Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 Next
Comments 81251 to 81300:
-
sgmuller at 11:09 AM on 28 June 2011The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
I am finding that a common tactic by the denialists is to use the "freedom of speech" to distract from any argument about the facts. This is consistent with the way the Climate Change debate is conducted as a political argument rather than a scientific one. Refer to a famous Monty Python sketch if you are unceratin of the difference. A political argument generally has two sides. As soon as you begin to take part in this political argument then "they" have made a huge gain. Because news organisations must have two sides (not just News ltd, but the ABC and Fairfax), it means that the 3% of GW deniers out there have leveraged themselves up to 50% of the opinion. Its really telling to see daily reports of Gillard's support declining to only 40% but not a whisper of the barely 3% support of the skeptical position on AGW. In the politics of a western democracy, every individual opinion is equal. That isn't true in science. In Science the value of your opinion depends on your skills and experience and observations. Think about a horse race, the average citizen is a half-drunk punter at the start of the straight, 400 metres behind the finish line. The climate scientists meanwhile are like stewards, they are right on the finish line with access to the photo-finish. Whose opinion is the most valuable? The current political debate ignores that reality and is pandering to the conceit of the consumer who are lead to believe that the opinions of a tabloid columnist on a complicated science is of equal value to an experienced NASA climate scientists studying the latest data. So, rather than asking how we can force the media to tell the truth, we should be asking how we can re-frame the debate as a scientific one rather than a political one. -
Bern at 11:05 AM on 28 June 2011A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
Chemware, Chris G, thanks for that discussion - quite thought-provoking. I think one class of 'deniers / sceptics' that is frequently missed, though, are the people who are intelligent, and able to connect the dots, but who have been fed incorrect information by their trusted media outlets, whether inadvertently or by design. I know several people in that category myself. One in particular is very difficult to persuade otherwise, as it also aligns with his political leanings, which is why he was exposed to mis-/dis-information in the first place - there's certainly no denying that disinformation in regard to global warming is more prevalent among the political right. -
Norman at 10:58 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @30 "It turns out that you are just another denier who poses as a neutral questioner, but whose real agenda is to raise doubt - any doubt regardless of rationality - with relation to any evidence for AGW." Actually Tom I think the physics to AGW is valid. People are burning lots of carbon based fuel and are most likely increasing the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. It will cause some warming of the Globe. As this website states, a denier is one who will not change based upon valid evidence. I am a skeptic in this issue (Weather extermes due to Global warming). I will change my view when valid evidence is presented to prove this conclusion. What I have been requesting is balance with historical data as well as wanting some mechanisms to explain why warming is causing the extremes. If it be flooding, drought etc. what is the warming atmophere doing to cause these events to take place at a greater frequency or intensity. Jeff Masters lists a lot of bad events that happened in 2010 but provides very little linking mechanisms to explain how global warming was responsible. He is a PhD meterologist and would have the knowledge to provide links and mechanisms. If I am given this type of information and would still deny it, then your label of "denier" would be most correct. (-Snip-).Moderator Response: (DB) As it stands at this time, you are very close to relinquishing your ability to participate in this Forum - please be very circumspect with your formulation of your comments from now on. Accusations of fraud and dishonesty are NOT "questioning" anything. -
Norman at 10:46 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Sphaerica @ 32 I did find a link that shows global events in type and size (unfortunately not intensity). If you are interested scroll down the page on the link I will provide. Go to the heading Recent Years and click on the link that reads "Monthly and Seasonal Global Temperatures and Precipitation". This will bring up a grid of x's. Click on the Monthly X's for Global Map of Weather events. I have not been through each year (some years use a rotating globe and it is harder to compare this with the flat maps) I was hoping you can tell me why 2010 looks worse than 2009? Or maybe anyother year you choose to compare it with. Link to maps Link to Global Weather maps. -
Norman at 10:26 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @30 In the previous thread you reference I was not arguing that point. I was arguing the validity of Munich Re study (not a scientific research group). I am not arguing either point that there are more or less hazardous weather because of damage done. I do not think there is enough information available to make any declarative statement. My main goal is to not to blindly accept these posters view without some really good validation. Jeff Masters post picks some of the extreme events of 2010 and is using this as evidence that Global Warming is the cause. At this time I still do not know if the events are more or less extreme than previous years or close to the same as have been for years. My belief is that the focus and reporting is now on extreme weather events and it makes it look as if things are getting much worse. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:25 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
31, Norman, Your Global Death rate study is meant not to study the effects of weather events due to climate change, but rather the impacts of advancing society on the detrimental effects of weather. It also stops at 2006. That's why it says this (emphasis mine):If extreme weather has indeed become more extreme for whatever reason, global and U.S. declines in mortality and mortality rates are perhaps due to increases in societies’ collective adaptive capacities.
and this:Moreover, if the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme weather events has increased in recent decades – all empirical issues best left to climatologists – there is no signal of that in the data on either mortality rates or (more importantly) mortality, despite an increase in populations at risk.
-
Norman at 10:18 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
actually thoughtful @ 28 Thanks for the correction. It would be 2009, 2002, and 2000 as the years with less damage than 2010. I did find this report on Global death rate based upon weather related events. It has been going down not up. The paper references you concerns that Climate Change may cause more extreme weather related events. Here is a link to the study.. Global Death rate from weather related causes. -
Tom Curtis at 09:50 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @23, thank you for exposing for all to see both your hypocrisy and your agenda. In the extreme weather thread you have been very busily arguing that records of increased extreme weather events are purely a function of increased damage done. Here, because it is convenient, you argue exactly the reverse, ie, that because there is less damage done there were fewer extreme weather events. The cherry picked nature of your argument (using just US data, and just 2010 when global events over 2010 and 2011 where being discussed) has been noted by others. It turns out that you are just another denier who poses as a neutral questioner, but whose real agenda is to raise doubt - any doubt regardless of rationality - with relation to any evidence for AGW. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:47 AM on 28 June 2011New Zealand Snow No Show = No Jobs
6, newairly, The words "low" and "high" refer to the impact scenarios used to produce the accompanying values ("low impact" and "high impact"), not to the depth of the snow itself. More specifically, from Hennesey 2003:Two scenarios were used in the model, both of which were equally likely, but associated with uncertainties. The low impact scenario used the lowest projected warming combined with the highest estimate of increased precipitation. The high impact scenario used the highest projected warming with the highest estimate of decreased precipitation. We have very high (at least 95%) confidence that the low impact limits will be exceeded and that the high impact limits will not be exceeded.
-
actually thoughtful at 09:40 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman, You questioning of Dr. Master's motives is a violation of the comments policy. I do think it detracts from whatever point you were trying to make. The problem with the content of your post (beyond the gratuitous cheap shot at Dr. Masters) is: 1) it is factually incorrect (2009 total damage: $7.5 billion, 2010 $9.9 billion (impossible according to your "analysis")) - but more importantly - 2) Dr. Masters is writing about global weirding (his delightful turn of phrase). You respond with your erroneous analysis that only covered the United States. Dr. Masters' reference to the United States was for the weather unfolding now in 2011, for which the statistics have not yet been compiled. [But to give you a sense of why the good Doctor was delayed - JUST the Mississippi flooding south of Memphis is at $9 billion (ie more than 2009 for the whole country, for the whole year and approaching 2010 already - just for one small region! and the year isn't even half done!!). “I am going to estimate in the $6 billion to $9 billion range for total damages from Memphis southward to the gulf,” Mr. Hicks said. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/18river.html] If I may call you Horatio: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (William Shakespeare) -
Bob Lacatena at 09:40 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
26, Norman, Stop ignoring the fact that your numbers are not global, and are a cherry-picked statistic. Your attempt at undermining Dr. Master's post is lame, at very best. It's more, clear evidence of how the Denial Team operates. -
Norman at 09:37 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
michael sweet @ 24 2010 was in the middle of the fatalities for the 11 years (2000-2011). 5 years had more and 5 years had fewer. To get little files that break down the deaths and damage by type of extreme weather event, click on US summaries, click on any date in the list and it brings up a file that breaks down the death and damage from weather related disasters. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:33 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
23, Norman, Dr. Masters clearly used a more intelligent and insightful method, one of examining weather events around the globe, from the unique perspective of someone who deals with them regularly and so is capable of clearly noticing when something is amiss, and based not on some linear measure such as dollars of damage, but rather by how likely such events are to occur in any particular year. Your own method of cherry picking one statistic (dollars in damages) for one small fraction of the globe (the US) hardly holds up to scrutiny. Your aggressive and condescending tone when posting your (inadequate) counter-claim speaks volumes by itself. -
michael sweet at 09:27 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman, When I open your link I see a graph indicating 2010 had unusually high fatalities. Perhaps you care more about dollars than people. I imagine when Dr. Masters referred to "the past few months" he meant 2011, which is not included in your summary. Tornadoes, floods, drought and fires have all been at record extent in the US over that time period. Perhaps you could document when Dr. Masters would have had time in between all these extreme events to write out a summary of last year. The US is only 2 or 3% of global land area. The title of the thread is "Earth's Extrme Weather". Just because the US did not get hit last year does not mean that Globally it was not bad. -
Kimpost at 09:26 AM on 28 June 2011The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Regarding Kiwiiano's comment above, I think that he/she was asking for a high resolution PDF, rather than for a printer friendly version of the download page. -
newairly at 09:18 AM on 28 June 2011New Zealand Snow No Show = No Jobs
Are the high and low captions reversed on the graph of snow depth? -
Norman at 09:14 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
It seems Jeff Masters must have a very short memory. He states: "The pace of incredible extreme weather events in the U.S. over the past few months have kept me so busy that I've been unable to write-up a retrospective look at the weather events of 2010." (-SNIP-). I checked the US extreme weather events for the last 10 years and 2010 is rather mediocre. Of the last 11 years only 2000 and 2002 had lower overall damage (dollars). About in the middle for number of deaths. Source of Data I used. (Offensive link label snipped)Moderator Response: (DB) Very offensive accusations of fraud and dishonesty snipped. Needless to say, participation in this Forum is a privilege which WILL be rescinded if you repeat this behavior. -
actually thoughtful at 09:13 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Windbarb - thanks for the information. What is the difference between an deterministic solution and an ensemble? Is the CPC hedging their bets on their La Nina conditions prediction? (by which I mean not including it in their summary and having the disclaimer about the majority of models disagreeing)? Or is this just how the report always looks? Many thanks for you sharing your knowledge. -
Camburn at 09:09 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
windbarg@19 Thank you for the explanation. -
windbarb at 09:00 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
And, to clarify for actually thoughtful and any others... NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWS = National Weather Service (under NOAA) NCEP = National Centers for Environmental Prediction (under NWS) CPC = Climate Prediction Center (under NCEP... at least for now. If Congress approves the National Climate Service, the chain of command will be NOAA/NCS/CPC) -
windbarb at 08:55 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
For Eric, Camburn, Albatross, and others who were wondering: The IRI graph is a collection of a great number of statistical and dynamical model SST predictions from various agencies around the globe. The CFS model is included in that suite, listed as "NCEP CFS" in the legend and denoted by blue squares. CPC's CFS model is run as a deterministic solution (seen in the IRI graphic) as well as in an ensemble, and the CFS ensemble graphic is also presented in CPC's outlook so that you can see the envelope of possibilities from that one model. Also, addressing #15 (Eric) above, CFS has been variable this year because it's a natural model tendency to not have good predictability during the spring and early summer, especially when the signals are less than clear (i.e. development of a cold or warm phase episode is not imminent). It's termed the "spring frailty" and remains a barrier to ENSO predictability. ENSO is most predictable in the late summer through the winter. I hope that helps, and I'll be happy to clarify if there are any other questions! -
actually thoughtful at 08:53 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Camburn, Thank for the link. The paper says the majority of the models predict neutral (page 27). But NCEP CFS.v1 and v2 predict La Nina conditions (page 28). I don't know what NCEP is, but I assume that is the NOAA folks. They are predicting La Nina conditions, but they don't include it in their summary, and they are at pains to point out that no one agrees with them, and that all multi-model outlooks disagree. But I do give you credit for providing a complete link to a credible source, I don't always perceive you as doing that. Rob - well I guess you and I are expecting what no one else is at this point. If the current trend on page 26 continues (+.3/month) - you get to be right! That page itself is interesting (only 10 years though) 35 months of El Nino conditions and only 19 months of La Nina. Eyeballing the previous page it looks like there was more balance between all three (neutral, cold and hot) in the 30 years prior to 2002 (which is what you said). -
bill4344 at 08:50 AM on 28 June 2011The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
Robert Murphy, In the rest of the world we've already accepted that corporations do not have the right to lie merely because it is convenient for them to do so. 'Caveat emptor' is the credo of the con-man. 'First amendment fundamentalists' are just that - fundamentalists; people who have deliberately blunted their intellects to all shade and nuance in order to subscribe to a rigid, simplistic dogma, like their market and christian cousins (many subscribe to all three theses, despite the inherent absurdity of the contradictions involved!) In Australia - and many other 'non-fundamentalist' countries that somehow manage to be generally both more egalitarian and liberal than the US - it is accepted that a right to broadcast includes a responsibility to serve the public interest. We have various regulatory offices that are supposed to enforce this. (In fact, this is the method by which civilised nations attempt to acknowledge and deal with what is actually an obvious problem - the interests of the private corporations that run the media and the public are not always the same thing.) However, in reality, corporate power almost invariably trumps such interests, not least via stirring up false-populist 'Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press' hysteria. And so it is a blatant straw man, not unrelated to the above, to talk about 'Truth Commissions'. In my city, incidentally, Murdoch owns every newspaper - the only national daily, the only state/local daily, and even all the suburban weekly fish-wrappers. Please don't talk to me about what a monopoly is. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:24 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
"The countries that experienced all-time extreme highs in 2010 constituted over 20% of Earth's land surface area." From a climate standpoint, country borders are arbitrary and meaningless.
A highly extreme negative phase of the NAO and AO returned again during November 2010, and lasted into January 2011. Exceptionally cold and snowy conditions hit much of Western Europe and the Eastern U.S. again in the winter of 2010 - 2011. Not substantially different from the 1970's.
It is rather easy to find extremes if that is all one is looking for. OTOH, there are higher probabilities of some types of extremes with AGW, but hard to quantify, trending very slowly and heavily modulated by the atmospheric and oceanic circulation phases (which may be influenced by AGW although trends are not yet forthcoming). -
Camburn at 08:21 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric: Good question. NOAA long term climate predictions have been very accurate tho and they are based on the models they use to predict Enso. Luck of the draw? -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:07 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Does anyone know why CFS:
is so different from IRI posted by Albatross above? A related question, the CFS forecasts have varied considerably up and down this year. Anybody know why they are so variable? Back in January, the forecast was for strong La Nina all summer (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst_history/) The E1 predictions are especially bad (using oldest data for initial conditions) as compared to E2 and E3, I wonder why they even bother? -
Rob Painting at 08:03 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Camburn - Big spread of ENSO predictions. Interesting that NOAA are predicting La Nina when the tell-tale signs of El Nino seem to be taking shape in the equatorial Pacific. Actually Thoughtful - global warming has already sped up the frequency/intensity of ENSO during the 20th century. Whether it will continue to build up steam, has been much debated in scientific circles. The answer is we don't yet know - see The impact of global warming on the tropical Pacific Ocean and El Niño -Collins 2010. As for Jeff Masters expectation of a quiet period, he may turn out to be right, but it's probably just wishful thinking. -
Camburn at 07:44 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Late fall is pretty dog gone soon Albatross. -
Camburn at 07:32 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Go to the NOAA link, go to page 28: "The CFS.v1 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts La Nina conditions by late Northern Hemisphere Fall 2011." -
Patrick 027 at 07:32 AM on 28 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Re Michele 42 - Heating of the thermosphere has nothing to do with avoiding runaway. Take away solar heating of the thermosphere. What happens? The thermosphere gets colder. Actually there'd be less downward heat flux due to that, so there would be a cooling effect below, too. But not much, because it's a very, very, very, very small amount of flux involved in maintaining the thermospheric temperature. Clarifying my earlier point: Take away the ozone layer and the upper stratosphere and lower mesosphere get colder. That's pretty much it. There isn't much change to the troposphere; except there is some added warming effect because some portion of the solar heating of the ozone layer is now solar heating below the tropopause (warming effect for the surface and troposphere - small, nothing that would get you anywhere at all near Venus, not even close, not even remotely), while the downward LW flux from the ozone layer is also gone (cooling effect - reduces the greenhouse effect). - The cooling effect is both from the loss of a greenhouse gas, and from the reduced temperature of that part of the upper atmosphere, which would reduce the downwared LW flux at the tropopause. We can focus on the effect of solar heating by considering what happens if ozone's UV absorption is eliminated while retaining the greenhouse properties of ozone; in that case, the cooling effect on the troposphere from the reduced LW flux from the cooler upper atmosphere remains, as does the warming effect of increased UV heating below the troposphere; setting aside any effects on/of UV albedo, the warming effect would be greater because the reduction in net LW cooling of the ozone layer is only equal to the reduction in solar heating there, which is equal to the increased solar heating of the surface+troposphere, while the cooling effect can only be some fraction of the reduced LW flux out of the ozone layer. But this is a matter of ~ 10 W/m2; if solar heating below the tropopause increased by 10 W/m2 and the downward LW flux at the tropopause decreased by 5 W/m2, then the forcing would be a bit more than that of a doubling of CO2, so you'd get between 1 and 2 K warming without compositional feedbacks, and with feedbacks (as in Charney sensitivity, not getting into ice sheets and some other things), that may be a bit over 4 K, give or take. It's no Venus territory. More on that at the end of this... Emission to space is occuring from both the colder and warmer levels; it increases going upward because of less optical thickness above. Otherwise it is actually more from the warmer levels than colder levels because emission rates increase with increasing temperature (Planck function). Think about it - at any frequency, the fraction of radiation emitted at some level that escapes to space always increases going upward. This will tend to be true for the whole LW spectrum, unless there is a sufficient change in spectral properties with height. If radiation is emitted from CO2 at the tropopause to space then surely it is emitted from the CO2 in the stratopause, and except for line broadenning and line strength variations, the CO2 in the stratopause is emitting more radiation, per unit CO2, than either the CO2 at the tropopause or mesopause. -------------- Yes in an EM radiating field. Not at all for the processes based on the collisions among the molecules as heat->EM and vice versa. 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. Spontaneous emission occurs. Absorption also occurs when photons are present - which they generally are. --------------- Venus has one cooling region, determined by the CO2 as we read from the space, where the heat arrives from both above and below. The equilibrium temperature of this region is simply due to outgoing radiative flux through the CO2 window around 15 microns, which represents only a small part of the total outgoing flux, but enough to set up the temperature profile. The surface of Venus would be considerably colder if CO2 only absorbed in a 1 micron bandwidth at 15 microns. Notice that the radiating region takes place always between two layers both producing an inward heat flux, so while Venus, heated solely at the surface and within the thermosphere, has one middle region which avoids the runaway warming of the planet, Earth, with its three heating region, has to present two emitting regions, whose thermostat is the CO2. In the absence of direct solar heating of the atmosphere and in the presence of greenhouse gases, temperature would tend to decrease with height all the way up to TOA, even above the tropopause, even in layers with no convection! Radiation is not only radiated to space from relative minima in temperature; in fact more radiation is generally emitted from layers with higher temperatures (for the same layer thickness), and the amount reaching space depends on height. Again, heating of an upper layer doesn't cool a lower layer; it can be an indirect heat source via the increased emission from the heated layer, and the cooling effect (absent compositional feedbacks/linkages) only comes from using energy to heat the upper layer that would otherwise have heated the lower layer. Aside from redistributing solar heating, merely adding solar heating, in any layer, will increase the temperature in general, but will tend to have the greatest impact where it occurs, because increased net LW fluxes out of that layer are necessary to balance the increased solar heating. --------- Consider this: What if the Earth, without direct solar heating of the ozone layer, had a troposphere all the way up to where the mesopause now is - let's say 85 km (it might be a bit off of that but I think it's close) Well, first, the lapse rate of what is now the mesosphere would have to increase as presently it is stable to convection. But let's suppose the mesosphere already had a convective lapse rate. In this very high tropopause situation, if we now add solar heating around the level of the stratopause - and let's say, remove it from the surface, what happens? In order to balance the reduced radiant heating of the surface and reduced radiant cooling around the stratopause, the convective flux between those two levels is reduced. But unless you have to reduce it all the way down to zero, the tropospheric lapse rate remains and it still goes from the surface to 85 km; there has been no net forcing on this layer (we only redistributed the solar heating within it), so the surface temperature is unchanged, as is the height of the tropopause and the temperature at the tropopause. Setting aside redistribution of solar energy, adding solar heating to a layer above the tropopause could reduce the tropopause height by raising the temperature at the tropopause level. The indirect heating effect (via LW flux) would tend to warm the surface and troposphere. The cooling effect if this solar heating was not added to the system as a whole but taken from beneath the troposphere will tend to be stronger than the indirect heating effect from the LW flux. But see above for a quantitative example. Mesosphere. Really, I do not care one bit if the mesosphere is convective or not. It is enough for my aim that there exists a upward heat flux within the mesosphere. Which is mainly radiative. Not convective. I will add that I recently realized (from this paper http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3829.1 "The HAMMONIA Chemistry Climate Model: Sensitivity of the Mesopause Region to the 11-Year Solar Cycle and CO2 Doubling" Schmidt et al. ) that some or much solar heating of the upper atmosphere, going into chemical reactions, is not all realized as sensible heat right away; some portion can exist as latent heat (chemically) which can be transported before conversion to sensible heat. But motions are mainly thermally indirect, driven by fluid-mechanical wave energy from below the tropopause. I PS see fig 10 of that paper - note the solar heating of the atmosphere above the 1 mb level (1 mb = 100 Pa) is less than 1 W/m2. (With surface gravity at 9.81 m/s2, a flux of 0.118 W/m2 per mb is required per K/day heating rate. At 100 km height, with the slight reduction in g, this is 0.122 W/m2 per mb per K/day. So from the surface up to 100 km, we could just get by using 0.12 W/m2 per mb per K/day) -
Camburn at 07:31 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Albatross: If you had read the NOAA link, you would have seen the IRI graph. I stated plainly that NOAA is predicting a La Nina quit soon. NOAA is the US, where I live, predominant weather/climate forcaster. As far as my interest in La Nina? Where I live a La Nina keeps us cold and wet. An El Nino has a very limited effect, whereas a La Nina has a huge effect. Nothing to do with being skeptical, everything to do on where one lives. -
Albatross at 06:55 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Camburn @8, What is the fascination that "skeptics" have for La Ninas? Is it becasue they can cause a transient drop in global temperatures of up to 0.2 C? "Skeptics" have to keep focusing on the potential for cooling (real or imaginary) and ignore the long term trends it seems... And from your NOAA link: "ENSO-neutral conditions are expected to continue at least through the Northern Hemisphere summer 2011." Your definition of "soon" must differ quite a bit from that of NOAA's. Please do not misrepresent NOAA. For an idea of what all the dynamical and statistical guidance is suggesting, go here.
[Source]
-
Camburn at 06:47 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Dr. Masters: Do you think the intensity and number of hurricanes/tropical cyclones etc will continue as low in intensity and numbers as research by Dr. Maue shows? Dr. Maue's findings -
Camburn at 06:41 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Ref to La Nina El Nino. NOAA seems to be forcasting a return to La Nina contions quit soon. NOAA Prediction -
hfranzen at 06:14 AM on 28 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
emelio.gagliardi: Since I wrote the essay I guess I should provide an aswer to at least the first half of your question. Some examples of Type A science that occur to me "off the cuff" are: rocket trajectory, clectial mechanics, partical trjectories, electron orbits in atoms and molecules, sunchroton trajectories, atomic and molecular spectra. Some examples of Type B science are: weather prediction, river bank errosion, corrosion, automobile traffic flow, disease transmission. For Type C science I would suggest: population growth, the Keeling curve, the trajectory of an arrow, the earth's temperature vs. time. melting of an ice sheet. I want to congratulate you on your conern about communicating GW science to the general public - this is an extremely important activity! However I am afraid that contributing ideas about how to discuss this topic in a fashion better suited to technically uninformed audience is beyond my ability, -
actually thoughtful at 06:13 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Dr. Masters - great post - I found it on WeatherUnderground and thought it would be a great fit here - it is! Speaking from a position of ignorance - is global warming going to lead to much faster El Nino/La Nina cycles? I see that Jeff thinks we are due for a few quiet years, but I'm thinking more along the lines of Rob Painting. It seems a system seeking balance would experience more ENSO shifts, and very recent trends support that. -
hfranzen at 05:36 AM on 28 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Kevin C.: Thanks for your commment and questions. The catagories of science that I propose are totally my own and are presented with the purpose of trying to rationalize arguments about the science of GW. To my way of thinking there is a heirarchy of arguments about GW science, namely: 1. about science with uncertainties that can be numerically determined and shown to be negligible(Type A), 2. about those concerning science with larger uncertainties that are basically estimates based upon past experience (Type B) and 3. those about science which describes phenomena in terms of a curve fitted to data using empirical curve fitting (Type C). I express the opinion that to disagree with the results of Type C science and infer or conclude that this disagreement is tatmount to disagreeing with the totality of GW science is not productive. That is, someone who wishes to deny GW science should be very explict about the level of their disagreement in the heirarchy. For example, if one wishes to express a criticism of the earth's temperature vs. time curve during some particular epoch it would be very helpful to all involved if they would make clear at the outset at what point in the heirarchy they part ways with the accepted scientific picture. The nature of the discussion will, I think, be very different if they say at the outset that they simply do not believe CO2 has anything to do with GW as opposed to saying that they understand and agree with the basic understanding of the interaction of the earth's Planck radiation with atmospheric CO2 but want to raise a specific point about the interpretation of the specific data for that epoch. -
Tor B at 05:15 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Puyehue is having a tiny eruption compared with Tambora (1815), with a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 4 compared to Tambora's 6.5 - 7. (mostly from BigThink) "From: NASA's Earth Observing Project Science Webpage: Volcanoes and Global Climate Change, May 2000 Volcanic eruptions are thought to be responsible for the global cooling that has been observed for a few years after a major eruption. The amount and global extent of the cooling depend on the force of the eruption and, possibly, its latitude." USGS publication Latitude may matter because there is more solar gain in the tropics than at the poles. At the extreme, SO2 (etc.) blocking some equatorial sunshine will affect a season's weather more than blocking all polar winter "sunshine". Of course, the ash and gasses don't remain at the latitude at which they were erupted and can affect weather for multiple seasons. Equatorial eruptions tend to affect weather in both hemispheres while higher-latitude eruptions affect mostly only their own hemisphere. -
John Hartz at 03:39 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Kudos to Dr. Masters on very well written and most timely article. The graphics stunningly amplify the text. -
anarchic_teapot at 03:20 AM on 28 June 2011New Zealand Snow No Show = No Jobs
There's a similar trend in the Alps and Pyrenees in Europe, to the extent that ski resort operators had considered asking for bailouts. A lot try to alter alternative activities, like hillwalking, but it's not a replacement. -
Chris G at 02:37 AM on 28 June 2011A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
Pedantic correction: The effect is on a curve with a declining slope, but the slope is always positive and the curve has no upper limit. -
Camburn at 02:35 AM on 28 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
dhogaza: Yep, you are understanding it. TSI can not explain the early 20th century warming. Nor can it explain the decline in warmth....nor the increase again in warmth. I don't know if Svalgaard will trump all other papers. His will be another addition. There are so many different reconstructions of TSI that have been published who knows? He is eminent in his field, has come up with a solution to the wide variance in the published works that seems very plausable. The bulk of the latest evidence is leaning in his direction tho. -
Chris G at 02:29 AM on 28 June 2011A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
The emotional bias in the arguments can be seen whenever there are three conflicting lines of reasoning, but only one is engaged by the other two. For example: a) CO2 is a trace gas and can have no effect; there isn't enough of it to have any effect. b) The thermodynamic effect of CO2 is logarithmic; it's effect is on a declining slope, but that slope has no upper limit. c) CO2 is already at such high concentrations that more of it can have no effect. Proponents of (a) and (c) will argue with proponents of (b), but never with each other. If the debate were about physical reality, a and c would go after each other, possibly even attempting to recruit b as an ally. But, they don't engage each other, ever. Instead they always go after b together. Why? Because the implications of b are emotionally difficult to deal with, and the implications of a and c are not emotionally threatening to each other. This pattern belies any attempt to present the argument as one based on the technical merits of the positions. -
Michele at 02:06 AM on 28 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
I would remember that we are not arguing about the global fluxes assuring the planetary energetic balance, but about the GH effect that found on any modification of the temperature profiles with regard to the isothermal one that would be there if the atmosphere was perfectly transparent. Venus has one cooling region, determined by the CO2 as we read from the space, where the heat arrives from both above and below. The equilibrium temperature of this region is simply due to outgoing radiative flux through the CO2 window around 15 microns, which represents only a small part of the total outgoing flux, but enough to set up the temperature profile. Notice that the radiating region takes place always between two layers both producing an inward heat flux, so while Venus, heated solely at the surface and within the thermosphere, has one middle region which avoids the runaway warming of the planet, Earth, with its three heating region, has to present two emitting regions, whose thermostat is the CO2. A single molecule with the necessary properties can emit a single photon (or absorb one). Yes in an EM radiating field. Not at all for the processes based on the collisions among the molecules as heat->EM and vice versa. Mesosphere. Really, I do not care one bit if the mesosphere is convective or not. It is enough for my aim that there exists a upward heat flux within the mesosphere. -
Martin at 02:05 AM on 28 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
You mention Indonesia's volcano Tambora (1815) and the year without a summer. What effect will, in your opinion, Chile's Puyehue volcano (2011)have? -
Chris G at 02:02 AM on 28 June 2011A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
Chemware, While I don't really meet your minimum requirements, one of my degrees is a masters in cognitive psychology, but I don't work in that field now. Mostly I worked on how the brain processes visual information, but I did manage to pick up some awareness of social and clinical aspects through osmosis. From what I've seen, there are aspects of projection that come into play, but mostly it appears that various aspects of denial, very aptly named, come into play. Also, a fair amount of cognitive dissonance can be observed amongst the crowd. However, I think it is important not to paint with too broad a brush; individuals can vary from those that are motivated by profit to those who are honestly not able to connect the dots between cause and effect. Of the latter, the failure can be caused by lack of skill in the physical sciences, or a psychological blockage that prevents acceptance of what is really known, or others that don't come to mind as readily. Denial is a powerful survival skill, but it does sometimes prevent dealing with the reality of the situation. IMHO, cognitive dissonance manifests itself often as the slight derailment of an otherwise coherent line of thought, when that derailment changes the line to so that it leads to conclusions that are more comfortable. Also, if plain and simple presentation of information provokes a strong emotional response, the odds are good that you are getting near that person's keystone of denial. Of course, different people have different keystones. The list of expressions of denial on the link above almost looks as though it were tailor made for the climate denier crowd. I like the Max Planck quote; still true to this day. I don't think the argument/debate will ever be completely over. As new people are made aware of the problem, the general tendency toward denial will keep some directed to that side of the debate. It is not easy to accept that you are culpable in creating a world where your children will have a more difficult life than the one you have enjoyed. I see this as an ongoing educational effort. -
Tor B at 01:28 AM on 28 June 2011New Zealand Snow No Show = No Jobs
The last time I ice skated was at Lower Manorburn Dam (NZ) during a student outing in 1977. The ice was thin in places and, falling spectacularly once, I cracked the ice. Sad to think that such pleasures (?) are already (apparantly) harder to come by. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:21 AM on 28 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Ken Lambert wrote: "If TSI is above an 'equilibrium' value and stays constant -there is a constant imbalance in forcing which translates to a linearly increasing gain in energy" This is simply incorrect, if there is an energy imbalance, global temperatures rise until the resulting increase in outbound IR is sufficient to restore the balance an a new equilibrium is established. Temperatures would not increase linearly, and neither would the gain in energy. We know the equilibrium value for atmospheric CO2 (about 280 ppm), if CO2 levels are maintained at a constant level above this equilibrium value, then again there will be an energy imbalance, but will temperatures increase indefinitely? No. So why is TSI forcing different from CO2 radiative forcing? N.B. I have pointed this out before without a getting a reply. -
KR at 01:14 AM on 28 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Ken Lambert - "If TSI is above an 'equilibrium' value and stays constant -there is a constant imbalance in forcing which translates to a linearly increasing gain in energy..." As has been pointed out more than once, Ken, a constant imbalance could only be maintained if the TSI was increasing (not 'constant') to stay ahead of the increasing TOA radiation to space due to increasing temperatures. That's not happening. We have excellent data on TSI, very precise in noting changes in insolation even if there are inter-satellite absolute calibration uncertainties - we simply do not have the constantly increasing insolation required to drive the temperature changes of the last 30-40 years. Your hypothesis is quite simply contradicted by the facts. I suggest taking additional comments in your ongoing TSI discussion back to it's the sun, where this has been repeatedly disproven. As a serious point, Ken, you seem to be unable to absorb any information on this topic. You've repeated the same incorrect assertions over and over and ... (repeat as necessary), and have had the errors in your hypotheses pointed out each time. Why do you continue to insist on this contrary to actual measurements? -
Bob Lacatena at 01:14 AM on 28 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Camburn, Ken, In any event, all of this discussion of solar is OT. I know you'd like to claim that it has to do with uncertainty in climate science, but really, that pretty much sums up just about any denial argument there is. It would turn this thread into a denial free-for-all. We should close with Dr. Franzen's well framed characterization of the science, and perhaps turn to answering emilio's (relevant) question.
Prev 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 Next
