Wow.

Did you actually read the article you linked? It was entirely about the challenges making legal claims for damages due to climate change.

Quote :

"Both critics have a point, but their pessimistic conclusion — that climate attribution is a non-starter — is too harsh. It is true that many climate models are currently not fit for that purpose, but they can be improved. Evaluation of how often a climate model produces a good representation of the type of event in question, and whether it does so for the right reasons, must become integral to any attribution exercise. And when communicating their results, scientists must be open about shortcomings in the models used."

How you got "even Nature has stated there is no currently available proof to reliably link extreme weather and man made climate change" out of that is a mystery.

5/21/2013 9:24:16 AM

he doesn't read articles, just google's for headlines and posts them. Remember with the windmills when he posted an article that said almost the complete opposite of the point he was trying to make, because the article used an attention-grabbing headline?

5/21/2013 9:28:39 AM

Actually I was just reading some similar stuff from Bjørn Lomborg.

Cyclones in Australia:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml



US hurricanes:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.cz/2012/11/us-hurricane-intensity-1900-2012.html



We do have a problem that people in the media blame Hurricane Sandy, for instance, on climate change. Let's be perfectly clear that those people don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Al Gore himself has made wild claims not supported by the science.

There is a problem of selective correction, where we have a community eager to jump at the first error of predicting too little climate change, but when too much is reported, the experts just kind of mumble and back away.

I agree, that's not acceptable. In that way, I'm totally a "climate skeptic". Here's a recent Bjorn post:

Quote :

"The conversation about less warming with a doubling of CO2 has also reached New York Times. Yet, they still worry a lot. As I mentioned in yesterday's post (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151703172193968&set=a.221758208967.168468.146605843967&type=1), warming will much much lower than expected. But it will continue past 1.3?, both because the temperature hasn't reached its long-term equilibrium, and likely because CO2 emissions will continue to increase concentrations. Yet, it is somewhat ironic that the New York Times now starts worrying about a quadrupling of emissions. 1120ppm simply seem way out of reasonable bounds, both because it is above any of the UN scenarios, and because it seems unduly pessimistic to assume that 100+ years of technological advance will have given us no economically feasible alternatives. Again, global warming is a concern, but when it constantly needs to be put into the catastrophic narrative it will eventually lose its long-term credibility."

Did the NYT sidestep a downward revision in the water vapor feedback? And then cover it up by writing articles predicting more emissions? Are they degrading their credibility on the subject?

Quite possibly yes. As you all know, mrfrog is the only accurate and impartial source for global warming news.

5/21/2013 9:38:11 AM

^^I actually read that article more than once, but thanks for keeping it classy. Also maybe you missed the bolded statement under the headline?

Quote :

"Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming."

Quote :

"We do have a problem that people in the media blame Hurricane Sandy, for instance, on climate change. Let's be perfectly clear that those people don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Al Gore himself has made wild claims not supported by the science."

quite quite true.




[Edited on May 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM. Reason : V so glad you know my thoughts and beliefs dtownral]

5/21/2013 11:59:30 AM

don't try to group yourself with him

5/21/2013 12:01:00 PM

this is an interesting take



I would think that you could do a population distribution proxy for predicted flood and cyclone events. We know roughly where the people on Earth live. Earthquakes as a baseline comparison makes a lot of sense, but there's also the problem of measurement distribution. How high did a flood need to be in order to be included in 1990 vs 2010, and what about earthquakes?

Also, floods could be due to land use changes.

[Edited on May 21, 2013 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ]

5/21/2013 12:11:38 PM

Quote :

"^^I actually read that article more than once, but thanks for keeping it classy. Also maybe you missed the bolded statement under the headline?"

I still maintain that that doesn't properly summarize the full scope of the article. If you cherry pick the title and bolded statement ignoring the text it fits your generic narrative but anyone can read the article and see for themselves.

5/21/2013 1:54:40 PM

More flooding and heavy rain events have been correlated with more earthquakes. It has to do with the loading and unloading of extra weight on the crust.

5/21/2013 2:37:07 PM

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html

more fun tornado graphs.

5/21/2013 4:21:23 PM

Quote :

"We do have a problem that people in the media blame Hurricane Sandy, for instance, on climate change. Let's be perfectly clear that those people don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Al Gore himself has made wild claims not supported by the science."

Wait, you agree with me on this point? what in the holy hell is going on?

5/21/2013 9:35:12 PM

Nope, you pretty clearly missed his point. That's what happens when you divide posts into small quotes instead of reading the entire thing. Try again.

5/21/2013 9:39:16 PM

ummm, no, I very clearly get his point. stop post talking me and keep you fucking mouth shut if all you have to say is fucking trolling me, asswipe. now go die in a fire, you fucking worthless piece of fucking shit

[Edited on May 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM. Reason : ]

5/21/2013 9:46:50 PM

All you had to do was read the next couple lines to get a quick glimpse of his point, just a little bit more

5/21/2013 10:06:23 PM

why haven't you self-immolated yourself yet?

5/21/2013 10:08:53 PM

Because I'm concerned about my carbon footprint, don't want to contribute to global warming

5/21/2013 10:28:35 PM

Nah. The gases from decomposition are much worse boogeyman gases than are the ones from combustion. You'd be doing mother earth a favour!

5/21/2013 10:30:20 PM

I'm not a believer in a British Mother Earth

5/21/2013 10:31:26 PM

Except the part where the combustion cycle lasts tens of millions of years while the decompoistion cycle is fast.

5/21/2013 10:32:25 PM

wat

5/21/2013 10:41:25 PM

When a body breaks down through decomposition the matter goes back into the natural cycle very quickly.

When fuel is broken down through combustion the carbon stays in the atmosphere for at least 100 years and doesn't become fossil fuel again for tens of millions of years.

5/21/2013 10:46:07 PM

allegedly


btw, that is one of the most absurd statements I think I have heard today. Nature knows the difference between the gases of decomposition and the gases of combustion, so it quickly takes the magic decomposition gases and uses them right away, but it lets the big bad scary evil combustion gases get away...

seriously, you just said effectively that...

[Edited on May 21, 2013 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/21/2013 10:53:31 PM

favour

5/21/2013 11:00:29 PM

Quote :

"allegedly btw, that is one of the most absurd statements I think I have heard today. Nature knows the difference between the gases of decomposition and the gases of combustion, so it quickly takes the magic decomposition gases and uses them right away, but it lets the big bad scary evil combustion gases get away... seriously, you just said effectively that... [Edited on May 21, 2013 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ]"

O.O Just wow.

Decomposition and combustion are two entirely different chemical processes and the particles released from these processes have entirely different properties. They interact with the environment differently because they are different.

5/22/2013 9:22:14 AM

^ to be even more clear for the dumbest person i know of, aaronburro: burning a body is different than burying one.

5/22/2013 9:36:28 AM

Quote :

"Wait, you agree with me on this point? what in the holy hell is going on?"

I'm very worried about the future warming that our emissions cause, and this is the scientific stance. Not the IPCC, and no decent scientist should find the weather we have right now detrimental to biodiversity. Humans are directly destroying biodiversity by building dams, turning forests into farms, etc. FUTURE warming will have deleterious effects to life, including humans. Ocean acidification is a more subtle problem but harder to remedy with geoengineering. Then again, we've already fucked the oceans pretty hard so I don't believe humans will value that very highly.

Now, with tornadoes, scientists have not predicted any change in tornado patterns in 2100. I didn't say 2010, I said 2100. This point is completely valid. Of course that's not to say that CO2 won't affect tornado patterns, but how can you ever say one thing won't affect another? It's a scientifically pointless discussion. Regarding people pontificating about the impact of emissions on hurricanes... I don't have a good word to describe that with, but it's certainly not science.

Hurricanes are different, as there might be valid scientific claims as to the changing of their patterns in 2100, but I'm not well read on the subject (in fact, I should go check this). I've made the point over and over again that even the warming up to this point is miniscule compared to future warming for several reasons:

1) thermal mass delays any warming effect
2) even if emissions are constant, CO2 concentrations will grow
3) emissions aren't constant, they will continue to grow for now, and >10 yrs in the future depends on the energy industry

With warming itself being small compared to the future, there is little room for scientific claim to changes in hurricane and monsoon formation changes right now. Much (pointless) ado is made about the detection or non-detection of warming in the last 10 years. That's dubious because we don't know the natural cycles, because we've never had satellites in previous periods. Either way, we sure as hell haven't scientifically detected changes in hurricane rates. The temperature plot is convincing, the hurricane plot is clearly not.

There is a reaction to "politicizing" deaths, and in this case, the deaths from tornadoes or Hurricane Sandy. But what is politicizing? It's not telling the truth. Therefore, blaming any of these deaths on climate change is politicizing.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 9:47 AM. Reason : ]

5/22/2013 9:46:32 AM

The next time I submit an application to the EPA for a TSDF facility, I'm going to ask for an exemption because of big bad scary magic

5/22/2013 9:59:15 AM

Quote :

"I'm not well read on the subject (in fact, I should go check this)."

yes

5/22/2013 10:00:07 AM

Here are a few science bites:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-13-tropical-cyclones.html

- higher peak wind intensities (likely)
- more precipitation around tropical cyclones
- decrease in number of storms (disputed, in a matter of subcategories)
- poleward shift of storm movement

This paints a relatively mixed picture. The net-sum effect is very clearly negative if you're taking the IPCC's wording at face value.

I've definitely heard and read a lot more in the realm of precipitation and temperature distribution fluctuations. My mental picture is that cyclones pattern changes is a much higher order issue. I mean, average temperature increase is clearly a first-order effect. Then if we start talking about changes in distribution of precipitation, we're going significantly higher order effects. More severe heat waves is logical from the first-order effect, but people talk as if weather will be more sporadic in general, which could certainly be true if you're going to pick and choose your information. The day/night temperature swing will actually decrease. This makes sense when you consider that the point was increased radiative insulation...

In terms of mentally deriving the IPCC's conclusions about hurricanes, it seems utterly hopeless. The temperature fluctuations between day/night as well as equator/pole will decrease. With lower temperature gradients there's less driving force for large-scale cyclones (hurricanes). Then again, the largest driver may be the low/high altitude difference. A larger vertical gradient is predicted by first principles when you consider how a greenhouse gas works.

5/22/2013 10:23:42 AM

rambling aside, how is that a mixed picture?

5/22/2013 12:16:39 PM

higher winds, fewer storms, lower eye pressure

5/22/2013 2:19:13 PM

^^^As far as precipitation and flooding goes, what I think a lot of people don't realize is that as we continually development land and transform it from meadows and forests into strip malls, parking lots and freeways we are disrupting the natural behavior of rainwater going into lakes, rivers, etc. Instead of the water being slowly absorbed and then meandering into a creek/river it it instead runs off at a (relative) high speed off off concrete into a drainage pipe. All this rainwater/snowmelt gets from point A (the ground) to point B (large rivers) much faster. This causes greater flooding.

If I'm way off base here let me know, but I've read 1-2 articles addressing this (albeit not in the last few months) and it seems logical/sound to me.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM. Reason : k]

5/22/2013 2:29:33 PM

you are correct. (and no offense, but that should be common sense. the more impervious surfaces, the less that is infiltrated into the ground.)

5/22/2013 2:33:58 PM

most places restrict peak post-development runoff to be the same, or only slightly above, pre-development rates. Thats why you see those giant retention basins everywhere, to attenuate the runoff.
that's definitely true though about older development and the few areas without development ordinances.

5/22/2013 2:35:32 PM

^thanks

Quote :

"you are correct. (and no offense, but that should be common sense. the more impervious surfaces, the less that is infiltrated into the ground.)"

Yeah I figured common sense...but its never really mentioned.

5/22/2013 2:39:28 PM

^^^^ Absolutely, there's even more than that. The creation of artificial reservoirs have been conclusively proven to change weather patterns. That's basically scientific fact as I understand it. Although, I remember some articles I read on the subject saying that rainfall decreased in those areas, which doesn't make immediate sense to me. Like, they'll build a dam with bounds for estimated rainfall, but the presence of the dam will push it below the (former) lower bound.

I actually talked to some very convincing experts in the subject of water runoff at NCSU. People will build in drainage channels, but as development continues the amount they have to manage increases because of those permeability (I think this is the right word) effects.

These local effects obviously affect local climate, but I believe the sell that climate science uses. You don't have to model everything, but that also means your conclusions can't be applied to anything. De-tangling the systems is the non-trivial case that has to be made.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 2:40 PM. Reason : ]

5/22/2013 2:39:54 PM

i don't understand what you are trying to say about dams or canals, but in most places the new development can not discharge any surface waters at a higher peak rate than before you did the development. there are numerous ways to model this and entire fields and academic disciplines that concentrate on water management issues. State does in multiple different programs and through their extension office.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2013 3:11:53 PM

isn't there less water going into groundwater if the ground is less permeable? Then doesn't that go to affect the underground flow? Sure, you can manage the above ground flow.

although we're kind of off topic by this point

5/22/2013 3:15:50 PM

yes. and the pollutants that were filtered-out as the stormwater makes it's way through the soil to the water table are now routed straight to ditches, storm drains, and ultimately to surface waters (unless, of course, they're captured in a water quality storm structure prior to getting to the surface waters).

5/22/2013 3:23:16 PM

Quote :

"higher winds, fewer storms, lower eye pressure"

again, where is the mixed picture?

5/22/2013 3:36:58 PM

mrfrog, groundwater doesn't work like that. the reason "permeability" is an issue is because its a big factor in how fast surface water runs off. (where "permeability" is a function of elevation change, slope distance, surface, etc...)

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 4:06 PM. Reason : flow through soil is really really really slow]

5/22/2013 4:05:30 PM

also, a reservoir at the outlet of a watershed does nothing to help sinkholes.

btw, sinkholes are only going to get worse.

5/22/2013 4:18:36 PM

^^i'm not a soil expert, but it's not always that slow. There's soil in the Piedmont that infiltrates faster than a half inch per hour. Soil on the coast can infiltrate much faster than that.

5/22/2013 4:38:55 PM

Land use (and associated runoff) is meaningless to a scientist studying climate change and weather relationships. They don't look at the stage in the local river to determine if its flooding or not, they dont want to have to deal with all the extra unknowns in changing land use, etc (which you guys are pointing out). They simply look at the duration, intensity, and size of storms. With our historical records we know with what frequency we can expect a certain sized storm (2 yr storm, 10 yr storm, etc). We also know what size/intensity storm is likely to cause flooding problems, both historically and in the present. So you only need to compare storms to determine if flood conditions are increasing (there is no need to measure the actual flood conditions on the ground).

5/22/2013 4:45:18 PM

The take home from all of this is that, regardless of the mechanism, more freshwater is going to be ending up in the ocean which will also aid the acceleration of the positive feedback loop we call climate change.

The take home from climate change in general is not that there will be more or less storms but that the patterns the storms have followed will be different. Maybe intensity and quantity will be affected as well but thats a lot less certain the simple fact that some areas that did not get cyclones will get more and some areas that depend on cyclones will get less. Many areas will stay the same.

Predicting those areas is the hard part. Climate is very complex and driven by ocean and wind currents which we know have changed, are changing, and will continue to change at an accelerating pace.

The most pressing issue, even moreso than biodivirsity, will be fresh water. Unless of course technology finds an efficient way to separate salt from water.

5/22/2013 6:57:36 PM

^ there's no question that that will happen. the question is who will control that water, and what will they want for it?

5/23/2013 12:09:55 AM

Quote :

"I'm very worried about the future warming that our emissions cause, and this is the scientific stance. Not the IPCC, and no decent scientist should find the weather we have right now detrimental to biodiversity. Humans are directly destroying biodiversity by building dams, turning forests into farms, etc. FUTURE warming will have deleterious effects to life, including humans. Ocean acidification is a more subtle problem but harder to remedy with geoengineering. Then again, we've already fucked the oceans pretty hard so I don't believe humans will value that very highly. ..."

Can't disagree with a single thing in that post.

Quote :

"O.O Just wow. Decomposition and combustion are two entirely different chemical processes and the particles released from these processes have entirely different properties. They interact with the environment differently because they are different."

I wasn't talking about the entire processes, though. Go back and look at what I said, and you'll note that I specifically said "gases". It was a stupid quip that doesn't deserve much more attention, but surely, based on the fact that I was talking about gases and gases alone, the rest of what I sad should be spot on...

^^ Isn't it great that everything is a positive feedback when it comes to climate change? You can't find many natural systems anywhere with nothing but positive feedbacks, but damned if climate aint one of them, right?

5/23/2013 10:21:06 PM

There are negative feedbacks as well. They just take a lot longer naturally.

For instance,

1. ice melts releasing CO2 and fresh water, ocean currents weaken and heat is unable to be distributed to the polls

2. polls refreeze because heat is no longer being redistributed to them as efficiently, ice locks up CO2 causing climate to cool.

so its really all one huge negative feedback loop whose components are driven by a bunch of positive feedback loops

[Edited on May 23, 2013 at 11:05 PM. Reason : very similar to the human nervous and endocrine systems.]

5/23/2013 11:03:07 PM

^^ you know nothing, at all, about climate feedbacks. you have made this very clear.

5/24/2013 9:34:13 AM

I wish this topic could be debated with no politics involved. The most outspoken people arguing either side are so entrenched they can't give even the most basic of concessions toward the other "side" mostly because of politics vs. actual science. It's gotten to the point that a lot of the "science" on both sides of the debate has been terribly corrupted in part due to the agendas of the people publishing the science.

I teach high school science and climate is a part of our curriculum. We had a research and debate climate change project and interestingly enough, most of the students when left to their own research agreed on the science: that global climate change happens and humans are on some level partially responsible. The real heated debate (which was de-emphasized due to it being a science class vs political science class) was "what should we do about it" which is by it's very nature political.

I know none of this is especially "news" but I see it confirmed every semester when our climate unit comes up. Granted "climate change" is a ridiculously complicated phenomenon that your basic high school student wouldn't be able to fully comprehend in the scope of one unit, but when presented with the basics (through research and some direct teaching) and then encouraged to make their own decisions, they generally agreed on the science. (and getting high school kids to agree on something in general is almost a miracle.)

[/serious smath]

5/24/2013 9:59:26 AM

climate is something that is very dense because you have to be read in both atmospheric physics AND numerical computing, since that's the only way we know how to really investigate this shit.

you cannot talk about this without being aware of the abilities and deficiencies of current models.

5/24/2013 11:33:09 AM