Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Luis Dias on July 05, 2011, 01:59:06 pm
-
Perhaps I'm precociously mentally ejaculating here, but it could become something big, if replicated / confirmed.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) contained various errors, including the well publicised overestimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers would melt. However, the IPCC’s defenders point out that such errors were inadvertent and inconsequential: they did not undermine the scientific basis of AR4. Here I demonstrate an error in the core scientific report (WGI) that came about through the IPCC’s alteration of a peer-reviewed result. This error is highly consequential, since it involves the only instrumental evidence that is climate-model independent cited by the IPCC as to the probability distribution of climate sensitivity, and it substantially increases the apparent risk of high warming from increases in CO2 concentration.
(...)
The IPCC curve is skewed substantially to higher climate sensitivities and has a much fatter tail than the original results curve. At the top of the ‘extremely likely’ range, it gives a 2.5% probability of the sensitivity exceeding 8.6°C, whereas the corresponding figure given in the original study is only 4.1°C. The top of the ‘likely’ range is doubled, from 2.3°C to 4.7°C, and the central (median) estimate is increased from 1.6°C to 2.3°C.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/
It's very technical, but it seems that Nicholas Lewis (someone who has published peer-reviewed criticisms of other climate problems with great acclaim), has found out a glitch in the IPCC document, which inadvertively pushed upwards the observed climate sensitivity, affecting all of the GCMs (the models) and thus places many questions to its own conclusions.
As I said before, I could be overreaching here. But we could be witnessing here another IPCC blunder of major proportions, and I wanted to share this thought in advance when it's still in a certain obscurity.
-
ok, so if you could, would you please boil this down to a scalar value of how wrong they were for those of us lacking the energy or understanding to decipher a technical journal?
-
Does this mean I can leave my car idling for twice as long as I could before?
I feel like there is often a lot of arguing about which chair we should be seated in on the Hindenburg when the zeppelin is already on fire.
-
I think that Climate Change got silly when it changed from a Science to an Industry. I think it is certainly something to be concerned about, but it's been over-politicised to an almost hysterical level, we laugh at the Rapturers and the Nibiru supporters, and yet allow ourselves to be pulled into the same trap at times. Admittedly, Climate Change is something a bit different to the Nibiru crap, there's testable evidence for the former, but the interpretation of those tests count for a lot.
Personally, however, I think that trying to stop Climate Change is like pissing into the Ocean, we've evidence that any Ecological balance on Earth is only maintained for a limited time before shifting, be it Ice Ages, Dry Spells or even atmospheric composition, it all all shifts with time, the question of human influence is more about 'how much' than anything else and in the long term is a moot point.
-
I'm just waiting for the Northwest and Northeast passages to both melt open.
Oh wait...
-
ok, so if you could, would you please boil this down to a scalar value of how wrong they were for those of us lacking the energy or understanding to decipher a technical journal?
Not very, I'm guessing. I can already get in a boat and sail it from Murmansk to Vladivostok without going around Africa or South America. I can even choose which way I want to turn to get there.
-
I think that Climate Change got silly when it changed from a Science to an Industry. I think it is certainly something to be concerned about, but it's been over-politicised to an almost hysterical level, we laugh at the Rapturers and the Nibiru supporters, and yet allow ourselves to be pulled into the same trap at times. Admittedly, Climate Change is something a bit different to the Nibiru crap, there's testable evidence for the former, but the interpretation of those tests count for a lot.
Personally, however, I think that trying to stop Climate Change is like pissing into the Ocean, we've evidence that any Ecological balance on Earth is only maintained for a limited time before shifting, be it Ice Ages, Dry Spells or even atmospheric composition, it all all shifts with time, the question of human influence is more about 'how much' than anything else and in the long term is a moot point.
i have always assumed we would run out of oil (or rather loose the ability to drill it cheaply) before we could saturate our atmosphere with c02 to the point where we would be the next venus. i really wouldn't worry until you effectively have to shovel coal into the engine of your car to get anywhere.
what i really dont like about the whole thing is that the earths climate is being referred to as a static entity and that when it changes its all our fault. it never was a static entity to begin with, solar cycles, ice age cycles, magnetic reversal cycles, noncyclical events like the occasional asteroid strike, volcanic activity, changes in heat conveying ocean currents, etc. science still haven't given us a projection of when the world would be completely uninhabitable. so far all iv'e heard is a prediction of when polar bears will be extinct. frankly any species that cant adapt should go extinct because thats how evolution ****ing works. when the earth becomes close uninhabitable for humans we will have to choose between reducing energy consumption per capita, or reducing the population (i know which one i would pick), and it is not the time for that.
all the things people do to save the environment are laughable, focusing more on guilt reduction than on actual carbon footprint reduction. hippies who drive hybrid cars and use cf bulbs but also buy "organic" foods which deplete farmland at a higher rate than conventional or gm crops, and bash nuclear in favor of less efficient solar and wind systems. even when buying into "green" products, its still just pissing in the wind. nobody in the first world wants to reduce their quality of life to 3rd world (is there a 2nd world?) standards, and nobody wants to reduce human populations. we would do more to save the planet by starting world war 3 and lobbing nukes at eachother than any of the measures tried thus far, or anything were likely to discover in the next hundred or so years.
you all know what to do, go out and nuke something so i can start living all road warrior like.
-
I think that Climate Change got silly when it changed from a Science to an Industry. I think it is certainly something to be concerned about, but it's been over-politicised to an almost hysterical level, we laugh at the Rapturers and the Nibiru supporters, and yet allow ourselves to be pulled into the same trap at times. Admittedly, Climate Change is something a bit different to the Nibiru crap, there's testable evidence for the former, but the interpretation of those tests count for a lot.
Personally, however, I think that trying to stop Climate Change is like pissing into the Ocean, we've evidence that any Ecological balance on Earth is only maintained for a limited time before shifting, be it Ice Ages, Dry Spells or even atmospheric composition, it all all shifts with time, the question of human influence is more about 'how much' than anything else and in the long term is a moot point.
Both of these points.
I have to pose the question; does it honestly even matter anymore? Shouldn't we be more focused on dealing with a changing world, rather than bickering about who's causing it or whether or not it's really happening?
-
I keep hearing that whatever "warming" phase we're in for won't last long at all anyways, the moment enough of the north pole melts off, the Gulf Stream will get all ****ed and dissipate, stopping all that nice warm tropical water from reaching Europe, and causing a massive cool-down as quick as the warm-up.
When all is said and done, I'm a cold-weather lover myself, so all I can say is; BRING ON DAT ICE AGE **** YEAR!
-
I've seen the day after tomorrow. As long as i'm not in a helicopter with the royal family and move to mexico. I'll be fine...
-
ClimateGate is enough proof that the research and methods used to research climate change that they're not very trustworthy. Would be interesting if climate change would be researched by independant people, would be really interesting to see how Earth works. Lots less fear mongering then too.
-
I'm fairly sure that someone here posted about an article about a team of researchers that are planning to independently review all available climate data that's been recorded so far. I can't remember any names or the article that the website was on, though. I think it's being done partly in response to the Climategate incident.
EDIT: Here it is, The Berkeley Earth project: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war)
IceFire posted about it originally (here: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=74917.msg1481304 (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=74917.msg1481304))
The project's website: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/ (http://www.berkeleyearth.org/)
-
ClimateGate is enough proof that the research and methods used to research climate change that they're not very trustworthy. Would be interesting if climate change would be researched by independant people, would be really interesting to see how Earth works. Lots less fear mongering then too.
If you had researched this a little more, you'd find that you've been hoodwinked not by the scientists, but by conspiracy theorists. The scientists have been long cleared of wrongdoing, but that doesn't stop the forces of pseudo-science to keep these memes going among people who catch the initial wave of news, and then don't follow up on it. It's the same way that the anti-vaccination movement survives -- A lot of people jumped on the "OMG MMR VACCINE EQUALS AUTISM" bandwagon, and either never bothered to follow up on it as the situation developed, or further built upon this shaky foundation some "big pharma" conspiracy crap that would shield their bat**** insane ideas from scrutiny. After all, the best way of not listening to scientific evidence is to convince yourself that science is a conspiracy.
Anyway, I have a video you should watch. One that covers this complete nontroversy. Well, it's a nontroversy to people who don't follow either Alex Jones, Ron Paul, the GOP in general or whatever conspiracy nut is in fashion these days... but I digress:
Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw)
Remember the annotated links -- The Parts 1 and 2 I mean.
-
The BEST Team is still producing its results, very late in their schedule, etc., but preliminary results appear to confirm other existing temperature sets.
So I'm betting there's nothing really new under the sun in that direction.
If you had researched this a little more, you'd find that you've been hoodwinked not by the scientists, but by conspiracy theorists. The scientists have been long cleared of wrongdoing
This is, of course, all poppycock for those in the know (not those brainwashed by climateprogress or any other propaganda sites), since it's long been shown that most of those "clearances" were made by non-investigatorial reports, and only one got so far as to ask questions to the scientists themselves, but without even questioning the very quotations that made headlines (Muir Russell)... those were all whitewashes, pretty pathetic, but enough for the spreading of news that these scientists are "cleared" of "wrongdoing"...
The actual quotes by themselves are pretty jarring and damning, and when contextualized (something that wasn't done in any of those "clearances" btw), they look even worse. Of course, if your point was that the sum of these quotations do not falsify the general theory of climate change, then I'm pretty much on your side (nor am I convinced that anthropogenic CC "doesn't exist"). But I'd love to see those people, if not burned at the stakes, at least marginalized from further discussions about climate. They've done enough wrongdoing as far as I know.
-
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2075 (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2075)
-
ClimateGate
proved nothing except that some of the researchers involved had grumpy attitudes some of the time. It strengthened the global warming argument, but even more it weakened the opposition, because the opposition acted like it proved something when it didn't.
Good job there BTW. :yes:
-
It "Strengthened"? Now that's probably the most amazing example of a non-sequitor right there.
And it did something more than show "grumpy" attitudes by some researchers. But I'm not going to spend precious time teaching you about that stuff. The propaganda is too strong on that one.
-
One might then assume you don't have an argument, or you don't understand it.
-
Assume anything you want. To say that finding out that some people had "grumpy attitudes" strengthens a certain scientific theory is just insane thinking, one which I won't waste my time into explaining why it's ridiculous. But please be my guest.
-
To say that finding out that some people had "grumpy attitudes" strengthens a certain scientific theory is just insane thinking, one which I won't waste my time into explaining why it's ridiculous.
If you read Bobboau's post more carefully, you might find that is not at all what he was saying.
-
I sense a great disturbance in the force. As if a millionttutas suddenly cried out in anguish and frustration, but were silenced...
-
No, what you might say is that he did not only say what I paraphrased.
His other point is rather silly as well, since "opponents" in this case seem to be fox news, Glenn Beck, Lord Monckton et al., and if anything, it only shows that noisemakers will always focus on the noisemaking stuff, rather on the more interesting and damning things.
And investigative journalism is so 20th century, innit.... let's rather focus on the Wiener's wiener.
-
Are you here to actually discuss this **** like you suggested or are you just going to sling feces? Because this isn't encouraging the former view in the slightest, and aside from your first post, nothing has.
-
Well, ok then. Have you seen the entire article I first quoted?
What do you make of it?
I think it seems rather important if replicated / confirmed, since a climate sensitivity of 1.6 rather than 2.3 is a very significant difference. Notice that many politics revolve around the (silly) notion that we should keep the planet under 2 degrees warmth. Now this kind of climate sensitivity would almost mean just that without further investments.
-
Did I miss something, how do we know that the 1.6 figure is even the correct one?
I seem to recall a figure based on geologic records / ice cores that doubling the level of CO2 results in a roughly 2.8°C temperature rise. How that would factor in to the climate sensitivity curve is beyond me though.
-
a climate sensitivity of 1.6 rather than 2.3
thank you for answering the question I asked in the first post.
now as to climate-gate, please tell me what you consider to be the most damning things in it. I will grant you non-prejudice and assume you will not be talking about declines being hidden or the travesty of not being able to account for lacks of warmth.
to facilitate dialog, I will mention the two things I found most damning:
1) suggestion of destruction of data -- though this is not proof of wrong doing, it suggests that said proof might have been destroyed, this however is not proof of wrong doing, it is merely suspect.
2) multiple instances of a visceral, almost fanatical hatred for the freedom of information act -- fear of having your inner workings exposed is indicative of a lack of faith in it, or of getting obsessively pestered.
also the thing I originally thought was most damning but later determined was not that bad was the discussion of the boycotting of the journal with the paper that the guys didn't like, it turns out it was simply a ****ty paper and that journal had been printing a lot of them lately and there are plenty of not so ****ty papers in not so ****ty journals that have been written that opposed man-bear-pig and these were not mentioned in the emails.
climate-gate strengthened the man-bear-pig argument by showing that when the world isn't watching the researchers behind it don't cook their books, even if they do sometimes use figures of speech when talking informally, and weakened the man-bear-pig denialist position by having them take 'putting data with a known flaw into perspective by by putting other data without this known flaw in it' for a dirty trick to fool everyone.
now I am not an environmentalist, I do think most people are blowing man-bear-pig out of perspective and I honestly think that the earth's temperature is not outside of it's normal operating tolerances, but I base as many of my beliefs as possible on fact and the fact is the man-bear-pig people have been doing a much better job on this front than those who disagree with them.
however, perhaps you do have something new that I have not heard before, please try and convince me that my original gut reaction to climate-gate was right and that there were some world changing bomb shells in there after all. What allows one to progress is the ability to overcome ones biases and accept truth when it is in opposition to what you believe.
-
I just find all the fuss over CO2 to be quite silly, as water vapor has a FAR greater greenhouse effect. Remember those hydrogen-powered cars everyone keeps tossing around? Yeah, they'd royally screw us over if they ever became mass-produced.
Just go outside on a day when clouds dissipate right after rainfall and tell me I'm wrong.
-
I just find all the fuss over CO2 to be quite silly, as water vapor has a FAR greater greenhouse effect. Remember those hydrogen-powered cars everyone keeps tossing around? Yeah, they'd royally screw us over if they ever became mass-produced.
Just go outside on a day when clouds dissipate right after rainfall and tell me I'm wrong.
So you're saying warming caused by carbon dioxide or methane wouldn't have any effect on the amount of water vapour in the air? I thought it was common knowledge that much of global warming deals with positive feedback. Anthropogenic global warming would cause water to evaporate faster, and allow the atmosphere to carry more water...
-
I just find all the fuss over CO2 to be quite silly, as water vapor has a FAR greater greenhouse effect. Remember those hydrogen-powered cars everyone keeps tossing around? Yeah, they'd royally screw us over if they ever became mass-produced.
Just go outside on a day when clouds dissipate right after rainfall and tell me I'm wrong.
Then you ought to be concerned that global atmospheric water vapor has increased by about 4% since 1970, which is what GW theory says should have happened given the observed 0.5°C (0.9°F) warming of the planet's oceans during the same period.
Indeed, increasing CO2 levels indirectly leads to increasing H20 concentrations, because the ocean surface becomes warmer. How about that? :rolleyes:
-
Then you ought to be concerned that global atmospheric water vapor has increased by about 4% since 1970, which is what GW theory says should have happened given the observed 0.5°C (0.9°F) warming of the planet's oceans during the same period.
Indeed, increasing CO2 levels indirectly leads to increasing H20 concentrations, because the ocean surface becomes warmer. How about that? :rolleyes:
And as the ocean becomes warmer, their capacity to dissolve CO2 decreases, making them less efficient carbon sinks. That means that even less of the carbon dioxide we emit gets taken out of the atmosphere.
-
That, too. And let's not even go into the problems of CO2 increasing ocean acidification levels. :nono:
-
Sorry, double post. Just want to tell G0atmaster that I'd like for him to watch this (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml) lecture on CO2 and earth's history. It's very fascinating and hopefully may help you better understand how large of a role CO2 has played in regulating earth's climate in the past, with implications on what it means for our future.
-
Did I miss something, how do we know that the 1.6 figure is even the correct one?
We don't. What I am fascinated by however is how a single error in the IPCC literature has the potential to deviate so much the cs curve.
To me it does not bode well for the allegded capability to project temperatures to 2100...
now as to climate-gate, please tell me what you consider to be the most damning things in it. I will grant you non-prejudice and assume you will not be talking about declines being hidden or the travesty of not being able to account for lacks of warmth.
I find it amazing that people are willing to forgive the first one you mention. That requires perhaps some ignorance to the hockey stick debacle, or at least a biased viewpoint on the matter. The second one is just mere opinion by Trenberth, and it is a growing problem to be solved (a recent paper by Mann et al tries to answer to that very problem, but it is mostly filled with speculatory mathematics). Recent temperature trends (since the TAR projections) seem to deviate from the projections by a lot - see Lucia's blog about this, she's quite amazingly thorough with a monthly analysis update and honest about it all - http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/may-t-anomalies-cooler-than-april/). But I am in complete agreement that while a "growing problem" it is still not that big. Yet.
But to answer your question, you have a comprehensive list of the "worst" quotes here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
I mostly agree with your analysis of them. Most of them show a petty atmosphere controlled by a few hawks. Some of them show how this clique is actually controlling peer review, controlling the IPCC process of accepting or denying certain papers or comments, distorting empirical findings, cherry picking mathematics, hiding conflicting results from the general public with tricks, and trying to get certain nay-sayers out of the academic picture for their heresies.
Andrew Montford is a very good writer on the subject btw, I highly recommend it, and at least the reading of these two key blog posts of his:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
climate-gate strengthened the man-bear-pig argument by showing that when the world isn't watching the researchers behind it don't cook their books, even if they do sometimes use figures of speech when talking informally, and weakened the man-bear-pig denialist position by having them take 'putting data with a known flaw into perspective by by putting other data without this known flaw in it' for a dirty trick to fool everyone.
Most of the "cooking" is subtler than the trick to hide the decline, like say, the whole Hockey Stick shenanigan which is an amazing example on how science can be maliciously perverted. However, this one stood out because it was flagrantly exposed in the most literal way in the e-mails in a way that usual people could understand. Jon Stewart in his piece:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-1-2009/scientists-hide-global-warming-data
... understood it as we all did.
The BEST director, Richard Muller did another explanation of the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
It IS damning. I wouldn't, I couldn't believe any further word of these people again.
And if you are willing to accept that perhaps this praxis of fudging presentations in order to hide the controversies behind the science and rather present the "Truth" as the scientists feel you should see (in order to make you aprehensive about the future or smth) is maybe throughout whole IPCC chapters (with some obvious candidates like the extreme weather - climate connections within the AR4 presentation which is clearly biased against all evidence, giving prominence to an unfinished paper just because it seemed the only paper to give credence to that link - something that the finished paper denies to), I don't see how this whole sad episode "Strengthens" the case for the theory.
Even granting the position (which I don't) that this episode wasn't that sad, the notion that this is the "only" thing that the counters found out bad about it, so it must be generally a good theory, does not follow exactly.
-
We don't. What I am fascinated by however is how a single error in the IPCC literature has the potential to deviate so much the cs curve.
Ah, I see, and I agree that if this error is duplicated then that would be a significant find. I'm pretty skeptical though, since the IPCC estimate for climate sensitivity seems to agree rather well with the ice-core data. The video I just linked to discusses that briefly, actually.
To me it does not bode well for the allegded capability to project temperatures to 2100...
I don't think very many self-respecting scientists consider those projections to be of very high confidence. Like the projections on arctic sea ice decline (http://nsidc.org/icelights/files/2011/02/Decline_chart.png), it's such a complicated thing to try to model that I'd say they are meant to be and should be taken as "This is our best-estimate from current knowledge", not a "This is how it's going to be and here's our confidence level."
I really hope nobody is taking that to mean that we can continue business-as-usual without seeing adverse effects from it. And on that note, one of Jeff Masters' recent blog articles (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1831) makes a fairly convincing case that we might already be seeing extraordinary weather events driven by AGW. Is this absolutely certain? No. But it is thought-provoking at the very least.
-
There is no scientific evidence for these "extreme weather events caused by climate change" at all. All peer reviewed papers in the literature that calculate the appropriate renormalizing figures (to compensate growing population and coastal development throughout 20th century) all agree that the evidence simply doesn't show up.
Whenever I see someone arguing that we are already witnessing calamity from CC, I reach for my gun.
What I am not saying is that CC *won't* be producing nasty stuff in the future. While I haven't any trust in many model "projections" that try to answer that question, it seems like a very real possibility with possible simple physical explanations.
-
I'm curious what you mean about renormalizing figures. Do you mean the height of the rising water divided by the number of people living in the drowned city?
I'm being facetious here ;)
But seriously, most of the "record breaking years" I've been hearing of had nothing to do with population. They've been measured in square kilometers burnt, or degrees Celsius, or duration of drought, total rainfall.
-
Whenever I see someone arguing that we are already witnessing calamity from CC, I reach for my gun.
Whoa there, that's a pretty strong knee-jerk response. I'd say you might ought to reread my post and Jeff Master's post and reconsider what we're both saying.
All peer reviewed papers in the literature that calculate the appropriate renormalizing figures (to compensate growing population and coastal development throughout 20th century) all agree that the evidence simply doesn't show up.
Do you have links to those peer-reviewed papers? I'd love to see them. And does that include data on water vapor content, Jet Stream migration, and global precipitation? And what's the population and coastal development figures for, are they only considering hurricanes/cyclones?
I'm not saying that we *have* seen CC-induced weather events already. I'm saying we may have, and that if you look at all these records, it looks pretty dang convincing. I'd be much more surprised if it was a fluke than if it was not, especially considering that increased energy to the climate system (warmer surface temps, higher water vapor content) should result in stronger weather systems. If it doesn't then someone should be explaining a mechanism for how it doesn't, which I have yet to see.
edit: also, bed time for me here. Got classes today. :zzzzz:
-
Sure, whatsisname. I refer to the IPCC itself, which finds nothing of the sort, and a bunch of papers, and yes, you'll find that I'm talking mostly about cyclones.
I refer to a consensus paper in the WMO in 2010 here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/pdf/ngeo779.pdf
About other things, look, I'll be criticizing the points raised by your link one by one.
1. Earth's hottest year on record
This is one of the premises to the idea that gw is causing havoc, not an argument. I agree with it.
2.Most extreme winter Arctic atmospheric circulation on record; "Snowmageddon" results
This is a complete ad hoc explanation for the latest "snowmageddons", that were created post fact. I have little respect for a kind of science that is only able to predict phenomena after it is seen, specially when it is a phenomena that it would otherwise create suspicion we had the wrong idea about the climate. I am not saying it is a false idea. I'm saying it's ad hoc and not impressive overall.
3. Arctic sea ice: lowest volume on record, 3rd lowest extent
Our "record" of the arctic sea ice spans for 30 years. Not impressive, but something to watch out for. It says nothing about "extreme weather events" however.
3.Record melting in Greenland, and a massive calving event
Same.
4. Second most extreme shift from El Niño to La Niña
The first one being in 73. This kind of thing is expected to happen, you know? It is statistically impossible to avoid that some years will have record heights in some cherry picked values, specially if your records are only 50 years old.
5.Second worst coral bleaching year
Sad.
6. Wettest year over land
The trend is somewhat clear, if a little obscured by the graphical choice of presentation. It says nothing about extremes, however. One could both have a case where mild rains were more frequent (a generally good thing, I'd say), or extreme rains were more frequent (a bad thing for sure).
7. Amazon rainforest experiences its 2nd 100-year drought in 5 years
Amazon phenomena is intriguing, but has little to do with GW. Much more to do with direct human abuse of it, I'd say. At least, I don't see how you could disentangle such obvious fact from the data.
8. Global tropical cyclone activity lowest on record
Yeah, right on. I can't see how this should be a problem, the most powerful cyclones being a little more powerful shouldn't be so damned scary. I find the lack of weather protection in third world countries to be far, far more deadly than these beasts.
(To compare, see the two hundred thousand casualties from Myanmar and compare them to the 3000 people dead in New Orleans, and a good case is made that these 3 thousand casualties can be blamed on the incompetence of those who should have maitained the levees that were shattered by Katrina).
9. A hyperactive Atlantic hurricane season: 3rd busiest on record
To be sure, any trend that spans for more than a century on this kind of thing should be caveated with the notion that most likely a century ago not all storms would be caught in the record, while nowadays to miss these is pretty much impossible, creating an artificial trend.
10. A rare tropical storm in the South Atlantic
So? Impossible things happen all the time?
11. Strongest storm in Southwestern U.S. history
This is novel to me. Ok, what is the physical explanation linking this phenomena to GW?
12. Strongest non-coastal storm in U.S. history
The second one in 76? As I said, records will be shattered every year in any given place for any phenomena, it's statistically inevitable. Just like someone is always winning the lottery.
13. etc.,etc.
The list is impressive, but it shows nothing other than we are living in a hazardous planet. The blame-the-humans for everything that happens to us is an usual mind faulty process that has accompanied us for thousands of years, one which we should watch out for. Are we sure we aren't just witnessing the results of amazing detection abilities progress, really bad urban planning, global media connections that are instant, etc.?
I have seen no evidence of the "weirdness" that the post aspires to demonstrate, but I'm willing to accept there's probably a trend there of increasing intensity of some phenomenas.
If it doesn't then someone should be explaining a mechanism for how it doesn't, which I have yet to see.
Oh, that is fairly simple. GW predicts that while the average temps will grow, they will grow faster in the poles rather than in the tropics. This means that the temperature differences between the extremes will be lower than now. If you accept the premise that many weather events are caused by the tensions and confrontations between these extremes (differences in pressures, etc.), then you are given that mechanism. The other mechanism that you refer to also makes sense. So here we have two different mechanisms that may be working at the same time. Or not.
-
From the abstract of your link,
Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes.
So the source you provided only discusses tropical cyclone activity. And by its own words, cyclone activity is too variable and the records too limited for a trend to show up. The IPCC agrees. (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html) That's why I asked you if you had links discussing other trends, such as migration of jet streams (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033614.shtml) and the tropical belt (http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/Seidel%20et%20al%202008%20Widening%20of%20tropical%20belt%20in%20a%20changing%20climate.pdf), which is predicted by GW and the records so far are in agreement with it (though more research/time required to boost confidence).
Oh, that is fairly simple. GW predicts that while the average temps will grow, they will grow faster in the poles rather than in the tropics. This means that the temperature differences between the extremes will be lower than now. If you accept the premise that many weather events are caused by the tensions and confrontations between these extremes (differences in pressures, etc.), then you are given that mechanism. The other mechanism that you refer to also makes sense. So here we have two different mechanisms that may be working at the same time. Or not.
Let's look at that bolded statement real quick. Most weather systems actually are not controlled by the global latitudinal temperature differences, but by interaction between airmasses, Jet Streams, and convergence zones. Temperature differences between the equator and the poles regulates the Hadley circulation, which also regulates jet streams, and therefore the climate as a whole. By changing that, you change the global circulation patterns, thus changing regional climate and pretty much cause problems everywhere since everything has to adapt to a new regime.
You've done a good job of looking at each of the events Mr. Masters' discussed but you seem to have missed the concluding paragraph:
Any one of the extreme weather events of 2010 or 2011 could have occurred naturally sometime during the past 1,000 years. But it is highly improbable that the remarkable extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011 could have all happened in such a short period of time without some powerful climate-altering force at work. The best science we have right now maintains that human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 are the most likely cause of such a climate-altering force.
The collective speaks more than the individual, in other words. But I digress, take it or leave it, we'll know more in another few decades I'm sure. :)
-
From the abstract of your link,
Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes.
So the source you provided only discusses tropical cyclone activity. And by its own words, cyclone activity is too variable and the records too limited for a trend to show up. The IPCC agrees. (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html) That's why I asked you if you had links discussing other trends, such as migration of jet streams (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033614.shtml) and the tropical belt (http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/Seidel%20et%20al%202008%20Widening%20of%20tropical%20belt%20in%20a%20changing%20climate.pdf), which is predicted by GW and the records so far are in agreement with it (though more research/time required to boost confidence).
I admitted as such already, what else do you want me to do?
Let's look at that bolded statement real quick. Most weather systems actually are not controlled by the global latitudinal temperature differences, but by interaction between airmasses, Jet Streams, and convergence zones. Temperature differences between the equator and the poles regulates the Hadley circulation, which also regulates jet streams, and therefore the climate as a whole. By changing that, you change the global circulation patterns, thus changing regional climate and pretty much cause problems everywhere since everything has to adapt to a new regime.
Sure. Climate change. That's the whole meaning of the term. Be aware right now that you are now speaking of a different phenomena than the one claiming that "extreme events will happen due to more energy". This is a parallel phenomena.
You've done a good job of looking at each of the events Mr. Masters' discussed but you seem to have missed the concluding
Any one of the extreme weather events of 2010 or 2011 could have occurred naturally sometime during the past 1,000 years. But it is highly improbable that the remarkable extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011 could have all happened in such a short period of time without some powerful climate-altering force at work.
Again, the last sentence *could* be true, but alas, I see no evidence for it. And by evidence, I mean statistical evidence that there is really a trend towards spectacular weather phenomena. All I see is vulgar statistical evidence that shows that sometimes **** happens. And in some very specific places, certain phenomena hit a certain criteria to be called "record high". But this is statistically inevitable, as I previously said, even for completely random numbers.
The best science we have right now maintains that human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 are the most likely cause of such a climate-altering force.
If you *assume* that there is such an amazing trend, and if you also *assume* that natural variations aren't probably the cause for many of these phenomena. Alas, there are too many assumptions in your science.
The collective speaks more than the individual, in other words. But I digress, take it or leave it, we'll know more in another few decades I'm sure. :)
Well that's the ultimate empirical test, innit? We know that we know very little. And this should be enough for us to make certain important decisions, like start a policy of protecting the economy, the infrastructures, the cities, the natural environments against the crude accidents of nature in a wise fashion.
-
It's worth noting that the original, raw, unadjusted climate model data may no longer actually exist:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228291/dog-ate-global-warming/patrick-j-michaels
-
I'm not that concerned about the global temperature records, since the raw data does exist... it just exists on the stations themselves, waiting to be picked up. The BEST team are doing as we speak a new temperature record, in an open sourced, transparent way, because the main director of the team found out about the malpractices of these buffoons and stopped believing in their homeworks ate by dogs.
Thing is, the preliminary results he showed back a few months ago are mostly in line with other temperature records, something that left skeptics fuming and whining about the release of an incomplete work, while being somewhat praised by warmistas:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/04/01/01climatewire-experts-heat-up-over-berkeley-lab-scientists-q-490.html
This study is interesting, since it is the most comprehensive to date, reaching 1.6 billion records of temperature data, and it tries to be the most rigorous, with professional statisticians (and not climatologists) doing the hard statistics involved in such a daunting task.
-
yep, i follow up the thread to see if anyone followed up my smart ass response. no, but i have decided to give the thread the radioactive stamp of wank (graphic still pending, im lazy and uninspired). my head hurts now, im gonna go od on asprin.
-
Nuke, your rant was slightly off topic, but if you want to know my opinion, I largely agree with it, except for the first paragraph of yours.
There is enough fossil fuel energy to drive this planet to the projection numbers made by the IPCC.
-
i did not say fossil fuel, i said oil. there is plenty of coal and natural gas to muck things up. frankly i dont have a problem of the earth turning into an industrial death pit, actually i think that would be kinda cool. regardless, the stamp of wank is well earned. wear it proudly and dont get any brain goo in your hair.
-
Don't worry about peak oil, it is largely a non-important event.
-
Don't worry about peak oil, it is largely a non-important event.
i have always assumed we would run out of oil (or rather loose the ability to drill it cheaply) before we could saturate our atmosphere with c02 to the point where we would be the next venus. i really wouldn't worry until you effectively have to shovel coal into the engine of your car to get anywhere.
we wont just one day run out of oil. it will be a steady process of decline. however as it costs more and more money to extract, the price will go up, the supply will go down. at some point oil will be an expensive luxury and people will be running biofuel, electric, hydrogen, natural gas, whatever because it will be cheaper. this is how i effectively define the end of the oil age. oil production will continue, but it wont all be fed to engines like it is now.
-
I admitted as such already, what else do you want me to do?
Well, I'd like for you to not be biased by only looking at studies of tropical cyclone data. You stated that "There is no scientific evidence for these extreme weather events caused by climate change at all" and supported that with one study that indeed did not show a trend, but it also had no expectation of showing a trend given the subject (tropical cyclones) and limited data set. Meanwhile, I've pointed other studies that show compelling evidence that GW is altering weather patterns already. (Jet streams and convergence zone migration -- evidence of global climate changes and an agreement with GW predictions).
So, what I'm asking you to do is reconsider your claim. At the very least check out those links and examine studies that aren't just about something so limited as tropical cyclones...
Sure. Climate change. That's the whole meaning of the term. Be aware right now that you are now speaking of a different phenomena than the one claiming that "extreme events will happen due to more energy". This is a parallel phenomena.
Maybe I wasn't clear; I was pointing out that your entire argument was based on a false premise. I'll elaborate further:
Weather is not driven by global temperature variation. A thunderstorm over Texas has no idea what the temperature is over the Arctic Ocean. The thunderstorm was born from the latent heat released by water vapor rising and condensing in an unstable atmosphere. It should also be noted that atmospheric instability increases with both water vapor content and surface temperature. If you increase surface temperatures, you increase evaporation and atmospheric instability, and thus the available convective potential energy to fuel storms. So with warmer global temperatures, you ought to expect stronger storms.
Regional weather patterns like air masses / frontal systems are largely driven by the Hadley circulation, and GW acts to alter said circulation, thus bringing new weather patterns to locales that aren't used to seeing them. This would mean more extreme weather events for a wide range of locales. And perhaps, just to avoid any confusion, I should define what an extreme weather event is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather)
So here we have this explanation for why GW is expected to increase the rate of extreme weather events, and your "GW reduces the temperature differences between the equator and the poles" argument does not do a very good job of refuting it.
If you *assume* that there is such an amazing trend, and if you also *assume* that natural variations aren't probably the cause for many of these phenomena. Alas, there are too many assumptions in your science.
Which trend, exactly, do you think I'm making an assumption on?
-
Man, you do like to beat on a dead horse. I have conceded that point now for three times in a row. What the **** do you want from me? To parade in front of the parliament naked beating myself while crying "it's all my fault! it's all my fault!" PLEASE LEAVE ME ALLOOOOOONE ;).
So, what I'm asking you to do is reconsider your claim. At the very least check out those links and examine studies that aren't just about something so limited as tropical cyclones...
But I did so. And you did acknowledge I did a "good work" too. Man, you are really a demanding fella.
Weather is not driven by global temperature variation. A thunderstorm over Texas has no idea what the temperature is over the Arctic Ocean. The thunderstorm was born from the latent heat released by water vapor rising and condensing in an unstable atmosphere. It should also be noted that atmospheric instability increases with both water vapor content and surface temperature. If you increase surface temperatures, you increase evaporation and atmospheric instability, and thus the available convective potential energy to fuel storms. So with warmer global temperatures, you ought to expect stronger storms.
Ok, that's a slightly contradictory paragraph you have here. Either you are in contradiction, basically saying that GT do not drive weather events, except they do, or you are beating a strawman, for no one here claimed that weather events were mostly driven by a global temperature index, that forsure nature has no clue about whatsoever.
Regional weather patterns like air masses / frontal systems are largely driven by the Hadley circulation, and GW acts to alter said circulation, thus bringing new weather patterns to locales that aren't used to seeing them. This would mean more extreme weather events for a wide range of locales.
Come on finish that sentence like the honest guy you are (I'm not being sarcastic)! You know you want to: "This would also mean less extreme weather events for another wide range of locales". It follows almost tautologically.
So here we have this explanation for why GW is expected to increase the rate of extreme weather events, and your "GW reduces the temperature differences between the equator and the poles" argument does not do a very good job of refuting it.
I disagree with you here. You haven't presented an argument that things will change *for worse*, only that things *will change*. I'm not saying that such an argument doesn't exist, just that you didn't formulate it. And if the Hadley circulation works something like what wikipedia defines like this:
The major driving force of atmospheric circulation is solar heating, which on average is largest near the equator and smallest at the poles. The atmospheric circulation transports energy polewards, thus reducing the resulting equator-to-pole temperature gradient.
Then we do have a point in referring that if the temperature variation between those poles is significantly less, the hadley circulation will be weaker. This is a very simple mechanism on why GW could also theoretically result in a more mild variations of temperatures and weather events in the future. I also think it is too simple and of course the climate is waaay more complex than that. But this argument also applies to the simplistic "more energy, more storms, QED".
-
Luis, I really don't enjoy discussions where every post is dissected into bits, nor do I enjoy your blithely sarcastic demeanor.
I'm not trying to get you to repeatedly concede mundane things like your link only discussing cyclones. I'm not that big of an ass.
What I am trying to do is discuss the research on Jet Stream migration, since that would appear to contradict your claim that there's no evidence for GW having an observed influence on extreme weather. Now if that is the point you said you've conceded, then great.
But I did so. And you did acknowledge I did a "good work" too. Man, you are really a demanding fella.
No, I believe you misunderstood. I said you did a good job of picking through each individual thing that Jeff's Blog post discussed, and missing the point of his concluding paragraphs, and by extension the article in its entirety. (I did say it a little less bluntly though.) Irrelevant though since we both would like to see longer records for extreme weather before reaching an actual conclusion.
Sooooooo, I was instead asking you to look at the links on trends in Jet Streams (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033614.shtml) and Tropical Belts (http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/Seidel%20et%20al%202008%20Widening%20of%20tropical%20belt%20in%20a%20changing%20climate.pdf). For one, those are proper studies (not blog posts), and two, they don't discuss single extreme events, but longer term trends, and matches them with GW predictions. (I feel like I've said this already...)
Ok, that's a slightly contradictory paragraph you have here.
:rolleyes: Fine, let me fix that for you. I can't believe you couldn't understand the point well enough when I've already stated it multiple times in various forms. I do wonder if you're actually trying or not.
Weather is not driven by global temperature variation temperature differences between the equator and the poles, as you claimed. A thunderstorm over Texas has no idea what the temperature is over the Arctic Ocean. The thunderstorm was born from the latent heat released by water vapor rising and condensing in an unstable atmosphere. It should also be noted that atmospheric instability increases with both water vapor content and surface temperature. If you increase surface temperatures (GW), you increase evaporation and atmospheric instability, and thus the available convective potential energy to fuel storms. So with warmer global temperatures (GW), you ought to expect stronger storms.
Can I make that any clearer? How about this?
Storms don't feel the temperature gradient between the poles. They're driven by local scale convection, between the earth's surface and the air aloft. GW acts to promote this, for obvious reasons.
I notice you didn't say a thing about the paragraph under that, discussing regional weather.
Come on finish that sentence like the honest guy you are (I'm not being sarcastic)! You know you want to: "This would also mean less extreme weather events for another wide range of locales". It follows almost tautologically.
Your sense of humbleness is as well developed as your reading comprehension skills...
Try again, will you?
I disagree with you here. You haven't presented an argument that things will change *for worse*, only that things *will change*. I'm not saying that such an argument doesn't exist, just that you didn't formulate it.
Um, yes, I did:
By changing that, you change the global circulation patterns, thus changing regional climate and pretty much cause problems everywhere since everything has to adapt to a new regime.
And if the Hadley circulation works something like what wikipedia defines like this: *text*
Then we do have a point in referring that if the temperature variation between those poles is significantly less, the hadley circulation will be weaker. This is a very simple mechanism on why GW could also theoretically result in a more mild variations of temperatures and weather events in the future.
You are missing the point of the Jet streams migrating, which is really sad because I've only mentioned and linked to that topic several times already. By weakening the temperature variation between the poles, the Jet streams shift. If you know anything about how regional climate works, you'll know that Jet Streams play a major role in the development and movement of air masses, frontal systems, and storms. Thus, by weakening the temperature variation between the poles, you cause shifts in the weather systems and where they occur, and thus cause more extreme weather events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather).
I also think it is too simple and of course the climate is waaay more complex than that. But this argument also applies to the simplistic "more energy, more storms, QED".
More storms? I never said there would be more storms. I said that you'd expect to see more extreme weather events. Individual storms ought to have more oomph to them though, since GW tends to increase the amount of available convective energy in the lower atmosphere.
If you *assume* that there is such an amazing trend, and if you also *assume* that natural variations aren't probably the cause for many of these phenomena. Alas, there are too many assumptions in your science.
Which trend, exactly, do you think I'm making an assumption on?
Could you answer that for me please?
-
Sorry whatsisname I know I'm too much sarcastical today to be helpful... I'll try again when my shenanigans sink down to tolerable levels.
-
Not sure how I'm supposed to parse that, but righto regardless.
-
Parse it as an honest admission that you are right. Even when I wrote the reply I was thinking.. "bad tone man bad tone..."
-
It's cool. At least it's a mildly interesting conversation, hope we can continue it sometime later. I'd love to get back onto the original topic of climate sensitivity, too.
-
More storms? I never said there would be more storms. I said that you'd expect to see more extreme weather events. Individual storms ought to have more oomph to them though, since GW tends to increase the amount of available convective energy in the lower atmosphere.
I'm not gonna get into the Climate Change discussion, but since I really want to talk about weather I'm gonna chime in. :D
Thinking that storms should be stronger because of warmer temps and higher moisture is not necessarily true. Summer "pop up" convection, possibly. The most severe types of convection, Supercells, not so much. In a perfect sense, higher temps and dewpoints will increase instability. However, perfect cases are extremely rare(4/27/11, 4/3/74) However, the higher the moisture content, the higher chance of "junk" convection which reduces and in some cases totally eliminates low level instability. So the much more real possibility is more storms, more rain and less Supercells and violent tornadoes.
The second part is this. While higher temps and moisture at the surface in a perfect sense will add instability, if that higher moisture and temps leech higher into the atmosphere the effect is detrimental to severe convection. If you saturate the layer of air from the surface to say 10,000 feet , you really increase the chance of "junk" convection. For extreme outbreaks, you need a saturated layer from the surface to about 5,000 feet and a very dry layer of air above that. Violent thunderstorms need that dry layer of air for updrafts to cool by evaporation and thus even farther increase the strength of the updraft. Secondly, higher temps at the surface means higher instability, higher temps right above the surface decrease it.
-
Sooooooo, I was instead asking you to look at the links on trends in Jet Streams (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033614.shtml) and Tropical Belts (http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/Seidel%20et%20al%202008%20Widening%20of%20tropical%20belt%20in%20a%20changing%20climate.pdf). For one, those are proper studies (not blog posts), and two, they don't discuss single extreme events, but longer term trends, and matches them with GW predictions. (I feel like I've said this already...)
I'd love to comment the first one, but it is behind a paywall...
About the second, I have no comment really but to attest that the paper is there claiming evidence for the widening of the tropical belts. Ok, sure. I have no idea if that theory could hold intense scrutiny, but I have no problems whatsoever in accepting that this may well be happening. The conclusions seem harsh
Of particular concern are the semi-arid regions poleward of the subtropical dry belts, including the Mediterranean, the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, southern Australia, southern Africa, and parts of South America. A poleward expansion of the tropics is likely to bring even drier conditions to these heavily populated regions, but may bring increased moisture to other areas. Widening of the tropics would also probably be associated with poleward movement of major extratropical climate zones due to changes in the position of jet streams, storm tracks, mean position of high and low pressure systems, and associated precipitation regimes. An increase in the width of the tropics could bring an increase in the area affected by tropical storms, or could change climatological tropical cyclone development regions and tracks.
However, their wording is pretty much maybe perhaps why not. They speak of drier conditions on some areas, but they neglect to speak about the receding Sahara desert (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2267652.stm) as a big counter example. Perhaps because this is not a "particular concern", so it wouldn't be listed. But that's the whole problem, you see, that the list is just about those bad things that will perhaps happen, and not discussing the "pros" that the phenomena will also inevitably bring about.
Weather is not driven by global temperature variation temperature differences between the equator and the poles, as you claimed. A thunderstorm over Texas has no idea what the temperature is over the Arctic Ocean. The thunderstorm was born from the latent heat released by water vapor rising and condensing in an unstable atmosphere. It should also be noted that atmospheric instability increases with both water vapor content and surface temperature. If you increase surface temperatures (GW), you increase evaporation and atmospheric instability, and thus the available convective potential energy to fuel storms. So with warmer global temperatures (GW), you ought to expect stronger storms.
Can I make that any clearer? How about this?
Storms don't feel the temperature gradient between the poles. They're driven by local scale convection, between the earth's surface and the air aloft. GW acts to promote this, for obvious reasons.
I'm sorry if you felt I was being facetious, but you did write that one badly in your first attempt. Now, you may assert what you will, but to say that the gradient of temperatures between the poles and the equator won't factor in the climate general picture and thus in all thunderstorms, is a bit of an overstretch. I did concede the basic point that you are stating that more energy in sea surface will result in more energetic storms. It just so happens that the climate is somewhat more complex than that, and there's much more than hot sea waters creating storms.
I notice you didn't say a thing about the paragraph under that, discussing regional weather.
I disagree with you here. You haven't presented an argument that things will change *for worse*, only that things *will change*. I'm not saying that such an argument doesn't exist, just that you didn't formulate it.
Um, yes, I did:
By changing that, you change the global circulation patterns, thus changing regional climate and pretty much cause problems everywhere since everything has to adapt to a new regime.
You seemed to failed to understand my point. My point wasn't that there will be losers in the climate. My point is that you are making a huge assumption that all changes will be for the worse. But this assumes that the current planet "state" is the "perfect" one, and not just the "current" one. This is surely wrong, and there are many regions in the planet that would welcome the warming that the IPCC anticipates for them. Again, you have made the point that there will be regions which will cope worse than now, but you have failed to demonstrate that all the changes are for the worse.
Unless you think that the planet is in some sort of a "holist perfect state" now and that we have come to destroy it by tinker with it, the expectation of "losers" and "winners" almost flows tautologically from the phenomena of Climate Change.
This is not to excuse the phenomena. It may well be that there will be more losers than winners, and the mere chance of this happening is sufficient to trigger the precautionary principle.
You are missing the point of the Jet streams migrating, which is really sad because I've only mentioned and linked to that topic several times already. By weakening the temperature variation between the poles, the Jet streams shift. If you know anything about how regional climate works, you'll know that Jet Streams play a major role in the development and movement of air masses, frontal systems, and storms. Thus, by weakening the temperature variation between the poles, you cause shifts in the weather systems and where they occur, and thus cause more extreme weather events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather).
You are the one missing the point, by thinking that this variation will only cause *one* phenomena. In your speech, less global temperature variation seems to only cause a wider Jet Stream. The other non sequitur that I am also unable to accept is that you automatically conclude that this widening will inevitably result in more extreme weather events. It could. But it could also work differently.
More storms? I never said there would be more storms. I said that you'd expect to see more extreme weather events. Individual storms ought to have more oomph to them though, since GW tends to increase the amount of available convective energy in the lower atmosphere.
Ok, point remains. Climate is still more complex than that for you to automatically conclude that sentence.
If you *assume* that there is such an amazing trend, and if you also *assume* that natural variations aren't probably the cause for many of these phenomena. Alas, there are too many assumptions in your science.
Which trend, exactly, do you think I'm making an assumption on?
The first assumption is about a rising trend of "extreme weather events". You have shown a graph for this on wikipedia, but you seemingly assume the departure from earthquakes must automatically mean a climatic signal. I see in there a non-sequitur. There might be many more reasons for this departure and I can recall some of them just by memory. For instance, the flood numbers are departing from the Earthquakes. This may well mean a climate signal of more intense rainfall. But it can also signify the utterly bad urban development in almost the entire world, specially the third world one, since the urban development in cities and mega-cities tends to occupy the entirety of the valleys first (and then the hills), waterproofing the valleys without any planning at all. The end result is what happened in Pakistan some time ago. How will you disentangle this completely reasonable argument from the climate signal?
The cyclone signal is easily dismissed as a sign of human preferrence for coastal development, instead of "hinterland" development, and the current literature agrees with me.
The second assumption is that this trend, even if real and clearly a sign of a changing climate, is not the byproduct of a natural climatic variation, as it *must* be even if only by a few percent. How did you measure this? How can anyone?
-
I'd love to comment the first one, but it is behind a paywall...
Alas, it's not easy to find many good full-text articles. It does serve to show that it's not just one article discussing the topic though.
About the second, I have no comment really but to attest that the paper is there claiming evidence for the widening of the tropical belts. Ok, sure. I have no idea if that theory could hold intense scrutiny, but I have no problems whatsoever in accepting that this may well be happening. The conclusions seem harsh.
*snip*
However, their wording is pretty much maybe perhaps why not. They speak of drier conditions on some areas, but they neglect to speak about the receding Sahara desert as a big counter example. Perhaps because this is not a "particular concern", so it wouldn't be listed. But that's the whole problem, you see, that the list is just about those bad things that will perhaps happen, and not discussing the "pros" that the phenomena will also inevitably bring about.
The evidence for the widening of the belts is the point of discussion, because it suggests that GW is having an effect on regional weather patterns. The pros and cons and specific local effects of the belts widening are arguably too complex to predict in great detail and that is not what I'm interested in at the moment.
I'm sorry if you felt I was being facetious, but you did write that one badly in your first attempt.
Sure, I was fairly sleep deprived at the time so my writing wasn't super fantastic, I admit. ;)
Now, you may assert what you will, but to say that the gradient of temperatures between the poles and the equator won't factor in the climate general picture and thus in all thunderstorms, is a bit of an overstretch.
That isn't what I'm saying.
I'm claiming that are more strongly coupled to local weather systems and convection than to the global temperature gradient. The scales of circulation patterns goes like this:
Global circulation (Hadley Cells) --> Jet Streams, Rossby Waves --> Cyclones/Anticyclones, frontal systems, regional weather systems --> storms, local weather systems.
The global circulation may dictate when and where storms will form, but its strength does not directly correlate to the storm strength, because there is a great deal more going on in between.
The other and closely related point I'm making is that regional weather patterns are shifting because of the shifting Jet Streams. I don't believe it's that much of a stretch to conclude that if you shift the Jet Streams, you also change regional weather patterns and thus have a higher rate of occurrence of extreme weather.
I did concede the basic point that you are stating that more energy in sea surface will result in more energetic storms.
Ok, and that's only a minor point, really. Also WeatherOP had some illuminating information on that subject.
It just so happens that the climate is somewhat more complex than that, and there's much more than hot sea waters creating storms.
Why do you keep talking about sea waters? Evaporation from land is important as well.
And I agree wholeheartedly that the climate is very complex. That's another reason why I found it rather odd that you claimed that weakening the temperature gradient directly relates to diminishing extreme weather events.
You seemed to failed to understand my point. My point wasn't that there will be losers in the climate.
Aye, I wasn't under the impression that you were making that point.
My point is that you are making a huge assumption that all changes will be for the worse.
Sorry, that's my bad, my writing conveyed a more negative view than what I actually hold. I don't assert that all changes brought by GW will be for the worse, and indeed there may be some benefits (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/agriculture.html). My view is that climate change is causing ecosystems to have to adapt to new conditions more quickly than they would be otherwise, and I don't see this as a plus since it suggests upsetting ecosystem balance.
But this assumes that the current planet "state" is the "perfect" one, and not just the "current" one.
No, I don't think I'm making that assumption at all. I don't think that the present state of things is inherently better or worse than it was a thousand or even a million years ago, aside from the fact that it's what I, myself, am currently living with. One could very well argue that the introduction of oxygen to the atmosphere some 2 billion years ago was bad for most of the stuff living at the time. But without it we wouldn't be here. :P
This is not to excuse the phenomena. It may well be that there will be more losers than winners, and the mere chance of this happening is sufficient to trigger the precautionary principle.
Yes, I think we are both in good agreement on this point.
I'll have to get to the rest of your post at a later time, but thanks for the continued discussion. :)
edit for quote tag error fixing
-
Just a word to state that I'm not really fond of the expression "balance of the ecossystem". I don't think this has any real meaning at all, i.e., that this concept is completely mythological and that nature is far more chaotic and "unbalanced" than we give it credit for.
-
*shrug*. There's mass extinction events and then there's periods between where ecosystems are more stable by comparison.
You are the one missing the point, by thinking that this variation will only cause *one* phenomena. In your speech, less global temperature variation seems to only cause a wider Jet Stream.
Incorrect assumption, I never stated that they only widen. (Maybe you're concluding that because of the second link I provided.) There is compelling evidence that the jet streams are undergoing a variety of changes, including intensity shifts, poleward migration, and increasing altitude.
The other non sequitur that I am also unable to accept is that you automatically conclude that this widening will inevitably result in more extreme weather events. It could. But it could also work differently.
I conclude that because I can't fathom how the global circulation could be altered in such a way without resulting in a change in regional weather patterns. (Remember a while back I asked for a mechanism by which it wouldn't?) Pretty much any discussion of Jet Streams also states how important a role they play in regulating regional weather. And from there I don't think it's a big stretch to conclude that changing the norm of regional weather would result in a higher occurrence of extreme weather events.
And then you have all this discussion going on of the record-breaking years we've had lately. Now I feel like I have to be extremely clear on what my stance on this is, so am I saying "Oh yes, we're definitely seeing AGW-induced extreme weather!"? No, I'm saying there are compelling signs of it. At the very least it's something that should be heavily researched and scrutinized.
The first assumption is about a rising trend of "extreme weather events". You have shown a graph for this on wikipedia, but you seemingly assume the departure from earthquakes must automatically mean a climatic signal. I see in there a non-sequitur. There might be many more reasons for this departure and I can recall some of them just by memory. For instance, the flood numbers are departing from the Earthquakes. This may well mean a climate signal of more intense rainfall. But it can also signify the utterly bad urban development in almost the entire world, specially the third world one, since the urban development in cities and mega-cities tends to occupy the entirety of the valleys first (and then the hills), waterproofing the valleys without any planning at all. The end result is what happened in Pakistan some time ago. How will you disentangle this completely reasonable argument from the climate signal? [etc]
No, sorry, this is all totally irrelevant. I linked that wikipedia article for the purpose of defining what an extreme weather event is (and I explained that right before posting the link), since at the time you appeared to be working under a different definition (storm energy). I'm not using wikipedia to formulate or substantiate any claims. If I were I would have said as much.
-
Parse it as an honest admission that you are right. Even when I wrote the reply I was thinking.. "bad tone man bad tone..."
It's cool. At least it's a mildly interesting conversation, hope we can continue it sometime later. I'd love to get back onto the original topic of climate sensitivity, too.
:yes:
/me takes a deep breath of fresh air... smells like some maturity in here.
Wish all post on debate threads would have that. Heck, or on the news etc. It's refreshing. :nod:
-
Btw about extreme weather events, this just in:
Was there a basis for anticipating the 2010 Russian heat wave?
“analysis of forced model simulations indicates that neither human influences nor other slowly evolving ocean boundary conditions contributed substantially to the magnitude of the heat wave.”
New peerrreviwdpaper came out in GRL:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046582.shtml
They also provide evidence that such an intense event could be produced through natural variability alone. Analysis of observations indicate that this heat wave was mainly due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes that produced and maintained a strong and long-lived blocking event, and that similar atmospheric patterns have occurred with prior heat waves in this region. We conclude that the intense 2010 Russian heat wave was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability. Slowly varying boundary conditions that could have provided predictability and the potential for early warning did not appear to play an appreciable role in this event.
The worst part is, whenever someone is slightly skeptical of these anthropogenic connections, is immediately labeled as someone sinister, that these relations are "obious" and "evidently right". I am not speaking about anyone in this forum, mind you. I'm just venting what I see as the obnoxious phenomena of self-righteous bull****ters bullying everyone to their own delusions about what is the truth, and even claiming they belong to the tribe that is "reality-based".