A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
Dr. Punnettsays
Wow. I’m honoured! Apparently my mild rebuke was enough to ruffle some rather too gentle feathers. I only would point out that if the following sentence “It provides some compelling information drawn from the insurance industry, and indeed, a representative from Munich Re participated in writing this report.” instead read “It provides some compelling information drawn from the OIL industry, and indeed, a representative from EXXON participated in writing this report.”, I’m pretty sure the ‘real climate group’ would be loudly objecting to the built-in bias that would represent. And deservedly so actually. I was just pointing out what should have been an obvious red flag to anyone viewing the report. Hardly seems like an “ad hominem” attack as per Ray Ladbury.
Dr. Punnettsays
Are you really not aware that even the IPCC has stated there is no evidence for increased storm activity etc???
Jack Maloneysays
Ray #50: Your first comment has no basis in fact. I know insurance industry business practices from first-hand management experience; the firm I worked for is doing quite well, thank you.
Your second comment is incorrect. I made no “attack” or judgment on insurance industry motivations. I responded to a comment that they have “skin in the game” by pointing out that they also profit by promoting fear of future events.
I have my own views on people who make a habit of hurling insults from a safe distance, and forums which publish them on a regular basis.
now you hit the nail on the head; climatic changes are localized, not global. Some places will get wetter and cooler, others dryer and hotter days / colder nights: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
Dan H.says
Aslr,
While 2-3 m is certainly possible, the recent data make it highly unlikely. The only way to reach that level would be larfe-scale melting of the Greenland glaciers. This would require a significant acceleration of the current melt rate – again possible, but unlikely. Large scale melting of the WAIS appears to be even more remote. Somewhere in the 20-40 cm range appears more likely.
Ed Barbarsays
SecularAnimist, Ray Ladbury,
wrt being skeptical about the results, I did not say the results should be discarded, but one ought to be aware of bias in studies, and be careful. I’m sure you would agree the tobacco industry studies showing no link to cancer, etc., should have been viewed skeptically, right? Nature has papers finding a stubborn bias in research papers (the focus was on drug studies).
Meanwhile, yes, I’m a CAGW skeptic. Everyone should be, in my view. It’s an unproven theory, and the climate system is complex. But what does that have to do with the basic point? If you refute the point, then what’s your position on bias in tobacco industry papers, and drug research papers?
I wonder whether it is it your position that any study that supports your viewpoint on AGW must be right? There is a lot of danger in that, as there are many who would take advantage for personal gain if they found a way even if there was no merit in their proposed solutions.
Dan H.says
This argument is a microcosym of the larger global warming argument, i.e. certain reports cannot be believed because of the author’s viewpoint. Similarly, presentations have been discounted solely because they appear on a particular website. Scientists differ often, but that does not necessarily invalidate their research. Let the work stand or fail on its own merit, not someone’s opinion of what it should say.
Dan H.says
Walter,
It appears that you have a fairly good handle on the borehole. There are some who prefer to live in their own little bubble.
Dan H.says
ASLR,
I would agree that unless you look at high end cases, the risk is negligible. However, should we not plan for the most likely scenarios, within uncertainty. Other events would be catastrophic (a large asteroid impact), but are negligible also. Would we not be wiser to plan for expected occurrances (another Chelyabinsk-sized meteor impact)? Lastly, those are global temperatutre predictions. While the Arctic, as a whole, as risen at about twice the global rate, Antarctica, overall, has shown no significant temperature change. HOw do these trends affect your overall predictions?
Dan H.says
Steve Metzler,
Your comment is similar to dhogaza – misinterpreting in order to discredit. If you remember (apparantly not), I did not misinterpret the PDSI. That was another author, but attributed to me. I have no problem going against traffic, when it is headed the wrong way. I refuse to be s lemming. Funny that you think I do not listen to scientists, when you are actually implying that I do not listen to the right scientists. Just because I prefer data and observations over theories and models, does not invalidate whatever I post. Science is about truth, not common law.
Jack Maloneysays
87 SecularAnimist says: “The actual observed effects of the warming that has already occurred, as a result of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted, are self-evidently already “dangerous” since they are already causing massive and costly harm.”
Would you care to give us an example or two?
Dan H.says
SA,
Please expound upon your previous statement. I fail to any “potentially dangerous” events occurring today.
Jack Maloneysays
A revealing look at RC’s “real science:” When SecularAnimist posts a dubious claim (#87) about the cause and effects of global warming, it remains here. When two other posts politely request examples to support SA’s claim, they are boreholed (1363, 1364). Sad.
Jack Maloneysays
#87 SecularAnimist says: “The actual observed effects of the warming that has already occurred, as a result of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted, are self-evidently already “dangerous” since they are already causing massive and costly harm.”
Can you please provide a source from “real science” – not the blogosphere – to support your statement?
Dan H.says
Wili,
How can you be quite sure that they will become worse and more common. Even the IPCC does not concur, stating that the “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust.” A recent report from the University of Colorado stated, “The analysis does not indicate significant long-period global or individual basin trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling [tropical cyclones] of minor or major hurricane strength.”
climate is in constant change; GLOBAL warming is phony
Jack Maloneysays
#102 Kevin: SA claims that “observed effects of the warming that has already occurred as a result of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted…are already causing massive and costly harm.” AFAIK, no credible authority has attributed “massive and costly harm” to “observed effects” of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Nor has SA – or anyone else here – provided examples of same.
Dan H.says
Kevin,
Global warming very well may have contributed to all your listed events. However, you need also consider the flip side. One cannot simply count the increase in the number of heat-related deaths without considering the subsequent decrease in cold-related deaths. In many areas, the latter fatalities outnumber the former. The same can be done for agricultural losses. One needs to compare the losses due to drought and flood compared to the increases occurring from added rainfall and longer growing seasons. Farming has always been a roller coaster occupation, but recent decades have resulted in productivity increases. Just like floods (where mankind has influenced their occurrences), farming has been affected by factors other than weather. As MA said earlier, attributing the “harm” from global warming in the overall scenario is not so straightforward.
Dan H.says
Dhogaza,
Normally when you make a prediction, it is based on data and observations. Short of any supporting evidence, how can you make any reasonable prediction?
Walter Mannysays
Hank, I’m not sure I understand you. You refer to Kevin’s caveat-laden list (“could well be related to”) as somehow responsive to Jack’s request for something firm. Have I read Kevin’s posting incorrectly? Jack’s? Seems like a reasonable (and important) point of discussion to me.
Jack Maloneysays
Hank: Kevin McKinney’s post was interesting and informative, but nothing in it supported SA’s conclusion that observed effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing massive and costly harm. After a number of qualifications – “likely, contributed, probability, reason to think, would be expected, will increase, has contributed, just off the top of my head,” McKinney admits he’s not making an attribution claim based on observation, but only pointing out that these extreme events are “of the sort which we expect to become much more frequent given both theory and observed metrics.”
Instead of complaining about nonexistent ad hominem fallacies and name-calling, SA could answer the question by stating the basis for his claim – as I requested.
Walter Mannysays
Did you giggle like schoolgirls when you bore-holed my latest distracting comment? And there I was, trying to stay on topic. Ah, well, thanks for putting up with me for as long as you did, must have been trying. See you next year.
Jack Maloneysays
Chris: That climate change is happening is indisputable; that it has many causes, among which is anthropogenesis, is a given; that it incurs costs is arguable (although it also incurs benefits). I think most scientists would agree.
But the articles you cite do not confirm SA’s assertions. They only refer to the costs of “climate change” in general. Not to “anthropogenic climate change” – which is only one driver among many, known and unknown, in climate change. Not to “anthropogenic climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions” – which is only one factor among many, known and unknown, in anthropogenic climate change. That’s why the cost of climate change caused by CO2 is impossible to pin down; it is an unknown fraction of an unknown fraction.
The causes, effects and costs of climate change are far from being settled, and boundless uncertainties (the unknown unknowns) remain. That’s why I asked for an example or source for SA’s claim to know the costs of CO2-induced AGW. Still waiting for an answer.
Jack Maloneysays
PS Chris Korda – would you care to explain your Upton Sinclair quote? It certainly could not apply to me! ;-)
Jack Maloneysays
Chris @ 114: You’re not even making a token effort to answer your own questions.
Wrong. You’re only seeing one side of the debate. My answers, predictably, are being boreholed (1373, 1375) by the RC moderator.
Dan H.says
Dhogaza,
Normally when you make a prediction, it is based on data and observations. The IPCC made its forward-looking statement based on past evidence. Short of any supporting evidence, how can you make any reasonable prediction?
Dan H.says
Dhogaza,
Do you have any data showing a worsening trends for NEXT century. I would be interested in viewing it.
Jack Maloneysays
Kevin McKinney – Care to respond to the instances I cited in my #102?
Chris Korda: You’re not even making a token effort to answer your own questions.
SecularAnimist: So, other than name-calling and ad hominem fallacies, what have you got?
Thanks for your interest, guys, but your RC Moderator won’t let you see my answer – he BoreHoled it (#1375). Perhaps the BoreHole should be renamed “Inconvenient Truths.” ;-)
mikeworstsays
That graph does not reflect reality, and most certainly not up to date. Please quote data sources and justification.
Dan H.says
In other words, if you fudge the data enough, you can get the desired results. No wonder the latests surveys show such a high distrust of climate scientists among the populous. Just admit that the pause is occuring and move on, like real scientists. There is nothing to gain in this exercise.
Dan H.says
Wili,
That value is quoted from the paper, which does seem extremely high. Also high, is their explanation of negative feedback reducing the expected 6.6C warming down to 0.8C. They do not explain this specific feedback, except to say “Some of these complications serve to reduce the temperature increase and some to decrease it.” Also puzzling in their paper is their plot which shows no modeled temperature increase due to anthropogenic forcings prior to 1970, during which time atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased to 325 ppm. S & W do not explain their natural forcings either, but I was wondering why they have a modelled decrease since 1955 when they state that cosmic rays could contribute up to 14% of the observed warming since that time.
Blair Dowdensays
Dr. Kevin Cowtan (http://www.york.ac.uk/chemistry/staff/academic/a-c/kcowtan/) is a chemist at the University of York specializing in X-ray crystallography. I do not see any hint of a connection of his work to climate change. Robert Way (http://uottawa.academia.edu/RobertWay) is a graduate student in geography at the University of Ottawa, but at least some of his few papers are somewhat relevant. These are not the qualifications I would expect from the authors of such a ground breaking paper.
Dan H.says
Bowdawg,
The oscillation mentioned has been tied to the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, which are thought to affect the solar magnetic fields (or something like that). Others have tried to tie the oscillation to other forcing.
Johnny climatesays
post Steven Goddard comment please. Purely factual/statistical comment, disallowed? That is weakness, censorship, intolerance, bullying.
Lokkisays
“This would certainly explain why arctic sea ice cover has been absolutely crashing in recent years …”
But what about the dramatic recovery in Artic Ice this year? How is that explained?
Paul Williamssays
Is it even physically possible for the Arctic ocean to be that much warmer than assumed.
It is already at the make-or-break point for sea ice melt given a certain amount does melt and there is melt-ponds etc. OiSST V2 has the 80N to 90N latitude band at -1.8C in the winter, -1.4C in the summer.
So how can it be +1.5C warmer than that for example. It would involve all the sea ice melting out in the summer.
Climate Watcher,
Your perceptions are not matching scientific data. I have not seen any research regarding how fast the storms are intensifying, so I cannot comment on that portion of your post. However, regarding the other aspects, the tracts of storms change seasonally, depending on various atmospheric conditions. Overall, there has been no net change in pathways. The surface waters have only warmed about 0.2C, so while your statement about wider regions and lasting longer could be true, it is lost in measurement uncertainty.
Other aspects are much more quantifiable. The higher sea levels have no effect on storm surge, as surge is measured from the corresponding sea level. Cyclone Hamine (1899) holds the record for highest storm surge at between 42 and 48 ft., following by ~40 ft. for the Great Backerganj cyclone of 1876. Storm surge is more a function of the surrounding landforms than the cyclone itself. Western Pacific cyclones typically have lower storm surges due to the low lying land. Haiyan had a 20-ft storm surge, roughly comparable to typhoon Joe, a category 1 storm in 1980.
Research has shown no long-term trend in the frequency of strong global tropical cyclones. While there has been a statiscally significant increase in strong North Atlantic hurricanes over the past four decades, globally there has been a slight (non-significant) decrease. Since records have been kept, the top three years for pacific typhoons have been 1964, 1965 and 1967, a rather rought 4-year stretch. 1965 also witnessed 11 super typhoons, surpasing 1964 and 2004 with 7 each.
Super Typhoon Tip in 1979 is still considered the most intense tropical cylcone on record with a minimum pressure of 870 mb, maximum winds of 190 mph, with gale force winds extending out 1100 km.
What seems to be happening more so is the coverage of these super storms. This increases people’s perception of these storms, and the belief that they are occurring more frequently. Anecdotedly, they are increasing.
Dan H.says
Climate Watcher,
Your perceptions are not matching scientific data. I have not seen any research regarding how fast the storms are intensifying, so I cannot comment on that portion of your post. However, regarding the other aspects, the tracts of storms change seasonally, depending on various atmospheric conditions. Overall, there has been no net change in pathways. The surface waters have only warmed about 0.2C, so while your statement about wider regions and lasting longer could be true, it is lost in measurement uncertainty.
Other aspects are much more quantifiable. The higher sea levels have no effect on storm surge, as surge is measured from the corresponding sea level. Cyclone Hamine (1899) holds the record for highest storm surge at between 42 and 48 ft., following by ~40 ft. for the Great Backerganj cyclone of 1876. Storm surge is more a function of the surrounding landforms than the cyclone itself. Western Pacific cyclones typically have lower storm surges due to the low lying land. Haiyan had a 20-ft storm surge, roughly comparable to typhoon Joe, a category 1 storm in 1980.
Research has shown no long-term trend in the frequency of strong global tropical cyclones. While there has been a statiscally significant increase in strong North Atlantic hurricanes over the past four decades, globally there has been a slight (non-significant) decrease. Since records have been kept, the top three years for pacific typhoons have been 1964, 1965 and 1967, a rather rought 4-year stretch. 1965 also witnessed 11 super typhoons, surpasing 1964 and 2004 with 7 each.
Super Typhoon Tip in 1979 is still considered the most intense tropical cylcone on record with a minimum pressure of 870 mb, maximum winds of 190 mph, with gale force winds extending out 1100 km.
What seems to be happening more so is the coverage of these super storms. This increases people’s perception of these storms, and the belief that they are occurring more frequently. Anecdotedly, they are increasing.
Charles R Kisssays
#27 see #26:
Thank you for your responses. It’s not my obligation to provide a functional design; catalysts lower activation energies, and allow rains to occur at room temperature that would not otherwise.
I’m writing principally on behalf of all those who find Hansen et al. climate scientists new business of providing energy solutions based on their latest, most macabre, paper:
Hansen’s Argument in a Nutshell:
Oh did you hear about that car accident on East 65th and 2nd Avenue? Three people got killed during the evacuation of New York City. Yeah, well, New York will be totally uninhabitable for three hundred years, but at least only three people got killed.
FOOTNOTE: Oh, and all those artworks and books, and musical instruments and artifacts. Well, they don’t count, they were already dead.
KellyJsays
So for 15 years we have been bombarded with the meme that the science is settled and all the data agrees the planet is warming.
Except now this article is a tacit admission that they are gaps in the data…meaning all of their predictions (none of which have ever come true), the science that’s settled, was based on incomplete data.
And the current solution is to mix data sets to create new ones that now claim the problem is worse than they thought (even though real world evidence is showing a clear trend towards earlier and colder winters)?
LdBsays
The real issue is everybody is now talking about “the pause” so this paper and RC’s embracing of it has put that issue firmly in the spotlight. The argument better be very solid.
Geraldsays
Michael Sweet says:
13 Nov 2013 at 10:40 PM
**Steve: who did you see post on WUWT that has as much scientific credibility as Robert Way? Most of the posters there have done no science at all. Anthony Watt does not even have a college degree. Why do you question real scientists and trust the “quality blogs on both sides of the debate” like WUWT?**
Personal attacks without a scientific analysis of Dr. Curry’s comments.
Geraldsays
dhogaza says:
14 Nov 2013 at 4:28 PM
—————
Steve:
“So… here is my impression. The postings on WUWT –for somebody like me, who doesn’t have the science background– look pretty persuasive.”
That’s the point. They are meant to be persuasive to those not educated in the relevant scientific and mathematical fields. Apparently it is working
—————-
So the comments on WUWT are meant to be persuasive, but the comments here are different?
Jeremysays
So the big question is: …and?
Stevesays
Folks,
@91 stefan — thanks for pointing out that Cowtan and Way have responses on Curry’s blog.
Here, again, are the links to their responses in Curry’s blog:
I have looked over the discussion there and it is quite lively. Some of it is rhetorical garbage but most seems reasonable. Certainly many of the skeptic posts there –from a large number of people– seem well-informed. It is not the case that there are just a few wackos making patently crazy counter-arguments.
There are two that I would be interested in hearing responses to here:
(1) Curry says this:
“The bottom line remains Ed Hawkins’ figure that compares climate model simulations for regions where the surface observations exist. This is the appropriate way to compare climate models to surface observations, and the outstanding issue is that the climate models and observations disagree.”
She then shows a graph of the model projections versus the observed, and the model is much more extreme.
(2) KevinK says this:
“From the quoted paper (WRT random errors);
“Although they might confound a single measurement, the independence of the individual errors means they tend to cancel out when large numbers are averaged together. Therefore, the contribution of random independent errors to the uncertainty on the global average SST is much smaller than the contribution of random error to the uncertainty on a single observation even in the most sparsely observed years”
I am afraid that the climate science community still has a very poor understanding of “errors” and ”uncertainties” WRT to historical temperature data records. And the community is misapplying the “law of large numbers” in an almost obscene way.”
KevinK then goes on to give what he considers examples of proper use of the Law of Large Numbers.
Richardsays
Another layman here, regular reader, convinced by mainstream climate science.
Eyeballing the global temp graphs on climate4you, they look a bit flat from 2003’ish.
But, boosting those years by including Arctic data? Apples and pears, surely?
The weather stations used ‘before the pause’ showed definite warming, then these stations showed less warming.
‘Why?’ is what intrigues me.
Geraldsays
Yes, as I expected, your joke site still deletes and the sheep rule the roost with thoughtless comments about other sites.
Stephen Borgsays
You are spending billions of dollars every year to “save” millions of people in maybe 50 or 100 year while if you spend those billions to give food to the poor you will be saving millions today.
John Bentonsays
Having read this paper and studied various responses I’m afraid I’m with Judith Curry on this one. Cowtan’s work does nothing to add to our knowledge of the ‘pause’ in temperature. The statistical methodology used in this paper is not credible and I fear will likely backfire on the authors credibility. It’s a shame in some respects because these scientists have some credible work in their portfolio, but not this time.
Wow. I’m honoured! Apparently my mild rebuke was enough to ruffle some rather too gentle feathers. I only would point out that if the following sentence “It provides some compelling information drawn from the insurance industry, and indeed, a representative from Munich Re participated in writing this report.” instead read “It provides some compelling information drawn from the OIL industry, and indeed, a representative from EXXON participated in writing this report.”, I’m pretty sure the ‘real climate group’ would be loudly objecting to the built-in bias that would represent. And deservedly so actually. I was just pointing out what should have been an obvious red flag to anyone viewing the report. Hardly seems like an “ad hominem” attack as per Ray Ladbury.
Are you really not aware that even the IPCC has stated there is no evidence for increased storm activity etc???
Ray #50: Your first comment has no basis in fact. I know insurance industry business practices from first-hand management experience; the firm I worked for is doing quite well, thank you.
Your second comment is incorrect. I made no “attack” or judgment on insurance industry motivations. I responded to a comment that they have “skin in the game” by pointing out that they also profit by promoting fear of future events.
I have my own views on people who make a habit of hurling insults from a safe distance, and forums which publish them on a regular basis.
now you hit the nail on the head; climatic changes are localized, not global. Some places will get wetter and cooler, others dryer and hotter days / colder nights: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
Aslr,
While 2-3 m is certainly possible, the recent data make it highly unlikely. The only way to reach that level would be larfe-scale melting of the Greenland glaciers. This would require a significant acceleration of the current melt rate – again possible, but unlikely. Large scale melting of the WAIS appears to be even more remote. Somewhere in the 20-40 cm range appears more likely.
SecularAnimist, Ray Ladbury,
wrt being skeptical about the results, I did not say the results should be discarded, but one ought to be aware of bias in studies, and be careful. I’m sure you would agree the tobacco industry studies showing no link to cancer, etc., should have been viewed skeptically, right? Nature has papers finding a stubborn bias in research papers (the focus was on drug studies).
Meanwhile, yes, I’m a CAGW skeptic. Everyone should be, in my view. It’s an unproven theory, and the climate system is complex. But what does that have to do with the basic point? If you refute the point, then what’s your position on bias in tobacco industry papers, and drug research papers?
I wonder whether it is it your position that any study that supports your viewpoint on AGW must be right? There is a lot of danger in that, as there are many who would take advantage for personal gain if they found a way even if there was no merit in their proposed solutions.
This argument is a microcosym of the larger global warming argument, i.e. certain reports cannot be believed because of the author’s viewpoint. Similarly, presentations have been discounted solely because they appear on a particular website. Scientists differ often, but that does not necessarily invalidate their research. Let the work stand or fail on its own merit, not someone’s opinion of what it should say.
Walter,
It appears that you have a fairly good handle on the borehole. There are some who prefer to live in their own little bubble.
ASLR,
I would agree that unless you look at high end cases, the risk is negligible. However, should we not plan for the most likely scenarios, within uncertainty. Other events would be catastrophic (a large asteroid impact), but are negligible also. Would we not be wiser to plan for expected occurrances (another Chelyabinsk-sized meteor impact)? Lastly, those are global temperatutre predictions. While the Arctic, as a whole, as risen at about twice the global rate, Antarctica, overall, has shown no significant temperature change. HOw do these trends affect your overall predictions?
Steve Metzler,
Your comment is similar to dhogaza – misinterpreting in order to discredit. If you remember (apparantly not), I did not misinterpret the PDSI. That was another author, but attributed to me. I have no problem going against traffic, when it is headed the wrong way. I refuse to be s lemming. Funny that you think I do not listen to scientists, when you are actually implying that I do not listen to the right scientists. Just because I prefer data and observations over theories and models, does not invalidate whatever I post. Science is about truth, not common law.
87 SecularAnimist says: “The actual observed effects of the warming that has already occurred, as a result of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted, are self-evidently already “dangerous” since they are already causing massive and costly harm.”
Would you care to give us an example or two?
SA,
Please expound upon your previous statement. I fail to any “potentially dangerous” events occurring today.
A revealing look at RC’s “real science:” When SecularAnimist posts a dubious claim (#87) about the cause and effects of global warming, it remains here. When two other posts politely request examples to support SA’s claim, they are boreholed (1363, 1364). Sad.
#87 SecularAnimist says: “The actual observed effects of the warming that has already occurred, as a result of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted, are self-evidently already “dangerous” since they are already causing massive and costly harm.”
Can you please provide a source from “real science” – not the blogosphere – to support your statement?
Wili,
How can you be quite sure that they will become worse and more common. Even the IPCC does not concur, stating that the “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust.” A recent report from the University of Colorado stated, “The analysis does not indicate significant long-period global or individual basin trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling [tropical cyclones] of minor or major hurricane strength.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00719.1
climate is in constant change; GLOBAL warming is phony
#102 Kevin: SA claims that “observed effects of the warming that has already occurred as a result of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted…are already causing massive and costly harm.” AFAIK, no credible authority has attributed “massive and costly harm” to “observed effects” of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Nor has SA – or anyone else here – provided examples of same.
Kevin,
Global warming very well may have contributed to all your listed events. However, you need also consider the flip side. One cannot simply count the increase in the number of heat-related deaths without considering the subsequent decrease in cold-related deaths. In many areas, the latter fatalities outnumber the former. The same can be done for agricultural losses. One needs to compare the losses due to drought and flood compared to the increases occurring from added rainfall and longer growing seasons. Farming has always been a roller coaster occupation, but recent decades have resulted in productivity increases. Just like floods (where mankind has influenced their occurrences), farming has been affected by factors other than weather. As MA said earlier, attributing the “harm” from global warming in the overall scenario is not so straightforward.
Dhogaza,
Normally when you make a prediction, it is based on data and observations. Short of any supporting evidence, how can you make any reasonable prediction?
Hank, I’m not sure I understand you. You refer to Kevin’s caveat-laden list (“could well be related to”) as somehow responsive to Jack’s request for something firm. Have I read Kevin’s posting incorrectly? Jack’s? Seems like a reasonable (and important) point of discussion to me.
Hank: Kevin McKinney’s post was interesting and informative, but nothing in it supported SA’s conclusion that observed effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing massive and costly harm. After a number of qualifications – “likely, contributed, probability, reason to think, would be expected, will increase, has contributed, just off the top of my head,” McKinney admits he’s not making an attribution claim based on observation, but only pointing out that these extreme events are “of the sort which we expect to become much more frequent given both theory and observed metrics.”
Instead of complaining about nonexistent ad hominem fallacies and name-calling, SA could answer the question by stating the basis for his claim – as I requested.
Did you giggle like schoolgirls when you bore-holed my latest distracting comment? And there I was, trying to stay on topic. Ah, well, thanks for putting up with me for as long as you did, must have been trying. See you next year.
Chris: That climate change is happening is indisputable; that it has many causes, among which is anthropogenesis, is a given; that it incurs costs is arguable (although it also incurs benefits). I think most scientists would agree.
But the articles you cite do not confirm SA’s assertions. They only refer to the costs of “climate change” in general. Not to “anthropogenic climate change” – which is only one driver among many, known and unknown, in climate change. Not to “anthropogenic climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions” – which is only one factor among many, known and unknown, in anthropogenic climate change. That’s why the cost of climate change caused by CO2 is impossible to pin down; it is an unknown fraction of an unknown fraction.
The causes, effects and costs of climate change are far from being settled, and boundless uncertainties (the unknown unknowns) remain. That’s why I asked for an example or source for SA’s claim to know the costs of CO2-induced AGW. Still waiting for an answer.
PS Chris Korda – would you care to explain your Upton Sinclair quote? It certainly could not apply to me! ;-)
Chris @ 114: You’re not even making a token effort to answer your own questions.
Wrong. You’re only seeing one side of the debate. My answers, predictably, are being boreholed (1373, 1375) by the RC moderator.
Dhogaza,
Normally when you make a prediction, it is based on data and observations. The IPCC made its forward-looking statement based on past evidence. Short of any supporting evidence, how can you make any reasonable prediction?
Dhogaza,
Do you have any data showing a worsening trends for NEXT century. I would be interested in viewing it.
Kevin McKinney – Care to respond to the instances I cited in my #102?
Chris Korda: You’re not even making a token effort to answer your own questions.
SecularAnimist: So, other than name-calling and ad hominem fallacies, what have you got?
Thanks for your interest, guys, but your RC Moderator won’t let you see my answer – he BoreHoled it (#1375). Perhaps the BoreHole should be renamed “Inconvenient Truths.” ;-)
That graph does not reflect reality, and most certainly not up to date. Please quote data sources and justification.
In other words, if you fudge the data enough, you can get the desired results. No wonder the latests surveys show such a high distrust of climate scientists among the populous. Just admit that the pause is occuring and move on, like real scientists. There is nothing to gain in this exercise.
Wili,
That value is quoted from the paper, which does seem extremely high. Also high, is their explanation of negative feedback reducing the expected 6.6C warming down to 0.8C. They do not explain this specific feedback, except to say “Some of these complications serve to reduce the temperature increase and some to decrease it.” Also puzzling in their paper is their plot which shows no modeled temperature increase due to anthropogenic forcings prior to 1970, during which time atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased to 325 ppm. S & W do not explain their natural forcings either, but I was wondering why they have a modelled decrease since 1955 when they state that cosmic rays could contribute up to 14% of the observed warming since that time.
Dr. Kevin Cowtan (http://www.york.ac.uk/chemistry/staff/academic/a-c/kcowtan/) is a chemist at the University of York specializing in X-ray crystallography. I do not see any hint of a connection of his work to climate change. Robert Way (http://uottawa.academia.edu/RobertWay) is a graduate student in geography at the University of Ottawa, but at least some of his few papers are somewhat relevant. These are not the qualifications I would expect from the authors of such a ground breaking paper.
Bowdawg,
The oscillation mentioned has been tied to the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, which are thought to affect the solar magnetic fields (or something like that). Others have tried to tie the oscillation to other forcing.
post Steven Goddard comment please. Purely factual/statistical comment, disallowed? That is weakness, censorship, intolerance, bullying.
“This would certainly explain why arctic sea ice cover has been absolutely crashing in recent years …”
But what about the dramatic recovery in Artic Ice this year? How is that explained?
Is it even physically possible for the Arctic ocean to be that much warmer than assumed.
It is already at the make-or-break point for sea ice melt given a certain amount does melt and there is melt-ponds etc. OiSST V2 has the 80N to 90N latitude band at -1.8C in the winter, -1.4C in the summer.
So how can it be +1.5C warmer than that for example. It would involve all the sea ice melting out in the summer.
Cowtan and Way comment on their paper:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/
Climate Watcher,
Your perceptions are not matching scientific data. I have not seen any research regarding how fast the storms are intensifying, so I cannot comment on that portion of your post. However, regarding the other aspects, the tracts of storms change seasonally, depending on various atmospheric conditions. Overall, there has been no net change in pathways. The surface waters have only warmed about 0.2C, so while your statement about wider regions and lasting longer could be true, it is lost in measurement uncertainty.
Other aspects are much more quantifiable. The higher sea levels have no effect on storm surge, as surge is measured from the corresponding sea level. Cyclone Hamine (1899) holds the record for highest storm surge at between 42 and 48 ft., following by ~40 ft. for the Great Backerganj cyclone of 1876. Storm surge is more a function of the surrounding landforms than the cyclone itself. Western Pacific cyclones typically have lower storm surges due to the low lying land. Haiyan had a 20-ft storm surge, roughly comparable to typhoon Joe, a category 1 storm in 1980.
Research has shown no long-term trend in the frequency of strong global tropical cyclones. While there has been a statiscally significant increase in strong North Atlantic hurricanes over the past four decades, globally there has been a slight (non-significant) decrease. Since records have been kept, the top three years for pacific typhoons have been 1964, 1965 and 1967, a rather rought 4-year stretch. 1965 also witnessed 11 super typhoons, surpasing 1964 and 2004 with 7 each.
Super Typhoon Tip in 1979 is still considered the most intense tropical cylcone on record with a minimum pressure of 870 mb, maximum winds of 190 mph, with gale force winds extending out 1100 km.
What seems to be happening more so is the coverage of these super storms. This increases people’s perception of these storms, and the belief that they are occurring more frequently. Anecdotedly, they are increasing.
Climate Watcher,
Your perceptions are not matching scientific data. I have not seen any research regarding how fast the storms are intensifying, so I cannot comment on that portion of your post. However, regarding the other aspects, the tracts of storms change seasonally, depending on various atmospheric conditions. Overall, there has been no net change in pathways. The surface waters have only warmed about 0.2C, so while your statement about wider regions and lasting longer could be true, it is lost in measurement uncertainty.
Other aspects are much more quantifiable. The higher sea levels have no effect on storm surge, as surge is measured from the corresponding sea level. Cyclone Hamine (1899) holds the record for highest storm surge at between 42 and 48 ft., following by ~40 ft. for the Great Backerganj cyclone of 1876. Storm surge is more a function of the surrounding landforms than the cyclone itself. Western Pacific cyclones typically have lower storm surges due to the low lying land. Haiyan had a 20-ft storm surge, roughly comparable to typhoon Joe, a category 1 storm in 1980.
Research has shown no long-term trend in the frequency of strong global tropical cyclones. While there has been a statiscally significant increase in strong North Atlantic hurricanes over the past four decades, globally there has been a slight (non-significant) decrease. Since records have been kept, the top three years for pacific typhoons have been 1964, 1965 and 1967, a rather rought 4-year stretch. 1965 also witnessed 11 super typhoons, surpasing 1964 and 2004 with 7 each.
Super Typhoon Tip in 1979 is still considered the most intense tropical cylcone on record with a minimum pressure of 870 mb, maximum winds of 190 mph, with gale force winds extending out 1100 km.
What seems to be happening more so is the coverage of these super storms. This increases people’s perception of these storms, and the belief that they are occurring more frequently. Anecdotedly, they are increasing.
#27 see #26:
Thank you for your responses. It’s not my obligation to provide a functional design; catalysts lower activation energies, and allow rains to occur at room temperature that would not otherwise.
I’m writing principally on behalf of all those who find Hansen et al. climate scientists new business of providing energy solutions based on their latest, most macabre, paper:
Hansen’s Argument in a Nutshell:
Oh did you hear about that car accident on East 65th and 2nd Avenue? Three people got killed during the evacuation of New York City. Yeah, well, New York will be totally uninhabitable for three hundred years, but at least only three people got killed.
FOOTNOTE: Oh, and all those artworks and books, and musical instruments and artifacts. Well, they don’t count, they were already dead.
So for 15 years we have been bombarded with the meme that the science is settled and all the data agrees the planet is warming.
Except now this article is a tacit admission that they are gaps in the data…meaning all of their predictions (none of which have ever come true), the science that’s settled, was based on incomplete data.
And the current solution is to mix data sets to create new ones that now claim the problem is worse than they thought (even though real world evidence is showing a clear trend towards earlier and colder winters)?
The real issue is everybody is now talking about “the pause” so this paper and RC’s embracing of it has put that issue firmly in the spotlight. The argument better be very solid.
Michael Sweet says:
13 Nov 2013 at 10:40 PM
**Steve: who did you see post on WUWT that has as much scientific credibility as Robert Way? Most of the posters there have done no science at all. Anthony Watt does not even have a college degree. Why do you question real scientists and trust the “quality blogs on both sides of the debate” like WUWT?**
Personal attacks without a scientific analysis of Dr. Curry’s comments.
dhogaza says:
14 Nov 2013 at 4:28 PM
—————
Steve:
“So… here is my impression. The postings on WUWT –for somebody like me, who doesn’t have the science background– look pretty persuasive.”
That’s the point. They are meant to be persuasive to those not educated in the relevant scientific and mathematical fields. Apparently it is working
—————-
So the comments on WUWT are meant to be persuasive, but the comments here are different?
So the big question is: …and?
Folks,
@91 stefan — thanks for pointing out that Cowtan and Way have responses on Curry’s blog.
Here, again, are the links to their responses in Curry’s blog:
Cowtan: http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/#comment-412925
Way: http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/#comment-412927
I have looked over the discussion there and it is quite lively. Some of it is rhetorical garbage but most seems reasonable. Certainly many of the skeptic posts there –from a large number of people– seem well-informed. It is not the case that there are just a few wackos making patently crazy counter-arguments.
There are two that I would be interested in hearing responses to here:
(1) Curry says this:
“The bottom line remains Ed Hawkins’ figure that compares climate model simulations for regions where the surface observations exist. This is the appropriate way to compare climate models to surface observations, and the outstanding issue is that the climate models and observations disagree.”
She then shows a graph of the model projections versus the observed, and the model is much more extreme.
(2) KevinK says this:
“From the quoted paper (WRT random errors);
“Although they might confound a single measurement, the independence of the individual errors means they tend to cancel out when large numbers are averaged together. Therefore, the contribution of random independent errors to the uncertainty on the global average SST is much smaller than the contribution of random error to the uncertainty on a single observation even in the most sparsely observed years”
I am afraid that the climate science community still has a very poor understanding of “errors” and ”uncertainties” WRT to historical temperature data records. And the community is misapplying the “law of large numbers” in an almost obscene way.”
KevinK then goes on to give what he considers examples of proper use of the Law of Large Numbers.
Another layman here, regular reader, convinced by mainstream climate science.
Eyeballing the global temp graphs on climate4you, they look a bit flat from 2003’ish.
But, boosting those years by including Arctic data? Apples and pears, surely?
The weather stations used ‘before the pause’ showed definite warming, then these stations showed less warming.
‘Why?’ is what intrigues me.
Yes, as I expected, your joke site still deletes and the sheep rule the roost with thoughtless comments about other sites.
You are spending billions of dollars every year to “save” millions of people in maybe 50 or 100 year while if you spend those billions to give food to the poor you will be saving millions today.
Having read this paper and studied various responses I’m afraid I’m with Judith Curry on this one. Cowtan’s work does nothing to add to our knowledge of the ‘pause’ in temperature. The statistical methodology used in this paper is not credible and I fear will likely backfire on the authors credibility. It’s a shame in some respects because these scientists have some credible work in their portfolio, but not this time.