Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 Next
Comments 97201 to 97250:
-
muoncounter at 01:28 AM on 31 January 2011Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
#15: "any causal link between reduced solar (or cosmic) radiation and reduced tree ring growth." This was suggested by Suess 1980, who was the author of one of the greatest one-liners in all of science: "The line was not drawn by computer - I drew the line by `cosmic schwung'. More recently, Kulmala et al 2009 and Dengel et al 2009 provided some fuel for an uptick of chatter in the deniersphere. The usual crowd made the usual misrepresentations of an otherwise valid study (you can find this by googling 'cosmic rays tree ring growth'; I don't link to sources of disinformation). The basis of the argument is that increased cosmic ray flux stimulates cloud formation (that's not proven) and clouds control tree growth rates (somewhat), so that cosmic ray flux helps explain tree ring anomalies (indirect, uncertain, unsettled). There are some vague resemblances of tree ring cycles to the solar cycle (see Dengel), but that's hardly a smoking gun for cosmic rays as a cause. But with evidence like the figure shown below (Kulmala), it will take more than cosmic schwung to draw a line.
The larger subject of cosmic ray flux is discussed in the thread It's cosmic rays.
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed broken linked image URL. -
Daniel Bailey at 01:19 AM on 31 January 2011Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
@ Philip Shehan @ 15 Tree rings are not my area of expertise, but a re-read of the post above makes it clear there is still significant uncertainty (see the linked summary above for details). I suspect the cause is indeed multi-factorial (with the other factors mentioned in play, tree growth response to the rising temps [we are now at temps equal to that of the Holocene Maximum of 8,000 years ago] of the latter half of the 20th Century may be discontinuous to established response). Certainly the experts in this field are continuing to look at all possible factors (a scientific "race to glory" for bragging rights). My two cents. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 00:46 AM on 31 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#38: "perhaps it is the El-Nino/ La Nina occurrence ratio that must also be considered" Those data are available; have at it. Evidence that long term changes are underway continues to mount. Where is the published science that counters observations such as those of Allan and Soden 2008? ... observations reveal a distinct link between rainfall extremes and temperature, with heavy rain events increasing during warm periods and decreasing during cold periods. Furthermore, the observed amplification of rainfall extremes is found to be larger than predicted by models, implying that projections of future changes in rainfall extremes due to anthropogenic global warming may be underestimated. It's high time to hold any claim that these extreme events are just part of the 'natural cycle' to a higher standard. That sort of thinking breeds popular complacency, which in turns leads to inaction in the face of danger. The water rises, people die. After the flood, out come theliesexcuses: 'no one could have predicted this' and 'why didn't you warn us?', etc. -
Tom Curtis at 23:36 PM on 30 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
John D, @36, you have twice stated that, "a period of below average rain always ends with a period of above average rain". That is simply not true, and would not be an explanation even if it were. In fact, the recent drought in South East Queensland was broken in 2008, and was followed with a year of near average rain. Of course, the following year (2010) had far above average rain, but that is neither explained by the preceding drought, nor followed directly after it. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:44 PM on 30 January 2011It's not us
Julian@Flood@22 wrote "How does the process know to only sequester 45% of the extra, and how does it distinguish that 45% blip from all the other processes which are not steady state but which vary with the season, run-off etc. What, in other words, is the _mechanism_?" It stems from the fluxes of carbon between reservoirs being proportional to the atmospheric concentration and the fact that emissions are rising approximately exponential. The carbon cycle is a dynamical system, which can be described by linear differential equations. If you apply exponential forcing to such linear D.E.s you get an exponential result (with the same rate constant). As both exponentials have the same rate constant, their ratio is constant. I did the D.E.s myself last year to satisfy myself that a constant airborne fraction is what you would expect for an anthropogenic origin, and indeed it is. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:36 PM on 30 January 2011It's not us
Julian@Flood@22 The mass balance argument does not need to make any assumption about the carbon cycle other than conservation of mass (of carbon), neither does it depend on any knowledge of the individual fluxes into and out of the atmosphere. The diagram below shows annual anthropogenic emissions (for which we have good records), the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 (for which we have accurate records, in this case Mauna Loa), and the difference between total natural emissions and total natural uptake, which can be inferred from anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric increase assuming conservation of mass.
For conservation of mass, we know that
dC = E_a + E_n - U_n
where dC is the annual change in atmospheric CO2, E_a is anthropogenic emissions, E_n is "natural" emissions and U_n is "natural" uptake. Of these, we can directly measure dC and E_a, so rearranging, we have
E_n - U_n = dC - E_a
This is the green line, which gives total net emissions into the atmosphere from all natural sources (including soil respiration). As you can see, it is always negative, demonstrating that the natural environment is a net sink, and is hence opposing the atmospheric rise, not causing it.
The data is shown here it can all be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center CDIAC, the specific datasets you need are: anthropogenic emissionshere and Mauna Loa data here.
Note that the error bars on the inferred natural net sink depends on the uncertainty in anthropogenic emissions and measurements of atmoispheric CO2, both of which are small.
The bottom line is that the annual rise in atmospheric carbon is the sum of anthropogenic emissions, natural emissions (whatever the mechanism) minus natural uptake (whatever the mechanism). If the annual rise is less that anthropogenic emissions, then the only way that can happen is for natural uptake to excede natural emissions.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:20 PM on 30 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Eric @33, you also left out the interesting comment that: "However, in 1974 the heaviest rains were close to the coast, whereas in 2011 heavy falls spread further inland, and on the western fringe of the Brisbane River catchment and on the Great Dividing Range 2011 was the wetter of the two events (Figure 5, right)." That western fringe is, of course, the catchment of the Wivenhoe Dam. I am uncertain how to interpret BOM's comment about the four major subcatchments as the Brisbane River has six major subcatchments (Upper Middle and Metropolitan Brisbane, Bremer, Lockyer and Stanley). It his, however, clear from BOM's statement that what made 2011 unusual was the very high run off rather than the very high rainfall per se. As land use is essentially unchanged in the relevant areas, that is not a significant factor. There are probably two significant factors. First is the generally wetter preceding period. Second is the very high intensity of rainfall on Monday the 10th. Higher rainfalls were recorded in coastal areas in 1974, but the much of that fell out of the Brisbane River catchment, or onto short catchments that joined the Brisbane only in its lower reachs (Ennogra and Breakfast Creeks). I have been struggling to get data on the relative intensity in the Wivenhoe catchment of the rainfall on Monday 10th. I know it was higher in the Wivenhoe catchment than in Toowoomba or the Lockyer valley, but how much higher I cannot say. As rainfall on Tuesday was heavy, but not unusually so, and relatively light on Wednesday (ceasing altogether by evening) I am not sure the three day comparison is the best way to look at the data. You have raised reasonable doubts about my claims about the rainfall. But I do not think you have raised any doubt about the unusual nature of the flood. The fact remains that total river flows were of the scale compared to previous floods since European settlement, with the 2011 flood likely to have been a meter higher than the 1893 flood were it not for the flood mitigation provided by Somerset and Wivenhoe Dams. River flows were still greater than 1974, but with a lower peak due to improved storm drainage, and the absence of a storm surge. Whatever the contributors to that mass of water, whether exceptionally wet soil, or freak storms at the wrong locations, the net result is still an exceptional flood. -
Julian Flood at 22:00 PM on 30 January 2011It's not us
Dikran Marsupial at 06:52 AM on 30 January, 2011 wrote quote 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. unquote I'm afraid you'll have to go through the logic of your case in baby steps, as to me they don't make sense. If the world had only two agents working on CO2 production and sequestration then perhaps you would have a point. However, this is not the case. Just take, for example, the biology of the oceans: numbers of phytoplankton vary as nutrient flows (run-off from land, deep current upwelling, wind-mediated stirring of the top few hundred feet of the oceans, volcanic rain-down, seasonal changes etc etc) and this will change the amount of CO2 pulled down and/or the amount of CO2 given off. So to do your calculation of 'mass balance' you need to know the figures for all of these. Further, and more importantly, you need to know the amount going into and coming out of the biggest reservoir of CO2, the deep ocean. I think the figures you are using for your mass balance are dwarfed by the uncertainties in the figures for all of the above. To illustrate: human emissions go up by X, deep ocean export swings up by 99X, sequestration by phytoplankton goes up by 99.55X. Net increase, .45X. Now add error bars to those figures -- plus or minus 70 Gt. 70! So you don't know the numbers within something like 10X and you're calculating to decimal places. And from this you can claim that it's all the fault of the little boy piddling in the reservoir? I must be misunderstanding something basic. Please explain again a different way and I'll try and follow the logic better. quote The fact that the long term rise in atmospheric CO2 has been steady at 45% of anthropogenic emissions would be a bit of a coincidence if the observed rise were natural and nothing to do with us! unquote So Zog, when he picked up his first bit of seacoal and threw on his fire, altered the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 45% of the C in that coal? You know that bit in Borat where he looks at someone with disbelief? Picture me like that. How does the process know to only sequester 45% of the extra, and how does it distinguish that 45% blip from all the other processes which are not steady state but which vary with the season, run-off etc. What, in other words, is the _mechanism_? TIA JF (thanks for isotope data. I think the same error is being made here as in the mass balance argument, that there is a steady state in the isotopic composition of the pull down -- just adding a little dissolved silica to the oceans will invalidate that assumption.) -
michael sweet at 21:58 PM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
John@23: It is not yet known how to extrapolate melt rates into the future. Will melt increase 100 Gt per year or will melt continue to double every 8 years? That is the difference between 0.5 meters of melt by 2100 and 5 meters of melt. There is no consensus of what will happen. Some scientists believe that there is a maximium rate of melt (about 2 meters/century) while others think the ice could disintegrate by a rapid wet process (5-10 meters/century). That is why this data is so important. The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable to rapid disintegration. Stay tuned for updates! -
michael sweet at 21:38 PM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Agnostic: Cliff Ollier is a geologist, not a climate scientist. Linking to an opinion piece by a geologist is not a scientific way to support your position. Try to find a peer reviewed paper, I suggest you look at material that is at least 10 years old. The IPCC AR3 might support that position. It is wrong. Scientists used to think that it would take centuries for the ice to respond to increasing temperatures, but that has been proven incorrect in the past 5 years. The ice has responded much faster than expected. That is the point of this post. See my link at #19. Fydijkstra's link at 7 shows substantial surface melt above 1500 meters, which was not expected yet. At 1500 meters they lost 50 cm of ice last year. It is now known that the ice responds rapidly to hot ocean water around the pheriphery of the ice sheet. Scientists are trying to determine how strong the response will be. There is more CO2 in the air than at any time in the past several million years. Why would you expect the ice to respond the same? Only 100,000 years ago, within your 750,000, sea level was 6-9 meters higher. Good bye Bangladesh and Florida. We are hotter now so we expect the sea to rise higher. How much and how fast is still to be determined. Pray James Hansen (who IS a climate scientist whose work is peer reviewed) is wrong this time and the rise is not 5 meters by 2100. -
johnhprice44 at 21:25 PM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
John, thanks for this update. In a sketch, extrapolating this trend to 2015, I found the net annual mass loss rises to something like 700Gt - equivalent to about 2mm of sea level. Would it be possible to invite your informants to perform the calculations to show what this trend would produce over another couple of decades? I don't really know, but I'd guess there are no known processes capable of retarding the trend, but several conceivable ones which might accelerate it. I'd be interested to know if the GRACE data is indeed disclosing a lower bound for estimates of Greenland's contribution to sea level rise up to 2030 or so. Thanks again for your good work. John Price -
Philip Shehan at 21:07 PM on 30 January 2011Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Thank you Daniel for the welcome. My original post may have been ambiguous. I was specifically wondering if ther was any causal link between reduced solar (or cosmic) radiation and reduced tree ring growth. -
michael sweet at 21:02 PM on 30 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Students produce work as they are guided. Pirate claims this is student work, but the survey reflects directly the points that he has emphasized in his postings at his first post here. The graph they used is the same one he first posted!! If Pirate emphasizes in class 400,000 year old data that shows natural changes and then asks is current change natural his students will follow the same pattern. Then the students will show up here and say "My high school environmental teacher said" and they will have to unlearn what they were taught. It is hard to unlearn false data. -
Bern at 20:10 PM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
So what you're saying is that the deniers (no, really, that's what they are, as per BillyJoe's post) are taking the "say it loud, say it often" approach todebateargumentation? -
Riduna at 18:46 PM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
fydijkstra @ 7 I think Professor Cliff Ollier might support your view. In a recent article (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11212&page=2) he states that “There is no melting in the interior of ice sheets - it is far too cold. The centres of the ice sheets, occupying basins, flow only at the base, warmed by geothermal heat and driven by the weight of the overlying ice. There is no direct flow of the near-surface ice in the centre of an ice sheet to the outflow glaciers. It is fanciful to conclude kilometres of ice can suddenly melt when the records show no melting whatsoever in the ice sheet accumulation areas. After considering the evidence of three quarters of a million years of documented continuous accumulation, how can we rationally accept that right now the world's ice sheets are collapsing? Johannessen and colleagues analysed satellite data on the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2003. They found an increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimetres per year in the vast interior areas above 1500 metres, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance.” So, are we to believe that peripheral ice melt has any effect on the Greenland ice sheet and if so, what? Does an accelerating rate of loss presently 200-300 Gt per annum matter and if so why? -
gpwayne at 18:26 PM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
MattJ asks: "It would have been real interesting to see how many of the deleted comments came from the 'skeptics'. Judging from the comment initially quoted above it sounds likely that most of them were, but the above statistics neither confirm nor deny that conclusion" The answer is as follows. The total number of visible deletions when the thread closed was 55. (Well-intented rebuttals to moderated posts are made to 'disappear' rather than be left as what we call 'tombstones' so as not to give the impression that the rebutter had also transgressed). Of that 55 posts, 44 were from deniers. The remaining 11 were all from warmists, including 3 from me and 1 from Dana. More telling perhaps is this: 44 denialist posts removed were written by 17 people, the remaining 11 were written by 6 warmists. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:54 PM on 30 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Just to jump in here in defence of 'pirate' and the survey. It looks to me like several people here may have taken the wrong impression from what he said about the survey. My reading of what he said and the content of the survey is that this was a survey 'created by' his students, not just simply responded to by them. So yes, there are 'problems' with the survey. Qyestion 1 has 3 options for example without the obvious 4th option - 'all of the above'. But is this something foisted on the students, or a fault with what they produced? Perhaps pirate can clarify this. -
BillyJoe at 15:45 PM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Stephen Leahy #24 "I generally use the term denier for those who are ideologically, politically or financially motivated to deny. " I generally use the term "denier" when - a person makes a claim - that claim is effectively rebutted - the person making the claim ignores the rebuttal - that person continues to make the claim - that person continues to ignore the rebuttal -
johnd at 14:42 PM on 30 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
muoncounter at 13:35 PM on 30 January, 2011, whilst the study referenced, Yeh et al, may help better understand the shorter term events relevant to 2010, for 2010 itself to understood in a longer time frame, then perhaps it is the El-Nino/ La Nina occurrence ratio that must also be considered when new records are compared to past record events, and whether or not that ratio averages out, especially given the connection of the various record Brisbane floodings and La-Nina events. -
muoncounter at 13:35 PM on 30 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#36: "it should be the nett effect of what occurred on BOTH sides of the system" Yes, I think that's an excellent point. Not only do oscillations average temporally to zero, but as you suggest, they average spatially to zero as well. That reinforces the point that these cyclic events can only be insignificant factors in the long term trend. The thread Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation is an excellent place for discussion of this topic. To look at long term changes to the character of el Niño from its Eastern Pacific (EP) to Central Pacific (CP) phases, see Yeh et al 2009: Using calculations based on historical El Niño indices, we find that projections of anthropogenic climate change are associated with an increased frequency of the CP-El Niño compared to the EP-El Niño. When restricted to the six climate models with the best representation of the twentieth-century ratio of CP-El Niño to EP-El Niño, the occurrence ratio of CP-El Niño/EP-El Niño is projected to increase as much as five times under global warming. -- emphasis added Now that's a change that does not average out. -
johnd at 13:02 PM on 30 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
muoncounter at 10:18 AM on 30 January, 2011, whilst the article referenced from "The Australian" focuses in on how the events leading to the flooding developed in the more recent months, perhaps the stage was being set even further back, back during the preceding El-Nino which was identified by some as a variation of the normal El-Nino pattern, and labeled an El-Nino Modoki. A few accepted truths are perhaps relevant here, one being that a period of below average rain always ends with a period of above average rain. Another is that generally in Australia, by virtue of the regions it covers, there is nearly always a drought somewhere, even when there are may be floods elsewhere. One other is that what a La-Nina means to Australia, is what an El-Nino means to those on the other side of the system and vice versa, so when any analysis is being done on the effects on any such event, before it can be evaluated with reference to longer term climate trends, the bigger picture,it should be the nett effect of what occurred on BOTH sides of the system that are relevant rather than what may have been experienced on just one side. For me the big picture is not complete yet merely by looking at both sides of such events, but also looking at many such events over a longer time frame. With systems that operate in the various oceans and oscillate through identified positive and negative phases that perhaps seem to be 6 decades, more or less, then I am more interested in what can be observed over multiple such cycles, only then can any analysis have any real value above what essentially relies a lot on the making of assumptions and guess work. -
David Horton at 12:38 PM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Stephen and Dana thanks for that, Stephen's link is a useful addition to the Real Climate account of the affair. I'm happy with all that - climate science should be left to climate scientists, or at least referred to them! The only, minor query I had is that the graph Real Climate shows in explanation begins in 1900. There is, if my ageing memory hasn't failed me, some additional warming before 1900 which would make the FEU "2.4 above" "pre-industrial", although still an exaggeration, slightly less of an exaggeration. Or have I misunderstood? -
MattJ at 12:37 PM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
The article says: ====================== Many "skeptic" commenters also engaged in ad hominem attacks against myself, John Cook, and Skeptical Science. ... An approximate breakdown of the comments (courtesy of Rob Painting): 19 comments defended Lindzen's error 0 comments defended FEU-US error 47 comments were deleted (ad hominem or otherwise off-topic) 51 remaining comments were off-topic (on ocean heat content, blaming the IPCC, etc.) The remainder consisted of arguments among commenters ======================= It would have been real interesting to see how many of the deleted comments came from the 'skeptics'. Judging from the comment initially quoted above it sounds likely that most of them were, but the above statistics neither confirm nor deny that conclusion. -
Stephen Leahy at 12:16 PM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Opps Hamilton link -
Stephen Leahy at 12:15 PM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
I generally use the term denier for those who are ideologically, politically or financially motivated to deny. (and that's virtually all of the so-called sceptics in my experience). Read Clive Hamilton's essay on -
From Peru at 12:07 PM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
What data were used for making the graph of Greenland mass anomaly above, and how can I access it? (To moderator: thanks for the link, but it is difficult to find the right dataset)Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Try emailing John Wahr: John.Wahr@colorado.edu -
Tom Curtis at 11:54 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Chemist1 @4, very nice of you to repeat the same error just to illustrate the point. However, it should be noted solar energy that drives weather is dissipated as heat. It is not removed from the system as you suggest, which would violate the conservation of energy. (It is also irrelevant to the question of thermal lag in the oceans.) Perhaps you should state your claim as "heat is transferred by weather" which is true, but also immediately seen as irrelevant. -
Stephen Leahy at 11:52 AM on 30 January 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
David#13 as Dana said at #21 with an additional human twist: the FEU author did not really understand climate science based on my conversations with her about the error before the report's release. An honest mistake in my view. Why their science reviewer approved the report is a mystery - he was in hospital and unavailable for comment. For details of how all this went down -
dhogaza at 11:27 AM on 30 January 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
michael sweet: "Why does your second graph not have the data from 1993 and 1994 on it like the graph above it?" Perhaps the cherries were exceptionally sour in those years? -
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.
Prev 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 Next
