warming (i.e., the 1977-1998 warming) is over and atmospheric CO2 is not a vital issue." I love the way "skeptics" are quick to make categorical claims, and then just don't care about how their predictions turned out. Truly unshakeable beliefs. Even reality cannot affect them. -
Camburn at 09:13 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
KR: And if they exagerate, they can justify increasing the premium, hence the profit. -
KR at 09:02 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman - One additional, but significant, point. Munich Re is not a scientific group, but a company that handles reinsurance. They have a huge incentive to get it right about disaster statistics and rates of occurrence - if they don't, they lose immense amounts of money. -
KR at 08:59 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman - From adelady's excellent reference: Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, has compiled the world's most comprehensive database of natural disasters, reaching all the way back to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79. That's an enviable database. "Our figures indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change," says Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re's Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center: "It's as if the weather machine had changed up a gear." You have (several times, now) tried to counter this evidence with claims based on US only, Omaha only, and other subset (i.e., cherry-picked) data - given the global data, you are entirely incorrect. It's important to note that nobody can become expert in all things, and that it's therefore on occasion necessary to rely on others for information, such as in the global disaster/extreme weather case. Unless you (Norman) have the time, data access, and statistical background to truly investigate this topic, your personal opinion will still be less accurate than those who have made this their life's work. -
heystoopid at 08:55 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Well , John you have just kicked the hornets nest with this article. Andrew Montford over at "Bishops Hill Blog" has posted a very weak cherry picked fact free ad hom reply here:- http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/6/28/thou-shalt-extrapolate.html Thank you, very much. -
adelady at 08:53 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
The Age has now published another followup to Carter's piece. Not sure I really wanted another reminder about WAIS. -
Michael Hauber at 08:42 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
GISS does extrapolate by 1200km. However if HADCRUT is used as an indicator of global temperatures you are effectively extrapolating the average of the entire measured part of the globe onto the parts of the globe that have not been measured. -
Norman at 08:40 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Sphaerica @ 88 The argument I am making is to make sure these posts remain scientific, supported by evidence. This does not translate to a larger view of what policy the human race should pursue to satisfy its desire for higher living standards but causing minimal damage to the world that supports them. I think it is most wise to find alternative energy sources. Oil and coal are not unlimited and do pollute in various ways. It is possible a tipping point can occur in the future with CO2 increases. Oil use is causing other forms of turbulence with wars and aggression. Passenger vehicles that only get 15 mpg is ridiculous. Conservation and improved efficiency of energy use are very wise choices. I am all in favor of taking action and slowly moving away from dependance upon fossil fuels. That being said, it does not change my purpose for questioning posts of this nature. I am asking for evidence to prove a link between Global warming and increases in Extreme weather events. Tom Curtis has provided some evidence of increasing damage and states that is proof that weather is becoming more extreme. I countered this with my statement about population growth. And even if weather is becoming more extreme (which would require more than a selective list of weather extremes of 2010) one would need to find linking mechanisms to prove global warming would have resulted in increased floods, droughts or severe storms. Just accepting that weather is turning weirder without any research or study would not count as a scientific approach to the topic. Here is John Cook's founding statement for this website. "Skeptical Science is based on the notion that science by its very nature is skeptical. Genuine skepticism means you don't take someone's word for it but investigate for yourself. You look at all the facts before coming to a conclusion. In the case of climate science, our understanding of climate comes from considering the full body of evidence." This is what I am attempting in my posts and links. I am investigating the matter on my own. I am looking at all the facts (historical weather extremes) and then I can reach a conclusion. One post of extreme weather events in 2010 is not enough to demonstrate we are [ - snip- ] -
michael sweet at 08:39 AM on 29 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric, I find it difficult to respond to your posts. In one you appear to say all effects are reversible, we should wait and see what happens before we do anything, and in another you claim to be concerned about change in climate. I think regular readers will understand your position through your various claims. While you have made an argument that you believe that the sea ice will recover if CO2 is controlled, you have not addressed many other issues like ocean acidification (since that is where you claim all the CO2 will go) and flooding. See my post 105 which you ignored. While it is of course possible that only the most optomistic possibilities wil be realized, so far changes are proceeding faster than the IPCC has predicted. There is at least an equal chance that the worst projections will be realized. Prudence requires that we take action to prevent the chance of the worst. As has been repeatedly pointed out, if we implement sustainable energy and it turns out we didn't need to, we can always burn the coal when it is clear it is safe. The economidc and health beneifts of shifting to sustainable energy are desirable in their own right. If we do not take action and we should have, it will be impossible to unwind the problems. -
adelady at 08:35 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Page 1 of this Scientific American article gives some details of Munich Re's compilation of weather and other disaster events for those who are interested. -
dana1981 at 08:32 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Well, his revised temperature projection starts in 2008. However, his initial temperature projection began in 2000, and called for between very dramatic cooling and very slight warming by 2100 (Figure 1). -
SNRatio at 08:27 AM on 29 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
@Arkadius S: As long as you show no inclination at all to seriously assess the model fitting of the mainstream hypotheses you won't accept, it's really hard to consider your work of scientific merit. Yes, all kinds of alternative hypotheses might be true. No, Occam's razor prohibits the neglect or rejection of simple, well-fitting explanations. @ClimateWatcher, 33: I suggest you judge Taminos analyses by their content. (And if you are not compentent to do that, it might be good for you to attain that competence.) Also, rather than looking for publications, you would do yourself good to compare Tamino's analyses and results with peer reviewed papers on the same subjects. -
Eric the Red at 08:13 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
In other words, his temperature reconstruction (or whatever you want to call it) is suspect from 2000-2008. His projections do not start until then, and call for cooling between 0.4 and 1.1C by 2040. That would be significant. -
Norman at 08:11 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @88 Finding information on the damage topic is not always so easy as I would expect. Here is a 5.2 earthquake that did not cause major damage just shook things up so it would not be listed as a disaster. What a 5.2 earthquake has done. Then this web page stating that a large earthquake can cause damage 100 miles away from the epicenter. What I am reading is that the energy released by each point on the scale is equal to 32 times more energy release. They have a nice graph showing how much more energy is released in a large disaster causing earthquake. Information on Earthquake damage. From the last link there is a statement down near the bottom. "An earthquake of magnitude 7 will cause near total devastation in the epicentral area and cause structural damage and collapse of poorly-built structures over a much larger area (remember, this earthquake is 30 times more powerful than a magnitude 6 event). The great earthquakes, those over magnitude 8, will destroy most of the infrastructure in a very large area, several 10s of miles in diameter, and can cause structural damage and collapse of poorly-built structures as much as 100 miles away. Great earthquakes can still be felt many hundreds of miles away." -
dana1981 at 08:08 AM on 29 June 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Thanks Robert. Santorum has been added. We don't have Rick Perry yet. -
Gareth at 08:02 AM on 29 June 2011New Zealand Snow No Show = No Jobs
Southerly came through last night: daughter setting up for a powder afternoon at Mt Hutt. (snow report). Thanks Rob! -
Patrick 027 at 07:54 AM on 29 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
On the idea that heating of the thermosphere heats the surface - Keeping Te constant - that is, keeping the total solar heating of the climate system constant: No. Without any greenhouse effect of the absorption-emission kind, if the surface is a blackbody for LW radiation, then the surface temperature will be Te regardless of where solar heating is occuring. No matter how hot the stratosphere/thermosphere gets. Except for the effect that at sufficient temperature, the upper atmosphere could start to emit a significant amount of radiation in the SW part of the spectrum - in which case the surface would be cooler. 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. Not at all. The absence of sufficient solar heating and/or sufficient greenhouse effect will not allow that. Yes, the potential (depends on albedo effects) removal of ~ 10 W/m2 solar heating from the surface/troposphere required to give that heating to the stratosphere/mesosphere (I think mainly the upper stratosphere), minus the effect of the increased downward LW flux from the upper atmospheric warming (perhaps half of the heating, maybe 5 W/m2, give or take - well, it's somewhere between zero and the involved solar heating of the upper atmopshere), will have a cooling effect on the surface+troposphere, which will tend to reduce tropopause height. Reversing this - eliminating solar heating of the ozone layer and allowing that to heat the surface+troposphere, will warm the surface+troposphere and, via that and maybe also the cooling of the upper atmosphere, will raise the tropopause level. But (see Hartmann, "Global Physical Climatology", 1994, p. 70), the warming of the troposphere (without compositional feedbacks) from removing ozone is small - it doesn't even show up in the graph on Hartmann, p.70 - although this could be because of the additional cooling effect of removing ozone's LW opacity, which is seperate from the issue of solar heating. Also, the height of the tropopause stays below 20 km in that graph (the graph has a relatively old citation but the basics of radiation have been understood for a long time), although it is not as sharply defined, the lapse rate definitely does decrease with height going up above roughly ~17 or 20 km or so, the tropopause stays below 20 km, perhaps going to maybe somewhere around 70 mb, whereas before removing ozone it was ~ 150 mb, give or take (I'm very quickly estimating from a graph, but it definitely doesn't get much above 20 km). Ozone could still heat some of the upper atmosphere by absorbing a LW flux from below, and this effect is also presumably removed in this graph. And why should this be so? Well with a difference of only 10 W/m2 (minus counteracting effects), you can only heat the surface+tropopause so much. How much of a convective heat flux would be required to sustain a troposphere up to ~ 85 km with the 85 km level remaining at it's present temperature? Consider how much you'd be shifting the temperature profile, and the kind of radiative disequilbrium (net radiant cooling) that would cause. And that would have to be balanced by net radiant heating at the surface. How could the surface be warmed up so much, and yet still have enough net radiant heating to supply the necessary convection? You'd need to boost solar heating and/or the greenhouse effect considerably. Let's make this simpler and just give the ~ 10 W/m2 to the troposphere+surface while retaining solar heating of the upper atmosphere, let the surface+troposphere warm up a little, the tropopause shift a little, but it still looks pretty much the same as now (in a big picture, purely abiotic way, a not caring about economic and environmental effects sort of way). The tropopause temperature is not much different. If it were only the solar heating of the ozone layer that stood in the way of having continuous convection from the surface to 85 km, then the surface would have to be warm enough for an adiabat from the surface to intersect the temperature profile as is at about that level, 85 km; - actually higher then that, because they'll be some cooling effect when you let convection from the troposphere get higher by removing overlying solar heating. The thing is, if you draw such a line you'd see it would be warmer than all points are in between already. How can removing solar heating of the ozone layer result in warming there? Here is missing the thermal flux that the surface yields to the atmosphere by conduction and as sensible heat I never said that the atmosphere doesn't recieve heat from the surface by more than radiation which can leave the atmosphere only once the [energy] of the colliding molecules has been transformed to radiative energy Yes. within the isothermal regions that allow the phase transition from the non-excited to excited state and so the photons emission. Well that's probably the most fundamental mistake you are making. You do not need to have an isothermal region in order for photons to be emitted (or absorbed). Have you ever seen the incandescent glow of an electric range on a stove top? Consider what happens when you turn it off - the range cools off - but while the temperature is changing, it still has a non-zero temperature that is actually quite high, and it continues to glow for a while. It may also glow unevenly because the temperature isn't constant throughout it - this doesn't prevent smaller pieces of it from having high nonzero temperatures and thus they can still emit such radiation. If you are thinking that the air can't have net radiant cooling while it is undergoing an adiabatic process - well, for individual parcels that are undergoing perfectly adiabatic processes, yes. But convective heating has to be balanced by some non-convective cooling, and this doesn't all happen only at the tropopause, etc. (See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/unforced-variations-june-2011/comment-page-10/#comment-209281 ). Really, convection tends to bring the lapse rate towards being adiabatic, and under the right conditions this can be done very effectively, but this only happens spontaneously (as opposed to being forced from some external work input like large tides - or alien spaceships sticking giant blenders into the atmosphere - you get the idea) if the lapse rate without convection became unstable to said convection; the convection causes radiative disequilbrium, meaning there is net radiant heating and net radiant cooling in some places. This can't be avoided - unless radiant equilibrium just happens to line up that way, an adiabatic lapse rate requires diabatic processes to be sustained - if this ever meant that the lapse rate can't actually be exactly adiabatic, so be it (PS see point in Real Climate comment regarding moist adiabatic rising and dry sinking, although what I'm saying still generally applies to a dry atmosphere as well). Related point: certainly the idea of a single radiative-convective temperature profile is not meant to imply that nothing deviates from it even the slightest, or you couldn't even have a convective heat flux (what goes up has to be at a different temperature than what goes down in order for a sensible heat flux to exist; and the latent heat eventually becomes sensible heat). For Earthly conditions (global annual average) the net radiant heating is at the surface and net radiant cooling is distributed throughout the troposphere. Which, by the way, is not entirely all directly to space (see the last part of that Real Climate comment). Convection tends to bring the troposphere toward an adiabatic lapse rate because otherwise the atmosphere gets more unstable and convection becomes even more likely to happen or more vigorous, but ongoing convection requires in heating and cooling that must be balanced by radiation - entirely and purely adiabatic processes would have the same warm air coming down after going up, along the exact same adiabat, and thus you wouldn't have a net nonzero convective heat flux that way. What comes down has to be cooler. Also, not all parcels reach the tropopause before turning around (related: have you ever noticed cumulus clouds that never became cumulonimbus?). 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. I've left conduction/diffusion and convection all the role they need to have. Convection is very important in the troposphere / between the surface and troposphere (and conduction/diffusion being a part of that at the surface-air interface). Conduction/diffusion become significant again very high up where the mean free paths are sufficiently large - I had earlier not thought of this. And there is some transport of heat (I guess some of it is latent-chemical) in the stratosphere and mesosphere - but this is driven by work supplied from below, and the stratosphere and mesosphere are not convective in the way the troposphere is. To a good first approximation the stratosphere, and I think much of the mesosphere, is in radiative equilibrium; the vast majority of the upper atmosphere by mass is the stratosphere so perhaps I didn't pay enough attention to the potential for radiative disequilibrium higher up; but anyway, certainly the ozone layer is not preventing the Earth from becoming like Venus as far as temperature is concerned. Why should the upper atmosphere act just like a room with heater? -
pbjamm at 07:47 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Camburn@91 Then we need only wait another 400 years to determine if decisive action is called for! -
Camburn at 07:41 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
I will also add that the air is quit pleasant as I just just passed the 111th floor. I note my rate of decent has stabalized, allowing adequate time to observe my area of landing. There seems several to choose from, so I am in the process of deciding which soft spot to pick. -
Camburn at 07:38 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
IMHO an extreme event is something that has not occured in the past 500 years. As far as frequency, from the literature posted it is obvious that, at this time, it is impossible to determine if events have increased, decreased, or stayed stable. -
Eric the Red at 06:31 AM on 29 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
While the effects may indeed be exponential, and we cannot see or measure them yet, they could also be logarthimic - decelerating as CO2 increases. The problem is that the noise is too large to make accurate connections. While your analogy is nice, I feel we will know long before he hits the ground. -
dana1981 at 05:37 AM on 29 June 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
sout - as you can see in Figure 1, Easterbrook calls 1977-2000 a "warm period" (which basically means positive PDO). He doesn't really have a model, so it can't be tested with hindcasting. As I noted in comment #6, Easterbrook's projections are much more crude than real computer models. He also doesn't really explain the long-term trend. I suspect he would say that the "warm periods" have just been warmer on average than the "cool periods" have been cool. And he might say that on average, solar activity is higher now than a few centuries ago, which is true (though it can't explan very much of the recent warming). -
John Hartz at 05:31 AM on 29 June 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
@Robert Murphy 56 & 57: Muchos gracias! -
John Hartz at 05:30 AM on 29 June 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
Is Texas Gov Rick Perry already in your database? -
Robert Murphy at 05:28 AM on 29 June 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
"There’s a variety of factors that contribute to the earth warming and cooling, and to me this is an opportunity for the left to create—it’s a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, “Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer,” just like they did in the seventies when it was getting cool, they needed the government to come in and regulate your life because it’s getting cooler. It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life, and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative." Rick Santorum on Rush Limbaugh -
Robert Murphy at 05:21 AM on 29 June 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
"I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler," Santorum said. "And I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all the other factors, El Niño, La Niña, sunspots, moisture in the air. There's a variety of factors that contribute to the Earth warming and cooling." Rick Santorum -
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.
Prev 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 Next
