Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 Next
Comments 83001 to 83050:
-
Eric the Red at 12:33 PM on 11 June 2011Extreme 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. -
Norman at 12:24 PM on 11 June 2011Extreme 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. -
Norman at 12:06 PM on 11 June 2011There'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. -
Norman at 11:54 AM on 11 June 2011There'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. -
Norman at 11:47 AM on 11 June 2011There'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. -
Tom Curtis at 11:33 AM on 11 June 2011Geologists 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. -
actually thoughtful at 11:32 AM on 11 June 2011There'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. -
Norman at 11:11 AM on 11 June 2011Extreme 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.
-
dhogaza at 11:06 AM on 11 June 2011Geologists 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 :) -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:49 AM on 11 June 2011Extreme 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. -
Lloyd Flack at 10:43 AM on 11 June 2011Geologists 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. -
P. Curtis at 10:41 AM on 11 June 2011Climate 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. -
dhogaza at 10:34 AM on 11 June 2011Geologists 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. -
Tom Curtis at 10:15 AM on 11 June 2011Geologists 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. -
J. Bob at 09:54 AM on 11 June 2011Geologists 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.
-
John Hartz at 09:48 AM on 11 June 2011Christy 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." -
Tom Curtis at 09:44 AM on 11 June 2011Christy 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. -
Tom Curtis at 09:08 AM on 11 June 2011There'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. -
Tom Curtis at 09:07 AM on 11 June 2011Extreme 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:
-
garethman at 09:05 AM on 11 June 2011Impacts 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 GResponse:[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.
-
garethman at 08:48 AM on 11 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
Cheers DB, got it. -
scaddenp at 08:43 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Eric, until a new paper with new data and/or methods can show an improvement on Royer, I dont see how its possible to stick with Veizer interpretation. Reality is not a matter of opinion. If Veizer thinks Royer wrong, then there has been ample time for a response. A conversation, interpreted and reported by a well-known denier, is hardly evidence. -
michael sweet at 08:26 AM on 11 June 2011Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
John, I have seen reefs that have degraded and slime is the correct discription. It is usually blue green algae or red slime algae. Sometimes it is hair algae, which is also slimy. If you have citations that the replacement algae is seeweed and not slime you need to present them, not assert without any evidence that seeweed is the replacement algae. Suggesting that "a few misguided coral reef scientists subjectively refer to "slime" on reefs," without citations is not a scientific argument, it is unsupported opinion. -
Tom Curtis at 08:10 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Eric the Red @59 & 62: First, your second paper is Shaviz and Veizer, 2003. It still pre-dates Royer et al, 2004; and is refuted by it. Second, below is the crucial image from Came et al, 2007, of which Veizer was one of the co-authors. It compares the two temperature records from that paper with to previous reconstructions of Phanerozoic temperatures, that by Veizer et al, 2000 (light grey) and that by by the GEOCARBIII model (as shown in the second image in my 51). Also shown along the bottom is Scotese's division of the global climate into warm and cool periods. I have added a green line for easy alignment.
It is very clear from this that Came et al, 2007 tends to confirm Royer et al's conclusions, and to disconfirm those of Veizer et al, 2000, and Shaviz and Veizer, 2003.
Having said that, Came et al examine samples from just one location and one formation from the Silurian. The GEOCARBIII model has a resolution of 10 million year, and as the recent record of glacials and interglacials shows, temperatures can fluctuate a lot in such a short period. Therefore Came et al is neither a definitive confirmation of Royer et al, nor a definitive refutation of Veizer et al. Came et al in fact take refuge in that fact to say,
"Our re-interpretation of the d18O values of Silurian and Pennsylvanian carbonate fossils also may apply to other parts of the Palaeozoic. However, there remain several marked discrepancies between climate reconstructions using the GEOCARB model versus those implied by the Scotese geological record and the Veizer et al. oxygen isotope record (which generally agree with each other, at least in timing of climate variations), and it is difficult to imagine that all time periods will be resolved in the same way as those examined in this study."
So, Veizer does not think that Royer is right; but subsequent evidence which he has contributed has tended to confirm Royer's conclusions and disconfirm Veizer's. Disappointingly, Came et al do not discuss ocean pH even once. Considering the nature of Royer et al's critique of Veizer et al, that is a glaring oversight. -
chris at 07:10 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
whoops...in my second paragraph I should say: "..and so a significant change in temperature is expected to lead to a change in climate" -
skywatcher at 07:09 AM on 11 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
#6 Your estimate may be too high, depending on both the proportion of methan e to CO2 in the carbon released, and also the shorter lifetime of methane in the atmosphere - ~12 years as opposed to hundreds of years for CO2. But I don't know the physics enough to be sure. The basic idea of extra greenhouse gases being released due to warming of the Arctic does not make happy reading however you slice it though. -
chris at 07:07 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Badgersouth at 06:22 AM on 11 June, 2011 Yes, OK; I think we have to recognise that words are shorthands for things, and that we sometimes need some informed knowledge about the meaning of a particular word or phrase in a specific context. That's a fundamental element of language - it would be cumbersome to communicate with each other if we didn't have shorthands to encapsulate more complex concepts! So yes "climate sensitivity " is a shorthand for something like "equilibrium response of the globally averaged near Earth surface temperature to a forcing equivalent to a doubling of atmospheric [CO2]". It doesn't really refer specifically to "climate" at all! However climate (which is a local property as you point out) is intimately related to the Earth's globally averaged surface temperature, and so a significant change in temperature is expected to lead to a change in temperature. So there is a connection. Obviously "climate" isn't amenable to definition with a single quantitative metric, as temperature is. So in order to usefully interpret "climate sensitivity" we need some information on the manner in which excess energy in the climate system in response to a forcing is spatially-distributed, and its consequences (on the hydrological cycles, weather systems, land ice and plant responses etc.), to assess the likely true climate responses to a change in globally averaged temperature... -
Albatross at 06:43 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Eric @62, "Many people have told me that I am "in denial" recently to entertain the thought that climate sensitivity could be closer to 2 than 3." That would be completely at odds with what Christy and Lindzen believe. Also, keep in mind that on our current path we are easily going to double CO2 levels, and may quite easily treble them. So we are very likely looking at well over 2 C warming in an incredibly short time in geological terms, and that at a time when we will likely have over 10 billion mouths to feed. -
John Hartz at 06:33 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
I suggest that every article in the Christy Crock series have a tab listing the titles of the other articles in the series with a link to each embedded in the title. -
John Hartz at 06:26 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
If Dr. James Hansen were not concerned about the negative consequences of climate change in the 21st century, he would not have written "Storms of My Grandchildren." -
John Hartz at 06:22 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
@Chris #65: Those are all good points and thank you for posting them. My frustration really stems from what I perceive to be an inconsistent use of the term "climate" among scientists. In the above discussion, the term really means "the temperature of the lower atmosphere as measured by a single metric." (Even that single metric masks all kinds of significant spatial and temporal variations within the lower atmospher during the course of a year.) If the basic definition of the Earth's "climate system" includes the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cyrosphere, etc., the word "climate" should not then be used to define one subcomponent of that system. -
dhogaza at 06:16 AM on 11 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
Garethman - obviously you don't understand post #16 and the inline addendum by DB. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:13 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Eric, Forgive me, but your position seems to be based entirely on a convenient form of cherry pick, but instead of cherry picking the data, you're cherry picking the one paper you want to use on which to base the all of the weight of your opinion. There are various and sundry studies, almost all pointing to high(er) climate sensitivity. You have picked one study, from 10 years ago, which is contradicted by a number of other studies, as well as the author himself, and you choose to put huge emphasis and weight on that one paper, to the point of declaring that "I disagree that the sensitivity has never been less than 2.5 or been as high as 5." Your defense of the paper comes from a blog post by someone who claims to have spoken to the author of the original and contravening studies, with hints of partisan politics pressuring him into "compromising" on the studies wording and conclusions. Is this really the skeptical approach to the science? -
chris at 05:58 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Badgersouth at 05:20 AM on 11 June, 2011 There are (at least) three reasons why the Earth surface temperature is a useful and important metric. 1. Averaged over several years [i.e. averaging the effects of seasonal variation and short term ocean surface variability (El Nino/La Nina)] the Earth's surface temperature seems to remain relatively steady in the absence of external forcing. So the averaged Earth surface temperature seems to be a decent metric for the amount of energy in the climate system, despite the various energy fluxes through the system. And so the change in the Earth surface temperature is a good metric for the change in the energy in the climate system in response to a forcing (e.g. from enhanced greenhouse forcing in response to a change in [CO2] or changes in solar output). 2. From a terrestrial perspective the Earth surface is the location of the biosphere, and that's of fundamental interest to us. The Earth surface temperature is probably the most important metric for assessing potential effects of forcings on the biosphere. 3. Partly due to 2 [the response of elements of the geosphere and biosphere to temperature changes (plant leaf stomatal responses; isotopic composition of shells, wood and ice; the spectrum of species that thrive at a particular temperature, and so on), temperature changes leave a variety of signatures in the paleo-record that allow localized surface temperatures to be reconstructed. So this metric provides a means of assessing the relationship between changes in paleo[CO2] (which also leaves a variety of signatures in the paleo-record) and temperature (aka climate sensitivity), which informs us of contemporary and future temperature changes in response to massively enhancing the Earth's greenhouse effect... -
Albatross at 05:50 AM on 11 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Eric and Norman, Which characters are you in the video that I posted @28? Extreme weather events (e.g., droughts, heavy rainfall, heat waves) are on the increase, that much is objectively and quantitatively described in the reputable scientific literature. And events in the past 12 months or so are consistent with the the long-term trends documented in the literature. Anyway, thanks for continuing to provide such an excellent example of denial at work. You will disagree I'm sure, but your failure to recognize the err of your arguments and only further enforces the OP's point. Norman, "Albatross, this thread is asking why so many doubt AGW's dire predictions" Your opinion is not shared by those in the know an by climate scientists. If anything it is shared by misguided, or misinformed or conspiracy theorists. Also, you are arguing a strawman, the OP says: "However, refusing to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence is not scepticism but denial." and this "Paradoxically, as scientific evidence for human-caused climate change pours in, interest and belief in climate change within the public is on the decline." That is essentially what the OP is about, not the red herring what you are trying to push above. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:28 AM on 11 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Eric the Red wrote: "Maybe, but how many natural disasters can you name from 1998?" hardly any Eric, I think you will find that is very much the point Tom was making. -
John Hartz at 05:20 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Perhaps these are "dumb" questions, but nontheless... Because the enhanced greenhouse effect is all about the transfer of heat both within and between the various components of the Earth's climate system, why is only one metric, i.e., annual average mean global temperature of the troposphere" being used to define "Climate Sensitivity"? Doesn't this single metric mask all kinds of other things that are happening within and between the other components of the climate system? -
chris at 05:19 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Eric the Red at 04:36 AM on 11 June, 2011 Really Eric? Veizer publishes a paper in Nature with a reinterpretation of his original sea surface temperature data, that negates the possibility that the tentative Shaviv/Veizer hypothesis could be correct when considered through the Paleozoic period...... ....and now we're supposed to believe what someone says on a blog about a conversation he had with Veizer that the latter doesn't actually believe the stuff he published in the Nature paper. No thanks Eric...I'm sticking to the science. Science is about evidence and the evidence simply doesn't support the tentative hypothesis of Veizer and Shaviv. Veizer's own data pretty much scuppers it. "do not be swayed by misinformation". Brilliant Eric! In your eyes Veizer's own work constitutes both the information and the misinformation on this topic. Truly anything and everything can be twisted into a misrepresenters "argument"! -
garethman at 05:19 AM on 11 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
Albatross A new study out documenting the loss of snow pack in the northern Rockies......... Over the past millennium, late-20th-century snowpack reductions are almost unprecedented in magnitude across the northern Rocky Mountains, and in their north-south synchrony across the cordillera. Both the snowpack declines and their synchrony result from unparalleled springtime warming due to positive reinforcement of the anthropogenic warming by decadal variability. Garethman Thanks for that, looks interesting, unfortunately it is behind a paywall so I could not look at the article. If you have read it I would be interested in the tree rings. Were these aged in terms of Millennia in being used to compare with contemporary tree rings, in other words, were these trees a thousand years old? or were the current tree rings compared to snowfall data from other sources?Response:[DB] Try here.
Poking under rocks sometimes yields useful results. ;)
-
garethman at 05:12 AM on 11 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
Hi Dhogaza, I think your more detailed chart shows essentially the same thing? You are correct in that the loss of sea ice has remained constant, but logically, if it has stabilised at a lower level that goes without saying? Though as I have previously mentioned I strongly suspect the reduction will again start in the near future. I happy to be proved wrong by the way! I’m not sure what the “nice try" refers to? Rugby perhaps? Are we in a competition? I also personally don’t think these charts are “lame”, they are all useful. Some focus in some areas, some in others. But to get the overall picture it’s important to look at as many as possible and not ignore those you don’t like, which is why I appreciate seeing yours or any other useful indicators you may be so kind as to direct me to. -
Eric the Red at 04:56 AM on 11 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Fair enough. However, one year does not a trend make. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg Yes, this year has been unusual. As of Jun 1, we have witnessed 75 violent tornadoes (EF3 or greater), that is the third highest since 1950. With the rest of the summer remaining, we will very likely pass 1965 inot the number 2 spot, but may not break 1974's total. Was 1974 an unusual year? Apparently, we witnessed a similar La Nina occurance that year. If we finish near or above 1974, I would still say it has been an unusual year, but not rare. It has also been very cold and snowy winter, but does that mean we are headed for colder temperatures in the future? -
garethman at 04:46 AM on 11 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Chill out folks! I’m not casting doubt on climate change, though for some reason this is continually read into my posts. I am interested in the human reactions to the science, the depth and breadth of emotion. It’s a painful subject for some, but fascinating all the same. Incidentally anyone who does not believe young people have more radical ideas than older people and say things they later takes a differing view on are probably in denial with regard to human behaviour and should probably go and visit a University campus to see such dynamics in action. http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/ The same with climate camp. I have camped in the same field with these guys for weeks at a time. They are enthusiastic and radical, but objective? maybe not, but it’s reassuring to see young people still have heart and are motivated to try and change the world for the better. They will be at Glastonbury again this year, if you are lucky enough to get a ticket, go and visit them, I’m sure they would rustle up a cup of tea and inspire you. What I do wonder judging by reactions to my posts is whether a lot of the odd anger expressed at posters who give contrary views or those who question evidence is misdirected. A common feature of human behaviour is that people will express anger at a subject unrelated to the cause of their anger, because it is unacceptable to express anger at the real thing. I see Right wing individuals railing at everything from immigration to climate change, when on an individual basis they are probably upset at their lack of success in life, or their family dynamics. Whenever you see an "over the top” reaction to an innocuous situation or post you can be fairly sure that it is anger expressed in an inappropriate direction. I think it’s also a mistake to call belief in science “blind faith” I have not seen any sign on this site that supports such an idea, or indeed that evidence is suppressed, and lets face it, the evidence for a warming climate is pretty conclusive. So it’s not blind faith, it’s not a religion, but our beliefs in the science and what we do about is are very much coloured by who we are. Perhaps the profession of forensic mental health are another group who are just an awkward bunch when it comes to climate change? -
Eric the Red at 04:36 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
For those who think that Veizer has changed his position, you might want to read this: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/09/new-nature-paper-jan-veizer-contradicts-his-own-results/ More recent statements by Veizer seems to show that he is standing by his original conclusions, and the merits of his original paper. Do not be swayed by misinformation. Actually, I do not see where I have been shown to be wrong, although I am open-minded enough to look back. Many people have told me that I am "in denial" recently to entertain the thought that climate sensitivity could be closer to 2 than 3. That number is not unreasonable, and does not contradict the science. It does not fall beyond any reported likely range, and in some cases is the most likely value. I have seen people applaud those who state that the climate sensitivity is 6 or above, yet that is above most likely ranges. -
dhogaza at 04:22 AM on 11 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
"Maybe, but how many natural disasters can you name from 1998? That is only 13 years ago, and occurrances do not come to my mind rapidly. Yes, I can remember the earthquakes from the past few years, the tsunami in Indonesia, and hurricane Katrina. However, before that, everything becomes a little bit fuzzier." Then one has to do actual research before dismissing this year as being not unusual, and to dismiss it in such a way *without* doing such research is simply denialism. Especially when scientists are telling us that this was by far the most extreme tornado April in history, that we're seeing 100 year floods, etc etc etc. There have been a large number of extremely rare events in the last year, and basic probability theory tells us that the combination of a large number of low-probability events has a far lower probability. So unless you can point to evidence that these events aren't actually rare (Joplin isn't the point, it's the incredible level of tornado activity of which Joplin and Tuscaloosa were part of that's the point, so "one tornado in 1954" is not a relevant comparison), I at least will run with the fact that the combination of low-probability events we're seeing is extraordinarily improbable, and very possibly unique in recorded history. -
Eric the Red at 04:16 AM on 11 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Dikran, Maybe, but how many natural disasters can you name from 1998? That is only 13 years ago, and occurrances do not come to my mind rapidly. Yes, I can remember the earthquakes from the past few years, the tsunami in Indonesia, and hurricane Katrina. However, before that, everything becomes a little bit fuzzier. I can remember the names of major hurricanes and areas that were hit by floods, earthquakes, and other disasters, but I cannot tell you when they occurred. In fact, had he picked any other year in the decade of the 50s, I probably could not identify a particular disaster. The "top of your head" only works well for recent memory, or for those events that yield a lasting impression on an individual (I am sure all the residents of New Orleans will remember the year that Katrina hit, long past the time that the rest of us forget). Off the top of your head, name a disaster from 2007. -
dhogaza at 03:40 AM on 11 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
"Touble is, garethman, we're a wee bit short on evidence that casts any significant doubt " Obviously, that's because "Any contrary evidence should be suppressed" (snort). This is blind faith at its worst ... there must be contrary evidence and since we're not seeing it, obviously it's suppressed. The possibility that there's no contrary evidence is not a possibility. -
Albatross at 03:36 AM on 11 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
A new study out documenting the loss of snow pack in the northern Rockies by Pederson et al. (2011): "In western North America, snowpack has declined in recent decades, and further losses are projected through the 21st century. Here, we evaluate the uniqueness of recent declines using snowpack reconstructions from 66 tree-ring chronologies in key runoff-generating areas of the Colorado, Columbia, and Missouri River drainages. Over the past millennium, late-20th-century snowpack reductions are almost unprecedented in magnitude across the northern Rocky Mountains, and in their north-south synchrony across the cordillera. Both the snowpack declines and their synchrony result from unparalleled springtime warming due to positive reinforcement of the anthropogenic warming by decadal variability. The increasing role of warming on large-scale snowpack variability and trends foreshadows fundamental impacts on streamflow and water supplies across the western United States." More here. -
skywatcher at 03:25 AM on 11 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
Touble is, garethman, we're a wee bit short on evidence that casts any significant doubt on the prevailing theory of climate. In fact most evidence emerging tends to paint a picture of effects happening more rapidly than previously thought (e.g. Arctic ice melt). I'm rapidly getting to a certain age, and I enjoy a good steak, but I see the scientific rationale behind cutting carbon emissions a.s.a.p. very clearly indeed. There is no (sensible) two sides to the science - if there are sides, it's either that climate disruption, already arriving at a doorstep near you, is bad or it's very bad, take your pick... -
Albatross at 03:17 AM on 11 June 2011Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
Eric_red, To be clear. Do you a) Support Christy's blatant misinformation and attempts to mislead, b) Do you recognize that his arguments are self-contradictory, c) Do you agree that his claims highlighted in the body post are not supported by the overwhelming body of scientific research and evidence?, d) Do you understand that the "we" he refers to actually means a few individuals? It blows my mind that people doggedly and uncritically defend Christy's lamentable actions, and choose to try and fabricate debate and doubt. You have been shown to be wrong numerous time son this thread...yet steadfastly refuse to change your position in the view of the evidence presented to you. In contrast, scientists like Veizer are open-minded enough to change their position in light of new evidence-- as they should. Give it up already...or are you in denial like Christy? -
JMurphy at 03:02 AM on 11 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
garethman wrote : "It has been my observation of young people in Climate camp etc, that they are much more radical in their beliefs, in fact to the extent that they occasionally do not believe evidence should ever be used to prove or cast doubt on Climate change, we should just believe. Any contrary evidence should be suppressed, cars should be banned and veganism imposed by law. You get the picture" Picture ? More like a fantasy story created to try to claim that there is a hidden and evil left-wing Stalinist/Leninist/whateverotherLeftist conspiracy comprising tyrannical lefties (did I mention the Lefties ?) who want to drag us all back to caves, where we can eat grass and dirt on pain of death. Get a grip.
Prev 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 Next
