Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 Next
Comments 40751 to 40800:
-
Poster9662 at 17:37 PM on 19 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
Dhogaza Perhaps it didn't take decades for plate tectonics to become accepted but as it took about 50 years for mainstream science to "properly reject" continental drift, it seems an extraordinarily long time for scientists to recognise that the continental drift hypothesis was physically impossible
Thank you Victor Venema, your comment is the epitome of scientific restraint which is as it should be given the "newness" of the paper. I mentioned Judith Curry in response to this challenge from "Bert" who wrote "Show me a reputable site that refutes this refereed paper that is not run by the scientific illliterati". So I did.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:24 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
Morgan Wright @15:52, it is the standard convention in geology and radiocarbon dating that "the present" is 1950, ie, before large scale distortion of C14 levels in the atmosphere by atomic testing. As wikipedia notes:
"Before Present (BP) years is a time scale used mainly in geology and other scientific disciplines to specify when events in the past occurred. Because the "present" time changes, standard practice is to use 1 January 1950 as the origin of the age scale, reflecting the fact that radiocarbon dating became practicable in the 1950s. The abbreviation "BP", with the same meaning, has also been interpreted as "Before Physics"; that is, before nuclear weapons testing artificially altered the proportion of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, making dating after that time likely to be highly unreliable."
The obvious inference with regard to GISP2 is that 95 years BP is 1855, not 1905. As noted in the article linked by scaddenp @23 above:
"Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855."
(Emphasis added)
So, yes it is both well known that BP is before 1950, and hence that when Alley 2000 produces a temperature proxy ending 95 years BP, it ends in 1855; and well known that deniers did not acknowledge that fact, instead claiming the data ended in 1905. That is why there is a rebutal on that point dating back to February, 2011.
That is something you would have known if you had bothered to pay attention to those who responded to your original post instead of making silly comments about puppies.
And yes, I am more than happy to be remembered for drawing attention to the foolishness of treating the temperature proxy for a single location as the reconstruction for a hemisphere. Far rather that than to be remembered for promoting denier arguments out of (at best) complete ignorance on the subject at hand.
-
dhogaza at 16:06 PM on 19 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
PluviAL:
"It took dacades for the scientific community to accept plate tectonics"
Plate tectonics was accepted quite quickly after the theory was developed to explain (among other things) observed sea-floor spreading.
Not only does it provide a satisfying explanation for the fact that the continents fit together roughly like jigsaw puzzle pieces, it was the final nail in the coffin for the proposed mechanisms underlying the continental drift hypothesis, all of which were physcially impossible and therefore properly rejected by mainstream science.
There is a reason why modern scientists speak of plate tectonics rather than continental drift ...
-
Morgan Wright at 15:52 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
Just some basic fact checking for Tom. The GISP2 data does not start in 1855 as Tom says. At least not the source I used:
.095 thousand years is 95 years.
I only said 1900 as a rough approximation, far from "repeating a well known denier error" (not well known, never seen it before, I may have been the first to ever use it, please cite reference that it's a well known denier error). (-snip-)
Moderator Response:[RH] Hotlinked url. Ad hom snipped.
[RH] Tom is actually correct about the start date. I've spoken to Dr Alley personally in reference to this point. He says that 0.095 thousand years "before present" uses the common dating convention of 1950 representing "present."
-
Morgan Wright at 15:06 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[RH] Morgan, please read the commenting policy for SkS. The tone you're setting is not tolerated here. People are trying to have an honest discussion with you. Please respond in kind.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:37 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
Morgan Wright @25:
"I just put the GISP2 chart here to show how it compares to the other 3 data sets. Looks like a nice fit."
Actually, no, it does not:
What is more, even if it did, using a single local proxy as a proxy for hemispheric or near hemispheric temperatures is always wrong, with the only exception being when the changes of interest globally are greater than 2 C (as between glacial and interglacial). Even if the comparison looks good, making the comparison will teach those who know no better to continue doing so when they should not.
When you make the comparison, repeat a well known denier error (GISP2 ending in 1900 rather than in 1855); and then try on a well known and deceptive denier tactic (adding in global temperature values to a local proxy); and all this with the local proxy most famously abused by deniers in exactly these ways - it gives me serious reason to doubt your bona fides.
-
Morgan Wright at 14:09 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
I just put the GISP2 chart here to show how it compares to the other 3 data sets. Looks like a nice fit. It also looks like some people are having a bad Monday.
Scaddenp that is a great idea, splicing modern Greenland Summit Station temps onto it. I probably should have done that. My bad.
Not a dogpile, more like puppies untying shoes.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:09 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
As some may not want to trouble themselves following links, here is the GISP2 data with the difference in temperature between the end of the data and 2010 at the site appended, for comparison with Morgan Wright's effort @9:
That, however, is not the last word. Since the GISP2 data was analyzed by Alley et al, Kobashi et al (2011) analyzed the same ice core at higher resolution, and to a more recent date. The higher resolution shows some greater temperature excursions in the past. Kobashi et al also directly compare the proxy data with the reconstruction of modern temperatures at the site by Box et al (2010), and to the actual recent instrumental record at the site:
You will notice that the recent temperature was just, and briefly exceded during the MWP, and significantly (approx 3 C) exceeded around 750 C.E. (ie, prior to the commencement of the MWP). That, of course, is of little relevance except as regards temperatures in Greenland. A single site is not the globe. It is not the Northern Hemisphere. It is not even the extra tropical Northern Hemisphere. Pretending that it is, ie, that a single local proxy can substitute for a multi-proxy reconstruction is (at best) incredibly foolish.
An argument that such a local proxy is acceptably representative because "it seems to agree fairly well with the others" is jaw-dropping in its audacity. Such an appearance of similarity is, in fact irrelevant and gives no basis to trust the local proxy in prefference to the reconstruction - especially where they disagree. When the argument is backed by simple errors of fact (the original GISS2 reconstruction extends only to 1855, not 1900), and is followed by appending global temperatures to a local proxy to represent changes in extra-tropical NH temperatures, it is evidently an invitation to inaccurate analysis. The only thing correct in Morgan Wright's analysis is that he did in fact show the GISP2 data from Alley et al.
-
scaddenp at 13:01 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
At risk of dogpiling - but Morgan, have you considered putting modern greenland temperature at the GISP2 site instead of a global average? (and I think the last record in GISP2 is 1855) . Don Easterbrook is the specialist in this nonsense. See here for more (including putting the modern temperature on).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:59 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
And not only that, you're splicing a global record onto a very high latitude temperature record.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:56 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
Morgan... You do realize, don't you, that you are splicing a global record (GISS) onto a regional record (GISP2) of temperature... right?
-
michael sweet at 12:48 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
Morgan,
Have you spliced the GISS world wide temeprature record onto Ljundqvist's Northern Hemsiphere only data? Please provide citations for how you have concocted this graph. Why don't you compare the price of oranges to the price of gold? The OP shows that it is currently much warmer in the Northern Hemisphere than it ever was during the medieval warm period. Your post should be deleted as off topic. If you want to impress people you need to cite peer reviewed data, not graphs you make up after your frisbee golf tournaments.
-
Morgan Wright at 12:21 PM on 19 November 2013Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
I like how we are comparing Ljundqvist to Mann 2008, and Moberg. Just for fun I'm linking the GISP2 data. It seems to agree fairly well with the others.
http://www.hyzercreek.com/hockey3j.jpg
Because the GISP2 data only go up to 1900, I attempted to splice the last century of thermometr data (GISS) onto it to bring it up to 2013
http://www.hyzercreek.com/hockeysplice.jpg
I hope people enjoy my splice
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed image widths.
-
johnthepainter at 11:30 AM on 19 November 2013Broad consensus on climate change across American states
This is all familiar for those who have been following the subject. But the fact that most people have wildly mistaken understandings of what scientists and non-scientists think shows there is need to keep getting the information out. As Frank Luntz, the man who taught Republicans how to get their message out, wrote, "There’s a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time."
-
PluviAL at 10:55 AM on 19 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
Is it that the "ignorati" might disagree with us, or is it that scientifically minded people are logically superior and more fair? It took dacades for the scientific community to accept plate tectonics, now it is conventionial earth physiscs. People are passionate, since scientists are people they are passionate too.
It seems we have to do a better job of communicating to each other, to the media, and thus to the scientifically untrained. One of the ways is to be a little more humble about how fair we are. I am speaking from current experience trying to introduce a new concept to the scientific comunity. It is much hareder than one might think. But Thomas S. Kuns (the structure of scientific revolutions) would not be surprized.
-
davidnewell at 05:36 AM on 19 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
It was interesting to listen to the two scientists discoursing about this subject on "Science Friday" on PBS last week.
Enragingly (to me) they concluded that by the end of this century they may have accumulated enough data to determine if climate change is influencing the matter.
This seems to me to be akin to a person, standing beneath a piano which has been dropped from 10 stories above, deciding to see if a breeze will come up to change the trajectory of it's fall, before electing to move out of it's way.
"Come ON, breeze!!"
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/11/15/2013/gauging-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-hurricanes.html
Moderator Response:[JH] Unnecessary white space deleted.
-
VictorVenema at 05:06 AM on 19 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
Poster, in case you are interested, I just wrote my thoughts on the comments of Judith Curry (and Watts and Lucia).
Concluding, I see no problems with this paper. Like any work of science there is no certainty and we will have to see what future scientists will find. The comments by Judith Curry and Lucia point to interesting points for future research, but do not invalidate the study in any way.
-
Paul Magnus at 03:54 AM on 19 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
There are quite a few effects that a warming climate will have on storms. It can't not affect them can it. The profile is changed. Anecdotally it seems to me that powerful storms are spinning up much quicker.
They are also happening earlier and later. Their tracts are also changing. They are starting and traversing over wider regions due to a greater spread of warmer surface temperatures. Are they lasting longer? Seems that way. Both these means they are combining with other weather phenomena more often like what happened with Sandy.
Higher sea levels are having an impact on bigger storm surges. Their intensity certainly seems to be getting more or peaking higher at certain times.
Precipitation for less intense storms is going through the roof. Thus making those quite devastating on a region. Not only for humans but for wild life etc.
The frequency of more powerful storms seems to me to be increasing. See also this...
intensity-or-frequency
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.ca/2010/04/intensity-or-frequency.htmlhttp://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/13/haiyun-is-this-a-trend/
So there are all these things and a few more which are happening due to global warming. Various sorts of storm records are been broken more frequently now.
We need to have a central reference repository that meteorologist and climate scientist can use as a base line when talking about storms and global warming. There is still too much confusion when this topic is presented to the public unfortunately.
-
ajki at 00:13 AM on 19 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
hm.
I think, I'll throw in another £40 (roughly about 50€). That would be the sum I'd give to SkS and John Cook for this great website this year - but I really believe that free access to scientific papers is necessary. There are still far too many papers not accessible to everyone.
-
YubeDude at 23:18 PM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
From the RP:
This is slightly off topic...(ok way off topic but where on SKS can this be posted?)
Part of the measure impact as far as the death count is concerned is related to the infrastructure and culture of poverty that defines this 3rd world effort at modernity. This in no way lessens the tragedy or alters the storms intensity or even addresses the climate science issue. I am only stating a point of fact about the Philippines. Had this storm hit Japan you would not had seen anything like this as far as damage or body count. Often the media gets into a frenzy over the numbers without any perspective.Moderator Response:[JH]What does the phrase, "From the RP" mean?
For future reference, the threads to Weekly Digests and News Roundups are "open threads."
Your "point of fact" is nothing more than your personal opinion. Unsubstantiated global assertions carry little or no weight on the SkS comment threads.
-
Kevin C at 21:18 PM on 18 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
Now at £1500. I've just been through the Wiley website, and while I do qualify for the RMS discount, the prices don't include VAT. So it's going to be $3000 unfortunately.
-
Paul Pukite at 15:28 PM on 18 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
I put in 20 pounds in retaliation for my employer who won't support any publishing cost.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:01 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
jzk @19, when you think about it, most of the data about peak intensity for cyclones since the 1970s will come from sattelite observations. That is because it is very rare for cyclones to strike land at their peak intensity, and even when they do strike land data will be distorted by the slowing of the winds due to friction, the location of the instruments relative to the eye, and the period over which the instruments survived. Thus, the Tacloban Airport anenometer only recorded gusts up to 23 km, but that is hardly relevant given that it was destroyed four hours before the nearest approach of the eye. As another illustration, here is a pressure record from Tacloban City (probably the closest surviving record):
It, however, was taken "a few miles north of the edge of the eye" and so certainly do not indicate directly the actual pressure at the center of the eye (estimated at 895 mb by the Japanese Meteorolical Agency from satellite).
The PAGASA record may in fact be derived from the JMA estimates which are based on satellites in the same way as the JTWC, although using a 10 minute time period for gusts.
If you wish to avoid comparing apples and oranges, I'm sorry. You are out of luck. All we have been served is fruit salad. All I know is that the JTWC data are typically used by researchers in preference to that of JMA/PAGASA; and that the JTWC long term record rates the Haiyan as the fourth most powerfull tropical cyclone in terms of wind speed, and the most powerful at the time of landfall, while the JMA ranks it as the second most powerfull, and the most powerfull at landfall; and that two lists for tropical cyclones making landfall in the Philippines purportedly from PAGASA disagree about the cyclones in the top five, their windspeeds, and their rank order.
-
grindupBaker at 09:53 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
I think the comment "but most notably through rising sea levels" needs modification or clarification because I would think by general logic that the extra energy added significantly more to the energy that this typhoon delivered to land than the small sea level increase. Dr. Mann quotes Yeb Saño on this but I infer that his posting does not allow him realistically to delve into complexities without losing the focus on this particular disaster. That could be done in this posting. I infer that sea level rise is a longer term issue than current times (currently minor). If I am incorrect, somebody please educate me regarding the amplification of the small sea level increase as the surge pushes and squeezes water up the gradient (choke-point) to land.
-
jzk at 09:48 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
Tom @ 18
"You may want to speculate about a fundamental disagreement between PAGASA and JWTC, but in the absence of specific information, that is all you are doing. Inexpert sepulation in the face of the better informed opinions of experst such as Jeff Masters."
Really, when I saw that ranking I wanted to understand the source of your data. I don't fault Jeff or the JWTC for making estimates at the time based on the best information that was available to them. But, if we are going to be comparing storms, we should compare apples to apples. Are the other storms on that list ranked by 1 minute sustained gust data estimated by satellites, or is it based on actual instrument readings on the ground over ten minutes? Even inexperts like me can ask questions like that to ascertain the vailidity of the comparison, no?
-
Tom Curtis at 09:31 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
jzk @17, that is normally correct, although I did see one report that the JTWC had access to surface based observations at the time of the estimate. Unfortunately I cannot find that report, and hence cannot assess its accuracy. It should not be assumed, however, that land based reports from PAGASA are automatically more accurate. In particular, most of their observations are from far from the eye of the storm, and the one anenometer they had that was in the eye of the storm (at Tacloban Airport) was also destroyed by the storm. Further, once over land, winds are reduced by about 15% by friction (Jeff Masters) so that land based anenometers will record wind speeds about 15% below those at actual landfall. So, there are several reasons why hte PAGASA recorded speeds might be below the JTWC estimate, and/or the true wind speeds.
Having said that, I find the coincidence between the 10 minute sustained gust and the "sustained" speed from JWTC once factored for the difference between a 1 and 10 minute measurement period compelling. Absent evidence that the JWTC 195 mph estimate is supposed to be of the base level of the winds, the PAGASA and JWTC estimates in fact agree, once we allow for the difference in gust interval. Further, that appears to be the opinion of Jeff Masters on this, and he is definitely expert and reliable (while I am merely strive for the later).
You may want to speculate about a fundamental disagreement between PAGASA and JWTC, but in the absence of specific information, that is all you are doing. Inexpert sepulation in the face of the better informed opinions of experst such as Jeff Masters.
-
Bert from Eltham at 09:30 AM on 18 November 2013Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
adelady is quite correct. We all make the mistake of obsessing about the peripherals. This is where the deniers aim their missives.
As a simple first approximation our planet Earth is a simple sphere of solid rock with a layer of liquid water and then air.
If there is any imbalance of incoming radiation from the Sun compared to the blackbody radiation out to space of the whole Earth system, the air will heat up first. This is our early warning that something is wrong.
We know long term that more than 90% of the radiation heat imbalance ends up in the water. This is due to all sorts of complex mixings that is very difficult to model.
To then say that an 'hiatus' of air temperature increase indicates anything is absurd. It is even more absurd when you consider these air temperature measurements do not cover the full surface system.
This paper by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way has shown how to measure the surface or 'air' temperature far better by filling in the important polar regions not well covered by surface measurements. This has shown there is no 'hiatus' in surface temperature rise.
The total ocean heat content increase is the final arbiter. By the time it is measured accurately and fully, it will be too late. Bert
-
Paul Pukite at 09:10 AM on 18 November 2013The Other Bias
Kevin, My correction is that the GISS temperature anomaly is 0.1C too warm for the years 1941 up until the end of 1945. A more complete description here:
http://ContextEarth.com/2013/11/16/csalt-and-sst-corrections
-
grindupBaker at 08:17 AM on 18 November 2013Deconstructing former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'gut feeling' on climate change
Vincentrj #28 you are unclear re the division of your opinions/inferences between the 3 basic sub-topics (1) heat is entering the oceans due to radiative imbalance due to humans burning carbon fuels (2) the heat rate coupled with its estimated duration (based on its cause) will make it within a few decades become unprecedented during the last several thousand years and same for the surface temperature rise that will be required to stop it (3) the effects on flora & fauna will be highly negative even within this century and more so for centuries and millenia thereafter, in particular the human species which has softened much and expects much more since the days when a mammoth tusk through the groin was met with "well Og's had it, press on". Do you strongly disgaree with the basic science of (1) based on the (suspicious?) lack of contradictory expert opinion, strongly disgaree with the science & projective simulation modelling of (2) based on the mysterious (to you) mechanics of modelling, the natural scientists' assessment of (3), or all three ?
I can discuss (1) a bit because I've heard several lecture videos on the cryosphere & crunched a few numbers. It all makes sense as near as one might reasonably care.
I can discuss (2) a little bit because I've written simulation modelling software and I understand its benefits when some chaos is involved in the system.
I can't discuss (3) at all, I know nothing about it.
The subject (except (3)) is not so complex to prevent a person with high school science & math (me) grasping the essence of it to the extent that matters. If the "whole" of it you mention includes each detail that fine-tunes conclusions then I expect it will be decades to wring out all the trivia.
Please deconstruct your grab-bag skepticism between the sub-topics so that others might debate and perhaps learn from your thoughts.
Moderator Response:[JH] Unnecessary white space deleted.
-
jzk at 08:09 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
Tom @16
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the JTWC providing "estimates" based on satellite data, not real on the ground measurements?
-
Kevin C at 07:35 AM on 18 November 2013The Other Bias
WHT: That looks very plaisible indeed. HadSST2 corrects up to the start of war discontinuity, but doesn't go deep enough and there are no corrections after that. So the features are exactly what I would expect with the exception of the 1950's feature that you've noted.
I presume you get an absolute magnitude out? If so I wonder if this is publishable as an independent test of the HadSST3 work.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:33 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
jzk @14, the wind speeds I quote are for sustained one minute gusts. They were reported by Jeff Masters, and by the Gaurdian, to whom I have provided links. They were originally reported by the US Navy's Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC). The BBC reports:
"[Haiyan] brought sustained winds of 235km/h (147mph), with gusts of 275 km/h (170 mph), with waves as high as 15m (45ft), bringing up to 400mm (15.75 inches) of rain in places."
Those figures are taken from the Phillipine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), which report ten minute sustained gusts. The difference between the agencies was noted by the Manila Times ten days ago. Jeff Masters believes the gusts speed reported by the JWTC = the sustained wind speed reported by PAGASA after multiplying by a standard factor of 1.14 to account for the difference in period of measurement. Presumably the higher measured "gusts" reported at 235 mph reported by the JWTC are then recorded gusts that were not sustained for a full minute. I have not seen confirmation of that, however.
Finally, if you go to PAGASA, click on "climatology" in the side bar, then on "Climate Statistics" in the window that opens, then on "Tropcial Cyclone Statistics" in the side bar, then on "Important Facts about Tropical Cyclones", and then finally on "The five strongest tropical cyclones that made landfall in the Philippines" you will find a list of the five strongest such cyclones not including Haiyan. This is of interest because only two of the cyclones (Senning and Anding) make a similar list printed by the WSJ. For those two, Senning (Joan) is reported to have a peak gust of 275 kmh (172 mph) on the PAGASA website, but ten minute sustained gusts of 193 mph in the Wall Street Journal. Anding (Irma) is reported to have a peak gust of 260 kph (163 mph) on PAGASA and sustained gusts of 171 mph on the Wall Street Journal. This is difficult to comport with the accuracy of the WSJ report. As it happens, PAGASA also reports that Remming (Durian) had a peak gust of 320 kph (200 mph), but does not make the list. If peak gust as reported by PAGASA is simply the peak recorded speed without any time limit, that would partially explain the discrepancy between the WSJ and PAGASA. It would also give a comparitor to Haiyan's reported "gust" by the JTWC of 235 mph.
-
kampmannpeine at 05:45 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
It might be interesting for didactical reasons to ahhere to the small video in New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/world/growing-clamor-about-inequities-of-climate-crisis.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131117&_r=0
about hurricane formation and the increasing energy within the hurricane due to rise of sea surface temperature. Nice viedeo!
-
John Russell at 05:03 AM on 18 November 2013Deconstructing former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'gut feeling' on climate change
Vincentrj writes that because of the complexity... "the situation is ripe for continual differences of opinion among scientists working in the various disciplines." Seeing the consensus he therefore thinks... "alarm bells should be ringing". Although he then writes, "setting aside conspiracy theories..." , the remainder of his comment is one big conspiracy theory!
He is fundamentaly wrong. As someone who reads extensively on the subject of climate change I often come across a willingness to disagree between published climate scientists which is every bit as common as it is amongst all branches of science. But any differences in opinion are invariably with regard to minor details. This is because—as others have already mentioned—the basics of climate science are very well established. Indeed, even many 'contrarian' scientists whose work is mined for 'nuggets' by those in climate denial are, generally speaking, in agreement over the basics of climate change. Vincentrj's theory lacks supporting evidence.
-
Timothy Chase at 04:06 AM on 18 November 2013The Other Bias
WebHub, my apologies. I misunderstood the nature of your comment.
-
jzk at 04:02 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
Tom Curtis @ 3.
What is the source of that wind speed data? I am reading that the measured sustained winds at landfall were 147mph and gusts of 170mph.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24887337
-
Terranova at 02:57 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
Mods can you correct the links in #12? Thanks.
Moderator Response:[JH] I was able to embed the link to the article, Global sea-level rise is recognised, but flooding from anthropogenic land subsidence is ignored around northern Manila Bay, Philippines, in your point #3.
I am not able to fix the link to the map in your point #2.
-
Terranova at 02:56 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
I am working on a research paper and did not have a lot of time to devote to researching this event. However, I have a couple of statements and questions.
- What are the official storm surge figures? From the the Global Disaster and Alert Coordination (GDAC) website I found this which apparently shows the predicted storm surge at 1.87 m. I understand that these are predictions - I want to know the actual recorded data.
- What does the data show for SLR in that area of the world? It is easy to say that SLR contributed to the damage, but just how much more damage can a few mm of SLR cause?
- Other manmade factors are potentially much more important. From Global sea-level rise is recognised, but flooding from anthropogenic land subsidence is ignored around northern Manila Bay, Philippines by Rodolfo and Siringan (2006): "Land subsidence resulting from excessive extraction of groundwater is particularly acute in East Asian countries. Some Philippine government sectors have begun to recognise that the sea-level rise of one to three millimetres per year due to global warming is a cause of worsening floods around Manila Bay, but are oblivious to, or ignore, the principal reason: excessive groundwater extraction is lowering the land surface by several centimetres to more than a decimetre per year".
Moderator Response:[DB] Embedded pdf image of map as a jpg in Point 1.
- What are the official storm surge figures? From the the Global Disaster and Alert Coordination (GDAC) website I found this which apparently shows the predicted storm surge at 1.87 m. I understand that these are predictions - I want to know the actual recorded data.
-
Paul Pukite at 02:30 AM on 18 November 2013The Other Bias
KC,
I assume the HadSST2 is the time series with the least amount of corrections.
This is what my inverted model residual looks like when compared to your fractional contribution measurement profile. Note that the Korean War was between 1950 and 1953 which might have been a time when not to use trailing buckets.
And then the issue of insulated vs uninsulated buckets....
Moderator Response:[RH] Modified image width to 550px.
-
PhilBMorris at 02:28 AM on 18 November 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #46B
Nothing short of a tsunami washing over our political institutions is going to change our business as usual approach.
-
Kevin C at 01:42 AM on 18 November 2013Help make our coverage bias paper free and open-access
We're currently at £1400, which is almost enough to cover open access if I qualify for RMS discount. I'll contact the journal on Monday.
-
michael sweet at 01:32 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
Chriskoz,
Since Michael Mann was the lead author for this study:
Mann, M.E., Woodruff, J.D., Donnelly, J.P., Zhang, Z., Atlantic hurricanes and climate over the past 1,500 years, Nature, 460, 880-883, 2009.
as well as numerous other studies of ocean atmosphere interactions, I would presume he has "broader background/own expertise".
-
kmalpede at 01:21 AM on 18 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
I am an artist, not a scientist. But, I've read a great deal of climate science as I researched and wrote my new play "Extreme Whether" and I continue to read the science. My question is this: why when an esteemed scientist, Michael Mann, in this case, writes a cogent and moral essay, based upon observable fact, that is also a plea for action, do scientists then begin to parse and shred and take us back to questions about "this particular storm" and whether we are facing increased frequency or, only, increased severity. Dr. Mann's essay, like Dr. Sano's emotional and compelling remarks in Warsaw, are calls for public policy action in the face what is most surely an increasing disaster area called our planet. Can we not act together, even as we continue to pursue our scientific research or our artistic explorations; can we not call for and support public policies to limit climate change?
-
michael sweet at 22:30 PM on 17 November 2013Antarctica is gaining ice
Morgan,
This is a scientific board. You must refer to the scientific literature or no one will bother with your posts. You have linked to several blog posts, including an unlabeled graph from a frisbie golf site (this one: http://www.hyzercreek.com/nasa2005.jpg). At the same time Tom has linked to a number of peer reviewed publications. Please bring your posts up to the standard used here or stop posting.
You will not convince anyone here with a frisbie golf graph with 2005 in the link. No one cares what your interpretation of the data is. Link to peer reviewed papers that support your view.
-
chriskoz at 20:24 PM on 17 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
barry@8,
Thanks for the extra info, your explained query makes sense now.
I don't know if Mann is biased by this single outlier study or if he has some broader background/own expertise to subscribe to it. I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion.
-
barry1487 at 19:37 PM on 17 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
chriskoz,
I clicked on the link and read before I posted.
Hitherto, I had understood that projections had generally been that tropical storms frequency would not change under a warming climate, but that it was likely that storm intensity, particularly severe storms, would increase. This is how it is put in AR4 and most studies I have read. This from an article I read just now;
The best evidence scientists have at the moment suggests tropical cyclones may become more intense under climate change, but are unlikely to increase in number.
But a new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences challenges the status quo, suggesting tropical cyclones will become more intense, and occur more frequently.
I am used to Mann and other serious scientists taking a conservative approach to new work and climate science in general. I did not know if there had been a solid evolution in thinking on tropical storm frequency commensurate with Mann's comment, hence my query.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 18:58 PM on 17 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
I'm not sure where to find the data but what I would be interested in knowing would be whether there has been before a typhoon of this size keeping winds as fast. Normally these storms see a decreased wind speed when reaching the kind of size that Haiyan showed, yet the winds remained very strong, in the Camille range, a much smaller storm. Anyone has light to shed on this?
-
chriskoz at 18:57 PM on 17 November 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
barry@1,
If you cared to click on the link pointed by the statement you question, you'd discovered that it leads to Emanuel 2013, which states in their abstract:
Tropical cyclones downscaled from the climate of the period 1950–2005 are compared with those of the 21st century in simulations that stipulate that the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases increases by over preindustrial values. In contrast to storms that appear explicitly in most global models, the frequency of downscaled tropical cyclones increases during the 21st century in most locations
(my emphasis)
Therefore you would know that Mike Mann's claim comes from Emanuel 2013, and not from AR5 (14.6.3) as you chose to cite. In that context, the original statement is correct and you're wrong criticising it.
You would be right by saying, "according to some other sources, i.e. AR5, the frequency of the storms will not increase". Then the reader would decide which source is more reliable: Kerry Emanuel, the leading world expert in tropical cyclones, or IPCC who took the average literature on the subject and draw more conservative conclusions, as expected per my emphasis.
But the way you phased your comment, you suggest as if Mike Mann was somehow misinterpreting the evidence, which is not the case, therefore you're wrong.
-
Kevin C at 17:32 PM on 17 November 2013The Other Bias
Penchant: The numbers are right. In our paper we also look at the effect of bias on the significance of the trends, which is maximised for 1997/1998. The suggestion that trends starting in 1997/1998 are most misleading is based on this result.
Lay people do seem to have an instinctive grasp of the idea that longer term trends carry more information, and so 'misleadingness' needs to be evaluated against this. Lacking a cognitive model of how people evaluate trend claims the 'impact on significance' metric was the best we could do.
-
Kevin C at 17:27 PM on 17 November 2013The Other Bias
WebHubbleTelescope:
There are two impacts of the HadSST3 corrections compared to earlier versions which only handled the 1942 discontinuity - the sharp correction in 1945, and the more gradual recent bias. In this article I mainly focus on the second.
I also managed to identify the post-war spike by the trivial method of comparing colocated coastal land and SST measurements. The results give a surprisingly good fit to the HadSST3 adjustments, barring a scale factor. The gradual change over the past couple of decades is far harder to check, although I may have picked up a weak echo of the signal in the constrast between sea-lane and non-sea-lane temperatures.
Prev 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 Next
