• 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.  
ajbram

SCIENCE!

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ I haven't seen anyone refer to predictive models as 'fact'.

Neither have I.  These guys make shit up on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize to the OP. It's that Allen fella who blindly accepts things as facts. 

Blindly accepting things only leads you to a world of Batshit crazy, much like the land Random lives in, or the full tilt right wingers.  Neither is a healthy way to live.

And one more time for the nuts that will hate me for not accepting models as facts...  I'm all for going as green as fast as we can economically pull it off  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Monkey said:

green as fast as we can economically pull it off  

Yep, that's the problem right there.

$ first, the air we breath second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also believe the sun will come up tomorrow.  I think that is a fact. But it is only based on past observations and a model that says the Earth is rotating.

Same with climate change. I believe that in the same way.  Past observations and a model. 

If you don't believe it you are just slinging shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Monkey said:

Very respectable answer, and I don't disagree. It's just the muppets that call predictions facts that annoy me. 

Its an ongoing challenge, One of the greatest problems we have as engineers and scientists is that we know that everything we do is a model of some form which we try to improve to match the observations and make predictions :An engineer designing a wing is predicting that under normal operating conditions it will not fail catastrophically.  But when talking to people with a less clear understanding of this they want 'facts', is it a fact that a Boeing 777 wing will not fail on my next flight, well no its not, its a prediction based on a series of well understood models, and some less well understood models with safety factors.

If we tell people that such and such is a theory or model, their reaction is frequently to say ... so we don't know if that's what will happen.....

In the case of climate models, there are some that are pretty out there, there are some which are probably underestimates, but most of the science points to a  fairly clear prediction. It may not be a scientific 'fact', but its pretty close to what a layman would call a scientific 'fact'.

If you can come up with a better way to explain this idea to people with a distrust of science (except where is is in their interest) great, otherwise you may have to live with some level of annoyance :).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, allene222 said:

I also believe the sun will come up tomorrow.  I think that is a fact. But it is only based on past observations and a model that says the Earth is rotating.

Same with climate change. I believe that in the same way.  Past observations and a model. 

If you don't believe it you are just slinging shit.

Cool you read Popper too :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

Cool you read Popper too :).

I don't but I just looked him up and must have read his stuff indirectly. I think the point is, you can say you only know things to be true because you observed them in the past, or you can believe the science and deduce things that are almost certainly going to be true into the future.  Saying the sea will rise due to climate change is almost certainly true. Saying it will rise 2.3 feet in 70 years is in all likelihood not true and being so specific just misses the point.  You could say it will rise 2.3 feet in 50 to 100 years perhaps but that just makes the doubters say there is uncertainty and that the scientists disagree. Probably better is to say that the sea level will rise and we should plan on a 3 foot rise and be ready with that within 50 years to be safe.

On the economics of being green.  The world is going green and will take the economy with it.  Those countries that invest in a green economy will prosper and those who do not will either need to catch up or be left behind.  The solar industry employed 260,000 people last year which is 2 to 3 times the number of coal jobs,  Solar was up 24% last year and I am sure coal was down.  The future belongs to the countries that go green.  That is not a fact, it is an opinion.  Form your own opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, allene222 said:

 The solar industry employed 260,000 people last year which is 2 to 3 times the number of coal jobs,  Solar was up 24% last year and I am sure coal was down.  The future belongs to the countries that go green.  That is not a fact, it is an opinion.  Form your own opinion.

This is the type of disconnected statement that I hate in discussion and in particular in the media (perfect journalistic construct there)  BA in Journalism = not smart enough for English. 

By making tha above statements the poster has allowed the reader to see to unsupported facts that are in non-related then encourages the reader to draw the conclusion that they are in some way related and emphasizes that they are facts.  It is an exquisite way to get someone to draw an erroneous conclusion with out actually lying, and it is their own conclusion which makes them even more certain of the "fact".  It's pure salesmanship. 

The "solar industry jobs" number above includes people doing installations of home panels.  Not taking away from the number, but it's not exactly high tech.

Coal in 2014 only employed about 75K people, but there are some differences.  One is that the coal # doesn't include support businesses, but it's unlikely that the difference would make up the numbers; however, those few people [in 2014] were responsible for the bulk of the electricity produced in the US.  Now if you add in the jobs from the coal plants you might get to numbers that are closer to even.  Then there is the fact that there are entire communities that depend entirely on coal, and there isn't much else moving in so that the 25% or so loss in jobs happening in coal is down right destructive to those communities, and they really aren't positioned to expand into [insert high tech here].

Second, and most grievous is that the poster would allow you to draw the conclusion that solar is displacing coal...  That is not what is happening, burning natural gas (cheap because of increased production due to fracking) in cheap to construct plants is what has been killing coal.

Natural Gas production is at an all time high (and projected to climb)

California gets nearly 50% of it's in state power from gas. 

So, the statements in the post above are statements of fact, but any correlation between the two is only in the mind of the reader.  This is the kind of stuff that I find particularly annoying from both sides of this discussion.  Weather is not climate folks.   This is the only fishbowl we have, and nobody is going to come change our water, but watching you all worship on the alter of "belief" is down right frighting to this atheist. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Monkey said:

 

Where you guys lose me is to constantly treat models as facts. They aren't. Period. None of this is "settled science."  This big marble we live on is constantly changing, and what effect we've had or will continue to have is far from definitively provable for a long time to come, simply because our data set is minuscule compared to how long the planet's been around. It's been doing weird things for an awfully long time.

 

The fact that you even uttered the term "settled science" shows your ignorance of the scientific method. Unfortunately the shills and deniers will use this statement as ammunition against theories that are well substantiated by evidence, but science is not the business of proving anything right beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's what lawyers and snake oil salesmen are for. Science works by testing and attempting to refute hypotheses. It's an ongoing practice of eliminating explanations that don't stand up to testing, or can't account for the observational data we have. So there's no such thing as settled science, and any real scientist can attest to this. In fact, for a model to be a "scientific theory," there must exist (hypothetically) a set of observations that, if encountered, would refute the theory. Of all the possible hypothetical scenarios that, if encountered, would refute our theories with respect to CO2 mediated climate change, we have not yet come across any.

Equally ignorant and frankly quite offensive was the insinuation made earlier on this thread that "scientists use statistics to lie." On the contrary, we use statistics in order to express the probability that any given outcome could occur at random within your sample population. If that probability is small, generally <0.05, consensus is that the phenomenon in question did not arise by chance. Of course this means further testing needs to be done, but that statistical probability forms the basis for p-values that we report. We call this expressing our level of uncertainty. If your doctor or mechanic expressed his level of uncertainty as honestly and transparently as scientists are required to, you would be horrified. With each test that arrives at the same conclusion, the probability that the outcome can arise randomly gets exponentially smaller. For instance, if I hypothesize that a die is loaded and will land on 1, the chance of me getting that outcome randomly is 1/6 (0.167). If I repeat it and get another 1, the probability that that outcome can happen by chance is 1/6 X 1/6 (0.0278), the chance of rolling three 1s in a row is 0.00046, and so on. The chances of getting multiple 1s in a row by any means other than a loaded die becomes infinitesimally small. After thousands of experiments and model runs, the chance that the climate patterns we see could arise by anything other than CO2 forcing are now infinitesimally small.

If you don't understand the philosophy and method of real science, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 10:22 AM, ajbram said:

The bottom line is this. If you are looking for a culprit to blame for the recent outbreak of very destructive storms, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us they can only be supported in a more energetic (i.e. warmer) system. If you are looking for predictions of what is to come, the 1st law of thermodynamics tells us that stronger storms are a highly probably, if not inevitable consequence of warmer ocean temperatures.

If you don't understand the philosophy and method of real science, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute here. 

"real science"??? Spare me pal.

Looking back across the three pages of this thread, you have offered none on the subject that I can see.

Do you have any published works that we can review?

I will trust some actual "Real" scientists on the matter (had to make some format changes tot he cite below. the underlined italics are mine.):

Extremely Intense Hurricanes: Revisiting Webster et al. (2005) after 10 Years

Philip J. KlotzbachDepartment of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Christopher W. LandseaNOAA/NWS/National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida
 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0188.1

 

4. Conclusions

It was suggested by Klotzbach (2006) and Landsea et al. (2006) that technological improvements during the 1970s and 1980s were primarily responsible forthe dramatic increases in the frequency and percent-age occurrences of category 4–5 hurricanes world-wide reported in Webster et al. (2005). With10 additional hurricane seasons now available to analyze, the long-term (1970–2014) trends showed reduced trends in category 4–5 frequency and percentage globally. When restricted to the most recent 25 years(1990–2014) with the most reliable and homogeneous records, the following conclusions are reached from this analysis:

1)Small, insignificant decreasing trends are present in category 4–5 hurricane frequency in the Northern Hemisphere and globally, while there is no virtually no trend in Southern Hemisphere frequency.

2)Small, insignificant upward trends are present in category 4–5 hurricane percentage in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere, and globally.

3)Large, significant downward trends are present in accumulated cyclone energy in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere, and globally.

These results provide more evidence that the changes reported by Webster et al. (2005) that occurred in number and percentages of category 4–5 hurricanes globally during the 1970s and 1980s were likely primarily due to improved observational capabilities. These results are more inline with expectations from climate models (Knutson et al. 2010, 2013; Camargo 2013; Christensen et al. 2013; Bender et al. 2010), which suggest that no appreciable change in category 4–5 hurricane numbers or percentages would be detectable at this time due to anthropogenic climate change.

Because of the additional evidence provided here about the artificial impacts of technology on the best-track databases, it is recommended that global studies addressing trends in extreme hurricanes (as well as combined metrics like ACE) begin around 1990. Before this time, the records are currently incomplete and lead to a distorted view of the actual activity that occurred before that time. We would also encourage the further development and extension backward in time of satellite-only homogeneous databases (Kossin et al. 2013) suitable for trend analysis.

Trends in category 4–5 hurricane numbers and percentages and ACE should be revisited whenever historical TC databases are reanalyzed (Hagen et al. 2012) and when another decade or so of additional seasons are recorded. However, given the large natural variability driven by ENSO and other natural phenomena, it is likely to be challenging to confidently ascribe an anthropogenic signal to changes in the most intense tropical cyclones for the next several decades.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 0:46 PM, monsoon said:

Pretty good summary.  Also worth noting that the sea surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content of the tropical Atlantic have increased over the past 150 years and particularly in the past 50 years (see e.g. Servain et al., 2014, Recent climatic trends in the tropical Atlantic, Climate Dynamics, v. 14, p. 3071-3089). Ocean and atmospheric circulation move excess heat from the tropics to higher latitudes.  More heat in the tropical ocean results in a more energetic atmosphere. 

At the same time, it is not possible to attribute an individual tropical cyclone or even a year of increased cyclone activity to a warming ocean.  What does look like a global warming signature is the long term trend in cyclone numbers.Obs_vs_zetac_hurr.png

However...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, sidmon said:

"real science"??? Spare me pal.

Philip J. KlotzbachDepartment of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Christopher W. LandseaNOAA/NWS/National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida
 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0188.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's fucking hilarious.  You cite well know denialists with reports 12 years old?.  You cite someone from NOAA who works in their Technical Support?

Got anything credible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 0:27 PM, ajbram said:

Short version (taken directly from that link):

"We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged."

"Likely" means it is still unproven conjecture.

As for the "skill score" of climate models to date, their record is dismal:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074016/full

Pronounced differences between observed and CMIP5-simulated multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century

Sergei Kravtsov

Abstract

Identification and dynamical attribution of multidecadal climate undulations to either variations in external forcings or to internal sources is one of the most important topics of modern climate science, especially in conjunction with the issue of human-induced global warming. Here we utilize ensembles of twentieth century climate simulations to isolate the forced signal and residual internal variability in a network of observed and modeled climate indices. The observed internal variability so estimated exhibits a pronounced multidecadal mode with a distinctive spatiotemporal signature, which is altogether absent in model simulations. This single mode explains a major fraction of model-data differences over the entire climate index network considered; it may reflect either biases in the models' forced response or models' lack of requisite internal dynamics, or a combination of both.

Plain Language Summary

Global and regional warming trends over the course of the twentieth century have been nonuniform, with decadal and longer periods of faster or slower warming, or even cooling. Here we show that state-of-the-art global models used to predict climate fail to adequately reproduce such multidecadal climate variations. In particular, the models underestimate the magnitude of the observed variability and misrepresent its spatial pattern. Therefore, our ability to interpret the observed climate change using these models is limited.

christy_dec8.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, random said:

That's fucking hilarious.  You cite well know denialists with reports 12 years old?.  You cite someone from NOAA who works in their Technical Support?

Got anything credible?

What we see here is, YOU CAN"T READ! (Not that it matters...)

The paper was published in 2015.

Guess you don't know who Klotzbach and Landsea are. 

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/staff/Landsea_bio_2017.pdf

http://tropical.colostate.edu/personnel/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sidmon said:

christy_dec8.jpg

 

Well fuck me dead!  A graph from fucking Christy, one of the best known climate denialist on the dying planet.

You have just outed yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, random said:

Well fuck me dead!  A graph from fucking Christy, one of the best known climate denialist on the dying planet.

You have just outed yourself. 

I go where the credible science leads me.

Its kinda fun watching you make a fool of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sidmon said:

What we see here is, YOU CAN"T READ! (Not that it matters...)

The paper was published in 2015.

Guess you don't know who Klotzbach and Landsea are. 

 

Sidmon, your credibility on these boards is now effectively fucked.  I know who those people are, and I know who JR Christy is.

Keep posting that shit please, everyone here laughs at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, random said:

Sidmon, your credibility on these boards is now effectively fucked.  I know who those people are, and I know who JR Christy is.

Keep posting that shit please, everyone here laughs at it.

Do you know how coveted a position the "SOO" at a NOAA National Center is?

 

Phil Klotzbach is a Research Scientist in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.  He received his Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from CSU in 2007.  Klotzbach has been employed in the Department of Atmospheric Science for the past fifteen years where he has been co-author on the Atlantic basin hurricane forecasts with Dr. William Gray.   He became first author on the seasonal hurricane forecasts in 2006.  Klotzbach developed the two-week forecasts currently being issued during the peak months of the hurricane season between August-October.  He developed the Landfalling Hurricane Probability Webpage (available online at http://www.e-transit.org/hurricane) in partnership with the GeoGraphics Laboratory at Bridgewater State University.  This webpage provides hurricane landfall probabilities for the entire United States coastline from Brownsville, Texas to Eastport, Maine as well as the Caribbean.  He has published over two dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of Climate, Weather and Forecasting, and Geophysical Research Letters.

 

Christopher Landsea, Ph.D.

Science and Operations Officer National Hurricane Center

Christopher W. Landsea is the Science and Operations Officer at

NOAA’s National Hurricane Center (NHC) in Miami. In addition to forecasting and training duties, he is responsible for administration and evaluation of Joint Hurricane Testbed projects which may be implemented operationally to assist in the monitoring and forecasting of hurricanes. Dr. Landsea received his Bachelor's Degree in

Atmospheric Science from the University of California Los Angeles (1987) and his Master's Degree and Doctorate in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University (1991, 1994). His graduate work was undertaken with Dr. Bill Gray, one of the world's leading experts on hurricanes and tropical meteorology. Dr. Landsea's main expertise is in seasonal forecasting of hurricanes, in hurricane climate variability and change, and in testing applied research projects for possible use in weather forecasting. He currently is leading up a re-analysis of the Atlantic hurricane database. 1992's Hurricane Andrew was officially upgraded to a Category 5 hurricane at landfall in southeastern Florida as part of this project.

While a Research Meteorologist at the Hurricane Research Division (HRD) from 1995 through 2005, Landsea participated in the HRD Hurricane Field Program by flying in the NOAA Orion P-3 aircraft into and in the NOAA Gulfstream IV jet around 15 Atlantic hurricanes (including Gilbert, Opal, Georges, Charley, Jeanne, Ivan, and Katrina) for research and forecasting purposes. He has published more than 60 peer reviewed articles in the journals Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Climatic Change, EOS, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Journal of Insurance Regulation, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Monthly Weather Review, Natural Hazards Review, Nature, Nature Geoscience, Science, Tellus, Weather, Weather and Forecasting, and several book chapters.

Dr. Landsea is a member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the National Weather Association and the American Geophysical Union. He served as the Chair of the AMS Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones for the years 2000-2002.

Dr. Landsea was the recipient of the AMS's Max A Eaton Prize for the Best Student Paper given at the 19th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology in May 1991 and was co-recipient of the AMS's Banner I. Miller Award given for the best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting at the May 1993 meeting of the 20th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology.

In 2000, Dr. Landsea was a co-recipient of a U.S. Department of Commerce Bronze Medal "for issuing the accurate and first official physically - based Atlantic seasonal hurricane outlooks for the 1998/1999 seasons, based upon new research. In 2002, Dr. Landsea was given the AMS' Editor’s Award for reviews for the journal Weather and Forecasting.

In 2009, he was the co- recipient of the 2009 National Hurricane Conference's Outstanding Achievement Award for Meteorology for development of the Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook product at the National Hurricane Center.

In 2011, he was co-recipient of a Department of Commerce Gold Medal “for excellence in research and data stewardship leading to a more confident assessment of the influence of human-induced climate change on hurricanes”. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society as its subjectmatter  editor in tropical meteorology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sidmon said:

Do you know how coveted a position the "SOO" at a NOAA National Center is?

 

 

 

You are posting shit from Christy.  Nuf sed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, random said:

Yep and he is sucking on the teat of the climate denial machine.

 

In 2011, [Landsea] was co-recipient of a Department of Commerce Gold Medal “for excellence in research and data stewardship leading to a more confident assessment of the influence of human-induced climate change on hurricanes”. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society as its subjectmatter  editor in tropical meteorology.

Work through it slowly and see if you can comprehend Random.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, random said:

 

You are posting shit from Christy.  Nuf sed.

He is a leader in satellite meteorology. NOBODY takes that away from him. Except for close minded fascists who don't like his deviation from the Canons of AGW.

This is some fucked up shit right here, whether you agree with him or not. But I am sure you applaud such actions, don't you random...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/shots-fired-into-the-christyspencer-building-at-uah/

A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at UAH over the weekend.

All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building).

Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence. When some people cannot argue facts, they resort to violence to get their way. It doesn’t matter that we don’t “deny global warming”; the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvement in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/users/john.christy/about.html

Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987). Prior to this career path he had graduated from the California State University in Fresno (B.A. Mathematics, 1973, Distinguished Alumnus 2007) and taught Physics and Chemistry as a missionary teacher in Nyeri, Kenya for two years. After earning a Master of Divinity degree from Golden Gate Baptist Seminary (1978) he served four years as a bivocational mission-pastor in Vermillion, South Dakota where he also taught college math. He was featured in the February 2001 issue of Discover magazine and in a National Public Radio profile in 2004 in which his diverse background was highlighted.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yep and he is sucking on the teat of the climate denial machine.

How come you deleted this statement about Chris Landsea random?
Realize how wrong you were?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And oh yeah, here is what Phil Klotzbach had to say about the AGW hysteria wafting about Irma...

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/07/549250104/powerful-storms-raise-questions-about-the-science-of-hurricanes

 

SIEGEL: Does climate change have anything to do either with the intensity of the storms or the frequency of the storms as we're experiencing them this season?

KLOTZBACH: You know, I mean, the Atlantic, actually we've had - the last two years have generally been below normal for hurricane activity. And actually, Septembers of 2013, '14, '15 and '16 were all very, very quiet. Obviously, this is a far cry from that. It's been an incredibly active last few weeks. Historically, September is the most active month of the season. When it comes to climate change's impacts on the storm - so most the theoretical models really don't see any change in the frequency, perhaps even going down a little bit. They say maybe the storms will get slightly more intense. But I typically look at the observations. I don't do much theoretical modeling. And in the observations, it's just really too hard to say.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me about the prostitute Christy graph you posted in #214.  Did that come from the papers you cited or did you just throw that in from the shill kit?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you acting against the interests of the USA sidmon?  Are you a terrorist spreading misinformation?      

Tell me about your handlers.

Trump’s Defense Secretary Cites Climate Change as National Security Challenge

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, random said:

Tell me about the prostitute Christy graph you posted in #214.  Did that come from the papers you cited or did you just throw that in from the shill kit?

 

What about it? He has maintained the satellite dataset which has consistently show the climate modeling is doing quite poorly.

Sucks when the truth is what it is...

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-115-SY-WState-JChristy-20170329.pdf

In my last appearance before this committee (2 Feb 2016) I addressed the active campaign of negative assertions made against the various sources of data we use to monitor the temperature of bulk atmosphere. I demonstrated that main assertions were incorrect and that we can have confidence in the observations and one reason was that we now have several independent sources from around the world providing data with which to inter-compare .

In this testimony I shall focus on the temperature of the bulk atmospheric layer from the surface to about 50,000 ft. – a layer which is often called by its microwave profile name TMT (Temperature of Mid-Troposphere). This layer is particularly important because it captures the atmospheric region that is anticipated to warm rapidly and unambiguously if greenhouse theory is well understood. As such, if the impact of extra it should be detected here.

Since you have objectively proven that you have no interest in seeing beyond your faith, doubt you will read the rest in the link, but it explains the graph above in great detail.

 

Figu

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, random said:

Are you acting against the interests of the USA sidmon?  Are you a terrorist spreading misinformation?      

Tell me about your handlers.

Trump’s Defense Secretary Cites Climate Change as National Security Challenge

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

Yeah. So. the climate has been changing since its inception. There is nothing new under the sun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the graph did not come from one of the papers you cited?  Naughty.  Caught out you were.

I'm suspecting that you are a terrorist.  You are spreading misinformation that is against the interests of the USA.

I'm sure the Pentagon would be interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, random said:

Who's Still Fighting Climate Change? The U.S. Military

Despite political gridlock over global warming, the Pentagon is pushing ahead with plans to protect its assets from sea-level rise and other impacts. Here's how.

Still no proof of a causal link between CO2 and sea level rise ...Which has been consistently rising since the last ice age.

Gonna make your head explode (which is no different than hearing an empty balloon pop) but here is a synopsis for those who may care to actually delve into the subject:

https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

Global sea level has been rising for the past several thousand years, owing to the retreat of glaciers from the last ice age. The key issue is whether the rate of sea level rise is accelerating owing to anthropogenic global warming. It is seen from the figure above that the rate of sea level rise during 1930-1950 was comparable to, if not larger than, the value in recent years. The challenges to determining global sea level rise, particularly over the past 100 or 1000 years, are substantial.

---

Sea level has overall been rising for thousands of years; however, as the Kopp et al. paper points out, there have been century scale periods of lowering sea level in the recent millennia.  It is not clear from my cursory reading as to whether meaningful decadal and multi-decadal variations in sea level can be discerned from their data.

The key issue is whether the sea level rise during the past 50 years reflect an acceleration in sea level rise.  The IPCC figure 3.14 suggests that there is no acceleration, given the large rates of sea level rise in the first half of the 20th century.  Until we have an understanding of variations in decadal and multi-decadal sea level rise, we can’t make a convincing argument as to acceleration.

With regards to coastal planning, I absolutely agree with the paper linked to above.  Locations where sea level rise is a problem invariably have rates of sea level rise that are much greater than even the altimeter values of 3.2 mm/yr are caused by local geologic processes, land use, and or coastal/river engineering.  Global values of sea level rise have essentially no use in coastal planning; rather they seem mainly relevant in terms of motivating ‘action’ on carbon mitigation policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO you are spreading misinformation to undermine the Pentagon?

Climate Change Is the ‘Mother of All Risks' to National Security

Serving at Pentagon, I worked with leaders who studied threats ranging from insurgent groups to rogue states. One of the U.S. military’s less-noticed findings, however, is that there is clear consensus that climate change poses an immediate risk to national security.

Military leaders recognize that they must lead by example and address the threat of climate change, and they are actively pushing goals to dramatically scale up renewable energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

So the graph did not come from one of the papers you cited?  Naughty.  Caught out you were.

 

Well. not really, an independent illustration of the paper I am sure you didn't read.

And for edification...here is the link to Christy's work again...

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-115-SY-WState-JChristy-20170329.pdf

 

 

 

Capture.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sidmon said:

Still no proof of a causal link between CO2 and sea level rise ...Which has been consistently rising since the last ice age.

Gonna make your head explode (which is no different than hearing an empty balloon pop) but here is a synopsis for those who may care to actually delve into the subject:

https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

 

Fuck, you might be right.  Quick you better give these guys a call and tell them all about it.

BTW, a guy I sail with said there was a rumor that Juddith Curry was a sell-out bitch.  Now I don't know if that's true but she is a very well known Climat Change Denier.  Says anything for a buck.

2016-13_p15.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I think that you are acting against the interests of the USA should I contact someone?  Would that be the right thing to do?

Please contact your local FBI office or submit a tip electronically if you have information about:

  • Possible acts of terrorism, including violence, funding, or recruitment;
  • Persons sympathetic to terrorists or terrorist organizations;
  • Suspicious activities that you believe threaten national security, especially suspicious activities that involve foreign powers or foreign organizations;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

BTW, a guy I sail with said there was a rumor that Juddith Curry was a sell-out bitch.  Now I don't know if that's true but she is a very well known Climat Change Denier.  Says anything for a buck.

That statement is telling about your respect for the "Scientific Method".

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

Where many scientists say that humans are the primary cause of warming, Curry believes natural forces play a larger role. She also believes that uncertainty around climate models means we don't have to act so quickly and that current plans would do little to mitigate warming. She also questions the assertion made by a majority of climate scientists who believe humans have significantly contributed to climate change. In the Obama years, she has become a contrarian of sorts, often criticizing those who rely on climate models to prove that humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, random said:

Fuck, you might be right.  Quick you better give these guys a call and tell them all about it.

BTW, a guy I sail with said there was a rumor that Juddith Curry was a sell-out bitch.  Now I don't know if that's true but she is a very well known Climat Change Denier.  Says anything for a buck.

2016-13_p15.png

Care to cite the link to the documentation of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:

If I think that you are acting against the interests of the USA should I contact someone?  Would that be the right thing to do?

Please contact your local FBI office or submit a tip electronically if you have information about:

  • Possible acts of terrorism, including violence, funding, or recruitment;
  • Persons sympathetic to terrorists or terrorist organizations;
  • Suspicious activities that you believe threaten national security, especially suspicious activities that involve foreign powers or foreign organizations;

I have been vetted by the FBI due to my job, so they know who I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sidmon said:

I have been vetted by the FBI due to my job, so they know who I am.

Cool, but do they know that you are undermining the Secretary of Defence and the Pentagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one disputes sea level rise...

Glad I own a boat!

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024;jsessionid=7655EC8C1BAD0703E9B07F995489DE5C.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Abstract

Sea level rates up to three times the global mean rate are being observed in the western tropical Pacific since 1993 by satellite altimetry. From recently published studies, it is not yet clear whether the sea level spatial trend patterns of the Pacific Ocean observed by satellite altimetry are mostly due to internal climate variability or if some anthropogenic fingerprint is already detectable. A number of recent studies have shown that the removal of the signal corresponding to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)/Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) from the observed altimetry sea level data over 1993–2010/2012 results in some significant residual trend pattern in the western tropical Pacific. It has thus been suggested that the PDO/IPO-related internal climate variability alone cannot account for all of the observed trend patterns in the western tropical Pacific and that the residual signal could be the fingerprint of the anthropogenic forcing. In this study, we investigate if there is any other internal climate variability signal still present in the residual trend pattern after the removal of IPO contribution from the altimetry-based sea level over 1993–2013. We show that subtraction of the IPO contribution to sea level trends through the method of linear regression does not totally remove the internal variability, leaving significant signal related to the non-linear response of sea level to El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In addition, by making use of 21 CMIP5 coupled climate models, we study the contribution of external forcing to the Pacific Ocean regional sea level variability over 1993–2013, and show that according to climate models, externally forced and thereby the anthropogenic sea level fingerprint on regional sea level trends in the tropical Pacific is still too small to be observable by satellite altimetry.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate, your freaking me out, acts against the Security of the USA are not things I want to be associated with.

Stay safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More here... Actual science discussion...

https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/20/sea-level-rise-acceleration-and-the-closure-problem/

by Rud Istvan

There is no doubt that interglacials change sea level (SL). And that sea level rise (SLR) can be dramatic on millennial interglacial time scales.That’s what happens when the vast Laurentide ice sheet (among others) melts. But sea level has changed relatively little in the past 7 millennia. We know from archeology that it rose somewhat in the Medieval Warm Period, dropped some during the Little Ice Age, and has been rising slowly since based on tide gauge records. This mostly natural variation is, from 1950-2000, about +1.8mm/year (reference follows below). That rate is no cause for alarm. We coped with it for the past century, and can cope with it for the next.

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) question is whether SLR will accelerate into catastrophic AGW (CAGW) requiring urgent mitigation. Warmunists argue yes, with many alarming images such as National Geographic’s photo-shopped Statue of Liberty half submerged (which would require that all of Greenland and Antarctica melts before the next glaciation sets in). We do know that in the last interglacial (the Eemian) the sea level high stand was about 6.6 meters above present sea level, so the ice sheets did melt more with global temperature about 2C higher (and perhaps 8C higher in Greenland). This took about 3000 years to achieve, at a rate of 660cm/30 centuries, or 22 cm/century, or roughly 2.2mm/year. That rate is no different than the best estimate of present ‘true’ SLR found in what follows. A previous guest post Tipping Points argued there were no realistic concerns about sudden abrupt acceleration of SLR. This post discusses the same issue from a historical SLR perspective.

 

slide12.png

slide21.png

This seemingly authoritative graphic has been constructed out of two deceptions.

(1) Uses tide gauge records uncorrected for land motion. (C&W 2005 is actually doubly misrepresented: C &W data before 1950 is W,C,&G GRL 2006 [C&W 2005 is only 1950-2000], and there is no 1925-1992 reference period in the 2006 paper). C&W 2005 SLR 1950-2000 was 1.8 mm/year rather than 1.9 and was not accelerating. C&W used approximately 350 long record tide gauges for their ‘accelerating’ reconstruction. There are only 146 PSMSL tide gauges  within 1000 meters of a differential GPS to correct for vertical land motion of whatever cause, and only about 70 of those are long record tide guages. So vertical land motion is NOT excluded in either C&W paper.

(2) Splice on satellite measurements since 1993 that fail the closure test below: observed SLR should roughly equal the sum of observed sea level contributions from thermosteric rise (OHC causes the estimated water column to expand as it warms) plus ocean mass increase (water volume from ice sheet losses).

Side comment: in the SLR literature, there are also two lesser possible SLR contributors: mountain glaciers, and groundwater extraction. Both are sufficiently uncertain and small that they are ignored in this post. There is little doubt that glaciers have been receding most places since 1900, for example in the Himalayas. But IPCC AR4 issued a retraction concerning its alarming conclusion that they would disappear by 2030. Most terrestrial groundwater is annually replenished; else water tables would fall. That which is not replenished (e.g. the Ogallala Aquifer) is de minimus in the context of global SLR. (Ice density at 0C is 0.9187, water is 0.9998, so if 365 Gt ice (roughly 365 cubic km) equals 1mm of SLR [reference below] then 1mm of SLR requires adding about 335 cubic kilometers of water. Ogallala withdrawals are about 26-30 cubic km/year.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidemon

thanks for adding some data to the discussion. It helps understanding of the issues and is a refreshing change from the random noise, personnal attacks, and  "you have to believe me I am a sceintist" arguments.

to summarize

1. Climate change is occurring

2. We cannot tell if Irma was caused by climate change

3. Humans are contributing to climate change

4. Computer predictive models of the earths atmospheric system do not necessarily follow direct observations

5. Humans are not responsible for all of climate change.

6. The mechanism of climate change is extreemly complex and there are many variables involved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sidmon said:

More here... Actual science discussion...

https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/20/sea-level-rise-acceleration-and-the-closure-problem/

by Rud Istvan

[lots of nonsense]

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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, monsoon said:

I have not the time nor inclination to debunk all of the garbage Sidmon has posted,

Ditto.

6 hours ago, sidmon said:

Do you have any published works that we can review?

I will trust some actual "Real" scientists on the matter (had to make some format changes tot he cite below. the underlined italics are mine.):

I have a PhD in Environmental Science (2011). I am a prof of Aquatic Ecology at a major university. I have published over 30 papers in the last ~10 years, and 4 of them published in the last 18 months were about the responses of aquatic communities to climate change. My current research is supported by over $3 million in external grants. I sit on the editorial boards of 3 journals and review for an additional 10+.

I am secure enough in my status as a real scientist that I don't need to out myself for climate deniers and corporate shills to fill my inbox with garbage. My science gains enough traction without me having to advertise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine you real scientists having a valid debate among yourselves at a conference and sidmon getting in on it. 

No wait, don't imagine that, it's too painful

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ScienceNature, PNAS, and Nature Geoscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Against my better nature I'm going to post.

First, an appeal to authority is not a valid scientific argument. Likewise, guilt by association is not a scientific argument. Some of the greatest scientists in history (i.e., Einstein) were, by their own admission, wrong at different points in their career. Ad hominems against deniers make you look like snarky bullies. I know this is sailing ANARCHY and it's a wild west of snarky (albeit clever) put downs, but clever put downs are not scientific arguments. Besides, none of you are as good at snarky put downs as Lesbian Robot and he's long gone.

In the interest of civil scientific debate. I'd like to state a couple of agreed to principals that then I'd like to pose a couple of questions:

Agreements (I think):

1 - The earth is warming (based upon observations), which is causing the sea to rise (observations w/correlation drawn by well understood physics-based thermodynamic models)

2 - Man has put a great deal of CO2 in the atmosphere (based upon observations), but not more than the planet has ever seen, but much more than we've seen in the Holocene.

3 - CO2 traps IR radiation, warming the earth (Greenhouse effect, which is established theory supported by easily reproducible experiments)

4 - Increased warming due to CO2 trapping of IR radiation will have feedback effects, some positive (H2O trapping of additional IR radiation) and some negative (H2O blocking of downward solar flux and increased rate of CO2 sequestration due to accelerated growth of flora)

Now, a couple of questions:

a) If the atmosphere were saturated by CO2 (i.e., 100% of of the IR energy were reflected back down to earth) what are the first order thermal effects of CO2 saturation (i.e., how much would the CO2, by itself, heat the earth with no feedbacks). I don't have the exact figure here but I seem to remember from the IPCC report that it is less than 2 degrees C.

b - Over time how well have the IPCC predictions been supported by observations? For example, IPCC #3 came out in 2001, 23 years after NOAA/NASA put satellites up that measured global climate. Have the satellite data since 2001 supported the 4-6 degree C/century warming predicted by IPCC #3? The best data we have from (see NOAA graph below) shows a diminishing trend. The most favorable view  supported by the data (if you advocate global warming) is to cherry pick 1978 to current day which shows a 1.4 degree/century linear trend, hardly the 4-6 degree C/century catastrophe IPCC warned us about and definitely not the exponential growth we were warned about. Admittedly recent IPCC reports have softened the dire predictions found in IPCC reports 1..3 and pushed the looming disaster farther into the future.

My hypothesis - In trying to explain the apparant contradictions in (a) and (b) I hypothesize that we underestimated the feedbacks to anthropogenic warming. The amount of time and energy scientists have spent investigating positive feedbacks seems to far outweigh the time and energy spent investigating negative (damping) feedbacks. The IPCC acknowledges this and has publically recognized that several important damping feedbacks are not well understood (Albedo effect in particular, but increased sequestration as well). I hypothesize that the planetary impact of global warming will be much closer to the first order CO2 effects than the feedback-heavy effects predicted by IPCC. The last 20 years of satellite data appears to agree with my hypothesis by showing a diminishing warming trend and only 1.0 to 1.4 degrees C/century of warming.

Clearly I'm a shill for Exxon by using NOAA data. I admit I'm a scientist, author of 50+ papers, conference chair, journal editor, yada, yada, yada; however, I'm in a different field and do not claim to be an expert in climate science. Even if I were a climate scientist that fact should have no bearing on the merit of my argument or lack thereof.

So, please help me understand. What is the flaw in my argument? Why is my hypothesis wrong?  

201401-201412.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-09-09 at 4:00 PM, Keith said:

OK, enough,

This thread needs to be moved to P.A. where it belongs with the many, many, other similar threads with the same, never ending, ad nauseam of inconclusive argument.

your next phase is unlimited graphs....  in 3-2-1...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, monsoon said:

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 ScienceNature, PNAS, and Nature Geoscience.

Bully for you!

What is the source of your funding?

3 hours ago, monsoon said:

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:

 

 

Yet no definitive proof. Instead of refuting the specific points brought up in Istvan's paper, you resort to the default ad hominem in order to stifle the conversation.

Which means you still got nuthin' when it comes to demonstrating a definitive link exists to tie CO2 and sea level rise. 

But whatever. Whatever the cause, sea level rise has no bearing on the original postulation which started this thread: 

 

Quote

Despite the risk of this becoming Climate Anarchy or Political Anarchy, something has to be said about how basic the science behind the recent big storms really is. 

The bottom line is this. If you are looking for a culprit to blame for the recent outbreak of very destructive storms, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us they can only be supported in a more energetic (i.e. warmer) system. If you are looking for predictions of what is to come, the 1st law of thermodynamics tells us that stronger storms are a highly probably, if not inevitable consequence of warmer ocean temperatures.

The "Science" is far, far from "settled", and neither you, nor ajbram, has yet provided one scintilla of evidence that the conclusion of Klotzbach and Landsea is not the only one that is valid. Indeed, it completely debunks ajbram's hypothesis in total...

 

Quoted in full again below. Now Mr. Awesome Paleoclimatologist, are you saying they are purveyors of "garbage"?

 

Extremely Intense Hurricanes: Revisiting Webster et al. (2005) after 10 Years

Philip J. KlotzbachDepartment of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Christopher W. LandseaNOAA/NWS/National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida
 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0188.1

 

4. Conclusions

It was suggested by Klotzbach (2006) and Landsea et al. (2006) that technological improvements during the 1970s and 1980s were primarily responsible forthe dramatic increases in the frequency and percent-age occurrences of category 4–5 hurricanes world-wide reported in Webster et al. (2005). With10 additional hurricane seasons now available to analyze, the long-term (1970–2014) trends showed reduced trends in category 4–5 frequency and percentage globally. When restricted to the most recent 25 years(1990–2014) with the most reliable and homogeneous records, the following conclusions are reached from this analysis:

1)Small, insignificant decreasing trends are present in category 4–5 hurricane frequency in the Northern Hemisphere and globally, while there is no virtually no trend in Southern Hemisphere frequency.

2)Small, insignificant upward trends are present in category 4–5 hurricane percentage in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere, and globally.

3)Large, significant downward trends are present in accumulated cyclone energy in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere, and globally.

These results provide more evidence that the changes reported by Webster et al. (2005) that occurred in number and percentages of category 4–5 hurricanes globally during the 1970s and 1980s were likely primarily due to improved observational capabilities. These results are more inline with expectations from climate models (Knutson et al. 2010, 2013; Camargo 2013; Christensen et al. 2013; Bender et al. 2010), which suggest that no appreciable change in category 4–5 hurricane numbers or percentages would be detectable at this time due to anthropogenic climate change.

Because of the additional evidence provided here about the artificial impacts of technology on the best-track databases, it is recommended that global studies addressing trends in extreme hurricanes (as well as combined metrics like ACE) begin around 1990. Before this time, the records are currently incomplete and lead to a distorted view of the actual activity that occurred before that time. We would also encourage the further development and extension backward in time of satellite-only homogeneous databases (Kossin et al. 2013) suitable for trend analysis.

Trends in category 4–5 hurricane numbers and percentages and ACE should be revisited whenever historical TC databases are reanalyzed (Hagen et al. 2012) and when another decade or so of additional seasons are recorded. However, given the large natural variability driven by ENSO and other natural phenomena, it is likely to be challenging to confidently ascribe an anthropogenic signal to changes in the most intense tropical cyclones for the next several decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, ajbram said:

Ditto.

I have a PhD in Environmental Science (2011). I am a prof of Aquatic Ecology at a major university. I have published over 30 papers in the last ~10 years, and 4 of them published in the last 18 months were about the responses of aquatic communities to climate change. My current research is supported by over $3 million in external grants. I sit on the editorial boards of 3 journals and review for an additional 10+.

I am secure enough in my status as a real scientist that I don't need to out myself for climate deniers and corporate shills to fill my inbox with garbage. My science gains enough traction without me having to advertise it.

Over the last decade I spent a fair amount of time working with folks at NOAA, ESRL, and NCAR. So I know a few PhD's. They always appreciated my perspectives and input as an end user of their research.

I helped validate their funding!

Great bunch of folks, down to earth bunch...And they felt no need for academic puffery.

When it comes to being "secure enough"...you doth protest too much.

What is the source of your funding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sidmon said:

for you

Over the last decade I spent a fair amount of time working with folks at NOAA, ESRL, and NCAR. So I know a few PhD's. They always appreciated my perspectives and input as an end user of their research.

I helped validate their funding!

Great bunch of folks, down to earth bunch...And they felt no need for academic puffery.

When it comes to being "secure enough"...you doth protest too much.

What is the source of your funding?

This is not academic puffery. I work alongside tons of people with and without PhDs, within and outside of academia. I work extensively with end users and as stated in a previous post, I am indebted to them for their work to make our findings into useful tools for resource managers etc. Their perspectives are valid and valued, and they offer me the same kind of respect. I take offense at the insinuation that I am not a real scientist - you asked for credentials, and they were provided. So now you want to complain about listing of credentials as academic puffery?  You can't have it both ways.

Are you also going to consider it puffery if I tell you my current funding is from USEPA, NOAA, NSF, and IMO?

Time to give the personal attacks a rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, sidmon said:

The bottom line is this. If you are looking for a culprit to blame for the recent outbreak of very destructive storms, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us they can only be supported in a more energetic (i.e. warmer) system. If you are looking for predictions of what is to come, the 1st law of thermodynamics tells us that stronger storms are a highly probably, if not inevitable consequence of warmer ocean temperatures.

Here is what Bill Read, Chris Landsea's former boss at NHC had to say... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YeHLArqWYw

Berman asked viewers, “Is there a why to this? Why there is so much water associated with this storm? One thing we heard from scientists over the last 10 years is that climate change does impact the intensity of many of the storms that we see.”

Read probably didn't give him the answer he was expecting.

The scientist said:

“I'm not — I probably wouldn’t attribute what we’re looking at here. This is not an uncommon occurrence to see storms grow and intensify rapidly in the western Gulf of Mexico. That’s as long as we’ve been tracking them, that has occurred. The why for the big rain is the stationarity. That fact that the storm is going to come inland and not move; that’s ... while it has happened in some cases, to have a really big storm come and stall like this is really rare.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monsoon,

Hay et al showed that sea level is rising at ~1m for every 1.8 degrees of warming. Given that the current level of warming is ~ 0.012 degrees per year, if Gay et al are right (which I believe) sea level is rising at about 2 feet per century. This makes National Geo's cover showing the statue of Liberty up to her waist in water, a sea level rise of 200 feet which would take 10,000 years to occur, patently misleading. Don't you think that the use of over-hyped, misleading statements and claims such as the National Geo cover, needs to challenged by the scientific community with the same vigor that false statements from deniers are challenged?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, maggie40738 said:

Monsoon,

Hay et al showed that sea level is rising at ~1m for every 1.8 degrees of warming. Given that the current level of warming is ~ 0.012 degrees per year, if Gay et al are right (which I believe) sea level is rising at about 2 feet per century. This makes National Geo's cover showing the statue of Liberty up to her waist in water, a sea level rise of 200 feet which would take 10,000 years to occur, patently misleading. Don't you think that the use of over-hyped, misleading statements and claims such as the National Geo cover, needs to challenged by the scientific community with the same vigor that false statements from deniers are challenged?  

 

It should be challenged, why should it be challenged with the same vigor?

If someone came onto this forum and used the cover of National geographic as evidence of climate change they would be attacked vigorously, and briefly, but no-one does. No-one is claiming that the cover of national geographic is evidence or support of any theory. To most its incorrect, but no-one is out there claiming that it is correct, so state that its wrong and move on.

The vigorous arguments come when out of date papers, and non-peer reviewed documents are presented as current scientific thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

The vigorous arguments come when out of date papers, and non-peer reviewed documents are presented as current scientific thinking.

The vigorous arguments come when someone dares to refute the Gospel of Anthroprogenic Global Warming.

There is -no- certainty that the destructiveness of Harvey and Irma are a result of AGW.

Indeed, neither storm rises above the noise of natural variability, in spite of the desire to prove a causal link to the rise in CO2.

And that is all "SCIENCE!" can objectively state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is the pursuit of truth. The integrity of the climate science community requires that truth should be pursued without bias, or even the hint of bias.

Anthony Watts' web page and National Geo are both media platforms that  represent climate science from particular points of view. To the extent that climate scientists interact with the media they must be unbiased. To do otherwise besmirches their community. 

If the climate science community were shy scientific acolytes that never interacted with the media their failure to rebuff National Geo would be understandable; however, there is no shortage of climate scientists (Hansen et al) who vigorously police any and all reports in the media that run counter to global warming orthodoxy, yet this same community is strangely silent when false pro-global warming statements are offered by media outlets (e.g., the National Geo cover). If anything, National Geo is, compared to Watts, the more substantial media outlet and more worthy of critique. The community's failure to correct pro-global warming falsehoods such as the Nat'l Geo cover are indications of bias that leads one to question whether the entire community is experiencing confirmation bias.

"In God we trust, all others bring data" - Deming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, maggie40738 said:

"In God we trust, all others bring data" - Deming

Or not... 

Why God never won tenure.

 1. He had only one major publication.
 2. It was in Hebrew.
 3. It had no references.
 4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal.
 5. Some even doubt he wrote it by himself.
 6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done
    since then?
 7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
 8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his
    results.
 9. He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use 
    human subjects.
 10.When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it by 
    drowning his subjects.
 11.When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from 
    the sample.
 12.He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
 13.Some say he had his son teach the class.
 14.He expelled his first two students for learning.
 15.Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students
    failed his tests.
 16.His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a
    mountaintop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read the national geographics so was curious and googled to find the cover. Presumably you are talking about this one :

NG%20Sep2013%20cover.jpg

When I see this, I understand that this is the sea level if all ice were to disappear. Is this an appropriate statement ? I don't know but doing "what ifs" isn't like predicting. That's actually quite useful as it can help you to understand. In this case you know that assuming that some ice will be melting future levels will be between where there are now and this level. Earlier you were assuming that sea rise was linear to estimate oceans will rise, that's a pretty big assumption.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sidmon said:

The vigorous arguments come when someone dares to refute the Gospel of Anthroprogenic Global Warming.

There is -no- certainty that the destructiveness of Harvey and Irma are a result of AGW.

Indeed, neither storm rises above the noise of natural variability, in spite of the desire to prove a causal link to the rise in CO2.

And that is all "SCIENCE!" can objectively state.

No science can also objectively state:

- Increased water temperatures result in increased storm severity

- Increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in increase global temperatures.

The fact that there is no certainty that the destructiveness of Harvey and Irma are a result of AGW, doesn't affects the validity of these two statements or the reasonable conclusions which could be drawn from them. Certainly in looking for sensible directions for further research,

 

We can't be 'certain' of the link at this point in the same way that scientists were not 'certain' of the link between cigarettes and cancer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

I don't read the national geographics so was curious and googled to find the cover. Presumably you are talking about this one :

NG%20Sep2013%20cover.jpg

When I see this, I understand that this is the sea level if all ice were to disappear. Is this an appropriate statement ? I don't know but doing "what ifs" isn't like predicting. That's actually quite useful as it can help you to understand. In this case you know that assuming that some ice will be melting future levels will be between where there are now and this level. Earlier you were assuming that sea rise was linear to estimate oceans will rise, that's a pretty big assumption.

 

This is a strange thing for people to get mad about. Surely Nat. Geo., being a popular media outlet, is entitled to editorializing with its cover images, no?  If the American public is so easily impressionable as to assume that we will be seeing this along the shoreline of NY within the immediate future, we have other issues. Honestly, if I thought it was deliberately "chicken little-ing" I would have an issue with it, but I see it as editorializing about a worst case scenario that we will probably not see in our lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ajbram said:

This is a strange thing for people to get mad about. Surely Nat. Geo., being a popular media outlet, is entitled to editorializing with its cover images, no?  If the American public is so easily impressionable as to assume that we will be seeing this along the shoreline of NY within the immediate future, we have other issues. Honestly, if I thought it was deliberately "chicken little-ing" I would have an issue with it, but I see it as editorializing about a worst case scenario that we will probably not see in our lifetime.

Perhaps, but Maggie makes a fair point in saying that the climate scientists should also point out the time frame that such a rise would occur in, and how a cover like that is being overly dramatic.  I would expect that maintenance on the SoL would have tapered off, and that the SoL would not be in such "pristine" condition, for example. 

Sort of jesting with that last statement.  Sort of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bplipschitz said:

Perhaps, but Maggie makes a fair point in saying that the climate scientists should also point out the time frame that such a rise would occur in, and how a cover like that is being overly dramatic.  I would expect that maintenance on the SoL would have tapered off, and that the SoL would not be in such "pristine" condition, for example. 

Sort of jesting with that last statement.  Sort of.

She's a little big, French, and modestly-dressed for Twitler's taste. Maintenance will probably cease next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ajbram,

You hurt your cred when you get political....i.e. Twitler...

One could take from that statement that you are indeed biased, and infer that the bias would/could taint your research and analysis.

I'm not saying that you are, but you haven't strengthened your position as an unbiased scientist either.

V/R,

Crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Crash said:

ajbram,

You hurt your cred when you get political....i.e. Twitler...

One could take from that statement that you are indeed biased, and infer that the bias would/could taint your research and analysis.

I'm not saying that you are, but you haven't strengthened your position as an unbiased scientist either.

V/R,

Crash

So anyone biased against Trump isn't credible?  Wow.  Tipped your hand there, brah.  Trump is clearly biased on this subject himself and has no credibility at all (on anything!).

Quite to the contrary, anyone who is not biased against Trump by now is as intellectually and morally corrupt as he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sidmon said:

Bully for you!

What is the source of your funding?

The great majority of my funding comes from NSF. Also NOAA, DOE and National Geographic. So your taxes pay for my research.  Thank you!!

3 hours ago, sidmon said:

Yet no definitive proof. Instead of refuting the specific points brought up in Istvan's paper, you resort to the default ad hominem in order to stifle the conversation.

If you understood the first thing about science you would know that nothing can be 'proven' only disproven.

3 hours ago, sidmon said:

Which means you still got nuthin' when it comes to demonstrating a definitive link exists to tie CO2 and sea level rise. 

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.

 

3 hours ago, sidmon said:

But whatever. Whatever the cause, sea level rise has no bearing on the original postulation which started this thread: 

 

The "Science" is far, far from "settled", and neither you, nor ajbram, has yet provided one scintilla of evidence that the conclusion of Klotzbach and Landsea is not the only one that is valid. Indeed, it completely debunks ajbram's hypothesis in total...

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.

3 hours ago, sidmon said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Crash said:

ajbram,

You hurt your cred when you get political....i.e. Twitler...

One could take from that statement that you are indeed biased, and infer that the bias would/could taint your research and analysis.

I'm not saying that you are, but you haven't strengthened your position as an unbiased scientist either.

V/R,

Crash

Let me explain the joke for you Crash. 

56 minutes ago, ajbram said:

My scientific opinion would be the same no matter who is in office.  This particular comment-in-jest has nothing to do with science. It just has to do with Trump being a giant Ushanka of an asshat in polite society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ajbram said:

Or not... 


Why God never won tenure...

 

 

ajbram,

I think you mis-interpreted the quote. Earlier I wrote that, like you, I too am a scientist. As a scientist did you really think I would be appealing to a religious authority as part of my argument? What do you think the quote, "In God we trust, all others bring data" means? 

The quote is from a engineer/businessman to junior staff (either Deming or George Box, depending upon who you believe first said it). The quote was an instruction to his staff that meant: "unless you are God, and you aren't, bring some data to support your your claims". I included the quote as a cautionary note to both sides of the debate. Unless your view is ordained by God, and it isn't, show me some data to back up your claims. 

I'll add another relevant quote into the mix. This one is definitely from George Box: "All models are wrong, but some are useful". Box was a world class statistician that used this quote to caution his fellow statisticians to make sure they understood the uncertainty in their models and the impact that uncertainty had on their conclusions. This too should be a cautionary note for both sides of the global warming argument. Over-trust in ones models is risky until you have empirical evidence to back up your conclusions. Box's quote relates to Huff, who in his book "How to lie with statistics" said, "if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything".

If you're not familiar with it check out: Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998), "Confirmation Bias; A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises", Review of General Psychology, Educational Publishing Foundation. 2 (2): 175–220. Nickerson discusses confirmation bias in science as well as other fields.

What do you think? Is it possible that the climate science community is falling prey to confirmation bias? They certainly do seem to be intolerant of minority opinion, as this board attests.

Am I too much of a heretic for my ideas to warrant a considered, scientific reply?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, maggie40738 said:

 

My hypothesis - In trying to explain the apparant contradictions in (a) and (b) I hypothesize that we underestimated the feedbacks to anthropogenic warming. The amount of time and energy scientists have spent investigating positive feedbacks seems to far outweigh the time and energy spent investigating negative (damping) feedbacks. The IPCC acknowledges this and has publically recognized that several important damping feedbacks are not well understood (Albedo effect in particular, but increased sequestration as well). I hypothesize that the planetary impact of global warming will be much closer to the first order CO2 effects than the feedback-heavy effects predicted by IPCC. The last 20 years of satellite data appears to agree with my hypothesis by showing a diminishing warming trend and only 1.0 to 1.4 degrees C/century of warming.

 

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:

graph.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panoramix said:

"Earlier you were assuming that sea rise was linear to estimate oceans will rise, that's a pretty big assumption."

 

Not assuming anything. Just looking at the data. Since they started using satellites to measure sea level (circa 1979) the increase has been strikingly linear at roughly 3.2mm/yr. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnMB said:

No science can also objectively state:

- Increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in increase global temperatures.

JohnMB,

With respect, I don't think this is true. It is a fairly straight forward experiment to show that, for a given amount of solar flux, a layer of CO2 traps black body IR radiation which then causes an increase in the body's temperature. Not only can this be shown in a small scale but there are also (IPCC referenced) papers that correlate CO2 measurements, downward flux and reflected IR radiation that provide evidence that this happens on a planetary scale.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally think that climate change is real and that man likely has played a role based on what I have read . But I too am a scientist with lots of publications and thousands of citations, none in climatology. My scientific eye tells me that graph in post #272 has a low point around 1910 then starts an upward trend but what about before 1880??? Is it possible that a similar uptick occured before like we see now, but the data does not exist? So in fact does temperature  fluctuate. Perhaps its periodicity and amplitude of the swings that should be concerning?  So, fast high (and low) changes may not permit the planet to adapt.

Forgive me if my queries are amateurish and naive. You folks  are a tough crowd   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, maggie40738 said:

Not assuming anything. Just looking at the data. Since they started using satellites to measure sea level (circa 1979) the increase has been strikingly linear at roughly 3.2mm/yr. 

Some phenomenon can be linear and then loose suddenly their linearity. You are using a very crude model to make your prediction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, monsoon said:

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:

We agree on the difficulty on modeling clouds and the Albedo effect. I'll take a look at Trenberth. Thank you.

Thank you for the Charney reference. If I understand correctly Charney states that a doubling of CO2 will cause in increase of 3 degrees C (+- 1.5 degrees). When Charney was published CO2 was at ~ 335 ppm, since then it has increased to ~410 ppm, an increase of 22%. If Charney's increase is proportional, then we should have seen about 0.6 degrees in temperature increase, which is close to what the data shows. So, I would agree that Charney's prediction is, so far, correct. Given the current rate of CO2 increase it will take about 220 years for Charney's 3.0 degree increase to take effect. Why do the IPCC assessments warn us of 4-6 degree warming by 2100 when Charney predicts that the temperature increase will be much less.

Regarding the GISS temperature data. The data set I posted was satellite data of the lower troposphere from NOAA, and it is up to date. The GISS data you posted is based upon ground observations.  Interesting how the lower troposphere data does not correlate with the GISS dataset. Why is that do you think? Could it be that the increase in urban heat islands is biasing the ground-based data? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, maggie40738 said:

JohnMB,

With respect, I don't think this is true. It is a fairly straight forward experiment to show that, for a given amount of solar flux, a layer of CO2 traps black body IR radiation which then causes an increase in the body's temperature. Not only can this be shown in a small scale but there are also (IPCC referenced) papers that correlate CO2 measurements, downward flux and reflected IR radiation that provide evidence that this happens on a planetary scale.   

whoops, missed a comma :) it should have read

2 hours ago, JohnMB said:

No, science can also objectively state:

- Increased water temperatures result in increased storm severity

- Increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in increase global temperatures.

The fact that there is no certainty that the destructiveness of Harvey and Irma are a result of AGW, doesn't affects the validity of these two statements or the reasonable conclusions which could be drawn from them. Certainly in looking for sensible directions for further research,

 

We can't be 'certain' of the link at this point in the same way that scientists were not 'certain' of the link between cigarettes and cancer.  

This is why peer review matters (not to mention basic checking :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Some phenomenon can be linear and then loose suddenly their linearity. You are using a very crude model to make your prediction. 

hey we're engineers, we always linearize whenever we can, it makes superposition work. (it does make it hard to justify making predictions beyond the know data though :)  )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

hey we're engineers, we always linearize whenever we can, it makes superposition work. (it does make it hard to justify making predictions beyond the know data though :)  )

True, then we it's not linear we introduce the providential "fudge factor". I do timber engineering, all our models are linear even if our structures aren't, but we know it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ProaSailor said:

So anyone biased against Trump isn't credible?  Wow.  Tipped your hand there, brah.  Trump is clearly biased on this subject himself and has no credibility at all (on anything!).

Quite to the contrary, anyone who is not biased against Trump by now is as intellectually and morally corrupt as he is.

Trump is obviously biased on the subject, so I tend to dismiss him.  I didn't say anyone biased against Trump wasn't credible.  What I said was that by bringing a politically disparaging comment into a scientific discussion, he opened the door to someone deciding he was therefore biased and dismiss him as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Some phenomenon can be linear and then loose suddenly their linearity. You are using a very crude model to make your prediction. 

No doubt. Paleoclimate data indicates that there are indeed significant non-linearities in the historical climate record. In particular the non-linear transitions between the Ice ages and interglacials. If there is to be a non-linear increase in sea level, what could the cause be?

Let's consider the potential sources of sea level rise: thermal expansion and ice melt. A temperature increase of 3 degrees will cause a thermal expansion sea level rise of 17 cm. Thermal expansion can cause annoyance flooding, but it simply cannot cause the catastrophic "Florida is submerged" sea level rise National Geo warns. For the National Geo scenario to occur ice melt must dominate. The vast majority of the world's ice is trapped in the center of Antarctica with the only other source of significance being Greenland. Eastern Antarctica, where the ice is, is really cold. The high annual temperature at Vostok station is -31 degrees C. If Antarctica warmed by 10 degrees, way more than predicted by IPCC, the warmest day of the year would be -20 degrees C. Ice doesn't melt at -20 degrees C. As long as the continent is located at the south pole that ice is never going to melt. The only way the bulk of the Antarctic ice is going to melt is if plate tectonics moves the continent north. The only other significant source of ice, Greenland, is actually accumulating more ice mass http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/. The annual high temperature in the center of Greenland, which is where the ice is, -10 C. Just like Antarctica, even with a warm up of 10 degrees the Greenland Ice Cap stays frozen. Bottom line, while Sea Ice, the Palmer Peninsula glaciers and the coastal Greenland glaciers would be impacted by a 2-3 degree warm up. The ice required to produce more than a meter or two of sea level rise is staying put. The National Geo picture was a misleading lie.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, maggie40738 said:

No doubt. Paleoclimate data indicates that there are indeed significant non-linearities in the historical climate record. In particular the non-linear transitions between the Ice ages and interglacials. If there is to be a non-linear increase in sea level, what could the cause be?

Let's consider the potential sources of sea level rise: thermal expansion and ice melt. A temperature increase of 3 degrees will cause a thermal expansion sea level rise of 17 cm. Thermal expansion can cause annoyance flooding, but it simply cannot cause the catastrophic "Florida is submerged" sea level rise National Geo warns. For the National Geo scenario to occur ice melt must dominate. The vast majority of the world's ice is trapped in the center of Antarctica with the only other source of significance being Greenland. Eastern Antarctica, where the ice is, is really cold. The high annual temperature at Vostok station is -31 degrees C. If Antarctica warmed by 10 degrees, way more than predicted by IPCC, the warmest day of the year would be -20 degrees C. Ice doesn't melt at -20 degrees C. As long as the continent is located at the south pole that ice is never going to melt. The only way the bulk of the Antarctic ice is going to melt is if plate tectonics moves the continent north. The only other significant source of ice, Greenland, is actually accumulating more ice mass http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/. The annual high temperature in the center of Greenland, which is where the ice is, -10 C. Just like Antarctica, even with a warm up of 10 degrees the Greenland Ice Cap stays frozen. Bottom line, while Sea Ice, the Palmer Peninsula glaciers and the coastal Greenland glaciers would be impacted by a 2-3 degree warm up. The ice required to produce more than a meter or two of sea level rise is staying put. The National Geo picture was a misleading lie.   

The picture just says what happens if the ice melts not that it is going to melt. For the Antarctic you seem full of certainties. You must be aware that a gigantic berg is about to sail away from the Antarctic coast. I would be very surprised if the phenomenon is actually linear.