Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 3:19 PM GMT en Marzo 25, 2012 | +15 |
| Permalink | A A A |
|
I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles include ideas from the course. And no tuition!
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
 |
55 ° F
Despejado
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Consiga widgets de meteorología gratuitos Weather Stickers® |
 |
Cargue sus fotos |
 |
Clima API para los desarrolladores NEW! |
 |
Convertirse en miembro del sitio |
 |
Encuéntrenos en Facebook |
 |
Síganos en Twitter |
| Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc. | Acerca de nosotros - Contacto - Ayuda - Empleo - Comunicados de prensa - Condiciones del servicio - Privacy Statement |
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
Thank for posting this rather long list of people who are wrong. It was most entertaining to see the number of ways that presumably intelligent people can be wrong.
As for your "facts", I'll say this. A mediocre man once said, "Irrelevant facts are...well, irrelevant." That mediocre man was me. (I said a lot of other stuff, too. But we'll get to that later.) :)
Buffett is now Obama's puppet-master? What, has Soros got the day off...again?
by Bill Gray
Professor Emeritus
Colorado State University
(AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member)
June 2011
Obtaining a Balanced View on AGW. To understand what is really occurring with regards to the AGW question one must now bypass the AMS, the mainstream media, and the mainline scientific journals. They have mostly been preconditioned to accept the AGW hypothesis and, in general, frown on anyone not agreeing that AGW is, next to nuclear war, our society’s most serious long range problem.
To obtain any kind of a balanced back-and-forth discussion on AGW one has to consult the many web blogs that are both advocates and skeptics of AGW. These blogs are the only source for real open debate on the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Here is where the real science of the AGW question is taking place. Over the last few years the weight of evidence, as presented in these many blog discussions, is beginning to swing against the AGW hypothesis. As the globe fails to warm as the GCMs have predicted the American public is gradually losing its belief in the prior claims of Gore, Hansen, and the other many AGW advocates.
I had hoped some here had the interest of discovery
and exchange of ideas as the vanguard to climate science, but sad to say it is mostly sound bites.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Carl Sagan
B) It's a bit disingenuous to use a Carl Sagan quote to corroborate a denialist perspective, as the man was a firm supporter of AGWT as it was known at the time of his death. Just saying...
Please be advised that science is not decided by debate. (SEE: Evolution) You might want to incorporate this (apparently new to you) knowledge into your thinking skill set.
Yer pal,
Birthmark
"The global temperature increase rate has been "remarkable" during the previous four decades, according to the preliminary summary. The global temperature has increased since 1971 at an average estimated rate of 0.166C per decade compared to the average rate of 0.06C per decade computed over the full period 1881-2010."
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record
Arctic sea ice may have passed crucial tipping point
THE disappearance of Arctic sea ice has crossed a "tipping point" that could soon make ice-free summers a regular feature across most of the Arctic Ocean, says a British climate scientist who is setting up an early warning system for dangerous climate tipping points.
Tim Lenton at the University of Exeter has carried out a day-by-day assessment of Arctic ice-cover data collected since satellite observation began in 1979. He presented his hotly anticipated findings for the first time at the Planet Under Pressure conference in London on Monday.
Up until 2007, sea ice systematically fluctuated between extensive cover in winter and lower cover in summer. But since then, says Lenton, the difference between winter and summer ice cover has been a million square kilometres greater than it was before, as a result of unprecedented summer melting. These observations are in stark contrast to what models predict should have happened.
Despite fears of runaway sea-ice loss after summer cover hit a record low in 2007 - opening the Northwest Passage for the first time in living memory - modelling studies based on our best understanding of ice dynamics indicated the ice cover should fully recover each winter. "They suggest that even if the ice declined a large amount in one year, it should bounce back," says Walt Meier of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
Instead, Lenton's research shows a permanent alteration. According to data from the past five years, the Arctic sea ice has not recovered from the 2007 extreme low. "The system has passed a tipping point," Lenton says.
What caused the change is still unclear. Lenton speculates that the exceptional low in 2007 (pictured above) might have allowed the ocean to absorb so much heat that a lot of the thicker multiyear ice, which used to persist through the summer, was melted. Alternatively, the loss of ice may have changed air circulation patterns above the Arctic in ways that have similarly "locked in" the change.
Other glaciologists would not comment before seeing the details of the analysis, which have yet to be published in a journal. But if the findings are confirmed, they say, the existing models will have to be rewritten.
Elsewhere at the conference, Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway, University of London, offered one particularly scary consequence of Arctic warming. He warned on Tuesday that warming ocean currents east of Greenland were melting ice in the seabed. This could trigger landslides on steep submarine slopes in the area, unleashing tsunamis capable of hitting the UK, and releasing buried methane that could amplify global warming. Something similar happened off Norway 8000 years ago in a similar geological setting, Nisbet told New Scientist.
I have not seen this yet. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
This is where we are now. Learn how to cope, if we can.
It can be downloaded from a link here.
Link
Article by: Judy Holmes
Recently published climate research by Zunli Lu, a geochemist in the Department of Earth Sciences in Syracuse University’s College of Arts and Sciences, has gone viral across the Internet by bloggers. A number of media outlets, including the Daily Mail and The Register, which are published in the United Kingdom, claim this research supports arguments that human-induced global warming is a myth. The claims, Lu says, misrepresent his work and the conclusions in the study. The statement below is an effort to set the record straight. The original news story about the research is posted on Arts and Sciences News.
Zunli Lu:
"It is unfortunate that my research, "An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula," recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.
Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study "throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming," completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend."
Haven't seen it. But then, I don't really watch TV very often.
Thanks for that, percy. Bookmarked for later consumption.
I found it!
Please don't hesitate to let me know the moment these start going down. Thanks in advance.
Yeah, the denialists will do that. Sometimes I think that they live for the opportunity to misrepresent science.
Meh, I guess it keeps 'em off the streets.
I am not so certain that this would be the case. There is ample evidence that they keep throwing themselves under the bus. ;-)
If we could somehow train them to do that over potholes, then I think everybody wins!
Enlighten me. What gets your vote?
I'm very interested in whatever it is that could beat several meters of sea level rise with many trillions of dollars of infrastructure lost (not to even mention the millions of folks who will lose most or all of their real estate wealth and their places of residence and support), vast new areas suffering from desertification, mass starvation, mass migration, and the resulting warfare.
And, yes, I realize I've only scratched the surface of the many nasties sneaking up on us because of climate change.
Unless you have info on an incoming asteroid of considerable size, surprise me. What gets your vote?
Sources NWS and Environment Canada (Canada Met)
"Icelandic Meteorological office Navigation. Past temperature conditions in Iceland from 1798 to 2007 Temperature in Stykkish%uFFFDlmur (Western Iceland) The temperature (figure 1) has in the long run been increasing during the last 200 years at the rate of 0.7%uFFFDC per century. This is similar to the general temperature increase in the whole Northern hemisphere during the same period. The warming has been very uneven, dominated by three cold periods and two warm ones. Annual temperature in Stykkish%uFFFDlmur 1798 to 2007 Stykkish%uFFFDlmshiti Figure 1. Annual temperature in Stykkish%uFFFDlmur 1798 to 2007. Note that the values prior to 1845 are interpolated from observations at other stations. The confidence is very low for the years before 1830 and the values are preliminary and should not be referenced. Work on quality improvement is ongoing. A few warm and cold years are highlighted. The time from 1925 onwards is dominated by a very large cycle that does not show an overall significant warming, although the temperature rise of the last 20 years is considerable. There is also a large decedal variability before 1925. The year 1892 marked the end of a period dominated by a very large year-to-year variability and the end of a long run of very cold years. There was a relatively warm period during 1837 to 1858, and by overlooking the very cold year of 1835 and a few isolated cold months one can identify the interval 1813 to 1858 as a generally warm one. The years 1807 to 1812 were very cold. Although the following warm period was considerably colder than the corresponding 20th century warm period it was noted as a generally favourable time for agriculture and the population of the country increased markedly. The 20th century warm period that started in the 1920s ended very abruptly in 1965. It can be divided into three sub-periods, a very warm one to 1942, a colder interval during 1943 to 1952, but it was decisively warm during 1953 to 1964. The cold period 1965 to 1995 also included a few sub-periods. The so called "sea ice years" 1965 to 1971, a slighly warmer period 1972 til 1978, a very cold interval during 1979 to 1986, but therafter it became gradually warmer, the last cold year in the sequence being 1995. Since then it has been warm, the warmth culminating in 2002 to 2003. Generally the decription above refers to the whole country, but there are slightly diverging details, depending on the source of the cold air. Back to top">
Here is the graph (fig 1)
How would NOAA and NASA find significant warming when Iceland Met does not.
Have a nice day everyone.
Over what time frame?
Yep. Even with AGW, water still freezes when it gets too cold.
Talk to me in late August and early September. ;)
Any reason the material on Stykkishólmur isn't linked?
"The temperature (figure 1) has in the long run been increasing during the last 200 years at the rate of +0.7C per century. This is similar to the general temperature increase in the whole Northern hemisphere during the same period."
"The time from 1925 onwards is dominated by a very large cycle that does not show an overall significant warming, although the temperature rise of the last 20 years is considerable."
Look at the red trend line. Does it look like "no significant warming since 1925"? What I can see, the trend is upward. And there is no information about the years 2008-2011.
Figure 1. Annual temperature in Stykkishólmur 1798 to 2007. Note that the values prior to 1845 are interpolated from observations at other stations. The confidence is very low for the years before 1830 and the values are preliminary and should not be referenced. Work on quality improvement is ongoing. A few warm and cold years are highlighted.
Have a nice day you too.
Last ice age recovery caused by AGW.
The modern human species of Homo sapien has existed on the earth for only 100,000 years.
http://facts.randomhistory.com/
I think you warmist's are onto something!
And the Antarctic Ice has been steadily increasing, but it is always hot somewhere, and that is all you'll ever hear, because in the end, the only way they can pull off the biggest ponzi scheme ever is thru propaganda.
Good COP: Hillary breathes new life into a global deal that the Chinese had been saying can’t be done
And today I’d like to announce that, in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation, the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries.
Link
See Carl Sagan's "Nuclear Winter" articles for a "chilling" (pun intended) scenario that could be precipitated (another pun?) by the fight for the last of the petrochemicals.
I have seen it. I am a fan of the late Dr. Carl Sagan. His work is what got me interested in Science. One can only wonder about what he would have to say about all of the events unfolding before us now. I feel reasonably certain that he would be planning his one way trip to Mars.
My favorite books by him are, "Cosmos" and "The Demon Haunted Wold: Science as a Candle in the Dark". I wish that more people would read the latter. Instead, the Salem Witch Hunts seem to persist even today and Earth is still a flat planet that everything else in the Universe revolves around. sigh
Fail.
1) If you begin on a relatively warm year and end on a relatively cool year, the trendline is flat, or even negative. Therefore, the planet is clearly cooling;
2) The climate in Stykkishólmur, Iceland, is clearly representative of the climate for the planet as a whole.
I love it when denialists use data they believe bolsters their side when it actually does the opposite. For instance, Bastardi (yes, him again) on Twitter a short while ago wrote:
"By the way, anyone look at this... the actual data as to how little humans contribute to the co2 total http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/20 11/12/greenhouse.png DOE report"
...which linked to this chart:
The part that Little Joey failed to notice is that for the decade of the 1990s, natural sources of CO2 were being naturally absorbed, but only about half of human-made CO2 was, leading to an average annual build-up of 11.7 billion metric tons. That is, obviously, close to 120 billion metric tons for the decade (and it's gone way up since then). In DenialWorld, 120 billion metric tons of CO2 may seem like only a "little", but it's a whole heck of a lot where warming is concerned.
BTW the warming back then was clearly caused by CO2, remember the only trend lines that matter are the ones that start with a year that is colder than the year you want to stop at. They also say the temp info represents their country as a whole.
Have a good day everyone.
Nah, no ruffled feathers. You have posted nested cherry picks...and failed to provide any context.
First, you chose one data station in Iceland.
Second, within the data years have been cherry picked for comparison with no explanation given as to why those dates were picked --other than "cycles" of some undefined sort.
Third, how any of this ties into Global Warming isn't addressed. So your entire post becomes a non-sequitur.
Yes, Brother Bastardi does seem to have the odd spot of difficulty with reading and/or interpreting tables and charts. Did you see his Julian Day gaffe over on Masters' blog the other day?
Priceless!
This visualization shows the perennial Arctic sea ice from 1980 to 2012. The grey disk at the North Pole indicates the region where no satellite data is collected.
How have you been doing, nymore? Good to see you back.
I read your post #72.
"I just asked why some folks would adjust the temps for Iceland."
What is said, in post #72, does not even mention an adjustment for the temps in Iceland by anyone. I also did not read anything in your posts prior to this that makes any such claim that a temp adjustment had been made.
One of the things that was said, in post #72, is that there was a degree of uncertainty about the temp records during different time periods and that some of the temp readings were interpolated from nearby stations. Perhaps any temp adjustments that may have been made would come from a better way of determining the temps during these times. This is only me speculating since I have not seen any evidence that any adjustments had been made at all. Even if temp adjustments had been made you would need to see the justification of those that adjusted the temp data to answer your question.
What I see, from your post #72, is a trend line that shows an overall warming. There have been times when there was a warming or cooling period, but the trend line still shows an overall warming. Also the article claims that since 1986 there has been a warming and with the last cold year of the cycle being in 1995. 1995 was still below the overall trend line, but there has been a sharper increase in the warming since 1986 than at any other time frame shown in the graph.
We have heard it many times, nymore, "Well, that is just regional.". Iceland is regional as well. You need to look at the data from all regions and see what the overall trends are before you can assess any global changes. Is it wetter, colder, drier, hotter for regions across the globe. Should this be the case, then how far from the norm for these regions is being observed? Now you can get a global picture of what is happening with the climate. Then you need to ask yourself other questions. Will the anomalies we are witnessing now become the norms of the future? Will the frequency of these anomalies become closer together or further apart and will they become more severe or less severe? In which direction is it changing? What do the regional trends across the planet show? The answers to these questions would be an indication of what direction the global climate is changing, even if it is towards a stability. What do the global trends show you, nymore?
Satellite sea ice for Arctic and Antarctic. The pixel resolution is 25km and the satellite ice data comes from the NSIDC Sea Ice Concentrations as collected from the Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave systems. The compilation represents almost 3 GB of gridded data.
I did not cherry pick anything Iceland Met did according to you.
If any dates were picked it was by them.
I questioned a couple weeks ago why NASA and NOAA would adjust temps that had already been adjusted. I never said anything about AGWT, you did. No bias websites were used only info from Iceland Met unless you feel they have an agenda now too.
Go read the article for yourself even though I already posted it and Xandra found it quite easily. Need help finding it here is a hint ICELAND MET.
Hi Rookie nice to be back been busier than a cat with two behinds.
I think you misunderstood my point read post 91.
Temps lately for the globe seem to be flat or cooling from it highs according to every data set with a long enough history. Look at the trend lines from say the early 1900's to around 1940 then it cools now look at the trend lines from around the mid 70's to around the early 2000's they almost mirror each other in scale and length of time. Which makes a person like me question why.
Here is what I said: "First, you chose one data station in Iceland."
That is a correct statement. Iceland Met has many data stations, yet you picked only one.
I went on to say, "Second, within the data years have been cherry picked for comparison with no explanation given as to why those dates were picked --other than "cycles" of some undefined sort."
That is also a correct statement.
I don't think you have any cause for complaint about my response to your post.
I remember that...I think. (Don't have the best memory.) It was you who emailed them, wasn't it? If so, have they gotten back to you yet?
I have no idea whether they have an agenda. It must be presumed that they don't, so there is no evidence I'm aware of that indicates that they have an agenda.
That said, they may still be quoted out of context --accidentally or otherwise. Lack of context often gives a different impression than that intended by the person or organization being quoted.
The reason I mentioned AGW is because the title of this blog is "Climate Change Blog," not "One Station in Iceland Blog." If you were simply pointing out that CC isn't uniform around the globe, then you have my apology. However, no one who has studied the subject of AGW-CC expected uniform changes at every point on the globe, so making such a point would be redundant.
I've already read it, thanks. But I think it's best to include a link if one is going to quote. Doing so facilitates communication in a discussion. Otherwise, someone wanting to read the source material is left digging through a website.
Just googling "Iceland Met", btw, led me to something that caught my eye: "On 29 March 2012 the maximum temperature at the station Kvsker in South-East Iceland, near the famed Jkulsrln lagoon, soared to 20.5C.
The temperature has never before exceeded the 20 degree-mark in Iceland in March. The record was broken by an astounding 1,7 degree margin, the former record being 18.8 degrees, measured in Eskifjrur in the Eastern Fjords on 28 March 2000.
Many local maximum temperature records where also exceeded, amongst those at Teigarhorn in the Eastern Fjords where the maximum rose to 18.2 degrees. The daily recording of maximum temperature at Teigarhorn began in 1872 and the new record exceeded the old one (from 1968) by 2.2C."
It shouldn't. The recent warming began at a higher temperature and has a steeper slope.
It should also be noted that a good deal of the warming in the earlier warming was due to solar activity. That is impossible in the warming of the last four decades, as solar activity has been flat.
That latter fact alone should make you think.
Sounds like "The Caves of Steel".
After getting called out by an environmental group, General Motors has pulled support from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit well-known for attacking the science behind global warming and climate change.
The automaker told the Heartland Institute last week that it won't be making further donations, spokesman Greg Martin said. At a speech earlier this month, GM CEO Dan Akerson said his company is running its business under the assumption that climate change is real.
"We applaud GM's decision and the message it sends -- that it is no longer acceptable for corporations to promote the denial of climate change and that support for an organization like Heartland is not in line with GM's values," said Daniel Souweine, campaign director for Forecast the Facts, a group that urges meteorologists to talk more openly about climate change.
Internal documents leaked in February showed that the General Motors Foundation -- which the automaker runs separately from its business -- donated to the institute $15,000 in 2010 and again in 2011, with another $15,00 expected to be gifted this year.
Heartland, which identifies itself as a free-market think tank, has questioned the ideas on global warming through its newsletters, web site and associated scientists. Last year, the tagline for its annual conference on the subject was "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?"
Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, said GM had been a Heartland supporter for 20 years.
"We regret the loss of their support, particularly since it was prompted by false claims contained in a fake memo circulated by disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick," he said in a statement. "We once again respectfully ask liberal advocacy groups such as Huffington Post, the Center for American Progress, 350.org and Greenpeace to stop attacking scientists who question the theory of man-made global warming and corporations and foundations that are willing to fund open debate on this important public policy issue."
The Heartland Institute said the internal documents were stolen by someone posing as a member of the board, who asked for the material to be sent to a new email account. Since then, Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, a climate research group, has confessed to the stunt, adding that he regrets his actions.
The bulk of Heartland's funding comes from one anonymous donor, who has given the group $11 million since 2007.
Nonprofit groups are not legally obligated to reveal their donors. Previously Heartland was transparent about its funding, even posting a list of contributors on its website, but removed it in 2004.
"Critics who couldn't or wouldn't engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us," institute representatives wrote after taking down the list. "After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."
GM was not the only automaker to fund the Heartland Institute: Ford and Chrysler also contributed to it in the past. Ford and Chrysler told The Huffington Post that they had stopped funding the organization over the past decade, but neither automaker had records detailing reasons for pulling that support.
--By the year 2100, conservative estimates are that dealing just with sea level rise and its effects will cost around $2 trillion a year (in 2012 dollars). (And that's assuming no catastrophic events such as ice-sheet collapse or massive methane release.)
--Has global warming brought an early summer to the US?
--West Antarctic ice shelves are coming apart at the seams
--Satellites Show Sea Level Rise is Here to Stay
--Canadian scientists are being muzzled by a government beholden to fossil fuel interests. (Sound familiar?)
--How to Fight Food Insecurity, Even in a Changing Climate
--Hot, crowded, and running out of fuel: Earth of 2050 a scary place
--How Global Warming Sharply Increases The Likelihood Of 'Outlandish' Heat Waves
--Climate change is already harshing the weather
--Special Report: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)
Link
General Motors? You mean "Government Motors," home of the Obama supporters. Bob Lutz didn't agree with global warming. He called it a crock of you-know-what.
I guess "Little Joey" has "Nobel" company.
Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.
Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation. Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS:
“Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'
Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS:
"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’"
Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming.
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index