Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 Next
Comments 112501 to 112550:
-
Berényi Péter at 22:15 PM on 17 August 2010Of satellites and temperatures
#27 Ned at 21:02 PM on 17 August, 2010 I do think it's pretty neat that the RSS temperature trend matches the GISS, NOAA, and HADCRUT surface temperature trends to the nearest 0.01C per decade ... Come on, get real. Exaggerated claims do not help us understand what's going on. With an RMS error of ~4°C of individual satellite temperature "measurements", as a rule of thumb, it would require about 16,000 statistically independent data points in a decade to bring the error margin down to 0.01°C. And only if the error is unbiased noise, which, considering the procedure applied (model fitting) is unlikely. -
RSVP at 22:14 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Arkadiusz Semczyszak 25 You will find sea shells incrusted in calcified rocks not too far from Carpatheans (Ojcow). This land was all under the ocean at one point in time. -
Ned at 21:41 PM on 17 August 2010Of satellites and temperatures
Pete Ridley writes: You should also read his latest article “Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal” [...] It might be interesting to have a discussion about the current state of the international constellation of earth observing satellites. Working in this field myself I have strong opinions about this issue. But Mr O'Sullivan's column isn't really a good place to begin that kind of conversation, because of the way it's saturated with lurid and inflammatory claims of fraud, deception, etc. -
Berényi Péter at 21:33 PM on 17 August 2010Temp record is unreliable
One more piece of the puzzle. If DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute) Centre for Ocean and Ice is visited, a very cool melt season can be noticed this year north of the 80° parallel (compared to the 1958-2002 average). It went below freezing two weeks ago (with the sun up in the sky 7×24 hours a week) and stayed there consistently. This is unheard of since measurements started.
Melt season is defined here as the period when 1958-2002 average is above freezing. It is 65 days, from 13 June to 16 August.
One wonders how exceptional this weather might be.
Therefore I have recovered average melt season temperatures for the high Arctic from the DMI graphs for the last 53 years. This is what it looks like:
It is pretty stable up to about 1992. Then, after a brief warming (a tipping point?) it dives into a rather scary, accelerating downward trend. So no, this year is not exceptional, just an extension of the last two decades.
It may even be consistent with recent ice loss of the Arctic Basin, because lower temperatures mean higher pressure, a predominantly divergent surface wind pattern around the Pole, hence increased export of ice to warmer periphery. Of course with further cooling this trend is expected to turn eventually.
However, there is one thing this downward trend is surely inconsistent with. It is the upward trend reported by e.g. GISS (US National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and the computational climate models it is calibrated to, of course.
This conflict should be resolved.
-
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:30 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Glaciers as a water source - in Poland - for students - I explained it this way: when Poland was a year-long glacier in the Carpathians, the water is our main Vistula river were similar (in the flow) to the current supply of its very small - a tiny river: Wisłok .. . The amount of water in the soil would (a year-long glacier in the Carpathians) then be about 10 times smaller. The area of the Poland, could feed population of Lapland, at most, and not present Poland ... Rain water (saturation curve) increase the amount of groundwater to an extent significantly greater compared with the "power" of the glaciers. With overcapacity compensate for losses arising after the disappearance of the glacier. Tibet was a land of "vibrant green" ... - during the early Holocene Optimum, when the glaciers in the Himalayas retreated by more than 3 -5 km farther than today ... So this is where the "over-trust" for "gray references - literature" by the WHO, WWF; and another formal - informal, ecological "green" organization’s ... The only danger of global warming are such that: decreasing the desert can take care of the areas where they are not ..., can move to areas where a lot of people now living. -
Ned at 21:27 PM on 17 August 2010Of satellites and temperatures
Pete, actually that's not particularly interesting. Mr O'Sullivan doesn't seem to understand some fundamental problems with his original claims: (1) The satellite-based global mean temperature record doesn't even use the same sensor as the Coastwatch project (the former use microwave radiometers, the latter uses a thermal infrared imager). (2) As Alden Griffith noted way up at the top of the thread, neither UAH nor RSS uses any data from NOAA-16, the satellite in question. In other words, there's absolutely no connection whatsoever between the occasional errors in the NOAA Coastwatch-funded Great Lakes temperature maps and the global mean temperature records cited as confirmatory evidence of climate change. They are completely unrelated data sets. In any case, regardless of whether Mr O'Sullivan understands it, I'm sure you get this point now, right? It's not like the problems with Mr O'Sullivan's claims are obscure or subtle. -
Pete Ridley at 21:06 PM on 17 August 2010Of satellites and temperatures
I'm sure that you'll be interested in what the author of the original article about the satellite problems, John O'Sullivan, has to say about this thread's article and comments QUOTE: Thanks! Just saw the link-its deliberate misinformation-it keeps referring to the same BS, "The Great Lakes Coastwatch data are likewise not merged with any of the global mean temperature records produced by NASA, NOAA, the University of East Anglia, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, or others." I don't doubt that the secondary Great Lakes Coastwatch data isn't not fed into other data sets-that's not the issue. The issue is the failure of the SOURCE of the data-NOAA-16.-the RAW data was corrupted before Coastwatch got it. That's why the satellite was taken off commission. The RAW data from NOAA-16 is as "degraded" as the sensor. NOAA has been selling their "degraded" data products to national and international researchers knowing it was junk at least since 2005/6 as affirmed by the evidence given to me by Dr Spencer and Dr Christy and others. No reports of any system 'Degradation" on the sensors appears on the official NOAA-16 Subsystem Summary. Interestingly I've been tipped off that the link in my article to NOAA's subsystem summary page is broken-evidently NOAA has not only removed the satellite's images last week from the web after publication of my first 'satellitegate' article, its now removed the official subsystem summary in the exact same circumstance- its panicking that the wider public will see the obvious fraud. As for SkepticalScience, all I can say is they are VERY desperate to try that obvious trick. Please pass this info on in to others in case any one buys the BS they're peddling. UNQUOTE. You should also read his latest article “Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal” at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603 Best regards, Pete Ridley -
Ned at 21:02 PM on 17 August 2010Of satellites and temperatures
Re: BP's posts in this thread: Neither Spencer & Christy nor Remote Sensing Systems uses a neural network in their processing of MSU/AMSU measurements. Both the UAH and RSS methods have been scrutinized pretty carefully at this point, and S&C of course have a personal inclination towards the "skeptic" camp. The actual estimation of temperatures from the MSUs is not especially controversial or difficult; most of the uncertainty in the trends (RSS vs UAH) comes from disagreements in how to handle the intercalibration of different copies of the instrument as one satellite is replaced by another in the POES constellation. I do think it's pretty neat that the RSS temperature trend matches the GISS, NOAA, and HADCRUT surface temperature trends to the nearest 0.01C per decade ... given that no microwave temperature data are included in the surface reconstructions and no surface measurements are used in the processing of the satellite data. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:37 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
A. Korhola: “Decision-makers should make sensible choices regarding the overall benefits in the environment of uncertainty.” “According to Korhola, the mistakes and exaggerations of the IPCC report that have now come to light – for example, regarding the Himalayan glaciers, destruction of the Amazon rain forest, collapse of the grain crop in Africa, and the link between climate change and natural disasters – have in this respect done a favour.” On Spitsbergen, when he was on the “current location on the map”, Polish researchers found that there millions of years ago, were growing - almost as big as the equator - tropical plants - how, why, have reached such proportions? - We do not know ... “heatwaves” - Between 2003 and 2006 - let's look at this figure:
“heatwaves “ were associated with more rapid cooling of (rapid La Nina 2003 and 2006) - such as CLAW hypothesis (?) - low clouds over NH ...
... and malaria
Climate change and the global malaria recession Gething et al., 2010.:
“First, widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent. Second, the proposed future effects of rising temperatures on endemicity are at least one order of magnitude smaller than changes observed since about 1900 and up to two orders of magnitude smaller than those that can be achieved by the effective scale-up of key control measures. Predictions of an intensification of malaria in a warmer world, based on extrapolated empirical relationships or biological mechanisms, must be set against a context of a century of warming that has seen marked global declines in the disease and a substantial weakening of the global correlation between malaria endemicity and climate.”
and sea level increasing ...
Nils-Axel Mörner (2009.) Open letter to the president of the Maldives:
“When I was president for the INQUA commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), we spent much effort on the question of present-to-future sea level changes. After intensive field studies, deliberation within the commission and discussions at five international meeting, we agreed on a "best estimate" for possible sea level changes by the year 2100. Our figure was +10 cm ±10 cm. This figure was later revised at +5 cm ±15cm.”
“So, Mr. President, when you ignore to face available observational facts, refuses a normal democratic dialogue, and continue to menace your people with the imaginary threat of a disastrous flooding already in progress, I think you are doing a serious mistake.”
Darfur
- The greening of the Sahel: “Analyses made by several independent groups of temporal sequences of satellite data over two decades since early 1980s, showed a remarkable increasing trend in vegetation greenness.” “Increasing rainfall over the last few years is certainly one reason, but does not fully explain the change.”
“The vast belt of significantly increasing vegetation across the central Sudan corresponds to a large extent to provinces with large numbers of internally displaced people. In the seven Sudanese provinces ... ... almost 2 million people were internally displaced, corresponding to about 24% of the population. Being internally displaced means that people have fled their homes and live elsewhere away from their normal means of incomes, often on the outskirts of towns. As a consequence, agriculture is neglected and livestock dispersed.”
-
Eric (skeptic) at 20:31 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Under economic, for the U.S. which has a variety of climate zones, the total heating expenditures are $57B (table SH5 in http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/spaceheating/pdf/alltables1-13.pdf) The total A/C expenditures are $25B (table AC4 in http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/airconditioning/pdf/alltables1-11.pdf) Heating costs are less flexible since a house can be damaged in freezing weather unlike a house without A/C in warm weather. -
Eric (skeptic) at 19:53 PM on 17 August 2010Hockey stick is broken
Re: Comparing proxies against global NH (i.e. EIV) versus regional temperature records (i.e. CPS). The two methodologies are compared in Mann 08 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf and are also compared in the new paper (see sections 3.2 and 3.6 in Doug's link in post 26) -
chris1204 at 19:42 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
On a serious note, I think the plain English format as above is a major improvement on the original post. It reads smoothly without dumbing down. On a lighter note, I note Port Jackson or Sydney Harbour is indeed a flooded river valley. Lovely water views, good sailing and so forth. It was last a river valley some 6000 years BCE if my memory serves me. Some parts of the world will continue to rise above sea level - Scandinavia is still in a post-glacial rebound - and other parts are rising due to tectonic activity. Not sure of the comparable rates though. I would cut out the bit about malaria - malaria was an ubiquitous disease until the mid to late 20th century. Other illnesses due to insect vectors might be more of an issue. -
JMurphy at 19:02 PM on 17 August 2010Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "This is a very famous article - an interview with Solomon - The Guardian (29.01.2010) Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals" Very famous ?! Maybe amongst those who spend all their time thinking about AGW, perhaps ? Anyway, good to see the bit you quoted, in its full context, i.e. : Solomon said the new finding does not challenge the conclusion that human activity drives climate change. "Not to my mind it doesn't," she said. "It shows that we shouldn't over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another." -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:36 PM on 17 August 2010Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
By the way, could you post a link to that quote from Solomon ? This is a very famous article - an interview with Solomon - The Guardian (29.01.2010) Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals As a reminder - Solomon: “An atmospheric chemist ... ... was one of the first to be stirred into action by reports in the 1980s of deterioration of the planet's OZONE layer.” “ As a co-chair with Dr. Qin Dahe of Working Group 1 of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), she played a key role in producing the report ...” The paper doesn't draw any conclusions ... ? “Satellite measurements were used to show that water vapour levels in the stratosphere have dropped about 10% since 2000. When the scientists fed this change into a climate model, they found it could have reduced, by about 25% over the last decade, the amount of warming expected to be caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.” No 90% “over the last decade” but 90% - 25% ? Merely 65% ? a negative feedback ... ? “She said it was not clear if the water vapour decrease after 2000 reflects a NATURAL shift, or if it was a consequence of a [anthropogenic] warming world [natural - The stratospheric cooling events at the equator ... “Stratospheric temperature is driven by the QBO of magnetic and irradiance activity on the sun.” “The temperature response at 10hPa was about 7.5 degrees.” “The change in total solar irradiance is immaterial.”]. If the latter [AGW feedback] is true, then more warming could see greater decreases in water vapour, acting as a negative feedback to apply the brakes on future temperature rise.” ... they don't believe most of what they're saying? He would like to point out that such skeptics such as Spenser, the two gentlemen Pielke, Segalstad even Lindzen, Lomborg, especially Korhola and von Storch (type of semi-sceptics) does not negate the role of CO2 in the current temperature change, say only that this role - CO2 - In the process of temperature change - by the IPCC - is far too highly estimated. I recently studying how very slowly (but still!) over the past three years to change the views of other "icons" AGW theory - F. Joos. Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate: “Our results are incompatibly lower (P,0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per 6C, and correspondingly suggest 80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming.” “Coupled carbon–climate models show a wide range in feedback strength, with 20–200 p.p.m.v. [?!] of temperature-driven CO2 ...” “Approximately 40% of the uncertainty related to projected warming of the twenty-first century stems from the unknown behaviour of the carbon cycle ...” If it is not (even slightly) skepticism ... -
huntjanin at 18:24 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
RSVP: If global warming continues, maybe they will work on their tans,too. -
RSVP at 18:20 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
When the coastline of Greenland gets greener, are people going to just take pictures of it? -
RSVP at 18:12 PM on 17 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
batsvensson 217 When you see a plane way out on the horizon, it is hard to tell if is coming towards you or going away. Steady observation however reveals the direction over time. If it should be approaching for instance, you know for sure which way it is going. You still may not know how fast. Does the velocity matter, if all you wanted to say was whether it was coming or going? By the same token, it doesnt necessarily take measurements and data to unravel AGW; given the fact that graybodies emit IR as much as they absorb IR, the more GHG, the more overall absorption and the more emission, therefore the more global cooling. This does not exclude the possibility of a localized GHG effect, but overall (i.e. globally), the net result must be more cooling. Another way to look at this whole thing. H20, CO2 and energy are a product of combustion. As a byproduct of combustion, it just turns out you get some gasses that help cool the atmosphere. Imagine if this were not the case,,, over millenium all the brush and forest fires would eventually leave the Earth uninhabitable. It's almost as if it were "designed" perfectly, and yet, we are looking at this completely backwards. -
Ari Jokimäki at 18:06 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
One obvious positive outcome from the sea level rise is that the sea life has more room to live in. Sea life of course faces other serious problems from climate change and other human activities but that's one positive side. -
JMurphy at 17:58 PM on 17 August 2010Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
Paul Bell wrote : "Phil Jones would disagree. From BBC interview: Q:Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming A: Yes http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm" Surely this can't be left hanging like that, just in case anyone reads it but can't be bothered to go to the other thread ? I hope I can be allowed to post the full response from Phil Jones, for clarification - especially as Paul Bell has not quoted Jones properly, for some strange reason : Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. -
huntjanin at 16:56 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
johnd: Sorry to be unclear. I was actually thinking of ports that are now on rivers but which, thanks to rising sea levels, might eventually become seaports. -
johnd at 16:32 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
huntjanin at 15:41 PM, do you mean some of the river ports that used to be sea ports but are gradually getting further and further inland as the deltas grow? -
Doug Bostrom at 16:25 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Huntjanin, probably will help you to know this post is part of a new development here to produce stepwise explanations increasing in complexity. John Cook provides an explanation here. The idea is to provide a very quick synopsis with immediately accessible elaboration of explanations including full supporting material, etc. -
gpwayne at 16:11 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
huntjanin - again, a fair point. I've amended the line about sea level rise benefits to make it appropriately equivocal. Thanks for pointing that out. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 15:58 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
#6, doug_bostrom There may be another thread or article needed on this site to discuss extreme weather events this year - Southern France, Central Europe, Russia, China, Brazil, Tennessee, Pakistan and now Niger - and whether they should be linked to climate change. There is a very interesting response to these events from the Munich RE insurance company. They've undertaken research that demonstrates that since 1980 extreme weather events have tripled. The implication is that extreme weather events can no longer be dismissed as unrelated to climate change. Here is a link. -
huntjanin at 15:55 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
gpwayne: Thanks. FYI, I'm writing a book on sea level rise and, aside from the river-port-seaport idea, the only other positive benefit I'm come across is that maybe some former wetlands will be submerged and can thus return to their role as wetlands, rather than as, say, oil refineries. I don't know that you have to put this but it may be best to avoid making categorical statements unless you are 100% sure you are right. -
huntjanin at 15:50 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
In all respect, and meaning no offense, some of the comments above strengthen my belief, stated in this blog not long ago, that it is mistake to reduce complicated, multifaceted isses to simplistic explanations. These will give the deniers no end of free ammunition. In my opinion, the climate change believers must set their sights high, not low.Response: It is possible to accurately explain complicated science in simple terms. It's not easy, in fact, it's very difficult (a quick scan of the in-depth discussion on the Authors Forum shows that). But if we want the general public to understand what's happening to the climate, it's an effort worth trying. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:46 PM on 17 August 2010Of satellites and temperatures
Marcus, good point. I believe one of the problems here is, the message is not pleasing so indeed there's no being pleased by it. One alternative is to make up a story about a better message. Meta-comment, over and out. -
gpwayne at 15:45 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
huntjanin: "I can't believe that there will be absolutely NO benefits [to sea level rise]" Fair enough, but I couldn't find anything in the literature, in what was admittedly a short search. If you can find anything from a reasonably credible source I'll be glad to add it in. -
gpwayne at 15:43 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
A decision was taken to start a new thread with each 'basic' rebuttal, so I'm going to address a point or two made by Thingadonta:Some places, like the Himalayas and Greenland, with warmer temperatues will experience increased meltwater flows, because more areas are above 0 degrees celsius, which means more water, not less.
I assume you refer to air temperature. This is not what is causing the majority of melting of the Greenland ice cap - it is subduction of warmer sea water, melting of undersea buttresses that hold the glaciers in place, and some surface water that trickles down through fissures in the ice called moraines.This is also enhanced by more frequent floods.
Two things. Glaciers are shrinking. If glacier mass balance is consistently negative (80% display mass loss according to the WGMS) then the amount of spring melt water is going to be reduced, so less is available downsteam at lower altitudes. Secondly, more frequent floods are a liability, not an enhancement. The timing is crucial - flash floods that arrive after crops are planted simply wash the crops away. This is not very helpful, nor it is predictable.The list above is too one-sided to be taken seriously.
You'd need to provide the other side then, for your assertion to be taken seriously. Substantiate your claim please with facts. -
huntjanin at 15:41 PM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
I can't believe that there will be absolutely NO benefits, anywhere in the world, as a result of sea level rise. Might not some river ports become seaports?Response: Now that's thinking outside the box :-) -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:39 PM on 17 August 2010Of satellites and temperatures
Here is a link to a previous post John has done on Satellites and Temperature http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm And if you want way too much information then follow John's link to this by Scott Church http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/docs/MSU-Troposphere-Review01.pdf In particular, his review of the work by Quiang Fu and others, looking at compensating for the fact that the T2 MSU's, that are used to read the lower & mid Troposphere temp's are affected by the fact that 15-20% of the signal is actually coming from the lower stratosphere. As a consequence of the fact that the stratosphere has cooled more than the troposphere has warmed, the satellite data products from both RSS & UAH are probably under reporting the actual temperature of the troposphere due to 'contamination' of the signal by cooling of the stratosphere. Church's review is thorough but long - 137 pages. But definitely worth reading. -
Marcus at 14:04 PM on 17 August 2010Of satellites and temperatures
The important point here, though, is how the Denialists keep changing the goal-posts every time the evidence doesn't suit their denial. When they thought the UAH data supported their claims of a cooling trend, they were all "well the Satellite record is so much more reliable than surface temperature readings". Now that the UAH is showing a definitive warming trend, now the Denialists are telling us that satellites are rubbish too. Seriously, there's no pleasing these people. What matters is the close correlation between surface & satellite based temperature measurements from at least *four* different sources! I mean, how much more EVIDENCE do these denialists need? -
Doug Bostrom at 13:37 PM on 17 August 2010Hockey stick is broken
McShane and Wyner is apparently yet another smoking "gub," looks like. Nailed by their lack of expertise? The tasty nugget at the center of the paper, for skeptics: In other words, our model performs better when using highly autocorrelated noise rather than proxies to predict temperature. The real proxies are less predictive than our "fake" data. It appears M&W compared the performance of proxies sensitive to regional changes against the global NH temperature record. Naturally, the thermometer on your porch (for instance) will turn out to be a poor proxy for global NH temperature if you're trying to tease out changes on the order of a couple of degrees. Even I should have been able to see that. Rats. Noted in various places. -
barry1487 at 13:27 PM on 17 August 2010Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
It doesn't matter that they don't understand the quote. Jones' comment is an 'admission'. The rest of his work is 'fraudulent'. Agreeable propaganda is to an ideologue what a toy is to a child. -
muoncounter at 12:40 PM on 17 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Nice new article, again in the Guardian: "Will this summer of extremes be a wake-up call?" Looking only at individual extreme events will not reveal their cause, just like watching a few scenes from a movie does not reveal the plot. But, viewed in a broader context, and using the logic of physics, important parts of the plot can be understood. ... We must face the facts: our emissions of greenhouse gases probably are at least partly to blame for this summer of extremes. Clinging to the hope that it is all chance, and all natural, seems naive. That sounds like it was actually written by (gasp) a scientist. Guess what: "Stefan Rahmstorf is Professor of physics of the oceans at Potsdam University, and a member of the German Advisory Council on Global Change." -
sailrick at 12:36 PM on 17 August 2010Hockey stick is broken
Regarding the supposed debunking of the hockey stick by McShane and Wyner, "A new Hockey Stick: McShane and Wyner August 16, 2010, by Tim Lambert http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php -
John Brookes at 12:16 PM on 17 August 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fascinating to see Roy Spencer getting annoyed at denialists who won't allow radiation from the atmosphere to warm the surface of the earth. Click... -
CBW at 11:09 AM on 17 August 2010Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
It's funny how the skeptics attacked Phil Jones credibility relentlessly, and still make snide references to "climategate," but they're only too happy to cite him as an expert over and over again for this one quote. It's just another bit of evidence that even they don't believe most of what they're saying. -
Bern at 10:52 AM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
That's a good suggestion, chriscanaris. Perhaps the discussion over the science should be redirected to the actual argument page, rather than this update post. It would be better placed there, in any event. -
chris1204 at 10:39 AM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Doug, we could argue until the cows come home whether the Pakistani tragic floods are a product of climate change - basically we don't know. However, Thingadonta's right insofar as flood plains (not the situation in Pakistan which is monsoonal flooding) are good for agriculture - that's why they attracted human settlement in the first place. Could I suggest that we don't subvert John's Plain English project by arguments about the science climate change. As I understand it, all John's trying to do is to 'translate' existing pages into a more accessible format. Inevitably, some of us will disagree with some of the content - some of us may disagree with most of the content. However, we should reserve discussions of the content for the appropriate forum, eg, when a post is made specifically about some new aspect of the science or an old thread is revisited with new data. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:23 AM on 17 August 2010Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
Paul, how about just a graph?
(from GISS Surface Temperature Analysis )
Lots of places there where we could bridge two data points with a plateau, a steep decline, a steep rise, whatever we want as long as the big picture is no concern.
-
Doug Bostrom at 10:06 AM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Whistling past the graveyard on adjustments spawned by flooding? What happens when a flood vastly exceeds ordinary cycles: Floods Could Have Lasting Impact for Pakistan KARACHI, Pakistan — Even as the government and international relief workers struggle to get food and clean water to millions of Pakistanis devastated by floods, concerns are growing about the enduring toll of the disaster on the nation’s overall economy, food supply and political stability. More rains battered the country Monday, adding to the worst flooding in memory and confronting Pakistan with a complex array of challenges, government and relief officials warned. Though they ranged over the immediate, medium and long term, nearly all needed to be addressed urgently for Pakistan to avoid lasting calamity. Providing clean water for millions and avoiding the spread of diseases like cholera was the first priority. But there were also looming food shortages and price spikes, even in cities, and the danger that farmers would miss the fall planting season, raising the prospect of a new cycle of shortfalls next year in a country that produces much of its own food. “There was a first wave of deaths caused by the floods themselves,” Maurizio Giuliano, a United Nations spokesman, said. “But if we don’t act soon enough there will be a second wave of deaths caused by a combination of lack of clean water, food shortages and water-borne and vector-borne diseases. The picture is a gruesome one.” The prospect of immediate hunger combining with long-term disruptions to the food cycle was a chief concern. The situation confronting Maqbool Anjum, 50, a small-scale wheat farmer in Khanpur district, in Southern Punjab, was typical. For the time being, he said in an interview by telephone: “We don’t have food rations in our house. There isn’t a single grain of flour with us right now.” For the last three weeks, he said, he and his family have survived on bread and vinegared pickles. There was no dry wood to light a fire in the stove. “What we’re doing is breaking off legs from our wooden bed and using that.” No one from the government or any relief organization had contacted them. Still, in less than two months, he and his brothers were supposed to re-seed the soil on about eight acres they own for next year’s wheat harvest. That may be impossible now. His seeds are lost, as was the cotton crop on part of that land, along with any income it may have brought. Two of his brothers’ homes were destroyed. For the time being he would try to survive on his wife’s salary of $50 a month as a health worker. But the prospect of mounting debt seemed inevitable. “It’ll take 3 to 4 years before we can grow anything on our land again,” so ruined was it, he said. Of the 4,000 people in his village, half of them also own agricultural land and were similarly wiped out. “Everything’s gone,” he said. “This is the worst rainfall my village has ever seen.” His struggle is multiplied by many millions across the country. The floods have submerged about 17 million acres of Pakistan’s most fertile croplands, in a nation where farming is an economic mainstay. The waters also killed more than 200,000 livestock, and washed away massive quantities of stored commodities that feed millions throughout the year. Relief workers warned that if farmers like Mr. Anjum missed the deadline to re-seed in the fall planting season, the nation could face the prospect of long-term shortages. More What was that about "beneficial to agriculture?" Pakistan has a fundamentalist insurgency bent on overthrowing the weak government. The insurgency is making public relations hay out of this situation. The government could well fall due to knock-on effects of the flood. The government has nuclear weapons which will change hands if that happens. Good situation? -
Climature at 10:03 AM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Thingadonta: New to the blog and I do enjoy reading all of your comments but I have to say something about your comment about ancient Egypt. Though it is true that the seasonal floods were beneficial to the Egyptians, this was not the case for quite some time in paleolithic Egypt. In fact the Nile valley in Paleolithic Egypt flooded too much to sustain habitation. The Eqyptians didn't get to the Nile until around 7000 B.C.E. and only then it was seasonal. Just a clarification -
Paul Bell at 09:59 AM on 17 August 2010Did global warming stop in 1998? (basic version)
Phil Jones would disagree. From BBC interview: Q:Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming A: Yes http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stmResponse: To understand the context of both this loaded question and Phil Jone's answer, you need to read Phil Jones' words and understand the nature of the statistics discussed. The issue is also discussed in more detail in this blog post by Alden Griffiths which was adapted from his video addressing the argument: 'Global warming has stopped'. -
CoalGeologist at 09:38 AM on 17 August 2010Plain English climate science - now live at Skeptical Science
This is an immensely valuable approach to the debate over human attribution of contemporary climate change (which, when everything is stripped away, is what all the controversy is about), but to me there's an important aspect missing, which is identifying the logical fallacies that commonly appear in skeptical arguments against AGW. There are some skeptical arguments that have scientific merit, for which there may be a variety of [apparently] contradictory evidence. In such cases, addressing the argument will come down to a question of listing and weighing the evidence, particularly in regards to its reliability. In many more cases, however, skeptical arguments against AGW entail invoking logical fallacies. Particularly common fallacies are: a) strawman arguments (intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting the opposing view, for the express purpose of “disproving” it), b) red herring arguments (raising issues or evidence that are not relevant to the actual issue being debated), c) cherry picking (misrepresenting the weight of scientific evidence by focusing on evidence that supports a particular conclusion), d) ad hominem arguments (attacking the person who makes the argument, rather than the argument itself). e) etc. For example, the discussion about Did Global Warming Stop in 1998 makes reference to "cherry picking". And the discussion about The Rate of Melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet addresses what is essentially a "Red Herring" argument by Willis Eschenbach. (In other words, even if Eschenbach is correct, his argument is irrelevant!) These sorts of fallacies tend to occur again and again (and again!); only the specific details vary. True skeptics (i.e. those who are equally skeptical toward the arguments both for and against AGW) would benefit from learning how to identify these "type"-fallacies, as it will be easier for them to recognize similar sorts of fallacies in other circumstances. With regard to making the presentation easily accessible, which is the goal of this approach, one option would be to include an icon of a "red herring" or a "straw man" or a clump of cherries on the "Basic" response (or a picture of Al Gore for the "ad hominem" category ;-), which would link to a more detailed explanation of why the argument is fallacious on the "Intermediate" page. One potential argument against this approach would be that it presupposes a motive or intent in making a particular fallacious argument. While this may be true, my feeling is that "cherry picking is cherry picking", whether it is intentional or inadvertent. Our goal in science is an unbiased assessment of the evidence, and if a particular argument fails to adhere to this principle, the problem should be identified, irrespective of whether it was intentional or not. Just a suggestion! Thanks, as ever, for your efforts to shine a light on the scientific evidence relating to climate change! -
CoalGeologist at 09:34 AM on 17 August 2010Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
This discussion provides an example of a "Red Herring" argument. Even if Eschenbach is factually correct regarding the projected date when the last remaining gram of ice in Greenland will melt, his argument has no relevance to understanding the magnitude of current climate change, its likely cause, and its likely impact on natural ecosystems and human civilization. Red herring arguments are frequent in AGW skepticism. BP.... I think it fair to say we are all in the process of learning some science. While we are engaged in this endeavor, I think communication is helpful, if not essential. You were correct, however, to point out that, aside from the "Butterfly Effect", climate change on Earth is unlikely to have any effect beyond the limits of our atmosphere. -
thingadonta at 09:29 AM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
The discussion above is very one-sided. It is well known that warmer climates in the last few thousand years generally have net benefits, not negatives. Of course the question depends on relative degree of warming, probably a little warming is good, too much not so good. One example from above. "glaciers...fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies – drinking water, agriculture – may fail". This is only true in some areas. Some places, like the Himalayasand Greenland, with warmer temperatues will experience increased meltwater flows, because more areas are above 0 degrees celsius, which means more water, not less. This is also enhanced by more frequent floods. Floods are generally benfifical for argiculture. (That is why eg ancient Egypt was founded on the Nile). Every time there is a flood on the east coast of Australia farmers receive a net benefit. The media only reports on urban areas inundated (which amounts to <10% of such areas), but for example cyclones have been shown to greatly increase agricultural output in Queensland in months/years following a cyclonic depression. (Although they may negatively impact existing crops). The list above is too one-sided to be taken seriously. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:15 AM on 17 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Perfect example of how researchers see their information completely mangled as it passes through the newsgrinder, only to have the blame thrown back in the wrong place (those darned alarmist scientists!): "There was a piece in the Telegraph, “Pakistan Floods: Climate change experts say global warming could be the cause.” The body of the story says, “Experts from the United Nations (UN) and universities around the world said the recent ‘extreme weather events’ prove global warming is already happening.” They didn’t say that, actually, the reporter did. The experts in the story actually were pretty clear that no weather event can be said to be caused by climate change, but rather that events like those we have witnessed are consistent with predicted changes." (emphasis mine) From the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, a fun site for keeping up w/science journalism including the "what" of science stories as well as the "how." -
dab57 at 09:08 AM on 17 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Dear Skeptical Science; This is to thank you for your website. It is making very important contributions. I am the director of Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change at Penn State University and a successful blog that covers climate change policy issues through an ethical prism. It is ClimateEthics.org. You might be interested to have a look. In any event, thanks for your website. Donald A. Brown, Associate Professor, Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law, Penn State. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:27 AM on 17 August 2010Of satellites and temperatures
Those wishing to avoid encouraging such projects as "theclimatescam.se" may wish to retrieve Paltridge 2009 from a less bizarre source. Here's a copy from a place w/no homepage at all: Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data Really, Peter, the company you keep. Tsk-tsk. As to the humidity trend, what's with the "if?" If you don't know whether humidity trends are taken into account when deriving temperature, why not find out? Christy & Spencer seem to place a high degree of confidence in deep atmosphere soundings: Assessment of precision in temperatures from the microwave sounding units Derivations do take humidity into account and appear to be tested against radiosonde measurements, as described by Christy and Spencer: Error Estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU–AMSU Bulk Atmospheric Temperatures
Prev 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 Next
