Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 Next
Comments 106901 to 106950:
-
barry1487 at 23:21 PM on 17 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
I recently emailed DMI with a query about summertime temperatures and got a reply a couple of weeks ago. Here are the relevant bits. My comments are in italics.I am curious about the temperature profiles for the Arctic, 80 degrees North from 1958 to present... I have read quite a few studies on Arctic summertime temperatures indicating that the temperature trend for the region has been significantly positive over the last few decades. The University of Alabama satellite record maintained by Roy Spencer and John Christy has a trend of 0.47C/decade since 1979. I realize that the circle of the Arctic your graph covers is a smaller area than many other assessments of Arctic temperatures... ...would you be amenable to providing a brief reply? I plan to disseminate it responsibly, unless you state otherwise. 1) It would appear at a glance that summer time temperatures have increased little over the past few decades going by the DMI graph set. Do you hold this to be the case? From the link to WUWT, that you've attached below[*], it seems that a cooling temperature trend in the Arctic summer is present, throughout the past approximately 10 years. Where 'summer' is defined as the period where the +80N mean temperature is above 273K. However, I very much doubt that a simple conclusion can be drawn from that, as there are complicating aspects to that analysis, e.g.: 1) The surface in the +80N area is more or less fully snow and ice covered all year, so the temperature is strongly controlled by the melting temperature of the surface. I.e. the +80N temperature is bound to be very close to the melt point of the surface snow and ice (273K) and the variability is therefore very small, less than 0.5K. I am sure you will find a much clearer warming trend in the same analysis applied to the winter period. The winter period is more crucial for the state of the Arctic sea ice, as this is the period where the ice is produced and the colder the winter the thicker and more robust the sea ice will become. 2) The +80N temperature data after 2002 are based on the operational global deterministic models at ECMWF, at any given time. Before 2002 the ERA 40 reanalysis is used. I.e. the +80N temperatures are based on 4 different models, the model used for the ERA 40 data set and the operational models T511, T799 and T1279. The point is that there can be a temperature bias in one or more of the models, that can cause the lower temperature level since approximately 2002, where the shift between the ERA40 data and the operational model data occur in the WUWT-plot from the link below. 2) Can you help me understand what appears to be a discrepancy with other reports on Arctic temperature trends? I do not think one can give a general comment on that - i.e. such discrepancies have to be discussed in a 'case by case' manner 3) Are there any published studies done by DMI researchers on Arctic temperature trends - for reference? No - unfortunately, we have not had time to look deeper into this.
* The WUWT link in my email was this one. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/dmi-polar-data-shows-cooler-arctic-temperature-since-1958/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Looks like you've done a very good job, Peter. My correspondent was Gorm Dybkjær. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 22:27 PM on 17 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
This article does show the weakness of the station data. 1200 km interpolation is not the best for analyzing the Arctic. Since 1979 the DMI and the satellite data are showing the same trends though. The strongest warming is taking place during the winter, but the summer is warming in the satellite data as well. The satellite trend is weak until 1997, but after 1998 the trend is clear. Of course 1998 is also the year the AMO went strongly into the warm phase and that makes distinguishing the cause of the warming very difficult. So I agree with the warming, just not the cause. It is too bad the DMI data does not extend back to 1930. -
Doug Bostrom at 21:08 PM on 17 October 2010DMI show cooling Arctic
What a chewy article. Thanks, Peter! -
MarkR at 20:49 PM on 17 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Very interesting Peter! I haven't had the time to look into this myself, but once again our friend Steven Goddard has shown a severe lack of skeptical thinking and maintained his unbelievable ability to cherry pick. -
archiesteel at 17:25 PM on 17 October 2010DMI show cooling Arctic
It is also worth nothing that the DMI acknowledges the reality of rapid warming on their website about the Arctic: "Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable." -
archiesteel at 14:33 PM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
@AWoL: I'm sorry, I have a hard time understanding your point. The fact that AGW is apparently causing some greening of the Sahara desert due to increased rainfall is *not* an argument against AGW theory. I'm also unaware that the Sahara is often cited in Mass Media stories about AGW. Furthermore, this is another piece of evidence showing that AGW is real. I don't see how this could "cause problems" for AGW proponents. To the contrary, it goes to show that we are, in fact, having a serious impact on our environment through CO2 emmissions. I also don't get your comment about soothsayers and fortune-tellers. I suggest you stick to the science and not try to divine how public opinion will react to an observed greening of the Sahel. -
kwinters79 at 13:17 PM on 17 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Great article, but your trend line equations in Figure 3 are mislabeled or off by a factor of 10. They should either say yearly or the decimal point shifted right. -
Roger A. Wehage at 10:58 AM on 17 October 2010Climate Change Impacts on California Water Resources
Some things don't make sense. In a 1944 treaty between the United States and Mexico, Texas was to take water from Mexico out of the Rio Grande and Arizona was to give water back to Mexico from the Colorado River. Arizona dumps a tremendous amount of water from the Colorado River on the ground to raise crops year-round, and a lot of it percolates through the sand to flow without fanfare back into Mexico where they can reuse it. But that hidden water doesn't count toward satisfying the treaty requirements, so the United States has installed an elaborate system of pumps and canals along the border between Arizona and Mexico to extract the groundwater and deliver it to Mexico. If the actual flow of groundwater into Mexico is already known, why not just renegotiate the treaty to avoid the expense (including CO2) of running pumps and the water distribution system? In either case that doesn't help California. Since Mexico has stopped shipping water to Texas (see first link above), maybe Arizona should reuse their recovered water, saving more of the Colorado River water for California. That would probably be a temporary fix, as the Colorado River is not immune to Global Warming. -
johnd at 09:24 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
AWoL, situations such as you have illustrated in the Sahara will (have?) allow the more astute observers to bring together the rapidly accumulating knowledge of drought tolerant plant species suitable for agricultural exploitation, and the cyclic changes as they occur in various locations. Establishing deep rooted perennials that can tap into water reserves well below the surface, that also bring essential nutrients to the surface, will help re-establish ground cover leading to a rebuilding of the top soil and then to the expansion of the cropping or grazing into new areas. One of the limiting factors to plant growth in arid areas is the cold night temperatures, but with increased rain comes increased cloud cover that should see some improvement there. Much may be happening now, there are many enterprising advances happening that fly below the radar with research often trailing practice by a considerable margin due to the tendency to think laterally by those who have to contend in practice with the vagaries of nature and take whatever opportunities as they present themselves, even if it has not been peer reviewed. -
muoncounter at 08:58 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
I wonder how any of our European readers feel about being so near the tip of the spear: From MacKenzie and Schiedek 2007: ... trends in surface temperatures in the North and Baltic Seas now exceed those at any time since instrumented measurements began in 1861 and 1880. Temperatures in summer since 1985 have increased at nearly triple the global warming rate which is expected to occur during the 21st century and summer temperatures have risen 2-5 times faster than those in other seasons. These warm temperatures and rates of change are due partly to an increase in the frequency of extremely warm years. The recent warming event is exceeding the ability of local species to adapt and is consequently leading to major changes in the structure, function and services of these ecosystems. [emphasis added] From Devictor et al. 2008: ... a 91 km northward shift in bird community composition, which is much higher than previous estimates based on changes in species range edges. During the same period, temperature increase corresponds to a 273 km northward shift in temperature. Change in community composition was thus insufficient to keep up with temperature increase: birds are lagging approximately 182 km behind climate warming. -
Joe Blog at 08:48 AM on 17 October 2010The sun upside down
HumanityRules at 02:51 Also I can't get my head around what "could also be having, uncontributed effects." means? Yea, the "uncontributed" should be unattributed, a good reason why i shouldnt post at 5am... But what i mean is that with co2 being a net emitter (2:1)in the stratosphere, that its cooling effects could be having larger dynamical effects in the troposphere than previously believed. The interactions are complex, more so with O3 because its concentrations vary so much latitudinaly and vertically, but with increasing radiative cooling from elevated co2 it will further complex the matter. The main dynamic effects from stratospheric interactions with the troposphere are caused by temperature/pressure changes, and their effect on the air circulation/pressure systems in the troposphere... and then their effect on water vapor up take, condensation etc. -
adelady at 08:20 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
AWOL I'm absolutely certain that there's some good news for some species aroung the place. I notice some of the things you refer to involve plants and animals moving to more congenial circumstances. Your example of an "exodus" leading to a good outcome is great for a historical example. But there are 2 problems for me there. One, such movements are now highly constrained by the hugs human population, and the effects of habitation and agriculture on grasslands and forests. Two, where I live the only way for existing animals to move is south - not many plants and animals will migrate inland to even more inhospitable conditions. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of south to move to. Unless someone's come up with a few generations evolution schema for land animals to imitate seals and penguins. -
AWoL at 07:48 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
Replying to ASteel Yes I take your points. Nevertheless that which has taken place,whilst not condemning outright AGW and its proponents, is however at odds with mass media output. ie we haven't had any glowing reports of this (benign) change in the Sahel. When brought to the attention of Joe Public, invariably his first utterance is "Why haven't we heard of this?"(because he still depends for the most part, but increasingly suspiciously, on the mass media for his information) I think you may have problems like this in the future. Time is wearing on, after all.Time was always a bit of a problem for soothsayers and fortune-tellers. -
archiesteel at 06:35 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
@AWoL: I think Doug said it best. Climate models do disagree on N. Africa, and the article acknowledges this: "Even so, climate scientists don't agree on how future climate change will affect the Sahel: Some studies simulate a decrease in rainfall. "This issue is still rather uncertain," Haarsma said. Max Planck's Claussen said North Africa is the area of greatest disagreement among climate change modelers. Forecasting how global warming will affect the region is complicated by its vast size and the unpredictable influence of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains, Claussen added. "Half the models follow a wetter trend, and half a drier trend." Whether it is increased desertification or a greening of some of its regions due to increased hydrological activity, however, it's hard no to see the effects of AGW at work. Obviously, the best outcome would be sustained greening, as this would introduce a vast new carbon sink, however it's unwise to count on this happening. Here is the direct link, if anyone is interested. -
Animals and plants can adapt
AWoL - Here's the link to the Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change article in National Geographic. The article appears to be based on Hickler et al 2005, "Precipitation controls Sahel greening trend". The article also (indirectly) points to Haarsma et al 2005, "Sahel rainfall variability and response to greenhouse warming" indicating increased Sahara rainfall of 1-2mm/day. -
wanyden at 06:30 AM on 17 October 2010Climate Change Impacts on California Water Resources
This is not just a problem of the future: For several years I have driven on Interstate Highway 5 past Mount Shasta (14,179 ft / 4,322 m) in Northern California. Until recently the mountain was covered in snow year-round, and could be seen as a white cone from much of the Sacramento Valley north of the city of Sacramento. In the past few years this has not been the case. In August, 2009, the mountain was bare with only a couple of patches of snow near the summit (as seen from the south and west). Two weeks ago there was more snow, covering the top half of the mountain except for some large areas of bare rock. With the current La Niña event, we may hope for some precipitation this winter, but it is likely to be rain rather than snow in the Sierra. -- Bill, getting thirsty in the SF Bay Area. -
AWoL at 06:12 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
Sorry ASteel, haven't provided a direct link but if you refer to my earlier post on this subject I do give instructions as to how to reach it. Just checked it.Up and running.Don't go to the kids section for it ain't there. Yes it is probably massively compressed, but by a climate researcher who has been working in the region for 20yrs.....which was why I brought the matter to the attention of this forum. Google National Geographic, type "satellite greening" in the search box, then select title with "Sahara" in it. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:57 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
A reasonable thing to do would be to read articles by researchers rather than a massively compressed synopsis in a kid's magazine, AWoL. It's worth noting that climate models have a tough time w/predicting precipitation in N. Africa. If you read the literature, you'd know that. You'd also have some idea of the ease with which decadal natural variation can slew precipitation in the region of the Sahara. By the way, are you having some sort of trouble with your caps-lock key? -
archiesteel at 05:35 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
@AWoL: it is common practice here to provide links to your sources. Do you have the link handy, so we can evaluate how accurate the NatGeo Kids article really is? -
AWoL at 05:16 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
Replying to Doug Bostrom, Like most folks I generally accepted that a battle against the encroaching sands was being lost, so the evidence of a reversal, especially in a magazine(kiddies?) as pro-AGW as Nat Geographic, came as a surprise. I am familiar with the PROJECTIONS and PREDICTIONS, and very plausible they sounded too. HOWEVER.....this report as to what is ACTUALLY happening on the ground, is at odds with that which was predicted. What would be a reasonable attitude towards people that make predictions, in your opinion, that don't come to pass? -
Doug Bostrom at 04:27 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
Africans will move to the Sahara? Problem solved? Rather than rely on some quotes from National Geographic Kids, better to delve into the literature and get the big picture, as usual. Here's a continental-scale review for Africa, a little long in the tooth but a good starting point: African climate change: 1900–2100 Continental-scale scenario for surface water: Changes in Surface Water Supply Across Africa with Predicted Climate Change Meanwhile, it's best to take changes on the timescale mentioned in National Geographic w/a grain of salt because of course there's always natural variability in play: The impact of decadal-scale Indian Ocean sea surface temperature anomalies on Sahelian rainfall and the North Atlantic Oscillation -
Doug Bostrom at 04:01 AM on 17 October 2010Climate Change Impacts on California Water Resources
Fascinating, thanks! There's a journalist by the name of John Fleck who makes somewhat of a specialty of water resources in the SW United States. His blog is worth checking in on from time to time. -
AWoL at 03:02 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
Good news,Adelady. Snippet from National Geographic:- "Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear. Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent. * Ancient Cemetery Found; Brings "Green Sahara" to Life * Exodus From Drying Sahara Gave Rise to Pharaohs, Study Says Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago" More info available at Nat Geographical website. Use their search button and key in"Satellite greening". Acacias spreading and thriving in Sudan. Nomads in Western Sahara say "We've never had it so good." As for rapidity of evolution. Check out Howard Bloom's website and in the black column on the left, click on"Instant Evolution:the effect of the city on human genes" He cites some thought - provoking examples of rapid evolution. -
HumanityRules at 02:51 AM on 17 October 2010The sun upside down
Joe there seems to be heaps of stuff coming out of Colorado State about Stratosphere-Troposhpere interactions. See http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ResPapers/index.html Also I can't get my head around what "could also be having, uncontributed effects." means? -
dana1981 at 01:51 AM on 17 October 2010Climate Change Impacts on California Water Resources
Thanks Roger. I don't think California is a canary, I think it's a miner. We can't afford to lose California's agricultural productivity, which is just massive. There is a very good chance that climate change could lead to another Dust Bowl in the SW USA. And groundwater resources will no doubt be depleted in areas facing significant droughts. It's hard to say how California will be impacted, since the state will still receive a similar amount of precipitation. It depends on whether we manage to capture it successfully. -
adelady at 01:00 AM on 17 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
#4. New beginnings? Just look at much of the Middle East. Large areas were once fertile crop producing lands supporting substantial populations in cities. Now the deserts, mostly caused by abandoning age-old water management practices, barely support an assortment of goats and lizards. Not a fruit tree or a grain crop in sight. There are similar places elsewhere in the world. Once lost, always lost. As for evolution taking care of the problem. Evolution for changed climate consitions takes many generations - maybe centuries, maybe millennia, maybe millions of years. The big difference for substantial impact on species this time round is the lack of places to go. Even where human population is sparse, the lands in question are surrounded by urban or agricultural developments inimical to the free movement and re-establishment of existing or changing species. Change *is* natural - when it occurs on natural time-scales. This time we're changing things in the space of a few human generations rather than a few thousand or million years. -
muoncounter at 00:20 AM on 17 October 2010Despite uncertainty, CO2 drives the climate
These two recent articles are sure to stimulate confusion: From Lacis, Schmidt et al: Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, From Schmidt and Reudy et al: water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20% The other side doesn't bother with such detail; hence they can do a far better job of homogenizing their message. -
Roger A. Wehage at 00:18 AM on 17 October 2010Climate Change Impacts on California Water Resources
Canary in the mineshaft? This is an excellent article. One might say that as California goes so does most of the western half of the United States. And let us not forget how the dust bowl of the 1930s impacted drought and heat in much of the United States. Could global warming be heading us into such conditions again? In addition to snowpack runoff, much of the country depends heavily on groundwater for irrigation and domestic use. What effect will increased drought and heat associated with global warming have on groundwater usage and replenishment? -
JMurphy at 00:16 AM on 17 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
Berényi Péter wrote : "OK, the Goracle is finished." I invoke the equivalent of Godwin's Law (Gore'dwins Law ?), which means that BP has lost the argument - whatever he was trying to argue ! -
SRJ at 00:02 AM on 17 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
I have read Ljungqvist's 2010 article and I think the approach is very similar to what Peter Hogarth did in the post Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions I am curious to know if other people think the same? -
Paul D at 22:56 PM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
Sorry, I take that back! John did mention Marc Morano. But John just quoted Morano. The problem I have with some of these Basic rebuttals are the Tone of the first paragraph or two. They often seem to be out to provoke before even getting to an explanation.Moderator Response: [Graham] Not provoke, but expose. Since my analysis (such as it is) consists of a single line in which I identify Morano's method - and since I believe that identification is strictly accurate - I believe it is both helpful and informative to expose the generic methods and agenda that lie behind specific examples. There is a constant trend by so-called skeptics to downplay or minimise the predicted effects of climate change, and these methods inevitably distort the science, or ignore it completely. By exposing both, I hope the open-minded reader will not only appreciate Morano's attempt to deceive, but be better equipped to recognise the greater pattern of deception in its many guises. -
Paul D at 22:52 PM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
The problem is that some authors that are creating the basic rebuttals are bringing their own personal feelings into the articles, usually in the first paragraph or two. John Cooks original intermediate article did not mention Marc Morano and most people around the world don't care about him. There is a lack of discipline IMO in the review process. -
eco-kowana at 20:33 PM on 16 October 2010Climate's changed before
You know how everyone is talking about if climate change is natural or man made, in both cases (or even in the combination of both) don't we need to adapt? Because isn't that what our ancestors (most of them) did when the climate changed?Moderator Response: See the Argument "It's Not Bad." -
eco-kowana at 20:28 PM on 16 October 2010Animals and plants can adapt
When there is a end, there is always (mostly) a new beginning. -
RSVP at 19:40 PM on 16 October 2010Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
Chris G #47 "Please put a thermometer in a glass of ice water, stir continually, and record the temperature every minute. Plot the temperature over time. The temperature will stay right at freezing, neither cooling nor warming, until the ice is gone. I'm not sure that I'm here to teach you basic physics." Where is your glass? In a steam room? In the oven? Definitely not in the freezer. If the ice is melting, the "system" is not in equilibrium, and therefore ambient heat must be entering the glass, the liquid water (a fluid) provides a path for convective heat exchange. Just for fun, lets turn the problem around and ask what conditions would be necessary to allow the ice in your glass to never melt as you are stirring it? Is this even possible? And as far as how this relates to the Artic... moving water should not help ice formation, even if that water is near freezing. -
Riccardo at 16:23 PM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
Berényi Péter I'm not sure why you come out with Ljungqvist here and not in the appropiate post, but at least you shoud have shown the original figure. You showed a modified verion of Ljungqvist fig 3 dropping the instrumental record. Showing the original would have been better. Alternatively, you could have shown how Mann's reconstruction has been "deconstructed" by showing them together, as can be found here. The relevant figure is this:
Hiding the incline was not a good job, Péter, and not much deconstruction can be seen.
Moderator Response: Everybody, please take this to the appropriate thread that Riccardo pointed to. -
robert way at 13:14 PM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
BP, you know the hockey stick is so 10 years ago... I think its well accepted now that the flatness of Mann's hockey stick was not the best representation of the world. That being said Mann hasn't done a hockey stick reconstruction in about 7 years so why don't you stick to current arguments instead of dragging up old ones. Yes there is climate variability on the millennial scale and yes there is undoubtedly some natural contributions to the warming since 1850 but to ignore the plethora of evidence which suggests (including empirical evidence) that we are amplifying the greenhouse effect to the point where it is/will have an affect on the climate, is at best disingenuous. Perhaps educate yourself by reading the following http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ And on Soon's paper http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/ -
archiesteel at 12:54 PM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
BP, the more you defend Morano, the more your opposition appears political instead of scientific. -
archiesteel at 12:52 PM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
@BP: "Ah, you mean the Southern Hemisphere was cooler during the MWP than in the LIA?" No, I don't. I don't compare apples to oranges, either. By the way, Ljunqvist 2010 has this to say about Mann: "Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology." Also, why did you feel you needed to change the original graph? You didn't like how it showed instrumental record temperatures in 2000 already reached higher than the RWP and MWP? Could you elaborate on these points a bit more? -
Doug Bostrom at 10:58 AM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
It is actually possible to see quite a bit of daylight between Morano and Gore. Equating the two doesn't really wash. Here's an example. Morano: Why does Eilperin fail to note that a top UN IPCC scientist, Mojib Latif of Kiel University in Germany told a UN conference earlier this month that he is now predicting global cooling for several decades and he admitted he was unsure how much the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) had impacted global temperatures in the past three decades. Latif: In an interview today, Dr. Latif told me “we don’t trust our forecast beyond 2015″ and “it is just as likely you’ll see accelerated warming” after then. Indeed, in his published research, rapid warming is all-but-inevitable over the next two decades. He told me, “you can’t miss the long-term warming trend” in the temperature record, which is “driven by the evolution of greenhouse gases.” Finally, he pointed out “Our work does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming.” That's transcendent spin on Moraon's part. He's got a long history of this sort of thing, necessarily so because it's his job to do produce hyperbole. Read more about Morano and Latif here. Morano's expertise is not only confined to climate science: "Morano, who worked as a producer in the mid-90s for radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, was also among the first reporters to write about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign scrutinizing Kerry's Vietnam War record. And earlier this year, Morano penned an article questioning the Purple Heart medals of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of Bush's Iraq policy." Read more about Morano here at SourceWatch and then ponder if he and Al Gore are equivalently reliable. -
Berényi Péter at 10:25 AM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
#21 archiesteel at 10:19 AM on 16 October, 2010 Ljungqvist 2010, which is about the Northern Hemisphere only (whereas Mann's "hockey stick" is about global temperature) Ah, you mean the Southern Hemisphere was cooler during the MWP than in the LIA? Interesting conjecture. Could you elaborate on it a bit more? -
archiesteel at 10:19 AM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
@BP, words like "Goracle" do nothing to help your flagging credibility, nor does brining up Ljungqvist 2010, which is about the Northern Hemisphere only (whereas Mann's "hockey stick" is about global temperature). I agree with others on this site. It seemed that once you were able to provide thoughtful analysis. Now, it's as if you're not even trying anymore. -
Berényi Péter at 10:08 AM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
OK, the Goracle is finished. He just had such a tremendous influence on the public mind with statements about as definite like "if you put this stuff on your hair it could get up to 23.5% thicker", that this Morano guy could not help but attack him. And if Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame, neither has Morano. #12 Robert Way at 01:32 AM on 16 October, 2010 you cited Soon and Baliunas (2003) eventhough the aforementioned paper is widely discredited and resulted in the resignation of half the editorial board because it was published Now, let's be accurate. It was Morano who brought up Soon & Baliunas, not me. And it was gpwayne who brought up Morano. But you make me curious. How was this resignation story? And exactly what is wrong with that paper? Is there a sensible rebuttal? BTW, these MWP papers just keep coming, deconstructing Mann's broken hockey stick further. Geografiska Annaler Series A, Physical Geography Volume 92, Issue 3, pages 339–351, September 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millennia Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist
Instrumental record removed, spaghetti graphs are awful.
-
archiesteel at 09:33 AM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
@BP: actually, Gore is right. *If* East Antarctica was to go, sea levels would go up dramatically. He's not predicting it will in the near future, but simply states what such an extreme scenario would entail. Is it manipulative? A little, sure. Is it false? No, it isn't. -
JMurphy at 08:55 AM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
The only rational response to Berényi Péter's latest descent into skeptical irrelevance is the last sentence of the thread he links to : To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. To anyone who doesn't know the whole story, New Scientist goes into more detail : Gore does not explicitly say that Greenland's ice will disappear in the immediate future, merely that coastal areas will be dramatically flooded very soon. That point aside, there is...some debate over how quickly the ice caps and Greenland in particular could melt. -
Berényi Péter at 08:32 AM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
#14 KR at 01:46 AM on 16 October, 2010 Strawman arguments about 20ft theoretic rises from complete melting that nobody is predicting Of course. No sane person would predict such a thing. But watch this (starts at 1:42), directly from the guy who used to be the next president of the United States.
"The Arctic is experiencing faster melting. If this were to go [points to map of East Antarctica], sea level worldwide would go up twenty feet. This is what would happen in Florida. Around Shanghai home to forty million people, the area around Calcutta sixty million. Here is Manhattan. The Word Trade Center Memorial would be under water. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees and then imagine a hundred million. [caption: NOTHING IS SCARIER THAN THE TRUTH]"
One should ask Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?
Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
(Rebuttal written by gpwayne. Last updated on 7 October 2010)
Yes, twenty feet is broadly accurate. If a strawman says so, it must be true.
It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.
-
ClimateWatcher at 07:35 AM on 16 October 2010Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
Sorry, better links to the above references: MPG animation of Arctic sea ice PDF of the published research paper -
ClimateWatcher at 07:28 AM on 16 October 2010Explaining Arctic sea ice loss
To understand the Arctic Sea Ice, follow the multi-year ice ( the whiter shaded areas ): http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/IceAge&Extent/Rigor&Wallace2004_AgeOfIce1979to2007.mpg Notice how the Multi-year ices is flushed out into the Arctic. The paper is here: http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/IceAge&Extent/Rigor&Wallace2004.pdf -
ScienceIsAwesome at 06:37 AM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
I know this is somewhat off-topic, but given that this isn't a topical thread, I'll risk it. I just had to register to let you know what a fantastic site you have here. I love the multiple levels of explanation that enable us laypeople to get succinct answers, and then dig deeper into the issue to whatever extent we can. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:27 AM on 16 October 2010Skeptical Logic Can't Save Greenland Ice - for that you need to stop climate change
Digging in these references does not bring up much support for Morano's confused denial, except perhaps from the Soon/Baliunas or Morner pieces... Although his influence on the public is significant, I don't see why would anyone interested in the real science of the climate pay attention to what Morano says. He is a political operative, not of very high level, with an understanding of science in general that is strictly limited to how it can fit in his political designs. That much is obvious from his selection of references that actually lend little or no support to his argument but can appear, on the surface, to run counter to the consensus model of Earth climate. They were selected based on that superficial appearance. His argument is transparent and of no interest whatsoever. It has no place in any kind of scientific debate. Morano's opinion is null and void as far as I'm concerned.
Prev 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 Next
