Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

[Tumbleweed]

[
Originally Posted by Tumbleweed
A.....Consider how excessively tormented the jet stream "sine wave" is this moment
quote=mhaze;5122884]Meteorology 101 time?[/quote]

You no like my comparison of the jet stream path to a sine wave? I dunno, I'm kind of proud of the concept, because to me anyway it explains the results of global warming perfectly: The jet stream goes up and over the high pressure clockwise and continues under and around the connected low in a counterclockwise fashion making a great sine wave. The bigger the sine wave (amped up) the bigger the lows - and hence wet stuff and wind, and the bigger the highs that cause droughts/ heatwaves in summer and cold waves in winter. Amp the sine wave up, amp them all up. And the BEST way to amp it up is through warmer Pacific water. Now lets take a gander at the Pacific NW weather events over the last 7 years: extremes out the yin yang in rain, heat and dry spells

 

[Tumbleweed]

In Bremerton Washington, we have DOUBLED in the 21st century the 24 hour rainfall record of the 20th century. The ENTIRE 20th century: from 3.5 inches to 7. Amazing and frankly a bit scary. That is way out of the parameters of normal record breaking. a 20% rise would have been a big deal, but 100% over a century's worth of rainstorms?

 

[Wangler]

In Bremerton Washington, we have DOUBLED in the 21st century the 24 hour rainfall record of the 20th century. The ENTIRE 20th century: from 3.5 inches to 7. Amazing and frankly a bit scary. That is way out of the parameters of normal record breaking. a 20% rise would have been a big deal, but 100% over a century's worth of rainstorms?

Why exactly is this scary?

 

[macdoc]

Think canary...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/08/global-climate.html

Morakot dumped 2.9 meters of rain in 24 hours on Taiwan - more than the average rainfall per annum and twice the amount ever recorded before from a typhoon in Taiwan.

Bombay got a meter in 24 hours in 2005 almost 3 x the previous record and there was no cyclonic storm associated with the event.

More extremes more often...welcome to the Anthropocene...

Flooding is the leading cause of weather related deaths...flash floods in particular. With an increase in intensity of precipitation flash flood risk rises.

Flash flooding is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the U.S.-

http://www.floodsafety.com/national/life/statistics.htm

 

[mhaze]

Why exactly is this scary?

Think canary...

I don't find canaries scary.

 

[macdoc]

Making your point evident again I see...

Y'know it's that water thing again...feedback..hyrdrological cycle, basic physics...a mystery still to you as evidenced by your unimaginative recent posts...

Climate change means more heavy rain

by: Doyle Rice 21 August 2009
Climate change will lead to an increase in heavy rainfall events across most of the world, according to a study published this week in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Caltech.

The computer models used in the study predict that areas such as North America can expect a significant increase in heavy rain.

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=327478212009

You definitely never connect canaries and coal mines...it's taken on an entire new meme....

 

[Wangler]

...a mystery still to you as evidenced by your unimaginative recent posts...

What some posts lack in imagination, other posts seem to have a surfeit in such....

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Wangler
Why exactly is this scary?
Originally Posted by macdoc
Think canary...
Originally Posted by mhaze
I don't find canaries scary.

You definitely never connect canaries and coal mines...

Oh yeah...I remember now...Coal Mines. Those cheap energy sources illiterate rabid trend of the moment radicals want to shut down?

Aw, come on. Canaries are not scary.

[Originally Posted by Tumbleweed ]
A.....Consider how excessively tormented the jet stream "sine wave" is this moment

Meteorology 101 time?

You no like my comparison of the jet stream path to a sine wave? I dunno, I'm kind of proud of the concept, because to me anyway it explains the results of global warming perfectly.... lets take a gander at the Pacific NW weather events over the last 7 years: extremes out the yin yang in rain, heat and dry spells

Except the jet stream is supposed to wobble around , less in summer to more in winter...and the PDO is a dominant influence in the pacific northwest. Meteorology 101 (hey, I dunno...maybe 102)

...a mystery still to you as evidenced by your unimaginative recent posts...

So Miskolczi is beyond the imagination? Yep, it's pretty dry and unimaginative. Equations. Math. School-type-stuff. You know. From Miskolczi:

From pp.23 of the paper w/discussion going on to 24:

The greenhouse parameters are dependent only on the flux optical depth, therefore, it is difficult to imagine any water vapor feedback mechanism to operate on global scale.

 

[DogB]

Y'know it's that water thing again...feedback..hyrdrological cycle, basic physics...a mystery still to you as evidenced by your unimaginative recent posts...

Just curious. Why do you find this problematic? Greater flood frequencies?

 

[macdoc]

I don't have a problem - mHaze does.....heard of sarcasm down under there...

••

Tough days for the denier crowd outliers....

Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 10 September 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2009.89

Bucking the trend

DARRELL KAUFMAN

Science 325, 1236–1239 (2009)

The rapid Arctic warming documented in the twentieth century comes on the heels of a 2,000-year-long cooling trend, finds new research. The study, which is the first to resolve temperature in the region on a decade-by-decade basis over the past two millennia, provides new evidence that recent warming is the result of greenhouse gas emissions.

continues
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0910/full/climate.2009.89.html

 

[Wangler]

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0910/full/climate.2009.89.html

As far as I know, global temperature reconstructions do not show a similar trend (2,000 of cooling), so I am not sure exactly how significant this area affect is to the larger picture.

 

[lomiller]

As far as I know, global temperature reconstructions do not show a similar trend (2,000 of cooling),

do you have some examples of reconstructions that show a different trend?

 

[Wangler]

do you have some examples of reconstructions that show a different trend?

From our favorite source, Wikipedia, here is one:





And another, going further back:





This second one does appear to show a slight cooling trend over the last 6,000 years, but I don't think that the same conclusion can be reached when looking at the last 2000 years.

 

[BenBurch]

The old problem. "If I can't understand it, you can't prove it".

Which appears to include almost everything in this instance.

 

[mhaze]

From our favorite source, Wikipedia, here is one:





And another, going further back:





This second one does appear to show a slight cooling trend over the last 6,000 years, but I don't think that the same conclusion can be reached when looking at the last 2000 years.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7005

Looks like Kaufman can be tossed in the trash.

Neeexxxtttt?

 

[lomiller]

From our favorite source, Wikipedia, here is one:

Both plots seem consistant with the 0.2 deg / 1000 years trend claimed in the paper in question.

 

[lomiller]

Mhaze, in case you wonder why we laugh at you, peer reviewed science isn’t discredited because an unqualified crackpot writes something on a blog.

 

[mhaze]

Mhaze, in case you wonder why we laugh at you, peer reviewed science isn’t discredited because an unqualified crackpot writes something on a blog.

Except when it is discredited by something someone said. It's no different if it was 12 year old kid that said this:

Unfortunately, the paper's calibration of the proxy composite is defective. The 23 proxies used include lake varve thicknesses, varve densities, varve and sediment organic material (OM), sediment biosilica, ice core 18O depletions, and tree ring widths, and are all from different locations. There is no a priori reason to expect these very diverse proxies to all have the same behavior with respect to temperature, even when normalized. Because not all the proxies are available in each decade, the composite does not have constant composition. As its composition changes, it essentially becomes a different index, which must be calibrated separately to temperature. The authors fail to do this, and hence the reconstruction is invalid.

​

To such, I agree that Saul Alinsky Rule #5, ridicule your opponent, is a response.

That's all you got?

 

[mhaze]

Mhaze, in case you wonder why we laugh at you, peer reviewed science isn’t discredited because an unqualified crackpot writes something on a blog.

Except when it is discredited by something someone said. It's no different if it was 12 year old kid that said this:

Unfortunately, the paper's calibration of the proxy composite is defective. The 23 proxies used include lake varve thicknesses, varve densities, varve and sediment organic material (OM), sediment biosilica, ice core 18O depletions, and tree ring widths, and are all from different locations. There is no a priori reason to expect these very diverse proxies to all have the same behavior with respect to temperature, even when normalized. Because not all the proxies are available in each decade, the composite does not have constant composition. As its composition changes, it essentially becomes a different index, which must be calibrated separately to temperature. The authors fail to do this, and hence the reconstruction is invalid.

​

You are arguing that if A is said in published literature and B shows A is garbage, that A is valid science. If a person understands A, and understands B, then conclusions can be made. You say no and attempt to suppress the reality of the logical constructs.

I have a problem with that based on .... reality....

 

[Wangler]

Both plots seem consistant with the 0.2 deg / 1000 years trend claimed in the paper in question.

I said that the longer term graph seemed consistent with a cooling trend, and it does.

However, if you take a look at the plot between 0 and 8k years BP, the temperature anomaly goes from about 0.4 deg C (that peak close to 8k) to about -0.5 deg C (the valley close to 0.5k). That works out to about half the trend claimed in the paper.

I looked at the maximum and minimum for that interval..an actual linear regression would likely have a shallower slope.

If you look at the plot between 0 and 2k years BP, which is apparently the time frame of interest in the paper, a cooling trend becomes much harder to discern; I would argue that there is not a cooling trend over that interval.