Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 Next
Comments 96451 to 96500:
-
JMurphy at 23:16 PM on 8 February 2011Medieval Warm Period was warmer
hengistmcstone, you may be interested in reading another article on here : Was there a Medieval Warm Period? There, you will find a link to : Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly There is also a link to the press release of the above paper, which may be worthing looking at before you look at the actual paper. More reading, I'm afraid ! -
MarkR at 23:15 PM on 8 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
#25: 'As predicted' is loaded, projected changes in Arctic ice include a full range with associated uncertainty. The possibility of further area collapse was mooted, but was far from a mainline prediction as far as I can tell. Here's a paper from '07 where they help explain it. 2007 was far below model projections and since then we've stayed below model projections. Phil Jones said no statistically significant warming at the 95% confidence level from 1995-2009. It is now (using '95-'10) statistically significant at that level. This is from the HadCRUT3 dataset which is only an atmosphere/surface measurement. If you look at ocean heat content, or latent heat invested in melting ice, or sea level (which integrates over those) then up to 2003 global warming was obvious in all of them. Since '03 we've seen significant rises in sea level and loss of ice, plus probably in abyssal warming, but perhaps not in 0-700m ocean heat content. Total polar ice is not decreasing? The data say that it is. Sure, Monckton and some other skeptics say otherwise, but I tend to run with the data. Antarctic sea ice is covered elsewhere on here. :) -
rayinkorea at 22:52 PM on 8 February 2011Ice age predicted in the 70s
...so we still wait for the name of the elusive institution of learning thepoodle went to ? I was a science major (starting in 1977) at the University of South Florida... (Tampa and St. Pete campuses) and we were learning about global warming in 3 of my classes I remember .. Ecology and both Biological and Geological Foundations of Oceanography ... talking about the physics and looking at the CO2 level data from Mona Loa and some temperature prediction models (which turned out to be remarkably accrate, I might add) It was even mentioned in my high school Biology class in 1975 (Kaiserslautern American High School, Germany) I don't remember anything about global cooling except a few referrals to media coverage .... -
Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
Thanks John Bruno for posting the talk. Very thought provoking, amazing that this information rarely makes headlines -
rhjames at 22:39 PM on 8 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
I don't think anyone can seriously claim that Arctic ice has recovered. However, it hasn't continued to decrease since 2007 as predicted. We also have to consider Antarctic ice, which has been increasing for 30 years. We can't just be selective about the Arctic because it's convenient. We have to accept that, as Phil Jones said, there's been no significant warming for the past 15 years. Also total polar ice isn't decreasing. We have to be careful about the North West Passage being open - this isn't unusual - it's been open plenty of times in the past - before we had satellite measurement of polar ice. We need to be realistic about the claims we make. -
Riccardo at 22:01 PM on 8 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
Ann you envision a possible tragedy, not the necessary outcome. The path out of this mess is clear and although apparently the will to follow it is lacking, the word "end" has not been written yet. Wars are won or lost in the long run. In any event, it is our personal duty to do the right thing, whatever it takes, whatever happens around us. We can not abdicate, we're not given this possibility. -
BillyJoe at 21:49 PM on 8 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
#22 les, Seriously? You think they want to engage with science? Google "Harrison Schmitt" to view his business, political and organisational connections. I think you are being a little naive. There is every evidence that this guy is pushing an agenda and he doesn't care what data he dregs. Obviously you are just not up to his level of [self censored] -
Riccardo at 21:17 PM on 8 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
Philippe Chantreau #21 I strongly agree that talking in terms of standard deviation is meaningless, the null hyppthesis being that there's no trend. But we know that the trend is there and the null hypothesis should be that there's no change in the trend. -
Ann at 21:14 PM on 8 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
This is a scenario enrolling in front of our eyes that is almost exactly as I feared. Also we are beginning to see the impact of climate change on humanity: steeply rising food and energy prices (which is annoying for the wealthy nations, but a disaster for the poorer nations), social unrest, climate fugitives, a mounting number of starving people, a mounting number of casualties from natural disasters. And we are only seeing the very beginning. I think in hindsight, 2010 will go down in history as the year of the truth. The year the truth could no longer be denied. I have always been interested in history, and have always realized – contrarily to most of the people in the wealthy nations – that our current welfare and security are rather an exception in the history of mankind, and that this state of affairs may not last. Future generations – perhaps even the children living today – are going to have a hard time. Of course, the question is: what to do with this knowledge ? It is the single most important issue of our time, probably the biggest issue in the history of mankind. How can I continue going to work every day – solving some minor issues with our digital TV product or designing new features, new ways to make people spend some more money on TV - when this massive problem is lurking in the background ? It makes all human activity futile. International politics has failed utterly and totally. What are the other options ? To convince the world population, the people, what is happening and that immediate action is necessary. But as we experience, even educated people are hard to convince. In fact the problem is that people must almost have had a scientific training before they can understand the available evidence. And there are many people in this world that can hardly read or write. They are doing what they always do: do whatever it takes to survive. Choice is is a luxury, only available to the wealthy. What are we going to tell these people ? I don’t think mankind will go extinct. But in the future the global population will no longer be measured in billions – perhaps in millions. Perhaps those that survive will have learned the lesson and adopt another attitude towards the environment they live in and depend upon. One slight consolation is: nature will recover eventually. Nature is incredibly strong. Life survived the Perm-Trias mass extinction event, I am sure it will survive the human plague as well. But that is the extreme long-term vision.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] See my response to you below @ 10. -
les at 20:50 PM on 8 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
#20 John, Seriously? You think this is a low level? google "Pole Shift Threatens To Cause Weather Chaos prison planet" I think you guys are being unkind, though. There is every evidence that these folk really want to engage with science - the driving force of the modern era. Obviously they're not up to it, find it all a bit hard and confusing and, therefor, scary... -
Philippe Chantreau at 19:43 PM on 8 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
Actually muoncounter, the shaded area around the average line is 2 standard deviations, so the current year would be more like 4 standard deviations below average. It is so far from average that talking in terms of standard deviation becomes kinda meaningless. I am wondering how, or if our usual skeptic contributors can possibly explain the thought process and motivations behind statements that are so glaringly wrong. What was Schmitt thinking? -
XPLAlN at 19:43 PM on 8 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
"Crichton fails to see that the processes that formed the current paradigms in medicine and geology (and overturned the old ones) are same processes that have formed the consensus on climate change. The consensus used to be that human activity is too insignificant to alter the climate." Precisely. I've been working on a book like Crichton's Jurassic Park. In it, future entrepreneurs clone a Lindzasaurus Rex and a Spencerdocus from some blood retrieved from the talons of a preserved beardy-activiraptor who perished during the mass extinction at the AGW boundary. Er, on planet Earth. Anyway, although the two dinosaurs never escape, their logic leaks onto the galactinet. To cut a long story, Sam Neil saves everyone. -
Marcus at 17:32 PM on 8 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Another point, Pirate. When climate change occurs naturally, CO2 *does* lag warming-within fairly well-defined bounds (between 200ppm & 280ppm). Between 1950-2010, though, CO2 rose *before* a significant rise in temperature can be detected. i.e. CO2 rose slowly throughout the entire 20th century, but the real upswing in temperatures doesn't begin until the 1970's. At the very least, CO2 increased precede the current warming trend by a good 20-40 years. Again, can you give us a *natural* cause to explain this? I doubt it. As to Milankovitch cycles, these operate on a time frame of *millenia*, not decades, & the next part of the cycle is meant to take us *away* from the sun-causing cooling-at least about 3,000 to 5,000 years from now. -
Marcus at 17:27 PM on 8 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
#49: "climate has regularly cycled through glacial and interglacial periods." Yep, that's true-but those cycles have been driven by extremely large increasing in Total Solar Irradiance-due to changes in the Earth's orbit-followed by CO2 as a positive feedback after TSI peaks. TSI over the past 60 years has-if anything-been trending *downwards*, so cannot explain recent warming. Also, these past cycles occurred over a period of *tens of thousands of years*. When you really think about it, even a +8 degree change in temperature-over the space of even 10,000 years, amounts to an average of only +0.03 degrees per decade. Recent warming has occurred at a rate of +0.12 degrees per decade for 1950-2010 & +0.16 degrees per decade for 1980-2010. Now, if you can show me a *natural* cause for such rapid warming, I'd be very interested to hear it-but simply attributing it to "currently unknown natural cycles", without supporting evidence, just ain't gonna cut it! -
Bern at 17:02 PM on 8 February 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
As a point of comparison, I did some back-of-the-envelope calcs. How does 600 billion tons of ice mass loss over the 2010 melt season compare to the flooding we had here in Brisbane in January? Well, the 2010 melt season went from "end of April" to "mid September", by one account I found. So, taking 30 April to 15 September, that's 138 days. A bit of simple arithmetic comes up with a number of about 50,000 m3 per second average rate of loss (yikes!). The flood here peaked at around 9,500 m3 per second, I believe. This means that Greenland was losing ice at an average rate more than five times greater than the 2011 Brisbane flood. Except instead of lasting three or four days, it went on for four and a half months... Yes, I know I'm comparing an island more than a quarter the size of Australia with one river catchment, so the comparison is largely meaningless, but it helps put it into perspective! -
mozart at 16:38 PM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Phil I have no problem with moz, but I appreciate the distinction you are making. -
John Brookes at 15:06 PM on 8 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
The claim about arctic sea ice seems to be totally disingenuous. Who would have thought that AGW skeptics would stoop to such levels? -
Rob Painting at 14:52 PM on 8 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
Eric @ 27 - Reading through the Zeng paper (link in 20) I noticed that Zeng cannot separate the Atlantic warming from ENSO From the Zeng paper (page 7): "In 2005, both ENSO and SATL (tropical South Atlantic) are weak but a warming North Atlantic led to the drought." The main point from the Zeng paper, was that the 2005 drought was made worse by the drying induced in the preceding years (2002-2004) by El-Nino. They also point out that Amazonian drought is amplified if the warm sea surface temperatures occur in both the Eastern Pacific and tropical Atlantic at the same time, or as in 2002-2005 in sequence. It is also true that El Nino does not always cause Amazon drought Not 100% of the time, but the correlation is very robust. Seems to me that you are looking for reasons to not accept the finding of dozens of peer-reviewed studies on this topic. -
muoncounter at 14:21 PM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#137: You're right, Phil, bad judgment on my part. -
muoncounter at 14:18 PM on 8 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
Here's the current NSIDC graph:
Can anyone find a cherry to pick from this? The current year is more than 2 stddevs below the average and below 2006-2007, which was the worst year in the record.
-
scaddenp at 14:17 PM on 8 February 2011The IPCC consensus is phoney
Was the text reviewed by peers (if you are willing to have Vince Gray as a peer...)? Yes. Far more rigorously than a journal publication which only has a few reviewers. Furthermore, it's transparent in the sense that can go to IPCC website and read what every reviewer said as well as the editorial response. As a glance at the list of reviewers would show, it is also not just a group of cronies. What possibly could the IPCC do to provide a higher standard? I wonder if SPPI and Heartland would like to adopt a similar process. -
scaddenp at 14:07 PM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
muoncounter - in interests of politeness, calling him "moz" is just heading down same road as "albie" and "Danny". I think it leads to an antagonist debate rather than encouraging respectful one (and yes, I know it's pot calling kettle black, but I am trying). -
muoncounter at 13:54 PM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#134: "if we follow this line of reasoning we should have seen a succession of colder winters." Mozart, what a wonderful world you must live in, where things always behave in such a linear progression. "We can't even discern any trend towards colder winters." Depends on how you look at things. Consider, for example, that the March maximum of sea ice extent doesn't decrease as rapidly from year to year as the September minimum. It must therefore be the case that each winter's freeze-up, starting from a lesser extent and winding up at about the same maximum extent requires more aggressive freezing during the winter. Could that be a trend towards colder winters in the Arctic? Of course, the succeeding melt season is necessarily even more aggressive; could that be a trend towards warmer summers? (If you care to look, you can find all the support you need for these observations on various Arctic ice threads here at SkS). Egads, both warming and cold winters? How cognitively dissonant of our unhappy climatic system, requiring that we keep two conflicting ideas in our aching heads at the same time. But that's why you can't just dismiss a 'nice theory, elegant almost' with mere hand-waving. That is, if you enjoy credibility. -
Rovinpiper at 13:27 PM on 8 February 2011The IPCC consensus is phoney
Can an IPCC assessment report be correctly called a peer-reviewed publication? -
dana1981 at 13:11 PM on 8 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Thanks Kate (this one's mine, not John's). -
MattJ at 12:54 PM on 8 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
Just knowing does not do any of us any good. We have to be able to take realistic action based on that knowledge. Unfortunately, we have failed to persuade the people who are actually in any position to throttle back the enormous burps of CO2, and the case of phytoplankton die off makes it clear we are already too late, especially too late to rely on the slow methods of democracy. Meanwhile, the Koch brothers are hard at work turning back what little progress we did make in the States against AGW. Therefore, I now think the best hope for the survival of the human race comes down to one of three very unpleasant options: 1) nuclear winter. But come to think of it, I am not even sure that the latest climate models even agree with the earlier ones, that this would do the trick 2) an alliance between Earth Liberation Front and Al Qaeda to steal that rotting tomato can from the former Soviet bio-weapons lab and deploy the 90% fatal disease it contains 3) the billionaire grandsons of plutocrats like the Koch brothers figure out how to transfer their memories and consciousnesses into genetically engineered cockroaches, since cockroaches can survive anything. But even they would have trouble with the oncoming onslaught. Of course, I am sure none of us would want to see the sole surviving slice of humanity come from -that- class! -
Phila at 12:51 PM on 8 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Pirate: I'm on record of saying that I am willing to consider CO2 as a contributor to global warming. You are? Really? Wow. That's a pretty impressive concession for a teacher of environmental science to make. Let us know when you get around to accepting it. -
scaddenp at 12:25 PM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Mozart - "albie" and "Danny" are somewhat impolite ways to refer to other posters. I'm Phil, by the way. On topic, the paper in question looked at a mechanism by which the changing albedo in arctic sea (recent) could impact on the arctic polar circulation. The effects are local to parts of Europe and parts of US. The data is drawn from that corridor, and yes, overall, europe and US are warming like the rest of the world. I think the paper is interesting, plausible, but I agree that the time period is way too short for any evaluation of this account for what is a weather rather than climatic phenomena. The point of paper is that colder winters in some parts of the world are not necessarily at odds with the overall rising global temperatures. -
Michael T. at 12:19 PM on 8 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
Here is the NSIDC graph of April Arctic Sea Ice Extent from 1979 to 2010 showing a clear longterm decline in extent even since 1989:
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed URL. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:09 PM on 8 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
Gee, first the phytoplankton news, Dai 2010, now this... What's next, Cryosat-2 showing we're one strong Arctic DiPole summer away from Santa's Workshop going Waterworld? Make room at the bar, I'm buyin'... The Yooper -
Alden Griffith at 12:07 PM on 8 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
@BernAs I understand it, the 'consensus' in climate science comes in the answers to the question: "If we change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, how much does the Earth's climate change in response?"
I would suggest that the "consensus" is not around sensitivity, but is simply based upon the reality of climate change as put forth in the IPCC AR4: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." ...and that increasing greenhouse gases will continue to warm the planet. Climate sensitivity represents a large source of uncertainty. However, there is strong agreement that it is unlikely to be low (and that most of this uncertainty is not comforting). -
adelady at 11:57 AM on 8 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
Think I'll join kr at the bar. Thanks anyway, John. We need to know this even if we don't want to. -
climatesight at 11:50 AM on 8 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Nice summary, John. Well done. -
mozart at 11:42 AM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Figured what out Albie, that the temperature was way lower than normal in Europe and North America because a high was displacing Arctic air? Isn't that always the reason for really cold air? But I guess the difference here is the high was supposedly caused caused by global warming effects on the ice cap. Now this loss of ice hasn't happened suddenly this year. So if we follow this line of reasoning we should have seen a succession of colder winters. Unfortunately here things break apart. We have seen generally warm winters in North America, apart from last year and this year. We can't even discern any trend towards colder winters. So sorry....it's a nice theory, elegant almost.....but it just doesn't hold up. Just another attempt to make any result, warming or cooling, the result of man's insouciance. I know Albie is too busy to respond, but I'm wondering, am I still on topic Danny? -
Marcus at 11:40 AM on 8 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
I don't wish to speak ill of the dead, but from reading some of Michael Chrichton's books, he seems to have a very dim view of science in general. In Jurassic Park, for example, he effectively uses the Malcolm character to bag the entire scientific establishment. Also, having been a scientist for well over a decade now, I don't see much of it that's based entirely on *hard* fact. My own field-biology-is largely based on theories that are backed by all the available evidence-but these theories often find themselves being challenged. A classic case is the so-called "Central Dogma" which goes DNA--->RNA--->Protein. Now this "dogma" held up pretty well until the 1970's, but then was challenged by the discovery of RNA viruses & retro-viruses. The next challenge came in the 1990's, when prions were discovered. It took a lot of evidence, though, to overturn the established consensus, but that's always how good science has been done. Perhaps if these so-called "skeptics" spent a little more time gathering said evidence, & less time bagging scientific consensus, we might take them just a bit more seriously. -
dorlomin at 11:39 AM on 8 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
Bleak. -
Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
John Bruno - Thank you for posting this. I think I need a beer now. Possibly several... -
Albatross at 10:59 AM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Mozart @129, "why do we have 6 new record lows in Mexico?" You are fishing, but i'll bite. Look at the loading patter for the AO. The AO was incredibly low in late November and December, which probably led to some cold outbreaks as cold air was pulled southwards over the lower latitudes of N. America:
Observed 500-mb height anomalies for last 30-days, [Note the below average heights extending as far south as the Gulf of Mexico, Florida experienced record cold weather recently]
The result as far as temperatures are concerned.....
With a bit of effort mozart you could have easily figured this out for yourself. Now I have more important things to do.
-
WheelsOC at 10:58 AM on 8 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
I can't tell you how often I see somebody sneering at the consensus of anthropogenic climate change, as if consensus kicked their dog and burned their house down. I know that a lot of it has to do with Crichton's essay because it's frequently been cited directly, but I don't imagine it hasn't been working beneath the surface for the people that deny climate change without invoking the essay directly. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly and vehemently people will turn to non-scientists to combat the expert opinion on a subject. -
Bern at 10:54 AM on 8 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
@adelady: I agree, however climate science has plenty of hard facts of it's own: - the Earth absorbs light from the Sun - the Earth re-emits that energy as infrared radiation - CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, and re-radiates it in all directions - CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb significant amounts of infrared radiation from the Earth, and re-radiate some of it back down to the Earth - because of the above, the Earth is considerably warmer than simple radiative equilibrium suggests it should be (lucky for us!) The first four points are measurable, and are about as hard as facts can get. The fourth relies on an understanding of radiative heat transfer, but that's been studied for a very long time, and the 'model' involved has been exceptionally well tested & verified. I understand an overly simplified 1-dimensional model will predict the average global temperature to within a degree or two. As I understand it, the 'consensus' in climate science comes in the answers to the question: "If we change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, how much does the Earth's climate change in response?" Because of the uncertainties involved in determining climate sensitivity, and the fact that we don't know everything there is to know about how the Earth's climate works, we can't pin that down to a single number. But some very smart people working on the problem have narrowed it down to a range of results, with a most likely number of about 3ºC of warming per doubling of CO2. For some odd reason, it turns out that adding another blanket to your bed makes you warmer... (I've never understood those people who argue negative feedbacks cancel out the effects of CO2 increases - I mean, have they never looked at the paleoclimate records? That doesn't look like a self-regulating stable system to me!) -
muoncounter at 10:50 AM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#129: "why do we have 6 new record lows in Mexico?" Perhaps you should study the distinction between weather and climate. See the thread "It's freaking cold". Then look at maps of the jet stream, which is pulling very far to the south, in part because of the anomalously warm Arctic. Also see the thread on "extreme weather". In fact, do as Moderator DB suggests; read and learn before developing so many opinions. -
muoncounter at 10:44 AM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#119: "In this subject treating data as factual, is a mistake." Wow, doesn't that just say it all? -
scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
"You refer me to a site with wildly varying estimates, most of which are hopelessly out of date following the Global near depression. " I sent you to site from which the scenarios used for IPCC models are taken. The models are run for each scenario so you can see what happens. You appear not to have read the assumptions on economic factors. As to idea that they are hopelessly out of date. see CO2 since 1990. Can you see the global depression is that curve? "Energy usage from all sources will increase 48% by 2035," How about putting in links? I assume this global not US? "So, even assuming we can't drive any efficiencies in carbon per unit of energy....we don't double carbon output from man made sources." Dont need to. As has been pointed out, do your maths. " And man made sources constitute a fraction of total CO2 production." Another skeptic dance. Natural sources AND sinks are huge but balanced. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly manmade. See appropriate threads. "Given this and the relatively small rise of 23% in CO2 since 1900, I find your confidence in these wildly differing estimates, bemusing to say the least. " Your erroneous maths on this subject has been pointed out many times. Start at 1950, 310ppm, and add 2 ppm per year. -
mozart at 10:33 AM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Well here's one for you to ponder Albie, and it's on topic. If an Arctic high pressure region caused by warmer sea temperatures is causing all this misery....why do we have 6 new record lows in Mexico? Refer to my off topic response 104. -
RickG at 10:33 AM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
@126 mozart First digest the two links I gave you and especially the links provided in those articles. It is not something that is ignored or even looked upon lightly. The point I was trying to make with the anomalies is that a change of 1 deg C is a change of 1 deg C whether it occurred in a UHI or twenty miles from it. The UHI actual temp change may be 17C to 18C and the station 20 miles away may be 14C to 15C. Different temperatures but still only a change in 1 deg C. -
scaddenp at 10:25 AM on 8 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Pirate - you keep bringing up the "CO2 lags temperature".Do you think this that is an unexpected result within current climate theory? (Its not). See CO2 lags temperature for more discussion. -
Albatross at 10:17 AM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
I also showed you the SSTs @125, which you of course ignored, instead once electing to keep arguing about a long debunked point. Now, please either stay on topic move the discussion to the appropriate thread. Thanks. -
mozart at 10:11 AM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Ah but Rick that's exactly my point.....change is what we are after, and cities and heat islands are growing. There is every reason to believe, even with stable temperatures, readings taken in cities will continue to rise. By contrast there is no reason that a reading taken in the city or the country would fall over time. We have a built in bias. Now as Albie points out above serious attempts are made to eliminate this bias. But I'm from Missouri on this one, I doubt the effects are totally eliminated at all the sites records are kept, in every country around the globe. But as Daniel would say, I'm off the subject and wasting your time...so best not go there.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] UHI is off-topic on this thread. Find the appropriate thread for continuing discussions of that topic. Thanks! -
villabolo at 10:08 AM on 8 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
Alden Griffith @4: "Imagine a student in their graduate-level comprehensive exam trying to make a claim based on two data points that completely misrepresents the clear longterm trend." You can actually imagine a mere layman, who does not even pretend to have the ability to read charts, finding intuitively something very wrong with that picture. If we were to actually run into a layman using such a chart, it would be instructive to emphasize the visual emptiness of the chart. That should arouse suspicion in his mind. -
Albatross at 09:45 AM on 8 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Mozart @122, Oh dear, nobody is claiming that the UHI does not exist...that is why they correct for it, and they are very careful. Let me remind you of the title of this post "Global Warming and Cold Winters", it speaks to the intriguing hypothesis that the loss of arctic sea ice could be responsible (at least in part) to the AO going into deep negative territory. The result...temperatures running 15-20 K higher than normal in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland, and much below average temperatures over portions of Eurasia and N. America. According to the RSS data, lower tropospheric temperatures (70 S to 82.5 N) in November were near record highs, with positive anomalies in December and January-- and that despite one of the strongest La Ninas on record and despite the strongly negative AO. By comparison, a weaker (but significant according to the MEI) La Nina event in 1988-1989 resulted global lower tropospheric temperature anomalies that were over 0.3 K lower than are being observed for this strong event. The very first point you made is that we are still observing record lows as evidence that we do not have a problem. That is simply wrong, and runs contrary to you claiming that the UHI is allegedly causing record highs. On the one hand you are arguing that the record highs are because of UHI (they are not), and on the other hand you claim the occurrence of record lows as evidence that there is not an issue. You want it both ways. Such internally inconsistent arguments are frequently made my "skeptics". The UHI crutch cannot be used "skeptics" to explain away the increase in global SSTs, satellite data, loss of sea Arctic ice, loss of ice from glaciers and ice sheets, earlier leaf burst, changes in migrations et cetera. The figure below shows the global SSTs, no UHI there mate....and if you want a peer-reviewed paper, here is one by Rayner et al. (2005).Now here is an exercise for you...superimpose on that map above the global SAT temperatures. You will find that they correlate extremely well. You continue to argue straw men and continue make unsubstantiated comments. I am not interested in your opinions or musings, I am interested in the science and facts. Such internally inconsistent arguments are frequently made by "skeptics". You are, of course entitled to your opinions on this, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Prev 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 Next
