AGW Update: AGW on Ellesmere Island - 2 Million Years Ago

[TimG]

of course, theres no shortage of work/papers from multitudes of other scientists;

Once again you miss the point. The issue is not whether the locations of droughts change (this is something that has happened in the past). The issue is whether there will be a *global* increase in the number of droughts. The studies you referenced make various claims about droughts potentially increasing in some places but the study I referenced is the only one that shows the effect on the entire globe and that effect is undetectable. Which means that the claim of a global increase in droughts is not supportable. Edited December 19, 2010 by TimG

[jbg]

Once again you miss the point. The issue is not whether the locations of droughts change (this is something that has happened in the past).

waldo (sic) always rejects real-world information in favor of any airy, wholly biased sources. Edited December 20, 2010 by jbg

[eyeball]

What is rediculous are the number of people who think that skeptics are claiming there is an organized conspiracy. What we have is bias. Bias that marginalizes research that does not produce the desired results while amplifying research that does.

We see the same thing in drug research where there literature is biased because only studies that show good results get published. This problem has only recently been addressed by government regulators. We need a similar policy for climate research.

Ditto the economic research that preaches doom and gloom in the wake of any action on greenhouse gas emissions.

Above all else though we need a policy that regulates the regulators. Can you imagine the bias that political science is biased with?

[TimG]

Ditto the economic research that preaches doom and gloom in the wake of any action on greenhouse gas emissions.

That is the entire point isn't it? "acting on climate change" is not free. It comes with a cost and that cost must be weighed against the potential risks. It is a complex balancing act which requires trade offs. The trouble with the debate today is we have these yahoos in the environmental movement who think the only think that matters is what the "science" says. It is complete BS and a distraction from the real discussion. Edited December 20, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

Exactly.

First of all, "peer review" puts publicly funded scientists under immense pressure not to cut off their source of funding. If they find that climate is naturally quite variable, why th enee the need to fund studies at university, governmental and U.N. levels? There wouldn't be any such need. No problem = no money.

If contrariwise warming of that magnitude kicks in, sea level cities such as New York, New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Franciso San Francisco and Vancouver will, as Al Gore points out, be submerged. There isn't much we'd be able to do about either development, one or both of which in some historical sweep is almost inevitable.

fixed it...

The point about the Ellesmere forests is that the most likely explanation is either some earlier warming, or perhaps another location for the North Pole. Neither was caused by nor preventable by man. And that's why I posted the article.

no you posted it because you're a forum troll like BC, you're just backtracking now

Actually not too far from the truth, especially for the U.S. Northeast through Ottawa and in some cases a bit further north. During strong La Niña episodes, during with the tropical Pacific, generally from Peru out to the dateline cools significantly, sometimes as much as 2C below normal. That triggers the formation of an exaggerated "Bermuda High", which sometimes retrogrades inland as far as Tennessee. That fosters temperatures in places like NYC as high as 39C (this past July 5, for exapmle example). Overall, we had 35 days over 32C, which is well above the average.

fixed it

[eyeball]

That is the entire point isn't it? "acting on climate change" is not free. It comes with a cost and that cost must be weighed against the potential risks. It is a complex balancing act which requires trade offs. The trouble with the debate today is you have these yahoos in the environmental movement who think the only think that matters is what the "science" says. It is complete BS and a distraction from the real discussion.

I'd say the yahoos in the economic movement see their policies being adopted with a lot less consensus and under a lot more doubt than their protagonists on the environmental side do. I say that as a layman (in the technical and expert sense) in both fields of study and as someone who's also been caught between both. In my experience as a fisherman and a logger it's definitely been the economic policies that have had the greatest negative impact on my life.

[waldo]

waldo (sic) always rejects real-world information in favor of any airy, wholly biased sources.

I am heartened to observe that, in alignment with your anal attention to spelling detail... and the most unfortunate recent revelations of your failed anally probed adjudicated spelling... you've taken extra steps to ensure my name is spelled properly.

[TimG]

I'd say the yahoos in the economic movement see their policies being adopted with a lot less consensus and under a lot more doubt than their protagonists on the environmental side do.

I am inclined to agree, however, there are a century of real life examples that allow us to look at the impacts of different economic policies. It is not perfect but it is at least real data. When it comes to the costs of CO2 regulation is all theoretical. Edited December 20, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Once again you miss the point. The issue is not whether the locations of droughts change (this is something that has happened in the past). The issue is whether there will be a *global* increase in the number of droughts. The studies you referenced make various claims about droughts potentially increasing in some places but the study I referenced is the only one that shows the effect on the entire globe and that effect is undetectable. Which means that the claim of a global increase in droughts is not supportable.

nonsense - you continue to parrot your denier blogs referenced distortion of that Sheffield paper... the paper focused on variability, not trends. And, of course, you totally ignore the other papers from Sheffield that I referenced/linked to... the one's that actually address what you describe as, "The issue is whether there will be a *global* increase in the number of droughts."

in the following re-quote, I've bold-highlighted wording to the last Sheffield study reference I linked/quoted. So… again… the same author of both papers, J. Sheffield; both papers published in the same year, 2008; both papers providing analysis over the same time period, 1950 to 2000:

1 – the paper your denier blog is distorting; the paper that is focused on variability, not trends. => J. Sheffield (2008) - Global and Continental Drought in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century: Severity–Area–Duration Analysis and Temporal Variability of Large-Scale Events

2 – the paper I reference and link to;

the paper actually focused on global trends

. => J. Sheffield (2008) -

Global Trends

and Variability in Soil Moisture and Drought Characteristics, 1950–2000, from Observation-Driven Simulations of the Terrestrial Hydrologic Cycle

... "

a switch since the 1970s to a drying trend, globally and in many regions

"

standard TimG parroting response from his linked denier blog site… nothing more than a complete distortion of that Sheffield paper – a paper focused on variability… not trends. You simply need to look at past work/papers involving the same scientist – Sheffield, to easily ascertain the absolute distortion/fabrication from TimG and his linked denier blog:

- a most recent paper from Sheffield et al:

Global Drought and Agricultural Water Productivity Monitoring: Transitioning Towards Application Scales

Drought is likely to increase in a global warming climate (Burke et al., 2006; Sheffield and Wood 2008)

- another paper from Sheffield et al:

Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global warming from multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations

Recent and potential future increases in global temperatures are likely to be associated with impacts on the hydrologic cycle, including changes to precipitation and increases in extreme events such as droughts.

- another paper from Sheffield et al:

Global Trends and Variability in Soil Moisture and Drought Characteristics, 1950–2000, from Observation-Driven Simulations of the Terrestrial Hydrologic Cycle

Within the long-term trends there are considerable interannual and decadal variations in soil moisture and drought characteristics for most regions, which impact the robustness of the trends. Analysis of detrended and smoothed soil moisture time series reveals that the leading modes of variability are associated with sea surface temperatures, primarily in the equatorial Pacific and secondarily in the North Atlantic.

Despite the overall wetting trend there is a switch since the 1970s to a drying trend,

globally and in many regions

, especially in high northern latitudes. This is shown to be caused, in part, by concurrent increasing temperatures. Although drought is driven primarily by variability in precipitation, projected continuation of temperature increases during the twenty-first century indicate the potential for enhanced drought occurrence.

or... we could reference this most timely (just released) paper from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR - Aiguo Dai, Oct. 2010): => Climate change: Drought may threaten much of globe within decades

Since the middle 20th century, global aridity and drought areas have increased substantially, mainly due to widespread drying since the 1970s over Africa, southern Europe, East and South Asia, eastern Australia, and many parts of the northern mid-high latitudes. Although natural variations in ENSO, tropical Atlantic SSTs, and Asian monsoons have played a large role in the recent drying, the rapid warming since the late 1970s has increased atmospheric demand for moisture and likely altered atmospheric circulation patterns (e.g., over Africa and East Asia), both contributing to the recent drying over land. Since a large part of the recent warming is attributed to human-induced GHG increases, it can be concluded that human activities have contributed significantly to the recent drying trend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MePAro1PsiI

mainstream coverage… interview of NCAR scientist, Aiguo Dai

Increasingly dry conditions across much of the globe — including the U.S. — are likely over the next 30 years, a new study predicts. Moreover, by the year 2100 drought in some regions could be unprecedented in modern times.

Increasing drought has long been forecast as a consequence of warming temperatures, but the study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research projects serious impacts as soon as the 2030s. Impacts by century's end could go beyond anything in the historical record, the study suggests.

"We are facing the possibility of widespread drought in the coming decades, but this has yet to be fully recognized by both the public and the climate change research community," study author Aiguo Dai said in a statement. "If the projections in this study come even close to being realized, the consequences for society worldwide will be enormous."

To get an idea of how severe droughts might get, scientists use a measure called the Palmer Drought Severity Index, or PDSI. A positive score is wet, a negative score is dry and a score of zero is neither overly wet nor dry.

The most severe drought in recent history, in the Sahel region of western Africa in the 1970s, had a PDSI of -3 or -4.

By contrast, the study indicates that by 2100 some parts of the U.S. could see -8 to -10 PDSI, while Mediterranean areas could see drought in the -15 or -20 range.

"Historical PDSI for the last 60 years show a drying trend over southern Europe but nothing like those values at the end of this century," Dai said. "Decadal mean values of PDSI have not reached -15 to -20 levels in the past in any records over the world."

[TimG]

Global Trends and Variability in Soil Moisture and Drought Characteristics, 1950–2000, from Observation-Driven Simulations of the Terrestrial Hydrologic Cycle

This paper completely supports my claims:

There is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture, forced by increasing precipitation, which is weighted by positive soil moisture trends over the Western Hemisphere and especially in North America. Regional variation is nevertheless apparent, and significant drying over West Africa, as driven by decreasing Sahel precipitation, stands out. Elsewhere, Europe appears to have not experienced significant changes in soil moisture, a trait shared by Southeast and southern Asia. Trends in drought duration, intensity, and severity are predominantly decreasing, but statistically significant changes are limited in areal extent, of the order of 1.0%-7.0% globally, depending on the variable and drought threshold, and are generally less than 10% of continental areas.

Edited December 20, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

This paper completely supports my claims:

There is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture, forced by increasing precipitation, which is weighted by positive soil moisture trends over the Western Hemisphere and especially in North America. Regional variation is nevertheless apparent, and significant drying over West Africa, as driven by decreasing Sahel precipitation, stands out. Elsewhere, Europe appears to have not experienced significant changes in soil moisture, a trait shared by Southeast and southern Asia. Trends in drought duration, intensity, and severity are predominantly decreasing, but statistically significant changes are limited in areal extent, of the order of 1.0%-7.0% globally, depending on the variable and drought threshold, and are generally less than 10% of continental areas.

"completely supports your claims" perfect! Let's add in the key relevant missing statements from your selective quotation of that papers abstract: "...a switch since the 1970s to a drying trend, globally and in many regions..." So... apparently, 40 years of data/observations (since the 1970's), stands the test of TimG's expressed claims of "zero evidence"! Yowzer! Crikey... you're the guy that incessantly tries to get away with ridiculous short-term, broad-based climatic event trending intervals... like 5-7 years, like 7-9 years, like 11 years, like 15 years... and now, 40 years is too short a trending interval period for you. Oh my!

- another paper from Sheffield et al: Global Trends and Variability in Soil Moisture and Drought Characteristics, 1950–2000, from Observation-Driven Simulations of the Terrestrial Hydrologic Cycle

Within the long-term trends there are considerable interannual and decadal variations in soil moisture and drought characteristics for most regions, which impact the robustness of the trends. Analysis of detrended and smoothed soil moisture time series reveals that the leading modes of variability are associated with sea surface temperatures, primarily in the equatorial Pacific and secondarily in the North Atlantic. Despite the overall wetting trend there is a switch since the 1970s to a drying trend, globally and in many regions, especially in high northern latitudes. This is shown to be caused, in part, by concurrent increasing temperatures. Although drought is driven primarily by variability in precipitation, projected continuation of temperature increases during the twenty-first century indicate the potential for enhanced drought occurrence.

notwithstanding you took a twirly-around and came up with this latter shift, as quoted below... emphasizing future projections... to which you proceed to ignore all the studies/papers I offered as substantiation... that speak to increased drought projections. Any reason you've decided to ignore those... why you've decided not to acknowledge them - hey?

The issue is whether there will be a *global* increase in the number of droughts.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I've got a quick question, where would Ellesmere Island have been 2 million years ago? With continental drift would it be farther south? If only slightly?

[wyly]

I've got a quick question, where would Ellesmere Island have been 2 million years ago? With continental drift would it be farther south? If only slightly?

yes from what I recall but probably but not enough to be significant...

[Saipan]

Above all else though we need a policy that regulates the regulators.

And commission to regulate commissions. And study to study all studies.

Government jobs galore!

[eyeball]

And commission to regulate commissions. And study to study all studies.

Government jobs galore!

No, I'd privatize that particular job. Wikileaks works for me.

[Saipan]

How did it help so far?

(for us, not AlQuida)

[Guest TrueMetis]

yes from what I recall but probably but not enough to be significant...

I don't think so either, but why is it so hard to find maps showing earth 2 MYA? YOu want a map of 65, 150, 225 MYA no problem. 2 MYA not going to happen.

[Saipan]

go actually speak to someone who has gone through the peer review process, peer reviews are highly critical, cold blooded, unfriendly, and even viscious affairs...papers are examined microscopically for flaws in data and logic...these aren't friendly back patting sessions you make them out to be...

You did?

[The_Squid]

I don't think so either, but why is it so hard to find maps showing earth 2 MYA? YOu want a map of 65, 150, 225 MYA no problem. 2 MYA not going to happen.

The maps that show this are very gross estimations and on very small scale maps showing the entire Earth. Continental drift is so slow that the Earth 2 MYA probably looks very similar to today.

Continental drift is ~7cm per year.

2M years = 14,000,000 cm or 140,000 M or 140 km

Wouldn't look a lot different on a small scall map of the globe.

[wyly]

You did?

that would be obvious to most...

[Bonam]

You did?

I dunno about him, but I have. Peer review can vary quite a lot depending on the reviewer. Generally, it is just one or two people that review the paper in the peer review process. Some scientists are quite critical and thorough when performing peer review, while others are more lax. One of my friend's papers got brutalized in the peer review process, with every statement put under a microscope, and several pages of proposed revisions and comments. My own paper received a "good paper, please submit" and nothing more, even though I later myself found several errors (which I eventually fixed).

The reality is that in the peer review process it is quite possible to miss various errors. While some reviewers are very thorough, even they will rarely go and re-derive formulas, double-check models and their results, or perform their own analysis of any data to see if it matches. That would, of course, be far far too much work. The reviewers have their own research to do.

The real test of a scientific paper is in the response it gets after publication. Many, perhaps most, scientific papers are seldom read and seldom referenced, realistically contributing little to their field of science. Others are widely cited, and others are referenced for the purpose of demonstrating where they have gone wrong and how the current work does something better or more correctly.

[Bryan]

The reality is that in the peer review process it is quite possible to miss various errors. While some reviewers are very thorough, even they will rarely go and re-derive formulas, double-check models and their results, or perform their own analysis of any data to see if it matches. That would, of course, be far far too much work. The reviewers have their own research to do.

Does it not follow then that papers that generally sound like what the reviewers already believe to be true are essentially green lighted? There doesn't have to be any conspiracy, just a combination of unconscious confirmation bias and too busy to check.

[Saipan]

that would be obvious to most...

Is the "reviewer" right?

And who decide?

[bloodyminded]

And keep in mind I'm coming at this with a left-wing ideology.

Well, you did play the brass at an anti-war candidate's rally almost forty years ago.

But I'm still waiting to find in what other--perhaps slightly more contemporary--ways you are of a "left wing ideology."

[bloodyminded]

It should, because some people are making a lot of money from all this.

http://www.carbontradeex.com/CarbonTradeExAmerica/AboutTheShow/2010Speakers/tabid/278/Detail/True/UserID/383/Default.aspx

http://www.theglobalcarbonbank.com/

http://www.cpholdingsllc.com/know_resources.php

With an interesting side quote..

Yes, but if it's merely a simple matter of "follow the money"--to indict an overwhelming majority scientific consensus as a money conspiracy--than the anti-AGW beneficiaries become pretty starkly laid out, don't they?

I mean, by your own standards.

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded