tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post2084978675765643783..comments2024-03-18T22:50:29.792-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Climate ExtremistsCliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-86824457732539598072012-08-10T03:22:37.164-07:002012-08-10T03:22:37.164-07:00Dr. Mass, I would like to understand better your o...Dr. Mass, I would like to understand better your objections to the Krugman statement, "even a fairly modest rise in average temperatures translates into a much higher frequency of extreme events — like the devastating drought now gripping America’s heartland". As caveat emptor points out above, the first phrase is supported by virtue of it being a property of the normal distribution, and it is reflected in Figure 4 of Hansen’s latest PNAS paper. The second phrase is not a direct attribution, merely pointing to the drought as exemplary. I really would like to read your arguments on these points, because Krugman’s phrasing seems defensible, and before I say the same things as an educator, I would like to read your thoughts on what is problematic about these points. Thanks for your time.Paul Vincellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17899338412256424835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-41474175068625438662012-08-07T09:11:28.325-07:002012-08-07T09:11:28.325-07:00Dr. Mass, I'm interested in your opinions on t...Dr. Mass, I'm interested in your opinions on the recent PNAS paper regarding a statistical argument that extreme weather is in fact increasing. "Perception of climate change." by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, and Reto Ruedy.<br />I am no expert in this field, but it seemed to me the authors did a laudable job of sticking to facts and showing that the incidence of extreme weather has in fact been steadily increasing over the last 50 years. <br />Fortunately for us, it is open access as well. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.abstract<br /><br />-BillBillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471111840980462827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-65286504881662264862012-08-06T15:47:32.761-07:002012-08-06T15:47:32.761-07:00Cliff- Why are you accusing the press of promotin...Cliff- Why are you accusing the press of promoting hysteria when the head GW scientist at NASA is the one fanning the flames?<br /><br /><br />http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-extreme-summer-heat-climate-change-scientists-say-20120806,0,7931870.story?Sdsdfsdzorchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09631898398247548961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-43520859526866526622012-08-06T07:53:16.222-07:002012-08-06T07:53:16.222-07:00What's missing in this discussion is the diffe...What's missing in this discussion is the difference between the impacts of radiative forcing on the variability (that is, the underlying atmospheric dynamics) and the impact on mean temperatures, upon which the dynamics is superimposed. Cliff is right that there is no evidence to support the assumption that global warming will itself lead to "more extreme weather", if by that we mean dynamical events like the atmosphere blocking like that which resulted in the Moscow warming extreme. However, if average temperatures are overall greater, the the changes of a given weather event being hotter than previous ones increases. At the moment, as Cliff says, the statistics are such that the signal of that warming barely rises above the noise of natural variability -- for example, a paper in PNAS last year concluded that the probability was about 80% that the Moscow warming was exacerbated by the long term (global warming) trend. See: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/18/1101766108.abstract<br /><br />80% probability isn't very high, and in fact would usually be rejected as "insufficient evidence" for most scientific studies. On the other hand, we know where the trend is heading.<br /><br />Of course, the heat wave in France in 2003 is another matter. This is the one event which is the counterexample to Cliff's otherwise right-on post. See the paper in Nature on this, here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03089.html<br /><br />--Eric SteigErichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07024400862641057083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-23589312842676572252012-08-06T00:23:01.983-07:002012-08-06T00:23:01.983-07:00Professor Mass,
With respect, you stated "But...Professor Mass,<br />With respect, you stated "But the evidence suggests that the big weather/climate events have little to do with global warming". What is your confidence interval for this conclusion? Your chart showed a great degree of variability, true, but it also showed a measurable, separable component that is exclusively due to CO2 in the atmosphere. This is why I take issue with such a strong statement as you have made. I respectfully request in the future a more rigorous statistical analysis, or statement at least, supporting such controversial positions. <br />Best regardsKeithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09960785799180872764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-25273649003117029662012-07-31T14:48:41.420-07:002012-07-31T14:48:41.420-07:00Jeff B, you deliberately try to twist my words. No...Jeff B, you deliberately try to twist my words. Nothing has been retracted. I said:<br />"If I'm reading you right Cliff, you think the media should wait until consensus forms around these individual issues (e.g. increased extremes...or not) before publicizing them. My question to you: what if THAT's too late?"<br /><br />See the word "THAT"?...clearly it refers to a point in the future when there is a consensus re extreme events. It could be 5, 10, 20 years("in 10 years or however long")...I don't have a crystal ball.<br /><br />"But you are simply wrong. There have not been recent more frequent and more extreme weather phenomena."<br /><br />And I can link to many other peer reviewed papers that say the opposite to some degree. However I would NOT make a blanket statement like you have, that there HAS definitely been an increase in extreme events. I'm agnostic for now, and open to evidence both ways. (I appreciated Cliff's post on the Texas drought paper).<br /><br />However, I believe there are prudent measures we can take now (e.g. carbon tax) before we have consensus on how extreme things will get and how soon. Because, unlike you, I don't think these will "destroy the economy" -- if anything they'll help. <br /><br />--DouglasDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13400304542602805292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-66394474452456804932012-07-31T14:02:24.365-07:002012-07-31T14:02:24.365-07:00Brendan,
There are many ways to incentivize new e...Brendan,<br /><br />There are many ways to incentivize new energy. One is to tax what you don't want. Another is to credit or encourage what you do want. Humans work better with encouragement. And especially when we are talking about something as critical as energy. Punishing us all for the energy sources we have now is not productive, because most would certainly prefer less of the bad effects of burning carbon, but more importantly, they need the energy from those sources we use now to survive. This is why we don't tax food.<br /><br />A better way would be to encourage an Ansari X prize like incentive, and to get the US Gov to go back and open up all of the research and closed pathways to Thorium that previously existed. <br /><br />And we did not take flight by taxing trains.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-49287964915921167632012-07-31T13:54:26.068-07:002012-07-31T13:54:26.068-07:00Branden,
Why? Are you afraid you might read some...Branden,<br /><br />Why? Are you afraid you might read something there that contradicts what you had accepted as fact? And what of all of the peer reviewed papers linked to that site? Are you saying that negates their peer review?Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-87354161745816085682012-07-31T13:51:39.169-07:002012-07-31T13:51:39.169-07:00Unknown,
But you are simply wrong. There have no...Unknown,<br />But you are simply wrong. There have not been recent more frequent and more extreme weather phenomena. You are an unfortunate victim of the 24/7 media culture that sensationalizes each tornado, drought, hurricane, etc. See links below for starters. And this is not about Rush or Drudge. I don't pay attention to either. Alarm is not a partisan issue.<br /><br />And again, even you retract your statement to say that too late actually means ten years from now. Think about the ridiculousness of that verbiage. <br /><br />There is either real, meaningful, quantifiable, objective, measurable, predictable and empirically demonstrated cause for alarm, or there is not. And when there is alarm, all of those measures above are easily verifiable in the here and now.<br /><br />If you have to retract and say you meant it might be too late in ten years, then it's not too late, and that's not anywhere near accurate enough to cause anyone to take action and certainly not cause for alarm. <br /><br />I don't see why you are surprised that public opinion is not swayed by all of the climate hysteria of that last few decades which for the average Joe has amounted to nothing more than the usual weather. And that's Cliff's point. You want to sell hysteria like the hurricane images of Al Gore's movie posters did as a call for action. But in reality, hurricanes come and go, and have been no more frequent of late. And the consistent cries of alarm when there is none have deadened everyone.<br /><br />Thankfully, there are people like Cliff who are calling for reason to triumph over emotion.<br /><br />http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/07/13/the-heat-was-on-before-urbanization-and-greenhouse-gases/<br /><br />http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/guest-post-by-bruce-hall/<br /><br />http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/25/comprehensive-alps-study-clearly-refutes-humans-are-causing-more-weather-variability-and-extremes/Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-10633598824952287132012-07-31T13:06:57.510-07:002012-07-31T13:06:57.510-07:00@ JeffB
A carbon tax would incentivize new energ...@ JeffB <br /><br />A carbon tax would incentivize new energy sources (like thorium). That is the purpose of a carbon tax.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16791790211602663270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-89193305683275594432012-07-31T12:58:06.319-07:002012-07-31T12:58:06.319-07:00Is it possible to describe the recent warming in t...Is it possible to describe the recent warming in the Arctic as extreme? If so, is it possible to link that extreme Arctic warming to CO2 forcing? Or is that being extreme? <br />All and all an interesting dialog that really revolves not around anthropogenic climate change, but around how to advance policy and the strategy to do that. I will say that I may disagree with the strategy some use by citing EVERY storm or weather event, I do not find it helpful to call them extremists in converstaion or elsewhere.Dan McShanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17044037213245602667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-63262504208488208432012-07-31T12:45:19.856-07:002012-07-31T12:45:19.856-07:00JeffB, please don't link an non-peer-reviewed ...JeffB, please don't link an non-peer-reviewed paper from WattsUpWithThat, one of the most public, if not the most public, denialist sites on the internet.Brandenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780920750288881616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-38163626459956455032012-07-30T22:51:11.926-07:002012-07-30T22:51:11.926-07:00JeffB, of course there are extremes all the time. ...JeffB, of course there are extremes all the time. But are they becoming more frequent, and more extreme? This is the nub of the issue. Some scientists say yes (Cliff strangely doesn't mention Hansen), others think no for now at least.<br /><br />I have a hard time parsing the rest of what you say. Most of it seems like talking points from Rush or Drudge. Advocating a carbon tax or other measures is not necessarily "economy destroying" and could in fact benefit the economy (by stimulating important industries) rather than hampering it. Note a popular idea is a revenue neutral carbon tax, i.e. one that is offset by tax cuts elsewhere.<br /><br />I did not say it is too late NOW. I meant in 10 years or however long it takes for scientists to reach consensus on AGW impacts on extreme events.<br /><br />--DouglasDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13400304542602805292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-17094996987679660322012-07-30T22:44:42.980-07:002012-07-30T22:44:42.980-07:00While climate alarmists may or may not be a seriou...While climate alarmists may or may not be a serious distraction, the real climate extremists are those that deny humans are having any affect on the climate at all, or even deny there is any global warming taking place. These people are by far the larger impediment to enacting measures to mitigate humankind's affect on the atmosphere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-88783030478095664852012-07-30T18:34:20.183-07:002012-07-30T18:34:20.183-07:00With all of what you've said here above Prof. ...With all of what you've said here above Prof. Mass, (if perhaps fairly obvious.) .. it would appear, that actually identifying / determining the key factors involved more specifically where considering just what causes the more "locked" up state /- or either otherwise, move freed up movement, of the main progress of the atmosphere more eastward as a whole, would also perhaps help, where looking at the gradual warming of the climate. ..richard583https://www.blogger.com/profile/00415086002282750839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-3914311683232600602012-07-30T18:05:32.397-07:002012-07-30T18:05:32.397-07:00I think we're getting tied up in knots over th...I think we're getting tied up in knots over the details rather than the basic physics and chemistry of Global Climate Change, and not just "Global Warming." The CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at an unprecedented rate, baring the extreme geological/volcanic events like the formation of the Deccan Traps. <br /><br />Part of the CO2 is entering the oceans increasing its acidity. The remainder is increasing both the heat in the atmosphere and the oceans. Water has a very high heat capacity, so the sea surface temperature (SST) is warming slowly. But that slow warming is increasing the water content of the atmosphere, which helps to slow the rate of increase of SST. <br /><br />Increased atmospheric heat and humidity appear to have altered atmospheric circulation and increased the severity and frequency extreme meteorological events since the beginning of the industriall revolution (nominally in 1800, but actually much earlier.) There s statistical evidence to support this contention, but we're looking at only 200 years of record. <br /><br />However, the rate of increase in frequency of extreme events is worth noting and in some cases unprecedented, in human history. Little ice ages and climatic ameliorations have occurred on longer time scales and with less severity than now.<br /><br />The benefits of industrialized civilization finally accruing over such a seeminly short period of time forbids suddenly putting on the brakes. This process is akin to historic cyclic economic boom and busts in which there is always reaction instead of prevention. <br /><br />I think Bill McKibben's essay in Rolling Stone is very compelling.strix27https://www.blogger.com/profile/08754896384356494723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-31024324679656327452012-07-30T16:51:26.491-07:002012-07-30T16:51:26.491-07:00Unknown says:
I'm not willing to bet that this...Unknown says:<br /><i>I'm not willing to bet that this is just weather and that it doesn't require a response and that magically the weather extremes of the past 2-3 years will simply abate by themselves.</i><br /><br />This is nonsense. There are weather extremes at all times somewhere on the planet. If we use a bet on weather extremes as a reason for gross action, we may as well use a roulette wheel.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-8060915746987342042012-07-30T13:59:53.595-07:002012-07-30T13:59:53.595-07:00Cliff you say that this is unsupportable
"ev...Cliff you say that this is unsupportable<br /><br />"even a fairly modest rise in average temperatures translates into a much higher frequency of extreme events ....."<br /><br />However that is a simple property of most statistical distributions. If you increase the mean, then you increase the probability of events over certain thresholds occuring. For very extreme events the increas in probability is significant especially if their is a sizeable shift in the mean.caveat emptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15318994505715193523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-89259627995298459192012-07-30T13:29:15.627-07:002012-07-30T13:29:15.627-07:00The Tsunami reached heights in excess of 9 meters ...The Tsunami reached heights in excess of 9 meters (900cm) near Fukushima. So sea level rise of 10 cm may have contributed a bit more than 1% of that height.<br /><br />In contrast, using your conservative 1 F increase estimate for AGW, global warming may have contributed to 10% of the current drought, using your 9F anomaly figure. An order of magnitude difference in other words.<br /><br />If the BEST results are to believed however, humans have contributed to about a 2.7 F degree rise in the past 250 years. That means we might have made the current drought 30% worse!<br /><br />I realize this is a simplistic analysis, but your example is not well chosen.<br /><br />--DouglasDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13400304542602805292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-49042204728411641422012-07-30T12:56:43.072-07:002012-07-30T12:56:43.072-07:00Cliff, you are guilty of the reverse. Your blog p...Cliff, you are guilty of the reverse. Your blog post makes it sound like there's no need to be alarmed at all, but your last comment you admit that you simply have no idea about the effect of climate change on the blocking amplitude.<br /><br /><br />The thing to lose sleep over isn't Krugman making the occasional climate post. The thing to lose sleep over is that if climate change is resulting in increased blocking (even though we can't prove it), then that means that the negative effects of climate change are here right now, and that means that they're going to be worse than most predictions to date. I'm not willing to bet that this is just weather and that it doesn't require a response and that magically the weather extremes of the past 2-3 years will simply abate by themselves.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15793874284872715747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-32020877394641237712012-07-30T12:41:38.459-07:002012-07-30T12:41:38.459-07:00Unknown asks "What if it is too late?" ...Unknown asks "What if it is too late?" <br /><br />There is an obvious answer to this question. It is not. Too late would be if say Puyallup failed to install Lahar monitors and a massive Lahar was bearing down from Mt. Rainier. 4cm sea level rise over 30 years within a noise margin is something buried in scientific papers with absolutely zero implication for the average Puget Sound resident. <br /><br />MAGNITUDE MATTERS.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-91595880062178959422012-07-30T12:37:22.507-07:002012-07-30T12:37:22.507-07:00And then there is this new paper which shows that ...<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/" rel="nofollow">And then there is this new paper</a> which shows that warming has been vastly overstated by improper siting of the US Thermometer (USHCN) network. <br /><br />And again, alarm and reaction to data are entirely dependent on magnitude. As Cliff mentions here, a sea level rise of 4 cm over the course of decades is not cause for alarm, because it is not cause action. No one will have to move property, or flee to higher ground over 4 cm within the noise margin. ALARM means ALARM. MAGNITUDE MATTERS. There is no cause for CAGW alarm, therefore all of our response should be long term scientific research and engineering that seeks better energy solutions, better cars, etc. and not immediate economy destroying panic. <br /><br />And I very much disagree with a carbon tax as one of Cliff's proposed solutions. We would be far better continuing with the science. I don't understand how Cliff could simultaneously suggest restraint, good science, more understanding, better research into energy sources and better autos, etc. and then mention a carbon tax. That falls under the heading of economy destroying panic. Why not instead incentivize new energy sources like Thorium. <br /><br />One thing the socialists never seem to understand is that humans react much more vigorously to the carrot than the stick. Ironic for a group that also understands why we should not use torture.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-67812829807754417552012-07-30T12:11:31.972-07:002012-07-30T12:11:31.972-07:00It is always about prioritization. Especially in t...It is always about prioritization. Especially in tough economic times. As I said in the other thread re: Texas Tall Tales. 100 year timelines are not cause for alarm. They are cause for low priority changes that we can, and will make over time. It is easily conceivable that we would move our entire energy infrastructure to non-carbon sources over the next 100 years. Thorium would easily make that possible. And this would be a great example of reasonable changes that would address the future without hurting us today.<br /><br />But as long as we continue with the Chicken Little's like Krugman who know nothing about science, we are going to get further from any solutions, and instead hurt ourselves badly today. And especially when the interests of most of the current CAGW groups is more in line with continuing their own funding and influence and/or a remake of the economic system towards more socialism based on immediate alarming predictions about CAGW. Sadly, many in the CAGW camp want us to suffer with Draconian policy as punishment for the growth and triumph of Western Civ over the past 500 years.<br /><br />Cliff is one of the lone voices of sanity. Let's stick to the science and let real scientists and engineers create new solutions for the next 100 years instead of panicking now.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-14683637240069811492012-07-30T11:07:25.897-07:002012-07-30T11:07:25.897-07:00There may not be scientific consensus on the slowi...There may not be scientific consensus on the slowing Rossby wave theory. But there is SOME evidence (e.g. Francis and Vavrus 2012), so when you say "there is absolutely no evidence" you commit the same sin you accuse others of. (Or if we ask those researchers if they think there is "no evidence" do you think they'd agree? Or are they extremists too?)<br /><br />As to be expected at this point, the evidence is weak and tentative, but the researchers deserve credit in my book for putting forth an interesting theory. Note the evidence comes from real world observations, not models. It links to the melting of the arctic sea ice, which has exposed much more ocean surface to the atmosphere at certain times of the year.<br /><br />Anyway, back to the issue of consensus. It's pretty clear that almost all climatologists and atmospheric scientists accept the world is warming due to anthropogenic causes, Cliff included. But within that consensus there is a range of opinion on how fast it will occur and whether we can observe significant effects already.<br /><br />If I'm reading you right Cliff, you think the media should wait until consensus forms around these individual issues (e.g. increased extremes...or not) before publicizing them. My question to you: what if that's too late?<br /><br />--DouglasDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13400304542602805292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-43136705454904895672012-07-30T10:43:07.833-07:002012-07-30T10:43:07.833-07:00Obvously there is spectrum of credible weather sci...Obvously there is spectrum of credible weather scientists regarding the seriousness of what is happening. Questions I would have:<br /><br />At the current level of CO2, approaching 400ppm, where will earth's ocean and surface temperature stabilize?<br /><br />At current trends of CO2 emissions we likely will be hitting 450, 500, even 1000 in the decades ahead. What will temperatures stabilize at those ppms??<br /><br />Some climate scientists say that 2 degrees centigrade are a tipping point. Should we disregard them?<br /><br />Others say that we may hit 4-6 degrees centigrade by the end of this century. What are this implications of these temperature rises?RLLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13850927095383579725noreply@blogger.com