tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post5770036304843615009..comments2024-03-28T23:07:35.632-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Texas Tall Tales and Global WarmingCliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-42846670295607736372012-09-14T00:11:35.672-07:002012-09-14T00:11:35.672-07:00That is global warming tales.
why is global warmin...That is global warming tales.<br /><a href="http://whyisglobalwarminghappening.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">why is global warming happening</a>Mie84https://www.blogger.com/profile/10540029801874121393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-41164552308030282882012-08-12T22:04:18.779-07:002012-08-12T22:04:18.779-07:00Hi y'all - looks like my comment's going t...Hi y'all - looks like my comment's going to come up as "Unknown", so as to avoid confusing me with the other Unknown, I'm Vay.<br /><br />Uhuh said:<br /><br />// WE are not changing anything. WE are not in control. WE and our suvs or whatever are not changing a planetary body. To this so and believe so is ARROGANCE at its best.<br />//<br /><br />Uhuh, how do you think the Earth got its Oxygen-rich atmosphere? It was likely initially via the life processes of ~bacteria~ ... and you want to argue that it is hubris that humanity can change the Earth's atmosphere over the course of two centuries of industrialization?<br /><br />Unknown, you are barking up the wrong tree somewhat with your "religious conservatism" attack. It isn't religiosity mainly but economic/political ~ideology~ that is the main driver for climate skepticism. There was an interesting study, for example, showing that if you suggest to liberals that climate change is likely to result in geo-engineering, they are less likely to believe in it. Whereas for conservatives, the notion that climate change impunes capitalism or necessitates sweeping government action are the key drivers for skepticism. Both are highly motivated reasoning - essentially arguments from consequences - and have nothing to do with the integrity of the science.<br /><br />People who already have ideological motivations will take this blog-post of yours and run with it... forever. They are fighting a reactionary trench war much the way ID proponents are, and every skeptic constitutes another trench for them to hide in, intellectually. <br /><br />Of everyone in the comments, Bill Reisweg is hitting it on the head, and Cliff seems to be carefully avoiding his pointed question about his motivations in "poking holes".<br /><br />JeffB you seem pretty fired up to argue this issue; I suggest you leave the chorus at Wattsup and go here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-American-Heatwave-The-United-States-Glimpses-its-Hot-Future.html" rel="nofollow"> An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future</a>Vaytwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06547262998332265862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-17397340177235913912012-07-25T14:05:53.005-07:002012-07-25T14:05:53.005-07:00Cliff,
OK, good luck with your review of Hansen...Cliff,<br />OK, good luck with your review of Hansen's work then. If you do find any mistake, lets hope it is in the direction of less severity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-83081075901362929662012-07-24T12:00:56.394-07:002012-07-24T12:00:56.394-07:00And let's be clear. For too long we've be...And let's be clear. For too long we've been told by select groups of scientists that we "must act now." We've been shown disastrous scenarios of quasi-science by politicians, all amplified by a media that loves a good sensational story. <br /><br />But in bad times, where resource prioritization is important, this has now awakened the ire of a public and other more cautious and better scientists who want much more and deeper proof, with a lot more falsifiable experimentation and data before we are willing to believe another chicken little outburst. <br /><br />As I asked of Unknown above. If the science is so good, then provide the specific actionable data and specific cases for impending alarm. Even if the alarm is further out, you should be able to show milestones along the way if the science is so good. So far, none of those spectacular claims have materialized and instead there have simply been attempts to link weather extremes so that no one will question that "we must act now."<br /><br />If the scientists at the center of CAGW had acted more prudently, there might be some credibility left. But there is not, and that's why Hansen's papers are not peer reviewed and why no one listens to another scare claim from Michael Mann or Kevin Trenberth.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-89516960356201765122012-07-24T11:50:53.108-07:002012-07-24T11:50:53.108-07:00John,
That's true. But that assumes the mode...John,<br /><br />That's true. But that assumes the models are accurate. The current GCMs used to predict future scenarios are woefully lacking. <a href="http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/13/junk-science-week-climate-models-fail-reality-test/" rel="nofollow">Reference </a> They don't hindcast to existing empirical data and they've been wrong over the past couple decades. And they give the same results using random walks. Therefore they are far from adequate enough to predict future events, let alone alarm. <br /><br />As I indicated above, alarm requires expediency. The models can't be accurate enough to predict any kind of expediency for the future if they've been wrong over the past ten years.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-72170696594297021402012-07-24T07:45:16.321-07:002012-07-24T07:45:16.321-07:00John,
Hansen's paper has fatal technical err...John,<br /> Hansen's paper has fatal technical errors...there is a reason it has not been accepted in a peer reviewed journal.... I will discuss these flaws in a future blog. ...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-89575245277600963712012-07-24T06:01:25.897-07:002012-07-24T06:01:25.897-07:00Cliff, I'm only saying that you haven't co...Cliff, I'm only saying that you haven't contributed with any estimate to the problem of quantifying the rarity of the Texas drought event 2011. You just showed that some existing published arguments are weak. Fine. But as already mentioned, for example Hansen et al found that 3-sigma level summertime heat events have become like 50 times more common since the 1951-1980 period, based on actual temperature measurements. So it is reasonable to argue that the Rupp et al estimate was in the right ballpark, and they were cautious about giving exact numbers.<br /><br />That various media are doing what in statistics is called a Type III error is another issue.<br /><br />JeffB, science is based on the idea that you can model the reality in advance based on previous observations. One great thing with this is that it enables you to raise alarms before effects are visible and it is too late or more expensive to do something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-14096861097036656982012-07-23T16:23:47.736-07:002012-07-23T16:23:47.736-07:00The broader point is that global warming IS alarmi...<i><br />The broader point is that global warming IS alarming and our year on year growing addition of carbon to the atmosphere is going to be very very difficult to reverse.</i><br /><br />Except Bill it is not alarming. Alarm carries with it a sense of expediency that induces a state of action. We see no such action, because there is no alarm. The sea level rise is often used as a reason for alarm, but anyone can look around at the Sound and see that there has been no visible sea level rise that approaches anything near alarm. It's not just not there. <br /><br />Or take the glacial retreat. Alarm would be such that the glaciers would have retreated enough to cause severe year over year drought in the PNW and cause us to seriously question our water supply. But in fact, we've had plenty of rain, and the average Joe can't see any impact to his life from glacial retreat.<br /><br />You don't get to pick what is alarming. Alarm makes itself perfectly clear. If/when Mt. Rainier awakens, or a big earthquake hits, that will be an example of alarm. Something that happens over 100, 500 or 1000 years does not cause alarm.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-33118147936332851772012-07-23T14:09:47.941-07:002012-07-23T14:09:47.941-07:00John,
How am I lacking in my technical argument...John,<br /> How am I lacking in my technical arguments? I gave specific technical reasons why the Rupp et al paper was lacking. I have no idea what you are talking about with the fallacy business. And I agree..the truth is not always in the middle. That is the media classic...they provide both sides as potential truths, when one side may be biased or in error.<br /><br />And by the way, if you look at Hansen's "weighted dice" paper he shows the standard deviations...the variance...and they are virtually the same for both his period (50-80,80-2010).<br /><br />This is a highly technical subject and there are facts that must be considered.Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-39367656266924239012012-07-23T13:41:30.323-07:002012-07-23T13:41:30.323-07:00First let me stress, I do think much of your criti...First let me stress, I do think much of your criticism against Rupp et al is valid. As far as I can judge, their argument as formulated is weak. And yes, possibly the paper shouldn't have been published. I don't have the technical knowledge to judge if it is an overestimate or not, but that is where YOU are lacking. Argument from fallacy is not valid:<br />http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/52-argument-from-fallacy<br /><br />Claiming "WUWT plays an important role in bringing uncomfortable facts to light.", and comparing with the serious ClimateCentral.org ... well, I just can't believe how a professional scientist can assert anything like that. The truth is not always in the middle:<br />http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/57-argument-to-moderation<br /><br />Regarding Hansen et al, I think there is a stiff challenge for you to show any flaw in it. It is not based on many assumptions and as a WUWT-contributor you are the last one to reject it simply on grounds of lack of peer review... Mathematically it also makes sense. A small shift in average or minor increase in variance changes the (upper) extremes much more than the normal intuitive guess. Anyone can google a normal distribution calculator and check that for themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-64326065466931359452012-07-23T10:55:49.364-07:002012-07-23T10:55:49.364-07:00John,
The Hansen paper you mention is unpublish...John,<br /> The Hansen paper you mention is unpublished and submitted to an article that does not do peer review. WUWT plays an important role in bringing uncomfortable facts to light....but sometimes they are in left field. No more extreme than groups like Climate Central that spotlight virtually every severe events as a sign of global warming.<br /><br />And I think is it VERY unlikely that the Texas heat wave study was an underestimate for some of the reasons noted in my blog. Give me some reasons why that would be the case...you simply can't speculate...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-85835768306538491352012-07-23T10:50:58.852-07:002012-07-23T10:50:58.852-07:00Audrey...I see no inconsistency. My paper with Ma...Audrey...I see no inconsistency. My paper with Mark Albright and Mark Stoelinga suggested a 23% loss since 1930. The trend has been fairly constant in time over the entire period, suggesting most of that change is natural. Remember that the earth HAS been warming since the late 1800s..and this could NOT be caused by human-induced changes in greenhouse gases...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-81890324539886676382012-07-23T09:13:47.210-07:002012-07-23T09:13:47.210-07:00how about papers like this: http://www.atmos.washi...how about papers like this: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/Snowpack.pdf that say that snowpack in the spring is down 23% since 1930? there seems to be some inconsistency here...Audrey Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10033354542798883195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-72569172235651846422012-07-23T08:45:26.384-07:002012-07-23T08:45:26.384-07:00Cliff, you seem to mix up different things. That a...Cliff, you seem to mix up different things. That a published paper has a weak argument does not mean its<br /> conclusions are wrong. It could be an underestimate as well as an overestimate. <br />You haven't shown that the "20 times higher probability" is a too high estimate!<br /><br />And why post your critique at WUWT of all places? You claim that you want to defend good science then <br />posting on an anti-science blog that doesn't care a damn about strength of evidence. So how are they supposed to defend themselves? <br />That is not a fair way to pursue a scientific discussion.<br /><br />Hansen has recently shown, based on purely empirical data and basic statistics, that extremely high temperatures <br />are much more common in current climate compared to the base period 1951-1980. He found that +3 sigma events were about 50 times more likely <br />to occur at present. You don't even mention this or other evidence in same direction.<br /><br />I'd say Kupp et al comes out of this as more scientific than you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-28894264270788420722012-07-22T05:23:14.672-07:002012-07-22T05:23:14.672-07:00I find so much about global warming to be frustrat...I find so much about global warming to be frustrating because there is no attempt (that I can see), to separate out anthropogenic global warming from total global warming. Is there anything in this study that addresses this?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17405262138966667011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-67929823284475159222012-07-21T00:02:16.568-07:002012-07-21T00:02:16.568-07:00Cliff ....
I wholly agree with you that good scie...Cliff ....<br /><br />I wholly agree with you that good science needs to be good science. And that it's worth your time to debunk specific cases of alarmism. <br /><br />The broader point is that global warming IS alarming and our year on year growing addition of carbon to the atmosphere is going to be very very difficult to reverse. It's going to take a commitment to change that people dont have because they are very skeptical there is even an issue.<br /><br />You are a Meteorologist who many people defer to because of your skill in relating interesting subjects in science. I'm a fan of your work.<br /><br />Nonetheless, when you write about climate, it's rarely to talk about those parts of the climate system and weather already being affected... and the changes in climate ARE loading the dice on extreme weather. Scientists have seen this. Rather, you always seem to be on the side of poking holes in the work of those you deem to be exaggerators. Its an interesting choice for someone who thinks climate change is a real and present danger.<br /><br />Your work on the whole is excellent... I just disagree with your reocurring choice of targets.Bill Reiswighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10750634817564055072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-59882053667654212912012-07-20T10:02:55.799-07:002012-07-20T10:02:55.799-07:00I urge you to comment formally on this paper in BA...I urge you to comment formally on this paper in BAMS. The Comment-Reply exchange has seemed to wane in the last decade. You have a pretty strong case so I wouldn't let it slip by.Matt Bunkershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05142540073314268644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-48292435357105234752012-07-20T09:49:15.532-07:002012-07-20T09:49:15.532-07:00Bill,
I could not disagree with you more. It ...Bill,<br /> I could not disagree with you more. It is simply unethical and wrong to exaggerate the impacts of anthropogenic global warming to "win the war." In fact, I think your approach will lose the war as well..as scientists lose credibility for over the top statements that are easily broken to be wrong...or which are found to be wrong in a few years.<br /><br /> Scientists must give the public and decision-makers the truth as best as we know it, not to skew our statements to secure what we think are the right decisions....cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-17105750706939081402012-07-20T09:39:03.133-07:002012-07-20T09:39:03.133-07:00Cliff...
I agree with the poster that says that t...Cliff...<br /><br />I agree with the poster that says that this post may win the battle but lose the war. In your interest of being a fact-based contrarian, you are convincing many people that nothing is going on (yet) with the climate and convincing them that a massive effort to decarbonize our economies is not essential. Its not an exaggeration to say that fossil fuel companies and their corporate allies are engaged in a real battle for public opinion on this and article like yours that suggest that no global warming signal can be seen (yet) may be true in specific CASES, but overall they miss the point.<br /><br />The Texas Drought was one of 14 events in 2011 in the USA that cost over a billion dollars in damage. The Fall/Spring of 2011-2012 was the warmest 12 months on record. the decade of 2000-2010 was warmer than the 90s, which was warmer than the 80s which was warmer than the 70s, yadda yadda.<br /><br />We know that this hot weather is not causing each of these events, that it's not the sole contributor to any one event, but that it "loads the dice" for the collective probability of many of these events.... warmer weather, more atmospheric moisture, and a more unsettled climate.<br /><br />The oceans are acidyifying. The air over our oceans, now warmer, holds 5% more water vapor than it did historically. We are in a record drought currently. The ice caps are thinning rapidly, and the arctic is warming quickly. Glaciers on greenland are moving more rapidly and calving larger glaciers the last decades... we don't know the tipping points in these systems. These are observable trends.<br /><br />The point is that you have used your (considerable and well deserved) platform time and time again to call out the arguements of those calling alarm to suggest that their message is overblown. Its a pattern at this point. I find it curious behavior in the face of what is very possibily a real long term catastrophe.Bill Reiswighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10750634817564055072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-19832363477651892262012-07-19T10:16:08.790-07:002012-07-19T10:16:08.790-07:00Janet D,
Well said, but what is needed is more ra...Janet D,<br /><br />Well said, but what is needed is more rational political action. Contrary to soundbite slams like that of Unknown who automatically assume everyone who disagrees must be a religious conservative, most people are conservationists by nature, and want to do the right thing by our world. But that must be balanced with fiscal reality, the degree of the threat, and the magnitude of all other problems that confront us.<br /><br />Unknown says with urgency meant to invoke fear, "we must act NOW." And this is simply false. <br /><br />And by the way, we are acting now. The US is the only major nation that has seen a massive reduction in the growth of CO2 driven mostly by the recent increase in natural gas use and the decline of coal. We could go even further if we went with something like Thorium.<br /><br />But we can't get there when we have chicken little's like Unknown screaming for us to bankrupt our economy now instead of acting rationally and determining what we can do through efficiency and overall change to much better fuels like Thorium. And we won't get to Thorium with chicken littles, because they will encourage an irrational fear of nuclear, no matter how much different Thorium is from heavier elements like Uranium, and no matter how much benefit it would have in terms of CO2 reduction.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-64697285304563364312012-07-19T10:06:15.710-07:002012-07-19T10:06:15.710-07:00Unknown,
That is simply false. Water has a much ...Unknown,<br /><br />That is simply false. Water has a much higher ability to absorb and hold heat than either the atmosphere or land. Consequently, we see effects such as wind. There are giant upwellings and downwellings of warm water in the Pacific Ocean that produce ENSO, etc. You should read more of Cliff's posts as he dicusses ENSO and AMO, etc. often.<br /><br />Further, why do you ignore other research such as Dr. Svensmark's?Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-28690403166930210362012-07-18T16:42:42.172-07:002012-07-18T16:42:42.172-07:00Janet D,
Well saidJanet D, <br /><br />Well saidMichael Snyderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230219537755848399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-26600781438443389622012-07-18T11:54:19.159-07:002012-07-18T11:54:19.159-07:00Just heard an NPR story on the Petermann glacier? ...Just heard an NPR story on the Petermann glacier? The commenter has noted that Greenland is having a very warm summer.David Airthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04650356033099998475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-48832071595320006242012-07-18T11:46:25.669-07:002012-07-18T11:46:25.669-07:00Sigh. The point of Cliff's post was to address...Sigh. The point of Cliff's post was to address the serious errors made in an article that atttempted to tie the temperatures/drought in Texas specifically to global warming. His post did not cast doubt on global-warming-caused-by-man, in fact, at the beginning of the article, Cliff states <br /><br />"Before I go further, let me stress that I believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century. The impacts could be both profound and serious."<br /><br />We are not changing the "planetary body". That has never been the argument. We are pumping 30+ billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each and every year. Actions of this magnitude will have consequences - we are changing the makeup of the atmosphere that surrounds our planet. One of the best summaries of the supposed "both sides" can be found at PolitiFact (search for it + global warming). <br /><br />It is possible to both recognize that GW is not an imminent threat to us today (really) and to still care a great deal about what we are inflicting upon future generations, whose ability to deal with the consequences will be more limited than ours. But the culture today largely seems to be content with eating our grandchildren in order to support our own lifestyles, so I have no doubt we will continue at will. Those of you who doubt global warming can rest comfortably on that.Janet Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11910035260346318840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-35717255694402434522012-07-18T06:59:06.098-07:002012-07-18T06:59:06.098-07:00JEff B,
"There is much research that shows t...JEff B,<br /><br />"There is much research that shows the fact the oceans aborb more heat than the atmosphere proves the opposite conclusions, that in fact climate is primarily driven by the oceans and not CO2."<br /><br />The oceans absorb Co2, not "heat".<br /><br />The climate is not driven by the oceans, its driven by the sun and the composition of our atmosphere.<br /><br />When we change that atmosphere we change the climate and eventually the weather of our planet.<br /><br />These are the bare minimum facts that you should understand and dont.Michael Snyderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230219537755848399noreply@blogger.com