Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Pooh, Dixie

May 28, 2012, 1:06 pm

≫ Next: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by omnologos

≪ Previous: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Herman Alexander Pope

Note trend in “Historical Tropical Cyclone Activity Graphics”

Maue, Dr. Ryan N. “Historical Tropical Cyclone Activity Graphics.” Scientific. Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Update, May 28, 2012. http://policlimate.com/tropical/index.html

Global Hurricane Frequency — Dr. Ryan N. Maue — Updated May 1, 2012 — 12 month running sums

“Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) — 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL. “

↧

Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by omnologos

May 28, 2012, 1:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Pooh, Dixie

That’s the problem with climate science. Focus should be on understanding the past, instead it’s on what the Clients want, namely a reasoned forecas so they can justify their allocations and fees.

Analysis of the past is only seen as instrumental of the forecasting.

I expected biology, I’ve found drug research.

↧

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

May 28, 2012, 1:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Edim

≪ Previous: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by omnologos

Where is the plateau? http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Thestratosphere.png

The stratosphere seems to think that 1994 to 1995 was the turning point. As Mosher and others have made abundantly clear, increased CO2 raises the ERL, (effective radiant layer). The stratosphere should be above that effective radiant layer and should cool as the CO2 forcing increases temperatures below the ERL. Since CO2 has not decreased since forever, the shift in the stratospheric trend would not likely be due to CO2. Volcanic aerosols is a possibility, but then so is the available energy. Since ARGO seems to indicate that upper level OHC (0 to 700 meters) has plateaued, the most likely cause of the stratospheric shift is the change in the rate of ocean heat uptake. Lower tropospheric temperatures will lag a change in the ocean heat uptake, with the cooling in the “pipeline”

On the chart you produced, the plateau appears to begin around 2002.

↧

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Edim

May 28, 2012, 1:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Latimer Alder

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

Jim, so the atmosphere transparent to the Earth’s surface radiation (but with clouds and dust) would be warmer than the opaque one?

Even without clouds and dust, the atmosphere would warm by convection from the surface as you say. How would it cool? It can’t cool. You just assumed a GHG blanketing effect, without any reasoning. Reducing GHGE should result in global cooling, but I don’t see how it works. I see warming.

↧

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Latimer Alder

May 29, 2012, 12:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Edim

@tony b

‘Wonder why WWF and the IPCC never seem to want to put modern day events into a wider historic context?’

Assuming that your remark wasn’t entirely rhetorical, I could speculate that the would not wish to discover that today’s weather and climate events aren’t ‘unprecedented’. For if they have happened before without the world coming to an end, humanity being wiped out and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse riding down the High Street, then it might cross Joe Public’s mind that such events could be survived this time around too.

And that would be a most unwelcome thought that would directly affect WWF and Greenpeace and all the other shroud-waving activist organisations in the wallet..and in their influence. Which they would not like at all.

↧

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by climatereason

May 29, 2012, 12:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Brandon Shollenberger

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Latimer Alder

Beth

I am pleased to say the committee have reviewed their (in my opinion short sighted) decision and reallocated the thought for the day franchise to you. As long as you realise that the money from the resale was going towards the political wing of the WWF and as a result polar bears will be disenfranched. But if you can live with that….

Bearing (hah!) in mind that AGW is supposed to be about the physics I do wonder why the IPCC (and WWF et al) spend so much time in trying to prove todays climate is unprecedented but fail to provide the full context to understand it
tonyb

↧

Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Brandon Shollenberger

May 29, 2012, 12:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by climatereason

Steven Mosher, do you actually know this to be true? If their values aren’t evenly distributed (such as having a longer tail on one end), they could have that range of values without it being just a matter of adding standard deviations. There is nothing in that quote which indicates your interpretation is right as opposed to it being something like 11 (-2, +4).

I don’t see why they’d have written it the way they did if they meant it the way you take it. Why would they be unnecessarily vague? Why wouldn’t they just write 12 +/- 3?

When somebody forgoes a simple and explicit option for something more vague, I tend to assume they have a reason. In this case, I assume the reason is their values aren’t evenly distributed. That may not be the case, but it is the implication I get.

↧

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by climatereason

May 29, 2012, 12:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Brandon Shollenberger

≪ Previous: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Brandon Shollenberger

Latimer said in reply to my comment

‘Wonder why WWF and the IPCC never seem to want to put modern day events into a wider historic context?’

Assuming that your remark wasn’t entirely rhetorical….

—- —–
No it wa a serious point which I amplified above when I was able to give Beth her good news.

Historical climatology is unfashionable these days and its decline over the last 20 years is mirrored by the popularity of computer models. I doubt if that is a coincidence, because as I have remrked before if it doesnt exist in a digotal format it doesnt seem to exist at all (for some researchers) .

Not only is context important to understand that what has happened to day has probably happened before (and sometimes isn’t even particularly unusual) but also that historical material used has to be seen in the context of the time and subsequent ‘reinterpretation.’ For example, modellers parse SST’s to fractions of a degree without reference to how these were obtained-as I wrote at great length in my article on buckets.

Vague and unreliable information thereby gets translated to’ scientifci’ data that is then being used to dictate Govt policy. How many politicians know of the manipulation of dubious information in order to turn it into scientific data?
tonyb

↧

Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Brandon Shollenberger

May 29, 2012, 12:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Stacey

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by climatereason

As a side note, the same problem could exist even if their data is evenly distributed. There is nothing which says their 70% range is centered. You could get a different range of values for 70% by shifting the window used along the x-axis (and adjusting its size).

↧

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Stacey

May 29, 2012, 12:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Beth Cooper

≪ Previous: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Brandon Shollenberger

‘Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.’
Albert Einstein

‘So what is it that is new today? What is new is that doubt has been eliminated.’
Brundtland

‘Madness is not the result of certainty but of uncertainty’
Nietzsche

‘We don’t get fooled again’
The Who

↧

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Beth Cooper

May 29, 2012, 12:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate science in public schools by Bryan

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by Stacey

A line from some shmaltzy film comes to mind, Tony. Why do the IpCc and the WWF………….? “The heart has its reasons.”
These organizations are made up of men and women. If you prick us, do we not bleed? If we have a MISSION, must we not , er, well, adjust the evidence for the higher good?

↧

Comment on Climate science in public schools by Bryan

May 29, 2012, 12:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Michael

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Beth Cooper

Brian H
I was not particularly careful about the selected list of names.
They could easily have included Richard Lindzen, Kevin Trenberth, Roy Spencer for instance.
The point is that most parents would seek the logical build up of concepts provided by school A for their own children.
Some would want other peoples children to be indoctrinated (good word) with the current desired political outcomes.

↧

Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Michael

May 29, 2012, 12:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by NW

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate science in public schools by Bryan

…or maybe because they understand that what might not have been much of an issue for a ‘society’ that consisted of people living in caves banging rocks together, might be altogether more discomforting for one that is tightly bound to highly efficient and predictable resource extraction.

↧

Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by NW

May 29, 2012, 1:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Faustino

≪ Previous: Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Michael

Point of modeling. If the models are Poisson regressions, and the mean is 12, then the 70% confidence interval would be about [10,14]… narrower than the [9,15] reported. Could be a Poisson regression with an overdispersion parameter. In any case the Poisson is a model for a count of events per unit time in some space, so it wouldn’t be surprising if that was the statistical model, especially with an overdispersion parameter.

↧

Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Faustino

May 29, 2012, 1:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by SCEF

≪ Previous: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by NW

Anecdote alert: in early 1981, we moved a forestry building onto our block inland from Noosa, SE Queensland. No cyclone had crossed the coast in SEQ since the biggie in 1974. The building was perched on railway sleepers on a high, fairly exposed ridge – we could see about 11-12 miles from it – not anchored in any way. We moved straight in, as our caravan had burned out. That first night, a cyclone crossed the coast nearby. It peaked for two hours from 1 – 3 a.m. We sat alert (and probably alarmed (Australian political reference)). The building (a small barracks for forestry workers) didn’t move. We reckoned that if it could survive a cyclone when not tied to the ground, it should be fine thereafter. As it has been.

↧

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by SCEF

May 29, 2012, 1:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by NW

≪ Previous: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by Faustino

Brundtland produced a great report on sustainable development which can be summed up as follows: don’t forget the bigger picture. It said economy, society and environment had to be considered together.

It stemmed from economic projects which ignored the environmental and social impacts which had knock on effects reducing the economic viability of investments.

Now we have eco-activists trying to force the world to take up environmental policies with no concern for the economic and social impacts. Bio-fuels which sent food prices rocketing is a classic example of unsustainable environmental policies.

In other words, eco-activists have used kudo of “sustainability” to lever into action unsustainable policies.

At least in the 1970s, they had the excuse of lack of knowledge. Today, these eco-activists have absolutely no excuse. They are saying its a crime to be unsustainable … then they are being unsustainable.

↧

Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by NW

May 29, 2012, 1:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by SCEF

Bart,

this sounds like it might be basic expected statistics to me. Suppose you have an observable set of predictors X, but hurricanes depend on a broader set of predictors Z, some of which are not observed. That is, observed X is a subset of relevant Z. Then if H is the count of hurricanes, it’s a statistical fact that Var(H|Z) > Var(H|X), that is, the conditional variance of H given the potential predictors Z exceeds the conditional variance of H given the observed predictors X.

Another way of saying this is: Whenever we don’t have a complete set of predictors, optimal prediction implies regression to the mean. So predictions are regressed toward the unconditional mean, and so the outcomes are always more extreme (relative to the mean) than are the predictions.

Or am I misunderstanding what you think you read?

↧

Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by steven

May 29, 2012, 1:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate science in public schools by Bryan

≪ Previous: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by NW

Much better Bart, cute cartoon instead of a long boring comment. So what part of your comment do you believe I had trouble understanding? The part where you were explaining science to me or the part where you were making assumptions about me?

↧

Comment on Climate science in public schools by Bryan

May 29, 2012, 1:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on Doubt has been eliminated (?) by steven

David Wojick
The thread is about the place of Climate Science in the school curriculum.
If it is to be included in the Science area it must conform to the structure of science education.
This would entail a sequential build up of concepts and a heavy reliance on the experimental method.
School A would touch on aspects of Climate Science in a natural way.
For instance different types of heat transfer and insulation.
The periodic table, elements and compounds, gases in the atmosphere, tests for Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen.
The origin of fossil fuels and their sustainability.

On the other hand questions like whether Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant could not be addressed within the students framework of developed concepts.
Students at school level would be unlikely to have studied
Blackbody radiation
Maxwell – Boltzmann Statistics
Planck Radiation Envelope
The Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics.
The vibrational and rotational modes of molecular absorption of electromagnetic radiation.

Both school A and B spend equal time on science.
So if an expanded module in Climate Science is taught (as in B) there will have to be a reduction in traditional topics to make room.
In Britain about 10% of curriculum time is spend on science in ages 12,13.
About 10% of curriculum time is spend on science in ages 14,15 for non- science specialists.
Up to 30% of curriculum time is spend on science in ages 14,15 for science specialists.
Science is not compulsory beyond age 16.

There are many important areas of scientific study that are not thought to be appropriate in a school curriculum.
Medical Science,Forensic Science,Veterinary Science and so on.
Climate Science as a coherent body of knowledge is best left to the tertiary level.
Its possible that Climate Issues could be discussed at a superficial level in Civics.
I fear that at school level this would be little more than a screening of the Al Gore video and subsequent discussion.

↧