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. skywatcher at 21:32 PM on 11 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
       #3: Being a scientist and not a politician, I can't answer your last question, but I like the proposal otherwise! I suspect that there are savoury and unsavoury political reasons why this happens, as well as insufficient political pressure to move away from fossil fuels (see Obama's flip-flopping on it). As we move into the first significant decade of climate consequences, maybe those pressures will change. We're already seeing some renewables prices lower towards some FF prices, so maybe part of the solution is undeway.
82852. skywatcher at 21:26 PM on 11 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Garethman - the observation about favourable winds is in the literature, particularly for 2007's melt. But the winds are overprinted on the declining trend, such that, although winds in the latter half of the melting season last year (2010) were extremely unfavourable to ice export, the ice was so thin that it melted to the 3rd lowest extent on record. Heaven knows what'll happen to the remains of the Arctic ice when we get a repeat of 2007-like wind conditions (IIRC, it was about a 10-year return period for that wind pattern).
82853. garethman at 21:16 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       Thanks for the extra info Dikran it makes sense of what I am looking at, If I understand you correctly, the highs and lows even out into a trend, and this temporary slowing of decrease will be evened out by an increase at some point? Thats useful to know. However, that was not my question, my question was related to why it happened, what were the factors involved which caused the variations. Helpfully it has now been answered on another thread. Apparently it is variations in sea temps and wind direction. Warmers waters accelerate melt, winds break up and distribute ice, and these factors either enhance the rate of melting or slow it down. I know it may be pretty obvious to most of you, but it took a lot of queries to arrive at the info. By the way it’s a fair cop, I love rhetoric. It has great tradition dating from classical Greece. It’s a good way of arriving at information, especially when any question is met with a barrage of aggression or odd allegations. To me, coming from a qualitative or even phenomenological background, what I post is a scientific discussion. It just does not seem like that to many Scientists on this site who are schooled in the more quantitative philosophy of objectively measurable phenomenon. Sometimes your deductions are as perplexing to me as mine must be to yourselves. Nevertheless I appreciate your responses which wonderfully illustrate the variation in human responses to such critic issues and hope that maybe you are learning something about human nature in the same way as I am learning the details of anthropogenic effects on climate.
82854. skywatcher at 21:16 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       Clearly you're not here for rational discussion garethman, but by all means use ther Uni of Bremen chart - though it only shows the past eight years of data, it shows 2011 at the 'bottom of the pack' as it were, and also shows (which IJIS does not) the long-term mean, and how far below that, every single year in the Bremen graphs. It's not a graph for establishing trends, however, as it is not easy to see the pattern of how the extent on this year on this date compares to the ordered sequence of extents on previous years of the same date. But that is of course exactly the data you want to hide. Equally, the Cryosphere Today anomaly graph technically shows pretty much exactly the same data as in Tamino's graphs, the NSIDC graph or the IJIS/Bremen graphs, but in that one it is even harder to see the trends as you cannot visually pick, say which point represents 11th June 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, and so on. If you could, you would of course see very clearly the declining trend. What is interesting is that although the rapid and accelerating decline is clearly going on, as shown by the relevant charts from NSIDC or Tamino's linked above (or you can generate them yourself from IJIS data), the CT chart shows the emergence of something like an annual cycle in the anomalies, as the September anomalies decline more rapidly than the March anomalies. But there's nothing much subjective about any of these graphs, you just need to understand clearly what it is you are looking at on the graph, and do the relevant analysis. If you have any proper data that gives us sound cause for hope in the Arctic, which the extent charts cerainly do not, I would like to see it. I'd like to see some good news about the Arctic.
82855. michael sweet at 20:27 PM on 11 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Garethman at 50: Does WUWT have a graphs page comparable to Nevin's daily graphs page(linked in the main article and also in the comments)? Can you provide a link to the WUWT page so we can check it out? When you say "unusually cold" do you mean compared to the past 20 years or compared to say 1900-1930?
82856. garethman at 19:25 PM on 11 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Dorlomin FWIW there are two trends that have strongly influenced the rate of sea ice melting in the NH, there is additional warm water moving into the area and the winds have been more in favour of exporting ice out of the arctic. A change in either of these may see the rate of decline slow or even briefly reverse the trend. Garethman Much appreciated, I’ve been looking for the reasons for these blips for a while .Thats the first sensible answer I’ve seen. Incidentally one of the things I have noticed ( entirely subjective of course) is that when it is unusually cold here in the North East Atlantic, it tends to be unusually warm in the Arctic. I suspect the influence of a melting Arctic is being felt in Europe in counterintuitive ways. These synoptic charts could be useful in looking at this process. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/surface_pressure.html
82857. garethman at 19:14 PM on 11 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Great sets of data. Many thanks. This also a useful one. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png Any chance you could do the same as WUWT and put all the links and graphs in one place for easy reference?
       Response:

       [DB] I have been considering the feasability of such a thing for a while now.  Right now it comes down to time/manpower.

82858. Dikran Marsupial at 19:12 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       garethman O.K., so you aren't here for rational discussion of the science, just rhetoric (as your first sentence clearly demonstrates). I have explained why a 30 year timescale is relevant (any shorter it is dominated by weather noise and tells you nothing about forcings, much longer and it no longer has sufficient resolution to detect the effects of anthropogenic changes in forcing) and all you can manage is an inflamatory attack accusing those with a mainstream scientific view of scientific dishonesty (concentrating on only those datasets that suit their position). Not very persuiasive I'm afraid. Look further back in the data, you will find that after each record high or low, there will be a "recovery" towards more average conditions over the next year or two. This is called "regression to the mean", and is a well known statistical phenomenon. It doesn't mean anything now, just like it didn't signal a signficant recovery following any of the previous record minima.
82859. garethman at 18:59 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       Thanks Dikran, that’s useful.I suppose reactionaries and the AGW community will always tend to focus on data that supports their side of the argument. So reactionaries or skeptics would tend to use the following: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png which show exactly the same thing, but against a different background giving a different feel. Again, it’s the subjective interpretation of objective observations. However, it just so happens that the vast majority of data supports the AGW side of things. Interestingly this data regarding ocean heat shows this similar blip in the relevant timescale. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png . I guess we could ignore the data as being far too short to be of any real significance, but both sets of data show something standing out against the general trend and any ideas as to why it is occurring would be great.
82860. Dikran Marsupial at 18:36 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       garethman It is not correct to define a trend by drawing a line between two points, it would be a recipe for cherry picking. That is why climatologists use least squares trends. It is a logical fallacy to think that looking at a thirty year trend rather than a 3000 year trend means that looking at a three year trend rather than a thirty year trend is justifiable. Over short timespans, the data are dominated by chaotic variability, and thus tell you virtually nothing about climate. There is very little information about the effects of forcing in three years of data compared to a thirty year trend. Over timescales of 30+years, you are looking mostly at forced climate change, and that is true for 30 years ot 3000 years. Of course if you look at 3000 years the trend won't be sensitive to anthropogenic forcing as it has only been significant for the last 150 years or so of that 3000 years, so it has little effect on a least-squares trend. I can see why a denialist would want to concentrate on a 3000 year trend rather than a 30 year one.
82861. adelady at 18:02 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       The chart you linked to is pretty noisy - because it's a lot of readings over that period. For something to clearly show a trend try the daily graph at NSIDC. Most importantly, it shows the 2 sigma range as well as the simple trend line. When you look at this one, you see clearly that any apparent 'flattening' is much less important than the fact that the ice extent can't get itself anywhere near the outermost limit of the steeply declining trend.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] linked in pitcure (click to go to source)
82862. John Russell at 17:52 PM on 11 June 2011
       It's cooling
       Following Phil Jones' update yesterday (10th June 2011), this subject has become a hot potato in the comments over at Carbon Brief. Anyone fancy offering expert support?
82863. garethman at 17:46 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       It’s all downhill, I agree. But sometimes it’s steeper, sometimes less so. We could draw a straight graph from one point to one point showing a consistent slope which excluded say summer melt and winter freeze, It would be correct, it would show a decline. But it would miss out variations in the rate of decrease which I believe are important in an understanding of why those variations occur. You are right in that we can gloss over the detail of 3 years worth of data in a background of 31 years, but is that not what reactionaries and dissidents do when they place the last 30 years of data against 3000 years? Does the chart I linked to show a flattening? Is it wrong? If so we must not trust info from that source. If it is correct, but shows a timescale to short to be of significance I fully accept that, but then it begs the question, what is a reasonable timescale for significant data to be accumulated? The last 30 years has shown a drastic reduction in ice cover. What does data over the last 300 years, 3000 or even 30,000 years suggest? It may be felt that anything outside the 30 year period is irrelevant due to the advent of satellite technology etc, but could that also not be seen to be Cherry picking? If 3 years is irrelevant, saying 30 is OK, but not 300 is odd. Note I am not saying the ice has not melted, it obviously has, I am just suggesting that from the data it looks like there is variation in the melting rate, which appears to have slowed over the last 3 years, but not recovered. I’m sure you have a reasonable answer for non experts like myself. Here is the link again to save time searching. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
82864. Liam23 at 17:26 PM on 11 June 2011
       Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
       Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand this: "The higher quality data available since 1950 has allowed the team to calculate that since that time, the world has seen a phytoplankton decline of about 40%." If phytoplankton generate 50% of the oxygen, then a 40% decline would appear to imply a 20% decline in oxygen generation. Surely we would notice if the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere were falling? Is there a lag time before atmospheric concentration falls? How would reduced generation be reflected in overall concentration? How low would it go? Thanks in advance for any replies.
       Response:

       [DB]  IIRC, any reduction in seawater oxygen content due to the phytoplankton decline will be interspersed thoughout the various layers of the worlds oceans.  That's a lot of volume.  Given the volume of the atmosphere, any reductions in oxygen content due to that loss may have been offset by oxygen coming from melting ice sheets (Canadian Archipelago, Greenland, Antarctica as well as the global decline in alpince glaciation).  Speaking off-the-cuff, as I haven't studied that particular aspect.  Don't lose any sleep over it.

82865. okatiniko at 16:40 PM on 11 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
       There is an extremely simple way of reaching the goals of a budget policy : it is to forbid the exploitation of all non-conventional resources, deep off-shore, tar sands , shale oils and gas, methane hydrates, liquefied coal, and so forth...., and even the search and exploitation of new conventional resources. There is absolutely nothing to do : just forbid companies to go there. No drilling, no administrative permits - just - forbidden, like in Antarctica. Don't go there . It is absolutely impossible to extract them without extremely sophisticated techniques , mastered only by western companies, and many of these resources are located in democratic, industrialized countries : US, Canada, Japan, Europe ... no real political difficulty in applying these interdictions. and there are only very weak economic consequences, since most of these resources have hardly begun to be exploited - and for most of them not at all. Only Athabasca tar sands are really extracted, with a modest rate (less than 2 Mbl/j) that does not really contribute to GHG emissions - not a problem to lower gradually their extraction and close them in some decades. Forbidding the extraction would avoid to do ANY effort to persuade people to lower their consumption. It is much more, infinitely more simple to control a handful of companies than billions of people. The law of supply and demand would assure a growing price of fossil fuels and a natural switch to other alternatives - quite naturally. There is no need for sequestration, carbon market, and other awful sophisticated things. And contrary to demand policies, the result is 100 % certain. The only question is : why does nobody claim for such a simple measure ?
82866. scaddenp at 15:40 PM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       Actually if we were going to personal about this, then perhaps we should have look at the mathematical skills of some prominent denialist geologists.
82867. scaddenp at 15:35 PM on 11 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       I see your wink but I do not follow your comment at all. Care to explain?
82868. trunkmonkey at 15:29 PM on 11 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Scaddenp "Why you "separating the parameters from the physics"? They are physics too." (wink)perameritizations are actually geology.
82869. scaddenp at 15:10 PM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       J Bob. The point is proportion of them doing maths. I did maths papers to masters level, but the majority of my cohort only did maths in their first year. The point is that it is perfectly possible to do geology with only 1 year of maths. Its not possible to climate science with that. A fairer way to evaluate my comment would look at average maths skill in geologist versus physicists.
82870. Tom Curtis at 14:49 PM on 11 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       Eric the Red @77, did you even read the abstract?

       "Biospheric coupling of terrestrial water and carbon fluxes: Implications for the climate system Jan Veizer, University of Ottawa (Canada) Paul R. Ferguson, University of Ottawa (Canada) Terrestrial water and carbon fluxes represent one of the largest movements of mass and energy in the Earth's outer spheres, yet the relative contributions of abiotic water vapour fluxes and those that are regulated solely by the physiology of plants remain poorly constrained. By interpreting differences in the oxygen-18 and deuterium content of precipitation and river water, it is possible to partition plant transpiration from the evaporative flux that occurs directly from soils, water bodies and plant surfaces. The methodology was applied to fifteen large watersheds in North America, South America, Africa, Australia, and New Guinea, and results show that approximately two thirds of the annual water flux from the water-limited ecosystems that are typical of higher-latitude regions can be attributed to plant transpiration. In contrast to water-limited watersheds, transpiration in high-rainfall, densely vegetated regions of the tropics represents a smaller proportion of precipitation and is relatively constant, defining a plateau in response to incident solar radiation. Estimates of water transpiration behave similar to net primary productivity, confirming that, in agreement with small-scale measurements, the terrestrial water and carbon cycles are inherently coupled via the biosphere, offering a conceptual perspective on the dynamics of energy exchange between terrestrial systems and the atmosphere, where the carbon cycle is essentially driven by solar energy via the water cycle intermediary. Ferguson, P.R. and Veizer, J. 2007. Coupling of water and carbon fluxes via the terrestrial biosphere and its significance to the Earth's climate system. Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, Vol. 112, D24S06, doi:10.1029/2007JD008431, 2007"

       Now, can you explain how a study of isotope rations of oxygen and hydrogen in modern river water "supercedes" a study of temperatures through out the phanerozoic?
82871. Ari Jokimäki at 14:41 PM on 11 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       The Skeptical Chymist #37: Actually, that paper seems to be peer-reviewed. It was published in this journal (paper is listed in volume 22, issue1). The "report" seems to be a reprint of the journal.
82872. skywatcher at 14:36 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       One should also note, with the greatest of delicacy, that Northern Ireland is not an independent country. The UK (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has an all-time low record of -27.2C set on three occasions, 1895, 1982 and 1995, all in the highlands of Scotland. So Masters is right, at least where the UK's national record is concerned. Masters also corrected a previous error - his earlier posting had suggested that there had been a single national low temperature record, in Guinea, but this was actually in 2009. That leaves no national cold records for 2010. I of course accept that blog posts are not necessarily the most reliable of sources, but to my knowledge Jeff Masters has proven a reasonably reliable source of information, and his post includes both original sources and caveats about the records so people can check up on them. If anyone has more up-to-date or accuarate information the please post it! Regional and local records are broken with greater frequency, due to the very variability I was describing, but national, regional and local records all show the same trend towards more extreme highs and fewer extreme lows.
82873. CoalGeologist at 14:26 PM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       This discussion seems to be drifting a bit off topic, but I'll attempt to tie various issues together by observing that it has been my impression that many of my colleagues initially approached the issue of climate change from a skeptical perspective, but unwittingly slid down the slippery slope of "Denialism". In this regard, it's important to recognize the role Denialist web sites, and books such as Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth", have played in perpetuating misunderstanding of the scientific arguments. (One of my colleagues actually purchased numerous copies of Plimer's book to mail to his friends in an effort to convince us that AGW is a fraud. Unfortunately for him, the book taught me more about Denialism than it did about climate science.) Any sincere skeptic can potentially find out what science has to say on specific issues through web sites such as SkS. If they then remain doubtful of the validity of the prevailing view, this is what science is all about (assuming it is for legitimate reasons). At the same time, it's important to recognize the corrupting role that "cherry picking" and "affirmation of beliefs" plays in this process, and why bias is so difficult to avoid. If in an overly zealous effort to question the prevailing theory, one immerses one's self in "Denial World", and if this is all one sees day after day, it becomes easy to believe there's no valid scientific basis for AGW. There are reasonably well defined criteria to distinguish skepticism from Denialism, and continued arguments that "Denialist" is nothing but a meaningless insult become very tedious. Any sincere skeptic should acknowledge that AGW Denialism is real, and should distance themselves from it as much as possible. Unfortunately, this is a step few ardent Denialists are willing to take, as they quickly discover that outside of "Denialworld", the arguments against AGW are as thin as Arctic sea ice. I also would like to emphasize the important contributions geologists have made to science in general, and to climate science in particular.
82874. Albatross at 14:12 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Eric @63, Masters did not mislead anyone-- note the date stamp of his post: "Posted by: JeffMasters, 1:25 PM GMT on November 23, 2010" The year was not over when he posted those data. Dr. Masters is a reliable source of information. I noted the single all-time record low in my post @62. But yes, I agree that everyone should be cautious about citing information from blogs, including wikipedia ;)
82875. dhogaza at 14:00 PM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       

       Interesting how it ebbs and flows.

       Except, that, of course, human emissions of GHGs aren't going to ebb if you have your way. It's all "flow". At its most basic, you're arguing that since natural variation exists and has caused problems in the past, human contributions can't overwhelm natural variation, therefore there's nothing to worry about problems caused by anthropogenic GHGs. Which is a garbage argument ...
82876. Eric (skeptic) at 13:45 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       "Last year, Jeff Masters gave us this list of 19 countries that set national all-time high temperature records in 2010, while not one single country set an all-time low record, despite the headlines of snow in the UK, Europe and..." I see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2010–2011_in_Europe Northern Ireland beating their all-time record low in 2010. Obviously does not affect your climate argument at all, but does suggest that one should not rely on blogs for detailed claims.
82877. Albatross at 13:19 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Norman @57 and 58, As I said before "You will disagree I'm sure, but your failure to recognize the err of your arguments and only further enforces the OP's point." And your posts have just affirmed that. One has to look at the body of evidence from around the globe when it comes to extremes, one also has to do some pretty sophisticated statistics. There are many studies by respected scientists (Dai, Trenberth, Zwiers, Allen, Stott, Santer and many more) that have quantitatively demonstrated that extreme events are on the increase. I am happy to provide links on another thread. You claims to consider yourself a researcher, but you have not cited any publications from reputable journals to back up your claims. That is not how science works. It is very easy to convince yourself that here is not a problem when you seek out extreme events at selected locations, but as I said earlier you have to consider the body of evidence form around the globe, it is called AGW after all. For example, last year 19 countries set all time record highs, compared to only one all-time record low, not surprisingly 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record, despite a prolonged solar minimum and the onset of a strong La Nina. "As I stated earlier I think it is on topic as it explains why I am not embracing the AGW view of future disaster." Sorry but that line of thinking is not only unscientific, but foolhardy. Do not forget that AGW is very much about where we are heading should we continue to be myopic and complacent regarding the consequences of doubling or trebling CO2. We have more than enough evidence now to know that we are facing some very difficult times ahead should we continue on this path. The prudent course of action is to not deny the facts and to take action in reducing GHG emissions. Bizarre that some would like to wait until it is too late to take action, just like in the video I showed @28. "Consensus views of "experts" in their field have been overturned and wrong." But nobody has overturned the theory of AGW. Regardless, your claims about consensus are moot; what we have now with the science is consilience, which is much stronger than consensus alone. You can continue to seek out events to convince yourself that AGW is not an issue, but doing so is just reinforcing your denial. "Historical data calls into question AGW climate change" No it doesn't.
82878. skywatcher at 13:12 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       #59 Norman: So you think cherry-picking individual heatwaves from history disproves the radiative forcing effects of CO2? Interesting logical process you have there... Observations of extremes in climate is all about loading the dice. The globe has shown a very well-verified warming of ~0.8C in the past century. It does not mean steady year-on-year increases in maximum recorded temperatures at individual locations. If a '12' on two dice is a heatwave, and a '2' is a severe cold spell, then climate change increases your chance of rolling 12's and reduces your chances of rolling a '2'. In fact, 13's become possible (e.g. Russia last year), and soon 14's will be on the cards, but they will not happen at every location in every year. Last year, Jeff Masters gave us this list of 19 countries that set national all-time high temperature records in 2010, while not one single country set an all-time low record, despite the headlines of snow in the UK, Europe and the USA. In the linked articles is a note that 33% of countries set record highs in the last decade, while only 6% set record lows. That's loading the dice. The record lows show that, given ideal weather, cold records can be still be achieved, it's just they need more 'ideal' conditions. Next time the weather conditions are favourable in your cherry-picked locations, those heat records will probably fall too, when the dice get their chance to roll a '12', or the shiny new '13' made possible by the extra heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
82879. Eric the Red at 12:45 PM on 11 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       This supercedes the Royer paper. http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1319779.html
82880. Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Norman @59, before I go any further into this, what where temperatures like in the United States in 1923-4? And what where temperatures like in Marble Bar in 1934-7?
82881. Eric the Red at 12:33 PM on 11 June 2011
       Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
       According to the NOAA data posted at #52, strong (EF3+) tornadoes have generally decreased over the past few decades. Whether smaller tornadoes have incrased of simply been detected better is still up for debate. Doppler radar has identified many tornadoes which would probably not have been spotted in years past.
82882. Norman at 12:24 PM on 11 June 2011
       Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
       Thank you DB Here is one experts opinion on the matter of tornadoes and the apparent increase. More tornadoes or better detection?. Smaller tornadoes on increase, larger tornadoes may be decreasing in frequency.
82883. Norman at 12:06 PM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       [moderator trolling snipped] As I stated earlier I think it is on topic as it explains why I am not embracing the AGW view of future disaster. Daniel Bailey, even though I do not forsee a coming nightmare climate future, it does not mean the human race should not conserve and look for alternate forms of energy to power our modern lifestyles. I think burning 80 million barrels of oil daily to run inefficient transportation is very foolish. I totally agree we need to cut our waste and excess of energy. Doing nothing is a foolish position. Historical data calls into question AGW climate change.... "During a period of 160 such days from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, the Australian town of Marble Bar set a world record for the most consecutive days above 100 °F (37.8 °C).[22] The 1936 North American heat wave during the Dust Bowl, followed the one of the coldest winters on record—the 1936 North American cold wave. Massive heat waves across North America were persistent in the 1930s, many mid-Atlantic/Ohio valley states recorded their highest temperatures during July 1934. The longest continuous string of 100 °F (38 °C) or higher temperatures was reached for 101 days in Yuma, Arizona during 1937 and the highest temperatures ever reached in Canada were recorded in two locations in Saskatchewan in July 1937." These extremes have not yet been surpassed. From wikipedia article on heat waves. Our fire suppression activity may very well be the cause of increased numbers and intensity of wildfires. Droughts and wet cycles, climate extremes long before AGW and very long sustained patterns. Flatline for hurricanes over time.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Moderator trolling snipped. Do not do that again; next time I will simply delete your post.
82884. Norman at 11:54 AM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Albatross and Tom Curtis I started my questioning of the AGW claims because of my research into historical data and this historical data is why you would consider me in "denial". I am not interested in consensus view. History has also demonstrated that consensus views are often wrong. Truth does not depend upon the number of people who believe something to be true. Only evidence to support it is valid. How many consensus views in the Medical field have been overturned? Consensus views of "experts" in their field have been overturned and wrong.
82885. Norman at 11:47 AM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       54 Albatross I guess I am none of the characters you posted in your video at #28. Actually I am not trying to push a "red herring" argument with my line of posts above. It was a response to the Daniel Bailey video post #39. Also the historical data is why I am skeptical about the future predictions of the Climate Scientists. Maybe I appear to be a man sinking into the sea yet denying what is going on around me. I like to think of myself as a researcher. I will investigate any claims made to see if they hold up to scrutiny. I am involved in my own local project to monitor evidence of global warming in my local region. I put in daily temps, previous normal high and low temps, record high and low temps into an excel sheet and calculate daily anomalies and monthly deviations from normal.
82886. Tom Curtis at 11:33 AM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       Lloyd Flack @71 "denialist" may well be a term any reasonable person may take offence to, but that is not the term I used. It is also true that actual AGW deniers are also almost universally denialists as you have defined the term. That may give a certain insulting connotation to the term "denier" to those few deniers who do pursue the issue rationally, but the insult is in the association with their fellow travellers, not in the denotation of the word. If they liked the company they keep, there would be no insult. And certainly there are 'warmistas' (oh, don't you just love the subtle wit of your garden variety denier) for whom the connotation is very strong, but that does not change the denotation and that means deniers need not take insult except that they want to. I should note that the deniers invited the re-appellation by calling themselves "skeptics" who are not, as you claim, people with doubts that where arrived at by honest enquiry. In popular usage, a "skeptic" is one who doubts, without any claim about their reason for doubting. In the other common usage, a "skeptic" is one who employs doubt as a method of honest inquiry. The deniers rely on the fist definition for the legitimacy of the term but then play on the second meaning to suggest that they, and they alone apply legitimate skepticism to AGW. So, for a catch all name, I have a choice of using the term "denier" which associates, but does not accuse, deniers of using tactics they almost universally use; or I can use the term "skeptic", thereby suggesting climate scientists do not use the skeptical methodology they in fact use. Your definition does exactly that by conflating the two legitimate definitions. Employing it the deniers show exceptional hubris by defining themselves as having arrived at their opinion by honest enquiry, and beg the question as to how honest the inquiry was.
82887. actually thoughtful at 11:32 AM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       I think Eric the Red has a valid point (our memory is fuzzier the further back in time you go). Is there a study in the frequency of "natural" disasters? How about annual insurance losses (corrected for inflation and increased population density)? I think the data supports the larger point that most posters are trying to make, but the "what can you remember" approach is not particularly satisfying. I spent most of 1986 and 1987 out of civilization, so I don't remember any natural disasters in those years. But folks who lost loved ones to those disasters for sure do.
82888. Norman at 11:11 AM on 11 June 2011
       Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
       25 Tom Curtis In your last tornado graph, I have read that the increase in total number is a result of the advanced tools meteorologists have for locating tornado activity and several storm chasers to find them and confirm touchdowns.
       Response:

       [DB] "I have read"

       Norman, please be advised that when making a statement such as this intended to refute someone else's comment (which itself was based on sourced, linked data) you must be prepared to then back up your statement with a verifiable link to a reliable source.

82889. dhogaza at 11:06 AM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       "The way denialist is used here it is a term that a reasonable person should take offence at." This is a bit circular, though ... reasonable people aren't denialists :)
82890. Eric (skeptic) at 10:49 AM on 11 June 2011
       Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
       Tom, I would expect more tornadoes after adjusting for observation improvements. Those improvements cause most of the increase of your lower chart. The long term increase will be due to more convection and more CAPE (shown to be in a upward trend). I would not expect more strong tornadoes because of other needed ingredients: a strong jet stream for adequate storm motion and mid-level dry air for the strong downdraft (the updrafts are readily available of course). See http://www.mhartman-wx.com/fcst_tools/meso_tutorial.html for a simple explanation. The tornado season peaks well before the summer peak in heat because those other ingredients diminish in summer. The other ingredients with increase with global warming. Thus we would expect strong tornadoes earlier in the season when the jet stream is still in a more southerly position, primarily in the areas where dry air is available east of the Rockies. We would also expect strong tornadoes in northern locations where the jet stream stays stronger later in the season and dry air is still available from Canada. Weak tornadoes should increase under global warming especially earlier in the season.
82891. Lloyd Flack at 10:43 AM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       Tom Curtis @68, The way denialist is used here it is a term that a reasonable person should take offence at. As it is used here it is an accusation of a lack of intellectual integrity. It is used to describe someone who is looking for ways to continue their belief that we do not have to take action to mitigate climate change rather than honestly looking at the science to see whether there is a danger. This is contrasted with a sceptic, who has doubts that were arrived at by honest enquiry.
82892. P. Curtis at 10:41 AM on 11 June 2011
       Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
       I reckon that the second tshirt design would be better, speaking as a girl. It's awkward when people try to read the writing on your tshirt by staring at your chest. I'd much rather have the writing higher up.
82893. dhogaza at 10:34 AM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       

       One other point is the use of the "denier", conservative, etc. terms to denote those who have a opposite opinion. If one is sure of their position, one does not have to use that tone. What comes across is a "methinks thou protests too much" impression, and hence has to cover a weak position.

       Obviously J. Bob wasn't required to take a logic class in order to get his engineering degree. Logic fail.
82894. Tom Curtis at 10:15 AM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       J Bob @68, we call the deniers "deniers". They in turn, and before hand, accuse us of being "alarmist", "fraudulent", "conspiratorial", "dictatorial", "censorous", "traitorous", and "genocidal". From this you conclude that we protest to much to hide a week position? Frankly, "denier" is not even an insult. An AGW denier is simply a person who denies AGW. In this case, that deniers take umbrage at what is a simple descriptive term shows they have a raw nerve about the quality of their arguments.
82895. J. Bob at 09:54 AM on 11 June 2011
       Geologists and climate change denial
       scaddenp @ 51, I'm nor sure where you got your undergraduate degree, but the institute where I went, in the USA, there where a number of geology students in Advanced Calc., as well a sprinkling in Partial Dif. EQ. Our engineering group was also required to take a Geology course in Rheology, to expose us to "plastic" flow of materials So I would dispute you statement of a "low mathematical skill level". Now most engineer & science students may probably will not use all the tools they were taught, but at least they were exposed to a wide variety of tools, to think critically, and a significant number of lab hours, to show where theory and reality can collide. One other point is the use of the "denier", conservative, etc. terms to denote those who have a opposite opinion. If one is sure of their position, one does not have to use that tone. What comes across is a "methinks thou protests too much" impression, and hence has to cover a weak position.
       Response:

       [DB] Let's not make this personal.  I'm sure the vast majority of participants here all have significant college/university degrees.  Most of us have multiple degrees as well.  Whoopee.

       What matters is the quality and relevance of your comments and arguments.

82896. John Hartz at 09:48 AM on 11 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       @chris #71: Or scientists could use the term, "troposphere temperature sensitivity" rather than "climate sensitivity." One of the reasons why scientists have such a difficult time effectively communicating their findings to the average person is what I call "scientific shorthand-speak."
82897. Tom Curtis at 09:44 AM on 11 June 2011
       Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
       scaddenp @74, being fair to Shaviv and Veizer, they did publish a comment on Royer et al, 2004. In it they claim that Royer et al failed to take into account changes in ice volume in their calculations, and that doing so largely obviates the effect of pH in interpreting temperatures. Disappointingly, they do not publish a reconstruction based on their estimate of the effects of ice volume, and continue to use the older reconstruction without pH correction. To an abbreviated version of that comment, Royer et al reply, saying that their result has good geological confirmation, and that the ice volume effect is only relevant during glacial periods, when their pH correction is small.
82898. Tom Curtis at 09:08 AM on 11 June 2011
       There's no room for a climate of denial
       Eric the Red @52, my point was a response to Norman's comment @46. In it he suggested that past weather events are on topic on this thread because they may be the reason for peoples denial of global warming. Logically, however, if they only remember only one or two events from any give year in the past, that cannot be their reason for concluding that 2010/11 has not been unusual. (I did not choose 1954 as a sample year, by the way, Norman did. I have discussed the US tornado record here as it is of topic on this thread.
82899. Tom Curtis at 09:07 AM on 11 June 2011
       Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
       Responding to Eric the Red: In 1954 there were 550 tornadoes, and 36 tornado related fatalities. This compares with 1039 tornadoes to June 8th, 2011, with 525 fatalities. 1974 is a much better comparison year, but there have already been 94 more US tornadoes as of June 8th than in 1974, and 159 more fatalities. With just 75 EF3 plus tornadoes to June 8th, 2011 is unlikely, as you point out, to exceed the 121 (122?) F3 tornadoes in 1974, but the switch from the Fujita scale to the extended Fujita scale makes such comparisons tricky. None of that adresses the extraordinary quantity of tornadoes in April, with 675 confirmed tornadoes, significantly more than double the amount in April of 1974: It is also significantly more than the previous monthly record of 542 confirmed tornadoes in May, 2003: You will, of course, notice that there is a rising trend in April tornadoes, and a stronger trend in May. So, you guessed it, there is a strong rising trend in annual tornadoes as well:
82900. garethman at 09:05 AM on 11 June 2011
       Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
       dhgaza. Garethman - obviously you don't understand post #16 and the inline addendum by DB Garethman Apparently the reference is with regard to your charts you posted, not mine. It’s an accurate observation it must be said. What is the comment on my chart, or should we set this to one side as being beyond the Pale? Do you think the chart I posted is inaccurate in some way? I still think your chart shows the same thing, it’s scale that is the difference. Great info though, please keep up the supply. Cheers G
       Response:

       [DB] The point is, the focus (yours) on a short period of time in a noisy time series means...absolutely nothing.  Some Most would call that a cherry-pick.  The lack of any statistical analysis to support your "flattening" claim means you used the old Eyecrometer Mk 1.

       A professional time series analyst examining the issue would conclude that there is indeed a clear trend.  And it ain't flattening:

       

       [Source]

       Tamino has many other great pieces in just the last year.  Relevant ones to this discussion include this, this, this, this, this and this.

       Apologies for the information overload, but you're touching upon one of the most-studied areas in all of climate science.

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