Man Based Global Warming....

[wxman]

Assuming AGW is occurring/will continue to occur, one issue with which I disagree in An Inconvenient Truth is the implication that weather in general will become more chaotic and "stormier" in a warmed climate, further implying that tornadic storms will become more numerous and more violent.

IF the poles are warming/will warm relatively more than the tropics as most of the scenarios depict, this would tend to weaken upper level air flow (i.e., jet stream/jet streaks), since these features are driven by large-scale differential heating. Tornado outbreaks are generally (actually almost exclusively) associated with strong upper dynamics which provide the lift required for strong updrafts encountered in tornado development.

Tornadoes can occur in association with "pulse" thunderstorms which are severe versions of typical summer-time thunderstorms that form during afternoon heating, but they are generally weak and short-lived.

What will happen to tropical cyclones like hurricanes in a warmed climate is subject to speculation, but organized mid-latitude severe weather outbreaks will very likely not be as numerous or as violent, contrary to what is implied in "Inconvenient", in my opinion.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by malorn

[IMG]i would think the line would be at very steep trend up. So what exactly is the relationship if the graphs are not close?

It is not a 1:1 relationship. They are upward trends linked by known physical properties of CO2.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by wxman

Assuming AGW is occurring/will continue to occur, one issue with which I disagree in An Inconvenient Truth is the implication that weather in general will become more chaotic and "stormier" in a warmed climate, further implying that tornadic storms will become more numerous and more violent.

IF the poles are warming/will warm relatively more than the tropics as most of the scenarios depict, this would tend to weaken upper level air flow (i.e., jet stream/jet streaks), since these features are driven by large-scale differential heating. Tornado outbreaks are generally (actually almost exclusively) associated with strong upper dynamics which provide the lift required for strong updrafts encountered in tornado development.

Tornadoes can occur in association with "pulse" thunderstorms which are severe versions of typical summer-time thunderstorms that form during afternoon heating, but they are generally weak and short-lived.

What will happen to tropical cyclones like hurricanes in a warmed climate is subject to speculation, but organized mid-latitude severe weather outbreaks will very likely not be as numerous or as violent, contrary to what is implied in "Inconvenient", in my opinion.

Richard Lindzen is of the same opinion on this point. But then again, it can't be right because he is in the pockets of Exxon, according to the alarmists.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Alric

Try again. Each of the points of "how to talk to a Climate sceptic have references to published work. I have not seen an instance where a newspaper article was the basis for a point. Unless it was to point out how the reporter misinterpreted the published data.

No need.

RealClimate.org
--- RC Wiki
----- How to talk to a GW skeptic
------- Inadequate Evidence
----------There is no reason to think the earth is warming
-------------Permafrost Melt

This links to a article by Fred Pearce writing for the New Scientist an online magazine. This is not a scientific journal nor does it reference any study.

After the "Permafrost Melt" link the author concludes; There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend." So the author of "A Few Things Ill Considered" IS using an article from an online magazine as proof that the permafrost is melting and therefore the earth is warming. You are right though it isn't a newspaper story. Of course this is only the first topic. "A Few Things Ill Considered" has dozens of topics and hundreds of links. I'm sure they reference some newspapers, blogs, TV shows, etc.




PS In case anyone thinks that New Scientist is serious scientific magazine some of the other stories:

Conflict Leaves Gaza's Agriculture in ruins
Shooting beauty: Prize-winning photos of birds
Across the Ocean in a peddle powered sub
The medic challenging shaken baby syndrome.

It seems to be targeting the same audience as Popular Mechanics.

[Celtic Blue]

Originally Posted by wxman

Assuming AGW is occurring/will continue to occur, one issue with which I disagree in An Inconvenient Truth is the implication that weather in general will become more chaotic and "stormier" in a warmed climate, further implying that tornadic storms will become more numerous and more violent.

IF the poles are warming/will warm relatively more than the tropics as most of the scenarios depict, this would tend to weaken upper level air flow (i.e., jet stream/jet streaks), since these features are driven by large-scale differential heating. Tornado outbreaks are generally (actually almost exclusively) associated with strong upper dynamics which provide the lift required for strong updrafts encountered in tornado development.

Tornadoes can occur in association with "pulse" thunderstorms which are severe versions of typical summer-time thunderstorms that form during afternoon heating, but they are generally weak and short-lived.

What will happen to tropical cyclones like hurricanes in a warmed climate is subject to speculation, but organized mid-latitude severe weather outbreaks will very likely not be as numerous or as violent, contrary to what is implied in "Inconvenient", in my opinion.

This is a possibility. The interaction with the polar masses is not something I understand. The problem is that it would appear there will still be larger energy transfers from the lower lattitudes to the upper. More water vapor will be available/possible at higher temperatures so the potential driving force is much greater (VLE is something I do understand.) My money is on the increased water temperatures and water vapor driving stronger and larger hurricanes on average. All else being equal that would mean much worse hurricanes, but the cold sink is weakened, so that will have a braking effect. When I look at saturation levels of water in the atmosphere at various temps it appears that the cold sink easily loses the enthalpy comparison even though it should warm more.

I remember in the early days of AGW debate (before I had formed an opinon) that some climatologists said the jet would weaken and become loopier with longer sustained periods of extreme weather--or at least weather that seems extreme because of its persistence. I haven't seen a study that evaluates whether or not this weakening of the jet has occurred, but persistent weather seems to have been the norm where I've lived the last 15 years...three locations quite removed geographically. I'm tired of epic heat, drought, or rain/floods, and hurricane seasons nearly every year with nothing like "normal" for the regions. The mild winters were nice though...except when they coincided with drought.

It's probably safe to say one can expect the weather to be considerably different than what would be normal for a given century...it's far less clear what those differences will mean in terms of weather extremes.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

My money is on the increased water temperatures and water vapor driving stronger and larger hurricanes on average.

I hope you are not betting very much.

All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by JSH

It seems to be targeting the same audience as Popular Mechanics.

FYI, New scientist is considered an european Scientific American. Although it touches on social issues and the impact of science on culture it is a very good scientific magazine. As opposed to your blog references, New Scientist articles are usually based on in-press or just published articles like these:

Changing Climate: Geothermal Evidence from Permafrost in the Alaskan Arctic -- LACHENBRUCH and MARSHALL 234 (4777): 689 -- Science

I've always had a soft spot for new scientist since watching this clip:

http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0...006dawkins.mov

[darelldd]

Originally Posted by dbermanmd

and if you dont get these boys to play nice,,, it makes NO difference what the US and western europe does

So utterly wrong that it makes my teeth hurt. How about if we create jobs coming up with the technology to lower C02 output? And we pay for those jobs with the money that doesn't leave our economy to buy foreign energy? And then how about if we export that technology to other nations so that they can save money and reduce CO2 and be more energy independent as well?

Na. That wouldn't make any difference. Let's keep being the leader in the area of C02 production, and keep inspiring other nations to attain our level of civilization while we continue to increase our inport/export deficit at the same time.

We shouldn't have to change if nobody else does. I mean, that wouldn't be fair!

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

My limits? Heck, I could have taken the whole set but wanted to break it down to give some different ways of looking at it...and to give you some rope. Unlike you I don't cherry pick and distort. I gave you the rope, and you set about hanging yourself, just as I expected. (Thanks for not disappointing me. )

Nor have you disappointed me. You continue to say the trend from 200 AD to 2000 AD is up because the last couple hundred years is up. I will continue to maintain that the 2000 year trend is down. (Mainly because the linear trend line specifically shows a downward trend.)

Your position is as silly as claiming that the stock market has trended down for the past 100 years because the last couple years have been down. It is simply not the case.

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

If you recalled accurately you would realize that no, you did not. You said you were going to the dealership, then after a few hours reported there were 12 cars on the lot (reporting "today") and that Patrick's document (which he posted after you said you were leaving) was correct. Now perhaps you didn't go to the dealership and instead waited for Patrick's post of the U.S. specific sheet, but it does not appear that way from your posts. Problem is you should have cut your losses when I told you that your assumption about the soft paint in the U.S. was wrong. I described it in enough detail, but your skepticism exceeded good judgement. (This seems to be a trend.)It's not like there was any incentive for me to lie about it, (or that even if you assumed the worst of me that deception would have worked since hundreds of thousands have the same vehicle.) But you didn't think it through, were too stubborn, and looked foolish as a result.

I did see Patrick post before I left. I still when to the dealership because I needed oil filters and I wanted to see why reality was different that what I remembered from the auto show and from what the online reviews report. Yes, I looked very foolish.

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

No, you are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic so that the passengers will be more comfortable/have a better view on the way down. You will still hit the iceberg and claim you did all you could, but it would have been too expensive to change course around the iceberg (afterall, it's a big ship, and there are other things you could do with your time, who's going to rearrange the deck chairs.) The focus should be on the biggest problems that have greater long term consequences. That you remained blissfully ignorant all this time is not a good reflection of your risk assessment abilities.

Food, water, healthcare, pollution. I still can't see why you think these are tiny problems equivalent to "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".

Millions dying of AIDS and Malaria. Not worthy of our focus? You amaze me, you really do.

I'll continue to contribute to Charities like this: Fund a Project With Heifer and Help End Hunger and Poverty You can buy carbon offsets I guess.

[malorn]

Originally Posted by JSH

You can buy carbon offsets I guess.

That will make the Gorical very happy!

Gore Buys Carbon Credit From His Company | Sweetness & Light