Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[The_Squid]

What makes everyone so sick of the climate alarmists is how fanatical you get about it.

I'm fanatical about gravity, evolution and a round earth too.... Where do you stand on the science with those matters?

It's faith for you guys. It's religion.

Actually, it's science....

[TimG]

Truemetis you do realize that last wall of text you quoted completely supported Tim's argument, right? You've just shown us exactly why climate change research is so poorly regarded and not taken seriously.

Thanks. The frustrating this with waldo and truemetis is they don't seem to be able to seperate the fluff from the substance. That paragraph is a good example. The first statement bolded by TM is a statement of expectation - not a conclusion. The key conclusion was what I bolded. The final sentances were that caveats that don't actually change the substance of the conclusion.

[TimG]

Actually, it's science....

You wouldn't know science if it punched you in the head.

Here is a discussion of a peice in the New Yorker on the flaws with our scientific institutions:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/12/09/where-science-is-flawed/

A good example of how the idelogical biases of the scientists affects the interpretation of scientific results:

While acupuncture is widely accepted as a medical treatment in various Asian countries, its use is much more contested in the West. These cultural differences have profoundly influenced the results of clinical trials. Between 1966 and 1995, there were forty-seven studies of acupuncture in China, Taiwan, and Japan, and every single trial concluded that acupuncture was an effective treatment. During the same period, there were ninety-four clinical trials of acupuncture in the United States, Sweden, and the U.K., and only fifty-six percent of these studies found any therapeutic benefits. As [university of Alberta biologist Richard] Palmer notes, this wide discrepancy suggests that scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don’t want to see. Our beliefs are a form of blindness.

This problem is most acute in fields like climate science where scientists are trying to find evidence of small effects in extremely noisy data.

Of course, this does not mean science is useless - it just means more discipline is required to protecte against that failings of human nature. Unfortunately, in climate science, they simply deny the existence of the problem and call people who disagree names (thereby proving that a huge problem exists).

Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

Weren't those different species of bison? That and the flora was different, it may have suited the Horse more in Asia and the Bison more in North America.

yes and likely different behaviours which could make a difference...human wiping out the giant bison and not the smaller bison seems unlikely, I would think the smaller bison is dangerous enough a challenge...

Well once the species was already in decline it would have. Though just how much is questionable, my ten percent number was just a guess.

fair enough...

reading your link I see most mega fuana were extinct before humans reached N america Of the 21 extinct megafaunal genera, 12 lasted to 80 kyr BP, and at least 6 persisted to between 51 kyr BP and 40 kyr BP...the link suggests that it was the speed of the warming which differed from previous warmings was the difference..combined with a slow birth rate, loss of habit, less genetic diversity and too little time to adapt to the change...humans may have picked a few off but the end was already in sight for the mega fuana...

Edited December 10, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Here is quote that debunks your claim that the mega fauna extictions are related to climate change:

that 15 of 21 genera of mega fuana were already extinct some 15Kyrs before humans reached the americas would seem to be problematic for your human cause scenario... Edited December 10, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

You are desperate. Let's make it simple.

1) I made the claim that there is no evidence of a link between the russian heatwave/flooding and climate change.

2) I provided links from credible sources that show these are events were caused by a well known blocking phenomena.

3) I provided a reference that claims blocking events should decrease in a warming world according to the models. This implies that the blocking event was not 'predicted' by the climate models.

I think 2) & 3) unambiguously show that 1) is true.

The only counter argument you have is some FUTURE study might find a link but even if it did it would not invalidate my claim 1) which is based on the information that is available now.

The bottom line: alarmists are lying when they say there is a link between AGW and those events.

no - I believe it is your desperation shining through. Neither of your sources are definitive scientific analysis... they are preliminary assessments. Your first linked reference doesn't even mention the Pakistan monsoon/flooding... your second linked reference suggests, "And the heaviest monsoon downpours in Pakistan’s history, causing floods that have displaced more than 10 million people, may be due in part to this same blocking event.

on the other hand, I provided an alternative, prefaced with the scientists acknowledgment that scientific research/analysis of this past summer's record extreme events is required... you simply can't/won't accept Trenberth's plausible alternative.

further to your accusatory rant against "alarmists" and your desperate claim that a simple and well recognized "weather blocking" phenomena is the definitive "cause" of this summer's recent extreme weather events in Russia & Pakistan... a quote from your own provided link:

Also, the global climate models used for simulating continued global warming generally don’t have high enough of resolution to simulate blocking events realistically, Barriopedro says. In these models, there are fewer blocking events, and they’re shorter, than in real life. “There haven’t been too many studies on blocking and climate change because of this problem,” he adds.

The preliminary results suggest that there may be little change, or perhaps a small drop in blocking events in a warmer world.

However, blocking events could have stronger effects. “In a warmer world, the consequence of [summer blocking] is much stronger,” because the higher average temperatures raise the bar.

so... it's a significant area of ongoing study, particularly in terms of climate model refinements. For example, the U.S. Midwest floods were particularly severe in themselves this past 2010 summer... there is an active ongoing collaboration between Missouri and Russian scientists:

Whether it’s never-ending heat waves or winter storms, atmospheric blocking can have a significant impact on local agriculture, business and the environment. Although these stagnant weather patterns are often difficult to predict, University of Missouri researchers are now studying whether increasing planet temperatures and carbon dioxide levels could lead to atmospheric blocking and when this blocking might occur, leading to more accurate forecasts.

“In this research, we’re trying to see if increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the resulting atmospheric warming will affect the onset and duration of future blocking events,” said Tony Lupo, professor and chair of the atmospheric science department at the MU College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. “We’re hoping that the research will add cues that could help fellow forecasters better predict blocking and warn people in cases of long-lasting, severe weather.”

Atmospheric blocking occurs between 20-40 times each year and usually lasts between 8-11 days, Lupo said. Although they are one of the rarest weather events, blocking can trigger dangerous conditions, such as a 2003 European heat wave that caused 40,000 deaths. Blocking usually results when a powerful, high-pressure area gets stuck in one place and, because they cover a large area, fronts behind them are blocked. Lupo believes that heat sources, such as radiation, condensation, and surface heating and cooling, have a significant role in a blocking’s onset and duration. Therefore, planetary warming could increase the frequency and impact of atmospheric blocking.

“It is anticipated that in a warmer world, blocking events will be more numerous, weaker and longer-lived,” Lupo said. “This could result in an environment with more storms. We also anticipate the variability of weather patterns will change dramatically over some parts of the world, such as North America, Europe and Asia, but not in others.”

Lupo, in collaboration with Russian researchers from the Russian Academy of Sciences, will simulate atmospheric blocking using computer models that mirror known blocking events, then introduce differing carbon dioxide environments into the models to study how the dynamics of blocking events are changed by increased atmospheric temperatures. The project is funded by the US Civilian Research and Development Foundation – one of only 16 grants awarded by the group this year. He is partnering with Russian meteorologists whose research is being supported by the Russian Federation for Basic Research.

bottom line is your "definitive" substantiation isn't... definitive. Notwithstanding, of course, the alternate plausible explanation offered in the link I provided, one offering a more direct relationship between this past summer's extreme events and AGW - but, equally one requiring additional study, as acknowledged by the scientist (Trenberth) fronting the alternative causal link.

IOW - you have no evidence supporting the link between AGW and the heatwave. All you have is off the cuff speculation by a alarmist scientist with a vested interest in promoting the AGW scare. In fact, Trenberth's unsubstantiated speculations about hurricane-AGW links led to the resignation frpom the IPCC of respected hurricane scientist Chris Landsea. Trenberth is not a credible source when it comes to such things.

and where is your... evidence? Is there a particular reason you chose not to reply to my later updated post (as quoted here in its entirety)? Let's be clear here - I made no personal claims linking this past summer's extreme Russian heat wave and Pakistani floods to AGW. My linking the Trenberth alternative supposition, one I prefaced with Trenberth's own admission of the need for supporting study, was to counter your mouth-frothing rant against some collective "alarmist" link being made between AGW and these 2 respective extreme events. Which is all Trenberth stated - a possible link that needs study... which, again, is what I highlighted and reinforced.

of course, in your mouth-froth best, your puffed-up chest claims of a definitive association to a "simple" weather blocking event, has been shown as anything but... definitive. Oh my! How alarmist of you!!!

====================================================================================================

we've touched upon the Landsea prima-donna act previously. Wait... what's this... has Landsea come back into the fold? (and as a bonus, he's a co-author with K. Emanuel... re: TrueMetis earlier linked reference to an earlier 2005 Emanuel paper).

Tropical cyclones and climate change - Nature Geoscience(2010)

Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.

would you like... more?

The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones - Nature (2008)

Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere1, 2, 3, 4. Over the rest of the tropics, however, possible trends in tropical cyclone intensity are less obvious, owing to the unreliability and incompleteness of the observational record and to a restricted focus, in previous trend analyses, on changes in average intensity. Here we overcome these two limitations by examining trends in the upper quantiles of per-cyclone maximum wind speeds (that is, the maximum intensities that cyclones achieve during their lifetimes), estimated from homogeneous data derived from an archive of satellite records. We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3 plusminus 0.09 m s-1 yr-1 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones. We note separate upward trends in the estimated lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones (99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic, although not all basins show statistically significant increases. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind.

the preceding being examples of where the science is in terms of hurricane intensity being linked to AGW climate change... not frequency... intensity. Of course, the next-step usual dodge here is for denier lappers like yourself to run to Pielke Jr. and beak-off about "economics". Like you did just a short while back.

Let's have some fun - hey... summarize your go-to Pielke claim(s) - give me/us a target - hey? Honest, I'm not setting you up... trust me! (I'll be gone for the rest of the day... so no need for you to hurry).

[GostHacked]

No but it is pretty useless when you're talking about a global phenomenon. Congratulations your one of the very few people who may actually benefit from increased CO2. The vast majority of people won't be so lucky.

How can one crop benefit and not others?? Makes no sense. Maybe it is BlueBlood's farming techniques?? Or the type of GM seed he is forced to grow?? There are many factors than just more CO2 in the air.

[Keepitsimple]

You wouldn't know science if it punched you in the head.

Here is a discussion of a peice in the New Yorker on the flaws with our scientific institutions:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/12/09/where-science-is-flawed/

A good example of how the idelogical biases of the scientists affects the interpretation of scientific results:

This problem is most acute in fields like climate science where scientists are trying to find evidence of small effects in extremely noisy data.

Of course, this does not mean science is useless - it just means more discipline is required to protecte against that failings of human nature. Unfortunately, in climate science, they simply deny the existence of the problem and call people who disagree names (thereby proving that a huge problem exists).

A good example and well said. It's hard to find another "debate is over" scientific theory that parallels the AGW one that says "in the absence of any other explanation, warming MUST be caused by CO2 and most of the warming is caused by human produced CO2".

[TimG]

Notwithstanding, of course, the alternate plausible explanation offered in the link I provided, one offering a more direct relationship between this past summer's extreme events and AGW - but, equally one requiring additional study, as acknowledged by the scientist (Trenberth) fronting the alternative causal link.

You need a to learn some logic. I objected to alarmists running around claiming that weather events like the russian heatwave were evidence of global warming. That objection does not require me to prove that they weren't connected - all I need to do is show that science does not support a such a claim. I have done that by providing explainations that require no link. All you have done is provide 'alternative explainations that suggest their might be link'. Not good enough to justify the false claims that are being made. Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

that 15 of 21 genera of mega fuana were already extinct some 15Kyrs before humans reached the americas would seem to be problematic for your human cause scenario.

The claim that 'rapid climate change causes extinctions' can be refuted with a single example of climate change event that does not produce extinctions. Even if some megafauna did dies out for reasons unknown that does not change the fact that there were two periods of rapid climate change (>4 degC in 60 years) and there is no evidence of any large scale extinction event.

[Saipan]

Actually, it's science....

Just like the "new ice age" of the 1970's, due to pollution creating equivalent of nuclear winter

[bloodyminded]

You wouldn't know science if it punched you in the head.

Here is a discussion of a peice in the New Yorker on the flaws with our scientific institutions:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/12/09/where-science-is-flawed/

A good example of how the idelogical biases of the scientists affects the interpretation of scientific results:

This problem is most acute in fields like climate science where scientists are trying to find evidence of small effects in extremely noisy data.

Of course, this does not mean science is useless - it just means more discipline is required to protecte against that failings of human nature. Unfortunately, in climate science, they simply deny the existence of the problem and call people who disagree names (thereby proving that a huge problem exists).

How in the world does this not apply to the scientists you cite to debunk it?

Are they a different breed of scientists, somehow immune to the failings you point out?

[bloodyminded]

How can one crop benefit and not others?? Makes no sense.

???

Are you serious?

I think I'll grow some bananas and pineapples here in northeastern North America.

[Michael Hardner]

Just like the "new ice age" of the 1970's, due to pollution creating equivalent of nuclear winter

I have to say, when a poster evokes the ice age canard it marks them as not being a serious skeptic of AGW, but rather one of the fringe element. That one is so old, and has been debunked so many times here that I can't take you seriously if you use it.

[TimG]

That one is so old, and has been debunked so many times here that I can't take you seriously if you use it.

Come one. Your ignoring important nuances again and doing exactly what you criticize others for. Saipan did not claim that ALL scientists agreed with 'coming ice age' theory. All he did was state the fact that in the 1970s there was a scientific hypothesis advanced where human pollution was bringing on a new ice age. This is an indisputable fact. It only becomes a problematic opinion if someone claims there was a 'scientific consensus' backing that hypothesis.

[Wild Bill]

I have to say, when a poster evokes the ice age canard it marks them as not being a serious skeptic of AGW, but rather one of the fringe element. That one is so old, and has been debunked so many times here that I can't take you seriously if you use it.

Michael, all I can say is that I lived it! I'm the kid whose first book in Grade 1 was a science textbook. All my life I have worked in scientific and technical fields. I bought probably every single issue of OMNI science magazine ever published, along with many other titles.

In short, although no accredited scientist myself, I think I can at least claim to have followed new talk and discoveries since about 1960, when I was reading the newspaper everyday for myself.

So I KNOW that the premise that Man and his 'polluting ways' were bringing another Ice Age down upon us was prevalent during the 70's! I don't care who tries to debunk that it happened. I lived it and remember it vividly. In fact, if I get ambitious enough to crawl through my basement I will likely find some of those science magazines and be able to cite you specific issues and dates.

Just don't hold your breath! I've got more than enough on my plate to want to spare the time. I really don't care if others believe me. What's important to me is that in order to believe THEM they are asking me to totally discount what I directly experienced for some years of my life!

I would no more do such a thing than I would become a member of Sun Yat Moon's Unification Church!

Edited December 10, 2010 by Wild Bill

[TimG]

Are they a different breed of scientists, somehow immune to the failings you point out?

Of course not. They are just as biased. But since they are fewer in number they are not able to counter the biases of the majority. This means the peer reviewed literature is not an objective record of scientific truth but a reflection of the basis of the majority of scientists. Over time, these biases become self-re-enforcing because people proposing ideas that dispute decades of 'accepted truths' have an extremely large barrier to overcome. A barrier which is insurmountable in field like climate science with no ability to do real world experiment and powerful vested interests.

Bottom line: I don't believe that climate science is a field that is able to correct itself within timeframes that matter to us (i.e. waiting for generational change is too long). This means I cannot place much trust in its claims even if others have not explicitly shown they are wrong.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Come one. Your ignoring important nuances again and doing exactly what you criticize others for. Saipan did not claim that ALL scientists agreed with 'coming ice age' theory. All he did was state the fact that in the 1970s there was a scientific hypothesis advanced where human pollution was bringing on a new ice age. This is an indisputable fact. It only becomes a problematic opinion if someone claims there was a 'scientific consensus' backing that hypothesis.

Just bringing it up degrades the debate.

Who cares if a hypothesis was advanced - that just means a paper was published.

[GostHacked]

???

Are you serious?

I think I'll grow some bananas and pineapples here in northeastern North America.

Aside from the fact that North America does not have the climate to grow pineapples or bananas, sure you have a point. However when talking about CO2 rising, it does not matter what crop you are talking about. You will end up talking about location and the climate there and how it will be affected. The type of crop is not really a factor here, location is.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, all I can say is that I lived it! I'm the kid whose first book in Grade 1 was a science textbook. All my life I have worked in scientific and technical fields. I bought probably every single issue of OMNI science magazine ever published, along with many other titles.

I also read OMNI, which was a pop science magazine, with a lot of sci-fi too. I was a teenager.

In short, although no accredited scientist myself, I think I can at least claim to have followed new talk and discoveries since about 1960, when I was reading the newspaper everyday for myself.

Reading about science in the newspaper will give you the illusion that you know what's going on only. The newspapers constantly misrepresent what is being said in the papers. There was an example where a paper was published, and the University's PR department misrepresented what was said in the paper. What did the news report ? The PR version, because that's what they got.

So I KNOW that the premise that Man and his 'polluting ways' were bringing another Ice Age down upon us was prevalent during the 70's! I don't care who tries to debunk that it happened. I lived it and remember it vividly. In fact, if I get ambitious enough to crawl through my basement I will likely find some of those science magazines and be able to cite you specific issues and dates.

Your error is that you think that popular discussion indicates what the scientists themselves think. If that were true then there would be a number of climate scientists today debating whether warming is happening.

There aren't.

Just don't hold your breath! I've got more than enough on my plate to want to spare the time. I really don't care if others believe me. What's important to me is that in order to believe THEM they are asking me to totally discount what I directly experienced for some years of my life!

I would no more do such a thing than I would become a member of Sun Yat Moon's Unification Church!

Your experience is real, and I remember a few cold winters where that was in the news. In the NEWS, not published in scientific publications.

I also liked bigfoot and the Bermuda Triangle around that time.

[GostHacked]

Your error is that you think that popular discussion indicates what the scientists themselves think. If that were true then there would be a number of climate scientists today debating whether warming is happening.

There are many scientists who are denying climate change. However we are not hearing from them. Why?

Here is an article from 1998.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/

This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?5

Maybe the IPCC got better models to work with?

[Michael Hardner]

There are many scientists who are denying climate change. However we are not hearing from them. Why?

Sorry - I should have qualified to say 'climate scientists'.

We're not hearing from 'scientists' because they're not 'climate scientists' that publish their objections in the journals. We do know of real climate scientists who object to the consensus, and it makes me wonder why these people would pick up the data from these other 'scientists' and try to publish it.

It's because the 'scientists' are wrong, or not familiar with the work that's already been done. If you would like to pick the best example of a scientist who denies warming is happening, I would like to read it.

[wyly]

Come one. Your ignoring important nuances again and doing exactly what you criticize others for. Saipan did not claim that ALL scientists agreed with 'coming ice age' theory. All he did was state the fact that in the 1970s there was a scientific hypothesis advanced where human pollution was bringing on a new ice age. This is an indisputable fact. It only becomes a problematic opinion if someone claims there was a 'scientific consensus' backing that hypothesis.

because we all know saipan...what he states and what implied are the same...

[wyly]

Michael, all I can say is that I lived it! I'm the kid whose first book in Grade 1 was a science textbook. All my life I have worked in scientific and technical fields. I bought probably every single issue of OMNI science magazine ever published, along with many other titles.

In short, although no accredited scientist myself, I think I can at least claim to have followed new talk and discoveries since about 1960, when I was reading the newspaper everyday for myself.

So I KNOW that the premise that Man and his 'polluting ways' were bringing another Ice Age down upon us was prevalent during the 70's! I don't care who tries to debunk that it happened. I lived it and remember it vividly. In fact, if I get ambitious enough to crawl through my basement I will likely find some of those science magazines and be able to cite you specific issues and dates.

Just don't hold your breath! I've got more than enough on my plate to want to spare the time. I really don't care if others believe me. What's important to me is that in order to believe THEM they are asking me to totally discount what I directly experienced for some years of my life!

geez wild bill I grew up at the same time I recall the news articles and that they were just hype/speculation as my science teachers explained, it had no consensus, it was a minority opinion that caught the attention of the media and a science illiterate public...

I also recall reading the science articles of the time as well as my science texts, many had us flying in our personal nuclear powered cars by now as well as having nuclear power plants in our basements...

[wyly]

There are many scientists who are denying climate change. However we are not hearing from them. Why?

Here is an article from 1998.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/

Maybe the IPCC got better models to work with?

Dr Frederick Seitz, professional science hack, at one time he worked for big tobacco denying that tobacco was a dangerous product...then there was the farcical Oregon petition and he was then funded by Exxon ... and he's wasn't even a climatologist...he was a paid fraud...