Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 Next
Comments 96551 to 96600:
-
Albatross at 12:57 PM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
As if we did not need more evidence. From a paper to appear very soon in the prestigious Journal of Climate: "The role of human activity in the recent warming of extremely warm daytime temperatures Nikolaos Christidis, Peter A. Stott, Simon J. Brown Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Change, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK Abstract Formal detection and attribution analyses of changes in daily extremes give evidence of a significant human influence on the increasing severity of extremely warm nights and decreasing severity of extremely cold days and nights. We present an optimal fingerprinting analysis, which also detects the contributions of external forcings to recent changes in extremely warm days using non-stationary extreme value theory. Our analysis is the first that attempts to partition the observed change in warm daytime extremes between its anthropogenic and natural components and hence attribute part of the change to possible causes. Changes in the extreme temperatures are represented by the temporal changes in a parameter of an extreme value distribution. Regional distributions of the trend in the parameter are computed with and without human influence using constraints from the global optimal fingerprinting analysis. Anthropogenic forcings alter the regional distributions, indicating that extremely warm days have become hotter." -
Albatross at 12:56 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Pirate @66, You continue to be disingenuous with your flippant and unsubstantiated remarks. People have repeatedly directed you to the science which demonstrates that the planet is experiencing a net positive energy imbalance on account of the radiative forcing from GHGs and that the majority of warming is attributable to the rapid increase in GHGs from human activities. From a paper to appear very soon in the prestigious Journal of Climate: "The role of human activity in the recent warming of extremely warm daytime temperatures Nikolaos Christidis, Peter A. Stott, Simon J. Brown Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Change, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK Abstract Formal detection and attribution analyses of changes in daily extremes give evidence of a significant human influence on the increasing severity of extremely warm nights and decreasing severity of extremely cold days and nights. We present an optimal fingerprinting analysis, which also detects the contributions of external forcings to recent changes in extremely warm days using non-stationary extreme value theory. Our analysis is the first that attempts to partition the observed change in warm daytime extremes between its anthropogenic and natural components and hence attribute part of the change to possible causes. Changes in the extreme temperatures are represented by the temporal changes in a parameter of an extreme value distribution. Regional distributions of the trend in the parameter are computed with and without human influence using constraints from the global optimal fingerprinting analysis. Anthropogenic forcings alter the regional distributions, indicating that extremely warm days have become hotter." -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:50 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Dikran @ 64, From what I've read, I am in tentative agreement that large releases of CO2 can have a temporary effect as a driver of global temperature. But, equilibration comes into play (i.e., after a major volcanic eruption) and temps go back to their normal phase, whether rising or falling. Start a pot of water boiling and drop in one ice cube. What happens? The rate of reaching boiling slows down temporarily until that ice cube is gone. But, then it rapidly goes back to the original trend. -
climatesight at 12:49 PM on 9 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
This is a really good tool for public communication...fantastic job. I am wondering if a dynamic online format, similar to your PowerPoint animation idea, would be good. People could go to SkS and take the quiz without having to download anything. I think an online form of the quiz would be fun, and not too hard to code. -
Albatross at 12:49 PM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Agnostic @15, As you know, getting data from the Russian authorities is not easy. For this reason the estimates of the deaths vary wildly, from 15000 to 56000. The latter number (56000) is from this United Nations press release. In my earlier post I could not remember the exact number that I read originally, so I gave a range and erred on the conservative side. Whatever the final number of fatalities actually was, it was very likely in the tens of thousands. 2010 was a grim year for natural disasters. -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:42 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Temp, CO2 and human population. Kinda tied together ain't it? In what order - who knows? -
Marvin Gardens at 12:26 PM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Dana @ 63 I've considered that CO2 can "drive" climate and rejected it. What do you mean by your reference of "artificially cheap fossil fuels"? -
Albatross at 12:05 PM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
"These record highs and lows are from a city which has just been impacted by Arctic cold" Can only hope that is was simply "affected" by the cold-- "impacted", ouch. The point that you seem to keep missing Mozart is that the loss of ice can lead to strongly negative models of the NAO/AO which leads to the so-called 'warm Arctic, cold continents' phenomenon-- i.e., unusually strong cold Arctic outbreaks. I do not think anyone is seriously suggesting that these excursions will last the entire boreal winter, nor are they suggesting it will lead to a trend in boreal winters. Europe was cold in late November and most of December, but has been mild ever since, the meteorological winter 2010-2011 (DFF) for Europe could end up being near normal. IMHO, this pattern suggests much larger wings in temperature and precipitation over the northern continents during the Boreal winter. Time will tell.... Mozart at 156 starts to show his/her true colours. You will probably think otherwise, but people have actually been very patient with you Mozart, and have repeatedly tried to guide you as to how this site works. It works for other 'skeptics' who frequent the site, so no reason that it cannot work for you. -
Riduna at 11:44 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Albatross @ 3 …. the Russian heat wave that killed an estimated 40-50 thousand. At the time, Russian authorities estimated 15,000 premature deaths. Have they revised that estimate? -
Steve L at 11:17 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
KR @11, Thank you -- that was the point I was trying to make! This blog post states "increase in record high temperatures". I don't think that's accurate, and so other wording should be used. As for the ratio of record lows to record highs ... I actually prefer numbers that sum to 1, and therefore percentages could be better. For example, I think projections for the future should be: "by 2050 5% of record temperatures will be cold; by 2100 that will drop to 2%." But this is just semantics. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:17 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
Rhjames' Arctic sea ice has decreased a lot more than Antarctic sea ice. Global sea ice is clearly in the decline. Picking 2007 to try to suggest that the ice decline has stopped is as misleading and wrong as suggesting that temperatures have been flat since 1998. Both claims are equally wrong, the data shows that very clearly. In fact, the decline in summer Arctic sea ice shows an accelerating decline up to 2010. If you can not understand that this does not necessarily mean that every year will be lower than the previous one, you have some serious catching up to do with the basics. The very significant decrease in Arctic sea ice in the Arctic summer opens up large areas of ocean to absorb sunlight. The Northwest passage has never been reported to open as much and as long as in recent years. All Northwest passages crossings in more distant history took several years. There has never been in recorded history so many days when both the NW and NE passages were open at the same time as there was in the past few summers. All this has been explored earlier on this site, proper research here or on Google will take you to all the sources and data you need. -
Stephen Leahy at 11:04 AM on 9 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
WRT to CC, I like the phrase: "we may even see new ‘flavours’ of ENSO emerge as we move into the future” --Julia Cole, a climate scientist at the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona. -
iana at 10:19 AM on 9 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
This is really a great resource. Thank you! -
villabolo at 10:08 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
John C, I do agree with Billy Joe at @7. The semantics do not allow for a contradiction in that particular point that Monckton is making. This, irrespective of all his other contradictions. -
Albatross at 10:05 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
SteveL @10, The information for years from 2002 can be found here. National records are labeled as such. -
Record high temperatures versus record lows
mozart - See the above graph with declining numbers of highs and lows. The longer the data set, the fewer extrema you will expect to see later in the data set, as records are only set when either internal variation is high or when the midpoint shifts. The ratio of highs to lows over any time period is an indication of trends. -
Global Warming and Cold Winters
mozart - Please look at (and comment further upon) the thread Record high temperatures versus record lows: I've already referred you there, and it clearly demonstrates your misperceptions.Moderator Response: I've deleted mozart's last couple of comments and a reply to one of them, because mozart has failed to follow the directives to put comments on the appropriate thread, "Record high temperatures versus record lows." -
Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Steve L - It's difficult to compare year to year in terms of absolute numbers of records; the longer you study a system the fewer extremes will be seen, due to having more data. See Record high temperatures versus record lows for examples. However, the ratio of record lows to record highs over any time period will be low (more highs than lows) if it's warming, high if it's cooling. That's the indicator to look at. -
villabolo at 09:43 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
When talking about record hot weather, Monckton points out that while heatwaves happen, so to do cold snaps: In my opinion the immediate rebuttal to this, before bringing out any further evidence, should be that it was the heatwave in the Arctic that pushed the frigid polar air towards us therefore causing those cold snaps. By making a direct link between that heatwave and the coldsnaps we have a higher chance of quickly neutralizing Lord Monckton's argument in the minds of the layman. -
mozart at 09:27 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
We have a sixty year period. We would expect the highs and lows to be distributed evenly through that period in the absence of any trends. So now look at monthly data for January. There will be 31 highs and 31 lows reflecting specific days through the 60 year period. We would expect 5.16' of those daily highs and 5.16' of those daily lows to occur in each decade. Multiply that by 6 decades and you get a high and a low for each day in the month (is this confusing?) Unexpectedly though we get far fewer highs and lows, for January, February and March.....providing no support for the view that a shift has occured. If anything the variabilty is reduced. -
JMurphy at 09:18 AM on 9 February 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
I thought it worth posting a link to a forecast by the Met Office from 10 Dec 2009 : The latest forecast from our climate scientists, shows the global temperature is forecast to be almost 0.6 °C above the 1961–90 long-term average. This means that it is more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record, beating the previous record year which was 1998. Climate could warm to record levels in 2010 Not bad, especially as a summation of all the major analyses. Of course, to so-called skeptics, the Met Office never get their forecasts right... -
Steve L at 09:17 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Hi Michael. I was referring to Meehl et al 2009. That study is more limited in terms of both temporal (the paper obviously didn't include 2010) and spatial (conterminous US only) coverage than the records you discuss. But please note that the metric, "increase in record high temperatures," which I took to mean increasing frequency of record high temperatures, makes it difficult to use information such as that provided by you & Albatross. How many countries experienced record highs in previous years? -
Albatross at 08:52 AM on 9 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Poodlebites, Thanks for the link to the Tans paper. What we have to keep in mind is that the forests can act as a net carbon source (as opposed to a C sink) during and shortly after drought, as the recent paper of the Amazon droughts in Science demonstrates. Anyhow, some good news, the forests are still providing a buffer-- a buffer that is very much needed. on a side note, a concern is that the pine beetle invasion has progressed from British Columbia into Alberta, scientists are concerned that is could spread into the Canada's Boreal forest. -
Albatross at 08:37 AM on 9 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
The Poodlebites, "My main point was no significant trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, precip, snow." Actually there are trends in drought and heavy precipitations around the globe (e.g., Dai et al. (2004): "Together, the global land areas in either very dry or very wet conditions have increased from ~20% to 38% since 1972, with surface warming as the primary cause after the mid-1980s. These results provide observational evidence for the increasing risk of droughts as anthropogenic global warming progresses and produces both increased temperatures and increased drying." I provided links to several papers investigating the increase in heavy rainfall events around the globe here and here. And there is also a statistically significant trend toward less N. Hemisphere snow cover in the spring and summer as documented by Dery and Brown (2007). Numerous papers using fingerprinting techniques have identified the AGW signal, as discussed in section 9.4 in the IPCC AR4 and here and here and here on SkS. Those are the facts. Sorry, but while you and I are entitled to our opinions and interpretations of the science and data, the facts stand on their own and they present a very clear and consistent picture. To deny that is not being "skeptical"..... -
scaddenp at 08:18 AM on 9 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Mozart - Firstly the "percentage" arguments are smoke and mirrors. ppm for pre-industrial(1830) is 280, 560 is double that. Growth from 1830 to 1950 was 30ppm - 10% and 0.25ppm/yr Growth from 1950 to 2000 was 55ppm - 20% and 1.1 ppm/yr Growth from 2000 to 2010 was 25ppm - 9% and 2.5 ppm/yr Still need another 60% to get to doubling, but at 2.5ppm per year, this takes 66 years. Where did you get the idea CO2 rates were flat 10 years ago? Another assertion without evidence. Why exactly do you think that China and India (or US for that matter) will stop burning coal? Anyway, the point of SRES scenarios is that you can take the scenario that you think is best likely to describe the future (by looking at the assumptions it makes, not wishful thinking) and then looking at WG2 to see what world would look like with that scenario. -
thepoodlebites at 08:07 AM on 9 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
#63 (AT) Let's stick to the facts. My main point was no significant trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, precip, snow. The website you provided is not accurate. The average radius of the Earth is 6,370 km, not 5,925 km. The present rate of CO2 increase is 2 ppm/year, not 3 ppm/year. The parameters used should be accurate, that's all I was trying to point out. The conclusion concerning deforrestation is in dispute, see Tans 2009, specifically, Fig. 3. You seem to be setting up strawman arguments about null hypotheses so that you can knock them down. From current observations, the CO2-induced AGW signal is still inconclusive. That's how I see it. -
michael sweet at 08:04 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
TorB: Check the NCDC Climate Monitoring reports to find Global weather averages. I find October 2009 as 6th warmest on record (0.5C above average), November 2009 as 4th warmest (0.59 over) and December 2009 as 31st warmest (0.35 over average). It is unlikely that the decade results above will be lowered since the average temerature in those months was higher than the rest of the decade. October was only "cold" compared to the previous record hot years. Check your data before making wild, unsupported claims. Steve L: In 2010 19 countries recorded all time record high temperatures and none recorded all time record lows see here (h/t Albatross). 20% of the Earths land surface is included in those records. Where is the room for questioning the "increase in high temperatures"? -
clonmac at 07:58 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
@BillyJoe I hate to say it too, but it seems you're right about the wording. But, in reality it is just semantics. In the end, Monckton is still trying to imply that warming doesn't cause extreme weather events by cherry-picking examples and follows it up with another statement he made that says that global warming does cause an increase in highs and lows. If he didn't want to mislead readers into thinking that higher global temperatures doesn't equal more extremes, then why would he specifically dismiss those 2010 and 2003 weather events in the way h did? It is a tactic they use to spread misinformation. I don't know if he is right or not about the causes of those events, but either way he uses that information without regard for the bigger picture of AGW. That also certainly doesn't dismiss the first set of his own contradictory statements as well. -
muoncounter at 07:53 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#148: "if we choose the decade starting with 2001 running through end 2010, we would expect five highs and five lows." Why? If you are comparing decadal 'highs' and 'lows' to a 60 year record, there is no guarantee of any highs and lows in a 10 year period. Could it be that the posing of these ill-formed hypotheticals interferes with understanding what is actually going on? -
mozart at 07:38 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
And if you don't get a no ice condition, let me guess, conditions weren't perturbed "enough"? -
BillyJoe at 07:32 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
I really don't want to have to defend Monckton, so I hope I have this all wrong but... Monckton 1: "...neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming" Monckton 2: "Since there has been some warming, more hot-weather than cold-weather records have been set...for the mere fact of warming tells us nothing about the cause of the warming" John Cook: "So the goal posts shift from "global warming doesn't affect weather" to "global warming affects weather but humans aren't causing global warming"". It seems to me Monckton is not shifting the goal posts here. In the first quote he is referring to MAN MADE global warming and he says that is does not have MUCH to do with weather extremes. In the second quote he simply says "warming" not man made global warming. In fact he says "warming" does not tell us about the cause of the warming. He is, of course, denying that it is man made. In other words, although he may be wrong about AGW, it does not seem to me that he is inconsistent. Some one please point out my error though :(Response: I think you need to take Monckton's full quote in context:"...neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming”; like the heatwave of 2003 in Europe that is said to have killed 35,000 people, they are known to have been caused by an unusual pattern of what meteorologists call “blocking highs”"
It's not just the 'manmade' he's talking about - he's blaming heat waves on blocking highs. Semantically, you might be able to squirm out of a contradiction by saying he was merely talking about the manmade part. But the overall gist of the quote and what anyone would take out of the full quote is that heat waves are due to chaotic weather events like blocking highs and not long-term climate trends. Read through the full article and tell me that's not what you get out of that part of the article. -
BillyJoe at 07:12 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
les, Fair enough. But difficult to pick sometimes if you don't know the poster. For example, my response could be read as irony also. ;) -
Steve L at 07:03 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
"...increase in record high temperatures." Unlike the climate contrarians, we have to be careful with how we describe things. Meehl et al didn't describe an increase in record high temperatures. Because the number of records increases, the rate of achieving new records goes down over time. This can be modeled simply for stochastic variability. What's happening is that the rate of achieving new cold records is declining much faster than the stochastic model. Record highs in the US declined somewhat indestinguishably from the stochastic expectation. Thus the ratio of warm to cold records is not due to an "increase in record high temperatures". -
Albatross at 06:58 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
No worries Daniel @150. I too recall reading something along those lines-- can't recall which paper it was though. I'll poke around my PDF library. -
les at 06:29 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
#24 BillyJoe "Seriously?" ... ummm, no... Should be said, I'm English and consider that Irony is the highest form of wit. Don't worry, lots of 'denialists' don't understand irony either. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:27 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Thanks for that, Albatross. Question for you: Some time back, I read a study which looked at a model output that showed that conditions in the Arctic supported only a full-ice or a no-ice solution. Once the system was perturbed enough to transition to a seasonal-ice condition, the transition to a full no-ice condition was effected in less than 10 years (and vice-versa). Temperature swings were about 1 degree C per year during the transition. For the life of me I can't find the link or remember where I read of it (I'm not blaming early senility, just being overworked). Strike any bells with you? Thanks! The Yooper -
Bob Lacatena at 06:08 AM on 9 February 2011Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
11, Arkadiusz, Before getting too enamored of the benefits of increased CO2 for plants, remember that the reason C4 and CAM plants like corn exist (and are so importantly successful in many cultivated climates around the globe, including, importantly, the U.S.) is that their CO2 intake is restricted by water loss, which is in turn restricted by temperature. When it gets too hot, plants lose too much water, and close up. They don't lose as much moisture when their stomates close, but by the same token they can't take in CO2, no matter how much there is in the air. So when it gets too hot and/or too dry, photosynthesis shuts down. Only specially adapted plants survive (crabgrass in a U.S. summer, cactus in the desert). Those plants, overall, don't tend to be very productive crops. They put their energy and specialization into hot-weather survival rather than fruitful (and edible) reproduction. And even those plants can reach a breaking point. It only takes a short while of too warm, too dry weather to destroy an entire year's worth of crops. If that became the rule rather than the exception, much of the world would begin to go hungry.Moderator Response: More info is in the Argument "CO2 is not a pollutant." See also the comments there. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:59 AM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
apiratelooksat50@62 Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 has mainly acted as a feedback, however there have been occasions when a large release of carbon has driven temperature changes. For example, the escape from the snowball Earth of the late Ordovician is pretty tough to explain without greenhouse gasses, or more recently there is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event. Population growth in itself doesn't mean humans have been doing well. Mere reproductive success generally ends up hitting Malthusian limits, which is rarely an enjoyable experience for any species. Besides, I think you will find the causal link is in the other direction. BTW, have you come up with an example of an observation that would falsify the hypothesis of Spencer's challenge that you asserted was valid? -
Albatross at 05:53 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
From the NSIDC report for January 2011: "Potential links with mid-latitude weather While the Arctic has been warm, cold and stormy weather has affected much of the Northeast U.S. and Europe. Last winter also paired an anomalously warm Arctic with cold and snowy weather for the eastern U.S. and northern Europe. Is there a connection? Warm conditions in the Arctic and cold conditions in northern Europe and the U.S. are linked to the strong negative mode of the Arctic oscillation. Cold air is denser than warmer air, so it sits closer to the surface. Around the North Pole, this dense cold air causes a circular wind pattern called the polar vortex , which helps keep cold air trapped near the poles. When sea ice has not formed during autumn and winter, heat from the ocean escapes and warms the atmosphere. This may weaken the polar vortex and allow air to spill out of the Arctic and into mid-latitude regions in some years, bringing potentially cold winter weather to lower latitudes. Some scientists have speculated that more frequent episodes of a negative Arctic Oscillation, and the stormy winters that result, are linked to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic. Dr. James Overland of NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) recently noted a link between low sea ice and a weak polar vortex in 2005, 2008, and the past two winters, all years with very low September sea ice extent. Earlier work by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University and colleagues also suggested a relationship between autumn sea ice levels and mid-latitude winter conditions. Judah Cohen, at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., and his colleagues propose another idea—a potential relationship between early snowfall in northern Siberia, a negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, and more extreme winters elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. More research on these ideas may shed light on the connections and have the potential to improve seasonal weather forecasting." And from their December 2010 report: "A recent study led by Julienne Strove of NSIDC showed that while wind patterns linked with the strongly negative Arctic Oscillation winter of 2009-2010 transported much old ice into the southern Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, most of this ice later melted. It may be that with a warmer Arctic, old rules regarding links between the atmospheric pressure patterns and sea ice extent no longer hold." That bolded part is of particular concern. It seems that we are witnessing climate disruption in action. It is going to be interesting to see whether this is a transient phase before a new state is achieved. The disruption of the polar vortex because of polar amplification (not a random process) his is probably going to be an area of much more research in coming years. -
dana1981 at 05:52 AM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
apiratelooksat50 - that you're not even willing to consider the reality that CO2 is driving global warming shows an unfortunate closed-mindedness. You've also got it backwards. Humans aren't thriving because of the temperature increase - the temperature increase is a result of humans thriving (which is due to our massive use of artificially cheap fossil fuels). I also suggest you read the we're recovering from the LIA rebuttal. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:45 AM on 9 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
I'm willing to consider CO2 (both manmade and natural) as significant "contributors" to global warming - but not "drivers". Since, we've been more or less steadily warming since the Little Ice Age, it appears that humans have been doing quite well.
-
mozart at 05:39 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Just to motivate this a bit, let's look at Chicago as a good example of a city impacted by Arctic weather systems. The data base registers record lows and highs going back to 1950. So if we choose the decade starting with 2001 running through end 2010, we would expect five highs and five lows. See:http://www.weather.com/outlook/recreation/outdoors/wxclimatology/daily/USIL06 In fact what we get is: two all time highs in January and no lows, one high in February and no lows, and no highs in March and two lows. These results are far below the expected five lows/highs for each month....showing the general mildness of the weather. And reasonably balanced with three highs and two lows. Furthermore, the Chicago results would likely be duplicated throughout the Mid West, the region most impacted by Arctic air. There is no empirical evidence for the theory, in the region which is most likely to demonstrate it. -
muoncounter at 05:26 AM on 9 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
#20: "it's an odd explosive growth model that has it's highest observation 13 years ago in 1998" Odd indeed. So odd that one can only conclude that the observation you made must be incorrect. If you cared to look upthread, you would see that models are very close to observed (those are the dots on the emissions graph). If we stay at or near A1FI, we reach 560ppm (a doubling of pre-industrial CO2) mid century. That's what the science says; what you choose to believe is your own. I refer you once again to the noted futurist, H. Callahan, as quoted at the bottom of this comment. -
muoncounter at 04:40 AM on 9 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
#30: Thanks, I reset the link to yours. My guess is that this year is a statistical tie with 2006-07. Still massively below the average - and that's the point. -
Albatross at 04:28 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Mozart @146, So you do not deny it. Actually, it is your tone and persistent attempts to obfuscate and derail this thread that are offensive. Sorry, but you have been called on your game. I doubt very much that you have even consulted the peer-review paper by Petoukhov and Semenov (2010) which speaks to the possibility that the loss of Arctic sea ice can modulate the mode of the AO. Actually many of the 146 comments to date have been on topic....at least make the for to read the entire thread before making such a ridiculous and false assertion. The research and pursuit of science will continue, and maybe the researcher's hypothesis is wrong, but at least they are making a concrete effort to improve our understanding of the climate system. You dismissing it as a "silly" idea is both juvenile and ridiculous. I challenge you to refute their findings with your own research published in a legitimate journal. Now unless you decide to actually speak to the science, show a sincere effort to engage in good faith, and back up your assertions with appropriate data, you can expect me to ignore you. -
Tor B at 04:15 AM on 9 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
re: Figure 1: Ratio of record daily highs to record daily lows I look forward to seeing the Oct-Dec 2009 data included in the graph so that it shows 6 complete decades. I can just hear someone saying the data is "cherry-picked"! (I know the graph was first published in November 2009, but it does need updating.) In an attempt to fill the gap, I found: 1) “October [2009] was a very cold month across large parts of the country.” - Newswire.com and 2) “The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America.” - ScienceDaily 3) I didn't find anything about November 2009, one way or the other, but I did stop searching. This basically anecdotal information will definitely not decrease the height of the 2000s ‘record highs’ bar, but suggests the height of the ‘record lows’ bar will increase. How much will the 2.04:1 ratio change? “Very cold” October suggests lots of records may have been set; “unseasonable cool December” suggests no more than a few records set. Can somebody crunch some actual data? -
hank at 04:14 AM on 9 February 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
The 'further reading' links at the top of the first page are broken: "Tamino ... Garbage is Forever and Wiggles." If they've been recovered can you update the pointer? -
mozart at 04:09 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Troll? Hahaha....very polite Albie. Actually if you care to look you will find post number 143 was a response to another poster....as were many others where I was accused of being off topic. In fact this whole page doesn't contain one posting that is "on topic", except for my question on the Mexican lows and a few responses to that. My guess is, this silly idea has run it's course. It's a pretty embarrassing bit of speculation.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Actually, your comments have wandered all over the map and you have ignored suggestions to redirect to other threads. Your opinions about 'silly ideas' are irrelevant. Please see the Comments Policy to develop some understanding of how this site works. -
Albatross at 03:50 AM on 9 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Michael @142, You are welcome. -
Papy at 03:49 AM on 9 February 2011Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Well, I couldn't find the appropriate thread, so here's an animation film I've just discovered from Leo Murray, about AGW and the 'tipping point': "Wake Up, Freak out - then Get a Grip" Is it accurate with climate science in general, and especially Hansen theory ?
Prev 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 Next
