Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 Next
Comments 112251 to 112300:
-
Doug Bostrom at 06:16 AM on 20 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Pete, the reason your comments so often vanish is because you're apparently almost unable to make remarks on this topic without veering off into strange theories about conspiracies, to wit: Of course, those responsible for that report fall under the umbrella of that august body the UN, whose real agenda has nothing to do with trying to control the natural global climate change... That's a better job than usual; you've carefully calibrated your wording to fall just within moderation guidelines. Good tuning, congratulations! Meanwhile, elliptically referring to what I assume you believe is some plot by politicians does not actually serve as a refutation of meteorological records. Outlier skeptic D’Aleo is notably in disagreement not only with folks with a better grasp on this matter such as Meehl, but as well is disagreement with the AMO. Conflation of Pakistan's national history versus weather records transcending the history of Pakistan's split from India is pointless, rather silly and frankly desperate. I don't blame skeptics for becoming so creative because after all, they're faced with a very tough task in trying to minimize this year's weather. Mashing Pakistan's political history together with weather records and hoping nobody notices the continuum of record keeping spanning the rearrangement and creation of borders is one way of doing that. As to Pakistan and the monsoon, parts of the country have experienced rainfall equal to a year's precipitation in the course of 3 days. These records are from places where statistics of course record monsoons, so not only are they exceptional but the monsoon season is not an explanation. How about a straw poll, slightly off-topic. Does anybody care to weigh in on what Pete's implication about the UN references? -
batsvensson at 06:09 AM on 20 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Eric, All one can tell from a report of a place being abundant of mosquitoes is that it is abundant of mosquitoes. To know if there is a risk for a malaria break out one need to know if mosquitoes able to carry malaria parasites are presents but even if such mosquito are present it does not follow that the parasite itself is present, and even if the mosquitoes carry the parasite it may still not be a problem. (Mosquitoes in an area where no humans are present constitutes no risk.) A hypothetical decease is not, and can not, be a public health problem. Now lets focus at the claim I refuted. This is true: It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes. However it does not imply the insects actually carry any deceases. Secondly, the sentence is ambiguous formulated, it is not clear if it intend to mean the insect itself or the insect and the decease - in other words its meaning is open for interpretation. Now what happens if one combine the above ambiguity with the claim malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before ? Well, trivial, combining the first claim with this second claim is silently assuming an implication of the type 'IF it gets warmer THEN diseases will spread'. To put it midely, this is a distortion of the truth - and it is this distortion of the truth which is the urban myth. JMurphy, You have not only got the facts about decease control wrong but you also does not seams to distinguish between total production vs. productivity of rise. -
MattJ at 06:09 AM on 20 August 2010Ice age predicted in the 70s
GMG #1: You SAY it is 'sounder science', but you ignore all the evidence to the contrary presented in this article and many others on this site. No, belief in impending glaciation is NOT 'sounder science'. Nor is it "sounder science" to argue as you do, that it has always happened that way. On the contrary: the SOUND science recognizes that things are no longer going to happen "as they always have happened". Now we really have made a large enough change to break the age-old pattern -- for the worse. -
MattJ at 05:59 AM on 20 August 2010Al Gore got it wrong
nbrack- Your information concerning predicted sea-level rise is already out of date. Elsewhere on this site you will find the scientific evidence that up-to-date oceanography is now expecting a larger rise than when the IPCC docs were written. -
MattJ at 05:57 AM on 20 August 2010Al Gore got it wrong
'Quietman' should take the hint from his own handle, and stay quite quiet! For everything he has said here has been either misleading or outright wrong. Perhaps that is why he cannot give us a reference for his alleged scientific evidence that vulcanism is (at least in part) responsible for melting ice sheets. Where did you get this, 'quietman'? From The Journal of Irreproducible Results? -
NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Pete Ridley - You've added to the "It's not happening" statements you've made with this posting. -
muoncounter at 05:51 AM on 20 August 2010Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#11: "why hurricane intensity has dropped dramatically between 1959 and 1972?" The question is based on a still-questionable statistic of cumulative SSn by year. There are many problems with this statistic. Is a year with 3 cat 2 storms 20% worse than a year with 1 cat 5? There are many residents of the Gulf Coast and Florida who would vehemently disagree. The SSn given is at landfall (so that Katrina is a cat 3); it was cat 5 just offshore when it was piling up the storm surge that destroyed lower New Orleans. And why does the graph shown stop in 1995, when it is labeled as representing 1851-2009? Surely a trailing average could include those more recent (and more active) years. As I pointed out in the prior thread, total number of named storms seems to increase over the period. Yet this met with the skeptical "In earlier times there must have been a lot that would have deserved a name but never got one, because went unnoticed." Pardon me, but does that seem to be an appeal to disregard a published graph because it doesn't reflect some non-existent data points? Hardly a scientific argument. 'Dropped dramatically' seems to stem from the trend of -0.43 per century. Is there any statistical significance to such a small number? Especially when we routinely hear challenges to a temperature trend of 0.15 degC/decade, nearly 4x as large. And then there's this point about the 2005 season: In terms of accumulated cyclone energy (ACE; the sum of the squares of the maximum wind speed at 6-h intervals for all tropical and subtropical cyclones with intensities of 34 kt or greater; Bell et al. 2000), the 2005 season had a record value of about 256% of the longterm (1944–2003) mean. The previous record was about 249% of the long-term mean set in 1950. [emphasis added] So let's not claim that hurricane intensity is dropping over the long term. -
Pete Ridley at 05:43 AM on 20 August 2010Of satellites and temperatures
John O'Sullivan has posted his latest article “Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’” (Note 1) about the NOAA satellite temperature measurement failures. O’Sullivan begins “In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, one of the four agencies charged with responsiblity for collating global climate temperatures. NOAA is now fighting a reargaurd legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologist”. He then links to physicist Charles R. Anderson’s An Objectivist Individualist blog article “Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable” in which he starts “I have written many posts that our unreliable the ground surface temperature record, based on the collapsing network of weather stations around the world, is biased upward with the urban heat island effect and by obviously bad grid interpolation schemes. I had thought that the only reliable temperature records were the satellite and ocean buoy temperature records. I was wrong. It now appears that since at least 2005, the satellite temperature records have not been reliable”. He concludes that “It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth. There is clearly no basis for the claims that the Earth has warmed at unusual rates in recent times or that we know anything more than some local temperatures, mostly from urban heat effect zones”. The bits in between are interesting too – enjoy. NOTES: 1) see http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/22385.html 2) see http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/08/satellite-temperature-record-now.html Best regards, Pete Ridley -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - I looked at your link, and doug_bostrom is entirely correct. If you read the figure caption it states "Green line = solar irradiation". Shame on whoever put up the wiki - it should have a separate scale for irradiation in W/m^2, and it doesn't. -
The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Correction - my apologies, Berényi, 125K years ago wasn't the Holocene, it's roughly the transition between the Middle Ionian and the Upper Tarantian stages of the Pleistocene. Oops... -
NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Pete Ridley - I've based my comments about global warming and "It's not happening" on your repeated and well expressed doubts about surface temperature records. I mentioned Icecap melt and acidification as supporting evidence for global warming - sorry if I was unclear. The temperature records are there, in multiple independent data sets (3 major ones), lots of different analyses, and they all show the same trends of ~0.13 to 0.16C / decade, most likely closer to 0.16. -
The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Berényi - Ah, found the reference. The last time temperatures were 1-2°C higher was in the Holocene (see "Why Greenland's ice loss matters"), 125K years ago (your chart only goes to 20K years ago), and according to Kopp 2009 sea levels were over 6 meters higher than at present. At 400ppm CO2 (we're at what, 392?) Stone 2010 estimates 41% ice loss from Greenland over the next 400 years or so, with ~1.4 to 2.8 meters sea level rise from Greenland alone, with uncertainties due to boundary conditions on the ice sheet break-down. Greenland and Antarctica apparently are somewhat responsive to temperatures. -
Pete Ridley at 05:04 AM on 20 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
NOTES: (for my comment of 20th August @ 05:03) 1) see http://www.unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/climate-change/docs/Climate-Change-DRR.pdf 2) see http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HeatWaves_Icecap.doc 3) see http://rupeenews.com/2010/08/15/history-of-floods-in-the-indus-valley-of-the-9000-year-old-pakistani-civilization/ -
Pete Ridley at 05:03 AM on 20 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Doug, you opine that historical temperature records have been broken in many places across the globe this year. This opinion is shared by others in “Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed in many regions of the world over the last 50 years; most notably the higher frequency of high-temperature days and nights and heat” (Note 1). Of course, those responsible for that report fall under the umbrella of that august body the UN, whose real agenda has nothing to do with trying to control the natural global climate change (which humans have never been able to do but have always had to adapt to). An opposing opinion has been expressed by someone who is much more expert than you or I in such weather events, Joseph D’Aleo, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. In his article “Debunking the Claims Heat Waves are Becoming More Common” (Note 2) he starts by quoting the above then goes on to say “REALITY, there is no indication that record heat is increasing in frequency, in fact the data shows a precipitous decline in the number of heat records in recent decades. The early 20th century dominates the heat statistics for the United States and the world. The presumption that global heat waves and extremes have increased in frequency is not supported by the official government data. NOAA’s NCDC shows that record high temperature by continent have occurred mainly in the 1880s and early 1900s, with only 1 post 1950 (Antarctica in 1974)”. D’Aleo then goes on to provide evidence in support of his opinion. You also comment on the current flood disaster in Pakistan, reported in the Daily Telegraph as “ .. the worst in the UN's history: The United Nations has rated the floods in Pakistan as the greatest humanitarian crisis in recent history ..”. Supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis appear to overlook the fact that severe floods and severe droughts are nothing new in Pakistan or elsewhere in Asia. Although in the media this was distorted to read as though it is the “.. worst in history .. ” what is conveniently overlooked is that Pakistan’s history didn’t start until 1947. Records of such catastrophic weather events in the area now known as Pakistan go back many centuries before the UN was established just 2 years prior to the creation of Pakistan.. Monsoons are essential for survival in Asian countries, providing them with their water for the whole year, even though they often bring extensive flooding. When the monsoons fail there is drought. The Rupee News article “History of floods in the Indus Valley of the 9000 year old Pakistani Civilization” (Note 3) has some very interesting information, including QUOTE: During a warm period 6,000 years ago, the Indus was a monster river, more powerful and more prone to flooding than today. Then, 4,000 years ago, as the climate cooled, a large part of it simply dried up. Deserts appeared whether mighty torrents once flowed. .. But what caused these thousand-year cycles of Indus drought and flood? .. Professor Martin Gibling of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, a river expert who has worked in the region, thinks that changes in the strength of the monsoon caused by climate change may be to blame. .. So, will global warming have the reverse effect, returning the Indus to the monster river of 6,000 years ago? “That is the million-dollar question”, said Professor John Clague, from Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, an expert on the Asian monsoon. “There is huge uncertainty… and this is a matter of heated debate amongst scientists at present.” UNQUOTE. There’s a scientist using that word “uncertainty” again, but “huge” this time. Another point to bear in mind as far as the consequences of such flooding is concerned is the manner in which the Indus is being managed and the changes brought about by population growth QUOTE: .. Due to the population growth, the people are today living in the alluvial flood plains which used to left for the river to meander about. Today the river is changing its course and as it flows down, it engulfs many of the populated areas. 500 km of river bed’s floodzone is called “kacha”. This is the natural flood plain of the river. However today the “kacha area” is inhabited by millions of people. Those who live in the flood plain (kacha) are poor people who do not have the means to live in safe lands. .. Climate change may not be the only cause of Pakistan’s woes. There is also a sense that the current floods have been exacerbated by the way the Indus has been managed. .. “What we’ve done is apply a system from the West that just doesn’t work [in South Asia],” said Professor Sinha. That problem has been made worst by deforestation. Trees protect the headwaters from erosion. But over the past half century, more sediment has been flushed down the rivers as forests have been cut. .. UNQUOTE. It is speculative to suggest that the catastrophe caused by current floods (and droughts) around the globe are due to our use of fossil fuels. Have a read of the article and learn from it. KR, please would you be kind enough to point me to where I have said categorically of “global warming, ocean acidification, arctic melt, etc .. ” that "It's not happening". I’ll be happy to post a retraction if I have. I believe that I have always been “absolutely clear” (a popular politicians comment) that global warming (and cooling) and ice melting (and forming, whether Arctic, Antarctic or elsewhere) take place as natural occurrences. I’m also pretty sure that my comments about ocean acidification have simply expressed my preference for describing it as reducing alkalinity. Please note that I am posting the NOTES; separately as I think they may be the reason my comments get diverted into the “for moderation” folder.. Best regards, Pete Ridley -
MattJ at 04:38 AM on 20 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
I see this post has generated a lot of excitement. I fear that amidst all that excitement, my smaller points have no chance of getting a fair hearing:( But I have to forge ahead anyway: for I am sure I am not the only one to notice something amiss with the order of clauses in "Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing." Now let's stop and think about this: which clause is REALLY modified by "until about 1960" in the above sentence? Setting aside for now all prior knowledge about the topic, consider instead what the most natural follow on question would really be for the sentence above. I claim it is, "then what did they show after 1960?" You see, what he really MEANT to say was, "Measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing, until about 1960." Now with this order, the sentence is correct, but it feels clumsy with so many commas. So modify it yet again, this time marking what is truly parenthetical with parentheses, to get: "Measurements by scientists shows that the brightness and warmth of the sun (as seen from the Earth) was increasing until about 1960". But we can do even better. Remember the Strunk & White dictum that the active voice is always more vigorous than the passive, we can change again to: "Scientific measurements show that the brightness and warmth of the sun (as seen from the Earth) have been increasing until about 1960". Now on to the next: "It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and assume that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet." There is a problem here: if they are "putting two and two together", then they are NOT 'assuming'. They are making a logical conclusion based on the evidence. But this raises the question of what the author is really trying to claim here: is he trying to claim that even before 1960, greenhouse gases were a significant cause of warming, or is he trying to claim that prior to about 1960, warming really was primarily caused by something else, and now it is caused primarily by greenhouse gases? This ambiguity is problematic for a basic version, which must be direct and to the point. Nor can a basic version risk the damage of trying to do too much. So best to set aside the question of what caused warming before about 1960, and concentrate on showing that it is now primarily greenhouse gases. So now back to this sentence: it should read, "It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and conclude that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet." Finally, for the same reason, we could actually drop the final sentence. The point of the Basic Version was to refute the claim, "It's the sun". That is already achieved w/o the final sentence, whose logical connection to the preceding is unclear anyway (the author has not established anything about the physical properties mentioned). -
Berényi Péter at 04:35 AM on 20 August 2010The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
#38 KR at 01:10 AM on 20 August, 2010 the water temperature should be the determining factor in loss rate Yes, of course. But as you can see, SST (Sea Surface Temperature) has been decreasing steadily in the Arctic ocean during the entire holocene and now it is 2-3°C colder than it was eight thousand years ago. Still, the Greenland ice sheet has not collapsed, not even during the four millennia between 6000 B.C. and 2000 B.C. It will not collapse now either. A decade is still weather, not climate, SST is well below its Holocene Optimum value and melt season temperatures in the high arctic are decreasing sharply.
One of the sites is at the eastern edge of the Greenland sea, south of Svalbard, the other one is in the Norwegian sea.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 6, 1280,
doi:10.1029/2002GL016570, 2003
Arctic/North Atlantic Oscillation signature in Holocene sea surface temperature trends as obtained from alkenone data
N. Rimbu, G. Lohmann, J.-H. Kim, H. W. Arz, and R. Schneider
Department of Geosciences, Bremen University, Bremen, Germany
Received 6 November 2002; revised 23 December 2002; accepted 10 January 2003; published 19 March 2003.
-
MattJ at 04:13 AM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
"proponent of climate change"? Really? Since when is Al Gore FOR climate change? -
Paul Magnus at 04:06 AM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
It is time for this film to be re-released updated and/or another one which incorporates the flood/acidification of our seas and plankton die-off. Also some of the miss-information tactics of the big oil etc. Who cares if it is taken to court. This actually helps to spread the word. -
JMurphy at 04:05 AM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
factfinder, I suggest you try to find some facts and actually read what is written by others, before commenting. Firstly, James Wight does not appear to be holding Al Gore up as any sort of scientific expert or authority - but, even as a politician, he probably knows more than most (although that may not be saying much), especially most US politicians. Actually, probably more than most UK politicians (and Australian, etc.) too. That doesn't mean he is any sort of expert, though, so calm down and stop obsessing about him. Secondly, I thought so-called skeptics reckon that Al Gore (as well as being fat, apparently) is already a billionaire, having an untold number of mansions (especially below sea level, etc.) burning an untold amount of carbon by having all the lights on every hour of every day. Thirdly, do you actually have any figures to show that potential 'doubling of electricity' and 'non-benefit to the environment' ? Do you need any evidence, in order to believe that ? Fourthly, what do you mean by 'making a change in climate' and what do you think is important about 'different climates' ? As for evidence, see It's NOT the sun, It's NOT cosmic rays, It's NOT Solar Cycle length and here, It's NOT a natural cycle, There IS empirical evidence for it being CO2, AGW IS happening and here, It IS us, and here. Once you have read all that, come back and present your arguments against any of it. -
dsleaton at 04:03 AM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
Factfinder: and yet relatively rapid global warming has occurred. If we don't know what's causing it (obviously you can't point to alternative science-based explanations that have better or the same level of confidence of climatologists' explanations), then we don't really know if it's going to get better or worse 10-20 years from now. Upon what basis, then, do you choose to act? If the future is a totally unknown quantity to you, how do you decide what to do next? Or is it that you have access to the 100% Truth? Certainly no scientist will make such a claim. What is the purpose of skepticism? To learn or to protect? Btw, and I see this quite a bit from those who aren't scientists, a "hypothesis" is a testable statement. The greenhouse effect is a "theory" that has generated thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of testable (and tested and published) hypotheses. A "theory" is an understanding of how something works, given all of the evidence generated by the testing of hypotheses. A "law" is a theory that has a confidence level such that scientists assume it to be the truth (in other words, of thousands of tests of its hypothesis, it's never been found to be false. That doesn't mean that people aren't willing to keep testing it, though). Finally, because there is so much and such varied evidence (even of the types you might call circumstantial) for rising CO2 levels being the basis of increasing global temperature, I suggest you look around this site, choose one of your arguments against AGW, and test it against the arguments of others. That's a much better way of actually changing someone's mind (or the minds of many) than to make a shotgun blast of unsupported statements and questions that have very complex answers (such as your "many different climates" question). -
MattJ at 04:02 AM on 20 August 20101934: the 47th hottest year on record
Huh? If we are trying to refute the claim that "1934 is the hottest year on record", why do we need anything past the first sentence of this article? For with that one sentence, the thesis is already defeated. Or is it this sentence that is unnecessary, and another single sentence that must be kept? I ask this because the article seems to be making a hard tack, first talking about hottest year in the US, then abruptly switching to hottest globally. But this really is unnecessary. It would be much easier for the reader to follow, if the article made a more logical progression, such as: 1) remind the reader that it is global average that we need, not just US data 2) go straight for that global data, showing that 1934 was only 47th, not first. Done. There. Wasn't that a lot simpler? There is no point in continuing to distract the reader with our opponents' red herring: the hottest year in the US is completely irrelevant. Also, the definition of cherry picking is not quite right, nor is it phrased decisively enough to persuade the reader that cherry picking is to be avoided. I suggest changing the wording to address both problems as follows: "However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that appears to support a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data, the data forming a whole picture that does not support the claim." -
owl905 at 03:46 AM on 20 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
thingadonta, "No it isnt, the statements are the same." Not even close. It's a misquote of the statement both literally and in emphasis. You're own attempt to 'correct' the quote highlights your skew:- "however there is no debate that human activities are actually affecting climate in the first place" Doran's quote makes it clear that skeptics first line of attack is on the "authenticity of global warming". If you're still confused, reference your '800 list' for articles about 'bad measurements' and the 'warming is over'. Your reference to the Biglist is a reflection of the spin required to firm up the spin. The list (originally "750 Papers", was later modified with suffix "Alarm") has noticeable refuted sources (I&E) suspect authors (Idso, McIntyre, Michaels, etc, and padded with papers that actually do not dispute AGW but debate sensitivities and projections. Their inclusion in the padding is tied at the hip to the "Alarm" in the headline. Your statement misrepresents the nature of the list. An easy one to spot is Pielke Jr.'s inclusion, discussed on Pielke Jr's blog last November. He flat out stated he supported the AGW foundation. The 800 list was revived as a counter-volley at the PNAS article which generated the 97% consensus. 800-Alarm now, 750-Alarm then, and 750 originally ... it has traction in the skeptic blogoshpere. -
RSVP at 03:13 AM on 20 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
doug_bostrom 227 I respect you taking the time to inspect the graph closely, but as per your reply, it does plot against temperature. Something physical is responding to temperature at that rate. Obviously, for the other curves, if energy is being extracted through a circuit, you arent going to see these excursions. KR Even experts who believe in AGW may use inproper analogies and mental models, and you can be sure that most people (out there) accept the theory even if they cant explain it well themselves. They get the applause for parroting what they have been told, but they dont even really understand the thing themselves. I am afraid the human mind has no other way to deal with "the unseen" sides of science without resorting in some degree to familiar household concepts. I agree that analogies always fall short of what they are actually trying to describe, with no exception in this context. What I find hypocritical among experts is the eloboration of a mathematical model that denies having its basis on some initial assumptions (which is ultimately someone's clumsy mental model). I dont have a problem with the process, especially if it leads to predictable results. This is does not mean however it is the final truth and cannot be subjected to scrutiny. Plus, it is generally uncommon that the first idea is the best idea. People assumed apparently that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. It took many years until someone proved that this is not the case. ETC. -
Alexandre at 02:48 AM on 20 August 20101934: the 47th hottest year on record
Please disregard my previous post. Of course, you meant the US and not the world in that sentence (gosh, my posts are very messy lately). So, according to which series is 2007 the world´s hottest year? (references on my messy post above) -
Alexandre at 02:36 AM on 20 August 20101934: the 47th hottest year on record
"ranking third behind 2006 and 1998" According to which series? I think the NASA GISS series has the 2005 and 2009 as the hottest years. (eyeballing the graph) NCDC shows 2005 and 1998 as the top two. Apart from this minor comment, it´s great to see the active "community of communicators" that´s been formed here. -
RSVP at 02:32 AM on 20 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
CBDunkerson 6 Your metaphor is a good one (and humorous), except I am afraid there is actually no one in the driver seat, which is what I meant by "hubris" (philosophically speaking). Marcus 7,8 Normally there are two or more sides to a story, and I have been open to discussing the possibilities, but it sounds like (for you) there is only one side, and everyone has to believe it. It is curious therefore that you say I belong to a cult. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:53 AM on 20 August 2010CO2 was higher in the past
I think the argument about CO2 levels in the deep past is a bit of a red herring. Yes, CO2 levels were FAR higher in the Ordovician but, correct me if I'm wrong, there were also no land based life forms. Not even land based plant life. Doesn't that make it a little pointless what the CO2 levels were 500 mya? -
batsvensson at 01:50 AM on 20 August 2010Long Term Certainty
"I am intrigued by the various degrees of alarmism raised to counter my suggestion that people would be ill-advised to drive into a brick wall." This kind of argument has been in use, in many version, for thousand of years in our culture and the only reason people submitted to it is because there has been no relasitic alternative until around mid 19'th century. When this argument comes around in a new modern envelope it should not be surprised it will face high resistance in those cultures. -
NickD at 01:48 AM on 20 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Here is a pretty good look at Poptech's list of papers. Apparently it keeps growing even as it is being dismantled! -
batsvensson at 01:37 AM on 20 August 2010Long Term Certainty
Can it be proven we can not adapt? -
rocco at 01:33 AM on 20 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
I think Skeptical Science should address the "xxx" papers thing somehow. Is there a comprehensive rebuttal somewhere that could be used? Or perhaps one should be created here? (we could do it as a collaborative effort). -
The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Sorry, the link to the graph in my previous post is to Why is Greenland's ice loss accelerating?. My apologies for not noting it there. -
Berényi Péter at 01:14 AM on 20 August 2010Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#10 kdkd at 20:08 PM on 19 August, 2010 despite some suggestion that both have increased since the early 1970s Of course they did. However, if one is trying to do valid climate science, the first question to ask is why hurricane intensity has dropped dramatically between 1959 and 1972? Until we have an answer to that question, there is no point in making fancy theories about the partial recovery after 1990 which still have not reached the levels once seen during the 1940s. Not even those in the 1880s when temperature is supposed to be way lower than today. -
adelady at 01:14 AM on 20 August 20101934: the 47th hottest year on record
It might be worth making the point, somehow, somewhere, that the 10 coldest years on the global record all occurred before 1920. (As far as I could see on the GISS graph.) It's not just how hot these recent years may or may not be, it's how far they are out of contention for inclusion in a list of 10 or 20 or 50 cold years. This might be more suited to one of the other topics though. -
The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Berényi - Thank you, very interesting data on historic Greenland air temperatures and snowfalls. Have you found related data showing historic water temperatures over that period? Given that the majority of Greenland's ice loss (balancing or recently overbalancing snow/ice gain) comes from peripheral melt/ run-off, calving events (both water temp driven), and glacier speed (moderated by back-pressure from the periphery as well as local melt greasing the glacial underbelly), the water temperature should be the determining factor in loss rate. Sublimation is trivial by comparison.
Given the currently increasing ocean heat content, run-off rates are a serious issue.
-
batsvensson at 01:07 AM on 20 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
JMurphy, The cause of malaria being spread is not mosquitoes or warming but ignorance. -
Berényi Péter at 00:54 AM on 20 August 2010The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
#11 chris at 02:25 AM on 1 August, 2010 it’s worth being a little more considered about the data on the progression of Greenland temperatures during the 20th century You are right. Fortunately we have some data on past temperatures over Greenland. If you visit the NOAA Paleoclimatology page, you may find supporting data there for Kobashi et al. 2010 GISP2 1000-Year Ar-N2 Isotope Temperature Reconstruction. There is also a nice paper on more than two centuries of instrumental temperature record in Greenland, directly from CRU. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D11105 doi:10.1029/2005JD006810, 2006 Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century B. M. Vinther, K. K. Andersen, P. D. Jones, K. R. Briffa, and J. Cappelen Received 24 October 2005; revised 11 January 2006; accepted 28 February 2006; published 6 June 2006. They also have supporting data published, as all such studies should. The ice core reconstruction is from Greenland summit and covers the years from 1000 AD. to 1993 AD., while Vinther at al. have a full reconstruction of monthly temperatures along the south and west coast of Greenland (Ilulissat, Nuuk & Qaqortoq) from 1852 to 2005 based on instrumental record. I have converted both datasets to temperature anomalies and have calculated a 11 year running mean for the latter one to match the lower resolution of ice core data. Here it is:
The match between the ice core proxy and the instrumental record is reasonably good for the overlapping period. Part of the difference may be due to the distance between the two sites (up to 1000 km).
We can see temperatures over Greenland in the 1930s were a bit higher than today. They were even higher around 1140.
If we have a broader look, to the entire holocene, we can see temperatures were up to 3°C warmer than today several times, with somewhat less snow accumulation.
Still, the Greenland ice sheet has not collapsed and the sea never flooded London.
-
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
A meta-comment on analogies, and common logical errors related to them: An analogy is a wonderful way to explain aspects of complex systems. If you can map interrelationships of the complex system into something the listener is more familiar with, the analogy can show the listener something about how the complex system works. This is a "Forward Mapping" (my term) of some aspect(s) of the complex system into a simpler or more familiar system. Note that this is NOT a 1 to 1 mapping; some portions of the complex system are inevitably not mapped to the analogy system, and the simple analogy system will have aspects that don't match the complex one. A particular logical error that often seems to come up on the climate change topic is "Bad Analogy" - arguing from some aspect of the explanatory analogy system that there are issues with the complex system it's drawn from. This is a "Backward Mapping". It's easy to do, tempting, even, but it is wrong. For example: "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is." As another example, I recently made an analogy of total energy/temperature and energy inputs, outputs, in the Earth system to a water tank, with input and output pipes. I thought that it might be a useful way to explain some aspects of the total energy budget. Arguing back from the water tank to the Earth, however, is invalid - water evaporates and freezes, joules do not. Leaves blocking a pipe might rot, CO2 instead gets absorbed by weathering/ocean. A backwards mapping from analogy might, in some instances, provide a starting point to examine the complex system. But it has zero value in terms of validating or invalidating a hypothesis - that has to be done in the arena of the complex system, not the analogy. The analogous system simply isn't the complex system; the fact that some of it is "like" the complex system just doesn't support critiquing the complex system based on the analogy. To claim problems in a complex system from an analogy is simply a "Bad Analogy". -
Argus at 22:53 PM on 19 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
JMurphy, doug_bostrom, and michael sweet (101, 102, 103): Thank you for your responses! I have duly noted that 2010 is an exceptional year when it comes to heat records. 17 national records certainly sends a powerful message of how warm this year has been so far all over the earth, even after taking into account that the nations listed are very different in size (one has only 1/20000th of the area of one other, guess which ones!). I acknowledge the significance of these records as such (and also of the many 'almost-records'). I merely in my comments objected to the way of presenting singular records in various countries, in the form of a carefully calculated, exact portion of the earth's surface. That way of adding areas is misleading. Even if as much as a third or half of Russia's area has experienced heat records, only those areas should be added--not the whole of Russia. -- BUT I did also point out the adverse effect of counting whole nations: If any U.S. states, or parts of states, (or provinces of Sweden, cantons of Switzerland, etc.) have experienced heat records, the corresponding areas are not counted at all, because there is no new national record. If my criticism of the presentation method, summarized above, was interpreted as being "suggestive of a wish or need to ignore a larger message" (doug_bostrom), it is completely in the reader's mind. It was never my intention to wish anything of the sort. Thanks to JMurphy for pointing out the NOAA report for July! "You are attempting to cast doubt on how hot it has been this summer by quibbling over a statistic. ... I see no reasonable room for doubt.", writes michael sweet. Excuse me, but where exactly did I attempt to cast doubt? I certainly do not doubt that 2010 is an unusually warm year. I just questioned the way data were presented, and advocated a method of observing and adding smaller area units than nations. Sometimes AGW enthusiasts seem very touchy… -
James Wight at 22:44 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
I think the level of abuse routinely directed at Al Gore is extremely unfair. Considering the scientific literacy of politicians in general, particularly in the US, I’m actually pretty impressed with how much Gore got right. I mean, imagine putting certain other US politicians up on a platform for an hour and a half and asking them to talk about science – I don’t think the result would be pretty. -
huntjanin at 22:43 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
Does anyone know what Mr. Gore is doing these days re climate change? -
Lassesson at 22:09 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
I see that I’m not the first to answer RSVP, but here it comes anyway. One "insurmountable" part is that we not only "affected climate" (past tense), as you put it. We are still affecting it (present tense) and we will keep on affecting it (future tense). Even if we stop emitting extra CO2 and other GHG's today, we will still see approximately 0.6°C warming during the next few decades, due to climate time lag. Another “insurmountable” part is to stop almost 7 billion people from using cheap fossil fuels, where the really hard part is to stop the industrialized part of the world from using fossil fuels. I am sure that it is possible to move over to clean and renewable energy, without losing quality of life. There will be a few people who will lose quality of life since they have invested in the fossil fuel business, but there will also be others who will increase their quality of life from the new jobs that will be created around renewable energy. It will, however, take time and effort to do so. And since we might not have too much time on our hands (that’s the “alarm”), I think we better put in a whole lot of effort. But that is just how I believe the future will be like. -
Lou Grinzo at 22:02 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
RSVP, fixing our climate mess is so insanely difficult thanks to several factors: 1. The political and economic power of fossil fuel companies and those aligned with them. 2. The very long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere. 3. The fact that we're just now, finally, starting to talk seriously about undoing over two centuries of man made CO2 emissions. "Fixing" the climate mess is conceptually very simple, but in practical terms it's a nightmare of politics, economics, and the need to keep supplying energy (primarily electricity and transportation) in decarbonized forms. -
TOP at 21:39 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
i) 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.
-
Marcus at 21:36 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Also RSVP, aren't you being a tad hypocritical in throwing around accusations of *hubris*? After all, you're the one who keeps telling us that it is the relatively infinitesimal levels of waste heat-from industrial activity-which is causing global warming (in spite of the total lack of correlation between increasing industrial activity & warming-or any correlation between where industrial activity is occurring & where the most rapid warming is happening). Yet you utterly reject the more likely possibility that it is the far more substantial amounts of GHG's released by industrial activity that are the cause. -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:22 PM on 19 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
"Where on Earth does one find the heaviest concentration of mosquitoes? A tropical jungle? A hot festering swamp? Wrong. Experts say it's the Arctic tundra" www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-mosquito.htm "Both features would clearly have survival value for P. vivax in a temperate climate, enabling it to cope with long winters and episodes of successive cold summers." http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm -
CBDunkerson at 21:13 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
RSVP, I believe that the 'alarm' quite obviously comes from the fact that while it IS possible for us to fix the problem... we AREN'T. On account of certain people who want to insist there is no problem. When you're in a car heading towards a cliff it is quite easy to step on the brakes. When the guy driving is insisting that there is no cliff... yes that could cause a bit of alarm. -
DarkSkywise at 20:47 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
RSVP #5: And now I have this very weird image in my head of everybody from all over the world going to Al's House on a yearly pilgrimage (on foot, of course), and Tipper (who's helping out) screaming @ Al "Did you bring enough coffee?" :D (Sorry, couldn't resist either :-) ) -
JMurphy at 20:22 PM on 19 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Don't tell me we're quibbling over the words 'never been seen before' and 'rare' ? -
kdkd at 20:08 PM on 19 August 2010Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP #9 You're overstating your conclusions again with "Neither hurricane frequency nor intensity is related to AGW" Given that we can date the current global warming period starts in around 1975 it's a valid hypotheis to ask whether that has an influence on hurricane frequency and intensity. In fact, despite some suggestion that both have increased since the early 1970s, it seems from the data that the effect size is small, and because hurricanes are a complex phenomenon, it will take quite a while to have enough data to determine the relationship. Pretending that this hypothesis is somehow disproven is massively overstating your case, and shows that the work you do on this topic is tainted by your preconceptions.
Prev 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 Next
