Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 Next
Comments 97151 to 97200:
-
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. -
Ken Lambert at 01:10 AM on 30 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
MarkR #25 So Delta F should equate to my F.CO2GHG + F.otherGHG + F.solar (which are all the supposed independent of temperature) Y x DeltaT should equate to the climate and temperature responses: F.WVIA feedback - F.radiative feedbackSB - F.cloud albedo - F.direct albedo. ?? With your Delta Q equal to the difference between the two above terms. Is that right? -
fydijkstra at 00:46 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Two hundred gigatons mass loss from Greenland every year. It is quite a lot! We could cover the whole city of city of Amsterdam with 1000 meters of water with that amount of ice. Last week there was another paper, claiming that Greenland lost 310 Gigatons between October 2009 and September 2010. It seems to be a race to offer the highest estimates. However, it's not alarming, because: (1) 200 Gigaton is only 0.007% of the total Greenland mass, so we can go on for 14,000 years before the whole sheet disappears; (2) the sea level rise is not accelerating. This is what can be deduced from satellite measurements.
-
David Horton at 22:30 PM on 29 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Yes, when I see this graph I wonder why do it as an anomaly from average 2002-10. Why not simply present it as an anomaly from 2002? The graph as it is seems misleading, as you point out, suggesting ice gain pre 2007. I can't remember ever seeing a graph present data in quite this way before. Something a bit odd about the other data too. The current ice loss, from the graph, is not "over 200" but seems to be over 300. And the zero figure seems to be in 1975 - 35 years ago, not "2 decades". But prior to that, "some time before" "two decades", the figures are not also zero but again are over 100 in 1965-70. Do we know the reason for that? I would have expected the figures in those years to be zero. Are the measurements less accurate for those early years? Was there a difference in accumulation rates for some reason, or loss rates for some other reason? -
John Chapman at 22:15 PM on 29 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Thank you SS for this. John -
les at 21:50 PM on 29 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
regarding comments on figure 1... reminds me of Garrison Keillor's intro... "Lake Wobegon where ... all the children are above average" -
Chemware at 21:34 PM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
jyh @ 2: No, precipitation is rising globally, regardless of ENSO. See the interview with Trenbarth at Climate Progress: Exclusive interview: NCAR’s Trenberth on the link between global warming and extreme deluges This is part of an intensification of the hydrological cycle - so locally both droughts and floods will become more intense. Albatross @ 13: Ever done imagemaps ? Lots of fun :) -
BillyJoe at 21:13 PM on 29 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Perhaps we should invite Monckton to comment. Maybe he will question how changes in gravity as measured by satellites could possibly give an accurate estimation of changes in the Greenland ice mass. Actually I find it amazing myself but, then, I never ceased to be amazed by what can be achieved by scientists. -
jsam at 20:37 PM on 29 January 2011Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
Poor Benny Peiser, having to eat so much crow, as this article highlights his analysis of data was 97% wrong http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html. Naomi Oreskes is an outstanding scholar. -
Alexandre at 20:29 PM on 29 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Thanks John. Unfortunately, no surprises again... Any news on Antarctic GRACE data? -
adelady at 19:02 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I did the survey too. Who on earth thought that last question was well-designed? -
michael sweet at 18:51 PM on 29 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
John, Thank you for updating the data. Is it possible to compare the formula for the quadratic fit and see if the slope increased, decreased or stayed the same over the past year? Perhaps if the fit equation were shown that could be determined. It has been unusually hot over most of Greenland this winter. How will that affect the ice melt this year? -
Stephen Leahy at 16:55 PM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
opps here's the link -
Stephen Leahy at 16:54 PM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#29 I asked Trenberth that question you posed. His response: “Without global warming these extremes are unlikely to have occurred." He went on to confirm that: "Changes in extreme weather events are the main way climate change is manifested.” -
Philip Shehan at 16:49 PM on 29 January 2011Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
With regard to tree ring growth diverging from warming. I understand from other sections here that solar activity and cosmic radiation have also declined while temperatures have increased over the past few decades. Is there a possible causal effect due to this correlation? -
Ron Crouch at 15:48 PM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
It's more like the new abnormal normal. Abnormal in the sense that events are not only shifting in frequency of occurrence as the distribution shifts, they are also more intense. -
muoncounter at 15:30 PM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#23: "seems to be making rather exaggerated claims" Hardly. The same cogent assessment of the changing probabilities of weird weather events was made here . It's worth quoting over and over until the message sinks in: Was global warming the cause of the 2010 heat wave in Moscow, the 2003 heat wave in Europe, the all-time record high temperatures reached in many Asian nations in 2010, the incredible Pakistan flood in 2010? The standard scientist answer is "you cannot blame a specific weather/climate event on global warming." That answer, to the public, translates as "no". However, if the question were posed as "would these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?", an appropriate answer in that case is "almost certainly not." That answer, to the public, translates as "yes", i.e., humans probably bear a responsibility for the extreme event. ... Although either answer can be defended as "correct", we suggest that leading with the standard caveat "you cannot blame..." is misleading and allows a misinterpretation about the danger of increasing extreme events. Extreme events, by definition, are on the tail of the probability distribution. Events in the tail of the distribution are the ones that change most in frequency of occurrence as the distribution shifts due to global warming. Weird ... its the new normal. -
Ron Crouch at 14:58 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I don't mean to be nosy Daniel, but do you need a "yooper scooper" where you live? I'll bet if you do, that you get less use out of it every year. Eh! -
muoncounter at 14:55 PM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#29: "the real insult is that the National Hurricane Center ... still does not have the facts for 2010" Only can be considered an insult if true. As Albatross notes in #32, here are the facts, as of 29 Nov 2010: According to NOAA the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which ends tomorrow, was one of the busiest on record. In contrast, the eastern North Pacific season had the fewest storms on record since the satellite era began. In the Atlantic Basin a total of 19 named storms formed – tied with 1887 and 1995 for third highest on record. Of those, 12 became hurricanes – tied with 1969 for second highest on record. Five of those reached major hurricane status of Category 3 or higher. "Sit down please, you have not listened. That one is accumulated intensity of hurricanes making landfall in the US" Believe me, I'm not standing. As you seem to not recognize it, you picked only hurricanes (ignoring tropical storms) and only US landfalls; by comparison to that cherry pittance, the Atlantic basin looms large. "My scatterplot above ... is meaningful indeed. " If, by 'meaning,' you find some hidden significance in a shotgun spread of data points. See #24 for the way you described it. The ACE statistic is a wind speed-time duration metric. By focusing on this alone, you miss what is suggested here. Hurricane Tomas brought heavy rain to earthquake-ravaged Haiti, and several storms, including Alex, battered eastern Mexico and Central America with heavy rain, mudslides and deadly flooding. Alex was cat 2 at landfall (ACE 7.7); Tomas varied from TS to cat 1 (ACE 10.9). By comparsion, Igor was cat 4 (ACE 42.4), all as reported here. These storms are doing more damage because of they are associated with heavy 'predecessor rain events' (PREs), as tropical moisture is pulled along the storm track, as reported by Galarneau et al 2010: PREs are coherent mesoscale regions of heavy rainfall, ... that can occur approximately 1000 km poleward of recurving tropical cyclones (TCs). PREs occur most commonly in August and September, and approximately 36 h prior to the arrival of the main rain shield associated with the TC. ... PREs are high-impact weather events that can often result in significant inland flooding, either from the PRE itself or from the subsequent arrival of the main rain shield associated with the TC that falls onto soils already saturated by the PRE. A more comprehensive and sobering picture of storm effects is given in an unpublished piece by Drews 2007, who presents a breakdown of the ACE index into the components illustrated below.
As I said twice now, perhaps we can agree that this question remains open. It is tedious in the extreme to be overly dogmatic when it is clear that a better metric is needed.
-
Daniel Bailey at 14:35 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Agreed on the survey - designed to get a predetermined response. Graphs like his are a fav of the "skeptics" as they always end in 1950 - effectively they hide the incline in global temperatures observed over the past 60 years. By design or quirk of happenstance? You be the judge... A form of mind-control, if you will. The YooperModerator Response: [muoncounter] Mind control? Or maybe just the first line here? -
Ron Crouch at 14:28 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Taking a look back at a graph that Pirate posted in this thread, and then taking a look at the graph for his survey I noticed that they both cover a 400,000 year span, and it was true, they don't really show that much warming. But then I remembered our good old standard issue Temperature estimates relative to today from over 800,000 years of the EPICA ice cores in Antarctica., and it tells a whole different story. Amazing how things come to life when you put them in the -- proper perspective. -
Ron Crouch at 14:09 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I completed Pirate's survey, but I'll bet my result gets excluded. -
archiesteel at 13:40 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@pirate: "My purpose of posting the comment about the AP Physics students was not to imply any scientific basis to discredit AGW, but to show that public perception of AGW is very different than what you may think." Sorry, but that stinks of sample bias. You are basically saying that one classroom represents what "public perception of AGW" is. Nearly every poll on the subject shows that a majority of the people accept AGW theory, including in the US. A recent Rasmussen poll said that: "Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters see global warming as at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who see it as a Very Serious problem. Thirty-eight percent (38%) are not concerned about global warming, including 17% who say it is Not At All Serious." Note that Rasmussen is generally perceived to have a slight conservative bias, so I think these numbers are not exaggerated. So, for what it's worth, it seems that public perception of AGW is quite different from what *you* think. -
Rob Painting at 13:17 PM on 29 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
CC @ 54 - I'm not saying your point isn't valid, but trying to address every error or diversion simply dilutes the message. Thanks for highlighting this though, it's worthy of its own rebuttal. -
Marcus at 12:30 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
So, I took a look at the Survey from Pirate, & its the most biased piece of rubbish I've ever seen. How could anyone judge if the planet were warming or cooling over the past 100 years when looking at a graph with a 50,000 year scale? Total nonsense. The last question is also extremely loaded, given that many renewable energy technologies are *very* reliable (you might say *more* reliable-as renewable energy can be better scaled to demand than coal or nuclear power) & have far lower environmental impacts than coal or nuclear power. I think this "survey" reveals a lot about how survey results can be skewed by the bias of the person designing the survey. -
Marcus at 12:24 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate, the only reason Fossil Fuels are so cheap is because-from the outset-they've enjoyed enormous financial support from Governments across the world. They still enjoy these subsidies in *spite* of them being mature industries. Next time try couching the question about renewable energy by adding in how much the fossil fuel industry is currently costing tax payers. -
Marcus at 12:21 PM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Good point, JMurphy. The "Skeptic" logic-if it can be called that-is akin to saying that: as forest fires can occur naturally, then no human can ever be responsible for forest fires. That is, of course, a total logical fallacy-whether applied to climate change or possible arson ;). -
Ron Crouch at 10:28 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I know I'm off topic. Sorry. The part that gets me the most is when people like James Inhofe make statements to the effect that CO2 is a colourless, odourless, non-toxic gas. That should be a great comfort to any submariner. Just think of the money that could be saved by removing all those CO2 scrubbers from subs. Nothing could be finer than to suffocate in an oxygen rich environment (contaminated with say <4%? CO2). -
Albatross at 10:21 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP @31, "My scatterplot above is also for global ACE and as such, it is meaningful indeed." Well, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how misguided it may be and no matter how unscientific. I can try and hook you up with Christopher Monckton if you like... As I'm sure you know, TCs are primarily a tropical phenomenon except on those occasions when they undergo extra-tropical transition. So your scatterplot might have been more "meaningful" or convincing had you looked at OHC (or SSTs) for the tropics, instead of lower-tropospheric temperatures for the globe (from a group/product with a less than reputable history). -
Albatross at 10:13 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP @31, "But the real insult is that the National Hurricane Center of the U.S. of A. still does not have the facts for 2010, although the year is somewhat over." Sigh, read this, issued on 29 November 2010. -
michael sweet at 10:09 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP: Do I understand you to claim that since the Atlantic ACE was at the lower end of an extraordinarily high prediction that means it was low? Albatross has cited data that show the Atlantic ACE was high in 2010 and you need to admit that. Your claiming that we should rely on a tiny percentage of the data (USA landfalling hurricanes) instead of the entire record is unscientific. The remainder of the hurricane record is not as bad as you claim. You need to drop this claim as it hurts what is left of your reputation. -
Albatross at 10:08 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP @31, OK, still waiting for your to acknowledge and retract your erroneous statement made at 28 which I pointed out at 30. "But the real insult is that the National Hurricane Center of the U.S. of A. still does not have the facts for 2010, although the year is somewhat over." Enough with the juvenile insults from you BP. "Sit down please, you have not listened." And again with the juvenile insults from you BP. In fact, I would argue that your post @30 breaks the house rules. Moderator? I'll address the issue with your scatterplot in another post. -
Paul D at 09:36 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Oops, didn't think of pressing buttons! Thanks Ron. Joel. Neo Office is pretty much redundant now, it runs using X11. Open Office now have a native version for the Mac. Although maybe if you have a PowerPC Mac, you have to use Neo Office?? -
Berényi Péter at 09:23 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#29 muoncounter at 06:54 AM on 29 January, 2011 Great! I'll alert the National Hurricane Center to stand down. Good idea. Their prediction in August 2010 for annual North Atlantic ACE was between 148×104 kt2 & 236 ×104 kt2. The actual figure is something like 163-170 (if we go with Dr. Jeff Masters or Dr. Ryan N. Maue). That's in the lower quarter of the forecast, i.e. close to the lower end of it. But the real insult is that the National Hurricane Center of the U.S. of A. still does not have the facts for 2010, although the year is somewhat over. The alleged cherrypick of using just the Atlantic (a big cherry, that one) was initially your move. Sit down please, you have not listened. That one is accumulated intensity of hurricanes making landfall in the US since 1863. It just puts things into historical perspective and the US was chosen only because old hurricanes there are well documented. It has nothing to do with North Atlantic ACE (as 2010 clearly shows). Here and now we are talking about the satellite era, for which we have pretty accurate global estimate for ACE including tropical storms that do not make landfall anywhere. And no, the North Atlantic is not a big cherry, it's less than 8% of the surface of the globe. As I have said, global ACE for 2010 was low. My scatterplot above is also for global ACE and as such, it is meaningful indeed. -
Ron Crouch at 09:14 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I think they are waiting for global warming to manifest itself as a physical being Daniel. Then they can dust off the Buffalo Rifles and kill it. After all if you can't see it, hear it, touch it, or smell it -- then it doesn't exist. Right? Nope -- wrong again!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Nothing to see here, no extra CO2, nada. Like ze Spanish Inquisition, nothing to see. -
PT_Goodman at 08:40 AM on 29 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
The "Global Warming and Cold Winters" post is quite good, but it over-simplifies things in a way that I found confusing. Since the air pressure at any point is almost exactly equal to the weight of the air above, per unit area, and the density of air depends (inversely) on the temperature, one would think that the result would be a low pressure system. My guess is that the author is talking about polar air that, even warmed by the ocean, is colder than air to the south, and is therefore more dense than air to the south. So the result would be high pressure relative to conditions to the south. Does this make sense? -
Daniel Bailey at 08:28 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@ 96 Thanks, Ron. Saw that some time back. The scenarios are always being reworked, being "living" documents. The Joint Chiefs have scenarios for almost any eventuality (including a "Chicxulub"-scale impactor). What is probably lacking is the political will of their masters to let loose their leashes... The Yooper -
Ron Crouch at 08:19 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#95 Daniel They may not be as prepared as everyone thinks. See here -
Chris3699 at 08:05 AM on 29 January 2011It's cooling
Thanks, KR. I looked him up and he certainly has provoked a few strong opinions. He seems like a renegade who enjoys stirring up trouble for its own sake. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:03 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@ michael sweet (94) The world will reel under the logistics of supporting millions of climate refugees. When those millions become tens of millions, borders will collapse. If those tens of millions become hundreds, civilization collapses as well. The US military has many planning scenarios already in place for that eventuality. Pray they go unneeded. The Yooper -
michael sweet at 07:41 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate: The pre human climate changes you have referenced are certainly true. They show that with the current forcings (not including BAU increases) we can expect all of southern Florida and most of Bangladesh to be under water in the future. I defined that as abnormal. You have not defined what is abnormal for you. How about if you add this question to your poll: Can the people from Bangladesh come and live in your city when theirs is underwater from CO2 pollution? Would you pay more for electricity if it kept the Bangladeshis in Bangladesh? You would get different responses. When millions of pepople become climate refugees (like has already happened in Pakistan) that is a recipe for disaster and war. That is abnormal weather for me. -
Albatross at 07:12 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Michael @27, Thanks Michael-- you are probably speaking from experience :) You are right, it did take a while to pull it all together, over an hour in fact. -
Albatross at 07:10 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP @28, "According to them, North Atlantic ACE was indeed somewhat above average," Oh come now, that is a demonstrably false statement BP. This is what the NHC had to say: "According to NOAA the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which ends tomorrow, was one of the busiest on record. In contrast, the eastern North Pacific season had the fewest storms on record since the satellite era began. In the Atlantic Basin a total of 19 named storms formed – tied with 1887 and 1995 for third highest on record. Of those, 12 became hurricanes – tied with 1969 for second highest on record. Five of those reached major hurricane status of Category 3 or higher. From Dr. Jeff Masters' blog: "This year's Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index was 163, putting it in 13th place for ACE since 1944. A "hyperactive" hurricane season is considered to have an ACE index of >175% of the median. According to Wikipedia, median ACE measured over the period 1951–2000 for the Atlantic basin was 87.5, so 2010 is a hyperactive year by that definition (183% of the median.)" Professor Maue at FSU obtained an ACE of 170 for the N. Atlantic in 2010, the 11th highest since 1950, and highest since 2005. Please retract your erroneous statement BP. -
michael sweet at 07:07 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
I hope people recognize that it takes a lot of time for Albatross to link all those studies. In addition to reading them he has to find them for this reference. It is clear that Trenberth is qualified to discuss the probability of recent floods being due to AGW and not natural variation. On the other hand, WUWT and Humanity Rules are speaking from a complete lack of knowledge. They have not even read the background but they are willing to speculate about things they have not thought about in depth. Choose who you believe. -
JMurphy at 06:56 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pre-human forest fires are what they are. They happened and there is no denying them. To some, that obviously means something... -
Albatross at 06:55 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Apirate @89, You seem to have elected to completely miss the point about DB's post....no? M&M 2010 has already been questioned widely by real climate scientists, and the analysis has been found to fall short. You can read all about it here at the journal. I suspect Dan provided that particular graphic to appease contrarians b/c it was generated by "skeptics". Regardless, it seems that you are seeing only what you want to see. Here is a much better reconstruction for the last 2000 years, not 1000 as M&M10 did, by Ljungqvist (2010):
And here is another Hockey Stick published only days ago:
There are enough Hockey Sticks out there to equip a couple of NHL teams.
Prev 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 Next
