Recent Comments

Prev  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  Next

Comments 96251 to 96300:

96251. hohygen at 19:58 PM on 10 February 2011
       Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
       Great work. This will making climate communication easier. On comment on normalisation: From past experience with the temperaturedatasets: As far as I know do they use different normal period as reference. I cannot see any part of your text above commenting on this. My question is: Do you use the agencies normal period, og do you adjust the series to a common period?
96252. iana at 19:48 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       "Your comments are how you say them are why you will not convince the public because they have learnt through thousands of years of human proganda just how to smell it." Can someone translate this please.
96253. adelady at 19:38 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       Climate change wasn't invented by conservatives. It was *adopted* by them as the preferable terminology. 'Global Warming' was first publicised by Wally Broecker. I much prefer climate change because it encompasses unexpected regional effects - like WACCy weather.
96254. HumanityRules at 19:31 PM on 10 February 2011
       A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
       And where is the temperature differential? Where is the lag? You don't seem to capture the dynamic changes between the ocean and the atmosphere that you describe in #63. The ocean seems just to become a very big extension of the atmosphere.
96255. thingadonta at 19:23 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       There is another angry beast-human exageration. And you are certainly stocking this fire. Your comments are how you say them are why you will not convince the public because they have learnt through thousands of years of human proganda just how to smell it. "And what is almost equally certain is that they would not have happened at all, or would have been more benign, if we hadn’t been emitting all that CO2 for the last 100 years. Floods have been happening in Queensland for millions/thousands of years so how can you say first up 'they wouldn have happened at all' and then qualify it by 'would have been more benign? This is typical propaganda writing. Floods in 1800s in Queensland were worse. It would be more correct to say "floods and frequency in Queensland are much as they were in the last few hundred years of human records, however there is the possiblity that recent warmth, whether natural or humna caused, has excerbated the degree of recent flooding" Th same goes for cyclones. Strong ones occurred in Queensland in the 1910s and 1930s, so it is incorrect, like the Premier to say it is unprecedented. It is also true that the devestating bushfires in Victoria were almost certainyl made worse by academic-backed green policies, such as not allowing residents to clear vegetation adjacent to their land, and the usual incompetence of government warnings and propaganda about how to deal with nature. I could go on, but as I said, you need to frame your words more carefully to convince the public, they aren't stupid and dont like being subjected to an endless stream of propaganda.
       Moderator Response: Thank you for attacking that straw man because it means I should add something along the following lines: "Bush fires have been part of natural Australia for millennia. But just because they were always caused by lightning for 10000 years doesn't mean arsonists don't exist now. Likewise, just because there have always been floods and cyclones doesn't mean their frequency or severity hasn't been increased by climate change." By the way, the peer reviewed literature is about as different from propaganda as a Shakespearean love sonnet is from internet pornography. The pornography of propaganda is instead practiced mainly by those who reject science that doesn't suit their ideological or commercial needs: This fact renders my analogy with tobacco doubly apt, as a quick glance at Naomi Oreskes' "Merchants of doubt" will clarify. [SL]
96256. y-not at 18:27 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       AGW can get you away from talking about weather completely as the issue is much bigger than just climate. We need to talk about adding heat to the whole biosphere including oceans. CC is just one of the effects of AGW. I think human beings need to own the problem hence the A in AGW rather than externalize it CC. CC also allows anyone to put a positive spin on the problem, as "change" can be "good". AGW is confronting for an audience while CC is just interesting....
96257. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:26 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       Steve Some thoughts. Who is your audience? When this podcast goes out, who do you think will listen/read/respond? A phrase like 'the heart of probabilistic causation'! Is this aimed at your undergrad audience or post grads? or at the guys down at the Pub? How you use language massively determines how and whether people will assimilate what you are saying. My take on your piece is that you are trying to highlight the need for a 'probabilistic causation' mindset when assessing Tobaco, Clinate Change etc. The need to not use black & white thinking, is/isn't, will/won't thinking. Rather that we need to look at questions like this in terms of 'what are the odds', 'is this likely enough to act on'. Humans use probability thinking in a wide range of daily activities - will it rain? But we still don't handle probability well because we still want to come to a black/white conclusion. How likely is it to rain? Will I bing the washing in? Rather than 'does the probability of rain justify bringing the washing in. Or should I just bring in 2 pairs of socks?' So what is the purpose of the podcast? To try and cut through the 'probabilistic causation' jumble to provide people with conclusion about a subject. Or to provide a meta-discussion about 'how should we go about thinking about a topic like this?'. Are you advocating for Climate Change. Or advocating for shades-of-grey thinking?
96258. Docshiva at 18:09 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       I like the way the articles teaches its point. It's a general point being presented, but the references to Australia, though timely, are not so general. Perhaps examples from elsewhere in time and geography to point out that the logic in question is universal - not only applicable to the Australian tragedies. I also closed this post with a suggestion of how the references might be made more universal. Another thing to reconsider might be the close. The beast-poking metaphor does not reinforce the point made; it comes out of nowhere. It's tidy, but unrelated. It could belong anywhere in any rational discussion of climate change. I wouldn't be cute or trite there. I think it might work to just think of a brief statement that very simply makes the point your analogy spoke to. Something like, "Any piece of evidence taken out of context can be argued with. It's the momentous weight of thousands of related and repeatable pieces of evidence that amass into definitive proof: We now know definitely that smoking strongly increases the risk of cancer. We now know definitively that climate change strongly increases the risk of severe storms and other disasters." If you keep the Australian references only, I think the close could provide general relevance. For example, one could refer to "....storms and other disasters; disasters such as we've just seen in Austalia."
96259. HumanityRules at 18:08 PM on 10 February 2011
       A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
       Ok Glenn in #69 were does thermal inertia come into play?
96260. y-not at 18:05 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       Stephan - I think the lung cancer example is useful just for the reason you use it, namely a statistical analogy with some emotion attached. I'm also with Peter in Post 5. I think we all need to consistently use AGW or "Human caused Global Warming" rather than CC. Lets call it what it is. None of the arguments for using CC have convinced me. Furthermore it is not just the atmosphere which is immediately important to humans that is warming, but also the oceans that are impacted, soaking up most of the heat and changing ecologically. We are talking about much more than just climate change.
       Moderator Response: I am in two minds about AGW vs CC. The W means that every blizzard is automatically categorized as negative evidence. It isn't, but that's what people do. The C is a bit better in that regard because it subsumes a broader range of outcomes. On the other hand, CC was invented by Republicans because it sounds warm and fuzzy. Hence I like neither much. [SL]
96261. Albatross at 18:04 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       Here are the findings from a new paper which speaks to severe events over Australia by Gallant and Karoly (2010, Journal of Climate): "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. These trends mostly stem from changes in tropical regions during summer and spring. There are relationships between the extent of extreme maximum temperatures, precipitation, and soil moisture on interannual and decadal time scales that are similar to the relationships exhibited by variations of the means. 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." A similar extreme weather index in the USA has also found a positive trend in extreme weather events since the early seventies. See here.
96262. malamuddy at 17:59 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       Another way to say much the same thing is this: While smoking cannot be directly linked to any particular early death, the frequency of such deaths will be increased by smoking and: while none of the world wide extreme weather in the last twelve months can be directly linked to global warming, we can say that the frequency of such events will be increased by global warming.
96263. Albatross at 17:56 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       Gary @3, How tropical storms will respond to warmer ocean temperatures is complex and a field of much attention. The latest, and probably best research suggests that there will probably be fewer storms, but stronger storms. How this will accumulate metrics such as storm count (which you showed) and as the ACE index is unclear. The literature does find an discernible increase in extreme precipitation events and extreme highs and droughts. I can provide references if you wish-- SKs is also a great resource of course. There is, unfortunately, not going to be a Pearl Harbour moment which shocks even the most ardent denialist or 'skeptic' into reality-- AGW is very much like a slowly progressing cancer. The concern is that the cancer (AGW) might metastasize. We all need to constantly remind ourselves that many of the scenarios predicted by the IPCC are often for say 2080-2100-- we are a very long way of from that obviously, so do not expect the worst to be obvious now. In fact, some features have only become discernible relatively recently, in the last 10 years or so. Look at it this way, you are currently smoking two packs a day and feel pretty good (so you do not really care about the fellow who has just been diagnosed with lung cancer a continent away and who cannot afford suitable treatment), but there are worrying signs-- a hacking cough (Arctic ice loss), shortness of breath when exercising (pH decline and loss of plankton) etc.. Your doctor is telling us that we need to steadily cut down the number of cigarettes you smoke to say one pack a day and then half a pack etc. But your mom is saying it is all a hoax and that the doctor is being "alarmist", she has smoked for 50 years and she is just fine.... Now what is the responsible, prudent and sensible approach...listening to your mum (who has been incredibly lucky and is an outlier) or your doctor? Or do you defer taking action until there is a tumour or you have a heart attack? Oh, and do not forget that you smoking two packs a day affects others too via second-hand smoke. Anyhow, I understand that it is not a perfect analogy, but I hope that it resonates with you. i for one do not wish for AGW to be a real issue, but I am not going to ignore the evidence and science, no matter how scary or inconvenient.
96264. rockytom at 17:28 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       How about adding that 150,000 annual figure from #6 to the statement. SL, your post is very well done, point made. We need more "gotcha" type statements!
96265. Chemware at 17:05 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       @3 garythompson: Not quite. The frequency of more intense storms is predicted to increase. Different models disagree on the overall frequency: some say up, some say down; see: What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?
       Moderator Response: Indeed. Hence my use of the word stronger in connection with the cyclone. I am not suggesting it could not have occurred on its own (it most definitely could have), just that its strength--and it was strong--might have been lower in the absence of climate change. [SL]
96266. iana at 17:04 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       @ garythompson: With all due respect, he was talking about frequency of extreme events. That is not what is shown in your graph. @sgmuller: The analogy is valid - the increased death rate from extreme weather events is also pretty gruesome.
96267. sgmuller at 16:53 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       Sorry, but I really don't think this kind of analysis is helpful. You are grasping at straws to suggest that extreme weather and AGW are in the same league as smoking and lung-cancer. Walk into any public hospital and you can see people dying from cigarettes and a tar filled lung makes for a great anti-smoking ad. I think that we are all tempted to draw those kind of conclusions prematurely because the established proofs of AGW are just so boring. I mean, who really gives a rodents rectum that winters are warming faster than summers, that nights are warming faster than days, that the poles are warming faster than the tropics? Certainly not the editors of our daily newspapers or the producers of our current affairs shows. They are all looking for big, exciting, life-threatening proofs. And cyclone Yasi and the Grantham floods were certainly all of those things. So we are tempted to oversell the case that Global Warming causes more severe cyclones, floods and droughts. I think we're setting ourselves up for a fall here. We just have to try a bit harder to explain the established, if boring, proofs.
       Moderator Response: Walk into the peer-reviewed literature and you will see that the WHO estimates 150,000 fatalities annually now from climate change. So the analogy is apt on that basis. It is also true that increasing extreme events were predicted long ago, so I don't think it is grasping at straws to link their increased frequency--in the aggregate but not individual instances--to climate change. This is a straightforward application of a counterfactual notion of causality which is widely accepted among philosophers and cognitive scientists. [SL]
96268. Peter Offenhartz at 16:50 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       I have an intense dislike of the phrase "climate change," but I have no trouble with the phrase "global warming." "Climate change" is vague to the point of meaninglessness, while "global warming" is real and quantifiable. Please substitute! And you should also provide the age at which each of your smoking exemplars died. That will help show that these are what the medical establishments call "premature deaths." Sorry about the testiness. But "climate change" was a phrase invented by the deniers to avoid having to say the planet is warming. They substituted something vague for something that can be measured. And they seem to have won the public relations battle for the way the public thinks. All of us should avoid the vagueness of "climate change" and try to stick to the facts.
96269. Alexandre at 16:37 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       I do not agree with the sentence "They all died prematurely because of tobacco". If we cannot link each single event with a cause, how can we say that every single one was caused by it? Statistically, it's clear that tobacco causes cancer and GW causes more extreme weather events. But as suggested in the text, Nat King Cole could be one of those rare cases of lung cancer that are not related to smoking. Or am I missing something?
       Moderator Response: Yes, I may have to clarify that. It is clear that on average all smokers die younger (that's the point of having an average; viz. to describe the entire distribution, and the mean for smokers is lower). I'll find some suitable wording, stay tuned. [SL]
96270. garythompson at 16:35 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       All due respect to the victims of the recent floods and cyclones in Australia, I thought the frequency of this type of activity has reduced. here is a graph from that web site
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please use the img width="450" src tag when posting images. Thanks!
96271. Tor B at 16:30 PM on 10 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
       Michael Sweet (8 & 25): I can now hear that my "anecdotal [data]...suggests the height of the ‘record lows’ bar will increase" is a claim of sorts, and I acknowledge that trolls are frequently requiring "more data please" (actually, "more data or I'll take my toys home"). Because I work with (regulate) about 400 clients' financial instruments that range from a few thousand dollars to a hundred million dollars (totaling about $500,000,000), adding 2 or 3 percent more clients would make me clueless as to whether ratios would stay put or change noticeably, even drastically. (The "right" 10 new clients could triple the total.) Being minimally familiar with actual counts of record highs and lows, but understanding (from reading Weather Underground Tropical Weather blog after Dr. Masters writes an AGW/ACC article) there can be hundreds of records set in a few weeks, I'm not convinced that the three months don't matter. After looking at the NCDC month average temperature anomaly maps which show vaguely 1.5 months worth of potentially record setting cold and 1 month of potentially record setting hot, I suspect the 2.04:1 ratio (hi:lo records) won't change much, but I still don't know. It would be much much better for the graph to actually cover the full decade to dispel my concerns. In November 2009, it made sense for the graph to cover a spot less than 60 years; today it does not make sense. It cannot possibly be too much work for the originators of the graph to add in the "missing" data. The maps are useful for making an hypothesis (the ratio won't change much); they are not reliable in and of themselves to determine if or how much the 2.04:1 ration will change. John Cook apparently cares about USA data sets, for he posted the two graphs above, and I am concerned about how the one graph might be perceived by Climate Ostriches and curious what the full decade ratio is. I don't know where to find the data and I'm not confident I would utilize it appropriately if I did. It doesn't mean I don't care. I'm deeply concerned about Arctic sea ice loss (among other climate science concerns), and when naysaying co-workers respond with "Antarctica ..." or "Snow on the ground in 49 states," I see them as ignoring reality. So when I heard you say (paraphrased in my head) "It cannot be cold in the US because on average it's hot everywhere, you SOB" well, you can see the parallel. In the DeepClimate blog on Lisbon, a small piece of the discussion centered on how we get so used to warding off pseudo-sceptics that we assume the worst in others and begin to behave in ways we're not proud of. I can succumb to it too. My apologies. And thanks for yours.
96272. Steve L at 16:28 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       I liked this. But my question is, how about a different extreme event? Will it be meaningless to ask for certainty regarding the ice free Arctic summer when it comes? I think when it happens, it will be certainly* because of AGW, and saying so won't be meaningless. (*Though perhaps not 'absolutely certain'.)
       Moderator Response: Interesting thought. The ice free arctic is indeed something that could not occur on its own (i.e., without a strong forcing, however caused), so yes, this is a good example. Of course, delaying action by waiting for that absolute proof will just heighten the burden (financial and otherwise) to be carried by people then. [SL]
96273. adelady at 16:06 PM on 10 February 2011
       Smoking, cancer and climate change
       I suppose it would be too depressing to mention Yul Brynner urging other people to not smoke when it was too late for him. Not quite the message you want to get across. But I do like using smoking as a demonstration of probability that everyone understands.
96274. Jeff Freymueller at 15:53 PM on 10 February 2011
       Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
       Dealing with all sorts of different file formats is a problem for professional scientists, not just citizen scientists! There is nothing like providing code to read the files to help make analysis easier, so thanks for making yours available.
96275. keithpickering at 15:24 PM on 10 February 2011
       Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
       I should also mention: I've found that Nino4 has slightly higher correlations with global temps than Nino34 (as you're using) when best lags are used ... you might want to try both.
96276. keithpickering at 15:21 PM on 10 February 2011
       Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
       You should also include TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, in your time series suite. For recent values, PMOD observations are best. If you want to go farther back than 1978, the reconstruction of Lean et. al. can be found on Climate Explorer. The biggest problem with the Lean reconstruction is that it doesn't model the very deep decline seen at the end of cycle 23 very well. Which means that for recent values, PMOD observations are still better than any reconstruction. It is possible to create a fairly seamless composite dataset (PMOD 1978-present, Lean further back) by regressing Lean against PMOD during the overlap period 1978-2000, i.e., before cycle 23 reached its peak. You can then modify Lean's reconstruction by the regression slope and intercept (r>.96) and get a fairly unified monthly dataset going back to 1882.
96277. muoncounter at 14:39 PM on 10 February 2011
       Global Warming and Cold Winters
       Riddle me this: Years Wings are in the finals: 2009, 2008, 2002, 1998, 1997, 1995, 1966 ... most of these are el Nino years! As far as Texas is concerned, like the man used to say, 'if you don't have a oilwell windmill, get one!'
96278. Daniel Bailey at 14:15 PM on 10 February 2011
       Global Warming and Cold Winters
       Michiganders are a little spoiled by da Wings. The expectation is to appear in the Stanley Cup Finals every year. They rarely disappoint us. Unlike our politicos. Given we are da motor capital of da world, any mention of reducing auto usage (to reduce carbon footprints) or driving smaller SUV's is met with the same reaction as saying "we should be building windmills instead of drilling oil wells" to a Texan. "String 'em up!" The Yooper
96279. Matthew at 14:11 PM on 10 February 2011
       CO2 is not increasing
       Not 2 percent, but 2 ppm.
96280. Matthew at 14:06 PM on 10 February 2011
       CO2 is not increasing
       Id say since each year goes up 2 percent, so we avg near 391 ppm this year, 393 ppm in 2012, 395 ppm 2013, 397 ppm 2014, 399 ppm 2015. I think 2016 we make it. 2000 369.40 0.12 2001 371.07 0.12 2002 373.17 0.12 2003 375.78 0.12 2004 377.52 0.12 2005 379.76 0.12 2006 381.85 0.12 2007 383.71 0.12 2008 385.57 0.12 2009 387.35 0.12 2010 389.78 0.12 In May 2010 we came near 393, 2009 made it to 390, 2008 made it to 388 ppm. This is the months. Id say 2011 395 ppm 2012 397 ppm 2013 399 ppm 2014 401 ppm
96281. muoncounter at 14:03 PM on 10 February 2011
       CO2 is not increasing
       #24: "Teddy Ballgame's head" That would be 406; not 'til 2014 by a long shot. By now our Aussie friends must think that Yanks speak in code.
96282. MattJ at 13:57 PM on 10 February 2011
       Voicing values and climate change
       This new blog sounds like a great idea. But we are running out of time, with CO2 killing off deep ocean phytoplankton at the rate it is killing it. We really don't HAVE "several months" to wait. Rather, we should have been at this point (having the blog) years ago. If we don't cut back CO2 drastically really fast, the cockroaches will inherit the earth.
96283. Daniel Bailey at 13:33 PM on 10 February 2011
       CO2 is not increasing
       @ 23 Given the 2010 Amazon drought, another year of oceanic warming (especially in the polar oceans)...I say yes. Followed by a 50/50 shot at 400 in 2012. Speaking of 400, who's turn is it to watch Teddy Ballgame's head anyway? The Yooper
96284. muoncounter at 13:25 PM on 10 February 2011
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       #111: Reply to briago1's point #5 (Arctic ice melt) on Arctic icemelt is natural.
96285. muoncounter at 13:24 PM on 10 February 2011
       Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
       From here. "the ice cap extents over the last 60 years the north pole all but completly melts EVERY YEAR." Sorry, Briago, but that's just not true; the Arctic polar ice does not all but completely melt each year. The NSIDC has excellent data; see their October 2010 press release for a recent summary. One of the great things about SkS is the information here is based on research and data. In short, facts. Most of the posters also strive to substantiate their claims with evidence. If you are serious about the subject of climate change (and you should be), please put your opinions on hold for a while, look around and learn.
96286. Daniel Bailey at 13:15 PM on 10 February 2011
       Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
       Thanks, Kelly! I visit your site daily during the Arctic melt season; weekly at this time of year. Highly recommended. The Yooper
96287. MattJ at 13:10 PM on 10 February 2011
       The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       Although I am impressed at the quality of the Guide, and the zeal of the translators, I really don't think additional translations are really going to help very much. It is not the kind of effort we really need, since the perps who are destroying our environment are perfectly competent at reading English. However, the two languages that are most likely to do some good are 1) Russian, since Putin and Medvedev are eager to sell as much oil as they can, and 2) Mandarin Chinese, since it was the Chinese who sabotaged Copenhagen, together with the Indians. Of course, the Indians are a perfect example of those who already have the science in a language they can understand -- and they choose to ignore it. I am sure most people here in this forum realize that English IS "the international language of India". They even prefer it over their own language when communicating many fellow Indians since it avoids the political implications of forcing non-Hindi speakers to speak Hindi. Now of those two languages, I think Mandarin is actually the higher priority. Just think of the publicity for the cause when we discover the Chinese Government is blocking access to the guide because the evidence is so damning against them!
96288. muoncounter at 13:01 PM on 10 February 2011
       CO2 is not increasing
       Delightful news: Jan 2011 CO2 = 391 ppm; an annual increase of 2.7 ppm/year. Yes, the recession is over. Do we break 395 this year?
96289. michael sweet at 12:57 PM on 10 February 2011
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       Briago1, Welcome to Skeptical Science. There is a search function in the upper left corner. Please post each of your points in the appropriate thread. I suggest you read the start here button before you proceed. For your question #2 you say "I have no idea how much more is released by other mamals, fish, birds, etc. On the whole 29GT does not sound like much compared to the overall living population of the animal kingdom." If you read the post at the top of this page that data is graphed for you to read. All the information needed to be informed about that subject is included. It appears that you have made no effort to inform yourself, including not reading the post you are responding to. Why did you make such a flaming post? If you want to learn read some of the material. If you seek to disrupt, please go elsewhere. Does anyone know why are there so many trolls this week?
96290. michael sweet at 12:47 PM on 10 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
       Tor B, You said in 4 "“Very cold” October suggests lots of records may have been set; “unseasonable cool December” suggests no more than a few records set". That seems to me like a claim that lots of cold records were set in those months. I do not think your data sources are very reliable for such a claim. I am sorry I referred to the global temperatures, I did not realize you only cared about the USA. Fortunately the site I mentioned has the data for both. At least we both have a reliable data source now. It is my experience that if I have a 117 month data set and I add three months there is little change in the data. This holds up even if all the last three months are extreme, which they were not (one warm, two cold, none hot or frigid). You also suggest that there will be little change. It is a lot of trouble to finish out the data properly. Arguing about good data is a method deniers use to delay action. I am sorry if I responded sharply to your post, there have been an unusual number of trolls lately.
96291. muoncounter at 12:38 PM on 10 February 2011
       How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
       #93: "ongoing furphy that the modest warming of the 17th through 19th centuries *caused* the growth in human population." Especially when the furphy (great word, that) is promoted by the same people who cry foul when anyone points out that temperature increase correlates with atmospheric CO2 increase. That's unacceptable; 'correlation isn't cause!' But warming correlation with population is a valid cause? Does denial require the ability to be hypocritical or is it an after market add-on?
96292. Spencer Weart at 12:19 PM on 10 February 2011
       Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
       There's a peer-reviewed paper that matches the temperature curve by combining volcanoes, El Nino, Sunspots, and anthropogenic emissions: Lean & Rind (2009), Geophysical Research Letters 36, L15708. See http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm#model
96293. Briago1 at 12:13 PM on 10 February 2011
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       Just a couple thoughts: 1) I read a statement about as the atmosphere warms that will release more carbon dioxide from the oceans making the atmosphere even warmer. This can not be the case otherwise if the atmosphere ever got a little warm, it would be doomed to continue to heat up. Since we have had ice ages and hot "ages", the plant would not have made it to now. 2) The discussion seems to be centered around human activity releasing around 29GT of CO2 annually. However per epa.gov human breathing generates 2.3lbs per average person per day. (2.3lb) x (6,000,000,000 people on the planet) / (2000 lb/ton) x (365 days per year) = 2.5GT CO2 annually. Also, from wiki.answers.com (less reliable source), domesticated animals produce 6GT, and insects produce 48GT. I have no idea how much more is released by other mamals, fish, birds, etc. On the whole 29GT does not sound like much compared to the overall living population of the animal kingdom. 3) For such a small fractional increase (3.8%) compared to the overall amount of CO2 in circulation, a measly 4% increase in plant/algae life would more than make up for the difference. 4) Ice cores tell you nothing about reaction. I keep reading that ice cores show in increase in temperature after an increase in CO2 (this is debatable, but I'll skip that). This tid bit is then being used to say that since CO2 has risen x amount in 30 years, that now we are going to have a temperature rise in the next decade. Ice cores have a resolution in the 1000s (or tens of thousands) of years, not 10. The problem is that the ice core is giving you an average over that 1000 years. Within a given 10 years the CO2 could have been three times higher than it is now, but you can't know because you only have an average over 1000 years. The variations we seen now could have been going on for all of history, and you will NOT see it in ice cores. Remember that you have no source to see a snapshot in time from history until we started keeping regular interval written data, and even that data is questionable as the sampling location evironment is usually not stable over long durations. You only have long duration averages which tell you nothing about how the planet would react from a 2 decade departure from an average developed over the last 12 decades of real data. 5) I read about how the ice caps are melting. Well if you look at the data of the ice cap extents over the last 60 years the north pole all but completly melts EVERY YEAR. I don't care if ice sheets are breaking off the north pole, it happens every year. The south pole, it a little different, the western sheet does seem to be shrinking some, but the easter sheet (4 x larger) is reported to be getting colder and is freezing more ice: "Australia Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica." (per This article and This Report)
       Moderator Response: Anyone who replies to this, please, please do so by pointing to the appropriate thread.
96294. rustygecko at 12:04 PM on 10 February 2011
       Abraham reply to Monckton
       There is a certain irony in Mr Monckton attacking anyone's academic or scientific credentials concerning climate science as this is a man whose only academic qualification is in "Classics" and he received a bachelors degree, which he insists on calling a masters. Mr Monkton has no scientific qualifications at all. He does however claim to have the cure for HIV. Watch this space. I see a Nobel Prize coming... Do they award Nobel Prizes for BS?
96295. robert way at 11:57 AM on 10 February 2011
       Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
       Great resource, I highly recommend Kelly's site.
96296. adelady at 11:52 AM on 10 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
       If you look at these three covering the months in question, it doesn't look much as though there's anything in these 3 months to affect the record for 120 months. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/hprcc/1mt/200910.png http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/hprcc/1mt/200911.png http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/hprcc/1mt/200912.png This is the best I could get from NOAA. The other series I wanted are currently unavailable for these individual months.
96297. Marcus at 11:15 AM on 10 February 2011
       How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
       You know, I do grow tired of this ongoing furphy that the modest warming of the 17th through 19th centuries *caused* the growth in human population. If that were true, then we should have seen similar population booms during the Medieval Warm Period. What we *actually* see, though, is several major famines, the Bubonic Plague & the collapse of several large civilizations (the Anasazi, the Mayans & the Khmer). The real cause of the population growth from the 17th century on can be summed up in one phrase-The Enlightenment. The unchaining of Science from the shackles of religion allowed for massive leaps forward in medicine, agriculture & manufacturing. This, in turn, allowed for better nutrition, better living standards, & improvements in infant mortality & life expectancy. We are now, however, starting to reap a bitter harvest from these past benefits-with overpopulation, pollution & climate change being a major threat to our continued success. It doesn't help when people like Pirate adopt the typical "head-in-the-sand" approach to these problems-esp. as he's supposedly a *teacher*!
96298. Tor B at 10:57 AM on 10 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
       Michael Sweet (8): “Wild, unsupported claims” in my (4) post? I’m not sure what claims I’ve made, unsupported or otherwise! And aren’t we supposed to avoid unfounded attacks? You appear to be claiming that monthly global temperature averages which are warm to extremely warm (note: global) cannot include American weather station temperature records which might include more record lows than record highs. If you look at Figure 1 near the top of the blog, you will discover it reports on 59 years and 9 months of record high temperatures and record low temperatures in the contiguous USA, so for the rest of this post please ignore what’s happening in the rest of the world. (If you don’t like it, then complain that Figure 1 was included in the blog post in the first place.) The graph was first published in November 2009, so data for the end of 2009 was not available. I’m guessing the data to complete the last decade represented on the graph became available about a year ago, but it seems nobody has put the last three months’ data into the graph. Curious as to what that data might indicate, I did a Google search for 2009 USA temperature records and came up with two short statements about two of the three missing months. I treated that information as being anecdotal, but it was better data than no data. It was also accurate information, as far as it went. Thank you, Michael Sweet, for directing me to the NCDC Climate Monitoring reports (although your link doesn’t seem to work). The Global Mean Temp Anomaly Maps for the three months I consider to be missing from the Figure 1 graph generally confirm the statements I obtained from the Google search, specifically, Oct 2009 - most of contiguous USA, especially the upper midwest, up to 5C below the 1961-1990 base period. Nov 2009 - contiguous USA mostly above the base period (up to 5C) Dec 2009 - contiguous USA mostly below the base period (up to 4C). We do not know from this added information whether there were *any* record high or record low temperatures at individual weather stations in the USA during those three months. However, this added information suggests to me that the 2000’s record high temperature bar might grow some, and the 2000’s record low temperature bar might grow some too, and probably a little more. I do not believe the three months missing data is likely to significantly alter the 2.04:1 ratio derived from 117 months, but I don’t know. I do believe it would be appropriate for each decade represented on the graph to have the same number of months. The graph is apparantly part of a study by authors at NCAR, Climate Central, The Weather Channel and NOAA published in Geophysical Research Letters. I don’t have any leverage with those good folks (nor anybody else) to make the graph cover the entire 60 year period. I figured, however, someone reading this blog might. I’m really just asking for a nifty graph that currently covers 59 years and 9 months to be revised so that it covers an even 60 years.
96299. michael sweet at 10:47 AM on 10 February 2011
       So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
       Baerbelw: I think the main issue with the sea level problem is that the problem is so huge it is difficult to summarize. I cannot think of anything that really describes the problem well. Your choice is good. Millions, billions, trillions eventually it adds up to real money.
96300. Philippe Chantreau at 10:32 AM on 10 February 2011
       How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
       Johnd if it is so obvious but ignored, why is Spencer not putting it in a paper? Spencer throws all sorts of wild stuff on his blog to get the denialosphere excited but what has he published lately (or ever) that is fundamentally running counter to the consensus model of Earth Climate? I'm as unimpressed with Spencer as when the errors in his work were uncovered by others.

Prev  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  Next