Recent Comments

Prev  1650  1651  1652  1653  1654  1655  1656  1657  1658  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  Next

Comments 82851 to 82900:

82851. chris at 07:00 AM on 13 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Albatross at 07:47 AM on 12 June, 2011 since you brought up the constrast between the dreary attempts to contrive fault in Mann et al's paleotemperature reconstruction, and the free-ride given to Spencer and Christy despite their 15 years of mis-analysis, it's worth pointing out another interesting contrast between these two. Mann et al's "hockey stick" was really first published in their 1999 paper that included temperature reconstruction back to around 1000 AD. Mann et al were careful to highlight the uncertainties in their analyses as is apparent from their title: Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK (1999) Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759-762 Despite the "uncertainties and limitations" Mann et al have turned out to be broadly correct at least as indicated by the subsequent decade of updated analyses with improved methods and data. Christy and Spencer's analysis of tropospheric temperatures was hopelessly incorrect for 15 years and had repeatedly to be corrected by others. The gave no indication that there could be any doubt about the reliability of their analysis as indicated by the title of their main paper: Spencer RW, Christy JR (1990) Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites Science 247, 1558-1562. As we know their "monitoring of global temperature trends" was anything but "precise", and it was horribly inaccurate.
82852. JoeG at 06:49 AM on 13 June 2011
       An Interactive History of Climate Science
       If Climatologists could accurately predict the weather a year in advance, then people would have a reason to trust predictions made for 20 or 100 years out. For now, no one has any reason to accept the climate studies.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] climate modelling does not depend on the ability to predict weather, only simulate weather with similar statistical patterns. They are based on Monte Carlo simulation methods, a well established branch of statistics developed for the Manhattan project, and have been successfully used to model a very wide range of complex dynamical systems. Climate is the long term statistical behaviour of the weather. Weather is chaotic and unpredictable, its long term statistical behaviour however is not, and can be predicted with useful skill, see for example Hansens 1988 pojections. The above comment is commonly encountered in discussions about climate models, however it is indicative of a lack of understanding of the way in which climate models operate and of the difference between climate and weather.
82853. chris at 06:27 AM on 13 June 2011
       An Interactive History of Climate Science
       Two points Aunt Sally: 1. the numbers in the interactive graphic are cumulative. There are only 4 "pro-AGW papers" for 1975 in the graphic. 2. "global warming" and "climate change" are restrictive designators for climate-science related research. If you use a less restrictive designator (e.g. "climate") there are lots of potentially relevant papers from 1975. For example of the 164 hits from a ISI Web of Science search for topic "climate" (year=1975), the following papers are likely to be relevant, and this list is only from the first 40 out of 164 hits: PARAMETERIZATION OF CLIMATE - GLACIER - RELATION Author(s): HOINKES H, STEINACKER R Source: RIVISTA ITALIANA DI GEOFISICA E SCIENZE AFFINI Volume: 1 Pages: 97-104 Supplement: Suppl. I Published: 1975 THEORY OF ENERGY-BALANCE CLIMATE MODELS Author(s): NORTH GR Source: JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES Volume: 32 Issue: 11 Pages: 2033-2043 Published: 1975 EFFECTS OF CHANGING SOLAR CONSTANT ON CLIMATE OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION MODEL Author(s): WETHERALD RT, MANABE S Source: JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES Volume: 32 Issue: 11 Pages: 2044-2059 Published: 1975 CARBON DIOXIDE CLIMATE CONFUSION Author(s): SCHNEIDER SH Source: JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES Volume: 32 Issue: 11 Pages: 2060-2066 Published: 1975 Title: LONG-TERM CYCLES IN VARIATION OF ATMOSPHERIC RADIOCARBON, RELATED TO CHANGES IN HOLOCENE CLIMATE Author(s): MCFADGEN BG Source: SEARCH Volume: 6 Issue: 11-1 Pages: 509-511 Published: 1975 Times Cited: 1 NONSPHERICAL AEROSOLS AND CLIMATE Author(s): CHYLEK P, COAKLEY JA, GRAMS GW Source: TRANSACTIONS-AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION Volume: 56 Issue: 12 Pages: 997-997 Published: 1975 CLOUD PARAMETERS FOR CLIMATE STUDIES Author(s): COAKLEY JA Source: TRANSACTIONS-AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION Volume: 56 Issue: 12 Pages: 997-998 Published: 1975 ROLE OF DESERTS ON GLOBAL CLIMATE Author(s): ELLSAESSER HW Source: TRANSACTIONS-AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION Volume: 56 Issue: 12 Pages: 998-998 Published: 1975 WEATHER AND CLIMATE MODIFICATION - HESS,WN Author(s): SEWELL WRD, FOSTER HD Source: HUMAN ECOLOGY Volume: 3 Issue: 4 Pages: 289-291 Published: 1975 CLIMATE OUTLOOK - VARIABLE AND POSSIBLY COOLER Author(s): LANSFORD H Source: SMITHSONIAN Volume: 6 Issue: 8 Pages: 140-& Published: 1975 RECENT SECULAR VARIATIONS IN MID-ATLANTIC WINTER EXTRATROPICAL STORM CLIMATE Author(s): RESIO DT, HAYDEN BP Source: JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY Volume: 14 Issue: 7 Pages: 1223-1234 Published: 1975 CLIMATE RESPONSE AND FLUCTUATION DISSIPATION Author(s): LEITH CE Source: JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES Volume: 32 Issue: 10 Pages: 2022-2026 Published: 1975 NUMERICAL EXPERIMENT ON EFFECTS OF REGIONAL ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE Author(s): KOENIG LR Source: JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY Volume: 14 Issue: 6 Pages: 1023-1036 Published: 1975 APPLICATION OF SOIL DUST OPTICAL-PROPERTIES IN ANALYTICAL MODELS OF CLIMATE CHANGE Author(s): RUSSELL PB, GRAMS GW Source: JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY Volume: 14 Issue: 6 Pages: 1037-1043 Published: 1975
82854. Bob Lacatena at 06:00 AM on 13 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       54, Chuckbot, Not sure what you're looking at. Here's the most recent view, with the differences focused by the yellow boxes. You'll note that the areas of increased melt are all at lower latitudes around the edges (warmer temps, warmer water). Honestly, at the moment, in my opinion, this year is clearly shaping up to be the worst on record. It could turn on a dime, but right now, my opinion is that without an abrupt stall (as happened last year) we're actually in for the new record low. (I also skipped the area of the Nares Strait, at the upper left corner of Greenland from this perspective. It's not as obvious, but in 2011 you see an empty patch in the strait itself, with green/sparse ice, while in 1980 you see a very small empty patch surrounded by more higher ice concentrations). If you go to Cryosphere Today to see the more detailed image, you can see it better, as well as seeing how much further advanced the melt is just a few days later than the 6/9 images here.
82855. AuntSally at 05:57 AM on 13 June 2011
       An Interactive History of Climate Science
       Continuing from my previous post... if I do a web of knowledge search for "global warming" or "climate change" in the topic [which is searching (i) Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED); (ii) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI); and (iii) Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI)], I find only 4 peer-reviewed publications for 1975 -- a far cry from the 230 publications for that year that this graphic indicates. Not sure yet why the spectacular discrepancy, but would be interested to year from the creators...
82856. AuntSally at 05:52 AM on 13 June 2011
       An Interactive History of Climate Science
       This is a wonderful visualization. However... ...I'm a bit "skeptical" about the numbers. Specifically, they don't seem to square very well with the numbers in Peterson (2008) -- as pointed out in severa SkepticalScience posts (see here, for example: http://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-crock-1-1970s-cooling.html). Petereson found a total of 71 peer-reviewed publications on the topic of global warming and climate change in the 15-year period 1965-1979. Yet according to the graphic in this post, the year 1975 alone had 240 publications. Something seems askew...
82857. Eric the Red at 05:45 AM on 13 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Sky, I understand that some people may not accept this as a valid source, but it is tabulated nicely and correlates well with other sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes Almost half the state records hgih were set in the 1930s. The last new state record high was set in 1995 (two have been tied since).
82858. chuckbot at 04:58 AM on 13 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       'Notice above how much more ice there was in 1980. The snow data is only present for the past few years.' I keep looking and keep not seeing it - it looks like there is more ice at present? I looked up the comparison again and it looks the same there; perhaps the answer is that the 2011 image displays sea + land ice whereas the 1980 image only displays sea ice? The website writes: 'Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. ... Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.'
82859. Albatross at 04:10 AM on 13 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Norman, With a couple of exceptions, you seem intent on not providing peer-reviewed papers form the scientific literature to support your claims. You, contrary to advice offered to you, continue to cherry-pick and ignore the sage advice of some here. You posts are a perfect example of someone who is in denial about the severity of the situation we face should we continue along this path. And you fail to recognize that paleo data is one of the major reasons climate scientists are concerned about what we are doing and where we are headed, rather than a reason fro complacency or to fuel denial. In fact, with respect, you have your logic backwards, and your attempt to justify the reason for no concern amounts to nothing more than a form of argumentum ad absurdum. Read the IPCC AR4 they have extensive sections on past climate, yet they understand that we are in for a bunch of hurt should we continue along this path. Also, do not forget that the global population will be near 10 billion later this century, so climate disruption will likely exert an even greater toll than it would have centuries ago when people had the ability to move. Here is a lists of some recent papers on extreme rainfall from the literature, available links here: "Wentz et al. (2007, Nature): "Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades." Zhang et al. (2007, Nature): "We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel." Lau et al. (2008, JGR-A) Allan et al. (2010, Env. Res. Letters): "Analysing changes in extreme precipitation using daily data within the wet regions, an increase in the frequency of the heaviest 6% of events with warming for the SSM/I observations and model ensemble mean is identified. The SSM/I data indicate an increased frequency of the heaviest events with warming, several times larger than the expected Clausius–Clapeyron scaling and at the upper limit of the substantial range in responses in the model simulations." Allan and Soden (2008, Science): "We used satellite observations and model simulations to examine the response of tropical precipitation events to naturally driven changes in surface temperature and atmospheric moisture content. These observations reveal a distinct link between rainfall extremes and temperature, with heavy rain events increasing during warm periods and decreasing during cold periods. Furthermore, the observed amplification of rainfall extremes is found to be larger than that predicted by models, implying that projections of future changes in rainfall extremes in response to anthropogenic global warming may be underestimated." New et al. (2001, IJC): "Data from a number of countries provide evidence of increased intensity of daily precipitation, generally manifested through increased frequency of wet days and an increased proportion of total precipitation occurring during the heaviest events. Over most land areas there has also been an increase in the persistence of wet spells."" Also, from here, "Lenderink and Meijgaard (2008, Nature): "Here, we analyse a 99-year record of hourly precipitation observations from De Bilt, the Netherlands, and find that one-hour precipitation extremes increase twice as fast with rising temperatures as expected from the Clausius–Clapeyron relation when daily mean temperatures exceed 12 °C"
82860. actually thoughtful at 04:10 AM on 13 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       I would like to understand which models they are using that show such good correlation with empirical data - this is always a point of contention amongst skeptics, that models are not accurate. Which models did this team rely on and how good was the fit?
82861. daisym at 04:09 AM on 13 June 2011
       History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
       Eliminating the use of carbon fuels should be the goal of any country's effort to stop manmade global warming. Thus, Australia should spend 100% of its "global warming" money in the search for new energy sources that will eliminate the need for carbon energy. If not 100% then what about 50%? Ironically, this isn't happening and will never happen, will it? It's intuitively obvious that taxing the use of carbon fuels is the way to go... especially when there's no alternative full time energy available... Right? WRONG! Money should never be spent on any CO2 reduction scheme unless and until taxpayers are informed of the quantifiable benefit that would result. Ironically, this isn't happening and will never happen, will it? As a taxpayer, a person of modest means, why should you be OK with this?
82862. Albatross at 03:54 AM on 13 June 2011
       Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
       "A strong jet stream is required." Upper or low-level jet or both? And not necessarily. You are clearly talking through your hat Norman. You might want to wander over to Desmogblog where I have been in a technical discussion with someone who claims to be in the know about these things. Regardless, the experts agree that trend now and in the future in tornadoes are hard to pin down, mostly on account of the poor nature of the data and changing building codes, and monitoring platforms etc. What we do have confidence in is that extreme precipitation events and severe thunderstorm events are likely to increase in certain areas as low-level moisture increases (see Desmogblog post for papers). In fact, extreme rainfall events are already on the increase.
82863. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 03:48 AM on 13 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
       I understand the point that it's not too late yet. However, given the economic growth rates in developing countries and community expectations that goes with that, it's difficult to conceive of them being able to cut emissions and maintain civil order. Even in developed countries where carbon emissions aren't increasing to the same extent (but still increasing) it will be very difficult politically to stabilise let alone reduce emissions. I remain hopeful but not optimistic. And I'm generally an optimist. I see very difficult times ahead for the world as a whole.
82864. caerbannog at 03:34 AM on 13 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       I've met geologists who use their knowledge of the past to state the bleeding obvious: "The climate has always changed". My standard response is that "Indeed it has, but the last time, there was not a civilisation in the way"! Denier geologists who use this argument are particularly math-challenged. It's not just climate change that's the issue; it's the *rate* of change that poses the biggest challenges. Using denier geologist logic, I could argue that driving your car into a tree at 60 mph is no problem. After all, cars have decelerated from 60 to 0 with no harm to the passengers countless times in the past. Therefore, only auto safety alarmists would argue that folks shouldn't drive their cars into trees at 60 mph.
82865. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 03:30 AM on 13 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       After hearing Christy make erroneous and political rather than scientific statements on Australian Radio, and seeing his performance at US House Committee hearings, I figure that he's not really a climate scientist as such and doesn't care about his scientific reputation (he must have tenure and not be ambitious professionally I suppose). Does he do anything other than convert satellite readings into temperature equivalents (and has even got that badly wrong in the past from what I read)? His articles in google scholar suggest not much. He doesn't appear to do any research into the forces or impacts on climate. But happy to be corrected.
82866. oslo at 03:04 AM on 13 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       I have notified Stanford that the article is now online, and I have invited them to participate with comments. I can't promise anything as I have not been in direct contact with Diffenbaugh or Scherer.
82867. John Hartz at 02:29 AM on 13 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       If it has not already done so, I recommend that SkS inform both Diffenbaugh and Scherer that this article has been posted and invite them to participate in this discussion.
82868. WheelsOC at 01:59 AM on 13 June 2011
       Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
       

       According to both the climate model analysis and the historical weather data, the tropics are heating up the fastest.

       This is for summer temperatures, right? I'd thought that overall the poles were going to be warming faster. So we should see the poles warming faster on the whole, but summer temperatures climbing faster in the tropics, correct?
82869. Eric (skeptic) at 00:53 AM on 13 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom, my reef solution is not simple and there are some unknowns. However you could help your case by pointing out a potential adverse secondary effect of cooling upstream water via cloud formation. I honestly can't think of any adverse effects. I don't think I would have any problem taking full ownership of the reef and providing for its protection using just resources of the reef (provided there were unbiased government measurements of reef health, no unreasonable restrictions on tourism, etc) On your points 2 and 3, we would have an endless debate with absolutely no relevance to CC mitigation. On point 4, it seems to me that no regulation is needed at all, just a carbon tax. For example, if my plastic spoon factory produces spoons that are cheap and always disposed of, but the ones from your factory are heavy duty and reusable, you would be creating higher value product with just a little more use of carbon. An increasing carbon tax would force both our prices higher with the inevitable result that people would switch to your spoons and reuse them. Compare that to "regulation". Would plastic spoons simply be banned? Or more to the point, can a regulatory scenario create a better market than the one I just described? That raises the carbon tax issue. Scaddenp is very interested in determining if there are ways to approach mitigation that mesh with libertarian principles. I have two problems with the carbon tax, first that it confiscates the property of the fossil fuel investors. That problem should be solvable. The bigger issue is the distortion of the market that creates boom/bust cycles and artificial shortages and gluts of various inputs leading to black markets and other inefficient markets. It seems inconceivable that there would be a glut of alternative energy but it has happened in wind and will happen in solar until there are better storage techniques and a smarter grid. The artificial shortages is a much bigger problem. One reason I brought up Haiti was that a lot of their problems are due to the inability to purchase cooking gas. In this case it is obvious that a wealthier society would not have to cut down all their trees for cook fire charcoal. In my own state the artificial shortages of reasonably priced heating fuels in the winter of 2009/10 created a gray market for propane in small containers normally used for barbecues. Those were unsafely hooked up by homeowners who were cut off by the propane company (couldn't pay their bills) or used with unapproved heaters indoors (lacking a low oxygen automatic shutoff). This was just a very small sampling of what will happen in the economic downturn from malinvestment (the bust after the boom) and the carbon tax itself, will be unable to afford the luxury of protecting the environment (or their own health and safety). I don't have a solution for external costs for scaddenp, nor a solution to the problems created by the carbon tax. I can only repeat what I said before which is that the wealth of the society is what leads to the ability to control external costs. Tom, you would probably argue that the unloading of external costs is what leads to the (illegitimate) wealth. I would point out that those external costs are far in the future and much smaller than some have estimated ("we don't talk about the airport anymore").
82870. John Mason at 00:21 AM on 13 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       Sorry I missed this post the other day, John. As a geologist with a background in minerals, I'm familiar with the subject. Yes there are denialists who are also geologists, but apart from the fact they are geologists they typically fit into the classic denier frame in demographic terms. The latter is more relevant. I've met geologists who use their knowledge of the past to state the bleeding obvious: "The climate has always changed". My standard response is that "Indeed it has, but the last time, there was not a civilisation in the way"! Cheers - John
82871. David Horton at 18:44 PM on 12 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Thank goodness madmike has come to set us all straight. I must admit that for at least the last decade and a half I had been a bit worried, what with all those scientists and their research and analysis and warnings, but now, for the first time in 15 years I can turn the light out and have a good sound sleep and its all thanks to mike. Where has he been all these worrying years, that is the question, where oh where has he been?
82872. Paul D at 18:34 PM on 12 June 2011
       Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
       Dawei I don't know about anywhere else, but I doubt if anyone wearing the shirt in the UK is going to have a problem, unless of course you attend an denier/skeptic event or are actively campaigning for reductions in carbon emissions.
82873. Tom Curtis at 16:25 PM on 12 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (skeptic) @448: 1) Your solution to reef protection was "blown off" by pointing out that the proposer of the method you advocated indicated that it would have wide spread and potentially adverse secondary effects whereas you just blithely asserted that it would not. When challenged on this point, you just changed the subject. In other words, when faced with principled and evidence based objections, you had nothing beyond your mere assertion to back up your opinions. 2) It is tendentious and false to classify the free market as it works in any western nation, or in international trade as a "libertarian free market". The "free market" is in fact heavily regulated even in the United States, and justifiably so because grim experience shows that an unregulated market produces the satanic mills of Victorian England and impoverished labour with no safety measures in primary production. 3) The false claim that the "free market" is libertarian itself sets up a false dichotomy. It has been proven in economic theory that a market in which there is perfect competition, in which everbody knows the consequences of their every transaction (perfect information), in which nobody will be worse of if they undertake a particular transaction (no coercion, so long as coercion is also understood to include coercion by circumstance), in which there are no large disparities of wealth, and in which there are no negative externalities will produce an ideal distribution of resources. Economists have a technical name for a market meeting those conditions. They call it a "free market". It can also be demonstrated that any market that does not meet all those conditions will inevitably produce suboptimal distributions of resources. It is transparently obvious that not one of those conditions is actually met in real life. Therefore an unrestrained market must produce suboptimal resource distribution. It of course does not automatically follow that a regulated market will perform better, but where regulation is specifically tailored to make the unrestrained market to operate more like a free market, such regulation has a high probability of improving the distribution of resources relative to the unrestrained market. Consequently, the choice we face is not that between a free market and a command economy. It is the choice between a regulated market and an unrestrained market, and while the former will consistently raise the wealth of all participants, the latter has been proven time and again to be harmfull the to interests of the poor and disenfranchised members of society. 4) Bringing this somewhat back on topic, the choice we face then is not whether to regulate a carbon market. Failing to do so will transparently impoverish low-emitters to the short term benefit of high-emitters. In the long term, even the high emitters will be impoverished, but they act irrationally in this regard because of imperfect knowledge. Therefore, in this case a regulated market can certainly be a better approximation of the ideal of a "free market" (where "free market" is the economists technical, not the libertarian term of art which trades on confusion between the two). The question is, therefore, not whether we should regulate, but which form of regulation most closely approximates a free market at the lowest regulatory cost (ie, administrative cost, cost in distorting the market, and cost in corruption).
82874. Tom Curtis at 15:46 PM on 12 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Norman @69: "Last 100 years of some major floods in the United Stats By decade: 1900-1901 6 major floods 1910-1919 4 " " 1920-1929 3 " " 1930-1939 6 " " 1940-1849 2 " " 1950-1959 3 " " 1960-1969 8 " " 1970-1979 8 " " 1980-1989 6 " " 1990-1999 14 " " 2000-2010 16 " " So if I understand this correctly, from data that only shows six of less major floods in cool decades, and only shows ten or more major floods in the most recent, and very warm decades, you have concluded that temperature has no bearing on the likelihood of a major flood. I could make a similar point from the Australian data where, for example, the Queensland record for flood affected area was set in March of 2010, with an affected area equal in size to Texas (Victoria for an Australian comparison) only to be smashed in January 2011 with a flood effected extent larger in area than Texas plus California (equal to Victoria plus New South Wales for Australians), while concurrently Victoria was experiencing its worst ever floods both in area affected and record breaking as to depth in most locations flooded. You, of course, would have us believe that that had nothing to do with the record Sea Surface Temperatures around Australia at the time; and that those record Sea Surface Temperatures had nothing to do with global warming.
82875. adelady at 14:56 PM on 12 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       #70 Norman "... what would interest me is mechanisms to explain how a small increase in global temps will lead to extreme climate events ..." Won't answer this just now. Have to clear the decks. Firstly, you omitted a word here. "a small increase in _average_ global temps". Having got the average notion straight, you really need to think about what 'small' means in terms of an average global temperature change. Sure it's small in relation to day/night, summer/winter, but is it small in terms of climate? Do you know how many degrees cooler it was in average global temperature for a full-blown ice age? Or how many degrees warmer it was when the ice went away? Is 0.8 warmer in a few decades an insignificant, or small, or noteworthy, or a significant step in the journey to such a change?
82876. scaddenp at 14:09 PM on 12 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       KR - I would ask for indulgence in continuing this discussion. It is my opinion that current suggestions for limiting CO2 offend libertarian sensibilities and predisposes otherwise intelligent people towards denial. I am extremely interested to see if there is any approach to mitigation that might not offend those with libertarian values. I do not believe you can change a person's fundamental values and it is futile to try. Environmentalists screaming that AGW shows that capitalism is fatally flawed and must be replaced are doing more damage than good. I want to see debate about right wing versus left wing solutions rather a thinly-veiled grinding of political axes just promoting denial.
82877. dhogaza at 14:03 PM on 12 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       "I would not be interested in statistical analysis of extreme weather to show an increase and then link this to AGW theory, what would interest me is mechanisms to explain how a small increase in global temps will lead to extreme climate events (more heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires...). This is the part of the science I am interested in" No, you're not interested in "this part of the science". Physics (drop this stupid "AGW theory crap", the CO2 could come from God deciding to fart rather than our burning fossil fuels) predict greater chances of drought and extreme precipitation due to warming. ""I would not be interested in statistical analysis of extreme weather to show an increase and then link this to AGW theory" So what you're saying is that if atmospheric physics predicts X, you're not interested in statistical analysis to see if X is true. 'fraidy cat ...
82878. dhogaza at 14:00 PM on 12 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       "How many consensus views in the Medical field have been overturned?" Far fewer after medicine became dominated by science (kicking and complaining all the way, of course). Consensus views of "experts" in their field have been overturned and wrong. Mostly by scientists like Galileo supporting the observations and explanations of Copernicus against the Church, science overturning much of medical silliness (still ongoing, look how many people believe that distilled water (homeopathy) can cure cancer and everything?) Take care with your own goals, dude.
82879. dhogaza at 13:49 PM on 12 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       I do congratulate madmike on all the effort he's put into his blog ... He appears to be a perpetual typing machine, thus he's the very embodiment of the falsehood of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
82880. dhogaza at 13:46 PM on 12 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       "My interpretation of the above graph indicates that at current CO2 levels of 400 ppm a climate sensitivity λ of 0.2°C/(Wm−2) is indicated resulting in a temperature rise of only 0.8°C for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere." Good for you, Mike! You really are mad ... and I'm so happy that, unlike most denialists, you self-identify and admit it!
82881. dana1981 at 13:04 PM on 12 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       madmike - I'm not really sure how to respond to that. Thanks for sharing your opinion, I guess? You seem to provide no explanation whatsoever for your conclusions, which don't match the paleoclimate data. But if you want to discuss climate sensitivity, I suggest either Christy Crock #6 or 'climate sensitivity is low'.
82882. scaddenp at 12:51 PM on 12 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       truckmonkey - try looking up "faint young sun". As to others, they were answered in models thread but it appears you seem determined not believe the evidence there. That weather is chaotic is obvious. Likewise the fact we have seasons for starters should tell you that energy balance has chaos on a string as does the evidence that climate responds the applied forcing rather than in some random way. If you are determined to ignore evidence, then there is little further to be said.
82883. madmike at 12:33 PM on 12 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       I have called my next paper Analysing the Earth as a Simple Machine, and have come to the following conclusions. http://madmikedavies.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/five_myr_climate_change.png My interpretation of the above graph indicates that at current CO2 levels of 400 ppm a climate sensitivity λ of 0.2°C/(Wm−2) is indicated resulting in a temperature rise of only 0.8°C for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This gives a predicted variation Tmax of 2 °C over each subsequent Milankovich cycle for a predicted CO2 value of 560 ppm. Furthermore a further doubling of CO2 to 1120 ppm would further decrease the sensitivity such that additional CO2 forcing is likely to be in the order of <0.5 °C. this gives a predicted total milankovitch cycle variation of <2.5 °C for a quadrupling of CO2. http://madmikedavies.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/climate-sensitivity-and-forcing-2-a-re-evaluation-of-the-ipcc-position/
82884. skywatcher at 12:17 PM on 12 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Norman, take note of the increases in extremes of temperature and precipitation, but a couple of quick papers for your perusal: Sterl et al 2011: " When can we expect extremely high surface temperatures?", just published in GRL. Diffenbaugh et al 2005: "Fine-scale processes regulate the response of extreme events to global climate change", in PNAS. Stu Ostro has some speculations about a link between extreme weather and warming in this long (and large) presentation. What's interesting is the connections made between strong blocking events and extremes. We're moving well beyond wondering if extremes are going to increase: we're observing them increase, and there are many papers postulating explanations as to why. To think that the extremes are not on the increase would put someone in a clear position of denial. Given the observations of increased extreme events, like the European heatwaves of 2003, 2006 and 2010, or any number of severe flooding events (Pakistan, Australia, Brazil, Sri Lanka, USA, NZ), we obviously have a climate that is not responding by gently nudging the maxima up by fractions. The meteorological expression of climate change is proving complex and often unexpected, and there is room for many hypotheses about how the atmosphere is responding to increased heat, water vapour and reduced ice cover, but so far the responses have been obviously not 'slight'... to think so would put you in denial of the news headlines.
82885. Norman at 11:43 AM on 12 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Daniel Bailey, I did find this interesting article compiled about year 2000 extreme weather events. Very similar to your 2010 video. Not a video version but a text one but it does suggest my point. Look at some year, pick all the worst weather related disasters you can find and say this is proof of global warming and we are in for some severe problems. Well this was 10 years ago, has it gotten worse in that time period? 2010 seems very similar to 2000.
82886. Norman at 10:53 AM on 12 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Albatross, I did have one more page of interest (compiled by NOAA if you trust this source). New Mexico precipitation patterns over 2000 years. Question to you Albatross. You rely on experts to direct your thinking about future climate events. That is okay, expert opinions can certainly be valid. I would not be interested in statistical analysis of extreme weather to show an increase and then link this to AGW theory, what would interest me is mechanisms to explain how a small increase in global temps will lead to extreme climate events (more heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires...). This is the part of the science I am interested in. The forces that make a sustained drought. Texas has a very bad drought condition. How did the 0.8 C degree Global temp increase cause this and sustain it?
82887. Norman at 10:37 AM on 12 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       62 Albatross I will send a series of links to floods and droughts if you are interested. A historical perspective. Last 100 years of some major floods in the USA. Major flooding episodes in Australia. Worst floods in History. Droughts reconstructed over 500 year period. 100 years of flood estimated damage figures in USA (note sporadic jumps). More if needed, let me know the thread you are posting your links on, thanks.
82888. Eric (skeptic) at 09:44 AM on 12 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       DSL, I think we will always differ on what Heritage wants for Haitians, but you are correct that the country has been exploited. A lot of the deforestation came from plantations, see http://www.fao.org/docrep/v3960e/v3960e09.htm and continues with poor farming practices. The authors of this study on protection of the commons seem surprised that: Indicators of wealth were not significantly correlated with landholder cooperation or defection in three out of four measures. Thus, wealth does not apparently reduce the incentive to cooperate. Rather, relative wealth corresponds to a greater ability to contribute, and such contributions might be an act of "leadership" I am not surprised since that is how I act. KR, my point from the other thread was that wealth leads to environmental protection. The title of this thread is somewhat backwards. It is not that "CO2 limits will harm the economy" but that strengthening the economic security of all people on the planet will inevitably result in the luxury of conservation. I with you agree a reasonable amount of regulation is always needed and best performed by government (e.g. contract law enforcement). My statement about authoritarianism was too general. I was referring to the fact that I know how to manage my land better than any government agency be they Haitian or not and that Haiti had an index of respect for property rights equal to Cuba. I connected those two, probably incorrectly as the study I linked above suggests.
82889. Norman at 09:28 AM on 12 June 2011
       Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
       #25 Tom Curtis Here is an explanation of the increase in tornadoes in April. Check out what is needed to form a supercell thunderstorm. A strong jet stream is required. Here is the April anomaly for the Globe. You can see warmer than normal air in the Gulf of Mexico while the air in Canada was well below normal. Conditions are right for supercell thunderstorms. As Eric the Red pointed out in post #26, tornado season diminishes as the Canadian air warms rapidly in the summer months. There is not the strong differential and the jet stream weakens.
82890. Norman at 09:15 AM on 12 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       #61 skywatcher, Your comment "So you think cherry-picking individual heatwaves from history disproves the radiative forcing effects of CO2? Interesting logical process you have there..." No I would not think this. The available empirical evidence does demonstrate that Carbon Dioxide, present in the atmosphere, does radiate Downwelling Longwave radiation back to the surface. Being energy, it will cause warming to some extent. Without any positve feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the global temp a degree Celsius or so. The question I am raising is not about the science of CO2. My "denier" position is not over this point. My position of denial is that such a temp increase will lead to much more devastating climate conditions than have already taken place. The global anomaly is 0.8 C in 100 years. Most record temperatures are far above this level from normal. This would mean that to get an extreme heat event (like in Russia last year) you must have a location with much colder temps (area in siberia east of Moscow). I am greatly questioning the hypothesis that a few degrees of warming will lead to much more extreme weather. When I watch the World News heat waves are blamed on global warming or climate change yet the mechanisms of why a small increase in global average temp would lead to extreme weather events is lacking. Just saying more tornadoes is the result of the small global temp increase does not make it so. What are the mechanics that would show global warming is responsible for more violent weather?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] this thread might be a good place to discuss such issues (and indeed find some answers to your question).
82891. hamletpri at 08:36 AM on 12 June 2011
       Call for beta testers of the latest SkS Firefox Add-on
       Hey guys, just discovered this new service connecting app developers to beta testers, so if you're wanting to be selected for testing, or wanting to find testers quickly, go ahead and check it out: www.betafind.squarespace.com
82892. dhogaza at 08:34 AM on 12 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       "Spencer and Christy's analysis was wrong they insisted very loudly that they were right and everyone else was wrong." I have a very clear memory of the WSJ running an op ed claiming that Spencer and Christy's initial published results were "the wooden stake through the heart of global warming". Christy was named to the five person NAS committee formed early in the W administration to report on global warming. This was after errors in the S&C analysis had already been exposed. You might remember that W had promised, while running, "further research" to figure out what was happening with climate change. This "need for further research" really hinged on the satellite vs. ground station record, and early on there was a kind of summit conference with UAH, RSS and others duking it out. Anyway, long story short, for those of you here who are from Oz or weren't following things a decade ago ... the NAS committee, among other things, stated that the ground station record was as accurate as the satellite reconstructions. Christy signed it. NAS (actually the NRC which functions as part of NAS) put him on the committee, making certain that denialists couldn't scream that the NRC finding was cooked by excluding him. It didn't take long for Christy to hem and haw his way out of that statement, but he's on record of having signed it. On the finding that GW is real he said immediately afterwards: "the report simply confirms that the Earth has become warmer over the past 100 years." (this, at least, was an improvement over his earlier claims that the satellite record showed cooling, not warming, in recent decades.)
82893. RickG at 08:30 AM on 12 June 2011
       There is no consensus
       Earlier today I had a discussion with a person who described himself a "skeptic", not a denier concerning scientific consensus on ACC. His stance was that there is no consensus among climate scientists that the current climate change was due to human causes. Of course, I directed them to Anderegg 2010, Doran 2009 and Oreskes 2004; but he kept coming back with the statement, "there are climate scientists who do not believe there is a consensus among climate scientists". I kept trying to explain that yes, there are climate scientists that disagree with the consensus, but not that there is no consensus. Are there actually any practicing climate scientists that disagree that there is a consensus?
82894. DSL at 08:11 AM on 12 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       KR, I agree with regards to Haiti. I disagree with regards to other economic modes. Most alternative modes--various forms of socialism, modern feudalism, and totalitarianisms--have occurred within the context of the dominant mode--capitalism. Capitalism is extremely aggressive, and the reasons for some of the failures of these alternatives has been the corrupting force of capital. A pure experiment is where all other variables are controlled. That would not be the case for Cuba, USSR, Nazi regime, Venezuela, various African experiments, China, etc. etc. All were (and are) heavily influenced by the forces of capital. I imagine that were we living in a socialist world, you would call capitalism an "extreme social experiment." As far as Haiti is concerned, one also has to take into account U.S. interference (and here. And, of course, Baby Doc and his compadres. Eric, Haiti is a study in disaster capitalism. The country was pillaged by non-Haitians, then pillaged by Haitians (with the help of non-Haitians), then repeatedly kicked in the gut by nature, and then descended on by thousands of NGOs, the IMF, and a whole slew of companies looking to make a buck in the labor market and the pool of NGO dough. What the Heritage folks want is an unfettered (and desperate) Haitian labor market. What the Heritage Foundation calls "freedom" is usually the opposite of social and environmental justice.
82895. skywatcher at 08:10 AM on 12 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Do you have sources for that assertion Eric? I understand you accept the general premise, but the global record, as constructed and validated by many independent sources now, does not show the same pattern as the US, with regard to an especially hot 1930s. Based on the records constructed from the GHCN and other datasets, I would doubt what you say about the 1930s, and 'we simply do not know' does not stand up to perusal of the GHCN.
82896. Denier at 08:09 AM on 12 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       Thank you Moderator [Dikran Marsupial] that is the INDOEX link in question. In respect of your request for more info. concerning Prof. V. Ramanathan, the following is a must watch - 2009Lecture_Ramanathan.wmv The location and magnitude of the ABC and the resulting loss of evaporation would most likely affect Australia. The importance of the weather role of the Indian Ocean and linking it with the extensive drought of southern Australia was revealed by UNSW early 2009. It should be noted the eastern part of Australia was rescued from drought by a freakishly intensive La Nina, whereas WA is still suffering drought.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] no problem, link to video activated. I've only watched the first five minutes so far, but Ramanathan seems to be rather concerned about greenhouse gasses, and in particular carbon dioxide. At 17:42 Ramanathan shows a plot of major shifts in rainfall over the last 50 years. Australia is not highlighted, that rather suggests to me that Ramanathan provides no support for your speculation. But I'll keep an open mind for the rest of the talk. O.K., having watched the rest of the video, AFAICS it provides no support whatsoever for your assertion. Firstly it suggests the major change in rainfall is concentrated on equitorial Asia, India and Africa (with relatively little change in Australia). Secondly Ramanathan clearly identifies CO2 as the major problem. Thirdly Ramanathan is clear that dealing with ABCs is only a temporary fix that will buy some time to deal with CO2, but nothing more. Fourthly Ramanathan's findings are mainstream science, he identifies where it is discussed in the IPCC WG1 report (I should think we have all seen that diagram)

       I do recommend people should watch the video.
82897. Albatross at 07:47 AM on 12 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Chris @5, "Imagine the furore if that level of faulty analysis had been perpetrated by pukka climate scientists." Indeed Chris, good point (and good posts above). Just look at the controversy and faux debate that people like McIntyre have fabricated over the famous Hockey stick paper by MBH98-- they are still talking about that, even though MBH's Hockey Stick has been corroborated by multiple independent analyses and data sets over the years. And I think we are still waiting for the UAH code are we not? I think the last I heard they Spencer and Christy promised their code would be available this summer.
82898. Albatross at 07:43 AM on 12 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Michael @4, "Spencer and Christy's analysis was wrong they insisted very loudly that they were right and everyone else was wrong." And Spencer is still make such proclamations on his blog and in his book.
82899. KR at 07:32 AM on 12 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       My statement holds, Eric - a reasonable amount of regulation makes for a much improved situation. From your reference, "Inadequate regulatory and legal frameworks hamper private-sector development." Yet you claim that the "authoritarian government" of Haiti would prevent you from using your property as you wish? This is a very contradictory statement. Again, as I stated, a mix of approaches seems to work best. I would personally prefer a straight carbon tax to direct external costs to those causing them, and let the market decide from there, with reasonable regulation and administration to ensure that this actually occurs.
82900. Eric (skeptic) at 06:16 AM on 12 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       KR, part of the answer is that the Dominican Republic has a "moderately free" society http://www.heritage.org/index/country/dominicanrepublic while Haiti is mostly unfree http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/Haiti Haiti is pretty much bottom of the barrel for property rights, and if there are no property rights, then forests won't be protected. The other part of the answer is that the Dominican Republic enacted some market-value-oriented policies (scroll down this page: http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5647e/y5647e05.htm) Their policy is comparable to the efforts by developed countries and has an emphasis on private ownership.

Prev  1650  1651  1652  1653  1654  1655  1656  1657  1658  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  Next