Recent Comments

Prev  1640  1641  1642  1643  1644  1645  1646  1647  1648  1649  1650  1651  1652  1653  1654  1655  Next

Comments 82351 to 82400:

82351. Tom Curtis at 14:14 PM on 18 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       MoreCarbonOK, the Bureau of Meteorology is Australia's official meteorological organisation. As such it operates directly a large number of meteorological stations throughout Australia, including the Brisbane Aero site (Brisbane airport). As such they are the initial source of any data from Brisbane Aero. There data is picked up and republished on the web by a large number of weather sites, some of whom acknowledge the BoM, and some of whom do not. Those that do not, including Tutiempo, may well have copied their data from secondary sources. Some of those sources may have deliberately introduced errors as a method of copyright protection, or, of course may have just inadvertently introduced errors.
82352. Bob Lacatena at 12:53 PM on 18 June 2011
       CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
       24, jerryd, If you don't mind my asking, at the very end of your paper, you referred to:

       ...contact metamorphism of a large petroleum system in the northern Atlantic Ocean.

       Can you elaborate very briefly on what this actually means?
82353. poptart at 12:46 PM on 18 June 2011
       Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
       whoops, wrong button. i still say if we can agree to consider anything viewed by a peer (lord monckton perhaps?) as "peer reviewed" we'll really be able to help a bunch of denialists out. who needs those pesky scientists anyhow?
82354. scaddenp at 12:16 PM on 18 June 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       learner - as a maths major, you would probably enjoy the treatment of these basic topics over at science of Doom. The questions are really require more treatment than a blog answer can give you. Methane is I think 12 times more powerful than CO2 as a GHG but its concentration is a/ measured in ppb instead of ppm so its effect is less than CO2 and b/ eventually oxidized to CO2
82355. Patrick 027 at 12:13 PM on 18 June 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       Re Michele 13 - Conversely, my concepts are very precise. Well they sound inaccurate and even if you understand them, just be forewarned they could be confusing to people used to more familiar conventions such as using ε for emissivity. Of course you can draw analogies and use analogous language that way, but using phrases like 'evaporator' and 'photonic pressure' may give the wrong impression. But I assume you aren't literally refering to evaporation in the mesopause region or the pressure exerted by radiation (not that this doesn't exist but it isn't important in this context). and so my first equation is perfectly correct. Really, I solely forgot to specify that I was assuming a unitary emission for the tropopause though it was implicit because the brightness temperature obtained by satellite measurements equals that of the vertical profiles obtained using the weather balloons. That (unitary emission) is precisely why you're first equation is wrong. The only way the tropopause region can emit as a blackbody is if no radiation from below it can get past it. In order for some fraction (any nonzero fraction) of radiation from warmer layers below to get past a cooler layer above is if that cooler layer is partially transparent - it has absorbitivity less than 1 and therefore emissivity less than 1. Consider a situation where a layer and an opaque surface below it are both at the same temperature; assuming no reflection/backscatter from hotter sources, the maximum emitted flux possible (PS we're assuming LTE, of course) is sigma*T^4, where sigma is about 5.67E-8 W/(m2*K4) (the only way to get more is . Applying your formula to this situation, you'd have (1+ε)*sigma*T^4, which would then, a few steps later, allow you to build a perpetual motion machine. You can find brightness temperatures corresponding to different levels in the atmosphere at different wavelengths; at some wavelengths essentially no radiation from the surface or even the lower troposphere escapes to space. At other wavelengths a significant fraction of radiation from the surface can escape to space. Sufficiently thick clouds can act like blackbodies (so far as I know) and block essentially 100 % of the radiation from behind them, and at wavelengths where the atmosphere above is transparent, you can read the temperature of the clouds from the brightness temperature of the radiation. A given vertical layer is thicker at angles closer to horizontal, so you'll get different brightness temperatures corresponding to different regions of the atmosphere by varying the angle too. But it is important to note that the level with the temperature equal to the brightness temperature of the radiation is not the sole source of the radiation, it is merely representative; the source of the radiation is distributed according to the emission weighting function, multiplied by the local Planck function. You can think of the emission weighting function as describing how much of what you see is where. Imagine looking through a cloud of smoke. How much of what you see is within 1 meter of you? How much is between 1 and 2 meters? Etc. The formula you propose is heavily affected by a your personal point of view (isothermal troposphere and sole radiative heat transfer). That's not a personal point of view. The formula you propose is structured in such a way that this is the situation it would describe. Nowhere in my correction does it imply that convection doesn't occur, but you were refering to the radiative flux going to space, were you not? (essentially no convection or other non-radiant energy goes to space. Nothing of immediate climatological significance, anyway. H-escape has implications for geochemical evolution but very little energy is involved relative to radiant fluxes). Specifically, an atmosphere is of course not generally isothermal, but if a greenhouse effect is sufficiently weak, an isothermal approximation can be used - if the optical thickness of the atmopshere is small than the monochromatic emission weighting function would be, aside from variations in composition and line broadenning and line strenght, almost evenly distributed within the atmosphere (by mass), and in that case the emission from the atmosphere either to the surface or to space could be approximated as, for a grey gas, ea*sigma*Ta^4, where Ta is the mass-averaged atmospheric temperature and ea is the atmospheric emissivity (in effect for all directions) and the flux to space coming from the surface would then be, assuming the surface is a perfect blackbdoy, (1-ea)*sigma*Ts^4, where Ts is the surface temperature. And note that I am NOT saying that real atmospheres have only well-mixed grey-gas greenhouse effects, nor even that real surfaces are perfect blackbodies, though the later is a better approximation of reality than the former at least typically. In any case, it would be more correct to take into account all the known forms of heat transfer: conduction-diffusion, convection, radiation. Of course, **where applicable**. I never described the tropopause and the mesopause as “surfaces” And I wouldn’t do it because they are two region of the atmosphere as large as the troposphere or, also, larger than it. Tropopause, stratopause, and mesopause are, I think, typically defined as the top level of the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere; these pauses are boundaries between layers and thus are surfaces. Of course, in reality the exact location of such a surface will be hard to determine down the the nearest molecule and so there is a region that the surface is within; of course the surface will also vary with weather and region and season, etc. But conceptually one can model an atmosphere as having a troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere, etc, and there is no actual air within the tropopause, etc, in that case - it is just a boundary between layers. Hence we may refer to the tropopause-level radiative forcing, for example. (And when considering radiation it is important to consider optical thickness, which aside for compositional variations and line strength and broadenning variations, would be proportional to mass, in which terms the troposphere on Earth is something like 85 % of the whole atmosphere. It isn't wrong to say that the stratosphere is thicker geometrically, but thinking in terms of mass is also a useful perspective.) The tropopause and the mesopause behave as an evaporator-emitter and, for Earth, the stratopause behaves as a condenser-absorber. To a good first approximation of at least the global annual average, the atmosphere above the tropopause (above the troposphere) is in radiative equilibrium. Convection can be approximated as zero. Were it not for direct solar heating above the tropopause (which in particular heats the ozone layer and thermosphere), the temperature would continue declining above the tropopause, but radiative equilibrium would maintain a sufficiently low lapse rate that convection would be inhibited - which of course is why the tropopause is there. When temperature variation is monotonic over large optical thicknesses, the net LW (non-solar) flux is locally from higher to lower temperature. Using the local Planck function instead as a measure of temperature, when the Planck function is concave or convex, the net LW flux will change such that there is an accumulation or depletion of energy - net LW heating or cooling, which must balance either net LW cooling or heating at other wavelengths, and/or convective and solar heating, when in equilibrium; this can occur even if the concave or convex regions are not local minima or maxima in temperature. When a layer is optically thin relative to the structure of the temperature profile, more or less net LW heating, or the opposite for net LW cooling, will tend to occur with minima and maxima in temperature, and there can also be some net LW heating or cooling due to emissions or lack-thereof from more distant regions being absorbed by the layer, and by emission of the layer. Emission increases and decreases (nonlinearly) with temperature, while absorption depends on the temperature at other locations, more distant if optical thicknesses are small over shorter distaces. The higher up you go, the farther, both geometrically and optically, you are from the surface, and the closer you are to space, which radiates approximately as a very cold blackbody, near zero K. Higher layers of atmosphere can recieve (setting aside the fraction they absorb) less or more LW radiation from above depending on the temperature of higher layers, but in addition, there is a tendency to recieve less LW flux from above because there is less air above to 'hide' the darkness of space. They also tend to recieve less LW radiation from below when the temperature is decreasing with height, thus the brightness temperature of the upward LW radiantion is reduced. This can still be true even if the temperature is locally increasing with height if the optical thickness is not too large and the increase not too great and over not too thick a layer, because then the emission weighting function may still be dominated by the surface and/or the rest of the atmosphere. Thus to reach radiative equilibrium there is a general tendency, underlying the potentially more variable effects of temperature as influenced by solar heating above the tropopause (and also local conditions where inversions may develop within the troposphere), to be colder going higher. Solar heating alters this by warming the upper stratosphere/lower mesosphere and the thermosphere. Some of this heat is radiated to space and some to other layers and some to the surface if the atmosphere is transparent enough, the cooler layers emit less to space (except for the effects of overlying layers) and less to the surface (except for the effects of underlying layers), and less to the warmer layers, but they can still emit to space depending on high high they are. Convection generally (global annual average) cools the surface and warms the troposphere (it is possible to have a situation where convection cools the lower troposphere and heats the upper troposphere, or some more complex distribution, but at least for Earthlike conditions the troposphere is mainly, so far as I know, and at least for globally representative conditions except (?) with no well-defined cloud layers (?), heated by convection throughout (but not evenly). The troposphere experiences net LW cooling that balances convective heating and direct solar heating. The surface experiences both net LW cooling (the difference between emission from the surface and absorption of the flux absorbed from the atmosphere) and convective cooling, which balance solar heating of the surface.
82356. learner at 10:25 AM on 18 June 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       I'm a math major but I haven't even finished my undergraduate degree yet. So, while this stuff isn't a completely foreign language, it's close. I have a couple questions that I haven't seen a straight answer for yet. 1: I know that the CO2 band is absorbing energy attempting to exit our atmosphere and that the satellite readings prove this. What I've yet to find a straight answer on is this: I read somewhere(I think here?), that despite this absorption from the GHG bands, the actual radiant energy escaping is still greater than going in from the sun. Is this true? Is so, how is this explained? I've tried finding the answer to no avail. 2. I've seen the graphs showing that since the start of the industrial era temperatures have clearly been on a steady climb and that there's no chance it's solely due to the sun's activity. I've read that temperatures pre-industrial age were also steadily rising. Is this true? If so, is it the rate of increase that is of concern? 3. Last one. I've read and seen in the graphs that methane can play a much bigger role in the GHG effect than can CO2. What are the real world applications to this? How do they compare to our CO2 production? Thanks
82357. michael sweet at 10:24 AM on 18 June 2011
       Speaking science to climate policy
       Papy, This mission has been delayed for over 20 years already. That is more than 6 times your three year turn-around time. It is a scandal that such basic information on the Climate is still not known. If Hansen's estimate of 1.3 W/m2 is correct we are in for a world of pain.
82358. chris at 10:18 AM on 18 June 2011
       CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
       okatiniko at 15:29 PM on 17 June, 2011 okatiniko at 02:38 AM on 18 June, 2011 The comparison between PETM and glacial-interglacial transitions you mention in post # 11 is instructive in addressing the source of [CO2] and its temporal relationship to warming. During Milankovitch-driven glacial-interglacial transitions, the Earth warms by around 5 oC globally-averaged, and this is associated with a rise in [CO2] from around 190 ppm to 280 ppm. Since all of this CO2 results from ocean warming and circulation changes, we can assess the [CO2] response to global temperature rise. It's about 18 ppm [CO2] per degree of global temperature rise [(280-190)/5)]. Since the PETM warming was associated with an increase in [CO2] of around 700 ppm, resulting (with some unknown positive feedbacks possibly involving methane clathrate release), to give a global temperature rise of 5-9 oC, it's inconceivable that the huge rise in [CO2] could be a response to warming. We could only account for perhaps 90-150 ppm's "worth" in this way. There's some compelling evidence that the greenhouse gas release at the PETM was a result of the tectonic events associated with opening up of the N. Atlantic at the nascent plate boundary: M. Storey et al. (2007)Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and the Opening of the Northeast Atlantic Science 316, 587 - 589 link to paper
82359. jerryd at 09:19 AM on 18 June 2011
       CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
       Hej Rob, In response to the query, yes, I am “he” … who also happened to make the figure with ridiculously bright colours! [After giving about 20 lectures on the topic across North America courtesy of AAPG in 2009, I was asked to write an article on the topic by CSEG but with a special note that the graphics should be vivid. I responded accordingly, but I think, in retrospect, I went a bit silly]. I can send you my latest views on the PETM if you think interesting and worth discussion. Jerry
       Moderator Response: (DB) By all means, please do share.
82360. scaddenp at 08:49 AM on 18 June 2011
       CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
       okatiniko - unfortunately I don't have access to my papers at home but I think it is Zeebe, R. E., Zachos, J. C., and G. R. Dickens, 2009. There is an issue with the accounting. The upper limit on the carbon release consistent with the record is problematic for producing the temperatures reaching if sensitivity is only in the 2-3 range. Show me how ANY model for ocean currents can produce that much global change. However, there is a lot of work going on (my own sedimentary basin models are being pressed into service) so watch this space. I doubt the answer will prove that exotic.
82361. Albatross at 08:20 AM on 18 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Poodle @53, OK, thanks for the clarification. But I think you are missing the point of this post and the hype surrounding the conference proceedings. Yes, the current solar cycle, so far at least looks to be fairly quite in terms of sunspot activity. But the current solar cycle is not what is at issue here. What the 'skeptics' are getting excited about is the prediction at by 2020 and for some time thereafter that there will be little or no sunspot activity. It is the projected continuing downward trend that has the 'skeptics" excited. And it is not helping several media outlets, are spinning this madly and now the echo chamber that is the internet is abounding with stories about impending global cooling and ice ages. Quite ridiculous, and anyone jumping on that bandwagon is instantly discredited. In a way I'm OK with that, b/c by doing so they have really painted themselves into a very tight corner when temperature continue to rise in coming years and decades.
82362. JMurphy at 08:15 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       More information for Adrian Smits (which he could have found out for himself if he was even slightly interested in the facts) : Synopsis: ENSO-neutral conditions have developed and are expected to continue at least through the Northern Hemisphere summer 2011. A transition from La Niña to ENSO-neutral conditions occurred during May 2011 as indicated by generally small sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies across the equatorial Pacific Ocean east of the Date Line. Strange indeed...if you don't want to know what is actually going on in the world.
82363. Albatross at 08:07 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Adrian, your comment @17, strikes me as trolling or baiting. But I'll humour you. FYI, ENSO has recently transitioned to neutral conditions. [Source] GISTEMP and NCDC shows that so far 2011 has been warmer than 2008 (another post la Nina year), and that global surface air temperature anomalies are firmly in positive territory. From the NCDC (same source as the above figure): "The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2011 was the 12th warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.48°C (0.86°F) warmer than the 20th century average." And a reminder that 2010 tied 2005 for the warmest year on record globally, despite the prolonged solar minimum and despite the development of one of the strongest La Nina's in recent decades. And one last reminder, this is about long-term trends, but you know that do you not? ;) So please do not focus on individual years or short time frames (< ~20 years). Check back in 2012 when the temperatures spike even higher. But again, this is about long-term trends and where we are potentially headed.
82364. Dave123 at 07:59 AM on 18 June 2011
       Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
       For references sake here are published allegations by authors... I found these spending some time trying to research Patrick Kelley's post.. I'm NOT posting this to agree and as you know I applaud John Mashey's work ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6035/1250.summary) in countering Wegman et. al. McClean's complaint is here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/agu_censorship.pdf and Douglas and Christy's is here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html I didn't get further than Douglas and Christy in going down the list of debunked skeptical papers. I do think that the papers did get published, that late doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things, and what the paper says ultimately is more important that problems with the peer review process. Peer review isn't perfect.... I know having been a reviewer many, many, may years ago the temptation to be overly critical in order to score points is high (just out of grad school). It's an art, an imperfect one. There are justified criticisms of it in a general way, and illustrations of individual failings. There isn't a good alternative.
82365. thepoodlebites at 07:57 AM on 18 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Albatross #52 Contrary to your assumptions, I've read what the scientists say and I'm not excited about a prediction. The scientists are just confirming what the observations have been saying since 2009, that cycle 24 is likely to to be weaker than previously thought. And if the umbral observations decrease below 1,500G, we may indeed have an even quieter cycle 25. I find the science, guided by objective analysis, to be very exciting.
82366. adrian smits at 07:49 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       I find it strange that we are discussing all these strange weather events during a la nina year.Doesn't that mean that the temperature of the planet is near or below its 30 year average? Seems like cooler causes stranger weather don't you think?
82367. Bob Lacatena at 07:47 AM on 18 June 2011
       CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event
       21, okatiniko, Did you follow and read the link in the original post, at the statement on high climate sensitivity (in particular, the reference to and explanation of Hansen and Sato 2011 in that referenced post)? The short answer to your question, however, is that no matter what mechanism caused the increase in CO₂, that mechanism was driven by a change in temperature, and an increase in CO₂ increases temperature. This implies (regardless of the mechanism involved) that climate sensitivity is high, i.e. that an increase in temperature will trigger a corresponding increase in CO₂ which will exacerbate the temperature increase.
82368. chris at 07:24 AM on 18 June 2011
       Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
       O.K. I get it...you've deleted Patrick Kelly's post. I do think there are some really useful things to be considered in relation to the sort of insinuations that Patrick posted. They bear on the very nature of scientific knowledge, and its compilation in the scientific literature, a process which has sustained the scientific effort since the 17th century. The processes of scientific publishing are evolving (electronic publishing, open access, open peer review etc), but the essential elements are largely maintained. However, there's no question that some individuals with dubious agendas consider the peer review process a potentially soft target, in two ways. The first manifests in attempts to by-pass proper peer review by sneaking sub-standard papers into the scientific literature, and thus further dodgy agendas by giving the pretence of "scientific validity" to scientifically-unjustifird notions. The second (which relates to the first) is the insinuation that the peer review process is tilted against the efforts of particular groups to get their work published. Richard Lindzen (much discussed here recently), provides an example of each of these [Lindzen and Choi, Geophys. Res. Lett. (2009) is an objectively flawed paper that really shouldn't be in the scientific literature, although it's not a big deal scientifically-speaking; Lindzen and Choi (2011) is a flawed paper that is being used blogospherically to insinuate "unfair" peer review processes]. Likewise Soon and Baliunas, Climate Research (2003) [Editors resigned; publisher issues a statement that the paper shouldn't have been published in the form that it was], or Said, Wegman et al (2008) [paper retracted by the publishers due to plagiarism] are examples of agenda-led papers that found their way into the literature through bypassing proper peer-review. It's very useful to address specific examples to understand some of the processes of anti-science that cloud the abilities of citizens to make informed decisions...
82369. Albatross at 07:01 AM on 18 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Poodel, "Observations trump theory every time,..." Did you read above @37 where I quoted what the scientists say who actually undertook the research? Seems not. Additionally, as you know, you and your fellow 'skeptics' are getting very excited over a prediction, but somehow in your minds eye it is already a reality and trumping the theory. Sounds like a strawman to me. Yes, the sun will have the final say, as will the global surface temperature record. [Source]
82370. thepoodlebites at 06:51 AM on 18 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Badgersouth #31 Joe Romm? Climate Progress? Observations trump theory every time, at least in the world of science. We shall see.
82371. Bob Lacatena at 06:47 AM on 18 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       169, Rob, What bothers me is that he's using SkS to try to promote his... stuff. Note that he never, ever fails to make a comment without including a link to his site, and "stuff." Although in his case, I think it would do more reasonable people a lot of good to look at it, and realize what a tangled web a Galilean spider (well known in the arachnid community for it's ability to drop large objects from great heights, and yet race down faster than they fall, to catch them at the bottom) can weave.
82372. Chris G at 06:35 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       I came across this news article Wheat Rallying 20% as Parched Fields Wilt From China to Kansas The take-away is that, while there are winners and losers, there is currently more than the regular amount of risk associated with growing food. For instance, rain that would normally fall in Texas and Kansas is missing and hurting yields; meanwhile, too much rain in more northern states is delaying planting, again hurting yields. Similarly, parts of China are flooding while others are in drought. It doesn't have to be huge dramatic events like hurricanes, a little shift of the rain bands here and there can have significant impacts.
82373. Rob Honeycutt at 06:34 AM on 18 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       If you go back to a comment I made yesterday regarding Henry's website, what he's essentially done is googled up all the other climate change denial sites and cobbled together his own version of the same wrong information, while adding a dash of his own "research." I see this exactly same thing time and time again out there. It's this self perpetuating, self referencing, unsupportable mis-information propagating on the internet. And it's not like I even question that people like Henry genuinely believe what they are posting. That's human nature. We want to prove what we want to believe. But that's not science. Science is coming to the truth in spite of what we want to believe.
82374. chris at 06:17 AM on 18 June 2011
       Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
       Don't see the problem moderator (DB). I'm suggesting that Patrick needs to supply specific examples if we are to consider his assertions/insinuations seriously. I've given two specific examples of real and attempted efforts to bypass proper peer review. If we're discussing a particular issue (Patrick raised "alleged corruption of the peer review process"), surely it's imprtant to address this with respect to specifics. Incidentally, I don't actually undertand what "The person you are engaging is likely unable to sustain comments that comply with the Comments Policy". Are you suggesting that my post will force him to write an inappropriate response?! Can you clarify please...
82375. Rob Honeycutt at 06:15 AM on 18 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Sphaerica... I totally agree. I seem to remember there were some points in very early astronomy where people who were essentially hobbyists made very important contributions to science (but back then, virtually every astronomer was a hobbyist). Overall, I'm trying to be kind and open minded about it. The possibility is so remote that it's hard to even imagine it happening this day in age. IMHO Henry isn't just playing long, very very long odds, he's playing the lottery without buying a ticket... hoping he'll get the winning ticket by walking the streets, finding it laying on the ground. So, yes, you could, technically, win the lottery that way... But I hear you. Those odds are functionally zero.
82376. Bob Lacatena at 06:09 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       For an interesting (and very well implemented) online tool to see past hurricane tracks, try this out: NOAA Historical Hurricane Tracks
82377. chris at 06:03 AM on 18 June 2011
       Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
       Patrick Kelly at 05:28 AM on 18 June, 2011 That's a dismal list of unsubstantiated stuff Patrick. The peer review process can be frustrating but it works pretty well in my experience. Of course it relies on the essential scientific integrity of those involved, and that may be the something you've failed to consider. You really need to give us some more specific information to flesh put your unsubstantiated assertions. For example why do we need "responses ro alleged corruption to the peer review process"? What "corruption" specifically. If it's only "alleged" why should we care? After all there are well substantiated examples of the real or attempted "corruption of the peer review process", that help us to understand the morives of the "corruptors".
       Response:

       [DB] As I told DSL, this nears the line of acceptability.  The person you are engaging is likely unable to sustain comments that comply with the Comments Policy.

82378. DSL at 06:00 AM on 18 June 2011
       Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
       P Kelly, you mean all the stuff that goes with humans trying to engage in the social production of anything? Yah, it exists. Yah, the people who are privileged by it keep their mouths shut. Yah, the people who are misinformed as a result complain about it. Given the human conditions in which the process takes place, and knowing that no publication venue is free from the human error, what publication venue do you most highly respect? E&E? You'd do better by examining alleged corruption on a case-by-case basis, and then drawing conclusions based on the compiled case analyses. Just complaining about corruption in the peer review process is akin to complaining of corruption in national politics. Yah, duh--what's your point? Oh good grief, mods - I really wanted an answer to those questions (even though one was slightly rhetorical).
       Response:

       [DB] Apologies, but when someone says "incestuous peer reviewing" that is beyond the pale.

       Feel free to reply to the rest, but be aware that this line of discussion treads thin ice with the comment policy.

82379. Albatross at 05:50 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       CW @10, "We can say that Florida receives a quarter of its precipitation from tropical cyclones." Better, but 25% is still to high. They say in the paper, and I quote: "The Yucatan and Florida Peninsulas and Caribbean Islands also have significant TC rainfall (7%–20%), with the rest of southeast U.S. coastal regions and central Mexico having smaller percentages." At #12 you say: "So, precipitation depends on most critically, convergence and increased humidity. These factors occur only in limited areas of the stereotypical mid latitude storm." The second makes no sense...these slips are tell-tell-signs that you are not proficient in this field, but trying to sound like you are.
82380. Albatross at 05:45 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       I encourage people making claims about tropical storms trends to please read these two excellent summary posts at Thingsbreak-- a blog I know, but he discusses journal papers. Part 1 Part 2 A quote from the landmark paper in Nature by Knutson et al.(2010), and that has a "skeptic" as a co-author: "...future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre." And a reminder, this is not so much about where we are now, but where we are going. For some phenomena (such as heavy rain, drought and heat waves, increasing trend are already emerging), for others it might well take longer before we can deal with attribution. But instead of using this as a reason for complacency, we should heed the warnings that are now occurring before our very eyes and take action. Some interesting findings by Dr. Kerry Emanuel concerning the role of the cooling stratosphere (a fingerprint of AGW) on tropical storm strength can be found here.
82381. chris at 05:43 AM on 18 June 2011
       Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
       les at #8 has highlighted one fundamental "extra" element of peer review; i.e. the fact the most studies submitted for publication have already been "tested" by extended peer review at colleague, group, departmental and conference presentations. Most submitted papers of value have already been honed by passing through this process, and are submitted in the expectation that they are already broadly suitable for publication. However, the most important element of peer review, and the one most deficient in the dreary antics of denialist efforts at publication (we could list the tiny set of dismal papers that have resulted) is "self peer review". The vast majority of scientists have a burning desire to find out stuff about the natural world, and have high personal standards of quality and integrity. They want to get it right. So in the vast majority of cases, one can review a paper with the expectation that the submitting authors are doing so in good faith. They're not trying to sneak substandard analyses and interpretations into the scientific literature to serve tedious agendas. Sadly, that doesn't apply to a very, very tiny group of individuals who try to pervert the peer review process.
82382. ClimateWatcher at 05:38 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Another point, Eric and CW, you seem to be neglecting/ignoring the increase in droughts and heat waves which are also extreme weather. So, precipitation depends on most critically, convergence and increased humidity. These factors occur only in limited areas of the stereotypical mid latitude storm. Were storms to occur in only one path, being of the same size, shape, and orientation each time, the preferred areas would be perpetually flooding while other areas would be drought stricken. And that's kind of what's happened this year in La Nina and aftermath - the west has record snowpack, the midwest is flooding while the south west is in drought. To get 'normal' precipitation, storms need to be irregular such that wet and dry spells are spread out ( though not evenly ). The case for AGW has merit. But why do you believe that AGW has anything to do with the variability of mid latitude cyclones?
82383. Albatross at 05:30 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Eric @9, "This resulted in greater wind speeds, and cyclonic clouds occurring at the storm fornts. This affects winds speed, but not necessarily rainfall." I think I know what you are trying to say, but it is not quite so simple. By "cyclonic" clouds do you mean mesocyclones in the thunderstorm updrafts? Don't forget the role of low-level moisture coming off the Gulf of Mexico, where temperatures were much above average at the time of the outbreak. And one does not necessarily need a front to trigger tornadic thunderstorms, severe or non severe. In fact, quasi-linear convective systems which often tend to develop along cold fronts produce far fewer tornadoes than do discrete supercells, or supercells embedded in a line. So the rather antiquated paradigm that tornadoes are caused by "cold air from Canada colliding with warm air from the south", while certainly true, does not tell the whole story. But I must reiterate what I have said elsewhere-- any trends in tornadoes are really difficult to determine, and I would not say that they are a good example to use when making claims about an increase in extreme weather. That may turn out to be the case, but the data right now are just not good enough.
82384. ClimateWatcher at 05:24 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       7. I may have been in error. According to this paper, most of the high percentage attributable to TCs is over the ocean. We can say that Florida receives a quarter of its precipitation from tropical cyclones. The point was to frequency ( as referred to in the main posting ), not intensity. Of course, as you know, intensity as measured by ACE increased from 1976 to 1993, and has decreased since 1993:
82385. DSL at 05:23 AM on 18 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Indeed, Rob, it sounds like Henry is saying, "Yah, I made this spreadsheet, and I made this graph, and therefore there is no AGW." Henry, the best way into this sort of project is to take a thorough look at the existing literature. You're going to have to do that anyway if you're going to publish your results (and you'll want to do this if you think the results of your study are in any way important, which you apparently do). Find out how others have measured SH land surface temps. Start your project off by telling us why these other analyses aren't telling the whole story, and why your project will help tell a more complete story. And if you can do that, and if your math and methodology (why did you choose the stations you did and not others?) check out with your peers, then you can discuss the results confidently. However, if you're going to extrapolate to the conclusion that AGW is not happening from the basis of one small SH surface station analysis, you'd better prepare for, as Rob says, "heavy fire." The chain of logic you'd have to construct would need solid links that overturn established radiative physics, observed anomalous warming in other parts of the globe, observed anomalous sea level rise, thousands of paleo studies, etc. etc. etc. Right now, you're missing a few links.
82386. Bob Lacatena at 05:21 AM on 18 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       164, Rob, As an interesting aside, I'd actually be ready to argue against your statement that a hobbyist overturning the professional community in science (any arena of science) is possible. It was, once. When Einstein did his thing, the world was younger, less populated, and I'd argue that the sciences were at a simpler level that was on the cusp of being inaccessible (from a "leap forward" sense) to the common man. Einstein may well be the last "hobbyist" genius the world ever sees. And mind you, he still earned a PhD in his field in 1905, the same year he proved his genius by publishing four ground-breaking papers. By 1908, he was considered a leader in (and part of) the field, so the fact that he worked in a patent office and did his most important research in his spare time makes him a hobbyist-genius, but only just barely so. No, I think all of science has moved on to the point (in both body of knowledge, expense of time and equipment, and other avenues) where the days of an Edison or a Franklin are simply gone. Today man has evolved into a hive-mind social creature, like bees on steroids. There is simply too much knowledge there, with too much detail, for any one person to master and surpass it and to surprise everyone, even in just a single focal area of a single field. It's not that there isn't a lot of room for ingenuity, and that spark of genius, but in order to present such a spark, someone is going to have to dedicate their life to a field, starting with hard study and education, and followed by years and years of effort and climbing the rungs of the ladder. The idea of the hobbyist dilettante genius is, today, just one more weak plot left over for Hollywood movies.
82387. Rob Honeycutt at 04:51 AM on 18 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       MoreCarbonOK says... "there is no global warming due to an increase in GHG's. Just get that...." I think you need to take a step back from the subject for a moment and evaluate what you are trying to claim. I come across similar statements to this repeatedly when discussing AGW online. If there were any validity whatsoever to this claim it would be nothing short of revolutionary. It would be tantamount to overturning the theory of evolution. No disrespect intended here but the idea that a "hobbyist" has uncovered something elemental that the rest of the "professional" science community has missed is far fetched to say the least. Not that it isn't possible, just very far fetched. I believe what people here are trying to point out to you is that there are very serious errors in your analysis. No one is suggesting that you shouldn't pursue this hobby but expect to take heavy fire from the people who genuinely understand the full details of the subject matter.
82388. Eric the Red at 04:32 AM on 18 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Nice blog Fred. I am glad to see that you have considered several avenues that could result from a solar minimum.
82389. Eric the Red at 04:23 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       For instance, the large tornado outbreak in the U.S. this spring was largely a result of warm, moist gulf air colliding with the unusually cold midwestern air. This resulted in greater wind speeds, and cyclonic clouds occurring at the storm fornts. This affects winds speed, but not necessarily rainfall. Much has been written concerning tropical cyclones and a warming world, with several divergent views as to what to expect. Kevin Trenberth summarizes the observations to date as being largely unclear. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5729/1753.short
82390. Albatross at 04:10 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Regarding storms, a paper recently published in ScienceExpress (Young et al 2011) reports that over the last two and a half decades ocean wind and waves increased substantially. Another point, Eric and CW, you seem to be neglecting/ignoring the increase in droughts and heat waves which are also extreme weather. Re mid-latitude storms in a warming planet, RealClimate had a good overview of this back in 2006. Two observations that they make that have not been raised here are: "One robust result among most GCMs is a poleward shift in the position of the storm tracks (Bengtsson & Hodges , 2006; Yin ,2006). It is important to keep in mind that for the local communities concerned, it is changes in the position of the storm tracks that is most important, rather than the global number of storms. Another robust result is that the NAO in the models tends to shift more towards its positive phase (stronger westerly winds) as greenhouse gases rise, tending to increase winter storms coming ashore in Northern Europe, and decrease them around the Mediterranean (Miller et al, 2006)."
82391. kmpollard at 04:03 AM on 18 June 2011
       Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
       I have had several “debates” with my brother, a climate denier, on his ideas on climate science and also peer review. As a PhD immunologist, who has a number of reviewed papers and has reviewed many more, I think I have a pretty clear idea of what peer review is and so I once asked him if he had ever peer reviewed anything. His reply was that he had because his definition is that “Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field.” It’s a cleaver little definition that comes from the Linux Information Project; he’s in the IT industry so it not surprising that he uses it. But his next statement was the kicker - “Nowhere does that definition deem publication in a peer reviewed journal as a primary vehicle for peer review.” When I read that I knew that this was the avenue he was using for all his bluster about the IPCC reports and pretty much any peer reviewed climate science. Of course its naïve in terms of science because publication is our bread and butter but it serves the climate denier so well. I’d bet a dollar that there are a few over at WUWT who believe that reading and commenting on blog posts serves as a valid form of peer review.
82392. Albatross at 03:50 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Re #5, Oh boy here we go again. "One should reflect as well that a number of locations in the US depend on tropical storms, directly or indirectly for half their annual precipitation" First an unsubstantiated statement, and second what a ridiculous assertion. How can you try and argue that stronger tropical storms, will be a good thing given the flooding, storm surges and wind damage. Crops rely on steady rains throughout the growing season. Try and sell that logic to people in Haiti. CW, please, and with respect, if you are going to post on a science site and elect to opine about the science, you are going to have to up your game and a lot too! "A world without tropical storms would be much drier." Argumentum ad adsurdum...and not based in reality.
82393. MoreCarbonOK at 03:49 AM on 18 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       Henry@Tom Who says BoM is the correct one and mine is wrong?
       Response:

       [DB] See here.  Tu Tiempo does not specify a source for its info.

82394. pbjamm at 03:49 AM on 18 June 2011
       Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
       sout@21 "Anyone reading even casually will see the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Quadrant articles and recognise them for utter nonsense..." I think you are overly optimistic. Anyone reading for actual content might, but most people will read it to reinforce what they already think. No analysis at all.
82395. Albatross at 03:44 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Eric, "In most cases, the severity of a storm is determined by the gradient." Please elaborate. You seem to be referring to baroclinic systems....
82396. angliss at 03:31 AM on 18 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Ken #40: I rechecked my Physics 101 text, and it appears that I got the order of definition incorrect as you pointed out.
82397. ClimateWatcher at 03:04 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Atlantic hurricanes have increased both in power and frequency, coinciding with warming oceans that provide energy to these storms Spatially, when hurricanes pass over warmer waters, they tend to intensify. But it is a mistake to assume a spatial relationship applies to a temporal one. The theory is that AGW decrease vertical stability. But what of the the tropical upper tropospheric hot spot? It doesn't seem to be occurring, but if it were, this would increase stability. But the energy of tropical cyclones is really an astounding example of the conservation of angular momentum. The rush of air toward the cyclones could not take place without convection, but at the same time, that convection owes it's energy to the air converging inward. The stability measures within tropical cyclones are actually quite weak compared to central plains measures. The difference is the continual convergence helps overcome resistance to convection. One should reflect as well that a number of locations in the US depend on tropical storms, directly or indirectly for half their annual precipitation. A world without tropical storms would be much drier.
82398. Eric the Red at 02:58 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Yes, there is an increase in energy and water vapor, but a decrease in temperature gradient. In most cases, the severity of a storm is determined by the gradient.
82399. Tom Curtis at 02:51 AM on 18 June 2011
       Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
       MoreCarbonOK @155, as I explained previously, the site you rely on is not an official site, and has inaccurate data. As you seem to think the monthly averages will be ok even if the daily values are inaccurate, I have checked the monthly mean for May 2011 for you. Record: Tutiempo | BoM Max Temp: 22.4 | 22.4 Min Temp: 11.2 | 12.0 Humidity: 70 | 65 Once again, Tutiempo does not accurately record the official values. So, while it is very good of you to try and demonstrate that Tutiempo's copying errors generate specious trends in the temperature data, I fail to see how that has any relevance to global warming. It's very interesting that you think you can refute temperature trends independently calculated by four different team from surface data, with one of the teams funded by and sympathetic to deniers by using error strewn data and dodgy statistics for just five stations. It is also interesting that you can refute four different calculations of temperature trends from satellite data, one of them from a team of well known deniers. But it is interesting only in what it tells us about you, for it tells us nothing about climate science.
82400. ClimateWatcher at 02:51 AM on 18 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Of course, warming the poles would tend to reduce baroclinicity - reducing the intensity of most mid-latitude storms.

Prev  1640  1641  1642  1643  1644  1645  1646  1647  1648  1649  1650  1651  1652  1653  1654  1655  Next