Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 Next
Comments 96951 to 97000:
-
dana1981 at 11:15 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
David #13 - the FEU-US error is discussed in the original Case Study article. Basically what they did was project the CO2-equivalent concentration (CO2 plus other greenhouse gases) in 2020, then using a climate sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling of CO2, estimated that the planet would be 2.4°C above pre-industrial temps. The problem is that the climate sensitivity parameter is an equilibrium value, and the planet is not in equilibrium (in short, FEU-US ignored thermal inertia). On top of that, they didn't take into account negative forcings like aerosols. -
chrisd3 at 11:11 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
@Sphaerica #19: but then it would have to be pronounced "skweptics" Not at all. There are many words in which 'qu' has a 'k' sound: baroque, unique, mosquito, liquor, antique, etc., etc. I think 'squeptic' is just fine (although I have just disquovered that it's hard to type). -
michael sweet at 11:04 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
The last line in the original post says Greenland lost about 200 Gton of water last year. That equals 200 km^3 of water. Wikipedia says the ocean surface area= 3.61x10^8 km^2. I calculate that as about 0.6 mm of sea level rise. This is too small to measure apart from the noise in sea level rise so far. Sea level rise is a critical factor to watch. It will probably (hopefully) be at least a decade before it becomes clear how much sea level rise is increasing. The sooner it is clear sea level rise is increasing the bigger the problem. Sqeptics say we don't need to worry since it is so small it will be 1000 years to rise a meter. Dr. Hansen describes how with the current doubling rates for ice loss (doubled since 2002 in Greenland as shown above) that could lead to 5 meters sea level rise by 2100. Dr. Hansen's estimate is the highest that I know of for scientists, but he has usually been right in the past. Other scientific estimates range from about 1-2 meters. The IPCC estimate is smaller but does not include Greenland and the Antarctic. Contrast that with Fydijkstra who asserts that there is no problem, cites a paper that documents record increasing ice melt in Greenland to support his denial of a problem, and has a funny graph with some missing data. Choose who you believe. -
From Peru at 10:38 AM on 30 January 2011Sea level rise is exaggerated
PDT: I have no idea why sea level rise does not show an acceleration as a consecuence of accelerating melt in Greenland and Antartica. However, the University of Colorado data seems odd to me, because (to the delight of the folks at WUWT) shows instead a deceleration of sea level rise. I suggest to follow the CSIRO and AVISO data and graphs: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html That show a nearly constant trend of aproximately 3.2 mm/yr unlike the University of Colorado (U. of C.) that show a deceleration and a lower mean (linear) trend: 3 mm/yr, that seems to coincide with the AVISO trend when Glacial Isostatic Adjustement (GIA) is not applied, so I suspect that the U. of C. do not apply GIA in their product. Note to the moderator: how can I post IMAGES and ACTIVE LINKS here at skepticalscience?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Try here. Remember to use the image width tag if the image width is more than 450. Use the Preview function to make sure everything looks right before posting. Thanks! -
Bob Lacatena at 10:23 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
#18, HuggyPopsBear, I considered adding the 'u', but then it would have to be pronounced "skweptics", and that's a little to Monty-Python-esque, even for the We-love-Lord-Monckton-can-you-believe-it? crowd. On the "only" spelling remark... we fought a bold and gallant revolution for the right to spell anything however we dang well please. [In fact, I think the New Hampshire state slogan is "Spell Free or Die!"] -
From Peru at 10:23 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Where I can download the GRACE data about Greenland and Antartica to plot the mass anomaly in EXCEL? What about GRACE ocean mass related sea level rise?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You might try here. -
muoncounter at 10:18 AM on 30 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#34: "most major flooding events come about only after the ground reservoir has become fully saturated" That seems to be the case for the recent Queensland flooding. From The Australian: Super storm was brewing for a while "The thing which really stood out was the very regular falls of heavy rain in the southeast quarter of Queensland, with some areas recording their highest rainfall on record," says Karl Braganza, manager of climate monitoring at the National Climate Centre in Melbourne. That was before the arrival of cyclone Tasha -- another relatively weak storm, no doubt relatively low on the ACE scale, that was capable of substantial devastation. From the BOM Dec 2010 Queensland report: Many significant weather systems affected the state, bringing torrential rainfall at times, and severe thunderstorms battered the southeast coast between the 15th and 18th. A weak category one tropical cyclone, Tasha, crossed the coast south of Cairns early on Christmas morning and continuing active monsoonal activity led to a wet Christmas period that culminated in some of the most widespread and significant flooding in Queensland's history. "it most likely that it has been the preceding period where the determining factors are to be found." It seems that is correct. But what are the determining factors? From the same article in The Australian: Queensland climate services manager Jeff Sabburg says the high sea surface temperatures off the eastern Australian seaboard and northern Australia "produced record vapour pressure, which relates to how much moisture is in the atmosphere. There is extra moisture around and that translates obviously to a higher probability of rainfall." There's the same refrain: high temperatures (here, sea surface), higher probability of extreme weather events follow. -
HuggyPopsBear at 09:50 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
#16 Thanks Sphaerica. Sqeptic it is. Should there not be a 'u' after 'q'? English is English, there is only one spelling for sceptic.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] And then there's my preference, skeptic. -
Bibliovermis at 09:41 AM on 30 January 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
important note: net heat flow Heat doesn't from warmer objects doesn't avoid cooler objects. -
Phil at 09:31 AM on 30 January 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Chemist1 @333 Also it is the.zeroeth law that desribes two bodies next to each other,at two different temps,and the resulting heat flow from a warmer to cooler body as well, in terms of equilibration. No, the zeroth law only establishes temperature as the property that is invariant when two systems are in thermal equilibrium, it says nothing about the direction of heat flow when they are not. This is covered by the 2nd law. -
Ron Crouch at 09:28 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
All I can address David is the fact that the FEU neglected to take into account the negative forcings and the fact that there is some lag between the time CO2 is released and the full onset of effect as a result of that release. There are varying thoughts on that as well. The phasing out of coal as a home heating source can be seen in the temperature record, at least that's my perception. Some say 20 years, I say it's more like 30. But then some maintain that using wood for funeral pyres in Europe up until the 7th century is reflected in the temperature record as well. It is as I say, how you perceive things will greatly influence your perspective. And to gain perspective one needs to continue to learn on a daily basis with an unbiased eye, and an open mind. -
johnd at 09:16 AM on 30 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Eric (skeptic) at 06:11 AM on 30 January, 2011, Eric, you are exactly right. These matters must be put into their true perspective by examining the bigger picture, not focusing narrowly on a single aspect. With rainfall, not necessarily referencing floods, whilst it is the most recent rains that can cause a situation to go from manageable to unmanageable, the seeds for such a transition have generally been sown much earlier. Perhaps it is easier for some to understand how it is the bigger picture that is most relevant by referring to drought. With drought, the severity is judged by the cumulative effects of extended periods of below average rain, cumulative being the operative word. Thus, the cumulative effects of two dry years preceded by two wet years is totally different than if they were preceded by two dry years. The ground reservoir is able to absorb and hold vast amounts of moisture and this is a relevant and important factor in both droughts and floods. Whilst flash flooding can occur before the soil is saturated, most major flooding events come about only after the ground reservoir has become fully saturated, as well as all the water courses, dams etc having neared their capacity to contain further inflows. Thus it does not necessarily take an extreme event to turn a situation from manageable to unmanageable, as you have shown. If such events are to be deemed to be once in 100 year events, then it is ridiculous to restrict evaluation to one or two days only when it most likely that it has been the preceding period where the determining factors are to be found. -
adelady at 08:43 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Thanks Sphaerica. Sqeptic it is. -
Chemist1 at 08:13 AM on 30 January 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The second law also desribes:increasing entropy and heat loss. Heat and temperature are 2 different things. Also it is the.zeroeth law that desribes two bodies next to each other,at two different temps,and the resulting heat flow from a warmer to cooler body as well, in terms of equilibration. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:49 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Michael M,That's why I'm calling most of the "sceptics" Pseudo-Sceptics...
I think it would be better to call them sqeptics. This serves several purposes:- It distinguishes them from real skeptics/sceptics.
- It's shorter and easier to manage than "pseudo-skeptic".
- It makes them look appropriately silly.
- It solves the nagging problem of the Brits spelling skeptic with a "c" and the Yanks spelling sceptic with a "k".
Response: [John Cook] Does that mean I have to change the website to www.sqepticalscience.com? -
Paul D at 07:46 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Well done Dana. I missed that Guardian piece. -
David Horton at 07:46 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Ron at #6, that's my impression too. The whole thing strikes me again as being similar to the Himalayan glaciers, Amazon rainforests, flood prone land in Holland, "controversies". That is, what becomes discussed is the "error" in the exact timing or the exact extent, rather than the actual processes involved. With or without the errors, glaciers are still melting with future disastrous consequences for farming in Asia, the Amazon forests are still under obvious threat from climate change, Holland does face flooding as seas keep rising (as do other countries). Arguing about the detail of an error diverts attention from consequences, in this FEU case the effects on food production as the globe keeps warming. My impression Dana, Ron, was that the FEU error wasn't the result of some manipulation of data, or cherrypicking, but was at least in part the result of disagreement/confusion about the meaning of "pre-industrial" (as well as misunderstanding the thermal inertia question). Is that correct? -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:52 AM on 30 January 2011It's not us
Julian Flood@20 Are you questioning the attribution of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 to anthropogenic emissions? If so, you don't need isotopic arguments to establish that the attribution is correct. The principle of conservation of mass requires that if both man and the natural environment are carbon sources (i.e. emissions exceed uptake) then the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 must be greater than anthropogenic emissions (our uptake is negligible), as it is the sum of the net anthropogenic and natural contributions. This is observed not to be the case, atmospheric CO2 is rising at a rate about 45% of anthropogenic emissions, so the natural environment must be a net sink, and hence is not causing the observed rise. That particular piece of attribution is rock solid. The fact that the long term rise in atmospheric CO2 has been steady at 45% of anthropogenic emissions would be abit of a coincidence if the observed rise were natural and nothing to do with us! -
dana1981 at 06:49 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
dorlomin - funny acronym. Actually I recently read Ramanathan et al. (2008) in researching Lindzen's arguments in more detail. He uses the ABC acronym for "atmospheric brown clouds". "Anything but CO2" and "pseudo skeptics" seem to be appropriate descriptions based on the Guardian comments. A third 'case study' examining Lindzen's argument in more detail is in the works. -
dorlomin at 06:38 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
"anything but CO2” ABCers -
dorlomin at 06:36 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Basically your standard climate thread on the Guardian. -
Ron Crouch at 06:15 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
I started a post on this thread that I never finished and I'm glad that I waited thanks to Michael. Aside from the clarification that Michael has attached to the data the fydijkstra supplied, I can see something totally different in the second graph that fydijkstra posted in #7. You see I perceive things differently, so I have different perspective, and obviously fydijkstra drew the downward slope because that is how he perceives things and thus it gives him a different perspective. I can filter out the slope that fydijkstra drew in the graph, and from my perspective I can imagine an upward sloping line that is on the order of 25-30 degrees starting from 1995 to the end of graph, because that's how I perceive things. So for me the issue becomes whether it's a simple case of difference of perspective, or whether fydijkstra is trying to deliberately deceive by manipulating the data to serve a biased perception. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:11 AM on 30 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Tom Curtis #26, you said "In other words, the total amount of water involved was around twice as much as that which caused the 1974 floods". The report here http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs24b.pdf says "Over the Brisbane River catchment as a whole, average three-day rainfall in the 1974 event was 348.5 mm, compared with 286.4 mm in 2011, and all four major sub-catchments were also wetter in 1974 than in 2011, although by small margins in the cases of the Bremer (1974 442.1 mm; 2011 417.1 mm) and Lockyer (1974 331.3 mm; 2011 292.0 mm) sub-catchments" But the sentence before says "The weeks prior to the 1974 event, whilst wetter than normal, were also less wet than the equivalent weeks prior to the 2011 event." Sounds to me like the water flowing down the rivers (twice as much as 1974) came from a less extreme event, but was preceded by a more protracted wet pattern starting before December. -
Mike G at 06:10 AM on 30 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Cynicus @40 He said "Scleractinia"- the order of modern hard corals. Regardless, scleractinians probably DID evolve from actinians, which are the sea anemones, not sponges. But yes, the Permian was the only time when all known corals went extinct. However, there are other periods where corals nearly went extinct. The most notable of these events was from the Cretaceous to the Paleogene. During that period there are about 20 million years where there are no coral reefs and about 8 million or so where there are basically no coral fossils. Their diversity plummeted during that period and it now appears that the only species that survived were those that could do so without calcifying. It was those species that later re-radiated into the diversity of modern reef building corals. Corals very narrowly escaped extinction, but the other group of reef-builders at the time, rudist bivalves, did go completely extinct. -
arch stanton at 06:09 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Thank you for highlighting this difference between the camps. Hopefully it will help those who are inspired (unconsciously) by their desires to believe “anything but CO2” to recognize the difference between “skepticism” and “denialism”. -
Phila at 06:08 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Chemist1: Oh and a little information you may not know: you can ignore the thermal inertia of oceans in either calculation because a large amount of heat dissipates due to weather,thus not raising temps. Source, please? Unsubstantiated claims aren't valued very highly here. -
Michael.M at 05:55 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
That's why I'm calling most of the "sceptics" Pseudo-Sceptics, as pseudo shows their attitude (pseudo-sceptic meaning: false, not genuine, fake sceptic) to scepticism as well as some of their tactics (Etymology, combining form of Ancient Greek "pseudēs": false, lying). It is a pity that many "positive" sounding terms describing the attitude towards AGW are conquered by the pseudo-sceptics: - (true) sceptic - climate-realists - true climate and so on. But words paint a picture in the minds of the listeners, so let's get rid of positive names for unlogic and unscientific behaviour. -
Ron Crouch at 05:55 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
I think myself that in general the majority of people are too comfortable with accepting things at face value so long as it is in line with their thinking. There's not a whole lot of individuals who actually question the validity of a statement, even about subjects that they are familiar with. When I first saw an article on the FEU-US paper I thought it worthy of mention in another forum, but at the same time I knew there was something odd about it. I just had to sort it out. The first thing I did was to actually read the paper. After that I went to the AR4 to see what the scenarios predict. It didn't match. Then I went searching for contact information so I could query the author as to how they reached the conclusion that temperatures would rise by 2.4oC over the next 9 years. Well by the time I had it sorted out for myself, those who have a better line on contacts than me had already started to blog on the error. But because I had already read the paper I was focusing more on the FEU-US paper's other conclusions. And despite the fact that the world won't be 2.4oC warmer by 2020, that does not preclude that the rest of the conclusions may start to be witnessed in that 2020 time frame. I really don't think we need that much more of an increase in global average temperature before some of the effects discussed in the paper become visible markers. Of course I'm sure that the skeptics will read my comments here and I'll get branded a heretic as well. That's fine I have thick skin. But I guess what I am really trying to say to people in my post is to start using your critical thinking more often, even about issues you think you are familiar with, and do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth or shoot yourself in the foot. And as can be demonstrated in this forum and many others, get the proper perspective. I guarantee it will change your perception of the world around you. -
JMurphy at 05:37 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
You mean most of the so-called skeptics are not really sceptics at all ? I am so surprised...not. -
michael sweet at 05:28 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Fydijkstra: The reference you linked only measures surface melting. The 310 GT number you mention is the surface mass balance. Since they only estimated surface melt you would expect the total loss to be much greater. Ice melt from warm ocean water melting the glaciers is expected to melt more ice than surface melt in the long run. The GRACE data measures melt from all sources. Your reference supports the GRACE data claims of record melt. Your claim that these are dueling estimates is incorrect. Why does your second graph not have the data from 1993 and 1994 on it like the graph above it? It appears that the graph is incomplete. -
Chemist1 at 05:27 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
I think both thea FEU-US and Lindzen paper illustrate what can often happen in science, especially when dealing with unknowns and large uncertainty. The same issues occur in AGW publications in peer review too. Oh and a little information you may not know: you can ignore the thermal inertia of oceans in either calculation because a large amount of heat dissipates due to weather,thus not raising temps. -
Julian Flood at 05:06 AM on 30 January 2011It's not us
I find your knock-down attributions of warming to anthropogenic causes less than convincing. Perhaps you could clarify a couple of things? 1. More fossil fuel carbon in the air. Presumably you mean 'more light isotope carbon in the air'. How is this light carbon attributed to human emissions? It is trivially easy to think of other causes of a 12C signal -- disruptions of the biosphere will alter the flux of isotopes and change the absolute values, a minute warming will enable methanophages to devour clathrates which have been building up for millennia. Etc -- if I remember correctly I found five possible changes which could give this signal - six if you count the burning of fossil fuels. So, without post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, how do we know that the signal is anthropogenic? 2. Fossil fuel carbon in coral. I have the same objection to this one: there is a light carbon signal. How do you assign it to fossil fuel burning? 3. Less oxygen in the air. Well, the methanophages would cause that, as would a major disruption of C-fixing, oxygen-producing plankton. There has been a fall in plankton population of 40% in the last seventy years. Does it not seem more reasonable that oxygen use by civilisation is dwarfed by the huge fluxes found in nature? Having seen a flow diagram of CO2 with an uncertainty of +- 70 Gt in the value of export to deep ocean reservoirs, my take on the whole affair is that we are like a little boy peeing into a reservoir during a cloudburst and worrying about whether we will cause the dam to burst. It's warming. CO2 levels are rising. Attribution please. Your assertions above do not reach the standard of proof. Julian FloodModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Here's a recent study with data you can download & play with, so you can see for yourself. -
Byron Smith at 04:58 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Ron - that is not particularly surprising, since it was not the focus of Dana's excellent article, though you are right that its message is actually what has been lost in the controversy over a mistake in it. Funny how a single mistake can lead deniers to throw out a whole report (admittedly in this case a pretty bad mistake - as all sides agree), while a single grain of truth hidden amongst a pack of lies, half-truths and misleading implications makes any denier a courageous maverick standing against the crowd. -
Alexandre at 04:54 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Ron #1 Yes. That shows that the denier tactic is actually successful, shifting the "debate" to responding to crocks instead of mitigation policy or science. -
Ron Crouch at 04:30 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Amazing. Out of 310 responses there was not one that address's the underlying message of the FEU-US paper. -
John Hartz at 04:08 AM on 30 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
@John Cook Here's another way to graphically portray "Indicators of a Warming World" in a PowerPoint presentation. First slide: Narrative definition of the basic components of the "climate system," i.e. atmosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, etc. [Slide header: "What do you scientists mean when they say, "Climate System"?] Subsequent slides: Graphic representations (a la your slide posted above) of the GW Indicators for each component of the slide system. One of my ongoing concerns about how climate change is discussed on public forums, including SkS, is that many people simply do not understand that the "climate system" is more than just the atmosphere and that annual mean global surface temperature is just one of a myriad of ways to measure and track climate change. That is one reason why I have suggested the above slide show. Another is that your graphic simply contains way too much information on a single slide. It works great in the print media where people can stare at it for as long as they need to. -
pdt at 04:06 AM on 30 January 2011Sea level rise is exaggerated
Originally posted in the front-page article about Greenland ice loss. The moderator determined it was off-topic and that this would be the better place for the discussion. How is the short-term (last decade) accelerating land-ice loss (in Greenland and elsewhere) reconciled with sea level rise not accelerating? Does thermal expansion/contraction dominate over this time scale, is there too much error in the measurements, or is this truly something not clearly understood because of insufficient data like the energy budget? I guess the question is more broad in the sense that I wonder if the temperature, land-ice, and sea-level rates of change are fully reconcilable with available data.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thank you for setting a positive example! -
John Hartz at 03:49 AM on 30 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
@John Cook I hate to spoil the party, but... 1. The location of "Permafrost retreating poleward" leaves a lot to be desired. 2. Where is "Surface Water Heat Content"? 3. Where is "Land Heat Content"? 4. Where are "Climate Refugees migrating"? -
Daniel Bailey at 03:10 AM on 30 January 2011Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
@ Philip Shehan (13) Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). Or you can search by Taxonomy. Forcings, except for CO2, have been flat for nearly 40 years. Temperatures continue to climb, and that rate of climb is still increasing (as are CO2 levels). Hope that helps, The Yooper -
Zeroth at 02:55 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Thanks Daniel. Whats the known reference point for the GRACE graph? Or does it change over time? How is it determined?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] GRACE data begin in 2002, when the satellite was orbited and completed calibration. Nitty-gritty details are at the GRACE site linked earlier. The Original Post (OP) above talks about other sources of data on Greenland ice mass loss. The anomalies in the first graph show the change in mass loss over time (the rate of loss is increasing; eyeball Mk2 suggests a quadratic fit). -
Daniel Bailey at 02:49 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Re: Zeroth (8) Info on GRACE is here. Ideally, the range of ice mass measurements is shown to increase the accuracy of the next measurement: the anomaly. Climate scientists use anomalies instead of absolutes because they are interested in the change from a known reference point. This allows any signal in the data to emerge (time series of absolute measurements such as temperatures, or in this case: ice mass loss, tend to be very noisy with much variation). I also would be interested in seeing the deviation anomaly from just 2002 as a reference point. Not that it would change the graph any. The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 02:26 AM on 30 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@ Ron @ 107 For the uninitiate, this is a Yooper scooper (average: person, boots, house, winter snow depth). We even have the smaller kid's size. But I use this 10.5 HP, 28" cut snowblower. @ muoncounter Exactly! The Yooper -
muoncounter at 02:19 AM on 30 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#108: "Who on earth thought that last question was well-designed?" The survey as a whole reeks of bias; even the ordering of the questions is leading. In a survey that asks about current climate change, how can there be no presentation of current data? Are the students just supposed to guess or have they already been shown the answer? As a fellow science teacher, I'm embarrassed to see this. Here is a link to the US high school AP Environmental Science curriculum outline. Note in particular section VII. "Global change", which is supposed to represent 10-15% of the course. Among the content: Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect; impacts and consequences of global warming; reducing climate change; relevant laws and treaties. One has to wonder how that class went. Although it would be interesting to see how a class survey taken before an objective presentation of the data compared to one taken afterwards. -
mlyle at 02:19 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Sea level change is related not only to loss of land ice, but also thermal warming in the ocean and large scale ocean current structure. There is also a term associated with rebound of continents. Trying to compare Greenland ice loss directly to sea level is a mistake. Here's a site where you can look at the sea level data: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thanks for the link. All further comments on sea level are off-topic here and should go on a more relevant thread (such as this one by reader PDT). Thanks! -
Zeroth at 02:15 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
@#7, your second graph seems off. Thanks for linking to the data, can someone else run a line of best fit? That line doesn't seem right, and has more under than above(which violates the basic heuristic of line of best fit). The graph looks damning, but should be examined before being accepted. -
pdt at 02:10 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
How is the short-term (last decade) accelerating land-ice loss (in Greenland and elsewhere) reconciled with sea level rise not accelerating? Does thermal expansion/contraction dominate over this time scale, is there too much error in the measurements, or is this truly something not clearly understood because of insufficient data like the energy budget? -
RickG at 01:53 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
7 fydijkstra Why do I get the feeling that you have been in the cherry orchard? -
muoncounter at 01:48 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
#7: "However, it's not alarming, because..." Astute analysis, fydijkstra! Except for the observation in the post that "the rate of ice loss continues to increase, more than doubling since 2002." As if that wasn't clear enough, the graph in Fig 2. has a distinctly negative slope, visually describing the increasing rate of loss. Doubling in 8 years represents a 9% annual rate of change. So your calculation that we can go on for 14000 years misses by several thousand years. But the damage is done long before Greenland is completely ice-free. Amsterdam's airport is how far above sea level? Or is the 'elevation' given here a negative number? -
soo doh nim at 01:32 AM on 30 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
For non-technical types, I find that this explanation seems to work: I can predict that Alex Rodriquez will bat close to .325 next season. Now, say it's July 22nd, and the A's are coming to town. Try predicting the first pitch (type & location) A-Rod will face in today's game. Your prediction becomes more accurate as the actual situation (number of outs, men on base, etc) approaches. That's weather. The prediction for the season average is climate. Nine times out of ten I get the Aha! reaction. -
Zeroth at 01:32 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Okay, I'm sure theres a reason for showing the Ice Mass Anomaly, but it does look deceptive. Can you explain how this is calculated, and why its shown, instead of the actual ice mass numbers? Disclaimer: I'm not a doubter. However, I want to have something strong to show people, and this doesn't fit yet, simply because showing the ice mass anomaly rather than actual ice mass data looks deceptive.
Prev 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 Next
