A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
Tom Scharfsays
This is yet another example of the dangerous path one goes down when showing the “best possible presentation” of data. The shame here is that almost every reader on this blog understands what this graph looks like with a proper zero axis, we have all seen it before. So why show it this way? Why? At a very minimum at least put a numerical axis on it, even if you don’t zero base it.
Realistically any graphing software will put this numeric axis on automatically, and you have to put *extra* effort in to remove it. So somebody out there determined it would be more effective without any numbers. Including the axis would apparently confuse somebody in what way?
The point is that the graph is compelling enough without trying to enhance it. The “enhancements” just open it up to very predictable and legitimate criticism.
How do you think people react if this is the first presentation they see, are intrigued, and then find out later a little trickery was used to enhance the effect?
Does this graph truly show CO2 levels in the most honest way possible? Is it conveying truth?
vukcevicsays
@41
Ben Hocking says: 2 Sep 2012 at 8:01 AM
Re: this summer rapid melt of the Arctic sea ice.
Arctic explorers have noticed long time ago that storms by breaking and churning the sea ice turn it into slush, and at same time lift warmer waters from the depths of the Arctic Ocean, the sea ice will melt rapidly.
Now we only need to know why there was so unusually strong Arctic storm in the first 10 days of August, one of only half a dozen or so in the last 30 summers. http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/arcticstorm2.jpg?w=600&h=400&crop=1
I assume some could say it is sign of global warming, CO2 etc, etc, etc.
Arctic gets another kind of storms, namely geomagnetic storms.
Take a look at top graph here http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
it shows that in March-August period this year cumulative strength of geomagnetic storms was about 30-40% stronger than in 2011. Single storm of a medium strength packs as much energy as M6 earthquake, but that is not all.
Another look at the graph shows that in 2011 geomagnetic storms energy was dissipated in the gentle shift of the Earth’s magnetic field, but from the mid March 2012 shift was minimal despite the stronger gm storms. Only a conducting substance could absorb the energy in form of heat and for some reason I suspect it was absorbed by the Arctic most saline section. Notably in addition to it the SST of the Arctic inflow is at peak (higher than in the previous years). We can only speculate if and why the additional energy may cause the ‘energy eruption’ to the surface and in doing so power the August Arctic storm, or if it was just a proverbial ‘flap of butterfly wings’
Climate change and global warming are a real issue but what if, what we are experiencing is only a climate cycle and not a true upwards trend? data only goes back so far and so accuratly. I think this blog post might be a good read for concideration. http://stuffconservativeslike.net/global-warming-or-climate-change-we-dont-know/
Re: response: ……..where wind stirring transfers warm water to depth, and then atmospheric fluxes restore the surface heat content. Those fluxes include solar radiation, latent and sensible heat as well as long wave radiation combined with mechanical stirring from winds and waves. – gavin]
Dr. Schmidt, I assume there is also rapid mixing (on micro scale but across the total depth, compromising integrity of thermohaline layering) due to geomagnetic storms at high latitudes (e.g. the AMO- subpolar gyre) http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SO.htm
with movement all the way from surface through to the bottom, but it would vary in the intensity with the salinity. When a CME hits the Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north it opens a breach and loads the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm, inducing strong currents in any conducting medium (larger dimensions of the medium stronger is the effect).
This is basis of what I named ‘geo-solar oscillations’, primarily generated in the North Atlantic and subsequently induced into the atmosphere, as depicted in here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
for more details email address on the graph.
Ken Lambertsays
The putative warming imbalance of the planet is 0.9W/sq.m of 145E20 Joules/year.
Arctic sea ice reduction accounts for about 1E20 Joules/year – 1/145th of the planet’s supposed energy gain or equal to 0.7%
This is from a surface area inside the Arctic circle (66 degN) of about 4% of the Earth’s surface.
Could someone explain why we are so worried about the Arctic rather than any other 4% patch of the Earth’s surface?
Jbarsays
Well I guess the main error is subtracting the long term trend out of the data. However also the year to year change in global temperature attributable to greenhouse gases is less than 0.02C, which surely must be less than the measurement error in the global temperature value. (These values continue to be revised for a year or two, and often move up or down by more than 0.02C on revision.)
When the error equals or exceeds the signal (over the alleged 9-12 month lag period), isn’t the result meaningless??? Aren’t you just measuring noise?
Dan H.says
Dadiactylos,
From 2008 to 2009, the minimum sea ice area increased from roughly 3 million to 3.5 million sq. km. Obviously some of the first-year ice survived well past its first birthday. Because of the resulting low minimum, there will be much more first-year ice this winter. Will all of it melt next summer, and generate a new low, or will some survive into 2014? There were many bold predictions after the 2007 minimum that the next year would brerak the minimum, but it took five years. I would not be surprised if we see a similar incident.
Dan H.says
Kevin,
We were in really new territory in 2007 also, and look what happened subsequently. The large drop that year, prompted NASA scientists Jay Zwally to state that at the current rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free by 2012. What happened? The large one-year decrease was an anomaly, and the sea ice extent stayed in a narrow range for the next several years. This summer, we have a similar occurrance. We obviously disagree about whether the past is an indication of the future. So be it. You can be skeptical all you like about what Nature always seems to be doing, as it is probably the more prudent path. Reminds me of chaos theory.
Dan H.says
Lawrence,
It is simple geometry. A constant decrease in area results in an exponential decrease in volume, owing to the added loss of thickness. A 30% reduction in area, leads to a 50% reduction in volume. The second 30% reductions, results in a volumetric losss of 33% loss of volume. The next 30% drop, yields a loss of only 5%. Considering the albedo effect, area is the more important factor.
Scottarsays
I see why Real Climate has a dismal reputation, it cherry picks the comments. What happened to my 3 other comments, particularly the one in response to Mr. MARodger@99? What’s a matter, afraid of a little sunshine?
Alastair McDonaldsays
Jim wrote “Where these people get off saying “it’s too late” and other defeatist crap I really have no idea. But they sure as hell don’t know what they’re talking about, and even if they did, they’d try to say something positive instead of promoting hopelessness if they were trying to actually help things.”
Right Jim, say something positive. Say that after the US election Congress will start taking action to cut the US CO2 production. Say that they will see the folly of their ways and set up a new Kyoto treaty. Say the new Chinese president will pick up the phone and agree with Obama or Romney that he agrees to a treaty with binding commitments. Why, he may even agree to cut back on rice production in order to reduce methane emissions. And the Brazilians will throw their ranchers off the Amazonian land they have acquired and regrow the jungle.
Or is your answer to close the coal mines and use natural gas for power generation. That will cut the CO2 emissions but not enough to stop Greenland melting, or to save the Arctic sea ice. When the sea ice disappears the global albedo will increase by 1%. How will that affect the climate? How will it affect agriculture and food supplies?
What do you advocate? And what chance do you think you have that it will happen?
Until scientists tell the public about the very real dangers we face the politicians will not act. So long as scientists such as yourself and Ray Ladbury refuse to face up to the urgency and to the impossibility of getting any action then we are all doomed.
Cheers, Alastair.
Dan H.says
Jeffrey,
I strongly disagree with your concept of overselling global warming. Turn back the clock about 5 years to when the IPCC AR4 report and Al Gore’s Inconvenient truth movie came out. There was much hype concerning the consequences of rising atmospheric CO2 levels; Hurricane seasons like 2005 would become the norm, the Himalayas were melting at an alarming rate, sea levels were rising rapidly, inundating low-level areas and small islands, coral reefs were dying due to bleaching, the US would experience snowless winters (Hansen suggested that the Northeast ski operators look for a new line of work), and England would experience barbeque summers (people joked that this year’s summer Olympic games were a misnomer), etc. People listened attentively, and support for government action was at an all-time high.
People were alarmed. However, in the intervening years, more data has been collected, revealing that many of these claims were unsubstantiated or exaggerated (i.e. the concept was oversold). Consequently, people withdrew their support, and have questioned the entire theory. Had scientists maintained the slow, but steady changes, instead of the catastrophic scenario, support may be much higher. Bad news sells, and catastrophic climate predictions generated widespread support. However, bad news also sells when it comes to errant predictions. Hence, public support has waned. You can place as much blame on your choice or organization as the culprit, but similar to this year’s election; the most damage is done, not by ones opponent, but by the candidates own words.
Returning to the overselling approach is likely to have the same effect. “Those who don’t know history, are destined to repeat it.” – Edmund Burke.
Superman1says
Wili #295,
“I think, ultimately, people end up feeling most hopeless and demoralized if they get the sense that absolutely everyone is telling them lies or massaging the data one way or the other, either for the disgusting reasons of the denialists, or for other nobler perhaps but still patronizing (at least) reasons.
Churchill didn’t try to persuade the British people that an invasion by the Germans was impossible. He presented it as a clear probability, but in the face of this grim possibility, he also rallied his people with his famous “We will fight them on the beaches…” speech.
I think that, rather than minimizing the possible grimness of future scenarios, we need to admit that the climatic equivalent of invasion is well within the realm of possibility, and start rallying people with similarly Churchillian fervor. I sense that this is something of what McKibben is hoping to do by focusing on the central culprits of the story–those profiting enormously from un-sequestering vast quantities of carbon which they know will be dumped into the atmosphere at no (immediate) cost to them.”
These are extremely perceptive and insightful comments, especially in comparison with the drivel I have been receiving in response to my posts. I have been watching the DVD called The Unknown War. It documents the battles on the Eastern Front during WWII. In particular, what I found interesting were the responses and preparations taken by the citizens of Moscow, Leningrad, and Volgograd in advance of the German attacks. That is the type of response that we need, as a minimum, if we are to have any chance of warding off severe climate change.
Now, as the DVD makes clear, in order to mount an appropriate response, three conditions are required. First, the threat needs to be identified in detail. Second, the people need to accept that the threat is serious. Third, the people need to be willing to do whatever it takes to counter the threat. Those three conditions were met in the battles mentioned.
In climate change, the situation is different. While a threat has been identified, the seriousness of the threat has not been emphasized and conveyed to the public by the scientists, the media, or the politicians. Some of the public don’t even accept that there is a threat, a very small fraction appreciate the seriousness of the threat, and the bulk of the public probably accept there is some threat but it is not that serious. Finally, in terms of willingness to take action, a negligible amount of the public appears willing to take the harsh steps that offer any hope of countering serious climate change.
I live in the Middle Atlantic States region. For the five days preceding yesterday, the weather was absolutely gorgeous for Summer, albeit late Summer. Low to mid-70s, sunny, low humidity, mild breezes. I was talking with neighbors about some of the studies I am presently doing in climate change, and tried to convey the seriousness of what I was finding. Climate change; they looked at me as though I was completely crazy. Look at this weather; if this is climate change, bring it on! I mentioned the rapid disappearance of the Arctic Summer ice, and they savored the possibility of soon taking a cruise to the North Pole in Summer. Some also liked the business opportunities the easier transport offerred.
So, I don’t see the marshalling of resources to counter climate change (that was used to turn the tide at Moscow and Stalingrad) with present attitudes. By the time my region starts to really feel the effects of climate change, it will be far too late, if it is not too late already.
What’s with disparaging rats and flies? Rats are mammals, the same as you. Rats have a much better chance of surviving the mess we’ve made than we do. In the Jurassic, fleas were ten times larger than today. Their food got smaller but fleas adapted just fine. Opportunists are life’s scar tissue, always ready to fill in when the fancy stuff screws up. Humans are opportunists, and we’ve had quite a party so far. Cows and corn were invited to the party, lemurs not so much. Rats weren’t invited but they came anyway. We might be screwing up now, but never underestimate weeds, and even if we are, other weeds will pick up the slack pronto. Check out David Quammen’s famous article about David Jablonski, “Planet of Weeds.” According to Jablonski, “Biotic recoveries after mass extinctions are geologically rapid but immensely prolonged on human time scales.” Paleontology is a great antidote for anthropocentrism. Like Edward Greisch said, “Humans may be an intelligent species.” We’ll soon see.
*from Jablonski’s 1991 Science paper, “Extinctions: A paleontological perspective”
AJsays
Is the current rate of reduction in Arctic ice faster than the rate of increase in Antarctic ice?
species we can’t eat, exploit, or out-compete will thrive. Rats and flies…
You make this sound like a disaster, but it’s normal behavior. Rats are mammals, the same as you. Rats have a much better chance of surviving the mess we’ve made than we do. In the Jurassic, fleas were ten times larger than today. Their food got smaller but fleas adapted just fine. Opportunists are life’s scar tissue, always ready to fill in when the fancy stuff screws up. Humans are opportunists, and we’ve had quite a party so far. Cows and corn were invited to the party, lemurs not so much. Rats weren’t invited but they came anyway. We might be screwing up now, but never underestimate weeds, and even if we are, other weeds will pick up the slack pronto. Check out David Quammen’s famous article about David Jablonski, “Planet of Weeds.” According to Jablonski, “Biotic recoveries after mass extinctions are geologically rapid but immensely prolonged on human time scales.” Paleontology is an excellent antidote for anthropocentrism. Humans may be an intelligent adaptive species. We’ll soon see.
*from Jablonski’s 1991 Science paper, “Extinctions: A paleontological perspective”
Ken Lambertsays
The putative warming imbalance of the planet is 0.9W/sq.m of 145E20 Joules/year.
Arctic sea ice reduction accounts for about 1E20 Joules/year – 1/145th of the planet’s supposed energy gain or 0.7%
This is from a surface area inside the Arctic circle (66 degN) of about 4% of the Earth’s surface.
Could someone explain why we are so worried about the Arctic rather than any other 4% patch of the Earth’s surface?
Iansays
MikeH (#82) I didn’t give the full quote from Professor Flannery as it wasn’t relevant to the point I was hoping to make nor did I say “he said the dams would never be full again”. From your comments I obviously didn’t make it clear that the comments attributed to Flannery by others have resonated with a large section of the Australian public who have had their property destroyed/seriously damaged by floods. You may recall the furore in SE Queensland about 4 years ago when the question of water recycling was a major issue. It isn’t now. This piece is discussing theNature editorial on extreme weather events. As I wrote in a reply to Suo, the highest recorded incidence of floods in Australia was in the early part of the 20th century. What I didn’t make clear to you , is that comments from those such as Professor Flannery can often do more harm than good. Your comment “The section of that quote that Ian cherry-picked has been used extensively in Australia in an attempt to discredit Flannery, a Climate Commissioner by claiming that he said the “dams would never fill again” eloquently confirms that.
Normansays
Alastair McDonald @91
Wildfire increase in numbers and intensity may not have to do with Global Warming. I was listening to recent research (NPR) by a scientist who studies tree rings. In the tree ring record he found many fire scars.
Wet and dry years are very common for many locations. You can look at the historical record for many cities and see this. The scientist noted that frequent fires in forests are normal. Before the philosophy of suppressing fires was developed, fires would break out, burn out the undergrowth, damage the trees but not kill them and a new growth cycle would start. With our current fire response the forests are now loaded with fuel. When fires start there is so much fuel, because of years of accumualtion, they burn out of control and kill trees. They are much bigger in area and intensity.
Since there is a reasonable and rational alternative mechanism to explain our recent huge wildfires that does not require global warming (excessive fuel), I think it is premature to conclude the increase in wildfires is caused by global warming
mr marksays
“… the odds of heat waves have shortened (and odds for cold snaps have decreased)”
Perhaps a clearer statement would be that odds of heat waves have increased, while odds of cold snaps have decreased?
I’m lacking in a scientific degree ..but from an observation standpoint all things go in cycles and the last time I check the universal law dictates that all matter migrates from hot to cold in the long run…..Global warming? will eventually become global cooling!
Dan H.says
Don,
A recent National Geographic article (Sept., 2012) detailed all the $1 billion + natural disasters to hit the U.S. in the past 30 years. The total cost approximately doubled in the more recent 15 years, compared to the previous. However, much of the cost was due to inflation and people moving into disaster-prone areas.
The dollar cost of a natural disaster has less do to with the intensity, than the location. Irene is a classic example, as it made landfall in New York as a tropical storm. Since the devastating 2005 hurricane season, only six hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S., and no major hurricanes (Ike made landfall in 2008 as a strong category 2).
I find it ironic that you claim that the 2010 Tennessee flood was a 1000-year event, when the Cumberland river in Nashville reached a higher level in 1927.
Secular,
Since the hyperactive 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the last six years have been close to average. Three have been above (2008, 2010, and 2011), while three have been below (2006, 2007, 2009).
As I mentioned earlier, the damages from cyclonic activity has more to do with where the storm strikes, than its intensity. Irene made landfall in New Jersey as a tropical storm, but caused significantly more damage in upstate New York and New England than Gustav, a strong category 2 hurricane, which came ashore in Louisiana. Both caused more damage than category 5 hurricane Dean, which came ashore in the sparsely populated Yucatan.
Of course by focusing solely on the monetary damage caused bb North Atlantic hurricanes, you miss the point that Tom was making, i.e. that global cyclone energy is running near all-time lows:
I have a concern with Tamino’s argument in the the AMO is a measure of SST’s, I’ve another problem in that SST’s (acording to wiki)seems to not be universally defined:
“Sea surface temperature (SST) is the water temperature close to the ocean’s surface. The exact meaning of surface varies according to the measurement method used, but it is between 1 millimetre (0.04 in) and 20 metres (70 ft) below the sea surface. Air masses in the Earth’s atmosphere are highly modified by sea surface temperatures within a short distance of the shore.”
I find it far easier to believe that ocean surface temperatures have a major impact on air temperatures (eg El Nino) than the opposite, even on a these longer time scales.
Don’t bother pointing out that Arctic sea ice levels seem to have been fairly stable till about the 1990’s, we don’t have a good measure of volume before then.
Perhaps the AMO simply explains why the sea ice decline has been far more rapid than IPCC projections.
Dan H.says
Andrew,
Much work has been done correlating the changes in the Arctic with the AMO. See the following:
245 JCH says:
……
I am clearly referring to the North Hemisphere’s natural variation, which you will find is different to the South Hemisphere’s and hence the global, although I would question validity of adding two. Here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
you can see that red line peak in late the 1880s is at exactly same value as in 2005.
NASA is hinting at something which I have worked out some time ago and in some detail, identifying the sources, providing numerical confirmation, details of viable mechanism will be shortly published.
Girmasays
How come the videos have not included the comparison between the observed and projected global mean surface temperature?
Ericasays
Can a girl ask some rather basic questions here …?
(1) Shortwave-in/longwave-out.
Is this part of the standard theory? ie is visible light thought to heat the earth? Or is it longwave-in/longwave-out?
(2) Let us here grant that
– greenhouse gasses absorb and retransmit longwave well,
– some of which comes direct from the sun (A),
– and some of which is indirect, upwelling from the earth
– and some of the latter is then directed earthwards (B).
Is it possible to experimentally distinguish at the earth’s surface, between the (A) and (B) sources of longwave (and hence of sources of heating of the earth) ? Seems highly relevant to the attribution argument.
(3) Ultimately, is the mechanism by which the earth is said to be warmed by additional CO2
(a) The back-radiation to the earth ?
(b) The warming of the atmosphere, which slows down the earth’s cooling?
(c) Both? If so, is the split 50-50 or something else?
wei pongsays
[Response: This is just more wishful thinking. No source is given for your conclusion, no reference to the obvious contradiction to the long tidal gauge or satellite records, no assessment of the precision of the original source (i.e. would you expect an additional 10 to 15 inches to show up on a global bathymetry map?) etc. etc. Please up your game if you want to be taken seriously. – gavin]
The British Admiralty charts are navigational charts, drawn in a time of wooden ships and iron men. Their accuracy is well established by usage, with untold millions of miles traveled over a span of hundreds of years. Most US charts were drawn from the BA charts, as are the charts used by most of the countries of the world.
The BA charts were drawn to a depth precision of 1 foot within the 1 fathom line, and to a precision of one fathom beyond that. Thus, to establish if there has been a change in sea level of 10-15 inches, one need only compare the BA charts to current bedrock shorelines, using the appropriate tidal datum.
There are no tidal gauge records or satellites that cover the world as it was 200-300 years ago. The BA charts in contrast show the ocean depths across virtually the entire globe, at a period in which there are no other records. The advantage of these charts is that the require no complicated or uncertain proxies. If you want to establish if sea level has changed over a period of 200-300 years, look at the BA charts for your coastline.
Veeeerrrrryyy Interesting these sea level ups and downs. Allow me to interject the factor of Receding Sea Levels into the equation. We have been so busy hypothicating sea level rise as a direct result of Global Warming that we have totally overlooked the Receding Sea reality. See http://www.youtube.com “The Mysterious Receding Seas”By Richard Guy Tel;347-290-5300.
Sea Levels are receding not rising. Isostatic Rebound is false. Global Warming is not making sea levels rise because they are receding and have been doing so back into prehistory. Darwin was wrong on many things and land uplift is false. It is the sea that is receding not the land rising??????? Richard Guy 347-290-5300
If you can show me sea level rise I can show you sea level recession.
vukcevicsays
This area of Pacific is geologically active, about two years ago I collected some data plotted couple of graphs which show some correlation with the ENSO. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm
Dan H.says
Rob,
What erroneous opinion do you think I am furious trying to support? That sea level rise has not been constant over time? I would be happy to entertain any research which shows that I am wrong. Funny how you are quick to ridicule that which you misunderstand.
Chris,
Yes, periods of rising temperatures has correlated quite well with rising seas. The highest increases recently have been aligned with the 30s and 90s. I would expect any future large temperature increase to be accompanied by a correspondingly large sea level rise.
Craig,
No and No. Sea level rise in the past decade has decelerated, and poses no immediate concern. I have never denied that humans have influenced climate. Do you not see that I have attempted to emphasize exactly what this article is about, and it flew right over so many people’s heads?
I don’t propose to tell you, or anybody else, what they should be working on — but my opinion is that researching contrarian memes is certainly not without value. Only you can say how that value compares to the other tasks competing for your time.
I do not need to tell you about the large quantities of junk science that pervades the internet, much of it is hard for the non-expert to differentiate from the more reputable stuff. A little bit of guidance can be priceless.
In fairness, the more sceptical amongst us do not have a monopoly on bad science. There are a few bad examples¹ on the orthodox side of things, too.
An interesting point from your research. The observed sea level rise of between 2.0 and 7.7 mm/year is certainly significant, but appears somewhat short of the multi-metre predictions that sometimes appear from our more enthusiastic² brethren³. A 100 year sea level rise of 200mm bears watching but probably doesn’t justify wholesale evacuations. At the high end 770mm will almost certainly cause problems in the pacific islands, but again it will probably not require depopulation. Of course that’s a regional effect and other regions may be much worse. I guess time will tell.
[3] I use the term brethren in the gender-free context. Some of my favourite climate scientists are of the femalepersuasion.
wei pongsays
34
Lionel A says:
15 Oct 2012 at 2:19 PM
wei pong @26
You may just learn something from watching this:
=======
Thanks but that doesn’t address the issue I raised.
Every nautical chart has a datum correction. They show lat/long corrections to reflect improved clocks and GPS, but they have no datum correction for global sea level rise. Since the charts are drawn to an depth accuracy of 1 feet this suggests that global sea level rise is not significant at that scale.
Dan H.says
Marco,
Again, the main argument that I put forth (in my rebuttal to Martin), was that a linear rate of 2 mm/yr would averaged out to the sea level rise over the past 8000 years. Some have countered that the actual time frame should be closer to 10,000, but that is a minor issue. For whatever reason, some people have been critical of the exact sea level rise that has occurred during a period of rapid melting, that they have lost sight of the issue at hand. Tectonic movement is an issue in any measurement of sea level rise, the lower the increase, the greater the tectonic influence in the values.
Extrapolating trends can be a foolish venture, if the underlying causes change. Much of the rise in the past century and a half can be attributed to melting in many alpine glaciers. This has subsided in many cases, as the glaciers have receded to heights that restricts further melting. Sea level rise would be expected to accelerate again, if we return to the temperature increase experienced in the 30s and 90s – both eras of increasing sea level rise.
Dan H.says
Marco,
Again, the main argument that I put forth (in my rebuttal to Martin), was that a linear rate of 2 mm/yr would average out to the estimated sea level rise over the past 8000 years. Some have countered that the actual time frame should be closer to 10,000, but that is a minor issue. For whatever reason, some people have been critical of the exact sea level rise that has occurred during a period of rapid melting, that they have lost sight of the issue at hand. Tectonic movement is an issue in any measurement of sea level rise, the lower the increase, the greater the tectonic influence in the values.
Extrapolating trends can be a foolish venture, if the underlying causes change. Much of the rise in the past century and a half can be attributed to melting in many alpine glaciers. This has subsided in many cases, as the glaciers have receded to heights that restricts further melting. Sea level rise would be expected to accelerate again, if we return to the temperature increase experienced in the 30s and 90s – both eras of increasing sea level rise.
Dan H.says
Chris,
Excellent summary, although I made no forward going statment. I am not sure that I could decipher your quoted trend from the referenced link, but it does show 225mm of rise over 140 years, with a few hesitations in the 1880s, 1920sm and 1960s. The highlighted trend is slightly lower than that observed in the 1940s.
Jim,
Excellent analogy, and I think it hammers home my point quite effectively.
Dan H.says
Craig,
Sorry if the answer is rather confusing, but several posters have muddied the entire issue since the original posts. It is almost as if they are trying to prove that sea levels did not rise after the last glaciation ended.
You asked if thought that the acceleration caused any concern. I answered no because the rate is low, 2mm/yr, and the acceleration that occurred appears to have abated. I agreed that sea level rise accellerated, it actually accellerated twice during the 20th century, with a slowing in between and afterward. Hence my comment about not at the present rate. Should SLR accelerate significantly in the future, then I may change my stance.
Jack Maloneysays
Reporter John Hockenberry’s repeated references to the bogus “97 percent scientific consensus,” and Frontline’s deliberate blurring of Dr. Edward Teller’s signature on the Oregon Petition, suggests that PBS was less than forthright in their presentation. If the truth is on your side, why rely on deception?
Dan H.says
jim,
You are proabably right in that this thread has run its course. My opinion has changed on SLR; several years ago, in fact, when it began to slow, and became apparent that it would not accelerate dramatically in the coming decades.
[Response:This is where you go wrong – thinking that the future is simply a linear extrapolation from short term noise. Doesn’t work in the stock market, doesn’t work in climate. – gavin]
I am always leary when someone “adjusts” the raw data to achieve a certain look.
[Response: And I am always leary when people make insinuations of misconduct simply because they don’t like a scientific result. Don’t do that. – gavin]
I have seen ENSO-adjusted SLR graphs that range from continued acceleration to one that is almost flat. This usually occurs when someone adjusts for either El Nino or La Nina only. My current stance is that SLR began in the early 20th century (possibly late 19th) and continues to this day. There have been periods of increased and decreased rate of rise, corresponding to periods of rapid and negligible warming. The overall rate has not changed considerably over that timeframe. That is not to say that it could not do so in the future. Some people appear to only accept that which agrees with their own pre-conceived opinions, and deny the rest.
[Response: yup. ]
Time magazine had an excellent article on this last week, concerning the 2012 election. It could be applied equally here. There are those who see only the acceleration that occurred in the 1990s, those who see only the deceleration since, but very few who can see both. Regardless of the reasons (and ENSO seems very plausible for the increases and decreases), we need to remove our blinders and view this objectively.
[Response: Maybe you could give that a try? – gavin]
Johnny matsonsays
The program doesn’t acknowledge a simple fact. Most people do not read these right wing blurbs or media distributions. They look around them and see that nothing is happening. The facts are that temperatures are not changing as fast as predicted and as the MET admitted have literally been flat for 16 years. This places great doubt in the minds of people and makes it hard to argue with those who don’t believe that temperatures near the surface in the sky or in the ocean, sea levels will suddenly soon take a never seen before discontinuous acceleration of 4 or 5 times the current rate. Most people will need more than computer models to believe the world will suddenly do this as climate scientists believe. Most people have not invested so much in their career or in developing computer models that show such a massive sudden discontinuous spike so they take a wait and see attitude We need the data to back up the models so that effective arguments can be made otherwise we are left to slandering the skeptics and associating them with evil intent as our only defense against their arguments.
Johnny matsonsays
The comments by the poster were wrong but the fact is we can argue all we want that he’s not precisely right but the fact is we aren’t precisely right either. The reason skepticism is so rampant is clearly that the predictions we’ve made are not coming true at the rate predicted. I watched a PBS program just a few weeks ago that said it was expected that sea levels will rise one foot from Antarctic melting, one foot from landlocked mountainess glacier melting and one foot from sea warming but e facts are we are actually getting closer to 6 inches total from all 3 or 1/6th of our predictions and the Antarctic may actually be zero or even negative contribution. GRACE showed that’ mountaineers glaciers were contributing at 1/4 the rate we predicted and since sea temps have stagnated for 11 years there is no expansion due to thermal effects. As a result sea levels have actually been decelerating hardly bolstering our argument. We need to be able to predict these things better or explain why they are wrong and not make such wild statements without more research.
Dan H.says
Johnny,
Agreed. However, many people so not want to hear that, and insist that they are correct, and the data is somehow wrong. Sticking their heads in the sand will not help, and claiming conspiracy is no good either.
Dan H.says
Tom,
I do not see how the question “tripped him up.” It was an honest answer, that anyone who is proven wrong should readily admit. That would be a good question to ask someone on either side of the debate.
Isotopious,
I am quite sure that if he felt that he could woo more voters than he would lose, that he would jump in with both feet. His silence on the matter, would indicate otherwise.
Johnny matsonsays
You all realize that wether it is 2.3 or 3 or 3.7 we are talking INCHES in a century. For 3 feet which is what all the alarmists have been telling us it needs to be 37mm/year or at least 10-20mm/year which is 5-10 times the most extreme rate we’ve seen. that rate would need ro be sustained for 90 years or more. I have seen studies which show that the maximum melt rate is limited by the ability of the water to egress to the ocean and calculated that this is well below the 10-20mm/year rate. So the idea there is going to be a discontinuous sudden acceleration of sea level rise to 5 or 10 times the current rate seems unattainable and therefore why are we changing so much to prevent something that we know can’t be significant. It’s like talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
Jim Larsensays
689 Hank R said, “Jim, citations needed.”
Uh, I don’t think I said anything which required cites. Got an example?
Dan H.says
Johnny,
Do not let facts get in the way of a good story.
Chip Hsays
Let’s accept the ‘Given Wisdom’ hook, line and sinker. We’ll all
believe for the moment that ‘ScienceIsSettled’™ and we are all of
us gone ‘PastTheTippingPoint’™ as far as any foreseeable future.
If the climate science is settled, then climate science is DEAD!
What do we need to hire anymore ice watchers for? Second opinion?
Oh, wait, the CONSENSUS OF ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS says no we don’t.
They’re now as much a nuisance as a noisesome ex-spouse next door.
Wait, that’s not what we meant when we said we are past the tipping
point! And while we have no causative evidence of AGW, we are going
to tithe-tax every human anyway, and starve the majority of humanity,
even though we have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE HOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING.
If we are ‘past the tipping point’ then fire all the climate scientists
and put them to work as day labor sandbagging, which they’re good at,
or spoking bamboo bicycles or polishing solar panels or obnoxticating
on some Sunday Climate Blog, how we all have to pass the plate again.
Really! THINK LOGICALLY. If the science is settled, why pay ice watchers?
If you have Stage IV cancer, why pay for more lab tests? AGW is just WMD
Ad Infinitum. Please make your prayers, pay your tithes and move along.
Nothing to see here.
GSWsays
JBowers,
“Three or four[papers] are sceptical”
There’s considerably more than that JB, Judith Curry publishes as many as that on her own (although she doesn’t categorize herself as a “sceptic” she is nevertheless critical of the “alarmist” tendancy within othodoxy). Also, many of the mainstream papers that you cite are actually supportive of the sceptic position, Tropical Hurricane frequency/Intensity etc – not as bad as we once thought papers.
I do think the programme was a step in the right direction for PBS. The recent Anthony Watts appearance caused quite a stir on the blogoshere, not for what he said, but rather that he was given air time at all!
So some exposure of the sceptic position is welcome. As mentioned before though, PBS did “pitch” it as political/ideological opposition rather than the very real problems with the concensus/orthodoxy as it stands.
I think Joe Bast expressed it quite well.
“Rather than examining the scientific debate directly – “looking under the hood,” as we like to say here at The Heartland Institute – he decided to rely uncritically on the claims of a few alarmists pretending to speak for “climate science.” That choice ultimately makes “Climate of Doubt” a biased and unreliable guide to the scientific debate.”
Indeed.
Stewiesays
Foster and Rahmstorf 2011:
(F&R) claim that the adjusted temperature series represents
the true global warming signal (with reduced “noise”), and
that “the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval (1970-2010)”.
In this way, they argue against the claim that the warming
rate has abated in recent years. Now they produced the adjustments
by performing an OLS regression on volcanic, ENSO and TSI signals,
*plus a linear term*. Then when they subtracted the fitted volcanic/ENSO/TSI,
their adjusted temperature looks linear.
Of course it does — that was the remaining term in the regression.
It’s a silly curve fitting exercise.
This is yet another example of the dangerous path one goes down when showing the “best possible presentation” of data. The shame here is that almost every reader on this blog understands what this graph looks like with a proper zero axis, we have all seen it before. So why show it this way? Why? At a very minimum at least put a numerical axis on it, even if you don’t zero base it.
Realistically any graphing software will put this numeric axis on automatically, and you have to put *extra* effort in to remove it. So somebody out there determined it would be more effective without any numbers. Including the axis would apparently confuse somebody in what way?
The point is that the graph is compelling enough without trying to enhance it. The “enhancements” just open it up to very predictable and legitimate criticism.
How do you think people react if this is the first presentation they see, are intrigued, and then find out later a little trickery was used to enhance the effect?
Does this graph truly show CO2 levels in the most honest way possible? Is it conveying truth?
@41
Ben Hocking says: 2 Sep 2012 at 8:01 AM
Re: this summer rapid melt of the Arctic sea ice.
Arctic explorers have noticed long time ago that storms by breaking and churning the sea ice turn it into slush, and at same time lift warmer waters from the depths of the Arctic Ocean, the sea ice will melt rapidly.
Now we only need to know why there was so unusually strong Arctic storm in the first 10 days of August, one of only half a dozen or so in the last 30 summers.
http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/arcticstorm2.jpg?w=600&h=400&crop=1
I assume some could say it is sign of global warming, CO2 etc, etc, etc.
Arctic gets another kind of storms, namely geomagnetic storms.
Take a look at top graph here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
it shows that in March-August period this year cumulative strength of geomagnetic storms was about 30-40% stronger than in 2011. Single storm of a medium strength packs as much energy as M6 earthquake, but that is not all.
Another look at the graph shows that in 2011 geomagnetic storms energy was dissipated in the gentle shift of the Earth’s magnetic field, but from the mid March 2012 shift was minimal despite the stronger gm storms. Only a conducting substance could absorb the energy in form of heat and for some reason I suspect it was absorbed by the Arctic most saline section. Notably in addition to it the SST of the Arctic inflow is at peak (higher than in the previous years). We can only speculate if and why the additional energy may cause the ‘energy eruption’ to the surface and in doing so power the August Arctic storm, or if it was just a proverbial ‘flap of butterfly wings’
You may find this in the ‘Bore Hole’
Climate change and global warming are a real issue but what if, what we are experiencing is only a climate cycle and not a true upwards trend? data only goes back so far and so accuratly. I think this blog post might be a good read for concideration.
http://stuffconservativeslike.net/global-warming-or-climate-change-we-dont-know/
Re: response:
……..where wind stirring transfers warm water to depth, and then atmospheric fluxes restore the surface heat content. Those fluxes include solar radiation, latent and sensible heat as well as long wave radiation combined with mechanical stirring from winds and waves. – gavin]
Dr. Schmidt, I assume there is also rapid mixing (on micro scale but across the total depth, compromising integrity of thermohaline layering) due to geomagnetic storms at high latitudes (e.g. the AMO- subpolar gyre)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SO.htm
with movement all the way from surface through to the bottom, but it would vary in the intensity with the salinity. When a CME hits the Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north it opens a breach and loads the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm, inducing strong currents in any conducting medium (larger dimensions of the medium stronger is the effect).
This is basis of what I named ‘geo-solar oscillations’, primarily generated in the North Atlantic and subsequently induced into the atmosphere, as depicted in here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
for more details email address on the graph.
The putative warming imbalance of the planet is 0.9W/sq.m of 145E20 Joules/year.
Arctic sea ice reduction accounts for about 1E20 Joules/year – 1/145th of the planet’s supposed energy gain or equal to 0.7%
This is from a surface area inside the Arctic circle (66 degN) of about 4% of the Earth’s surface.
Could someone explain why we are so worried about the Arctic rather than any other 4% patch of the Earth’s surface?
Well I guess the main error is subtracting the long term trend out of the data. However also the year to year change in global temperature attributable to greenhouse gases is less than 0.02C, which surely must be less than the measurement error in the global temperature value. (These values continue to be revised for a year or two, and often move up or down by more than 0.02C on revision.)
When the error equals or exceeds the signal (over the alleged 9-12 month lag period), isn’t the result meaningless??? Aren’t you just measuring noise?
Dadiactylos,
From 2008 to 2009, the minimum sea ice area increased from roughly 3 million to 3.5 million sq. km. Obviously some of the first-year ice survived well past its first birthday. Because of the resulting low minimum, there will be much more first-year ice this winter. Will all of it melt next summer, and generate a new low, or will some survive into 2014? There were many bold predictions after the 2007 minimum that the next year would brerak the minimum, but it took five years. I would not be surprised if we see a similar incident.
Kevin,
We were in really new territory in 2007 also, and look what happened subsequently. The large drop that year, prompted NASA scientists Jay Zwally to state that at the current rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free by 2012. What happened? The large one-year decrease was an anomaly, and the sea ice extent stayed in a narrow range for the next several years. This summer, we have a similar occurrance. We obviously disagree about whether the past is an indication of the future. So be it. You can be skeptical all you like about what Nature always seems to be doing, as it is probably the more prudent path. Reminds me of chaos theory.
Lawrence,
It is simple geometry. A constant decrease in area results in an exponential decrease in volume, owing to the added loss of thickness. A 30% reduction in area, leads to a 50% reduction in volume. The second 30% reductions, results in a volumetric losss of 33% loss of volume. The next 30% drop, yields a loss of only 5%. Considering the albedo effect, area is the more important factor.
I see why Real Climate has a dismal reputation, it cherry picks the comments. What happened to my 3 other comments, particularly the one in response to Mr. MARodger@99? What’s a matter, afraid of a little sunshine?
Jim wrote “Where these people get off saying “it’s too late” and other defeatist crap I really have no idea. But they sure as hell don’t know what they’re talking about, and even if they did, they’d try to say something positive instead of promoting hopelessness if they were trying to actually help things.”
Right Jim, say something positive. Say that after the US election Congress will start taking action to cut the US CO2 production. Say that they will see the folly of their ways and set up a new Kyoto treaty. Say the new Chinese president will pick up the phone and agree with Obama or Romney that he agrees to a treaty with binding commitments. Why, he may even agree to cut back on rice production in order to reduce methane emissions. And the Brazilians will throw their ranchers off the Amazonian land they have acquired and regrow the jungle.
Or is your answer to close the coal mines and use natural gas for power generation. That will cut the CO2 emissions but not enough to stop Greenland melting, or to save the Arctic sea ice. When the sea ice disappears the global albedo will increase by 1%. How will that affect the climate? How will it affect agriculture and food supplies?
What do you advocate? And what chance do you think you have that it will happen?
Until scientists tell the public about the very real dangers we face the politicians will not act. So long as scientists such as yourself and Ray Ladbury refuse to face up to the urgency and to the impossibility of getting any action then we are all doomed.
Cheers, Alastair.
Jeffrey,
I strongly disagree with your concept of overselling global warming. Turn back the clock about 5 years to when the IPCC AR4 report and Al Gore’s Inconvenient truth movie came out. There was much hype concerning the consequences of rising atmospheric CO2 levels; Hurricane seasons like 2005 would become the norm, the Himalayas were melting at an alarming rate, sea levels were rising rapidly, inundating low-level areas and small islands, coral reefs were dying due to bleaching, the US would experience snowless winters (Hansen suggested that the Northeast ski operators look for a new line of work), and England would experience barbeque summers (people joked that this year’s summer Olympic games were a misnomer), etc. People listened attentively, and support for government action was at an all-time high.
People were alarmed. However, in the intervening years, more data has been collected, revealing that many of these claims were unsubstantiated or exaggerated (i.e. the concept was oversold). Consequently, people withdrew their support, and have questioned the entire theory. Had scientists maintained the slow, but steady changes, instead of the catastrophic scenario, support may be much higher. Bad news sells, and catastrophic climate predictions generated widespread support. However, bad news also sells when it comes to errant predictions. Hence, public support has waned. You can place as much blame on your choice or organization as the culprit, but similar to this year’s election; the most damage is done, not by ones opponent, but by the candidates own words.
Returning to the overselling approach is likely to have the same effect. “Those who don’t know history, are destined to repeat it.” – Edmund Burke.
Wili #295,
“I think, ultimately, people end up feeling most hopeless and demoralized if they get the sense that absolutely everyone is telling them lies or massaging the data one way or the other, either for the disgusting reasons of the denialists, or for other nobler perhaps but still patronizing (at least) reasons.
Churchill didn’t try to persuade the British people that an invasion by the Germans was impossible. He presented it as a clear probability, but in the face of this grim possibility, he also rallied his people with his famous “We will fight them on the beaches…” speech.
I think that, rather than minimizing the possible grimness of future scenarios, we need to admit that the climatic equivalent of invasion is well within the realm of possibility, and start rallying people with similarly Churchillian fervor. I sense that this is something of what McKibben is hoping to do by focusing on the central culprits of the story–those profiting enormously from un-sequestering vast quantities of carbon which they know will be dumped into the atmosphere at no (immediate) cost to them.”
These are extremely perceptive and insightful comments, especially in comparison with the drivel I have been receiving in response to my posts. I have been watching the DVD called The Unknown War. It documents the battles on the Eastern Front during WWII. In particular, what I found interesting were the responses and preparations taken by the citizens of Moscow, Leningrad, and Volgograd in advance of the German attacks. That is the type of response that we need, as a minimum, if we are to have any chance of warding off severe climate change.
Now, as the DVD makes clear, in order to mount an appropriate response, three conditions are required. First, the threat needs to be identified in detail. Second, the people need to accept that the threat is serious. Third, the people need to be willing to do whatever it takes to counter the threat. Those three conditions were met in the battles mentioned.
In climate change, the situation is different. While a threat has been identified, the seriousness of the threat has not been emphasized and conveyed to the public by the scientists, the media, or the politicians. Some of the public don’t even accept that there is a threat, a very small fraction appreciate the seriousness of the threat, and the bulk of the public probably accept there is some threat but it is not that serious. Finally, in terms of willingness to take action, a negligible amount of the public appears willing to take the harsh steps that offer any hope of countering serious climate change.
I live in the Middle Atlantic States region. For the five days preceding yesterday, the weather was absolutely gorgeous for Summer, albeit late Summer. Low to mid-70s, sunny, low humidity, mild breezes. I was talking with neighbors about some of the studies I am presently doing in climate change, and tried to convey the seriousness of what I was finding. Climate change; they looked at me as though I was completely crazy. Look at this weather; if this is climate change, bring it on! I mentioned the rapid disappearance of the Arctic Summer ice, and they savored the possibility of soon taking a cruise to the North Pole in Summer. Some also liked the business opportunities the easier transport offerred.
So, I don’t see the marshalling of resources to counter climate change (that was used to turn the tide at Moscow and Stalingrad) with present attitudes. By the time my region starts to really feel the effects of climate change, it will be far too late, if it is not too late already.
@357 Jim Larsen:
What’s with disparaging rats and flies? Rats are mammals, the same as you. Rats have a much better chance of surviving the mess we’ve made than we do. In the Jurassic, fleas were ten times larger than today. Their food got smaller but fleas adapted just fine. Opportunists are life’s scar tissue, always ready to fill in when the fancy stuff screws up. Humans are opportunists, and we’ve had quite a party so far. Cows and corn were invited to the party, lemurs not so much. Rats weren’t invited but they came anyway. We might be screwing up now, but never underestimate weeds, and even if we are, other weeds will pick up the slack pronto. Check out David Quammen’s famous article about David Jablonski, “Planet of Weeds.” According to Jablonski, “Biotic recoveries after mass extinctions are geologically rapid but immensely prolonged on human time scales.” Paleontology is a great antidote for anthropocentrism. Like Edward Greisch said, “Humans may be an intelligent species.” We’ll soon see.
*from Jablonski’s 1991 Science paper, “Extinctions: A paleontological perspective”
Is the current rate of reduction in Arctic ice faster than the rate of increase in Antarctic ice?
@357 Jim Larsen:
You make this sound like a disaster, but it’s normal behavior. Rats are mammals, the same as you. Rats have a much better chance of surviving the mess we’ve made than we do. In the Jurassic, fleas were ten times larger than today. Their food got smaller but fleas adapted just fine. Opportunists are life’s scar tissue, always ready to fill in when the fancy stuff screws up. Humans are opportunists, and we’ve had quite a party so far. Cows and corn were invited to the party, lemurs not so much. Rats weren’t invited but they came anyway. We might be screwing up now, but never underestimate weeds, and even if we are, other weeds will pick up the slack pronto. Check out David Quammen’s famous article about David Jablonski, “Planet of Weeds.” According to Jablonski, “Biotic recoveries after mass extinctions are geologically rapid but immensely prolonged on human time scales.” Paleontology is an excellent antidote for anthropocentrism. Humans may be an
intelligentadaptive species. We’ll soon see.*from Jablonski’s 1991 Science paper, “Extinctions: A paleontological perspective”
The putative warming imbalance of the planet is 0.9W/sq.m of 145E20 Joules/year.
Arctic sea ice reduction accounts for about 1E20 Joules/year – 1/145th of the planet’s supposed energy gain or 0.7%
This is from a surface area inside the Arctic circle (66 degN) of about 4% of the Earth’s surface.
Could someone explain why we are so worried about the Arctic rather than any other 4% patch of the Earth’s surface?
MikeH (#82) I didn’t give the full quote from Professor Flannery as it wasn’t relevant to the point I was hoping to make nor did I say “he said the dams would never be full again”. From your comments I obviously didn’t make it clear that the comments attributed to Flannery by others have resonated with a large section of the Australian public who have had their property destroyed/seriously damaged by floods. You may recall the furore in SE Queensland about 4 years ago when the question of water recycling was a major issue. It isn’t now. This piece is discussing theNature editorial on extreme weather events. As I wrote in a reply to Suo, the highest recorded incidence of floods in Australia was in the early part of the 20th century. What I didn’t make clear to you , is that comments from those such as Professor Flannery can often do more harm than good. Your comment “The section of that quote that Ian cherry-picked has been used extensively in Australia in an attempt to discredit Flannery, a Climate Commissioner by claiming that he said the “dams would never fill again” eloquently confirms that.
Alastair McDonald @91
Wildfire increase in numbers and intensity may not have to do with Global Warming. I was listening to recent research (NPR) by a scientist who studies tree rings. In the tree ring record he found many fire scars.
Wet and dry years are very common for many locations. You can look at the historical record for many cities and see this. The scientist noted that frequent fires in forests are normal. Before the philosophy of suppressing fires was developed, fires would break out, burn out the undergrowth, damage the trees but not kill them and a new growth cycle would start. With our current fire response the forests are now loaded with fuel. When fires start there is so much fuel, because of years of accumualtion, they burn out of control and kill trees. They are much bigger in area and intensity.
Since there is a reasonable and rational alternative mechanism to explain our recent huge wildfires that does not require global warming (excessive fuel), I think it is premature to conclude the increase in wildfires is caused by global warming
“… the odds of heat waves have shortened (and odds for cold snaps have decreased)”
Perhaps a clearer statement would be that odds of heat waves have increased, while odds of cold snaps have decreased?
I’m lacking in a scientific degree ..but from an observation standpoint all things go in cycles and the last time I check the universal law dictates that all matter migrates from hot to cold in the long run…..Global warming? will eventually become global cooling!
Don,
A recent National Geographic article (Sept., 2012) detailed all the $1 billion + natural disasters to hit the U.S. in the past 30 years. The total cost approximately doubled in the more recent 15 years, compared to the previous. However, much of the cost was due to inflation and people moving into disaster-prone areas.
The dollar cost of a natural disaster has less do to with the intensity, than the location. Irene is a classic example, as it made landfall in New York as a tropical storm. Since the devastating 2005 hurricane season, only six hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S., and no major hurricanes (Ike made landfall in 2008 as a strong category 2).
I find it ironic that you claim that the 2010 Tennessee flood was a 1000-year event, when the Cumberland river in Nashville reached a higher level in 1927.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927
Secular,
Since the hyperactive 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the last six years have been close to average. Three have been above (2008, 2010, and 2011), while three have been below (2006, 2007, 2009).
http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_ace.png
As I mentioned earlier, the damages from cyclonic activity has more to do with where the storm strikes, than its intensity. Irene made landfall in New Jersey as a tropical storm, but caused significantly more damage in upstate New York and New England than Gustav, a strong category 2 hurricane, which came ashore in Louisiana. Both caused more damage than category 5 hurricane Dean, which came ashore in the sparsely populated Yucatan.
Of course by focusing solely on the monetary damage caused bb North Atlantic hurricanes, you miss the point that Tom was making, i.e. that global cyclone energy is running near all-time lows:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png
Bob Tisdale has been arguing at wuwt that the AMO drives the trend in the amount of Arctic sea ice.
Tamino
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/amo/
Argues that GW drives the AMO.
I have a concern with Tamino’s argument in the the AMO is a measure of SST’s, I’ve another problem in that SST’s (acording to wiki)seems to not be universally defined:
“Sea surface temperature (SST) is the water temperature close to the ocean’s surface. The exact meaning of surface varies according to the measurement method used, but it is between 1 millimetre (0.04 in) and 20 metres (70 ft) below the sea surface. Air masses in the Earth’s atmosphere are highly modified by sea surface temperatures within a short distance of the shore.”
I find it far easier to believe that ocean surface temperatures have a major impact on air temperatures (eg El Nino) than the opposite, even on a these longer time scales.
Don’t bother pointing out that Arctic sea ice levels seem to have been fairly stable till about the 1990’s, we don’t have a good measure of volume before then.
Perhaps the AMO simply explains why the sea ice decline has been far more rapid than IPCC projections.
Andrew,
Much work has been done correlating the changes in the Arctic with the AMO. See the following:
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/1748-9326_7_3_034011.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4002.1
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3462.1
245 JCH says:
……
I am clearly referring to the North Hemisphere’s natural variation, which you will find is different to the South Hemisphere’s and hence the global, although I would question validity of adding two. Here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
you can see that red line peak in late the 1880s is at exactly same value as in 2005.
NASA is hinting at something which I have worked out some time ago and in some detail, identifying the sources, providing numerical confirmation, details of viable mechanism will be shortly published.
How come the videos have not included the comparison between the observed and projected global mean surface temperature?
Can a girl ask some rather basic questions here …?
(1) Shortwave-in/longwave-out.
Is this part of the standard theory? ie is visible light thought to heat the earth? Or is it longwave-in/longwave-out?
(2) Let us here grant that
– greenhouse gasses absorb and retransmit longwave well,
– some of which comes direct from the sun (A),
– and some of which is indirect, upwelling from the earth
– and some of the latter is then directed earthwards (B).
Is it possible to experimentally distinguish at the earth’s surface, between the (A) and (B) sources of longwave (and hence of sources of heating of the earth) ? Seems highly relevant to the attribution argument.
(3) Ultimately, is the mechanism by which the earth is said to be warmed by additional CO2
(a) The back-radiation to the earth ?
(b) The warming of the atmosphere, which slows down the earth’s cooling?
(c) Both? If so, is the split 50-50 or something else?
[Response: This is just more wishful thinking. No source is given for your conclusion, no reference to the obvious contradiction to the long tidal gauge or satellite records, no assessment of the precision of the original source (i.e. would you expect an additional 10 to 15 inches to show up on a global bathymetry map?) etc. etc. Please up your game if you want to be taken seriously. – gavin]
The British Admiralty charts are navigational charts, drawn in a time of wooden ships and iron men. Their accuracy is well established by usage, with untold millions of miles traveled over a span of hundreds of years. Most US charts were drawn from the BA charts, as are the charts used by most of the countries of the world.
The BA charts were drawn to a depth precision of 1 foot within the 1 fathom line, and to a precision of one fathom beyond that. Thus, to establish if there has been a change in sea level of 10-15 inches, one need only compare the BA charts to current bedrock shorelines, using the appropriate tidal datum.
There are no tidal gauge records or satellites that cover the world as it was 200-300 years ago. The BA charts in contrast show the ocean depths across virtually the entire globe, at a period in which there are no other records. The advantage of these charts is that the require no complicated or uncertain proxies. If you want to establish if sea level has changed over a period of 200-300 years, look at the BA charts for your coastline.
Veeeerrrrryyy Interesting these sea level ups and downs. Allow me to interject the factor of Receding Sea Levels into the equation. We have been so busy hypothicating sea level rise as a direct result of Global Warming that we have totally overlooked the Receding Sea reality. See http://www.youtube.com “The Mysterious Receding Seas”By Richard Guy Tel;347-290-5300.
Sea Levels are receding not rising. Isostatic Rebound is false. Global Warming is not making sea levels rise because they are receding and have been doing so back into prehistory. Darwin was wrong on many things and land uplift is false. It is the sea that is receding not the land rising??????? Richard Guy 347-290-5300
If you can show me sea level rise I can show you sea level recession.
This area of Pacific is geologically active, about two years ago I collected some data plotted couple of graphs which show some correlation with the ENSO.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm
Rob,
What erroneous opinion do you think I am furious trying to support? That sea level rise has not been constant over time? I would be happy to entertain any research which shows that I am wrong. Funny how you are quick to ridicule that which you misunderstand.
Chris,
Yes, periods of rising temperatures has correlated quite well with rising seas. The highest increases recently have been aligned with the 30s and 90s. I would expect any future large temperature increase to be accompanied by a correspondingly large sea level rise.
Craig,
No and No. Sea level rise in the past decade has decelerated, and poses no immediate concern. I have never denied that humans have influenced climate. Do you not see that I have attempted to emphasize exactly what this article is about, and it flew right over so many people’s heads?
Hi Gavin.
I don’t propose to tell you, or anybody else, what they should be working on — but my opinion is that researching contrarian memes is certainly not without value. Only you can say how that value compares to the other tasks competing for your time.
I do not need to tell you about the large quantities of junk science that pervades the internet, much of it is hard for the non-expert to differentiate from the more reputable stuff. A little bit of guidance can be priceless.
In fairness, the more sceptical amongst us do not have a monopoly on bad science. There are a few bad examples¹ on the orthodox side of things, too.
An interesting point from your research. The observed sea level rise of between 2.0 and 7.7 mm/year is certainly significant, but appears somewhat short of the multi-metre predictions that sometimes appear from our more enthusiastic² brethren³. A 100 year sea level rise of 200mm bears watching but probably doesn’t justify wholesale evacuations. At the high end 770mm will almost certainly cause problems in the pacific islands, but again it will probably not require depopulation. Of course that’s a regional effect and other regions may be much worse. I guess time will tell.
[1] For example see: http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
[2] For example see: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/21/516171/sea-level-rise-it-could-be-worse-than-we-think.
[3] I use the term brethren in the gender-free context. Some of my favourite climate scientists are of the female persuasion.
34
Lionel A says:
15 Oct 2012 at 2:19 PM
wei pong @26
You may just learn something from watching this:
=======
Thanks but that doesn’t address the issue I raised.
Every nautical chart has a datum correction. They show lat/long corrections to reflect improved clocks and GPS, but they have no datum correction for global sea level rise. Since the charts are drawn to an depth accuracy of 1 feet this suggests that global sea level rise is not significant at that scale.
Marco,
Again, the main argument that I put forth (in my rebuttal to Martin), was that a linear rate of 2 mm/yr would averaged out to the sea level rise over the past 8000 years. Some have countered that the actual time frame should be closer to 10,000, but that is a minor issue. For whatever reason, some people have been critical of the exact sea level rise that has occurred during a period of rapid melting, that they have lost sight of the issue at hand. Tectonic movement is an issue in any measurement of sea level rise, the lower the increase, the greater the tectonic influence in the values.
Extrapolating trends can be a foolish venture, if the underlying causes change. Much of the rise in the past century and a half can be attributed to melting in many alpine glaciers. This has subsided in many cases, as the glaciers have receded to heights that restricts further melting. Sea level rise would be expected to accelerate again, if we return to the temperature increase experienced in the 30s and 90s – both eras of increasing sea level rise.
Marco,
Again, the main argument that I put forth (in my rebuttal to Martin), was that a linear rate of 2 mm/yr would average out to the estimated sea level rise over the past 8000 years. Some have countered that the actual time frame should be closer to 10,000, but that is a minor issue. For whatever reason, some people have been critical of the exact sea level rise that has occurred during a period of rapid melting, that they have lost sight of the issue at hand. Tectonic movement is an issue in any measurement of sea level rise, the lower the increase, the greater the tectonic influence in the values.
Extrapolating trends can be a foolish venture, if the underlying causes change. Much of the rise in the past century and a half can be attributed to melting in many alpine glaciers. This has subsided in many cases, as the glaciers have receded to heights that restricts further melting. Sea level rise would be expected to accelerate again, if we return to the temperature increase experienced in the 30s and 90s – both eras of increasing sea level rise.
Chris,
Excellent summary, although I made no forward going statment. I am not sure that I could decipher your quoted trend from the referenced link, but it does show 225mm of rise over 140 years, with a few hesitations in the 1880s, 1920sm and 1960s. The highlighted trend is slightly lower than that observed in the 1940s.
Jim,
Excellent analogy, and I think it hammers home my point quite effectively.
Craig,
Sorry if the answer is rather confusing, but several posters have muddied the entire issue since the original posts. It is almost as if they are trying to prove that sea levels did not rise after the last glaciation ended.
You asked if thought that the acceleration caused any concern. I answered no because the rate is low, 2mm/yr, and the acceleration that occurred appears to have abated. I agreed that sea level rise accellerated, it actually accellerated twice during the 20th century, with a slowing in between and afterward. Hence my comment about not at the present rate. Should SLR accelerate significantly in the future, then I may change my stance.
Reporter John Hockenberry’s repeated references to the bogus “97 percent scientific consensus,” and Frontline’s deliberate blurring of Dr. Edward Teller’s signature on the Oregon Petition, suggests that PBS was less than forthright in their presentation. If the truth is on your side, why rely on deception?
jim,
You are proabably right in that this thread has run its course. My opinion has changed on SLR; several years ago, in fact, when it began to slow, and became apparent that it would not accelerate dramatically in the coming decades.
[Response:This is where you go wrong – thinking that the future is simply a linear extrapolation from short term noise. Doesn’t work in the stock market, doesn’t work in climate. – gavin]
I am always leary when someone “adjusts” the raw data to achieve a certain look.
[Response: And I am always leary when people make insinuations of misconduct simply because they don’t like a scientific result. Don’t do that. – gavin]
I have seen ENSO-adjusted SLR graphs that range from continued acceleration to one that is almost flat. This usually occurs when someone adjusts for either El Nino or La Nina only. My current stance is that SLR began in the early 20th century (possibly late 19th) and continues to this day. There have been periods of increased and decreased rate of rise, corresponding to periods of rapid and negligible warming. The overall rate has not changed considerably over that timeframe. That is not to say that it could not do so in the future. Some people appear to only accept that which agrees with their own pre-conceived opinions, and deny the rest.
[Response: yup. ]
Time magazine had an excellent article on this last week, concerning the 2012 election. It could be applied equally here. There are those who see only the acceleration that occurred in the 1990s, those who see only the deceleration since, but very few who can see both. Regardless of the reasons (and ENSO seems very plausible for the increases and decreases), we need to remove our blinders and view this objectively.
[Response: Maybe you could give that a try? – gavin]
The program doesn’t acknowledge a simple fact. Most people do not read these right wing blurbs or media distributions. They look around them and see that nothing is happening. The facts are that temperatures are not changing as fast as predicted and as the MET admitted have literally been flat for 16 years. This places great doubt in the minds of people and makes it hard to argue with those who don’t believe that temperatures near the surface in the sky or in the ocean, sea levels will suddenly soon take a never seen before discontinuous acceleration of 4 or 5 times the current rate. Most people will need more than computer models to believe the world will suddenly do this as climate scientists believe. Most people have not invested so much in their career or in developing computer models that show such a massive sudden discontinuous spike so they take a wait and see attitude We need the data to back up the models so that effective arguments can be made otherwise we are left to slandering the skeptics and associating them with evil intent as our only defense against their arguments.
The comments by the poster were wrong but the fact is we can argue all we want that he’s not precisely right but the fact is we aren’t precisely right either. The reason skepticism is so rampant is clearly that the predictions we’ve made are not coming true at the rate predicted. I watched a PBS program just a few weeks ago that said it was expected that sea levels will rise one foot from Antarctic melting, one foot from landlocked mountainess glacier melting and one foot from sea warming but e facts are we are actually getting closer to 6 inches total from all 3 or 1/6th of our predictions and the Antarctic may actually be zero or even negative contribution. GRACE showed that’ mountaineers glaciers were contributing at 1/4 the rate we predicted and since sea temps have stagnated for 11 years there is no expansion due to thermal effects. As a result sea levels have actually been decelerating hardly bolstering our argument. We need to be able to predict these things better or explain why they are wrong and not make such wild statements without more research.
Johnny,
Agreed. However, many people so not want to hear that, and insist that they are correct, and the data is somehow wrong. Sticking their heads in the sand will not help, and claiming conspiracy is no good either.
Tom,
I do not see how the question “tripped him up.” It was an honest answer, that anyone who is proven wrong should readily admit. That would be a good question to ask someone on either side of the debate.
Isotopious,
I am quite sure that if he felt that he could woo more voters than he would lose, that he would jump in with both feet. His silence on the matter, would indicate otherwise.
You all realize that wether it is 2.3 or 3 or 3.7 we are talking INCHES in a century. For 3 feet which is what all the alarmists have been telling us it needs to be 37mm/year or at least 10-20mm/year which is 5-10 times the most extreme rate we’ve seen. that rate would need ro be sustained for 90 years or more. I have seen studies which show that the maximum melt rate is limited by the ability of the water to egress to the ocean and calculated that this is well below the 10-20mm/year rate. So the idea there is going to be a discontinuous sudden acceleration of sea level rise to 5 or 10 times the current rate seems unattainable and therefore why are we changing so much to prevent something that we know can’t be significant. It’s like talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
689 Hank R said, “Jim, citations needed.”
Uh, I don’t think I said anything which required cites. Got an example?
Johnny,
Do not let facts get in the way of a good story.
Let’s accept the ‘Given Wisdom’ hook, line and sinker. We’ll all
believe for the moment that ‘ScienceIsSettled’™ and we are all of
us gone ‘PastTheTippingPoint’™ as far as any foreseeable future.
If the climate science is settled, then climate science is DEAD!
What do we need to hire anymore ice watchers for? Second opinion?
Oh, wait, the CONSENSUS OF ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS says no we don’t.
They’re now as much a nuisance as a noisesome ex-spouse next door.
Wait, that’s not what we meant when we said we are past the tipping
point! And while we have no causative evidence of AGW, we are going
to tithe-tax every human anyway, and starve the majority of humanity,
even though we have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE HOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING.
If we are ‘past the tipping point’ then fire all the climate scientists
and put them to work as day labor sandbagging, which they’re good at,
or spoking bamboo bicycles or polishing solar panels or obnoxticating
on some Sunday Climate Blog, how we all have to pass the plate again.
Really! THINK LOGICALLY. If the science is settled, why pay ice watchers?
If you have Stage IV cancer, why pay for more lab tests? AGW is just WMD
Ad Infinitum. Please make your prayers, pay your tithes and move along.
Nothing to see here.
JBowers,
“Three or four[papers] are sceptical”
There’s considerably more than that JB, Judith Curry publishes as many as that on her own (although she doesn’t categorize herself as a “sceptic” she is nevertheless critical of the “alarmist” tendancy within othodoxy). Also, many of the mainstream papers that you cite are actually supportive of the sceptic position, Tropical Hurricane frequency/Intensity etc – not as bad as we once thought papers.
I do think the programme was a step in the right direction for PBS. The recent Anthony Watts appearance caused quite a stir on the blogoshere, not for what he said, but rather that he was given air time at all!
So some exposure of the sceptic position is welcome. As mentioned before though, PBS did “pitch” it as political/ideological opposition rather than the very real problems with the concensus/orthodoxy as it stands.
I think Joe Bast expressed it quite well.
“Rather than examining the scientific debate directly – “looking under the hood,” as we like to say here at The Heartland Institute – he decided to rely uncritically on the claims of a few alarmists pretending to speak for “climate science.” That choice ultimately makes “Climate of Doubt” a biased and unreliable guide to the scientific debate.”
Indeed.
Foster and Rahmstorf 2011:
(F&R) claim that the adjusted temperature series represents
the true global warming signal (with reduced “noise”), and
that “the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval (1970-2010)”.
In this way, they argue against the claim that the warming
rate has abated in recent years. Now they produced the adjustments
by performing an OLS regression on volcanic, ENSO and TSI signals,
*plus a linear term*. Then when they subtracted the fitted volcanic/ENSO/TSI,
their adjusted temperature looks linear.
Of course it does — that was the remaining term in the regression.
It’s a silly curve fitting exercise.
The new hockeystick?