Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 Next
Comments 81001 to 81050:
-
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. -
Kevin C at 22:09 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Here's Tamino's plot of the temperature records with the El Nino, volcanic and solar effects removed:
and here is the accompanying article.
-
Norman at 22:07 PM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @57 I did look at your M. Latif/ Keenlyside paper. There looks to be no obvious trend in the graph from 1870 to 2010. The paper is based upon a model prediction that the ENSO will get much more intense in the future with further warming. It would not explain the increased levels of storms that are thought to be happening at this time. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:04 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
@Marcus I agree with you that now we can not otherwise explain the current temperature increase as the increase of GHG's in the atmosphere ..., ... but do not because, that - NOAA - “ Our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal ” ? This really, so we do not know the functionality of: „the near-centennial delay in climate in responding to sunspots indicates that the Sun's influence on climate arising from the current episode of high sunspot numbers ...” Perhaps it is: “The observed variations may have occurred in association with internal climate amplification (likely, thermohaline circulation and El Niño–Southern Oscillation activity).”, but ..., there is, however, "hard" evidence. Helama et al., 2010. - This is not "cherry picking" - I could cite at least dozens similar papers ... P.S. Milankovic cycles is not present changes - consent - which does not affect the fact that changes in TSI were (probably) very small. -
Norman at 22:00 PM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @ 55 "There is a significant irony in your pointing to this paper. You have argued that Munich Re data should be ignored because it measures disasters (damaging events) rather than hazards (potentially damaging events). Now you look at a paper and cherry pick the damage done as being significant, while ignoring the clear evidence on the number of events, and that the increase in damaging events is correlated with an increase in hazards. And you now accept a study financed by, and using data from Munich Re because you think it supports your case. Your selective standards could not be more openly displayed." Actually I was not arguing that Munich Re should be ignored because it measures disasters rather than hazards. I was claiming that Munich Re is not an unbiased scientific group and that I do not know how they came up with their graphs. On the hazard vs disaster argument I was claiming that an increase in disasters did not necessarily mean an increase in hazards. I said it could but it did not have to as there are other variables involved. If population number was static and did not move then an increase in disasters would strongly indicate an increase in hazards. A disaster is a hazard that involves people (death and property destruction). If your population grows during the same time period as your graph of disasters it adds a variable that will not allow a clear correlation between hazard and disaster. Here is a link to US population growth since 1960. If you match the Munich Re graph of incresaed storm disasters in US with this graph, do they go up with the same slope? US Population growth since 1960. This can easily explain the increase in weather related disasters vs earthquakes. A large earthquake will be a disaster if if hits a populated area regardless of population growth. If Los Angeles grew in population by 10% it would not increase the disaster of an earthquake in that area, the population growth would not affect that. However if you have population growth in the plains where there are storms (tornadoes, winds, hail). The most severe part of a storm is smaller than the overall cell and if you have more population targets available to hit, the probability of a hazard becoming a disaster goes up. If you have links to actual numbers of severe storms in US over a 30 year period that would be a much better source to determine if weather is getting worse than an indirect approach through disaster charts. Hope this long post clears up my position. Some of my posts are just isolated attempts to answer some specific question posed. -
Eric the Red at 21:40 PM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
I would hesitate to extrapolate such a small number so far into the future as the statistical uncertainty is overwhelming. While I cannot verify of refute his El Nino numbers, no one has thus far presented any evidence that the frequency on ENSO events has increased due to global warming. That said, I would refer back to the NOAA link as to the cause of the record snowfall. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:39 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
@ Stefaan Well ... partly the same thing ..., but in that case we can easily compare the 1998 - when there was (temperature) a more quickly decline - from 2010 - but remember that the temperature was far lower base in 1996. -
Marcus at 21:37 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
[snip]Response: [JC] Ad hom, Marcus. -
Marcus at 21:36 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Ark. You're comparing apples & oranges there. The changes in insolation brought about by the Milankovitch Cycle are of a completely different order to those caused by changes in sunspots. My point was simply that, in spite of a very significant downturn in incoming energy-both the oceans & the atmosphere have continued to warm at a significant rate....in spite of attempts by "skeptics" like yourself to cherry pick outliers like 1998 to bolster your increasingly weak position! Now aren't you going to discredit yourself still further by telling us how all environmentalism is fake, because some guy said so in a non-peer reviewed publication? That's your usual stock-in-trade! -
LazyTeenager at 21:30 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
I find the irony of climate skeptics favoring the hadcrut dataset, when at the same time they have concentrated on trying to discredit the scientists who produced the hadcrut dataset, very amusing. -
Norman at 21:27 PM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
actually thoughtful @ 66 Looks like Tom Curtis provides answers to your questions @ post 70. His graph shows number and intensity of both El Nino and La Nina. -
stefaan at 21:14 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
eum arka if you look to the graph you mentioned guess what you see for the year 1998? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:57 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
@Marcus “... when you factor in the Deep Solar Minimum of this last decade ...” ... which of course has no significant importance against: “... delay in climate response to external forcing (usually estimated at the range 10 - 100 years) ...”; and the fact that: “ If one computes the global and annual mean of solar forcing caused by the 100 kyr period of eccentricity one gets an amplitude of 0.12Wm~2 in the spherical mean. ", “But, despite the tiny global forcing value... ...The global mean temperature changes between glacial and interglacial periods are large: about 20C for polar (Johnsen et al., 1995) and 5 for tropical regions (Stute et al., 1995).” (Beer et al., 2000.). -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:53 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
@steffan The temperature globally and regionally, reacts with several months delay (November / December 2010) at the end of El Nino. -
Marcus at 20:07 PM on 28 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Um, 1998 wasn't just a strong El Nino-it was the *strongest* El Nino ever recorded. If you want a real feel for the warming which occurred over the 1990's & 2000's-you have to recognize 1998 as the outlier it really was. The average temperature for 1990-2000 was +0.31 degrees above the 1961-1990 average, whilst 2000-2010 was +0.53 degrees above the 1961-1990 average, a change of +0.12 degrees, hardly something that could be ignored-especially when you factor in the Deep Solar Minimum of this last decade.
Prev 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 Next
