Man Based Global Warming....

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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/0611/beyondbelief2006dawkins.mov

 

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!

 

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.

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.

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.

 

That will make the Gorical very happy!

Gore Buys Carbon Credit From His Company | Sweetness & Light

 

One thing overlooked is that incredible short period of time that historic climate data has been collected, first generation models attempted, and much better instrumentation figured out. For example, two brand new CO2 measuring satellites (NASA and Japan) are about to start figururing out where half (Yes, a whole whopping 50%) of the CO2 released is being absorbed. It seems rather premature to politically use models of AGW effects out over many decades as motivation for (misguided?) actions when there is a 50% unknown of where the CO2 is going here and now.

What seems to be clear to anyone with intelligence is that the present CO2 pollution problem/fossil fuel depletion/Ocean pH/Mercury pollution/Nuclear pollutions/etc./etc./etc. needs long term solutions NOW. AGW scenarios make no difference. Sustainable energy and transportation is the right answer regardless of the sea level or ice sheet condition. The big misconception really seems to be the idea that smart measures are economically painful....when they are probably economically enhancing. Quite a few still believe I drive a Prius "for the environment" when it's just a better car than anything else out there for me (and many others).

One request-Do not give into the temptation to call someone names just because this is a complicated subject.

 

Maybe they should have linked to that scientific paper instead of a magazine article. Instead they linked to this: Climate warning as Siberia melts - environment - 11 August 2005 - New Scientist

Not a scientific paper, not journal article, not even a reference in the story as to what paper they might have been pulling their opinion from. This certainly doesn't back up your claim that: "Each of the points of "How to talk to a climate sceptic" have references to published work."

1) This is a point from "How to talk to a Climate Sceptic"
2) It does not reference a published work.

 

Not directly, but a simple google of the scientists it quotes does. For example, the article states, "Larry Smith of the University of California, Los Angeles, estimates that the west Siberian bog alone contains some 70 billion tonnes of methane, a quarter of all the methane stored on the land surface worldwide."

So, google Larry Smith, UCLA, and you get
UCLA Department of Geography - Laurence C. Smith

And a long list of his publications, including ones like:
[FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B][FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B]

Impacts of climate warming and permafrost thaw on the riverine transport of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Kara Sea, Journal of Geophysical Research
or
FREY, K.E., SIEGEL, D.I., AND L.C. SMITH, Geochemistry of West Siberian streams and their potential response to permafrost degradation, Water Resources Research 43, W03406, doi:1029/2006WR0049022006, 2007.
or
SMITH, L.C., SHENG, Y., AND G.M. MACDONALD, A first pan-Arctic assessment of the influence of glaciation, permafrost, topography and peatlands on northern lake distribution. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 18, 201-208, doi:10.1002/ppp.581, 2007.

So I wouldn't say New Scientist is just spouting opinion, not when one can so easily find the peer-reviewed research underlying the article.​

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

Really, Pinnochio? :lie: I don't think I said that. I think I said you needed to learn how to read a trend. Stay away from anything involving SPC control, you would be miserable at it.

SPC doesn't assume that things can't change...or even that that control limits should never be recalculated, particularly after process changes (not simple control inputs.) In fact, it is intended to show you when the process mean has moved so that you can take action, not bury your head in the sand hoping it will go away. Any of the SPC limits I calculated show the point well beyond the trend...and the previous point was above the 2 sigma line, supporting the later point that was extremely far out. You can't just dismiss this, especially when you have an assignable cause...and the only control you have is the one you refuse to touch!

I've not denied there are many other things at play. Nor does my argument or the AGW argument hinge on the trend before man's introduction of massive amounts of CO2. You mischaracterize the opposition either because you fail to understand it, or find it more convenient to intentionally distort.

This is a standard strawman argument (propaganda technique) you are using. You want to create a position for your opponents that is easy to refute. Problem is they aren't taking that position. What to do? No worries, just pretend they are and see if they fail to notice your deception. :hand:

Only you are saying that, another strawman. But the flipside of your strawman is interesting because following your "logic" the stock market has not trended down recently or even been down for the past 8-10 years. The recession does not exist and could not produce a stock market decline because over the long haul it is in an uptrend. Therefore no action should be taken by companies, govts. or individuals to address either. There are afterall more pressing concerns than the recession. That sort of thinking is what produces bubbles.

I read something referencing the Great Depression and how it is dangerous to get back into stocks early seeking large returns during recovery. It seems appropriate and went something like this, "To put a 90% loss in perspective, it is having your stocks lose 80% of their value...then be cut by half again."

Unfortunately there is no way to verify this. If you had shown yourself to be more careful of the truth I would accept it as a matter of course. As it is you've given me reason to be skeptical. You admitted the mistake after the 2nd doc was posted and you had visited the lot.

 

You didn't directly say the trend was up. You instead said that I needed to learn how to read a trend. A logical person takes that to mean that my statement that the trend was down is incorrect. The opposite of down is up.

You also said: "When you ignore the well-supported and post a chart that proves your theories incorrect I question your professional judgement."

My argument or "theory" is that the trend for the last 2000 years shows cooling. You said my theory was incorrect. One would then logically conclude that you see a warming trend for the last 2000 years. I have to give it to you though, you didn't directly say "The trend for the last 2000 years shows warming". You just ridiculed me for saying the last 2000 years show a cooling trend and "questioned my judgement". You also called me an obstructionist, small minded and one who would rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic.

At least you admit that the trend for the last 2000 years shows cooling. At least I think you do because you are calling me a liar when I said "you continue to say the trend from 200 AD to 2000 AD is up" . Wait, you didn't call me a liar, you only implied it my calling me Pinnochio. I'm sure that now I'm a liar for saying you called me a liar because you probably just meant that I'm a puppet made of wood. (BTW I know that 200 AD to 2000 AD is only 1800 years, I'm rounding)

It is all so very confusing :focus:

My argument is that there is no correlation of CO2 concentration and global temperature for the past 10,000 years with the exception of the past 150. You have done nothing to refute that argument. Instead you choose to ignore it.

Take your statement: "Nor does my argument or the AGW argument hinge on the trend before man's introduction of massive amounts of CO2.

I take that to mean that you don't care about data prior to ~ 1850. Is that a truthful take on your position? I wouldn't want to be called Pinnochio again.

 

Very true and I agree with you that implementing sustainable energy and transportation going forward doesn't have to be expensive. It may be slightly more expensive right now to build but that will pay off in long term savings.

We did this when we built our house in TN. More insulation, better windows, more efficient heat pump, energy star appliances, etc. Our builder would say "but this is to code" and look at me like I was crazy when I said that the building code is not the best method but the minimum allowed by law. Our house ended up costing about 10% more but we used 1/2 the electricity of our neighbors.

I disagree with the AGW alarmists that say we need to completely transform our society in 10 to 15 years. In order to meet the CO2 goals of the Acute Climate Change crowd we need to rip out all of our existing energy and transportation infrastructure today and replace it with green technology. That would be hugely expensive and wasteful.

 

The Top 100 Effects of Global Warming

Let's not get all hung up on the fact that this list references the popular media, news outlets and the like.....

Sure some of these items might be bogus. Still doesn't mean that AGW should be ignored....

 

You missed a few. Here is a more complete list of problems linked to global warming.

A complete list of things caused by global warming:
(Each list item is linked to a news story. However, this list has been compiled over a period of time, so some links may no longer work.)
Agricultural land increase, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), ancient forests dramatically changed, Antarctic grass flourishes, anxiety, algal blooms, Arctic bogs melt, Asthma, atmospheric defiance, atmospheric circulation modified, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, bananas destroyed, bananas grow, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, birds return early, blackbirds stop singing, blizzards, blue mussels return, boredom, Britain Siberian, British gardens change, bubonic plague, budget increases, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, cardiac arrest, caterpillar biomass shift, challenges and opportunities, Cholera, civil unrest, cloud increase, cloud stripping, cod go south, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), computer models, conferences, coral bleaching, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , cold spells, cost of trillions, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, cyclones (Australia), damages equivalent to $200 billion, Dengue hemorrhagic fever, dermatitis, desert advance, desert life threatened, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, diarrhoea, disappearance of coastal cities, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, drought, drowning people, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spinning out of control, Earth to explode, earth upside down, Earth wobbling, earthquakes, El Niño intensification, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, bats, pandas, pikas, polar bears, pigmy possums, gorillas, koalas, walrus, whales, frogs, toads, turtles, orang-utan, elephants, tigers, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, penguins, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, less, not polar bears), experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, famine, farmers go under, figurehead sacked, fish catches drop, fish catches rise, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, floods, Florida economic decline, food poisoning, food prices rise, food security threat (SA), footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frosts, fungi invasion, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, Gore omnipresence, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, greening of the North, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, hazardous waste sites breached, heat waves, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, high court debates, human fertility reduced, human health improvement, human health risk, hurricanes, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, inclement weather, infrastructure failure (Canada), Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, industry threatened, infectious diseases, insurance premium rises, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, Kew Gardens taxed, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers’ income increased (surprise, surprise!), lightning related insurance claims, little response in the atmosphere, Lyme disease, Malaria, malnutrition, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, marine dead zone, Meaching (end of the world), megacryometeors, Melanoma, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, more bad air days, more research needed, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountains break up, mountains taller, mudslides, next ice age, Nile delta damaged, no effect in India, nuclear plants bloom, oaks move north, ocean acidification, outdoor hockey threatened, oyster diseases, ozone loss, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, plants march north, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears drowning, polar bears starve, polar tours scrapped, psychosocial disturbances, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rainfall reduction, refugees, reindeer larger, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, rivers raised, rivers dry up, rockfalls, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, Ross river disease, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, salmon stronger, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, sex change, sharks booming, shrinking ponds, ski resorts threatened, slow death, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall reduction, societal collapse, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, spiders invade Scotland, squid population explosion, squirrels reproduce earlier, spectacular orchids, stormwater drains stressed, taxes, tectonic plate movement, terrorism, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tourism increase, trade winds weakened, tree beetle attacks, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees could return to Antarctic, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, tsunamis, turtles lay earlier, UK Katrina, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, war, wars over water, water bills double, water supply unreliability, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, weeds, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales move north, wheat yields crushed in Australia, white Christmas dream ends, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , winters in Britain colder, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, Yellow fever

 

You missed a few.

See the complete list of things caused by global warming.

 

Pretty flimsy, nice cherry picking, later years seem to contradict it as well so it's kind of asinine. With as much noise and variability (not to mention the imprecision of "intensity") it will be hard to show a signal even if they are obviously worse on average. Statistics are like that.

My bet was in moving out of the path of the massive hurricanes we were getting. I don't think I'll lose a dime on that, and certainly much less sleep. (Bigger house, lower property tax rate, lower insurance rate and no more hurricane evacuations. :wave: )

FWIW I felt the early linking of hurricane intensity and global warming after that mess of monster storms in 2005 was very premature. Higher water temps do seem to have made it much easier for storms to gin up rapidly into levels that were previously rare. I do remember reading some hurricane models that suggested some of the records acheived were just not possible with lower surface water temps.