• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About monsoon

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Naragansett Bay

Recent Profile Visitors

2,046 profile views
  1. You should go to Dan Pfeiffer's 10M page for all things 10M: http://dan.pfeiffer.net/10m/10m.htm They're good solid boats, pretty and sail well. Always been a favorite of mine.
  2. Did it float on its lines?
  3. Gives a pretty good idea of the near total destruction of St. Martin. We were there for almost 3 weeks in January. Passed by the docks where their boat was many times. It is a sheltered area, but I guess in 160 kt winds there really is no shelter. Awful to think of what the inhabitants are going through. No power, no water, no way to cook or store food even if you can get it. Crazy.
  4. Sid has no data on his side so he has to resort to claiming all the climatologists and paleoclimatologists whose data and published works provide overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming are all part of a quasi-religious cult. Therefore they and their published studies may be dismissed. It is a bit of slight of hand to disguise that there is no published science on his side of the argument. He offers instead blog posts, none subject to scrutiny by any qualified scientists before they hit the press. Quote away Sid. You're engaged in an a sad attempt to muddy the water. I can't even tell if you genuinely believe the silly things you say.
  5. The positive feedbacks to increasing CO2 far outweigh the negative feedbacks. Again, the largest feedback is water vapor. I should have made clear that the Charney number, ~3C warming for a doubling of CO2, is not achieved on a timescale of just a few years. The earth system's response lags increasing CO2 by decades to centuries. So we don't expect T vs CO2 to have a 3C/doubling slope in the short run. Also, CO2 warming is not 'capped' at 2C. Climate sensitivity to CO2 decreases as CO2 increases, but it never stops. That is one reason climate scientists often talk in terms of 'doubling' CO2. A doubling from 280 ppmv (preindustrial) to 560 has the same effect as doubling from 560 to 1120.
  6. Why should I take someone like Istvan seriously? Again, he never published a single peer-reviewed paper. Let him put his criticisms into a manuscript and submit it somewhere. The NatGeo cover is a flippin' magazine that they are trying to sell! I neither condone nor condemn it. It isn't science, it is sales. Re gunfire, please don't be stupid. There are crazies on the both far ends of the spectrum.
  7. Istvan really didn't say anything at all. And he's a dolt. Judy Curry's post is completely at odds with many different studies of the scientific consensus on global warming (somewhere between 94% and 99%): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming A bit more on Curry. She has done some highly regarded work, but IMO has gone off the deep end. Realclimate.org has a discussion of her sadly ill-informed congressional testimony: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/
  8. Just a couple of comments. The largest potential negative feedback is cloud albedo and it is NOT easy to incorporate this as a freely varying parameter (i.e. one that responds to other model components) because the atmospheric chemistry of cloud formation is not as well understood as it could be. In addition, clouds have a positive feedback by increasing the greenhouse effect. So clouds are a problem, but there are ways around it to assess overall climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 (e.g. J.T. Fasullo, and K.E. Trenberth, "A Less Cloudy Future: The Role of Subtropical Subsidence in Climate Sensitivity", Science, vol. 338, pp. 792-794, 2012). With respect to predictions, in 1979 Jule Charney (J. Charney, Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment (Natl. Acad. Sci. Press, Washington, D.C., 1979) calculated a climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 of 2-4C (including only 'fast' feedback suhc as water vapor). That value has barey changed in almost 40 years of additional study and we are on target for that T increase. I would also point out that your graph is not the most recent data set. The past 3 years have each been the warmest on record:
  9. The great majority of my funding comes from NSF. Also NOAA, DOE and National Geographic. So your taxes pay for my research. Thank you!! If you understood the first thing about science you would know that nothing can be 'proven' only disproven. Definitive link? About half of the industrial era recent rise in sea level is directly attributable to thermal expansion of seawater. Warmer water is less dense and occupies more space. That's pretty direct. Most of the other half is from glacial melting. Klotzbach is a respected scientist with a good record of peer-reviewed publications. To the point, go back and read one of my earlier posts in which I stated that exact thing - there is not yet an identifiable correlation between global warming and hurricane number or intensity. That is the scientific consensus and Klotzbach's work is in the mainstream in that regard. It is also the scientific consensus that warming is likely to lead to stronger tropical cyclones. That may be right and may be wrong, it is a hypothesis. Even model results are split on the affect of warming on tropical cyclones. Istvan is a dolt without single peer-reviewed pub that I can find.
  10. And Sid, if you want my bona fides... I have a PhD in Geology and a 30 year record of research in paleoclimatology. I've published 120+ refereed journal articles, including in Science, Nature, PNAS, and Nature Geoscience.
  11. I doubt his blockage ever made it to the toilet.
  12. I have not the time nor inclination to debunk all of the garbage Sidmon has posted, but let me at least address the last one on sea level. The quoted rubbish is from a post on Judy Curry's blog. Yep, a blog post, not a peer-reviewed journal article. This is an important point because it means that qualified climate scientists have not had the opportunity to rebut Istvan's many false statements (Rud Istvan is a well known climte denier who has no training at all in climatology). The strong scientific consensus is that the rate of sea level rise has indeed been accelerating. Several recent peer-reviewed publications confirm this general conclusio the Church and White 2005 study. Recent work also identifies global warming as the root cause of recent sea level acceleration. See for example: Church, J. A., N. J. White, 2006: A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602. Douglas, B. C., 1992: Global sea level acceleration. journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, 97, 12699-12706. Houston, J., R. Dean, 2011: Sea-level acceleration based on US tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analysis. Journal of Coastal Research. Merrifield, M. A., S. T. Merrifield, and G. T. Mitchum, 2009: An Anomalous Recent Acceleration of Global Sea Level Rise. Journal of Climate, 22, 5772-5781. Rahmstorf, S. and M. Vermeer, 2011: Discussion of: Houston, J.R. and Dean, R.G., 2011. Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research 27, 784–787. Vermeer, M., S. Rahmstorf, 2009: Global Sea Level Linked to Global Temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 106, 21527-21532. J.A. Church, and N.J. White, "Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century", Surveys in Geophysics, vol. 32, pp. 585-602, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1 S. Rahmstorf, M. Perrette, and M. Vermeer, "Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections", Climate Dynamics, vol. 39, pp. 861-875, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-011-1226-7 C.C. Hay, E. Morrow, R.E. Kopp, and J.X. Mitrovica, "Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise", Nature, vol. 517, pp. 481-484, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14093 I could add more, but you get the idea. The IPCC V report has a very good summary.
  13. 1. The data that demonstrate that the earth is quite rapidly warming do not come from models. They come from measurements of land and ocean temperatures, measurable changes in ecosystems, changes in sea ice cover, ice volume of continental and mountain glaciers and so on. No models were bowed down to in accumulating these data. 2. Earth has not been doing 'weird things'. Climate has been certainly been changing, but for well understood reasons. The driving forces and timing of glacial/interglacial cycles have been investigated for 150 years. And we have clear evidence that CO2 is one of the primary drivers of climate change on multiple timescales. 3. Models are the only way to predict and estimate the direction and magnitude of future climate change, unless you have a time machine handy. No serious scientist, least of all the modelers, treats model results as 'facts'. That is why there are error bars on the outputs of any modeled piece of climate (T, sea level). 4. Far too many well meaning people claim that population is the real problem. Maybe, maybe not. But it cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring the threats of global warming. And in my opinion it is sea level that is the truly scary one.
  14. This ^^^ And I've been to many scientific conferences. Human nature is one of the biggest reasons science works as well as it does. The more controversial a scientific result or the more new ground it breaks, the more likely it is to be examined at microscopic level for some kind of flaw. Why do so many people allow that the scientific process works for physics or astronomy or biology, but not for climate change? Only answer I see is that special interests have worked very hard to apply political labels to AGW proponents (liberal weenies) and skeptics (conservative iconoclasts). With great success it seems.