Articles on this Page
- 12/30/18--09:19: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--09:35: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--10:12: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--10:26: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--10:39: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--10:45: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--11:12: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--11:13: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--11:52: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--12:12: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--12:15: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--12:19: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--12:34: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--12:39: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--13:11: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--13:12: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--13:43: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/30/18--14:08: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--14:35: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--14:47: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/30/18--09:19: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 12/30/18--09:35: Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
- 12/30/18--10:12: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Canman
- 12/30/18--10:26: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/30/18--10:39: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Javier
- 12/30/18--10:45: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Scott Koontz
- 12/30/18--11:12: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Canman
- 12/30/18--11:13: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Beta Blocker
- 12/30/18--11:52: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dave Fair
- 12/30/18--12:12: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Andy West
- 12/30/18--12:15: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dave Fair
- 12/30/18--12:19: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dave Fair
- 12/30/18--12:34: Comment on Week in review – science edition by RiHo08
- 12/30/18--12:39: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Darby
- 12/30/18--13:11: Comment on Week in review – science edition by RiHo08
- 12/30/18--13:12: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Javier
- 12/30/18--14:08: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/30/18--14:35: Comment on Week in review – science edition by ccscientist
- 12/30/18--14:47: Comment on Week in review – science edition by ccscientist
So, with a few tenths of a degree increase in global temperatures we are to believe that the El Niño, Arctic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation and Southern Annular Mode, as well as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, among others, are going to go kaput? Those oceanic and atmospheric interrelationships are still there, regardless of the baseline temperatures.
If the other oscillations are expected to continue, why is the AMO going to bag it, and take a break?
domino effects of tipping points, aka "cascading effects of regime shifts": <i> Using 30 regime shifts described as networks, we show that 45% of regime shift pairwise combinations present at least one plausible structural interdependence. </i>
"Plausible". Definitely "plausible".
Scott, I can see you're one of those who're determined to defend Mann, no matter what. Don't forget to pick up your copy of <i>To Serve Mann</i>, before boarding the <i>Hockey Stick Express</i>
Moy et al (2002) present the record of sedimentation shown below - which is strongly influenced by Pacific state variability. It is based on the presence of greater and less red sediment in a lake core. More sedimentation is associated with El Niño. It has continuous high resolution coverage over 12,000 years. It shows periods of high and low ENSO activity alternating with a period of about 2,000 years. There was a shift from La Niña dominance to El Niño dominance that was identified by Tsonis 2009 as a chaotic bifurcation – and is associated with the drying of the Sahel. There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high ENSO activity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation (Tsonis et al, 2010). Red intensity exceeded 200 at times - red intensity in the 1997/98 was 99.
Laguna Pallcacocha, ENSO proxy – greater red intensity shows El Niño conditions (Source: Tsonis, 2009)
The deep history of ENSO reveals perpetual change. "Figure 2 indicates that the title of this paper, “Hydrology and change”, harmonizes with a large
body of literature, books, conferences, scientific papers and news stories, all of which roar about change: changing planet, changing world, changing ocean, changing environment, changing health and, most of all, changing climate. It looks as if, recently, our scientific community has been amazed that things change." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626
<blockquote>and the Arctic twice as fast as that</blockquote>
It is not. I already explained it to you but you are slow. Lets repeat it:
Arctic warming is mostly a winter phenomenon and therefore it is not that the Arctic is warming that much. It is just heat that is going through the Arctic in winter in its way out of the planet. It is not generated in the Arctic and it does not remain in the Arctic because by summer it is gone:
<i>"Anomaly of the +80N mean temperature index, compared with climate (annual mean minus the corresponding climate value). All year anomaly is illustrated with the black line, summer anomaly (June, July, August) is illustrated with red and winter anomaly (December, January, February) in blue. Reference climate is ECMWF-ERA40 1958-2002."</i>
The Arctic is warming but not too much as a result of a decreasing equator to pole temperature gradient due to the warming of the planet.
Counting the heat flow through the Arctic in winter as Arctic warming is a mistake. That heat is just leaving the planet and has no effect in the Arctic. That is why it does not have any effect on summer sea-ice, that depends mostly on SST, not air temperature.
Just parroting wrong climate memes when the data says otherwise is silly.
Canman is upset that I read one Mann's books and have been present for his talks.
People determined to ignore the science are becoming so boring. Notice how Canman thinks I'm defending Mann, when I simply noted something all of us could note. Am I "defending Mann" because I have read a lot about climate science? Does that mean I am "defending" NASA as well?
And Canman most certainly never read any of Mann's books nor has he attended a symposium when he was a speaker.
I read and wrote an Amazon review of <i>The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars</i>:
I also had a spirited debate about this book at the now defunct <i>Skepticblog</i>:
<b>Scott Koontz on Bradley Keyes:</b> <em>"Does he seriously ever write about science, or does he insult people? Sounds like a nice fit for Watts site, but Curry continues to lower her standard by linking to it."</em>
Mr. Koontz, as someone who claims to be honestly ced about the global impacts of climate change, it is only fair that we should ask you to take a pause from criticizing AGW skeptics such as Bradley Keyes and to offer your own opinions as to what specifically America's carbon reduction targets ought to be for the long term future.
For example, was President Obama's goal of an 80% reduction in America's GHG emissions by 2050 too little or too much? Was he going too fast or too slow? Was the public policy approach he was relying upon to get the job done actually capable of reaching his 80% GHG reduction target by the year 2050?
Please put some real substance into your climate activist message and tell us what specifically America's own GHG reduction targets should be for the long term future. Also tell us how fast we should be moving to get from here to there -- wherever it is you think <em>'there'</em> ought to be.
Just as important, please tell us what specific public policy approach you think has the best prospects for reaching the end state you desire, including the balance to be made between public and private action in pursuing an aggressive anti-carbon program.
You seem to take it on faith that the world will be significantly warming in the future, Jim D. And the moment you cite IPCC climate models, you lose the argument.
"You have agreed however that there is no objective definition of catastrophic, which I interpret as therefore being a personal judgment of a situation."
Wrongly. All the listed authorities are deploying this term because they believe that science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, which perceived judgement they pass to their publics. They are not attempting to interpret the science themselves and they are not lying.
"...people, leaders or not, should not be prevented from saying that as part of their rhetoric that shows how much they care about these things."
Mainstream science does not support what they are saying; it is noble cause corruption to give their catastrophe narrative a free pass because you think that for now at least this is useful for the policies you support.
"You won’t see words like catastrophic in science..."
Absolutely! Hence it is wrong for all those authorities to present a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe as being a judgement of science.
"If you find someone who actually said “imminent catastrophe” rather than the need for immediate action..."
Refresh your memory on the many catastrophe narrative quotes from many authority sources. Many indeed cite a call for action too, but any such call based on the motivator of imminent global catastrophe is inappropriate, though this is often given as the overwhelming reason to act.
"The use of “imminent catastrophe” would defeat the policy point because it means we can’t do anything to stop it, so it would not be a wise way to promote mitigation policies."
Indeed it's not wise, but the narrative is emergent, and false, so wisdom is not in the frame here. Communicators and others have noticed the hopelessness it sometimes invokes, which is on the increase. The way to prevent this outcome is for the mainstream science community to push back on the false narrative.
The video? Wow: 1) No numbers, just vague assertions. 2) They show elk, not deer. 3) Has nothing to do with the subject at hand. 3) Nothing but propaganda.
Other than that, I enjoyed the video of one of the white wolves; he looked just like one of my best wheel dogs with which I sled-dog raced in Alaska.
“You won’t see words like catastrophic in science…” If that is the case, the UN IPCC SR15 is not science.
go up to the top where JC's list of articles and scroll down to #4, the link is still operable at least for me.
Practical methanol fuel cells exist already: http://www.safcell.com/
"Natural variability has slowed the decline of western US snowpack since the 1980s" But...of course, the snowpack decline will accelerate just as soon as...
"Just you wait Henry Higgins just you wait...it'll be too late." Eliza Doolittle
It snowed last night, covering all around. I went for my circumnavigation walk this afternoon, the sky was and had been cloudless, a beautiful robin egg's blue; the air temperature was a balmy 35 F, wind 7 mph, relative humidity 55%. I was paying attention to the walkways, some of which were still covered with snow as was the surrounding ground. Other parts of the walkways were clear and dry even though the adjacent forest floor was snow covered. Where the snow remained on the walkways, there were tall trees that had shaded these areas. Where the walkways were clear and dry, there was no such sun's shade through most of the day.
The small lake out back, 12 feet at its deepest, remains ice covered with large portions still bearing the recent snowfall.
T'was the sun's rays that melted the snow, not any rise in surface air temperature. But then again..."Just you wait..."
Jim D, you just don't get it. The winter trend and the summer trend are completely different as I have showed you. You cannot just average them and claim warming. That average is meaningless. No wonder you are so surprised when Arctic sea ice doesn't melt or the planet doesn't warm. You don't understand how the poles work to regulate global temperature. You just know how to count, but that is a kindergarten skill.
That summers don't show a warming trend means the excess winter heat is not being accumulated between seasons. That means warming every winter is the product of that year's transport, so there is no or little Arctic amplification. Arctic amplification needs to show in the summer trend and it doesn't. I see you have trouble understanding the simplest things. No wonder you have joined the consensus instead of thinking by yourself.
Thats the privilege that comes with censuring your own Blog, I said.
Halloooooooo Judy anybody home?
Your new adoring Blog Follower, BK
Andy West, perhaps you are not distinguishing the language of rhetoric from that of scientific publications. Yes, politicians can just quote the scientific literature without adding their own feelings to it, but that would not be the way politicians talk to get a point across. Adding personal feelings is a major tool in rhetoric and the hope is that those concerns are conveyed better that way. If we wanted people to just quote scientific reports, we would ask scientists to give the speeches and refrain from using any of their own feelings in it. You are asking politicians to make climate change impersonal and detached. They are not going to do that. That is not how rhetoric works. So if they see something as catastrophic, they can call it that, and if they think we are acting too slow, they can try to get that point across too. As I've said before, if it doesn't sound urgent, they are not saying it right.
Hydrogen makes metal brittle and leaks from the tiniest gap. Not ideal medium for carrying energy. Oh and it really goes kaboom.
Some people here were talking about ecological tipping points. Of course these exist in the small scale where you can tip a predator-prey system (or fisheries system) into a different equilibrium. HOWEVER, in climate science they are talking about a tipping to run-away warming, ie a point of no return. The feedbacks in the system would seem to mitigate against such a response, which does not even arise from the models.