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:
-
thepoodlebites at 00:11 AM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
[ -edit- (complaints about moderation) -edit- ]Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Comments that are on-topic that add to the discussion are never moderated or deleted. Attempts to derail threads with discussion of politics or ideologies or wandering into the wilderness of off-topic land will get moderated. Adhere to the Comments Policy roadmap, be polite when disagreeing, stay on-topic for the thread you are participating on and offer up sourced links for claims and not only will all be well in mod-land but you will come to be viewed as a resource instead of a distraction. Your choice. -
cynicus at 23:53 PM on 31 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
@56 Mike G. Thanks for your correction! I probably should have mentioned that I could not understand the word preceding Actinia even after a multiple times listening to that section. I reckoned that Actinia would be the group name. But aparently Actinia and Scleractinia are different branches. Also iirc it was Wikipedia that said Actinia were sponges, but you are right, looking that up again leads to sea anemones. Apologies for the confusion I caused, I'll try to be more careful next time. -
Mila at 23:28 PM on 31 January 2011An efficient world facts checker - Zvon.org guide to CIA World Factbook
#1 - a top secret - what I am playing with after CIA Factbook release: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 23 - planned release : end of February 2011 :) -
Glenn Tamblyn at 22:57 PM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate This is OT, the moderator may be able to suggest better thread to continue this conversation. Reading the survey, it is not spelled out whether the survey is meant as a test to measure peoples understanding of AGW concepts, or their opinions about it independent of their understanding. I will assume the later. Here are some comments & changes - mine bracketted so (* *) 1. Examine the above graph. It shows the relationship of CO2 to global temperature over a period of 400,000 years. The data is fairly well agreed upon by all scientists. (* This question seems to be posing its choices as either/or options which isn't really meaningful *) Please select one of the following answers. a. CO2 forces temperature change. b. Temperature forces CO2 change. c. Another factor, or factors, influences both. (* d. All of the above *) 2. From the graph: the Earth's current average temperature is: (* This question is quite strange. Does average mean averaged over the entire graph, or over the entire earth. If over the entire Earth then what is meant by 'currently' - 2011, the last century, the last 10,000 years (the Holocene)? From the graph a mark 1 eyeball can only really discern the last 10,000 years. And the signal is noisy. I wouldn't include this question in its current form at all *) 3. The Earth's climate changes over time. (* I would reword this as The Earth's climate has changed over time for many reasons. *) 4. Historically (prior to the industrial revolution) the climate has changed due to natural cycles (solar, orbital, landmass movement, volcanic eruptions, etc...). (* The use of 'cycles' here is problematic. Some aspects of climate may be cyclical such as orbital and short term solar. Others are not such as landmass changes or very long term solar. So the literally correct answer is No when actually the answer to what the question implies would be Yes. So a change to... *) Historically (prior to the industrial revolution) the climate has changed due to (* various natural factors *) (solar, orbital, landmass movement, volcanic eruptions, etc...). 5. The Earth is currently in a period of rapid climate change. (* Again a problem with language that could distort peoples answers. What constitutes 'rapid'? This is mixing two separate questions - is warming hapenning, and is it rapid. Are your students trying to determine how strongly their subjects think that climate is changing vs how strongly they thing that the change is rapid *) 6. Human (anthropogenic) contribution of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels to the atmosphere contributes to global warming. (* You might consider rewording this so that it questions peoples sense of the magnitude of the contribution but then we have 2 questions in one again. I wouldn't change this *) 7. Anthropogenic CO2 is causing rapid climate change and is responsible for disastrous weather situations around the world. (* Again a question with several parts. I have already commented on 'rapid'. 'is causing' is present tense so the second part of the question is misleading. Perhaps reword as...*) Anthropogenic CO2 is causing (* *) climate change and is (* predicted to *) be responsible for disastrous weather situations (* and many other problems around the world in decades to come *). 8. Alternative energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal...) are currently more expensive and less reliable than fossil fuel (coal, oil, natural gas, etc...), hydroelectric, or nuclear. All forms of energy generation have some type of environmental impact. Alternative energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal...) are currently more expensive and less reliable than fossil fuel (coal, oil, natural gas, etc...), hydroelectric, or nuclear. All forms of energy generation have some type of environmental impact. Are you willing to pay more for your utilities to reduce anthropogenic CO2 generation? (* This question has a problem. By comparing the action to be taken which appears negative with the result desired of reduced CO2, the costs of NOT acting aren't being presented as the alternative to the costs of acting. Perhaps the last sentence needs to be reworded...*) 'Are you willing to pay more for your utilities to reduce anthropogenic CO2 generation (* to guard against these problems in the future *)?' Some additional questions that would be useful in elucidating what peoples opinions are based on: What information will give us the best understanding of whether the climate is changing? a. Weather Station data from the USA - 1.5% of the Earth b. Weather Station data from all the countries in the world - 30% of the Earth c. Sea Surface Temperatures from the oceans - 70% of the Earth d. Satellits data from nearly all the Earth's surface e. Volumes of Ice melting from around the world f. Heat accumulating in the depths of the worlds oceans g. The total of all of the above. Who developed the scientific theories of AGW? a. The US Government, NASA etc b. Al Gore c. A handful of US & British scientists d. The IPCC e. 10's of 1000's of scientists, from countries all around the world, from many different branches of science, starting in the 1950's How big is the IPCC. How many employees does it have? a. 10 b. 100's c. 1000's d. 10's of 1000's -
adelady at 22:56 PM on 31 January 2011An efficient world facts checker - Zvon.org guide to CIA World Factbook
I might try this. I'm constantly looking at the Factbook - usually I find what I want. This could be a big advantage. (Though I confess I'm normally looking for health related matters rather than climate.) -
kdkd at 21:43 PM on 31 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP #29 Your scatterplot is rather meaningless - for complex emergent phenomena like hurricanes, a simple univeriate analysis like your scatterplot is meaningless in the extreme, as hurricanes are complex and multidimensional entities, from an analytic perspective. -
Bart Verheggen at 21:08 PM on 31 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
John, Do you (or someone else) also have the updated graph for the Antarctic available? -
bratisla at 20:36 PM on 31 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
@27 : post-glacial rebound has a slow response rate - I don't remember exactly, but if you look for two decades the net effect of post-glacial rebound is not that great. On top of that, since Greenland is directly under the influence of Canada's post-glacial rebound (the extra mass to compensate for the Canada's elevation is "found" around, aka Greenland), there should be a compensation. Nothing quantified in my thoughts, so it must be modelled. Anyone ? :) -
Tom Curtis at 18:07 PM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Eric, the locations of the flood gauges on the table are progressively further from the mouth of the Brisbane. Brisbane City, Jindalee, Mogill and Mount Crosby and Lowood are all on the Brisbane River, with the river being tidal up to half way between Mogill and Mount Crosby (ie, to College's Crossing). Lowood is just a few kilometers downstream from Wivenhoe Dam. Ipswich is on the Bremer River, which flows into the Brisbane River just upstream from Mogill. Lyon's Bridge and Gatton are on Lockyer Creek, which flows into the Brisbane River between Wivenhoe and Lowood. Laidley is on Laidley Creek, which flows into the Lockyer Creek between Gatton and Lyon's Bridge. There is a map of the Brisbane Valley along with all river gauges and meteorological stations here (PDF). Unfortunately it is not very clear. -
robert way at 17:57 PM on 31 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Hey John Brookes, See here http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ice-Sheet-mass-loss-melting.htm for discussion of your question.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Converted URL to link. -
dana1981 at 17:39 PM on 31 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
HR - Lindzen's strategy is to say there is high uncertainty associated with aerosols (true), and then proceed to entirely neglect their effects in his calculation. This is akin to saying they have zero forcing with zero uncertainty. This is wrong. In an upcoming article, I go through the calculations while carrying the uncertainties through. Spoiler alert - by doing so, you arrive at the opposite of Lindzen's conclusion. Bottom line - although he mentioned these effects in his article text, he ignored them in his calculations. -
HumanityRules at 17:12 PM on 31 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Just a little more on Lindzen and aerosols. One of the reference's in the Lindzen article is Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950. He seems to both state the IPCC's and his position on aerosol's and their uncertainty. He also seems to acknowledge the importance of the system coming to equilibria which seems to be another aspect of Dana's criticism. Maybe nobody (including Dana) bothered to read the reference's, maybe they did, but either way one should look at the reference's. That's especially true if your going to publish a critique of the article. Dana you could have found out Lindzen's position on aerosols and equilibria if you had followed the references he supplied with the article. He seems to be well aware of both issues. (I re-read my first post. Even more apologies for describing the FEU as junk science, I haven't read. That's bad of me) -
HumanityRules at 16:20 PM on 31 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
First of all congrations Dana on getting your article taken up by The Gaurdian, you must be chuffed by that. Maybe this should go on the original "A Case Study...." thread and I'm probably going to mix up my feedback's, forcing and climate sensitivities but here goes. I don't quite see the relevance (or maybe importance) of you pointing out that Lindzen has ignored aerosols. The concensus position has it that strong negative feedback from aerosols has negated some of warming that would have occured in the late 20th century. Lindzen's position is that there is a low climate sensitivity (based on a reading of his published work). If Lindzen goes with the logic of his argument then low sensitivity means low increase in temperature from CO2 forcing, there is no need for strong aerosol forcing to mask CO2 warming. I'm guessing that one could assume that Lindzen also believes the IPCC has got things wrong when it comes to aerosols as well On a specific claim by you "However, neither accounted for man-made emissions of aerosols" Here's what Lindzen says "According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation, as we have already noted, by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming (viz Schwartz et al, 2010)" [my emphasis] He seems to acknowledge that the IPCC's position is based on aerosol's cancelling out some of the warming. I don't believe he think's that's true but he seems to acknowledge it is the position of the IPCC. Can you just explain what you mean when you say he doesn't account for it? I also don't get the basic point about linking the response to a bad paper by FEU and the article by Lindzen. The concensus from both sides of the debate seems to be that the FEU is junk science (apologies to the authors) you show that above, the debate continues about the relevance of Lindzen's science. But so what? Resumably the only link between the two articles is you believe they both fall down because of the same flaw. In fact based on what you say here and in "A Case Studt..." you seem to assume that as a given and expect reade to make that assuption as well. I don't believe that people have to take your position especially when you did so little to win it. I also think people have the right to be unimpressed by your criticism of Lindzen's work without being considered biased or illogical. I don't think you've actually done much in your posts to prove that the Lindzen and FEU works are equivalents. -
Marcus at 14:01 PM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I'm sorry, Pirate, but I'm *shocked* that you're a teacher-given your comment at 115. It really does display a shocking amount of ignorance on your part. Point 1, those climate change events in the graph are over 50,000 year periods of time. Were you to zoom in on any single, 100 year period, you'd actually see *very little* change (last time I calculated it, the average rate of change during each interglacial is around +0.005-+0.01 degrees per decade-about 1%-2% of the rate of change we've seen in the last 60 years). Point 2 is that the warming we're seeing during each interglacial period is easily explained by changes in Total Solar Irradiance & CO2-whereas the last 60 years *cannot* be explained by changes in Solar Irradiance-a very relevant piece of information that anyone taking this survey would need access to. Thirdly, when considering the scope of human civilization, Geological Time is largely irrelevant. Even if we were to exit the current interglacial period tomorrow, it would be about 1,000 years-at least-before we'd ever see any negative impacts. Compared to the changes being wrought by Anthropogenic influences, natural changes just pale into insignificance over the period of human history. -
Marcus at 13:51 PM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate @ 115. Given the short space of time our civilization has been on this planet, & the speed with which recent climate change has occurred, compared to past climate cycles, I think 100 years can tell a huge amount. The reality remains that the planet has warmed more in 60 years than it has at any other point in the past 10,000 years. By excluding this period from your graph, you're creating a definite bias. -
muoncounter at 13:49 PM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#117: "when we teach ... a student Unit 2 about natural climate change and the mechanisms and results of such, if we do our job correctly they should question the proposed mechanisms of artificial climate change." Questioning the mechanisms would indeed be a good outcome. Therein lies the problem: If you, me or anyone else taught that the mechanisms for past climate change were the same mechanisms controlling today's climate, then you, me or anyone else really should be teaching poetry or painting, not science. If any student in that class of so-called best and brightest did not question a teacher who put forth that anthropogenic influences did not play a major role in today's world, then those students still have lots to learn - not just about climate change, but about how to take responsibility for their own education. Just wondering what you put forth as the mechanisms of natural climate change and what you said about what's happened recently. And why you think that what you teach first (Unit 2) necessarily controls what is understood later (Unit 7). Did you teach that human influence can modify climate for good, not just for bad? If so, how could your students fail to question the mantra 'it's all natural'? -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:48 PM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#47 Tom Curtis, thanks for the links, I will need more time to go through them. But I agree that we cannot ignore the dams. I was actually hoping that some of the gauges would be below and some above the dam in the table that I linked in #42, but I have no idea where they are. #50 muoncounter, that is an interesting presentation. Some of the parabolic trend lines look to me like they were added by hand, not calculated. Also adding the non-climate disasters to the one chart was kind of pointless although it didn't change the trend. They identify all the factors involved including population and density, but not until after they present charts with dollar losses unadjusted for those other factors. They only care about their bottom line and it shows. -
Yvan Dutil at 13:43 PM on 31 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
#27 Someone might be more specific than me but this as been discussed previously. They are some argument about this issue in the scientific literature. Many people argue that the method you described underestimate the melting. I think it is fair to say that the jury is still open at this point. As many other issues, answer will come soon enough. -
DSL at 13:33 PM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
So, pirate, you didn't allow them to submit a draft of the survey for feedback from you and other members of the science faculty? You just let them go with a flawed survey? I do agree that we should design a survey. It would be an interesting conversation and product. Of course, I'd rather ask them open-ended questions, starting with "According to climatologists, how does human-caused global warming happen?" Few incoming freshmen at my highly-selective university can articulate a decent answer to this. I occasionally get answers like "The heat from our burning fossil fuels warms up the planet." -
scaddenp at 12:44 PM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
"But, when and if it drops." So on the basis of what your students have been taught, how about you research the question of what the chances of ice age are with 400ppm of CO2 and when that might happen. Do you think this is unknowable? -
scaddenp at 12:33 PM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate - there is a major issue with the teaching if they construct Q1 the way they did. The right answer (which is missing from the options), is the temperature rise (from solar) increases CO2 directly, which in turns forces temperature higher. Ie GHG can work to amplify other forcings. Albedo also works in the same way. However, you obviously cant infer that from the one graph and it is extremely misleading to present that as the basis. Is this how they were taught? And in past, what about the question as to where that CO2 came from compared to now etc etc. Therein lies the rub for high schools when tackling any complex topic. You can pose all kinds of hypotheses that kind of work - if you dont do the maths. However high school students have neither the physics nor sufficient maths to do that themselves. (Chances are teachers dont either). What all of us do in these situations is rely on peer-reviewed conclusions from specialist who can do the work. The really bad way to do it from climate science, to nutrition, to vaccines etc etc is to accept answers from web without peer-reviewed backing. Science education needs to hammer that hard. A middle ground would be buy EdGCM and let students play with the scenarios themselves. I actually like the idea of ice core as example for teaching because it could lead to mathematical questions about conditions for runaway feedback etc, use of stable isotope for source characterization, and so on. However, so little time to teach so many things, I'd rather see students get serious background in science fundamentals, scientific method and maths. -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:02 PM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Archie @ 103, I was not representing the poll of that class as the view of the general public. They do represent the smartest and brightest of the students at my high school. The results of the survey I sent out to our faculty and our state's Environmental Compliance Deparment (since we are 1 of 10 pilot schools participating in a statewide environmental awareness program), showed numbers roughly similar to what you posted but somewhat less in the numbers belieive climate change is a serious concern. -
John Brookes at 12:00 PM on 31 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
I read recently that readings from GRACE were not being properly corrected for the rebound of the land as ice mass above it vanished. Do we know if the current estimate is corrected for this? -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:54 AM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Glenn @ 111 Thanks for backing me up. Knowing my stance, I purposely was hands off. The only faculty guidance they got was from the librarian who was running the computer lab. She believes in AGW. This survey was completely student driven. I would be interested if the readers of this website would redesign the questions. I will even resend the survey to the original participants. -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:50 AM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Muon @ 109, Yep, that's pretty much our curriculum. And, I'm sure that your impressive research and insight also showed you that in Unit 2 they learn about "Natural Ecosytem Change" including "Climate Shifts, Species Movement and Ecological Succession". All of which are natural and have occurred many times throughout Earth's history. When we teach (you, me, or anybody else) a student Unit 2 about natural climate change and the mechanisms and results of such, if we do our job correctly they should question the proposed mechanisms of artificial climate change. -
pdt at 11:46 AM on 31 January 2011Sea level rise is exaggerated
So, is there simply no answer to my question (post 105), or is the question so undeserving as to not warrant a response? I didn't really find anything on a Google search. It seems like sea level should be predictable from temperature change and land-ice loss. Has someone looked at that? Perhaps it's the other way around, one could measure the average sea temperature by a combination of land-ice loss and sea level rise. Anyone? -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:34 AM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Michael Sweet @ 112 First, that is a different graph in the survey than I posted here. Second, show me where the data is false. -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:32 AM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Marcus @ 102 How can any 100 year period tell you anything about climate and climate cycles? Pick and choose any 100 year period from that graph and we can "demonstrate" rapid rise, rapid decline, or stability. -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:28 AM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
DB @ 66, That top graph shows human civilization fluorishing as we came out of an Ice Age. We've done quite well over the last 10,000 years. Of course, nothing can be inferred from this graph about any positive or negative effects of a temperature rise when and if it happens. But, when and if it drops...Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Short of Yellowstone going critical? Absent a negative feedback of considerable size, good luck with unphysical wishes. -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:24 AM on 31 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
DB @ 83, This line from the website you plucked the modified McShane & Wyner Graph says it all" "I've taken the liberty of (unscientifically) adding this onto the McShane and Wyner hockey stick graph..." Nuff said.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You failed to do your homework. The addition to the sqeptic's darling (McShane & Wyner's graph - thoroughly debunked in peer-review) is from a simple average of the IPCC's low-to-high estimates of expected temperature rises. As these estimates date from 2007, they are old and since been superceded by newer, and much higher, estimates. Both of which you might have noted had you done a bit more work. Simply dismissing the graph without attempting to understand why it differed from your expectations is a classic example of cognitive dissonance in action. If this were a graded exercise your score would not be very good. -
Riduna at 10:41 AM on 31 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
24 Michael Sweet Thank you but the position of Ollier is in my view and that of his peers (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page7523/html) nonsense. In quoting him, I wanted to get a reaction from professionals to what he has to say on ice loss in Greenland. At present, my view is akin to that of Dr Hansen, though I think sea level rise due to WAIS and Greenland ice melt will result in sea level rise of around 1m. by 2050 and 2 – 2.5m. by 2100, about half the level he predicts. However, the article “Say goodbye to Greenland ice” (New Scientist, page 8, 8/1/11, does suggest that Dr Hansens views may be prescient. Either way, we are in trouble and what GRACE now tells us seems to confirm that view and a disturbing acceleration in Greenland ice loss. -
Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
johnd @48, I have already provided a perfectly good counter example to your claim. You have responded by definitional maneuvering. Therefore I see no point in providing more coutnerexamples unless you wish to make your claim explicit. By below average, do you mean less than the mean, or more than one standard deviation below the mean, or classified as average by the BOM? By similar period, do you mean of approximately the same duration as the period of below average rainfall. Are you in fact predicting, given the length of our recent drought, another eight years of above average rainfall? If you cannot specify the meaning of your claim with sufficient precision to make it falsifiable, given your responce to a clear falsifying instance, I am warranted to in concluding that you are playing word games, not reporting observations. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:01 AM on 31 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
So sqeptic or squeptic hey! Thanks guys. Now I just can't get an image of Daffy Duck out of my head! But maybe that works. -
Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
RickG - My version of that sentiment was "You can lead someone to science, but you can't make them read the bibliography." The JoNova gang did not (ahem) like that line... -
John Hartz at 09:10 AM on 31 January 2011A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
The House of Commons report cited by JMurphy in #11 is the subject of a BBC article, “ClimateGate affair: 'Learn and move on', say MPs” written by Richard Black and posted on Jan 24, 2010. -
MarkR at 07:44 AM on 31 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
That looks right to me! Be careful with sign conventions: to calculate total Y 'normal' is a positive sign for negative feedbacks that increase heat loss at the surface (blackbody, lapse rate, maybe clouds) and a negative sign for positive feedbacks that increase heat (water vapour, albedo, maybe clouds). This doesn't include slow feedbacks. Also, on my fifth equation down I introduce a minus sign so that positive feedbacks are now positive. People use a lot of different conventions (and sometimes the sensitivity parameter, λ = Y-1) so every time you read a paper you have to double check all this. So where I have: ΔQ = ΔF - YΔT that means that to restore equilibrium (i.e. ΔQ = 0), if Y is smaller then you need a bigger temperature change to restore equilibrium. -
muoncounter at 04:50 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#42: "use measurements of effects instead of the "weird weather" notion." Oddly enough, the insurance industry has an index for that, although they've only been publishing the 'Climate Risk Index' since 2006. Here is a summary based on a wider variety of measurements. Graphs on pp 5-7 are particularly interesting, as are the summary points on p. 11. Wouldn't you know they'd figure out how to make a profit off climate change? -
Michael.M at 04:49 AM on 31 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
"Pseudo-Sceptic" is also better for translations - I think it should work in most languages. (At least into german "Pseudo-Skeptiker") Deniers is of course also a possible name - but most deniers refer to themselves as "sceptics" and can more easily be shown to be (and rightfully named) pseudo-sceptics. Very often calling deniers denier leads into an off-topic hassle. -
muoncounter at 04:42 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#45: "ENSO Index you linked to only goes back to 1949, insufficient to determine any trends" What are these long terms trends? Is there any published literature supporting their significance? "reconstructed El-Nino occurrences back to 1525" OK, what does that show? Instead of talking about 'providing insights,' show what those insights are. Take further discussion of specific ENSO issues to the appropriate thread. It is not the topic here. -
johnd at 04:33 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Tom Curtis at 03:47 AM on 31 January, 2011, Tom, it is not a tautology, but a physical fact of life. Perhaps if you can list all the examples of droughts, extended periods of below average rain, and those that were NOT followed by a similar period of above average rains, then we can pass judgement as to whether my original statement stands or not. Aside from the above, declaring whether a drought has ended or not is not an easy exercise at the time, especially when so much rides on having to know whether the changes occurring are real or transient, and is not decided by rainfall alone. Droughts are not completely devoid of any rain over their duration, it's the timing as well as the volume that decides. -
Tom Curtis at 04:27 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Eric, as a matter of interest, you may want to check out the graph of Brisbane River flood heights here (7th page, PDF). The graph is from a 1990 hydrological study and shows the probably flood heights of various historical floods with and without the effects of Somerset and Wivenhoe Dam. You will notice that if Somerset Dam had existed in 1893, the largest 1893 flood would have been lower than the 1974 flood; but if Somerset dam had not existed in 1974, the 1974 flood would still have been (just) lower than the 1893 flood. This is because of the different rainfall patterns, with the heaviest rain in 1893 falling in the Somerset catchment, while the heaviest rain in 1974 was over the city. It is not possible to compare directly the size the 2011 flood would have been without any dams because of this variability. But we can compare its actual size to the modeled sizes of the historical floods given the presence of both Somerset and Wivenhoe. If you do, you find that the first 1893 flood (and Brisbane's second highest since settlement) would have been 0.12 meters shallower than the 1974 flood, which in turn would have 0.98 meters shallower than the 2011 flood. No major flood would have surpassed the 3.5 meter threshold to be considered a major flood. An educated guess as to the size of 2011 flood without dams is that it would have been over 9 meters. This is still less than the highest known flood (from geological evidence) in Brisbane, which was 11 meters deep, but still far surpasses any flood since settlement (ie, for nearly 200 years). I refered to this information in my post 24. I bring it up in more detail because I notice a number of people play the silly game of saying the 2011 flood was smaller than the 1893 or 1974 flood at the gauge, therefore it was not a big flood. That is a very silly game, IMO, indeed a dishonest game, because it assumes that the dams on the Brisbane River have absolutely no effect in terms of flood mitigation. It's like comparing athlete's top speed to see who is the best, while ignoring the fact that some of them are on bikes. -
Tom Curtis at 03:47 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
John D, 2008/9 rains restored Wivenhoe dam levels from near 15% to 80%. That's more than enough rain for agriculture to procede without problems. The drought was broken at the latest by April/May of 2009 when there was sufficient rain to raise Wivenhoe's level by over 30% over the two months. I would say it was broken in February 2008, when rain started refilling the dam, and more rain always came to fill it further before it got back down to the previous low level. Further, using your definition of "ending a drought" reduces your claim to a tautology. If you do not accept a drought as being ended by average rain, even if farmers are getting their crops in and dam levels are rising, well then of course the "drought" only ends when the rain is above average - but that is simply because you have chosen to call nothing but above average rain the end of a drought. -
johnd at 03:37 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
muoncounter at 00:46 AM on 31 January, 2011, the ENSO Index you linked to only goes back to 1949, insufficient to determine any trends given the length of time it takes for those longer termed ocean based indexes to cycle through both their positive and negative phases. Example, the IPO only entered a new negative phase in 1945, changing to a positive phase in 1978, it requires a big leap of faith to see any longer term trend there. Quinn reconstructed El-Nino occurrences back to 1525, it is those time frames that provide real insights into longer term trends. In relation to the discussion about the Brisbane floods, it would thus be appropriate to provide the ENSO index that covers the period back to the earliest floods, then perhaps some serious comparisons can be made. -
Tom Curtis at 03:36 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Eric @42, unfortunately gauge information kept by the Bureau of Meteorology is only make available to the public for 2 days after the record is tracked, while those maintained by the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management are only made available for 14 days. However, it is known is that the Bremer River peaked at about 1 meter below the 1974 level. That makes 2011 the third largest flood in the Bremer River since settlement (1824), behind 1893 and 1974. However, in 1974 the Bremer River had a discharge of only 220 cumsecs (cubic meters per second)(DERM Walloon gauge), which is significantly less than its peak recorded discharge of 900 cumsecs. That indicates that a large part of the height of the Bremer River was from back flow from the Brisbane River. Further, it is known that Lockyer Creek peaked 60 cm higher than in 1974. In 1974 Lockyer Creek had a flow rate of 2,320 cumsecs, its highest recorded (DERM Rifle Range Road gauge). It is probable given events at Murphy's Creek and Grantham, that the peak flow was higher in 2011, but I cannot say by how much. At Wivenhoe on the Brisbane River it is difficult to say what the effective natural flows were because of the effect of the dam. However, at the dam's peak discharge rate, it was discharging 7500 cumsecs while still retaining water. For comapison, the peak flow at Savages Crossing on the Brisbane River below the confluence of Lockyer Creek in 1974 was 7400 cumsecs, and that would have included a sizable flow (ie, over 2000 cumsecs) from Lockyer Creek. Over 48 hour period of Tuesday and Wednesday, Wivenhoe Dam averaged inflows of around 8,500 cumsecs. Its peak inflow would have been significantly higher than that, but I do not know what it was. The entire flow at the port office (city center) in 1974 9,000 cumsecs, so over the 48 hour period, Wivenhoe swallowed two 1974 floods. Over the weekend prior (Saturday, Sunday and Monday) it swallowed enough water for a third 1974 flood, although, dispersed as it was the water would not have reached 1974 peaks over those days. Having taken on so herculean a task, it is no surprise the dam had to surrender enough water so that we are talking about Brisbane's 2011 flood. Without the dam, we would have been talking about the floods of 2010 long before this. Wivenhoe swallowed a 1974 style flood without any disruption in October of 2010, and a near 1974 level flood in the last week of December 2010, and a fortnight before the flood of 2011. It also swallowed a smaller flood the week before that with minor disruption because of concurrent king tides. Information about 1974 river flows from http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/water/monitoring/current_data/map_details.php?group=brisbane Information about Wivenhoe dam levels from http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/catch-store-treat/dams/wivenhoe-dam -
johnd at 03:10 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Tom Curtis at 23:36 PM on 30 January, 2011, Tom, how long lasting was the recent drought in South East Queensland? Certainly longer than one year. A long lasting drought is not broken by one year of near average rain, instead only considered broken when rain replenishes the depleted soil moisture reservoir, returning it to "normal". -
John Hartz at 03:07 AM on 31 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
General question: How do the "indicators" shown on the graphic and suggested in the comment thread relate to the "multiple lines of evidence" documented by the IPCC? -
John Hartz at 03:03 AM on 31 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
@ John Cook: Addition to the list I started in #18: 5. Where are "Wildfires"? -
RickG at 02:55 AM on 31 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
I like the comment made by Gavin over at Real Climate. "You can take a source to science, but you cannot make him think." -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:01 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#35 muoncounter said "There's the same refrain: high temperatures (here, sea surface), higher probability of extreme weather events follow." That may be true in general but the "extreme weather events" needs to be better defined to include the protracted pattern of flow, excessive rain over time, rain on saturation ground, and everything else can be measured and trended. IOW, use measurements of effects instead of the "weird weather" notion. #37 (the Yeh paper) the nonzero elements being flattening of the thermocline depth with longitude and the weakening of the Walker. That's a change that doesn't average out like you said, but we need to see what the long and short term trends are ftp://ftp.gfdl.gov/pub/gav/PAPERS/VSWHLH_06.final.pdf because some of the long term trend in the flattening of the thermocline depth (fig 4 lower left block) looks to me to be natural. Looking at the lower right block, I should add some discussion to the natural cycles thread. #39 Tom Curtis, the more I look at 1974 and 2011, the more I see apples and oranges, especially in the rainfall distribution maps. The two events are hard to compare in those maps. But an easier way to gain historical perspective may be the river gauges (thus defining "weird" as the broadest effect on land). Some historical events are listed here http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/brisbane_lower/brisbane_lower.shtml (the table with flood gauge heights). So far I have only found the Gatton gauge on a blog at 18.92, higher than all prior events in the table. It would be very interesting to add a column in that table for the 2011 event and then figure out the geographical impact of the flood both in terms of where the water came from and where it piled up the most. I know next to nothing about Australian geography but I am very familiar with the Potomac basin. Essentially, rainfall or meltwater on the Blue Ridge feeds the Shenandoah and the same on the Potomac highlands feeds the Potomac directly both ending up at Harper's Ferry but with different delays. It is easy to look at the flood gauges and see where the water came from. -
arch stanton at 02:00 AM on 31 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
I like pseudo-skeptic. It is more accurate and don’t think the “q” spellings will impress folks afflicted with Dunning-Kruger or anyone else who is influenced by them. Of course it is hard to pass up the utility of “denier” for those that refuse to admit it when they are wrong. For those that make a true art continually twisting the story 180 degrees I reserve the title of “denialist”.
Prev 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 Next
