Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 Next
Comments 81451 to 81500:
-
Bern at 11:26 AM on 24 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
Note: I just picked the January-December anomalies for 1950 & 2010 from the GISS data - obviously, you need to look at a longer-term average to make it meaningful... -
Bern at 11:25 AM on 24 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
That's the problem, Chris, not everyone understands what the baseline is. How much warming have we had since 1950? It's 0.79ºC, according to GISS J-D averages. That's quite significant, if you're referring to temperatures about a degree warmer than "today". -
Eric the Red at 11:20 AM on 24 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Since the volume of ice in Greenland is ~2.8 million cubic km, and the maximum current rate of loss is ~100 cubic km / year, that is many millenia before Greenland will melt. The IPCC predicted that it would take a 5.5C temperature rise to melt Greenland, and it would take several centuries. Recent studies show that the melt rate is significantly less. http://www.sciencepoles.org/news/news_detail/new_model_forecasts_slower_rate_for_greenland_ice_sheets_contribution_to_se/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126131538.htm -
Chris Colose at 11:14 AM on 24 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
In paleoclimate literature "today" often means 1950, sometimes something else (just look at the papers). It's worth keeping in mind but it's really not worth fussing about the baseline as long as everyone understands it. Especially for the "larger" climate changes of the past, whether anomaly is computed relative to 2000 or 2011 makes virtually no difference, and is within reconstruction uncertanties anyway. -
Bern at 11:10 AM on 24 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
Well said, Agnostic! Monckton, like many of the hard-core deniers, is very quick to resort to ad hominem attacks when his flimsy 'scientific' argument is shredded and proven to be false. 'Skeptics' like Ken Lambert in post #1 are quick to repeat the ad hom attacks and slurs on integrity, while also struggling to present any substantive criticism of the science. I do find it amusing, though, that 2 out of the 3 ad hom slurs in post #1 were fabricated by Andrew Bolt. Even just a few minutes spent googling will turn up enough evidence to demonstrate that. -
skywatcher at 11:01 AM on 24 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Reversing processes is not necessarily simple and linear - if the system exhibits hysteresis. An example is an ice sheet, whose height above sea level (and thus lateral extent) begins to decrease. This places a smaller area of the ice sheet above the snowline, encouraging subsequent decrease in snow accumulation. Continue this process and you can lose an ice sheet without continued warming. The height of the exposed land surface is now much lower than the surface of the original ice sheet. How do you make the snow hang around through the summer in such a way as to regrow the ice sheet? It's a bit more complicated than that (flow dynamics and precipitation changes complicate the picture somewhat), but this is what is at stake with both the Greenland and W Antarctic ice sheets. That's many metres of sea level. So. How do you grow back your ice sheet, Eric? On the thread topic, dark water absorbs more energy than white ice. More dark water surrounding the remains of a melting sea ice cap absorbs more energy and does not freeze quite as easily (and certainly not to the same thickness). Once the Arctic ice is gone... how do you grow back the reflective ice cap that is one key to current global temperatures, sea level (through cooling the GIS) and weather patterns? These things may be reversible (though you provide no evidence as to why), but certainly not in the short term once the hysteresis takes hold... -
Tom Curtis at 10:42 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Argus @58, over the geological long term, sediment is carried back out of the ocean either by subduction or by uplift which has turned former marine deposits into the Alps (for example). If it where not, over the long term the continents would have entirely disappeared under the sea by erosion, whereas over the 600 million years for which it can be determined they have remained approximately constant in total area (although having drifted around significantly, and formed a super continent twice). The survival of continents shows that over the long term net displacement of water by geological processes including erosion is zero. Having said that, the net displacement over any short period (ie, several millions of years) could be either slightly positive or negative. Currently Africa is moving north replacing shallow Mediterranian water with deep Antarctic Ocean water. Australia is also moving North, replacing shallow water with deep water. India continues to move North, enlarging the Indian Ocean, and I believe that South American continues to move towards North America, collapsing the the Caribbean. Meanwhile the Horn of Africa is separating from Africa, thus reducing the Indian Ocean. All these motions are at a rate of mm per year, but because of the large shorelines involved, all would result a greater displacement of sea water then the net displacement by sedimentation and subduction. What is the net effect? I don't know except that given historical sea water stands (ancient beaches etc) it is very close to zero, and well within the error bars of Kemp et al. -
michael sweet at 09:47 AM on 24 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Comments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I have provided data to support my position. You have not. Until you provide data to support your position you are dismissed. Eric the Red is a (-Snip-) who should be banned since he refuses to provide data to support his positions and refuses to even read data provided to him that shows he is wrong.Response:[DB] Fixed html tag and snipped a bad-sounding word.
-
adelady at 09:45 AM on 24 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric, reversing effects? It's a simple question. Just how many mountains (of suitable rock composition) are you prepared to blow up? Every year? Each year's CO2 production from oil alone equates to 93 million years of CO2 sequestration in those fossils. Unsurprisingly, natural geological sequestration is entirely unable to keep up with the release. If we want to "reverse" the many impacts of our accelerated geological CO2 releases, we'd better pay some attention to accelerating geological CO2 sequestration. That is, expose the maximum area of rock surfaces to air and water. Blow it up, reduce it to gravels and dust. Move on to the next one. If we can do it for coal, we can do it to counteract coal. I know many people believe we can do it with biological sequestration alone. We could do it that way. If we could ensure nil deforestation as well as universal adoption of soil carbon retaining practices, it could be done. I have no confidence that anyone or anything on earth will ever restrain the logging companies in the Pacific region, let alone worldwide. So. How many mountains per year? -
Eric the Red at 09:37 AM on 24 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Several meters, wow! And you thought my post was outrageous. I guess I can dismiss that one. CO2 will not stay in the atmosphere forever. If we were to stop emitting today, the level would fall slowly. The longer we wait, the longer it will take (I presume that is your get worse statement). You have not given me any reason to think that this is not reversible.Response:[DB] If we cease all human CO2 emissions all hold them at zero ad infinitum, then CO2 levels would first begin to flatten their rise and then plateau on the decadal level. The natural sinks would begin their slow draw-down on the centannial& millennial timescales. All the while the system will be changing to reach a new thermal equilibria & temps will continue to rise...and ice will continue to melt. For centuries and millennia (repeat as needed). The loss of the WAIS and the GIS, which is in store before equilibria can be reached, is not reversible except on the hundreds-of-millennia to millions-of-years timescales. Unless you're a Timelord like Dr. Who...
You really are not doing well in retaining credibility here with your unscientific opinions. Perhaps a change in venue is needed, where said opinions will be more welcome & reflective of the caliber of the Forum in which they're posted?
-
Eric the Red at 09:31 AM on 24 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Actually meant to say rebutal. Most scientific progress builds on previous work. -
Eric the Red at 09:29 AM on 24 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
If you like, you could average the last 11 years. That would be close enough to today. -
michael sweet at 09:10 AM on 24 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
If we stopped emitting CO2 today the temperature would continue to increase for decades because of the heating in the pipeline. It is prohibitively expensive to remove the CO2 and pump it under ground. The temperature effects already measured are enough to raise sea level several meters . This will flood Florida and Bangladesh, in addition to many huge cities. In the past year China, Russia, Australia, the USA and the Amazon have had record damaging weather. How will these effects be reversed, since it will not get cooler? You have presented only your unsupported opinion so far. How will the effects of the permanent pollution that has been put in the atmosphere be reversed??? Provide data and references to support your extraordinary claim. Comments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I dismiss your claim without evidence. We need to take immediate action to keep things from getting worse. The longer we wait the worse it will become. The uninformed opinion that things will reverse in the future, for no apparent reason, does not help motivate people to take action. -
skywatcher at 08:55 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
#65 Sphaerica, maybe some of your distant relatives, the deep sea benthic Gromia sphaerica have been getting much fatter in recent years and displacing more water. Can't rule it out, right? We'd best do some serious sphaerica harvesting before sea levels flood the major cities. :) I'll get me coat... -
Michael Hauber at 08:54 AM on 24 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
2000 is now 11 years ago. I suppose it is today for 'large enough values of today'. -
Steve Brown at 07:55 AM on 24 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
References to temperature relative to today are generally relative to global temp at year 2000. -
Rob Painting at 07:46 AM on 24 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
Kevin C - as well as serving the genuinely curious, the series will be a useful rebuttal to drive-by skeptics who claim the Earth was warmer back then - insinuating current warming is a natural cycle. -
Patrick 027 at 07:44 AM on 24 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Re http://ju1zjq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pjEa2b4sDI2I3SchEL6t4570vOnfDE4gRu7wLOOZTAm1VzBsqmUm9UCRtbhmf_jwW6imVJMR6dGxFLYqu-Cou412qaJDdkXzl/Profiles%20Earth-Venus.jpg?psid=1 - I'm not sure but it looks like a Venusian tropopause may exist at ~ 60 km. (this is similar to what is stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus) The lapse rate decreases sharply above that. Note that a positive lapse rate can still be stable. It's also interesting that the lapse rate is a little lower below 50 km. Perhaps an effect of latent heating/cooling associated with cloud layers. And the gas becomes less than ideal at some point. Both Venus and Earth have temperature increasing with height above some point. Earth's temperature goes down and up twice; this is because the ozone layer allows a seperate solar heating maximum below the thermosphere. Oxygen is involved in the solar heating of the thermosphere, but I don't think it's necessarily alone in that role; there is some water vapor in Venus's atmosphere which could be source of atomic oxygen at sufficiently high altitudes. At least on Earth, solar heating of the highest, very thin (by mass) layer of air (the thermosphere) involves a very small fraction of the solar radiation being absorbed by a very small heat capacity which has a very very small emissivity and thus must get to very high temperatures to achieve radiative equilibrium. If there were no greenhouse effect (of the emitting/absorbing type), then direct solar heating of the air would have to be balanced by downward mixing (requiring some work input) and diffusion/conduction (requiring larger negative lapse rate to be significant) of heat to the surface. Other things being equal, the negative lapse rate would get larger and large going down through layers with direct solar heating as a greater and greater downward heat flux is required to balance the total solar heating above. Sufficient vigorous mixing in a layer at the surface could 'erode' this profile and set up a convective lapse rate, with a strong inversion on top; but work must be down to accomplish this. See above on the potential for horizontal variations in solar heating of/near the surface to provide some APE. With no greenhouse effect of any kind and a blackbody surface, setting aside horizontal and temporal variability, the equilibrium temperature of the surface would be such that the surface would emit the flux that balances the total solar heating of the planet. With a greenhouse effect of the absorbing/emitting kind, radiative equilibrium can occur wherein, with all solar heating at the surface, a constant upward net LW flux would have to be maintained, which requires the surface being warmer than the atmosphere, and generally that the temperature decreases with height - more so with larger optical thickness, as this decreases the photon mean free path, thus requiring a greater temperature gradient to sustain the same net flux. Adding more optical thickness from a grey gas would tend to increase temperature (in full equilibrium) at all levels except at TOA, which would tend toward the same skin temperature (the temperature profile would get compressed toward TOA). But if one adds optical thickness only at some frequencies, the response in temperature can change fluxes at other frequencies as well to compensate, so that the temperature may not have to increase at all levels for radiative equilibrium to be reached. Radiative equilibrium may be unstable to convection in some layers - this has been gone over. Adding direct solar heating to some layers of air, the necessary net LW flux profile has to change to restore radiative equilibrium. Start with a constant upward net LW flux above where solar heating originally occured, and add some additional net LW flux that diverges from regions of solar heating and converges towards areas that have reduced solar heating. This requires the layers with solar heating to be relatively warmer than some other layers, so that they can emit more than they absorb to balance the solar heating. With small optical thickness, larger temperature changes are required to get sufficient emission; with large optical thickness, larger temperature gradients are required for the same net LW fluxes. The radiation will be most responsive to temperature changes in spectral bands where the distances over which solar heating (or convective heating, etc.) are on the order of unit optical thickness, so there should be some tendency for the LW fluxes in these bands may largely determine the required temperature profile for equilibrium. For example, if solar heating goes from a low to a high value and back to a low value over a distance of ~ 10 km, then the temperature variation required might be approximated by that which would sufficiently adjust the net LW fluxes in spectral bands where a 5 km distance would be on the order of unit optical thickness. -
scaddenp at 07:41 AM on 24 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
"There are times when it seems that half the articles in a particular journal are a direct response to previous work." Only half? Maybe the others were more subtle. That is the way scientific conversation should and are held. Science makes good progress this way. -
michael sweet at 07:40 AM on 24 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
North Dakota is having historic record floods as we speak. But I suppose it could all be chance. They were due for a 100 year flood, it has been over 100 years since the last one-- which was 5 feet lower than the projected peak of this flood. -
dorlomin at 07:32 AM on 24 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
"Today" what do you mean when you say today? Which baseline? 1950-1980 or 1980-2010? -
Bob Lacatena at 07:23 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
67, JMurphy, But you are forgetting the positive feedback, whereby the increased gravitational pull of the fattened fish has drawn the moon closer to the earth in its orbit. This, in turn, increases the tidal forces of the moon on the oceans, which accounts for the supposed "reduced fish population" paradox (as it is called in the literature). No, I'm afraid you're going to have to do better, if you want to refute the Ichthyan Displacement Anomaly theory of sea level rise. -
Riduna at 07:19 AM on 24 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
Professor Garnaut can express his own views on being dubbed a Nazi because of his acceptance of consensus science on global warming. The kindest thing that can be said of Monckton, who makes this disgraceful slur is that he displays the same inexcusable ignorance of history as he does of science. Monckton was not even born during the fascist regime so, unlike me, has no first hand knowledge of what it stood for or the terror it inflicted on those who fell foul of it. Possibly that is why he so carelessly smears those who do not agree with his false beliefs on matters of climate science. While I defend the right to freedom of speech, even when abused to express repugnant views, I do question whether we need to welcome a foreigner to Australia to repeat the litany of lies, misrepresentations and distortions of climate science for which Monckton is so well known. -
JMurphy at 07:16 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Sphaerica, from what I have read about fish and fish stocks (both getting smaller - which would probably also impinge on fish-stock used in cooking, but that's going too far off-topic), the so-called skeptics would have a hard time trying to claim that fish are actually getting fatter and displacing more water, thereby causing sea-level rise - and a rise in seal levels too, obviously, who would also get fatter and displace even more water ! But I won't hold my breath. -
scaddenp at 07:13 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Also note that sediment loading depresses the crust. -
Eric the Red at 07:10 AM on 24 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
michael, What effects are not reversible? This comment is neither outrageous nor demanding of evidence. Tom, Yes, it will become harder. Just like waiting to save for retirement. -
Eric the Red at 07:07 AM on 24 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Yes, to your first premise. I am not referring to the people mentioned, but rather the media at large. While there are some science writers for various circulars, the larger reporting arena is largely ignorant of any science beyond the high school level (and that may be a stretch). A quote from a scientist is enough to solidify any story. I am not naive about the agendas regarding the science. There is enough name-calling, mis-information, and scientific rebutals to other journal articles to fill an encyclopedia. There are times when it seems that half the articles in a particular journal are a direct response to previous work. A solar minimum (whether it is grand or not) will be a boon to astrophysicists. Whether it becomes exciting to others will depend upon its effects. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:55 AM on 24 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
22, Albatross,Who would have thought that,in the very distant past, Fourier and Arrhenius were plotting to use the radiative trapping properties of CO2 in forward their agenda establish world governance and fascism? ;)
You have no idea how closely you have struck to the truth! The following quote from a biography of Arrhenius was posted in a comment on Nova's site:“Svante Arrhenius was also actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been planned as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909. Swedish racial biology was world-leading at this time, and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization program in Sweden, as well as inspiring the Nazi eugenics in Germany.”
I actually think poor Jo Nova is discovering the reality behind the saying "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." She tried a while ago to convince her bleating followers that GHG theory does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and that arguing otherwise makesdeniersskeptics look silly. The barrage of 1000+ comments refuting her stance was laughable. Now, in trying to take a mature and balanced view of Monckton (even, laudably, going so far as to find fault with his two faced "apology"), she's encountering more of the same (as evidenced above) -- a bevy of anti-climate crusaders who think that Monckton's only mistake was in not going far enough with his parallels. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:42 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
62, skywatcher, Yes, but you have not yet proven that fish are not simply getting fatter (and so displacing more water), no doubt a result of all of the greenie fishing restrictions being placed on the poor, struggling fishermen throughout the world. If scientists would just study this, they'd certainly see that climate change has nothing to do with rising sea levels. It is, in fact, fatter fish which in turn displace more water, and this is, in turn, due to a chronic under-fishing problem which should be corrected immediately, before the problem reaches catastrophic proportions. -
Albatross at 06:38 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
From RealClimate's post on the paper: "These data are valid for North Carolina, where they are also in agreement with a local tide gauge (green)(Fig. 2 in the paper). But they also agree with another proxy data set from Massachusetts. Sea level changes along the US Atlantic coast do not need to fully coincide with global mean sea level, however. Even though the level rises uniformly if I fill water into my bath tub, the ocean has a number of mechanisms by which local sea level can deviate from global sea level. One of these mechanisms can also occur in the tub: the water can “slosh around”, in the oceans on multidecadal time scales. And there are some other factors as well, like changing ocean currents or changes in the gravitational field (due to melting continental ice). In the paper these factors are estimated and it is concluded that the North Carolina curve should be within about 10 cm of global mean sea level." Also, Stefan (an author on the paper) writes this in reply to this comment: "[Response: That is discussed in great detail in the paper, but also in the post above. We estimate that the NC data should track the global mean sea level to within +/- 10 cm (on the time scales we resolve), and so far nobody has challenged this estimate. Specifically, Jens Schröter, quoted in the Spiegel article, has confirmed to me that he also finds this a reasonable estimate. -Stefan] [My bolding] -
Chris Colose at 06:38 AM on 24 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
Kevin, Not everything needs to be about skeptics. Some people are actually interested in the science of climate :-) -
Bob Lacatena at 06:37 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Argus, This really isn't worth the time it takes to type it, but if sedimentation were any factor in sea level rise, it would be an ongoing one, uninterrupted from the beginning of time. You'd see a steady sea level rise throughout all of recorded history. Or do you have some reason to believe that climate change accelerates sedimentation? -
skywatcher at 06:35 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Good info well found Andy S. So the upshot of it is that the volume of water increase through melting / thermal expansion is at least two order of magnitude greater than the volume decrease through sedimentation. I think we can safely say that sea level rise is not an artefact of sedimentation changes... -
Andy Skuce at 06:30 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Argus@51, good question: According to this Skeptical Science blog post the world's rivers are dumping 28 billion tonnes of sediment into the ocean, which is about five percent of the weight lost by melting Greenland ice . Remember that the sediment has a grain density of about 2.5 times that of water, so the volume it displaces is only about 2 percent of the volume added to the oceans by Greenland ice melt. A significant fraction of the world's water is stored in man-made reservoirs, which, according to this newspaper article, has reduced sea-level rise by 30 millimetres. Considerable sediment is also being held back by dams, which diminishes the amount getting to the sea. -
Kevin C at 06:24 AM on 24 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
I'm interested to see where you are going with this. Mainly from a communication perspective, although the style is engaging enough to have me interested in the material too. -
KR at 06:24 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Argus - Keep in mind that sediment, being essentially ground rocks, will have a much higher density than water; therefore it will require much more sediment than water to equal the same volume. Sedimentation may have increased due to anthropogenic activities (farmland erosion). I don't know how those numbers, though. However, I will note that contrary to increased erosion via land use, waterway control aka levees, damns, etc., have reduced the sedimentation levels at river deltas around the world. This is part of the water problems in New Orleans - which is really sad, I love that city. Waterway control has reduced delta deposition over the last century or so, causing increased subsidence of the delta around New Orleans and increased storm risk. Alexandria in Egypt has some of the same issues. This reduction in river sedimentation should decrease the rate of sea level rise. But I wouldn't claim strong changes in either direction without more data. -
scaddenp at 06:21 AM on 24 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman - "or the purpose of showing how a hazard becomes a disaster and pointing out that the number of actual hazards does not translate into number of disasters". Okay, I understand. However, while the a bad storm doesnt turn into disaster, an increase in bad storms surely increases the probability of a disaster. -
les at 06:20 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Archemeaies will be turning in his bathtub :( -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:00 AM on 24 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Thanks for the link and please provide others when you can. I think we are talking about two different things (long lived supercells that can spawn strong tornadoes in my case) -
Argus at 05:51 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
#51, Thanks for the link to Poe's law, I didn't know about that! I suppose you are sarcastic, but I simply wanted to compare the effects of erosion and melting on the sea level. "From the Yellow River, over 1.6 billion tons of sediment flows into the ocean each year." (en.wikipedia.org) "552 billion tons lost from the Greenland ice sheet in 2007." (answers.com) "In fluid mechanics, displacement occurs when an object is immersed in a fluid, pushing it out of the way and taking its place." (en.wikipedia.org) So, 1.6 billion tons of sediment from one river. What could be the total amount in the world? 160 billion tons maybe? It would replace about 50 billion tons of sea water. It would still be considerably less than the water from Greenland ice, but at least it is in the same league. I welcome better figures and better calculations!Response:[DB] Having been Poe'd before, I was genuinely curious.
Dunno about that answers.com number you quote. Greenland ice mass loss increased from some 200+ billion tons in 2009 to about 600 billion tons in 2010. See here. And that is only part of the glacial melt picture every year.
-
Albatross at 05:48 AM on 24 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
EricS @180, "The outflow boundaries, lake breezes, etc are a dime a dozen and do not provide the pool of dry air nor the long range winds to advect dry air into a moving supercell to cause strong tornadoes." Nonsense, as someone who works in this field I am confident in saying that you are really talking though your hat. Read this, one of the et cetera above should have been HCRs. Now you are just doing what EricS is doing. If a supercell ingests dry into its updraft it is done. I have seen this happen first hand. And you need to read up more about the "dryline". -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:33 AM on 24 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Albatross the seasonality of violent tornadoes is ample evidence that they require the springtime jet (which is both strong and late this year) and dry air availability from Canada or east of the Rockies. The outflow boundaries, lake breezes, etc are a dime a dozen and do not provide the pool of dry air nor the long range winds to advect dry air into a moving supercell to cause strong tornadoes. That isn't to say it can't happen. Aligned winds in the atmosphere can push a solitary MCS 1/2 way across the country with embedded supercells (no front or low needed). Otherwise something has to advect the dry air eastward, and I think the Great Plains LLJ is mostly south to north. -
Robert Murphy at 05:16 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
From Camburn's link in 54: "The current sea level trend of about 1.7 mm/y" The current sea level trend is about 3 mm/y. The trend has increased over the 20th century; you can't just use the 20th century average without taking the acceleration into account. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:11 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Curiously, mispresenting Latif seems to be habit forming. Readers are advised to take all future posts concerning Latif with a very large grain of sea salt. -
Albatross at 05:07 AM on 24 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
EricR @178, "The greater the energy gradient at that layer, the greater potential for tornadic activity." Sorry, but no. Eric, you seem to be trying to make it sound that you know what you are talking about but the more "information" you volunteer the more apparent it becomes that you do in fact not. And you have still not backed up your assertions with anything from the reputable scientific literature. If you like I could direct you to some literature on this subject. -
Eric the Red at 04:55 AM on 24 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Yes, the severe storms occur at the boundary layers. The greater the energy gradient at that layer, the greater potential for tornadic activity. -
Albatross at 04:41 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Shorter Camburn @54, "Look, Squirrel!!". EricR @53, come on, you misrepresented Latif. Maybe it was unintentional, but please do not try and detract from that. And then you add another quote to try and float another red herring..."Look squirrel!". -
Albatross at 04:37 AM on 24 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
EricR, "In a way, yes" I do not know to what you are referring. My claim that you may be feigning ignorance? Please do not get confused between media sensationalism and a very deliberate attempt to distort, confuse and misinform. You seem quite naive about the agenda against science and the theory of AGW that "media" people like Delingpole and Gunter and Solomon and Bolt and Limbaugh have. These guys are excited alright, but not for the reasons you think, they are excited because science stories like this allow them the perfect opportunity to distort, confuse and misinform the public about the theory of AGW. -
Camburn at 04:37 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Here we have a paper that has used tidal gauge observations on sea level rise. Its findings are supported by previous papers used as references: tidal gauge observations -
Eric the Red at 04:32 AM on 24 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Are you countering with your own quote mining? Recent decades is a far cry from 2000 years. "What happened in time periods of 300 and 400 years is highly contentious," No emphasis needed.Response:[DB] You continue to twist Latif's comments out of context to fulfill your goal of fostering doubt by conflating dissent over minutia into broad overall disagreement. Latif in the article clearly agrees with Rahmstorf for the overall period of the study (calling it a strength) and that the blade of the SLR hockey stick is not accidental. Latif and Rahmstorf differ in interpretation of details: that's science.
Schröter, OTOH, is arguing for a presence of continental drift being a player over the 2000 period of the study without presenting supportive evidence.
At least you are consistent with your narrative.
Prev 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 Next
