Recent Comments

Prev  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  Next

Comments 96101 to 96150:

96101. rhjames at 09:05 AM on 12 February 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       Interesting, but I find there are two many data gaps for this combined gap to be statistically valid. But what does it really achieve? No-one is really questioning that we have been in a warming phase - it's the cuase that's questioned. I couldn't, in all conscience, use this graph because I believe the methodology isn't valid. Why would I need to - I can just use Hadcrut which goes back further than any other, and still shows warming. I'd rather do this than use a plot that's wide open to criticism on to methodology.
96102. Mikemcc at 08:38 AM on 12 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       They may have improved buty there's still a lot of the old crazy denialist rubbish and 'nit-pick-the-story-to death' lines like 'how do you define extreme events...', well you draw a line in the sand and say that those events that exceed it are extreme. If more events occur that are, by definition, extreme then the incidence of extreme events increases - seemples! The occurance of extreme events has been noted to have increased. It doesn't matter a damn how to define it, as long as you can make a reasonable statistical comparison between extreme and non-extremme situations.
96103. JMurphy at 08:29 AM on 12 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       Good news, rockytom. Seems like he used some privacy concerns to back out before he embarrassed himself and your state any further. Well done. Good, also, to see THE GUARDIAN taking control of its Comments policy and not allowing so many of the same repetitive posts regurgitating all the same old wacky denial.
96104. Daniel Bailey at 08:27 AM on 12 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       Re: Interglacials Just because the ice core records show an apparent periodicity and rhythm to the interglacials, it would be a mistake to assume that they are created equally. Milankovitch forcings do vary, as does solar output and a plethora of other variables. The most recent interglacial could also have been affected by mankind to some degree as well (Google Ruddiman's Hypothesis). Key takeaway: interglacials happen during a glacial epoch for known reasons, but each differ from the others as they are but a sum total of forcings and feedbacks that can individually differ over time. The Yooper
96105. pbjamm at 08:22 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Notsure : This web site is an amazing resource for the non-scientist to get a grasp of what the science says about AGW. I say that as a non-scientist myself. If you are truly interested in the facts please avail yourself of the information here. When you do you will realize (as KR pointed out) that your concerns and doubts have been discussed here ad nauseum.
96106. Trueofvoice at 08:18 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Notsure, The tone of your posts has become increasingly aggressive and arrogantly dimissive. Not only have you failed to discuss any specific objection to current understanding of climate science, you have rudely refused to follow up on any of the links provided for you by these good people in their desire to help educate you. You have also repeatedly labelled them as "alarmists" trying to "divert attention", essentially slapping the hand away each time one is extended to you. Please show some civility, and maybe even a little class.
96107. JMurphy at 08:17 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Notsure, unfortunately you seem to be posting a stream of beliefs and opinions without any attempt at trying to back up those beliefs and opinions. Why are you ignoring all the information you have been provided with via this website ? Where are you getting your information from ? Until you start to show where your beliefs and opinions are coming from, they will be treated as unfounded and not credible.
96108. KR at 08:06 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Notsure - I hate to say this, but you are beginning to give the appearance of a Concern Troll. See the Climate's changed before thread, along with CO2 is not the only driver of climate - the climate has changed before, but we actually have a pretty good idea of how and why. Currently, extra CO2 forcings are the dominant (not the only) forcing in effect, causing the climate to warm rather than slowly cool over the last half century. From what I have seen of your postings, you are repeating some very well known skeptic myths and misconceptions, not looking at the large list of Skeptic Arguments discussing those, and failing to follow up on any of the links folks have presented to you as explanations as to why those skeptic arguments don't hold up. You certainly do not act like someone honestly in search of information. I may be wrong about that; I would enjoy being proven incorrect - by seeing you actually looking at and digesting some of the information you have been presented with.
96109. rockytom at 07:50 AM on 12 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       John, Your readers might like to know that we in New Mexico, USA just defeated our Republican governor's nomination of the denier and former astronaut Harrison Schmitt to be head of the NM office of the Environment and Natural Resources Department. I personally wrote two letters to the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper in support of the withdrawal of his nomination, as did many other New Mexicans. In order to not be off-topic, Australia's extreme weather is just a sample of what's to come in the not-too-distant future. We in the SW US just suffered from severe freezing temperatures because of warming at the poles forcing colder weather to the south. One day last week it was 2 degrees warmer at the North Pole than it was in southern New Mexico.
96110. Notsure at 07:09 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Ice age alarmists and global warming alarmists have the same aim, simply to alarm. This winter in the the USA has caused damage. It is weather not climate change. The global warming alarmists have diverted attention away from this type of weather. The climate has always changed, look back at history. Climate will always change. It is very dangerous to be complacent and assume we know where the climate is going. The alarmists will always point to any current weather event and imply its some kind of unatural occurence or some local record. Weather will turn up in its various guises the danger is to assume that it will only take one form. Look at what has happened to Australia. Did the global warming alarmists cause the authorities to forget the past floods. Was there assurances that flooding risk in that area was no more? That is a danger that we should all avoid. Alarmists, whether iceage or global warming are dangerous. Nature has a way of reminding us that we are not as in control as we like to think we a
       Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey] Not sure if I can make any difference here, but in case you are actually not of closed mind then read this. You have been given good advice from many others here: demonstrate you are here for the right reasons.
96111. KR at 06:54 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Notsure - I would encourage you to look at the science, look at the data. On this site there are some excellent references to some of your primary issues on the threads Evidence for global warming and The human fingerprint in global warming. This includes plenty of links to papers, data, and many items that point out (a) it's warming significantly over and above natural variations and cycles, and (b) we are responsible for it. Please read through these, and comment on specific issues you might see with them on those threads where it's appropriate.
96112. pbjamm at 06:53 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Notsure (#130) "So far it has not been shown convincingly to me that anything that has occured climate wise is outside the normal range of climate change either in rate of change or degree of change." How about the 'why' of change? Climate scientists have a pretty good idea what caused previous climactic changes (orbit and solar output) but when those causes are used to explain current trends they fail to completely describe what is observed. GHGs do explain it. If there are other explanations then everyone would be glad to hear about it but so far no other answer has been found that explains the current observed trend. Saying it is natural only works if you can explain what natural event is behind it. I fear this has gone off topic though.
96113. Notsure at 06:42 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Muoncounter 'There is a huge difference between reflection and absorption/re-emission. Clouds, ice/snow, atmospheric dust, etc reflect a portion of the sun's energy back into space; this energy is then not available to heat the planet. On the other hand, energy that is absorbed at the earth's surface, to be re-emitted as infrared as the surface warms, is at the heart of greenhouse warming.' Warming occurs when more heat is received than lost. Cooling occurs when more heat is lost than received. Whatever mechanism is involved is not important with respect to the question, 'Is global warming still happening?' To me all that is important is to understand which way the heat is moving? When that is known then look into detail. Man made global warming is a recent happening, (over the last 50-100 years?) All the debate that I have seen so far revolves around the data for the last century. I look to the global warming supporters to prove that what has happened over the last century is unatural. So far it has not been shown convincingly to me that anything that has occured climate wise is outside the normal range of climate change either in rate of change or degree of change. I have not found any convincing argument or evidence that increasing CO2 levels do not cause warming. I hear debate on its degree of influence. I am not an expert and I am not qualified to point to any particular paper or theory. But I am entitled to try to understand and question. DSL 'Yet who do you trust? Climate scientists, who don't really roll in the dough and don't have a vested interest in a warming planet (other than having to live in it)? Or pundits and big oil-financed lobbyists whose interests are not scientific but simply in achieving legislative or political effects, whatever the means?' Its easy to acuse to put people on the defensive. I wonder if the big bad oil companies you refer to would really be happy if the global warming threat was removed. I suspect they do quite well out of the publics concern.
96114. Trueofvoice at 06:40 AM on 12 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       Muon, I believe he's referring Figure 1, where the peak of the current interglacial appears more extended along the x-axis than the previous interglacials, which look more like a sudden increase, and an equally sudden decrease. I assumed this was due to greater resolution the closer we got to the present.
96115. RickG at 06:30 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       127 Notsure, Its being defended because the full body of evidence supports AGW. Conversely, there are no supported studies demonstrating otherwise. Contrary to popular skeptic belief, natural causes are not being ignored. Please read the post on Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
96116. pbjamm at 06:26 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Notsure (#127) This entire website is a "reasoned defensive debate" of the science behind AGW.
96117. John Hartz at 06:12 AM on 12 February 2011
       They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
       I believe this article could be improved by adding an explanation of how scientists define the "Climate System" and that the acceleration of the greenhouse effect due to mankind's activites impacts all of the components of the "Climate System" not just the atmosphere.
96118. Will Lowry at 06:10 AM on 12 February 2011
       Climate's changed before
       While wild climate change has preserved a delicate balance of gasses called the atmosphere and has been very good for life on this planet, human caused climate change is new, and scientists agree it will soon upset that balance and have catastrophic consequences for human life.
96119. Notsure at 06:08 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       DSL 'Climate science is receiving greater scrutiny than perhaps any other area of science' I hope so and so it should. True enquiring minds welcome scrutiny. However, whenever I see people defending global warming and especially mans influence on it, I fail to see reasoned defensive debate. Personal attacks and labeling them as deniers only stiffels debate.
96120. Notsure at 05:58 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       JMurphy 'So far the sceptics seem to be more open''Do you have any examples you can give and link to' Prof Bob Carter James Cook University, Queensland. He has strong views on the subject that are worth listening to. From there you can search for many others. All come from different angles but unfortunatly if they dare to question global warming, even if they agree its happening they are labeled deniers. As far as cranks are concerned I have views and I will leave you to judge others.
       Moderator Response: Type "Bob Carter" without the quote marks into the Search field at the top left of this page.
96121. Notsure at 05:24 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       'Remember: if we ignore this problem and it turns out the scientists are all wrong, then all this will be over within a decade, and heads will roll. Such a hoax couldn't last long with new generations of researchers coming on line. If scientists are right, and the observed warming continues, and we ignore it when we had a chance to do something about it, then we will and should be damned daily by our children and grandchildren.' I agree, however it is far more than the scientists reputations at stake (on both sides of the argument). If global warming is continuing and is caused by CO2 and poses a threat I agree we should take action. If not and global cooling increases in pace. (We are in a interglacial period within an iceage remember). This may be wasted effort. If we are heading for dangerous cooling instead of dangerous warming we may harm our ability to adapt by wasting precious time. I feel that we are not taking sufficient action to prevent global warming through our actions. Nor are we taking sufficient steps to check that understanding of climate change is correct. Labeling critics as deniers only builds barriers between the two sides of the argument. If you are convinced that warming is the only danger and have supported all available measures to reduce the risk then sleep well at night. If we ignore the posibility that we have misunderstood and have labeled CO2 as a danger and have damaged our ability to feed and warm ourselves we will pay the price. Whatever action we take we must test it on the way and be prepared to adapt or change course if we are in error.
       Moderator Response: We are not heading into a new ice age anytime soon. That is several tens of thousands of years away, as explained on the post "We’re heading into an ice age" and the comments there.
96122. muoncounter at 05:22 AM on 12 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       #7: "a clear rise in these extreme weather events" Isn't it remarkable that the insurance industry is taking the lead in recognizing that things are changing? Similar observations made on the weird weather thread.
96123. muoncounter at 05:16 AM on 12 February 2011
       Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
       #36: "no one addressed Maue's work" See #34 and links therein.
96124. muoncounter at 05:12 AM on 12 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       #277: "the apparent flattening of temperature for the past few thousand years" This statement has no obvious meaning to me. As I asked on Are we heading into an ice age?, please define what you mean - use that thread and provide some source for this notion. Off topic comments have a way of disappearing, especially after several attempts at re-direction.
96125. KR at 04:36 AM on 12 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
       barnErubble - The phrase "in the pipeline" has been an issue, because of the easy misinterpretation. See the terminology discussion on the Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic thread. There is warming that has occurred and the measurement thereof (Trenberth has been concerned about poor measurements of ocean temperatures, in particular deep ocean temps and calibration issues - while fairly recent, and with ongoing calibration issues, they don't match what we expect in all respects). It seems possible that much of the energy is in the deep ocean, but that's an issue of ongoing investigation. And there is unrealized warming; the warming that has to happen to remove the current radiative imbalance. The latter is what is normally referred to as "in the pipeline" - it's not heating that is hiding under a bush somewhere, but rather hasn't occurred yet but will unless the radiative imbalance is removed. It's heat accumulating in the rather large thermal inertia of the oceans - it takes a long time for a small imbalance to warm a large ocean. The Earth has to heat by a certain amount for IR leaving the atmosphere to equal the energy coming in. And of course, if we continue to increase the radiative imbalance with CO2, global warming will continue to play catch-up, and continue to rise.
96126. citizenschallenge at 04:29 AM on 12 February 2011
       Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
       regarding the graph @18 Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) according to Dr. Ryan N. Maue at the Florida State University: I was disappointed that no one addressed Maue's work and using Atlantic ocean stats does little to address his claim regarding Northern Hemisphere being at a 30 year ACE low. Any insights would be appreciated.
96127. Bibliovermis at 04:08 AM on 12 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       RSVP, Do you have anything besides worthless wordplay to offer? Playing the victim does no benefit to your credibility. "The planet" is the surface temperature readings, while the stratosphere is the upper atmoshphere readings. Your apologies would be acceptable if there was any merit in them.
96128. Albatross at 04:02 AM on 12 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       Great article John, I had no idea that you ere doing that until I received me weekly email from the Guardian. yes, quite a few misguided comments, but when I last looked reason and science were persevering. I agree with authors that the improved moderation at The Guardian has helped in keeping the threads focussed and forcing people to speak to the science and not go on ideological rants. they should be commended for that-- because in the past, that is a loophole that the "skeptics" have taken advantage of. What people like Ken simply fail to understand is that their repeated claims that what we are witnessing is merely natural variability is a clever distraction, and misses the point. Yes, climate varies, we all know that, especially the climate scientists. But evidence has shown that even in the last 30 years or so the return period for severe events around the globe has been contracting and that there has been a discernible shift towards more extremes. We do not have to breaks records each and every year for there to be problems. What Ken et al. also forget is that 200-300 years ago there was practically no infrastructure and there were most definitely not even close to the number of people on the planet that there are today-- so even small shifts beyond what society has developed its infrastructure in can have marked consequences. Before, planning for a one-in hundred year event may have covered the bases, that is not going to be sufficient in the coming decades. And as for Australia I encourage people to please read this paper by Gallant and Karoly (2010, J. Climate) in which they conclude: "Australian extremes are examined starting from 1911, which is the first time a broad-scale assessment of Australian temperature extremes has been performed prior to 1957. Over the whole country, the results show an increase in the extent of hot and wet extremes and a decrease in the extent of cold and dry extremes annually and during all seasons from 1911 to 2008 at a rate of between 1% and 2% per decade. and "However, the trends from 1911 to 2008 and from 1957 to 2008 are not consistent with these relationships, providing evidence that the processes causing the interannual variations and those causing the longer-term trends are different." Yes, something very different is going on alright.
96129. stephenwv at 03:47 AM on 12 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       Thank you for the references. I have been frustrated in my attempts to find any real answers to my questions. Especially the apparent flattening of temperature for the past few thousand years as opposed to the normally rapid drop off; and the lack of the elimination of the northern ice cap as has occurred in past end of inter-glacial cycles. Hopefully there are answers here somewhere. Any suggestions?
96130. barnErubble at 03:11 AM on 12 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
       RE: dorlomin "The 'in the pipeline' phrase is often misused to suggest it is stored in the oceans (well by the less well educated contrairians), . . ." I take it that you believe Kevin Trenberth to be among the, 'less well educated contrairians'? Or is it just the phrase, 'in the pipeline' that should not be used to define the theory of stored heat in the Oceans? And Kevin is talking about vast amounts of heat being stored in the Oceans (albeit yet to be detected/found). Kind Regards, -Peter
96131. RSVP at 03:03 AM on 12 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       #37 "the planet has warmed at +0.16 degrees per decade... at the same time as the stratosphere has cooled " The stratosphere is part of the planet, so here you are saying it has warmed and cooled in the same sentence. Based on the other things youve directed to me, I am clearly at fault for not undertanding what you really mean. Please accept my apologies.
       Moderator Response: RVSP, unless you want your posts deleted, stop this tedious word play immediately. There is no contradiction there, merely a slight ambiguity (#37 should have specified "surface temperatures" instead of "planet"), however the intended meaning was obvious to anyone at all familiar with the debate. Even if that were not the case, it is still possible for the planet to warm overall while some part cools, it just means that some other part was warming faster than the average. Your pedantry is of no value, so please desist.
96132. DSL at 02:53 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Notsure: "Get it right because time and money is being spent." Climate science is receiving greater scrutiny than perhaps any other area of science, excepting evolution. There are massive lobbying dollars being spent in the U.S. to discredit the science--and this lobbying is not based on an alternative theory that explains the instrumental record. It is simply an attack to stop legislation that might help mitigate the developing problem, because the legislation will hurt particular industries. If you want to be convinced, then do the math yourself. If you can't or won't do the thinking, then you're always going to rely on people you think you should trust, and they're always going to have power over you. That's fine--it's necessary sometimes. Yet who do you trust? Climate scientists, who don't really roll in the dough and don't have a vested interest in a warming planet (other than having to live in it)? Or pundits and big oil-financed lobbyists whose interests are not scientific but simply in achieving legislative or political effects, whatever the means? At least try to understand the basic mechanisms involved. Go over to scienceofdoom.com and do some brain sweating. The comment "A little picky, rebounding, reflecting or absorbsion and re-emission" is custom made for a ticket to SoD. Remember: if we ignore this problem and it turns out the scientists are all wrong, then all this will be over within a decade, and heads will roll. Such a hoax couldn't last long with new generations of researchers coming on line. If scientists are right, and the observed warming continues, and we ignore it when we had a chance to do something about it, then we will and should be damned daily by our children and grandchildren.
96133. JMurphy at 02:22 AM on 12 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak, why do you post part of an article (?) from the "Polish press" ? What do you think that adds ? It's certainly not connected to the link you do give, so it would be good if you could make clear what you are trying to get across. muoncounter, I think it is obvious by now that 'natural' and what can be attributed to 'natural' will be extended by the so-called skeptics as 'natural' becomes less and less 'natural' in the real world. As will the length of time we will supposedly have to wait before thinking about doing anything, just to make sure 'natural' is not possibly measured in hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. I can see it coming : "It could be a natural event on a million-year time-scale ! Prove 100% it isn't !!"
96134. muoncounter at 02:17 AM on 12 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       #5: "we should recognize that we realy don't know the limits of what is 'natural' and what is not." KL actually makes a salient point despite his obvious intent. Here is a partial list of what passes for 'natural' these days: -- Heat wave in Europe (2010), following the heat waves in 2007, 2006, 2003; models show increasing frequency of future heat waves. -- Hundred year drought in the Amazon (2002-2005) followed by 2010's even more severe drought. -- Devastating flooding followed immediately by a cat 5 cyclone in Queensland: the largest tropical storm to strike Australia since Europeans first settled there. -- Four cat 5 and one cat 4 Atlantic hurricanes in 2005. -- Four cat 4 Atlantic hurricanes in 2008. -- Extreme precipitation events suggesting an increased frequency of the heaviest events with warming, several times larger than the expected Clausius–Clapeyron scaling That our global climate system is changing is undeniable; the limit of what is fast becoming the new natural is what we do not know.
96135. OPatrick at 02:07 AM on 12 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       Ken Lambert #5, insurance is a competetive industry and insurance companies have an interest in getting the risks right. If one company is claiming that climate change is increasing risk and so raise their premiums, another company, if they believe climate change is not occuring, will simply undercut these prices. Munich Re's database of weather-related loss events shows a clear rise in these extreme weather events, which they state cannot be explained fully without acknowledging climate change. Increasing population denisity and better reporting also increase the loss, but on their own this is not enough to explain the trend. The trend in non-weather-related losses, such as volcanic events, is not rising in line with weather-related loss.
96136. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:33 AM on 12 February 2011
       Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
       „extreme denialist blog” - maybe you're right that it is "extreme denialist blog. " I hate extremists on both sides. But this blog in a focused, make absolutely basic knowledge about photosynthesis. Only part of the comments are too tendentious. “... CO2 intake is restricted by water loss ...” The increase in CO2 reduces the number of stomata and their opening times - reducing the consumption of water for plant growth. This is basic knowledge - I can not see the needs of citation of sources. Warming does not mean dry. In very warm Holocene optimum of the Sahara was flourishing oasis of greenery - is also a basic knowledge - I can not see the needs of citation of sources.
96137. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:12 AM on 12 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       In the Polish press is given very bad information for Australia. Not citing sources, says that: "Australian scientists studying coral reefs - increases over the last 3000 years - they realized that long periods of peace are separated by a few-teenage periods of rapid change. Australia is likely to wait until a few years so violent natural disasters. " The fact that the reefs are an excellent "barometer" of climate change in the past, can be found here: Response of coral reefs to climate change: Expansion and demise of the southernmost Pacific coral reef, Woodroffe et al., 2010.
96138. muoncounter at 00:28 AM on 12 February 2011
       It's cooling
       #119: "A little picky, rebounding, reflecting or absorbsion and re-emission. Technically it may be different but simplified its the same." There is a huge difference between reflection and absorption/re-emission. Clouds, ice/snow, atmospheric dust, etc reflect a portion of the sun's energy back into space; this energy is then not available to heat the planet. On the other hand, energy that is absorbed at the earth's surface, to be re-emitted as infrared as the surface warms, is at the heart of greenhouse warming. "Weather and climate are a result of mechanisms that no scientist fully understands" Not really. In the utmost simplification, weather is planet's local, temporary response to differential heating and moisture conditions. Climate is the long term average and trend of this response. "The global warming debate is driven by models. The sceptics seems to be driven by history." Most science is driven by models these days. Models make complicated systems easier to describe and understand. And models are driven by history, because they must include past behavior. What you call 'skeptics' (more likely to be what we call deniers) are driven by neither. You'll find they often just make things up, take items out of context and try to explain by gross over-simplification. Please do take advantage of the tremendous amount of information available here. Read the Newcomers Guide, the Big Picture and then start working your way through the Most Used Arguments. Put 'what you've heard' and 'what it seems to be' on hold, so you can learn from the science. As Bibliovermis suggests, find the appropriate threads for comments and questions.
96139. Ken Lambert at 00:13 AM on 12 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       In all these discussions of weather disasters, we should recognize that we realy don't know the limits of what is 'natural' and what is not. In the Brisbane flood 2011, the hydrologist who oversaw the planning of Wivenhoe dam was quoted in the 'Australian' thus: "When John Oxley discovered Brisbane 180 years ago, the local Aboriginal people were very agitated about flooding and they showed him high water marks that would have been 12m". The 1893 floods were just over 8.0m and Brisbane 2011 was 4.5m - and 1974 flood 5.5m. Given there are many changes to the population and roads, roofs, surface vegetation since 1824 - however these probably worsen the runoff and increase flood heights. On a world wide scale - weather disasters are supposed to be getting worst according to sources like insurers. Well they would say that wouldn't they?? Bigger disaster - bigger premium next time. No doubt payouts are getting larger - because areas are more densely populated and properties are much more developed, expensive, complex and larger in advanced countries. More people have insurance due to the explosion in mortgage lending and compulsory insurance, and the documentation of disasters is far better due to satellite pictures, and better communications. Anyway - who is going to argue with Aboriginal history about the Brisbane river being naturally subject to a 12m flood? I bet not too many of you are game.
96140. Captain Pithart at 23:43 PM on 11 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       I would also include the 2005/2007/2010 Amazon droughts as examples.
96141. John Mason at 22:45 PM on 11 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       Enjoyed the article, John, and the recent change in Guardian moderation policy has improved the discussion to a large extent! Cheers - John
96142. dorlomin at 22:22 PM on 11 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       Try this http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/09/australia-extreme-weather-flooding-drought Fixed link [muoncounter]
96143. sgmuller at 21:50 PM on 11 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       the "click here to read the rest" link don't work
       Response: Oops, sorry, fixed!
96144. Bart Verheggen at 21:00 PM on 11 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       I like the idea of this post, but the execution could be improved upon imo. The question "did A cause B" is not really answerable for a probabilty issue. The odds can increase. E.g. the question: "Were the devastating floods in Queensland caused by climate change? Quite possibly but not certainly." implies that the answer is either yes (possibly but not certainly) or no. But that's not true I think. The answer is probably that the odds of such an event have increased due to the increased climate forcing, but there's not yes or no answer to the posed question. See also here re extreme weather and climate change.
96145. dorlomin at 20:49 PM on 11 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/02/10/3135509.htm Australian researchers studying corals off the coast of Queensland have found the frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased over the past 100 years. just added that to the coments thread.
96146. scaddenp at 20:22 PM on 11 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Notsure - so far the points you have made are show you are skeptical because you are uninformed as to what the data is and what is known or unknown. Now I agree with science being always skeptical - a constant search for errors and alternative explanations. However, real skepticism has be actually informed and climate pseudo-skeptics are mostly put down because they trot out long-debunked disinformation to support agendas not founded on data. Feel fdels, but theree to propose alternative mo
96147. JMurphy at 20:04 PM on 11 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Notsure wrote : "Weather and climate are a result of mechanisms that no scientist fully understands or could ever fully explain." Does it matter ? Does any scientist fully understand the workings of Evolution or how the universe was created ? By the way, weather forecasts are invariably right these days, up to a certain number of days, so someone somewhere must know what they're doing. Notsure wrote : "The majority are sceptical because any sign of sceptism is put down by those promoting the theory of man made global warming." Can you give some reasonable examples, with regard to that "majority" and those being "put down" ? Notsure wrote : "The global warming debate is driven by models." No. I think you should have a look at a page on here that gives an outline of what we know and gives more links : The Big Picture Notsure wrote : "The sceptics seems to be driven by history." Do you have any examples you can give and link to ? Notsure wrote : "So far the sceptics seem to be more open (not the cranks, there there are many on both sides)." Do you have any examples you can give and link to ? Who would you class as the "cranks" on both sides ? You can give your answers on either of the links Bibliovermis gives, or find one of your own by searching this site.
96148. Bibliovermis at 19:54 PM on 11 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Skepticism quickly becomes denial when the proper reasoned arguments are rejected on the basis that they conflict with preconceived notion. People's sense of "untruth" is based on emotion. If you truly are interested in learning about this scientific field, please read through this site & follow the primary source links for more reading material. Please respect the moderation of this site, which keeps it a civil place for discussing science. References to religion are not helpful. The global warming debate is driven by models. The sceptics seems to be driven by history. Please continue these discussions on the threads that already exist for these topics. They are both linked in the box at the top left corner titled "Most Used Skeptic Arguments". #5: Models are unreliable #2: Climate's changed before
96149. Notsure at 17:56 PM on 11 February 2011
       It's cooling
       A little picky, rebounding, reflecting or absorbsion and re-emission. Technically it may be different but simplified its the same. Weather and climate are a result of mechanisms that no scientist fully understands or could ever fully explain. All the references highlighted in the response have benn exhaustively shown unfortunatly there still remain sceptics. Science is forged on sceptism. Sceptics form science if no questions are posed no answers are found. The majority are sceptical because any sign of sceptism is put down by those promoting the theory of man made global warming. Unless proper reasoned arguments are given people will sense untruth. I hope i have an open mind. I hear non scientists but listen to scientists and expect reasoned argument. The global warming debate is driven by models. The sceptics seems to be driven by history. Where the conflict seems to come is where the history is questioned. So far the sceptics seem to be more open (not the cranks, there there are many on both sides) If the world is warming and we are heading for problems then understand the sceptical viewpoint and use them to refine the argument. To continue to put down critism smells of a shaky religion not confident of its facts. Get it right because time and money is being spent. If it is in the right areas then ok but if not then beware we are driving ourselves in the wrong direction. The planet is our responsibility at the moment which we hand to our children. Our children will judge us in turn.
96150. jyyh at 17:08 PM on 11 February 2011
       Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
       Thank you for this compilation. If I use this how should I refer to this? Anyway I'm not planning to publish anything based on this in a serious scientific journal so the WUWT style of reference (i.e. none credible) might be enough?

Prev  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  Next