Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings
Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings: Models, Water, and Temperature (4)
This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.
Doing Science with Models 1.1: In the previous entry of this series I argued that if one considered the types of models used in design and engineering, then we use models all of the time. In fact, when we build or do just about anything, we use some sort of model to get us started. I ended the previous entry with the example of building a simple picnic bench that would hold three, two-hundred-pound men. Not only do the materials need to be of sufficient strength, but the legs of the bench need to be attached in a way that they form a solid and stable foundation. If the bench wobbles and the legs spread apart, then it will be unsafe. If we have experience of some sort, we construct a model from this experience. For example, if we have built or repaired tables and benches we have some ideas of good and bad construction. If we have no direct experience then we can find or ask about plans. These plans might be a schematic, a graphic model of the bench.
For those who do not build benches, but who, say, balance their checkbooks, there are models as well. The forms in a ledger represent models that have proven usable through practice or that have become standard approaches. Information is collected and organized: the check number, the date, the payee, the amount, the purpose and the category of expenditure.
These graphic, tabular, or touchable models are common enough that we develop intuition about their use. Introductory materials to climate models often use the words “mathematical,” “numerical,” and “computational.” These words take us not only away from our intuitive notions of models, but also into subjects that many of us find difficult and obscure. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen the tabular models of checkbook balancing coded as computational products such as Quicken. Design and architecture move to tools such as Computer-assisted Design. Recently, we have seen this combination of the world of digital models and touchable products come full circle with the advent of three-dimensional printing. In three-dimensional printing, solid objects made of plastic and metal are rendered from mathematical descriptions of the objects. I will return to this idea of mathematical descriptions of objects later. The point that I would like to make now is that using computers as tools to represent the real world has in the last two decades become routine. Therefore, in and of itself, the use of computers to make numerical calculations of the real world is common. It might not be as universally intuitive to people as a ledger or a wooden design of a boat, but there is large body of experience that affirms the value of computer-based modeling.
There are a number of steps that need to be taken from here to climate models. So far, I have been talking about models that are in the spirit of a work or a structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. In climate modeling, the final product of the construction is a model. It is the purpose of that model to provide a credible representation of the climate. That representation has a number of attributes. There is the attribute of representing what we have already observed. There is also the attribute of predicting what we will observe, that is, predicting the future. Therefore, the final product of the whole process is the simulation of and the prediction of the climate.
As with many words, there is more than one definition of model in the dictionary. Another relevant definition from my print edition (third) of the American Heritage Dictionary is “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further studies of its characteristics.” (American Heritage Dictionary online) This definition is directly descriptive of a climate model. But like those introductions to climate models that I referred to above, it quickly goes to words like “system” and “theory” that are not quite as intuitive as I would like. This is where I will start next time.
Interesting Research: Attribution of 2011 Extreme Weather to Climate Change - Some might recall in 2011, I wandered into the contentious subject of the attribution of climate change to humans (collected here) and talking about communicating extreme weather events in the media (Shearer and Rood). The paper I highlight in today’s blog is a compilation of efforts to understand the role of planetary warming in some of the extreme events of 2011. The paper is Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective edited by Tom Peterson and others and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper looks at six of the extreme events of 2011 and tries to attribute, in a variety of ways, the role played by human-caused global warming. (nice summary in New Scientist)
I want to focus on the part of the paper that discusses the extreme heat and drought in Texas in the summer of 2011. Much of that discussion is based on evaluating the effect of sea surface temperature, and specifically, the role of El Nino and La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are the names given to recurring patterns of sea surface temperature distributions in the eastern, tropical Pacific Ocean. The approach to this problem is to use models to make many simulations with sea surface temperature distributions similar to the La Nina conditions of 2011. Simulations were made for times in the 1960s and for the year 2008. The simulations provide an ensemble of many plausible outcomes, and it is possible to investigate the odds of a drought of similar extreme attributes as the 2011 drought occurring in the 1960s. The authors conclude that the warming climate made the 2011 drought 20 times more likely to occur now than in the 1960s. The authors point out that they cannot make statements about absolute probability. That is, they cannot state that in the absence of carbon dioxide increases and associated warming, that the drought would not have occurred.
This approach of using probability to discuss the impact of warming is an active area of research as well as an emerging way to communicate the relation between extreme weather and global warming. In the Washington Post, Jim Hansen has an op-ed piece that describes a paper which was released on Monday, August 6 (reference at end). In this paper Hansen revisits his metaphor that compares extreme weather in a warming climate with playing a dice game with loaded dice. That is, the dice are loaded in a way such that what used to be “extreme” will more likely occur. Going back to the Texas drought, that result mentioned in the previous paragraph says that the dice are loaded so that the extreme attributes of the 2011 drought are 20 times more likely. The takeaway message from Hansen is that we have, so far, underestimated how much the dice are loaded and that we have underestimated the probability of extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and yes perhaps, persistent cold snaps.
r
Hansen, Early Edition, PNAS, Perception of Climate Change
Hansen, Perception of Climate Change, Public Summary
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index
All of the papers that I have looked at are published in peer-reviewed and credible journals.
One question, Snowlover.
How did you find those papers, through a legitimate literature search or via web sites?
I find this conversation and the poster Snowlover familiar. But where did a similar thing peak my interest? Got it!
Link
The subject is different, but the result, and the lack of logic, knowledge or reasoning skills is exactly the same. AND it is the same for the same reasons:
1. We have been subsidizing churches thru tax breaks and other free money for decades and those churches have been attacking science and the scientific method for so long now that people actually believe that AGW denialists, creationists and this fool "NoFlame" present just as much authority and validity as any scientist.
2. To balance the falling lack of reasoning skills in the general population, scientists are dumbing down their discourse so that people will understand what they are saying, but the result is that by now, the truth presented by a scientist sounds and appears to be just like the BS.
Compare this recent post by Dr. Rood to an old (1970's) science textbook. Dr. Rood takes great pains to write in 3rd grade english and to never EVER include any math. No math in a blog on modeling?!?!?!?!?! Just a sign of the times.
If you have the time, compare the reasoning, and arguments presented by NoFlame on grasscity to the arguments and logic of SnowLover. They are the same. NoFlame researched the issue of who built the pyramids, he may have put in the same (or more) effort that SnowLover did. But just like SnowLover, he has no skills in telling non-sense from sense.
I've questioned my friend grasscity:MeLt about why he argues with these fools and for him, it seems to be entertaining, but it is - and he admits that it is - a complete waste of time. I spent some time trying to reason with a guy that believed completely that the Galactic Federation of Light (GFL) would save the world. That was an eyeopening experience I assure you! LOL
I have no solution ... just an observation.
This video portrays the impacts of Climate Change on Arctic ecosystems and the marine mammals who live there.
It also looks like there is a potential for another arctic cyclone about 8-10 days from now. There is still a lot of warm air in Siberia (Tiksi, Russia is 70(F) today) to fuel more storms.
The only question in my mind is how badly the SIE and SIA records will be broken this year.
"I think it is very likely that Sea Ice melt slows significantly over the next few days, thus saving us from a record low in the Sea Ice. I still think that 2012 should be between 2008 and 2010 in terms of Sea Ice EXTENT."
Now why you both all-capped and bolded extent is a question that stuck with me. Why did you find it necessary/desirable to pick the least informative measurement of sea ice?
Extent - suppose a kid gets worried about the family's economics and asks her daddy if they have enough money.
Dad goes into the bedroom and pulls out all their money and spreads it out on the kitchen table. "See, honey, we're fine."
A couple months later Dad has lost his job and they've had some big bills to pay. So she once more asks if everything is fine.
Dad again spreads the family money on the kitchen table and reassures his daughter that all is well.
"But, Dad, last time you covered the table with piles of hundred dollar bills. This time the stacks are smaller and it's all ones and fives!"
Dad's got that extent thing covered. It's the volume that's going to be the problem in days to come....
Fair enough.
However, when you return here after a few months and re-post links to papers that have you previously posted here and that (at that time) had been shown to be refuted (Scaffeta, for example), coupled with denialist talking points (it's been cooling since year X -where X to the present is statistically insignificant)...well, that's denialist territory whether you or I like it or not.
It is well known that Hansen used a climate sensitivity of 4.2C. Try re-calculating Hansen's projections with a sensitivity of 3C and see what happens. Then let me know what that tells you about Hansen's model.
CBSNews.com
WASHINGTON (AP) - This probably comes as no surprise: Federal scientists say July was the hottest month ever recorded in the Lower 48 states, breaking a record set during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
And even less a surprise: The U.S. this year keeps setting records for weather extremes, based on the precise calculations that include drought, heavy rainfall, unusual temperatures, and storms.
The average temperature last month was 77.6 degrees. That breaks the old record from July 1936 by 0.2 degree, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Records go back to 1895.
"It's a pretty significant increase over the last record," said climate scientist Jake Crouch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In the past, skeptics of global warming have pointed to the Dust Bowl to argue that recent heat isn't unprecedented. But Crouch said this shows that the current year "is out and beyond those Dust Bowl years. We're rivaling and beating them consistently from month to month."
CORRECT!
We're depleting some of the world's aquifers and that's not going to work out well when it comes to feeding ourselves...
Some of these aquifers are being exploited at a stunning rate, but what's truly alarming is how many people depend on that over-exploitation for their food. These aquifers include the Upper Ganges, covering densely populated areas of northern India and Pakistan, and the North China plain, which is the heart of corn-growing in that country. The aquifer of Western Mexico has become a large source of fruit and vegetable production for the U.S.
The High Plains aquifer in the United States, meanwhile, is having a particularly bad year. Farmers are pumping even more than usual, because of the drought afflicting this part of the country, and it is getting less replenishment from rainfall. So water levels in the aquifer are falling even faster, leaving less water for the region's rivers, birds, and fish.
Good map...
Link
It's likely more impressive when you factor in the fact that we've changed our farming practices since the 1930s.
This is unacceptable........
Slashdot.org
Worst Case Scenario
Where would the most damaging hit be? It’s debatable, but the most detrimental hit may be in Virginia. Amazon Web Services (AWS) has one of their major centers in Northern Virginia. Rackspace—probably its closest competitor—has two data centers in Virginia, as well. And Virginia isn’t a stranger to natural disasters. Between 1851 and 2009, 12 hurricanes hit the state of Virginia.
Unfortunately, according to a 2010 article in Nature Geoscience, some projections (based on high-resolution dynamical models and on theory) show that the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones will shift toward storms that are stronger. Greenhouse warming would cause this shift, and the storm intensity is projected to increase 2-11% by 2100. While there are studies that project a decrease in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, there are also projections that there will be increases in the frequency of the strongest cyclones.
Hypothetically, if an incredibly strong storm pummeled through the centers located in Virginia, the Internet could suffer greatly. When only considering Amazon’s cloud (including all of its data centers), an incredible amount of information would be affected. In a study involving millions of people, ⅓ of those surveyed reported visiting a website every day that used Amazon’s infrastructure. In 2011, Amazon’s S3 cloud stored 762 billion objects. It’s possible that Amazon’s cloud alone holds an entire 1% of the Internet.
Refinery fire could boost gas prices nationwide
By Gary Strauss, USA TODAY
Motorists in West Coast states are about to see a big spike in gas prices, the fallout from a fire that cut production at one of the region's largest oil refineries.
Gasoline prices, now averaging $3.87 a gallon in California, $3.72 in Washington and $3.69 in Oregon, are expected to spike to $4.15 to $4.25 a gallon over the next week to 10 days following Monday's partial shutdown of a Chevron refinery in Richmond, Calif.
Nationally, gasoline prices have climbed 27 cents a gallon in the past month. While the refinery fire will drive prices along the West Coast, it will also lift the national average above year-ago levels.
"August looks like a very touch-and-go month for the entire country," says OPIS analyst Tom Kloza, who expects price relief after Labor Day. For the year to date, gasoline has averaged $3.61 a gallon 10 cents more than the average for all 2011, the most expensive year ever, he says.
You're not going to like this, but what you notice is a pretty poor scientific standard unless you can quantify your observations.
And which of those papers haven't been refuted in the scientific literature or simply ignored?
The halt in the warming recently is now a basic fact in Climate Science. The fact that you do not want to accept it, I am sorry to say, indicates denial.
Nope. I asked a question. You have failed to answer it. I stated "If you can demonstrate that there has been a statistically significant halt..." See, that "statistically significant" is pretty important. If your temperature trend isn't statistically significant then your claim is meaningless.
Yes, you cherry picked the data to get the answer you want. Let's see what would have happened had you used the other available temperature series at WFT.
Oh, look! All the temperature series you *didn't* graph happen to show a warming trend from 2001 to 2012. I wonder if that is a coincidence? lol
Again, it's hard to believe that that is surprising to anyone familiar with AGWT. It is well accepted that weather still occurs and can at times swamp the AGW signal. Get back to me when that happens in a statistically significant way.
I am a 70 y/o American expat who just retired, with Social Security as my sole income, to an affordable, cool tropical paradise at 4,500 ft. in the mountains of Panama not far from the Costa Rica Border. I'm only a few miles from La Amistad International Park, a 1,548 sq.mi. tropical highlands rainforest region of incredible biodiversity. As a child, I dreamed of visiting tropical rainforests, and through some unanticipated twists and turns in my life, ended up retiring in one.
I accept the scientific consensus* regarding global warming and climate change (GW/CC), and my views and opinions on various aspects of GW/CC will become apparent via my comments as time goes on.
*Scientific consensus: The collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. (from Wikipedia)
And now on to the real subject of my first post here.
I am fascinated by the psychology of CC deniers, and at the moment, the postings of Snowlover123. (I will use the male pronoun "he" unless someone has knowledge that Snowlover is actually a she.)
Snowlover is obviously very intelligent and highly skilled at writing well composed, well documented posts, a tribute to his education - in contrast to his lack of education in the area of critical thinking. (This statement will probably elicit howls of indignation, but I am entitled to my opinions here as much as Snowlover is entitled to his.) Snowlovers' information is apparently taken from well known CC/GW denialist web sites, and he displays no attempt to examine and criticize any of the information in his sources, yet vociferously demands "proof" and point-by-point rebuttals with detailed source information from those who dare to dispute his posts and opinions. He attacks his detractors while attempting to portray himself as a "victim" when his posts are challenged. He projects an image of believing that he is simply attempting to bring truth about the climate change "controversy" to the blog and then is viciously attacked for his charitable efforts. In reality, he puts a significant amount of work into his posts, although much of it looks like anti GW/CC boilerplate available via the internet.
Daisyworld, I really appreciate your posts about the Dunning-Kruger and I certainly think it applies to many unskilled/incompetent GW/CC deniers. However, I see Snowlover as highly skilled and intelligent, and I think that it is possible that he is still in the first of the classical five stages of grief - denial, and using all the energy and intellectual resources he can muster to support that denial. Many of us here, especially my peers in the later years of their lives, have reached stage five, the stage, which is acceptance. To paraphrase a classical description of this "final stage" of grief from my personal perspective: "The truth is that GW/CC is real, serious, and a great danger to man and human civilization. I accept the scientific consensus, and it is time to prepare for the difficulties ahead."
When I moderated three vacuum tube audio enthusiast forums during the early years of audioasylum.com about 15 years ago, we would occasionally have problems with very intelligent young trolls who would burst onto the scene loaded with recently acquired web-based knowledge. They would dive into the discussions with complex and articulate, but superficial comments that were either consciously or subconsciously loaded with passive-aggressive content. Then they would cry out with great indignation and remarkable skill portraying themselves as victims when anyone contradicted or attacked them. Snowlover's posts bring back memories of the difficulties of dealing with those young trolls. Logic doesn't work - and they are extremely skilled at manipulating their detractors and eliciting sympathy from those who they can trick into sympathizing with them as "victims."
Have we? The old system was slash-and-burn which leached out the nutrients/minerals out of the soil & without moisture there was nothing to hold the soil down.
We're still "slashing" (the burning is happening on it's own). The "Green Revolution" monoculture of the 1950's, 60's does pretty much the same thing - the soil isn't "living" - it's a "dead sponge" that they plant seeds on & pour fossil fuel based NPK fertilizers & pesticides on - without adding any nutrients or minerals.
I think we've only "improved" the problems - adding a dead zone (hypoxia) in the Gulf of Mexico & if we don't get significant rain fall soon - possibly another "dust bowl".
(just my opinion - and I have opinions on just about everything - just ask me ;-)
I believe we have, don't have data.
During dust bowl days farmers didn't practice crop rotation and generally didn't use cover crops. They left a lot of land plowed and bare.
That, in turn, allowed for a lot more evaporation and the dryer ground fed the temperature increases.
eta: I think we're doing a lot more non-till farming now in the US. Rather than plowing the old plant residue under we're planting through it, which leaves more of a protective cover for the soil while it's between crops. But I'm a few years away from living in a farming area, so no observations to back that up.
Off topic, but may I ask why you chose Panama over other very pleasant and affordable places such as Costa Rica and Ecuador? How does it stack up in terms of health care, etc.?
I assume CR is still affordable if one gets away from the expat communities.
(I'm looking at Ecuador as where I might spend the last couple decades of my life, when life in my mountains gets too much for an old body.)
The same semantic problems occur with the word 'theory'. Just remember gravity is 'just' a theory.
Maggie Kroerth-Baker wrote last week that she accidently stepped on a trigger word like that when she used 'infinity' in the plural. The great 'take-away' from that experience was that when dealing with a contrary non-science person was to not just be aware of what you are trying to say but to see who they see you as.That is one of those great 'a-ha' moments. Maggie, great as usual.
I think non-scientists relate better to 'rigged casios' than 'loaded dice'.
My favourite model today is the six torus(I do not know the plural) of the 'Hadley Cell'.
Actually you are totally wrong. There are plenty of papers out there floating around in the scientific literature supporting Skeptic arguments of AGW. There is no "vast" amount of scientists or papers that support one position. Take the recent 2012 AMS Survey for example. Only 52% of the members agreed that Global Warming was primarily caused by human activity. So it is roughly split 50/50 on whether Global Warming is primarily caused by human activity.
Some consensus.
People can repeat whatever they want to repeat, and if they were wrong, even if they repeat it, it is still wrong. The flatline in the Global Temperatures is real.
Here is the WTI
HadCruT3
GISS
UAH
RSS
HadSST2
Note that the data is not complete with HadCruT4 on WoodforTrees.
None of the datasets that show a slight upward trend in temperatures have statistically significant trend in temperatures since 2001. Likewise, most of the negative temperature trends since 2001 are not statistically significant. The warming has paused on all of the datasets. To say that this isn't so, is being in denial.
What is a "denialist" by the way? I counted it twice in your post. Is it someone who you libel because they disagree with you? Is it someone who you libel because you can't tolerate any other opinion other than your own?
I appreciate the info. I spent about four months in Panama several years back but most of it in the Canal Zone (~1 mo) and the San Blas Islands (~3 mo). I need to go back and see more of the rest of the country. I did make it out into the country, but not at altitude. And altitude is what makes that part of the world pleasant.
The food, all three places, I would classify as quickly boring. Perhaps in the more touristy places there's a greater variety of tastes. But what struck me in Ecuador was the wide variety of fruit and vegetables in the markets. And I recall the same in CR. The short distance from ocean/hotter climate to high mountain valleys means that many things are grown over a small geographic location and they can travel to market quickly.
Some of those guys have no clue. No clue at all.
It's like surveying podiatrists about the best treatments for cancer. Just because someone is knowledgeable in one field does not give them standing in others.
--
Now, take the ENSO and solar cycle noise out of the graphs you post and get back to us....
The United States has been very warm, but this is not an accurate representation on a Global scale. For example, RSS for July 2012 has 2012 as the 7th warmest on record, and the 8th, 9th and 10th warmest on RSS were only a few hundreths of a degree cooler.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series /RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_a nd_Ocean_v03_3.txt
52% of them had their Ph.Ds in Atmospheric Science, 56% had published about climate change in the last 5 years, and 23% had written more than half of their papers on Climate Change, so some of them are legitimate climate scientists.
I can take the solar signature out of the temperature record over the last 100 years and I would see a much smaller warming than what we have currently observed.
Looks like CO2 is remaining consistent at around a 2 ppm/year increase.
Regarding my local weather, I have been interested in weather and climate for all my life, and I consider my new home to have the perfect climate. Although it's tropical, it's at 4,500 elevation and 8° N latitude - too close to the equator for hurricanes. The temperature seldom goes above 80°F or under 60°F now, but it does drop into the low 50's at night in winter at this elevation. At 3pm, it is 71° outdoors with intermittent light rain and distant thunder moving closer, including the deep "basso profundo" type which shakes the whole house. It's been a typical day for the rainy season here, which runs from April through November.
I usually wear a t-shirt plus a warm long-sleeved outer shirt in evenings. However, when I go 5mi down to the local town of Boquete, it's usually 5-6°F warmer. And if I go to the provincial capital of David 25 miles down the hill near sea level, it's 15-20° warmer and very humid.
I completed a four-month exploratory visit to Boquete in June, and then returned to northern California to sell or donate most of the rest of my household goods and stationary woodshop tools. I came back a couple of weeks ago and moved into this highlands rental casa. I live in a neighborhood called Volcancito Arriba, which is about two miles from Lloyd Cripes Wunderground linked weather station at 4,200 ft. elevation in the next neighborhood over which is called Palmira Arriba.
I am curious about climate change scenarios for this area, but have not researched it yet. As we all know, the biggest changes so far seem to be taking place in the Arctic/Polar regions. So far, there doesn't seem to be any obvious symptoms of climate change here in Panama, and I may try to use Lloyd's monthly meteorological data, which goes back to March 2007. I might do some simple graphing to look for obvious trends, but without statistical analysis, which I am not qualified or trained to do.
Annual rainfall totals over the five years that the Palmira Arriba station has been in operation range from 146"-222". Within this small sample, August through October seems to be the period with the most rainfall. However, at 60.47", 2012 has the lowest cumulative rainfall through July over the past five years by about 3.5" or 5%.
Tells us that we're getting deeper and deeper in trouble, eh?
And, as you report "52% of the members agreed that Global Warming was primarily caused by human activity".
Hummmm...........
Kind of locks nicely with the 97% of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming and humans are the main cause....
Bob, I can take out all of the factors that impact the climate system, and claim we have not warmed. That is exactly the opposite of what you are doing to try and falsify that we have not warmed in the last 10 or so years.
Ozone changes are impacted by natural and anthropogenic causes. See all of the evidence that I posted in the other thread about how the sun likely has a major role to play in Ozone Depletion, as do CFCs. I am glad though that you accept that there are more factors than just Total Solar Irradiance, Volcanoes, and Greenhouse Gases that impact the Earth's temperature. Other anthropogenic and natural causes have been ignored that are important that Foster and Rahmstorf decided not to remove.
Your claim about Cosmic Rays not decreasing is again flawed.
There indeed has been a change in the Cosmic Ray Flux during the late-20th Century, as there has been with other solar-related variables.
From Dorman 2012
From Carslaw et. al 2002
From Ogurtsov et. al 2003
Cosmic Rays reached a record low in 1992, and the Cumulative Cosmic Ray Flux over a solar cycle was it's lowest ever recorded during the late-20th Century, contributing to Global Warming, and can account for a significant portion of the temperature increase observed during the 20th Century, and the late-20th Century (Dorman 2012)(Palle Bago and Butler 2001)(Belov et. al 2005)(Tinsley et. al 2009)(Rusov et. al 2010)(Carslaw et. al 2002)(Ermakov et. al 2009)(Ogurtsov et. al 2002)(Schrer et. al 2004)
I may have underestimated the ability of compaction. It will not be another error that I repeat in the future. DMI has dropped like crazy, I am starting to wonder how much of it actually is gone, and how much of it the satellite is not picking up, as you said.
No it doesn't at all.
Both, actually. I use Google Scholar to do my own independent research.
Using a sensitivity of 3 Degrees C gives you a temperature response of 1.2 Degrees C for a 40% increase in CO2, which is not what we have observed. We have only warmed 0.6 Degrees C, which is about half of that value, and it is extremely likely that a significant to dominant portion of that warming was naturally induced, making the sensitivity to CO2 even smaller.
-89% say GW is happening vs only 4% who said it isn't.
-59% say it's human-caused (and 11% say it's both human and natural), vs. only 6% who say it's primarily natural.
-72% are somewhat to very worried about it, vs. just 8% who are not at all worried.
-76% say it will be somewhat to very harmful to mankind.
Those results--from a bunch of people consisting of only about 25% of the members of a group made up of others aside from climate scientists--sort of make your comment that "...it is roughly split 50/50 on whether Global Warming is primarily caused by human activity" look pretty disingenuous, dontcha think? (And if you care to look at surveys taken by actual climate scientists, you'll find numbers in the upper 90s. You know, what honest folks woud call "a consensus")No, where climate science is concerned, a denialist is someone with a tribal--usually political/ideological--adherence to logically, scientifically, or factually flawed arguments against CAGW. It's someone who outright rejects the scientific consensus. It's someone who refuses to acknowledge basic physics. It's someone who tenaciously clings to anything written or spoken by debunked and discredited "scientists", while dismissing everything uttered by credible climate witnesses. It's someone who refuses to admit that those with their hands in Big Oil's pocket just might have financial reasons to lie. It's someone who doesn't approach the issue of climate change honestly and openly, but rather with their feet firmly planted in the (tar) sand, refusing to admit even to themselves that they may be mistaken. It's someone who continues to repeat lies--there's been no warming since 1998, and so on.
And so on. And so on...
Next witness, Your Honor.
Sigh...
Regarding my local weather, I have been interested in weather and climate for all my life, and I consider my new home to have the perfect climate. Although it's tropical, it's at 4,500 elevation and 8° N latitude - too close to the equator for hurricanes. The temperature seldom goes above 80°F or under 60°F now, but it does drop into the low 50's at night in winter at this elevation. At 3pm, it is 71° outdoors with intermittent light rain and distant thunder moving closer, including the deep "basso profundo" type which shakes the whole house. It's been a typical day for the rainy season here, which runs from April through November.
I usually wear a t-shirt plus a warm long-sleeved outer shirt in evenings. However, when I go 5mi down to the local town of Boquete, it's usually 5-6°F warmer. And if I go to the provincial capital of David 25 miles down the hill near sea level, it's 15-20° warmer and very humid.
I completed a four-month exploratory visit to Boquete in June, and then returned to northern California to sell or donate most of the rest of my household goods and stationary woodshop tools. I came back a couple of weeks ago and moved into this highlands rental casa. I live in a neighborhood called Volcancito Arriba, which is about two miles from Lloyd Cripes Wunderground linked weather station at 4,200 ft. elevation in the next neighborhood over which is called Palmira Arriba.
I am curious about climate change scenarios for this area, but have not researched it yet. As we all know, the biggest changes so far seem to be taking place in the Arctic/Polar regions. So far, there doesn't seem to be any obvious symptoms of climate change here in Panama, and I may try to use Lloyd's monthly meteorological data, which goes back to March 2007. I might do some simple graphing to look for obvious trends, but without statistical analysis, which I am not qualified or trained to do.
Annual rainfall totals over the five years that the Palmira Arriba station has been in operation range from 146"-222". Within this small sample, August through October seems to be the period with the most rainfall. However, at 60.47", 2012 has the lowest cumulative rainfall through July over the past five years by about 3.5" or 5%.
Welcome Xulonn.
I generally reserve invocation of Dunning-Kruger for those who make sweeping and absolute declarations that are obviously wrong, but show little to no humility, nor room for error or discussion. In their mind, what they state is the one and only way of seeing the issue at hand. Period. Anything else must be wrong, as there's no other possible explanation that can better lay out the truth than their own "research".
I find such declarations arrogant, presumptive, and impudent. They ignore the genuine hard work and effort that others put into the science, and serve to close doors; not open them. It also exacerbates the situation when, after shutting said door in the faces of others, they act as a victim of ad hominem and complain when their coveted "information" isn't given the weight or authority that they expect it should.
I do not question snowlover123's intellect nor his skills in other trades. However, I absolutely question his skills and knowledge in the realm of climate science, as he does not realize how much he doesn't understand, yet truly believes he knows as much (if not more) than climate scientists who have devoted their careers to the science. This shows that he fails to recognize genuine skill in others, completing the circle of what can be defined as classic Dunning-Kruger.
Like Neapolitan and others here, I have little patience for this sort of attitude. Comment in a Wunderground climate blog with polite questions, modesty, and cordial inquisitiveness, and like any civilized forum, you can expect warm greetings and genuine respect of your views regardless of your stance. However, if you come bursting onto the scene with absolutes intended to cast a wide net over an entire discipline without giving credence to the accepted knowledge base (i.e., outright rejecting it), then as far as I'm concerned, you deserve any critical response that you garner.
Nor should they over such a short time period. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could find a twelve year period anywhere in the temperature record where the trend was statistically significant.
That is simply an incorrect conclusion. The datasets since 2001 say nothing about whether the trend is flat, cooling, warming or anything else.
Only 30.7% answered the Doran 2009 survey from which the "97%" figure is frequently cited. Do you consider that a "truly representative sample" in that case?
Cognitive Dissonance, anyone? LOL
Either you are totally wrong about everything you have ever said in any of your posts that I've read, or you will not like Panama very much in a few years.
Sorry man, its just too funny.
120F and 90% humidity? 120 and 100%?? Maybe the tropics will behave differently than I suspect. If I have the science wrong ....
No, it is not disingenuous at all. You made a claim that the vast majority of scientists accept that humans are the dominant cause of Climate Change, so I compared who answered yes to such an assertion to people who disagreed with such an assertion. 59% of 89% is 52%.
So with the atmospheric scientists surveyed in the AMS, there is absolutely no consensus at all. It is split roughly 50/50.
Except the only difference is that I have provided numerous references to back my claims up, wheras you have not provided a single peer reviewed paper to back up any of your assertions and claims.
No, they don't show any trend at all, any objective researcher can clearly see this.
That is correct. It cannot be stated with any confidence that the trend of the last twelve years is up, down, or flat. So, can I assume that you will now stop claiming, "The warming has paused on all of the datasets."?
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index