43 replies to this topic

[spud the mackem]

Professor Buzzkill, on 01 November 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Surely its because of global warming? i thought everything you looked into was global warming's fault?

  Hi, the storms in the North Atlantic had the same intensity 50 yrs ago as they have now,but they weren't broadcast as they are now as we didn't have the communication then or computers,and no weather satellites, have you read or seen true accounts of Captain Eriksson on a ship called "The Flying Enterprise",that guy was one brave hombre,he wouldnt leave his sinking ship which had no hope of surviving as due to a cargo shift it was almost on its side.they eventually got him off as the ship sank beneath him.The only way they could get weather reports was by ships calling in reports from which ever position they were in at the time.Many good ships and crews were lost because they didnt know what was ahead of them,and therefore sailed straight into hurricanes not knowing.

[Karlis]

Climatologist says Sandy not caused by global warming:

Alabama's top climatologist and UA-Huntsville professor, Dr. John Christy said claims that the size of Hurricane Sandy may have been affected by global warming are not backed by the facts. ... He said there is no evidence that global warming is causing more major storms. Source

[Br Cornelius]

Karlis, on 03 November 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

Climatologist says Sandy not caused by global warming:

Alabama's top climatologist and UA-Huntsville professor, Dr. John Christy said claims that the size of Hurricane Sandy may have been affected by global warming are not backed by the facts. ... He said there is no evidence that global warming is causing more major storms. Source

John Christy

Quote

Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?

By Joe Romm on May 22, 2008 at 11:52 am

I don’t. But should you?
You can’t read everything or listen to everybody. Life is just too short. I debated Christy years ago so I know he tries to peddle unscientific nonsense when he thinks he can get away with it.
But some of the more than 360 (!) comments in my recent post “The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP” can’t seem to get enough of the analyses by these two scientists University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) who famously screwed up thesatellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.
In the interest of saving you some time, which is a major goal of this blog, let’s see why these are two people you can program your mental DVR to fast forward through. First off, they were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate wrote yesterday:

We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006 (see New Scientist‘s “Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong“).
In their solo careers, Spencer and Christy are still pros at bad analysis.
RealClimate utterly skewers Spencer’s recent dis-analysis — misanalysis doesn’t seem a strong enough word for what he has done (see RC’s “How to cook a graph in three easy lessons“). RC calls it “shameless cookery.” If you like semi-technical discussions, then I strongly recommend the post. I would add in passing with no editorial comment that the Spencer disanalysis was posted on the website of one Roger Pielke, Sr. [Insert your editorial comment here, or here.]
As for Christy, what can you say about somebody who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book calledGlobal Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that is/was funded by ExxonMobil?
In the Vermont case on the state’s effort to embrace California’s tailpipe GHG emissions standards, the car companies brought in Christy as an expert witness to rebut Hansen (see here). In one footnote on the sea level rise issue, the judge noted, “it appears that the bulk of scientific opinion opposes Christy’s position.” By the way, for all you deniers/delayers/doubters, let me quote further from the judge:

There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.

Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate.

Christy is (mostly) a delayer these days, now that his denier disanalysis has been dissed and the real science is well verified by real observation.

Christy criticized the Hadley and Canadian models, suggesting that they were extreme and were downscaled unreliably. Tr. vol. 14-A, 121:13-122:4 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Although Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists; his view is that models are, in general, “scientifically crude at best,” although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case.

You go, judge!
In December 2003, Christy said in a debate:

I don’t see danger. I see, in some cases, adaptation, and in others something like restrained glee, at the thought of longer growing seasons, warmer winters, and a more fertile atmosphere.

Restained glee. Yes, that’s going to be the reaction to widespread desertification, loss of the inland glaciers, sea level rise for century after century, mass extinction….
So, if you have time to burn, and a planet to burn, these are the guys to listen to. Otherwise I’d look elsewhere.

http://thinkprogress...-say/?mobile=nc


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 November 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[Karlis]

Hi Br C -- you are using Joe Romm as an authority about John Cristy. That's basically an ad hominem argument.

In like manner I could well quote Roger Pielke, Jr. where he writes Joe Romm is a Liar.

Pots calling pots black is not convincing proof.
Karlis

[Little Fish]

you only have to look at Ryan Maue's data which i posted in post#3 to see there is no link between warming and storms, or you can email him and he'll tell you the same thing.
storms are caused by temperature differentials not absolute temperatures (where cold meets hot), in which case the global warming hypothesis should be predicting fewer and less intense storms, and again if it is warming globally it says nothing about its cause.

the atlantic is warming due to the AMO which is a ~70 year cycle. we only have 6 years! of reliable data with the argo system. and the atmospheric satellite record is only 30 years old.

Edited by Little Fish, 03 November 2012 - 12:52 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Karlis, on 03 November 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Hi Br C -- you are using Joe Romm as an authority about John Cristy. That's basically an ad hominem argument.

In like manner I could well quote Roger Pielke, Jr. where he writes Joe Romm is a Liar.

Pots calling pots black is not convincing proof.
Karlis

Karlis - the facts pointed out in that article are entirely true. Christy is either very incompetent or he is dishonest. He certainly doesn't have a track record which would encourage anyone to accept his word as Gospel. He has attached himself to highly politicized  campaigns which deny climate change.

I treat his opinion in the same way as I treat any politized hacks.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 03 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

you only have to look at Ryan Maurs data which i posted in post#3 to see there is no link between warming and storms, or you can email him and he'll tell you the same thing.
storms are caused by temperature differentials not absolute temperatures (where cold meets hot), in which case the global warming hypothesis should be predicting fewer and less intense storms, and again if it is warming globally it says nothing about its cause.

the atlantic is warming due to the AMO which is a ~70 year cycle. we only have 6 years! of reliable data with the argo system.

Which entirely ignores the fact that there is an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. The energy is accumulating and it is recorded to be accumulating in the deep oceans.
Also temperature is highly differentiated across the global - and this is even more apparent as the system seeks to regain an equilibrium state.
AMO is a response to the energy imbalance - not a cause and is a very dubious index to try to explain the trends of the Global warming trend since it is both polluted by AGW and is a statistical artifact of other trends.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 November 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 03 November 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Which entirely ignores the fact that there is an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. The energy is accumulating and it is recorded to be accumulating in the deep oceans.

based on 6 years of data. am I allowed to LOL?

Quote

Also temperature is highly differentiated across the global - and this is even more apparent as the system seeks to regain an equilibrium state.

of course it is. there is a temperature differential of 120 Celcius between the antarctic and the deserts. but you were claiming recently the arctic has recently risen in temperature compared to other regions which is a decrease in differential meaning there is likely to be less storms.

Quote

AMO is a response to the energy imbalance - not a cause.

I'd like to see you prove that. you might win one of Mann's Nobel prizes.

surely it is better to look at the data than construct a logical rhetoric.
the data does not support an increase in storms or their intensity = Christy is correct.

[Karlis]

Let's consider:
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas consisting of about 0.039% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Of that 0.039%, Mankind emits about 3.4% of that Carbon Dioxide. I don't know much about maths, but that sounds as if man's input of CO² could be compared to something like a drop of water into a bucket-full of water

What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much.
[Edited to add this paragraph:] Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primerpublished by the National Center for Policy Analysis.)
Details here



Thursday, August 30, 2012
New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO₂ released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO₂"
Source

Edited by Karlis, 03 November 2012 - 01:20 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 03 November 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

based on 6 years of data. am I allowed to LOL?

of course it is. there is a temperature differential of 120 Celcius between the antarctic and the deserts. but you were claiming recently the arctic has recently risen in temperature compared to other regions which is a decrease in differential meaning there is likely to be less storms.

I'd like to see you prove that. you might win one of Mann's Nobel prizes.

surely it is better to look at the data than construct a logical rhetoric.
the data does not support an increase in storms or their intensity = Christy is correct.

Latitude variation in temperature is not the most significant factor in generating temperature differentials across the globe. Warming and cooling is highly localised to geographic regions.
Christy is only correct in saying that an attribution of Sandy is not possible. Trends are climate, storms are weather.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Karlis, on 03 November 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Let's consider:
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas consisting of about 0.039% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Of that 0.039%, Mankind emits about 3.4% of that Carbon Dioxide. I don't know much about maths, but that sounds as if man's input of CO² could be compared to something like a drop of water into a bucket-full of water

What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much.
Details here



Thursday, August 30, 2012
New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO₂ released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO₂"
Source

Simply reattempting to reset the discussion to a point of absolute denial is not helpful here. Even your hero Christy accepts that all the global warming so far is probably caused by AGW. You should at least pay attention to the people you reference.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 03 November 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Christy is only correct in saying that an attribution of Sandy is not possible. Trends are climate, storms are weather

why are storms and their intensity trending down since 1970?

http://www.unexplain...4

Edited by Little Fish, 03 November 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[Karlis]

Br Cornelius, on 03 November 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Simply reattempting to reset the discussion to a point of absolute denial is not helpful here. Even your hero Christy accepts that all the global warming so far is probably caused by AGW. You should at least pay attention to the people you reference.

Br Cornelius

I'm posting facts as I find them. How one chooses to "interpret" is up to the individual person.

Edited to add that Christy is not my hero. Side-swipe ad hominem on your part?

Edited by Karlis, 03 November 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 03 November 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

why are storms and their intensity trending down since 1970?

http://www.unexplain...4

Storm numbers are trending up, intensity trending down - as predicted in models of climate change.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 03 November 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Storm numbers are trending up, intensity trending down - as predicted in models of climate change.

Br Cornelius

so you disagree with Ryan Maue's data?