Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 Next
Comments 85051 to 85100:
-
Esop at 01:17 AM on 26 May 2011Humlum is at it again
No surprises here. The Norwegian magazine that printed the article (Teknisk Ukeblad) is a denialist rag edited by a hardcore denier. Norway has become a hotspot for climate change denial, not surprising, since the country is a major exporter of oil and gas. A few cold Decembers have caused the public opinion to flip to anti science mode and the MSM is taking advantage by reprinting every denier lie known to man, no questions asked. The country sits at the Arctic circle, but December/January temperatures below freezing is now front page material almost every single day during the winter. Almost no mention of the warmest April on record, with folks going to the beaches and swimming in the ocean during the Easter Holiday up here at the latitude of Labrador. -
Albatross at 00:57 AM on 26 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
Eric @15, "Tornadoes are not caused so much by warming, but the metting of warm air and cold." It is much more complicated than that-- there are a number of factors at play here, including much above average ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico providing a source of super juicy low-level air to fuel the storms, drought in Texas and OK panhandle that may be affecting the location and strength of the dryline. The juxtaposition of the great plains low-level jet and the polar jet is also playing a role in enhancing low-level vertical wind shear critical for supercell thunderstorms that produce tornadoes. Dr. Jeff Masters has an excellent article on this issue. I recommend people read it. Ultimately it boils down to this: "In summary, this year’s incredibly violent tornado season is not part of a trend. It is either a fluke, the start of a new trend, or an early warning symptom that the climate is growing unstable and is transitioning to a new, higher energy state with the potential to create unprecedented weather and climate events. All are reasonable explanations, but we don’t have a long enough history of good tornado data to judge which is most likely to be correct." Masters also notes that there have been several billion dollar storms/events in the USA so far in 2011, with damages exceeding 20 billion dollars so far. -
Charlie A at 00:57 AM on 26 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Kevin C -- it does not appear that any of the usual posters here will discuss your questions. The ratio between short term sensitivity and the equilibrium sensitivity can be varied by changing various parameters in the model. Obviously, one extreme is the 1 box model. The graph below shows how a simple linear + 1 lag model can have the nearly identical 1880-2003 hindcast as GISS-E, but have equilibrium sensitivity be identical to transient sensitivity. An important thing to understand (and this relates back to this actual topic of this thread - going from a 55 year span of OHC to equilibrium sensitivity) is that the goodness of fit from 1800-2003 tells us very little about equilibrium sensitivity over the span of a 1000 years. Any transient sensitivity diagnosed by looking at upper ocean OHC over a period of 55 years could be consistent with almost any equilibrium sensitivity. If long term feedbacks are positive, then equilibrium sensitivity will be higher. If long term feedbacks are negative, then equilibrium sensitivity will be lower. This graph below is the response to a flattening of CO2 at current levels in a model that emulates GISS-E very closely from 1880-2003, but has no long term component.
Context and info on the above graph
I find Ross McKittrick's comments on Keynesian marginal propensity to consume (MPC) model and Friedman Permanent Income Hypothesis (PIH) model (the comment just above the graph) a rather interesting parallel to the current situation with GCMs.
-
Albatross at 00:41 AM on 26 May 2011The Climate Show Episode 13: James Hansen and The Critical Decade
This is going to be a good one! Now to find the time to watch it....Response: [JC] That's why God invented mp3 players - The Climate Show is ideal for driving or doing chores. I have to go out to UQ campus tomorrow so looking forward to listening to the whole TCS episode, esp the Hansen interview, in transit. -
Eric the Red at 00:06 AM on 26 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
Nice pun Rob, Tornadoes have not been modelled very well due largely to reporting issues. Previously, many tornadoes that occurred went unreported because no one saw them, or they did not cause any damage. The best long-term data comes from the so-called violent tornadoes; defined as being at least an F3 or F4 (depending on the researcher). Chagnon and Hewings have compiled some statistics lookign at violent tornadoes (among other things) and found a downward trend from 1950-1997, although the data has a large scatter. Tornadoes are not caused so much by warming, but the metting of warm air and cold. The abundance of cold air over the plains has probably been the biggest contributor to the storms this year. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/01/big-time-la-nina-tornado-and-spring-flood-season-possible/ https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DaveLegates03-d/Changnon03.pdf -
apiratelooksat50 at 00:06 AM on 26 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Sphaerica at 89 How dare you call me ignorant. That is a very arrogant assumption on your part because you and I do not exactly agree. Once again - my stance on this issue: 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming, which is necessary for life on Earth as we know it. 2. The burning of fossil fuels and land use practices by humans affects the amount of CO2 entering the atmospheres and oceans. 3. Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon. 4. However, humans are partially responsible for changes in the climate. 5. Climate change effects may range from benign to serious and there are some catastrophic predictions. That is what I teach. I also encourage my students to explore and research on their own before they come to any conclusions. I teach them how to think and how to research and to have open minds. You and I really aren't far apart on GCC. We differ on what we believe the effects will be and methods of mitigation. -
KR at 00:05 AM on 26 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
jonicol - Tamino's expressed area of interest and expertise on that blog is in time series analysis, not the underlying physics. In other words, does the data support or not support various hypotheses. For the physics the Science of Doom blog is good. In that realm, time series analysis, he's one of the best I've seen. -
Michael Searcy at 23:59 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
pkm, Obviously I disagree. I think there are many benefits to noting weather anomalies in the context of a climate discussion, as does NOAA apparently. Most of the weather event related details and statistics are drawn from their monthly "State of the Climate" summaries, which are also linked within the discussion in several places. And you'll notice, not by accident, that no climatic trend conclusions are drawn from these singular weather event or singular seasonal notations. That said, all weather events (yes, even cold ones) are influenced by changes to the encapsulating environment in which they occur. Those influences may be large or small, direct or indirect. But they are there, in the same manner that all bodily functions are impacted in varying degrees that change over time by a rising internal body temperature. Inclusion of the weather anomalies in these summaries serves several purposes:- It provides a context for other concurrent events
- It puts a relatable human perspective on impacts from severe weather events including fatalities, costs (direct and indirect), and disruptions to human processes (e.g., crop and livestock losses as a result of drought, shipping closures on the Mississippi as a result of flooding, etc.)
- It provides a compact historical record of anomalous weather events within the frame of a warming world.
-
Camburn at 23:44 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
DB: I meant the AMO: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data Note the trend since the middle of 2010.Response:[DB] I would suggest learning a little time-series analysis. Using the EyecrometerTM does not give you appropriate context. What about the first 5 months of 2009 then? The AMO is a 20-40 YEAR oscillation. On a monthly basis, much variability/noise is present. All you can look at is if the monthly number is positive or negative and then all you can infer from that is "Hmm, interesting." All else is cherry-picking.
-
adelady at 22:26 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
skyhunter Yup. They're called seasons. -
Tom Curtis at 22:07 PM on 25 May 2011UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
Sorry, of topic and all, but I have to do it: QUEENSLANDER QUEENSLANDER QUEENSLANDER!!!!Response: [JC] As a Queenslander, I'm going to allow it. -
SkyHunter at 21:43 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
adelady But weren't the buffalo herds movements effected by changing weather and climate patterns? -
Kevin C at 21:42 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
While we're at it, I have a load of questions about GCMs which maybe someone can answer. Most of my detailed knowledge of GCMs comes from Science Of Doom's articles, which I may in turn have misunderstood. Here goes: 1. I understand from SoD that all but a handful (no more than 5) processes in GCMs are implemented directly from the underlying physics (with the only issues being fineness of sampling). The remaining 5 or so cannot be modelled on an appropriate scale and so have to be handled with empirical models. Is that correct? Does anyone know what these processes are? Can the empirical models be determined by fine-scale modelling of smaller systems? 2. My impression from SoD is that the parameters for the empirically determined processes are determined by fitting by fitting a stable pre-industrial climate and the forced 20th century climate - but only by fitting global observations such as global mean temperature or precipitation. Is that correct? If so, it would presumably be correct to regard any local behaviour as a true prediction of the model, which gives an independent (if hard to enumerate) indication of the validity of the model. 3. The 2011 Hansen draft paper linked by Eric@2 (thanks, I wrote a précis of it yesterday here) suggests that the rate of deep ocean mixing is wrong in GCMs. Is the deep ocean mixing modelled from the physics, or empirically? If empirically, then the error is already explained - the incorrect aerosol forcing. If physically, then some explanation is required of why the physical model is producing aphysical results. Has any been suggested? Thanks in advance for any pointers on these questions! -
jonicol at 19:36 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Thanks Tom. I am having difficulty in accessing the paper by Ramanathan... which IE keeps telling me it cannot access even though th elink lleads to what looks like a sensible web address and when I go to Climate physics which also presents the Ramanathan... paper the same thing happens. Do you know of another source? Thanks. John NicolResponse:[DB] I found it through Ramanathan's website here:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf
If it takes too long to load IE may give you that message. Try another browser or a faster connection. Worked for me.
-
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 19:34 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
Good article. I'm interested to know whether you are going to cover methods for downscaling in future articles? Global temperature trends are good to know but they don't tell us an awful lot about impacts in specific areas. Prediction of future rainfall trends for example. These are helpful in determining planning needs for water resources and flood protection. Such models exist in the UK and can predict rainfall trends at a resolution of 5km2. Predictions from the UK Climate Projections are used extensively in future UK planning at both a national and regional levels. It is better to have an estimate with a degree of uncertainty than no estimate at all. That way at least you have some method for determining adaptation measures. -
Tom Curtis at 18:16 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
jonicol, while I highly recommend Science of Doom as being the best single website for explaining the physics of greenhouse, I think you would be better of reading the text books first. In fact, SOD has a list of text books that he recommends, which would be a good place to start. I also highly recommend Raymond Pierrehumbert's Principles of Planetary Climate, of which I had the good fortune to read a draft which (pre-publication) was available free on the net. If you want something easier to access, explanations by Chris Colose are note worthy for their clarity. -
jonicol at 17:30 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Adelady. As a physicist I would have to say that the site of correlation to hell does not appear to me to reflect an open mind. I'll pick this up again on the other site that Tony Curtis kindly directe me to. I find it a bit childish actually to resort to abusive type headings like "Mathturbation". Thermodynamics is important but it isn't the be-all and end-all behind climate science and, as you scaddenp will know, is sadly not well understood generally. Scaddenp: Thanks again. Yeah, people quote the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics when these are totally inapplicable in the situation in which they are used such as where convection, conduction and adiabatic effects underlie the processes which are being analysed according to these laws. And thanks for the links to those other articles. John Nicol -
adelady at 17:01 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
jarch Climate models ... Considerable confidence? About as much confidence as the rest of us have in our seasonal climate experience. Xmas Day for instance. Australians and others have visions of our Xmas Day spent playing cricket on the beach and Brits have similar idealised visions of a white Christmas. It's absolutely true that each is more likely in its own geographic area, but no sensible person does more than hope for those ideals. The Aussies might be stuck on a beach in a freezing wind. The Brits can look out over a miserable grey day with no sign of the picture postcard white blanket. These are perfectly natural variations within certain bounds. And climate models are much like our direct experience. Britons will never, ever have a calm, sunny 33C day for a Xmas lunch under a cloudless sky. Aussies will never, ever wake up on Xmas morning to a crisp white blanket of pristine snow over Sydney or Perth or Adelaide's suburban expanses. Climate models tell us what features are more likely in various places at various times. Most importantly, models, like our experience, tells us what is and is not surprising in particular places. -
Bern at 16:46 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
jarch: so you're saying that a complex, detailed climate model that predicts future climate trends that later observations closely match is not credible? I agree that we need a longer time period (30 years would be good, like the Hansen predictions I linked in my previous comment) to be really sure they're accurate, but if the best simulations of the climate agree closely with what actually happens over the following years, surely that's an indication that the simulations are at least a usefully good approximation of reality? In any event, did you actually look up the reference linked in that paragraph you quoted? It seems the agreement is pretty good, and the 'error' is much, much less than the range of natural year-to-year variability. The other point to consider, of course, is this: using our best understanding of all the factors that affect climate, scientists have constructed a model that closely matches what the earth's climate actually does. One of those factors (indeed, the dominant one lately) is the large & growing influence of human greenhouse gas emissions. Without greenhouse gases included, the model results are completely wrong. If you cannot demonstrate that the current understanding of natural climate forcings is completely wrong, then you have no valid argument. -
adelady at 16:44 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
RSVP "Plains Indians were nomadic..." because they followed the buffalo herds. But not all - others lived fairly settled lives with near-permanent villages and consistent agriculture. pkm - the News section is certainly weather rather than climate. But the Research roundup is a neat feature. -
pkm at 16:36 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
Although admittedly well-presented, this "Monthly Climate" initiative is definitely a step in the wrong direction. None of these events can ever be directly related to climate change. The whole term "Monthly Climate" is a ridiculous contradictio in terminis. This forced attempt to relate a cold winter or a longer-than-normal tornado season to climate change ultimately undermines the credibility of climate scientists: the same scientists who, rightly so, warn against the denialist practice of computing climate trends shorter than 10 years. Let us climate scientists continue to focus and work hard on extending data series and do smart long-term analysis rather than be drawn into this hysterical propaganda. Skeptical Science, please stop re-posting this. -
jarch at 16:18 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
"Climate models have successfully forecast key climate features. For example, model projections of sea level rise and temperature produced in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR - 2001) for 1990 – 2006 show good agreement with subsequent observations over that period." As far as I can see, the "good agreement" is only within a large natural variability , implying large error bars, meaning that they are only loosely constrained. What is the meaning thus of : "There is considerable confidence that AOGCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales" ? where does this "considerable confidence" come from ? what "credible quantitative estimates" can be done ? it seems that they are "credible" only because the large error bars make "credible" that reality will sure lie somewhere inside ! for me a "good" model must reduce very significantly the uncertainty with respect to very crude estimates, for instance simple extrapolations of the past (which don't need any "model" actually). Only this can allow "non trivial" predictions. I don't see yet where AOGCM have had better performances than these simple crude estimates. -
RSVP at 16:15 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
The fact that the Plains Indians were nomadic might suggest historic climate instability in this part of the world. -
scaddenp at 15:51 PM on 25 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Ross, this thread is about whether his model was correct. For discussion of oceans, look at Oceans are cooling, especially the recent discussion concerning Von Schuckmann & La Traon 0-2000 OHC over past 5 years, and then implications of this in Hansen 2011. Links to both on that thread. -
Ross Handsaker at 15:24 PM on 25 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
I would have thought the important issue about Spencer's article is not whether his computer model is correct but rather his observation of the vertical temperature profile of the ocean, the negligible warming at depth of 700 metres, and its implications for locating a missing heat sink in the oceans. -
scaddenp at 14:59 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Yeah, "models" that violate thermodynamics to start with. I do like the term "mathturbation". -
adelady at 14:48 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
jonicol@45 '...cyclical phenomena influence the climate...' You may save yourself a bit of work (and maybe a bit of later heartache) if you do a bit of checking on "cycles" first. I just did this search over at Open Mind for a list of articles on cycles. And you might also want to avoid the correlation-and-to-hell-with-causation principle trap. -
adelady at 14:39 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
jonicol "...to ask if you could let me have a list of the articles on the interactions of atmospheric carbon dioxide which you or others consider most important in leading the argument ..." If you want an overview of the radiative physics of CO2, a good place to start would be Science of Doom , this is part 3 of a 12 part series. Anything you need that's not here you can find in one of the other parts. -
scaddenp at 14:20 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
See post in suggested tread, but you ask what is basis used for actual climate science? SoD recommends these text books: Engineering Calculations in Radiative Heat Transfer, by Gray and Müller (1974) Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, by Robert Siegel and John R. Howell. Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, Goody & Yung The theoretical work in core of radiative models is based as far as I know on Ramanathan and Coakley. -
Bern at 14:16 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
scaddenp: I don't know, I think I can make a fairly good prediction for the next few months. Right around here, it's going to get steadily cooler for about two months, then it's going to gradually stop cooling, and start warming up again. I rather suspect those living in the northern hemisphere (like our friend GC) will see the weather get a bit warmer over the next few months, then gradually start to cool. How do I know this? Because I have a model in my head about how the seasons work, based on a lot of personal experience, along with education about historical records that go back a very long time, and an understanding of the very large natural forcing factors that influence (regional) temperature on month-to-year timescales. Is that an accurate model? To some extent. Is it useful? Certainly! Even more so if you combine it with similar regional models of precipitation & sunshine. Farmers rely on such models every year when they plant their crops. Folks very much closer to the poles than I or GC might use it to tell them when to stock up on firewood, or check the furnace works, or similar such actions. I can't tell you what the temperature is going to be next Monday, though - you need a very different, far more sophisticated model for that. The weather bureau just happens to have one, though, and they're telling me it's going to be about the same max temperature as today, but with some showers around. Again, a useful model, with pretty good accuracy in the short term, and increasing uncertainty the further out you go. Kind of like the climate models, although on a different scale both temporally and spatially. gallopingcamel, have you read this post about Hansen's 1981 predictions? Looking at the 30 years of global temperature data prior to 1980, would you have made the same predictions that Hansen did back in 1980? I know I wouldn't have, without a lot of persuasion. Turns out his climate model was pretty much on the money, though. It's been more-or-less right for 30 years now, despite being orders of magnitude simpler than current climate models, and despite there being so much more discovered about how the climate works. So it's a useful model, certainly. (And the natural variability evident in the measured temperatures in that graph should educate you as to why asking for accurate predictions over any period less than 10-15 years is a fool's game) -
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 25 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
jonicol - instead making a post with your theories, perhaps you are better to put up your paper on arXiv.org in publication format so world can look at it. Post link here. Frankly any amount of non-physical rubbish has been published about influence of cycles etc. Let see the radiative physics first so we can see if there is a real physical basis first. -
scaddenp at 13:45 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
GC - he is predicting temperature trends - which in climate is 30 year basis. You might have noticed that models do that job well. -
jonicol at 13:44 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Tom Curtis. Thank you for pointing out to me this alternative thread which I will use in future, and soon. My last comment here would be to ask if you could let me have a list of the articles on the interactions of atmospheric carbon dioxide which you or others consider most important in leading the argument for considering the existence of a serious imbalance in an earlier state of thermal equilibrium and thus lead to climate change. If the bodies I referred to earlier are simply fobbing me off as you suggest may be the case, I would be grateful if you could help me in getting my request through to them for a sensible use in comparing their analysis with my own and those of other scientists who are questioning the role of carbon dioxide as indicated by the IPCC. -
jonicol at 13:34 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Scaddenp at 8:04 25/4. Thank you for your invitation to show you the "workings". I had earlier indicated here a much longer contribution with some scientific arguments, but it was, probably correctly, snipped fro being off topic. I am in the process of preparing both a general statement to explain the broad range of evidence which shows how other cyclical phenomena influence the climate from the regularly occuring ice ages to extremely warm holocenes in the past, the present and the future. I am also completing a paper for submission for publication. I will value your criticisms and perhaps we could establish an exchange forum where such in depth scientific debate could be used to exchange worthwhile ideas from both sides with criticisms focussed solely on the scientific arguments. If you are interested, pleasse let me know. I will also be putting material, very soon I hope, onto the thread suggested by Tom Curtis "the saturation of the Green house effect". In any case, I would value your help in trying to understand the fundamental case of carbon dioxides action in the atmosphere in terms of the modern physical analysis which must be available somewhere but which I have been unable to find or to be provided by people from the several Climate Science Units I have contacted over the last four or five years. I will look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. -
Mike Palin at 13:33 PM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
VOA @ 23- Hmm, you sure about funding of primary and secondary education from the state level? Might want to check those numbers again. It varies from state to state, but on average state governments put in 46%, local school districts another 37% and the difference comes from federal and private sources (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html). As a result, the resources available to local school districts can vary substantially even within a given city or county. -
Rob Painting at 13:26 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
Phil Scadden - I'm drafting up a post on tornadoes & severe thunderstorms. The gist I get from many climate blogs, is that very few commenters have actually looked at the peer-reviewed literature. Modelling definitely indicates an increase in severe thunderstorm frequency. But as for tornadoes, which are spawned from severe thunderstorms, that's still very much up in the air (pun intentional). -
gallopingcamel at 13:23 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
Kevin C, I used to hang out here frequently but the discussions are becoming less and less realistic. In your comment (#1 on this thread) you imply that future temperature trends can be predicted. If you can do this, please share your predictions. Can you predict temperature trends for the next few months? How about the next few years or the next few decades? Please submit your response in a graphical or spreadsheet format. -
scaddenp at 13:11 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
Also, I rather feel that there is a tendency to rush in and attribute these events to global warming because these are attention-grabbing, especially compared to the real effects where are slow and insidious, because there is a hope that maybe this will jolt people out of complacency and into action. However, there is also a large risk of losing credibility when going in ahead of the real science. Leave the exaggerations to the anti-science bunch. Activists of all persuasions somehow cant resist hyperbole and in doing so lose their credibility. -
scaddenp at 13:04 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
I would cautious about attributing any of this to global warming yet. Certain types of extreme weather are predicted by global warming but I thought the jury was still well and truly out on tornados and even tropical storms. What I dont see on that chart is much of a trend and its trends that would make me think that global warming is a factor. -
VOA at 12:39 PM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
ROBH @ 8 I don't even know where to start with your post. You "heard on Australian Public radio" about the status of the poor in America and now you are an expert!?!? Public education is funded on the state level, not by local authorities. Deficiencies in education typically result from rural areas where a majority of families do not place a value on education. And, are you implying that religion a bad thing? America's education system is not poor. My wife teaches in a rural community and I can assure you that everyone has heard of global warming and certainly know what CO2 is. Now if you want an essay on how many CARE about global warming, then you might have a story. -
Rob Painting at 12:35 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
Now I know that the tornado outbreaks are the consequence of natural influences and global warming, but they sure are off the charts!.
Be interesting to see how they measure up in the May 2011 round-up, given they are still hammering the US as I write.
-
Camburn at 10:56 AM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
And the PNW and the Upper Central Great Plains continue to be colddddddddddddddd. When that cold air hits warmer air.....watch out! WE need to get that pesky Greenland high to move. The AMO is making a switch it seems....and holding that high shoveling cold air south.Response:[DB] "The AMO is making a switch it seems"
Perhaps you mean the AO? The AMO is a 20-40 year oscillation; we have been in a warm phase since the mid-90s:
[Source]
The AO has been positive for several months now:
[Source]
It would reflect better on you to cite a source when venturing opinions on a science blog.
-
David Horton at 10:41 AM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
I have had a go at how we talk about extreme weather here http://davidhortonsblog.com/2011/05/25/dont-mention-the-weather/. The statistics in the report above are staggering - "The 30-year-average for April tornadoes nationwide is 135. The monthly record was 542. The preliminary number of tornadoes reported in April 2011 is 875."Response:[DB] Hot-linked URL.
-
RW1 at 09:29 AM on 25 May 2011UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
John, Can I come to rebut what you say? :)Response: [JC] Yes, but you have to wait patiently till the question part of the talk (and if I see you in the audience with a notebook of tricky questions, I'll make sure my talk goes overtime :-) -
Tom Curtis at 08:57 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Mike Palin may have a point, not because Journalists no longer have a valuable role to play, but because they are no longer willing to play their role. So long as the primary role of a journalist is seen as selling copy, rather than informing, they are an impediment to public understanding of any issue, not just global warming. -
John Hartz at 08:51 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
How the new online media landscape is changing the way the public gets its news is also another dimension about how climate science is communicated. This issue is thoroughly explored in the in-depth article, "Online media is replacing newspapers and TV. Is that a bad thing?" posted (May 13) on the Christian Science Monitor website. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0513/Online-media-is-replacing-newspapers-and-TV.-Is-that-a-bad-thingResponse:[DB] Hot-linked URL.
-
Mike Palin at 08:36 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Chris G @ 17- Perhaps, but is a science journalist going to solve this problem? Among other things, my colleagues and I teach geology to first year university students. Earth science is not taught in high schools, yet we do just fine. pbjamm @ 19- I have studied & worked at 8 colleges and universities and can assure you that they are home to many excellent communicators (as well as many not so gifted). I have also been interviewed by journalists - none have impressed me with their communication skills either during the interview or in the final product. I am confident there are many more excellent communicator scientists than there are science journalists. My basic point is that journalism in the traditional sense is dying as access to and distribution of information is changing. The time is right for scientists (and their professional associations) to take the opportunities this affords. Not all their efforts will succeed, but the best will make the old ways look lame. -
pbjamm at 08:06 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Mike Palin@16 Having worked at a university I can assure you that good communication skills are not a requirement for faculty positions. Someone with a good grasp of the science and the skill to make complex topics understandable and engaging is an invaluable asset. The world needs more Don Herberts. Prof Farnsworth: "Please, Fry! I don't know how to teach. I'm a professor!" -
scaddenp at 08:04 AM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
jonicol - if you wish us to accept that you have a better answer than the textbooks, with experimental evidence to back it, then I think it is time to show us your workings and your data. Such a landmark result, if true, should surely be published. -
Chris G at 07:59 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Mike, In a world where everyone understood basic physics, chemistry, statistics, etc., that would work. But, there is such a huge gulf between what the average person can understand and what seems trivial to someone who has spent a life as a researcher, that your suggestion simply won't work. Take the "AGW violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" meme; the average person has no idea what the 2nd law is, and some that do know what it is misunderstand it in a way that is almost beyond comprehension for someone at the researcher level of understanding. You can't expect researchers to cover the material from Stefan-Boltzmann to PV=nRT, etc., in every article they write. The information is out there and available, but you can only lead a horse to water, and sometimes they are unwilling to go that far.
Prev 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 Next
