Originally posted by HMS_Beagle
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
State of the Union - Climate change?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostDid not answer the questions!! What qualifications do you have to define what is missing. Your thread on error bars is a bust!!!!!!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostHMS_Beagle knows what I'm asking for, yet he refuses to produce it. His argument doesn't hold water until he does.
You got called on your reprehensible behavior of accusing professional scientific organizations like NOAA of being deliberate frauds, now you look like a fool. Wear it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostI know exactly what you're doing. Playing your childish "gotcha" games by demanding infinite detail while doing zero work on your own.
You got called on your reprehensible behavior of accusing professional scientific organizations like NOAA of being deliberate frauds, now you look like a fool. Wear it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostYou presume the worst intentions of me to evade the point brought up. It is not altogether unexpected.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostYou don't know what my point is because your reading comprehension sucks and you only see what you want to see. The climate change part referred to the largest on record typhoon, not that a typhoon occurred. Even after I explained your error to you you still refuse to get it.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI've talked with lao tzu and he showed me that what I was looking for was an analysis of systemic errors.Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-01-2014, 06:38 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is nonsense, you did not qualify that in your original quote. The same with "severe drought." And where is your evidence that either was the result of man made global warming? After all we are told that we can't look to weather conditions to disprove AGW, but you get to look to weather conditions to support it.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYou still have not understood what is meant by 'weather' and 'climate.' What the research shows is the 'change in climate' over time by measuring weather conditions, and other factors such as changes in the ice cores, polar ice, CO2 atmospheric content and ocean conditions. You still remain combative, citing layman articles with unethical use of short term data cherry picked form legitimate research. You have been given many academic resources, and you have failed to apparently read them, nor are you willing to discuss them.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostFirst of all you buffed up fraud, if I'm not mistaken the last article I linked was from Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. Who probably knows more about this subject than all of us combined here. And if we can't use one weather phenomena like one of the colder winters on record as evidence against AGW, then you do not get to use a typhoon or drought as evidence for AGW. It is a double standard.
Now, one of the predictions of AGW is that we are likely to see more of this moving-around. That is, colder colds, warmer warms, changes in storm frequency and intensity, etc. Colder winters are NOT evidence against AGW. Indeed, colder winters somewhere are a prediction of some of the models. I notice that this has been an unusually warm winter in the US west of the Rockies. Maybe next winter California will freeze and New England will be balmy, and those in New England who can't see past the horizon will decide the world is warming up after all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostFirst of all you buffed up fraud, if I'm not mistaken the last article I linked was from Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. Who probably knows more about this subject than all of us combined here. And if we can't use one weather phenomena like one of the colder winters on record as evidence against AGW, then you do not get to use a typhoon or drought as evidence for AGW. It is a double standard.
How Will Changes in Moisture with Global Warming Impact Midlatitude Storms: A Study Using Idealized Moist Baroclinic Life Cycles
Booth, J. F.; Wang, S.; Polvani, L. M.
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2011
Abstract: Global Climate Models predict that atmospheric moisture content will increase with global warming. This study examines how these changes may affect midlatitude storms, using a baroclinic wave experiment in the NCAR Weather Research Forecasting model. Two experiments were conducted, one in which the moisture in the initial conditions is altered, and a second in which the saturation vapor pressure was multiplied by a constant. The following storm characteristics were examined: eddy kinetic energy (EKE), sea level pressure minimum, and extreme surface winds and precipitation. We found that the storm strength, based on all of the above metrics, increased monotonically with moisture content, for moisture levels going from dry to the level closest to observations. When the moisture was increased beyond current observed levels, the storm response changed, becoming sensitive to the behavior of the cumulus convection scheme. Our analysis found that large increases in moisture create strong conditional instabilities in the lower latitudes of the storm domain, and the upright convection disturbs the alignment of the surface and upper level storm circulations. This results in a weaker EKE. However, the storm precipitation and surface wind speed maxima both increase.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.A11D0112BTropical cyclones and climate change
Knutson et al
Nature Geoscience 3, 157 - 163 (2010)
Abstract: Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.
link
Comment
-
Here's another recent paper for you seer.
Moisture flux convergence in regional and global climate models: Implications for droughts in the southwestern United States under climate change
Gao et al
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Issue 9, 2011
Abstract: The water cycle of the southwestern United States (SW) is dominated by winter storms that maintain a positive annual net precipitation. Analysis of the control and future climate from four pairs of regional and global climate models (RCMs and GCMs) shows that the RCMs simulate a higher fraction of transient eddy moisture fluxes because the hydrodynamic instabilities associated with flow over complex terrain are better resolved. Under global warming, this enables the RCMs to capture the response of transient eddies to increased atmospheric stability that allows more moisture to converge on the windward side of the mountains by blocking. As a result, RCMs simulate enhanced transient eddy moisture convergence in the SW compared to GCMs, although both robustly simulate drying due to enhanced moisture divergence by the divergent mean flow in a warmer climate. This enhanced convergence leads to reduced susceptibility to hydrological change in the RCMs compared to GCMs.
link
Changes in precipitation with climate change
Trenberth
Climate Research Vol.47:123-138 (2011)
ABSTRACT: There is a direct influence of global warming on precipitation. Increased heating leads to greater evaporation and thus surface drying, thereby increasing the intensity and duration of drought. However, the water holding capacity of air increases by about 7% per 1°C warming, which leads to increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Hence, storms, whether individual thunderstorms, extratropical rain or snow storms, or tropical cyclones, supplied with increased moisture, produce more intense precipitation events. Such events are observed to be widely occurring, even where total precipitation is decreasing: ‘it never rains but it pours!’ This increases the risk of flooding. The atmospheric and surface energy budget plays a critical role in the hydrological cycle, and also in the slower rate of change that occurs in total precipitation than total column water vapor. With modest changes in winds, patterns of precipitation do not change much, but result in dry areas becoming drier (generally throughout the subtropics) and wet areas becoming wetter, especially in the mid- to high latitudes: the ‘rich get richer and the poor get poorer’. This pattern is simulated by climate models and is projected to continue into the future. Because, with warming, more precipitation occurs as rain instead of snow and snow melts earlier, there is increased runoff and risk of flooding in early spring, but increased risk of drought in summer, especially over continental areas. However, with more precipitation per unit of upward motion in the atmosphere, i.e. ‘more bang for the buck’, atmospheric circulation weakens, causing monsoons to falter. In the tropics and subtropics, precipitation patterns are dominated by shifts as sea surface temperatures change, with El Niño a good example. The volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 led to an unprecedented drop in land precipitation and runoff, and to widespread drought, as precipitation shifted from land to oceans and evaporation faltered, providing lessons for possible geoengineering. Most models simulate precipitation that occurs prematurely and too often, and with insufficient intensity, resulting in recycling that is too large and a lifetime of moisture in the atmosphere that is too short, which affects runoff and soil moisture.
linkLast edited by HMS_Beagle; 02-01-2014, 10:32 AM.
Comment
-
Seer, I'm afraid HMS Beagle made a good point in saying your response is analogous to the Big Tobacco's standard response. But in any case I still don't have a clear idea what role mankind has in the global climate and how important it is. And anyway I just don't trust our governments to do whatever can be done in any good way to ameliorate effects of climate changes.
Phank makes the queer assertion that heat moving around means that the earth is warming up. No, the average will stay the same as long as the magnitude of heat (I think technically, "free energy"??) over all is the same. The question merely is, is the earth getting hotter? Sure, Phank may re-assert that increased "moving around" is evidence, but that presumes we know what would happen if the CO2 atmospheric concentration stayed the same since say 1998 (counterfactual). That seems like a good assumption, but we do NOT know. Maybe someone ran a model with the CO2 level held constant, and found less "moving around." That proves nothing, the model is yet to be validated in the first place.The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostPhank makes the queer assertion that heat moving around means that the earth is warming up.
No, the average will stay the same as long as the magnitude of heat (I think technically, "free energy"??) over all is the same. The question merely is, is the earth getting hotter? Sure, Phank may re-assert that increased "moving around" is evidence, but that presumes we know what would happen if the CO2 atmospheric concentration stayed the same since say 1998 (counterfactual). That seems like a good assumption, but we do NOT know. Maybe someone ran a model with the CO2 level held constant, and found less "moving around." That proves nothing, the model is yet to be validated in the first place.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostI have to make an at-least partial correction. El Nino, the ocean warming between Indonesia and Peru, is now back.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Seems to suggest we're stuck in neutral."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
Comment