Recent Comments

Prev  742  743  744  745  746  747  748  749  750  751  752  753  754  755  756  757  Next

Comments 37451 to 37500:

37451. supak at 02:43 AM on 26 March 2014
       Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
       

       After asking him to put his money where his mouth is until he was sick of me, he said this:

       https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/448199600046743552

       "I'll put my money on the IPCC, how about you?"

       My answer:

       "OK, @RogerPielkeJr, let's try this. You say 0.2°C per decade (IPCC), I'll take the over. Will you take the under?"

       No response.

       I'm bugging 538 to start a play money prediction market for climate. They could offer prizes to the best performing portfolios every year. I'm not holding my breath.

37452. P.T. Goodman at 02:29 AM on 26 March 2014
       Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
       

       This is disappointing to be sure. It only encourages "skeptics." The appointment of Curry and Lindzen to an APS review board for climate change is somewhat more troubling. OTOH, now that they are there, they have to actually take responsibility for their statements which are now official. But this, too, only encourages skeptics.

37453. rprovin at 02:15 AM on 26 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       Here is a map from NOAA Western Regional Climate Center that shows temperature anomalies for the California 2014 winter. One picture says it all. Here is the URL for a larger version.

       

37454. Alpinist at 01:08 AM on 26 March 2014
       Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
       

       "Except for some reason Pielke only plots the data from 1990 to 2013"

       I'm pretty sure we all know the reason...

37455. Albatross at 00:23 AM on 26 March 2014
       Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
       

       Hi Michael@1,

       We thought so too at first-- the figure is a little confusing. The LHS is event count and the RHS is cost.  So the trend lines appear to apply to the cost for each group.

37456. Composer99 at 22:43 PM on 25 March 2014
       Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
       

       Suffice to say, I am disappointed that Nate Silver would bring Pielke Jr onto his team for the climate desk, though not as disappointed as I am in Pielke Jr for adopting the unsupported and obfuscatory positions he does.

37457. Tony Noerpel at 22:27 PM on 25 March 2014
       Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
       

       I have to say I could see this coming.  :+)

       http://brleader.com/?p=12412

       Tony

37458. Micawber at 21:04 PM on 25 March 2014
       Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up
       

       41 Glenn Tamblyn

       The whole point of the paper cited is that most of the 93% AGW trapped by the surface ocean in the Northern Hemisphere goes into melting floating ice from the bottom up.

       For the past century the ocean heating has been buffered by the Arctic basal ice melt. The rapid warming at the beginning of the 20th century melted deep tidewater glacier keels of the type that sunk Titanic.

       The mid-century cooling period saw the melting of multi-year ice and deep keels of ice islands as suggested in 1955 as a major climate change impact. The bottom-up melting of Arctic ice was so great that the result was an overall cooling of sea surface temperatures!

       That mid-century cooling was removed from SST records because it did not fit with the 30-year statistical trends. Apparently this is a common practice in atmospheric physics as noted by Kinsman (1957) and Aberson (2012) according to the authors.

       The rapid warming post 1986 that James Wright cites is a direct result of the decline in floating ice. This is the major contribution from the authors cited by the Matthews papers. I consider them definitive because they are based on real ground truth timeseries data unaltered by models or statistics. 

       Scientific method demands the verification by repeated experimental ground truth as the nearest we can get to the 'truth'. I believe the experiments reported by the Matthews papers were the first measurements at sea of surface temperature, evaporation and heat sequestration. Climatologists never go to sea. That is a major problem if the bulk of the heat is there!

       So, it is simply not true to say the 7% is split between melting ice, warming ground and air in roughly equal proportions. Where is the ground truth scientific evidence for that?

       The work they report was done in 2008 in the Pacific and salinity measurements stopped in 2006 at Port Erin. The scientific response surely should be to resume the timeseries ASAP to verify or modify these catastrophic findings.

       Surely the loss of the Malaysian 777 in the Antarctic divergent surface gyre shows how little we know of the surface of the Blue Planet?

       This calls for a major shift to ocean surface studies to understand what is going on inn this unstudied surface. James Wright's article could not come at a better time.

       I think Glynn, we would be better off forgetting the trivial 7% in air until we know much much more about the 97%.

       Heat from the ocean with its more than 3,000 times greater heat capacity than air will show up as rapidly warming air after is thaw a few glacial icesheets in any case.

        

37459. Tom Curtis at 20:55 PM on 25 March 2014
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       Gary Marsh @34, the easiest one to consult is the IPCC:

       

       You will see that "Net Land Flux", ie, the balance between "Gross photosynthesis" and "Total respiration and fire" sequesters 2.6 +/-1.2 Petagrams C per annum.  From that we must subtract the 1.1 +/- 0.8 Petagrams emissions from "Net land use change" (which includes deforestation).  That yields a net sequestration of 1.5 +/- 1.44 Petagrams C per annum.  The uncertainty is at the 90% confidence level, indicating that there is a better than 95% chance that the net flux sequesters a small amount of CO2 annually, and a remote chance that the flux is effectively neutral.

       It should be noted that there has been a net reduction of the carbon reservoir in plants and soil of 30 +/- 45 Petagrams of Carbon, equivalent to approximately 15 ppmv.  It is therefore, likely that the net flux has not always sequestered CO2 over the last 264 years, but currently with tropical deforestation partially balanced by reforestation in the NH, and with the additional effects of CO2 fertilization, the reverse is the case.

37460. michael sweet at 20:05 PM on 25 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       Tom,

       You are correct, I wrote in haste.  I should have said no significant cold records in the CONUS.  There were no monthly cold records.  There were no record cold winters set. The only significant record set was the hottest winter in California. I have not even heard of any individual cities that set cold records longer than a few days.  

       DAK: We agree that it was exceptionally hot (I wonder why) in California last winter.  As you said, the record for hottest winter was shattered.  Since drought and heat feed off each other, it will be interesting to see how hot it is in California this summer.

37461. adrian smits at 19:47 PM on 25 March 2014
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: J.S. Sawyer in 1972
       

       "Sundqvist et al. write that "the stable isotope records show enriched isotopic values during the, for Scandinavia, comparatively cold period AD 1300-1700 [which they equate with the Little Ice Age] and depleted values during the warmer period AD 800-1000 [which they equate with the Medieval Warm Period]." And as can clearly be seen from the figure above, the two δ18O depletion "peaks" (actually inverted valleys) of the Medieval Warm Period are both more extreme than the "peak" value of the Current Warm Period, which appears at the end of the record."  This is peer reviewed and I found it by googling LIttle ice age sweden peer reviewed.

37462. wideEyedPupil at 19:20 PM on 25 March 2014
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       Thanks for the responce, Tom. I forgot to come back and check up till now. There were three things that made me uncomfortable with the kind of (smug) over-confidence of the reportage:

       1. was the certainty that 6 metres would take 2000 for sure which was why I asked it here. Polar ice melt in Arctic has outstripped previous IPCC AR high sensativity senarios since positive feedbacks like melt water fluid dynamics wasn't included. Surge factors of storms at kingtide can have a SL rise multiplier effect up to even 100x, although presumably that's more about inland effected areas than actual rise on the land/sea edge.

       2. unknown timelines for under-researched 'methane burbping' of frozen gases in Arctic sea bed, tundra and Antarctic sea ice. Sensitivity of these gases to sea warming is somewhat in dispute and atmospheric GHG levels, and ocean warming pathways are still very much dependant on future human carbon intensive activity levels. The amounts of methane and COx stored frozen in these places dwarf the so-called remaining carbon budget of 565Gt (Meinshausen 2ºC concept). It's not clear to me the likely size or time of the earliest of these 'burps' but there is already wide columns of these gases rising into the atmosphere. It's not clear to me how much they would accelorate sea level rise.

       3. the most critical problem with the MW report was the (blyth) omission of the fact that while the Opera House may not see sandbagging/re-footing for well beyond a millenia the climatic tipping point that will guarenty that consequence is likely to be yesterday, today or some time in the next few decades (Kevin Anderson, Tyndal Climate Centre). So urgency is justified (in preference to scoffing). That certainly sents alarm bells ringing for me even if MW think they; have better things to think about in 2 thousand years. The consequence of that level of sea rise on cities and agriculture (in combination with a warmer more extreme climate) will be way more significant than the damages bill to the Opera House of course.

       Please comment on issue of climatic tipping points regards polar ice melt and attendant methane/COx leaking, Tom.

37463. Gary Marsh at 18:13 PM on 25 March 2014
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       Tom Curtis 33.   do you have a data source for year after year plant matter increase?

37464. MichaelK at 18:05 PM on 25 March 2014
       Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
       

       It appears that there is a problem with the first Munich Re graph supplied by NewScientist. In the trend graph, the colours for earthquakes and extreme temperatures should be swapped. As the NewScientist article states, the number of earthquakes has remained constant. It is the extreme temperatures, droughts etc which are increasing. 

        

37465. Tom Curtis at 14:19 PM on 25 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       Michael Sweet @6, it is not strictly true that no cold records were set.  For individual stations, over the 365 days to March 22nd, in general cold records outnumbered warm records.  That is misleading if we only look at the number of records, however, for in all time records, warm records outnumbered cold records 4.2 to 1, it what is acknowledged as a cold year relative to the recent record.  The actual data are:

       Period ending 22th/3/2014
       Record_Period__Warm_Records__Cool_Records__Ratio
       Daily__________46667___________59190_________0.79
       Monthly________1867_____________3002_________0.62
       All Time_________188_______________45_________4.18

       (Note, data updates daily, so linked data will not correspond with data shown after 25th)

       In general, there will be 30 daily records per montly record, and 12 montly record per all time record.  The actual ratios over the last 365 days are 21.74 eaily records per montly record, and 20.9 montly record per all time record.  Because daily records are far more common than all time records, it is the all time records that are most significant.

       Further, these are records for individual stations.  Divisional, State, and Regional records (in that order), are far more significant than those for individual stations.  In that respect, California set an all time warm record for the winter season, while no state set an all time cold record to my knowledge.

37466. DAK4Blizzard at 13:30 PM on 25 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       Michael Sweet: Yes, you are correct. Thanks for checking my numbers! I must have been accidentally looking at January-February when I wrote 2F warmer than any other winter. For those 2 months, there is one previous winter (1986) I overlooked that was within 1.2F of this year's January-February.
       
       I did see a few articles over the past couple of months in the LA Times referring to the warm temperatures (one on rattlesnakes coming out early and another on struggling ski resorts). But I take your point about where the media focus has been, and that when they cover California, it's mainly been on the lack of precipitation. I'll assert that, assuming no change in precipitation (it's projected to generally decrease), warmer years by several degrees in California will generally promote more frequent and intense drought conditions.

37467. chriskoz at 12:12 PM on 25 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       A good article about recent landslide event near Arlington WA, (over SR530 - the road I used to travel very often) can be arguably linked to AGW. That's the dry winter followed by very wet early spring: 7.14 inches of rain has fallen this month, well above the normal of 4.57 inches, undoutedly contributed to the hill instability.

37468. Tom Dayton at 10:29 AM on 25 March 2014
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       Tamino has updated Hansen's 1988 prediction by swapping in actual values of forcings (except volcanic) more recently than was done by RealClimate seven years ago.  The forcings are closest to Hansen's Scenario C forcings.  So actual temperatures should have been closest to Hanson's Scenario C model projection.  Guess what?

37469. Tom Dayton at 10:06 AM on 25 March 2014
       Scientists can't even predict weather
       

       Steve Easterbrook has a great balloon analogy of weather versus climate.

37470. Michael Whittemore at 09:59 AM on 25 March 2014
       Climate Science Legal Defense Fund Needs Your Help!
       

       Any idea if it would be tax deductible here in Australia?

37471. lucia at 09:40 AM on 25 March 2014
       A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 7
       

       Having backend code that looks at each user input for specific pairs of SQL commands, such as 'select' and 'into'; 'delete' and 'from' etc will enable such input to be discarded. And when such input is detected, ..

        

       ZBblock (available free) does checks these things. If detected the connection is blocked.  If the user redoubles efforts that IP is blocked from all '.php' scripts protected by ZBblock for a period of time.  http://www.spambotsecurity.com/zbblock.php 

       I've used it since 2011, and include some custom scripts for extra security. (Sometimes my custom stuff goes overboard.  But SkS wouldn't be required to add my extra experimental blocks.)  Had SkS been using this in 2012, it would have blocked many of the queries above, particularly those including things like "union" and "select".

        

       ZBblock also has a 'block Tor' feature which can be activated by setting that feature "on", and in anycase, many Tor IPs get blocked even without checking that setting because they are on  large server farms that rend space to lots of hackers and scrapers.  Connections from certain serverfarms are almost never real people, blocking results in few false positives.  

       
       Whether or not SkS had chosen to use the "Tor" block, using ZBBlock would have at least slowed the hacker, it seems to me was likely  using a 'fingerprinting' type script. These things are widely available and using them a hacker need not expend much  "human" trying systematic variations of queries or keeping track of which resulted in useful information.  Anyway, it seems to me the order of operations seems very much like a script that arrived and started testing the first '....php?query=something' item visible in the the html, and seemed to visit the posts that appeared on the front page and so on.  That's pretty much what a script would do.

       Something like ZBblock might have derailed the script entirely-- by giving it miscues it couldn't interpret. It might have derailed the hacker who, though motivated to hack, may not have been interested in working very hard at it. Possibly, if his script worked while he was sipping Red Bull and playing online games: great! If not: no big deal. 

       That said: given  given the large number of security holes, maybe he would have succeeded but more slowly. Presumably you've closed most of these holes. I would still suggest using ZBblock. It's free. Easy to use. And gives a layer of protection.

        

       Moderator Response:

       [BL] No.  The attack was absolutely not scripted.  We see attacks such as those on a weekly basis, and their patterns are clear and indisputable.  The hacker's SQL injection, by contrast, inconsistently tried combinations first on one page or parameter, then another, then returned to the first page, then looked at other pages without trying anything, and so on.  He also didn't try every parameter or even every numeric parameter on every page, only some, and he didn't always stick to numeric parameters (he occasionally tried string parameters, but only randomly and occasionally).

       The bouncing around, the non-systematic use of parameter values, the variety of delays in activities, all point unequivocally to the active involvement of a living human being. 

       In addition, he was almost always using "GET" parameters (values which are appended to the URL itself, and so are visible to a person in the address bar without reading the HTML code of the web page).  99% of scripted attacks use post parameters (by scanning the HTML code for forms and input fields, usually login or search pages).  The use of GET parameters, while it can be (and is sometimes) scripted, is far more indicative of a person, who can click a link, look at the resulting URL, and then play with it (selectively and intelligently).

       Scripted attacks also tend to use easily detected (by a program) results.  The script can't easily look at a page to determine if the attack worked, so they include code like this:

       SELECT * FROM argument WHERE ArgumentId = '16 and 5=6 union select 0x5E5B7D7E -‌-'
       SELECT * FROM argument WHERE ArgumentId = '16' and 5=6 union select 0x5E5B7D7E -‌- And '6'='6'
       SELECT * FROM argument WHERE ArgumentId = '16 and 5=6 union select 0x5E5B7D7E,0x5E5B7D7E -‌-'
       SELECT * FROM argument WHERE ArgumentId = '16' and 5=6 union select 0x5E5B7D7E,0x5E5B7D7E -‌- And '6'='6'

       That is, of course, only one, brief and limited example.  That attack went on for dozens of tries, and then tried again with slightly different syntax, and again and again.  The 0x5E5B7D7E part displays ^[}~ if it succeeds.  That's a character sequence that is very, very unlikely to appear on any page, and hence is easily detected by a program.  If the program sees that show up in the page, the attack worked and a human gets involved.  If it doesn't, the script moves on to the next combination (although it will cycle through this many times, increasing the number of SELECT parameters to match the original query, similar to the way the hacker did on February 20, 2012).

       The attack on SkS was absolutely not scripted.  Whether you like it or not, whether or not it fits into your pre-determined desire to see this hack as a leak or at worst an easy endeavor (so that you can shift the blame to SkS for having lax security, instead of the hacker)... the guy spent almost nine hours one day conducting SQL injection attacks, and another six hours the next day trolling the system and grabbing data and code.  He then spent days and days continuing his hack.

       No matter how you cut it, it took a whole lot of time and energy for SkS to be hacked.  No matter how easy you want the hack to have been, it wasn't.

37472. wili at 08:54 AM on 25 March 2014
       Climate Science Legal Defense Fund Needs Your Help!
       

       As they say, "The check's in the mail!" (But it really will be, soon. '-) )

       Thanks for reminding us about this. But isn't there also (or doesn't there need to be) a Climate Science OFfence Fund? How was the suit against National Review funded, for example. We can't always just be playing defense here, folks.

       If someone knows of such a fund, please post the contact info for it.

37473. Tom Curtis at 08:09 AM on 25 March 2014
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       Gary Marsh @32, observations of the carbon budget show that plants represent a net sink of CO2, ie, that on average there is more plant matter on Earth at the end of each year than at the start.  That means that plants are an increasing reservoir of water rather than, as you would have it, a decreasing reservoir.  Absent other effects, the increase in net plant mass would tend to decrease sea level rise.

37474. John Hartz at 07:54 AM on 25 March 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       Phronesis:

       To guide the What We Know initiative, AAAS convened a group of prominent experts in climate science.

       Mario Molina (Chair), U of California, San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography

       James McCarthy (Co-chair), Harvard University

       Diana Wall (Co-chair), Colorado State University

       Richard Alley, Pennsylvania State University

       Kim Cobb, Georgia Institute of Technology

       Julia Cole, University of Arizona

       Sarah Das, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

       Noah Diffenbaugh, Stanford University

       Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

       Howard Frumkin, University of Washington

       Katharine Hayhoe, Texas Tech University

       Camille Parmesan, U of Texas, Austin and University of Plymouth, UK

       Marshall Shepherd, U of Georgia

37475. Ken in Oz at 07:44 AM on 25 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       It may just be coincidence, but a lot of media like to use the 'hottest', 'coldest', 'wettest', 'driest' line with monotonous regularity. But they are not usually talking about actual records being broken; they are 'hottest' or 'coldest' in 50 yrs or 20 yrs or however long it was since the last time it was that 'hot' or 'cold'. Could be interesting to see if this is more commonplace within media outlets that play up the denial and doubt although for a lot of media content it is just poor quality. Ultimately it diminishes the perceptions people have of real records being broken. Whilst the science on climate depends on accurate information, action on climate depends on public perceptions and this misuse of these superlatives muddies public perceptions in a subtle but influential way.

37476. dfaccini at 07:25 AM on 25 March 2014
       Free computer game - World at the Crossroads
       

       I was starting to go crazy because, on my Windows 7, I wasn't able to change the read only setting.

       I tried everything, eventually I changed the UAC settings (START-RUN-"UAC", and you can put the setting on the lower level) and I succeeded.

       See here: 

       http://itexpertvoice.com/home/fixing-the-windows-7-read-only-folder-blues/

37477. Sapient Fridge at 06:21 AM on 25 March 2014
       A Hack By Any Other Name — Index
       

       Looks good.  Thanks for putting the index together.  I'll circulate the link to my techie friends who wouldn't normally visit SkS.

37478. PhilBMorris at 01:36 AM on 25 March 2014
       A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 7
       

       This comment may be somewhat 'late in the day' but of value anyway (I think).  SQL injection is the one of the real dangers of interactive websites, and protecting against it adequiately requires multiple levels of defence.

       1. All user input needs to be checked to detect possible injections.  Having backend code that looks at each user input for specific pairs of SQL commands, such as 'select' and 'into'; 'delete' and 'from' etc will enable such input to be discarded.  And when such input is detected, take the user to the home page; better this than displaying a page telling the hacker that their attempt has been foiled, which may cause them to redouble their efforts.  The code that checks for specific pairs of SQL commands should also check for possible scripting syntax.

       2. All interactions with the SQL database should be via parameterised queries.  I noticed one comment regarding hack 3 (SQL Injection) that all interactions with the database should used stored procedures.  That doesn't do the job; stored procedures may use parameterized queries, but can equally well construct SQL statements that use user input directly.  Bad practice but still possible.  Injection attacks are foiled completely via parameterized queries.  Re-writing backend code to do this can take quite an effort if the code base is large.  For .NET websites (which is what I code in) I wrote a program that autogenerates code for all DB interactions based on the DB schema; that code only ever uses parameterized queries to interact with the database.

       3.  The SQL database should be on a subnet entirely separate from the website subnet and access to the database subnet vie the internet should be prevented by the firewall.  Access to the database computers should only be allowed via computers behind the firewall.  

37479. michael sweet at 00:28 AM on 25 March 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       Phronesis,

       It is interesting to learn that you know more about scientific opinion on AGW than the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  I am sure other readers will make their own choice about whether they should believe the AAAS or a nameless voice on the internet.  

       This is a scientific board.  People are expected to provide evidence to support their claims.  Peer-reviewed evidence is best.  You do not appear to care about evidence.   You might find that your method of argument is better received at one of the skeptic sites where they do not care about evidence either.

37480. michael sweet at 00:23 AM on 25 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       Dave,

       When I went to the NCDC website I found that California was only 0.8F (!) higher than the previous warmest winter.  Since these records are usually broken by 0.1 degree, that is a significant record.

       I have only seen one mention of the record heat in California in the mainstream media.  The cold, which was typical weather 50 years ago, is widely reported as record cold, even though no records were set.  This is the problem we face with global warming: the media only reports what fossil fuel companies want people to hear.

37481. John Hartz at 23:56 PM on 24 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       icefest & Tom Curtis:

       The errors you pointed out have been corrected. Thank you for bringing them to our attetnion.

37482. Gary Marsh at 23:17 PM on 24 March 2014
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       Based on my estimation above (see 29.) 130 cubic kilometres of water directly lost each year to deforestation, spread over the world ocean surface of aproximatly 361 million square kilometres would equate to aproximately a 0.3mm rise per year, this allows for a percentage that would end up in rivers, reservoirs the atmosphere and the ground. I'm not a scientist or a skilled resercher so my quantities and sums must be checked, this is a significant figure so surely it is being accounted for somewhere and I'm just not finding it?

       Moderator Response:

       (Rob P) - No, the scenario you conjured up isn't accounted for. Not sure why this would surprise you given that you seem unwilling to read the scientific literature on sea level rise and provide zero supporting evidence for your scenario.  

37483. Gary Marsh at 20:57 PM on 24 March 2014
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       BTW I can't see a facility to edit our posts, my last one double entried when my web browser had to "recover the webpage"...    sorry!

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Your duplicate post has been deleted.

37484. Gary Marsh at 20:56 PM on 24 March 2014
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       In case my last direct tinyurl link breaks, you can use this one but National Geographic will want you to sign in with email or facebook to read the article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120531-groundwater-depletion-may-accelerate-sea-level-rise/?

       To sumarise a snip from the article referring to the work of a team of Dutch scientists led by hydrologist Yoshihide Wada 

       "Newly constructed reservoirs above ground can offset the net loss of water underground. These, Wada said, trap water that would otherwise reach the sea. Before 1990 or so, he added, that offset was large enough that the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change never took groundwater depletion into account in predicting 21st-century sea-level rise. But that offset is no longer as significant as it once was, Wada said. "There are not so many places where people can build new reservoirs," he said. "They are already built."

       Already, he and his colleagues have found, groundwater depletion is adding about 0.6 millimeters per year (about one-fortieth of an inch) to the Earth's sea level. By 2050, he said, the triple pressures of growing population, economic development, and higher irrigation needs due to a warming climate will increase that to 0.82millimeters per year—enough to raise sea levels by 40 millimeters (1.6 inches) above 1990 levels. Between 2050 and 2100, according to some estimates, sea levels would rise even faster. To put that in perspective, he said, groundwater depletion adds about 25 percent to projected rates of sea-level rise, making it the largest contributor from land to sea-level rise other than the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Even the melting of glaciers in the world's high mountains won't contribute more to rising sea levels, Wada said."

37485. Gary Marsh at 20:44 PM on 24 March 2014
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       Glenn Tamblyn

       You are correct, I mistakenly thought the resevoir and surface water effect was taken into account in this study. The following article from the National Geographic News updates the information somewhat, whilst raising further points for consideration :)  http://tinyurl.com/NatGeo-Groundwater   It also mentions the forest effect, though having not found figures for this I am going to estimate an average of 1cubic metre height of water lost per square metre of forest/rainforest loss, to take into account water held in ground, biomass, roots, animals, above surface trees plants and atmospheric humidity, this would equal one cubic kilometre of water every 1000 kilometres of forest lost, times this by 130 000 square kilimetres lost per year = 130 cubic kilometres of extra water per year that ends up largely in the sea. I would apreciate informed comments as to how far off my estimations are and as to if there is any significance to this quantily of yeatly increase affecting sea level rise...   Mind you that last part I should be able to find out myself.. it's the per square kilometre water storage capacity of forest and attendents that are hard for me to assess.

37486. Andy Skuce at 19:02 PM on 24 March 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       Anyone who thinks that the consensus is significantly less than 97% can demonstrate this relatively easily. All they have to do is to find, let's say,  5-10% or more papers in a given random sample that implicitly or explicitly reject humans as the main cause of  global warming. They don't have to do a fine sub-classification like we did, or sort the no-position papers from the rest, just find the thumbs-down papers. (Hint, some doubters of AGW already have some long--and dubious--lists of papers that supposedly reject AGW, so you could just search for them in any given sample.)

       A few hours of careful work requiring no special equipment and Cook et al could, in principle, be falsified. Several people who question our work seem to have put lots of effort into writing blogposts, examining our statistics, submitting formal rebuttals, making FOI requests and writing angry letters to all and sundry. Yet, if they were right, a convincing knock-out punch would  be easy to deliver, just by looking through a random sample of scientific papers on climate change. But this work has not even been tried, or if it has, it hasn't been reported.

37487. DAK4Blizzard at 16:04 PM on 24 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       California, which has been in the news for its warm and dry winter, had an overall average temperature of 48F from December to February. According to NCDC, this was about 4.5F above average and the hottest winter by 2F since records began in 1895. NCDC

       What's very concerning is a winter like this could become more typical by late century even if our emissions are kept from passing 500 ppm. In a higher emissions scenario,
       in which CO2 concentration reaches 500 ppm by mid-century and reaches 800-900 ppm by late century, California can expect an average year to be at least 3F warmer than this one by late century. EPA  When the average temperature increases by that much, you can expect water to be a severe issue even in years with normal rainfall, as mountain snow-pack will retreat and evaporation will increase.
       
       In other words, even by late this century the southern Central Valley could approach the environment depicted in the cartoon.

37488. Tom Curtis at 16:01 PM on 24 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       icefest @2, Brandon Seah is the person who asked a question of Randall Munroe, which Randall Munroe then answered in the post linked to above. 

37489. Glenn Tamblyn at 15:47 PM on 24 March 2014
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       Gary Marsh

       What the IGRAC page is missing is another change to the land water balance which is empoundment - the building of surface water storages. Some time back I read a study - I don't recall now where it was - that estimated the increase of surface water storage in dams etc. Serendipitously this roughly balances out the loss of groundwater.

        

37490. icefest at 14:28 PM on 24 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       I think you meant 'xkcd' and not 'sckd'. If so, then you probably meant "Randall Munroe" instead of "Brandon Seah" (who is Brandon Seah anyway?).

37491. DSL at 13:18 PM on 24 March 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       Sloganeering, DB?  More like Hubris ad Absurdum. 

37492. Rob Honeycutt at 11:13 AM on 24 March 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       Phronesis...  My point is substantive if you care to entertain the idea. What I'm telling you is that you can cast stones all day long, never hitting a target and convince no one, including yourself, of anything.

       If you have genuine questions about what the reality is regarding the consensus of the published research, test the results yourself. Just be ready to adjust your position on this issue when you do.

       My guess is, much like everyone I've ever argued with who rejects AGW, you're not really interested in the reality of the situation. You're merely interested in testing your throwing arm. 

37493. Tom Curtis at 10:59 AM on 24 March 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       Phronesis @5&11:

       With regard to Schollenberger's criticism of Cook et al, Victor Venema had this to say:

       "if you scan the manuscript, you find that much of what you “discovered” in the stolen forum posts was already written into the article manuscript:

       “Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters. … Initially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity. Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed; these were then resolved by a third party.”

       It would have been fair, if you would have told your readers that this was written in the article."

       To that Schollenberger admited:

       "I never claimed to have “discovered” anything in the SKS forums. I didn’t claim anything I said was a secret or new. Quoting one source doesn’t indicate other sources were silent on those topics."

       So, right from the start much of Schollenberger's criticism consists of describing processes described in the paper, carefully not mentioning that fact, and then going "tut-tut".

       There is a small measure of validity in his criticism, however.  Some (5-10) abstracts were discussed in the forum, and should not have been in order to preserve independence.  To calculate the effect of this, I shall assume that 50 abstracts were discussed, and that all of those were rated as endorsing the consensus.  Both of these assumptions are known to be false.  However, they are conservative.  That is, they will massively overstate the impact of the breakdown in proceedure on the paper.

       To estimate that effect, I simply reduce the number of endorsing papers by 50.  The result is that the level of endorsement from abstract ratings falls from 97.1% to 97%.  That is, this breakdown in procedure at most overstated endorsements by 0.1%, and did not change the headline result.  It is very probable that the impact was negligible, because I have significantly overstated the number of papers involved, because not all papers involved were rated as endorsing the concensus, and because even of those endorsing the concensus, there is a high probability that the rating would not have changed to neutral, or not endorsing the consensus without the discussion.

       Further, this breakdown in proceedure cannot effect the author ratings which also show a 97% endorsement rate.

       Now, the question for you is - did you realize these facts before raising the issue?  If not, why did you raise it, given as you claim to be pressed for time? 

37494. wili at 10:14 AM on 24 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       Mauna Loa--March 22 - 399.98ppm--So barely over a degree below 400, not enough to of set 6 days mostly well above that number. So the last week's official average is above 400 for the first time this year and only the second time in history (and for millions of years before history started, iirc): " Week beginning on March 16, 2014: 400.76 ppm "http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

       News worthy??

37495. MP3CE at 08:16 AM on 24 March 2014
       A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 7
       

       Realy KUDOS to you, guys !!! What a great job you do here!

37496. Phronesis at 06:44 AM on 24 March 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       Guys, has anyone responded substantively to anything I said in my last round? I don't see anything.

       Tom Curtis offers an insight about my intentions, that it is a "gish gallop". I don't know what that means, but I assume it's not charitable.

       Michael Sweet cites the AAAS report. My earlier posts undercut one of the three sources used in that report, so I'm not sure why the report would be a counterargument. (Or why any of these reports should be interesting, given that they don't use standard scientific methods for aggregating knowledge, e.g. meta-analyses, at least not the AAAS.)

       Dunkerson says that I mentioned Oreskes' 75% figure and that I later mentioned how we have no idea what was done in that study (because the paper doesn't tell us). I take the argument to be that the number of problems I've discovered with Oreskes, or the order I in which I've presented them, somehow refutes me?

       Honeycutt regrets piling on another irrelevant, non-substantive reply, and talks about Cook. I had asked a question about whether the Cook et al study used independent rates, as stated in the paper. Honeycutt doesn't answer that question, but invites me to start rating abstracts.

       (-snip-).
       
       
       

       ( -snip-.)

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Sloganeering snipped.

37497. Gary Marsh at 01:23 AM on 24 March 2014
       Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
       

       Has anyone encountered informaiton showing how much water is pushed to other parts of the ecosystem whenever there is a loss of rainforest, or deforestation in general, whether to desertification or increased agricultural/farming practices etc.. i.e. 130000 to 150000 km loss per year is a lot of moisture pushed into other parts of the planets storage capability! without having done the research I would imagine the quantity over the past 60 years is enough to skew the data?

       I only today read about the relationship of human pumping of groundwater to increased sea level rise. http://www.un-igrac.org/publications/422    snippet "because most of the groundwater released from the aquifers ultimately ends up in the world's oceans, it is possible to calculate the contribution of groundwater depletion to sea level rise. This turned out to be 0.8 mm per year, which is a surprisingly large amount when compared to the current sea level rise of 3.3 mm per years as estimated by the IPCC. It thus turns out that almost half of the current sea level rise can be explained by expansion of warming sea water, just over one quarter by the melting of glaciers and ice caps and slightly less than one quarter by groundwater depletion. Previous studies have identified groundwater depletion as a possible contribution to sea level rise. However, due to the high uncertainty about the size of its contribution, groundwater depletion is not included in the latest IPCC report. This study confirms with higher certainty that groundwater depletion is indeed a significant factor"

       This got me wondering about the ground biomass canopy and animal life storage capacity of the vast forest losses each year.

       Moderator Response:

       (Rob P) - See the SKS rebuttal: Sea level fell in 2010. There is a large year-to-year , and decadal-scale, exchange of water mass between the continents and ocean mainly due to rainfall patterns forced by La Nina & El Nino. The strong La Nina dominance over the last decade or so has stored greater-than-normal water mass on land. See Jensen (2013) - Land water contribution to sea level from GRACE and Jason-1 measurements & Baur (2013) - Continental mass change from GRACE over 2002–2011 and its impact on sea level - free copies are available online.

       This is part of the reason for the smaller-than-anticipated sea level rise in recent times - since the early 2000's anomalous water mass, equivalent to 0.2mm of sea level rise per year, has been stored on land. This is consistent with the increase in land vegetation (Net Primary Productivity) during that time. See: Bastos (2013) - The global NPP dependence on ENSO: La Niña and the extraordinary year of 2011. 

       No surprise that water availability impacts plant growth. But a return to El Nino-dominant conditions (the positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) hints at major problems in the near-future. Sea level should rise more sharply too as the water mass drains from the continents.   

37498. John Hartz at 01:12 AM on 24 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #12B
       

       chriskoz: Her's an article about the leaked draft report to be finalized this week in Yokahama, Japan.

       Global warming to hit Asia hardest, warns new report on climate change by Robin McKie, The Observer, Mar 22, 2014

       I will, of course, include this article and others like it in this week's edition of the Weekly News Roundup.

37499. Tom Curtis at 22:49 PM on 23 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #12B
       

       chriskoz @1, the ABC has a story on WG2's report.  I assume there was a press release or something to go with it, but no links unfortunately. 

37500. MA Rodger at 20:25 PM on 23 March 2014
       Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
       

       The graph of North Atlantic cyclone numbers in the post could do with updating. The 10-year average has concinued to rise and now sits above 16 per year.

       

       N Atlantic hurricane numbers & major hurricane (catagory 3+) numbers have also risen but less dramatically and have presently their own little "hiatus." Add the argument about unreliable data prior to the 1970s, and it is difficult to establish with any certainty an AGW signal above the 'natural cycles'. The same goes for N Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy (see here - usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment').

       Globally, beyond the N Atlantic,  the data is even less reliable prior to 1970 (as Klaus Flemløse @70 would likely agree). So that Atlantic tropical cyclone graph is a bit of a rare beast.

Prev  742  743  744  745  746  747  748  749  750  751  752  753  754  755  756  757  Next