Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 Next
Comments 81551 to 81600:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 23:05 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
Ken, it is a shame that you were unwilling to follow the advice I gave in response to your post earlier in the thread. If you insist on adding snarks at the moderators, your posts will be deleted, regardless of its remaining content, as I have just done to your most recent submission. Warning #1 Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum. Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter. -
Rob Painting at 22:38 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
Beastie - in addition to the responses you have already received: the ancient periods referred to were steady states that changed slowly over millions of years, therefore life was able to adapt. Today the rate of change is so rapid, it is probably only exceeded in speed by the asteroid impact induced changes that wiped out the dinosaurs. Secondly: Greenhouse periods may have been times of lower global biodiversity. Now, why do you think Monckton neglects to mention such relevant information? -
CBDunkerson at 22:24 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
Ken wrote: "Of course outrageous claims and distortions afflict both sides of the debate - Robyn (100m of sea level rise) Williams, Tim (rivers will never run again) Flannery and Al (hockeystick) Gore come to mind on the AGW side." Actually, I'd put those all down as distortions on the denier side. Robyn Williams - Contrary to denier claims, he never 'predicted' that sea levels would rise 100 meters this century. Andrew Bolt (a vocal denier) asked him if it was possible and Williams, a non-scientist, started to reply, "Yes, but...". At which point Bolt cut him off... classic attack 'journalism'. Williams later said that the 'but' part was that it was very unlikely and could only happen as a temporary localized surge if a large volume of ice broke off and slid into the ocean from Antarctica. Tim Flannery - Again, he didn't say that 'rivers will never run again'. Rather, he said that increased heat and evaporation were resulting in drier soils and normal rainfall patterns being unable to fill reservoirs and river systems. Basically, 'water supplies have dropped because it has gotten hotter'. Hardly controversial, until distorted beyond all recognition... by Andrew Bolt again I believe. As to Gore... the hockey stick has been confirmed to be accurate by roughly a dozen subsequent studies, including at least two by vocal 'skeptics'. Outrageous claims and distortions are indeed the problem at hand, but if you actually go back to first sources you will find that the supposed 'outrageous claims' from AGW 'alarmists' usually fall somewhere between gross distortion and complete fabrication. -
Kevin C at 22:09 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
beastie@5: The solar irradiance at that point was probably at least 3% lower. That's about -7.5W/m^2 of forcing, which would need to be offset by two CO2 doublings (at least 1100ppm) even to produce global temperatures equivalent to today. Ironically this is another Monckton myth. For the lowdown, watch the first half of this video. -
Tom Curtis at 22:05 PM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric the Red @83, I am definitely getting excited about low ice, and not because it is a good thing. It just happens that the deniers are winning the PR war and as a result humans will probably not do anything adequate about it till it is too late. But one thing, I am sure, will cut through all the lies, obfustications and misdirections of the deniers - when a commercial ship sales from the Atlantic to the Pacific across the North Pole and sees no ice, the deniers game will be up. Unfortunately that will probably not be till 2030, and the used by date for effective action closes in 2020. -
Tom Curtis at 21:59 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman @163, in answer to your question about thunderstorms, the map on page 10 of this document gives a clue. Amongst the 960 events they list are floods in South East Queensland for December. On the ground that was a series of distinct flood events striking different towns at different times, but it was the same weather event. Likewise they list two major storm events in Australia, and three in the United States lasting from one to four days. Although each would have contained tens, and possibly hundreds of individual thunder storm cells, they where all part of the same weather event, and hence counted as just one event. One of the US storm events was a tornado outbreak,/a> which contained 60 tornadoes as well as, without doubt, innumerable thunderstorms, but for Munich Re's statistics is is just one event. -
Tom Curtis at 21:38 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman @various: 1) As the following chart shows, there has been a significant increase over time of the types of conditions that spawn tornados. Therefore while the conjecture that increased reporting of EF0 to EF2 tornadoes is simply an artifact of increased reporting, in fact it is at least partly a consequence of increased tornado frequencies.
It is worthwhile comparing that chart to reported tornadoes:
The significant correlation between days with tornado favourable conditions and reported tornadoes suggests that observational artifacts are not the sole cause of the increased in reported tornadoes.
2) Although 1974 was exceptional, as has been 2011, your analysis in 154 is unjustified. In particular while there have been 80 EF3 plus tornadoes to date in 2011, compared to approximately 124 F3 plus Tornadoes in 1974, there have been 6 EF6 tornadoes to date in 2011 compared to 6 (Wikipedia; 7 Tornado History Project). There also have been 17 EF 4 tornadoes to date in 2011, compared to 24 F4 (Wikipedia; 23 Tornado History Project) in 1974. Furthermore, all of the F4 and F5 tornadoes, and 64 of the F3 plus tornadoes occurred in just one outbreak, on April 3rd and 4th. That outbreak is the second largest on record, falling just behind the outbreak of outbreak of April 25-28, 2011, which had 330 tornadoes compared to the 1974 super outbreak with 148. The April 2011 Super outbreak only rates third in F/EF 4 and 5 Tornadoes (with 1974 ranking first), but there were two other major outbreaks in April 2011, and some minor ones.
Given the near equality of F/EF 5 tornadoes between 1974 and 2011, and the small difference between in number of F/EF 4 tornadoes your assumption that the difference in numbers of damaging events is a function of anything other than an increase in hazards is unwarranted.
In fact, it is not even based on a correct use of the definition. For a hazard to be classified as a disaster, it need harm only a single human being or their property. An EF0 tornado that blows ripe apples to the ground in a orchard thereby becomes a "disaster" and, if reported, will be recorded as such in the Munich Re chart.
Finally, as an aside, the chart of high CAPE_SHEAR days shows a very low value for 1974. That is not an error. Except for the one super outbreak in April, and a small outbreak in September, 1974 was a quiet year for tornadoes.
-
ScaredAmoeba at 21:38 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
beastie, CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Most if not all species extant have never seen such high levels of CO2 that you refer to. Pseudo-scepticism - Ignorance is the new knowledge. Rising trends mean decreases. Falling trends mean increases. Uncertainty means confidence. -
stefaan at 21:09 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
@Beastie, You can read more about that on the "carbon was higher in the past"-argument By the way, in no way R. Dawkins used this argument in any connection with AGW! -
Norman at 21:06 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom Curtis, My problem with the 2010 Munch Re report you posted on 141 was that they were showing that the catastrophic storm number in America was increaing. There are 10,000 severe thunderstorms in the US a year and out of that number Munch Re calls a few hundred catastropic and shows an increasing number. I just do not understand how they are generating their strom catastrophes. I am not sure what they are using and it becomes difficult to determine the reason for the increase when the actual number of severe storms far exceeds their counting. I will try to work on this as time permits to better understand it and see if there is a real link. I do like all the links you send me. I do like to learn. Because I question things does not mean I do not appreciate the material presented. -
CBDunkerson at 21:04 PM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric wrote: "I do not know why so many people are getting exciting about breaking the 2007 low this year." I haven't noticed this 'excitement', but 'Arctic sea ice has been recovering since 2007' is a frequently repeated denier falsehood... so the next new record breaking year (in sea ice extent or any other cherry-picked factor) is always welcome as proof of the ridiculousness of that argument. Though in this case the continuing decline in Arctic sea ice volume already provides more than enough proof. What is particularly interesting about this year is that the trend in ice volume decline has reached the point where it either has to level out or hit zero in just a few years. If the volume drops as much from 2011-2014 as it did over the 2007-2010 period then we are looking at an essentially ice-free Arctic ocean. It isn't certain that this year will be determinative, but it could be and we'll definitely know one way or the other by 2015. -
Norman at 21:01 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
JMurphy @160 My use of tornadoes in Post 154 was a response to your challenge "It would help if you could compare what you believe to be the case, and what is actually the case, especially with regard to 'disasters', 'hazards', etc." I used the tornadoes because I was able to find data about them for 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. I was not using tornado number to disprove the link between Global warming and extreme weather events. -
beastie at 20:58 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
I notice Monckton is speaking to the mining industry, but also at Morgan Research in Collins St., Melbourne, to the "Institute for Private Enterprise". Morgan research also have listed a paper by "The Fair Farming Group" which someone with more knowledge than me should review. it says things like... "5. In the Carboniferous Age when fossil fuels were formed was there dangerous global warming? When carbon dioxide levels were between 2,000 and 3,000ppm this was a very good time for life on Earth and for growth of the vegetation which subsequently formed fossil fuels. The eminent scientist Professor Richard Dawkins described the period as supporting abundant plant and animal life. At that time carbon dioxide levels were between 5 and 8 times the present level and the evidence shows that these conditions were favourable for life on Earth. These levels are far in excess of danger levels predicted by the IPCC. " Any comments? -
Tom Curtis at 20:20 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman @155, yes I did, and the difference in extreme maximum temperatures is due to the well known fact that the hottest years in the Continental US were in the 1930/40s. Of course, the 30s and 40s where not as hot as the 90s and 00s globally, as is also well known. Consequently we would expect a similar chart for global extreme maximum temperatures to peak in the 00s, if one existed. @157, that's it? Just thanks for the links? If any links showing AGW to be real and dangerous are posted, you are quick respond with a comment, any comment no matter how ill founded, so long as it plays down the evidence. But if links apparently supporting a denier point of view are posted, you just accept them uncritically even when at least one of them has been shown to be of very poor quality. You really ought to stop saying that you are just trying to learn here, because you are not keeping up the pretence very well. @158 in fact the greatest increases in reporting have been in North America, and in Asia, particularly China and India. The trend in South America has been flat, while that in Africa has matched the global trend, but reporting rates are very low. As the areas of greatest increase in reporting have also been high population areas with modern communications over the entire period, the suggestion that the increase is due to increased reporting in third world nations is ill founded. -
Kevin C at 19:59 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
Good article. I like your video too. Have you seen Peter Hadfield's latest (Monckton Bunkum #5), out this week? This sentence bothered me slightly: None of the articles I read supported the claims or inferences that Mr. Monckton was promoting. While it is no doubt accurate, I guess there is a little cherry-picking in the assertion? e.g. Monckton cites at least Soon and Lindzen: I'm presuming you didn't bother to read those, but if you had they would require a different refutation. -
JMurphy at 19:35 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
With regard to tornadoes, a post by Andrew Freedman in the Washington Post gives a good overview, with links to papers : Are La Nina and global warming behind the extreme tornado activity? There was also an interesting piece in Science Daily a few years back : Global Warming Will Bring Violent Storms And Tornadoes, NASA Predicts But, as scaddenp notes, why are we suddenly focussing on tornadoes ? Not a diversion, for some strange so-called skeptical reason, is it ? -
Michele at 19:24 PM on 23 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
@ Patrick I would like your point of view about the arising of the heat sinks and sources ”(Venus-Earth-Mars Profiles)” within the uniform temperature profile of a perfectly transparent atmosphere later than a GHG is added. Perhaps, absit iniuria verbis, a greater synthesis would be more effective for our purposes. -
JMurphy at 18:47 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
What "outrageous claims and distortions" has "Al (hockeystick) Gore" made ? Why the specific link between Gore and the 'hockeystick' ? Are the "claims and distortions" only outrageous in the minds of so-called skeptics or those in denial ? Is Gore one of those "AGW proponents" some see everywhere ? What, actually, is an "AGW proponent" ? Finally, can anyone name any "sensible sceptics" ? With regard to Robyn Williams, of whom I knew nothing until he was just mentioned, I presume this is in reference to his comment to that very rational commentator (ahem) Andrew Bolt ? This is what Williams has to say about that : "So, what to make of this encounter? I draw two conclusions. The first is that the handful of 'climate sceptics' are politically driven and exploit the same trademark clutch of factoids and phrases. They ignore published, peer-reviewed scientific papers containing evidence that shatters their case, vanishingly small as it is. The noise they make is out of all proportion to their puny numbers, and they protest furiously that all they are doing is trying to save us from unnecessary paralysing angst – rather than inconvenient truth." Hear, hear. -
stefaan at 18:05 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
@Ken. Well, maybe your comments are deleted because you don't participate to the discussion via arguments. If you use the Monckton method (give no reference at all or -even more popular- quote it in a complete apropriate way) those comments will be deleted I think. If you give studies that support your point of view, you will be welcomed to join the debate for sure. -
scaddenp at 18:05 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
This seems to be wondering off track somewhat here. Lets see if I have it clear. We have various historical records like fish farms, harbours etc. which help construct past sea level. While these show sealevel hasnt changed a lot of last 2-3000 years, they don't rule out the possibility that there were large fluctuations between these points. One thing about sealevel, unlike temperature, is that without volcanic/instrusive activity or faulting, you cant get wild fluctuations in sealevel in one part of world and not in others. In this sense, any high-resolution record is as good as an other. The point in this paper is that in the best records in terms of resolution, accuracy of timing and depth, there are not wild changes and current sealevel rates are extraordinary compared to the last 2000 years. -
Ken Lambert at 17:45 PM on 23 June 2011The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
[moderator trolling deleted] Monckton's Nazi reference to Ross Garnaut is quite outrageous [gratuitous insult snipped] There is an extreme 'denier' position which I do not support - and which does the sensible sceptic position some harm. Of course outrageous claims and distortions afflict both sides of the debate - Robyn (100m of sea level rise) Williams, Tim (rivers will never run again) Flannery and Al (hockeystick) Gore come to mind on the AGW side.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Ken, if you dont want your comments deleted, do not deliberately provoke the moderators by challenging them to delete your posts. You ought to know by now that such complaints about moderation are off-topic and are deleted as such (after reading). I have been generous in editing your post rather than deleting it, I will cease to be as generous if you continue in the same vein. -
monkeyorchid at 17:43 PM on 23 June 2011Review of 2084: An Oral History of the Great Warming by James Powell
I have written a short story on the same topic, with much the same goals. It is available at: http://greysparrowpress.net/SPRING2011ShortStoryRichardMilne.aspx please share this link with Skeptical Science readers! -
Tom Curtis at 17:36 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn @37:"A recently uncovered Roman structure at Richborough , England, which has been estimated to be a dock dating back to the 14th century, has turned history on its head, by proving that at the height of medieval Sandwichs power and wealth as a port, boats were still mooring at Richborough. According to a report in The Guardian, this discovery is unique because according to the conventional history of the site, Richborough had been completely filled with silt 800 years earlier, the once magnificent Roman fort and large town left abandoned and desolate. The medieval dock was neatly constructed by joining up double-decker-bus-sized lumps of Roman walls which tumbled and slid down from the ramparts of the fort further up the slope. It is built on the shingled Roman shore, one of the key sites in the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, and can be securely dated to the 14th century, since the construction technique is identical to the medieval town walls of nearby Sandwich."
(From here So, as I understand this, a Roman beach (hence above the low tide mark) sunk low enough that a medieval dock (hence with footings below the low tide mark), which in turn sunk low enough that it to was covered by silt (and hence lay below the water level) and this is taken by you as evidence the coast in that region was not sinking, but rising? I just want to be clear on this. -
stefaan at 16:45 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
@okatiniko. What do you mean? without any clear signal...? Can it be any clearer? Do you have some studies that prove your point about the illknown reconstruction methods? -
okatiniko at 16:21 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
yes, another "hockey stick" starting around 1900, and without any clear signal associated to a rising anthropogenic influence after 1960 !!! and another hockey stick relying of ill-known (and unverified independently) reconstruction methods, very likely smoothing the natural variance. -
Camburn at 16:11 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Thank you DB. I appreciate your help.Response:[DB] Anytime.
-
Stevo at 15:48 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn @34 Silt has filled what was a shallow harbour 2000 years ago. Exactly where in this article is there anything to about changes of sea level? -
Camburn at 15:47 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
DB: Yes, over the years the channel silted up. But you have to look at the current level of the harbor. Google maps will show you that where the port was unearthed is above current sea level. As an aside, I looked for the comments thing as I was going to try to learn how to post url's with a link as some seem able to do. I can't seem to find that area on the site, maybe I am tired and blind right now.Response:[DB] See here. I well understand the tired and blind thing.
-
Patrick 027 at 15:08 PM on 23 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
re my 28 - Think of the effective emitting levels (EELS) forming a landscape... and a valley dropping down from space. That last part highlights the importance of recognizing that an 'EEL' is a representative concept for something more complex (an 'EWF' - emission weighting function). Because the stratosphere, or at least the upper stratosphere, on Earth, has temperature increasing with height, pulling the EEL out of space and down through the stratosphere would appear to suggest that the radiation goes from having a brightness temperature approximately at zero to having some higher value and gradually dropping down toward the tropopause temperature. But for a well-mixed gas, aside from line broadenning and line strength variations, the first little bit of emissivity added to an otherwise transparent atmosphere produces an EWF such that, for whatever portion is in the atmosphere, it is evenly distributed (over mass for constant optical thickness per unit mass path; otherwise more generally, over optical thickness) So if the inversion of the stratosphere is sufficiently thin relative to a lower isothermal part (and/or sufficiently weak), it may never come to dominate, and having the EEL come down from space may only gradually increase the brightness temperature (and for upward radiation, an inversion at the surface that is sufficiently thin wouldn't keep the brightness temperature of the upward flux at the tropopause from decreasing - unless the surface is colder than the troposphere's average temperature (or averaged in terms of the Planck function, and then weighted by EWF)); and even if the inversion runs all the way through the stratosphere and is sufficiently strong, etc, the downward LW radiation would gradually go from zero to a peak before coming down. -
Camburn at 15:05 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
And here is the clinker: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html Archelogical evidence recently discovered showing the sea level in Southern England approx 2,000 years ago. Being North Carolina is all of a sudden a proxy for worldwide sea level, the port 2 miles inland on a isostatic falling area indicates that the Romans had ships that sailed on land, or the beginning of the graph for North Carolina is wrong. Being there was a proxy switch at approx 1,000 AD, the earlier levels are probably wrong as I find it hard to concieve that the variation in sea level at that time could have been over 5.5 meters from Kent, England to North Carolina.Response:[DB] It is hard to conceive that you actually read articles in their entirety. From your linked article:
"Over the centuries, the channel silted up"
It is patently obvious the narrative you seek to maintain. If you can find peer-reviewed sources to cite that support that narrative, fine. But I would suggest reading them in their entirety to ensure that they actually say what you think they say.
-
Daniel Bailey at 14:40 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Anyone reading this far into this thread will easily see the selective interpretation of the study that forms the basis of this post on the part of some. You all have patiently, robustly and succinctly provided easy-to-follow feedback and guidance. When that endangers ones internal narrative and worldview than one can either bow to the inevitable and change...or one can maintain that the sky is green and lowflying bacon is a public endangerment. Not a choice most would agree with, but a choice nonetheless. -
scaddenp at 14:31 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Well, we did try to a/ explain that sea level was different from temperature. Is this fundamental physics not obvious? Similarly CO2 at Mauna Loa is a local measurement but its pretty good proxy for average global CO2 when suitably corrected. The temperature at Mauna Loa however it not a good proxy for global temperature. b/ point out that the paper was drawing its conclusion after comparison with other proxy records. (Just like you would check Mauna Loa Co2 levels against other stations). -
dhogaza at 14:14 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
"The next time I am confronted with someone telling me that regional weather is not global, I am going to refer them to this link." The ocean is not the atmosphere, and steric expansion of the ocean is unrelated to weather. So, go ahead and make that equality, and if you do, be assured you're playing the fool, again. ( -Snip- )Response:[DB] Please, everyone, dial the emotions down a notch.
-
Camburn at 14:11 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
dhogaza: I don't have to play the fool, in this instance the comments trying to tie this to global from one location are doing a great job. The next time I am confronted with someone telling me that regional weather is not global, I am going to refer them to this link. -
dhogaza at 14:11 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
"I am not disputing the sea level rise/fall in North Carolina. What I am disputing is to use it as a global metric. This is a regional phenominum. Just as it is a regional phenominum that it is cold and wet where I live." Actually, your regional weather phenominum (sic: phenomenom is better known to me) tends to be driven by global stuff like, oh, ENSO. So it's not necessarily difficult to tie your regional weather experience to global phenomena... -
Michael Hauber at 14:09 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
There is nothing inherently unscientific about measuring sea level at one point and extrapolating to the entire globe. Or even for measuring temperature at one point and extrapolating to the entire globe. But when doing such an extrapolation two issues arise: 1) if you have other points, then why limit yourself to just one (perhaps the other points are poor quality). The article does discuss what sea level is doing at other points. 2) what is the typical variation from region to region. If the regional variation is typically less than 10cm, then a 40 cm rise at one point is highly likely to reflect a global sea level rise. For temperature regional variations for multi-decade trends are of the order of a couple degrees. Therefore you won't accurately measure global temperature increase of under 1 degree by just one point as the regional variation is bigger than the trend your are trying to measure. If the earth spiralled towards the sun in the next 100 years and temperatures went up by 50 degrees globally, then I am quite sure the temperature trend at just one point is highly likely to reflect this trend reasonably accurately (i.e. to within a degree or two). -
dhogaza at 14:07 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
"The paper is trying to stretch one location to global. It doesn't wash. It would be like saying because the sea level is falling on the coast of Alaska that overall sea level is falling. That doesn't wash either. Both are regional events." That might be a point if they hadn't bothered to check for correlation with other reconstructions, including your pet Southern Cook Islands (I'm sure your next gambit will be to scream that "data corrections to correct for known geological and oceanographic differences are evidence of fraud!!!!" I made similar points earlier, and you ignored them. Just as well. Play the fool, but you won't fool us. -
Tom Curtis at 14:06 PM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
An interesting take on the McControversy is that provided by Teske, who concludes:"Finally, while it’s certainly flattering that Mr Lynas thinks that Greenpeace has the power to “dictate” IPCC conclusions, it is a great pity that he doesn’t seem to consider the possibility that the IPCC chose to include the findings of Greenpeace, the EREC and the German Space Agency in The Energy [R]evolution for one very good reason - because hundreds of energy experts from different backgrounds, considered it a good, realistic and useful piece of research. If Mr Lynas has a problem with these findings, he should clearly demonstrate his issue with them, rather than simply trying to claim that some crude conspiracy theory is at work."
This, I think, goes to the heart of the issue. Let's assume that Teske did in fact argue the case for using the Teske et 2010 Advanced Energy Revolution scenario (as per Eric the Red 54). That only calls into question the choice of that scenario if we assume the other ten primary decision makers on chapter 10 (the two Coordinating Lead Authors, and the other eight Lead Authors) where ciphers, that the where sufficiently gullible, and incompetent in their field of expertise to be fooled into accepting an inferior scenario just because one of their number had a vested interest. Indeed, we have to assume this even though at least three of their number had a vested interest in number had a vested interest in not accepting that scenario. The three are Raymond Wright (economic interest in the fossil fuel industry), Makoto Akai (professional investment in carbon capture and storage which does not feature in the Advanced Energy Revolution Scenario), and Leon Clark (joint author of alternative scenarios). That is not a plausible assumption. The only plausible conclusion is that Teske's participation did not significantly influence the choice of the fourth scenario. -
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
camburn- can you actually link us to what you are quoting? This seems at variance with the calculations by other researchers (eg Clark, Mitrovica) in the field. -
scaddenp at 13:44 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
re: Tornado data. Since this thread is about severe weather AND global warming, wouldnt it be more relevant to look at severe events that are actually predicted increase with global warming? Anyone got a paper saying tornadoes will increase as the planet warms? -
dmyerson at 13:16 PM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Lynas continues to post blog entries about this and hasn't backed off a bit. Somebody posted a link to this post there and he did not respond to it. The general commentary on his blog now is deniers asking why he didn't read and get the "message" from the hacked emails, that he's on the way to becoming one of them. I don't know if that will happen or not, but that is who is now posting to his blog. -
Norman at 13:15 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom Curtis @141 I was investigating and working to understand the concepts presented about catastrophe and Great Natural Catastrophe. My graph was of Great Natural Catastrophe. I am wondering how do you determine conclusively that the increase in catasptrophe is not the product of increased reporting? Like with tornadoes. F0 tornado number skyrocketed after the 1990's but the larger tornado number stayed relatively the same. Maybe a lot of catastrophe's in third world countries were not reported in a few decades ago but now more awareness is taking place leading to more reports generated but not meaning more actual events are taking place. -
Tom Curtis at 13:12 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn @various, the continent of North America is tilting up in the north and down in the south as shown by these local sea level rise plots:
As you can see, the more southerly the location, the greater the fall in sea level, while Pointe-au Pere in Quebec is rising slightly, and Churchill on Hudson Bay is rising rapidly. The accepted reason for this is that land previously depressed by the weight of ice in the last glacial is rebounding to a more stable position. The same phenomenon can be seen in Britain, and in Europe more generally:
Given that this is the cause of local changes of sea level in North Carolina, then the rate of the isostatic adjustment is highly unlikely to have suddenly changes in the last 100 years, or the last 500. Consequently, we should expect a reconstruction adjusted for Isostatic Rebound to show an approximately level sea level at the site over long intervals, as indeed can be seen in the reconstruction.
Conversely, if the hockey stick shape of the reconstruction is an artifact, the Isostatic Rebound must have rapidly accelerated and de-accelerated at intervals over the last two thousand years to miraculously reproduce a sea level rise in the MWP, a fall in the LIA, and a very rapid rise over the industrial period.
Indeed, if the "blade" of the graph is an artifact, as you are implying, the Isostatic Rebound must have accelerated to approximately double its current value around 200 years ago, and then suddenly de-accelerated to its current value just in time for the instillation of GPS monitoring.
While possible, such suppositions are ad hoc and a clear attempt to evade evidence rather than be guided by it.
-
Camburn at 13:02 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Rob: The sea level rise in the Southern Hemisphere should be greater than what is observed in the Northern Hemisphere. Per Prof Steffan. I am not disputing the sea level rise/fall in North Carolina. What I am disputing is to use it as a global metric. This is a regional phenominum. Just as it is a regional phenominum that it is cold and wet where I live. The paper is trying to stretch one location to global. It doesn't wash. It would be like saying because the sea level is falling on the coast of Alaska that overall sea level is falling. That doesn't wash either. Both are regional events. -
Norman at 12:49 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Camburn, Thanks for the links. -
Norman at 12:36 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom Curtis and Albatross, I posted this graph of F3 and above tornadoes from NOAA on a post to JMurphy. Severe Tornadoes historical graph. You can see this unusual large peak in 1974. What this tells me is with extreme weather events you may get these spikes from time to time but does it mean anything? So why is the Russian heat wave any more unusual than the tornado spike, or the Pakistan flood. I still cannot see what evidence has been presented that would make you feel extreme weather events are increasing in number and intensity because of global warming. -
Norman at 12:30 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom Curtis @ 149 I did look at the one day precipitation but did you look at the extremes in maximum temperature. It is up then down and up but not as extreme today as in the past. -
Norman at 12:24 PM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
JMurphy @ 152 I will try to demonstrate what is actually the case with disasters. I will use data on tornadoes to demonstrate. I will link to two web sites that I am using for this demonstration. Graph of Strong to Violent Tornadoes. Source for tornado graph. Tornadoes that became disasters. Also need this information: Number of Strong to Violent tornadoes in 2011...it is 80 so far. If you look at the first NOAA graph you will see that in 1974 there were >120 F3 or Above tornadoes. Now look at the link "tornadoes that became disasters". In 1974 there were 3 tornado disasters. In 2011 with 80 F3 or above tornadoes you have 6 tornadoes of this magnitude that caused disaters and a total of 9 tornadoes that struck cities. This is an example of where the number of hazards does not relfect the actual number of disasters. Look at 1964. This would be a close year to 2011 for F3 or above tornado activity. There were no disasters from tornadoes that year. Not sure it this little exercise is what you requested but I hope it clears up what I am getting at. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:24 PM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Tamino has now weighed-in on the ongoing Death Spiral in the Arctic: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/sea-ice-3-d/ Sayonara, white lumpy rain. -
Eric the Red at 12:03 PM on 23 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
I was not aware that anyone was predicting an ice age. At this point it is just speculation, although it has been postulated for almost five years now, and the data is leaning closer to such an event. Others have predicted a Dalton-like minimum, similar to the 19th century. From a scientific standpoint, it would be fascinating to observe and measure, if it were to occur.
Prev 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 Next
