 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » Good news on the weather front... |
|
Page 2 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Peter Webb... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:maqHm.117483$la3.76731 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:
SNIP
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global
warming is tenuous, but possible.
_____________________________________
No it doesn't. This is what it states:
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future
tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will
become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds
and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing
increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC
report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you
posted which said there was no connection.
What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
Nice to see you supporting the IPCC report, Peter.
[/quote]
I made no comment upon whether I support it.
I just pointed out that (contrary to what was stated) the report
specifically predicts an increase in the intensity of cyclones.
This completely undermines the argument that cyclones have not increased in
intensity, and AGW predicts they would not, so therefore this is supporting
evidence for AGW. Its not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:3tbse5lkc84aubq32apagcs9dr6dp28rii at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:42:13 +1100, "Peter Webb"
webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming
century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than
present-day hurricanes."
That's NOAA, folks.
Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to
be
incorrect.
If you would actually read the paper you quote (from which you have
provided a single, out-of-context snippet), you'd see that it is
considering considerably higher warming levels than we have seen so far.
[/quote]
Ohh, so the fact that the IPCC report is wrong about cyclones is because it
is wrong about how much warming we would see?
Lets add this one to the list of failed predictions of climate "science".
[quote]It is a prediction based on good work, but which remains speculative- a
point that the author is careful to emphasize in his conclusions.
[/quote]
No he doesn't.
[quote]Climate research papers generally provide level of confidence values for
their predictions, which range from very high (for example, the
predictions for actual temperature increases), to much lower (as in this
case).
[/quote]
Where is the level of confidence stated for the IPCC's predictions for
hurricane intensity? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
Nice to see you supporting the IPCC report, Peter.
I made no comment upon whether I support it.
I just pointed out that (contrary to what was stated) the report
specifically predicts an increase in the intensity of cyclones.
This completely undermines the argument that cyclones have not increased
in intensity, and AGW predicts they would not, so therefore this is
supporting evidence for AGW. Its not.
[/quote]
NEW CYCLONE PREDICTOR
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45259/title/New_cyclone_predictor
Occasional sea-surface warming in central Pacific linked with more, stronger hurricanes in
North Atlantic
By Sid Perkins
Web edition
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009
Warmer-than-normal sea-surface temperatures in the central Pacific lead to stronger, more
frequent tropical storms and hurricanes in the North Atlantic, a new analysis suggests.
Unlike the more familiar El Niño, or warming in the equatorial region of the eastern and
central Pacific, trends in central Pacific warming alone are more predictable and may
offer forecasters a more accurate method of anticipating hurricane activity during the
upcoming year, scientists say.
The sea-surface warming characteristic of El Niño typically stretches along the equator
from the coast of South America to the international date line, with the largest
temperature anomalies in the eastern Pacific. During El Niño episodes, the number of
tropical storms and hurricanes — both called cyclones — is lower than average across the
North Atlantic, says Peter J. Webster, an atmospheric scientist at Georgia Tech in
Atlanta. But when the equatorial sea-surface warming is concentrated only around the
international date line, hurricane activity is much higher than normal, Webster and his
colleagues report in the July 3 Science.
“This is a pattern that we [scientists] hadn’t really recognized before,” comments Chris
Landsea, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA’s hurricane research division in Miami. He says
the finding is “an advance in the field.”
Webster and his colleagues analyzed patterns in North Atlantic cyclone activity from 1950
through 2006 during August, September and October, the height of hurricane season. As many
previous studies had noted, the number and strength of tropical cyclones were markedly
lower in El Niño years than during La Niña episodes, when sea-surface temperatures in the
eastern and central Pacific are substantially cooler than normal. Unlike previous
research, says Webster, the new study reveals that when sea-surface warming is confined to
the central Pacific, hurricane activity is higher, particularly in the Caribbean, the Gulf
of Mexico and along the eastern coast of the United States.
Global weather models suggest how El Niño and other phenomena affect hurricanes thousands
of kilometers away, Webster explains. During El Niño events, high-altitude wind shear over
the North Atlantic is stronger than normal, which tends to disrupt the formation and
strengthening of tropical storms there — and this explains the lower-than-average cyclone
activity then, he notes. During La Niña years, wind shear is low, and storms more readily
form and gain strength. When sea-surface warming is confined to the central Pacific, wind
shear in the North Atlantic region where cyclones form is about average but is not large
enough to totally disrupt cyclone formation.
Identifying the new central Pacific warming trend is important because the transition
between El Niño warming and La Niña cooling isn’t always predictable, says Webster.
Sometimes, just when it looks like a shift will occur from warm to cool, for example,
temperatures will swing back to warm again, thwarting forecasters’ attempts to predict
cyclone activity for the upcoming season. But shifts in central Pacific warming seem to
follow a more predictable path, the new analysis suggests.
The new research “is a well-done analysis of the impact of sea-surface temperatures on
Atlantic hurricanes,” Landsea says. Also, he notes, the new findings may help explain the
2004 hurricane season. That year, the Pacific experienced a weak El Niño, but sea-surface
temperatures in the central Pacific were warmer than normal and cyclone activity in the
North Atlantic was unexpectedly strong.
Data suggest that episodes of central Pacific warming have occurred more frequently since
the 1960s, Webster notes. Because relatively few sea-surface temperature data were
collected in that region before the 1950s, scientists can’t yet discern whether this
increased frequency is a symptom of long-term global climate change or is merely part of a
long-term climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which typically lasts
around two to three decades. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:VVqHm.117546$la3.47464 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:
Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
1. That AGW is correct.
2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low)
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
You seem to believe:
1. That AGW is correct
2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
Is that the situation?
What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the
current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning
that came with the industrial revolution.
[/quote]
"Correlates".
There is a (positive, FWIW) correlation between electricity consumption and
car ownership (as both correlate positively with income), this doesn't prove
that buying a car increases your electricity consumption, or even vica
versa.
[quote]The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
intensity.
[/quote]
So you say the person who said AGW does NOT predict an increase in the
intensity of cyclones is wrong?
[quote]Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000
years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd,
Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K.
Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations,
but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term
natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the
Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years,
including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent
changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the
oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice
Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial
(Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000
years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this
site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three
interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in
temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked
orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study
site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an
environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural
Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that
demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that
was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of
the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has now shifted and
the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different from
those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
[/quote]
So, couldn't find anything about hurricanes, so in typical crank style just
decided to change the topic? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:VVqHm.117546$la3.47464 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:
Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
1. That AGW is correct.
2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year
low)
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
You seem to believe:
1. That AGW is correct
2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
Is that the situation?
What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the
current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning
that came with the industrial revolution.
"Correlates".
There is a (positive, FWIW) correlation between electricity consumption
and car ownership (as both correlate positively with income), this
doesn't prove that buying a car increases your electricity consumption,
or even vica versa.
The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
intensity.
So you say the person who said AGW does NOT predict an increase in the
intensity of cyclones is wrong?
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past
200,000 years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R.
Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole,
Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental
transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes
compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake
sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods
of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record
provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by
approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice
core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and
the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS
5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer
temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site.
Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three
interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in
temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked
orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the
study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has
entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200
millennia.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural
Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that
demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but
that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood
patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has
now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades
is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
So, couldn't find anything about hurricanes, so in typical crank style
just decided to change the topic?
[/quote]
We're not talk'n cars and electricity... we are talking about recent
changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
that indicate the changes are due to human activity in the form of CO2
from fossil fuel burning. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:6cese552sj58u8o2kicnv5khjb2oja7cej at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:18:42 +1100, "Peter Webb"
webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
Any of you other AGW believers out there?
I wouldn't use the word "believer". Everybody who understands the
science knows that AGW is occurring.
[/quote]
I have hear astrologists make the same claim. Everybody who really
understands astrology believes it is correct.
[quote]Calling somebody an "AGW believer"
is like calling somebody an "evolution believer" or a "heliocentricism
believer". It's a misuse of the word.
[/quote]
You are offended because I call people who believe in AGW "AGW believers"?
[quote]If so, do you believe that:
1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
2. These have increased.
3. Therefore AGW is correct
*** OR ****
1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes
2. Their intensity has *not* increased.
3. Therefore AGW is correct.
Neither. Different climate models currently produce different
predictions about how global warming will impact the intensity and
frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes.
[/quote]
Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and AGW
also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
[quote]There is good work supporting
the prediction that intensity will increase with an increase in sea
surface temperatures, but it remains uncertain whether sea surface
temperatures will increase, because global warming also impacts ocean
currents. Thus, the model predictions are not considered very reliable
yet. This remains one of the most active areas of study.
[/quote]
So IPCC and NOAA are quite possibly wrong?
What else in the IPCC report is quite possibly wrong, or is it just the bit
about hurricanes?
[quote]Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is
correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation.
[/quote]
Well, not observation of hurricanes, obviously.
The IPCC report was over a 1,000 pages long, and made many predictions.
Which of these predictions match up with what has been observed since the
report was published?
So far we have one wrong prediction, and zero correct ones. perhaps you
would like to tell us which of the IPCC predictions have come true, which
makes you certain the IPCC report is correct (except of course for what it
says about hurricanes, which are obviously wrong)?
[quote]The
point of the models is to ascertain what effects we can expect from it
in the future, given a range of responses (from none to aggressive).
[/quote]
The point of the models is to predict what will happen to the earth's
climate.
How well do they do that? What specific predictions of the IPCC report (of
the thousands that were made) have turned out to be true?
[quote]_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and
AGW also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
[/quote]
No--The science indicates that the current global warming correlates with
the fossil fuel burning that came with the industrial revolution.
The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
intensity.
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie,
Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander
P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains
largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we
present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the
past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on
recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest
stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early
Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or
exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature,
lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern
and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the
climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to
do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem
has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different
from those seen during any of the past warm intervals." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:sprHm.117587$la3.105793 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:VVqHm.117546$la3.47464 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:
Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
1. That AGW is correct.
2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year
low)
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
You seem to believe:
1. That AGW is correct
2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
Is that the situation?
What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the
current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning
that came with the industrial revolution.
"Correlates".
There is a (positive, FWIW) correlation between electricity consumption
and car ownership (as both correlate positively with income), this
doesn't prove that buying a car increases your electricity consumption,
or even vica versa.
The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
intensity.
So you say the person who said AGW does NOT predict an increase in the
intensity of cyclones is wrong?
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past
200,000 years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd,
Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K.
Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental
transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes
compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake
sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of
the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides
a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by
approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core
recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the
warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures
comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and
geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were
characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and
lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring
natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique
within the past 200 millennia.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural
Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that
demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but
that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood
patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has
now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is
different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
So, couldn't find anything about hurricanes, so in typical crank style
just decided to change the topic?
We're not talk'n cars and electricity... we are talking about recent
changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
that indicate the changes are due to human activity in the form of CO2
from fossil fuel burning.
[/quote]
No, *you* decided to talk about what was happening in a remote arctic lake.
Nobody else was. We were all talking about hurricanes.
Cranks and changing the subject ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris.B... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:15 am, "Peter Webb" mumbled:
[quote]
Or is your argument that these are all things which should have been
predicted by AGW, but weren't, and so AGW is wrong?
[/quote]
It is no shame to be educationally challenged but which part of "AGW
predicts nothing" do you not understand?
Stay behind after class and write 100 times: "AGW predicts nothing."
Perhaps it will finally sink in. Like walking on yesterday's
permafrost. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:nSrHm.117617$la3.74340 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:
Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and
AGW also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
No--The science indicates that the current global warming correlates
with
the fossil fuel burning that came with the industrial revolution.
The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
intensity.
[/quote]
So according to AGW, an increase in hurricane intensity is evidence that the
earth is getting warmer? So a decrease (say a 30 year low, as we are
experiencing at the moment) is therefore evidence the earth is cooler?
And what about the claim that AGW will cause an increase in freak weather
events, and cause more extreme events? Aren't cyclones and hurricanes
extreme events?
[quote]Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000
years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
[/quote]
I snipped it. It didn't mention hurricanes or anything vaguely similar.
Cranks are always trying to change the subject ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe to
be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
[/quote]
Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global
surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research
that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic warming.
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie,
Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander
P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains
largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we
present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the
past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on
recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest
stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early
Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or
exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature,
lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern
and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the
climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to
do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem
has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different
from those seen during any of the past warm intervals." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:28:47 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote]I have hear astrologists make the same claim. Everybody who really
understands astrology believes it is correct.
[/quote]
Astrologers are not scientists. Like other religionists, making
unsupported claims is what they are about. Scientists speak with the
weight of evidence and theory behind them.
[quote]You are offended because I call people who believe in AGW "AGW believers"?
[/quote]
I'm not offended, but the term is offensive as applied to scientific
truth.
[quote]Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and AGW
also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
[/quote]
AGW predicts nothing. AGW is an observation. There are theories of
climate behavior that explain AGW, and make a variety of predictions. No
current climate theory makes any predictions about future hurricane
activity in the North Atlantic with a high degree of confidence. People
who call AGW a belief or theory are the same as those who call evolution
a belief or theory. That would be people who don't even understand the
basics of science.
[quote]So IPCC and NOAA are quite possibly wrong?
[/quote]
Wrong about the effects of global warming on hurricane activity? Of
course- the very papers they publish or reprint admit this. Wrong that
AGW is a real thing? Highly unlikely.
[quote]What else in the IPCC report is quite possibly wrong, or is it just the bit
about hurricanes?
[/quote]
Read the report. Confidence levels are given for all the predictions.
[quote]Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is
correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation.
Well, not observation of hurricanes, obviously.
[/quote]
Because theory isn't yet advanced enough to reliably predict hurricane
accuracy, a point that isn't hidden by the modelers. So any failure of
the models in this area isn't seen as a serious problem with respect to
other parts that are much more solid.
[quote]The IPCC report was over a 1,000 pages long, and made many predictions.
Which of these predictions match up with what has been observed since the
report was published?
[/quote]
The warming trend continues. It's pretty hard to match predictions that
are largely reflecting 10-year and 30-year averages in the few years
since the latest IPCC report was published.
[quote]The point of the models is to predict what will happen to the earth's
climate.
How well do they do that? What specific predictions of the IPCC report (of
the thousands that were made) have turned out to be true?
[/quote]
They are predicting climate over decades- a point that seems to be
overlooked by people who don't understand the reports, don't understand
statistics, and don't understand the underlying science. In fact, as the
models improve the evidence continues to mount that the IPCC predictions
were far too conservative.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:O8sHm.111464$5n1.11396 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:
Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe to
be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global
surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research
that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic warming.
[/quote]
Of course, it iscompletely off-topic, as we were discussing cyclones ...
But I note that the abstract says:
"Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
[quote]past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories
in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked
orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study
site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an
environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
[/quote]
So, if this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be some
previous prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle which followed
a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, and lakewater pH".
Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this
prediction made?
Or are you instead showing examples of things which weren't predicted by AGW
theories but which actually did happen? If so, I was after predictions made
by AGW that turned out to be correct, not things that *weren't* predicted by
AGW that turned out correct. Or at least that is how I understand science is
supposed to work ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:00:58 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote]Ohh, so the fact that the IPCC report is wrong about cyclones is because it
is wrong about how much warming we would see?
[/quote]
First of all, the IPCC report is not wrong about cyclones. Perhaps you
are referring to North Atlantic hurricanes? However, they aren't really
wrong about that, either, since there hasn't been enough time since the
report to tell. In spite of a number of factors that ought to have
resulted in a cooling trend over the last decade, we've seen nothing
more than a leveling of the long term rise in global temperature. Given
that, it isn't surprising that we've not seen a major change is
hurricane activity. Give the report time for decadal averages to make
sense. Watch what happens when the temperatures really start shooting up
again in the next few years- as they are almost certain to do. Then
judge the IPCC predictions.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:O8sHm.111464$5n1.11396 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
Peter Webb wrote:
Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe
to be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global
surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research
that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic warming.
Of course, it iscompletely off-topic, as we were discussing cyclones ...
But I note that the abstract says:
"Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar
trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of
which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades,
however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural
pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within
the past 200 millennia.
So, if this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be
some previous prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle which
followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, and
lakewater pH".
Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this
prediction made?
Or are you instead showing examples of things which weren't predicted by
AGW theories but which actually did happen? If so, I was after
predictions made by AGW that turned out to be correct, not things that
*weren't* predicted by AGW that turned out correct. Or at least that is
how I understand science is supposed to work ...
[/quote]
<smiling>
Did you read the paper? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:35 am
|
|